开云体育

Sorry, hello Andy too :)

Hello John and Tony, thanks a lot for your replies :) Sorry, Indeed I'm french, nobody is perfect ah ah ah :D Indeed, I wrote as we would write in french. I wanted to mean "a member belonging to this

Hi, : Though , I don't think this one really matters , but for your reference, modify it to 2N5210 will be better, the dip depth becomes smaller. " .model 2N5210 NPN(Is=5.911f Xti=3 Eg=1.11 Vaf=62.37

FYI - The non-encrypted models (thus usable by LTspice) for T.I.'s LM317 and LM337 *BOTH* claim to have been designed by: ** Released by: WEBENCH Design Center, Texas Instruments Inc. Neither model

Please tell us - why does it matter to you which individual *person* created a SPICE model? Many SPICE models do not identify the individual author(s) who created the model.? If you were to visit the

For me, the usefulness of renumbering is limited to (a) eliminating gaps in the number sequence, which is actually a good idea, and (b) standardizing, by removing things such as "Rload2" or a mistyped

True that, but ideas are always welcome. Your statement about an invitation brings up a meta discussion: what would be a usable forum to feature/ideas? Ideally, it would be clearly dedicated to

Have you searched the group's archives, the folders named "z...." on the web site? You could also ask ST Micro and TI for an unencrypted SPICE (not LTspice) model. -- This email has been checked for

Interesting idea. Gears turning… -- Michael Stokowski LTspice Team Analog Devices Inc.

it's a lot of time that a looking for a a model ltspice lm317 and lm337 made by the same hand. Someone could kyndly tell me where I can find them? Many thanks Andrea

That would be good. It's helpful to see what an editing or correcting feature proposes to do, before it does it.? Like replacing every letter in a text by an asterisk! -- This email has been checked

I suggest a report feature that provide a list of designators, warns of duplicates, and optionally renumbers.

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, Marcel: It's not about courage, it's about truth of math. Besides the means mentioned previously. All I can find the relation is 'laplace(exp^(at)) = 1/(s-a)'. That's why I can't understand.

Although, i do get the list when i have an open project I m cornfused! [email protected]> wrote: