开云体育

Helmut, The web has just been updated with a version that doesn't interpret the '+' sign as incremental from the previous version for voltage but still does for time. Thanks for pointing out the

Helmut, OK. What's happening is that the '+' sign can be used to mean incremented from the previous value. It's a PSpice convention useful for time points as in V2 1 0 PWL (0 0 +1m 1 +1m 0 +1m 1 +1m 0

wrote: Winspice3. Hallo Arnold, hier kann fast keiner deutsch, deshalb macht es wenig Sinn die Frage zus?tzlich in deutsch zu stellen. with LT-Spice I had the same problem some times ago with a model

Guten Tag, was sind das fr Fehler in LT-Spice? Gerechnet mit LT-Spice und Winspice3. Hello, what sort of errors is this in LT-Spice? The Schematic is computed with LT-Spice and Winspice3 from Mike

Sean, See the examples called wavein.asc and waveout.asc in the "educational" folder and also see help files for .wave It is very cool indeed! Brad wrote:

Hi! I too am new to spice. I heard that you were supposed to export a output-waveform to a Wav-file somehow. Can any-one tell me how? Would be cool. Cheers, Sean

Steve, I'm afraid it probably was, unless noise was dominated by the resistors of your circuit. Noise doesn't appear to be modeled in the LT2018A macro model. I think the only opamp macro model that

Thanks for the help on the Burr Brown amp. Noise analysis is a nice feature of LTSpice. It's helpful to poke around a circuit to see where noise is being generated. However, I didn't put alot of

thanks Helmut, its running ok with models downloaded from duncanamps.com thanks a lot guille --- Helmut Sennewald <helmutsennewald@...> wrote:

Reinier, Yes, the thing I have in mind would do that. Below is a list prepared for someone else who asked about this offline: I've in mind to model GBW, AOL, slew limit, voltage and current noise and

<helmutsennewald@y...> wrote: LTSpice. netlist.

wrote: symbol

LMC6484A.sub. with 6484a.sub http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Andre, No this isn't possible in LTspice. It's pretty hard to implement. What you can do, to help with your confidence in the solution from a .ac analysis, is to do a .step set of runs that varies

Hi Mike,

Yes, I was able to reduce gmin to 1e-11, though. Apparently so, now the MOSFET's leak more. BTW, the model, since it uses current sources, should probably be run with the "Add GMIN across current

--- In LTspice@..., Panama Mike <panamatex@y...> wrote: > Helmut, > > > [...]I have read in a book? that .TRAN analysis > > always does converge better. > > > > Hello Mike, is that

I wrote: but meant: [...] I suggest either removing vfb=... from the models or just ignoring the error message and then asking TI/Burr-Brown why the error is in the model. --Mike

Helmut, The .tran solution is always more believable than the .op solution. SPICE programs are prone to "false convergence", a numerical situation in which the error-based checks accept an answer