开云体育

Does anyone know of the whereabouts of a .LIB or .SUB file for Avago's HCPL-3323 Optocoupler? There is nothing on their web sits.

Dennis

Dear John:



I agree, very large values increase the likelihood of noise pickup,



Make even the smallest amount of circuit board contamination a real problem.





At the other extreme, very small values are difficult to measure even with



“four wire ohms” technique, and require us to consider things like a
“thermal voltages”.



High end bench/system millimeters have so called “offset compensation” but
even that is



not enough for very small values (0.001 Ohm and below) One time I measured
a



resistance near 1E-6 Ohms, but only with very modest accuracy. I was forced
to use



an external current source of about 500ma, and an external 6 ? digit
multimeter.



I essentially had a computer controlled ohmmeter, with computer controlled
relay contacts



(HP 3488 Switch/control unit) First I would use the software to turn on the
current source,



And measure the voltage drop across the cooper conductor, then I would turn
off the current source



(just open the relay contacts that are in series with the current source and
copper conductor) and take a



Second measurement. Take the second measurement and subtract from the first
(this is the same as “offset compensation” on your multmeter)



The rest is just ohm’s law.



















_____

From: LTspice@... [mailto:LTspice@...] On Behalf Of
John Woodgate
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 1:37 PM
To: LTspice@...
Subject: Re: [LTspice] Re: Article on EDN by Mike Robbins





In message <ksp2g0+dm2f@... <mailto:ksp2g0%2Bdm2f%40eGroups.com> >,
dated Wed, 24 Jul 2013, Helmut
<helmutsennewald@... <mailto:helmutsennewald%40yahoo.com> > writes:

I always recommend to stay away from nano-Ohm or micro-Ohm values of
resistance if possible.

In normal circuits, there is no need for Gohms, kH and kF either. Any
extreme value might cause an obscure problem.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Why is the stapler always empty just when you want it?

John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I don't remember seeing the following difference between the regular
solver and the alternate solver being mentioned before.

"In fact, the Alternate Solver of LTspice has been doing
extended-precision circuit simulation for a long time."

This difference was extracted from one of the comments to the article.

Howard

In message <ksp2g0+dm2f@...>, dated Wed, 24 Jul 2013, Helmut <helmutsennewald@...> writes:

I always recommend to stay away from nano-Ohm or micro-Ohm values of resistance if possible.

In normal circuits, there is no need for Gohms, kH and kF either. Any extreme value might cause an obscure problem.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Why is the stapler always empty just when you want it?

John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

--- In LTspice@..., "haubmi1" <Michael.Haub@...> wrote:

Hi,

in that article Mike Robins claims superiority of their "CircuitLab" simulator over all other simulators in respect of numerical resolution.



He shows a LTspice screen with a totaly off solution.

In fact this circuit needs the "alternate" solver to get the right solution.

Is there a secret .option for seting the solver?

Help says:
"There is no .option to specify which solver is used, the choice must be made before the netlist is parsed because the two solvers use different parsers."

Why not?
Wouldn't it be better than puting a text on the shematic, saying "attention: switch to alternate solver for this deck".

Greetings
Michael

Hello,

The Normal Solver has no problems, if the value of R1 is set
to a value of 100uOhm or higher.

I always recommend to stay away from nano-Ohm or micro-Ohm
values of resistance if possible.

If one only needs a current sense in SPICE, then a 0V V-source
is better then using a resistor.

Best regards,
Helmut

I think for the most part you answered your own questions.

Is there a secret .option for seting the solver?

Apparently not, as your next line stated:

Help says:
"There is no .option to specify which solver is used, the choice must be
made before the netlist is parsed because the two solvers use different
parsers."

Why not?

Because LTspice needs to parse (read and decode) the netlist in order to
find the .option. By then it is too late to change the parser.

Wouldn't it be better than puting a text on the shematic, saying
"attention: switch to alternate solver for this deck".

It might be nice, yes. But as the LTspice developer says, it can't be done.

I suppose you could suggest to Mike that he re-consider ... to make LTspice
start over from the beginning if it finds an .option to change the solver.

Regards,
Andy

--- In LTspice@..., "jason.vanryan" <andrewc.russell@...> wrote:

--- In LTspice@..., "Helmut" <helmutsennewald@> wrote:

--- In LTspice@..., "jason.vanryan" <andrewc.russell@> wrote:

--- In LTspice@..., "jason.vanryan" <andrewc.russell@> wrote:

--- In LTspice@..., "analogspiceman" <analogspiceman@> wrote:

--- In LTspice@..., "jason.vanryan" <andrewc.russell@> wrote:

Thanks for the feedback. This is happening on the latest version
I downloaded and after I have set all sim variables to default in
the tool tab.

I will try the cap idea and see how it works out.

Be sure to try using the Alternate Solver as Andy suggested.
This option must be set manually (cannot be set in the simulation
commands on the schematic) and it is easy to overlook it having
been set on a prior, unrelated simulation. If it gets inadvertently
reset, marginal simulations can "suddenly" cease to run.

Clear- thanks for pointing that out. I'll give it a try.

My problems are still with me.

I have tried the ideas above still no success. I took a circuit that is simulating well and appears to be stable ( ie no convergence problems) that uses the same models as the previous circuit. I modify this circuit so that it is a replica of the first circuit discussed above, and the problems return. I am getting pages of ''Heightened Def Con from xxx to yyy' messages in the error log file which I never had before.

Hello Jason,

Please try my suggestion with cshunt as I mentioned before.

Best regards,
Helmut

Hello Helmut,

I did try that - 1e-12 and 10e-12 still no success

Hello Jason,
I never use higher cshunt values than 1e-15.

You could send me one of your designs if you can't upload it
for some reason. I would then try on it.

Best regards,
Helmut

--- In LTspice@..., "Helmut" <helmutsennewald@...> wrote:

--- In LTspice@..., "jason.vanryan" <andrewc.russell@> wrote:

--- In LTspice@..., "jason.vanryan" <andrewc.russell@> wrote:

--- In LTspice@..., "analogspiceman" <analogspiceman@> wrote:

--- In LTspice@..., "jason.vanryan" <andrewc.russell@> wrote:

Thanks for the feedback. This is happening on the latest version
I downloaded and after I have set all sim variables to default in
the tool tab.

I will try the cap idea and see how it works out.

Be sure to try using the Alternate Solver as Andy suggested.
This option must be set manually (cannot be set in the simulation
commands on the schematic) and it is easy to overlook it having
been set on a prior, unrelated simulation. If it gets inadvertently
reset, marginal simulations can "suddenly" cease to run.

Clear- thanks for pointing that out. I'll give it a try.

My problems are still with me.

I have tried the ideas above still no success. I took a circuit that is simulating well and appears to be stable ( ie no convergence problems) that uses the same models as the previous circuit. I modify this circuit so that it is a replica of the first circuit discussed above, and the problems return. I am getting pages of ''Heightened Def Con from xxx to yyy' messages in the error log file which I never had before.

Hello Jason,

Please try my suggestion with cshunt as I mentioned before.

Best regards,
Helmut

Hello Helmut,

I did try that - 1e-12 and 10e-12 still no success

Sorry for confusion.

Alex, What YOU write comes through fine

hws, Update YOUR fonts.



--- BordodunovAlex@... wrote:

From: "bordodynov" <BordodunovAlex@...>
To: LTspice@...
Subject: [LTspice] Re: Step Change to k of Coupled Inductors During Transient Analysis
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 05:51:43 -0000

Hi Heinz-W. Schockenbaum and Macy.I do not understand why I needed to
update fonts. I use the browsers Mozilla FireFox and Google Chrome. I
looked at her letters with them. Everything is fine. These browsers I
reinstalled in May. I will make an attempt to change the font of the
letter.Bordodynov.
--- In LTspice@..., Macy wrote:

it's readable for me.

update your browser's font

--- schockenbaum@... wrote:

From: "Heinz-W. Schockenbaum" schockenbaum@...
To: LTspice@...
Subject: [LTspice] Re: Step Change to k of Coupled Inductors During

Transient Analysis

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 14:35:32 -0000



--- In LTspice@..., "bordodynov" BordodunovAlex@ wrote:


Hi Alex. Updated your browser to a readable characterset? ;-)
Welcome!

hws

--- In LTspice@..., "jason.vanryan" <andrewc.russell@...> wrote:

--- In LTspice@..., "jason.vanryan" <andrewc.russell@> wrote:

--- In LTspice@..., "analogspiceman" <analogspiceman@> wrote:

--- In LTspice@..., "jason.vanryan" <andrewc.russell@> wrote:

Thanks for the feedback. This is happening on the latest version
I downloaded and after I have set all sim variables to default in
the tool tab.

I will try the cap idea and see how it works out.

Be sure to try using the Alternate Solver as Andy suggested.
This option must be set manually (cannot be set in the simulation
commands on the schematic) and it is easy to overlook it having
been set on a prior, unrelated simulation. If it gets inadvertently
reset, marginal simulations can "suddenly" cease to run.

Clear- thanks for pointing that out. I'll give it a try.

My problems are still with me.

I have tried the ideas above still no success. I took a circuit that is simulating well and appears to be stable ( ie no convergence problems) that uses the same models as the previous circuit. I modify this circuit so that it is a replica of the first circuit discussed above, and the problems return. I am getting pages of ''Heightened Def Con from xxx to yyy' messages in the error log file which I never had before.

Can you change the circuit step by step so that you can see which modification causes the problems?

Best regards,

Frank

--- In LTspice@..., "jason.vanryan" <andrewc.russell@...> wrote:

--- In LTspice@..., "jason.vanryan" <andrewc.russell@> wrote:

--- In LTspice@..., "analogspiceman" <analogspiceman@> wrote:

--- In LTspice@..., "jason.vanryan" <andrewc.russell@> wrote:

Thanks for the feedback. This is happening on the latest version
I downloaded and after I have set all sim variables to default in
the tool tab.

I will try the cap idea and see how it works out.

Be sure to try using the Alternate Solver as Andy suggested.
This option must be set manually (cannot be set in the simulation
commands on the schematic) and it is easy to overlook it having
been set on a prior, unrelated simulation. If it gets inadvertently
reset, marginal simulations can "suddenly" cease to run.

Clear- thanks for pointing that out. I'll give it a try.

My problems are still with me.

I have tried the ideas above still no success. I took a circuit that is simulating well and appears to be stable ( ie no convergence problems) that uses the same models as the previous circuit. I modify this circuit so that it is a replica of the first circuit discussed above, and the problems return. I am getting pages of ''Heightened Def Con from xxx to yyy' messages in the error log file which I never had before.

Hello Jason,

Please try my suggestion with cshunt as I mentioned before.

Best regards,
Helmut

Hi,

in that article Mike Robins claims superiority of their "CircuitLab" simulator over all other simulators in respect of numerical resolution.



He shows a LTspice screen with a totaly off solution.

In fact this circuit needs the "alternate" solver to get the right solution.

Is there a secret .option for seting the solver?

Help says:
"There is no .option to specify which solver is used, the choice must be made before the netlist is parsed because the two solvers use different parsers."

Why not?
Wouldn't it be better than puting a text on the shematic, saying "attention: switch to alternate solver for this deck".

Greetings
Michael

--- In LTspice@..., "jason.vanryan" <andrewc.russell@...> wrote:

--- In LTspice@..., "analogspiceman" <analogspiceman@> wrote:

--- In LTspice@..., "jason.vanryan" <andrewc.russell@> wrote:

Thanks for the feedback. This is happening on the latest version
I downloaded and after I have set all sim variables to default in
the tool tab.

I will try the cap idea and see how it works out.

Be sure to try using the Alternate Solver as Andy suggested.
This option must be set manually (cannot be set in the simulation
commands on the schematic) and it is easy to overlook it having
been set on a prior, unrelated simulation. If it gets inadvertently
reset, marginal simulations can "suddenly" cease to run.

Clear- thanks for pointing that out. I'll give it a try.

My problems are still with me.

I have tried the ideas above still no success. I took a circuit that is simulating well and appears to be stable ( ie no convergence problems) that uses the same models as the previous circuit. I modify this circuit so that it is a replica of the first circuit discussed above, and the problems return. I am getting pages of ''Heightened Def Con from xxx to yyy' messages in the error log file which I never had before.

Hi Heinz-W. Schockenbaum and Macy.I do not understand why I needed to
update fonts. I use the browsers Mozilla FireFox and Google Chrome. I
looked at her letters with them. Everything is fine. These browsers I
reinstalled in May. I will make an attempt to change the font of the
letter.Bordodynov.
--- In LTspice@..., Macy wrote:

it's readable for me.

update your browser's font

--- schockenbaum@... wrote:

From: "Heinz-W. Schockenbaum" schockenbaum@...
To: LTspice@...
Subject: [LTspice] Re: Step Change to k of Coupled Inductors During

Transient Analysis

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 14:35:32 -0000



--- In LTspice@..., "bordodynov" BordodunovAlex@ wrote:


Hi Alex. Updated your browser to a readable characterset? ;-)
Welcome!

hws

How about record it in Camtasia ......
It is free for 30 day eval.

--- In LTspice@..., "analogspiceman" <analogspiceman@...> wrote:

--- In LTspice@..., "jason.vanryan" <andrewc.russell@> wrote:

Thanks for the feedback. This is happening on the latest version
I downloaded and after I have set all sim variables to default in
the tool tab.

I will try the cap idea and see how it works out.

Be sure to try using the Alternate Solver as Andy suggested.
This option must be set manually (cannot be set in the simulation
commands on the schematic) and it is easy to overlook it having
been set on a prior, unrelated simulation. If it gets inadvertently
reset, marginal simulations can "suddenly" cease to run.

Clear- thanks for pointing that out. I'll give it a try.

HSPICE models and netlist files (without encryption) are capable of running
in LTspice. The problem is that HSPICE has so many deviations from generic
SPICE. If a netlist uses any of those unique features, it won't work.

PSPICE is much more compatible. LTspice is designed to handle nearly all
PSPICE syntax.

I am not aware of any conversion tools.

Andy

--- In LTspice@..., "vtlya2000" <vtlya2000@...> wrote:

How to convert model from Orcad Pspice or HSPICE to LTSpice?

need util

help me

Hello,

Why do you want convert it?
Just feed into LTspice and press RUN.

Best regards,
Helmut

--- In LTspice@..., "analogspiceman" <analogspiceman@...> wrote:

SIMPLIS type simulators are very fast in part because they approx-
imate all the nonlinear switched devices (diode, MOSFETs, etc.)
with line segment approximations through the switch transition
(some allow the number of segments used to be specified). Part of
their speed comes from the use of the POP/PSS analysis to quickly
find the operating point. I think a large part of their speed
also comes from having a native frequency response analyzer device
directly built into the simulator code.

LTspice already has a lot of these types of capabilities (ideal
diodes and switches with smooth transitions), POP/PSS sensing (but
no accelerator to get there). It has fast state transition sensing
devices (the digital a-devices). Personally, I would like to see
Mike add a native FRA device to LTspice so that it could generate
Bode plot loop-gain curves for switched mode products. It would
not be necessary to be as fast as SIMPLIS because LTspice does not
use the less accurate line segment approximations, but noise free
results would be a must. Run times of one third to one tenth the
speed of SIMPLIS (or the others) would be okay.

analogspiceman,

Why not just use a suitable continuous time model like your Canonical_Cells.zip? These models can easily be used in a closed loop system using a "loop gain" (injecting a test signal in the closed loop) type analysis. It seems to me that an FRA is the wrong approach.

Rick

In message <ksmqo7+4skp@...>, dated Tue, 23 Jul 2013, vtlya2000 <vtlya2000@...> writes:

How to convert model from Orcad Pspice or HSPICE to LTSpice?

Encrypted files cannot be converted. Unencrypted Pspice files will either run on LTspice or need a few small syntax tweaks to the netlist, unless they use models unique to Pspice. Unencrypted Hspice files will not often convert.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Why is the stapler always empty just when you want it?

John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK