开云体育

There is no way of knowing how large the .raw file will be.? Indeed, it might not be the same even for similar simulations.? It depends on how many time points LTspice actually used, which is not

Apologize, I just wanted to make sure I understood it correctly :-)

I don't know what's going on here. U1 isn't open-loop. Are we looking at the same .ASC, PID_section_united_AC_separate?? U3 is open-loop at DC. U1 and U2 have unity gain, U4 has 100 times gain at DC.

Thanks Tony, I have a callback function for when the simulation finishes so the user gets notified via email. They are asking for percent completion because they are running simulations that take 3

You appear to be extremely insistent by asking this question *over and over* , as if asking it every few minutes will twist my arm and force me to answer you immediately. I don't work that way. Go

Yeah - that is a different problem, caused by misusing operators. Helmut's concern was over the lack of exact equality.? I guess it applied only in specific situations, which did not include this

Why not? Does expensive silicon imply an equally expensive SPICE model?? Shouldn't every SPICE model ever made, whether for cheap or expensive silicon, not produce time step too small errors?? And

Hello All: Sorry for being late to the party but I had to grab some sleep time. So, it's equality only. No matter how many times I read the .meas help I would not come to that conclusion. To me; WHEN

This would be the case, for example, in a B-source expression, which disallows the "=" operator anyhow, e.g.: ..which triggers an error, but: ..doesn't. However, in the example of my simple sine

mhx, sorry, I know better. I did not excluding anything via .save. .meas TRAN TooLow1 find V(XSW11:X1:Qc)-V(XSW11:X1:Qe) when V(XSW11:X1:Qc)-V(XSW11:X1:Qe)<1 still produces; Measurement "toolow1"

I agree, of course, but the AD797 is a (costly) opamp. It should not produce a TSTS error in that .ASC. Without a lot of digging, it isn't possible to confirm that it is connected correctly; for

I think it does look like a paradox. It one were doing a Laplace analysis with pencil and paper, I(L1)? = 10 A would definitely be an 'initial condition'. But I did conclude that it isn't in LTspice.

Sorry, copy-paste error. Should have been: Same result. -- Regards, Tony

Yes, that was my conclusion. -- OOO - Own Opinions only If something is true: * as far as we know - it's science *for certain - it's mathematics *unquestionably - it's religion

I think you're missing the point I made in the first response. This type of .MEAS is designed to find a single point on the x-axis when an expression is true. None of the .MEAS examples in the Help

I mean that it might remove the IC= or .IC enforced conditions, and run another pass looking for convergence. Whether or not it does that, is not the point I was making.? The point is that it begins

That might be true.? But I distinctly recall Helmut Sennewald cautioning people not to test for equality.? Better to use >= or <=.? The implication was that it did not use linear interpolation in

... I assume this is the failure you asked about. "Time step too small" errors are unfortunately difficult to deal with.? If this is your first time encountering a "timestep too small" error,

Sorry, without UIC LTspice lets the circuit converge (i.e. basically it works out the DC Initial Transient Solution/ITS including the voltages/charges and currents/fluxes for capacitors and inductors

No, I think you're just introducing accuracy into the equality test. The LTspice just takes the two closest data points and performs linear interpolation to establish when the expression is true. It