开云体育

Well, I usually find that I have to add or delete parts during development, so on the 'working' schematic, R1 is followed by R16 and C1 is followed by C4, but C2 and C3 do not exist, for example. I try to do the reannotation before replacing placeholders in the text by component designations.

On 19/03/2025 19:13, John Woodgate wrote:

I use reannotate when 'polishing' schematics for technical articles or documentation of simple specialist test equipment.

Why? I would think that would be last thing you would want to do, especially if you refer in the text to specific designators in the circuit description. One careless "renumber all", and you'll have re-edit the text, and you're bound to miss something. Well, I probably would...

--
Regards,
Tony

开云体育

I use reannotate when 'polishing' schematics for technical articles or documentation of simple specialist test equipment.

Why? I would think that would be last thing you would want to do, especially if you refer in the text to specific designators in the circuit description. One careless "renumber all", and you'll have re-edit the text, and you're bound to miss something. Well, I probably would...

--
Regards,
Tony

开云体育

I use reannotate when 'polishing' schematics for technical articles or documentation of simple specialist test equipment.

On 19/03/2025 18:10, mstokowski via groups.io wrote:

On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 02:03 AM, Tony Casey wrote:

That's a bit too much freedom. LTspice will not warn you of duplicate designators until you run an analysis, which will obviously fail. If you leave it entirely to LTspice you will never get duplicates.

I guess this is the reason fo the “Reannotate”, shift+ctrl+alt+R, last gasp measure. I think that might be currently the only “useful” application of this feature: just erase my numbering scheme altogether because I don't trust it. Pretty stopgap. All those carefully considered Cin, Cout, Rtop, etc. designators will go away.

?

Open to renumber suggestions/options. Would it be useful to have a renumber option that would go left-to-right, top-to-bottom, for instance? The current “Reannotate” function simply renumbers by chronological placement. Maybe one that would do that, while ignoring alpha names, and warn of duplicates?

Personally, I don't have much use for a "renumber all" feature, although others might, as I don't use LTspice as part of a PCB design flow - I don't suppose many do, even though Mike E originally endowed LTspice with an "olde worlde" PCB industry-standard netlist export capability. I would back the idea that it only applied to all-numeric designators, since anything else implies it has been changed manually. Warning of duplicates would only be useful for non-numerics, since the others would be renumbered anyway.

If you're looking for new features to add, why not try a message inviting suggestions? Previous similar things have tended to produce all kinds of suggestions: some good, others... imaginative.

I suspect you're not that desperate yet. ?

--
Regards,
Tony

开云体育

On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 02:03 AM, Tony Casey wrote:

That's a bit too much freedom. LTspice will not warn you of duplicate designators until you run an analysis, which will obviously fail. If you leave it entirely to LTspice you will never get duplicates.

I guess this is the reason fo the “Reannotate”, shift+ctrl+alt+R, last gasp measure. I think that might be currently the only “useful” application of this feature: just erase my numbering scheme altogether because I don't trust it. Pretty stopgap. All those carefully considered Cin, Cout, Rtop, etc. designators will go away.

?

Open to renumber suggestions/options. Would it be useful to have a renumber option that would go left-to-right, top-to-bottom, for instance? The current “Reannotate” function simply renumbers by chronological placement. Maybe one that would do that, while ignoring alpha names, and warn of duplicates?

Personally, I don't have much use for a "renumber all" feature, although others might, as I don't use LTspice as part of a PCB design flow - I don't suppose many do, even though Mike E originally endowed LTspice with an "olde worlde" PCB industry-standard netlist export capability. I would back the idea that it only applied to all-numeric designators, since anything else implies it has been changed manually. Warning of duplicates would only be useful for non-numerics, since the others would be renumbered anyway.

If you're looking for new features to add, why not try a message inviting suggestions? Previous similar things have tended to produce all kinds of suggestions: some good, others... imaginative.

I suspect you're not that desperate yet. ?

--
Regards,
Tony

开云体育

Such an option would be better than the chronological one, which makes no sense in terms of schematic reading. But it won't work for schematic layouts other than two or more rows of symbols or two or more columns of symbols. I suppose that many schematics can be laid out in one of those formats, but not all can.

Would it be useful to have a renumber option that would go left-to-right, top-to-bottom, for instance?

One thing that's strange is, the coefficient of 's' seems much different than that converted by ChatGPT or Matlab.

Mentioning ChatGPT and MATLAB in the same sentence takes courage? I am quite sure MATLAB did not tell you
how to *solve* the direct question, it only provided the *means* to find an answer.

-marcel

开云体育

Something burped, v24.0.12

I miss it

?

Man, ADI has really ruined lots of features

The recent files list is stored in LTspice.ini.

If you just upgraded from 24.0.x, you might find the old LTspice.ini wherever it would was stored - usually %APPDATA%/local/roaming/. If you're unlucky, it was overwritten with installing the new version.

For the next time, if you don't want to rely on luck, be sure to back things up before installing or updating. ADI didn't ruin it at all - LTspice still remembers recent files, you will just have to start again building the list.

--
Regards,
Tony

I added two photos that show how to construct the waveform both in Simulink and
SPICE. ( Photos directory /g/LTspice/album?id=301365 )

The key problem is that neither Simulink nor LTspice allow to construct the Laplace transform of a waveform.
They only provide a way to construct a transfer function.
For LTspice it was an interesting learning moment as I had never before needed to manipulate the two parameters
of the Laplace function (Window and NFFT). They still work in 17.1.5.

-marcel

开云体育

Recently I compiled several models created by another group's member into one single library.

Do you mean the original author did not belong to this group, but to another group? Or did you mean another member of this group? I understand English is not your native language.

Moreover, I slightly modified them for my need but I think it could be useful for other people here.

I tried to contact the original author on his own email to ask his authorization, but I didn't have his reply yet.

Moreover, it seems that he didn't come on the group since a long time.

This group has been around a long time. It is possible the author (if they were a member of this group) is either no longer an active member, or has passed on.

His there a rules on the forum for this kind of situation, or am I free to publish here without his authorization (but by mentioning his name however...) ?

Thanks a lot in advance for your advices,

If you are not able to make contact, you can publish what you have done, but it is good etiquette to acknowledge the original author in notes in your library, and also mention their name in any announcement (message or upload description) you make.

You can also contact the moderators, as already suggested, for further information that may be available.

--
Regards,
Tony

开云体育

Hi, Andy. I think you may have misunderstood:

"Recently I compiled several models created by another group's member into one single library."

"group's" is how you would write it in French, but in English it would be 'group' so that 'another' relates to 'member', not to 'group'. In other words, the member is a member of this group, not another group.

On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 04:47 PM, <pilou@...> wrote:

(H)is there a rules on the forum for this kind of situation, or am I free to publish here without his authorization (but by mentioning his name however...) ?

Do the other models have a copyright of any kind?? Is there anything either in the models or on the page for downloading them, that says they are copyrighted?

?

I think that would be where to start.

?

Do you know that this person actually created the models, or did they collect models from other sources?? That's another consideration.

?

If the other group is readily accessible by the public, maybe the simplest solution with the smallest risk, would be to announce the location of their models in the other group.? But that might not be optimum.

?

Andy

?

开云体育

You can send the email address of the member confidentially to the moderators at: LTspice moderators <[email protected]>, so that you can be advised on this subject.

Hello,

Recently I compiled several models created by another group's member into one single library.

Moreover, I slightly modified them for my need but I think it could be useful for other people here.

I tried to contact the original author on his own email to ask his authorization, but I didn't have his reply yet.

Moreover, it seems that he didn't come on the group since a long time.

His there a rules on the forum for this kind of situation, or am I free to publish here without his authorization (but by mentioning his name however...) ?

Thanks a lot in advance for your advices,
Pascal