Using Spice to verify a circuit works

[whit3rd]

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 7:52:10 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 22:47:33 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 3:51:40 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

In a complex, nonlinear, chaotic simulation, you can tune its
parameters to give any results you want.

That's now how one handles a simulation. Is that how you use SPICE?

I don't model nonlinear chaotic systems in Spice, I model electronic
circuits that I know I can simulate usefully.

So, a self-starting oscillator, you don't model that?
Lame, like your other excuses and lies.

Believe the models, or improve them, but
don't spin feeble devil-theories about 'em.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 18:18:32 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 7:52:10 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 22:47:33 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 3:51:40 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

In a complex, nonlinear, chaotic simulation, you can tune its
parameters to give any results you want.

That's now how one handles a simulation. Is that how you use SPICE?

I don't model nonlinear chaotic systems in Spice, I model electronic
circuits that I know I can simulate usefully.

So, a self-starting oscillator, you don't model that?

Of course I model oscillators. I did a triggered 40 Mhz clock
oscillator sim today. Well, I guess that if it's triggered it's not
self-starting.

>Lame, like your other excuses and lies.

Lies? I design electronic things that work. People like them. People
buy them.

I just introduced my new Pockels Cell driver.

http://www.highlandtechnology.com/DSS/T870DS.shtml

It can actually make a 1400 volt, 10 ns pulse. We were scared to push
it any further, because we have to ship the only three units that we
have now and don't want to blow one up.

Believe the models, or improve them, but
don't spin feeble devil-theories about 'em.

Do you design electronics? Do you simulate? Post something.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 07:41:40 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 07:29:37 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 15:49:15 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 12:54:19 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 5:37:53 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

We're supposed to rework the economy of the entire world based on
climate simulations.

No, based on observations (simulations are the all-terms-considered
final step, NOT THE BASE). Several technologies, but NOT the
world (and not 'the economy') will have to change.

The claim you just made, wrenches ALL those nouns out of their proper meanings.

What could possibly go wrong with that?

Do you have mind picture, or a simulation in mind? Why not? How else can you support an answer
to that question?

Imagination and simulations are ways of dealing with the future. If you
don't use them, you don't plan, and folk who DO will outcompete you.

In a complex, nonlinear, chaotic simulation, you can tune its
parameters to give any results you want. Climate sims are obviously
tuned to hindcast accurately (they won't get published if they don't)
but that doesn't make them predictive.

I am not so sure about the hindcasts.

For example how does the simulation explain the Atlantic warm period
(Holocene climate optimum) in which some tree spices grow at the
Arctic Circle (based on tree trunks found in the bottom of lakes)
while currently the most northern areas are the southern Scandinavia.

The hindcasts usually curve-fit the (poorly) measured temp data since
the LIA. I don't know that anyone has good therories or models for the
giant swings over millions of years. Short-term sims are what's needed
to sell massive political intervention.

In particular, those simulations that show giant swings since the
beginning of the industrial revolution. "Natural" climate change just
won't do.

We'll all be dead in 12 years if we don't act NOW sort of thing.

Just make it a sliding 12-year window and they're right. Armageddon
is always 12 years away. In a billion or so years Sol will go nova
and the ChickenLittles will be proven right.

 

On 17 Jun 2019 18:21:49 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote...

We're supposed to rework the economy of the
entire world based on climate simulations.

What could possibly go wrong with that?

What's going wrong, is that the world is
melting down, as many are nay-saying, and
we will end up with flooded cities, and
devastated farming and living areas.

It's not happening. So much for "simulations". Well, the simulations
were designed to show flooded cities, so that's what they show.
Reality doesn't care about simulations, however. It doesn't care
about politics, either. Climate simulators do.

 

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 15:54:24 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 19/06/19 15:17, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 08:40:09 -0500, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org
wrote:

On 6/18/2019 9:04 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 04:19:24 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Mon, 17 Jun 2019 21:49:17 -0400) it happened bitrex
user@example.net> wrote in <yqXNE.41731$IQ6.21299@fx09.iad>:

The 737 Max handled very much like a 737 there were not huge engineering
surprises there. It was just different enough that they wanted to avoid
a different type rating. It was more of a bean-counting problem than an
engineering problem.

No, that plane is unstable by nature due to the position of the engines if I understand it right.
They wanted to fix that with some software.
That worked, then they 'simplified' the software, removed a G sensor, and that did not work.
The basic plane designs sucks.
A good plane flight strait without correction.

If you make a paper airplane, and it is bad, it will do strange things,
you could than add all sorts of systems to make it fly right
but it would still be a POS.

Just like the F35.

The F35 will be OK. Fighter planes don't dogfight any more. F35 is an
electronics and missile platform.

Yeah, that's what they thought in Viet Nam when they sent Phantoms to do
the job with electronics and missiles. Then they regretted it. Yes,
electronics and missiles are much more reliable today. But don't let
that fool you.

I suspect that manned fighter planes and bombers will be obsolete soon
anyhow.


You could be right. Missiles on a drone are a formidable combination.


Both the military and the airlines are having trouble recruiting
pilots.

Over here the military pilots are having difficult finding
aircraft to fly.

They don't here. Delta has loads of 'em.

Over here we have more rear-admirals than capital ships
in the navy.

There are a couple of times more submarine crews than submarines, too.

 

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 18:01:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 18 Jun 2019 10:09:06 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote in
1f6ige54rnmk41ftnp4oribjonc61dvl7h@4ax.com>:

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 15:42:01 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 18 Jun 2019 07:04:12 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
6mrhge59b3k4a67k83rv1lqp8bnv57s0l7@4ax.com>:

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 04:19:24 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Mon, 17 Jun 2019 21:49:17 -0400) it happened bitrex
user@example.net> wrote in <yqXNE.41731$IQ6.21299@fx09.iad>:

The 737 Max handled very much like a 737 there were not huge engineering
surprises there. It was just different enough that they wanted to avoid
a different type rating. It was more of a bean-counting problem than an
engineering problem.

No, that plane is unstable by nature due to the position of the engines if I understand it right.
They wanted to fix that with some software.
That worked, then they 'simplified' the software, removed a G sensor, and that did not work.
The basic plane designs sucks.
A good plane flight strait without correction.

If you make a paper airplane, and it is bad, it will do strange things,
you could than add all sorts of systems to make it fly right
but it would still be a POS.

Just like the F35.

The F35 will be OK. Fighter planes don't dogfight any more. F35 is an
electronics and missile platform.

We have those on order, there was one here last year,
and really, going by the sound I thought one flew over here yesterday.
There are 'air force days' somewhere not so far away, sort of where people can go
and look what's there, not in the airport close to here this year.
Anyways, F35 is not stealth, it is not stealth in the IR and it is not stealth in low frequency radar.
It is also detectable by passive radar (via radio and TV station reflections, so also low frequency).
It is a bad fighter, has only one engine (so more easily shot down),
about everything you can think of in that thing is *wrong* including that fan for VTOL in some models.

Aircraft carriers are big billion-dollar targets. Vertical takeoff and
land lets small ships become carriers. Or any field or parking lot
become an airport.

the UK had a nice one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_Jump_Jet
them downgrading to a F35 would be a pity.

The Harrier isn't supersonic and in particular doesn't do
super-cruise. There is a difference.

What the electronics in it does I have no idea, but it cannot make it fly better.
It is a taxpayer payed scam.


I suspect that manned fighter planes and bombers will be obsolete soon
anyhow.

Perhaps, sure missiles, rail-guns, lasers, what have you these days, will also be used.
In a real global nuclear war after the first exchange not much will fly I'd think, but I could be wrong.
For smaller scale conflicts it may or may not work,
I like the F16 a lot better.

And the other side MIGs, do not know what China has..
But China invented the gunpowder and had rockets before any of us westerns,
so who knows what they can come up with, now they already can shoot down sats.


China is struggling to build commercial planes and especially
struggling to build jet engines. The engines are really hard.

Yes, but they have great connections with Russia, and Russia has that experience,

I think China loves to jump into that market and get FAA approval,
would flying with Russian engines be a problem?
Just wondering...

 

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 21:55:00 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 18/06/19 21:09, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
At least during the Falkland war, the Harriers were launched
horizontally with a catapult and a ramp. After the mission with the
ammunition and fuel used, the light plane landed vertically.

There was no catapault; the Harrier engines provided the oomph.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Illustrious_(R06)

The ramp wasn't there for decoration.

 

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 22:47:33 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 3:51:40 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

In a complex, nonlinear, chaotic simulation, you can tune its
parameters to give any results you want.

That's now how one handles a simulation. Is that how you use SPICE?
I'm not trying to lie to myself when I fiddle with a model. Why would anyone?

For political advantage, of course.

It sounds like you're trying to sneak up on a conspiracy theory, but it would
have to be of the sort that starts with underpants and ends with
3. ???
4. PROFIT !!!

 

[Steve Wilson]

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 7:52:10 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 22:47:33 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 3:51:40 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

In a complex, nonlinear, chaotic simulation, you can tune its
parameters to give any results you want.

That's now how one handles a simulation. Is that how you use SPICE?

I don't model nonlinear chaotic systems in Spice, I model electronic
circuits that I know I can simulate usefully.

So, a self-starting oscillator, you don't model that?
Lame, like your other excuses and lies.

Believe the models, or improve them, but
don't spin feeble devil-theories about 'em.

What's the big deal with self-starting oscillators? An HC14 is self-
starting. Here's a Classic Colpitts:

Version 4
SHEET 1 880 708
WIRE -96 -112 -160 -112
WIRE -32 -112 -96 -112
WIRE -32 -96 -32 -112
WIRE -160 -80 -160 -112
WIRE -576 -32 -608 -32
WIRE -496 -32 -576 -32
WIRE -336 -32 -416 -32
WIRE -240 -32 -336 -32
WIRE -224 -32 -240 -32
WIRE -336 -16 -336 -32
WIRE -608 0 -608 -32
WIRE -32 0 -32 -16
WIRE -336 64 -336 48
WIRE -160 64 -160 16
WIRE -160 64 -336 64
WIRE -128 64 -160 64
WIRE -112 64 -128 64
WIRE -336 80 -336 64
WIRE -160 80 -160 64
WIRE -608 96 -608 80
WIRE -336 160 -336 144
WIRE -160 176 -160 160
FLAG -32 0 0
FLAG -336 160 0
FLAG -128 64 Vout
FLAG -240 -32 Q1B
FLAG -608 96 0
FLAG -160 176 0
FLAG -96 -112 VCC
FLAG -576 -32 VBB
SYMBOL voltage -32 -112 R0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 2
WINDOW 0 33 33 Left 2
WINDOW 3 33 80 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName V2
SYMATTR Value 5V
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=0
SYMBOL npn -224 -80 R0
SYMATTR InstName Q1
SYMATTR Value 2N3904
SYMBOL cap -352 -16 R0
SYMATTR InstName C1
SYMATTR Value 1.2732nF
SYMBOL cap -352 80 R0
SYMATTR InstName C2
SYMATTR Value 1.2732nF
SYMBOL ind -400 -16 M270
WINDOW 0 32 56 VTop 2
WINDOW 3 5 56 VBottom 2
WINDOW 39 -16 53 VBottom 2
SYMATTR InstName L1
SYMATTR Value 1.5915uh
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=1.25
SYMBOL voltage -608 -16 R0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 2
WINDOW 0 33 33 Left 2
WINDOW 3 33 80 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName V1
SYMATTR Value 2.5V
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=0
SYMBOL res -176 64 R0
SYMATTR InstName R1
SYMATTR Value 2.5k
TEXT -400 -240 Left 2 !.tran 0 20u 0 50p
TEXT -408 -264 Left 2 ;'Classic Colpitts

This is from my Oscillator.zip article at

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZsbpkV0aaKS5LURIb1dfu_ndshsSaYtf

Along with 11 other classes of oscillators. Most are self-starting, except
for the fast-starting high-Q crystal oscillators. Complete design
instructions are given, along with SPICE analysis guidelines.

Hint: start with Xl = 50 Ohms.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 04:29:13 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote:

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 7:52:10 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 22:47:33 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 3:51:40 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

In a complex, nonlinear, chaotic simulation, you can tune its
parameters to give any results you want.

That's now how one handles a simulation. Is that how you use SPICE?

I don't model nonlinear chaotic systems in Spice, I model electronic
circuits that I know I can simulate usefully.

So, a self-starting oscillator, you don't model that?
Lame, like your other excuses and lies.

Believe the models, or improve them, but
don't spin feeble devil-theories about 'em.

What's the big deal with self-starting oscillators? An HC14 is self-
starting. Here's a Classic Colpitts:

Here's my triggered 40 MHz oscillator.

Version 4
SHEET 1 1596 932
WIRE 128 48 -112 48
WIRE 240 48 128 48
WIRE 384 48 240 48
WIRE 576 48 480 48
WIRE 576 80 576 48
WIRE -112 96 -112 48
WIRE 128 96 128 48
WIRE 240 96 240 48
WIRE 576 192 576 160
WIRE 128 224 128 160
WIRE 240 224 240 176
WIRE 240 224 128 224
WIRE -112 240 -112 176
WIRE 480 256 480 48
WIRE 128 272 128 224
WIRE 384 288 384 48
WIRE 448 288 384 288
WIRE 608 288 528 288
WIRE 656 288 608 288
WIRE 448 320 384 320
WIRE 464 368 464 352
WIRE 496 368 496 352
WIRE 496 368 464 368
WIRE -32 384 -112 384
WIRE 128 384 128 352
WIRE 128 384 32 384
WIRE 272 384 128 384
WIRE 384 384 384 320
WIRE 384 384 272 384
WIRE 496 384 496 368
WIRE -112 448 -112 384
WIRE -112 576 -112 528
FLAG -112 240 0
FLAG -112 576 0
FLAG 608 288 CLK40
FLAG 272 384 RING
FLAG 496 384 0
FLAG 576 192 0
SYMBOL ind 224 80 R0
WINDOW 0 73 43 Left 2
WINDOW 3 57 80 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName L1
SYMATTR Value 100n
SYMBOL cap 112 96 R0
WINDOW 0 -66 29 Left 2
WINDOW 3 -77 68 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName C1
SYMATTR Value 150p
SYMBOL voltage -112 80 R0
WINDOW 0 62 43 Left 2
WINDOW 3 62 87 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName V1
SYMATTR Value 1
SYMBOL res 112 256 R0
WINDOW 0 57 37 Left 2
WINDOW 3 55 72 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName R1
SYMATTR Value 50
SYMBOL voltage -112 432 R0
WINDOW 0 64 81 Left 2
WINDOW 3 30 124 Left 2
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName V2
SYMATTR Value PULSE(0.1 3.3 10n 1n 1n 200n)
SYMBOL Comparators\\LT1711 480 304 R0
WINDOW 0 107 30 Left 2
WINDOW 3 79 65 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName U1
SYMBOL voltage 576 64 R0
WINDOW 0 69 38 Left 2
WINDOW 3 67 68 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName V3
SYMATTR Value 3.3
SYMBOL diode 32 368 R90
WINDOW 0 -59 29 VBottom 2
WINDOW 3 -52 31 VTop 2
SYMATTR InstName D1
SYMATTR Value SMS7621
TEXT 768 352 Left 2 !.tran 300n
TEXT 704 200 Left 2 ;Triggered Oscillator for
TEXT 704 240 Left 2 ;TEM+ New_Sync Delay
TEXT 744 288 Left 2 ;JL June 21, 2019
TEXT -24 456 Left 2 !.model SMS7621 D (Vfwd=0.3 Ron=10 Cjo=0.25p)
TEXT 552 408 Left 2 ;TLV3501


This replaces a discontinued Maxim tapped silicon delay line. The
triggered clock will go into an FPGA to fake out the delay line
function.

Since it only needs to run for 5 cycles, it doesn't need a gain
element.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 04:29:13 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote:

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 7:52:10 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 22:47:33 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 3:51:40 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

In a complex, nonlinear, chaotic simulation, you can tune its
parameters to give any results you want.

That's now how one handles a simulation. Is that how you use SPICE?

I don't model nonlinear chaotic systems in Spice, I model electronic
circuits that I know I can simulate usefully.

So, a self-starting oscillator, you don't model that?
Lame, like your other excuses and lies.

Believe the models, or improve them, but
don't spin feeble devil-theories about 'em.

What's the big deal with self-starting oscillators?

Think about Barkhausen, An oscillator is just a noise amplifier with
positive feedback through some frequency selective stage. At
temperatures above 0 K, there is always some input equivalent noise at
the amplifier input. This noise is amplified, the broadband noise is
then filtered and fed back to the input in correct phase, so that is
amplified and filtered again and so on. The amplification must be
greater than the filter losses. At least initially, the amplifier
must operate in class A/AB so that the very small thermal noise is
amplified, but can later on drop to class C when the oscillator is
running.

An HC14 is self-
starting. Here's a Classic Colpitts:

<clip>

,>This is from my Oscillator.zip article at

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZsbpkV0aaKS5LURIb1dfu_ndshsSaYtf

Along with 11 other classes of oscillators. Most are self-starting, except
for the fast-starting high-Q crystal oscillators. Complete design
instructions are given, along with SPICE analysis guidelines.

Most likely the crystal oscillator didn't start itself was that the Q
was so high and hence the -3 dB bandwidth was so narrow that only a
tiny fraction of the amplified broadband noise was fed back to
amplifier input. More gain in the amplifier would most likely
overcomed the crystal filter losses and oscillation would have
started.

Hint: start with Xl = 50 Ohms.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 11:09:53 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 04:29:13 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote:

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 7:52:10 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 22:47:33 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 3:51:40 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

In a complex, nonlinear, chaotic simulation, you can tune its
parameters to give any results you want.

That's now how one handles a simulation. Is that how you use SPICE?

I don't model nonlinear chaotic systems in Spice, I model electronic
circuits that I know I can simulate usefully.

So, a self-starting oscillator, you don't model that?
Lame, like your other excuses and lies.

Believe the models, or improve them, but
don't spin feeble devil-theories about 'em.

What's the big deal with self-starting oscillators?

Think about Barkhausen, An oscillator is just a noise amplifier with
positive feedback through some frequency selective stage. At
temperatures above 0 K, there is always some input equivalent noise at
the amplifier input. This noise is amplified, the broadband noise is
then filtered and fed back to the input in correct phase, so that is
amplified and filtered again and so on. The amplification must be
greater than the filter losses. At least initially, the amplifier
must operate in class A/AB so that the very small thermal noise is
amplified, but can later on drop to class C when the oscillator is
running.

An HC14 is self-
starting. Here's a Classic Colpitts:

clip

,>This is from my Oscillator.zip article at

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZsbpkV0aaKS5LURIb1dfu_ndshsSaYtf

Along with 11 other classes of oscillators. Most are self-starting, except
for the fast-starting high-Q crystal oscillators. Complete design
instructions are given, along with SPICE analysis guidelines.

Most likely the crystal oscillator didn't start itself was that the Q
was so high and hence the -3 dB bandwidth was so narrow that only a
tiny fraction of the amplified broadband noise was fed back to
amplifier input. More gain in the amplifier would most likely
overcomed the crystal filter losses and oscillation would have
started.

No, if it has net positive gain, narrower bandwidth would just make it
take longer to start.

If an oscillator will run but not start, there's a nonlinearity in the
gain element.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 19:36:15 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 18:18:32 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 7:52:10 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 22:47:33 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 3:51:40 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

In a complex, nonlinear, chaotic simulation, you can tune its
parameters to give any results you want.

That's now how one handles a simulation. Is that how you use SPICE?

I don't model nonlinear chaotic systems in Spice, I model electronic
circuits that I know I can simulate usefully.

So, a self-starting oscillator, you don't model that?

Of course I model oscillators. I did a triggered 40 Mhz clock
oscillator sim today. Well, I guess that if it's triggered it's not
self-starting.

Lame, like your other excuses and lies.

Lies? I design electronic things that work. People like them. People
buy them.

I just introduced my new Pockels Cell driver.

http://www.highlandtechnology.com/DSS/T870DS.shtml

It can actually make a 1400 volt, 10 ns pulse. We were scared to push
it any further, because we have to ship the only three units that we
have now and don't want to blow one up.

Incidentally, that architecture was designed by fiddling with Spice. I
didn't understand it until after the sim was working. I just tried a
bunch of topologies based on hunches.

The real thing behaves a lot like the simulation, although it's not as
energy efficient. The Cree model has some problems. Skin effect and
dielectric losses are everywhere at these extremes. Everything gets
hot, even barrier strips.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 18:54:51 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 11:09:53 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 04:29:13 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote:

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 7:52:10 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 22:47:33 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 3:51:40 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

In a complex, nonlinear, chaotic simulation, you can tune its
parameters to give any results you want.

That's now how one handles a simulation. Is that how you use
SPICE?

I don't model nonlinear chaotic systems in Spice, I model electronic
circuits that I know I can simulate usefully.

So, a self-starting oscillator, you don't model that?
Lame, like your other excuses and lies.

Believe the models, or improve them, but don't spin feeble
devil-theories about 'em.

What's the big deal with self-starting oscillators?

Think about Barkhausen, An oscillator is just a noise amplifier with
positive feedback through some frequency selective stage. At
temperatures above 0 K, there is always some input equivalent noise at
the amplifier input. This noise is amplified, the broadband noise is
then filtered and fed back to the input in correct phase, so that is
amplified and filtered again and so on. The amplification must be
greater than the filter losses. At least initially, the amplifier
must operate in class A/AB so that the very small thermal noise is
amplified, but can later on drop to class C when the oscillator is
running.

An HC14 is self-
starting. Here's a Classic Colpitts:

clip

,>This is from my Oscillator.zip article at

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZsbpkV0aaKS5LURIb1dfu_ndshsSaYtf

Along with 11 other classes of oscillators. Most are self-starting,
except for the fast-starting high-Q crystal oscillators. Complete
design instructions are given, along with SPICE analysis guidelines.

Most likely the crystal oscillator didn't start itself was that the Q
was so high and hence the -3 dB bandwidth was so narrow that only a
tiny fraction of the amplified broadband noise was fed back to
amplifier input. More gain in the amplifier would most likely
overcomed the crystal filter losses and oscillation would have started.

No, if it has net positive gain, narrower bandwidth would just make it
take longer to start.

If an oscillator will run but not start, there's a nonlinearity in the
gain element.

Depends on what kind. The HC14 makes an excellent self-starting oscillator.

Not relevant. It starts and runs.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Steve Wilson]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 11:09:53 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 04:29:13 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote:

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 7:52:10 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 22:47:33 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 3:51:40 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

In a complex, nonlinear, chaotic simulation, you can tune its
parameters to give any results you want.

That's now how one handles a simulation. Is that how you use
SPICE?

I don't model nonlinear chaotic systems in Spice, I model electronic
circuits that I know I can simulate usefully.

So, a self-starting oscillator, you don't model that?
Lame, like your other excuses and lies.

Believe the models, or improve them, but don't spin feeble
devil-theories about 'em.

What's the big deal with self-starting oscillators?

Think about Barkhausen, An oscillator is just a noise amplifier with
positive feedback through some frequency selective stage. At
temperatures above 0 K, there is always some input equivalent noise at
the amplifier input. This noise is amplified, the broadband noise is
then filtered and fed back to the input in correct phase, so that is
amplified and filtered again and so on. The amplification must be
greater than the filter losses. At least initially, the amplifier
must operate in class A/AB so that the very small thermal noise is
amplified, but can later on drop to class C when the oscillator is
running.

An HC14 is self-
starting. Here's a Classic Colpitts:

clip

,>This is from my Oscillator.zip article at

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZsbpkV0aaKS5LURIb1dfu_ndshsSaYtf

Along with 11 other classes of oscillators. Most are self-starting,
except for the fast-starting high-Q crystal oscillators. Complete
design instructions are given, along with SPICE analysis guidelines.

Most likely the crystal oscillator didn't start itself was that the Q
was so high and hence the -3 dB bandwidth was so narrow that only a
tiny fraction of the amplified broadband noise was fed back to
amplifier input. More gain in the amplifier would most likely
overcomed the crystal filter losses and oscillation would have started.

No, if it has net positive gain, narrower bandwidth would just make it
take longer to start.

If an oscillator will run but not start, there's a nonlinearity in the
gain element.

Depends on what kind. The HC14 makes an excellent self-starting oscillator.

 

[Steve Wilson]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 18:54:51 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote:

If an oscillator will run but not start, there's a nonlinearity in the
gain element.

Depends on what kind. The HC14 makes an excellent self-starting
oscillator.

Not relevant. It starts and runs.

Again, it depends on what kind of nonlinearity. You could not consider the
HC14 to be a linear element. Yet it self-starts.

There is another kind of nonlinearity that will prevent an oscillator from
starting. Here is an example. It converts the Classic Colpitts to a
zero-cross limited oscillator. Changing R3 from 10k to 20k will prevent it
from starting. There is not enough current to drive the LC tank for
positive loop gain.

It is difficult to conceive of an oscillator that will run but not start.

But if you applied the fast start technique shown in my article, you might
be able to start it and then keep it running by adjusting various
parameters.

Do you have a better example?

Version 4
SHEET 1 880 708
WIRE -96 -112 -160 -112
WIRE -32 -112 -96 -112
WIRE 112 -112 -32 -112
WIRE -32 -96 -32 -112
WIRE -160 -80 -160 -112
WIRE -576 -32 -608 -32
WIRE -528 -32 -576 -32
WIRE -496 -32 -528 -32
WIRE -336 -32 -416 -32
WIRE -240 -32 -336 -32
WIRE -224 -32 -240 -32
WIRE -336 -16 -336 -32
WIRE -608 0 -608 -32
WIRE -32 0 -32 -16
WIRE 112 16 112 -112
WIRE -336 64 -336 48
WIRE -240 64 -336 64
WIRE -160 64 -160 16
WIRE -112 64 -160 64
WIRE -80 64 -112 64
WIRE 0 64 -16 64
WIRE 32 64 0 64
WIRE 48 64 32 64
WIRE -336 80 -336 64
WIRE -160 80 -160 64
WIRE -608 96 -608 80
WIRE 112 144 112 112
WIRE 160 144 112 144
WIRE 208 144 160 144
WIRE -336 160 -336 144
WIRE -160 176 -160 160
WIRE 112 176 112 144
WIRE -528 224 -528 -32
WIRE -112 224 -528 224
WIRE 0 224 0 64
WIRE 0 224 -32 224
WIRE 48 224 0 224
WIRE 112 288 112 272
WIRE -240 336 -240 64
WIRE 208 336 208 144
WIRE 208 336 -240 336
WIRE 208 368 208 336
WIRE 208 464 208 448
FLAG -32 0 0
FLAG -336 160 0
FLAG 160 144 Vout
FLAG -240 -32 Q1B
FLAG -608 96 0
FLAG -160 176 0
FLAG -96 -112 VCC
FLAG -576 -32 VBB
FLAG 112 288 0
FLAG -112 64 Q1E
FLAG 32 64 Q2B
FLAG 208 464 0
SYMBOL voltage -32 -112 R0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 2
WINDOW 0 33 33 Left 2
WINDOW 3 33 80 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName V2
SYMATTR Value 5V
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=0
SYMBOL npn -224 -80 R0
SYMATTR InstName Q1
SYMATTR Value 2N3904
SYMBOL cap -352 -16 R0
SYMATTR InstName C1
SYMATTR Value 1.2732nF
SYMBOL cap -352 80 R0
SYMATTR InstName C2
SYMATTR Value 1.2732nF
SYMBOL ind -400 -16 M270
WINDOW 0 32 56 VTop 2
WINDOW 3 5 56 VBottom 2
WINDOW 39 -16 53 VBottom 2
SYMATTR InstName L1
SYMATTR Value 1.5915uh
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=1.25
SYMBOL voltage -608 -16 R0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 2
WINDOW 0 33 33 Left 2
WINDOW 3 33 80 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName V1
SYMATTR Value 2.5V
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=0
SYMBOL res -176 64 R0
SYMATTR InstName R1
SYMATTR Value 2.5k
SYMBOL npn 48 16 R0
SYMATTR InstName Q2
SYMATTR Value 2N3904
SYMBOL cap -16 48 R90
WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 2
WINDOW 3 32 32 VTop 2
SYMATTR InstName C3
SYMATTR Value 1nf
SYMBOL pnp 48 272 M180
SYMATTR InstName Q3
SYMATTR Value 2N3906
SYMBOL res -16 208 R90
WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 2
WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 2
SYMATTR InstName R2
SYMATTR Value 100k
SYMBOL res 192 352 R0
SYMATTR InstName R3
SYMATTR Value 10k
TEXT -400 -240 Left 2 !.tran 0 30u 0 50p
TEXT -408 -264 Left 2 ;'Classic Colpitts No Start

 

[Joseph Gwinn]

On Jun 22, 2019, Steve Wilson wrote
(in article<XnsAA76A42B9A65Fidtokenpost@69.16.179.23&gt:

John Larkin<jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 18:54:51 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote:

If an oscillator will run but not start, there's a nonlinearity in the
gain element.

Depends on what kind. The HC14 makes an excellent self-starting
oscillator.

Not relevant. It starts and runs.

Again, it depends on what kind of nonlinearity. You could not consider the
HC14 to be a linear element. Yet it self-starts.

There is another kind of nonlinearity that will prevent an oscillator from
starting. Here is an example. It converts the Classic Colpitts to a
zero-cross limited oscillator. Changing R3 from 10k to 20k will prevent it
from starting. There is not enough current to drive the LC tank for
positive loop gain.

It is difficult to conceive of an oscillator that will run but not start.

Classic example is a regenerative frequency divider. "R. L. Miller (1939).
"Fractional Frequency Generators Utilizing Regenerative Modulation".
Proceedings of the IRE. 27 (7): 446-457. doi
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1109/JRPROC.1939.
228513 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2FJRPROC.1939.228513)."

..<http://www.ke5fx.com/regen.htm>

Joe Gwinn

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 20:08:19 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 18:54:51 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote:

If an oscillator will run but not start, there's a nonlinearity in the
gain element.

Depends on what kind. The HC14 makes an excellent self-starting
oscillator.

Not relevant. It starts and runs.

Again, it depends on what kind of nonlinearity. You could not consider the
HC14 to be a linear element. Yet it self-starts.

There is another kind of nonlinearity that will prevent an oscillator from
starting. Here is an example. It converts the Classic Colpitts to a
zero-cross limited oscillator. Changing R3 from 10k to 20k will prevent it
from starting. There is not enough current to drive the LC tank for
positive loop gain.

It is difficult to conceive of an oscillator that will run but not start.

But if you applied the fast start technique shown in my article, you might
be able to start it and then keep it running by adjusting various
parameters.

Do you have a better example?

Version 4
SHEET 1 880 708
WIRE -96 -112 -160 -112
WIRE -32 -112 -96 -112
WIRE 112 -112 -32 -112
WIRE -32 -96 -32 -112
WIRE -160 -80 -160 -112
WIRE -576 -32 -608 -32
WIRE -528 -32 -576 -32
WIRE -496 -32 -528 -32
WIRE -336 -32 -416 -32
WIRE -240 -32 -336 -32
WIRE -224 -32 -240 -32
WIRE -336 -16 -336 -32
WIRE -608 0 -608 -32
WIRE -32 0 -32 -16
WIRE 112 16 112 -112
WIRE -336 64 -336 48
WIRE -240 64 -336 64
WIRE -160 64 -160 16
WIRE -112 64 -160 64
WIRE -80 64 -112 64
WIRE 0 64 -16 64
WIRE 32 64 0 64
WIRE 48 64 32 64
WIRE -336 80 -336 64
WIRE -160 80 -160 64
WIRE -608 96 -608 80
WIRE 112 144 112 112
WIRE 160 144 112 144
WIRE 208 144 160 144
WIRE -336 160 -336 144
WIRE -160 176 -160 160
WIRE 112 176 112 144
WIRE -528 224 -528 -32
WIRE -112 224 -528 224
WIRE 0 224 0 64
WIRE 0 224 -32 224
WIRE 48 224 0 224
WIRE 112 288 112 272
WIRE -240 336 -240 64
WIRE 208 336 208 144
WIRE 208 336 -240 336
WIRE 208 368 208 336
WIRE 208 464 208 448
FLAG -32 0 0
FLAG -336 160 0
FLAG 160 144 Vout
FLAG -240 -32 Q1B
FLAG -608 96 0
FLAG -160 176 0
FLAG -96 -112 VCC
FLAG -576 -32 VBB
FLAG 112 288 0
FLAG -112 64 Q1E
FLAG 32 64 Q2B
FLAG 208 464 0
SYMBOL voltage -32 -112 R0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 2
WINDOW 0 33 33 Left 2
WINDOW 3 33 80 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName V2
SYMATTR Value 5V
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=0
SYMBOL npn -224 -80 R0
SYMATTR InstName Q1
SYMATTR Value 2N3904
SYMBOL cap -352 -16 R0
SYMATTR InstName C1
SYMATTR Value 1.2732nF
SYMBOL cap -352 80 R0
SYMATTR InstName C2
SYMATTR Value 1.2732nF
SYMBOL ind -400 -16 M270
WINDOW 0 32 56 VTop 2
WINDOW 3 5 56 VBottom 2
WINDOW 39 -16 53 VBottom 2
SYMATTR InstName L1
SYMATTR Value 1.5915uh
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=1.25
SYMBOL voltage -608 -16 R0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 2
WINDOW 0 33 33 Left 2
WINDOW 3 33 80 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName V1
SYMATTR Value 2.5V
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=0
SYMBOL res -176 64 R0
SYMATTR InstName R1
SYMATTR Value 2.5k
SYMBOL npn 48 16 R0
SYMATTR InstName Q2
SYMATTR Value 2N3904
SYMBOL cap -16 48 R90
WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 2
WINDOW 3 32 32 VTop 2
SYMATTR InstName C3
SYMATTR Value 1nf
SYMBOL pnp 48 272 M180
SYMATTR InstName Q3
SYMATTR Value 2N3906
SYMBOL res -16 208 R90
WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 2
WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 2
SYMATTR InstName R2
SYMATTR Value 100k
SYMBOL res 192 352 R0
SYMATTR InstName R3
SYMATTR Value 10k
TEXT -400 -240 Left 2 !.tran 0 30u 0 50p
TEXT -408 -264 Left 2 ;'Classic Colpitts No Start

Looks like deadband in Q2-Q3. Low gain at low swing.

You can build an oscillator with a tank and a comparator for gain. The
comparator DC offset can rail it and prevent oscillation. Jog it a few
millivolts and off it goes.

An unbiased bipolar or mosfet colpitts ditto, runs but won't start.

I recently posted an oscillator circuit that starts but doesn't run.
I'm actually going to use it in a laser controller.







--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Steve Wilson]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

> Looks like deadband in Q2-Q3. Low gain at low swing.

Exactly. The opposite distortion from the HC14.

You can build an oscillator with a tank and a comparator for gain. The
comparator DC offset can rail it and prevent oscillation. Jog it a few
millivolts and off it goes.

That is a limiter. Does it fit the definition of nonlinearity?

> An unbiased bipolar or mosfet colpitts ditto, runs but won't start.

Probably won't run either.

I recently posted an oscillator circuit that starts but doesn't run.
I'm actually going to use it in a laser controller.

That is not an oscillator. There is no feedback and no loop gain.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2019-06-22, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote:

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 7:52:10 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 22:47:33 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 3:51:40 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

In a complex, nonlinear, chaotic simulation, you can tune its
parameters to give any results you want.

That's now how one handles a simulation. Is that how you use SPICE?

I don't model nonlinear chaotic systems in Spice, I model electronic
circuits that I know I can simulate usefully.

So, a self-starting oscillator, you don't model that?
Lame, like your other excuses and lies.

Believe the models, or improve them, but
don't spin feeble devil-theories about 'em.

What's the big deal with self-starting oscillators? An HC14 is self-
starting. Here's a Classic Colpitts:

They're an example of "nonlinear chaotic systems", that's all.

--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.