Re: Looking for Review on Analog Insydes
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg33320] Re: Looking for Review on Analog Insydes
- From: Eckhard.Hennig at infineon.com (Eckhard Hennig)
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:51:22 -0500 (EST)
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
hrh1818 at springnet1.com (Howard R. Hansen) wrote in message news:<a6chgc$dqm$1 at smc.vnet.net>... > I am lookng for a review of Analog Insydes, the add-in electrical circuit > design software package for Mathematica. Can anybody suggest a web location > where a review may be found? Or better yet what capabilities does Analog > Insydes offer that Pspice doesn't? The first and most obvious difference between any numerical simulator (such as PSpice) and Analog Insydes is that the focus of the latter is on *symbolic* analysis of analog circuits. That is, with Analog Insydes you can compute transfer functions, poles and zeros, etc. of analog circuits as symbolic functions of the circuit parameters (R's, C's, gm's, ...). The particular strength of Analog Insydes is its capability to analyze integrated circuit blocks of industrial size symbolically. I have used the tool successfully to calculate circuit characteristics such as dc gains, poles and zeros, or PSRR for CMOS opamps with 30 ... 50 (and more) MOSFET devices. The resulting symbolic expressions helped to solve intricate stability and frequency-compensation problems which were far too complex for manual analysis. Analog Insydes also has numerical circuit analysis capabilities, but for pure simulation tasks, SPICE is the more efficient alternative. However, in addition to solving for voltages and currents, you can use Analog Insydes and Mathematica to constrain such quantities and solve systems of circuit equations for circuit parameters instead. Thus, in contrast to a circuit simulator, Analog Insydes allows you to solve circuit *design* problems as well. BTW, a popular misunderstanding is that symbolic circuit analysis and numerical simulation are alternative approaches to the same problem, i.e. the precise prediction of the behavior of a circuit before it is implemented in silicon. This is not true; symbolic analysis is not an alternative but a complementary tool to numerical simulation. Numerical simulation tells you quickly and precisely *that* something is wrong with your circuit design whereas symbolic analysis tells you *why*. So one should always use symbolic analysis as a qualitative analysis tool in combination with a circuit simulator for design verification. Best regards, Eckhard Hennig # Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this message are mine and # may not represent those of my employer.