Using Spice to verify a circuit works

[George Herold]

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 9:00:08 AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 04:27:49 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 6:29:38 AM UTC+2, upsid...@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 species 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.

For that they need information on deep ocean currents, which the Argo buoys are still collecting.

We know about the effect of the El Nino/La Nina alternation on local and global climate because they happen over a few year.

The Multidecadal Atlantic Oscillation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation

is a lot slower, and wasn't named until 1993.

That doesn't explain the warm period from 9000 to 5000 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

Have you seen this?
https://xkcd.com/1732/

GH

It is interesting to note that in the beginning of this period, the
sea level rose by 60 m to current level apparently due to melting
glaciers. Since a lot of energy was lost to melting ice, the air would
have ben even warmer.


It does seem to reflect ocean currents moving around. We can see the surface currents but the return currents flowing in the depths of the oceans are less easily observed (which is why the Argo Buoy observations were set under way).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography)

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 23:31:20 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote:

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?

Railed is pretty nonlinear.

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

Probably won't run either.

Sure will. It's a "class C" oscillator.

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.

It oscillates, so it's an oscillator.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Steve Wilson]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 23:31:20 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote:

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?

Railed is pretty nonlinear.

Actually, I think I've seen some circuits that do exactly that. Except they
were biased so they start linearly, then go into hard limiting.

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

Probably won't run either.

Sure will. It's a "class C" oscillator.

I don't see how you can get enough swing out of the tank to keep it
running. Got an example?

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.

It oscillates, so it's an oscillator.

No, it's a ringdown circuit. It is also not self-starting.

 

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 17:17:45 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
<gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 9:00:08 AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 04:27:49 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 6:29:38 AM UTC+2, upsid...@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 species 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.

For that they need information on deep ocean currents, which the Argo buoys are still collecting.

We know about the effect of the El Nino/La Nina alternation on local and global climate because they happen over a few year.

The Multidecadal Atlantic Oscillation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation

is a lot slower, and wasn't named until 1993.

That doesn't explain the warm period from 9000 to 5000 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

Have you seen this?
https://xkcd.com/1732/

An extended version of Mann's hockey stick

Lots of averaging of proxies, some of which are calibrated years some
are not. If there are decades or even centuries uncertainty about
dating of events, the same events will have peaks at different times
in different series, thus averaged out. Then one proxy only
(temperature measurement at 2 m height) id appended to the end of the
graph.


Different proxies are given different weights i.e. a single available
proxy from a continent is given a large weight to represent that
continent.

Look for example at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
in which the colored curves are in color and one combination in black.

Some old proxies show as steep changes in temperatures as the 2 m
measurement proxy.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 3:00:08 PM UTC+2, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 04:27:49 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 6:29:38 AM UTC+2, upsid...@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 species 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.

For that they need information on deep ocean currents, which the Argo buoys are still collecting.

We know about the effect of the El Nino/La Nina alternation on local and global climate because they happen over a few year.

The Multidecadal Atlantic Oscillation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation

is a lot slower, and wasn't named until 1993.

It does seem to reflect ocean currents moving around. We can see the surface currents but the return currents flowing in the depths of the oceans are less easily observed (which is why the Argo Buoy observations were set under way).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography)

That doesn't explain the warm period from 9000 to 5000 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

It might. We don't know what the deep ocean currents are doing now, and we know even less about what they were doing from 9000 to 5000 years ago

It is interesting to note that in the beginning of this period, the
sea level rose by 60 m to current level apparently due to melting
glaciers. Since a lot of energy was lost to melting ice, the air would
have been even warmer.

The ice mostly melted after it had slid off into the oceans, so the heat involved came from cooling the oceans, rather than cooling the atmosphere.

https://noc.ac.uk/news/global-sea-level-rise-end-last-ice-age

The sea level rise started about 19,000 years ago and finished about 6000 years ago. That period includes the Younger Dryas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

That took place 12,900 to c. 11,700 years before present (aka 1950)and was driven by a very visible ocean current change - the Gulf Stream stopped flowing.

Your 9000 to 6000 years ago might just be the ocean circulations getting back to "normal". One of the side effects of the Younger Dryas was that the southern oceans got the benefit of the heat that normally goes north in the gulf stream, and they might have taken a few thousand years to cool back down to normal.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 4:41:50 PM UTC+2, John Larkin 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.

The sort of hindcasts that John Larkin gets spoon fed on denialist web-sites might do that.

I don't know that anyone has good therories or models for the
giant swings over millions of years.

How would he know them when he only reads parodies of what they write on denialists web-sites.

> Short-term sims are what's needed to sell massive political intervention.

So why isn't the fossil carbon extraction industry fabricating the kind of short terms simualtions that would sell their massive political intervention?

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

Nobody is saying that. AOC claimed that a dim millenial might say that, which isn't any kind of prediction, but John Larkin can't think clearly enough to understand waht she was actually saying.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 5:26:55 AM UTC+2, k...@notreal.com wrote:

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.

It hasn't happened yet, or at least not to a devasting degree. Australia has had to cope with more frequent droughts in recent years, and several places have had to cope with unusually intense cyclones (which do flood cities).

> So much for "simulations".

The simulations model climate, not weather.

> Well, the simulations were designed to show flooded cities, so that's what they show.

And your example of such a simulation is?

Reality doesn't care about simulations, however. It doesn't care
about politics, either. Climate simulators do.

Climate simulation is an academic activity. Academics get more money by impressing other academics, not politicians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Slingo

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 4:52:10 PM UTC+2, 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. I do of course tune the
model to get the results that I can put into production; the trick
there is to not fool myself. Extreme sensitivity to any parameter or
value is one red flag that the circuit is not suitable for production.
Except when that sensitivity is in fact a mathematical artifact of
Spice, like the giant femtosecond spikes that someone here mentioned
recently.

Mike gets a lot of feedback about how LT Spice actually models
circuits. Climate modelers don't.

Actually, climate modellers do. There's a planet's worth of real climate out there.

I'm not trying to lie to myself when I fiddle with a model. Why would anyone?

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 !!!

Al Gore did pretty well.

But he did popularise good science. The profits were incidental, and came a long time after "Earth in the Balance" got published back in 1992.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 5:32:10 AM UTC+2, k...@notreal.com wrote:

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.

Which simulations are those. Link please.

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.

AOC was inventing something a dim millenial would say. It wasn't any kind of prediction.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 23:26:47 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:

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.

The simulations have been pretty bad so far.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9fhfwel54b6fyds/Cristy_2016.jpg?raw=1




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 9:40:34 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

> The simulations have been pretty bad so far.

Probably false, but 'pretty bad ' is vague, so that's an untestable assertion.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9fhfwel54b6fyds/Cristy_2016.jpg?raw=1

Do you ever read the labels? That's a bunch of underspecified
averages; I'm not sure why 'troposphere' (low-altitude air) needs satellite data,
that's NOT the best source. Why is balloon data so prominent? It isn't a big data set,
and one doesn't launch balloons in all weathers.

With human sources being involved, why does prediction spanning 45 years
get a prominent mention? There's not been 45 years of constant and unchanging
human sources, after all.

There's no indictment of any particular property of any particular simulation (and one of the
small-character 'simulations' graphs DOES match the 'observations' graph pretty well,
though we cannot tell which).

The person responsible for the graph, John Christy, has political friends and has secured
official appointments and Congressional hearings, but is not widely regarded as informative
by his fellows. His 'Alabama state climatologist' position looks to me like a sinecure.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 21:57:05 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 9:29:18 PM UTC-7, Steve Wilson wrote:
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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.

What's the big deal with self-starting oscillators? An HC14 is self-
starting.

That's a good example that Spice can't handle (well, not correctly); the initial condition for
a Schmitt trigger (or '555, or hysteretic gate) with the right feedback is indeterminate
(depends on tiny amounts of noise or capacitor charge).

LT Spice will sim a Schmitt gate oscillator fine, if you set up the
gate params right.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Steve Wilson]

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 9:29:18 PM UTC-7, Steve Wilson wrote:
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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.

What's the big deal with self-starting oscillators? An HC14 is self-
starting.

That's a good example that Spice can't handle (well, not correctly); the
initial condition for a Schmitt trigger (or '555, or hysteretic gate)
with the right feedback is indeterminate (depends on tiny amounts of
noise or capacitor charge).

There is nothing wrong with the HC14 in SPICE. It runs fine.

Whatever the initial conditions, the feedback will drive the input voltage
to the opposite side of the hysteresis voltage. It cannot fail to start.

Try it:

Version 4
SHEET 1 1028 680
WIRE 112 256 80 256
WIRE 144 256 112 256
WIRE 256 256 240 256
WIRE 288 256 256 256
WIRE 256 288 256 256
WIRE 80 384 80 256
WIRE 256 384 256 368
WIRE 256 384 80 384
WIRE 80 400 80 384
WIRE 80 480 80 464
FLAG 80 480 0
FLAG 288 256 U1O
FLAG 112 256 U1I
SYMBOL res 240 272 R0
SYMATTR InstName R2
SYMATTR Value 10k
SYMBOL cap 96 464 R180
WINDOW 0 24 64 Left 2
WINDOW 3 24 8 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName C1
SYMATTR Value 1n
SYMBOL 74hc14 192 208 R0
SYMATTR InstName U1
TEXT 80 48 Left 2 !.tran 0 40u 0
TEXT 432 48 Left 2 !.inc 74hc.lib
TEXT 432 72 Left 2 !.options plotwinsize=0
TEXT 432 96 Left 2 !.ic V(U1I)=0
TEXT 80 16 Left 2 ;'74HC14 Astable Multivibrator

If you don't have 74hc.lib you can get it from Helmut's site.

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 9:29:18 PM UTC-7, Steve Wilson wrote:

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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.

What's the big deal with self-starting oscillators? An HC14 is self-
starting.

That's a good example that Spice can't handle (well, not correctly); the initial condition for
a Schmitt trigger (or '555, or hysteretic gate) with the right feedback is indeterminate
(depends on tiny amounts of noise or capacitor charge).

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 23 Jun 2019 21:57:05 -0700 (PDT)) it happened whit3rd
<whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
<309f5df6-5cc5-4a43-9885-a628229346bb@googlegroups.com>:

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 9:29:18 PM UTC-7, Steve Wilson wrote:
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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.

What's the big deal with self-starting oscillators? An HC14 is self-
starting.

That's a good example that Spice can't handle (well, not correctly); the initial condition for
a Schmitt trigger (or '555, or hysteretic gate) with the right feedback is indeterminate
(depends on tiny amounts of noise or capacitor charge).

In reality, apart from all the 'noise', a power up sequence
will cause enough signal to start oscillation?

 

[Martin Brown]

On 22/06/2019 04:22, krw@notreal.com wrote:

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.

They were retired from active service in 2010 and then I think sold to
the US for spares the following year.

https://www.globalaviationresource.com/v2/2013/12/15/uk-harrier-retirement-three-years-on/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15876745

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

UK test pilots are quite impressed with the ease of flying the F-35:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/18/f35_uk_test_pilot_interview_sim_flight/

At present we just have a big new aircraft carrier with no aircraft!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Steve Wilson]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 21:57:05 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 9:29:18 PM UTC-7, Steve Wilson wrote:
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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.

What's the big deal with self-starting oscillators? An HC14 is self-
starting.

That's a good example that Spice can't handle (well, not correctly); the
initial condition for a Schmitt trigger (or '555, or hysteretic gate)
with the right feedback is indeterminate (depends on tiny amounts of
noise or capacitor charge).

LT Spice will sim a Schmitt gate oscillator fine, if you set up the
gate params right.

What do you need to do for gate params?

 

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 07:18:57 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 23 Jun 2019 21:57:05 -0700 (PDT)) it happened whit3rd
whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
309f5df6-5cc5-4a43-9885-a628229346bb@googlegroups.com>:

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 9:29:18 PM UTC-7, Steve Wilson wrote:
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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.

What's the big deal with self-starting oscillators? An HC14 is self-
starting.

That's a good example that Spice can't handle (well, not correctly); the initial condition for
a Schmitt trigger (or '555, or hysteretic gate) with the right feedback is indeterminate
(depends on tiny amounts of noise or capacitor charge).

In reality, apart from all the 'noise', a power up sequence
will cause enough signal to start oscillation?

There are cases in which an oscillator starts fine when battery
powered, but not when powered from the mains.

In a mains power supply with big electrolytic capacitors it can take a
long time, before the capacitors are charged, thus the dV/dt is too
slow to kick start the oscillator. When battery is used, the voltage
grows immediately, having a much higher dV/dt, which will give a nice
kick.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 6:40:34 PM UTC+2, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 23:26:47 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:

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.

The simulations have been pretty bad so far.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9fhfwel54b6fyds/Cristy_2016.jpg?raw=1

John Christy is a climate change denier.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_R._Christy

It took years before the rest of the field could persuade Spencer and Christy that their satellite data wasn't being properly corrected.

sus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates

John Larkin hasn't noticed this, which is odd because it is pointed out to him from time to time.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

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.

Harrier was cool, but it is subsonic and has a gigantic radar
cross-section. It's over 50 years old.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics