Reply-To: "Kevin Aylward"
From: "Kevin Aylward"
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <12j4LzC+fEp9EwgG@jmwa.demon.co.uk> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <699p9.8961$QY.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Problems with Electronics Workbench - timestep errors
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-Inktomi-Trace: public1-pete2-5-cust19.pete.broadband.ntl.com 1034265448 29857 126.96.36.199 (10 Oct 2002 15:57:28 GMT)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 16:57:28 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 16:57:28 BST
"Roger Johansson" wrote in message
> "fred bartoli" wrote:
> >To little lost angel and Roger, again SS is a much more valuable
> >than EWB for amateurs (and it's free for small sized projects)
> >you have the willing to (only slightly) change your way of thinking.
> >will learn much more this way, but perhaps it's not your point after
> You're right, that is not my point at all.
> You are used to spice simulators, you know what that is all about and
> you are looking for a good spice simulator.
> I am talking about working with electronics without earlier knowledge
> of spice simulators. I am talking about people who know a lot about
> electronics, and about working with computers, but without earlier
No you are not. You are talking about people who know nothing about
electronics, not knowing nothing spice simulators.
> These people, millions of electronics tinkerers, students, service
> repairmen, ham radio designers, hobbyists, inventors, want a program
> to test and design electronics circuits with.
They cannot design and test circuits if they don't understand the basics
such as the need to set a voltage in a signal generator.
> Of course what they really need IS a spice simulator, but they do not
> even know that word, so they call it a virtual electronics workbench
> or something like that, and they need an interface which looks like
> their already well known tools, a voltmeter, an oscilloscope, spectrum
> analyser, function generator, etc..
> Inside their virtual electronics workbench there has to be a spice
> engine, of course, and netlists, and all those terms they have never
> heard before, but they do not have to know, they can use an EWB type
> of GUI without knowing all those things.
You don't need to know the details in a non-virtual instrument driven
simulator either, and most pros don't.
>The GUI gives them a chance
> to get into spice simulation without having to learn a lot of new
> stuff, or new ways of thinking about electronics.
If they knew what they were really doing in setting a voltage with a
dial, then they are fully capable of typing in 1.3V in a windows text
box, or using a scroll button. Never use a HP network analyser?
> They don't know anything about netlists, they have worked with
> electronics circuit diagrams all their lives, that is the user
> interface they already know.
> So why not give them that user interface on a spice simulator to begin
Look, if they really understood electronics, a non virtual instrument
driven simulator would be a piece of cake, and immediately obvious would
be the attractions of such an approach. This issue is not that about an
easier to use interface its about a user not knowing enough electronics
to use a spice simulator at all. As I noted, in SuperSpice's case, it is
not intended to be an electronics teaching tool, it is a design tool.
> Later they can learn about setting up more specialized test runs
> exactly the way they want it, as they learn more about the inner
> workings of the spice simulator, but they should be allowed to learn
> at their own pace.
> And many of them will never need to know anything more than what a
> user interface like EWB gives them.
> A lot of people design electronics by setting up a circuit and then
> tweak component values until it works like it should, they do not need
> to know all the design equations a professional chip designer needs.
In fact, this is what a good pro designer does. It is *intelligent*
trail and error.
> When we design a user interface for a program we should create a front
> end which has the same look and feel as the already existing user
> interfaces in that field.
> In text processing and computers that means a keyboard which is
> organized as a typewriter, and a screen which looks like a paper in
> the typewriter.
> In the electronics field that means oscilloscopes, voltmeters,
> function generators, etc..
You really do need to do some more design to see how daft this idea
> We should use circuit diagrams instead of netlists as the main visual
No one is suggesting that you use netlists. What part of "SuperSpice
does not require you to view, edit or know anything about netlists" have
you still failed to understand?
Have you actually seen the screen shot?
> That is my point.
And you have still missed mine.
No. Nope. Nine. I do not agree that one should use virtual instruments,
just because you are familure with the real versions.
Look, I'm a guitarist, a bloody good guitarist. Been doing it for 30+
years. It drives me up the f'ing wall when I am using a midi sequencer
and it has a virtual front panel of a foot phaser pedal box. I don't
want to twiddle bloody knobs. I want to enter data directly. Knobs are a
compromise forced on by the mechanics of the real thing. Its daft to
force a poor interface into the software just because you are unwilling
to grow up and learn a better way of doing things.
> But, of course, if the author of the program is only turning to the
> people who already know about the deeper level of spice simulators and
> netlists, there is no reason to create a user interface for the
> millions of people who are working with electronics at a less
> super-professional level.
> Text editors are not needed for people who can handle edlin.
You still out to lunch on this text editor bit. See above, "what part...
do not understand..." etc.
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.