Reply by Michael A. Terrell January 19, 20132013-01-19
Jim Thompson wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:39:45 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" > <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > >Jim Thompson wrote: > >> > >> "All in the Family" is probably the best sitcom, EVER! > > > > > > Try watching 'Big Bang Theory' for a while. :) > > What kind of "bang" is it ?:-}
So you haven't seen it? Or the nerds dating on the show, where some of the women are nerds. :) I figured that you wouldn't miss an episode.
Reply by Jim Thompson January 18, 20132013-01-18
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:33:14 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>Jim Thompson wrote: >> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:39:45 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" >> <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>>> "All in the Family" is probably the best sitcom, EVER! >>> >>> Try watching 'Big Bang Theory' for a while. :) >> >> What kind of "bang" is it ?:-} >> > >Now, now, I thought you claimed to be couth ... tsk, tsk, tsk.
You're kidding, aren't you ?>:-} ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Reply by Joerg January 18, 20132013-01-18
Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:39:45 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" > <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> Jim Thompson wrote: >>> "All in the Family" is probably the best sitcom, EVER! >> >> Try watching 'Big Bang Theory' for a while. :) > > What kind of "bang" is it ?:-} >
Now, now, I thought you claimed to be couth ... tsk, tsk, tsk. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Reply by Jim Thompson January 18, 20132013-01-18
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:39:45 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

> >Jim Thompson wrote: >> >> "All in the Family" is probably the best sitcom, EVER! > > > Try watching 'Big Bang Theory' for a while. :)
What kind of "bang" is it ?:-} ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Reply by Michael A. Terrell January 18, 20132013-01-18
Jim Thompson wrote:
> > "All in the Family" is probably the best sitcom, EVER!
Try watching 'Big Bang Theory' for a while. :)
Reply by Joerg January 18, 20132013-01-18
Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:45:06 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> Jim Thompson wrote: >>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:01:26 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> >>> wrote:
[...]
>> >>>> In this case it wouldn't be the FDA but some other agency. Anyhow, I did >>>> that sim a while ago and I now have a symbol named "opamp2TI". Woiks fine. >>> As long as it "woiks" you're OK ;-) >>> >> It woiks poifectly. >> >> Watched an epidode of "All in the Family" a couple days ago. The one >> where Edith accepted an invitation by the Jeffersons and Archie ... >> well, you know how he reacted. > > "All in the Family" is probably the best sitcom, EVER! >
Oh yeah, definitely. I think we saw each episode at least five times. To the point where my wife sometimes counters "Yes, Archie" when I want to have my say about something. When I was a kid I repaired old TV sets and while at it discovered that with some more elaborate aerial I could pull in Dutch TV. They brought All in the Family, original with sub-titles. That's in part how I learned English. So I learned the not so good words first, like stifle, Sigmund Fruit, groinecologist, gyropractor, fillit micknon, allamac and so on. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Reply by Jim Thompson January 18, 20132013-01-18
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:45:06 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>Jim Thompson wrote: >> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:01:26 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 17:42:51 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:36:12 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> [snip] >>>>>> Thanks for testing it. In case you want to try: When you hang a 10k in >>>>>> the FB and feed a current into IN-, then runs .NOISE, does it run on >>>>>> your sim? If yes then it's highly likely that the model doesn't fit LTSpice. >>>>> I think I know the problem... >>>>> >>>>> I did this... >>>>> >>>>> .SUBCKT OPA4140 +IN -IN Vout V+ V- ; -IN +IN V- V+ Vout (Rearranged >>>>> Order to Match PSpice Symbol) >>>>> >>>>> You need to make sure the "pin" order matches the LTspice OpAmp >>>>> symbol... otherwise you will experience pain and agony. >>>>> >>>>> (The TI pin order is just a wee bit unusual. I do this rearrangement >>>>> exercise almost daily, so it's second nature to me.) >>>>> >>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>> I found a simple solution which _may_ save Joerg from those meanies at >>>> the FDA >:-} >>>> >>>> You presently have as the model... >>>> >>>> .SUBCKT OPA4140 -IN +IN V- V+ Vout >>>> | >>>> | >>>> .ENDS OPA4140 >>>> >>>> Make a subcircuit declaration... >>>> >>>> .SUBCKY MyOPA4140 +IN -IN Vout V+ V- >>>> X1 -IN +IN V- V+ Vout OPA4140 >>>> .ENDS MyOPA4140 >>>> >>>> Rearranges the pin order without doing any editing (heavens ;-) to the >>>> original. >>>> >>> It's a subcircuit already, so I'd have to declare a subcircuit in a >>> subcircuit. >> >> Careful of your verbiage. MyOPA4140 and OPA4140 are SEPARATE >> DECLARATIONS... in your library file(s) >> >> In your schematic you would have an OpAmp symbol that calls an >> MyOPA410 subcircuit that references an OPA4140 subcircuit. >> > >Yup, saw that. This is why I said it should be legit because that way >you don't have two different devices with the same name. > > >> Caution: The Pin order shown above matches MY symbol... for your >> purposes make sure it matches the preferred LTspice Pin Order. >> >>> That would work and should be audit-proof because no trail >>> gets broken. Like the SW-guys with their C compilers, setting up a >>> pointer to a pointer to a pointer :-) >> >> Yep. >> >> I actually stumbled onto it in LTspice where they define an LTC6709 by >> calling an LTC6708. >> > >In California they do this kind of stuff using "revenue anticipation" >bonds. Or in banker speak, they leverage the leverage that was already >leveraged. > > >>> In this case it wouldn't be the FDA but some other agency. Anyhow, I did >>> that sim a while ago and I now have a symbol named "opamp2TI". Woiks fine. >> >> As long as it "woiks" you're OK ;-) >> > >It woiks poifectly. > >Watched an epidode of "All in the Family" a couple days ago. The one >where Edith accepted an invitation by the Jeffersons and Archie ... >well, you know how he reacted.
"All in the Family" is probably the best sitcom, EVER! ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Reply by Joerg January 18, 20132013-01-18
Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:01:26 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> Jim Thompson wrote: >>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 17:42:51 -0700, Jim Thompson >>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:36:12 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> [snip] >>>>> Thanks for testing it. In case you want to try: When you hang a 10k in >>>>> the FB and feed a current into IN-, then runs .NOISE, does it run on >>>>> your sim? If yes then it's highly likely that the model doesn't fit LTSpice. >>>> I think I know the problem... >>>> >>>> I did this... >>>> >>>> .SUBCKT OPA4140 +IN -IN Vout V+ V- ; -IN +IN V- V+ Vout (Rearranged >>>> Order to Match PSpice Symbol) >>>> >>>> You need to make sure the "pin" order matches the LTspice OpAmp >>>> symbol... otherwise you will experience pain and agony. >>>> >>>> (The TI pin order is just a wee bit unusual. I do this rearrangement >>>> exercise almost daily, so it's second nature to me.) >>>> >>>> ...Jim Thompson >>> I found a simple solution which _may_ save Joerg from those meanies at >>> the FDA >:-} >>> >>> You presently have as the model... >>> >>> .SUBCKT OPA4140 -IN +IN V- V+ Vout >>> | >>> | >>> .ENDS OPA4140 >>> >>> Make a subcircuit declaration... >>> >>> .SUBCKY MyOPA4140 +IN -IN Vout V+ V- >>> X1 -IN +IN V- V+ Vout OPA4140 >>> .ENDS MyOPA4140 >>> >>> Rearranges the pin order without doing any editing (heavens ;-) to the >>> original. >>> >> It's a subcircuit already, so I'd have to declare a subcircuit in a >> subcircuit. > > Careful of your verbiage. MyOPA4140 and OPA4140 are SEPARATE > DECLARATIONS... in your library file(s) > > In your schematic you would have an OpAmp symbol that calls an > MyOPA410 subcircuit that references an OPA4140 subcircuit. >
Yup, saw that. This is why I said it should be legit because that way you don't have two different devices with the same name.
> Caution: The Pin order shown above matches MY symbol... for your > purposes make sure it matches the preferred LTspice Pin Order. > >> That would work and should be audit-proof because no trail >> gets broken. Like the SW-guys with their C compilers, setting up a >> pointer to a pointer to a pointer :-) > > Yep. > > I actually stumbled onto it in LTspice where they define an LTC6709 by > calling an LTC6708. >
In California they do this kind of stuff using "revenue anticipation" bonds. Or in banker speak, they leverage the leverage that was already leveraged.
>> In this case it wouldn't be the FDA but some other agency. Anyhow, I did >> that sim a while ago and I now have a symbol named "opamp2TI". Woiks fine. > > As long as it "woiks" you're OK ;-) >
It woiks poifectly. Watched an epidode of "All in the Family" a couple days ago. The one where Edith accepted an invitation by the Jeffersons and Archie ... well, you know how he reacted. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Reply by Jim Thompson January 18, 20132013-01-18
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:01:26 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>Jim Thompson wrote: >> On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 17:42:51 -0700, Jim Thompson >> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:36:12 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >> [snip] >>>> Thanks for testing it. In case you want to try: When you hang a 10k in >>>> the FB and feed a current into IN-, then runs .NOISE, does it run on >>>> your sim? If yes then it's highly likely that the model doesn't fit LTSpice. >>> I think I know the problem... >>> >>> I did this... >>> >>> .SUBCKT OPA4140 +IN -IN Vout V+ V- ; -IN +IN V- V+ Vout (Rearranged >>> Order to Match PSpice Symbol) >>> >>> You need to make sure the "pin" order matches the LTspice OpAmp >>> symbol... otherwise you will experience pain and agony. >>> >>> (The TI pin order is just a wee bit unusual. I do this rearrangement >>> exercise almost daily, so it's second nature to me.) >>> >>> ...Jim Thompson >> >> I found a simple solution which _may_ save Joerg from those meanies at >> the FDA >:-} >> >> You presently have as the model... >> >> .SUBCKT OPA4140 -IN +IN V- V+ Vout >> | >> | >> .ENDS OPA4140 >> >> Make a subcircuit declaration... >> >> .SUBCKY MyOPA4140 +IN -IN Vout V+ V- >> X1 -IN +IN V- V+ Vout OPA4140 >> .ENDS MyOPA4140 >> >> Rearranges the pin order without doing any editing (heavens ;-) to the >> original. >> > >It's a subcircuit already, so I'd have to declare a subcircuit in a >subcircuit.
Careful of your verbiage. MyOPA4140 and OPA4140 are SEPARATE DECLARATIONS... in your library file(s) In your schematic you would have an OpAmp symbol that calls an MyOPA410 subcircuit that references an OPA4140 subcircuit. Caution: The Pin order shown above matches MY symbol... for your purposes make sure it matches the preferred LTspice Pin Order.
>That would work and should be audit-proof because no trail >gets broken. Like the SW-guys with their C compilers, setting up a >pointer to a pointer to a pointer :-)
Yep. I actually stumbled onto it in LTspice where they define an LTC6709 by calling an LTC6708.
> >In this case it wouldn't be the FDA but some other agency. Anyhow, I did >that sim a while ago and I now have a symbol named "opamp2TI". Woiks fine.
As long as it "woiks" you're OK ;-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Reply by Joerg January 18, 20132013-01-18
Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 17:42:51 -0700, Jim Thompson > <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:36:12 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> >> wrote: >> > [snip] >>> Thanks for testing it. In case you want to try: When you hang a 10k in >>> the FB and feed a current into IN-, then runs .NOISE, does it run on >>> your sim? If yes then it's highly likely that the model doesn't fit LTSpice. >> I think I know the problem... >> >> I did this... >> >> .SUBCKT OPA4140 +IN -IN Vout V+ V- ; -IN +IN V- V+ Vout (Rearranged >> Order to Match PSpice Symbol) >> >> You need to make sure the "pin" order matches the LTspice OpAmp >> symbol... otherwise you will experience pain and agony. >> >> (The TI pin order is just a wee bit unusual. I do this rearrangement >> exercise almost daily, so it's second nature to me.) >> >> ...Jim Thompson > > I found a simple solution which _may_ save Joerg from those meanies at > the FDA >:-} > > You presently have as the model... > > .SUBCKT OPA4140 -IN +IN V- V+ Vout > | > | > .ENDS OPA4140 > > Make a subcircuit declaration... > > .SUBCKY MyOPA4140 +IN -IN Vout V+ V- > X1 -IN +IN V- V+ Vout OPA4140 > .ENDS MyOPA4140 > > Rearranges the pin order without doing any editing (heavens ;-) to the > original. >
It's a subcircuit already, so I'd have to declare a subcircuit in a subcircuit. That would work and should be audit-proof because no trail gets broken. Like the SW-guys with their C compilers, setting up a pointer to a pointer to a pointer :-) In this case it wouldn't be the FDA but some other agency. Anyhow, I did that sim a while ago and I now have a symbol named "opamp2TI". Woiks fine. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/