On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:48:40 -0600, asomers-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w wrote:
I suggest the External Links section of the front page,
Hmm, what front page? I can't seem to find External Links anywhere on
gpleda.org.
the text
Spicelib provides a large library of spice models tested with
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Kai-Martin Knaak k...@familieknaak.de wrote:
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:48:40 -0600, asomers-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w wrote:
I suggest the External Links section of the front page,
Hmm, what front page? I can't seem to find External Links anywhere on
gpleda.org.
On Apr 28, 2010, at 9:41 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
On Apr 28, 2010, at 3:40 PM, John Doty wrote:
Well, you started out complaining about a 741 model. I'd call that a very
rare, obsolete part: I haven't actually seen one in a circuit in over 30
years. I guess it's still in textbooks (read
On Apr 28, 2010, at 9:41 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
Very rare?! I see 741s everywhere. WTF?
Different worlds. You make my point.
Why is anybody using anything so crummy in the 21st century?
John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
j...@noqsi.com
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 28 April 2010, Dave McGuire wrote:
On Apr 28, 2010, at 3:40 PM, John Doty wrote:
Well, you started out complaining about a 741 model. I'd call that
a very rare, obsolete part: I haven't actually seen one in a
circuit in over 30 years. I guess it's still in
On Thursday 29 April 2010, Dave McGuire wrote:
On Apr 29, 2010, at 12:48 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
Well, you started out complaining about a 741 model. I'd call that
a very rare, obsolete part: I haven't actually seen one in a
circuit in over 30 years. I guess it's still in textbooks (read
On Apr 29, 2010, at 6:50 AM, Russell Shaw wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 28 April 2010, Dave McGuire wrote:
On Apr 28, 2010, at 3:40 PM, John Doty wrote:
Well, you started out complaining about a 741 model. I'd call that
a very rare, obsolete part: I haven't actually seen one in a
On Thursday 29 April 2010, Russell Shaw wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 28 April 2010, Dave McGuire wrote:
On Apr 28, 2010, at 3:40 PM, John Doty wrote:
Well, you started out complaining about a 741 model. I'd call that
a very rare, obsolete part: I haven't actually seen one in a
On Thursday 29 April 2010, John Doty wrote:
On Apr 29, 2010, at 6:50 AM, Russell Shaw wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 28 April 2010, Dave McGuire wrote:
On Apr 28, 2010, at 3:40 PM, John Doty wrote:
Well, you started out complaining about a 741 model. I'd call that
a very rare,
On Apr 29, 2010, at 8:03 AM, John Doty wrote:
Very rare?! I see 741s everywhere. WTF?
Different worlds. You make my point.
Why is anybody using anything so crummy in the 21st century?
Most of them that I see are at least ten years old. That said,
they're cheap, readily available
On Apr 29, 2010, at 8:34 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
What should I replace
the obsolete OP220 with?
What was it trying to do? That will have a heavy bearing on the replacement
choice.
Mainly not waste too much power ;-)
I used these for a variety of low power, low speed, moderately high
John Doty wrote:
On Apr 28, 2010, at 9:41 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
Very rare?! I see 741s everywhere. WTF?
Different worlds. You make my point.
Why is anybody using anything so crummy in the 21st century?
Perhaps, like me they have a pile of them. I'm staring at about 25 of
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 6:40 PM, John Doty [1]...@noqsi.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 2010, at 7:16 PM, Madhusudan Singh wrote:
Failure to correspond to your prejudices is not imperfection.
Needing an extra 20 minutes after wiring the net, to populate spice
models for each
Most tools require some preliminary investment in terms of setting up
libraries to the satisfaction of the user, plus general
familiarisation. I think you will find you only need to modify your
symbol once to include the appropriate SPICE directives. If you save
this symbol you can
On Apr 28, 2010, at 12:41 AM, Madhusudan Singh wrote:
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 6:40 PM, John Doty [1]...@noqsi.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 2010, at 7:16 PM, Madhusudan Singh wrote:
Failure to correspond to your prejudices is not imperfection.
Needing an extra 20 minutes after wiring the
-Original Message-
From: geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org
[mailto:geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org] On Behalf Of John Doty
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 6:40 AM
To: gEDA user mailing list
Subject: Re: gEDA-user: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem
...
Harder than
On Apr 28, 2010, at 5:54 AM, David C. Kerber wrote:
-Original Message-
From: geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org
[mailto:geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org] On Behalf Of John Doty
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 6:40 AM
To: gEDA user mailing list
Subject: Re: gEDA-user: A little
David C. Kerber wrote:
Harder than having a proper library that allows me to focus on the
circuit design instead of these kinds of clerical tasks
that appear to
arise from an utter lack of understanding that human
beings do not like
to do mundane, repetitive
Thanks for a reasonable response to my post.
Yes, an initial investment is often needed, but that ought to be an
investment that deals with non-standard components that are not of
common interest. Second, before your response, no one (at least as I
read it) said that you could save
The problem is that there are very few public-domain spice models.
Every semiconductor vendor has their own license (sometimes several)
for their spice libraries. Only some of these licenses allow
redistribution. Furthermore, because the licenses are carelessly
written and applied, they are
On Apr 28, 2010, at 12:34 PM, Madhusudan Singh wrote:
Thanks for a reasonable response to my post.
Yes, an initial investment is often needed, but that ought to be an
investment that deals with non-standard components that are not of
common interest.
Well, you started out
On Apr 28, 2010, at 1:26 PM, asom...@gmail.com wrote:
Spicelib (http://www.h-renrew.de/h/spicelib/doc/index.html), which I
shall shamelessly plug for the 3rd time on this thread, tries to solve
both of these problems. It is a set of scripts that a user can
download. The scripts will fetch
Might be good to put a link to this on gedasymbols.org.
Please suggest a specific location, text, and url for such a link.
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
We already have specialized kludges in gnetlist to support VAMS. One worthy
project would be to rewrite these in Guile in the VAMS back end, perhaps
refactoring gnetlist to support this.
Let me see the vams code...
Boehhoee, that's about 60 lines of code that gives you reduced
I suggest the External Links section of the front page, the text
Spicelib provides a large library of spice models tested with Gnucap
and NGSpice, and the URL www.h-renrew.de/h/spicelib/doc/index.html .
Also, thanks for writing DJGPP so long ago. I'm still using CWSDPMI
at work on my DOS
On Apr 28, 2010, at 2:20 PM, Bas Gieltjes wrote:
We already have specialized kludges in gnetlist to support VAMS. One worthy
project would be to rewrite these in Guile in the VAMS back end, perhaps
refactoring gnetlist to support this.
Let me see the vams code...
Boehhoee, that's
On Apr 28, 2010, at 3:40 PM, John Doty wrote:
Well, you started out complaining about a 741 model. I'd call that
a very rare, obsolete part: I haven't actually seen one in a
circuit in over 30 years. I guess it's still in textbooks (read
Stephen J. Gould's rants about textbook authors'
On Wednesday 28 April 2010, Dave McGuire wrote:
On Apr 28, 2010, at 3:40 PM, John Doty wrote:
Well, you started out complaining about a 741 model. I'd call that
a very rare, obsolete part: I haven't actually seen one in a
circuit in over 30 years. I guess it's still in textbooks (read
Stephen
On Apr 29, 2010, at 12:48 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
Well, you started out complaining about a 741 model. I'd call that
a very rare, obsolete part: I haven't actually seen one in a
circuit in over 30 years. I guess it's still in textbooks (read
Stephen J. Gould's rants about textbook authors'
-Original Message-
From: geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org
[mailto:geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org] On Behalf Of Armin Faltl
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 8:52 PM
To: gEDA user mailing list
Subject: Re: gEDA-user: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem
I'm here only for
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:09 PM, al davis ad...@freeelectron.net wrote:
If you look at free/open-source software as a product to be
consumed, like you consume commercial products, you will
probably be disappointed.
I disagree. While writing OSS has value in its own (as a method of
gaining
On 24/04/10 05:46, al davis wrote:
On Friday 23 April 2010, Link wrote:
Eh?
Suppose you had instead said:
===
.. I suggest
using Eagle through Darwine. In my personal experience,
Eagle is a lot better than geda, and
it is definitely an easier workflow.
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 23:46:41 -0400, al davis wrote:
Suppose you had instead said:
===
.. I suggest
using Eagle through Darwine. In my personal experience, Eagle is a lot
better than geda, and
it is definitely an easier workflow.
===
Is this any
On Apr 24, 2010, at 10:30 AM, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
Unfortunately, the opposite is true for gschem/gnucap vs ltspice
Unfortunately, it takes more skill to drive a Jeep than it take to drive a
tricycle.
John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
j...@noqsi.com
I don't think it is a matter of skill.
I am an engineer / scientist who is interested in what *works*. I am
paid to get a certain piece of work done (for the best possible design
in the shortest amount of time), not spend time working around
imperfections of certain pieces of
On Apr 24, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Madhusudan Singh wrote:
I don't think it is a matter of skill.
I am an engineer / scientist who is interested in what *works*.
So am I. That's exactly why I find gEDA so powerful.
I am
paid to get a certain piece of work done (for the best possible
On Saturday 24 April 2010, Link wrote:
I hadn't intended for anyone to interpret it that way, and
I'm sorry if you interpreted that as bashing gEDA. Perhaps
my choice of words was rather unfortunate.
Apology accepted.
What I intended to is that one component (the simulator) of
LTSpice
On Apr 24, 2010, at 5:42 PM, al davis wrote:
On Saturday 24 April 2010, Link wrote:
I hadn't intended for anyone to interpret it that way, and
I'm sorry if you interpreted that as bashing gEDA. Perhaps
my choice of words was rather unfortunate.
Apology accepted.
What I intended to is
I'm here only for a bit over a week, got a lot of help and try to
contribute something.
In my opinion, even if you were bashing gEDA or parts of it, this would
be still your
right, while probably no good place. What sounds like bashing in the
ears of some
contains constructive criticisim in
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM, John Doty [1]...@noqsi.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Madhusudan Singh wrote:
I don't think it is a matter of skill.
I am an engineer / scientist who is interested in what *works*.
So am I. That's exactly why I find gEDA so
On Apr 24, 2010, at 7:16 PM, Madhusudan Singh wrote:
Failure to correspond to your prejudices is not imperfection.
Needing an extra 20 minutes after wiring the net, to populate spice
models for each gschem schematic (instead of having a set of default
libraries that do that for
On 22/04/10 16:09, al davis wrote:
I find it somewhat ironic that penguindevelopment.org doesn't
seem to understand the concept.
Eh? I understand it perfectly well. The thing is, though, that sometimes
it is simply not practical to use FLOSS when you need a feature right
away that simply isn't
On Friday 23 April 2010, Link wrote:
Eh?
Suppose you had instead said:
===
.. I suggest
using Eagle through Darwine. In my personal experience,
Eagle is a lot better than geda, and
it is definitely an easier workflow.
===
Is this any different?
No.
hey im new to using the gEDA suit as well.
but i suggest you look at the following links so that
you better understand the gEDA tools and their limitations.
gEDA tools docs
http://geda.seul.org/wiki/geda:documentation
tutorial using gschem:
http://geda.seul.org/wiki/geda:gsch2pcb_tutorial
gEDA
On 22/04/10 07:26, Madhusudan Singh wrote:
Hello,
I am not new (though a tad rusty) to spice, or the usual design
process. Years ago, I went through an analog circuit design, followed
by a VLSI design class that involved the use of H-Spice, Mentor
Graphics and Cadence
On Apr 21, 2010, at 11:26 PM, Madhusudan Singh wrote:
Basically, I need to painfully enter all the parameters for a 741 !
No, basically you need to find some manufacturer's model file. gEDA can't
include those for legal reasons, but even the expensive commercial packages
that include models
On Thursday 22 April 2010, Link wrote:
However, if you want a quick, graphical SPICE, I suggest
using LTSpice through Darwine. In my personal experience,
LTSpice's simulator is a lot better than ngspice/gnucap, and
it is definitely an easier workflow than
gschem-gattrib-gnetlist-ngspice
Your real problem seems to be that you don't have to any opamp models.
You can either:
1) Get the manufacturer's model, which may have to be modified to work
in your simulator
2) Get spicelib from http://github.com/werner2101/spicelib . It will
download a large number of models from the vendors
Thanks to everyone who responded.
Just so that everyone is clear, I understand and appreciate the amount
of work that has likely gone into geda. I have authored two smaller,
unrelated LGPL projects myself and would never mock anyone for doing
this.
A couple of people have
On Apr 22, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Madhusudan Singh wrote:
Now, if I could use a library that came with properly defined symbols
(instead of just empty pretty pictures that they are right now), I
could see the utility of doing this.
A common complaint. But when you look deeper you find that
On Apr 22, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Madhusudan Singh wrote:
As to the respondent who said that gschem is useful because it creates
the net that gnetlist can use to generate the netlist, I am sorry to
say that you are missing the bigger picture in the workflow. The way my
initial experience
On Apr 22, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Madhusudan Singh wrote:
Do these libraries bind the attributes to the symbols (so that I do not
have to do any post-gschem drawing and pre-gnetlist work) ?
No. gnetlist cannot read your mind. It doesn't know which model you intend to
use for your opamp, for
On Apr 22, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Madhusudan Singh wrote:
And to the respondent who said that GUIs are not necessarily faster
than typing it by hand, I would have to disagree. I am hazarding a
guess that you have not used Design Architect (and yes, I have timed
the two approaches in the
On Apr 22, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Madhusudan Singh wrote:
And to the respondent who said that GUIs are not necessarily faster
than typing it by hand,
Type by hand? No! Write build rules once, use them many times. Don't click
through the procedure repeatedly...
John Doty Noqsi
I think most people end up building a small library of gschem symbols
that they use. If they work with Spice a lot, the symbols will include
the references to the necessary spice models. Once they have that work
of creating models complete, then it's just a matter of arranging
That was really uncalled for.
I was talking about symbol definitions, and not gnetlist.
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:48 AM, John Doty [1]...@noqsi.com wrote:
On Apr 22, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Madhusudan Singh wrote:
Do these libraries bind the attributes to the symbols (so that I do
On Apr 22, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Madhusudan Singh wrote:
That was really uncalled for.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
I was talking about symbol definitions, and not gnetlist.
They are deeply connected. The symbol definition depends on the downstream
flow, and gnetlist is a major agent of
On Apr 22, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Madhusudan Singh wrote:
That was really uncalled for.
Don't take it too hard; Most things that he posts to this list are uncalled for.
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
Hello,
I am not new (though a tad rusty) to spice, or the usual design
process. Years ago, I went through an analog circuit design, followed
by a VLSI design class that involved the use of H-Spice, Mentor
Graphics and Cadence software, basically Design Architect, (Modelsim
for
I think you use it for, you know, schematic entry when you're actually
like, you know, designing a PCB.
-tc
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Madhusudan Singh
singh.madhusu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I am not new (though a tad rusty) to spice, or the usual design
process. Years ago, I
60 matches
Mail list logo
