"John Larkin" wrote in message news:r4neccteoeo6npau0lvhci4n9galnjbh0c@4ax.com... On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 21:50:38 -0000, "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:>"Jasen Betts" wrote in message news:oa6rqu$ut$1@gonzo.alcatraz... > >On 2017-03-13, Kevin Aylward <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote: >> "John Larkin" wrote in message >> news:80bdcclpctdk8lageprr2rpsf4rduih7sf@4ax.com... >> > >>> None of that is *evidence* that providing simulators sells any parts at >>> all, >>> let alone, lots of parts. Its quite likely that it will improve sales a >>> tad, >>> but just how much is guesswork. > >>For us it is guesswork, a statistician with the capability to perfom >>experiments and see detailed figures would be able to put a number on it. >>said number would then be a trade secret. > >For LTSpice to be of value to LT, it only has to generate a tad more than >Mike's salary, lets guess that at $500k p.a :-) > > >>-- Kevin Aylward >>http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice >>http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html>I expect that he has some stock options.Probably, but company bosses are not necessarily known to be good the people that actually make them their money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Widlar "Talbert handling the fabrication and Widlar handling the design, they ruled the world and led the world in linear integrated circuits for a couple of decades."[ "Widlar and Talbert realized that the founders of Fairchild did not intend to share their windfall profits with the designers." -- Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html
LTspice, a great program, but that UI!
Started by ●March 10, 2017
Reply by ●March 14, 20172017-03-14
Reply by ●March 14, 20172017-03-14
>wrote in message news:1e7gccp4r9ghq2gqo8krk6vlr34lnbsjd9@4ax.com...> >>Engineering is expensive. Risk can be expensive. Performance can be >>valuable. Getting a product to market matters. There's more to >>engineering than minimizing the BOM cost. > >Sure, but one needs to step back a bit here, and examine reality. > >Are you really claiming that a competent engineer is not even going to >spend 30 mins on the web. Like *30 min* out of months of development costs, >simply to check out if another suitable part might even exist?>Strawman.Not at all>It's *never* a 30 minute task to evaluate alternative >parts.That is not the point. What part of "check out" and "exists" did you miss? The only reason any competent engineer, that is designing for major production runs, is not going to the most basic of "does anther part even exist", is if he has no idea that an alternative might exist. i.e. he was a clueless engineer. Dah..Gee,. looks like I have to go with this..dah... What I can say, is that if I were hiring engineers, hiring an engineer that is bribed by a freebe bit of kit from a vendor, such that he wont even attempt to find a more optimum part, would not be at the top of my resume list. -- Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html
Reply by ●March 14, 20172017-03-14
>"Terry Newton" wrote in message news:oa87j7$11bh$1@gioia.aioe.org...On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 20:44:27 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:> >An engineering product is designed based on technical, objective >> considerations. Not even spending 5 bloody minutes looking for an >> alternative via Google is fantasy. I don't believe for a second that any >> engineer does this. Once alternatives are discovered, an engineer will >> evaluate them to see if they are a better option.>There's more to it than simply finding the cheapest alternative.That's why I wrote "better option">A big part of electronic design is minimizing risk, and to do >that I often use LTspice to simulate parts of the circuit. >Sure I look at the alternatives before choosing a part, but >being able to or not able to simulate a circuit is a big factor. >Another factor that sometimes matters a lot is time.Sure, no one has denied that, but are you, personably, so incompetent that you are not able to load in the competitions models form their websites in reasonable time? I doubt it. So, sure, its useful to have the model includes, but its is trivial detail, only of value to those engineers that probably would be better employed basket weaving. I am not talking about the minor, one off, shit, lets just see if this works bit. I am referring to standard, professional long term product design, where one *IS* subjected to a whole host of constraints like, second sourcing, availability, cost, performance etc... I just don't accept you achieve that by simply using parts, bribed to you, by their inclusion in a freebee spice program.>Unfortunately for LT I just needed one chipAnd illustrates part of the argument I am making. -- Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html
Reply by ●March 14, 20172017-03-14
On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 20:28:57 -0000, "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:>wrote in message news:lnfecc1jnk23tj5te7jn6ndvofvq4i7d9f@4ax.com... > >>> >>>"Expensive" depends on the context. They are small, convenient, and as >>>I noted, very quiet. Two inches away from a 250 MHz, 12 bit ADC, I >>>don't want a lot of switching spikes in my ground plane. >> >>>You've just stated my point about LTSpice, and LT in general. Great >>>stuff, if you're making tens or hundreds a month. Not so great if >>>you're making thousands or hundreds of thousands. TI doesn't give >>>much support for people making tens or hundreds but... >> >>>It's a matter of market. LTSpice allows LT to go after the high >>>margin business, where they want to play. >> >>>This claim makes no sense. LTSpice is *only* a *simulation* program. A >>>simulation program can't "allow" them to sell parts. > >>Nonsense. They sell parts because they've made it easy for customers >>to design their parts in. > >Nonsense. It is hardly any more work for a competent engineer to go and get >a model from a competitor, and *also* simulate it LTSpice. > >Sure, it has *some* value, to include LT models directly, but not a lot, imo > >To wit, LTSpice does not guarantee that it will be uses just for LT parts. >I wajor, that of the 3,000,00 downloads, only a low % actually use it to buy >LT parts, and buy other vendors parts instead. Most of those, probably >decide to go into banking once they finish their B.S. E.E. anyway. That's >the bit many seem to be missing here. > > >So, ones needs to know, how many lazy, incompetent, drunk... engineers there >are that won't do their job and use LTSpice to check out for an optimum >part, and not be bribed by freebees. >I don't drink much. A small beer, or maybe a rum+coke, two or three times a week.>>you're jealous of >>Mike's rock star status but do try to keep it reasonable. ;-) > >In this world of 7 billion people, Mike is a big a nobody as anyone of us. > >Interestingly I just tried in Google: > >"spice" "kevin aylward" 4,180 hits > >"spice" "mike engelhart" 1080 hitsSuper Spice 53,000,000 hits, but not about circuit simulators. LT Spice 747,000 hits, but on topic. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Reply by ●March 14, 20172017-03-14
On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 20:28:57 -0000, "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:>wrote in message news:lnfecc1jnk23tj5te7jn6ndvofvq4i7d9f@4ax.com...[snip]> >>Nonsense. They sell parts because they've made it easy for customers >>to design their parts in. > >Nonsense. It is hardly any more work for a competent engineer to go and get >a model from a competitor, and *also* simulate it LTSpice. >[snip] Therein lies the rub... every frickin' manufacturer is heading toward encrypted models that only run on their own version of simulator, or, like Microchip, have PhD monkeys rolling out models using tables or IF statements that hardly ever converge. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.
Reply by ●March 14, 20172017-03-14
On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 14:05:35 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:> On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 20:28:57 -0000, "Kevin Aylward" > <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote: > >>wrote in message news:lnfecc1jnk23tj5te7jn6ndvofvq4i7d9f@4ax.com... > > [snip] >> >>>Nonsense. They sell parts because they've made it easy for customers >>>to design their parts in. >> >>Nonsense. It is hardly any more work for a competent engineer to go and >>get a model from a competitor, and *also* simulate it LTSpice. >> > [snip] > > Therein lies the rub... every frickin' manufacturer is heading toward > encrypted models that only run on their own version of simulator, or, > like Microchip, have PhD monkeys rolling out models using tables or IF > statements that hardly ever converge. > > ...Jim ThompsonThey probably have the notion that they'll lock you into using only their parts. For me, it's more that they drive me away from using their parts, but hey, I'm a known weirdo. -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com I'm looking for work -- see my website!
Reply by ●March 14, 20172017-03-14
On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 20:42:36 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:>>"Terry Newton" wrote in message news:oa87j7$11bh$1@gioia.aioe.org... > >>There's more to it than simply finding the cheapest alternative. > > That's why I wrote "better option" > >>A big part of electronic design is minimizing risk, and to do that I >>often use LTspice to simulate parts of the circuit. >>Sure I look at the alternatives before choosing a part, but being able >>to or not able to simulate a circuit is a big factor. Another factor >>that sometimes matters a lot is time. > > Sure, no one has denied that, but are you, personably, so incompetent > that you are not able to load in the competitions models form their > websites in reasonable time?uhh... what other switched capacitor active filter chip even has a spice model? LTspice is also a behavioral simulator (why it's so fast for switchers) and LT took the time to write behavior simulations for almost all their analog chips. Other companies, except for standard parts like opamps, not so much. Not that I need specific models for simple stuff like that.> So, sure, its useful to have the model includes, but its is trivial > detail, only of value to those engineers that probably would be better > employed basket weaving.It is not trivial when under the gun. And I suck at making baskets.> I am not talking about the minor, one off, shit, lets just see if this > works bit. I am referring to standard, professional long term product > design, where one *IS* subjected to a whole host of constraints like, > second sourcing, availability, cost, performance etc...My case was a one-off, true, but it was an extremely important one-off and the solution ended up working so well that if I did need something like that again I would not hesitate to reuse it.> I just don't accept you achieve that by simply using parts, bribed to > you, by their inclusion in a freebee spice program.Don't have to accept that because I don't, 99% of the stuff I use LTspice for does not involve using LT parts. I used that as an example of how it can matter - just because it was a one-off for me *that time* doesn't mean a similar problem is always a one-off, could have just as easily been for mass production.>>Unfortunately for LT I just needed one chip > > And illustrates part of the argument I am making.The claim was that LT sells lots of chips by giving away free tools, you refuted that claim, I told a story about how once LTspice saved my bacon. I needed a filter with 0db at center more than 60db cut at half that frequency, LT gave me the tools to do that with very little effort (more time to design the rest of the stuff and write the code) and the end result worked perfectly. I did look at alternatives, LT's solution was the best by far. Sure it's not a cheap chip, but for what it did, the price wasn't bad.. ~$12 single for a precision 70db/octave filter with practically no ripple. How many I needed personally is not relevant, DK stocks thousands of them so someone is using the part. I have no doubt that LT sells oodles of parts because the tools they give away make the process of using the parts easy and relatively risk-free. That said, I still wish it had a better GUI :-) When I get a chance I'm evaluating SS, it does seem to have better measurement options.. it's not either/or... Terry
Reply by ●March 14, 20172017-03-14
On 14/03/2017 17:21, Jim Thompson wrote:> On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 12:03:49 +0100, Robert Loos <1209@baer-gmbh.com> > wrote: > >> Am 13.03.2017 um 18:00 schrieb Jim Thompson: >>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 08:29:22 +0100, Robert Loos <1209@baer-gmbh.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> May be it looks a little bit home made and uses odd shortcuts but it has >>>> one feature that makes entering schematics as fast as no second program >>>> I know: >>> [snip] >>>> >>>> Robert >>> >>> Monumental BS. >>> >>> I invite anyone who thinks that the LTspice GUI is "as fast as no >>> second program I know" to drop by, if you're in the East Valley area >>> of the Phoenix 'burbs, and see a demonstration of a real schematic >>> capture. >> >> I'm afraid I won't be in that area in the near future. >> I don't know MicroSim. But I know some other more or less expensive >> professional software... This video about OrCad for example >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZUPBLNuaHk >> is surely not optimized for speed but it shows major lacks in OrCad. >> You must draw every wire one by one, exactly hit the pins and sometimes >> OrCad ends the wire in free air (2:32). That's what I call BS. >> In LTSpice I would just place the components and draw a closed wire loop >> through all of them and they are connected. Definitely faster. >> And inserting the Switch (3:03), he has to delete the wire, place the >> switch and draw another wire. I would just drop the switch over the wire >> and it is connected. >> >>> >>> Bring your laptop. >>> >>> At that time we'll locate a mutually acceptable schematic image off >>> the web, you can enter it in LTspice, I'll enter with MicroSim PSpice >>> Schematics... you'll get your ass whipped >:-} >> >> not sure about that :-). Can you explain how MicroSim makes it faster? >> >> Robert >> >> P.S. just for fun, I tried an astable multivibrator. Can you beat 1:32? >> >> Version 4 >> SHEET 1 880 680 >> WIRE -112 -96 -272 -96 >> WIRE 32 -96 -112 -96 >> WIRE 208 -96 32 -96 >> WIRE 320 -96 208 -96 >> WIRE -112 -48 -112 -96 >> WIRE 32 -48 32 -96 >> WIRE 208 -48 208 -96 >> WIRE 320 -48 320 -96 >> WIRE -272 48 -272 -96 >> WIRE -112 80 -112 32 >> WIRE -64 80 -112 80 >> WIRE 32 80 32 32 >> WIRE 32 80 0 80 >> WIRE 80 80 32 80 >> WIRE 208 80 208 32 >> WIRE 208 80 160 80 >> WIRE 224 80 208 80 >> WIRE 320 80 320 32 >> WIRE 320 80 288 80 >> WIRE -112 112 -112 80 >> WIRE 320 112 320 80 >> WIRE 80 160 160 80 >> WIRE 80 160 -48 160 >> WIRE 160 160 80 80 >> WIRE 256 160 160 160 >> WIRE -272 272 -272 128 >> WIRE -112 272 -112 208 >> WIRE -112 272 -272 272 >> WIRE 320 272 320 208 >> WIRE 320 272 -112 272 >> WIRE -112 288 -112 272 >> FLAG -112 288 0 >> SYMBOL npn 256 112 R0 >> SYMATTR InstName Q1 >> SYMATTR Value BC847A >> SYMBOL npn -48 112 M0 >> SYMATTR InstName Q2 >> SYMATTR Value BC847A >> SYMBOL res -128 -64 R0 >> SYMATTR InstName R1 >> SYMATTR Value 1k >> SYMBOL res 16 -64 R0 >> SYMATTR InstName R2 >> SYMATTR Value 47k >> SYMBOL res 304 -64 R0 >> SYMATTR InstName R3 >> SYMATTR Value 1k >> SYMBOL res 192 -64 R0 >> SYMATTR InstName R4 >> SYMATTR Value 47k >> SYMBOL cap 0 64 R90 >> WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 2 >> WINDOW 3 32 32 VTop 2 >> SYMATTR InstName C1 >> SYMATTR Value 100n >> SYMBOL cap 288 64 R90 >> WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 2 >> WINDOW 3 32 32 VTop 2 >> SYMATTR InstName C2 >> SYMATTR Value 100n >> SYMBOL voltage -272 32 R0 >> SYMATTR InstName V1 >> SYMATTR Value 5 >> TEXT -306 312 Left 2 !.tran 100m startup uic >> TEXT 432 -48 Left 2 ;1:32 draw the schematic (including values) >> TEXT 432 -16 Left 2 ;1:47 Simulation on screen > > MicroSim created the original PSpice. You're looking at what OrCAD > could do to f..k it up. > > When OrCAD came along and bought out MicroSim I refused to play along > and switch to OrCAD Crapture. > > Fortunately, so did many others. So even up into many years after the > Cadence acquisition, MicroSim PSpice Schematics was "supported". > > But "support" was a joke. Cadence was systematically removing > features. Fortunately PSpice has always been .INI file based. So an > engineer at ON Semi and I colluded and dug back thru our archives and > restored the original .INI > > Support was a joke, nothing was being improved at each maintenance > update, so I quit paying maintenance at v15.7.0.p001 > > Fortunately I had, long ago, been provided a blanket license, since I > had been one of the main antagonists over the years, finding all the > bugs and quirks, and causing features to be added that suited my IC > design needs. > > After an initial purchase of $8,000 in 1987 and maintenance over the > years, I've got about $40K invested. > > It's been a good investment... I've designed at least 60 chips with > it, everyone of which came straight out working to spec. > > (Though I've got to admit I probably have around 80 chip designs with > almost as good a success rate that were done before CAD ;-) > > I won't bother duplicating your example... I want a live competitor... > I love to watch "mouthers" sweat >:-} > > ...Jim Thompson >There was nothing wrong with the OrCAD DOS products - it's hard to think how the SDT and PCB products could be improved upon. When they moved to Windows - different story.
Reply by ●March 14, 20172017-03-14
On 14/03/2017 20:31, Kevin Aylward wrote:>> wrote in message news:1e7gccp4r9ghq2gqo8krk6vlr34lnbsjd9@4ax.com... > > >> >>> Engineering is expensive. Risk can be expensive. Performance can be >>> valuable. Getting a product to market matters. There's more to >>> engineering than minimizing the BOM cost. >> >> Sure, but one needs to step back a bit here, and examine reality. >> >> Are you really claiming that a competent engineer is not even going to >> spend 30 mins on the web. Like *30 min* out of months of development >> costs, >> simply to check out if another suitable part might even exist? > >> Strawman. > > Not at all > >> It's *never* a 30 minute task to evaluate alternative >> parts. > > That is not the point. What part of "check out" and "exists" did you miss? > > The only reason any competent engineer, that is designing for major > production runs, is not going to the most basic of "does anther part > even exist", is if he has no idea that an alternative might exist. i.e. > he was a clueless engineer. Dah..Gee,. looks like I have to go with > this..dah... > > What I can say, is that if I were hiring engineers, hiring an engineer > that is bribed by a freebe bit of kit from a vendor, such that he wont > even attempt to find a more optimum part, would not be at the top of my > resume list. > > -- Kevin Aylward > http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice > http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.htmlKevin, you might be surprised at the number of analogue engineers who design by stitching together application notes. I would say it's the great majority. I never really appreciated the fact until I went freelance and was exposed to dozens of design teams, but the reality is that only a low percentage of the engineers doing board and system level design are competent in their craft. What I usually see is that if an engineer manages to cobble together something in LtSpice (usually from the supplied examples) that meets the technical specs of whatever it is they've been tasked to do, then the design stage is over.
Reply by ●March 14, 20172017-03-14
On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 23:03:11 +0000, JM <dontreplytothis173@gmail.com> wrote:>On 14/03/2017 20:31, Kevin Aylward wrote: >>> wrote in message news:1e7gccp4r9ghq2gqo8krk6vlr34lnbsjd9@4ax.com... >> >> >>> >>>> Engineering is expensive. Risk can be expensive. Performance can be >>>> valuable. Getting a product to market matters. There's more to >>>> engineering than minimizing the BOM cost. >>> >>> Sure, but one needs to step back a bit here, and examine reality. >>> >>> Are you really claiming that a competent engineer is not even going to >>> spend 30 mins on the web. Like *30 min* out of months of development >>> costs, >>> simply to check out if another suitable part might even exist? >> >>> Strawman. >> >> Not at all >> >>> It's *never* a 30 minute task to evaluate alternative >>> parts. >> >> That is not the point. What part of "check out" and "exists" did you miss? >> >> The only reason any competent engineer, that is designing for major >> production runs, is not going to the most basic of "does anther part >> even exist", is if he has no idea that an alternative might exist. i.e. >> he was a clueless engineer. Dah..Gee,. looks like I have to go with >> this..dah... >> >> What I can say, is that if I were hiring engineers, hiring an engineer >> that is bribed by a freebe bit of kit from a vendor, such that he wont >> even attempt to find a more optimum part, would not be at the top of my >> resume list. >> >> -- Kevin Aylward >> http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice >> http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html > >Kevin, you might be surprised at the number of analogue engineers who >design by stitching together application notes. I would say it's the >great majority. I never really appreciated the fact until I went >freelance and was exposed to dozens of design teams, but the reality is >that only a low percentage of the engineers doing board and system level >design are competent in their craft. > >What I usually see is that if an engineer manages to cobble together >something in LtSpice (usually from the supplied examples) that meets the >technical specs of whatever it is they've been tasked to do, then the >design stage is over. >I have boards with 1100 parts. 10-layer boards with several FPGAs and 22 power supplies. Boards full of Eclips Plus logic and SiGe comparators and power PHEMTS and RF transistors. Boards that sell for $11,000. If I can knock out a switcher design in an hour, using an LTC part, I can move on to the hard/fun stuff. If I expect to build thousands of something relatively cheap (which I prefer to not do!) I might spend some time evaluating cheaper parts, which might not have a decent Spice model at all. On that 22-supply board, I used mostly TPS54302 synchronous switchers, very cool little parts. I breadboarded five different voltage outputs with different inductors and caps and loop compensations. I have never got WebBench to load on my PC. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
