Forums

Are TI Pspice models encripted?

Started by Unknown April 4, 2014
On 4/6/2014 1:22 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 10:09:43 -0700, John Larkin > <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:42:04 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 15:48:29 -0700, John Larkin >>> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 15:28:05 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 14:49:43 -0700, John Larkin >>>>> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [snip] >>>>> >>>>> Who uttered their profound statement of ignorance, "Thing about CMOS >>>>> is its terrible ratio of capacitance to transconductance. I've >>>>> seen CMOS opamps that have PSRR *gain*." ??? >>>>> >>>>> Anyone with half a clue knows that PSRR is referred to input for a >>>>> reason... to hide the fact that there is always a frequency point >>>>> above which ALL OpAmps have gain from supplies to output... bipolar's >>>>> included. >>>>> >>>>> I was designing bipolar integrated circuits while you were still in >>>>> diapers. Sometimes I think you still are. >>>>> >>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>> >>>> You're still chicken, and still wrong. >>>> >>>> If you dispute the gain:capacitance disadvantage of CMOS amps, name a >>>> CMOS opamp that's as fast as a bipolar THS3201. Or has the speed and >>>> input capacitance of a jfet ADA4817. Or comes anywhere near the specs >>>> of an AD8034. >>>> >>>> Come on, try it. >> >> >> Thanks for the insight. > > .FUNC[PLINK] BYE >:-} > > Note to all: Replying to Larkin will _not_ be seen by me. I finally > figured out how to kill subthreads, so I have no annoyance whatsoever. > > ...Jim Thompson
Finally a rational act in this "conversation"... -- Rick
On 4/6/2014 1:24 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 10:22:03 -0700, Jim Thompson > <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 10:09:43 -0700, John Larkin >> <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:42:04 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 15:48:29 -0700, John Larkin >>>> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 15:28:05 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 14:49:43 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>> >>>>>> Who uttered their profound statement of ignorance, "Thing about CMOS >>>>>> is its terrible ratio of capacitance to transconductance. I've >>>>>> seen CMOS opamps that have PSRR *gain*." ??? >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyone with half a clue knows that PSRR is referred to input for a >>>>>> reason... to hide the fact that there is always a frequency point >>>>>> above which ALL OpAmps have gain from supplies to output... bipolar's >>>>>> included. >>>>>> >>>>>> I was designing bipolar integrated circuits while you were still in >>>>>> diapers. Sometimes I think you still are. >>>>>> >>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>> >>>>> You're still chicken, and still wrong. >>>>> >>>>> If you dispute the gain:capacitance disadvantage of CMOS amps, name a >>>>> CMOS opamp that's as fast as a bipolar THS3201. Or has the speed and >>>>> input capacitance of a jfet ADA4817. Or comes anywhere near the specs >>>>> of an AD8034. >>>>> >>>>> Come on, try it. >>> >>> >>> Thanks for the insight. >> >> .FUNC[PLINK] BYE >:-} >> >> Note to all: Replying to Larkin will _not_ be seen by me. I finally >> figured out how to kill subthreads, so I have no annoyance whatsoever. >> >> ...Jim Thompson > > Chicken! You are wrong about CMOS amps, and are going off to hide in the back of > your coop.
But John can't let this end without trying at least to draw blood. -- Rick
On 4/6/2014 1:09 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:15:32 -0700, Jim Thompson > <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 17:09:01 -0700, Jim Thompson >> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 13:59:35 -0700, Jim Thompson >>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 13:49:38 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 13:03:58 -0700 (PDT), wanderer@dialup4less.com >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I was going to try to load the TI TPS54335 spice model into LTspice but it looks encrypted. Is TI encrypting its spice models now? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.ti.com/product/tps54335 >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >> >>>>> >>>>> Yep. Looks like TI is following LT's lead... models that will only >>>>> run on TINA. >>>>> >>>>> The posted PSpice model... while I've not yet tried it, looks like it >>>>> only will do a Bode plot. I'll let you know. >>>>> >>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>> >>>> Yep, only Bode. TI will have its way with you >:-} >>>> >>>> I just did a model for the TI LM94022 (no model released by TI), based >>>> entirely on the datasheet, which is in beta testing. I'll post as >>>> soon as it is blessed. >>>> >>>> Perhaps I'll try the TPS54335, time permitting. The system modeling >>>> that the LM94022 goes into is a paying project, so it will dominate my >>>> time ;-) >>>> >>>> ...Jim Thompson >>> >>> Any questions/comments about the original topic, please post a >>> response to this re-thread. >>> >>> ...Jim Thompson >> >> Testing >> >> ...Jim Thompson > > It works. Nobody's interested.
Indeed, why would anyone wish to comment on electronic simulations in S.E.D? -- Rick
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:25:54 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/4/2014 9:58 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >> On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 18:27:07 -0700, John Larkin >> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 16:10:20 -0700, Jim Thompson >>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >...snip... >>>> You just need to read thru it thoroughly, actually the effects of the >>>> Cload values are easy to decipher. >>> >>> I especially enjoyed the first-page claim about how it can drive an >>> ADC s/h circuit, and fig 18, which shows that it can't. >>> >>> Why didn't they make it c-load stable? >> >> Ask National/TI. I didn't design it, I just modeled it. >> >> That you can't decipher some of the data (because you're CMOS >> illiterate) is your problem, not mine. >> >> ...Jim Thompson > >Ok, a relatively civil conversation until Jim can't resist throwing an >insult into the mix.
That is the pattern. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:31:38 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/6/2014 1:24 PM, John Larkin wrote: >> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 10:22:03 -0700, Jim Thompson >> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 10:09:43 -0700, John Larkin >>> <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:42:04 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 15:48:29 -0700, John Larkin >>>>> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 15:28:05 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 14:49:43 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Who uttered their profound statement of ignorance, "Thing about CMOS >>>>>>> is its terrible ratio of capacitance to transconductance. I've >>>>>>> seen CMOS opamps that have PSRR *gain*." ??? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyone with half a clue knows that PSRR is referred to input for a >>>>>>> reason... to hide the fact that there is always a frequency point >>>>>>> above which ALL OpAmps have gain from supplies to output... bipolar's >>>>>>> included. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was designing bipolar integrated circuits while you were still in >>>>>>> diapers. Sometimes I think you still are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>>> >>>>>> You're still chicken, and still wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you dispute the gain:capacitance disadvantage of CMOS amps, name a >>>>>> CMOS opamp that's as fast as a bipolar THS3201. Or has the speed and >>>>>> input capacitance of a jfet ADA4817. Or comes anywhere near the specs >>>>>> of an AD8034. >>>>>> >>>>>> Come on, try it. >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for the insight. >>> >>> .FUNC[PLINK] BYE >:-} >>> >>> Note to all: Replying to Larkin will _not_ be seen by me. I finally >>> figured out how to kill subthreads, so I have no annoyance whatsoever. >>> >>> ...Jim Thompson >> >> Chicken! You are wrong about CMOS amps, and are going off to hide in the back of >> your coop. > >But John can't let this end without trying at least to draw blood.
Review the thread. I wanted to talk about CMOS parts. He starts fights that he always loses, and slinks away from with that "killfile" nonsense. I wonder why. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:25:54 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/4/2014 9:58 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >> On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 18:27:07 -0700, John Larkin >> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 16:10:20 -0700, Jim Thompson >>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >...snip... >>>> You just need to read thru it thoroughly, actually the effects of the >>>> Cload values are easy to decipher. >>> >>> I especially enjoyed the first-page claim about how it can drive an >>> ADC s/h circuit, and fig 18, which shows that it can't. >>> >>> Why didn't they make it c-load stable? >> >> Ask National/TI. I didn't design it, I just modeled it. >> >> That you can't decipher some of the data (because you're CMOS >> illiterate) is your problem, not mine. >> >> ...Jim Thompson > >Ok, a relatively civil conversation until Jim can't resist throwing an >insult into the mix.
...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 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.
On 4/6/2014 2:40 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:31:38 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 4/6/2014 1:24 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 10:22:03 -0700, Jim Thompson >>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 10:09:43 -0700, John Larkin >>>> <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:42:04 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 15:48:29 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 15:28:05 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 14:49:43 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Who uttered their profound statement of ignorance, "Thing about CMOS >>>>>>>> is its terrible ratio of capacitance to transconductance. I've >>>>>>>> seen CMOS opamps that have PSRR *gain*." ??? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anyone with half a clue knows that PSRR is referred to input for a >>>>>>>> reason... to hide the fact that there is always a frequency point >>>>>>>> above which ALL OpAmps have gain from supplies to output... bipolar's >>>>>>>> included. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I was designing bipolar integrated circuits while you were still in >>>>>>>> diapers. Sometimes I think you still are. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You're still chicken, and still wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you dispute the gain:capacitance disadvantage of CMOS amps, name a >>>>>>> CMOS opamp that's as fast as a bipolar THS3201. Or has the speed and >>>>>>> input capacitance of a jfet ADA4817. Or comes anywhere near the specs >>>>>>> of an AD8034. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Come on, try it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the insight. >>>> >>>> .FUNC[PLINK] BYE >:-} >>>> >>>> Note to all: Replying to Larkin will _not_ be seen by me. I finally >>>> figured out how to kill subthreads, so I have no annoyance whatsoever. >>>> >>>> ...Jim Thompson >>> >>> Chicken! You are wrong about CMOS amps, and are going off to hide in the back of >>> your coop. >> >> But John can't let this end without trying at least to draw blood. > > Review the thread. I wanted to talk about CMOS parts. > > He starts fights that he always loses, and slinks away from with that > "killfile" nonsense. I wonder why.
You completely miss my point. You are more than happy to roll around in the dirt with him or any of the other children. -- Rick
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 13:41:33 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<hobbs@electrooptical.net> wrote:


>Hallelujah. Let's hope you can keep it up this time.
--- Said the actress to the bishop. ;) John Fields
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:31:38 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/6/2014 1:24 PM, John Larkin wrote: >> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 10:22:03 -0700, Jim Thompson >> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 10:09:43 -0700, John Larkin >>> <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:42:04 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 15:48:29 -0700, John Larkin >>>>> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 15:28:05 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 14:49:43 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Who uttered their profound statement of ignorance, "Thing about CMOS >>>>>>> is its terrible ratio of capacitance to transconductance. I've >>>>>>> seen CMOS opamps that have PSRR *gain*." ??? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyone with half a clue knows that PSRR is referred to input for a >>>>>>> reason... to hide the fact that there is always a frequency point >>>>>>> above which ALL OpAmps have gain from supplies to output... bipolar's >>>>>>> included. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was designing bipolar integrated circuits while you were still in >>>>>>> diapers. Sometimes I think you still are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>>> >>>>>> You're still chicken, and still wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you dispute the gain:capacitance disadvantage of CMOS amps, name a >>>>>> CMOS opamp that's as fast as a bipolar THS3201. Or has the speed and >>>>>> input capacitance of a jfet ADA4817. Or comes anywhere near the specs >>>>>> of an AD8034. >>>>>> >>>>>> Come on, try it. >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for the insight. >>> >>> .FUNC[PLINK] BYE >:-} >>> >>> Note to all: Replying to Larkin will _not_ be seen by me. I finally >>> figured out how to kill subthreads, so I have no annoyance whatsoever. >>> >>> ...Jim Thompson >> >> Chicken! You are wrong about CMOS amps, and are going off to hide in the back of >> your coop. > >But John can't let this end without trying at least to draw blood.
--- There's more to it than just that, in that Larkin takes umbrage at whatever he considers to be detrimental - in the slightest - to the image he holds of himself, especially when it comes to technical faux pas he commits which are reported back to him. On those not quite rare occurrences he usually strikes back with a snide remark or two designed to impugn the reporter's veracity instead of addressing the technical issue, and will escalate the harangue as necessary, usually resorting to ad hominem arguments, in order to kill the messenger. By then, Larkin has often completely derailed the technical argument with the end of it being that his faux pas has been swept under the carpet and, to the unwary observer, dealt with honorably.
Den mandag den 7. april 2014 00.12.51 UTC+2 skrev John Fields:
> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:31:38 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > >On 4/6/2014 1:24 PM, John Larkin wrote: > > >> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 10:22:03 -0700, Jim Thompson > > >> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 10:09:43 -0700, John Larkin > > >>> <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:42:04 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 15:48:29 -0700, John Larkin > > >>>>> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 15:28:05 -0700, Jim Thompson > > >>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 14:49:43 -0700, John Larkin > > >>>>>>> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> [snip] > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Who uttered their profound statement of ignorance, "Thing about CMOS > > >>>>>>> is its terrible ratio of capacitance to transconductance. I've > > >>>>>>> seen CMOS opamps that have PSRR *gain*." ??? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Anyone with half a clue knows that PSRR is referred to input for a > > >>>>>>> reason... to hide the fact that there is always a frequency point > > >>>>>>> above which ALL OpAmps have gain from supplies to output... bipolar's > > >>>>>>> included. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I was designing bipolar integrated circuits while you were still in > > >>>>>>> diapers. Sometimes I think you still are. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> ...Jim Thompson > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> You're still chicken, and still wrong. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> If you dispute the gain:capacitance disadvantage of CMOS amps, name a > > >>>>>> CMOS opamp that's as fast as a bipolar THS3201. Or has the speed and > > >>>>>> input capacitance of a jfet ADA4817. Or comes anywhere near the specs > > >>>>>> of an AD8034. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Come on, try it. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks for the insight. > > >>> > > >>> .FUNC[PLINK] BYE >:-} > > >>> > > >>> Note to all: Replying to Larkin will _not_ be seen by me. I finally > > >>> figured out how to kill subthreads, so I have no annoyance whatsoever. > > >>> > > >>> ...Jim Thompson > > >> > > >> Chicken! You are wrong about CMOS amps, and are going off to hide in the back of > > >> your coop. > > > > > >But John can't let this end without trying at least to draw blood. > > > > --- > > There's more to it than just that, in that Larkin takes umbrage at > > whatever he considers to be detrimental - in the slightest - to the > > image he holds of himself, especially when it comes to technical > > faux pas he commits which are reported back to him. > > > > On those not quite rare occurrences he usually strikes back with a > > snide remark or two designed to impugn the reporter's veracity > > instead of addressing the technical issue, and will escalate the > > harangue as necessary, usually resorting to ad hominem arguments, in > > order to kill the messenger. > > > > By then, Larkin has often completely derailed the technical argument > > with the end of it being that his faux pas has been swept under the > > carpet and, to the unwary observer, dealt with honorably.
to me that seems like a fitting description of them both once either of them get the mudslinging started -Lasse