Re: Another Spice Trap?

From: Paul Burridge (pb_at_notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk)
Date: 11/23/04 

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 00:30:56 +0000

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:43:46 +0100, "Helmut Sennewald"
<helmutsennewald@t-online.de> wrote:

>"Paul Burridge" <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:7ph2q0lcdh1aloji7b71cqk78t7gmlhp3b@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 17:47:35 GMT, "Mike Engelhardt" <nospam@spam.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The usual SPICE convention is for the direction
>> >of positive current flow to be from the 1st node
>> >to the 2nd node of a capacitor. In LTspice, for
>> >the cap symbol, that's from node "A" to node "B"
>> >which is downward if the symbol is placed without
>> >rotating it.
>>
>> C'mon, Mike; fix the problem and make every LT user happy. It ain't no
>> big deal!
>
>Hello Paul,
>the logic behind the behaviour of LTSPICE regarding pin number
>dependent current is fully correct. That some people can't understand
>the great picture why it is that way, that is not a problem of LTSPICE.
>I hope that Mike never will change the bevaviour of LTSPICE
>as you have suggested.

I respect your views, Helmut, but the latest version of PSpice does
actually incorporate the feature I've suggested. It's only a simple
GUI problem that could easily be fixed-up. 

-- 
"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.