开云体育

It's common for the TUNE input to be voltage driven through a low value resistor. It may be that the YIG already has that resistor built-in, but it's usually external because the tuning current can be

If that is true, then john23's specifications are wrong, and the LTspice "model" I made for it is wrong. The Tune input should have been driven by a current, not by a voltage. Andy

Thanks Tony and John, LTspice v24.1.0 was installed automatically yesterday with the internal update. Today tried to update again and now installed new version 24.1.5 I've loaded the test simulation

Sorry, forgot, I have used 1e-9 today in Matlab, I didn't wait it ran all 200us, Just 23% to see the most shape of the leading, the scale is the same, peak approx 40mV. Best regards.

Hi, Marcel: In fact, it doesn't matter to add a '-' sign in time or s-domain. It just changes the positive/negative, instead of the amplitude. Best regards.

I think I found it. When the time-domain waveform is plotted from t=0 to t=50us, it shows a *negative-going* exponential pulse reaching -5.037kV at 960ns. (The shape is approximately waht your picture

On 17/03/2025 12:27, Tony Casey wrote: > On 17/03/2025 11:40, Stephano via groups.io wrote: >> using the TI model of LF356 on LTspice v24.1.0 result in strange behaviour, DC output from OpAmp is over

I don't have version 24.1.0 installed, but with 24.1.5, the (Helmut's) original circuit stalled at 40% completion, but was correct up to that point. When I changed the rise and fall times of the

We can't help much unless you let us see more of what you are doing. Upload your .ASC file AND all the other files required to run the simulation, but not .RAW? and .LOG files or pictures,? in a ZIP

Hi, using the TI model of LF356 on LTspice v24.1.0 result in strange behaviour, DC output from OpAmp is over 18V when the supply voltages are +/- 15V. In the "Component attribute editor" I've changed

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

I don't know, in my domain what I can do the best is to spend the tiny time step = 1ps. (already the smallest when considering the computing performance.) But neither LTspice nor Matlab/simulink has

The transfer function and time domain expressions look OK to me but the scope plot is obviously "wrong". This could be caused by the sample-based Simulink implementation. What is the sample-rate /

That's exactly true. YIG are tuned by varying the magnetic field the element is in, hence the coils. This also defines the dynamic behaviour. -- Regards, Tony

In simple words, ... The user's fault or math's fault ? Beg your pardon first, so noisy, definitely my fault. In fact, my default thoughts is 99% belong to user's fault, but I don't know what's wrong.

Hi, : You know what ? I'm surprised about I do have the memory about using this in Matlab. It got the same result. I worship the math as some kind of religion, but this time, I can't get the desired

aside: please note that for time-varying resistors, the theoretical circuit equations will change and new derivative terms for (otherwise fixed) component parameters will enter into your equations.

Hi I have LTspice XVII installed in the directory: C:Program files\LTC\LTspice XVII Is it safe to install LTspice 24? so that I keep my old Auto_Genrated models? Can you please advise? is the new

This implies that both inputs might respond to current, unless the TUNE coil has enough resistance which is stable and predictable. Andy

john23, I uploaded "YIG VCO.asc" to the "Temp" directory.? It models what you apparently wanted.? It has two inputs and one output. The "Coarse" input is for your "TUNE" signal that sets the center