¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Date

Re: Comparison between TI's Filterpro and LTSpice

 

Thanks a lot for your fast reply, the negative supply voltage was the solution.

Thanks

Resetpin


Re: Comparison between TI's Filterpro and LTSpice

 

I replaced the opamp with the "standard" opamp (the one without supply
pins) and LTSpice gives the same results as TI.

Le 02/08/2013 11:08, resetpin a ¨¦crit :

Hi,

I uploaded the files into files/temp folder.

hope someone can give me a hint

Thanks in advance

Resetpin

--- In LTspice@... <mailto:LTspice%40yahoogroups.com>,
"resetpin" <resetpin@...> wrote:

Hello,

I used Filter Pro from Texas instruments to get a Filter design from
my specifications. They are:
Gain: 5V/V (13,97dB)
Part: Ideal Opamp: Order 4 Stages: 2
Corner frequency Attenuation: 10,979dB
Allowable PassBand Ripple 1dB
Center Frequency: 1,75 kHz
Stopband Attenuation: -30dB
Passband Bandwidth: 100Hz
Stopband Bandwith: 600Hz

Filterpro proviced a schematic and Values for the parts and a
Gain-Frequency plot.

When I try to redo this in LTSpice the frequency corner freqency of
the filter is at the right positon but the gain is about -40db.

I wonder where the differences are and would like to show the
LTSpice *.asc File compared with the Texax Results but don't know how
to post them here in the group.

Maybe someone is willing to help me out and show me the differences
or the problem.

Thanks in advance

Resetpin


Re: Comparison between TI's Filterpro and LTSpice

 

Just looking at the values of R2/R1 shows that the circuit has
significant attenuation. Azero is the indication of the gain the opamp
has to provide, not of the stage's overall transmission factor.
I can't get the same results from FiterPro. My version may be too old -
I run 2.0. I'll check on TI's website.


Le 02/08/2013 11:08, resetpin a ¨¦crit :

Hi,

I uploaded the files into files/temp folder.

hope someone can give me a hint

Thanks in advance

Resetpin

--- In LTspice@... <mailto:LTspice%40yahoogroups.com>,
"resetpin" <resetpin@...> wrote:

Hello,

I used Filter Pro from Texas instruments to get a Filter design from
my specifications. They are:
Gain: 5V/V (13,97dB)
Part: Ideal Opamp: Order 4 Stages: 2
Corner frequency Attenuation: 10,979dB
Allowable PassBand Ripple 1dB
Center Frequency: 1,75 kHz
Stopband Attenuation: -30dB
Passband Bandwidth: 100Hz
Stopband Bandwith: 600Hz

Filterpro proviced a schematic and Values for the parts and a
Gain-Frequency plot.

When I try to redo this in LTSpice the frequency corner freqency of
the filter is at the right positon but the gain is about -40db.

I wonder where the differences are and would like to show the
LTSpice *.asc File compared with the Texax Results but don't know how
to post them here in the group.

Maybe someone is willing to help me out and show me the differences
or the problem.

Thanks in advance

Resetpin


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


Re: Comparison between TI's Filterpro and LTSpice

John Woodgate
 

In message <ktfsu6+10dmu@...>, dated Fri, 2 Aug 2013, resetpin <resetpin@...> writes:

I uploaded the files into files/temp folder.
Your op-amps need a negative supply. You could have seen this by looking at the highly distorted output waveform.
--
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


Re: Comparison between TI's Filterpro and LTSpice

 

Hi,

I uploaded the files into files/temp folder.

hope someone can give me a hint

Thanks in advance

Resetpin

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

Hello,

I used Filter Pro from Texas instruments to get a Filter design from my specifications. They are:
Gain: 5V/V (13,97dB)
Part: Ideal Opamp: Order 4 Stages: 2
Corner frequency Attenuation: 10,979dB
Allowable PassBand Ripple 1dB
Center Frequency: 1,75 kHz
Stopband Attenuation: -30dB
Passband Bandwidth: 100Hz
Stopband Bandwith: 600Hz

Filterpro proviced a schematic and Values for the parts and a Gain-Frequency plot.

When I try to redo this in LTSpice the frequency corner freqency of the filter is at the right positon but the gain is about -40db.

I wonder where the differences are and would like to show the LTSpice *.asc File compared with the Texax Results but don't know how to post them here in the group.

Maybe someone is willing to help me out and show me the differences or the problem.

Thanks in advance

Resetpin


Comparison between TI's Filterpro and LTSpice

 

Hello,

I used Filter Pro from Texas instruments to get a Filter design from my specifications. They are:
Gain: 5V/V (13,97dB)
Part: Ideal Opamp: Order 4 Stages: 2
Corner frequency Attenuation: 10,979dB
Allowable PassBand Ripple 1dB
Center Frequency: 1,75 kHz
Stopband Attenuation: -30dB
Passband Bandwidth: 100Hz
Stopband Bandwith: 600Hz

Filterpro proviced a schematic and Values for the parts and a Gain-Frequency plot.

When I try to redo this in LTSpice the frequency corner freqency of the filter is at the right positon but the gain is about -40db.

I wonder where the differences are and would like to show the LTSpice *.asc File compared with the Texax Results but don't know how to post them here in the group.

Maybe someone is willing to help me out and show me the differences or the problem.

Thanks in advance

Resetpin


Re: PSpice section of the LTwiki's history of SPICE

 

Hello analogspiceman,

I remember when a student showed me PSPICE 3.0 on a DOS PC.

This agrees with the info from this source below.

PSPICE 3.0, DOS

PSPICE 3.1 Design Center 3.1, Windows

PSPICE 6.3 Designlab

1997 ORCAD kauft PSPICE



F¨¹r die Verwendung auf dem Personal Computer unter dem
Betriebssystem DOS ab Version 3.0 wurde es als PSpice
eingef¨¹hrt. Es folgte in den 80er Jahren die Windows
3.1 Version Design Center, mit der die Entwicklung kompletter
analoger und digitaler Schaltungen m?glich wurde.
Design Center ist ein Produkt der MicroSim Corporation und
zeigt, dass es aufgrund der stetigen Innovationen und Programmerweiterungen zum Defacto-Industrie-Standard geworden
ist. Ab der Version 6.3 wurde der Name Design Center in
DesignLab ge?ndert und der Platinenlayout Editor PCBoards
hinzugef¨¹gt. Ende 1997 wurde die MicroSim Corporation von Orcad aufgekauft. Der Name DesignLab bleibt aber bestehen, und die
Markennamen MicroSim und Orcad bleiben auch separat erhalten.


Re: PSpice section of the LTwiki's history of SPICE

 

I never remember PSPICE being named or referred to as uPSPICE. As far as I
knew, it had always been PSPICE.

I also thought the 'P' was analogous to PC (personal computer) ... not
whether the CPU in that computer was a microprocessor. It was one of the
first attempts to make SPICE "personally" available directly to the user,
in the same way the PC made computers personal.

(Strangely, PSPICE later was ported to mainframes or large minis too.)

Earlier, someone commented that the offshoots to SPICE came about as a
result of the GUI. I suggest that it wasn't the GUI, but rather the PC
itself, that helped the various descendants of Berkeley's SPICE come about.
PSPICE (at least) came well before MS-Windows had made any headway, maybe
even before Windows existed, and that is what we generally think of when
talking about a GUI. Prior to that, the GUI on a PC was text and keyboard
based, though a program could turn on and manage graphics modes if it had
the code to do so. That was the environment into which PSPICE was born.

(I have run PSPICE occasionally but for various reasons it was never my
main work platform.)

Andy


PSpice section of the LTwiki's history of SPICE

 

!!PING!! to Jim Thompson, Mike Engelhardt and anyone else who
might posses historical insider knowledge regarding PSpice...

I am in the process of updating the depth and accuracy of the
historical SPICE page over at the LTwiki:



A while ago I sent a request to Dr. Laurence Nagel to check the
Berkeley SPICE portion of the bullet point history documented over
at the LTwiki. He very graciously responded in a private email
with some corrections and some otherwise not previously published
information (I haven't incorporated his information yet). I also
sent a similar request to our own Mike Engelhardt, the author of
the subject of this Yahoo group, LTspice. He kindly provided some
tidbits of new information (which have already been incorporated
into the wiki) and hopefully will provide more now that he is back
from his excursion "down under."

But what I am looking for right now is to complete the section
about PSpice. Specifically, I have no idea who were the people
initial responsible for creating PSpice. Ian Wilson was hired as
a technical V.P. in the early days, was a frequent poster on usenet
and has a current Linkedin page, but he was not one of MicroSim's
founders (I will try to contact him to find out who was). Also,
I could not find any information as to when and at what revision
Probe became a part of PSpice. (Perhaps at the initial release?)

Then there is the meaning of name itself. I vaguely recall that
PSpice was at some point called uPspice (the 'u' being a micro
symbol), thus the acronym may have stood for micro-Processor SPICE
(others suggest it meant "Personal SPICE" or "Personal-computer
SPICE").

Last of all, I would like to list the timing of the introduction
of the most important and innovative features of PSpice (a very
weak start at this is up on the LTwiki.

Dec 86: nonlinear Jiles/Atherton core model,
Apr 87: ideal switches,
Date?: proprietary IGBT model (and many other enhancements?)

Any useful feedback and helpful information provided would be
greatly appreciated. -- a.s.


Re: gaussian noise in time

 

--- In LTspice@..., "sergio" <thetosk@...> wrote:

Hello,

I kindly ask for an advice to choose the correct parameter to insert in the Box-Muller formula using the "rand" function.
In particular I need to have a white noise in the band of interest (called BW in the param def below), the RMS I called Vrmsn1 due to R1 in the BW.

my question is:

which value do I need to put to multiply "time" ? I use 2*BW is it correct?

.param Vrmsn1 = sqrt(4*kB*T*R1 *BW)

V = {Vrmsn1}*SQRT(-2*LN(1E-8+rand(time*2*BW)))*SIN(2*PI*rand(time*2*BW+1879))


using an fft with nfft points the average of the noise spectrum seen in the FFT should be:

10*log10( 4*kB*T*R1 *BW /(nfft/2) )

I cannot get this correspondence (maybe I miss some point!)



From an old post #40603 (that refers to an older one #5598) I read:

---
There are pseudo random number generator functions
available in behavioral sources: white(), rand(),
and random(). You would have to filter their
response to make it white or pink. Their frequency
domain spectral output is a specific function I do
not document, not white or pink (given sufficient
statistics it will increase in frequency and then
roll off). --Mike
---

that means the spectrum of "rand" is not really white ...

any suggestion to match the AC:
10*log10( 4*kB*T*R1 *BW /(nfft/2) )

with the time domain (just a voltage source with the box-muller
formula as above) is appreciated.

kind regards
Sergio

Hello Sergio,

V = {Vrmsn1}*SQRT(-2*LN(1E-8+rand(time*2*BW)))*SIN(2*PI*rand(time*2*BW+1879))

.param Vrmsn1=1
This voltage has the RMS value of 1V, but it has some power
beyond the frequency BW. When I filter it with a 7nd order
Butterworth filter with bandwidth BW, I got 438mVrms.
The spectrum has still a little bit energy above BW. So the
corresponding power density may be still a little bit less
between 0Hz and BW.

Best regards,
Helmut


Re: Shot Noise Contributions From DC Currents

 

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

Hello All,

I have a simple amplifier model using a voltage controlled voltage source with a parallel combination of R and C in the feedback. The noise analysis in LTSpice gives me the expected voltage noise spectral density due to the Johnson noise of the resistance. But I'm trying to add a DC bias current and see the shot noise that results, and it's not working. For example, if I put a 1 Amp DC bias at the negative node of the VCVS, I don't see the output noise change. I also tried using a behavioral model of the current using the white function, and that doesn't produce any noise at the output either.

Does anyone know how to simulate shot noise such as I'm trying to do?

Thanks in advance,
Darren O'Connor

Hello Darren,

We had this discussion a very few month ago. The outcome has
been examples from "bordodynov" and "reinhold_pieper".

Files > Tut > noisegen_with_subcircuits > resistor with 1_f noise



The discussion started with message 66276.
"Modell for a real Thick Film Resistor (with 1/f noise)"
It's about extra noise of thick film resistors.
Please read this discussion.

Best regards,
Helmut


Re: Shot Noise Contributions From DC Currents

 

On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 21:53:23 -0000, you wrote:

Hello All,

I have a simple amplifier model using a voltage controlled
voltage source with a parallel combination of R and C in the
feedback. The noise analysis in LTSpice gives me the
expected voltage noise spectral density due to the Johnson
noise of the resistance. But I'm trying to add a DC bias
current and see the shot noise that results, and it's not
working. For example, if I put a 1 Amp DC bias at the
negative node of the VCVS, I don't see the output noise
change. I also tried using a behavioral model of the current
using the white function, and that doesn't produce any noise
at the output either.

Does anyone know how to simulate shot noise such as I'm trying to do?
You will see shot noise where there is no long range
correlation of charges, where the charges act independently,
such as across a PN junction. You will not see it in wires or
simple resistors.

Jon


Re: Shot Noise Contributions From DC Currents

 

In a conductor(resistor) the electron wavefunctions
overlap, so that charge/current is not quantized.
There is no shot noise from a resistor.
?
--Mike


________________________________
From: odarren <odarren@...>
To: LTspice@...
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2013 2:53 PM
Subject: [LTspice] Shot Noise Contributions From DC Currents


?

Hello All,

I have a simple amplifier model using a voltage controlled voltage source with a parallel combination of R and C in the feedback. The noise analysis in LTSpice gives me the expected voltage noise spectral density due to the Johnson noise of the resistance. But I'm trying to add a DC bias current and see the shot noise that results, and it's not working. For example, if I put a 1 Amp DC bias at the negative node of the VCVS, I don't see the output noise change. I also tried using a behavioral model of the current using the white function, and that doesn't produce any noise at the output either.

Does anyone know how to simulate shot noise such as I'm trying to do?

Thanks in advance,
Darren O'Connor




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


Shot Noise Contributions From DC Currents

 

Hello All,

I have a simple amplifier model using a voltage controlled voltage source with a parallel combination of R and C in the feedback. The noise analysis in LTSpice gives me the expected voltage noise spectral density due to the Johnson noise of the resistance. But I'm trying to add a DC bias current and see the shot noise that results, and it's not working. For example, if I put a 1 Amp DC bias at the negative node of the VCVS, I don't see the output noise change. I also tried using a behavioral model of the current using the white function, and that doesn't produce any noise at the output either.

Does anyone know how to simulate shot noise such as I'm trying to do?

Thanks in advance,
Darren O'Connor


gaussian noise in time

 

Hello,

I kindly ask for an advice to choose the correct parameter to insert in the Box-Muller formula using the "rand" function.
In particular I need to have a white noise in the band of interest (called BW in the param def below), the RMS I called Vrmsn1 due to R1 in the BW.

my question is:

which value do I need to put to multiply "time" ? I use 2*BW is it correct?

.param Vrmsn1 = sqrt(4*kB*T*R1 *BW)

V = {Vrmsn1}*SQRT(-2*LN(1E-8+rand(time*2*BW)))*SIN(2*PI*rand(time*2*BW+1879))


using an fft with nfft points the average of the noise spectrum seen in the FFT should be:

10*log10( 4*kB*T*R1 *BW /(nfft/2) )

I cannot get this correspondence (maybe I miss some point!)



From an old post #40603 (that refers to an older one #5598) I read:

---
There are pseudo random number generator functions
available in behavioral sources: white(), rand(),
and random(). You would have to filter their
response to make it white or pink. Their frequency
domain spectral output is a specific function I do
not document, not white or pink (given sufficient
statistics it will increase in frequency and then
roll off). --Mike
---

that means the spectrum of "rand" is not really white ...

any suggestion to match the AC:
10*log10( 4*kB*T*R1 *BW /(nfft/2) )

with the time domain (just a voltage source with the box-muller formula as above) is appreciated.

kind regards
Sergio


Re: FFT ratios V / I = Z ? (was CSV to PWL)

 

Wow. If only I had a recorder that could actually reproduce that number of discrete measurements for manipulation and analysis.

It looks to me like the simple answer is 'Yes', with the usual reservations.

Maybe I'll approach this again when there's a lot more memory available. It's supposed to be pretty inexpensive, too.

RL

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

Hello RL,

Please try my example to see and understand my point.

Files > Temp > z_from_FFT_with_noise.asc

Run the TRAN simulation.
Plot V(z2) and I(V2)
FFT of V(z2) and I(V2) with 1048576 points
-> plot FFT of V(z2)/FFT of I(V2)

Best regards,
Helmut


--- In LTspice@..., legg@ wrote:





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



--- In LTspice@..., legg@ wrote:

Given a plot of a pink or white noise voltage, and a synchronized plot of the current induced in a partially reactive load -

Will the 'normalized' ratio of the FFT plots be an indication of Z?

I'm looking at the low frequency end of the FFT, to avoid sampling issues. By normalized, I mean that 1 volt would produce 1 amp with both plots resolving to 0dB at the minimum sampled frequency (the load being partially inductive in this example).

It seems much too simple......

RL
Hello RL,

It will only work when you filter the FFT-output, but the
the FFT-results can't be filtered in LTspice. Thus you have
to export the FFT-data and process them in an external program.
This method only work with a linear system and it's precision
may be somewhat limited due to group delay variation.

Best regards,
Helmut
Filter the FFT results? The source is, ideally, uniform in amplitude across the band; so ideally the FFT would be a flat (or at least a straight) line.....What does filtering an FFT output entail?

I am looking at a pink noise source that has been prefiltered to include only a decade or two, so a few assumptions can be made about any FFT output registering outside this region.

With both V and I being monitored synchronously, there are a hell of a lot of variables being weeded out, but the sample duration is limited and the resolution is fairly course (~8bit 2500 data points per variable). So even if the calculated Z were valid, it'd be a crude approximation at best. I'll post a few plots in temp to show what the results actually look like.

The Z in this case is a loudspeaker transducer coil, so it's static characteristics are fairly easily obtainable using a simple swept tone. Given the signal processing capabilities that are falling into our laps with LTspice and even the most modest digital scopes these days, some questions go begging for an answer.

I was also concerned about phase relationships and delays, hence the curiosity about the actual spot 'Z' produced by the calculation. If R is known, then the phase could be intuited. If L is independent of temperature, then a new R value could theoretically be winkled. If other things are known, then phantom R/L/C quantities, or functional shifts in the same could also be evaluated. It's probably already standard practice, somewhere, DSP101 or something FAIK.

As with any 'new' tool, there are applications that don't jump out at you, or get their own chapter in the manual. Knowing the limits could save some time fiddling about - so a reference or pointer could be worth a thousand words.

Doing this again, with a source that had an unpredictable frequency content......could be a very non-invasive sensing method that costs only software, which, as everyone knows, is free......(insert smiley face here).

RL


Re: PWL Files and Transient Noise Analysis

 

Many thanks Helmut.

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



--- In LTspice@..., "beaudoin.christopher" <beaudoin.christopher@> wrote:

I am modelling a voltage noise source by defining the noise source with a PWL file. The circuit is very basic (two resistors no L's or C's) and I have setup a transient analysis using the time step equal to the time increment in the PWL file. In doing this, what I am finding is that the transient analysis is somehow modifying the statistics(I'm guessing by integration/interpolation)of the random signal defined in the PWL file. For this reason, I'd like to gain a better understanding of what this transient analysis is doing in this very simple case. For example, are there are time constants implicit to the solver that I should be aware of such that I should not expect to achieve a steady state case until some time "Tsteadystate" even if there are no Ls or Cs in the circuit? Any understanding you can offer would be greatly appreciated.

Best Regards,
Chris

Hello Chris,

LTspice dynamically changes the time step. You should simply
a small maximum time step in the .TRAN command. This ensures
that nothing will be lost. LTspice does a linear interpolation
between your defined PWL data points.

LTspice uses data compression by default when it saves the
results of the simulation. If you you want the best result,
you should disable data compression in this case. Please add
the following SPICE-directive to your schematic. It will
switch off data compression.

.options plotwinsize=0

Best regards,
Helmut


Re: PWL Files and Transient Noise Analysis

 

--- In LTspice@..., "beaudoin.christopher" <beaudoin.christopher@...> wrote:

I am modelling a voltage noise source by defining the noise source with a PWL file. The circuit is very basic (two resistors no L's or C's) and I have setup a transient analysis using the time step equal to the time increment in the PWL file. In doing this, what I am finding is that the transient analysis is somehow modifying the statistics(I'm guessing by integration/interpolation)of the random signal defined in the PWL file. For this reason, I'd like to gain a better understanding of what this transient analysis is doing in this very simple case. For example, are there are time constants implicit to the solver that I should be aware of such that I should not expect to achieve a steady state case until some time "Tsteadystate" even if there are no Ls or Cs in the circuit? Any understanding you can offer would be greatly appreciated.

Best Regards,
Chris

Hello Chris,

LTspice dynamically changes the time step. You should simply
a small maximum time step in the .TRAN command. This ensures
that nothing will be lost. LTspice does a linear interpolation
between your defined PWL data points.

LTspice uses data compression by default when it saves the
results of the simulation. If you you want the best result,
you should disable data compression in this case. Please add
the following SPICE-directive to your schematic. It will
switch off data compression.

.options plotwinsize=0

Best regards,
Helmut


Re: simulation time function

 

oh, thanks easier than I expected...

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



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



Maybe this question was already asked but I cannot find an
example, but is it possible to generate a signal like
A/t + t/B where A and B are two generic constant and t
is the simulation time?
thanks
Hello,

There are arbitrary sources Bv and Bi. Their symbol is bv and bi.
The time is "time" in the formulas.

V=A/(time+small_const) +B*time

You can't divide by 0 at time=0. Thus you have to add a small
number.

Also look at the help pages of B-sources for the possible
functions like sin, exp, if, ...

Best regards,
Helmut


Re: simulation time function

 

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



Maybe this question was already asked but I cannot find an
example, but is it possible to generate a signal like
A/t + t/B where A and B are two generic constant and t
is the simulation time?
thanks
Hello,

There are arbitrary sources Bv and Bi. Their symbol is bv and bi.
The time is "time" in the formulas.

V=A/(time+small_const) +B*time

You can't divide by 0 at time=0. Thus you have to add a small
number.

Also look at the help pages of B-sources for the possible
functions like sin, exp, if, ...

Best regards,
Helmut