Software for a beginner to design and learn about circuits with?

screen

not?

Nope. The screen shot is all I need to see. Compare your screen shot with the purpose designed beginner tutorial software here:

There is no comparison, yours is complicated, unfriendly, non-inviting, and overly technical (as most real simulators are). They are that way because they have to be, they are NOT designed for raw beginners!

PO

the

telling

They would scare the crap out of any beginner! Remember, these are people who have barely mastered ohms law.

easy

What beginner knows what "transient" is??

If it was truly designed for beginners it would have NOTHING except the components and some instruments (or waveform windows etc). Pictures of the actual components would be nice too. Nothing about Spice commands, nothing about different analysis modes, in fact you shouldn't even have a "simulate" button, you just connect the components and probe the circuit, simulating what they will eventusally HAVE to do in the real world.

attached

it.

A beginner would have NO IDEA!!

by

Yes, there are more complicated packages than your for sure.

if

button

occasions

Beginners don't know what Noise, transients, or netlists are. Having these thing s on screen would only confuse them.

for

Easier than a battery a resistor and a LED?, I don't think so.

keep

and

Yes it's a nighmare, but it's how it's done in the real world. Beginners need to learn that.

Once again, oscilloscopes are used in the real world, beginners need to learn them.

I use CircuitMaker 2000

I'm sorry(?) to tell you, but your software is a real circuit simulator with the associated complexity (even if it is "easy to use"). It is not for beginners who are just getting over ohms law.

Regards Dave :)

Yes, but this is just one/some of the aspects. One does exactly the same trouble shooting in the virtual world. Sure, there are a few effects that would not be put into the model by beginners, but so what. Beginners aren't going to get things perfect anyway.

What *actual* real evidence do you have that this is a good way to start learning circuit practise, other than a gut feeling?

I simply don't agree. You have to walk before you can run. Simulators can get you walking in lesser time with less bother. You simply don't have to worry about getting all these supplies of parts together.

Simulaters are not restricted to the finer details. Indeed their ability to use ideal models makes it much easier to get the feel for the core ideas.

And absolutly for beginners as well. As noted, I don't disagree in anyway of what you said about the value of real bench work, my point is that there are many other of equally useful things to be learned by beginners using spice. For starters, its so much easier to get something up and running and plot waveforms. There are many things that it is very difficult to do in the real world.

As I also noted, its a paradigm shift. One needs to get in step with the times.

The relevance of this is that lab work can actually be dispensed with in real life. We have proof that simulation can, on many occasions, be all that is needed to make real world designs.

Thats besides the point.

Planes, today, essentially, don't need pilots at all.

My argument is that yes, beginners should, today, be using simulators from day one in *addition* to doing real bench work. For the most part it truly makes no difference whether someone wires up transistors on the bench or on a computer screen. Sure there are a few differences, as we know, like blowing up devices, but this is irrelevant. *Most* of electronics can be learned in the virtual world. This is a simple fact. Your arguing that just because spice is not 100% exact, we shouldnt use it as a key tool tool. I disagree.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

ssssssnip

Here's my two cents, I'm sure I'll get change.

1. Simulators are invaluable when and only when : A. They're worth their salt. B. They're properly used. This means in conjuction with actual lab work to verify the simulation and see how real world results differ from simulation land. This is how electronics are now taught in school these days, in case anyone didn't know.

Now if you have a crap simulator like ooooh... MultiSim, who seems to subscribe to the Windows theory of point, click, and keep stupid..ex: the virtual scopes are real cute and everything but the first time you get an iteration limit error you're left scratching your head and you wind up spending far more time futally learning how to use a buggy, overpriced little program than learning electronics.

I think it irresponsible to the extreme for anyone to recommend to a person who's aspirations are to become a hobbiest, to run out and purchase >$20K worth of equipment, when they won't even have a clue what they're buying, or how to use it.

If words like transiant or iteration are too complex, give up now.

Start with a simulator, gain a bit of confidence with tutorials, help files, small personal projects, then, go buy some parts, start small and work up.

I'd also like to say it's high time posts here stopped being polluted with off topic personal attacks against other members who are here to contribute and help others. You asked for it, and got put in your place, time ya got over it. Kevin has a private email address, use that to tell him you love him, nobody else gives a shit what your personal feelings are, and it won't gain you any respect here.

Thanks for the advice everyone, it's all been helpful and hopefully I will be creating something interesting soon enough.

Matt.

Ahmmm...with all due respect, this assumes that you opinion means something on this particular matter.

I have seen and played with this crap. Its useless...in my opinion..

Not at all. Until you actually run the examples, and then attempt to construct a new circuit your view is meaningless.

Nope.

Correct, but SS is piss easy to use. I use it all time. It was specifically designed to be piss easy to use. Just as despite being an analogue engineer, I only like to have one volume control on my guitar. Anything else is way too technical.

Nonsense. So long as he know Windows, it a non issue. That's what Windows does as standard.

There are examples and "transient" is described in the help.

Look, everyone has to start somewhere. It takes far longer to understand an oscilloscope, even if a beginner can afford one, then it does to understand the equivalent in the virtual world. Once they understand the virtual version, moving on to the real world should be a dawdle.

I disagree. Instruments are harder to deal with.

I think you are confusing "beginner" with "child".

So, they can simple ignore it.

netlists arnt there unless requested.

The time to know what transient and Ac sweeps mean is right at the beginning.

Again, confusing between "child" and "beginner". So after the 5 minute this is a battery a resistor and a LED, I now understand this, whats next?

Look, as I said, sure there is a learning curve for anything, real or virtual, but about 1 hour tops should have one up and running with the basics in the virtual world.

Yes, eventually, but once one has had practise doing it the easy way, one can get a feel for doing it a more difficult way.

Its a walk before one can run sort of thing.

At some point, but why not make the initial hurdle, lower.

Just as sad:-)

I disagree. Its a very usefull complement to the real world.

I have thought about this quite a lot. I know where I came from, and continuing with those outdated ideas is not the way to go, today, in my opinion. You seem to be restricting "beginner" to only the first week of learning. I can't see your arguments really applying to anything but this initial introduction. Once the little lesson of what is what in spice is done, its a great tool for "beginners".

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

But often meaningless. Getting a one off to work on the bench usually has little value for production purposes. Simulation gets one into the habit of doing far more variations on circuits that are simple not practical to do in the real world.

No.

This is no argument to justify that we still do it that way.

That's right.

What I am saying is this. What is the real emperical evidence that those that learn basics on simulators are worse off than those that learn the basics on the real thing. Assumptions are not valid. I doubt if any study has ever been done on this. What I do know is this. 100's of new graduates go to i.c. design companies and use spice from day one, and produce viable product, er...sometimes..

Do beginners NEED real breadboards. For analogue i.c design, my answer is a definite no. We don't use bread boards in i.c. design. When they were used, they were dubious at best.

Absolutely yes. The reality is that here are many things you can't do in the real world. Try running 1000 component variations.

Try making accurate measurements without oscilloscope ground bounce. I can tell you this, investigating current in components is very difficult in the real world. Doing so in simulation allows you to *really* see things that are hidden in a *practical* lab bench.

My experience as being both a hobbyist, from age 11 to 20s+ and as both a pro professional board and i.c. analogue design engineer for over 20 years is that spice is indispensable *today*.

For me you do. My experience tells me different. I have spent 10,000's of hours on the bench and 10,000's of hours on simulators. Both are usfull, in general, *today*. You cant compete anymore with a bench "design". i.e. to all intents and purposes.

Of course, if beginners use hardware they will get a good grounding just as they will in using simulators. I am not arguing for an either one or the other, I am stating that *today* both are required to become an effective designer. Without using a simulator, you are at a major disadvantage to these that do. The sooner you get started using a simulater, the better.

As I said, simulators show 1000's of things that *don't* show up on the bench until its too late. Absolutely, *more* things show up in a simulation than can possible be seen on a one off bench suck it and se design.

That's why they need simulators. Its called Monty Carlo and Worst Case for starters. Or for example, try actually trying to measure loop gain in the real world. Try probing current at any node in a circuit, at any time. Its a no contest. Its simply not doable in the real world.

I don't see any problem with this, in principle. There is nothing, other than speed, that cant be done in software. Who cares about trivial little gates. We are away beyond that now. Again, just because you learnt that way, dont mean it is a good way today.

No. See above, i.e Software is only a hobby of mine. I wrote SS because I personally wanted it to do designs with as an anlogue engineer.

For example, see

This circuit does < 0.001 THD. Evaluating each configuration for its effect on distortion would have been, essentially, impossible in the real world. Spice allows every cascode, emitter follower etc to be examined for their effectiveness in distortion reduction over the whole frequency range in seconds.

Irrelevant for beginner i.c. designers.

As can the real world.

Not to me:-)

I know.

Yes. A simulator is easier. You don't need to hook up meters at all. You just click on wires and pins. A simulater can give background on what to expect in the real world.

Again, its a paradigm shift.

I agree that SS is not designed for beginners, but its so easy to use that beginners should be able to use it with far less instruction than would be required for them to get a real circuit working.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

Wait while I get up on this her soapbox.

Circuit design is the process of turning an idea into an implementation concept into a bunch of hardware and/or software to realize the idea.

For this you don't need software. You need a BOOK!!! Go to the library and check out a book on analog circuit design. Learn about Ohm's law, norton's theorems etc. Learn about rc/lc/rlc circuits. How to bias a transistor, FET etc. Learn how to do Laplace transforms. You're rarely gonna do a laplace transform, but the knowledge of how, gives you great insight into what's gonna happen when you change a circuit paramaeter or topology. It allows you to pick component values right out of the air that are very close to what you'll finally end up with after you fine tune it. It tells you instantly when you're way off base and need a different approach. If you need a calculator, you're going too deep. Your objective is to be able to scratch out a circuit topology, estimate bandwidths, gain, impedance, signal fidelity etc. Learn about component parasitics. Unless you're doing audio work, a resistor is not just a resistor. And it goes downhill from there. Learn how real components have parasitics and vary relative to their specifications and how to mitigate the impact of those variations on your objective.

Learn about Fourier transformations betwee time and frequency domains. Again, you're rarely gonna do one by hand, but knowing how gives you great insight into topologies and components required to realize your design.

Now, go back to the library and checkout a book on digital circuit design. Learn that ALL curcuits are analog and that most digital problems have to do with the ignored analog characteristics of the digital simplification. Learn about Karnaugh maps, glitches, races etc.

Now, you know how to design circuits. It's time to start looking at software to simulate the circuit you've already designed to fine tune it's parameters and take into consideration the simplifications you used to design it in your head or with a pencil.

Circuit simulation replaces the tedious VERIFICATION calculations that we used to do by hand. It does NOT replace the thought processes needed to design circuits.

You have only to read the archives of this newsgroup to see countless examples where people stuffed random numbers into a simulator and came up with something that simulated, but was impractical, unrepeatable, or just plain sad.

Or you could just try to hire an engineer and learn the same sad fact. Don't think I've ever asked an engineering candidate how to simulate a circuit. But I ask 'em all to tell me what an RC time constant is... and most don't know.

Help me down from this here soapbox...please. mike

Or a software salesman...

While I agree that no simulators is suitable for raw beginners and that they must be technical, I cannot agree that they have to be unfriendly, non-inviting, and overly technical. The problem is that software developers are virtually always poor human-interface developers. They live in a world where you must conform yourself to the very rigid requirements of a computer language - where one comma where a period should go stops the program from working - and they tend to write programs that force that paradigm on the user.

In addition, they know too much about the internal workings of the program, and expose some details to the user in inappropriate ways, while hiding other details that the user could really use. Yes, there are other SPICE programs that are worse, but that's like saying that, out of the three stooges, Larry is the intellectual stooge. The bar for SPICE programs is very, very low.

In addition to the generic human-interface problems that plague most software, SuperSpice has an additional albatross around its neck; the author. Kevin Aylward is well-known for treating anyone who disagrees with him like dirt. He engages in personal attacks rather than reasoned discourse. If he treats other newsgroup participants that way, imagine how he treats a paying customer who dares to question his decision to map most functions to top-level on-screen buttons with single letters instead of descriptive names! The good news is that my killfile filters out all of his abuse, including the personal attack that will, no doubt, be launched in response to this criticism.

For once, I agree with your comments, apart from any directed against SS. The above is essentially true. Of course none of this applies to SuperSpice as it was written by someone with 20 years analogue design experience and 10,000's of hours using such tools.

Not at all. As usuall, your personality problems are sure showing through.

Give it up mate. You've already lost that argument.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

And next time you'll know better than to ask a question to which

Hmmmm. Digital is a GROSS simplification of analog so you can deal with the concepts more easily. Isn't that how simulators work? Ain't nothing wrong with working in the digital domain as long as you go back and verify your work in the analog domain. But if you're using a simulator and don't understand digital or analog, you're in deep...

This is fundamentally wrong in my opinion, and

I do so enjoy reading your posts. You seem to get a lot more out of my posting than I wrote. I never said anything about how long it should take. Never said you shouldn't do bench work along the way. Point I was trying to make is to leave the simulator out of the picture until you have a basic understanding.

One would simply forget what one

Who said anything about exact analytical solutions? I GUARANTEE you that I can do calculations on a design with 100s of components. I didn't say what calculations.

Unfortunately, I think you're right and stated so further down in the original posting. The problem is that idiots with no understanding of the fundamentals stuff numbers into a simulator that may or may not represent their actual implementation. They trust the result and have no clue how to fix it if it doesn't work.

In skilled hands, a simulator with input that precisely models all the circuit elements including parasitics, layout, power supply coupling signal coupling, magnetic coupling, electrostatic coupling...the list is long...can be a very powerful thing.

Anybody who starts their education with a simulator is doomed to failure.

not

Your argument is seriously flawed. Somebody sat down and scratched their ass for a decade and decided, "Hey, I'll bet if we could split an atom, we could get a LOT of energy...and we'd have to manage the reaction somehow...and Uranium would be a good thing to look at... let's go do some math. You seem to be suggesting that any idiot with a big computer could invent the bomb. NOT LIKELY! A simulator is pretty useless without input. I'd go so far as to say that a simulator is pretty useless with MOST unskilled input.

I think you're exactly right. A designer without an understanding of the fundamentals is gonna be just as bad whether he does simulation or bench work.

All good general advice.

All good general advice.

Nope.....

Digital is for those just to stupid to do analogue:-)

I can't agree at all. This is fundamentally wrong in my opinion, and that of probably every educator known to man. If this were true, there would be no lab work until 3rd year of uni. The best way to learn is to do little bits of theory at a time complemented by practise to reinforce that theory. A simulator is indeed *real* practise, excluding the few % issues like parasitics. Too many here are going, well because a simulator doesn't copy everything exactly from the real world, then it is sadly lacking for real world learning. This is very narrow minded.

Spending several years doing the "basics" before even getting started on trying out the theory is quite daft. One would simply forget what one first learned. To all intents and purposes, there is no practical difference between examining ohms law and I=cdv/dt on the bench or in a simulator. Your brain, eyes and ears are processing essentially, the same information. There is only this vague psychological issue that some have about it "not being the same". Essentially, it is.

Unfortunately, in a real design of 100s to 1000s of components, hand calculations are impossible. Even a one transistor circuit has no exact analytical solution.

It can do. This is the reality of how it works in the real world, not how we kid ourselves it is or should be. Yes, you need a good understanding independent of simulations, however, it is simple impossible to understand all of the nuances of a design without some constructive trial and error on a simulator. Yes, most don't like this idea, but it is the way it truly is. To illustrate. Consider the design of a nuclear bomb. These require amazingly powerful computers. Sure, they are run by *experts* , but even these 20 year experts cant understand the implications of all of the equations. Thery are simply too complicated. Or for example, colliding black holes. There is not a chance to develop a *feel* for happens *without* simulations.

Sure, I agree that without bench work there are many issues that one doesn't get a feel for in a simulator, but *likewise*, without a simulator there are *many more* things that you never get a feel for by bench work. As I said, I've been there 10000's of hours on both the bench and simulator. I can count countless things that I have missed on the bench that the simulator showed.

But this is unintelligent trial and error. Intelligent trail and error is another matter entirely. *All* design can be reduced to a Darwinian process, i.g. replication of existing circuits, varying such designs, and selecting the good ones. Whether this is done on paper, in ones head (a Darwinian process) or on a simulator don't much matter.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

It's also cheaper to catch them in spice, if you can (less smoke). Furthermore spice let's you quickly and easily view all kinds of things that you can't easily view with a scope.

Spice falls on its face in AC analysis for high speed switching circuits, which you can get around with using average model simulation if you know how (and I don't... yet), but then again, breadboards are no good at all for this kind of application either, just as an example for what's already been stated.

After fighting with Electronics Workbench and MultiSim, actually having been taught it was the, get this, "industry standard"..

I went to pspice (orcad) and never looked back, it's got some bugs for sure, but it's been good to me. Try a few simulators and see what works best for you, some are better at certain things than others, even if it is just for a nicer GUI at first. One that comes with good help files and tutorials is a real winner for a beginner.

Proteus simulator is excellent for simulating micro-controllers, code and all, but the interface just sucks, and you have to purchase the micro-controller models seperatly. It's not cheap.

I recommend staying far away from MultiSim, the only thing that sucks worse than their program is their level of support. Try any of the others.

I like pspice as it is more the industry standard and most manufacturers, if they offer models at all, will offer a version of it for pspice.

While I haven't tried it yet myself, there's a newer one out making waves, I've heard alot of good about it, for both Windows and Linux. See it here:

My 2p worth (nearer 4c that 2 these days!) is:

If you need to know how a simulator works internally to know whether you can trust the results, you are better off using a breadboard. And unless you have the time and inclination to work out the intimate deatils, take all results with a pinch of snuff.

For example, I've had a circuit where changing a resistor from 10k to

The GUI's but the guinea's stamp, the spice engine's the gowd for a' that.

Paul Burke

Kevin,

For flashing an LED, yes. For building a modern radio receiver (as found in cell phones, set top boxes, etc.)... no.

But I'm sure you knew that. :-)

I read your post and could hardly believe what i was reading, the idea that a simulator is a replacement for benchwork! The I saw that you sell them, that explained it.

But I don't agree that all of what you state above is "basic" from a beginners point of view. e.g. Laplace, Fourier.

I certainly didn't wait to lean that stuff when I was 11-14 building up my guitar effects pedals.

I know. You can do a few back of the envelope calculations, but to really *understand* what's going on, it cant be done, without simulation. Many claim they can, but they are usually lying to themselves. Its hard to admit ones brain is not capable of understanding all the details without trial and error. I don't have that problem.

I agree. You need to have good overall understanding of what going on, but not necessarily all the details. The details are what the simulator will bring out, *iff* you know how and where to look.

I still disagree on this. Its a complement. As I keep saying, there is still much a beginner can learn with a simulator, the fact that it doesn't cover *all* things is beside the point. Its like using a damp towel to get the worst of the wetness off of you.

Oh?

There is no reasonable way that what I wrote could be interpreted in that way.

.. A simulator is pretty useless without

Not at all. A beginner will get lots of useful information from a simulator. *Excluding* the obvious parasitics etc, the beginner can learn *everything* *else* that a simulator does indeed do correctly. For example, biasing up transistors, plotting waveforms etc..

Everyone here keeps ignoring the *numbers*. Sure, out of a possible 1000 things a simulator might do, maybe 10-20 of them will be erroneous when tried on the bench. So what? *Most* of what can be done on the bench is well covered, and that's what matters.

That's correct. My point in this thread is that *most* of real world electronics can be learnt with a simulator much easier and quicker. One doesn't have to go through the trouble and expense of getting components and instruments. Of course, the remaining few % of board level required learning might take up 99% of ones time, but that's another story.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

As you should with the breadboard. Many times, the breadboard can work, but not for the reason you think it works. A one off breadboard means absolute nothing in an engineering sense.

But you don't know. Some circuits are truly that sensitive.

Sure, *sometimes* spice can have some numerical issues, but by far the most part, it solves correctly.

One cant just cheery pick were a bread board is better, and use that as an argument to justify the value of a bread board in general. The reality is that spice will catch 1000s of time more errors then you can on a breadboard. The fact that it doesn't catch all of them is besides the point. It catches *MORE* of them, and ones that can be much more difficult to track down.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk