Reply-To: "Kevin Aylward"
From: "Kevin Aylward"
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: SPICE model of XTAL
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:09:00 -0000
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:09:02 GMT
John Woodgate wrote:
> I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
> wrote (in
> ) about 'SPICE model
> of XTAL', on Tue, 10 Dec 2002:
>> In real life, simulation truly adds to ones understanding,
>> despite the fact that people don't like the idea.
> I don't think that most people don't like simulation;
Thats not what I meant. I meant, don't like the idea that simulation can
give one *understnding*.
>they don't like
> it being used as a substitute for understanding how a circuit is
> supposed, in principle, to work. For example, it would be wrong to
> use simulation to design an audio treble and bass tone control
> circuit, without knowing that you want the 1 kHz gain to stay as
> constant as possible at all control settings and that you need
> something between 12 dB and 20 dB boos and cut at 20 Hz and 20 kHz.
> You also need to decide how much distortion is tolerable, and,
> separately, how much noise.
As I noted, yes, you have to know what you are doing, but this does not
mean that you know all the details of complex circuits, prior to doing
the simulation/breadboard. We would all like to believe that we are
clever enough to see everything beforehand, but the actual *reality* is
that we don't. Even with extensive knowledge, we still learn new things
from the breadboard. A simulation can allow us to learn more because we
can try far many what if options.
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.