Software for a beginner to design and learn about circuits with?

[Kevin Aylward]

I have not played with your software, but after looking at the screen
shot here http://www.anasoft.co.uk/screenshot.html I've got to say
that surely you must be kidding!

Until you play with it, making a judgment is a bit premature is it not?

You would recommend this to a "beginner"???
Yep.


Look at all those buttons "Sc N I M Ot G Lg D FF P Tx Rr aa ss so PO
DD R G N II ac itf tr fft ff", and what is all that spice stuff in the

Most of then buttons you can ignore, however they have fly overs telling
you what they do.

The buttons you do use are there becuse it makes the program very easy
to use.

R - Runs the simulation
AC - turns on/off an ac run
TR - turns on/off a transient run

etc...

In what way could that be simpler?

Model window?
Geeze, my mind boggles just looking at it all, and I know what it's
all about!

You can ignore the model window. It simple shows what model is attached
to the symbol when you click it. This is useful if you want to edit it.

You seriously expect a "beginner" in electronics to digest all that
and know how to use it effectively?, let alone effectively enough to
actually learn useful practical things?

Yep. He loads in the examples and presses the run button. Everything
will be displayed automatically.

BTW, I'm not bagging your product, so please don't take this as an
insult, I'm sure it's a fine simulator package. I'm just saying that I
wouldn't recommend this to a "beginner" in a blind fit.

I would, because the writer of the software is an analogue designer with
a general interest in passing on knowledge. I dont know of any other
outfits that would guide biginers through aspects not actually directly
related to the software itself, for free.

No doubt
though you'll go tell me to try it... so I'll pre-empt that -P) by
saying the screen is way too "busy" and technical for a beginner.

I disagree. You should have a look at say, visual spice.

SS is set up such that most of what you see can be ignored, however, if
you need to see some finer details, you can. For example, the "N" button
simply pops up the netlist. The "G" button pops up a graphic window.
Graphic windows are opened and closed automatically depending on what
data is available (AC TRAN Noise etc), however, on some rare occasions
one might want to manually open a new one. For example, loading in
existing simulation data set manually.


Of course there is a learning curve with any tool. The learning time for
SS is way less than the real world.

A few people have bagged Electronics Workbench, but at least it is
designed for the beginner types with it's virtual instruments,

Virtual instruments are a bad idea. For example, in EWB you have to keep
breaking and moving wires all the time to look at different voltages and
currents. This is truly a nightmare. In SS you simply move test point
(or click on wires/pins) and the waveforms will change immediately.

Oscilloscopes are way more complicated to use than a simple virtual
graphic display.

simple/drop interface, and hides the technical stuff like spice
commands etc. At least it was like that when I played with the 16bit
version.

SS hides all the spice technicalities in the GUI. You must be using
LTSpice


Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

But that's the whole point. When you blow components up, when you wire
something in backwards, when you read the colour code wrong and goof
up a value, when you short something out, when you use your test
instrument incorrectly, when you load down your circuit, when your
opamp oscillates because the leads are too long, when your LED lights
up, when your speaker buzzes, when your relay clicks, when your
circuit doesn't work and you have to actually troubleshoot it - thats
when you actually LEARN!

Yes, but this is just one/some of the aspects. One does exactly the same
trouble shooting in the virtual world. Sure, there are a few effects
that would not be put into the model by beginners, but so what.
Beginners aren't going to get things perfect anyway.

None of this happens in software, unless you know the traps and
actually program them in! Catch 22?

Beginners need to play with hardware to start out with, not software.

What *actual* real evidence do you have that this is a good way to start
learning circuit practise, other than a gut feeling?

Simulators can come later when you are more advanced and want to play
with the finer details.

I simply don't agree. You have to walk before you can run. Simulators
can get you walking in lesser time with less bother. You simply don't
have to worry about getting all these supplies of parts together.

Simulaters are not restricted to the finer details. Indeed their ability
to use ideal models makes it much easier to get the feel for the core
ideas.

I won't disagree that simulators are useful tools, they are great, and
are very useful for intermeadiate to advanced people.

And absolutly for beginners as well. As noted, I don't disagree in
anyway of what you said about the value of real bench work, my point is
that there are many other of equally useful things to be learned by
beginners using spice. For starters, its so much easier to get something
up and running and plot waveforms. There are many things that it is very
difficult to do in the real world.

As I also noted, its a paradigm shift. One needs to get in step with the
times.

I for one use CircuitMaker 2000 and it's great.


The relevance to beginners?

The relevance of this is that lab work can actually be dispensed with in
real life. We have proof that simulation can, on many occasions, be all
that is needed to make real world designs.

You would trust your life to a pilot that has zero hours in the actual
air?
I wouldn't!

Thats besides the point.

Planes, today, essentially, don't need pilots at all.

I'm not arguing that simulators aren't useful, they are. I'm arguing
that a beginner should not use them until they learn the REAL stuff
first.

My argument is that yes, beginners should, today, be using simulators
from day one in *addition* to doing real bench work. For the most part
it truly makes no difference whether someone wires up transistors on the
bench or on a computer screen. Sure there are a few differences, as we
know, like blowing up devices, but this is irrelevant. *Most* of
electronics can be learned in the virtual world. This is a simple fact.
Your arguing that just because spice is not 100% exact, we shouldnt use
it as a key tool tool. I disagree.


Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[David L. Jones]

Yes, but this is just one/some of the aspects. One does exactly the same
trouble shooting in the virtual world. Sure, there are a few effects
that would not be put into the model by beginners, but so what.
Beginners aren't going to get things perfect anyway.

If they don't get things perfect in a simulator then they can be just
wasting their time driving the software instead of solving a "real
world" problem. Some packages are better or worse at this of course,
but the point is the same.
Anything you do on the breadboard is 100% REAL practical electronics
guaranteed.

software.

What *actual* real evidence do you have that this is a good way to start
learning circuit practise, other than a gut feeling?

You've got to be kidding right?
The question is not whether real hardware is any good - you, me, and
the rest of the real electronics world all learnt on real hardware.
Even you have admitted that one *needs* real practical experience (in
addition to simulators).
The question is whether simulators add any value to real practical
experience. The answer is of course YES, they do add value, anything
involving electronics adds value, even if it's a software simulator. No
one doubts that I'm sure.

Do beginners NEED simulators? The answer is obviously NO. As I said,
you me and the rest of the electronics world didn't need it, so niether
do beginners today.

Should beginners use simulators?
My answer is it's up to them and is purely a personal decision. My
opinion as a practical electronics designer who uses both techniques is
that a beginner should not touch simulators until they have learn the
basics. I do not need to justify that, it's my opinion based on own
experience and that other others I know.

I feel that a beginer will get a better grounding in *practical*
electronics if they use hardware. After all, electronics is a
*practical* field (unless you become a uni lecturer :->) and the end
result is that you have to design something and make it work, more
often than not based on many compromises and overcoming many practical
hurdles that simulators can't or won't show easily.

And absolutly for beginners as well. As noted, I don't disagree in
anyway of what you said about the value of real bench work, my point is
that there are many other of equally useful things to be learned by
beginners using spice. For starters, its so much easier to get something
up and running and plot waveforms. There are many things that it is very
difficult to do in the real world.

Yes, but the real world is what they will have to deal with sooner or
later.

As I also noted, its a paradigm shift. One needs to get in step with the
times.

A lot of people say the same thing about digital design. I shudder
everytime I hear someone recommend that a beginner learn VHDL and
FPGA's because that's the "modern" method. Insane.

The relevance of this is that lab work can actually be dispensed with in
real life. We have proof that simulation can, on many occasions, be all
that is needed to make real world designs.


My argument is that yes, beginners should, today, be using simulators

from day one in *addition* to doing real bench work. For the most part
it truly makes no difference whether someone wires up transistors on the
bench or on a computer screen. Sure there are a few differences, as we
know, like blowing up devices, but this is irrelevant. *Most* of
electronics can be learned in the virtual world. This is a simple fact.
Your arguing that just because spice is not 100% exact, we shouldnt use
it as a key tool tool. I disagree.

Spoken exactly like a Spice software developer *sigh*
I did not say simulators should not be used as key tool, I said they
should not be used by beginners for several reasons:

- They don't teach practical hardware and construction related problems
- They can be confusing to understand and drive, and yes they make
mistakes if you don't drive them correctly.
- They don't give you any real world feedback that makes electronics
FUN. Eg, LEDs don't light, meters don't move, speakers don't beep. To
me that's SAD.

Remember I am talking about complete BEGINNERS here! The ones who have
barely understood ohms law and it's implications and don't know how to
hook up a multimeter, and you want them to drive a simulator??

That's not to say that I don't think *software* is bad for beginners,
the tutorial ones that are purpose designed for beginners look to be
really good although I have not tried them. Proper circuit simulators
(like your one) on the other hand are designed for more advanced users,
they are not designed for beginners. Of course that's just my
opinion...

Regards
Dave

 

[Kevin Aylward]

If they don't get things perfect in a simulator then they can be just
wasting their time driving the software instead of solving a "real
world" problem. Some packages are better or worse at this of course,
but the point is the same.
Anything you do on the breadboard is 100% REAL practical electronics
guaranteed.

But often meaningless. Getting a one off to work on the bench usually
has little value for production purposes. Simulation gets one into the
habit of doing far more variations on circuits that are simple not
practical to do in the real world.

You've got to be kidding right?
No.

The question is not whether real hardware is any good - you, me, and
the rest of the real electronics world all learnt on real hardware.

This is no argument to justify that we still do it that way.

Even you have admitted that one *needs* real practical experience (in
addition to simulators).

That's right.

What I am saying is this. What is the real emperical evidence that those
that learn basics on simulators are worse off than those that learn the
basics on the real thing. Assumptions are not valid. I doubt if any
study has ever been done on this. What I do know is this. 100's of new
graduates go to i.c. design companies and use spice from day one, and
produce viable product, er...sometimes..

The question is whether simulators add any value to real practical
experience. The answer is of course YES, they do add value, anything
involving electronics adds value, even if it's a software simulator.
No one doubts that I'm sure.

Do beginners NEED simulators? The answer is obviously NO. As I said,
you me and the rest of the electronics world didn't need it, so
niether do beginners today.

Do beginners NEED real breadboards. For analogue i.c design, my answer
is a definite no. We don't use bread boards in i.c. design. When they
were used, they were dubious at best.

Should beginners use simulators?

Absolutely yes. The reality is that here are many things you can't do in
the real world. Try running 1000 component variations.

Try making accurate measurements without oscilloscope ground bounce. I
can tell you this, investigating current in components is very difficult
in the real world. Doing so in simulation allows you to *really* see
things that are hidden in a *practical* lab bench.

My answer is it's up to them and is purely a personal decision. My
opinion as a practical electronics designer who uses both techniques
is that a beginner should not touch simulators until they have learn
the basics.

My experience as being both a hobbyist, from age 11 to 20s+ and as both
a pro professional board and i.c. analogue design engineer for over 20
years is that spice is indispensable *today*.

I do not need to justify that, it's my opinion based on
own experience and that other others I know.

For me you do. My experience tells me different. I have spent 10,000's
of hours on the bench and 10,000's of hours on simulators. Both are
usfull, in general, *today*. You cant compete anymore with a bench
"design". i.e. to all intents and purposes.

I feel that a beginer will get a better grounding in *practical*
electronics if they use hardware.

Of course, if beginners use hardware they will get a good grounding just
as they will in using simulators. I am not arguing for an either one or
the other, I am stating that *today* both are required to become an
effective designer. Without using a simulator, you are at a major
disadvantage to these that do. The sooner you get started using a
simulater, the better.

After all, electronics is a
*practical* field (unless you become a uni lecturer :->) and the end
result is that you have to design something and make it work, more
often than not based on many compromises and overcoming many practical
hurdles that simulators can't or won't show easily.

As I said, simulators show 1000's of things that *don't* show up on the
bench until its too late. Absolutely, *more* things show up in a
simulation than can possible be seen on a one off bench suck it and se
design.

Yes, but the real world is what they will have to deal with sooner or
later.

That's why they need simulators. Its called Monty Carlo and Worst Case
for starters. Or for example, try actually trying to measure loop gain
in the real world. Try probing current at any node in a circuit, at any
time. Its a no contest. Its simply not doable in the real world.

A lot of people say the same thing about digital design. I shudder
everytime I hear someone recommend that a beginner learn VHDL and
FPGA's because that's the "modern" method. Insane.

I don't see any problem with this, in principle. There is nothing, other
than speed, that cant be done in software. Who cares about trivial
little gates. We are away beyond that now. Again, just because you
learnt that way, dont mean it is a good way today.

Spoken exactly like a Spice software developer *sigh*

No. See above, i.e Software is only a hobby of mine. I wrote SS because
I personally wanted it to do designs with as an anlogue engineer.

For example, see http://www.anasoft.co.uk/Mospoweramp2.jpg.

This circuit does < 0.001 THD. Evaluating each configuration for its
effect on distortion would have been, essentially, impossible in the
real world. Spice allows every cascode, emitter follower etc to be
examined for their effectiveness in distortion reduction over the whole
frequency range in seconds.

I did not say simulators should not be used as key tool, I said they
should not be used by beginners for several reasons:

- They don't teach practical hardware and construction related
problems

Irrelevant for beginner i.c. designers.

- They can be confusing to understand and drive,

As can the real world.

and yes they make
mistakes if you don't drive them correctly.
- They don't give you any real world feedback that makes electronics
FUN. Eg, LEDs don't light, meters don't move, speakers don't beep. To
me that's SAD.

Not to me

Remember I am talking about complete BEGINNERS here!

I know.

The ones who have
barely understood ohms law and it's implications and don't know how to
hook up a multimeter, and you want them to drive a simulator??

Yes. A simulator is easier. You don't need to hook up meters at all. You
just click on wires and pins. A simulater can give background on what to
expect in the real world.

Again, its a paradigm shift.

That's not to say that I don't think *software* is bad for beginners,
the tutorial ones that are purpose designed for beginners look to be
really good although I have not tried them. Proper circuit simulators
(like your one) on the other hand are designed for more advanced
users, they are not designed for beginners. Of course that's just my
opinion...

I agree that SS is not designed for beginners, but its so easy to use
that beginners should be able to use it with far less instruction than
would be required for them to get a real circuit working.

Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Bob Stephens]

After all, electronics is a
*practical* field (unless you become a uni lecturer :->)

Or a software salesman...

 

[Rich Webb]

Thanks for the advice everyone, it's all been helpful and hopefully I
will be creating something interesting soon enough.

And next time you'll know better than to ask a question to which
*everybody* has a passionate opinion to share... ;-)

 

[mike]

Hi,

I'm interested in learning about circuitry as a hobby and to eventually
create a few small projects that I had in mind, such as guitar pedals
and a few audio devices, but obviously I have to start small.

I'm somewhat competent with programming/mathematics, have some text
books, and I do know a -little- analogue+digital circuit theory, but
I've never had a real hands-on attempt by myself before so I'll be
pretty much attacking this as though I know nothing.

Can anyone recommend some software (free or cheap) that would be good
for a beginner to use to learn about circuit behaviour and design some
circuits with? Are there programs out there that actually allow you to
drop in popular microcontrollers and model their behaviour as well?

Thanks,
Matt.

Wait while I get up on this her soapbox.

Circuit design is the process of turning an idea into an implementation
concept into a bunch of hardware and/or software to realize the idea.

For this you don't need software. You need a BOOK!!!
Go to the library and check out a book on analog circuit design.
Learn about Ohm's law, norton's theorems etc. Learn about rc/lc/rlc
circuits. How to bias a transistor, FET etc. Learn how to do Laplace
transforms. You're rarely gonna do a laplace transform, but the
knowledge of how, gives you great insight into what's gonna happen
when you change a circuit paramaeter or topology. It allows you to pick
component values right out of the air that are very close to what you'll
finally end up with after you fine tune it. It tells you instantly when
you're way off base and need a different approach.
If you need a calculator, you're going too deep. Your objective is to
be able to scratch out a circuit topology, estimate bandwidths, gain,
impedance, signal fidelity etc. Learn about component parasitics.
Unless you're doing audio work, a resistor is not just a resistor. And
it goes downhill from there. Learn how real components have parasitics
and vary relative to their specifications and how to mitigate the impact
of those variations on your objective.

Learn about Fourier transformations betwee time and frequency domains.
Again, you're rarely gonna do one by hand, but knowing how gives you
great insight into topologies and components required to realize your
design.

Now, go back to the library and checkout a book on digital circuit
design. Learn that ALL curcuits are analog and that most digital
problems have to do with the ignored analog characteristics of the
digital simplification. Learn about Karnaugh maps, glitches, races etc.

Now, you know how to design circuits. It's time to start looking at
software to simulate the circuit you've already designed to fine tune
it's parameters and take into consideration the simplifications you used
to design it in your head or with a pencil.

Circuit simulation replaces the tedious VERIFICATION calculations that
we used to do by hand.
It does NOT replace the thought processes needed to design circuits.

You have only to read the archives of this newsgroup to see countless
examples where people stuffed random numbers into a simulator and came
up with something that simulated, but was impractical, unrepeatable,
or just plain sad.

Or you could just try to hire an engineer and learn the same sad fact.
Don't think I've ever asked an engineering candidate how to simulate a
circuit. But I ask 'em all to tell me what an RC time constant is...
and most don't know.

Help me down from this here soapbox...please.
mike

--
Return address is VALID.
500MHz Tek DSOscilloscope TDS540 $2200
http://nm7u.tripod.com/homepage/te.html
Wanted, 12.1" LCD for Gateway Solo 5300. Samsung LT121SU-121
Bunch of stuff For Sale and Wanted at the link below.
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/4710/

 

[David L. Jones]

Wait while I get up on this her soapbox.

Circuit design is the process of turning an idea into an implementation
concept into a bunch of hardware and/or software to realize the idea.

For this you don't need software. You need a BOOK!!!
Go to the library and check out a book on analog circuit design.
Learn about Ohm's law, norton's theorems etc. Learn about rc/lc/rlc
circuits. How to bias a transistor, FET etc. Learn how to do Laplace
transforms. You're rarely gonna do a laplace transform, but the
knowledge of how, gives you great insight into what's gonna happen
when you change a circuit paramaeter or topology. It allows you to pick
component values right out of the air that are very close to what you'll
finally end up with after you fine tune it. It tells you instantly when
you're way off base and need a different approach.
If you need a calculator, you're going too deep. Your objective is to
be able to scratch out a circuit topology, estimate bandwidths, gain,

impedance, signal fidelity etc. Learn about component parasitics.
Unless you're doing audio work, a resistor is not just a resistor. And
it goes downhill from there. Learn how real components have parasitics
and vary relative to their specifications and how to mitigate the impact
of those variations on your objective.

Learn about Fourier transformations betwee time and frequency domains.
Again, you're rarely gonna do one by hand, but knowing how gives you
great insight into topologies and components required to realize your
design.

Now, go back to the library and checkout a book on digital circuit
design. Learn that ALL curcuits are analog and that most digital
problems have to do with the ignored analog characteristics of the
digital simplification. Learn about Karnaugh maps, glitches, races etc.

Now, you know how to design circuits. It's time to start looking at
software to simulate the circuit you've already designed to fine tune
it's parameters and take into consideration the simplifications you used
to design it in your head or with a pencil.

Circuit simulation replaces the tedious VERIFICATION calculations that
we used to do by hand.
It does NOT replace the thought processes needed to design circuits.

You have only to read the archives of this newsgroup to see countless
examples where people stuffed random numbers into a simulator and came
up with something that simulated, but was impractical, unrepeatable,
or just plain sad.

Or you could just try to hire an engineer and learn the same sad fact.
Don't think I've ever asked an engineering candidate how to simulate a
circuit. But I ask 'em all to tell me what an RC time constant is...
and most don't know.

Help me down from this here soapbox...please.
mike

Nicely summed up Mike.

That's exactly why I think simulators should only be used by more
experienced people, once they understand how to design properly and
have a good understanding and gut feel for how the basic building
blocks work.

I'll agree that most graduates (and many supposedly "experienced"
people) I've interviewed are absolutely clueless when you ask them the
basic questions.
I once interviewed an experienced guy who proudly bought in this Thesis
project documention to the interview to show off what he was capable
of. I asked him a simple question like "what does this chip do" and he
couldn't tell me a thing, even when it was written right in front of
him.
That's SAD.

Dave

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Wait while I get up on this her soapbox.

Circuit design is the process of turning an idea into an
implementation concept into a bunch of hardware and/or software to
realize the idea.
For this you don't need software. You need a BOOK!!!
Go to the library and check out a book on analog circuit design.
Learn about Ohm's law, norton's theorems etc. Learn about rc/lc/rlc
circuits. How to bias a transistor, FET etc. Learn how to do Laplace
transforms. You're rarely gonna do a laplace transform, but the
knowledge of how, gives you great insight into what's gonna happen
when you change a circuit paramaeter or topology. It allows you to
pick component values right out of the air that are very close to
what you'll finally end up with after you fine tune it. It tells you
instantly when you're way off base and need a different approach.
If you need a calculator, you're going too deep. Your objective is to
be able to scratch out a circuit topology, estimate bandwidths, gain,
impedance, signal fidelity etc. Learn about component parasitics.
Unless you're doing audio work, a resistor is not just a resistor. And
it goes downhill from there. Learn how real components have
parasitics and vary relative to their specifications and how to
mitigate the impact of those variations on your objective.

All good general advice.

Learn about Fourier transformations betwee time and frequency domains.
Again, you're rarely gonna do one by hand, but knowing how gives you
great insight into topologies and components required to realize your
design.

All good general advice.

Now, go back to the library and checkout a book on digital circuit
design.

Nope.....

Digital is for those just to stupid to do analogue

Learn that ALL curcuits are analog and that most digital
problems have to do with the ignored analog characteristics of the
digital simplification. Learn about Karnaugh maps, glitches, races
etc.
Now, you know how to design circuits. It's time to start looking at
software to simulate the circuit you've already designed to fine tune
it's parameters and take into consideration the simplifications you
used to design it in your head or with a pencil.

I can't agree at all. This is fundamentally wrong in my opinion, and
that of probably every educator known to man. If this were true, there
would be no lab work until 3rd year of uni. The best way to learn is to
do little bits of theory at a time complemented by practise to reinforce
that theory. A simulator is indeed *real* practise, excluding the few %
issues like parasitics. Too many here are going, well because a
simulator doesn't copy everything exactly from the real world, then it
is sadly lacking for real world learning. This is very narrow minded.
*Most* of what a simulator can do is very good model of the real world.

Spending several years doing the "basics" before even getting started on
trying out the theory is quite daft. One would simply forget what one
first learned. To all intents and purposes, there is no practical
difference between examining ohms law and I=cdv/dt on the bench or in a
simulator. Your brain, eyes and ears are processing essentially, the
same information. There is only this vague psychological issue that some
have about it "not being the same". Essentially, it is.

Circuit simulation replaces the tedious VERIFICATION calculations that
we used to do by hand.

Unfortunately, in a real design of 100s to 1000s of components, hand
calculations are impossible. Even a one transistor circuit has no exact
analytical solution.

It does NOT replace the thought processes needed to design circuits.

It can do. This is the reality of how it works in the real world, not
how we kid ourselves it is or should be. Yes, you need a good
understanding independent of simulations, however, it is simple
impossible to understand all of the nuances of a design without some
constructive trial and error on a simulator. Yes, most don't like this
idea, but it is the way it truly is. To illustrate. Consider the design
of a nuclear bomb. These require amazingly powerful computers. Sure,
they are run by *experts* , but even these 20 year experts cant
understand the implications of all of the equations. Thery are simply
too complicated. Or for example, colliding black holes. There is not a
chance to develop a *feel* for happens *without* simulations.

Sure, I agree that without bench work there are many issues that one
doesn't get a feel for in a simulator, but *likewise*, without a
simulator there are *many more* things that you never get a feel for by
bench work. As I said, I've been there 10000's of hours on both the
bench and simulator. I can count countless things that I have missed on
the bench that the simulator showed.

You have only to read the archives of this newsgroup to see countless
examples where people stuffed random numbers into a simulator and came
up with something that simulated, but was impractical, unrepeatable,
or just plain sad.

But this is unintelligent trial and error. Intelligent trail and error
is another matter entirely. *All* design can be reduced to a Darwinian
process, i.g. replication of existing circuits, varying such designs,
and selecting the good ones. Whether this is done on paper, in ones head
(a Darwinian process) or on a simulator don't much matter.


Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[CBarn24050]

Subject: Re: Software for a beginner to design and learn about circuits with?

From: "Kevin Aylward" [email protected]
Date: 01/12/2004 08:06 GMT Standard Time
Message-id: <[email protected]>

Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

I read your post and could hardly believe what i was reading, the idea that a
simulator is a replacement for benchwork! The I saw that you sell them, that
explained it.

 

[mike]

All good general advice.




All good general advice.




Nope.....

Digital is for those just to stupid to do analogue

Hmmmm. Digital is a GROSS simplification of analog so you can
deal with the concepts more easily. Isn't that how simulators work?
Ain't nothing wrong with working in the digital domain as long as you
go back and verify your work in the analog domain. But if you're using
a simulator and don't understand digital or analog, you're in deep...

I can't agree at all.

This is fundamentally wrong in my opinion, and

that of probably every educator known to man. If this were true, there
would be no lab work until 3rd year of uni. The best way to learn is to
do little bits of theory at a time complemented by practise to reinforce
that theory. A simulator is indeed *real* practise, excluding the few %
issues like parasitics. Too many here are going, well because a
simulator doesn't copy everything exactly from the real world, then it
is sadly lacking for real world learning. This is very narrow minded.
*Most* of what a simulator can do is very good model of the real world.

Spending several years doing the "basics" before even getting started on
trying out the theory is quite daft.

I do so enjoy reading your posts. You seem to get a lot more out of
my posting than I wrote. I never said anything about how long it should
take. Never said you shouldn't do bench work along the way.
Point I was trying to make is to leave the simulator out of the picture
until you have a basic understanding.


One would simply forget what one

first learned. To all intents and purposes, there is no practical
difference between examining ohms law and I=cdv/dt on the bench or in a
simulator. Your brain, eyes and ears are processing essentially, the
same information. There is only this vague psychological issue that some
have about it "not being the same". Essentially, it is.




Unfortunately, in a real design of 100s to 1000s of components, hand
calculations are impossible. Even a one transistor circuit has no exact
analytical solution.

Who said anything about exact analytical solutions? I GUARANTEE you
that I can do calculations on a design with 100s of components.
I didn't say what calculations.

It can do. This is the reality of how it works in the real world,

Unfortunately, I think you're right and stated so further down in the
original posting. The problem is that idiots with no understanding of
the fundamentals stuff numbers into a simulator that may or may not
represent their actual implementation. They trust the result and have
no clue how to fix it if it doesn't work.

In skilled hands, a simulator with input that precisely models all the
circuit elements including parasitics, layout, power supply coupling
signal coupling, magnetic coupling, electrostatic coupling...the list is
long...can be a very powerful thing.

Anybody who starts their education with a simulator is doomed to failure.

not

how we kid ourselves it is or should be. Yes, you need a good
understanding independent of simulations, however, it is simple
impossible to understand all of the nuances of a design without some
constructive trial and error on a simulator. Yes, most don't like this
idea, but it is the way it truly is. To illustrate. Consider the design
of a nuclear bomb. These require amazingly powerful computers. Sure,
they are run by *experts* , but even these 20 year experts cant
understand the implications of all of the equations. Thery are simply
too complicated. Or for example, colliding black holes. There is not a
chance to develop a *feel* for happens *without* simulations.

Your argument is seriously flawed. Somebody sat down and scratched
their ass for a decade and decided, "Hey, I'll bet if we could split
an atom, we could get a LOT of energy...and we'd have to manage the
reaction somehow...and Uranium would be a good thing to look at...
let's go do some math.
You seem to be suggesting that any idiot with a big computer could
invent the bomb. NOT LIKELY! A simulator is pretty useless without
input. I'd go so far as to say that a simulator is pretty useless
with MOST unskilled input.

Sure, I agree that without bench work there are many issues that one
doesn't get a feel for in a simulator, but *likewise*, without a
simulator there are *many more* things that you never get a feel for by
bench work. As I said, I've been there 10000's of hours on both the
bench and simulator. I can count countless things that I have missed on
the bench that the simulator showed.




But this is unintelligent trial and error. Intelligent trail and error
is another matter entirely. *All* design can be reduced to a Darwinian
process, i.g. replication of existing circuits, varying such designs,
and selecting the good ones. Whether this is done on paper, in ones head
(a Darwinian process) or on a simulator don't much matter.

I think you're exactly right. A designer without an understanding of
the fundamentals is gonna be just as bad whether he does simulation or
bench work.

Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

--
Return address is VALID.
500MHz Tek DSOscilloscope TDS540 $2200
http://nm7u.tripod.com/homepage/te.html
Wanted, 12.1" LCD for Gateway Solo 5300. Samsung LT121SU-121
Bunch of stuff For Sale and Wanted at the link below.
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/4710/

 

[Kevin Aylward]

This is fundamentally wrong in my opinion, and

I do so enjoy reading your posts. You seem to get a lot more out of
my posting than I wrote. I never said anything about how long it
should take. Never said you shouldn't do bench work along the way.
Point I was trying to make is to leave the simulator out of the
picture until you have a basic understanding.

But I don't agree that all of what you state above is "basic" from a
beginners point of view. e.g. Laplace, Fourier.

I certainly didn't wait to lean that stuff when I was 11-14 building up
my guitar effects pedals.

One would simply forget what one

Who said anything about exact analytical solutions? I GUARANTEE you
that I can do calculations on a design with 100s of components.
I didn't say what calculations.

I know. You can do a few back of the envelope calculations, but to
really *understand* what's going on, it cant be done, without
simulation. Many claim they can, but they are usually lying to
themselves. Its hard to admit ones brain is not capable of understanding
all the details without trial and error. I don't have that problem.

Unfortunately, I think you're right and stated so further down in the
original posting. The problem is that idiots with no understanding of
the fundamentals stuff numbers into a simulator that may or may not
represent their actual implementation. They trust the result and have
no clue how to fix it if it doesn't work.

I agree. You need to have good overall understanding of what going on,
but not necessarily all the details. The details are what the simulator
will bring out, *iff* you know how and where to look.

In skilled hands, a simulator with input that precisely models all the
circuit elements including parasitics, layout, power supply coupling
signal coupling, magnetic coupling, electrostatic coupling...the list
is long...can be a very powerful thing.

Anybody who starts their education with a simulator is doomed to
failure.

I still disagree on this. Its a complement. As I keep saying, there is
still much a beginner can learn with a simulator, the fact that it
doesn't cover *all* things is beside the point. Its like using a damp
towel to get the worst of the wetness off of you.

not

Your argument is seriously flawed.
Oh?

Somebody sat down and scratched
their ass for a decade and decided, "Hey, I'll bet if we could split
an atom, we could get a LOT of energy...and we'd have to manage the
reaction somehow...and Uranium would be a good thing to look at...
let's go do some math.
You seem to be suggesting that any idiot with a big computer could
invent the bomb. NOT LIKELY!

There is no reasonable way that what I wrote could be interpreted in
that way.

.. A simulator is pretty useless without

input. I'd go so far as to say that a simulator is pretty useless
with MOST unskilled input.

Not at all. A beginner will get lots of useful information from a
simulator. *Excluding* the obvious parasitics etc, the beginner can
learn *everything* *else* that a simulator does indeed do correctly. For
example, biasing up transistors, plotting waveforms etc..

Everyone here keeps ignoring the *numbers*. Sure, out of a possible 1000
things a simulator might do, maybe 10-20 of them will be erroneous when
tried on the bench. So what? *Most* of what can be done on the bench is
well covered, and that's what matters.

I think you're exactly right. A designer without an understanding of
the fundamentals is gonna be just as bad whether he does simulation or
bench work.

That's correct. My point in this thread is that *most* of real world
electronics can be learnt with a simulator much easier and quicker. One
doesn't have to go through the trouble and expense of getting components
and instruments. Of course, the remaining few % of board level required
learning might take up 99% of ones time, but that's another story.


Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

I read your post and could hardly believe what i was reading, the
idea that a simulator is a replacement for benchwork!

You obviously havent read my posts in detail.

The I saw that
you sell them, that explained it.

Sorry, mate I am analogue design engineer, and have been so for the last
25 years. Did you miss that bit as well? I have routinely designed 1000
transistor circuits that work.

I would suggest you go back and read *exactly* what I wrote, not what
you
imagined I wrote.

Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Joel Kolstad]

Kevin,

Digital is for those just to stupid to do analogue

For flashing an LED, yes.
For building a modern radio receiver (as found in cell phones, set top
boxes, etc.)... no.

But I'm sure you knew that.

 

[Pooh Bear]

Hi,

I'm interested in learning about circuitry as a hobby and to eventually
create a few small projects that I had in mind, such as guitar pedals
and a few audio devices, but obviously I have to start small.

I'm somewhat competent with programming/mathematics, have some text
books, and I do know a -little- analogue+digital circuit theory, but
I've never had a real hands-on attempt by myself before so I'll be
pretty much attacking this as though I know nothing.

Can anyone recommend some software (free or cheap) that would be good
for a beginner to use to learn about circuit behaviour and design some
circuits with? Are there programs out there that actually allow you to
drop in popular microcontrollers and model their behaviour as well?

When I learnt to do circuits there wasn't any software.

You'll learn only from reading. Software can't teach you circuits that
work. It's more likely to mislead you.

If you're thinking analog - and especially audio - although they're old you
could do worse than see if you can still find the National Semiconductor
Audio Handbook. Texas's Bifet Manual - and go to TI's website and download
'Op Amps for Everyone' a 2 meg file of 464 pages of practical examples and
info.


Graham

 

[Pooh Bear]

:

Nicely summed up Mike.

That's exactly why I think simulators should only be used by more
experienced people, once they understand how to design properly and
have a good understanding and gut feel for how the basic building
blocks work.

Yup. You should have a sound understanding first of the basics.

Simulation is then great to analyse in detail the bits that are too
mathematically intensive to do routinely.

I'll agree that most graduates (and many supposedly "experienced"
people) I've interviewed are absolutely clueless when you ask them the
basic questions.

Likewise. What exactly *do* they teach them ?

I once interviewed an experienced guy who proudly bought in this Thesis
project documention to the interview to show off what he was capable
of. I asked him a simple question like "what does this chip do" and he
couldn't tell me a thing, even when it was written right in front of
him.
That's SAD.

It's also very *bad* ! Of course UK management wouldn't know either so I
guess they end up employed somewhere !

I've had a few of those 'what does this do' questions in interviews years
ago. The interviewer(s) seem really pleased when you answer the question
correctly ! ;-)


Graham

 

[David L. Jones]

Likewise. What exactly *do* they teach them ?

They teach them how to pass exams.

Dave