From: Muranyi, Arpad (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jan 21 2000 - 07:57:26 PST
There may be situations when you may want to use U-elements.
If the length of the W-element is very short, simulation
time step can decrease, and simulation time can go up
significantly. This will not happen with the U-elements.
Using U-elements in such cases is equivalent to using lumped
circuits instead of transmission lines, and that is perfectly
legitimate if your rise times are slow compared with the time
delay across the transmission line.
It would be nice to have a feature (which I saw in some tools)
that would automatically switch to lumped (or U-elements) when
the transmission line length is electrically short.
From: Chris.H.Simon@gd-is.com [mailto:Chris.H.Simon@gd-is.com]
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: [SI-LIST] : **error**: internal timestep too small
I'm curious why Avanti's abandonment of the U model would bother you. Is
there a situation where the use of the U element is an advantage over the W
element (in terms of accuracy, runtime, ???) I guess I hadn't thought
about it too much but the W element seems to give accurate results with
reasonable runtimes for all of the cases I've investigated.
General Dynamics Information Systems
**** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to email@example.com. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list, for more help, put HELP.
si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 20 2000 - 11:34:47 PDT