Help Choosing a Simulator - LTspice, QSPICE or TINA-TI

[JJ_023]

Thus a LED might illuminate, but not brightly.

Confirmed. A modern high-efficiency LED illuminates dimly, on the adjacent strip only. Older LEDs don't illuminate.

You never answered my question.  Would a decoupling capacitor cause the neon light to go out?

[tggzzz]

Thank you for such an elaborate response.

So I googled your power supply and watched a video on it.  It's basically used for testing all sorts of lightbulbs.  It also has a continuity feature.  How does it work I didn't see a ground clip?  It talks about holding one end in hand  so I assume the person completes the circuit?

You're welcome. It is a pleasure to someone that asks questions and thinks about the responses

The TIS1040 is indeed.... a weird curiosity. It appears to rely on several "abnormal" effects that won't be seen by the lamps in normal operation. It seems to be a simple very quick and dirty tool that electricians can use in the field as a go-no-go tester. However, its reliability is unclear to me; certainly it doesn't always give the results I would hope and expect. I've only got it since it came as part of a job-lot of useful stuff!.

[tggzzz]

Thus a LED might illuminate, but not brightly.

Confirmed. A modern high-efficiency LED illuminates dimly, on the adjacent strip only. Older LEDs don't illuminate.

You never answered my question.  Would a decoupling capacitor cause the neon light to go out?

I would expect so. But the capacitor would have to be between the appropriate nodes, and there are several parasitic elements around there, so perhaps not.

It might well be an example where a theoretical model is so simple it does not adequately represent the physical circuit.

[JJ_023]

Thank you for such an elaborate response.

So I googled your power supply and watched a video on it.  It's basically used for testing all sorts of lightbulbs.  It also has a continuity feature.  How does it work I didn't see a ground clip?  It talks about holding one end in hand  so I assume the person completes the circuit?

You're welcome. It is a pleasure to someone that asks questions and thinks about the responses

The TIS1040 is indeed.... a weird curiosity. It appears to rely on several "abnormal" effects that won't be seen by the lamps in normal operation. It seems to be a simple very quick and dirty tool that electricians can use in the field as a go-no-go tester. However, its reliability is unclear to me; certainly it doesn't always give the results I would hope and expect. I've only got it since it came as part of a job-lot of useful stuff!.

I was hoping you would tell me how it works? lol

[JJ_023]

Thus a LED might illuminate, but not brightly.

Confirmed. A modern high-efficiency LED illuminates dimly, on the adjacent strip only. Older LEDs don't illuminate.

You never answered my question.  Would a decoupling capacitor cause the neon light to go out?

I would expect so. But the capacitor would have to be between the appropriate nodes, and there are several parasitic elements around there, so perhaps not.

It might well be an example where a theoretical model is so simple it does not adequately represent the physical circuit.

So I understand your response.  My interpretation of your response was that it would be very difficult to model in a simulator. 

I guess one would have to take proper measurements of the breadboard to understand the capacitance and Inductance associated with it to then be able to model that particular circuit.  Is that a correct assumption?

If my assumption is correct then you might as well just build the circuit and figure out the specifics in a real-world model which you are trying to develop anyway.

[RoGeorge]

The good part about breadboard is that the parasitic R and L and C values are usually small enough, such that most of the time those unwanted effects can be neglected.

When it comes to high impedance circuits (megaohm range or more), or to high frequency (MHz range or more), then a 0.5pF between 2 nearby columns in a breadboard might influence the circuit too much, so a breadbord construction won't work very well (or won't work at all).

The good side is that there are plenty of other circuits left to try on a breadboard:  DC, audio, microcontrollers, learning the basics of electronics, etc.

About breadboard builds, there is a much bigger danger than parasitic capacitance:  Circuits on a breadboard have the tendency to become permanent.  After a while, one might end up with a just bunch of breadboards stuffed with components, and no nicely finished projects.

If all your breadboards are full, that's the sign , don't buy more breadboards! 


In the same category of pitfalls, while simulation is a very useful and powerful tool, it may sink a lot of time.  One might easily spend hours and hours fiddling with a simulation (which might not even correspond good enough with the reality), instead of just soldering the darn thing on a copper clad.  After all, the best physics simulator ever is the Universe itself.

At the end of the day, might be more rewarding to have a soldered circuit that doesn't work (because that still feels like you've built something), than to have a simulated circuit that works, yet it was not put in practice.


My point is, while breadboards and simulators might come very handy, there is a tendency to overuse/abuse them.  That will waste a lot of time, and at the end of the day you still won't have the wanted circuit for real, in a nice enclosure.

Simulate only small portions of a circuit, those portions about which there is doubt, then also breadboard/prototype that small part of the circuit, to double check the simulation results.  Then make it for real, don't skip this last part.

[tggzzz]

Thus a LED might illuminate, but not brightly.

Confirmed. A modern high-efficiency LED illuminates dimly, on the adjacent strip only. Older LEDs don't illuminate.

You never answered my question.  Would a decoupling capacitor cause the neon light to go out?

I would expect so. But the capacitor would have to be between the appropriate nodes, and there are several parasitic elements around there, so perhaps not.

It might well be an example where a theoretical model is so simple it does not adequately represent the physical circuit.

So I understand your response.  My interpretation of your response was that it would be very difficult to model in a simulator. 

I guess one would have to take proper measurements of the breadboard to understand the capacitance and Inductance associated with it to then be able to model that particular circuit.  Is that a correct assumption?

If my assumption is correct then you might as well just build the circuit and figure out the specifics in a real-world model which you are trying to develop anyway.

A simulation will show you the response of whatever you model, of course The more complex the model, the more realistic the results (in general!). One thing I sometimes do is add "extra" components to a circuit model, and use a simulator to see how much they change the behaviour. Hopefully realistic values don't change its behaviour too much.

It is an example of the "all models are false, but some are useful" aphorism. There are many such models, e.g. the concept of "ground" or "earth". Knowing when a model is useful and when it fails requires experience, skill, and good judgement. Sometimes knowing where they fail allows components to be used to good effect in circuits with surprisingly good performance. There are some examples of that in TAoE and TAoE x-Chapters

If you think about it, simplified models are everywhere and the abstractions allow analysis of circuits. When modelling a computer program, you don't worry about logic gates. When modelling a digital computer's logic gates, you don't worry about voltage levels. When modelling voltage levels, you don't worry about electrons. When modelling electrons, you don't worry about electromagnetic fields. But if you violate the applicability of the lower level models, the higher level operation won't be what you expect. Violate "signal integrity" and the logic will "misbehave". And then there's planar microwave circuits, where shaped conductors are filters and power is transmitted by EM fields guided by the currents produced by the EM fields. Or undersea power grid connections where DC is used since it is less lossy than AC.

Personally I prefer to recommend to beginners that they adopt (construction) techniques that show fewer "strange" problems and are more likely to be succesful.

[tggzzz]

The good part about breadboard is that the parasitic R and L and C values are usually small enough, such that most of the time those unwanted effects can be neglected.

When it comes to high impedance circuits (megaohm range or more), or to high frequency (MHz range or more), then a 0.5pF between 2 nearby columns in a breadboard might influence the circuit too much, so a breadbord construction won't work very well (or won't work at all).

The good side is that there are plenty of other circuits left to try on a breadboard:  DC, audio, microcontrollers, learning the basics of electronics, etc.

Except where those parasitic values aren't too small and do affect the operation. Every digital logic circuit is an RF circuit. Workstations started "doing arithmetic in the FM band" back in the 80s. Modern MCUs do the same in the UHF band, and the stunning advances in ADCs and DACs mean they are computing in at microwave frequencies.

Parasitic capacitance isn't usually a problem for MCUs and logic gates, but parasitic resistance can be and parasitic inductance is a killer. The latter is true even with ICs on PCBs; some TTL/CMOS buffers in the late 80s gained a very bad reputation because of that. Nowadays big complex logic devices come with IBIS models of the package. (IBIS contains RLC models of the bits between the silicon and the PCB).

Somewhere I've got a picture of a BGA IC with many many wires that could be connected to a breadboard. Nobody in their right minds does that

About breadboard builds, there is a much bigger danger than parasitic capacitance:  Circuits on a breadboard have the tendency to become permanent.  After a while, one might end up with a just bunch of breadboards stuffed with components, and no nicely finished projects.

If all your breadboards are full, that's the sign , don't buy more breadboards! 

It isn't so much a problem with solderless breadboards. That problem is cured when you sneeze or drop the circuit or bruch against wires when storing/retrieving the circuit.

It is more a problem with manhattan prototyping, but all you have to do is pull another piece of double-sided copperclad board from the cupboard, and polish off the tarnish

In the same category of pitfalls, while simulation is a very useful and powerful tool, it may sink a lot of time.  One might easily spend hours and hours fiddling with a simulation (which might not even correspond good enough with the reality), instead of just soldering the darn thing on a copper clad.  After all, the best physics simulator ever is the Universe itself.

At the end of the day, might be more rewarding to have a soldered circuit that doesn't work (because that still feels like you've built something), than to have a simulated circuit that works, yet it was not put in practice.

Yes and yes. But it is even better to have avoided easily avoidable problems, and to have a working circuit.

My point is, while breadboards and simulators might come very handy, there is a tendency to overuse/abuse them.  That will waste a lot of time, and at the end of the day you still won't have the wanted circuit for real, in a nice enclosure.

Simulate only small portions of a circuit, those portions about which there is doubt, then also breadboard/prototype that small part of the circuit, to double check the simulation results.  Then make it for real, don't skip this last part.

Yes and yes. "All models are false, but some are useful"

Good taste is required to know which tool to use/avoid, and to get successful outcomes.

[JJ_023]

The good part about breadboard is that the parasitic R and L and C values are usually small enough, such that most of the time those unwanted effects can be neglected.

When it comes to high impedance circuits (megaohm range or more), or to high frequency (MHz range or more), then a 0.5pF between 2 nearby columns in a breadboard might influence the circuit too much, so a breadbord construction won't work very well (or won't work at all).

The good side is that there are plenty of other circuits left to try on a breadboard:  DC, audio, microcontrollers, learning the basics of electronics, etc.

About breadboard builds, there is a much bigger danger than parasitic capacitance:  Circuits on a breadboard have the tendency to become permanent.  After a while, one might end up with a just bunch of breadboards stuffed with components, and no nicely finished projects.

If all your breadboards are full, that's the sign , don't buy more breadboards! 


In the same category of pitfalls, while simulation is a very useful and powerful tool, it may sink a lot of time.  One might easily spend hours and hours fiddling with a simulation (which might not even correspond good enough with the reality), instead of just soldering the darn thing on a copper clad.  After all, the best physics simulator ever is the Universe itself.

At the end of the day, might be more rewarding to have a soldered circuit that doesn't work (because that still feels like you've built something), than to have a simulated circuit that works, yet it was not put in practice.


My point is, while breadboards and simulators might come very handy, there is a tendency to overuse/abuse them.  That will waste a lot of time, and at the end of the day you still won't have the wanted circuit for real, in a nice enclosure.

Simulate only small portions of a circuit, those portions about which there is doubt, then also breadboard/prototype that small part of the circuit, to double check the simulation results.  Then make it for real, don't skip this last part.

All my bread boards are cleaned after every experiment. 

One of the things I found helpful about simulators is when doing node analysis or KVL or KCL I can make up some weird circuits with resistors and then by hand calculate what is expected and then use the simulator to check my results.  I found this type of experimentation on a Simulator a lot easier then a breadboard.

I am pretty decent at soldering and have a decent soldering iron and most importantly I feel comfortable doing it.

What is your preferred methodology when playing around with components and building nonpermanent test circuits?  (besides breadboard)

[JJ_023]

Thus a LED might illuminate, but not brightly.

Confirmed. A modern high-efficiency LED illuminates dimly, on the adjacent strip only. Older LEDs don't illuminate.

You never answered my question.  Would a decoupling capacitor cause the neon light to go out?

I would expect so. But the capacitor would have to be between the appropriate nodes, and there are several parasitic elements around there, so perhaps not.

It might well be an example where a theoretical model is so simple it does not adequately represent the physical circuit.

So I understand your response.  My interpretation of your response was that it would be very difficult to model in a simulator. 

I guess one would have to take proper measurements of the breadboard to understand the capacitance and Inductance associated with it to then be able to model that particular circuit.  Is that a correct assumption?

If my assumption is correct then you might as well just build the circuit and figure out the specifics in a real-world model which you are trying to develop anyway.

A simulation will show you the response of whatever you model, of course The more complex the model, the more realistic the results (in general!). One thing I sometimes do is add "extra" components to a circuit model, and use a simulator to see how much they change the behaviour. Hopefully realistic values don't change its behaviour too much.

It is an example of the "all models are false, but some are useful" aphorism. There are many such models, e.g. the concept of "ground" or "earth". Knowing when a model is useful and when it fails requires experience, skill, and good judgement. Sometimes knowing where they fail allows components to be used to good effect in circuits with surprisingly good performance. There are some examples of that in TAoE and TAoE x-Chapters

If you think about it, simplified models are everywhere and the abstractions allow analysis of circuits. When modelling a computer program, you don't worry about logic gates. When modelling a digital computer's logic gates, you don't worry about voltage levels. When modelling voltage levels, you don't worry about electrons. When modelling electrons, you don't worry about electromagnetic fields. But if you violate the applicability of the lower level models, the higher level operation won't be what you expect. Violate "signal integrity" and the logic will "misbehave". And then there's planar microwave circuits, where shaped conductors are filters and power is transmitted by EM fields guided by the currents produced by the EM fields. Or undersea power grid connections where DC is used since it is less lossy than AC.

Personally I prefer to recommend to beginners that they adopt (construction) techniques that show fewer "strange" problems and are more likely to be succesful.

I own a copy of the art of electronics.  I think it is a great reference book but a terrible book for learning electronics.  I found much better books for understanding the fundamentals.  That is just my opinion however.  I think down the road as my knowledge increases then the art of electronics will start to be more appreciated.

I have read numerous posts by you in regards to breadboards.  I also highly value your opinion on a lot of things that you shared with me in response to my current and past posts.  I understand all the negatives that you describe about Breadboards but as a beginner I still find them useful on occasion.  I think I will always find them useful for basic stuff.  The value that I got from your posts was to be aware of their pitfalls and limitations and to keep them in mind when dealing with breadboards.  I also realized that there are Bread boards that are better than others, which my intuition told me would be the case but now at least I know in which direction to look for better breadboards.

[JJ_023]

Parasitic capacitance isn't usually a problem for MCUs and logic gates, but parasitic resistance can be and parasitic inductance is a killer. The latter is true even with ICs on PCBs; some TTL/CMOS buffers in the late 80s gained a very bad reputation because of that. Nowadays big complex logic devices come with IBIS models of the package. (IBIS contains RLC models of the bits between the silicon and the PCB).

Could you please elaborate on this statement.  Especially on the parasitic inductance.  I understand how parasitic inductance at higher frequencies affects capacitors but I am looking to learn more.

[tggzzz]

I own a copy of the art of electronics.  I think it is a great reference book but a terrible book for learning electronics.  I found much better books for understanding the fundamentals.  That is just my opinion however.  I think down the road as my knowledge increases then the art of electronics will start to be more appreciated.

I think that is exactly right.

TAoE is good for someone that already understands the fundamentals and has built some basic circuits - and now wants to expand their repertoire of techniques. In other words, someone who had completed a degree course (or equivalent) and now wants to put that knowledge into practice in industrial settings.

I have read numerous posts by you in regards to breadboards.  I also highly value your opinion on a lot of things that you shared with me in response to my current and past posts.  I understand all the negatives that you describe about Breadboards but as a beginner I still find them useful on occasion.  I think I will always find them useful for basic stuff.  The value that I got from your posts was to be aware of their pitfalls and limitations and to keep them in mind when dealing with breadboards.  I also realized that there are Bread boards that are better than others, which my intuition told me would be the case but now at least I know in which direction to look for better breadboards.

That's fine. I always say pick and choose the appropriate combination of techniques for the job at hand. All techniques have their downsides.

[vk6zgo]

Can't say anything about another two, but LTSPICE is awful - these guys have no understanding of the term ergonomics, and software appears to be designed for IBM System/360 and to be used with light pen and keyboard - absolutely not mouse friendly. Not mentioning that resistors are in zigzag shape and many common components are missing right out the box (triacs, for example) and you have to search, download and install separately.

Also, it does not considers limit of the components - say, if using some DC-DC boost converter, which can only work at 5V input and 2A current, it will simulate it working at 100V input voltage and 100A output current (as example) and won't give any errors.

As a nasty old man, I really dislike LTSpice.

It was not always so, but after downloading it & trying to simulate quite basic circuitry, I found it incredibly non-intuitive.
Another "niggle" is its habit of showing ac sources using a classic DC generator symbol.

I decided I don't have enough years of life left to learn how to use something I would probably use once or twice, so didn't bother anymore.

Meanwhile, I kept seeing a parade of Noobs in the Beginner's section asking "Why doesn't this work in real life when it does on LTSpice?"

A classic was the person who thought they were making a "Tuned Radio Frequency" radio receiver.
To this end, they used a standard Op Amp circuit with negative feedback from output to input, then put LC tuned circuits at input & output.
LT Spice assumed that the two LC networks were perfectly identical & tuned in step over the required range, so all would be well.
In the real world, that was not the case, so there was enough phase shift to turn the NFB to positive feedback, creating an oscillator.


Similar questions popped up regularly for some years, with in some cases, the "Noobs" being so "wedded to" LT Spice that they would argue with those trying to point out its limitations.

[tatel]

One of the things I found helpful about simulators is when doing node analysis or KVL or KCL I can make up some weird circuits with resistors and then by hand calculate what is expected and then use the simulator to check my results

I'm doing just that right now. It's my first contact with a simulator. Since I'm on Linux the obvious option for me is ngspice. More so because I'm planning to use Kicad in the future.

I see you don't list ngspice among your options, yet it's a simulator that looks as having good user base and developing at good pace. https://ngspice.sourceforge.io/news.html

I would like to know why you don't consider using it

[JJ_023]

One of the things I found helpful about simulators is when doing node analysis or KVL or KCL I can make up some weird circuits with resistors and then by hand calculate what is expected and then use the simulator to check my results

I'm doing just that right now. It's my first contact with a simulator. Since I'm on Linux the obvious option for me is ngspice. More so because I'm planning to use Kicad in the future.

I see you don't list ngspice among your options, yet it's a simulator that looks as having good user base and developing at good pace. https://ngspice.sourceforge.io/news.html

I would like to know why you don't consider using it

I use KiCAD.  I've never really heard of NGSPICE.  I will check it out.  Thank you. 

[RoGeorge]

...
resistors are in zigzag shape
...
components are missing right out the box (triacs, for example) and you have to search, download and install separately.
...
Also, it does not considers limit of the components
...

...
Another "niggle" is its habit of showing ac sources using a classic DC generator symbol.
...
LT Spice assumed that the two LC networks were perfectly identical

- squared shaped symbol for resistor is in [Misc] directory, named 'EuropeanResistor'
- triac symbol is in [Misc] directory, named 'TRIAC', comes with the default install



- components limits are included in the model, not in LTspice itself.  So if we chose, say a model of transistor that simulates the reversed breakdown voltages, LTspice will consider those limits, too.  This is an example of a 2N3904 with breakdown:



The upper plot is without breakdown voltages included.  The second plot is for the same type of transistor, just that the model now includes breakdown voltages.  The model 2N3904 is included in LTspice by default, but BD3904_BD is not.  Second one is from Bordodynov's library.

First thing after installing LTspice would be to add the Bordodynov's library, see https://ltwiki.org/?title=Components_Library_and_Circuits.  That library includes many additional models, components and symbols.  Apart from models and symbols, Bordodynov's library has many interesting circuits and examples, too.

Anyway, the main idea with simulators, in general, is to see how a schematic works, not how it breaks.  Most models won't include breakdown condition, unless the breakdown is essential for normal functioning (like in a Zener diode).

- the other symbol for AC sources is just like the other "missing" symbols, in the [Misc] category, named 'signal'
- in LTspice, the values are exact, so 2 LC with the same values for L and C will be identical.  Same, 2 transistors of the same model will be perfectly identical.  When needed, deviations can be specified manually different ways.


Not trying to convince anybody to use something they don't like.  Writing all these when I see such posts (deterring from using LTspice or other simulators), because no longer than a few decades ago I've read an article from Bob Pease, where he was ranting against simulators.  That rant article, plus the quote "My favorite programming language is soldering", made me to avoid/disregard simulators and programming.

Both of those ideas turned out to be a damaging advice for me.  I was a kiddo back then, and took that rant as a must-follow life-guideline.  Took me years to realize it's the contrary:   both simulation and programming are not something to stay away from.  The hardest prison to escape is the cage of our own mind.

As anything else, simulation has its limitations, traps and disadvantages.  But overall, simulation can be very helpful.  Of course, the ultimate test is to put the ideas in practice and build the physical circuit, nothing can beat the joy of doing that. 

[watchmaker]

I own a copy of the art of electronics.  I think it is a great reference book but a terrible book for learning electronics.  I found much better books for understanding the fundamentals.  That is just my opinion however.  I think down the road as my knowledge increases then the art of electronics will start to be more appreciated.

I have read numerous posts by you in regards to breadboards.  I also highly value your opinion on a lot of things that you shared with me in response to my current and past posts.  I understand all the negatives that you describe about Breadboards but as a beginner I still find them useful on occasion.  I think I will always find them useful for basic stuff.  The value that I got from your posts was to be aware of their pitfalls and limitations and to keep them in mind when dealing with breadboards.  I also realized that there are Bread boards that are better than others, which my intuition told me would be the case but now at least I know in which direction to look for better breadboards.

Art of Electronics was one of the first books I purchased.  I agree with you entirely, it is a great reference but it is not a path to LEARNING.  Another better book for those of us starting out is Practical Electronics for Inventors by Sherz et al:  https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1259587541/

I also echo the cautions and alternatives to breadboards.  But they provide a beginner with an easy way to learn the methods of DC ckt analysis which is such a critical foundation.  I understand that as I progress, their limitations and artifacts will diminish their utiity.

OTOH, most of our first ones are cheap (I ordered one from Assembly Specialists who make the 3m) and the cheap ones make great storage for op amps, regulators, and such.

[tggzzz]

Not trying to convince anybody to use something they don't like.  Writing all these when I see such posts (deterring from using LTspice or other simulators), because no longer than a few decades ago I've read an article from Bob Pease, where he was ranting against simulators.  That rant article, plus the quote "My favorite programming language is soldering", made me to avoid/disregard simulators and programming.

Both of those ideas turned out to be a damaging advice for me.  I was a kiddo back then, and took that rant as a must-follow life-guideline.  Took me years to realize it's the contrary:   both simulation and programming are not something to stay away from.  The hardest prison to escape is the cage of our own mind.

As anything else, simulation has its limitations, traps and disadvantages.  But overall, simulation can be very helpful.  Of course, the ultimate test is to put the ideas in practice and build the physical circuit, nothing can beat the joy of doing that. 

Exactly.

Use one tool's advantages where another tool's disadvantages are too limiting. That's a principal engineering skill!

Nobody in this thread has mentioned other types of analogue simulators, e.g. harmonic balance simulators and electromagnetic field simulators. Both are necessary for the  phenomena that SPICE simulators don't address.

(And perhaps a slightly different URL? https://ltwiki.org/index.php?title=Components_Library_and_Circuits )

[tggzzz]

I also echo the cautions and alternatives to breadboards.  But they provide a beginner with an easy way to learn the methods of DC ckt analysis which is such a critical foundation.  I understand that as I progress, their limitations and artifacts will diminish their utiity.

OTOH, most of our first ones are cheap (I ordered one from Assembly Specialists who make the 3m) and the cheap ones make great storage for op amps, regulators, and such.

Oooh! I hadn't thought of that

Might be slightly better (w.r.t. ESD) if each row is connected to all the other rows.

[Ian.M]

LTspice requires you to use your brain because it doesn't have all the UI 'bells and whistles' and in circuit animated displays and alerts some other simulators offer.  This is generally good for both you and your design though it does make the initial learning curve a bit steeper.

e.g. you should have a pretty good idea which parts of your circuit are likely to be pushing their dissipation limits, so rather than looking at the schematic to see which parts are e.g. flashing red in a simulator that alerts you to such things, you Alt-click a part to see its instantaneous power (dissipation) in the waveform viewer, then for pulsed power, zoom it to an appropriate timescale (e.g. one of the pulse lines on its datasheet SOA or thermal response charts), autorange the Y axis if any part of the trace is off-screen, then Ctrl-click the trace legend to see the average power and integral.  If you then need repeatable numbers for a report or to validate changes you make, set up a .measure statement to calculate the integral of the instantaneous power between two time limits.

[JJ_023]

I own a copy of the art of electronics.  I think it is a great reference book but a terrible book for learning electronics.  I found much better books for understanding the fundamentals.  That is just my opinion however.  I think down the road as my knowledge increases then the art of electronics will start to be more appreciated.

I have read numerous posts by you in regards to breadboards.  I also highly value your opinion on a lot of things that you shared with me in response to my current and past posts.  I understand all the negatives that you describe about Breadboards but as a beginner I still find them useful on occasion.  I think I will always find them useful for basic stuff.  The value that I got from your posts was to be aware of their pitfalls and limitations and to keep them in mind when dealing with breadboards.  I also realized that there are Bread boards that are better than others, which my intuition told me would be the case but now at least I know in which direction to look for better breadboards.

Art of Electronics was one of the first books I purchased.  I agree with you entirely, it is a great reference but it is not a path to LEARNING.  Another better book for those of us starting out is Practical Electronics for Inventors by Sherz et al:  https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1259587541/

I also echo the cautions and alternatives to breadboards.  But they provide a beginner with an easy way to learn the methods of DC ckt analysis which is such a critical foundation.  I understand that as I progress, their limitations and artifacts will diminish their utiity.

OTOH, most of our first ones are cheap (I ordered one from Assembly Specialists who make the 3m) and the cheap ones make great storage for op amps, regulators, and such.

Thank you for the book recommendation I will check it out.

[JJ_023]

LTspice requires you to use your brain because it doesn't have all the UI 'bells and whistles' and in circuit animated displays and alerts some other simulators offer.  This is generally good for both you and your design though it does make the initial learning curve a bit steeper.

e.g. you should have a pretty good idea which parts of your circuit are likely to be pushing their dissipation limits, so rather than looking at the schematic to see which parts are e.g. flashing red in a simulator that alerts you to such things, you Alt-click a part to see its instantaneous power (dissipation) in the waveform viewer, then for pulsed power, zoom it to an appropriate timescale (e.g. one of the pulse lines on its datasheet SOA or thermal response charts), autorange the Y axis if any part of the trace is off-screen, then Ctrl-click the trace legend to see the average power and integral.  If you then need repeatable numbers for a report or to validate changes you make, set up a .measure statement to calculate the integral of the instantaneous power between two time limits.

Thank you for the tips.  I will have to play around with them as I am unfamiliar with most of what you wrote.

[metebalci]

TI also offers PSpice for TI, and particularly for new ICs I do not always see TINA-TI models. I wonder if they plan to discontinue TINA-TI or plan to support it only for a limited set of products. I know it is easy to add a PSpice model to TINA but still I find it strange some products do not have a ready-to-use model out of the box for TINA-TI.

[tipa]

Hello, watchmaker! I am a Multisim fanatic. Therefore, I recommend this program. But not the online version, but the stationary one. I have the 'cracked' version 14.2.0. It's been working fine for 4 years now. Full of all sorts of 'twists' and sliders. Good animation, in interactive mode everything can be adjusted on the fly

[Zero999]

Can't say anything about another two, but LTSPICE is awful - these guys have no understanding of the term ergonomics, and software appears to be designed for IBM System/360 and to be used with light pen and keyboard - absolutely not mouse friendly. Not mentioning that resistors are in zigzag shape and many common components are missing right out the box (triacs, for example) and you have to search, download and install separately.

Also, it does not considers limit of the components - say, if using some DC-DC boost converter, which can only work at 5V input and 2A current, it will simulate it working at 100V input voltage and 100A output current (as example) and won't give any errors.

As a nasty old man, I really dislike LTSpice.

It was not always so, but after downloading it & trying to simulate quite basic circuitry, I found it incredibly non-intuitive.
Another "niggle" is its habit of showing ac sources using a classic DC generator symbol.

I decided I don't have enough years of life left to learn how to use something I would probably use once or twice, so didn't bother anymore.

Meanwhile, I kept seeing a parade of Noobs in the Beginner's section asking "Why doesn't this work in real life when it does on LTSpice?"

A classic was the person who thought they were making a "Tuned Radio Frequency" radio receiver.
To this end, they used a standard Op Amp circuit with negative feedback from output to input, then put LC tuned circuits at input & output.
LT Spice assumed that the two LC networks were perfectly identical & tuned in step over the required range, so all would be well.
In the real world, that was not the case, so there was enough phase shift to turn the NFB to positive feedback, creating an oscillator.


Similar questions popped up regularly for some years, with in some cases, the "Noobs" being so "wedded to" LT Spice that they would argue with those trying to point out its limitations.

That pretty much applies to all simulation software to some degree, not just LTSpice. Except the part about the GUI, which a good number of people find unintuitive, but it's not something which I personally struggled with.

This may sound a little elitist, but I often think simulatoers are too easy to use, rather than the reverse. If you had to enter the schematic in the form of a net list, then it would force beginners to learn more about how it works and that it's just performing calculations, rather than magic.