Forums

Are TI Pspice models encripted?

Started by Unknown April 4, 2014
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:37:38 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 15:21:17 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen ><langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:
>>to me that seems like a fitting description of them both once either of >>them get the mudslinging started >> >>-Lasse > >Read the thread. What I've been slinging is opamp part numbers.
--- And derision. And misinformation. And taunts. And on. And on... John Fields
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:38:44 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:48:06 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>You completely miss my point. You are more than happy to roll around in >>the dirt with him or any of the other children. > >I am happy to compare opamps. But he won't play.
--- Perhaps he doesn't like rolling around in the dirt as much as you do.
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
The Gain-Bandwidth Product for an X-FAB XP018 Process NMOS is 7.6159GHz. ...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 Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:03:10 -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 > >The Gain-Bandwidth Product for an X-FAB XP018 Process NMOS is >7.6159GHz. > > ...Jim Thompson
At 100uA bias current. ...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 Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:48:27 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 11:40:55 -0700, John Larkin ><jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> 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. > >--- >You really didn't; what you _wanted to do was to best Jim at his own >game by changing the focus of the thread to fall into line with what >you considered to be an area where you'd be unbeatable. >--- > >>He starts fights that he always loses, and slinks away from with that >>"killfile" nonsense. I wonder why. > >--- >Generally, you're the one who starts the fights; all because you're >so pussywhipped that when he made a comment about your wife which >you decided was grounds to start a neverending vendetta, you did.
So, you wouldn't mind if people slagged your wife? -- John Larkin Highland Technology Inc www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com Precision electronic instrumentation
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 18:40:53 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:36:12 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:12:51 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> >>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. >>> >>>--- >>>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. >> >>I was trying to get Jim to back up his claim about how fast linear CMOS can be. > >--- >No, you weren't. > >What you were trying to do was to get him to post_anything_ so that >you could counter with something faster in bipolar and continue your >neverending harangue.
So you concede that bipolar opamps are faster than cmos opamps? Thanks for backing me up on that. Too bad Jim can't see it. -- John Larkin Highland Technology Inc www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com Precision electronic instrumentation
In article <ehg3k9l17635s3shknst8m5r07hlsl9hfj@4ax.com>, 
jfields@austininstruments.com says...
> > 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. > >
What an imagination you have. Jealousy will get you no where! Jamie
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:18:28 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:48:27 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> >wrote: > >>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 11:40:55 -0700, John Larkin >><jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> 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. >> >>--- >>You really didn't; what you _wanted to do was to best Jim at his own >>game by changing the focus of the thread to fall into line with what >>you considered to be an area where you'd be unbeatable. >>--- >> >>>He starts fights that he always loses, and slinks away from with that >>>"killfile" nonsense. I wonder why. >> >>--- >>Generally, you're the one who starts the fights; all because you're >>so pussywhipped that when he made a comment about your wife which >>you decided was grounds to start a neverending vendetta, you did. > >So, you wouldn't mind if people slagged your wife?
--- Actually, it's not something I concern myself with since I don't have the kind of wife anyone would want to slag. John Fields
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:21:29 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 18:40:53 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> >wrote: > >>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:36:12 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:12:51 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:31:38 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> >>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>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. >>> >>>I was trying to get Jim to back up his claim about how fast linear CMOS can be. >> >>--- >>No, you weren't. >> >>What you were trying to do was to get him to post_anything_ so that >>you could counter with something faster in bipolar and continue your >>neverending harangue. > >So you concede that bipolar opamps are faster than cmos opamps?
--- Not at all, since some are and some aren't. ---
>Thanks for backing me up on that.
--- Incorrect conclusion based on a false premise. ---
>Too bad Jim can't see it.
--- Then - instead of working toward seeing an end to the harangue - you'd like for it to continue with me, no less, conscripted into your cadre of sycophants by trickery. Sick.
On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 22:21:58 -0400, "Maynard A. Philbrook Jr."
<jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> wrote:

>In article <ehg3k9l17635s3shknst8m5r07hlsl9hfj@4ax.com>, >jfields@austininstruments.com says... >> > 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. >> >> > What an imagination you have. > > Jealousy will get you no where! > >Jamie
--- http://www.natchaug.org/about_us.htm