Talk:Analogue electronics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Electronics (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk page
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Technology (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 


Drastic changes needed in Analog signal and Analog circuit[edit]

The structure of the Analog Circuit category is disorganized in genral and needs a look.

Category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Analog_circuits lists a number of circuits, which is fine, but its lead-in article is named Analogue electronics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogue_electronics. This article name definitely should be changed to Analog_electronics for consistency with the rest of Wikipedia articles and for agreement with international usage of this term as a technical designation (it is not a simple variation of spelling in an English adjective).

A topic in Analog_circuits is Analogue signals, which refers in turn to the main article Analog signal, changes in spelling that are confusing and inappropriate, as discussed above.

The article Analog device confuses the technical term "device" with the broad term "apparatus" and later confuses "device" with "circuit". I have made some changes, but find the whole thing a major mare's nest.Brews ohare 15:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics refers to "main article" Analog circuits, which is a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_circuits which actually links to this page Analogue electronics, a mess, no? Brews ohare 16:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microelectronics has a link named "analog circuit" under "See also" to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_circuit i.e. to this page Analogue electronics.Brews ohare 16:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge Analog signal and Analog circuit[edit]

After reading the articles on Analog signals and Analog circuits, there seems to be a lot of material in common. In fact they seem to have so much in common it seems to be a good idea to merge them all here, and treat what minor differences there are in separate sections within this article. Alf Boggis 11:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The conceptual analog signal is not the same as an analog circuit. If anything, the "Analogue signals" section should be dumped into analog signal. Cburnett 07:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't implying they were the same thing, merely that the articles had the same content, (practically word-for-word in some parts). Given that "Analogue Signals" and "Analogue Circuits" are the essence of analogue electronics I suggested they were merged, otherwise I'm not sure what the "Analogue Electronics" article would contain that wasn't in one of the other two...? Alf Boggis 08:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Links to the other articles and cut out the duplicated information. Analog electronics should not discuss analog signals: analog signal should do that. Cburnett 22:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak[edit]

Needs cleanup - windy generalizations such as "Analogue circuits are several times faster than their digital counterparts." are effectively meaningless - what's the analog counterpart of a ROM? On my to-do list, if no-one beats me to it. --Wtshymanski 18:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

All signals are inherently analog in nature. Even digital ones. By itself, a ROM does not propogate signals (e.g. send information from point A to point B). It simply stores them. See signal integrity. However "several times faster" than digital probably refers to certain modulation schemes, like phase modulation. I agree, the statement needs more justification though. Information integrity is key here. --74.107.74.39 (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Analog VS Analogue[edit]

A search on www.Google.com gives over 85 Million results for "Analog", but only 27.2 Million results for "Analogue". Also, the page for Analog shows 16 entries with the spelling "Analog", and only two with "Analogue". Given that "Analog" is the more common spelling, and closer to the Greek (ana + logos) as well, can this page be moved to "Analog Electronics", and the spelling within its sub-sections be changed from "analogue" to "analog"? Mintchocolatebear 21:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


Comments by @modi 11:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC):

I agree with changing the spelling of the title from "analogue" to "analog". I have never seen it spelled "analogue" before, and I think this indicates that most people spell it "analog". If I remember to, I will try to move the article within a few days if that's okay with everybody.

NO, it's not OK. See WP:ENGVAR. The article was started in British English, so should be left that way. Dicklyon 16:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, it's pretty explicit on WP:ENGVAR and I haven't seen no contradiction. If we shall honor the Manual, then we cannot change it. Google results are always a good argument, yet it hasn't much significance in academical terms, since it will most likely only be proof of the American English predominance worldwide. I, in my humble opinion, think it should be kept in BE. D4RK-L3G10N (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure analog is at least as common in this context in British English as analogue. Britannica uses analog consistently, as far as I can see. The Times clearly favors analogue, while The Daily Telegraph seems to favor it as well, but a bit less consistently.

So this is less a case of switching from British to American, than a case of switching from a spelling acceptable only in British English to a spelling acceptable in both British and American English. It's kind of like program, in that in the technical context (e.g., "computer program") British speakers often use the same spelling as Americans (although here, not as consistently as with program). It makes more sense to use a spelling that's acceptable in all dialects. See, in particular, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Opportunities for commonality: "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English."

I'll start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (spelling). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope I'm not going to start a big argument here - I have changed all instances of 'analog' in the page to 'analogue', the British spelling. I don't much mind which way it is spelled (as a Brit, I have a slight preference for analogue), but it should at least be consistent, which is why I made the edits. GyroMagician (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


Wikipedia is accessed globally, it is not appropriate to use a regional spelling when most of the countries who speak engilsh refer to the word as "Analog" NOT analogue. Univerities in India refer to it as Analog, same in Australia. It childish to keep the old spelling just because the orginal article was written in British English doesn't make it appropriate. It needs to be updated so the whole world will be comfortable with it, not just the British English speakers. 128.97.84.42 (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I can live with it either way. Yes the Brits spell a few words differently than us Yanks. To my knowledge, wikipedia offers no distinction between English (US) an English (GBR). Or Austrialian, Canadian, New Zealandish (sp?), or Pomeranian. The article is clear enough. --74.107.74.39 (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

Between analog device and analogue electronics; The former seems to be a subset of the content (or should-be content) of the latter. Fourohfour 15:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Support – There's no need for new analog device article. Just redirect it over here and advise the author to merge anything he feels this article is missing. Dicklyon 16:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


I think it will be an excellent idea to merge analog device into analogue electronics. It doesn't make any sense to keep two related topics separate! Especially when one is a part of the other!Rthakur 03:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Circuits are, of course, combinations of devices, and circuit design is a separate discipline from device design. Separate articles are required for the two subjects of analog devices and analog circuits. In addtion, signals are separate again from circuits, which process signals. Brews ohare 17:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I can understand separating devices, circuits, and signals. But then what is the role of "analog electronics"? Dicklyon 18:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Analog electronics refers to circuits containing transistors, while "analog circuits" refers to a somewhat more general subject that deals with all types of circuit that handle continuously variable signals, in contrast to "digital circuits" that deal with "0" and "1" voltage levels. The design approach to analog electronics is very different from that used for digital electronics, and so the two subjects deserve separate treatment.Brews ohare 18:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually for a good part of the 20th century analog electronic circuits contained no transistors or integrated circuits at all. See vacuum tube, for instance. --Wtshymanski 19:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Accurate statement: I am historically challenged. A better statement about electronic circuits is that they include nonlinear devices, that is, they include things other than resistors, capacitors and inductors. Transistors and vacuum tubes are such nonlinear devices.Brews ohare 17:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess I sort of get that; if there are no electronic devices in a circuit it can still be an analog circuit; but in that case, why not just call it a circuit?
Calling a circuit "analog" conveys some information about the type of signals it is intended to work with.
Similarly with devices. A device such as a transistor or a vacuum tube is not inherently analog or digital; it's a device that can be used in either analog or digital electronics.
It is true that some devices are ambidextrous. I'd vote with you on this one, and simply hope that articles on individual devices might point out their different modes of operation and differences in design design details that vary with the application.Brews ohare 17:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
So can someone spell out exactly what set of articles they are proposing, and roughly the scope of each?
The present analog device article is mostly about system-level things, not device-level things; does that make sense to keep, or merge it here? Dicklyon 20:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Your question is certainly the bottom line. I'd suggest individual device articles (of which many already exist), and circuit articles. In the device category we have, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor which has links to many special articles. That is a good arrangement, and can cover the device aspects. From the circuit standpoint we have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Analog_circuits that has links to many relevant articles. Unfortunately the lead article "Analogue electronics" is a very poor overview of this category, and one searching for guidance to the Category:Analog_circuits will not find it here, which in my view should be the role of this article.Brews ohare 17:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I am confused about the organization of Wikipedia. There exists a "category" electronics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Electronics with a "Main Article" electronics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics which includes a section called "Analog Electronics" that refers to a "Main Article" called Analog Circuits, that links to this entry "Analogue Electronics". For consistency and clarity I'd suggest that the article "Analogue Electronics" be deleted in its entirety and replaced with an appropriate article "Analog Circuits" that would serve as an intro to the articles in the category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Analog_circuits.Brews ohare 18:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

In this connection, can someone explain the notion of "subcategory" and why "electronic amplifiers" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Electronic_amplifiers fits in as a subcategory to analog electronics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Analog_circuits? And why is "amplifiers" a Category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Electronic_amplifiers instead of a subcategory of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Electronics?Brews ohare 18:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger ideas[edit]

There seems to be two discussions going on in this forum. Analog vs Analogue and device vs electronics. Analog is the more widely used term (e.g. analog devises, the IC chip manufacturer) and should be the main topic with a paragraph about the origin of the word. Also Analog circuits should be merged with Analog Devices they describe the same thing. I believe the title should be Analog Electronics which is the more accurate description and to not give free advertising to the manufacturer Analog Devices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.112.140 (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The spelling issue should be omitted here; it's taken care of by WP:ENGVAR. Dicklyon 03:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I support the view that "Analog is the more widely used term (e.g. analog devises, the IC chip manufacturer) and should be the main topic"Brews ohare 17:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure, that's fine, the American spelling is more widely used than the British. But did you look at WP:ENGVAR? Dicklyon 17:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this issue transcends the notion of spelling variation among English users. For example, I have on my shelf "Analog Design Essentials" from Belgium, "Analog Design Centering and Sizing" from Germany,etc. Moreover, all technical meetings world wide use Analog. Thus, from the viewpoint of international usage "analog" is the common term, and amounts to a technical term rather than a common English adjective, regardless of its origin in USA.Brews ohare 17:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I propose a change as follows to the introductory line "Analog electronics (or "analogue", see analog) are those electronic systems with a continuously variable signal. In contrast, in digital electronics signals usually take only two different levels. The term "analog" describes the proportional relationship between a signal and a voltage or current that represented the signal." This change would be supplemented by a change from "analogue" to "analog" throughout the article.Brews ohare 17:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Have you even looked at WP:ENGVAR? What about these books? Dicklyon 06:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, you certainly have dug up some titles with Analogue! Nonetheless, my own experience suggests a democracy rules approach would lead to Analog as most used. Looking at WP:ENGVAR an argument in favor of using a preponderant spelling is provided: "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety". I'd suggest that throughout the links in Electronics the usage is almost entirely Analog, not Analogue. I'd suggest further that having both present is a distraction. And I'd suggest that even further, if one wishes for uniformity, changing to a uniform use of Analog is far easier than going to Analogue because of the fewer occurrences in of Analogue in the Wiki.
Another quote from WP:ENGVAR is "In extreme cases of conflicting names, a common substitute (such as fixed-wing aircraft) is favored over national varieties (fixed-wing aeroplanes [British English], and fixed-wing airplanes [American English])." I don't know how one establishes that we are dealing with an extreme case, but maybe so. I think it is arguable that Analog is a "common substitute", that is, Analog is more in use world-wide, including China and Japan, than Analogue.Brews ohare 15:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I notice Dicklyon undid my implementation of this change. Are we committed at this point to a war? How is this difference of views to be adjudicated? Does the most persistent person triumph? Brews ohare 15:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
What war? Has someone suggested that we should ignore and violate WP:ENGVAR? Why did you make a unilateral change before getting consensus to this active discussion? WP:ENGVAR is about each article being self-consistent, not about trying to move the whole wiki to one language, and not about democracy. Dicklyon 20:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I made the change unilaterally. I made two quotes from WP:ENGVAR that seem to me to support the use of Analog. One argument is that Analog appears in almost all the links and articles about electronics, not Analogue, so it is an argument for consistency. The second is an argument that Analog is the more "common use" term in this technical context, although Analogue can be found. 71.80.210.217 22:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how you can interpret either of those passages in the way you say. The article can be consistent using analogue. And it's just a spelling difference, not an extreme case of different terminology. The "retain the existing variety" section is very clear where it says "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic." This article has used the British spelling from its beginning, over two years ago. Why stir this up? Dicklyon 06:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think I made my case, and Dicklyon thinks otherwise. Unless there is a tie breaker somewhere the matter will not evolve. A much more serious and difficult thing to fix is the terrific disorganization of the Electronics category.Brews ohare 15:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The choice of whether to change the spelling from the British to the American English variant is not something that can "evolve". It's a one-bit (digital) answer. If you feel you might have support for changing it, use the move proposal mechanism and solicit more inputs. Dicklyon 15:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Dicklyon for that suggestion; can you help me to learn how the "move proposal mechanism" works? As another question, how wouold you advise fixing the links to "analog circuits" that are redirected to "analogue electronics"? It seems to me that a good idea would be to write a page that really is "analog circuits".Brews ohare 17:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
See WP:MOVE. I'm not sure what you're proposing or trying to solve re analog circuits. Can you explain? Is the redirect not appropriate? Are you proposing a new article more specifically on "analog circuits"? What would be the scope of that to distinguish it from existing topics? Dicklyon 19:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Obsolete information[edit]

The information on this page is obsolete.

For example, the section on Analog vs Digital is based on completely outdated technology.

I have inserted the section "Growing irrelevance of the comparison" which should give an idea how outdated the information on this page is.

The information on the page is unaware of the advances of cellular analogue IC design and mixed-signal design blocks that has taken place over the last ten years. The statement that "analog circuitry has to be hand-designed" misses the point that initial design of digital circuitry also need substantial "hand design".

This page has to be re-written by contributors who have more recent experience in analogue and mixed-signal realms.

Hence Jewish Anderstein (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate technical terms[edit]

"device" is a term used in the semiconductor industry when refering to a conceptual product or an individual unit of semiconductor circuitry.

For example, "device characterisation" are steps taken to understand the behaviour of a unit or a batch of units or the product itself.

"Device" is also a technologically archaic term for "paraphernalia". Therefore, using the term "Analogue device" to mean analogue clocks, analogue vinyl recording systems, classical analogue computers interferes with the modern semiconductor use of "device". Which is confusing.

Analogue "systems" has been taken for granted in the semiconductor industry to refer to a mish-mesh of analogue electronic circuitry. Therefore, using the term "analogue systems" other than for analogue circuits is confusing.

To avoid confusion with semiconductor terminology, an acceptable term for classifying analogue paraphernalia should be "Analogue Models and modeling" rather than "Analogue systems" or "Analogue devices".

The question put forth by classical analogue modeling scientists would therefore be, "why should the semiconductor industry be allowed to hijack the terminology?" Unfortunately or otherwise, the prevalance of the industry has allowed us to do so. Sorry.

I propose that classical analogue modeling use longer terminology, such as analogue modeling systems rather than analogue systems.

"Device" is a broadly used term, with a variety of different meanings in certain specialist fields. Would you also argue that MS Windows should not use the phrase "device driver"? It is certainly a different usage to the one you cite. I might also talk about a "device" for measuring exhaust gasses from my car. Those are two common uses off the top of my head. So no, the semicon industry is not so big as to be allowed to redefine words for the rest of the world. Equally, the word "system" can have a very broad range of meaning. I have a system for filing my tax returns (well, I don't, but that's just my chaos). Chaotic - do I mean a dynamic system very dependent on initial conditions? No, I'm not using the tight mathematical definition here, I'm using the more common meaning. Wikipedia should be written to be understandable by as many people as possible. That means we should avoid domain-specific language wherever we can. I think the current language is far more understandable than the changes you propose. GyroMagician (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)