Category: Critical thinking
A schematic shows connections in a circuit in a way that is clear and standardized. It is a way of communicating to other engineers exactly what components are involved in a circuit as well as how they are connected. A good schematic will show component names and values, and provide labels for sections or components to help communicate the intended purpose. Note how connections on wires (or "nets") are shown using dots and non-connections are shown without a dot.
A block diagram shows a higher level (or organizational layout) of functional units in a circuit (or a device, machine, or collection of these). It is meant to show data flow or organization between separate units of function. A block diagram gives you an overview of the interconnected nature of circuit assemblies or components.
A wiring diagram is sometimes helpful to illustrate how a schematic can be realized in a prototype or production environment. A proper wiring diagram will be labeled and show connections in a way that prevents confusion about how connections are made. Typically they are designed for end-users or installers. They focus on connections rather than components .
A PCB Layout is the resulting design from taking a schematic with specific components and determining how they will physically be laid out on a printed circuit board. To produce a PCB Layout, you must know the connections of components, component sizes (footprints), and a myriad of other properties (such as current, frequencies, emissions, reflections, high voltage gaps, safety considerations, manufacturing tolerances, etc.).
Fritzing is a popular open-source software program designed to help you create electronics prototypes. It uses a visual approach to allow you to connect components to Arduino using a virtual breadboard, and even provides ways to design a PCB. Its strength is in the ease with which new users can approach it. One of the principal working views is the virtual breadboard:
However, as you can see, it can be time-consuming to tell exactly how components are connected, even if you are very familiar with how breadboard connections work (as most electronics engineers are). As a circuit gets more complex, the visualization becomes more cluttered.
Fritzing provides a way to produce a schematic:
Be sure to use this to produce a schematic if you need to ask questions about your circuit. It will help others to quickly understand the components and connections involved in your design.Prototype Photo
Sometimes a photo can help engineers troubleshoot your design. Especially if quality issues are suspected, such as soldering reliability, improper connections, incorrect polarities, and other problems which might be revealed in a photo. However, realize that most photos are not immediately useful, and if your project is complicated, a picture will do little more than show that you've spent a lot of time and effort on your project! Hint: Not helpful!
Images were obtained using internet image searches with license set to public domain or free to use for non-commercial use.
Why we prefer schematics, also, is that schematics contain certain idioms. For instance, a long-tailed-pair differential input stage could be drawn in a hundred different ways, ninety-five-and-a-half of which don't look anything like a long-tailed-pair differential input stage. Out of a hundred wiring diagrams, nary a single one will say "I am obviously a long-tailed pair differential input stage". – Kaz Apr 2 '14 at 22:12
@Kaz I posted this as a reference to help new users understand the differences between these diagrams. I agree that component arrangement on a schematic is important, but that's probably best omitted for the intended basic introduction level. – JYelton Apr 2 '14 at 22:14
@Passerby It's not exactly easy to find equal versions using free images. I obtained Fritzing with the idea of creating my own images instead of looking for others, but I didn't have time to really get into it. I admit bias because I prefer schematics for communicating circuit designs. (I think many other members of the community would agree.) Feel free to supply your own answer with bias-free diagrams. – JYelton Apr 3 '14 at 5:07
@Passerby: The schematics for the system in that block diagram would take many pages (but still be usable), and a "wiring diagram" for the system would be an impenetrable rats' nest. That's not a skew aimed against Fritzing diagrams, it's reality. – Ben Voigt Apr 3 '14 at 21:24
Actually, JYelton's images were more consistent in circuit complexity that yours are. His had about the same number and size of ICs and many fewer discretes on the wiring diagram. While yours are the same visual complexity as each other, but the block diagram has much MUCH more complexity, and the schematic has a lot more circuitry documented than the remaining ones. Which is pretty much the point. – Ben Voigt Apr 3 '14 at 21:22
@BenVoigt because a single ic schematic or straight wiring is consistent with an arduino + quad motor driver + motors + rtc + battery backup + buzzer? – Passerby Apr 3 '14 at 22:46
Guess I was thinking of the connection to the Arduino as a connector, and not the entire Arduino. (The Fritzing diagram doesn't show the topology of the Arduino either). Actually it probably should be equated to four distinct connectors on the schematic. since the Fritzing diagram does distinguish four connectors. So that would add a little to the schematic complexity. Still quite close. A schematic would represent connections to motors and buzzers as two pin connectors, for which the two-pad discretes are a good standin. – Ben Voigt Apr 3 '14 at 22:54
The purpose of a schematic, generally speaking, is to show those aspects of something which are most relevant to understanding it, at the expense of changing details which are less relevant. For electrical schematics, the biggest thing that's omitted is an accurate sense of physical layout, but schematics may also omit certain forms of "regular" wiring (as a common historical example, if a device had ten vacuum tubes with filaments wired in series, and the filaments didn't connect to anything else, a note saying how the filaments were connected would be more meaningful than would be lines on the schematic connecting them together). Additionally, schematics may sometimes indicate that a certain sub-circuit should be repeated some number of times, possibly with some slight variation. It may not be possible to build a device with such orderly repetition (e.g. a device may have four groups of six subcircuits, but the shape of the available space may require the subcircuits be laid out in a 5x5 grid) but someone reading the schematic generally won't care about the physical arrangement.
It's interesting to note that while "schematics" are most often used with electric/electronic circuit designs, the same principles can also be applied to fields like plumbing or even cartography. Modern subway "maps" are functionally more like circuit diagrams than maps, giving more attention how stations are connected than to their actual locations--an innovation which debuted with Henry C. Beck's 1931 map of the London Underground.
answered Apr 3 '14 at 16:52
An alternate method for determining the validity of categorical syllogisms is the Venn diagram method. The conventions of this method are 1.) to represent categorical claims with interlocking circles; 2.) each circle represents a term; 3.) an asterisk indicates that at least one thing exists in the area where it is placed; 4.) stroking out an area indicates that there is nothing in that area. The 4 kinds of categorical propositions can then be diagrammed as follows:
The only diagram likely to cause some difficulty in that for the A proposition. The idea is that if no S's exist outside the P circle (diagrammed by stroking that area out), then all the S's that can exist are also P's (i.e. All S are P).
In order to use these diagrams to test for validity we must link three circles together. A categorical syllogism has three terms and since each circle represents one term, three circles will be needed. Any of the three propositions in the syllogism can be diagrammed by using the two circles which represent that proposition's terms and (in some ways) ignoring the third circle.
To test for validity one diagrams only the two premises. Then one looks at the diagram to see whether anything would need to be added to diagram the conclusion. Since the conclusions of valid arguments do not claim more than the information given in their premises, if more would have to be added to diagram the conclusion, that conclusion must claim more than the information given in the premises and hence be invalid. In the event of an invalid argument one leaves the conclusion undiagrammed to demonstrate the invalidity of the argument.Example
We will diagram this argument: No M are P
All S are M
No S are P
Second Diagram No M are P All S are M
The first diagram shows the information given in the major premise. The second diagram adds to the first diagram the information from the minor premise. The third diagram here is unnecessary, but is included merely to show which areas must be shaded for the conclusion to be diagrammed. Since these areas are indeed shaded in the second diagram, the argument is valid. The fact that the second diagram contains more information than needed to diagram the conclusion does not matter.
Unfortunately complications may arise. Consider this argument: Some M are P
No M are S
Some S are not P When one tries to diagram the major premise one finds a line passing through the area where one must place the asterisk. Which side of the line does one place the asterisk? Or does one place it on the line? Often times one has no choice but to place the asterisk right on the line. When one places an asterisk on the line it means that one does not know, on the basis of the information given in the premises, which side of the line it goes; one does not know which area has at least one member. But in this case the minor premise is a universal proposition. Whenever one has a universal premise and a particular premise, one should diagram the universal premise first. because it may give us information about where the asterisk cannot go, by eliminating one side of the line.
Notice now that the conclusion requires that an asterisk be placed in the part of the S circle outside the P circle (the leftmost area in the S circle). Since no asterisk is in this area, the argument is invalid.
A last example is needed to show how to handle asterisks when they are on a line. Some M are P
Some S are M
Some S are P
In this argument the conclusion diagrammed would place an asterisk in the area common to both the S circle and the P circle. Clearly the lower portion of that common area is empty. But the top area has two asterisks on its border lines. Is this enough for the argument to be valid? No. Remember what an asterisk on the line means: one does not know to which side of the line it belongs. But the conclusion claims that it is known to belong in the very middle area, which is clearly more information than the diagram gives us. So the argument is invalid.
Warning: Web Page Notes are not intended as a substitute for attending lectures.
1 Argument Mapping and Teaching Critical Thinking APA Chicago April 17/08 Douglas Walton CRRAR Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation & Rhetoric: U. of Windsor
2 Wikipedia: entry on Diagramming Diagramming software consists of computer programs that are used to produce graphical diagrams.computer programsdiagrams  Types of diagramming softwareedit User-generated diagrams. As computer users seek to represent visual information, such as a flowchart, tools such as Schematic, SmartDraw, Dia, OmniGraffle, Microsoft Visio, Inspiration, ConceptDraw 7, allow them to express the information in the form of a diagram. Such programs are usually GUI-based and feature WYSIWYG diagram editing. There are also several diagramming tools available for developers, such as JGraph for the Java platform. Some user-generated diagram software is UML compatible, allowing model-driven translation between graphic representation and functional programming languages.computer users informationflowchartSchematicSmartDrawDia OmniGraffleMicrosoft VisioInspirationConceptDraw 7 GUIWYSIWYGJGraphUMLmodel-driven Automatically generated diagrams. Programs are available as debugger front-ends, computer-aided software engineering (CASE) tools, or profilers. Diagrams are usually automatically generated by the program.debuggercomputer-aided software engineeringprofilers
4 Araucaria Araucaria is a software tool for analyzing arguments. It aids a user in reconstructing and diagramming an argument using a simple point-and-click interface. The software also supports argumentation schemes, and provides a user-customizable set of schemes with which to analyze arguments. Once arguments have been analyzed they can be saved in a portable format called "AML", the Argument Markup Language, which is based on XML. http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria/
9 Carneades: A New Argumentation System The Carneades system for reasoning with argumentation schemes is a computational model that builds on ontologies from the semantic web to provide a platform for employing argumentation schemes in legal reasoning. The model is an abstract functional specification of a computer program that can be implemented in any programming language. It defines structures for representing various elements of argumentation, and shows how they function together in arguments. Arguments in the Carneades system can be visualized using an argument diagram because the basic structure it uses, the model of the semantic web, is that of the directed labeled graph. Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken and Douglas Walton, ‘The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof’, Artificial Intelligence, 171, 2007, 875-896.
11 Enthymemes Enthymemes are arguments with missing premises. These are premises that were not explicitly stated in the text, but are needed or used in the argument. Sometimes the missing part can be the conclusion. Sometimes an argumentation scheme can help to identify a missing part.
12 Instrumental Scheme for Practical Reasoning I have a goal G. Bringing about A is necessary (or sufficient) for me to bring about G. Therefore, I should (practically ought to) bring about A.
13 Scheme for Value-based Practical Reasoning I have a goal G. G is supported by my set of values, V. Bringing about A is necessary (or sufficient) for me to bring about G. Therefore, I should (practically ought to) bring about A.
14 The Scalpicin Example Harry has an itchy scalp. He needs Scalpicin. [Explicit argument in TV commercial] Harry needs something that would make his scalp no longer itchy [assumption]. Scalpicin would make his scalp no longer itchy [assumption]. An itchy scalp is a bad condition or problem (negative value) [assumption]. A bad condition is something that should be removed if possible [assumption].
16 Three Bases for the Enthymeme Argumentation Schemes Common Knowledge Commitment Using argument diagrams is a way to bring all three bases together and find the missing premises or conclusions in a given case. Douglas Walton, ‘The Three Bases for the Enthymeme: A Dialogical Theory’, Journal of AppliedLogic, www.uwinnipeg.ca/
17 The Animal Freedom Example Animals in captivity are freer than in nature. [Claim made: conclusion of argument] There are no natural predators to kill animals that are in captivity. [Reason given to support claim: premise] What are the missing premises?
18 Implicit Premises There are natural predators to kill animals that are in nature. [Implicit assumption based on common knowledge] If animals are in a place where there are no natural predators to kill them, they are freer than if they are in a place where there are natural predators to kill them. [Arguer’s commitment]
20 References Glenn Rowe, Fabrizio Macagno, Chris Reed and Doug Walton, ‘Araucaria as a Tool for Diagramming Arguments in Teaching and Studying Philosophy’, Teaching Philosophy, 29, 2006, 111- 124. Chris Reed, Douglas Walton and Fabrizio Macagno, ‘Argument Diagramming in Logic, Law and Artificial Intelligence’, Knowledge Engineering Review, 22, 2007, 87-109. Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken and Douglas Walton, ‘The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof’, Artificial Intelligence, 171, 2007, 875-896. Douglas Walton, ‘The Three Bases for the Enthymeme: A Dialogical Theory’, Journal of Applied Logic, to appear. 2008. All these papers are available as pdf files on the website of Douglas Walton: www.uwinnipeg.ca/
Pillar Rock laptop motherboard schematic diagram (Intel Montevina Mobile platform)
Panasonic laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Packard Bell laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Mitac laptop motherboard schematic diagram
OakMont laptop motherboard schematic diagram (Merom-Crestline Mobile platform)
Gericom laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Inventec laptop motherboard schematic diagram
IBM laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Capell Valley laptop motherboard schematic diagram (Yonah-Calistoga Mobile platform)
Samsung laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Medion laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Lenovo laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Guadalupe laptop motherboard schematic diagram (Dothan-Alviso Mobile platform)
Toshiba laptop motherboard schematic diagram
LG laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Gilmor Sammit laptop motherboard schematic diagram (Silverthone-Poulsbo Mobile platform)
WinBook laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Arima laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Uniwill laptop motherboard schematic diagram
JVC laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Acer laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Sager laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Alienware laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Quanta laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Clevo laptop motherboard schematic diagram
NEC laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Apple laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Everex laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Compal laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Benq laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Averatec laptop motherboard schematic diagram
MSI laptop motherboard schematic diagram
RoverBook laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Bliss laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Wistron laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Compaq laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Amoi laptop motherboard schematic diagram
HP(Hewlett Packard ) laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Asus laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Advent laptop motherboard schematic diagram
ECS laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Sharp laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Gateway laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Ergo laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Aopen laptop motherboard schematic diagram
vprMatrix laptop motherboard schematic diagram
FUJITSU laptop motherboard schematics diagram
Novatech laptop motherboard schematic diagram
Acer Aspire 5738g 5738zg 5738z 5738 5338 5536 5536g 5236 Service Guide (part #1)
Acer Aspire 5738g 5738zg 5738z 5738 5338 5536 5536g 5236 Service Guide (part #2)
Acer Aspire 3810t 3810tz Service Guide
Purpose of Creating Project
The purpose of creating our own project is so we can enhance our critical thinking skills. Critical thinking is something that will help us in the future. Something that is very beneficial to us. This will not only help us in this class, but also help us further in our studies for whatever career or path we choose to take. Critical thinking is very hard to enhance in a student as it is not easy to pick up. But if learned at an early stage in life, it can be used to the student’s advantage for future projects and assignments. But this is not the only thing that is meant to be learned from this project. There are many other things that we as students can learn from this project, such as familiarizing ourselves with the different types of programs that engineers of today may use. Some programs include, Circuit Maker and Super PCB. Moving on, we as students have to fully understand the function that components such as the 555 timer, resistors and capacitors. Components which are very critical in the engineering world today. Additionally, we must prove that we can easily assemble a circuit and troubleshoot our own circuits. In conclusion, the main purpose of creating our own project is to simply enhance our critical thinking to a point where we can utilize it at any point in time in the present and near future.
Before even starting the assembly of the circuit we first had to make sure we had all the components and parts listed in order to build it.
Designing the Circuit
Firstly, we must start by.
Chapter Eight: Implementing Critical Thinking Skills
The primary element of the theoretical narrative in this chapter is the flowchart, which brings the three stages together in a dynamic way. In addition, the narrative addresses the role of judgment, style, rationality, and the passions in the process of critical thinking. The applications to follow are designed to aid students in piecing all parts of the process together. If the students have worked through exercises described in previous chapters, they are in a position to do it all on their own. I conclude this part with a discussion of rubrics. which bring all parts of the process together but are simple enough to aid you in setting your course up for critical thinking work
When all is said and done, one should have in place a flexible and powerful B.S. detector. Think of the flowchart in the Theory section of this chapter as the schematic diagram of this detector. If things have gone well, your students should have internalized something like this, i.e. a networked set of guidelines that aids them in constructing arguments of their own and evaluating arguments of others. If something stinks, the detector will announce it; if not, then the detector will chug along until you have a compelling argument or a favorable evaluation. For an image, think of an inverted tree-like array of connected flags that pop up in a certain order as one moves through the process of critical thinking, with certain paths signaling good arguments and other paths signaling bad ones. It is useful to think of it like this, since you can describe the detector as the product that explicit instruction in critical thinking delivers.
III.1 Describing Rubrics
Rubrics are authoritative rules that guide conduct. In a class where critical thinking is a point of emphasis, a rubric can be created that aids you and your students as you critically engage topics and texts. This rubric would be a brief set of subject specific rules that guide evaluation by structuring engagement. These rules should serve double duty---they would embody the spirit of the critical thinking model you employ, and they would serve as a lens on the course material, bringing into focus those aspects of the topics and texts about which you want students to think critically. Think of the rubric as a study guide schema that can be applied to many different texts throughout a course. Each time a new topic is broached or text cracked for the purpose of critical thinking instruction, students would inspect the text to see how the rules that constitute the rubric are applied in it. An instrument such as this makes it easier for new students of critical thinking to engage in analysis, and it also helps ensure consistency of evaluation across the class.
Rubrics should be fairly specific, drawing on the subject matter of a course. Any course in which critical thinking is taught in an embedded way could be enhanced with rubrics. In general, these instruments will be associated with topics or themes. In a course that is developed around a them, such as a Core Discovery course, one rubric may be all that is needed. In courses that are more thematically diverse, you might wish to develop one rubric per theme. (This is not necessary, of course, if you wish only to use one of the themes to teach critical thinking.) There are several ways to develop a rubric. After a review of the texts you plan to assign, you might identify their essential dimensions and then create a rule that captures the way in which each dimension structures the overall topic. Alternatively, you might develop a set of general study questions for each text and then identify commonalities among these questions, converting the commonalities into rules. Each rule should be the kind of thing that focuses the student on an aspect of a text that is crucial to their understanding of the text itself as well as its relation to the broader theme. (Of course, not every rule may apply to every text; when this happens, though, you should make a point of noting it.)
A well-designed rubric will help initiate the process of critical thinking. In the first place, it will focus student attention on what really matters for the purpose of the course, and that will help them home in on the arguments that are most fundamental. Second, by helping them identify what has less importance, it will aid them as they search out claims to use in reconstructing arguments. Third, it will structure their evaluation of the text relative to the course goals, since it will reinforce the dimensions along with analysis should take place. Finally, it will help bring a measure of systematicity and coherence to the various evaluations conducted throughout a semester. By using the rubric consistently, students will come to appreciate relationships among texts, and this will make it easier for them to forge a coherent understanding of the course as a whole. Of course, the rubric won't do the work for them---they must know when and how to apply it, and they must use it effectively. Students won't be able to plug it in and thoughtlessly generate argument identifications, reconstructions, and evaluations, but it will point them in the right direction.
III.2 Illustrating Rubrics
For more details about this rubric, see the Philosophy 202 homepage, and the Proof Strategies handout in particular. This rubric supplies a set of rules that guides my logic students as they construct arguments that meet certain constraints. Granted, these are very formal arguments, but the process is no different from the standard critical thinking process for being more abstract.
There are two ways to characterize this rubric. First, one can think of it dimensionally. The dominant dimensions are those of essence and process. In our texts, there are two roles whose essence concern us, viz. the monster and the person(s) who make the monster (i.e. the maker ). Who fills these roles in the text and why/how do they fill them? At any given point in the text, one can inquire as to who fills these roles. However, since these texts tend to have narratives that unfold in time, we have our second dimension, process. which can be seen as orthogonal to the essence dimension. The role of monster may be filled at one time by one character and by another character at a different time. Likewise for the maker. The process dimension focuses attention on the changes in the way these roles are filled in the text, and why those changes come to pass.
Second, the rubric can be cast as a set of questions. The first form supports a somewhat visual understanding of the rubric, but this form is more portable and easier to apply to texts. The questions we will have our students ask of each text are as follows:
These are simple and easy to commit to memory, but they will work to ensure that our students take what we want them to take from the texts we assign. Further, it will focus their attention on those aspects of the texts that can be regarded as argumentative, smoothing the way for serious critical thinking exercise. For more details, see the Monsters homepage or the Rubric handout.