开云体育


Re: LT1680

 

Oops, my reply was sent prematurely.? I started writing:
Did you have questions about the naming differences with any of the other pins?
I concluded that "Iavg" and "Iave" were probably the same, and that "Vfb" and "FB" are probably the same.? But again, it is your job to understand what each of those pins actually does and how to use them.? That should make it obvious which pin is which.
?
Are there other pin names you found confusing?
?
Andy
?


Re: LT1680

 

On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 05:28 PM, Pietro wrote:
Okay, that's fine, but then, when I have to design and build it all, how will I connect the missing pins?
And then, will it work properly?
These are my doubts.
Who is the design engineer?? If that is you, then you must be the master of your design.? You need to take full responsibility for understanding what the circuit does and how every part of it works.
?
If you seriously don't know what to do with the extra two pins because you couldn't include them in your LTspice simulation, then it is your job to understand how those two pins work, and how they should be connected, and whether they can be ignored by not connecting to them.? Chances are they can't be ignored, and probably should be connected to something.
?
When I compared the datasheet with the LTspice symbol, the only two pins I could not match up with the symbol were:
  • Pin 8 = Vref
  • Pin 15 = SYNC
?
Now here is where your engineering skills become important.? What do those two pins do?? What does the datasheet say about them?? In one figure in the datasheet it shows one pin connected to ground, and the other pin connected to a bypass capacitor.? But it is your job to read the datasheet and understand what is the right thing to do with those two pins.
?
Most datasheets from Analog Devices have fairly detailed about what every pin does, and how to use it.? Read the datasheet to find out.
?
Did you have questions about the naming differences with any of the other pins?
?
Andy
?


Re: LT1680

 

Lunedì 19 maggio 2025 alle 23:12, John Woodgate ha scritto:

If you want to take a look, I uploaded an image file in the photo section.
Okay, that's fine, but then, when I have to design and build it all, how will I connect the missing pins?
And then, will it work properly?
These are my doubts.


Re: LT1680

 
Edited

Sì, scusa. Mi sono confuso.
?
[Translation to English by Moderator:]
?
Yes, sorry. I got confused.


Re: LT1680

 

开云体育

Your upload is helpful, but you must post in English. Google Translate is your friend.

On 2025-05-19 22:04, Pietro via groups.io wrote:
Se vuoi dare un'occhiata, ho caricato un file immagine nella sezione foto.
Ok, va bene, ma poi, quando dovrò progettare e costruire il tutto, come collegherò i pin mancanti?
E ??poi, funzionerà correttamente?
Questi sono i miei dubbi.
--
Best wishes John Woodgate RAYLEIGH Essex 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

Virus-free.


Re: LT1680

 

LTspice is not meant for circuit layout.? When it is used for that, it MUST be assumed that "touch-up" is probably needed.
?
Andy


Re: LT1680

 

Sorry, but please use English only in this group.
?
FYI, many op-amp's have Balance adjustment pins, but most of their SPICE models omit them.? Most circuits that used them did not connect to those pins anyway.
?
Andy


Re: LT1680

 

开云体育

That is OK for simulation: commoned pins and NC pins can be left of the symbol and model, but it is a problem when passing data to a PC layout app.

On 2025-05-19 21:59, Andy I via groups.io wrote:
I have not looked at yet - but it is very common for SPICE models to have fewer pins than actual pins.? Also, pin names often vary.
?
Andy
--
Best wishes John Woodgate RAYLEIGH Essex 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

Virus-free.


Re: LT1680

 
Edited

Se vuoi dare un'occhiata, ho caricato un file immagine nella sezione foto.
Ok, va bene, ma poi, quando dovrò progettare e costruire il tutto, come collegherò i pin mancanti?
E ??poi, funzionerà correttamente?
Questi sono i miei dubbi.
?
[Mod note:? Please use only English in this group.? A translation to English is below:]
?
If you want to take a look, I uploaded an image file in the photo section.
Okay, that's fine, but then, when I have to design and build it all, how will I connect the missing pins?
And then, will it work properly?
These are my doubts.
?


Re: LT1680

 

I have not looked at yet - but it is very common for SPICE models to have fewer pins than actual pins.? Also, pin names often vary.
?
Andy


Re: LT1680

 

开云体育

You may get help here, but you should report your problem the ADI's Engineer Zone, because the different pin numbers is clearly ADI's problem.

On 2025-05-19 21:49, Pietro via groups.io wrote:
Hi, I am designing a Step-up Booster based on LT1680, for some reasons:
1)Suitable for high power;
2)Through hole package;
3)Simple external architecture.
However, there is a discrepancy between the Datasheet and the LTspice component.
It seems there is a mistake with the LTspice file that has only 14 pins while the real component has 16 and some pin names in LTspice are called differently.
Can anyone please help me?
Thanks
--
Best wishes John Woodgate RAYLEIGH Essex 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

Virus-free.


LT1680

 

Hi, I am designing a Step-up Booster based on LT1680, for some reasons:
1)Suitable for high power;
2)Through hole package;
3)Simple external architecture.
However, there is a discrepancy between the Datasheet and the LTspice component.
It seems there is a mistake with the LTspice file that has only 14 pins while the real component has 16 and some pin names in LTspice are called differently.
Can anyone please help me?
Thanks


Execute .meas file

 

开云体育

  1. Which temporary file(s) do we need to keep, if we want to return to a model and execute one of several .meas scripts?
  2. Is there a way (maybe in batch mode?) to execute a meas script without re-running the simulation?

I have several worst-case analysis models that take at least several minutes to run (8, 9, + variables).

I’d like to run the meas scripts to extract different sets of measurements, drawn from one Run.

At least in XVII, the Execute script command is only under the File menu on the Plot page…

?

Thanks,

Dave

?

?


Re: Universal Comparator

 

开云体育

On 19/05/2025 12:39, Andy I via groups.io wrote:
Regarding what I thought was the lack of rail-to-rail output drive:
?
I missed what was happening in your test circuit.? I missed the fact that your negative supply voltage V- was at 0V.? Oops.
No, that was my oops. That was a quick test to see whether that revealed any unexpected behaviour. I hadn't intended to upload that version.
?
And then when I thought I was setting V- to -5V, I actually set it to -(-5)V, which made it appear as if the comparator had failed.? Arrgh, I should give up and go home.? All is OK (except inside my brain).
?
The output impedance is 1 ohm, which should not be a big problem for many users.? But it can affect signals driven into power FETs that have significant input capacitance.? I believe 1 ohm is the default output impedance of LTspice's built-in A-elements.
1 ohm is also the output impedance of the built-in opamp (the one with no supplies that requires '.lib opamp.sub'). The UniversalOpAmps' output impedance is much higher, because the switch elements that form the output have Ron=10, which also severely limits the maximum output current too, regardless what the Ilimit parameter is set to.

--
Regards,
Tony


Re: Universal Comparator

 

Regarding what I thought was the lack of rail-to-rail output drive:
?
I missed what was happening in your test circuit.? I missed the fact that your negative supply voltage V- was at 0V.? Oops.
?
And then when I thought I was setting V- to -5V, I actually set it to -(-5)V, which made it appear as if the comparator had failed.? Arrgh, I should give up and go home.? All is OK (except inside my brain).
?
The output impedance is 1 ohm, which should not be a big problem for many users.? But it can affect signals driven into power FETs that have significant input capacitance.? I believe 1 ohm is the default output impedance of LTspice's built-in A-elements.
?
Andy
?


Re: Universal Comparator

 

开云体育

On 18/05/2025 21:09, Andy I via groups.io wrote:
Oops, maybe you missed that one.? An easy oversight.
?
  • Blistering speed
I am inclined to agree with that.? But I will note that there are some LTspice users who feel its B-elements are much slower than the same circuit without the B-elements.? IIRC, Vlad (one of our group members, who has been quiet here lately) was one of those who had some opposition to B-elements when speed was critical.? I don't want to imply that there is anything wrong with them, but it's possible that a built-in "Digital" gate might be faster - although somewhat more cumbersome to use.
My (very) limited measurements suggest that the B-source is about 5-10% slower than an A-source, but that might vary considerably with processor and circuit complexity (I only tried on my Ryzen 9 machine, which is over twice as fast as my last one according to my previous tests). I also found that LTspice XVII was consistently around 20% slower than 24.0.12. This is all less significant than suggested by "much slower".

Your (other) comment about an open-collector (or open-drain) output had me thinking half the night. So far, I haven't come up with a simple way to make that an option using the present form of the transfer function without adding extra bits. It's a useful suggestion though, and the option should be available, as O/C comparators are fairly common and are practically useful, whereas the LM311-type O/C-O/E variant is almost unique anyway, so there's not much point in emulating it.

Whether or not to hard-code the ModelFile attribute is a thorny one. My personal feeling is that I don't like doing that with symbols and models that are not core LTspice ones, for the simple reason that all users will have the built-in ones, but for added symbols users should be explicitly prompted due to the issues we're familiar with in sharing schematics. Anyone that feels strongly about it can make their own versions.

--
Regards,
Tony


Re: Universal Comparator

 
Edited

On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 01:29 PM, Tony Casey wrote:
  • Rail-to-Rail Output
Oops, maybe you missed that one.? An easy oversight.
[Edited because this was my mistake.]
?
  • Blistering speed
I am inclined to agree with that.? But I will note that there are some LTspice users who feel its B-elements are much slower than the same circuit without the B-elements.? IIRC, Vlad (one of our group members, who has been quiet here lately) was one of those who had some opposition to B-elements when speed was critical.? I don't want to imply that there is anything wrong with them, but it's possible that a built-in "Digital" gate might be faster - although somewhat more cumbersome to use.
?
Andy
?
?


Re: Universal Comparator

 
Edited

Quite interesting.
?
Me, I tended to use one of LTspice's built-in Digital devices (diffschmitt, etc.) when needing a generic comparator, but they have disadvantages.? Yours is simpler and in many ways better.
?
Have you considered making the symbol load the model file automatically, the same way the UniversalOpAmp* symbols already do?
?
Would it help to make the SpiceLine attribute visible by default, to encourage setting those parameter values?
?
I also wonder if it is best having the output voltage swing between the V+ supply and (hidden) ground - as opposed to swinging between the two supply voltages.? How would a generic comparator behave?? Especially when it has no visible connection to ground?? [Edited because it was my mistake.]
?
Also there is the open-drain or open-collector option.? Should there be an alternate version that pulls down only?
?
Andy
?
?


Re: Universal Comparator

 

开云体育

Very helpful. It would be good to add a .ZIP of all the files to the folder.

On 2025-05-18 18:29, Tony Casey via groups.io wrote:
All LTspice users should be familiar with UniversalOpamps. There are 7 different UniversalOpAmp models of increasing complexity capable of modelling almost any proprietary opamp to reasonable levels of accuracy in most regards, typically with superior convergence and speed within LTspice.

I see quite a few people using opamps to model comparators, despite the requirements being quite different. It occurred to me this might be because there isn't an equivalent universal comparator. So I set out to change that.

The UniversalComp is the simplest solution I could think of with just one B-source, and it features:
  • Programmable Propagation Delay (trapped to prevent values <0)
  • Programmable Hysteresis (trapped to prevent values <0)
  • Rail-to-Rail Output
  • Excellent convergence
  • Blistering speed
  • Infinite Common-mode Input Range
I have also made two symbols, with the inputs reversed for drafting convenience, that are otherwise pin-wise compatible with the opamp2 and UniversalOpAmp symbols. The model and a test schematic is also available in Universal Comparator.

--
Regards,
Tony
--
Best wishes John Woodgate RAYLEIGH Essex 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

Virus-free.


Universal Comparator

 

开云体育

All LTspice users should be familiar with UniversalOpamps. There are 7 different UniversalOpAmp models of increasing complexity capable of modelling almost any proprietary opamp to reasonable levels of accuracy in most regards, typically with superior convergence and speed within LTspice.

I see quite a few people using opamps to model comparators, despite the requirements being quite different. It occurred to me this might be because there isn't an equivalent universal comparator. So I set out to change that.

The UniversalComp is the simplest solution I could think of with just one B-source, and it features:
  • Programmable Propagation Delay (trapped to prevent values <0)
  • Programmable Hysteresis (trapped to prevent values <0)
  • Rail-to-Rail Output
  • Excellent convergence
  • Blistering speed
  • Infinite Common-mode Input Range
I have also made two symbols, with the inputs reversed for drafting convenience, that are otherwise pin-wise compatible with the opamp2 and UniversalOpAmp symbols. The model and a test schematic is also available in Universal Comparator.

--
Regards,
Tony