On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:30:01 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> wrote:>On 2017-07-21 04:23, klaus.kragelund@gmail.com wrote: >> On Friday, 21 July 2017 00:30:15 UTC+2, Joerg wrote: >>> On 2017-07-20 15:02, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:56:32 -0700, Joerg >>>> <news@analogconsultants.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2017-07-20 14:38, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:31:49 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>> <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 13:02:23 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:26:42 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>> <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:05:52 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:39:25 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>>>> <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm simulating a flyback switcher and noticed that >>>>>>>>>>> any K < 1 in the transformer radically slows down >>>>>>>>>>> the sim, which is annoyingly slow already... 90 >>>>>>>>>>> seconds to sim 60 ms of startup and a little pulsed >>>>>>>>>>> load blip. Maybe 6:1 slower with a little leakage >>>>>>>>>>> inductance. So I only include leakage inductance to >>>>>>>>>>> tweak the snubber. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You have to use Mikey's idealized components... fast, >>>>>>>>>> but... ...Jim Thompson >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Using a discrete inductor to simulate the leakage >>>>>>>>> inductance is no faster. Nice try, JL. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What happened to LTspice's "fastest simulator ever" >>>>>>>> ?>:-} ...Jim Thompson >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have no idea how fast this would run in some other >>>>>>> simulator, or if the leakage L would matter as much. But >>>>>>> since I'm using an LTC3803, probably no other software >>>>>>> would work. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's the problem with LT, and Analog Devices and sometime >>>>>> TI... if your model will run on only your proprietary >>>>>> simulator, what the f**k good is it? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The beauty is that there _is_ a model and it usually is a good >>>>> compromise between "real" and behavioral simulation. With other >>>>> mfgs you eitehr get no model at all or one that has no >>>>> behavioral parts and where you can have an extensive dinner in >>>>> town and the sim still won't be past 5%. >>>>> >>>>> I am certain that LTSpice has brought LTC more profits than any >>>>> of their marketing efforts. >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>> >>>> Suppose that LT parts are only a percentage of those parts in my >>>> system, and there are parts from AD and TI, models of which won't >>>> run on LTspice? Now what? I think it's a universally DUMB >>>> marketing strategy. >>>> >>> >>> Au contraire. When cost isn't critical but R&D time is of the >>> essence I always default to LTC parts. Just like everyone around me >>> does. Mission accomplished, I'd say. >>> >>> >>>> If I was in the jelly-bean-user business I wouldn't buy any part >>>> whose model wasn't Berkeley-Spice-compliant. >>>> >>> >>> If you work in super-jelly-bean mode you will. Because the 10c >>> switcher chip from Asia will only come with a skimpy datasheet and >>> there is no model at all but it costs less than the 18c domestic >>> IC. >>> >> I have never used a LT part, the costs are simply too high, doing >> almost only high volume products >> > >Yes, for high-volume their products make no sense. > > >> Just for fun, needing an analog mux, searching Digikey came up with >> 2.5USD for the cheapest LT (LTC222), and the cheapest comparable >> product was the good old 74HC4066D, at a price of 9 US cents (almost >> 30 times cheaper) >> >> Just try to search for the cheapest LT opamp: >> >> https://www.digikey.com/products/en/integrated-circuits-ics/linear-amplifiers-instrumentation-op-amps-buffer-amps/687?FV=ffe002af%2Cfffc00a1&mnonly=0&ColumnSort=1000011&page=1&stock=0&pbfree=0&rohs=0&cad=0&datasheet=0&nstock=0&photo=0&nonrohs=0&newproducts=0&k=opamp&quantity=&ptm=0&fid=0&pageSize=25&pkeyword=opamp >> >> That is really some sort of advanced marketing joke >> >> Again, the cheapest LT is 10 times more expensive than the cheapest >> alternative >> >> Don't we have an obbligation to select the best part and not let it >> all be too easy? > > >We do but the cheapest part is not always the best. Sometimes I design >higher end gear which is mission-critical. Cost is not very important >but they need a very thoroughly vetted solution within a short time. >Then LTC wins hands-down. The other upside is their support. Their app >EEs know their stuff and you can get access to their IC designers. Often >I have to do very unorthodox stuff with a chip, what medical people call >"off-label use". With most other companies the answer is "That is not >what the IC is intended for" but with LTC it is more like "Interesting! >Let's see if this can be done safely". > >However, lately they seem to be losing their sizzle. For example, right >now I am searching for a forward converter chip that can be tied into >LTSpice and their newer ones do not have a model. Then the LTC advantage >goes out the window. > > >(no offense Joerg, couldn't resist, I know that you >> are one of the best out there, we have done business before together, >> a real pleasure) (bytheway, soon more work is coming your way) >> > >Thanks. As long as it's nothing urgent over the next six weeks because >one client has just loaded me with a project.We still want help with EMC on one new product, but it's going slowly... too many other things keep bumping it. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
LT spice, leakage inductance
Started by ●July 20, 2017
Reply by ●July 21, 20172017-07-21
Reply by ●July 21, 20172017-07-21
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 15:50:07 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:>On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 15:40:10 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 15:02:16 -0700, Jim Thompson >><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> > >[snip] > >>>Suppose that LT parts are only a percentage of those parts in my >>>system, and there are parts from AD and TI, models of which won't run >>>on LTspice? Now what? I think it's a universally DUMB marketing >>>strategy. >> >>It's TI's fault if LT Spice won't run their models. >> >>ADI will be transitioning to LT Spice, I've heard. Maybe that's why >>they bought LT. > >We'll see. AD has their own proprietary simulator, ADICE. My >expectation is that LTspice will continue to exist, but you'll have to >simulate AD parts in THEIR cloud.I heard it from a team of LT+ADI guys who visited us to talk about the transition. But it was stated as a probable, not a sure thing.> >> >>> >>>If I was in the jelly-bean-user business I wouldn't buy any part whose >>>model wasn't Berkeley-Spice-compliant. >>> >>> ...Jim Thompson >> >>I buy lots of parts that have no models, or that I don't care to >>simulate. I can read data sheets, and breadboard a part if I think >>it's necessary. You can't fully trust the models anyhow. >> >>I use UniversalOpamp2 a lot, in LT Spice, to sim other parts. > >You're just so wonderful >:-} Actually I think you're nothing but a >contrarian.Of course I'm a contrarian. That's why we charge so much for our products; we do stuff that other people can't or won't do. Design is fundamentally contrarian. Anybody can fiddle with a dev board circuit, and compete with a zillion other people who can do the same. I'm reading Milo's book "Dangerous." He says, basically, "Of course I'm a perverted radical troll, and I love it." He is very smart and hilarious. I don't share his passion for being tall and slim and beautiful and fabulous (good thing I don't!) but I really relate to his enjoyment of breaking fussy rules. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
Reply by ●July 21, 20172017-07-21
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:54:39 +0100, "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:>"John Larkin" wrote in message >news:dub2nctc478iel0eg9mslak3la5d6bi29t@4ax.com... > >On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 15:02:16 -0700, Jim Thompson ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:56:32 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> >>wrote: >> >>>On 2017-07-20 14:38, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:31:49 -0700, John Larkin >>>> <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 13:02:23 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:26:42 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>> <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:05:52 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:39:25 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>> <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm simulating a flyback switcher and noticed that any K < 1 in the >>>>>>>>> transformer radically slows down the sim, which is annoyingly slow >>>>>>>>> already... 90 seconds to sim 60 ms of startup and a little pulsed >>>>>>>>> load >>>>>>>>> blip. Maybe 6:1 slower with a little leakage inductance. So I only >>>>>>>>> include leakage inductance to tweak the snubber. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You have to use Mikey's idealized components... fast, but... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Using a discrete inductor to simulate the leakage inductance is no >>>>>>> faster. Nice try, JL. >>>>>> >>>>>> What happened to LTspice's "fastest simulator ever" ?>:-} >>>>>> >>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>> >>>>> I have no idea how fast this would run in some other simulator, or if >>>>> the leakage L would matter as much. But since I'm using an LTC3803, >>>>> probably no other software would work. >>>> >>>> That's the problem with LT, and Analog Devices and sometime TI... if >>>> your model will run on only your proprietary simulator, what the f**k >>>> good is it? >>>> >>> >>>The beauty is that there _is_ a model and it usually is a good >>>compromise between "real" and behavioral simulation. With other mfgs you >>>eitehr get no model at all or one that has no behavioral parts and where >>>you can have an extensive dinner in town and the sim still won't be past >>>5%. >>> >>>I am certain that LTSpice has brought LTC more profits than any of their >>>marketing efforts. >>> >>>[...] >> >>>Suppose that LT parts are only a percentage of those parts in my >>>system, and there are parts from AD and TI, models of which won't run >>>on LTspice? Now what? I think it's a universally DUMB marketing >>>strategy. > >>It's TI's fault if LT Spice won't run their models. > >>ADI will be transitioning to LT Spice, I've heard. Maybe that's why >>they bought LT. > >Oh dear... as he says, loudly, in a McEnro voice..."You can't be serious.." > >That is truly a delusional view, says he, hitting his head against the >wall...Don't do that. It's bad for the wall. Companies buy companies because the bought companies are eating>onto the buying companies revenues. The buying company wants the, now get >this, the *Customers* of the bought company, and secondly, their *products* >that customers *buy*. LT gets billions of revenue from paying customers, >that's what ADI want and bought. Dah.... > >LTSpice is just a nice icing on the cake sort of thing. If it ceased to >exist, it would make F'all difference. That's reality.It's a major sales tool. People pay for sales tools.> > >-- Kevin Aylward >http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice >http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.htmlWhen I made the suggestion to the LT/ADI transition team, nobody contradicted me. I'd guess that LT Spice added at least a billion dollars to the deal. ADI may start using LT Spice the same way as LT has. They not only bought a bunch of chips, they bought a business model. Now if they would just adopt LT's support policies... and get their SPI interfaces right... -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
Reply by ●July 21, 20172017-07-21
On 2017-07-21 08:46, John Larkin wrote:> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:30:01 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> > wrote: > >> On 2017-07-21 04:23, klaus.kragelund@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Friday, 21 July 2017 00:30:15 UTC+2, Joerg wrote: >>>> On 2017-07-20 15:02, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:56:32 -0700, Joerg >>>>> <news@analogconsultants.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2017-07-20 14:38, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:31:49 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>> <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 13:02:23 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:26:42 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>>> <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:05:52 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>>>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:39:25 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>>>>> <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm simulating a flyback switcher and noticed that >>>>>>>>>>>> any K < 1 in the transformer radically slows down >>>>>>>>>>>> the sim, which is annoyingly slow already... 90 >>>>>>>>>>>> seconds to sim 60 ms of startup and a little pulsed >>>>>>>>>>>> load blip. Maybe 6:1 slower with a little leakage >>>>>>>>>>>> inductance. So I only include leakage inductance to >>>>>>>>>>>> tweak the snubber. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You have to use Mikey's idealized components... fast, >>>>>>>>>>> but... ...Jim Thompson >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Using a discrete inductor to simulate the leakage >>>>>>>>>> inductance is no faster. Nice try, JL. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What happened to LTspice's "fastest simulator ever" >>>>>>>>> ?>:-} ...Jim Thompson >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have no idea how fast this would run in some other >>>>>>>> simulator, or if the leakage L would matter as much. But >>>>>>>> since I'm using an LTC3803, probably no other software >>>>>>>> would work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's the problem with LT, and Analog Devices and sometime >>>>>>> TI... if your model will run on only your proprietary >>>>>>> simulator, what the f**k good is it? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The beauty is that there _is_ a model and it usually is a good >>>>>> compromise between "real" and behavioral simulation. With other >>>>>> mfgs you eitehr get no model at all or one that has no >>>>>> behavioral parts and where you can have an extensive dinner in >>>>>> town and the sim still won't be past 5%. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am certain that LTSpice has brought LTC more profits than any >>>>>> of their marketing efforts. >>>>>> >>>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> Suppose that LT parts are only a percentage of those parts in my >>>>> system, and there are parts from AD and TI, models of which won't >>>>> run on LTspice? Now what? I think it's a universally DUMB >>>>> marketing strategy. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Au contraire. When cost isn't critical but R&D time is of the >>>> essence I always default to LTC parts. Just like everyone around me >>>> does. Mission accomplished, I'd say. >>>> >>>> >>>>> If I was in the jelly-bean-user business I wouldn't buy any part >>>>> whose model wasn't Berkeley-Spice-compliant. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If you work in super-jelly-bean mode you will. Because the 10c >>>> switcher chip from Asia will only come with a skimpy datasheet and >>>> there is no model at all but it costs less than the 18c domestic >>>> IC. >>>> >>> I have never used a LT part, the costs are simply too high, doing >>> almost only high volume products >>> >> >> Yes, for high-volume their products make no sense. >> >> >>> Just for fun, needing an analog mux, searching Digikey came up with >>> 2.5USD for the cheapest LT (LTC222), and the cheapest comparable >>> product was the good old 74HC4066D, at a price of 9 US cents (almost >>> 30 times cheaper) >>> >>> Just try to search for the cheapest LT opamp: >>> >>> https://www.digikey.com/products/en/integrated-circuits-ics/linear-amplifiers-instrumentation-op-amps-buffer-amps/687?FV=ffe002af%2Cfffc00a1&mnonly=0&ColumnSort=1000011&page=1&stock=0&pbfree=0&rohs=0&cad=0&datasheet=0&nstock=0&photo=0&nonrohs=0&newproducts=0&k=opamp&quantity=&ptm=0&fid=0&pageSize=25&pkeyword=opamp >>> >>> That is really some sort of advanced marketing joke >>> >>> Again, the cheapest LT is 10 times more expensive than the cheapest >>> alternative >>> >>> Don't we have an obbligation to select the best part and not let it >>> all be too easy? >> >> >> We do but the cheapest part is not always the best. Sometimes I design >> higher end gear which is mission-critical. Cost is not very important >> but they need a very thoroughly vetted solution within a short time. >> Then LTC wins hands-down. The other upside is their support. Their app >> EEs know their stuff and you can get access to their IC designers. Often >> I have to do very unorthodox stuff with a chip, what medical people call >> "off-label use". With most other companies the answer is "That is not >> what the IC is intended for" but with LTC it is more like "Interesting! >> Let's see if this can be done safely". >> >> However, lately they seem to be losing their sizzle. For example, right >> now I am searching for a forward converter chip that can be tied into >> LTSpice and their newer ones do not have a model. Then the LTC advantage >> goes out the window. >> >> >> (no offense Joerg, couldn't resist, I know that you >>> are one of the best out there, we have done business before together, >>> a real pleasure) (bytheway, soon more work is coming your way) >>> >> >> Thanks. As long as it's nothing urgent over the next six weeks because >> one client has just loaded me with a project. > > We still want help with EMC on one new product, but it's going > slowly... too many other things keep bumping it. >That's normal in a business like yours that makes so many different products. Many of my clients are smaller businesses, some with only a single line of products and then everything is quite urgent. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Reply by ●July 21, 20172017-07-21
On 2017-07-21 09:06, John Larkin wrote:> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:54:39 +0100, "Kevin Aylward" > <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote: > >> "John Larkin" wrote in message >> news:dub2nctc478iel0eg9mslak3la5d6bi29t@4ax.com... >> >> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 15:02:16 -0700, Jim Thompson >> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:56:32 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2017-07-20 14:38, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:31:49 -0700, John Larkin >>>>> <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 13:02:23 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:26:42 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>> <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:05:52 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:39:25 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>>> <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm simulating a flyback switcher and noticed that any K < 1 in the >>>>>>>>>> transformer radically slows down the sim, which is annoyingly slow >>>>>>>>>> already... 90 seconds to sim 60 ms of startup and a little pulsed >>>>>>>>>> load >>>>>>>>>> blip. Maybe 6:1 slower with a little leakage inductance. So I only >>>>>>>>>> include leakage inductance to tweak the snubber. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You have to use Mikey's idealized components... fast, but... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Using a discrete inductor to simulate the leakage inductance is no >>>>>>>> faster. Nice try, JL. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What happened to LTspice's "fastest simulator ever" ?>:-} >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>>> >>>>>> I have no idea how fast this would run in some other simulator, or if >>>>>> the leakage L would matter as much. But since I'm using an LTC3803, >>>>>> probably no other software would work. >>>>> >>>>> That's the problem with LT, and Analog Devices and sometime TI... if >>>>> your model will run on only your proprietary simulator, what the f**k >>>>> good is it? >>>>> >>>> >>>> The beauty is that there _is_ a model and it usually is a good >>>> compromise between "real" and behavioral simulation. With other mfgs you >>>> eitehr get no model at all or one that has no behavioral parts and where >>>> you can have an extensive dinner in town and the sim still won't be past >>>> 5%. >>>> >>>> I am certain that LTSpice has brought LTC more profits than any of their >>>> marketing efforts. >>>> >>>> [...] >>> >>>> Suppose that LT parts are only a percentage of those parts in my >>>> system, and there are parts from AD and TI, models of which won't run >>>> on LTspice? Now what? I think it's a universally DUMB marketing >>>> strategy. >> >>> It's TI's fault if LT Spice won't run their models. >> >>> ADI will be transitioning to LT Spice, I've heard. Maybe that's why >>> they bought LT. >> >> Oh dear... as he says, loudly, in a McEnro voice..."You can't be serious.." >> >> That is truly a delusional view, says he, hitting his head against the >> wall... > > Don't do that. It's bad for the wall. > > Companies buy companies because the bought companies are eating >> onto the buying companies revenues. The buying company wants the, now get >> this, the *Customers* of the bought company, and secondly, their *products* >> that customers *buy*. LT gets billions of revenue from paying customers, >> that's what ADI want and bought. Dah.... >> >> LTSpice is just a nice icing on the cake sort of thing. If it ceased to >> exist, it would make F'all difference. That's reality. > > It's a major sales tool. People pay for sales tools. >Amen.>> >> >> -- Kevin Aylward >> http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice >> http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html > > When I made the suggestion to the LT/ADI transition team, nobody > contradicted me. I'd guess that LT Spice added at least a billion > dollars to the deal. >At least. Because it's worth it.> ADI may start using LT Spice the same way as LT has. They not only > bought a bunch of chips, they bought a business model. >I am seeing concerning trends, like newer chips not being furnished with LTSpice models anymore.> Now if they would just adopt LT's support policies... and get their > SPI interfaces right... >Don't hold your breath :-) -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Reply by ●July 21, 20172017-07-21
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:17:12 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> wrote:>On 2017-07-21 08:46, John Larkin wrote: >> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:30:01 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 2017-07-21 04:23, klaus.kragelund@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Friday, 21 July 2017 00:30:15 UTC+2, Joerg wrote: >>>>> On 2017-07-20 15:02, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:56:32 -0700, Joerg >>>>>> <news@analogconsultants.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2017-07-20 14:38, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:31:49 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>> <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 13:02:23 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:26:42 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>>>> <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:05:52 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>>>>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:39:25 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>>>>>> <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm simulating a flyback switcher and noticed that >>>>>>>>>>>>> any K < 1 in the transformer radically slows down >>>>>>>>>>>>> the sim, which is annoyingly slow already... 90 >>>>>>>>>>>>> seconds to sim 60 ms of startup and a little pulsed >>>>>>>>>>>>> load blip. Maybe 6:1 slower with a little leakage >>>>>>>>>>>>> inductance. So I only include leakage inductance to >>>>>>>>>>>>> tweak the snubber. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You have to use Mikey's idealized components... fast, >>>>>>>>>>>> but... ...Jim Thompson >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Using a discrete inductor to simulate the leakage >>>>>>>>>>> inductance is no faster. Nice try, JL. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What happened to LTspice's "fastest simulator ever" >>>>>>>>>> ?>:-} ...Jim Thompson >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have no idea how fast this would run in some other >>>>>>>>> simulator, or if the leakage L would matter as much. But >>>>>>>>> since I'm using an LTC3803, probably no other software >>>>>>>>> would work. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's the problem with LT, and Analog Devices and sometime >>>>>>>> TI... if your model will run on only your proprietary >>>>>>>> simulator, what the f**k good is it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The beauty is that there _is_ a model and it usually is a good >>>>>>> compromise between "real" and behavioral simulation. With other >>>>>>> mfgs you eitehr get no model at all or one that has no >>>>>>> behavioral parts and where you can have an extensive dinner in >>>>>>> town and the sim still won't be past 5%. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am certain that LTSpice has brought LTC more profits than any >>>>>>> of their marketing efforts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>> Suppose that LT parts are only a percentage of those parts in my >>>>>> system, and there are parts from AD and TI, models of which won't >>>>>> run on LTspice? Now what? I think it's a universally DUMB >>>>>> marketing strategy. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Au contraire. When cost isn't critical but R&D time is of the >>>>> essence I always default to LTC parts. Just like everyone around me >>>>> does. Mission accomplished, I'd say. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> If I was in the jelly-bean-user business I wouldn't buy any part >>>>>> whose model wasn't Berkeley-Spice-compliant. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you work in super-jelly-bean mode you will. Because the 10c >>>>> switcher chip from Asia will only come with a skimpy datasheet and >>>>> there is no model at all but it costs less than the 18c domestic >>>>> IC. >>>>> >>>> I have never used a LT part, the costs are simply too high, doing >>>> almost only high volume products >>>> >>> >>> Yes, for high-volume their products make no sense. >>> >>> >>>> Just for fun, needing an analog mux, searching Digikey came up with >>>> 2.5USD for the cheapest LT (LTC222), and the cheapest comparable >>>> product was the good old 74HC4066D, at a price of 9 US cents (almost >>>> 30 times cheaper) >>>> >>>> Just try to search for the cheapest LT opamp: >>>> >>>> https://www.digikey.com/products/en/integrated-circuits-ics/linear-amplifiers-instrumentation-op-amps-buffer-amps/687?FV=ffe002af%2Cfffc00a1&mnonly=0&ColumnSort=1000011&page=1&stock=0&pbfree=0&rohs=0&cad=0&datasheet=0&nstock=0&photo=0&nonrohs=0&newproducts=0&k=opamp&quantity=&ptm=0&fid=0&pageSize=25&pkeyword=opamp >>>> >>>> That is really some sort of advanced marketing joke >>>> >>>> Again, the cheapest LT is 10 times more expensive than the cheapest >>>> alternative >>>> >>>> Don't we have an obbligation to select the best part and not let it >>>> all be too easy? >>> >>> >>> We do but the cheapest part is not always the best. Sometimes I design >>> higher end gear which is mission-critical. Cost is not very important >>> but they need a very thoroughly vetted solution within a short time. >>> Then LTC wins hands-down. The other upside is their support. Their app >>> EEs know their stuff and you can get access to their IC designers. Often >>> I have to do very unorthodox stuff with a chip, what medical people call >>> "off-label use". With most other companies the answer is "That is not >>> what the IC is intended for" but with LTC it is more like "Interesting! >>> Let's see if this can be done safely". >>> >>> However, lately they seem to be losing their sizzle. For example, right >>> now I am searching for a forward converter chip that can be tied into >>> LTSpice and their newer ones do not have a model. Then the LTC advantage >>> goes out the window. >>> >>> >>> (no offense Joerg, couldn't resist, I know that you >>>> are one of the best out there, we have done business before together, >>>> a real pleasure) (bytheway, soon more work is coming your way) >>>> >>> >>> Thanks. As long as it's nothing urgent over the next six weeks because >>> one client has just loaded me with a project. >> >> We still want help with EMC on one new product, but it's going >> slowly... too many other things keep bumping it. >> > >That's normal in a business like yours that makes so many different >products. Many of my clients are smaller businesses, some with only a >single line of products and then everything is quite urgent.I wish customers would leave us alone, so we can get some work done. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Reply by ●July 21, 20172017-07-21
"John Larkin" wrote in message news:m794nclodso7tu7c9bihmic1cuqtuf4ufa@4ax.com...> Companies buy companies because the bought companies are eating >>onto the buying companies revenues. The buying company wants the, now get >>this, the *Customers* of the bought company, and secondly, their >>*products* >>that customers *buy*. LT gets billions of revenue from paying customers, >>that's what ADI want and bought. Dah.... >> >>LTSpice is just a nice icing on the cake sort of thing. If it ceased to >>exist, it ut bwould make F'all difference. That's reality.>It's a major sales tool.No. Its a sales tool.>People pay for sales tools.Sure, but not $1B.>When I made the suggestion to the LT/ADI transition team, nobody >contradicted me. I'd guess that LT Spice added at least a billion >dollars to the deal.Complete and utter nonsense. Like, Cadence do about $2B revenue. Candace is THE mainstream de-facto system in IC design. You know, the things that the world runs on. You're trying to claim that the LT Freebee is on a par in value. LT do about $2B in physical sales. You are effectively trying to claim that if LTSpice didn't exist, LT would lose like $100Ms of dollars. Bullshit. You really need to stand back and think about the big picture. People buy LT parts because of the performance, not because of a simulater. Period. LTSpice only has to improve sales by say, a million or so to justify its existence, i.e Mike's salary :-). I agree, it probably does that, and such a salary pisses me off no end.... -- Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html
Reply by ●July 21, 20172017-07-21
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 21:25:00 +0100, "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:>"John Larkin" wrote in message >news:m794nclodso7tu7c9bihmic1cuqtuf4ufa@4ax.com... > > > >> Companies buy companies because the bought companies are eating >>>onto the buying companies revenues. The buying company wants the, now get >>>this, the *Customers* of the bought company, and secondly, their >>>*products* >>>that customers *buy*. LT gets billions of revenue from paying customers, >>>that's what ADI want and bought. Dah.... >>> >>>LTSpice is just a nice icing on the cake sort of thing. If it ceased to >>>exist, it ut bwould make F'all difference. That's reality. > >>It's a major sales tool. > >No. Its a sales tool. > >>People pay for sales tools. > >Sure, but not $1B. > >>When I made the suggestion to the LT/ADI transition team, nobody >>contradicted me. I'd guess that LT Spice added at least a billion >>dollars to the deal. > >Complete and utter nonsense. > >Like, Cadence do about $2B revenue. Candace is THE mainstream de-facto >system in IC design. You know, the things that the world runs on. > >You're trying to claim that the LT Freebee is on a par in value. > >LT do about $2B in physical sales. You are effectively trying to claim that >if LTSpice didn't exist, LT would lose like $100Ms of dollars. Bullshit. > >You really need to stand back and think about the big picture. > >People buy LT parts because of the performance, not because of a simulater. >Period. > >LTSpice only has to improve sales by say, a million or so to justify its >existence, i.e Mike's salary :-). I agree, it probably does that, and such a >salary pisses me off no end.... >In summary, you are jealous of LT Spice and its author. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
Reply by ●July 21, 20172017-07-21
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:06:45 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:>On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:54:39 +0100, "Kevin Aylward" ><kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote: > >>"John Larkin" wrote in message >>news:dub2nctc478iel0eg9mslak3la5d6bi29t@4ax.com... >> >>On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 15:02:16 -0700, Jim Thompson >><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:56:32 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>On 2017-07-20 14:38, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:31:49 -0700, John Larkin >>>>> <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 13:02:23 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:26:42 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>> <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:05:52 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:39:25 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>>> <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm simulating a flyback switcher and noticed that any K < 1 in the >>>>>>>>>> transformer radically slows down the sim, which is annoyingly slow >>>>>>>>>> already... 90 seconds to sim 60 ms of startup and a little pulsed >>>>>>>>>> load >>>>>>>>>> blip. Maybe 6:1 slower with a little leakage inductance. So I only >>>>>>>>>> include leakage inductance to tweak the snubber. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You have to use Mikey's idealized components... fast, but... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Using a discrete inductor to simulate the leakage inductance is no >>>>>>>> faster. Nice try, JL. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What happened to LTspice's "fastest simulator ever" ?>:-} >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>>> >>>>>> I have no idea how fast this would run in some other simulator, or if >>>>>> the leakage L would matter as much. But since I'm using an LTC3803, >>>>>> probably no other software would work. >>>>> >>>>> That's the problem with LT, and Analog Devices and sometime TI... if >>>>> your model will run on only your proprietary simulator, what the f**k >>>>> good is it? >>>>> >>>> >>>>The beauty is that there _is_ a model and it usually is a good >>>>compromise between "real" and behavioral simulation. With other mfgs you >>>>eitehr get no model at all or one that has no behavioral parts and where >>>>you can have an extensive dinner in town and the sim still won't be past >>>>5%. >>>> >>>>I am certain that LTSpice has brought LTC more profits than any of their >>>>marketing efforts. >>>> >>>>[...] >>> >>>>Suppose that LT parts are only a percentage of those parts in my >>>>system, and there are parts from AD and TI, models of which won't run >>>>on LTspice? Now what? I think it's a universally DUMB marketing >>>>strategy. >> >>>It's TI's fault if LT Spice won't run their models. >> >>>ADI will be transitioning to LT Spice, I've heard. Maybe that's why >>>they bought LT. >> >>Oh dear... as he says, loudly, in a McEnro voice..."You can't be serious.." >> >>That is truly a delusional view, says he, hitting his head against the >>wall... > >Don't do that. It's bad for the wall. > > Companies buy companies because the bought companies are eating >>onto the buying companies revenues. The buying company wants the, now get >>this, the *Customers* of the bought company, and secondly, their *products* >>that customers *buy*. LT gets billions of revenue from paying customers, >>that's what ADI want and bought. Dah.... >> >>LTSpice is just a nice icing on the cake sort of thing. If it ceased to >>exist, it would make F'all difference. That's reality. > >It's a major sales tool. People pay for sales tools. > >> >> >>-- Kevin Aylward >>http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice >>http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html > >When I made the suggestion to the LT/ADI transition team, nobody >contradicted me. I'd guess that LT Spice added at least a billion >dollars to the deal. > >ADI may start using LT Spice the same way as LT has. They not only >bought a bunch of chips, they bought a business model. > >Now if they would just adopt LT's support policies... and get their >SPI interfaces right...I sure hope they don't adopt LTC's pricing (they won't but it's not clear it'll go the other way, either).
Reply by ●July 22, 20172017-07-22
"John Larkin" wrote in message news:2r95nc5ls1rrm7cmp5ptn26kmlrroi6jpp@4ax.com... On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 21:25:00 +0100, "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:>"John Larkin" wrote in message >news:m794nclodso7tu7c9bihmic1cuqtuf4ufa@4ax.com... > > > >> Companies buy companies because the bought companies are eating >>>onto the buying companies revenues. The buying company wants the, now get >>>this, the *Customers* of the bought company, and secondly, their >>>*products* >>>that customers *buy*. LT gets billions of revenue from paying customers, >>>that's what ADI want and bought. Dah.... >>> >>>LTSpice is just a nice icing on the cake sort of thing. If it ceased to >>>exist, it ut bwould make F'all difference. That's reality. > >>It's a major sales tool. > >No. Its a sales tool. > >>People pay for sales tools. > >Sure, but not $1B. > >>When I made the suggestion to the LT/ADI transition team, nobody >>contradicted me. I'd guess that LT Spice added at least a billion >>dollars to the deal. > >>Complete and utter nonsense. > >>Like, Cadence do about $2B revenue. Candace is THE mainstream de-facto >>system in IC design. You know, the things that the world runs on. > >>You're trying to claim that the LT Freebee is on a par in value. > >>LT do about $2B in physical sales. You are effectively trying to claim >>that >>if LTSpice didn't exist, LT would lose like $100Ms of dollars. Bullshit. > >>You really need to stand back and think about the big picture. > >>People buy LT parts because of the performance, not because of a >>simulater. >>Period. > >>LTSpice only has to improve sales by say, a million or so to justify its >>existence, i.e Mike's salary :-). I agree, it probably does that, and such >>a >>salary pisses me off no end.... >>>In summary, you are jealous of LT Spice and its author.The summary, is that some here have absolutely no idea whatsoever of the value of some marketing tools. AD do about $3B in product. How much would it cost to for any company to get the Spice3 code, and hire someone to write a GUI for it? Like a few $100k ? Hint: you can buy 3rd party GUI tools that have schematic capture as a drop in component. Do your really think all the other companies are so totally stupid that they wouldn't invest a few hundred $ to produce a full featured Spice to give away for free if it would net them a $1B more a year in revenue. Get real. -- Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html
