Proprietary SMPS design tools, what for?
in [Design]
|
From: Phil Hobbs on 7 Sep 2009 18:26 Joerg wrote: > JosephKK wrote: >> On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:50:11 -0400, Spehro Pefhany >> <speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 09:54:28 -0700, Jim Thompson >>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:38:34 GMT, qrk <SpamTrap(a)spam.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:25:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Tim Wescott wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:09:59 -0700, Joerg wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Today I and probably others received the announcement of the >>>>>>>> umpteenth >>>>>>>> SMPS "iteractive design simulator", EDesign Studio or whatever >>>>>>>> from ST. >>>>>>>> I am not even going to try it. I've hung up on those things a >>>>>>>> long time >>>>>>>> ago, after WebBench from National flagged the third of my >>>>>>>> designs as >>>>>>>> "cannot be ..." (all in mass production now). The millisecond >>>>>>>> you try >>>>>>>> something unorthodox which I always tend to do they fall off the >>>>>>>> cliff >>>>>>>> anyhow. So I use LTSpice for everything. Since it seems that >>>>>>>> only LTC >>>>>>>> furnishes good SPICE models for their PWM parts this has brought >>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>> quite some business from my side. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What's the point with all this proprietary stuff? >>>>>>> Because most designers don't really have a clue about what >>>>>>> they're doing, and don't want to. So spoon-feeding them >>>>>>> super-safe circuits that are designed by a machine that's >>>>>>> designed by some zit-faced kid in India will lead them to better >>>>>>> success than trying to teach them basic principals. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (Note that LTSpice _is_ proprietary, and part of the reason the >>>>>>> models for Linear parts work better in it is because they use the >>>>>>> proprietary features of LTSpice, not 'regular' spice models which >>>>>>> LTSpice can't use as fast as it's 'own' stuff). >>>>>>> >>>>>> Sure, but: I can use other companies' stuff and just accept a >>>>>> slower simulation speed because the sub-circuits become kind of >>>>>> hefty. Gets me to the goal line while those online calculators >>>>>> never did. I have yet to encounter a situation where LTSpice would >>>>>> reject a proper SPICE model of a non-LTC part. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why can't they invest >>>>>>>> their time in much more useful activities like furnishing proper >>>>>>>> SPICE >>>>>>>> subcircuits? >>>>>>> Because in most companies marketing is an expense, not a profit >>>>>>> center, and a proper SPICE circuit is 'too expensive'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why did Zilog spend 20 years driving away any designer who wasn't >>>>>>> going to order 20000 parts at a whack? Because they're stupid! >>>>>>> After they taught all those kids to shun them, they had to go and >>>>>>> convince them (me amongst them) to use Zilog after all -- and I >>>>>>> still won't. >>>>>>> >>>>>> And here I thought they had already gone belly-up :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> The most daft answer I got was along the lines of "We'll >>>>>>>> only create a SPICE model if the business volume warrants it". >>>>>>>> As if I'd >>>>>>>> be so stupid to promise them sales volume before test driving. Long >>>>>>>> story short that business volume went to a competitor. >>>>>>> When you say 'daft', your questions answer themselves. >>>>>>> >>>>>> :-) >>>>> I'm amazed at the support the LT gives. Even for us little guys, we >>>>> are given eval boards and lots of support from their field engineer. >>>>> Plus, a decent way to simulate their switchers which I tend to use in >>>>> unconventional ways that WebBench couldn't deal with. WebBench is so >>>>> slow and limiting I gave up. The one National switcher controller I >>>>> did use required doing a prototype board with a couple different >>>>> configurations of the switcher. Fortunately, the overly simplified >>>>> model of the NS part I created in LTspice was close enough to reality. >>>>> >>>>> Our LT rep said most of LT's business is smaller companies. >>>> Part of the issues is CHEAP-CHEAP. A few years ago I was approached >>>> by a major ANALOG company (you can guess who :-) to model a complex >>>> device. I figured about a week of my time to do it proper justice. >>>> Too expensive for them :-( >>>> >>>> ...Jim Thompson >>> Seems like they (LT) decided to solve the problem of creating models >>> efficiently, rather than create bespoke models one at a time-- which >>> is why they can claim to have more SMPS chip models than all the rest. >>> >>> "I see no reason for the continuing existence of AMD " >>> -- Mike E. >> >> I can see at least one good reason to keep AMD, a sufficient thorn in >> Intel's side to keep them halfway honest. There may be more reasons. > > > AMD can make darn good processors. My laptop has a 64-bit Turion in > there and while older that thing still gives newer machines at clients a > run for their money when doing sims. > > Best was a session where we did hands-on design on Cypress PSoC. About > eight guys starting the compile at the same time. When I signaled mine > was done a couple of guys across the table said "WHAT?". They had > freaking expensive Thinkpads. > My once-and-future Linux cluster had 14 Opterons, which for FP-intensive tasks blew the doors off Xeons of the same vintage. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
From: Joerg on 7 Sep 2009 19:22 Phil Hobbs wrote: > Joerg wrote: >> JosephKK wrote: >>> On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:50:11 -0400, Spehro Pefhany >>> <speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 09:54:28 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:38:34 GMT, qrk <SpamTrap(a)spam.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:25:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Tim Wescott wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:09:59 -0700, Joerg wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Today I and probably others received the announcement of the >>>>>>>>> umpteenth >>>>>>>>> SMPS "iteractive design simulator", EDesign Studio or whatever >>>>>>>>> from ST. >>>>>>>>> I am not even going to try it. I've hung up on those things a >>>>>>>>> long time >>>>>>>>> ago, after WebBench from National flagged the third of my >>>>>>>>> designs as >>>>>>>>> "cannot be ..." (all in mass production now). The millisecond >>>>>>>>> you try >>>>>>>>> something unorthodox which I always tend to do they fall off >>>>>>>>> the cliff >>>>>>>>> anyhow. So I use LTSpice for everything. Since it seems that >>>>>>>>> only LTC >>>>>>>>> furnishes good SPICE models for their PWM parts this has >>>>>>>>> brought them >>>>>>>>> quite some business from my side. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What's the point with all this proprietary stuff? >>>>>>>> Because most designers don't really have a clue about what >>>>>>>> they're doing, and don't want to. So spoon-feeding them >>>>>>>> super-safe circuits that are designed by a machine that's >>>>>>>> designed by some zit-faced kid in India will lead them to better >>>>>>>> success than trying to teach them basic principals. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (Note that LTSpice _is_ proprietary, and part of the reason the >>>>>>>> models for Linear parts work better in it is because they use >>>>>>>> the proprietary features of LTSpice, not 'regular' spice models >>>>>>>> which LTSpice can't use as fast as it's 'own' stuff). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sure, but: I can use other companies' stuff and just accept a >>>>>>> slower simulation speed because the sub-circuits become kind of >>>>>>> hefty. Gets me to the goal line while those online calculators >>>>>>> never did. I have yet to encounter a situation where LTSpice >>>>>>> would reject a proper SPICE model of a non-LTC part. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why can't they invest >>>>>>>>> their time in much more useful activities like furnishing >>>>>>>>> proper SPICE >>>>>>>>> subcircuits? >>>>>>>> Because in most companies marketing is an expense, not a profit >>>>>>>> center, and a proper SPICE circuit is 'too expensive'. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why did Zilog spend 20 years driving away any designer who >>>>>>>> wasn't going to order 20000 parts at a whack? Because they're >>>>>>>> stupid! After they taught all those kids to shun them, they had >>>>>>>> to go and convince them (me amongst them) to use Zilog after all >>>>>>>> -- and I still won't. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> And here I thought they had already gone belly-up :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The most daft answer I got was along the lines of "We'll >>>>>>>>> only create a SPICE model if the business volume warrants it". >>>>>>>>> As if I'd >>>>>>>>> be so stupid to promise them sales volume before test driving. >>>>>>>>> Long >>>>>>>>> story short that business volume went to a competitor. >>>>>>>> When you say 'daft', your questions answer themselves. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :-) >>>>>> I'm amazed at the support the LT gives. Even for us little guys, we >>>>>> are given eval boards and lots of support from their field engineer. >>>>>> Plus, a decent way to simulate their switchers which I tend to use in >>>>>> unconventional ways that WebBench couldn't deal with. WebBench is so >>>>>> slow and limiting I gave up. The one National switcher controller I >>>>>> did use required doing a prototype board with a couple different >>>>>> configurations of the switcher. Fortunately, the overly simplified >>>>>> model of the NS part I created in LTspice was close enough to >>>>>> reality. >>>>>> >>>>>> Our LT rep said most of LT's business is smaller companies. >>>>> Part of the issues is CHEAP-CHEAP. A few years ago I was approached >>>>> by a major ANALOG company (you can guess who :-) to model a complex >>>>> device. I figured about a week of my time to do it proper justice. >>>>> Too expensive for them :-( >>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>> Seems like they (LT) decided to solve the problem of creating models >>>> efficiently, rather than create bespoke models one at a time-- which >>>> is why they can claim to have more SMPS chip models than all the rest. >>>> >>>> "I see no reason for the continuing existence of AMD " >>>> -- Mike E. >>> >>> I can see at least one good reason to keep AMD, a sufficient thorn in >>> Intel's side to keep them halfway honest. There may be more reasons. >> >> >> AMD can make darn good processors. My laptop has a 64-bit Turion in >> there and while older that thing still gives newer machines at clients >> a run for their money when doing sims. >> >> Best was a session where we did hands-on design on Cypress PSoC. About >> eight guys starting the compile at the same time. When I signaled mine >> was done a couple of guys across the table said "WHAT?". They had >> freaking expensive Thinkpads. >> > > My once-and-future Linux cluster had 14 Opterons, which for FP-intensive > tasks blew the doors off Xeons of the same vintage. > AMD engineering seems to be really good. The sales folks, well, maybe not so much. This laptop with the Turion is about four years old and back then it regularly blew expensive desktops at clients out of the water. We often run sims concurrently to get data for various configurations quickly. So except for some numeric part values it's the same files. The faces when mine was finished and their "big machine" was at 75% completion were priceless. Of course then it needs its AC adapter because it'll suck the battery dry in under an hour when doing sims. Plus the fan on the Durabook is very loud, quite annoying, and sends paper sailing off the desk. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: miso on 7 Sep 2009 20:21 On Sep 2, 11:06 am, o...(a)uakron.edu wrote: > LTs field engineering staff is saving my new job. We had a state of > the art special buck switcher being custom made, and the supplier's > marketing people dropped the ball and the project. It seems 3000 > pieces per month is not worth a run to them. Two conference calls and > a couple weeks later a LTspice model arrives with demo boards . LT > didn't hesitate to sign our ND, either. I'm too busy doing the custom > optics and control design to learn switchers from scratch right now. > > A bit of wimping out on my part, but I have spent three months just > trying to source parts for the rest of the system, and the boss wants > a field worthy trial system in 30 days to replace my huge bench > model. > > Don't even try to manufacture anything in America any more, its a > tough mess, and I need 60% US content for the contract. > > Thank You, LT! > > Steve I would say never design your own SMPS but use a well flogged chip run past apps. There are so many gotchas in SMPS design that you will eventually be burnt.
From: miso on 7 Sep 2009 20:23 On Sep 7, 11:45 am, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:50:11 -0400, Spehro Pefhany > > > > <speffS...(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: > >On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 09:54:28 -0700, Jim Thompson > ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > > >>On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:38:34 GMT, qrk <SpamT...(a)spam.net> wrote: > > >>>On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:25:07 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> > >>>wrote: > > >>>>Tim Wescott wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:09:59 -0700, Joerg wrote: > > >>>>>> Today I and probably others received the announcement of the umpteenth > >>>>>> SMPS "iteractive design simulator", EDesign Studio or whatever from ST. > >>>>>> I am not even going to try it. I've hung up on those things a long time > >>>>>> ago, after WebBench from National flagged the third of my designs as > >>>>>> "cannot be ..." (all in mass production now). The millisecond you try > >>>>>> something unorthodox which I always tend to do they fall off the cliff > >>>>>> anyhow. So I use LTSpice for everything. Since it seems that only LTC > >>>>>> furnishes good SPICE models for their PWM parts this has brought them > >>>>>> quite some business from my side. > > >>>>>> What's the point with all this proprietary stuff? > > >>>>> Because most designers don't really have a clue about what they're doing, > >>>>> and don't want to. So spoon-feeding them super-safe circuits that are > >>>>> designed by a machine that's designed by some zit-faced kid in India will > >>>>> lead them to better success than trying to teach them basic principals. > > >>>>> (Note that LTSpice _is_ proprietary, and part of the reason the models > >>>>> for Linear parts work better in it is because they use the proprietary > >>>>> features of LTSpice, not 'regular' spice models which LTSpice can't use > >>>>> as fast as it's 'own' stuff). > > >>>>Sure, but: I can use other companies' stuff and just accept a slower > >>>>simulation speed because the sub-circuits become kind of hefty. Gets me > >>>>to the goal line while those online calculators never did. I have yet to > >>>>encounter a situation where LTSpice would reject a proper SPICE model of > >>>>a non-LTC part. > > >>>>>> Why can't they invest > >>>>>> their time in much more useful activities like furnishing proper SPICE > >>>>>> subcircuits? > > >>>>> Because in most companies marketing is an expense, not a profit center, > >>>>> and a proper SPICE circuit is 'too expensive'. > > >>>>> Why did Zilog spend 20 years driving away any designer who wasn't going > >>>>> to order 20000 parts at a whack? Because they're stupid! After they > >>>>> taught all those kids to shun them, they had to go and convince them (me > >>>>> amongst them) to use Zilog after all -- and I still won't. > > >>>>And here I thought they had already gone belly-up :-) > > >>>>>> The most daft answer I got was along the lines of "We'll > >>>>>> only create a SPICE model if the business volume warrants it". As if I'd > >>>>>> be so stupid to promise them sales volume before test driving. Long > >>>>>> story short that business volume went to a competitor. > > >>>>> When you say 'daft', your questions answer themselves. > > >>>>:-) > >>>I'm amazed at the support the LT gives. Even for us little guys, we > >>>are given eval boards and lots of support from their field engineer. > >>>Plus, a decent way to simulate their switchers which I tend to use in > >>>unconventional ways that WebBench couldn't deal with. WebBench is so > >>>slow and limiting I gave up. The one National switcher controller I > >>>did use required doing a prototype board with a couple different > >>>configurations of the switcher. Fortunately, the overly simplified > >>>model of the NS part I created in LTspice was close enough to reality. > > >>>Our LT rep said most of LT's business is smaller companies. > > >>Part of the issues is CHEAP-CHEAP. A few years ago I was approached > >>by a major ANALOG company (you can guess who :-) to model a complex > >>device. I figured about a week of my time to do it proper justice. > >>Too expensive for them :-( > > >> ...Jim Thompson > > >Seems like they (LT) decided to solve the problem of creating models > >efficiently, rather than create bespoke models one at a time-- which > >is why they can claim to have more SMPS chip models than all the rest. > > >"I see no reason for the continuing existence of AMD " > >-- Mike E. > > I can see at least one good reason to keep AMD, a sufficient thorn in > Intel's side to keep them halfway honest. There may be more reasons. Every desktop machine I have running is AMD, either dual or quad core. Only in notebooks do I use Intel.
From: miso on 7 Sep 2009 20:29 On Sep 7, 3:26 pm, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: > Joerg wrote: > > JosephKK wrote: > >> On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:50:11 -0400, Spehro Pefhany > >> <speffS...(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: > > >>> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 09:54:28 -0700, Jim Thompson > >>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > > >>>> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:38:34 GMT, qrk <SpamT...(a)spam.net> wrote: > > >>>>> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:25:07 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> Tim Wescott wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:09:59 -0700, Joerg wrote: > > >>>>>>>> Today I and probably others received the announcement of the > >>>>>>>> umpteenth > >>>>>>>> SMPS "iteractive design simulator", EDesign Studio or whatever > >>>>>>>> from ST. > >>>>>>>> I am not even going to try it. I've hung up on those things a > >>>>>>>> long time > >>>>>>>> ago, after WebBench from National flagged the third of my > >>>>>>>> designs as > >>>>>>>> "cannot be ..." (all in mass production now). The millisecond > >>>>>>>> you try > >>>>>>>> something unorthodox which I always tend to do they fall off the > >>>>>>>> cliff > >>>>>>>> anyhow. So I use LTSpice for everything. Since it seems that > >>>>>>>> only LTC > >>>>>>>> furnishes good SPICE models for their PWM parts this has brought > >>>>>>>> them > >>>>>>>> quite some business from my side. > > >>>>>>>> What's the point with all this proprietary stuff? > >>>>>>> Because most designers don't really have a clue about what > >>>>>>> they're doing, and don't want to. So spoon-feeding them > >>>>>>> super-safe circuits that are designed by a machine that's > >>>>>>> designed by some zit-faced kid in India will lead them to better > >>>>>>> success than trying to teach them basic principals. > > >>>>>>> (Note that LTSpice _is_ proprietary, and part of the reason the > >>>>>>> models for Linear parts work better in it is because they use the > >>>>>>> proprietary features of LTSpice, not 'regular' spice models which > >>>>>>> LTSpice can't use as fast as it's 'own' stuff). > > >>>>>> Sure, but: I can use other companies' stuff and just accept a > >>>>>> slower simulation speed because the sub-circuits become kind of > >>>>>> hefty. Gets me to the goal line while those online calculators > >>>>>> never did. I have yet to encounter a situation where LTSpice would > >>>>>> reject a proper SPICE model of a non-LTC part. > > >>>>>>>> Why can't they invest > >>>>>>>> their time in much more useful activities like furnishing proper > >>>>>>>> SPICE > >>>>>>>> subcircuits? > >>>>>>> Because in most companies marketing is an expense, not a profit > >>>>>>> center, and a proper SPICE circuit is 'too expensive'. > > >>>>>>> Why did Zilog spend 20 years driving away any designer who wasn't > >>>>>>> going to order 20000 parts at a whack? Because they're stupid! > >>>>>>> After they taught all those kids to shun them, they had to go and > >>>>>>> convince them (me amongst them) to use Zilog after all -- and I > >>>>>>> still won't. > > >>>>>> And here I thought they had already gone belly-up :-) > > >>>>>>>> The most daft answer I got was along the lines of "We'll > >>>>>>>> only create a SPICE model if the business volume warrants it". > >>>>>>>> As if I'd > >>>>>>>> be so stupid to promise them sales volume before test driving. Long > >>>>>>>> story short that business volume went to a competitor. > >>>>>>> When you say 'daft', your questions answer themselves. > > >>>>>> :-) > >>>>> I'm amazed at the support the LT gives. Even for us little guys, we > >>>>> are given eval boards and lots of support from their field engineer.. > >>>>> Plus, a decent way to simulate their switchers which I tend to use in > >>>>> unconventional ways that WebBench couldn't deal with. WebBench is so > >>>>> slow and limiting I gave up. The one National switcher controller I > >>>>> did use required doing a prototype board with a couple different > >>>>> configurations of the switcher. Fortunately, the overly simplified > >>>>> model of the NS part I created in LTspice was close enough to reality. > > >>>>> Our LT rep said most of LT's business is smaller companies. > >>>> Part of the issues is CHEAP-CHEAP. A few years ago I was approached > >>>> by a major ANALOG company (you can guess who :-) to model a complex > >>>> device. I figured about a week of my time to do it proper justice.. > >>>> Too expensive for them :-( > > >>>> ...Jim Thompson > >>> Seems like they (LT) decided to solve the problem of creating models > >>> efficiently, rather than create bespoke models one at a time-- which > >>> is why they can claim to have more SMPS chip models than all the rest.. > > >>> "I see no reason for the continuing existence of AMD " > >>> -- Mike E. > > >> I can see at least one good reason to keep AMD, a sufficient thorn in > >> Intel's side to keep them halfway honest. There may be more reasons. > > > AMD can make darn good processors. My laptop has a 64-bit Turion in > > there and while older that thing still gives newer machines at clients a > > run for their money when doing sims. > > > Best was a session where we did hands-on design on Cypress PSoC. About > > eight guys starting the compile at the same time. When I signaled mine > > was done a couple of guys across the table said "WHAT?". They had > > freaking expensive Thinkpads. > > My once-and-future Linux cluster had 14 Opterons, which for FP-intensive > tasks blew the doors off Xeons of the same vintage. > > Cheers > > Phil Hobbs > > -- > Dr Philip C D Hobbs > Principal > ElectroOptical Innovations > 55 Orchard Rd > Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 > 845-480-2058 > hobbs at electrooptical dot nethttp://electrooptical.net Until recently, the Intel chipsets had inferior memory management compared to Intel. For instance, AMD has long interleaved memory. AMD has the memory controller in the CPU, while Intel has it in the chipset. Intel released quite a few chipsets that can't even do 4Gbytes.
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: MIT rad lab series Next: PIC / MPLAB PICC new user prob.... |