开云体育

On 06/07/2023 09:13, garvind25@... wrote: > I am trying to plot a few graphs in LTSPICE XVII and have a couple of > queries. Hope someone will answer: > ** Can I define a constant capacitance

What you want to do can be done. Note the following: 1. In the Cox formula, LTspice stops parsing after the 'f'. What is 'u' anyway? Is it a fixed voltage? 2. You say that the y-axis unit isn't

Hi, I am trying to plot a few graphs in LTSPICE XVII and have a couple of queries. Hope someone will answer: ** Can I define a constant capacitance value in LTSPICE such as Cox = 8.5fF/u^2 so that

Surely this is not Sam Ben-Yaakov's intention, as he readily describes a natural self-balancing behaviour (propagation indeed) permitting the use of 2 switches per cell in case it is acceptable that

17.1 installed. I'll see what happens now. benjamin.voegeli@...> wrote:

It helps if you upload a schematic that actually runs. You have a ".lib ISL70444SEH.lib" directive in the schematic, but the model file you uploaded is "ISL70444SEH.cir" and there are no analysis

This happens sometimes where there are signals with fast edges (aka zero rise or fall times), discontinuities or indeterminate derivatives. An indeterminate derivative happens at a corner. See if you

You forgot the .TRAN statement, and your .INC command references the wrong filename.? Those are minor but not insignificant omissions.? I get suspicious whenever it is obvious that you did not

Hello all- I'm trying to use the ISL70444SEH model and a basic circuit to confirm that the model works correctly before moving on to anything more complicated. I'm having issues with the simulation.

Depends on what you mean by economical.? Looking at some of Sam Ben-Yaakov's earlier videos and papers of his grad students in Switched Capacitor Controllers, it seems that 2^n-1 switches would be

Hello David, What version of LTspice are you using? This sounds like a problem that was fixed LTspice 17.1+ Could you please download the latest version and let us know if that solves the problem?

Hi, my attention got caught by https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs9cbeGl7Rw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBOHCfrccCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRezuwQCaKI Amazing, isn't?

Not so much. Actually leakage inductance does not vary too much, but since the effective inductance of the winding decreases, the leakage factor increases. Leakage exists even when there is a single

Yes, this is a practical solution in many applications. In fact, my first thought was to look if there is a hidden third resonant winding. But I found out that the inverter transformer is indeed a

So, you mean that the impedance Z of the leakage inductance, is somehow proportional to F^2 (since Z=wL is proportional to F already). For instance, to allow some flux leakage to exist, the

Just like the nominal inductance largely varies between 50Hz and 16kHz, so does the leakage. The magnetic permeability decreases significantly at HF, so te fraction that goes through the air becomes

You may insist, but the? OP gives contrary evidence: "pure sinewave *inverters* which use conventional two-winding iron core transformers. Their transformer is *driven by a MOSFET bridge* "... "

It seems all here agreed that the other element in LPF is Rpar(hi) which represent the various core losses at the PWM high frequency. Now I have to find out a rather simple practical test to measure,

Rpar = R(af+bf^2) near enough, for suitable values or R, a and b. You need data on the core material to determine them. af is eddy-current loss and bf^2 is hysteresis loss.

I understand that, but the resonant winding is not visible to users. Ferroresonant xformers appear to be two-winding devices for all practical purposes. Donald.