开云体育

I hope my upload has sorted this and we can close the thread. ====================================================================================== Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

John asked, " How can it give identical runs with .step param K list 0.0001 0.01? " Because the parameter K was not used anywhere.? It's just a dummy parameter, where the entire circuit is unaffected

John wrote, "... without stepping because you deleted K L1 L1 K. When you add that back in, to get the steps, it doesn't run. I don't know why, or why the error log has those weird expressions. "

How can it give identical runs with .step param K list 0.0001 0.01? But I see why I can't get version D to run with the K expression added. I forgot the curly braces.? Now it runs and shows double

Yes, of course it runs, but without stepping because you deleted K L1 L1 K. When you add that back in, to get the steps, it doesn't run. I don't know why, or why the error log has those weird

DesplitterD.asc runs OK for me.? I don't know what problem John sees, but I don't have that.? I think his simulation got corrupted. But the stepped parameter K doesn't DO anything.? It gives you

The nice thing about digital computers, is that they always give us the same results to the same calculations with the same inputs.? There is no possibility of having a different answer, unless

Ok, I downloaded the D version from Groups, and the ONLY change I made was to name it DesplitterD1 so it wouldn't overwrite my other file. It runs. I'm running 17.0.220, and I sync'd the release a

Without the step K command it runs but only one run of course, no stepping. ====================================================================================== Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own

Very odd.. I just ran it here, and I ran it before I sent it.. Circuit: * C:\Users\Dave\Desktop\DesplitterD.asc .step k=0.0001 .step k=0.01 Date: Fri Feb 26 14:18:44 2021 Total elapsed time: 0.401

Andy: Ok, absolutely equal I agree is vanishingly small probability.? Can we agree that say 1% difference is achievable?

Actually it was me that said that. It's the only explanation I can think of for David's real-world result. His latest variant D won't run and the error log has weird entries.

It's not intentional, it's inevitable. Just think what happens, or so we are told. LTspice hits a large difference between sample x and sample x-dt,? where dt is the time-step, so it backs up to

David wrote, " So you say that " the transmitter does not couple exactly identically to the two tanks"? If we adjust the angle so that each tank is the same angle to the transmitter, then the

John wrote, " This randomness may be inherent in the routine that adjusts the time-step around discontinuities. The finite bit-depth can result in at least an LSB variation between different runs. "

You deleted the directive K1 L1 L2 K, but adding it gives an error message because somehow you are getting this in the error log: k1_A0 l1 l2 k1_A1 l1 k k1_A2 l2 k I have no idea where those are

This may be a definitional problem, but assume the transmit coil is several meters away, and the two tanks are at the origin, mounted at 90 degrees to each other. The frequency is low, so at this

cedrichirschi.21, I edited the TPS43061 model file to remove all bad instances of the {{double curly braces}}, and remove the unused Td parameter.? I will upload it soon.? It eliminated all the

" Your simulation cannot be true to your real world set-up, since it gives a different but entirely expected result." Precisely why I'm asking questions here. I implemented the changes you suggested,

This randomness may be inherent in the routine that adjusts the time-step around discontinuities. The finite bit-depth can result in at least an LSB variation between different runs. It could be much