EAGLE Netlist conversion

[Activ8]

On 27 Jul 2004 15:50:50 -0700, mehran gupta wrote:

Definition of a Republican vs Democrat:

A man in a hot air balloon realized he was lost. He
reduced altitude and spotted a woman below.
He descended a bit more and shouted, "Excuse me,
can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet
him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."
The woman replied, "Your are in a hot air balloon
approximately 30 feet above the ground.
You are between 40 and 41 degrees north latitude
and between 59 and 60 degrees west longitude."

"You must be a republican," said the balloonist.

"I am," said replied the woman. "How did you know?"

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you
told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what
to make of your information, and the fact is I am
still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help so far."

The woman below responded. "You must be a
democrat."

"I am," replied the balloonist, "but how did you
know?"

"Well," said the woman, "you don't know where you
are or where you are going. You have risen to where
you are due to a large quantity of hot air.
You made a promise which you have no idea how to
keep, and you expect me to solve your problem.
The fact is you are in exactly the same position you
were in before we met, but now, somehow, it's my
fault."

....Could also be the difference between liberal and conservative....

Mehran

Or the woman is an engineer and the baloonist a manager.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Paul Burke]

James wrote:

There are two things I need in a pcb design package - easy ability to
create custom decals/footprints as I am using some very specific parts
and secondly I need to overlay a CAD drawing of the board as I need to
be VERY specific in the layout of the components. Its a double sided
board so two cad drawings would be perfect.

Products like Eagle just don't suppor this sort of thing (that I've
foudn so far)

EasyPC makes it very easy to create new footprints. There's also DXF
output for your mechanical CAD. I just wish they'd get round to
hierarchical schematics, component fixing and proper back- annotation.

Paul Burke

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:59:22 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

RFSIM99 does nice frequency-domain analysies, in all sorts of formats
- Smith, rectangular plots, polars, tabular s-param listings, stuff
like that. It does lumped parts, transmission lines, and some active
stuff. Free, too!

It's in a box here, near the bottom:

http://home.sandiego.edu/~ekim/e194rfs01/

That's certainly one highly useful piece of artillery for the RF
designer!
I don't think it actually allows one to *extract* S- parameters
through modling a BJT, for example.
I haven't had the chance to check it over in detail yet, but it seems
you have to insert already predetermined S-params from datasheets or
wherever and it will generate matching networks from there. So it
doesn't actually amount to a 'virtual VNA' - or does it??

p.
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:44:11 +0100, Paul Burridge
<pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:59:22 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

RFSIM99 does nice frequency-domain analysies, in all sorts of formats
- Smith, rectangular plots, polars, tabular s-param listings, stuff
like that. It does lumped parts, transmission lines, and some active
stuff. Free, too!

It's in a box here, near the bottom:

http://home.sandiego.edu/~ekim/e194rfs01/

That's certainly one highly useful piece of artillery for the RF
designer!
I don't think it actually allows one to *extract* S- parameters
through modling a BJT, for example.

If you draw a part as a lumped equivalent schematic (ie, a Spice
model) it will give you the s-params. If you are very lucky, the part
manufacturer will give you that Spice model; few do.

I haven't had the chance to check it over in detail yet, but it seems
you have to insert already predetermined S-params from datasheets or
wherever and it will generate matching networks from there.

I think it will do that, too.

So it
doesn't actually amount to a 'virtual VNA' - or does it??

I don't entirely know what you mean by that. It will give you the
s-params of a given simulated network.

The really hard thing is to have the s-params and go backwards to a
lumped Spice model. There is some software that does this, but I don't
know of any that I can afford.


John

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 08:35:22 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

If you draw a part as a lumped equivalent schematic (ie, a Spice
model) it will give you the s-params.

This one I've downloaded doesn't seem to. You can select and join-up
lumped elements but there's no provision for inserting a transistor
model anywhere I can see. You can only construct a test circuit from
passives and one (dys)functional op-amp model only. A most curious
omission. I'd have thought there'd at least be the facility to import
a BJT spice model for a tranny or FET but I can't see any! :-/

I haven't had the chance to check it over in detail yet, but it seems
you have to insert already predetermined S-params from datasheets or
wherever and it will generate matching networks from there.

I think it will do that, too.

Yes, it will certainly do that.

So it
doesn't actually amount to a 'virtual VNA' - or does it??


I don't entirely know what you mean by that. It will give you the
s-params of a given simulated network.

Unless I'm missing something; only if it consists of passives.

The really hard thing is to have the s-params and go backwards to a
lumped Spice model. There is some software that does this, but I don't
know of any that I can afford.

Thank God I don't need to do that! ;-)
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Active8]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:44:11 +0100, Paul Burridge wrote:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:59:22 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

RFSIM99 does nice frequency-domain analysies, in all sorts of formats
- Smith, rectangular plots, polars, tabular s-param listings, stuff
like that. It does lumped parts, transmission lines, and some active
stuff. Free, too!

It's in a box here, near the bottom:

http://home.sandiego.edu/~ekim/e194rfs01/

That's certainly one highly useful piece of artillery for the RF
designer!
I don't think it actually allows one to *extract* S- parameters
through modling a BJT, for example.
I haven't had the chance to check it over in detail yet, but it seems
you have to insert already predetermined S-params from datasheets or
wherever and it will generate matching networks from there. So it
doesn't actually amount to a 'virtual VNA' - or does it??

p.

Heh, heh, heh. You *can* measure s-params from a circuit in
(P)Spice, but Burridge has me killfiled and will never know it if no
one replies to me - not that he'd listen
--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Active8]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 17:34:15 -0400, Active8 wrote:

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:44:11 +0100, Paul Burridge wrote:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:59:22 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

RFSIM99 does nice frequency-domain analysies, in all sorts of formats
- Smith, rectangular plots, polars, tabular s-param listings, stuff
like that. It does lumped parts, transmission lines, and some active
stuff. Free, too!

It's in a box here, near the bottom:

http://home.sandiego.edu/~ekim/e194rfs01/

That's certainly one highly useful piece of artillery for the RF
designer!
I don't think it actually allows one to *extract* S- parameters
through modling a BJT, for example.
I haven't had the chance to check it over in detail yet, but it seems
you have to insert already predetermined S-params from datasheets or
wherever and it will generate matching networks from there. So it
doesn't actually amount to a 'virtual VNA' - or does it??

p.

snip

The vendor article I read has a better way to do it. Probably doable
in RFSim, too. I just looked at the moron's abse post.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:19:59 -0500, R wrotey McCammon
<rbmccammon@mmm.com>

Not actually a problem with the software, but rather the included
op-amp libraries. There are numerous op-amp models using some sort
of unreadable encoding (i.e., you cannot see the equivalent spice
net list). I thought that these being LT opamps and the models
coming from LT that they would be exquisitely accurate. I was
disappointed to learn (by experiment) that input capacitance
wasn't included or is very much smaller than the data sheet
specs. No telling what else isn't included.

I noticed this when I optimizing the feedback capacitance
of a high band width inverting configuration. The optimum
value was less than 1fF when it should have been a few pF.

Its easy enough to add the capacitances, but disappointing
never the less and it's ugly.

Give Mike a fair chance to answer this by posting it to the
appropriate group!
(done)

--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:19:59 -0500, R wrotey McCammon
<rbmccammon@mmm.com>

Not actually a problem with the software, but rather the included
op-amp libraries. There are numerous op-amp models using some sort
of unreadable encoding (i.e., you cannot see the equivalent spice
net list). I thought that these being LT opamps and the models
coming from LT that they would be exquisitely accurate. I was
disappointed to learn (by experiment) that input capacitance
wasn't included or is very much smaller than the data sheet
specs. No telling what else isn't included.

I noticed this when I optimizing the feedback capacitance
of a high band width inverting configuration. The optimum
value was less than 1fF when it should have been a few pF.

Its easy enough to add the capacitances, but disappointing
never the less and it's ugly.

Give Mike a fair chance to answer this by posting it to the
appropriate group!
(done)

--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Mike Engelhardt]

Not actually a problem with the software, but rather the included
op-amp libraries. There are numerous op-amp models using some sort
of unreadable encoding (i.e., you cannot see the equivalent spice
net list). I thought that these being LT opamps and the models
coming from LT that they would be exquisitely accurate. I was
disappointed to learn (by experiment) that input capacitance
wasn't included or is very much smaller than the data sheet
specs. No telling what else isn't included.

I noticed this when I optimizing the feedback capacitance
of a high band width inverting configuration. The optimum
value was less than 1fF when it should have been a few pF.

Its easy enough to add the capacitances, but disappointing
never the less and it's ugly.

I'm out of town so I'm not reading the group regularly, but
I think you should not use opamp macromodels at all. They
are these PSpice compatible things that are terribly
inefficient. You should just use the UniversalOpamp model
or your own model for the specific aspects you wish to
simulate. There have been many treads regarding opamp models.

--Mike

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:18:28 GMT, "Mike Engelhardt" <nospam@spam.org>
wrote:

Not actually a problem with the software, but rather the included
op-amp libraries. There are numerous op-amp models using some sort
of unreadable encoding (i.e., you cannot see the equivalent spice
net list). I thought that these being LT opamps and the models
coming from LT that they would be exquisitely accurate. I was
disappointed to learn (by experiment) that input capacitance
wasn't included or is very much smaller than the data sheet
specs. No telling what else isn't included.

I noticed this when I optimizing the feedback capacitance
of a high band width inverting configuration. The optimum
value was less than 1fF when it should have been a few pF.

Its easy enough to add the capacitances, but disappointing
never the less and it's ugly.

I'm out of town so I'm not reading the group regularly, but
I think you should not use opamp macromodels at all. They
are these PSpice compatible things that are terribly
inefficient. You should just use the UniversalOpamp model
or your own model for the specific aspects you wish to
simulate. There have been many treads regarding opamp models.

--Mike

Mike, The OP was objecting to the binary-encoded models... the OP
can't see how they function due to the encoding.

...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.

 

[Mike Engelhardt]

Jim,

Not actually a problem with the software, but rather the included
op-amp libraries. There are numerous op-amp models using some sort
of unreadable encoding (i.e., you cannot see the equivalent spice
net list).

No, the opamp models are not encoded. Only the SMPS models.

..., but I think you should not use opamp macromodels
at all. They are these PSpice compatible things that
are terribly inefficient. You should just use the
UniversalOpamp model or your own model for the specific
aspects you wish to simulate. There have been many
treads regarding opamp models.

Mike, The OP was objecting to the binary-encoded models... the OP
can't see how they function due to the encoding.

Thanks, I didn't see the OP. LTspice's opamp models are
PSpice compatible and of course not encoded. The "encoded"
models are written in a different language. These SMPS models
only work in LTspice. The models are developed at that same
time as the language. The model source code isn't distributed
because it'd be a nightmare to support this language that changes
all the time, only the compiled models are distributed. I don't
see what's to object to, since no other SPICE could run
these models even given the source code. The technology
used in LTspice to simulate SMPS's doesn't exist elsewhere.

--Mike

 

[James Jackson]

Virgil,

I took a quick look at the Netlist format that Eagle generates from their
Schematic.

It has been a whilesince I've used Eagle, and I do not remember if they have
multiple Netlist formats to choose from for their Schematic, or if they use
scripts to generate the formats.

Anyway... it shouldn't be too difficult to read in the Eagle Schematic
Netlist and write a 'new' Netlist in almost any format that you would like.

The Pads Netlist would be easy enough... the EDIF Netlist... not impossible,
but a tad more difficult. (I wrote an EDIF Netlist writer for P-CAD 2k,
which works very well, and is compliant with the EDIF standard.)

Good Luck,

James Jackson
Oztronics



"Virgil Smith" <vsmith26@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jVB6d.138046$D%.61732@attbi_s51...

Does anyone here have (or know of) a software package to convert
EAGLE 4.1 net lists into other industry standards? I am particularly
interested in turning out EDIF and PADS 2k lists from my already-existing
EAGLE schematics.

I did ask about this on the EAGLE support news group, but nobody
there knew of any s/w to do this. Net list conversion doesn't seem to
be too difficult, once you know all about the formats, and I can't be
the only one interested in this!!

Thanks for any info,

-vs-

 

[Virgil Smith]

"James Jackson" <JOJ@Texas.net> wrote in message
news:Lr6dnWMPIeNn1MbcRVn-jg@texas.net...

Virgil,

I took a quick look at the Netlist format that Eagle generates from their
Schematic.

It has been a whilesince I've used Eagle, and I do not remember if they
have
multiple Netlist formats to choose from for their Schematic, or if they
use
scripts to generate the formats.

Anyway... it shouldn't be too difficult to read in the Eagle Schematic
Netlist and write a 'new' Netlist in almost any format that you would
like.

The Pads Netlist would be easy enough... the EDIF Netlist... not
impossible,
but a tad more difficult. (I wrote an EDIF Netlist writer for P-CAD 2k,
which works very well, and is compliant with the EDIF standard.)

Good Luck,

James Jackson
Oztronics

Yeah, that's sorta what I thought -- it shouldn't be too hard to do. I would

just
rather spend my time developing electronics hardware than writing support
s/w.
I get paid for the former, and not for the latter

May I ask what you used to write your netlist conversion package? I would
probably
use C but it seems there will be much parsing of text strings, and if
there's a language
that does it more conveniently, I would like to know.

Thanks for the input,

-vs-

 

[Leon Heller]

"Virgil Smith" <vsmith26@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ZfL6d.48253$He1.43691@attbi_s01...

"James Jackson" <JOJ@Texas.net> wrote in message
news:Lr6dnWMPIeNn1MbcRVn-jg@texas.net...
Virgil,

I took a quick look at the Netlist format that Eagle generates from their
Schematic.

It has been a whilesince I've used Eagle, and I do not remember if they
have
multiple Netlist formats to choose from for their Schematic, or if they
use
scripts to generate the formats.

Anyway... it shouldn't be too difficult to read in the Eagle Schematic
Netlist and write a 'new' Netlist in almost any format that you would
like.

The Pads Netlist would be easy enough... the EDIF Netlist... not
impossible,
but a tad more difficult. (I wrote an EDIF Netlist writer for P-CAD 2k,
which works very well, and is compliant with the EDIF standard.)

Good Luck,

James Jackson
Oztronics

Yeah, that's sorta what I thought -- it shouldn't be too hard to do. I
would
just
rather spend my time developing electronics hardware than writing support
s/w.
I get paid for the former, and not for the latter

May I ask what you used to write your netlist conversion package? I would
probably
use C but it seems there will be much parsing of text strings, and if
there's a language
that does it more conveniently, I would like to know.

PERL or Python would be suitable. SNOBOL would be even better, but isn't
used much these days.

Leon
--
Leon Heller, G1HSM
http://www.geocities.com/leon_heller

 

[James Jackson]

Hey Virgil,

I use Visual Basic (VB), since that gives me a quick way to generate a
proggy with buttons and things and makes it looks like other Windows
proggies.

However, I say - use whatever you feel comfortable with, and does not
require a lot of ramp up time on the 'learning curve'.

A friend tried to point me towards Python a few years ago, but I found
myself struggling with that, and could write code much quicker in VB - so
just stuck with that.

Also - since I have a lot of other programs that I have written in VB - I
like the uniformity that they all have - and have developed several routines
that make cranking out new programs quicker than starting from scratch.

Of course, I may be a slow learner. <shrug>

Regards,

James Jackson
Oztronics



"Virgil Smith" <vsmith26@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ZfL6d.48253$He1.43691@attbi_s01...

"James Jackson" <JOJ@Texas.net> wrote in message
news:Lr6dnWMPIeNn1MbcRVn-jg@texas.net...
Virgil,

I took a quick look at the Netlist format that Eagle generates from
their
Schematic.

It has been a whilesince I've used Eagle, and I do not remember if they
have
multiple Netlist formats to choose from for their Schematic, or if they
use
scripts to generate the formats.

Anyway... it shouldn't be too difficult to read in the Eagle Schematic
Netlist and write a 'new' Netlist in almost any format that you would
like.

The Pads Netlist would be easy enough... the EDIF Netlist... not
impossible,
but a tad more difficult. (I wrote an EDIF Netlist writer for P-CAD 2k,
which works very well, and is compliant with the EDIF standard.)

Good Luck,

James Jackson
Oztronics

Yeah, that's sorta what I thought -- it shouldn't be too hard to do. I
would
just
rather spend my time developing electronics hardware than writing support
s/w.
I get paid for the former, and not for the latter

May I ask what you used to write your netlist conversion package? I would
probably
use C but it seems there will be much parsing of text strings, and if
there's a language
that does it more conveniently, I would like to know.

Thanks for the input,

-vs-

 

[Chris Alexander]

I can probably help with this if you can point me to descriptions the formats.

Chris

"Virgil Smith" <vsmith26@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<jVB6d.138046$D%.61732@attbi_s51>...

Does anyone here have (or know of) a software package to convert
EAGLE 4.1 net lists into other industry standards? I am particularly
interested in turning out EDIF and PADS 2k lists from my already-existing
EAGLE schematics.

I did ask about this on the EAGLE support news group, but nobody
there knew of any s/w to do this. Net list conversion doesn't seem to
be too difficult, once you know all about the formats, and I can't be
the only one interested in this!!

Thanks for any info,

-vs-

 

[Clarence]

"Terry Pinnell" <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:ntg4o09l7ko7a0vargfrilao9ej35n8hb1@4ax.com...

Out of interest I tried simulating the original (symmetrical) circuit
http://www.electronic-circuits-diagrams.com/motorimages/3.gif
with CircuitMaker. But after an hour or so I'm darned if I can get it
working. Typical error messages include:
Warning: Gmin step failed
Warning: source stepping failed
doAnalyses: Iteration limit reached'

Anyone care to try it in some other package please, such as LT
SWCADIII? I'm assuming there's some nifty trick for getting an
H-Bridge to converge in Spice...

--
Terry Pinnell
Hobbyist, West Sussex, UK

Post the EWB file in SED, I'll give it a try.

 

[Helmut Sennewald]

"Terry Pinnell" <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ntg4o09l7ko7a0vargfrilao9ej35n8hb1@4ax.com...

Out of interest I tried simulating the original (symmetrical) circuit
http://www.electronic-circuits-diagrams.com/motorimages/3.gif
with CircuitMaker. But after an hour or so I'm darned if I can get it
working. Typical error messages include:
Warning: Gmin step failed
Warning: source stepping failed
doAnalyses: Iteration limit reached'

Anyone care to try it in some other package please, such as LT
SWCADIII? I'm assuming there's some nifty trick for getting an
H-Bridge to converge in Spice...

Hello Terry,
you don't need another simulator, instead you need a correct
circuit diagram. Your circuit will never work as intended.

Let's look for example to Q4 and Q3 where the (base-)current flows.
It flows from
+9V -> Emitter Q4 -> Base Q3 -> Emitter Q3
regardless you drive any base current by Q1.
This is a short from +9V to ground by 2 Vbe-diodes.

From where do you have this wrong circuit diagram?

Best Regards,
Helmut

 

[Clarence]

"Terry Pinnell" <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:1285o09qi313ndsoc47sgvr4qfuj88uafl@4ax.com...

"Helmut Sennewald" <helmutsennewald@t-online.de> wrote:


Hello Terry,
you don't need another simulator, instead you need a correct
circuit diagram. Your circuit will never work as intended.

Let's look for example to Q4 and Q3 where the (base-)current flows.
It flows from
+9V -> Emitter Q4 -> Base Q3 -> Emitter Q3
regardless you drive any base current by Q1.
This is a short from +9V to ground by 2 Vbe-diodes.

From where do you have this wrong circuit diagram?

Best Regards,
Helmut

Thanks Helmut, but I realise the circuit is fatally flawed! I still
wanted to be able to see exactly what happens on applying power to it,
for each of the 4 possible input conditions.

The circuit is at
http://www.electronic-circuits-diagrams.com/motorimages/motorckt4.shtml

and the original thread discussing it is here:
Subject: Motor Control Circuit Problem
Date: 28 Oct 2004 15:48:41 -0700
Message-ID: <1099003721.067016.22050@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

You may get some operation by inserting a low value resistor in each emitter
lead. That would give a indication without any calculation being infinite.