Re: Sawtooth waveform by simple BJTs, but dips at the top.
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 Bf=809.9 Ne=1.358 Ise=5.911f Ikf=14.26m Xtb=1.5 Br=1.287 Nc=2 Isc=0 Ikr=0 Rc=1.61 Cjc=4.017p Mjc=.3174 Vjc=.75 Fc=.5 Cje=4.973p Mje=.4146 Vje=.75 Tr=4.68n Tf=820.9p Itf=.35 Vtf=4 Xtf=7 Rb=10 Vceo=50 Icrating=100m mfg=Fairchild).model 2N5210 NPN(Is=5.911f Xti=3 Eg=1.11 Vaf=62.37 Bf=809.9 Ne=1.358 Ise=5.911f Ikf=14.26m Xtb=1.5 Br=1.287 Nc=2 Isc=0 Ikr=0 Rc=1.61 Cjc=4.017p Mjc=.3174 Vjc=.75 Fc=.5 Cje=4.973p Mje=.4146 Vje=.75 Tr=4.68n Tf=820.9p Itf=.35 Vtf=4 Xtf=7 Rb=10 Vceo=50 Icrating=100m mfg=Fairchild)
"
?
If you must need a description, some BJT won't faint, while applied the ringing of higher rippled Vcc. Maybe this DIPs will be improved. Seeking the bagging portfolio from the local distributor. Something that values just be nearby. Similar to the raw data everywhere in LTspice, you just need to ...resort ? reebok ? rebook ?
?
The 2N5210 was resorted from the standard.bjt, one the the total 797 records.
?
Wish you happy & healthy.
?
Best regards.
|
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 lists the individual person or people responsible for making them.? You could call up T.I. and ask them - but I think they are unlikely to tell you.
?
Andy
?
|
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 04:21 PM, <andrea.patuelli@...> wrote:
it's a lot of time that a looking for a a model ltspice lm317 and lm337 made by the same hand.
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 website for a company such as Texas Instruments, they have thousands of SPICE models available for downloading.? Is it sufficient to know that the models were made by the engineering staff at T.I., or do you need somebody at Texas Instruments to provide you with the names and work schedules and internal emails for all their SPICE engineers so you can track down which people created which models on which dates?? What if a model passed through five people's hands on the way to being approved for publication?? Which individual person would you say had authored it?
?
I think it's likely none of their models were written "from scratch" starting from the beginning.? They likely leverage off of previous work.? There might be 20 people who contributed to one model, over the course of 25 years.
?
Anyway, I am wondering why does this matter?
?
Is a SPICE model not good enough for you?
?
Granted, SPICE models might not agree 100% with real parts.? Some are better than others, and a few are plain wrong.? Knowing the author won't help with that.? At the same time, two parts with the same part number likely won't agree with one another either.
?
Also, I think your question "a model ltspice lm317 and lm337" is a bit too specific.? Do you want SPICE models (which therefore run on LTspice), or do you really require an encrypted or binary LTspice model which runs only on LTspice?? I could be wrong, but as far as I know neither LTC nor ADI made the LM317 or LM337, therefore they would not have made LTspice models for them.? They did make enhanced (competing) products, named LT317 and LT337 - but those are not what you asked about.
?
National Semiconductor designed the LM317 and LM337, and NSC became part of TI, and TI's preferred simulators are PSpice (which is SPICE) and TINA-TI (which can use SPICE models as well as its own).? When TI makes SPICE models for their parts, they call them "PSpice" even when they are generic SPICE.? The majority of them run on LTspice with no changes, but a few might need some syntax tweaks.
?
Someone could kyndly tell me where I can find them?
I think your question is so specific, you should not expect someone else to give you the answer.? More than likely, you are on your own with this.? Or did you want to employ a detective?
?
Andy
?
|
Re: Parts Number Re-numbering
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 "RR5".
?
Other than that, it doesn't do me any good.? But YMMV.
?
Andy
|
Re: Parts Number Re-numbering
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 11:15 AM, John Woodgate wrote:
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. ?
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 feature requests, including 'imaginative' ones, and it would easy to add comments, upvotes, etc. The EZ LTspice forum allows this, but that is not its real intent, so it is non-ideal. This forum also good, but non-ideal. We have an internal database of feature requests, but that doesn't really allow direct interaction with end users outside of ADI.
?
罢丑颈苍办颈苍驳…?
?
--
Michael Stokowski
LTspice Team
Analog Devices Inc.
|
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.
On 2025-03-19 20:21, andrea.patuelli
via groups.io wrote:
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
--
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: Parts Number Re-numbering
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 12:09 PM, John Woodgate wrote:
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!
On 2025-03-19 19:03, eetech00 via groups.io wrote:
I suggest a report feature that provide a list of designators, warns of duplicates, and optionally renumbers.
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
|
Re: Parts Number Re-numbering
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!
On 2025-03-19 19:03, eetech00 via
groups.io wrote:
I suggest a report feature that provide a list of
designators, warns of duplicates, and optionally renumbers.
--
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: Parts Number Re-numbering
I suggest a report feature that provide a list of designators, warns of duplicates, and optionally renumbers.
|
Re: Parts Number Re-numbering
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 2025-03-19 18:25, Tony Casey wrote:
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
--
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: Parts Number Re-numbering
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
|
Re: Parts Number Re-numbering
I use reannotate when 'polishing' schematics
for technical articles or documentation of simple specialist
test equipment.
On 2025-03-19 17:48, Tony Casey wrote:
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
--
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: Parts Number Re-numbering
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
|
Re: Parts Number Re-numbering
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.
On 2025-03-19 17:10, mstokowski via
groups.io wrote:
Would it be useful
to have a renumber option that would go left-to-right,
top-to-bottom, for instance?
--
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: Parts Number Re-numbering
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?
?
--
Michael Stokowski
LTspice Team
Analog Devices Inc.
|
Re: How to create IEC 61000-4-5 surge waveform in time & s behavioral ?
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 10:53 PM, <mhx@...> wrote:
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
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.
?
?
Best regards.
|
Re: No recent files list with an empty window
Although, i do get the list when i have an open project I m cornfused!
Thanx for the suggestion I think thats how i crashed it
On 19/03/2025 15:27, Al Dutcher via
wrote:
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
--
AC2CL
I do not think there is any thrill that
can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as
he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success...
Such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything.
- Nikola Tesla
-- AC2CL
I do not think there is any thrill that
can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as
he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success...
Such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything.
- Nikola Tesla
|
Re: No recent files list with an empty window
Thanx for the suggestion I think thats how i crashed it
On 19/03/2025 15:27, Al Dutcher via
wrote:
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
-- AC2CL
I do not think there is any thrill that
can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as
he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success...
Such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything.
- Nikola Tesla
|
Re: How to create IEC 61000-4-5 surge waveform in time & s behavioral ?
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
|
John Woodgate
Tony Casey