Re: Schematic drawing issues
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 12:16 PM, eetech00 wrote:
By the way, I'm referring to the operation in LTspice 24.1.5
Analog Devices claims the current version is 24.1.4.? They have not updated their LTspice downloads page yet.
?
?
|
Re: Issue with Nexperia BUK7S1R0-40H PET LTspice model
On 11/03/2025 16:35, eetech00 via
groups.io wrote:
There is a special
model "BUK7xxxx-40H_LTspice.zip" that needs to be downloaded and
used for the simulation in Fig. 13. There is a link in the app
note that initiates a download. However, when the included
simulation file is run, many errors are produced. Unfortunately,
the library file is encrypted, so I'm unable to troubleshoot. So
requires NXP support.
I don't get any errors running the schematic that the OP uploaded.
But I was running 24.0.15. When I try 24.1.4, then the errors occur.
Umm......
However, I still don't get agreement between the Appnote and model.
I notice that the readable text in the library isn't the same as in
the Appnote, at least in the model list, so the library must be a
different version.
Looks like 24.1.4 is having trouble with the encrypted library,
whereas 24.0.15 doesn't. The 24.1.4 Logfile has 4005 errors and
11151 lines in it, and is 868kB!
It's clear that too many things in 24.1.x are broken for it to be
used yet for mainstream.
--
Regards,
Tony
|
Re: Schematic drawing issues
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 09:11 AM, eetech00 wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 08:46 AM, Dennis wrote:
Yes, a click on a rectangles corner anchor does allow stretching directly, but the click target is so very small that often the user clicks on one of the sides instead and then the operation becomes a move rather than a stretch, or the click isn't recognized at all.
?
Clicking on a side of the rectangle displays two anchor circles on opposite corners of the rectangle. It seems to me that any click inside the radius of those circles should act like a click on the corner of the rectangle and begin the stretch operation.?
?
As it is now, it is too finicky to be reliable so users have started to use the lasso operation to select the corner instead of a click. Hence all the reports saying this is required.
?
That might be the problem.
A drag operation shouldn't turn into a move operation.
If a drag operation has been selected, a click anywhere on the edge of a rectangle should drag the edge of the rectangle and its intersecting edges..
If a drag operation has been selected, a lasso should be required to drag intersecting edges of a rectangle.
?
Just my opinion.
?
?
By the way, I'm referring to the operation in LTspice 24.1.5
?
|
Re: Schematic drawing issues
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 08:46 AM, Dennis wrote:
Yes, a click on a rectangles corner anchor does allow stretching directly, but the click target is so very small that often the user clicks on one of the sides instead and then the operation becomes a move rather than a stretch, or the click isn't recognized at all.
?
Clicking on a side of the rectangle displays two anchor circles on opposite corners of the rectangle. It seems to me that any click inside the radius of those circles should act like a click on the corner of the rectangle and begin the stretch operation.?
?
As it is now, it is too finicky to be reliable so users have started to use the lasso operation to select the corner instead of a click. Hence all the reports saying this is required.
?
That might be the problem.
A drag operation shouldn't turn into a move operation.
If a drag operation has been selected, a click anywhere on the edge of a rectangle should drag the edge of the rectangle and its intersecting edges..
If a drag operation has been selected, a lasso should be required to drag intersecting edges of a rectangle.
?
Just my opinion.
?
|
Re: Schematic drawing issues
I don't know if this was brought up...but I still can't see a schematic grid.
I haven't been able to view the grid for many versions of LTspice.
I use a light grey background but it doesn't seem to matter.
Basically, the grid switch and color does nothing.
?
I'm sometimes use a 4K 65" sony TV as monitor.
|
Re: Schematic drawing issues
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 01:36 PM, mstokowski wrote:
Considered and done! Actually, no change needed, you can already do this by clicking an anchor, or node, or component—no lasso required.
?
Yes, a click on a rectangles corner anchor does allow stretching directly, but the click target is so very small that often the user clicks on one of the sides instead and then the operation becomes a move rather than a stretch, or the click isn't recognized at all.
?
Clicking on a side of the rectangle displays two anchor circles on opposite corners of the rectangle. It seems to me that any click inside the radius of those circles should act like a click on the corner of the rectangle and begin the stretch operation.?
?
As it is now, it is too finicky to be reliable so users have started to use the lasso operation to select the corner instead of a click. Hence all the reports saying this is required.
|
Re: Issue with Nexperia BUK7S1R0-40H PET LTspice model
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 05:23 AM, MaticH wrote:
I am having issue with simulating experia BUK7S1R0-40H PET LTspice model characteristics when simulating mosfet with exact same setup as it is in application note i get quite different results for example output characteristic or transfer characterisitc. Anyone know what could be the problem here ??
?
?
Hi
?
There is a special model "BUK7xxxx-40H_LTspice.zip" that needs to be downloaded and used for the simulation in Fig. 13. There is a link in the app note that initiates a download. However, when the included simulation file is run, many errors are produced. Unfortunately, the library file is encrypted, so I'm unable to troubleshoot. So requires NXP support.
|
Re: Issue with Nexperia BUK7S1R0-40H PET LTspice model
I will try to ask manufacturer, thank you for help :)?
|
Re: Issue with Nexperia BUK7S1R0-40H PET LTspice model
It's quite possible that the data sheet Figure
13 isn't based on the Spice model, but on measurements of actual
devices? of superior, rather than average, performance. There is
no way we can tell. You could refer your question to the
manufacturer.
On 2025-03-11 13:41, matichvala6 via
groups.io wrote:
I uploadet screenshots of my simulation and appnote Figure
/g/LTspice/files/Temp/BUK7S1R0-40H%20simulation.zip.
Yes i am looking at figure 13, the thing that bothers me are the
final values of drain current, should't it be the same for same
simulation setup as in app note ? For instance @Vgs = 4.5V my
simulation shows Id around 75A, while in datasheet @Vgs = 4.5V
is around 130A.? Maybe i am missing something, i am quite new to LTspice.?
--
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
|
Re: Issue with Nexperia BUK7S1R0-40H PET LTspice model
I uploadet screenshots of my simulation and appnote Figure /g/LTspice/files/Temp/BUK7S1R0-40H%20simulation.zip. Yes i am looking at figure 13, the thing that bothers me are the final values of drain current, should't it be the same for same simulation setup as in app note ? For instance @Vgs = 4.5V my simulation shows Id around 75A, while in datasheet @Vgs = 4.5V is around 130A.?
Maybe i am missing something, i am quite new to LTspice.?
|
Re: Issue with Nexperia BUK7S1R0-40H PET LTspice model
Thanks, but you should not have uploaded .RAW? and .LOG file. Now, I suppose you are
looking at Figure 13 in the data sheet. If not, what are you
looking at. I see the current in the voltage source Vs matches
Figure 13 quite well, but shows as negative values. Please
explain clearly what difference do you see between your
simulation and the corresponding example in the application
note.
On 2025-03-11 13:01, matichvala6 via
groups.io wrote:
--
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
|
Re: Issue with Nexperia BUK7S1R0-40H PET LTspice model
|
Re: Issue with Nexperia BUK7S1R0-40H PET LTspice model
Also, which Application Note do you mean? The
Nexperia web site lists several.
On 2025-03-11 12:29, John Woodgate
wrote:
We can't help much unless you let us see
more of what you are doing. Upload your .ASC file AND all the
other files required to run the simulation, but not .RAW? and
.LOG files or pictures,? in a ZIP archive to Files => Temp.
Go to the web page: /g/LTspice/topics.
Click on Files in the list on the left. Then click on Temp.
Then click on New Upload in the blue box at top left. Click on
Upload File in the drop-down menu. Then send a message to tell
us that you did that.
On 2025-03-11 12:10, matichvala6 via
groups.io wrote:
I am having issue with simulating
experia BUK7S1R0-40H PET LTspice model characteristics
when simulating mosfet with exact same setup as it is in
application note i get quite different results for example
output characteristic or transfer characterisitc. Anyone know
what could be the problem here ??
?
--
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
--
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
|
Re: Issue with Nexperia BUK7S1R0-40H PET LTspice model
We can't help much unless you let us see more
of what you are doing. Upload your .ASC file AND all the other
files required to run the simulation, but not .RAW? and .LOG
files or pictures,? in a ZIP archive to Files => Temp.
Go to the web page: /g/LTspice/topics. Click on
Files in the list on the left. Then click on Temp. Then click on
New Upload in the blue box at top left. Click on Upload File in
the drop-down menu. Then send a message to tell us that you did
that.
On 2025-03-11 12:10, matichvala6 via
groups.io wrote:
I am having issue with simulating
experia BUK7S1R0-40H PET LTspice model characteristics
when simulating mosfet with exact same setup as it is in
application note i get quite different results for example
output characteristic or transfer characterisitc. Anyone know
what could be the problem here ??
?
--
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
|
Issue with Nexperia BUK7S1R0-40H PET LTspice model
I am having issue with simulating experia BUK7S1R0-40H PET LTspice model characteristics when simulating mosfet with exact same setup as it is in application note i get quite different results for example output characteristic or transfer characterisitc. Anyone know what could be the problem here ??
?
|
Re: Schematic drawing issues
That's a good clarification. Thanks. Andy.
On 2025-03-10 20:55, Andy I via
groups.io wrote:
A few days ago, John Woodgate wrote:
2. Drawing a wire with
CTRL held down doesn't allow the wire to start and end
off-grid. It's the same if I draw lines instead of wires.
I can't find a 'Snap to grid' check box to untick.
After some thought, I think that you never could use the CTRL
key, nor anything else, to make a wire not snap-to-grid.? I
think wires and components can only snap-to-grid.
?
Reading the Help instructions:
The graphical
annotations to the schematic; lines, rectangles,
circles, and arcs; snap by default to the same grid as
the used for electrical contacts of wires and pins. Hold
down the control key while positioning these to defeat
this snap.
This is the only place I
found where it talks about not snapping-to-grid, and note
that it applies ONLY to lines, rectangles,
circles, and arcs.? It does not apply to Wires.
?Note the distinction between Wires
and Lines.? Lines
(right-click < Draw > Line) are non-functional,
whereas Wires (F3, or the "Wire" toolbar button) make electrical connections. ?I think the conclusion is that holding
down CTRL never worked for drawing wires off-grid.? For
wires, CTRL only toggles whether they can be drawn at an
angle.
?
It makes sense to me that Wires could never be made off-grid,
because it could be challenging to connect anything to the
off-grid end of a wire.? The schematic editor uses integers for
location, and grid points are every 16 integer values - which
means there are 15 chances to get it wrong and miss the end of a
wire that is not on-grid.
?
You can hand-edit your .asc schematic file and move a wire's
starting or ending points, making them off-grid.? It works.?
Once in the schematic file, LTspice accepts it and leaves it
off-grid when saved again.
?
--
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
|
Re: Schematic drawing issues
A few days ago, John Woodgate wrote:
2. Drawing a wire with CTRL held down doesn't allow the wire to start and end off-grid. It's the same if I draw lines instead of wires. I can't find a 'Snap to grid' check box to untick.
After some thought, I think that you never could use the CTRL key, nor anything else, to make a wire not snap-to-grid.? I think wires and components can only snap-to-grid.
?
Reading the Help instructions:
The graphical annotations to the schematic; lines, rectangles, circles, and arcs; snap by default to the same grid as the used for electrical contacts of wires and pins. Hold down the control key while positioning these to defeat this snap.
This is the only place I found where it talks about not snapping-to-grid, and note that it applies ONLY to lines, rectangles, circles, and arcs.? It does not apply to Wires. ?Note the distinction between Wires and Lines.? Lines (right-click < Draw > Line) are non-functional, whereas Wires (F3, or the "Wire" toolbar button) make electrical connections. ?I think the conclusion is that holding down CTRL never worked for drawing wires off-grid.? For wires, CTRL only toggles whether they can be drawn at an angle.
?
It makes sense to me that Wires could never be made off-grid, because it could be challenging to connect anything to the off-grid end of a wire.? The schematic editor uses integers for location, and grid points are every 16 integer values - which means there are 15 chances to get it wrong and miss the end of a wire that is not on-grid.
?
You can hand-edit your .asc schematic file and move a wire's starting or ending points, making them off-grid.? It works.? Once in the schematic file, LTspice accepts it and leaves it off-grid when saved again.
?
|
Re: Schematic drawing issues
I am sorry.? In my waveform colour scheme, I used the resistor colour codes, but offset by 1.? Thus "Trace V(1)" was Black, "Trace V(2)" Brown, etc.? I had become completely accustomed to Black being the first waveform, the same way that it was the first resistor colour, even though 0 ≠ 1.? I didn't mind that the numbers were offset, as much as just having them in sequence.? Maybe I should reconsider that.
?
More important than that - to me, anyway - is getting enough contrast to be visible.
?
Andy
?
|
Re: Schematic drawing issues
Yes, that's why I wrote 'near'. For colouring
traces, there is no use for '0', so it comes in useful for '10',
and the other two colours are fairly easy to generate in the
Settings.
On 2025-03-10 20:25, Donald H Locker
via groups.io wrote:
IIRC, Black represents 0 on resistors. (Colour blind, but not
_that_ colour blind!)
My favourite R was Brn-Blk-Orn
Donald.
On 3/10/25 15:17, Andy I via
groups.io wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 03:01 PM, John Woodgate wrote:
I'd like the default
colours to nearly follow the resistor colour code, ...
That is essentially what I used too.? But I diverged
somewhat from the resistor colour code sequence to make them
more visible.??It is interesting that you use a light grey
background for better contrast.? I should try that.? Thanks
for the tip.
?
but with black as 10,
pink as 11 and cyan as 12, so I've set it up that way.
Does this mean you re-use black?? Or are they different shades
for 1 and 10?
?
?
--
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
|
Re: Schematic drawing issues
IIRC, Black represents 0 on resistors. (Colour blind, but not
_that_ colour blind!)
My favourite R was Brn-Blk-Orn
Donald.
On 3/10/25 15:17, Andy I via groups.io
wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 03:01 PM, John Woodgate wrote:
I'd like the default
colours to nearly follow the resistor colour code, ...
That is essentially what I used too.? But I diverged somewhat
from the resistor colour code sequence to make them more
visible.??It is interesting that you use a light grey background
for better contrast.? I should try that.? Thanks for the tip.
?
but with black as 10,
pink as 11 and cyan as 12, so I've set it up that way.
Does this mean you re-use black?? Or are they different shades
for 1 and 10?
?
?
|
Tony Casey
John Woodgate