On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 10:26:48 AM UTC-7, Kevin Aylward wrote:> > So, no, I don't believe that LTSpice makes much of a difference in sales.It's not a sales tool, IMO, but a support tool. Imagine that your job is to answer the phone when people call with questions about one of your company's hundreds of SMPS controllers. Being able to say "Send us a simulation" or "Check out this example" has got to be more or less priceless. That'll be why they originally called it "SwitcherCAD." It wasn't originally meant to model opamps and 6L6s and stuff. -- john, KE5FX
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
On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 10:02:49 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:>On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 12:44:50 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote: > >>On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 20:44:27 -0000, "Kevin Aylward" >><kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>>"John Larkin" wrote in message >>>>news:66sdccpjrn4sgm0dohodvrhlosuuru05hp@4ax.com... >>> >>>> >>>>>And because the LTC people physically told me so last week. >>>> >>>>>That is some evidence, in the legal sense, but without numbers, and >>>>>reasons >>>>>for the numbers, it don't mean what they said was accurate or even the >>>>>truth. As I noted, what would you expect them to say. "LTSpice is a total >>>>>loss to us". >>>> >>>>>When I was designing board level stuff, I would evaluate pretty every >>>>>single >>>>>semiconductor company for the equivalent part I was planning to design in. >>>>>Its part of the process of being an engineer. You are going to try and get >>>>>the best compromise of performance, cost and availability. It would be >>>>>just >>>>>insane to design in a part just because that was in the kit of your freebe >>>>>sim tool. Like, you aren't going to check out any alternatives? This is >>>>>the >>>>>real world. I don't believe any competent engineer would do such a daft >>>>thing. >>> >>>>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. It's *never* a 30 minute task to evaluate alternative >>parts. > >Well, it might be for passives and simple discretes. But for a >switcher or something, I generally get an eval board and do some >testing... cap load stability, noise, chip temperature rise, all that. >Might take a day.It takes longer than 30 minutes to search for a simple part[*] and a *lot* longer to just understand the datasheet. [*] I play the FAEs off each other for this step but I still have to talk to them.> >I usually test opamps, linear regs, things like that.You don't test SMPSs?
Reply by ●March 14, 20172017-03-14
On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 20:31:14 -0000, "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> 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 allYou're being ridiculous.> >>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...Wait a minute. You said competent engineers optimized the designs even for low volume production. You can't even search TI for an SMPS in a half an hour. It takes their FAE longer than that to find the best fit for some applications (ones he hasn't already searched).> >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.For a prduction run of a hundred units? Please!
Reply by ●March 14, 20172017-03-14
On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 09:32:32 -0000, "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:>If a simulator does not directly support worst case analyses, its dead in >the water as far as IC design in concerned. Period.What your narcissistic personality disorder will not let you acknowledge is that, perhaps with one or two exceptions, nobody here gives a flying fatal f**k what you do or what it takes to design ICs. We real engineers, you know, the ones who design products that sell and make the company profitable, especially people like myself and the other John who owns the company, buy parts based on data sheet specs, design circuits, sim parts of the circuit that are questionable and then spin board that work first time in most cases. We couldn't care less what goes on inside the epoxy. John John DeArmond http://www.neon-john.com http://www.tnduction.com Tellico Plains, Occupied TN See website for email address
Reply by ●March 14, 20172017-03-14
On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:22:43 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:>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.Exactly. For low volume, high margin, production it doesn't make sense to spend a lot of time on support circuits. High-volume, low margin (they go together) designs, one spends a *lot* longer than a half an hour optimizing things.> >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.
Reply by ●March 14, 20172017-03-14
On 3/14/2017 8:38 PM, Neon John wrote:> On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 09:32:32 -0000, "Kevin Aylward" > <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote: > > >> If a simulator does not directly support worst case analyses, its dead in >> the water as far as IC design in concerned. Period. > > What your narcissistic personality disorder will not let you > acknowledge is that, perhaps with one or two exceptions, nobody here > gives a flying fatal f**k what you do or what it takes to design ICs. > > We real engineers, you know, the ones who design products that sell > and make the company profitable, especially people like myself and the > other John who owns the company, buy parts based on data sheet specs, > design circuits, sim parts of the circuit that are questionable and > then spin board that work first time in most cases. We couldn't care > less what goes on inside the epoxy.If you care so little, why are you posting? -- Rick C
Reply by ●March 14, 20172017-03-14
On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 20:35:19 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:>On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 20:31:14 -0000, "Kevin Aylward" ><kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> 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 > >You're being ridiculous. > >> >>>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... > >Wait a minute. You said competent engineers optimized the designs >even for low volume production. > >You can't even search TI for an SMPS in a half an hour. It takes >their FAE longer than that to find the best fit for some applications >(ones he hasn't already searched). >> >>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. > >For a prduction run of a hundred units? Please!Spend a couple of days to save $50! -- 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 18:00:02 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:>On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 20:35:19 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote: > >>On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 20:31:14 -0000, "Kevin Aylward" >><kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> 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 >> >>You're being ridiculous. >> >>> >>>>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... >> >>Wait a minute. You said competent engineers optimized the designs >>even for low volume production. >> >>You can't even search TI for an SMPS in a half an hour. It takes >>their FAE longer than that to find the best fit for some applications >>(ones he hasn't already searched). >>> >>>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. >> >>For a prduction run of a hundred units? Please! > >Spend a couple of days to save $50!Seems that's Kevin's business plan. He could get rich that way.
Reply by ●March 14, 20172017-03-14
On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 17:26:44 -0700 (PDT), "John Miles, KE5FX" <jmiles@gmail.com> wrote:>On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 10:26:48 AM UTC-7, Kevin Aylward wrote: >> >> So, no, I don't believe that LTSpice makes much of a difference in sales. > >It's not a sales tool, IMO, but a support tool. Imagine that your job is to >answer the phone when people call with questions about one of your company's >hundreds of SMPS controllers. Being able to say "Send us a simulation" >or "Check out this example" has got to be more or less priceless.Or more importantly, avoid the calls entirely because the user can see what's (not) happening.>That'll be why they originally called it "SwitcherCAD." It wasn't originally >meant to model opamps and 6L6s and stuff.
Reply by ●March 14, 20172017-03-14
On 3/14/2017 4:28 PM, Kevin Aylward 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.It wouldn't be if they didn't worry about the competition and bring out their own spice with slightly incompatible models.> 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'm raising my hand... -- Rick C
