17-12-2011, 05:01 PM
Yes, Alan, that I certainly do!
IMHO, they are laid out in a manner which although they do attempt to show the main logical flow, there are 'bits' of auxiliary circuitry that are drawn physically dissociated from the main parts of a given drawing. And that wouldn't be so bad if, on the main drawing, there was some note to give you a clue that not only are there 'bits' elsewhere - but where to find them. On top of that, the main body of the drawings are drawn 'piece-meal' - as you would expect in an engineering sketch during the development phase. I'll forgive the various drawing errors I have met of some of their drawings - e.g., the Tek. 475, which after all, is a complicated beast - but I can't bring myself to forgive Tek's. poor layouts, as outlined above. Of course, if I was a full-time Tek. 'scope repair technician, I'd eventually get used to that 'style' - but I'm not - so I can't.
I level all that above criticism based on many years of working for a wide assortment of electronics engineering companies. During these employments, one of my many responsibilities was often the preparation of cct. diags. of prototype equipment and vetting drawings between design & development and the D.O. Having spent many years as a test engineer / repair tech. / installation engineer / field service engineer / technical trainer & lecturer / tech. support engineer, I readily appreciate the importance of quality tech. manuals and well-presented cct. diagrams.
Al.
IMHO, they are laid out in a manner which although they do attempt to show the main logical flow, there are 'bits' of auxiliary circuitry that are drawn physically dissociated from the main parts of a given drawing. And that wouldn't be so bad if, on the main drawing, there was some note to give you a clue that not only are there 'bits' elsewhere - but where to find them. On top of that, the main body of the drawings are drawn 'piece-meal' - as you would expect in an engineering sketch during the development phase. I'll forgive the various drawing errors I have met of some of their drawings - e.g., the Tek. 475, which after all, is a complicated beast - but I can't bring myself to forgive Tek's. poor layouts, as outlined above. Of course, if I was a full-time Tek. 'scope repair technician, I'd eventually get used to that 'style' - but I'm not - so I can't.
I level all that above criticism based on many years of working for a wide assortment of electronics engineering companies. During these employments, one of my many responsibilities was often the preparation of cct. diags. of prototype equipment and vetting drawings between design & development and the D.O. Having spent many years as a test engineer / repair tech. / installation engineer / field service engineer / technical trainer & lecturer / tech. support engineer, I readily appreciate the importance of quality tech. manuals and well-presented cct. diagrams.
Al.
