Keyboard Shortcuts
Likes
- LTspice
- Messages
Search
Re: Warning: Multiple definitions of model ...
Tony, I'm with you almost 100%! The only questionable point may be QSPICE. I'm often conflicted between keeping LTspice as the only one, and invest time only there, or trying to spend some effort in checking QSPICE. I think it has some strength against LTspice, but honestly, do we really need it? I think someone like you should take part in the evaluation of this new tool, in case even to decide it does not make sense to shift on it. But I agree, if you feel good with LTspice (as I do), why should you move from it? Nevertheless, the higher speed and some other features of QSPICE are attracting. I think it is still in a preliminary phase, probably too early for one like you to invest time in it. Just thoughts.
My compliments for your wonderful English! I like reading your posts even for learning some language usage! Thanks for teaching. Regards Francesco |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: Loss simulation problem
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýI'm always losing transistors, too. I have no idea why - maybe I'm just forgetful. ?I think you probably mean power dissipation. If the thermometer doesn't appear, can you still plot currents of the transistor? If you can't plot currents either, check that: Control Panel > Save Defaults > Save Device Currents .. is checked. If it is, perhaps you can upload a troublesome schematic where you can't plot dissipation? --
Regards, Tony On 12/07/2023 11:33, Csizmadia Mikl?s
wrote:
is it only me who finds it strange (or does it not work )that the loss of transistors cannot be simulated? I can't see the little thermometer. Does this function not work for you either? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: Filters (Butterworth, Chebychev etc.)
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýThanks for uploading the file. As said, I got it meanwhile. And thanks for pointing out LTSPIC¡¯s builtin filter functions.¡ª Christoph
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: Filters (Butterworth, Chebychev etc.)
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýI didn't have any trouble downloading Filt.zip - must be something in your Firefox setup. Perhaps you are using the HTTPS Everywhere add-in? You can disable the "https only" option, or temporarily disable the add-in.If you still can't download it, I have placed it in Files > Temp, Filt.zip. Don't forget, there are also 2nd order filter functions in the LTspice pre-installed libraries: Place Component (F2) > SpecialFunctions --
Regards, Tony On 12/07/2023 09:08, Christoph wrote:
I would like to apply filters to a signal of discrete sample points and watch the effect of order, gain and other characteristics. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: Filters (Butterworth, Chebychev etc.)
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýNow got one of these filters into my circuit. Anyone familiar with these models??How do I have to set the parameters for a low pass filter, of, say, corner freq. = 100Hz?
¡ª Christoph
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: Filters (Butterworth, Chebychev etc.)
¿ªÔÆÌåÓý
$?wget
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: Warning: Multiple definitions of model ...
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýOf course I agree: it's the
mathematics that accepts instantaneous change, leading to a
paradoxical result. Just like the mathematics accepts the
paradoxical result? 'simultaneously alive and dead', but the
real world doesn't. ======================================================================================
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only Rayleigh, Essex UK I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. Xunzi (340 - 245 BC) On 2023-07-12 07:43, eewiz wrote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Filters (Butterworth, Chebychev etc.)
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýI would like to apply filters to a signal of discrete sample points and watch the effect of order, gain and other characteristics.Found this page: Firefox refuses to download the files (e.g. Filt.zip at the bottom of the page) since the links aren¡¯t secured. Any alternatives? ¡ª Christoph |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: Warning: Multiple definitions of model ...
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýHello All John Woodgate wrote:
And there lies "the (philosophical) flaw." Nothing in this universe is instantaneous. Analyses that assume any sort of instantaneousness are simply flawed to start with. If you disagree, perhaps I could sell you an instantaneous perpetual motion machine. All for now
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
POSH (Powershell) tool to manage "user approved" LTspice cmp files
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýHello All eetech00 wrote: I am looking for someone to help test. Anyone interested? I volunteer. Proverbially, I find myself standing on the field after the rest of troop took two steps back. But that's alright, I'll enjoy the opportunity to delve into a working powershell script. Thank you for all of your programming and modeling efforts. Contact eewiz@... if you feel the need to communicate directly. All for now |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: SG3524.zip uploads
You might have added the 1N3890 model to your "standard.dio" file that's in LTspiceXVII\lib\cmp.
That is often what gets LTspice users into "trouble", where they have a model and can't figure out where they got it, and they assume that everyone else must have that model too. If you Generate the Expanded Netlist, you should be able to find every component model definition, without having to find where it was.? It would probably be located near the bottom of that listing. Andy |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: ISL70444SEH declaration issue?
mliddione89 wrote, "I see that you changed the .MODEL statements for "DESD" and "DN1". Would you mind explaining what those are, and why you changed the statements?"
Yes.? In an earlier reply (#147193), I wrote that there were two lines containing "LEVEL=2" that were causing LTspice errors. When used as a .MODEL parameter, the LEVEL parameter can be used in SOME device models in SPICE, mostly with MOSFETs, and (rarely?) might be used with BJTs, and the LTspice-specific voltage-controlled switch models.? It's a way of having fundamentally different models (different component equations) inside SPICE, without using a new first letter for the component's name. The lines that had LEVEL were these two diode model definitions: ? ? .MODEL DESD? D Level=2? ? N=1 IS=1.00E-15
? ? .MODEL DN1 D Level=2? ? IS=1P KF=1.4N AF=1
?
I don't think I saw LEVEL with diode models before.? LTspice apparently doesn't like it either; but I guess there is a SPICE program somewhere out there that can use LEVEL with diodes, and your ISL70444SEH model may have been written with that SPICE program in mind.? The model says it is for PSpice but I don't believe PSpice uses diode model LEVELs so maybe it's from somewhere else.? I think HSPICE has diode LEVELs but it's been years since I used it.? When LTspice sees them, it gives us these errors:? ? Error on line 217 : .model desd d level=2 n=1 is=1.00e-15
? ?? * Unrecognized parameter "n" -- ignored
? ?? * Unrecognized parameter "is" -- ignored
? ? Error on line 218 : .model dn1 d level=2 is=1p kf=1.4n af=1
? ?? * Unrecognized parameter "is" -- ignored
?
Apparently LTspice gets unsynchronized while parsing the model and?seeing the "Level=2" parameter, and then it fails to recognize the remaining parameters on the line as part of the same .MODEL statement.? (That's my guess.)? Those two parameters (N and IS) are so fundamental to SPICE diodes, that I can't imagine them not being used,?unless LTspice thought it was not a diode model anymore -- or something else so unusual that it doesn't use those two basic parameters.
So I deleted the "Level=2" parameter to see what would happen.? That makes the two diode types into regular SPICE diode models like you see everywhere else.? It does mean that whatever the "Level=2" was supposed to convey, is probably lost.? But I don't know what that would have been.? I thought it was better to make the model usable, than to junk it and tell you "you're out of luck."? Admittedly there is some risk, but I believe that risk is minimal. Regards, Andy |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: Warning: Multiple definitions of model ...
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýHi Tony, ? ??????????????? Thanks much for your detailed reply. (I don¡¯t have an FB account either.) ? ??????????????? I¡¯ll drop the matter unless someone else replies positively. ? Regards, ? Chris ? From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Tony Casey
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 1:48 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [LTspice] Warning: Multiple definitions of model ... ? I think a social media campaign would achieve little, except maybe get you elevated to ignore status. A lot of engineers don't even have a FB account. I don't. I neither have the time nor the inclination. -- ? On 11/07/2023 18:17, Christopher Paul wrote:
? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: PWL sources (was but not related to: "Discrete data points in plot view")
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýThanks to all for helping. I already posted the solution on my side to the list. I found it out myself but the message bounced since I always forget to disable he signing of the email when posting :-(Editing the file is easy for me. I¡¯m using jupyter notebook (python) to generate the file and send the file directly in place to the LTSpice directory where my LTspice-project resides. It¡¯s a small python script: nrise="500n" nhold="1us" nfall="500n" werte=[0,4.5,14,45,77,84.5,57,45,40.5,37,33,29.5,24.5,20.4,15,8.2, ? ? ? 0,-8.2,-15,-20.4,-24.5,-29.5,-33,-37,-40.5,-45,-57,-84.5,-77,-45,-14,-4.5,0] print(werte) print(len(werte)) delta=0.3057805136377/32 print(f'delta={delta:2.7f}s') for i in range(32): ? ? ?print(f'{delta*i}s 0mV +{nrise} {werte[i]}mV +{nhold} {werte[i]}mV +{nfall} 0mV ') with open("/Users/kuku/Documents/LTspiceXVII/pulses_discrete.txt", "w") as f: ? ? for i in range(32): ? ? ? ? print(f'{delta*i}s 0mV +{nrise} {werte[i]}mV +{nhold} {werte[i]}mV +{nfall} 0mV ',file=f) ¡ª Christoph
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: Warning: Multiple definitions of model ...
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýI think a social media campaign would achieve little, except maybe get you elevated to ignore status. A lot of engineers don't even have a FB account. I don't. I neither have the time nor the inclination.The current LTspice dev' team established communication channels with this group some while ago. This user group is almost certainly the largest LTspice interest (lobby) group on the planet - about 70,000 (all time) members at last count, although only minority are currently active. No other SPICE interest group is within a magnitude of that, and is never likely to be. In fact, LTspice ranks 2nd in all of the publicly listed groups on groups.io, behind groups.io/updates in term of popularity. Beyond mild curiosity, I have no desire or intention to use any other SPICE tool than LTspice. I have invested way too much time and effort into it. At the moment, it beats the crap out of any other similar tool (IMHO). My desire is that it retains that position. LTspice is great tool. Could it be better? Of course. When operational program bugs get reported, they usually get fixed - quickly, if serious. Even when Mike was in sole charge, some reports were acted upon almost by return of email. Others plunged into a black void. I realise that the standard libraries situation irritates some people more than others. As far as ADI are concerned, repairs are likely to be prioritised according to the impact on sales. Library goof-ups have caused a number of their /examples/Applications schematics (the ones featuring their own premium parts) to fail, as models have been pulled without updating the schematics that call them. Once realised, that must have caused some consternation, and they have been focussed on fixing those schematics. I whinge about the standard libraries because I feel like I should. Does it irritate me that they are a mess? Yes. Do I lose sleepover it? No. If you want to use a particular device in an important project, you can keep a verified model in your project folder and make sure it's the one that gets used. Am I bothered whether the BC847B from the standard library is from NXP or Rohm? No. Most likely, it doesn't matter for 95% of circuits. If it did, I would make sure I set set aside the one I wanted, making sure it fulfilled my needs, then any future changes in standard.bjt would not affect my important projects. --
Regards, Tony On 11/07/2023 18:17, Christopher Paul
wrote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: SG3524.zip uploads
Also FYI --
There are a couple of places in the group's Files with other SG3524 (or SG1524) models already: Files > z_yahoo > Files sorted by message number > msg_45136 /g/LTspice/files/z_yahoo/Files%20sorted%20by%20message%20number/msg_45136/ Files > z_yahoo > Files sorted by message number > msg_77851 /g/LTspice/files/z_yahoo/Files%20sorted%20by%20message%20number/msg_77851/ Files > z_yahoo > Files sorted by message number > msg_59940 /g/LTspice/files/z_yahoo/Files%20sorted%20by%20message%20number/msg_59940 This one is puzzling, it MIGHT be an attempt to mimic the behavior of a SG3524, using other components.? I think the messages about that one are here, especially this reply and this reply. Andy |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SG3524.zip uploads
This is for Aime Dugras, who has uploaded two copies of SG3524.zip to the Temp folder, without explanation.
Aime, you forgot to include the model file "Sborka.lib"? Also, the 1N3890 model is missing.? The simulation "test1.asc" can not be run without them.? Remember, uploads should be complete, and include all required files and models that didn't come with LTspice. I am puzzled why your TIP127.asy symbol requires Sborka.lib, yet there is a separate model file TIP127.lib, which is not used.? Maybe it was a mistake in your TIP127.asy symbol. In your other schematic "test2.asc", there are three generic diodes "D".? That might work OK, but as a general rule, real diode models might simulate better than the generic default model "D".? The "D" diode model lacks some parameters (e.g., Rs>0, Cjo>0) that can make it less simulation-friendly than a real diode's model. After you have uploaded a file, please announce it.? Send a new message, tell us what you uploaded a file, and what it is for. Andy |