EAGLE Netlist conversion

[Kevin Aylward]

Joel Kolstad wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:w9Dmd.28184$P7.5919@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
My philosophy is that the engine should do its best to run, and only
fail if it actually has to.

This is an 'expert friendly' argument, Kevin.

Not quite. I use the escape clause. "...if it actually has to..." This
means that if a novice is using it, it needs to know that's and take
appropriate action

In general, if an
include file can't be found, with most users it's FAR more likely
that that file is needed for the simulation and in all likelihood
continuing will lead either to erroneous results or no results at
all. Far too many beginners are likely to believe erroneous output
if you don't bludgeon them over the head with the fact that something
about the simulation seems amiss.
But you could readily convince me that there should be a checkbox
somewhere for 'treat [various] failures as warnings'; this is not
uncommon with, e.g., C compilers.

Yes.

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.

 

[ldg]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 01:43:15 GMT, Pig Bladder
<pig_bladder@anyspammer.org> wrote:

Q: Do you know the difference between a connoisseur and a wino?

A: The connoisseur takes the bottle out of the paper sack.

Not necessarily.

After this thread I'm thinking about tying little pieces of brown
paper sack around the necks of my wine glasses to create the ultimate
kitschy presentation for cabernet.

An old friend of mine (actually Barry Marsh)
http://www.actel.com/company/press/2000pr/KeyMarketing.html

used to think it great fun years ago (24 years?) to bring a couple of
fine wines over to the house and then drink them while still in the
long paper sacks and sitting out on the front curb. We never
did actually lean on the light post . . .

One day my wife complained that she was never invited to drink out on
the curb with us guys, so Barry grabbed her wine glass and wrapped
brown paper around the stem torn from a paper sack, then handed it
back.

I'd imagine he'd deny this now since he's got this new job . . .

Thanks for bringing back the memories.

Oh. I could never develop a taste for Merlot. To me it's sort of
like drinking cabernet drained through dirty socks

I do look forward to an occasional trip to Trader Joe's to try the
latest cheap import. Australia and Chile seem to be doing quite well.
Another friend with thousands of bottles in his wine cellar tries the
wines there, then buys cases while they are cheap.

Regards,
Larry

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:26:02 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

"Feeling" is entirely subjective, and is determined by
the hardware you have with which to feel. You are aware that
"feelings" are mental states strongly influenced by hormonal
activities in organs not subject to mental control, not to
mention, um, chemical modifications of same?

Now consider the "feelings" of other critters. They
usually have entirely different hardware from yours and
simply cannot be expected to have anything resembling a
subjective experience remotely comparable to yours.

Well, here's the rub. "Feelings," as you so cavalierly dismiss
as "mental states", are the magnetic field being experienced,
and expressed, by the very material of which Everything There
Is is made.

You ought to know better than to misapply words like
"magnetic field" in this context, but I grok what you mean.

I "cavalierly dismiss" nothing; I'm simply trying to
point out to you that the physical manifestations of All are
limited by the apparatus doing the manifesting. You know
very well that in the physical, our ability to experience
All (to capture the "flux lines" of the "feeling field") is
strictly limited by our physical state-of-being at a
particular time in our lives. That's why feelings change;
our "cross section", "permeability", and other relevant
properties are determined by our organic hardware "chipset"
and the "software" (memes and like that) running on it.

"Lower critters" are limited in their ability to
experience what we, in our overblown egoism, call the "full
emotional spectrum", simply because they haven't evolved the
organic hardware upgrades we have and can run only
relatively simple emotional software. This is complicated by
the fact that many memes are firmwired into their _and our_
hardware.

But we have no idea what further upgrades are possible,
so we don't know what our bandwidth limitations are WRT the
full possible spectrum.

Where you see "evil intent" I see hardwired behaviors in
the earlier organic hardware revisions available to "lower"
critters. They are _not capable_ of "evil intent" as we
define it because that level of emotional software simply
cannot run on their hardware any more than DOS apps can run
on a four-banger.

What some of us call enlightenment can be seen as
deleting bloatware (millenia of accumulated interactive
memes etc.), freeing up the inherent speed and total
abilities of our minds. Thus it should be blindingly obvious
that a given critter, _while in the physical_, can only
achieve those levels of enlightenment that can be
encompassed by their hardware.

See, if you can misapply terminology, so can I. But then,
there's no agreed-upon terminology for this sort of
discussion, so we have to make do with sloppy analogies.

Free Will is the fundamental raw material of Creation, and
Desire is the Cause of Existence.

Careful, you'll set Steve off.

It's just that for all of this time, spirit, which has the
thoughts and the power to withhold itself, has thought that
it was supposed to be calling the shots, and in its arrogance,
has been ignoring the pain that has been caused by the act
of ignoring that which is hurting.

In the beginning All was One, and perfect, and had done
everything and all that, and after an infinite time of
playing with itself, realized it was alone. So it had
many conversations with itself, and other little pockets
of consciousness here and there, and came to the conclusion
that there should be An Other. So, after a few gahooption
millennia of contemplation, All decided to tear itself
in two.

Nothing like this had ever done before. And this was the
point at which it was discovered that Pain Hurts.

But it didn't hurt the two halves equally - or maybe more
accurately, the two halves had one little difference that
has become an imbalance that has resulted in all of the
pain and suffering that we see now.

The half that was more electrically, mentally, spirit
polarized had the ability to "shake it off" - heal
the pain of the wound, and move right on with its
business of "getting to know the other."

The magnetic, feeling, will half didn't get off so
lucky. It doesn't have the ability to "just shake it
off". It gets stuck holding the pain until the Light
of Unconditional Love gets around to noticing it and
healing it.

And all of this is going on while creating all of the
infinite variety that we see around us, every single
component entity of which is suffering from the pain
of the original split.

Spirit has been in the habit of dismissing Will's
pain, and feeling smugly superior, "Well, you're just
as much God as I am, what's wrong with you that you
can't heal yourself like I can?"

Well, that isn't the way reality works.

Sure it is. But one half is timebound, and that's why it
holds onto its pain until it figures out how to let go.

But no spirit, no electrically-polarized consciousness,
can know this until it undenies its own, living, breathing,
feeling will.

And once you do decide that there is more than one way
of looking at things, the process of opening up your
"eyes" is about as complicated as opening your eyes.

All it takes is intent to be whole.

That's the snag in your reasoning. Intent cannot be whole
in a "partial" mind, and _all_ minds are partial because
they're hardware-limited. You have failed to take "lesser"
minds' (human and otherwise) incompleteness into account. Do
not be disappointed that amoebas can't soar with eagles, or
that cats can't behave in accord with your idea of ethics.
That's completely futile and will only stress you
unneccesarily. Rather, celebrate that they've achieved what
they have.

Consider what larger minds than ours think of our
ramblings...

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Leon Heller]

"Dmitri(Cabling-Design.com)" <info@REMOVE_NO_SPAM_cabling-design.com> wrote
in message news:spHod.11384$Vy.4412@trndny06...

Hello everyone.
Hope someone can give me some pointers:
I'm trying to position components on the board in some kind of orderly
fashion, a pattern rather. The most important are the few LEDs , but for
the rest of them I'd also like it to look good from an aesthetic point of
view.

Here is my problem: I cannot find a way to align components in the board
layout window. I mean, you can move them, and they stick to the grid, but
that's about as much control over positioning of the components as you
have. Unless I'm missing something.

Is there a way to select a group of components and run a command like any
of the desktop graphic editors would have: align top, align center, align
bottom, distribute equi-spaced, distribute centers etc, you got the idea.
Am I asking too much of Eagle? Can someone please recommend a board layout
software that is capable of more precise components placement if Eagle
can't do?

Pulsonix will do what you want:

http://www.pulsonix.com

apart from equi-spaced distribution (next version should have it)

and EasyPC will do most of it:

http://www.numberone.com

considerably cheaper. Both are from the same parent company.

Leon

 

[Markus Baertschi]

Leon Heller wrote:

I just checked with the copy I have, and it doesn't look like it. EasyPC
starts at under 100 GBP (500 pins limit), which is about the same price as
Eagle.

Leon,

Eagle is Free (0 GBP) in its hobbyist configuration.

Markus

 

[David Harmon]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:09:50 GMT in sci.electronics.cad,
info_at_cabling-design_dot_com@foo.com (Dmitri(Cabling-Design.com))
wrote,

That's a great suggestion, David. I guess, I should spend more time
learning the command language in Eagle. That would work perfect for me.

Glad you like it. Here's another trick:

Since mouse clicks snap to grid, if you have a component misaligned
relative to the grid (for instance, if you have changed the grid to
a funny number) it can be tricky to move it where you want. Click,
move, click leaves it still misaligned by the same amount, since
both clicks were grid-relative.

Instead, type
move d1
then click where you want it. The component is selected by its
origin point, then dropped exactly at the grid snap point.
Combined with suitably chosen grid, that may get you some of what
you want.

 

[Joerg]

Hi Kenneth,

I'm shopping for an inexpensive CAD system for a small startup doing
microprocessor-based servo stuff. I need fine-line multilayer for the
digital stuff, and copper pours and weird copper structures for analog
work.

Did you look at Cadsoft Eagle? I believe the full version is about $800
for the US, plus another $400 if you need an autorouter.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[Leon Heller]

"Kenneth Porter" <shiva.blacklist@sewingwitch.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B078AEE9DDAshivawellcom@216.196.97.136...

I'm shopping for an inexpensive CAD system for a small startup doing
microprocessor-based servo stuff. I need fine-line multilayer for the
digital stuff, and copper pours and weird copper structures for analog
work.

I asked a buddy about P-CAD (what he uses) and he reports these serious
deficiencies:

You can't save some things in pcad till all of the errors are gone. It
has been that way for a long time and the support people don't seem to
have much of a clue.

It is a real pain if you are making a large library part you can't
stop and save and come back to it later. It also does not always tell
you that the file you just tried to save was to a read only directory
and it did not really do anything. It also trys to reconnect to all of
the files you have used recently so you can't move them. same with
printers, if you remove a printer it has used recently you may not be
able to get it to run. or it will at least take quite a while to
startup....I have seen on the order of more than 10 minutes.

This is of course unacceptable. I'm of the "save-early-save-often" school,
because one can never predict acts of god that clobber one's work. I don't
want to lose hours of work because of this kind of thing.

Try the Pulsonix demo:

http://www.pulsonix.com

and join the users group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PulsonixUG/

Prices start at about $2000. It automatically saves your designs, every
minute if you want, and you can save incomplete parts. Lots of other nice
things, of course.

Leon
--
Leon Heller, G1HSM
http://www.geocities.com/leon_heller
http://www.kasamba.com/viewExpert.asp?conMemID=105725&Catid=1111&banID=2100

 

[Kenneth Porter]

Gary Crowell / VCP <vcp@cableone.net> wrote in
news:nfonq0lrvm62hftmiliesdg4fs9k49v897@4ax.com:

It also trys to reconnect to all of
the files you have used recently so you can't move them.

Thats just the library files that it connects to, and there are simple
library and network management procedures that make this not a
problem.

Can you expand on that? Pointers to FAQ's or other documentation would be
fine.

 

[Active8]

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 14:03:07 +0100, Helmut Sennewald wrote:

Hello Active8,

Hello. Thanks again.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Active8]

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 11:22:41 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

What I gave is standard PSpice behavioral syntax ;-)

Yeah. I thought about ABS but didn't think to subtract out the
current to get the cancellation. Thanks

--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Genome]

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:s237r09mb5h228m5jr7d1nmk84461a8oec@4ax.com...

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:25:58 GMT, "Genome" <ilike_spam@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:

[snip]


Now then Jim!

As it were, as it were....

Just take us gently through the

{(ABS(I(V1))+I(V1))/2}

Function

DNA


{(ABS(I(V1))+I(V1))/2}

Remove {} which simply designate, in PSpice notation, "containing an
expression":

(ABS(I(V1))+I(V1))/2

Drop the Div2 (and associated parentheses):

ABS(I(V1))+I(V1)

ABS(I(V1)) is the absolute value of I(V1) and is always positive

When I(V1) is negative, the net expression value is ZERO

When I(V1) is positive, the net expression value is 2*I(V1)

Thus the need for Div2

...Jim Thompson
--

No, Burp.

That is truly monster.

DNA

 

[Boris Mohar]

On 13 Dec 2004 07:30:12 -0800, samjager@operamail.com (Sij) wrote:

James:


I'll be fine. Just thought I would throw some more variables to get
you talking about how you operate.

Your help is much appreciated,

Why are you staring a new thread on the same subject? Find a "Post a
follow up message" or similar command in your news reader.

Regards,

Boris Mohar
Viatrack Printed Circuit Designs

 

[Thaas]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:10:14 +0700, Rudolf Usselmann
<russelmann@hotmail.com> wrote:

As these engineers become more senior and
experienced, many of them will have the opportunity to go to the
US and get a "high-paying" job.

What "high-paying" job? They've all been offshored.

--
Thaas

 

[fred ma]

Rudolf Usselmann wrote:

Overall I believe we will see a few swings back and forth of this
outsourcing "problem" the US is facing. After a while this will
become irrelevant as all of the developing countries will become
also leaders on the same level as the US. I think if the US does
not start attracting new internal engineers by providing more
incentives for students, it, as a whole country, will eventually
fall behind in the technology sector, which will be led by Japan,
China and India (in this order - I believe). I believe this fall
back, can already be observed in the automotive industry ...
And that, will be by far a much larger problem everybody in the US
will face than the outsourcing you see today.

By the fallback that is observed in automotive, why is it a problem
that some manufacturing is swinging back to the U.S. (and some also
swung back to Canada, too, by the way)?

Fred

 

[A. B.]

no.thanks@im.sick.of.spam.com wrote:

In sci.electronics.cad Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:


So basically, there's no reason why you can't run any of the programs I
talk about on an AMD chip. In fact, I just got a brand new 16 GB dual
Opteron 250 to play with just for Nanosim, and trust me, its fast.

dan

Could you please post the spec of your machine and what brand.
Also of interest the speed comparison? (old vs new on same netlist)
If you have access to spectre/hspice/eldo could you please perform
a test and post you results
Thanx

 

[Olaf Lämmle]

Eagle does work on Linux, and since a few days on Mac.
See the Cadsoft-Homepage

Regards Olaf

Leon Heller schrieb:

"Uwe Bonnes" <bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote in message
news:cm683v$m7n$2@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de...
Leon Heller <leon_heller@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > In summary, I see no reason why Eagle won't satisfy your needs.

: If it gets too difficult, Pulsonix will import Eagle designs and
libraries.
:

Does it work on Linux and Mac?

No, only Win machines.

Leon

 

[NFSerra]

Be careful, this link has a VIRUS! If you don't have an updated antivirus,
don't open this link
Attention, VIRUS sur ce lien!


<joshz@hotmail.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:LlyAd.596572$Pl.125812@pd7tw1no...

Santa Clause like you have never seen him before, this is a must see for
everyone http://paddy.home.comcast.net/

 

[Robert Baer]

** W A R N I N G **
That URL has a nasty virus!

 

[Rheilly Phoull]

"Robert Baer" <robertbaer@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:41D3DD1E.1CD0E34D@earthlink.net...

** W A R N I N G **
That URL has a nasty virus!

Thanks for that, I was nearly gonna go to 'That'.

--
Regards ..... Rheilly Phoull