At the end of the log file I get the following and cannot probe the circuit. I know it is a short run-time circuit. It is a portion of a larger one, and I have not played with the digital stuff before.
----------------------------
C:\Users\derek\Desktop\New folder\cd4000_v.lib(91): syntax error
.param td1=1e-9*(400-40-10)*5.0/(vdd1}*{speed1} ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?^^^^^^^^^^ C:\Users\derek\Desktop\New folder\cd4000_v.lib(92): Expected ")" here. .param td2=1e-9*(250-40-10)*5.0/(vdd1}*{speed1} ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?^^^^^^^^^^ C:\Users\derek\Desktop\New folder\cd4000_v.lib(92): syntax error .param td2=1e-9*(250-40-10)*5.0/(vdd1}*{speed1} ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?^^^^^^^^^^ C:\Users\derek\Desktop\New folder\cd4000_v.lib(93): Expected ")" here. .param td4=1e-9*(130-40-10)*5.0/(vdd1}*{speed1} ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?^^^^^^^^^^ C:\Users\derek\Desktop\New folder\cd4000_v.lib(93): syntax error .param td4=1e-9*(130-40-10)*5.0/(vdd1}*{speed1} ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?^^^^^^^^^^
?
|
You uploaded the .LIB file twice, instead of
the .LOG file, but there was no need anyway, we can run the sim
to get the .LOG file. The sim runs OK (but does it do what you
want? It seems to be a short time sim.), and those Warnings in
the .LOG can be disregarded: the nodes probably connect to
current sources, which have infinite impedance, so don't
register as connected.
On 2025-04-02 15:31, DerekK wrote:
Andy,
I updated the symbol from the suggested source. Deleted the
old symbol and placed the new one. Restarted LTSpice. Still
getting errors. I re-uploaded the CD_test.zip file. This time I
included the log file which shows the error.
--
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
|
Andy,
I updated the symbol from the suggested source. Deleted the old symbol and placed the new one. Restarted LTSpice. Still getting errors. I re-uploaded the CD_test.zip file. This time I included the log file which shows the error.
|
Re: creating PNP caracteristicsby sweeping plot in LTspice from a circuit I built
On 02/04/2025 13:59, john23 via
groups.io wrote:
Hello Andy,I have taken your circuit and changed the current
source into voltage source ,also Imade the voltage potential the
same way put the voltage source in the collector.
I got a very close plot to what you got but the slope of the
active mode is much higher.
Why is my slope shown in the attached photo much higher with
respect to what you done?
You circuit is completely messed up. If you wanted to reproduce
Andy's plot, why didn't you use his circuit? To get the
characteristic in a datasheet, you need to exactly use the
conditions quoted in the datasheet. Don't introduce spurious
resistors that are not in the test circuit that the manufacturers
used.
Please check: PNP_OP_Chacteristic.zip
--
Regards,
Tony
|
Re: creating PNP caracteristicsby sweeping plot in LTspice from a circuit I built
This might help answer your question:
?
Why is my slope shown in the attached photo much higher with respect to what you done?
The slope is greater because of V1 and R2.? ?As the voltage from V1 increases, Vc increases almost the same because the transistor is in saturation.? Ohm's law applied to R2 gives you the slope.
?
Andy
?
|
Re: creating PNP caracteristicsby sweeping plot in LTspice from a circuit I built
On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 07:59 AM, john23 wrote:
Hello Andy,I have taken your circuit and changed the current source into voltage source ,also Imade the voltage potential the same way put the voltage source in the collector.
Why do you want to modify the circuit?
?
What is the purpose of adding resistors, and changing the base drive from a stepped current source to a voltage that also depends on Vce?
?
I think you need to answer these questions before thinking about the results with your circuit.? For what purpose are you doing this?? Are you doing it just to ask annoying questions, or do you have an actual goal in mind?? Without that, your questions seem meaningless and without purpose.
?
I got a very close plot to what you got but the slope of the active mode is much higher.
Why is my slope shown in the attached photo much higher with respect to what you done?
Look at your circuit, and what you have done to it.
?
You added resistance to the transistor.? Resistance changes the slopes.
?
You applied the base drive between the base and ground, while simultaneously sweeping the emitter voltage.? Therefore, as the emitter voltage increases, the base-emitter voltage also increases (negatively), turning ON the transistor much much harder.? By the time V1 reaches 5 V, the base-emitter voltage in your circuit exceeds -1.6 V which means the transistor is being turned ON extremely hard.? The base current is unusually large for a small-signal transistor and it is fully saturated over most of the sweep range.
?
Your circuit makes no sense to me.? Please explain the function of your circuit.? Did you plan it, or did you arbitrarily connect some components?? Please help me understand why you did this.
?
Andy
?
|
Re: creating PNP caracteristicsby sweeping plot in LTspice from a circuit I built
Hello Andy,I have taken your circuit and changed the current source into voltage source ,also Imade the voltage potential the same way put the voltage source in the collector.
I got a very close plot to what you got but the slope of the active mode is much higher.
Why is my slope shown in the attached photo much higher with respect to what you done?
Thanks.
|
Here is your problem.? You either obtained a bad copy of your symbol file CD4013B.asy, or you (or someone in your group) modified it, and that's causing that error.
?
Download this file:?
Files > z_yahoo > Lib > Digital CD4000 > CD4000.zip
then either unzip it, or pull out just the one file (CD4013B.asy) that you need.? Use that instead of the symbol file you were using.? Depending on where you put your files, you might need to overwrite or delete the old file.
?
You might also need to delete the symbols from your schematic (Draft2.asc) and then add them back again.? There are some Attributes that are "sticky" and remain in the schematic even if the attribute in the symbol changes.? Deleting and re-adding the symbol takes care of that.
?
If this does not fix the problem, then ask again.? Your message said "errors" (plural) but did not say what they were.? So I am left wondering what error or errors you had.
?
Andy
?
?
?
|
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 08:34 PM, DerekK wrote:
I am trying to work with the CD4000_v.lib and am getting errors when trying to run. Would someone provide me some guidance as to what is set up in error?
The error I get is:
Fatal Error: Could not open library file "CD4000.LIB"
That happens because the symbol cd4013b.asy attempts to load the library file CD4000.lib, whereas your simulation only has CD4000_v.lib.
?
Where exactly did that symbol file come from?? Did you download it from the same location (in our group's files) where the library files are?
?
Andy
?
|
I am trying to work with the CD4000_v.lib and am getting errors when trying to run. Would someone provide me some guidance as to what is set up in error?
?
File uploaded to temp: CD_test.zip
?
This is using the CD4013 as a counter. I have included the latest CD4000_v.lib and the CD4013B symbol from the files section to make it easy.
|
Re: Simulation runs very slowly: test.asc
|
Re: creating PNP caracteristicsby sweeping plot in LTspice from a circuit I built
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 02:20 PM, john23 wrote:
Hello,I would like to try and implement the caracteristics with the circuit I made (attached)
Do you wish to sweep the curves of this one unique circuit?? Or do you wish to sweep the curves of a PNP transistor?
?
If you want to plot curves of this one unique circuit, then first you need to know what are the curves that you want to sweep.? What properties of this one circuit do you want to see in a plot?
?
PNP have current structure where we can see by the current slope that PNP is saturated or linear.
How can we create such current plot?
See my circuits in "PNP_sweep.zip" in the Temp folder.? They plot the Ic/Ib and Ic/Vbe curves for just the PNP transistor.? The Ic/Ib plot is the one you most often see, because the transfer from Vbe to Ic is strongly nonlinear.? The Ic/Ib plot is also the one that corresponds to your photo "2.png" that you uploaded yesterday inside your "31_03_25.zip".
?
Andy
?
|
Re: creating PNP caracteristicsby sweeping plot in LTspice from a circuit I built
Your message is confused, your.ASC is
unsuitable. Looking at currents will not tell you about
saturation, which is when Vce drops to a very low value, like
0.4 V or less. It never does that in your .ASC.
On 2025-04-01 19:20, john23 via
groups.io wrote:
Hello,I would like to try and implement the caracteristics
with the circuit I made (attached)
By sweeping V1 (emitter source I see 0 current increases
after Vbe>0.7)
Hopwever I cant see if the PNP is in saturation or linear
states.
PNP have current structure where we can see by the current slope
that PNP is saturated or linear.
How can we create such current plot?
Thanks.?
?
--
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: creating PNP caracteristicsby sweeping plot in LTspice from a circuit I built
Hello,I would like to try and implement the caracteristics with the circuit I made (attached)
By sweeping V1 (emitter source I see 0 current increases after Vbe>0.7)
Hopwever I cant see if the PNP is in saturation or linear states.
PNP have current structure where we can see by the current slope that PNP is saturated or linear.
How can we create such current plot?
Thanks.?
?
/g/LTspice/files/Temp/Draft2%20%281%29.zip
|
Re: Simulation runs very slowly: test.asc
Thanks Andy, you beat me to it. ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Andy I via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 11:51 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [LTspice] Simulation runs very slowly: test.asc? On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 11:23 AM, eetech00 wrote: Is the 1 ohm resistor the load?
It is part of what makes it a current regulator.? The LM317 drives its output pin until the voltage between its OUT and ADJ pins is 1.25 V which is its internal "reference" voltage.? If the ADJ pin was connected directly to the downstream end of the 1 ohm resistor, it would source 1.25 Amps.? But there is the 402 ohm resistor between the downstream end of the 1 ohm resistor and the ADJ pin, and we know there is (approx.) 1 V dropped across that resistor due to the current through the MOSFET, so that leaves 1.25 - 1.0 = 0.25 V across the 1 ohm resistor.? Hence, the LM317 drives 250 mA from its OUT pin.? A small amount of it (2.5 mA) also flows through the 402 ohm resistor to the MOSFET, but the bulk of the current (247 mA) continues to the string of diodes = the load.
|
Re: Simulation runs very slowly: test.asc
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 11:23 AM, eetech00 wrote:
Is the 1 ohm resistor the load?
It is part of what makes it a current regulator.? The LM317 drives its output pin until the voltage between its OUT and ADJ pins is 1.25 V which is its internal "reference" voltage.? If the ADJ pin was connected directly to the downstream end of the 1 ohm resistor, it would source 1.25 Amps.? But there is the 402 ohm resistor between the downstream end of the 1 ohm resistor and the ADJ pin, and we know there is (approx.) 1 V dropped across that resistor due to the current through the MOSFET, so that leaves 1.25 - 1.0 = 0.25 V across the 1 ohm resistor.? Hence, the LM317 drives 250 mA from its OUT pin.? A small amount of it (2.5 mA) also flows through the 402 ohm resistor to the MOSFET, but the bulk of the current (247 mA) continues to the string of diodes = the load.
?
Andy
?
|
Re: Simulation runs very slowly: test.asc
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 07:40 AM, Andy I wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 08:51 AM, Christopher Paul wrote:
It¡¯s unclear to me which of the four separate circuits you are referring to, or why you are suggesting a reconfiguration and what goal you are pursuing. All are configured as I intended. They are independent of one another except for sharing a power supply.
I think eT was getting confused about the fact that there were two current sources, which he thought both fed current into the string of diodes.? They don't, of course.? (Even if they did, they do not conflict or fight.? Current sources can be directly added without problem.)
?
?
Yes...i'm confused with the circuit configuration.
|
Re: Simulation runs very slowly: test.asc
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 05:51 AM, Christopher Paul wrote:
It¡¯s unclear to me which of the four separate circuits you are referring to, or why you are suggesting a reconfiguration and what goal you are pursuing.
?
My only goal is to try to help. But the circuit doesn't make sense. I think you are comparing the behavior of the groups of circuits. But what is the final circuit supposed to do?
?
Is the 1 ohm resistor the load?
|
Re: Simulation runs very slowly: test.asc
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 08:51 AM, Christopher Paul wrote:
It¡¯s unclear to me which of the four separate circuits you are referring to, or why you are suggesting a reconfiguration and what goal you are pursuing. All are configured as I intended. They are independent of one another except for sharing a power supply.
I think eT was getting confused about the fact that there were two current sources, which he thought both fed current into the string of diodes.? They don't, of course.? (Even if they did, they do not conflict or fight.? Current sources can be directly added without problem.)
?
The op-amp+MOSFET current source controls the 100-times-larger LM317A current source, by controlling its voltage sensing pins (the voltage between its OUT and ADJ pins).? We don't know exactly why Chris has it arranged that way, but I'm guessing it is either to toggle the LM317's current source on and off, or to adjust its current level.
Although we still don¡¯t know, the simulation completes and runs (acceptably) slowly with Andy¡¯s suggestion of the alternate solver.
You can speed up the simulations.? With the Alternate solver, or the pull-down resistor, LTspice wastes a lot of time trying (and failing) to find the initial operating point.? By examining the results in the Error Log file, you can see which of its algorithms failed, and then add appropriate .OPTIONS commands to skip those algorithms and save time.? For example:
? ? .OPTIONS NoOpIter GminSteps=0 SrcSteps=0
makes it go straight to the Pseudo-Tran algorithm, which is the only one that succeeded with just the Alternate solver.? If I remember correctly, the Alternate Source Stepping algorithm succeeded after adding the pulldown resistor, so omit "SrcSteps=0" in that case.
?
See LTspice's Help > LTspice > Dot Commands > .OP -- Find the DC Operating Point.? The information on that page applies to all simulations, not only the ones that have an ".OP" simulation command.
?
I don't know what causes the first two or three algorithms to fail.? Sometimes that just happens and we need to live with it.? That is why LTspice has four algorithms, in case some of them fail.
?
Andy
?
|
Re: Simulation runs very slowly: test.asc
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 05:03 AM, Tony Casey wrote:
Threaded discussion list view can be enabled in other email clients besides Thunderbird, including Gmail, Kmail, Outlook and Windows Mail. In Gmail, Outlook and Windows Mail it is called "Conversation" view, but it needs configuring in most clients and is best used when filters or rules are applied to your inbox(es) to move certain messages to other folders.
Gmail's "Conversation" view is very much NOT the same as Thunderbird's Threaded view.? Gmail ignores the same header line that identifies message threading that Thunderbird uses.? When someone hijacks a topic and changes the Subject line, Gmail always puts it into a separate topic in Gmail, unlike what Thunderbird does.? (Actually I think that is a combination of both the Subject line and another hidden header line.? But it definitely differs from Thunderbird's view.)
?
My recollection is that Outlook also ignored threading (conversations were grouped but not threaded), and used something like the Subject line to identify conversations.? But I have not used Outlook in many years.
?
My first home internet email reader had a proper threaded view, which I really missed when I eventually changed to different email programs.? And still miss.
?
I am sometimes guilty of replying to the wrong topic in a thread.? Sometimes I pick a random topic to reply to (often it's either the first or the last), which probably does not look right in a properly threaded message view.? I should stop doing that.
?
Andy
?
|
DerekK
John Woodgate
Tony Casey