Board design In orcad capture flow

[Vicky]

Hi,
I would like to know how orcad capture can be used in the board
design.I am
interested in understanding how the analog portion of the board and
the digital portion will interact.i mean can i use pspice for
simulating the analog portion and may be NCSIM for digital portion.Can
capture support the mixed mode simulation as done by EWB or some other
tools.
By mixed mode i do not mean analog and mixed signal i mean
spice and HDL co simulation of the same board.If yes can u direct me
to some good references to do the same.
Regards
Vicky

 

[Charles Edmondson]

Vicky wrote:

Hi,
I would like to know how orcad capture can be used in the board
design.I am
interested in understanding how the analog portion of the board and
the digital portion will interact.i mean can i use pspice for
simulating the analog portion and may be NCSIM for digital portion.Can
capture support the mixed mode simulation as done by EWB or some other
tools.
By mixed mode i do not mean analog and mixed signal i mean
spice and HDL co simulation of the same board.If yes can u direct me
to some good references to do the same.
Regards
Vicky

Vicky,
Sorry, but you aren't going to find anything that does all that you
want. You can simulate the analog and digital parts separately, but
there are not that many mixed HDL/Analog simulators available for the
low end, and most have so many caveats that they are not very useful. I
dont' know what HDL capabilities Mike has added to LTSpice, but I know
that using EWB has been a frustrating experience for most who have tried
it, at least at the professional level.

Anyone know of good HDL/Spice simulator? For a decent (less than $20K)
price?

Charlie
Edmondson Engineering
Unique Solutions to Unusual Problems

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Charles Edmondson wrote:

Vicky wrote:
Hi,
I would like to know how orcad capture can be used in the board
design.I am
interested in understanding how the analog portion of the board and
the digital portion will interact.i mean can i use pspice for
simulating the analog portion and may be NCSIM for digital
portion.Can capture support the mixed mode simulation as done by EWB
or some other tools.
By mixed mode i do not mean analog and mixed signal i
mean spice and HDL co simulation of the same board.If yes can u
direct me to some good references to do the same.
Regards
Vicky

Vicky,
Sorry, but you aren't going to find anything that does all that you
want. You can simulate the analog and digital parts separately, but
there are not that many mixed HDL/Analog simulators available for the
low end, and most have so many caveats that they are not very useful.
I dont' know what HDL capabilities Mike has added to LTSpice, but I
know that using EWB has been a frustrating experience for most who
have tried it, at least at the professional level.

Anyone know of good HDL/Spice simulator? For a decent (less than $20K)
price?

You might check out Brendan Graham's one at http://www.usysinc.com/. I
actually gave him a copy of my XSpice port as a starting point.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most"
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

 

[Chaos Master]

Charles Edmondson called The Usenet Police (tm) of sci.electronics.cad and said to
the cops, at Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:36:01 -0800:

Vicky,
Sorry, but you aren't going to find anything that does all that you
want. You can simulate the analog and digital parts separately, but
there are not that many mixed HDL/Analog simulators available for the
low end, and most have so many caveats that they are not very useful. I
dont' know what HDL capabilities Mike has added to LTSpice, but I know
that using EWB has been a frustrating experience for most who have tried
it, at least at the professional level.

Anyone know of good HDL/Spice simulator? For a decent (less than $20K)
price?

If by "HDL/Spice" you mean "mixed-mode" simulator, SIMetrix is very good for this
IMHO. Comes with a very good library of digital devices.

Intusoft' ISpice also seems to come with a good collection of models, according to
their model listing.

PS: Those are just my personal opinions. I have 0, ZERO, NONE, NADA, NOP, 0e+00,
0-0, 0+0, 0d0+0, 0.000 relations to any software developer.

--
Chaos MasterŽ - Posting from Brazil!
MSN/E-Mail address: wizard_of_yendor-|<|-@hotmail.com-|<|-
Remove the diodes [-|<|-], they're for protection (no pun intended).

 

[John]

"Charles Edmondson" <edmondson.ns@ns.ieee.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:402932a3@news.cadence.com...

Anyone know of good HDL/Spice simulator? For a decent (less than $20K)
price?

Hi there,
Has anybody had much experience with Ansoft's Simplorer for mixed-signal
simulation?
"With VHDL-AMS and other standard modeling languages, SIMPLORER is the
easiest, most accurate, and most flexible tool available today" and it has
SPICE "compatibility" i.e. it can read SPICE netlists.

regards,
John

 

[1Z]

"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message

Hey Kevin,
Sorry to butt in, but I've got something fot you:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=fd762132.0402060739.11a3e669%40posting.google.com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dkevin%2Baylward%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26scoring%3Dd%26selm%3Dfd762132.0402060739.11a3e669%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D2

 

[Kevin Aylward]

1Z wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
message

Hey Kevin,
Sorry to butt in, but I've got something fot you:


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=fd762132.0402060739.11a3e669%40posting.google.com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dkevin%2Baylward%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26scoring%3Dd%26selm%3Dfd762132.0402060739.11a3e669%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D2

I no am reading longer many ng, as I don't have the time. However, I
have
commentated here. If you want further replies, you need to supply a
valid return email address:

If we first ignore Quantum Mechanical randomness, then the mind and
body
is totally deterministic by the laws of classical physics. In this
case
there is no "I" that can control anything, i.e. no free will is
possible. Therefore they would have to be something outside of physics
that could override such deterministic physics.

If we introduce Quantum Mechanical randomness the issue of a
controlling
"I" is moot, as "I" can not have control over a random process as the
process is random.!

1Z:
That is like a creationist claiming that random mutation cannot
produce
the Order of nature.

Kevin:

By itself, random mutation cannot produce order.

1Z:

The selecting part of the process exerts control by
....err...selecting.

Kevin:

That's correct. I have posted many times that selection is decidedly non
random,
and is absolutely fundamental. The laws of physics are non random. Some
reactions are more favoured than others. It is the why order can result
from
chaos.


Kevin:

You miss the point. You don't seem to understand where I'm coming from.
Of
course it is trivially obvious that a physical entity can be *defined*
to be
that which "takes" action, independent of its meme and gene programming,
by
generation of random traits. This *defined* entity may be indeed be
considered
to be a controller of events. However, this entity is conceptually not t
he same
as that traditionally associated or understood by a *real* and true "I".
Yes,
what we are is indeed this *defined* entity, but there is still no true
"I" that
independently makes decisions in the more deeper sense.

See above. Its pretty trivial really. Unless there is a soul, *true*
free will can not exist.

1Z:
The 'simple logic' seems to be based on muisunderstanding evolutionary
theory and ignoring the possibility that the brain, like a cybernetic
system, cna control itself.

Kevin:

Not at all. Again, you simply misunderstand my position. I have made it
quite
clear in my papers that one can *define* an independent controller
intelligence.

e.g see http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/specialreplicators.html,
definition
of free will trait generator.

I am drawing a distinction between what is traditionally associated with
a
*true* "I", e.g. a soul, and what we actually are.

You don't seem to understand what is meant by "independent control" as I
am
using the term. Again, it is absolutely trivial, so trivial that it is
not worth
even discussing, that the brain, as a unit, can take action not
derivable from
its inputs, that is, be classed and defined as an "independent
controller".
However, this "independent controller" is not a real independent
controller as
usually understood. Something that uses random events as its core
explanation to
that independence can not be truly said to be having *complete* and
utter
control of events.

The laws of physics allow both indeterminism and self-control (eg
cybernetics). I fail to see your objection.

This is a complete misunderstanding of self-control. The concept is
being used in a different context. Robots/cybernetics don't have self
control in the sense that they can truly take independent action. They
can only do what they are programmed to do, which includes taking
action
based on a random generator.

1Z:
What you call 'true independent action' is a straw-man.

Kevin:

Not at all. I understand what your view of an independent controller is.
My
papers show in detail, why that is indeed what we actually are. You are
taking
the view that I am denying your simplified view/definition of a
controller
completly. I don't. What I am saying is that such a controller is *not*
the same
controller that we traditionally associate with humans, i.e. a soul.

Who said anything about controlling the laws of physics?
The question is whether a system can both control itself and behave
indeterminisitically.

Again, this concept of self-control is not the same as in what is
proposed that a human might have if it had free will, due to a soul
for
example. The same phrase is being used with different meanings. In
fact,
in is only this weaker sense of self-control that is all that is
achievable by humans.

1Z:
What you call the 'weaker sense' is all anyone ever means by it.

Kevin:

Not at all. A soul is envisaged to be something that can take its own
action, by
non random means.

It would only be necessary to override
physics, if it were impossible within physics, which you have
assumed
rather than demonstrated.

I agree, I have assumed that physics is king.

1Z:
The assumption in question is that self-control is physically
impossible.

Kevin:

This is a simple matter of definitions. Of course, I can program a road
white
line follower robot to take "independent" action, and therefore declare
it to be
able to take independent self-control, but this simply misses what the
human
mind is traditionally taken to be.

I base my arguments on an
axiom of "there is no magic". If this axiom is proven incorrect, than
my
arguments would fail. Do you have any proof in magic?

1Z:
Actually, you base your arguments on the magic words "It is held
that..."

Kevin:

Nonsense.

The ensemble interpretation is itself obsolete,

You don't know what your talking about.

since
all the puzzling aspects of physics can be demonstrated
with single-particle experiments.

That's correct, and this is exactly what the quantum ensemble
approaches
tells us is the case. You appear to misunderstand the ensemble
approach.
The ensemble is about an ensemble of *systems* not an ensemble of
particles. This is the most basic aspect of the ensemble approach.

1Z:
Einstein's version of the ensemble approach says that every particle
has a maximal set of well-defined observables at all times.

This is now known to be wrong.

Kevin:

I am not clear on what the specific details are of Einstein's particular
version
of the ensemble interpretation are. What I do hold, is that as of around
1998,
no experiment has contradicted Ballentines ensemble.


1Z:
Muynck's version remains silent about what individual
particles are supposed to be doing.

Kevin:

Such as?

So you have a bunch of experiments with single particles which
can't be explained by the ensemble approach becasue it doesn't deal
with individual particles.

Kevin:

Complete nonsense. Of course it can address single particles, but not
everthing
about them.

For example, Ballentine, in his book, specifically references
experimental
coincidence detection of *single* photons, and shows that the only
explanation
consistent with the results is that the photons never take to paths at
once.
That is, coincidence is never detected. I can copy the reference if you
would
like. I suggest you get the book.

Your views on QM contain more fallacies than I can easily
catalogue at the moment.

Not at all. The view is held by *experts* in quantum mechanics, as I
noted on my web page.

1Z:
All the other interpretations of QM are or were held by experts, too.
Heisenberg, Bohr, Bohm, Everett, Cramer...#


Some of the other interpretations also agree with all known experiments,
so your
statement here is not indicative that the ensemble view disagrees with
any
experiments.

You might do well to check them out. It was also
held as correct by Einstein. Unfortunately, in my graduate quantum
mechanics physics classes I was initially introduced to the old,
erroneous interpretation and suffered many misconceptions due to this.
Fortunately, it was certainly an eye opener to obtain a graduate text
book that explained in detail what a correct account of QM is.

1Z:
If you look into it more deeply you will find that there are
about 6 major interpretations of all of whose protagonists
will do their best to perusade you that all other views are erroneous.

Kevin:

Yes, I know.

It is clear that it is you that is clueless on QM. If you understood
even the basics of what I presented, you should have realised that the
Ensemble approach is trivially compatible with all known experiments.

1Z:
All interpretations claim to be compatible with experiments.
One is not automatically obliged to beleive the claim.

Kevin:

Indeed. However, I accept the one that is simplest, and makes most
sense.

For example, it would make no sense if a practising universtity
professor of physics, an expert in his field of Quantum Mechanics, if
he
were teaching a theory known to be experimentally false. Get real
dude.

1Z:
Yet the rival claims, which according to you are erroneous, are also
held by Professors. Old chap.

Kevin:

Yep. However, quite a few of them, and never really thought about the
issues.
Did you have a look at the web site I note on the QM page?

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/quantummechanics/index.html
http://www.phys.tue.nl/ktn/Wim/qm11.htm#ensemble

Of course when people are "conscious", as usually understood by that
term, their behaviour is different than when unconscious, but this is
besides the point. The fact that one is *aware* that they are aware is
the bit that is redundant.

You don't seem to be able to distinguish the electro-chemical workings
of the brain and its manifestations.

1Z:
You have not established that the manifestation differs from
the workings.

kevin:

Indeed I have. I have shown than that conscious awareness *cannot* be
derived
from its parts.

Please explain exactly how
"consciousness" can *physically* make your finger move.

1Z:
The problem does not even arise unless you have good reason to
believe consciousness is non-physical.

kevin:

Again, you seem to misunderstand to what I am referring to when I say
conscious.
I am referring to awareness, pain, etc. The qualia of pain can not do
anything.
It is equivalent to a VDU, or TV screen. Only whatever it is that
physically
produces pain can do anything.

There is no physical mechanism that allows "awareness" to take
any direct physical action, so how can it be an aid?

"There is no physical mechanism that allows "digestion" to take
any direct physical action, so how can it be an aid?"

Of course there is. The stomach contains acids and enzymes that act by
quantum mechanical processes, principally by the electronic forces
between molecules. Reactions take place between molecules by these
electric forces. "Consciences"

1Z:

[ Consciences = consciousness ? ]

is just a word used to describe a
condition that is not derivable by physics.

1Z:

Botany is not derivable from physics.

kevin:

Of course it is, in principle. Everything is physics. Botany is simply
applied
physics, as is chemistry, mechanics, etc.

All of all is a result nothing more than the motion of mass-energy.
That's it.
That's your lot. Given enough initial conditions, and lets ignore QM for
simplicity, *everything* physically following can be predicted.

As explained, consciousness does not enable us to
perform any individual action, it rather makes everything
else more effective, like the conductor of an orchestra.

Please explain in what way being "aware" actively effects physical
processes.

You seem to be confusing the physical mechanism that results in what
we
declare to be conscious, with consciousness itself. There is no
logical
requirement that the physical mechanism that results in conscious
awareness, requires that that we be consciously aware. Of course we do
different things when we are conscious, but there is no reason that
there should be anything like an awareness to it. I can make a
computer
go, "it hurts" when I kick it in its metal balls. As I keep stating,
in
principle, there does not seem to be any physical action a machine can
take that requires conscious awareness. Any and all physical behaviour
that coinsides with the general state named "conscious", does not seem
to require consciousness itself, i.e. awareness of that state.

1Z:

I am not saying that consciousness is responsible for any particular
little bit of behaviour, I am saying that it is responsible for the
overall co-ordination. Remember the conductor ? In principle
a parrot could pronounce every word in English, but it still
cannot speak. There is no fact of the matter about
whether the overall co-ordination that makes human like behaviour out
of all the individual bits and pieces can be achived by an unconscious
automoton, since there is no such thing as a human-like AI.

Restricting consciousness to emotions (or qualia) : they certainly
appear to have effects. I prefer chocolate to vanilla because of the
taste, the quale. To say that my behaviour in choosing the chocolate
has nothing
to do with how things seem to me is an extroadinary claim in need of
strong evidence.

kevin:

Its one that many, are increasingly holding.

By consciousness, I am referring to *awareness* itself, that thing that
is,
unexplainable, that thing you know when you get kicked in the balls.

No, "you" don't "prefer" chocolate to vanilla, the mechanical physical
process
in your brain physically, prudentially selects chocolate to vanilla and
then
reports such selection to this thing called conscious awareness. Since
your
aware thoughts are nothing more than a manifestation of physical
calculations,
it is the physical embodiment that makes the decisions, not awareness
itself.
The fact that you are "aware" of them, i.e. experience them by some sort
of
qualia effect, is besides the way. This "awareness" is quite incidental.
There
is no logical reason for awareness to exist. It would seem that a
machine can do
all of the selection of chocolate to vanilla without any awareness at
all. I
still think you need to stand back and think about what is really
happening when
you think you made a choice. Try doing it on some pot.

1Z:
Does the self-referentiallity of consciousness mean it is causally
idle ? It is hard to see how this is remotely possible, since self
referentiallity is an epistemic, logical issue, and causal idleness
is a (meta)physical one. Just because consciousness suposedly
can't be comprehended doesn't mean it isn't doing anything.


kevin:
That is not the reason for claiming awareness does nothing.

1Z:
(The self-referentiallity claim is dubious anyway.

Not at all. It is absolutely self-referral.

Just because
some puzzling statements , sucha s Goedel's paradox are

self-referential
does not mean anything self-referential is paradoxical.

kevin:

What drugs are you on? There was no suggestion whatsoever that this self
referral argument was paradoxical, i.e. contradictory. For example, at
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/thehardproblem.html

I even gave a proof that the point about *consistent* self referral
systems was
that *anything* can be proved. The fact that anything can be proved,
means that
there is no reason to prefer one particular "proof" other any another
"proof".
*That* is why consciousness can not be derived. *All* derivations are
"correct",
so there is no way to distinguish the real correct one.

The sentence 'this sentence is six words long' is comprehensible,
true, and self - referential).

kevin:

Indeed.


1Z:
Does the supposed non-physicality of consciousness mean it is causally
idle ?
If the non-physical claim is simply that consc. is not practically
deriveable from the science of physics,
the conculsion does not arise.

kevin:

I dont claim that consciousness is non physical, only that it can't be
derived
from its parts, and plays no part. However, I have *already* speculated
one
possible *indirect* way where consciousness might have an effect. see
Conscious
Decisions, http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/consciousness.html


1Z:

The problem may be simply one of
compexity --

economics and geology aren't pratically deriveable from physics, but
things
happen for economic and geological reasons (which are ultimately
physical
in the sense of material and natural).

If the non-physical claim that consciousness is not
ultimately physical in the sense of material and natural,
that might well indicate that it is causally idle,
but it is an extrardinary claim at odds with you commitment to
physicalism.

If the non-physical claim

kevin:
That is not the claim.

1Z:
is that consc. is not deriveable in
principle from the science of physics,

kevin:

Again, you misunderstand the claim. There is no claim that consciousness
is not
physical, only non derivable. These are *completely* *independent*
concepts.


Look, dude, Godel shows that statements can be true but non derivable.
For
example, it is perfectly valid for there to be a *relations* between
*physical*
entities, that is one physical entity effects another entity, but the
relation
between them can not be *derived*, only *experimentally measured*. For
example,
the fine structure constant (~1/137), relates various physical
artefacts, but as
yet, there is no way to explain,. i.e. derive this number. It might not
be
possible. It may well be a basic fact of physics. Or, for example, the
speed of
light is invariant, this is a physical fact, however, it is not
derivable.

1Z:
then, so long as it is not regarded as immaterial or supernatural, it
has causal
powers, and the correct conclusion is that the science of physics does
not
capture causally everything that is going on (ie the philosophical
position
called reducitionism is wrong).

kevin:

So far, I see nothing that requires reductionism to be effectively
false. That
is, since I hold that awareness does nothing, it is only an observer, it
is
irrelevant that it cannot be derived from physics.

How disastrous would that be ?
Is reductionism a proven scientific fact ? No, it is a philosophical

principle.
if physics gave a complete description of what absolutely must happen
in a
given situation, the causal powers of consciousness would have to
override the laws of physics.

But it doesn't: it gives only probabilities for certain outcomes.
There is
therefore built-in elbow-room for a consciousness which is natural
but ontologically distinct form the fundamental particles making up
the
brain -- a sort of consciousness field -- to have physical effects.

Kevin:
I don't see the wiggle room of QM randamness being relevant. My current
view is
that conscious awareness would exist without QM. pseudo randomness may
well be
all that is required for awareness. The fact that a brain does not have
all the
information it requires to make a decision means that it must guess.

Secondly, writing a bit of prose is irrelevant to someone's skills as
an
engineer and a scientist. Feel free to download my software which
demonstrates actual real world abilities. Talk is cheap. Show me some
evidence that a philosopher has any real value to society.

1Z:
What value is , is a philosophical question...

AI's can alter their own programming, why can't humans ?

You are still missing the point. You are arguing on 101 stuff. This
sort
of control is not the sort of control we identify with the proverbial
soul.

1Z:
But I don't associate FW with the soul. That is not what I am talking
about.

And what happens if we don't ignore the random number complication.

I have already explained.

1Z:

You have given an answer about souls to a question about FW.

kevin:

Because, the net or equivalent effect is that of a soul. If it is not
equivalent, there is nothing to debate. As I already indicated, it is
trivial
that a weaker independent entity can exist. I am typing on one now.

Best Regards,

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most"
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

 

[Vicky]

Hi,
But then how do they proceed about in board simulation if we have
the digital portin of the board modeled using HDL and analog portion
using spice.Iknow that PSpice is a mixed signal simulator and has
digital components as well but i feel that HDL approach is much more
simple and effective when it comes to charactising a digital
circuit.So was just curious how board simulation is done using orcad
capture.Jim can you add your comments also regarding the board
simulation flow using capture CIS or concept HDL
Regards
Vicky

 

[Jim Thompson]

On 11 Feb 2004 21:05:32 -0800, mvvijay78@rediffmail.com (Vicky) wrote:

Hi,
But then how do they proceed about in board simulation if we have
the digital portin of the board modeled using HDL and analog portion
using spice.Iknow that PSpice is a mixed signal simulator and has
digital components as well but i feel that HDL approach is much more
simple and effective when it comes to charactising a digital
circuit.So was just curious how board simulation is done using orcad
capture.Jim can you add your comments also regarding the board
simulation flow using capture CIS or concept HDL
Regards
Vicky

I don't use Capture (gag me with a spoon). Nor do I use Concept HDL.

But I *do* use PSpice for Analog circuits with a little digital mixed
in. (Digital elements are behavioral.)

BTW, Are you the "Vicky" I knew from AZM, or a different "Vicky"?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.