Re: PWL sources (was but not related to: "Discrete data points in plot view")
"?" can also be a 2 byte character, and that was one
of the things that alerted me. As it happens, LTspice ignored the
entire first line, when I wrote out what I thought was was Chris's 1st line in a
separate file. When it encounters more than two increments with
the same amplitude, it ignores the middle one. When it encounters
a whole lone of the same amplitude, the whole line gets ignored.
There's a message to that effect in the ErrorLog. Whereas with
Chris's string, it threw an error message because there were the
wrong number of sub-strings - the parser bombed out when it
encountered an "illegal" character. The two files looked the same,
but I noticed they differed in length by one byte, so the "?" was a double byte character, not
extended ASCII. It might depend what keyboard and character set
Chris is using, and how the "?"
got there. They still looked the same to me, until I
compared them in Meld (a file comparison tool). Then the
difference was highlighted. It was a "duh!" moment.
So I then did a global search and replace of "u" for "?" on Chris's whole text
and it worked straight away.
--
Regards,
Tony
On 11/07/2023 16:49, John Woodgate
wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
? is character 181_10 (B5 in hex) in
extended ASCII. Does the parser accept any extended ASCII
characters?
|
Re: PWL sources (was but not related to: "Discrete data points in plot view")
It works! Final problem was, that I wrote ?s into the time values - 1us that should have been. PWL REPEAT FOREVER file=pulses_discrete.txt ENDREPEAT 0.0s 0mV +500n 0mV +1us 0mV +500n 0mV 0.009555641051178124s 0mV +500n 4.5mV +1us 4.5mV +500n 0mV 0.01911128210235625s 0mV +500n 14mV +1us 14mV +500n 0mV 0.028666923153534373s 0mV +500n 45mV +1us 45mV +500n 0mV 0.0382225642047125s 0mV +500n 77mV +1us 77mV +500n 0mV 0.04777820525589062s 0mV +500n 84.5mV +1us 84.5mV +500n 0mV 0.057333846307068746s 0mV +500n 57mV +1us 57mV +500n 0mV 0.06688948735824687s 0mV +500n 45mV +1us 45mV +500n 0mV 0.076445128409425s 0mV +500n 40.5mV +1us 40.5mV +500n 0mV 0.08600076946060312s 0mV +500n 37mV +1us 37mV +500n 0mV 0.09555641051178124s 0mV +500n 33mV +1us 33mV +500n 0mV 0.10511205156295937s 0mV +500n 29.5mV +1us 29.5mV +500n 0mV 0.11466769261413749s 0mV +500n 24.5mV +1us 24.5mV +500n 0mV 0.12422333366531561s 0mV +500n 20.4mV +1us 20.4mV +500n 0mV 0.13377897471649375s 0mV +500n 15mV +1us 15mV +500n 0mV 0.14333461576767187s 0mV +500n 8.2mV +1us 8.2mV +500n 0mV 0.15289025681885s 0mV +500n 0mV +1us 0mV +500n 0mV 0.1624458978700281s 0mV +500n -8.2mV +1us -8.2mV +500n 0mV 0.17200153892120623s 0mV +500n -15mV +1us -15mV +500n 0mV 0.18155717997238435s 0mV +500n -20.4mV +1us -20.4mV +500n 0mV 0.19111282102356247s 0mV +500n -24.5mV +1us -24.5mV +500n 0mV 0.20066846207474062s 0mV +500n -29.5mV +1us -29.5mV +500n 0mV 0.21022410312591874s 0mV +500n -33mV +1us -33mV +500n 0mV 0.21977974417709686s 0mV +500n -37mV +1us -37mV +500n 0mV 0.22933538522827498s 0mV +500n -40.5mV +1us -40.5mV +500n 0mV 0.2388910262794531s 0mV +500n -45mV +1us -45mV +500n 0mV 0.24844666733063123s 0mV +500n -57mV +1us -57mV +500n 0mV 0.2580023083818094s 0mV +500n -84.5mV +1us -84.5mV +500n 0mV 0.2675579494329875s 0mV +500n -77mV +1us -77mV +500n 0mV 0.2771135904841656s 0mV +500n -45mV +1us -45mV +500n 0mV 0.28666923153534374s 0mV +500n -14mV +1us -14mV +500n 0mV 0.29622487258652186s 0mV +500n -4.5mV +1us -4.5mV +500n 0mV
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Am 11.07.2023 um 14:37 schrieb Christoph < kuku@...>:
Thanks to all.
I was trying to follow the given recipes. But what I didn’t like with the suggestion(s) thath the rise hold and fall times would all pile ?up and would end with a significant offset at the end of my 32 pulse. So I thought of using the absolute time points to match exactly and start a rise-hold-fall sequence relatively to the distinct points.
This would result in a line with all 0V amplitudes for the first value. I’m using the following syntax but it fails: 0.0 0mV +500n 0mV +1?s 0mV +500n 0mV 0.009555641051178124 0mV +500n 4.5mV +1?s 4.5mV +500n 0mV 0.01911128210235625 0mV +500n 14mV +1?s 14mV +500n 0mV 0.028666923153534373 0mV +500n 45mV +1?s 45mV +500n 0mV 0.0382225642047125 0mV +500n 77mV +1?s 77mV +500n 0mV 0.04777820525589062 0mV +500n 84.5mV +1?s 84.5mV +500n 0mV 0.057333846307068746 0mV +500n 57mV +1?s 57mV +500n 0mV 0.06688948735824687 0mV +500n 45mV +1?s 45mV +500n 0mV 0.076445128409425 0mV +500n 40.5mV +1?s 40.5mV +500n 0mV 0.08600076946060312 0mV +500n 37mV +1?s 37mV +500n 0mV 0.09555641051178124 0mV +500n 33mV +1?s 33mV +500n?0mV 0.10511205156295937 0mV +500n 29.5mV +1?s 29.5mV +500n 0mV 0.11466769261413749 0mV +500n 24.5mV +1?s 24.5mV +500n 0mV 0.12422333366531561 0mV +500n 20.4mV +1?s 20.4mV +500n 0mV 0.13377897471649375 0mV +500n 15mV +1?s 15mV +500n 0mV 0.14333461576767187 0mV +500n 8.2mV +1?s 8.2mV +500n 0mV 0.15289025681885 0mV +500n 0mV +1?s 0mV +500n 0mV 0.1624458978700281 0mV +500n -8.2mV +1?s -8.2mV +500n 0mV 0.17200153892120623 0mV +500n -15mV +1?s -15mV +500n 0mV 0.18155717997238435 0mV +500n -20.4mV +1?s -20.4mV +500n 0mV 0.19111282102356247 0mV +500n -24.5mV +1?s -24.5mV +500n 0mV 0.20066846207474062 0mV +500n -29.5mV +1?s -29.5mV +500n 0mV 0.21022410312591874 0mV +500n -33mV +1?s -33mV +500n 0mV 0.21977974417709686 0mV +500n -37mV +1?s -37mV +500n 0mV 0.22933538522827498 0mV +500n -40.5mV +1?s -40.5mV +500n 0mV 0.2388910262794531 0mV +500n -45mV +1?s -45mV +500n 0mV 0.24844666733063123 0mV +500n -57mV +1?s -57mV +500n 0mV 0.2580023083818094 0mV +500n -84.5mV +1?s -84.5mV +500n 0mV 0.2675579494329875 0mV +500n -77mV +1?s -77mV +500n 0mV 0.2771135904841656 0mV +500n -45mV +1?s -45mV +500n 0mV 0.28666923153534374 0mV +500n -14mV +1?s -14mV +500n 0mV 0.29622487258652186 0mV +500n -4.5mV +1?s -4.5mV +500n 0mV
PWL REPEAT FOREVER file=pulses_discrete.txt ENDREPEAT
The error is an alert box saying:
V4: requires a minimum of 5 parameters. Only 0 specified.
Does anyone see the error?
— Christoph
Am 09.07.2023 um 05:52 schrieb Bell, Dave <Dave.Bell@...>:
eewiz, I think Bonkers was mixing absolute timing with relative timing notation.
If you delete all of the + signs at the beginning of the lines, it makes pretty good sense, as?absolute times.
?
It took me a long time to get it through my head that relative time notation made the job a lot?easier!
Dave
?
From:?[email protected]?<[email protected]>?On Behalf Of?eewiz
Sent:?Saturday, July 08, 2023 6:34 PM
To:?[email protected]
Subject:?EXTERNAL: Re: [LTspice] Discrete data points in plot view
?
Hello Christoph,
?
Bonkers may be leading you down the primrose path.
If you follow Bonkers' advice the length of bit[1] will be twice the length of bit[0] and the length of?bit[2] will be three times the length of bit[0].
The slew rate will also progress to 2 times and then 3 times longer...
?
This is all you need to make a PWL file with relative timing.
0 ? ?0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? at 0 time its 0 volts.
+750n ? ?10 ? ? take 750ns to go from 0V to 10V with a linear slope.
+100u ? ?10 ? ? stay at 10V for 100us.
+1.5u ? ?-10 ? ? take 1.5us to go from 10V to -10V with a linear slope.
+58u ? ?-10 ? ? ?stay at -10V for 58us.
+1.5u ? ?10 ? ? ?take 1.5us to go from -10V to 10V with a linear slope.
+100u ? ?10 ? ? stay at 10V for 100us.
Rinse and Repeat...
?
If you would prefer to work with parameters instead of numbers, be my guest.
It took me just several minutes to copy and past what I needed in Excel to create a file that's?14,582 lines long.
As I made it, I made some changes to add some discontinuities on a periodic basis and then?paste, paste, paste some more.
My file runs for about 583ms.
If I had known of the REPEAT syntax at the time, I could have made use of it but, cut and paste is?easy, LTspice syntax is not.
?
Bonkers wrote:
Hi Christoph,?
Firstly, you can easily repeat cycles of your 32 points, even just using Notepad, if you?adopt the +xxx option for the timestamp (relative timing).?
Secondly, PWL means it is linearly interpolated between the defined points. ?If you?want "crisp" edges, then you need excel, or libreoffice calc, or whatever.?
Essentially you need 2 PWL values per point, to get nice square data.?
The time deltas are normally just 2 values - bit period, and slew time.?
so, to make a datastream, like "101" :?
time ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?value
0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0
+tslew ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? bit[0] say 5V
+tbit ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?same
+tbit+tslew ? ? ? ? ? ?bit[1] say 0V?
+2x tbit ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?same
+2x tbit +tslew ? ? ?bit[2] say 5V
+ 3x tbit ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? same
+ 3x tbit ?+tslew ? ? next bit
...
etcetera.?
really easy to do in a spreadsheet, then select the 2 columns, paste to notepad, save?as PWL.
All for now
|
Re: PWL sources (was but not related to: "Discrete data points in plot view")
? is character 181_10 (B5 in
hex) in extended ASCII. Does the parser accept any extended
ASCII characters?
======================================================================================
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 2023-07-11 15:30, Tony Casey wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Chris,
It's the the micro (?) characters. Wow, that was
subtle! Do a global replace to "u" and that will fix it. The pwl
syntax parser obviously cannot deal with unicode characters.
--
Regards,
Tony
On 11/07/2023 14:37, Christoph wrote:
I was trying to follow the given recipes. But what
I didn’t like with the suggestion(s) thath the rise hold and
fall times would all pile ?up and would end with a significant
offset at the end of my 32 pulse.
So I thought of using the absolute time points to match
exactly and start a rise-hold-fall sequence relatively to
the distinct points.
This would result in a line with all 0V amplitudes for
the first value. I’m using the following syntax but it
fails:
0.0 0mV +500n 0mV +1?s 0mV
+500n 0mV
0.009555641051178124 0mV
+500n 4.5mV +1?s 4.5mV +500n 0mV
0.01911128210235625 0mV
+500n 14mV +1?s 14mV +500n 0mV
0.028666923153534373 0mV
+500n 45mV +1?s 45mV +500n 0mV
0.0382225642047125 0mV
+500n 77mV +1?s 77mV +500n 0mV
0.04777820525589062 0mV
+500n 84.5mV +1?s 84.5mV +500n 0mV
0.057333846307068746 0mV
+500n 57mV +1?s 57mV +500n 0mV
0.06688948735824687 0mV
+500n 45mV +1?s 45mV +500n 0mV
0.076445128409425 0mV
+500n 40.5mV +1?s 40.5mV +500n 0mV
0.08600076946060312 0mV
+500n 37mV +1?s 37mV +500n 0mV
0.09555641051178124 0mV +500n 33mV
+1?s 33mV +500n?0mV
0.10511205156295937 0mV
+500n 29.5mV +1?s 29.5mV +500n 0mV
0.11466769261413749 0mV
+500n 24.5mV +1?s 24.5mV +500n 0mV
0.12422333366531561 0mV
+500n 20.4mV +1?s 20.4mV +500n 0mV
0.13377897471649375 0mV
+500n 15mV +1?s 15mV +500n 0mV
0.14333461576767187 0mV
+500n 8.2mV +1?s 8.2mV +500n 0mV
0.15289025681885 0mV +500n
0mV +1?s 0mV +500n 0mV
0.1624458978700281 0mV
+500n -8.2mV +1?s -8.2mV +500n 0mV
0.17200153892120623 0mV
+500n -15mV +1?s -15mV +500n 0mV
0.18155717997238435 0mV
+500n -20.4mV +1?s -20.4mV +500n 0mV
0.19111282102356247 0mV
+500n -24.5mV +1?s -24.5mV +500n 0mV
0.20066846207474062 0mV
+500n -29.5mV +1?s -29.5mV +500n 0mV
0.21022410312591874 0mV
+500n -33mV +1?s -33mV +500n 0mV
0.21977974417709686 0mV
+500n -37mV +1?s -37mV +500n 0mV
0.22933538522827498 0mV
+500n -40.5mV +1?s -40.5mV +500n 0mV
0.2388910262794531 0mV
+500n -45mV +1?s -45mV +500n 0mV
0.24844666733063123 0mV
+500n -57mV +1?s -57mV +500n 0mV
0.2580023083818094 0mV
+500n -84.5mV +1?s -84.5mV +500n 0mV
0.2675579494329875 0mV
+500n -77mV +1?s -77mV +500n 0mV
0.2771135904841656 0mV
+500n -45mV +1?s -45mV +500n 0mV
0.28666923153534374 0mV
+500n -14mV +1?s -14mV +500n 0mV
0.29622487258652186 0mV
+500n -4.5mV +1?s -4.5mV +500n 0mV
PWL REPEAT FOREVER
file=pulses_discrete.txt ENDREPEAT
The error is an alert box saying:
V4: requires a minimum of 5 parameters.
Only 0 specified.
Does anyone see the error?
|
Re: Warning: Multiple definitions of model ...
That points up the
(philosophical) flaw in the Principle. It has even been
suggested that a single electron can 'observe' and collapse
the wave function.? You can look at it another way. While the
box is shut, no-one can know its status; that information
simply isn't available. To elevate that lack of knowledge to a
paradox is over-egging the pudding indeed.
There are many cases where the
mathematics gives an answer that is not wrong but is not
valid. Consider a theoretical square wave, varying between -1
and 1 with instantaneous transitions. The maths says that in
the middle of the transition the value of the function is 0.
======================================================================================
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 2023-07-11 15:20, Christopher Paul
wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Necessarily by a human or could it be by
another cat?
?
?
...?that the cat
remains both alive and dead until the state has been
observed.
Tim
|
Re: PWL sources (was but not related to: "Discrete data points in plot view")
Chris,
It's the the micro ( ?) characters. Wow, that was subtle!
Do a global replace to "u" and that will fix it. The pwl syntax
parser obviously cannot deal with unicode characters.
--
Regards,
Tony
On 11/07/2023 14:37, Christoph wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I was trying to follow the given recipes. But what I
didn’t like with the suggestion(s) thath the rise hold and fall
times would all pile ?up and would end with a significant offset
at the end of my 32 pulse.
So I thought of using the absolute time points to match
exactly and start a rise-hold-fall sequence relatively to the
distinct points.
This would result in a line with all 0V amplitudes for the
first value. I’m using the following syntax but it fails:
0.0 0mV +500n 0mV +1?s 0mV
+500n 0mV
0.009555641051178124 0mV
+500n 4.5mV +1?s 4.5mV +500n 0mV
0.01911128210235625 0mV
+500n 14mV +1?s 14mV +500n 0mV
0.028666923153534373 0mV
+500n 45mV +1?s 45mV +500n 0mV
0.0382225642047125 0mV +500n
77mV +1?s 77mV +500n 0mV
0.04777820525589062 0mV
+500n 84.5mV +1?s 84.5mV +500n 0mV
0.057333846307068746 0mV
+500n 57mV +1?s 57mV +500n 0mV
0.06688948735824687 0mV
+500n 45mV +1?s 45mV +500n 0mV
0.076445128409425 0mV +500n
40.5mV +1?s 40.5mV +500n 0mV
0.08600076946060312 0mV
+500n 37mV +1?s 37mV +500n 0mV
0.09555641051178124 0mV +500n 33mV
+1?s 33mV +500n?0mV
0.10511205156295937 0mV
+500n 29.5mV +1?s 29.5mV +500n 0mV
0.11466769261413749 0mV
+500n 24.5mV +1?s 24.5mV +500n 0mV
0.12422333366531561 0mV
+500n 20.4mV +1?s 20.4mV +500n 0mV
0.13377897471649375 0mV
+500n 15mV +1?s 15mV +500n 0mV
0.14333461576767187 0mV
+500n 8.2mV +1?s 8.2mV +500n 0mV
0.15289025681885 0mV +500n
0mV +1?s 0mV +500n 0mV
0.1624458978700281 0mV +500n
-8.2mV +1?s -8.2mV +500n 0mV
0.17200153892120623 0mV
+500n -15mV +1?s -15mV +500n 0mV
0.18155717997238435 0mV
+500n -20.4mV +1?s -20.4mV +500n 0mV
0.19111282102356247 0mV
+500n -24.5mV +1?s -24.5mV +500n 0mV
0.20066846207474062 0mV
+500n -29.5mV +1?s -29.5mV +500n 0mV
0.21022410312591874 0mV
+500n -33mV +1?s -33mV +500n 0mV
0.21977974417709686 0mV
+500n -37mV +1?s -37mV +500n 0mV
0.22933538522827498 0mV
+500n -40.5mV +1?s -40.5mV +500n 0mV
0.2388910262794531 0mV +500n
-45mV +1?s -45mV +500n 0mV
0.24844666733063123 0mV
+500n -57mV +1?s -57mV +500n 0mV
0.2580023083818094 0mV +500n
-84.5mV +1?s -84.5mV +500n 0mV
0.2675579494329875 0mV +500n
-77mV +1?s -77mV +500n 0mV
0.2771135904841656 0mV +500n
-45mV +1?s -45mV +500n 0mV
0.28666923153534374 0mV
+500n -14mV +1?s -14mV +500n 0mV
0.29622487258652186 0mV
+500n -4.5mV +1?s -4.5mV +500n 0mV
PWL REPEAT FOREVER
file=pulses_discrete.txt ENDREPEAT
The error is an alert box saying:
V4: requires a minimum of 5 parameters. Only
0 specified.
Does anyone see the error?
|
|
|
Re: Warning: Multiple definitions of model ...
I read that the crystal model drifted off-spec; "how far
off-spec" was my first question -- then underlying that question
is, why did the parameters drift so far? Are we talking about
bit-rot? radiation? time? gravitational distortion of the local
space-time continuum? incipient Godzilla visitation? LTdune
running out of spice???
Inquiring minds need to know! ;-)
Donald.
On 2023-07-11 09:38, Andy I wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Dan wrote, "The problem I had was, that when I opened the model
again, it was off its specifications, and so was not stable for
use."
Are you saying that the model parameters didn't exist until you
opened it and observed them?
Or are you saying that the crystal model had drifted between the
times you used it?
:-)
Andy
|
Re: Warning: Multiple definitions of model ...
There are ways using social media to gain the attention of and action from recalcitrant companies. Anybody interested? Comments?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] < [email protected]> On Behalf Of Bernhard Weiskopf Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 4:35 PM To: [email protected]Subject: Re: [LTspice] Warning: Multiple definitions of model ... Some transistor models are very far from real behavior. Nobody checks that. What bothers me is that ADI violates the SPICE rule that model names must be unique. And nobody at ADI seems to care. Bernhard
|
Re: Warning: Multiple definitions of model ...
Maybe there *is* a route to a true rand() function!
?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] < [email protected]> On Behalf Of
Andy I
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 6:39 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [LTspice] Warning: Multiple definitions of model ...
?
Dan wrote, "The problem I had was, that when I opened the model again, it was off its specifications, and so was not stable for use."
Are you saying that the model parameters didn't exist until you opened it and observed them?
Or are you saying that the crystal model had drifted between the times you used it?
:-)
Andy
|
Re: Warning: Multiple definitions of model ...
Dan wrote, "The problem I had was, that when I opened the model again, it was off its specifications, and so was not stable for use."
Are you saying that the model parameters didn't exist until you opened it and observed them?
Or are you saying that the crystal model had drifted between the times you used it?
:-)
Andy
|
Re: PWL sources (was but not related to: "Discrete data points in plot view")
Christoph wrote that there was an error message "V4: requires a minimum of 5 parameters. Only 0 specified.", and asked, "Does anyone see the error?"
No, we can't see the error, because you did not show us V4.
The error was with voltage source V4, which is a PULSE voltage source.? It is not the PWL source.? Can you show us your V4?
[EDITED NOTE:? What I wrote above was incorrect, because I had seen that error message only with PULSE sources, until now.? This was the first time I saw that error message about a PWL source.? Apparently V4 was this PWL source.]
I am confused why this question is in your message topic about displaying waveforms in the plot window.? It is not related to that (and most of the people who replied to that question apparently did not bother to read your question because they are not about your question).
Andy
|
Re: PWL sources (was but not related to: "Discrete data points in plot view")
Ok, my post above is a bit confused - it's showing what the times would evaluate to - to carry the point that the t_slew errors should not accumulate, the 32th bit will be at a time defined as 32*t_bit.?
time? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? value
0? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?0
+tslew? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?bit[0] say 5V
+tbit? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? same
+tbit+tslew? ? ? ? ? ? bit[1] say 0V?
+2x tbit? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? same
+2x tbit +tslew? ? ? bit[2] say 5V
+ 3x tbit? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?same
+ 3x tbit? +tslew? ? ?next bit
It's not mixing absolute and relative - it simply starts with a zero, as per the example in figure 5 in Simon Bramble's tutorial here:
The t_slew errors should not accumulate, here is a corrected form, with relative timing:?
time? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? value
0? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?0
+tslew? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?bit[0] say 5V
+(tbit-tslew)? ? ? ? ? same
+tslew? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?bit[1] say 0V?
+(tbit-tslew)? ? ? ? ? same
+tslew? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?bit[2] say 5V
+(tbit-tslew)? ? ? ? ? same
+tslew? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?bit[3] say 0V
etcetera...?
The main point though, is that PWL files carry one signal only, as far as I'm aware.?
You need to define several if you want multiple voltage sources.?
|
Re: Warning: Multiple definitions of model ...
This reminds me of a time when I designed a crystal filter model, based upon a file I found on the net. I tweeked it's bandwidth.? The problem I had was, that when I opened the model again, it was off its specifications, and so was not stable for use.??
|
Re: Warning: Multiple definitions of model ...
I use these same models but I delete the Russian devices, so I do not have to search over them.
|
Re: PWL sources (was but not related to: "Discrete data points in plot view")
Thanks to all.
I was trying to follow the given recipes. But what I didn’t like with the suggestion(s) thath the rise hold and fall times would all pile ?up and would end with a significant offset at the end of my 32 pulse.
So I thought of using the absolute time points to match exactly and start a rise-hold-fall sequence relatively to the distinct points.
This would result in a line with all 0V amplitudes for the first value. I’m using the following syntax but it fails: 0.0 0mV +500n 0mV +1?s 0mV +500n 0mV 0.009555641051178124 0mV +500n 4.5mV +1?s 4.5mV +500n 0mV 0.01911128210235625 0mV +500n 14mV +1?s 14mV +500n 0mV 0.028666923153534373 0mV +500n 45mV +1?s 45mV +500n 0mV 0.0382225642047125 0mV +500n 77mV +1?s 77mV +500n 0mV 0.04777820525589062 0mV +500n 84.5mV +1?s 84.5mV +500n 0mV 0.057333846307068746 0mV +500n 57mV +1?s 57mV +500n 0mV 0.06688948735824687 0mV +500n 45mV +1?s 45mV +500n 0mV 0.076445128409425 0mV +500n 40.5mV +1?s 40.5mV +500n 0mV 0.08600076946060312 0mV +500n 37mV +1?s 37mV +500n 0mV 0.09555641051178124 0mV +500n 33mV +1?s 33mV +500n?0mV 0.10511205156295937 0mV +500n 29.5mV +1?s 29.5mV +500n 0mV 0.11466769261413749 0mV +500n 24.5mV +1?s 24.5mV +500n 0mV 0.12422333366531561 0mV +500n 20.4mV +1?s 20.4mV +500n 0mV 0.13377897471649375 0mV +500n 15mV +1?s 15mV +500n 0mV 0.14333461576767187 0mV +500n 8.2mV +1?s 8.2mV +500n 0mV 0.15289025681885 0mV +500n 0mV +1?s 0mV +500n 0mV 0.1624458978700281 0mV +500n -8.2mV +1?s -8.2mV +500n 0mV 0.17200153892120623 0mV +500n -15mV +1?s -15mV +500n 0mV 0.18155717997238435 0mV +500n -20.4mV +1?s -20.4mV +500n 0mV 0.19111282102356247 0mV +500n -24.5mV +1?s -24.5mV +500n 0mV 0.20066846207474062 0mV +500n -29.5mV +1?s -29.5mV +500n 0mV 0.21022410312591874 0mV +500n -33mV +1?s -33mV +500n 0mV 0.21977974417709686 0mV +500n -37mV +1?s -37mV +500n 0mV 0.22933538522827498 0mV +500n -40.5mV +1?s -40.5mV +500n 0mV 0.2388910262794531 0mV +500n -45mV +1?s -45mV +500n 0mV 0.24844666733063123 0mV +500n -57mV +1?s -57mV +500n 0mV 0.2580023083818094 0mV +500n -84.5mV +1?s -84.5mV +500n 0mV 0.2675579494329875 0mV +500n -77mV +1?s -77mV +500n 0mV 0.2771135904841656 0mV +500n -45mV +1?s -45mV +500n 0mV 0.28666923153534374 0mV +500n -14mV +1?s -14mV +500n 0mV 0.29622487258652186 0mV +500n -4.5mV +1?s -4.5mV +500n 0mV
PWL REPEAT FOREVER file=pulses_discrete.txt ENDREPEAT
The error is an alert box saying:
V4: requires a minimum of 5 parameters. Only 0 specified.
Does anyone see the error?
— Christoph
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Am 09.07.2023 um 05:52 schrieb Bell, Dave <Dave.Bell@...>:
eewiz, I think Bonkers was mixing absolute timing with relative timing notation.
If you delete all of the + signs at the beginning of the lines, it makes pretty good sense, as?absolute times.
?
It took me a long time to get it through my head that relative time notation made the job a lot?easier!
Dave
?
From:?[email protected]?<[email protected]>?On Behalf Of?eewiz
Sent:?Saturday, July 08, 2023 6:34 PM
To:[email protected]
Subject:?EXTERNAL: Re: [LTspice] Discrete data points in plot view
?
Hello Christoph,
?
Bonkers may be leading you down the primrose path.
If you follow Bonkers' advice the length of bit[1] will be twice the length of bit[0] and the length of?bit[2] will be three times the length of bit[0].
The slew rate will also progress to 2 times and then 3 times longer...
?
This is all you need to make a PWL file with relative timing.
0 ? ?0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? at 0 time its 0 volts.
+750n ? ?10 ? ? take 750ns to go from 0V to 10V with a linear slope.
+100u ? ?10 ? ? stay at 10V for 100us.
+1.5u ? ?-10 ? ? take 1.5us to go from 10V to -10V with a linear slope.
+58u ? ?-10 ? ? ?stay at -10V for 58us.
+1.5u ? ?10 ? ? ?take 1.5us to go from -10V to 10V with a linear slope.
+100u ? ?10 ? ? stay at 10V for 100us.
Rinse and Repeat...
?
If you would prefer to work with parameters instead of numbers, be my guest.
It took me just several minutes to copy and past what I needed in Excel to create a file that's?14,582 lines long.
As I made it, I made some changes to add some discontinuities on a periodic basis and then?paste, paste, paste some more.
My file runs for about 583ms.
If I had known of the REPEAT syntax at the time, I could have made use of it but, cut and paste is?easy, LTspice syntax is not.
?
Bonkers wrote:
Hi Christoph,?
Firstly, you can easily repeat cycles of your 32 points, even just using Notepad, if you?adopt the +xxx option for the timestamp (relative timing).?
Secondly, PWL means it is linearly interpolated between the defined points. ?If you?want "crisp" edges, then you need excel, or libreoffice calc, or whatever.?
Essentially you need 2 PWL values per point, to get nice square data.?
The time deltas are normally just 2 values - bit period, and slew time.?
so, to make a datastream, like "101" :?
time ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?value
0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0
+tslew ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? bit[0] say 5V
+tbit ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?same
+tbit+tslew ? ? ? ? ? ?bit[1] say 0V?
+2x tbit ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?same
+2x tbit +tslew ? ? ?bit[2] say 5V
+ 3x tbit ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? same
+ 3x tbit ?+tslew ? ? next bit
...
etcetera.?
really easy to do in a spreadsheet, then select the 2 columns, paste to notepad, save?as PWL.
All for now
|
Re: Warning: Multiple definitions of model ...
John said, "...about the Uncertainty Principle,... I am not sure..."? LOL.
Tim
|
I’m running LTspiceXVII under macOS in a WineCX container. I find that entering {} | symbols which are reached by ALT-8, ALT-9 ALT-7 (german keyboard) is not possible. I can copy/paste the symbols from a terminal window when I type them in there.
—
Christoph
|
Re: Warning: Multiple definitions of model ...
Yes, well, I have my own ideas
about the Uncertainty Principle, but I am not sure whether
they are right. Of course, you don't know if the cat is dead
until you look, but that doesn't mean it wasn't dead before
you looked. For 'cat' read 'electron' and for 'dead' read
'present'.
======================================================================================
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 2023-07-11 00:50, Tim Hutcheson via
groups.io wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
...?that the cat remains both alive and
dead until the state has been observed.
Tim
|
Re: Warning: Multiple definitions of model ...
...?that the cat remains both alive and dead until the state has been observed.
Tim
|
Re: Warning: Multiple definitions of model ...
Hahaha!? I'd say that depends on which side of the argument you were on.? I think it may also date from before that in slightly different form as "care killed the cat".? Shakespeare is supposed to have used a version of it.? I will bow to your emphatic statement on what improvement the second line makes, (or doesn't). It always used to irritate the dickens out of me when my mother threw it at me as a youngster!
|
Tony Casey
Christoph
John Woodgate
Bell, Dave
Bonkers
Dan
Tim Hutcheson