Re: Issue with Nexperia BUK7S1R0-40H PET LTspice model
This is a minor oversight (aka bug) in LTspice. It can't decrypt the file. You can clearly see this from the error messages in the log. Will be fixed in 24.1.6.
Meanwhile you can work around it: open the library in a text editor and remove the last end-of-line. Then it'll work.
?
Best Regards,
Mathias
?
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 04:35 PM, eetech00 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.
|
Re: Schematic drawing issues
Good point. Pixel pitch, I guess is the more proper term.
?
--
Michael Stokowski
LTspice Team
Analog Devices Inc.
|
Re: Brady Ridgway's Fuzz_Face (guitar "fuzz" circuit) simulations
One more thing to mention here:
?
Because LTspice finds the lack of a load (DC path) connected to node Vout, it "corrects" the omission by adding a small conductance (large resistance) there.? It has to do that because it can't solve for the circuit's voltages without it.? Every node must have a DC path to ground.
?
With GMIN connected there, there is a little current through the output coupling capacitor, rather than zero as it would be in theory.
?
Andy
?
|
Re: Schematic drawing issues
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 12:00 PM, eetech00 wrote:
I'm sometimes use a 4K 65" sony TV as monitor.
Most modern TVs use algorithms designed to smooth imperfections in the video source material.? They help reduce the appearance of "grain" and similar noise.? Such a smoothing algorithm might completely erase 1-pixel dots.
?
I'm also assuming that you have a 1:1 correspondence between your computer's video resolution, and the TV's display.? If they don't match, it has to interpolate between adjacent pixels, which might also alter their appearance.
?
Andy
?
?
|
Re: Brady Ridgway's Fuzz_Face (guitar "fuzz" circuit) simulations
Brady,
?
Here's a better explanation for the difference you saw.
?
Plot the voltage at the top of R1, which is the supply voltage for the fuzz circuit.
?
In the "original" circuit, it stays steady at -9.000 V.? It was at -9 V already at the very start of the simulation, because V1 is a pure DC source.
?
In the "+G" circuit, the same voltage point starts at 0 V, and then ramps towards -8.5 V over the first 7 ms or so.? This has a profound effect on the voltage on the right of R2, which connects to the output coupling capacitor.
?
In the original circuit, the voltage V(N001) starts at -8.51 and pulses to -9.0 V occasionally.
?
In the modified circuit, the same voltage (now V(N002)) starts at 0 and sweeps towards -8 V as the regulator powers up.? That ramp couples through the capacitor to Vout.? That is the reason for the difference you saw.
?
If you run the simulation using ".tran 0 50m 10m", the displayed difference appears to be much smaller because the ramping portion in the first 10 ms is ignored.? However, a large DC offset remains.? That's because of the lack of any load connected to Vout.
?
Andy
?
|
Re: Issues running LTspice as a batch service
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 11:11 AM, Jeff Kayzerman wrote:
Ok I tried it with a normal windows process leveraging the cli (not spicelib) and it works. So the entire problem was passing a .asc instead of a .net file.
?
?
Can you share the command parameters that you used?
|
Re: Issues running LTspice as a batch service
Ok I tried it with a normal windows process leveraging the cli (not spicelib) and it works. So the entire problem was passing a .asc instead of a .net file.
|
Re: Brady Ridgway's Fuzz_Face (guitar "fuzz" circuit) simulations
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 01:56 PM, John Woodgate wrote:
I can't find the standard.bjt upload.
It's inside the .ZIP file.
?
Anyway, you don't need it.? Just copy-and-paste one of the two AC128 .MODEL statements in my previous message.
?
Brady had uploaded two schematics and his standard.bjt as three separate files.? I moved all three into one .ZIP file.? He should have done that, but I took care of it for him.? I did not think it was a good idea to leave the file "standard.bjt" out there in the open, so it is in the .ZIP file now.
?
Note to everyone:? DO NOT move Brady's standard.bjt file to LTspice's component library folder, which would replace LTspice's own standard.bjt.? That would mess up your LTspice installation.
?
?
|
Re: Schematic drawing issues
Well, no, I meant 'somehow', because I am not
sure that it's possible to actually alter pixel size.
On 2025-03-11 17:49, mstokowski via
groups.io wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 09:28 AM, John Woodgate wrote:
Yes, I brought it up, and ADI have agreed that it
needs to be fixed. I guess pixels are somehow smaller now than
when Mike E wrote the code for the dots.
I think you forgot the :^).? ¡somewhat smaller.
?
I do like the crosses idea.
?
mike
--
Michael Stokowski
LTspice Team
Analog Devices Inc.
--
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: Brady Ridgway's Fuzz_Face (guitar "fuzz" circuit) simulations
I can't find the standard.bjt upload.
On 2025-03-11 17:41, Andy I via
groups.io wrote:
Brady? Ridgway uploaded some files to the Temp folder, which
are now inside "Fuzz_Face_+G.zip".
?
But Brady forgot to send a message here.? Brady, please READ
the group's guidelines on its main webpage.? After
uploading something, it is crucial that you compose and send an
actual message here to this group, telling us what you did.? You
forgot to do that. ?
Everyone else, here is the file Description that Brady used
with his uploaded files:
?
I am a beginner. I have uploaded two circuits, both of the classic Fuzz Face, which differ mainly in the power supply. Apart from the LT1054 and its components, the circuits are, I believe, identical. Graphing the voltage in most of the circuit produces very similar results, with the losses in the LT1054 being the cause. However, the current through the final capacitor C1/C3 (unfortunately I haven't indexed the circuits the same way) is completely different, as is the voltage at 'Vout'. Would someone please explain what I am missing?
?
Some of us here will remember the Fuzz Face.? It is a guitar
"fuzz" circuit.? If I remember correctly, it simulates poorly in
LTspice, suggesting that the circuit works differently than
SPICE simulations suggest.
?
Andy
?
--
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
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 09:28 AM, John Woodgate wrote:
Yes, I brought it up, and ADI have agreed that it needs to be fixed. I guess pixels are somehow smaller now than when Mike E wrote the code for the dots.
I think you forgot the :^).? ¡somewhat smaller.
?
I do like the crosses idea.
?
mike
--
Michael Stokowski
LTspice Team
Analog Devices Inc.
|
Re: Brady Ridgway's Fuzz_Face (guitar "fuzz" circuit) simulations
Brady wrote, "However, the current through the final capacitor C1/C3 (unfortunately I haven't indexed the circuits the same way) is completely different, as is the voltage at 'Vout'. Would someone please explain what I am missing?"
?
By observation:
?
What you are missing is a load on Vout.? Without any resistor from there to ground, the DC voltage at that node is indeterminate (unknown).
?
Also, there would be zero current through that capacitor.
?
I haven't run your simulation yet.? It is a really bad idea to modify your "standard.bjt" file by adding new models to it.? In this case, the only transistor is the AC128, and it would have been far better to just include the .MODEL statement for that transistor, either on the schematic itself, or in a separate file.
?
Your "standard.bjt" file has two AC128 models in it.? That is yet another problem.
? ? .MODEL AC128 PNP(IS=20.66u BF=229.6 BR=14.66 NF=1.133 NR=1.140 VT=25.5m VAF=19.68?
? ? + ? VAR=88.28 IKF=463.0m IKR=241.5m ISE=2.190u ISC=7.546u NE=1.796 NC=1.364 RB=1.885?
? ? + ? RE=306.4m RC=1.727u CCB=100p)
?
.MODEL AC128 PNP(IS=5u ISC=1u ISE=200n IKF=3 ITF=1
+ ? NC=2 NE=1.5 BF=90 BR=5 RB=7 RC=0.2 RE=0.1 vaf=40 var=40 CJC=250p CJE=80p TR=5u TF=1u
+ ? FC=0.5 eg=0.72 VJC=0.4 VJE=0.4 VTF=4 MJC=0.333 MJE=0.333 XTB=1.5 XTF=6 XTI=3 Vceo=16
+ ? Icrating=1 MFG=GERMANIUM-TYPE)
?
Which model did you want your simulation to use?? It can't use both.? Choose one and delete the other.
?
Andy
?
?
|
Brady Ridgway's Fuzz_Face (guitar "fuzz" circuit) simulations
Brady Ridgway uploaded some files to the Temp folder, which are now inside "Fuzz_Face_+G.zip".
?
But Brady forgot to send a message here.? Brady, please READ the group's guidelines on its main webpage.? After uploading something, it is crucial that you compose and send an actual message here to this group, telling us what you did.? You forgot to do that. ?
Everyone else, here is the file Description that Brady used with his uploaded files:
?
I am a beginner. I have uploaded two circuits, both of the classic Fuzz Face, which differ mainly in the power supply. Apart from the LT1054 and its components, the circuits are, I believe, identical. Graphing the voltage in most of the circuit produces very similar results, with the losses in the LT1054 being the cause. However, the current through the final capacitor C1/C3 (unfortunately I haven't indexed the circuits the same way) is completely different, as is the voltage at 'Vout'. Would someone please explain what I am missing?
?
Some of us here will remember the Fuzz Face.? It is a guitar "fuzz" circuit.? If I remember correctly, it simulates poorly in LTspice, suggesting that the circuit works differently than SPICE simulations suggest.
?
Andy
?
|
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.
Ah, yes. I was playing with it at quite a high magnification, where the anchors/handles are fat circles, easy to grab. Don't have to zoom very far to make it impossible to point-to-grab a handle. Ideally, the handle size would not be magnification dependent, albeit relative location is. This latter conditions is a common problem in drawing applications: can't distinguish one handle from another because locations are too close re pixels, but accepted as a necessary evil by users. This, in contrast to the LTspice problem, which you've discovered: the handle unavailable because it has shrunk, not very friendly.
?
--
Michael Stokowski
LTspice Team
Analog Devices Inc.
--
Michael Stokowski
LTspice Team
Analog Devices Inc.
|
Re: Schematic drawing issues
Afraid it is automated. The script that changes the version label runs some time later in a batch process, after the file is uploaded. Lags by a day or so. You can also use Check for Updates in LTspice, to see what download is actually available.
?
--
Michael Stokowski
LTspice Team
Analog Devices Inc.
|
Re: Schematic drawing issues
Yup, version 24.1.5 is the one that's there, identified as 24.1.4.
?
I already let Analog Devices know that they have to update their webpage to show what you are actually downloading.
?
Andy
?
|
Re: Schematic drawing issues
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 09:24 AM, Andy I wrote:
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.
?
?
?
Ok...well I just updated to 24.1.5
?
Here's a snippet from the log:
?
3/09/25 LTspice 24.1.5
? ? ? ?* Bug fixes
? ? ? ?* Node names can be expressions again, this time officially documented and supported
2/18/25 LTspice 24.1.4
? ? ? ?* Bug fixes and minor improvements
2/14/25 LTspice 24.1.3
? ? ? ?* Re-enabled expanded netlist functionality
? ? ? ?* Bug fixes
2/1/25 LTspice 24.1.2
? ? ? ?* Re-enabled caret operator
? ? ? ?* Duplicate .model cards are accepted if they are identical
? ? ? ?* Duplicate .func, .param, and .subckt are accepted if they come from the same location in the same file
? ? ? ?* Other bugs fixed
..........
|
Re: Issue with Nexperia BUK7S1R0-40H PET LTspice model
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 09:34 AM, Tony Casey wrote:
On 11/03/2025 17:23, Tony Casey wrote:
But I was running 24.0.15.
Duh! I meant 24.0.12. Too many version numbers for my brain to handle.
--
Regards,
Tony
?
?
lol...I know what you mean :-)
?
Confirmed no errors in 24.0.12.
?
|
Re: Schematic drawing issues
Also, there doesn¡¯t appear to have been a
24.0.15; the last one listed is 24.0.12. I can run the uploaded
.ASC with 24.0.11.
On 2025-03-11 16:24, Andy I via
groups.io wrote:
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.
?
?
--
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
On 11/03/2025 17:23, Tony Casey wrote:
But I
was running 24.0.15.
Duh! I meant 24.0.12. Too many version numbers for my brain to
handle.
--
Regards,
Tony
|
John Woodgate
Tony Casey