Re: Twin T circuit wanted

After running the sim point at the component you want to see current through and the cursor should change to look like a black clamp meter instead of a red probe.

It only works on components, for devices with more than 2 terminals you have to get the joint between the dark blue component and the light blue interconnect wiring.

Or you can hold the [Alt] key down and it'll do current instead of voltage on the wires, and a thermometer looking thing (which I haven't figured out how to use) on the components

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: snipped-for-privacy@netfront.net ---

On mine I found it in the same directory as the asc file.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: snipped-for-privacy@netfront.net ---

The thermometer looking thing displays the power dissipation in the component.

Especially for power electronics it's often a good reality check as to whether the circuit is likely to keep the magic smoke in the real world.

It works well for resistors, bipolar transistors and MOSFETs. It also works reasonably well for some LTC opamps, though I wouldn't trust it with active devices that have models of questionable reasoning, such as opamps that will pull electrons out of thin air with no regard to their own neither their power supplies' capabilities.

meter

The alt thing is cute, if I can remember it. Thanks.

John

Wherever you put the .asc file.

find ~ -name bong*

meter

Plots dissipation in the component.

at

below

wave

emitter

emitter

Yep. I learned that back when i used Intusoft DOS SPICE 1.41. It was in their book back then.

I left the bubble off the schmitt. So shoot me. Or peck me to death. Actually, I posted the same circuit some years back, with the bubble.

You simulated it, oscillating properly, pumping 5 mA into the LED in the right direction, and in the face of the evidence, declared that it couldn't work. Why?

All circuits are like that.

All circuits start with topologies; they get values later. I prefer to think about a circuit for a while before even simulating it. Usually I don't simulate it at all. Most often I think about it and never use it; some circuits are silly but fun to play with. Some stupid circuits, being played with, inspire good circuits. You seem to find all that to be offensive. Some people don't like the uncertainty of that sort of thing. Whatever.

I posted no latching relay circuit, and the power gain of a latching relay is a philosophical debate. Does "unboundedly large" mean "infinite"? Who cares?

I don't ridicule newbies or anyone who is sincere about electronics and reasonably polite. I do ridicule AlwaysWrong and Sloman and useless obtuse fatheads. I've helped JT privately, even shipped him beer, so I can't imagine what's his problem. But I'm not wasting energy over it.

It's a public, unmoderated discussion group. There are a billion people who can post here and piss you off. If you can't play it cool, you'll be angry forever. Enjoy.

John

hear

:)

I found that i had the help file open and that was interfering with the update. All sweet now.

I still think it is related to how one has their individual wine session set up.

You location is where it should be. I assumed that he had read that notation and already looked there. Ithas to be writing the log file etc somewhere successfully.

gets

Yep. Right where it should be. Don't know why i couldn't find it the first time. Thanx. Oops, now i see. Should be a while before i make that mistake again.

Perhaps you forgot to hit the file browser's refresh?

Grant.

power supply regulation (voltage at Q3 emitter) is much improved by those changes.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: snipped-for-privacy@netfront.net ---

Excellent.

I didn't see, what did you change to lower the Q?

I had meant to suggest tying a series resistor on Q1's emitter signal path.

John Larkin commented that the ringdown was more due to the LC's stored energy than Q1's amplifying role. I wonder, if you took the same LC, ignore your new secondary, leave out Q1, etc., and you gave it a short current spike to get it started, what would the result look like?

Why are you so panty-bunched over a bubble? The charge pump worked. You accuse me of pretending to be perfect which I don't) and then set up a mighty clucking noise if I make a small mistake.

You are really weird. Do you work alone? I don't. We'll get a few people together and go wild on a whiteboard. We say and scribble all sorts of silly and half-baked and un-fleshed-out ideas, several per minute if the coffee was good. We usually leave with a seriously good design to implement. I can tell that you're not the kind of person who likes that sort of process; some people hate it.

I throw out a beta-limit based circuit or some such now and then just to flush the wedge-heads out of the weeds.

So cut me some slack for missing a bubble. Or don't.

I don't know what you mean here, but if you want to talk about electronics, that's what this group is supposed to be for.

I have ideas. Some are great, some are dumb, some are useless but fun. If you don't like ideas, killfile me.

Ideas don't have errors. The charge pump works. The oscillator oscillates, and its amplitude stability is excellent, as intended. What's your problem?

Glaring errors? Write to your congressman.

John