These SIMS are indeed just tools....& powerful ones at that. What does trouble me is the differing results from one sim to the next. How does an Author "tweak" the program to get these differences? In the case of loudspeaker enclosure simulations, are we to assume we cannot make a completely sealed BR box?
As tools they are another step in making things easier & more accurate. Not a good idea you say? OK, let us take away your calculator, further, let us take away your slide-rule, no? How about your writing implement...wanna scratch out your formulas on a rock face with a piece of charcoal?
I'm sure it has indeed literally saved lives....the poor sleepy guy trying to redo his HV PS for his tube-amp, for the fourth time in the day........ZZot!
The itch to 'actually' build will overwhelm the prolific "Simulatarion" eventually.
___________________________________________________Rick..........
As tools they are another step in making things easier & more accurate. Not a good idea you say? OK, let us take away your calculator, further, let us take away your slide-rule, no? How about your writing implement...wanna scratch out your formulas on a rock face with a piece of charcoal?
I'm sure it has indeed literally saved lives....the poor sleepy guy trying to redo his HV PS for his tube-amp, for the fourth time in the day........ZZot!
The itch to 'actually' build will overwhelm the prolific "Simulatarion" eventually.
___________________________________________________Rick..........
Last edited:
I found spice good for simulating an LCC SMPS.
I started by building the SMPS, switched it on and it blew up.
I then did a simulation and I was pushing through a silly amount of amps through the mosfets.
I changed the transformer in the simulation for more inductance and zero gap and the current came down. I switched on the SPMS and this time it behaved and took about as much current as the simulation said it should.
Its cheaper to blow up a simulated set of mosfets than it is real ones.
I started by building the SMPS, switched it on and it blew up.
I then did a simulation and I was pushing through a silly amount of amps through the mosfets.
I changed the transformer in the simulation for more inductance and zero gap and the current came down. I switched on the SPMS and this time it behaved and took about as much current as the simulation said it should.
Its cheaper to blow up a simulated set of mosfets than it is real ones.
I have been using LT spice since it was introduced. Given good models it is quite reliable at identifying things that don't work. It can be over optimistic with distortion figures in tube amps, and sometimes it will give you good results on a circuit that has no hope of working when built.
Some of the models recently posted in the models thread are quite good. I have designed a screen drive amp, a dual drive amp, and a cathode driven amp all with 13GB5's and the built and tested results matched quite well.
I am now designing a bench power supply to replace the 6 different supplies that I currently use to develop tube amps. Do you really know how to make an adjustable current limiter for a 750 volt 2 amp power supply without simulation.....I don't. Even if I did, I would have used up all my $10 mosfets by now. For now, I can simulate blown fets....it's far cheaper.
Some of the models recently posted in the models thread are quite good. I have designed a screen drive amp, a dual drive amp, and a cathode driven amp all with 13GB5's and the built and tested results matched quite well.
I am now designing a bench power supply to replace the 6 different supplies that I currently use to develop tube amps. Do you really know how to make an adjustable current limiter for a 750 volt 2 amp power supply without simulation.....I don't. Even if I did, I would have used up all my $10 mosfets by now. For now, I can simulate blown fets....it's far cheaper.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.