The main idea of NL and any other tool used for what I call "concept proving" is ability to
1) simulate schematic with true ideal components;
2) simulate schematic with arbitrary, even non-realistic, topology and component values;
3) have a minimal number (if any) of simulation parameters.
For instance, LTSpice gave a wrong solution for simple switching capacitors circuit, where I just tried to understand the principle, so I used ideal switches, floating capacitors with C=1F, and switching interval 1s. When I asked for explanation on one of LTSpice forums, I was literally accused of simulating "silly" circuits, "intentionally selecting difficult component values", and suggested to use "more reasonable" component values and parameters (TrTol, RelTol, etc.)
I don't think simulating silly circuits with unreasonable component values is a bad thing to do: this must be the only way to invent something really new or at least understand how things work. Of course it would be advantageous to have an easy to use and fast simulation tool as well, but this is another story...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. "Good engineers" usually contact me personally, and ask specific questions. I'm always glad to explain everything I know (of course within reasonable limits, especially time). Unfortunately, there are no so many "good" engineers as you might think, and not many users understand (and wish to understand) how the tool they are using works...
ReplyDelete2. Reading the code is useless even for "good" engineers, if they are not proficient in that area. And my code is not "readable" anyway (unfortunately...).
3. In fact, it is more accurate to say that "some tools become open source", rather than "more tools become closed source". However, I am not sure that looking at the code would help anybody much. When I saw the code of some application I used to use, my first thought was: who the hell wrote it, and why is it still working at all?