LTspice 24.1.4 - Limit function
If I run a schematic with limit function in 24.0.12:
?
b:u1:g_abmii22 u1:32b 0 i=v(u1:32)*(limit(((v(u1:31vdd1)-v(u1:vde))/(v(u1:31vdd1)-v(u1:31vdd2))), 0, 1))
?
If I run the same schematic with limit function in 24.1.4:
?
u1:BG_ABMII22 u1:32B 0 I=v(u1:32)*if(((v(u1:31vdd1)-v(u1:vde))/(v(u1:31vdd1)-v(u1:31vdd2)))<0,0,if(((v(u1:31vdd1)-v(u1:vde))/(v(u1:31vdd1)-v(u1:31vdd2)))>1,1,(v(u1:31vdd1)-v(u1:vde))/(v(u1:31vdd1)-v(u1:31vdd2))))
?
Both simulations were run with expanded netlist turned on.
?
I guess the expanded netlist format changed.
But did the "Limit" function change too?
?
|
Re: LTspice 24.1.4 - Directory for temp files
On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 09:01 AM, eetech00 wrote:
The option to save temp files in schematic directory has disappeared.
?
The setting defaults to:
?
Directory for temp files[*]
?
C:\Users\(username)\AppData\Local\Temp
?
If I clear the path (thinking it would default to the schematic directory), the default path
is re-applied after clicking OK and reopening the settings
?
I tried clearing the path, then entering a "*" (asterisk). I pressed enter and LTspice promptly killed itself.? :-|
?
?
Adding to this....
?
The path displayed in settings is:
?
C:\Users\(username)\AppData\Local\Temp
?
But the actual path used is:
C:\Users\(username)\AppData\Local\LTspice\Temp
?
??? :-|
?
|
LTspice 24.1.4 - Directory for temp files
The option to save temp files in schematic directory has disappeared.
?
The setting defaults to:
?
Directory for temp files[*]
?
C:\Users\(username)\AppData\Local\Temp
?
If I clear the path (thinking it would default to the schematic directory), the default path
is re-applied after clicking OK and reopening the settings
?
I tried clearing the path, then entering a "*" (asterisk). I pressed enter and LTspice promptly killed itself.? :-|
?
|
Re: BSC0403NSATMA1 LT spice library file
Try Mouser's excellent product-finder to find
a near-equivalent that is not obsolete and has a SPICE model.
The BSC110N15NS5 might help.
On 2025-02-28 15:56, hetals via
groups.io wrote:
Hi,
?
Does anyone have LTspice library file for BSC0403NSATMA1.
This power mosfet by infineon is obsolete hence its LTspice
library file is unavailable. I need it to model parasitics in dc
dc converter.?
--
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
|
BSC0403NSATMA1 LT spice library file
Hi,
?
Does anyone have LTspice library file for BSC0403NSATMA1. This power mosfet by infineon is obsolete hence its LTspice library file is unavailable. I need it to model parasitics in dc dc converter.?
|
On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 07:22 AM, Tony Casey wrote:
Yes, of course that's true. Very strange that I never noticed before, as someone that uses a lot of underscore characters. Oh, well.
I think I forgot saying this before:? Underscores in the middle of names do not result in the overbar.? It is only when the underscore comes at the start of a name, after a space (or, as eT found, after a parenthesis or bracket), that you get the overbar in LTspice.
?
IIRC, in old days, some engineers used either an underscore or a slash character before a signal's name, to indicate that it was a low-true or "NOT" signal - especially in typed documentation when names were typed out.? But we drew schematics by hand and then it was easy to draw the overbar.
?
Andy
?
|
You have the Eeyore settings too high in both
simulators
On 2025-02-28 13:43, Robert via
groups.io wrote:
This morning I again broke up the big reservoir capacitor
into one reservoir capacitor for every SMPS, and this time the
model remained happy. Aaaaand the results are in. LTSpice (with
similar PTC and similar regulator) showed reasonable agreement
with Simplis (with the PTC as a fixed resistor and the correct
regulator). BTW, Simplis converges with no fiddling about, but
then it is intended to address the problems associated with SMPS
modelling. What's not so good (but interesting) is when I
compare the modelled steady state currents with my pages of
maths and with measurement of the built unit:
?
LTSpice: 1100 mA
Simplis: 1050 mA
Calculated worst possible case: 602 mA
Measured under normal operating conditions: 574 mA
?
?
--
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
|
This morning I again broke up the big reservoir capacitor into one reservoir capacitor for every SMPS, and this time the model remained happy. Aaaaand the results are in. LTSpice (with similar PTC and similar regulator) showed reasonable agreement with Simplis (with the PTC as a fixed resistor and the correct regulator). BTW, Simplis converges with no fiddling about, but then it is intended to address the problems associated with SMPS modelling. What's not so good (but interesting) is when I compare the modelled steady state currents with my pages of maths and with measurement of the built unit:
?
LTSpice: 1100 mA
Simplis: 1050 mA
Calculated worst possible case: 602 mA
Measured under normal operating conditions: 574 mA
?
?
|
Re: Frequency dependent common mode inductor
Simulation of complex conductivity depending on frequency.?
See file Frequency-dependent_resistance.zip in TEMP folder.
|
On 28/02/2025 13:22, Tony Casey wrote:
I
remember from years ago that some companies' did not allow
overbars
I meant to say:
I remember from years ago that some
companies' drawing standards did not allow overbars
--
Regards,
Tony
|
On 28/02/2025 12:57, Andy I via
groups.io wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 04:59 AM, Tony Casey wrote:
So, it's most likely deliberate.
It is unrelated to what the text is.? "LT" or "ADI" makes no
difference.??The same thing happens if you write ".lib
_foobar.lib".
?
Yes it is deliberate in the sense that an underscore
character in text in LTspice's schematic editor, causes the text
after it to have an overbar over it, as a convenient way of
labeling nets or pins with the (now old-fashioned?) "NOT"
notation that was (and may still be) common practice..? The
schematic editor does not differentiate between net label text
and SPICE Directive text.
Yes, of course that's true. Very strange that I never noticed
before, as someone that uses a lot of underscore characters. Oh,
well.
Is the overbar NET notation old-fashioned? I use that a lot too, in
both LTspice and PCB design. Previously, not all EDA tools could
handle overbars, but I think most do these days. I remember from
years ago that some companies' did not allow overbars, presumably
because the original 128 character ASCII set didn't include any
accented characters and there are no overbar characters in the
extended set, although #175 is the overline.
--
Regards,
Tony
|
There doesn't seem to be any other easy way to
produce characters with overbar. Most fonts don't have an
alphabet of overbar characters. Of course, a different 'trigger'
symbol other than underscore could be used, but that symbol is
probably very seldom required with its normal meaning in the
context.
On 2025-02-28 11:57, Andy I via
groups.io wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 04:59 AM, Tony Casey wrote:
So, it's most likely deliberate.
It is unrelated to what the text is.? "LT" or "ADI" makes no
difference.??The same thing happens if you write ".lib
_foobar.lib".
?
Yes it is deliberate in the sense that an underscore
character in text in LTspice's schematic editor, causes the text
after it to have an overbar over it, as a convenient way of
labeling nets or pins with the (now old-fashioned?) "NOT"
notation that was (and may still be) common practice..? The
schematic editor does not differentiate between net label text
and SPICE Directive text.
?
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
|
On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 04:59 AM, Tony Casey wrote:
So, it's most likely deliberate.
It is unrelated to what the text is.? "LT" or "ADI" makes no difference.??The same thing happens if you write ".lib _foobar.lib".
?
Yes it is deliberate in the sense that an underscore character in text in LTspice's schematic editor, causes the text after it to have an overbar over it, as a convenient way of labeling nets or pins with the (now old-fashioned?) "NOT" notation that was (and may still be) common practice..? The schematic editor does not differentiate between net label text and SPICE Directive text.? Text is text.
?
Andy
?
|
On 27/02/2025 19:57, Andy I via
groups.io wrote:
Oh...I would think they would fix that in this version
It's been around for a very long time.? A decade or two?? I think
there would be no reason for them to pick up on that one
particular thing that has been there for so many years, unless
somebody nagged them about it in 2025.
It may be it's related (or not) to the feature that the "LT" text
string in a symbol is magically converted to the old red LT
corporate logo. They left that in while also adding the "ADI" string
conversion to the Analog Devices corporate logo. I say that because
"_ADI" has the same effect of causing ADI to become overstruck in a
schematic string.
So, it's most likely deliberate.
--
Regards,
Tony
|
Re: 12AU7 tube heater model
On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 05:57 AM, Carlo wrote:
The point is that, by removing both the independent current source I1 and the G-source Ghot from the overall topology, the topology check realizes that there is the series/string of R:U1:cool and R:U1:load resistors (connecting node N001 with U1:HB passing through the intermediate node U1:HA) that are actually disconnected from the rest of the circuit. Therefore the topology check complains that U1:HB node is floating and connected to the (controlled) current source G:U1:HOT.
Thinking again about it, I realized that the "topology check routine" throws a warning complaining that there is a cut-set made of (independent or controlled) current sources only.
?
In this specific circuit, as you pointed out, it isn't a problem at all since the G-controlled source within the subckt actually implements/realizes just a non-linear resistor.
?
Carlo.
|
Re: Issues running LTspice as a batch service
The Windows error code 0xc0000409 is a software exception error that can occur when an application is installed incorrectly
So, does this mean the Windows service account does not know what LTspice is, or where to find it?
?
Sorry, I don't know snakes.
?
Andy
?
|
Re: Issues running LTspice as a batch service
I thought that the advice was that it was not
installed in the right place, but I might be wrong.'Not
installed correctly' might be a paraphrase of 'I can't open it'.
On 2025-02-27 19:59, Jeff Kayzerman
wrote:
Thank you, the application is clearly installed correctly
though because it works when not running as a service
--
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: Issues running LTspice as a batch service
I believe I am doing this
|
Re: Issues running LTspice as a batch service
Thank you, the application is clearly installed correctly though because it works when not running as a service
|
Re: Issues running LTspice as a batch service
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 11:15 AM, Jeff Kayzerman wrote:
Yes it is a windows error, something about a stack buffer overrun, not sure what to make of that. The message "Simulation failed with status code <status code>" Is my code in the except block of the python program. There is no log file that gets created from LTspice.
?
You'll need to launch the python LTspice subprocess in the context of the target user and target schematic source folder.
|
John Woodgate
Tony Casey
Carlo