开云体育

How to create IEC 61000-4-5 surge waveform in time & s behavioral ?

Tony Casey All Messages By This Member #159236 开云体育 On 17/03/2025 03:40, ericsson.sunshine via groups.io wrote: Just to note, in the latest LTspice 24.1.5, it will have the following message... It seems 'SCOPEDATA=' is forced to replace the 'file='. Looks like, compatible issue between newer & older...was used to the older XVII... ? "Monotonically increasing value expected. You may want to use SCOPEDATA=<filename> instead. (See the LTspice help for more details.) 1.00E-09,0.9088###> 1.00E-09<###,0.9110" The look-up table has been updated for increased precision. New zip uploaded. -- Regards, Tony
Tony Casey All Messages By This Member #159237 开云体育 On 18/03/2025 08:27, emilien.sabard via groups.io wrote: Same thing with 24.1.4 C:\Users\NAME\Documents\Simulation\ESD\IEC_61000-4-2_Test (1)\IEC_61000-4-2.inc(201): Monotonically increasing value expected. 1.00E-09,0.9088###> 1.00E-09<###,0.9110 The look-up table has been updated for increased precision. New zip uploaded. -- Regards, Tony
[email protected] All Messages By This Member #159239 On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 07:28 PM, Tony Casey wrote: On 17/03/2025 03:40, ericsson.sunshine via groups.io wrote: Just to note, in the latest LTspice 24.1.5, it will have the following message... It seems 'SCOPEDATA=' is forced to replace the 'file='. Looks like, compatible issue between newer & older...was used to the older XVII... ? "Monotonically increasing value expected. You may want to use SCOPEDATA=<filename> instead. (See the LTspice help for more details.) 1.00E-09,0.9088###> 1.00E-09<###,0.9110" The look-up table has been updated for increased precision. New zip uploaded. -- Regards, Tony Hi, Tony: ? Thank you for your update. you are so kind. ? For a little while, I was worried that the new version will bring new issue of those 'Don't look up' problems. You give me hope. ? I am grateful. ? Thank you very much. ? ?
[email protected] All Messages By This Member #159245 I added two photos that show how to construct the waveform both in Simulink and SPICE. ( Photos directory /g/LTspice/album?id=301365 ) The key problem is that neither Simulink nor LTspice allow to construct the Laplace transform of a waveform. They only provide a way to construct a transfer function. For LTspice it was an interesting learning moment as I had never before needed to manipulate the two parameters of the Laplace function (Window and NFFT). They still work in 17.1.5. -marcel
[email protected] All Messages By This Member #159246 On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 08:24 PM, <mhx@...> wrote: I added two photos that show how to construct the waveform both in Simulink and SPICE. ( Photos directory /g/LTspice/album?id=301365 ) The key problem is that neither Simulink nor LTspice allow to construct the Laplace transform of a waveform. They only provide a way to construct a transfer function. For LTspice it was an interesting learning moment as I had never before needed to manipulate the two parameters of the Laplace function (Window and NFFT). They still work in 17.1.5. -marcel Hi, Marcel: ? Thank you for the sharing.? ? One thing that's strange is, the coefficient of 's' seems much different than that converted by ChatGPT or Matlab.? "1/3.5e6s + 1" vs. "s + 3.5e6" & "1/0.14e6s + 1" vs. "s + 0.14e6" two terms have multiplied by '1/3.5e6' & '1/0.14e6'. ? That's interesting ... ? Best regards.
[email protected] All Messages By This Member #159249 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
[email protected] All Messages By This Member #159252 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. ? /g/LTspice/photo/301279/3897664?p=Created%2C%2C%2C20%2C2%2C0%2C0 ? Best regards.

Previous Topic Next Topic