Hello Andy:
?
A glitch is an unwanted or unexpected signal transition that occurs in a circuit before it settles to its intended value.
?
A TRAP glitch is sometimes just a glitch and sometimes it's the leading edge of TRAP ringing.
?
I call it a TRAP glitch by using the same rationale behind the accepted term "TRAP ringing."
?
Both TRAP glitches and TRAP ringing essentially disappear when the Alternate solver is selected.
?
In Glitch10 it is the massive -100A scale glitch that affects multiple signals simultaneously.
?
Glitch11 shows a typical (not the glitch in Glitch10) TRAP glitch after LTspice has been zoomed in to the maximum possible.
?
The waveforms in general are not germain, the glitch disturbance with femtosecond resolution is what is represented.
?
All for now
?
Sent:?Monday, June 02, 2025 at 12:33 AM
From:?"Andy I via groups.io" <AI.egrps+io@...>
To:[email protected]
Subject:?Re: [LTspice] A Huge Glitch
What is a TRAP glitch?
?
For that matter, what exactly is your meaning of "glitch" in this particular context?
?
What are your waveforms supposed to show us?
?
Unfortunately, I think no conclusions can be drawn from waveforms without knowing what they represent.
?
Andy
?
|
Re: Problem with my trying to add a potentiometer in LTSpice
On 02/06/2025 19:17, Oliver Barrett via
groups.io wrote:
I looked at the
symbol file within that trimpot.zip upload and discovered that the
subcircuit file name must be entered into the ModelFile field,
within the Attributes page of the symbol file.? I had left that
blank, but fixed it this morning and my potentiometer component
works correctly now.
That's one way of providing the model file name. The other way is to
add the directive to the schematic:
.lib <modelfilename>
This method has the advantages that it makes it obvious what the
file name is, and second, that it provides an easy way to read the
contents of that file. The disadvantage is that it has to be added
to every schematic that uses it.
--
Regards,
Tony
|
Re: Problem with my trying to add a potentiometer in LTSpice
I looked at the symbol file within that trimpot.zip upload and discovered that the subcircuit file name must be entered into the ModelFile field, within the Attributes page of the symbol file.? I had left that blank, but fixed it this morning and my potentiometer component works correctly now.
?
Thanks again for everyone's help!
Oliver
|
On 02/06/2025 17:04, Dennis via
groups.io wrote:
Sigh...
?
Yet another undocumented feature. There is no mention of this
option in the help for ".options" or "Transient analysis
options".
?
How are users supposed to know what this does or when it
might be useful?
There's no mystery. Just unread information. The official Help has
always lagged.
Menu > Help > Show LTspice Change log
10/8/24 LTspice 24.1.0
?????? * Improved performance and convergence
?????? * Add support for directory hierarchy for symbol search
paths and schematic directory
?????? * Add support for environment variables in Settings >
Search Paths
?????? * Add "All" symbol directories view in Place Component
dialog
?????? * Add .savestate and .loadstate simulator directives to
save and restore the complete transient simulation condition
?????? * Add ".option debugtran" to add report in log file to
indicate convergence challenges
?????? * Enhanced netlist syntax checking
?????? * Introduced string parameters that allow easy stepping of
models and subcircuits
?????? * Allow device flags to be set to zero for ease of
parameterization
?????? * Changed default integration method to Trapezoidal
?????? * Remember waveform compression settings (under Settings
> Compression) between LTspice invocations
?????? * Always accept "3k4" notation as 3.4k (no longer optional)
?????? * Update FRA example fra_eg1
?????? * Update Help documentation
?????? * Bug fixes
--
Regards,
Tony
|
Please always include at least a bit of the
post you are replying to.?
In this case, a Search for 'debugtran' cause
the Offline Manual to sulk. This is with 24.1.9.
On 2025-06-02 16:04, Dennis wrote:
Sigh...
?
Yet another undocumented feature. There is no mention of this
option in the help for ".options" or "Transient analysis
options".
?
How are users supposed to know what this does or when it
might be useful?
--
Best wishes John Woodgate RAYLEIGH Essex 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: Diode charactoristic differences between modelling tools
On 02/06/2025 16:56, Andrew Lohmann via
groups.io wrote:
The two diodes I
used were BAV199 at 10uA to 15mA & 1PS66SB82 at 100uA to
150uA, both running at 25'C.
You could have said so. But it's clear that you entered the wrong
data into the online calculators. If you hadn't, the results between
those and LTspice would have be almost identical, as I showed.
I can't decode what you mean about a vast difference. A difference
in what?
--
Regards,
Tony
|
Sigh...
?
Yet another undocumented feature. There is no mention of this option in the help for ".options" or "Transient analysis options".
?
How are users supposed to know what this does or when it might be useful?
|
Re: Diode charactoristic differences between modelling tools
The two diodes I used were BAV199 at 10uA to 15mA & 1PS66SB82 at 100uA to 150uA, both running at 25 ¡ãC.
?
This is my 1970s multimeter; the lowest ranges are 250 mV DC, 1.5V AC at 50K ohms/V and 10K ohms/V.? It does not have any electronics or a transformer, unlike an older AVO multimeter.
So my question is not about small differences but a vast difference.? An
|
Re: Problem with my trying to add a potentiometer in LTSpice
All,
I just uploaded a file called Trimpot.zip.
In the past, I have had many issues with a number of pot designs in the archive.
Some designs required you to place a directive someplace on the schematic,
I thought that it would be better and easier if the part included an actual pin for the control signal.
?
Tony Casey and Andy,
Since you have a such a large amount of knowledge and experience with LTspice commands.
Please feel free to modify the file "vcpot.cir" if you desire.
I suspect that one or both of you will see a superior way to control the wiper sweep.
?
Comments are welcome.
?
Thanks,
Mike?
|
Have you tried a run in 24.1.9 with
?
.options debugtran
?
This will produce diagnostic in the log file which might allow you to fix the problem.
?
Best Regards,
Mathias
?
On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 04:49 AM, eewiz wrote:
Typical processing time for 24.0.12 is about 3400 seconds with the Alternate Solver.
The Normal Solver takes about 1800 seconds but throws more than a hundred DefCons during the simulation.
?
I have no typical processing time available for 24.1.9 because it has never finished a full simulation of the project.
24.1.9 always stalls, SM aborts or TS aborts. (SM=Singular Matrix, TS=Time Step)
|
What is a TRAP glitch?
?
For that matter, what exactly is your meaning of "glitch" in this particular context?
?
What are your waveforms supposed to show us?
?
Unfortunately, I think no conclusions can be drawn from waveforms without knowing what they represent.
?
Andy
?
|
Hello Roy:
?
The project embodied by the circuit schematic is proprietary and will be sold in commercial markets.
Therefore I am not permitted to upload the project.
?
But I can say that the circuit is moderately complex, consusting of:
A's 42
B's 21
C's 105
D's 93
E's 23
F's 9
G's 16
H's 3
I's 23
L's 35
M's 7
Q's 153
R's 269
S's 21
V's 41
Which is a total of 861 elements.
?
Typical processing time for 24.0.12 is about 3400 seconds with the Alternate Solver.
The Normal Solver takes about 1800 seconds but throws more than a hundred DefCons during the simulation.
?
I have no typical processing time available for 24.1.9 because it has never finished a full simulation of the project.
24.1.9 always stalls, SM aborts or TS aborts. (SM=Singular Matrix, TS=Time Step)
?
?
All for now
?
Sent:?Sunday, June 01, 2025 at 8:56 PM
From:?"Roy McCammon via groups.io" <roymccammon@...>
To:[email protected]
Subject:?Re: [LTspice] A Huge Glitch
|
|
|
Re: Problem with my trying to add a potentiometer in LTSpice
Hello again,
I renamed the extraneous file as you requested so that it will not be used again.? Potentiometer test circuit.asc (the top level schematic) is now associated with only 2 files:? symbol file ¡°potentiometer.asy¡± and subcircuit file ¡°potentiometer.sub¡±.? When I tried running the simulation, I received this response:
?
LTspice 24.1.9 for Windows
Circuit: C:\Users\hoosa\Dropbox\Radio equipment_USB drive\LTSpice\Potentiometer test circuit.net
Start Time: Sun Jun? 1 16:12:29 2025
C:\Users\hoosa\Dropbox\Radio equipment_USB drive\LTSpice\Potentiometer test circuit.net(4): This sub-circuit name is not defined.
X¡ìX N001 0 NC_01 Rtot=10k wiper={w}
????????? ^^^^^^
?
My new upload containing these files is ¡°Potentiometer circuit-2¡±.
The symbol file Attributes settings are now:
Symbol type:? Cell
Prefix:? X
Value:? potentiometer
Value 2:? Rtot=10k wiper={w}
The Spice Model, SpiceLine, SpiceLine2 and ModelFile fields are blank.
?
You are correct in that I don¡¯t know what I¡¯m doing, in that I still don¡¯t understand how these fhree files exchange parameter values.? In particular, I don¡¯t see where the variables Ra and Rb (as defined by the subcircuit file¡± are used.? Do I still need a separate .asc file that shows the two discrete resistors and their connection terminals?
?
Yes, LTspice accesses these files from the same local hard disk and my PC that the LTspice application executes on, and Dropbox synchronizes these files with its cloud servers.? I¡¯ve not experienced any Dropbox interference issues as far as I¡¯m aware.
Thanks again for your help, I hope I¡¯m getting a little closer to understanding my error.
|
'tera', not 'terra'. I don't see that a
voltage change could be superluminal, because it's based on a
field, but a current in a wire is electrons, and they can't
exceed the speed of light in a vacuum, although they could
exceed the sped of light in the material of the wire, while
emitting Cerenkov radiation.
The singular matrix must be caused by the
processing not being accurate enough, presumably making at least
one matrix element evaluate to zero instead of a finite number.
On 2025-06-01 23:36, eewiz via
groups.io wrote:
Hello All:
?
I managed to catch a TRAP glitch in the wild.
?
The photo Glitch10 shows a TRAP glitch that
caused a singular matrix failure somewhat later at 96.518252ms.?
The photo Glitch11 shows a TRAP glitch that
has been zoomed-in to femtosecond resolution. ?
After following Andy's suggestion of changing the X axis to show time-96.517852ms, I was able to eventually zoom in on one of those TRAP glitches down to a fraction of a femtosecond.
As can be seen in
Glitch11 in the V(v+15) pane,
current changes first.
The current changes 2.88A in 157fs and probably faster
because there are only two interpolated time points on the
current plot.
Using the data shown, the current changes at the rate 18.3
terraamperes per second.
?
The voltage changes 116 millivolts in 2.35 femtoseconds for
a slew rate 50 terravolts per second.
I wonder if those changes might be superluminal and
therefor impossible in this universe.
?
All for now
--
Best wishes John Woodgate RAYLEIGH Essex 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
|
Hello All:
?
I managed to catch a TRAP glitch in the wild.
?
The photo Glitch10 shows a TRAP glitch that caused a singular matrix failure somewhat later at 96.518252ms.?
The photo Glitch11 shows a TRAP glitch that has been zoomed-in to femtosecond resolution. ?
After following Andy's suggestion of changing the X axis to show time-96.517852ms, I was able to eventually zoom in on one of those TRAP glitches down to a fraction of a femtosecond.
As can be seen in Glitch11 in the V(v+15) pane, current changes first.
The current changes 2.88A in 157fs and probably faster because there are only two interpolated time points on the current plot.
Using the data shown, the current changes at the rate 18.3 terraamperes per second.
?
The voltage changes 116 millivolts in 2.35 femtoseconds for a slew rate 50 terravolts per second.
I wonder if those changes might be superluminal and therefor impossible in this universe.
?
All for now
|
Re: Installing 24.1.9 Removed My 24.0.12
I agree that Win32 is not a native Windows
folder, but the preference for running third-party apps is still
to put them in C:\Users\User\AppData\Local\Programs\
Why risk trouble by not doing that?
On 2025-06-01 22:49, eewiz via
groups.io wrote:
Hello John:
?
Yep, except my seperated versions reside in C:\Win32\LTC.
?
C:\Win32 is
not a native folder in Windows 10 nor windows 11.
You may be
thinking of C:\Windows\System32, which is a Windows native
folder, which I am not using.
C:Win32 in no
more native to windows than C:\John or C:\William is.
?
Windows nor LTspice has any preference where LTspice is
installed.
There are places that the LTspice installer puts things
because the programmer of the installer decided to put them
there.
Those places are not "Preferred."
LTspice will run from wherever the Windows directory
points the .asc file extension to.
Or, wherever LTspice is installed if run directly.
?
You can even run multiple simultaneous copies of
different versions or simultaneous copies of the same
version.
The only restriction is that each copy must be
cranking a differently named schematic or there will be
temporary-file clash, since the .log and .raw files take
on the same name as the schematic.
?
All for now
Sent:?Sunday,
June 01, 2025 at 4:58 PM
From:?"John Woodgate via groups.io"
<jmw@...>
To:? [email protected]
Subject:?Re: [LTspice] Installing 24.1.9
Removed My 24.0.12
I'm not sure that it's good to
put non-Windows files in C:/WIN32. I'm pretty
sure that Windows 11 would like it here:?
C:\Users\User\AppData\Local\Programs\ADI\LTspice\ltspice.exe
Of course, to keep more than one version, you
would need something like:
C:\Users\User\AppData\Local\Programs\ADI\LTspice2x\ltspice.exe
for each version.
On 2025-06-01 21:48,
eewiz via groups.io wrote:
Hello Donald:
?
If bottles on WINE, are the same as,
folders on Windows, then the answer is yes.
?
My file structure:
C:\WIN32\LTC\LTspice24.0.12
C:\WIN32\LTC\LTspice24.1.1
C:\WIN32\LTC\LTspice24.1.9
C:\WIN32\LTC\LTspiceIV
C:\WIN32\LTC\LTspiceXVII
?
Each version is installed in it's own
folder.
Installing 24.1.9 creates a new folder
C:\WIN32\LTC\LTspice24.1.9, and during the
installation process, erases all files in the
C:\WIN32\LTC\LTspice24.0.12 folder which is
the current Windows registry holder.
If 24.1.9 interrogates the registry to
determine what the current installed version
is, it finds "C:\WIN32\LTC\LTspice24.0.12.
The 24.1.9 installer does not erase
C:\WIN32\LTC\LTspice24.1.1 nor
C:\WIN32\LTC\LTspiceXVII, etc...
It only erases the current registry
holder which is version 24.0.12.
?
All for now
?
Sent:?Sunday,
June 01, 2025 at 4:24 PM
From:?"Donald H Locker via
groups.io" <dhlocker@...>
To:? [email protected]
Subject:?Re: [LTspice] Installing
24.1.9 Removed My 24.0.12
Speaking of LTspice on WINE - do
you use separate "bottles" for each
installation, or are they all in the
same bottle?
Donald.
On 6/1/25
08:35, Tony Casey via groups.io
wrote:
On
01/06/2025 11:05, Andy I via
groups.io wrote:
There might be problems if it
does that.? I don't know, but
I'm suggesting that there may
have been a good reason for
adding that check.
?
Previously, it was not an
issue and you could install
multiple versions of LTspice on
the same PC, even installing
them in random order.? But
users, and LTspice itself, need
to be careful about things like
preserving the libraries, and I
suspect that was the reason for
Analog Devices to add code to
check that it is not updating a
newer version with an older
one.? Maybe they want to reduce
the chances of really screwing
up your libraries.? (I don't
know - I'm only guessing here.)
I've had no problems installing 3
different version of LTspice on my
computer. (I used to keep LTspiceIV
as well, but gave up on that,
because it was too different, and
very few folk can still have that
installed, except for our friend in
Syria, who cannot access any more
recent versions.) As you know, I'm
primarily a Linux user, but Wine
supports a registry of sorts, too,
that is broadly compatible with the
Windows one insofar as necessary for
Windows programs to function
correctly. When I "upgrade" the
24.1.x version, I always download
and install the new one, so I always
have the installer program for the
future, as the problem with always
upgrading in situ is that you cannot
easily go back to any particular
setting you had in the past. I know
that, technically, Windows provides
this feature with the "System
Restore Points", but that never
seems to quite do what you want it
to.
The uninstall/removal issue only
happens if you try install the new
version into the same folder the old
version is located, in my
experience. In which case, the
installation program tells you the
folder already exists, and asks if
you want to install there anyway.
?
--
Regards,
Tony
--
Best wishes John Woodgate RAYLEIGH Essex 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
--
Best wishes John Woodgate RAYLEIGH Essex 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: Installing 24.1.9 Removed My 24.0.12
Hello John:
?
Yep, except my seperated versions reside in C:\Win32\LTC.
?
C:\Win32 is not a native folder in Windows 10 nor windows 11.
You may be thinking of C:\Windows\System32, which is a Windows native folder, which I am not using.
C:Win32 in no more native to windows than C:\John or C:\William is.
?
Windows nor LTspice has any preference where LTspice is installed.
There are places that the LTspice installer puts things because the programmer of the installer decided to put them there.
Those places are not "Preferred."
LTspice will run from wherever the Windows directory points the .asc file extension to.
Or, wherever LTspice is installed if run directly.
?
You can even run multiple simultaneous copies of different versions or simultaneous copies of the same version.
The only restriction is that each copy must be cranking a differently named schematic or there will be temporary-file clash, since the .log and .raw files take on the same name as the schematic.
?
All for now
Sent:?Sunday, June 01, 2025 at 4:58 PM
From:?"John Woodgate via groups.io" <jmw@...>
To:[email protected]
Subject:?Re: [LTspice] Installing 24.1.9 Removed My 24.0.12
I'm not sure that it's good to put non-Windows files in C:/WIN32. I'm pretty sure that Windows 11 would like it here:? C:\Users\User\AppData\Local\Programs\ADI\LTspice\ltspice.exe Of course, to keep more than one version, you would need something like: C:\Users\User\AppData\Local\Programs\ADI\LTspice2x\ltspice.exe for each version.
On 2025-06-01 21:48, eewiz via groups.io wrote:
Hello Donald:
?
If bottles on WINE, are the same as, folders on Windows, then the answer is yes.
?
My file structure:
C:\WIN32\LTC\LTspice24.0.12
C:\WIN32\LTC\LTspice24.1.1
C:\WIN32\LTC\LTspice24.1.9
C:\WIN32\LTC\LTspiceIV
C:\WIN32\LTC\LTspiceXVII
?
Each version is installed in it's own folder.
Installing 24.1.9 creates a new folder C:\WIN32\LTC\LTspice24.1.9, and during the installation process, erases all files in the C:\WIN32\LTC\LTspice24.0.12 folder which is the current Windows registry holder.
If 24.1.9 interrogates the registry to determine what the current installed version is, it finds "C:\WIN32\LTC\LTspice24.0.12.
The 24.1.9 installer does not erase C:\WIN32\LTC\LTspice24.1.1 nor C:\WIN32\LTC\LTspiceXVII, etc...
It only erases the current registry holder which is version 24.0.12.
?
All for now
?
Sent:?Sunday, June 01, 2025 at 4:24 PM
From:?"Donald H Locker via groups.io" <dhlocker@...>
To:? [email protected]
Subject:?Re: [LTspice] Installing 24.1.9 Removed My 24.0.12
Speaking of LTspice on WINE - do you use separate "bottles" for each installation, or are they all in the same bottle?
Donald.
On 6/1/25 08:35, Tony Casey via groups.io wrote:
On 01/06/2025 11:05, Andy I via groups.io wrote:
There might be problems if it does that.? I don't know, but I'm suggesting that there may have been a good reason for adding that check.
?
Previously, it was not an issue and you could install multiple versions of LTspice on the same PC, even installing them in random order.? But users, and LTspice itself, need to be careful about things like preserving the libraries, and I suspect that was the reason for Analog Devices to add code to check that it is not updating a newer version with an older one.? Maybe they want to reduce the chances of really screwing up your libraries.? (I don't know - I'm only guessing here.)
I've had no problems installing 3 different version of LTspice on my computer. (I used to keep LTspiceIV as well, but gave up on that, because it was too different, and very few folk can still have that installed, except for our friend in Syria, who cannot access any more recent versions.) As you know, I'm primarily a Linux user, but Wine supports a registry of sorts, too, that is broadly compatible with the Windows one insofar as necessary for Windows programs to function correctly. When I "upgrade" the 24.1.x version, I always download and install the new one, so I always have the installer program for the future, as the problem with always upgrading in situ is that you cannot easily go back to any particular setting you had in the past. I know that, technically, Windows provides this feature with the "System Restore Points", but that never seems to quite do what you want it to.
The uninstall/removal issue only happens if you try install the new version into the same folder the old version is located, in my experience. In which case, the installation program tells you the folder already exists, and asks if you want to install there anyway.
?
--
Regards,
Tony
--
Best wishes John Woodgate RAYLEIGH Essex 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: Installing 24.1.9 Removed My 24.0.12
I'm afraid I can't really comment specifically on Win11 because I've
never used it. My desktop PC can run it, but my other machines can't
because either their motherboard BIOS or CPU don't support Safe
Boot. So, I've not considered using it. Linux is much more
accommodating. But at least one of my PCs must run Widows
(deliberate misspelling) because it
has ATE programs on it that aren't supported on Linux to any
reasonable degree.
--
Regards,
Tony
On 01/06/2025 23:18, John Woodgate via
groups.io wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I agree with your reasoning, but there are
many hidden rules in Win 11, and it's unwise, I think, not to
follow them, especially if there is no reason not to follow
them. I suspect some of the 'rules' are 'not specifically
intended' consequences of the Windows programmers assuming
that all the rules they know about are followed by the app
writers and the users.
On 2025-06-01 22:05, Tony Casey via
groups.io wrote:
On 01/06/2025 22:16, eewiz via
groups.io wrote:
1. Erase the C:\WIN32\LTC\LTspice24.1.9 folder.
Makes no difference to windows because 24.1.9 had already
been removed to allow re-installation of 24.0.12 yesterday.
Remember, today's existing 24.1.9 folder was copied there
yesterday after 24.0.12 was re-installed.
This also shows that an LTspice installation folder can
be copied anywhere just like you would a portable program
that has no installer.
In my case, 24.1.9 ran normally from that copied folder,
even though the windows registry contents now support
24.0.12.
It appears that LTspice actually is a portable program
with an installer to setup only file extensions in the
registry.
It appears to require no registry support at runtime.
If you're running from the executable, it make no difference.
If you're running from a shortcut, i.e. the Start Menu, and move
the target file, the shortcut will follow it, which is different
from a symbolic link, which does not follow the target.
If the folder name is unchanged but contains a different LTspice
version, it will also continue to work.
That's because the name of the executable is the same
(LTspice.exe) between all the different versions (17.* - 24.*).
Windows doesn't know which one it's running.
--
Regards,
Tony
|
Re: Diode charactoristic differences between modelling tools
That's the distinction I was trying to make, but obviously failed.
The OP mentioned "Shockley" diodes, but clearly meant "Schottky",
because of the mention of low Vf.
BTW, the Shockley equation works just the same with Schottky diodes,
but the diode parameters are different (specifically Is), due to the
lower energy gap. It even works for LEDs and UV laser diodes as well
as solar panels, so long as Is is chosen appropriately. The Is
default value of 1e-14 is appropriate for small BJT, but not for a
diode, even though the default value is the same.
These days, the equation is often not linked to Shockley, but simply
called the "Ideal Diode Equation", presumably due to Shockley's fall
from grace on account of his deeply unpopular predatory nature and
eugenics proclivities.
--
Regards,
Tony
On 01/06/2025 22:35, eewiz via
groups.io wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Not to be confused with
the Schottky metal contact diode that is not the subject of
the "Shockley Diode Equation."
|
eewiz
Tony Casey
John Woodgate
Roy McCammon