Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsElectronicsBasicsRepairDesignCADComponentsEquipmentElectrical Engineering
ElectronicsKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Electronics Forum / CAD / July 2005



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

FET models

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Robert Baer - 29 Jun 2005 19:26 GMT
  I would like to have a way of altering a FET model so that it follows
the Vgs VS log(Is) instead of dropping rapidly near 1mA like:
                   /
                  /
                 /   log(Is)
                 /
                 /
                 |
                 |
                 |
------------------
   Vgs

  Any ideas?

  Also, the model for the Fairchild FQD2N100 totally sucks.
  Is there a way to make it work?

.SUBCKT FQD2N100  d  g  s
Rg  g 1 0.04
M1 2 1 3 3 DMOS L=1u W=1u
.MODEL DMOS NMOS(VTO=4.66  KP=1.9  LEVEL=3)
Cgs 1 3 380p
Rd  d 4 3.5
Dds 3 4 DDS
.MODEL DDS D(BV=1050  M=0.42  CJO=35p  VJ=0.12)
Dbody 3  d DBODY
.MODEL DBODY D(IS=2.8E-13  N=1.00  RS=0.005  EG=1.10  TT=520n)
Ra 4 2 3.5
Rs 3 5 0.024
Ls 5  s 2.6n
M2 1 8 6 6 INTER
E2 8 6 4 1 2
.MODEL INTER NMOS(VTO=0  KP=10  LEVEL=1)
CGDMAX 7 4 380p
RCGD 7 4 1E7
DGD 6 4 DGD
RDGD 4 6 1E7
.MODEL DGD D(M=0.52  CJO=380p  VJ=0.12)
M3 7 9 1 1 INTER
E3 9 1 4 1 -2
.ENDS
colin - 30 Jun 2005 09:41 GMT
>    I would like to have a way of altering a FET model so that it follows
> the Vgs VS log(Is) instead of dropping rapidly near 1mA like:
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>    Also, the model for the Fairchild FQD2N100 totally sucks.
>    Is there a way to make it work?

theres been an improvement discused in sci.electronics.design for sub
threshold operation of FET models.

Colin =^.^=
Robert Baer - 30 Jun 2005 10:09 GMT
>>   I would like to have a way of altering a FET model so that it follows
>>the Vgs VS log(Is) instead of dropping rapidly near 1mA like:
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Colin =^.^=

  I remember Winfield Hill's note of 6/24 concerning altering the model
for the Fairchild FQD2N100 1KV FET.
  BUT the original model does not work properly, and i am a bit
unfamiliar with SPICE and the mod that was made - so it is not possible
to evaluate the result (there was no observable difference).
  Do you have a decently working model set (original & modified)?
colin - 30 Jun 2005 11:34 GMT
> >>   I would like to have a way of altering a FET model so that it follows
> >>the Vgs VS log(Is) instead of dropping rapidly near 1mA like:
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> to evaluate the result (there was no observable difference).
>    Do you have a decently working model set (original & modified)?

yes thats the one i was thinking of, there were several threads, one gave
modified/unmodified models although i cldnt put my finger on it straight
away, one also mentioned a method of combining the log characteristic of a
diode with the input. Im afraid i didnt have any more to offer than pointing
you there. good luck.

Colin =^.^=
Jim Thompson - 30 Jun 2005 18:22 GMT
>   I would like to have a way of altering a FET model so that it follows
>the Vgs VS log(Is) instead of dropping rapidly near 1mA like:
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>   Any ideas?

[snip]

Do you have any accurate data for this region?

I'd like to try modeling it with a higher level model, rather than
patching  onto a Level=1 or 3 model.

                                       ...Jim Thompson
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
|  Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
|  Phoenix, Arizona            Voice:(480)460-2350  |             |
|  E-mail Address at Website     Fax:(480)460-2142  |  Brass Rat  |
|       http://www.analog-innovations.com           |    1962     |
           
I love to cook with wine.      Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Robert Baer - 01 Jul 2005 09:27 GMT
>>  I would like to have a way of altering a FET model so that it follows
>>the Vgs VS log(Is) instead of dropping rapidly near 1mA like:
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
>                                         ...Jim Thompson
  Most non-logic power FETs seem to follow (Vgs1-Vgs2) =
0.25*log10(Id1/Id2); logic FETs have a different slope.
  What really bugs me, is if i "slide" the straight line (to the right)
along a log (vert) / linear (H) scale to cover 6-7 decades instead of
the original 2 decades, the calculated factor changes from about 0.25 to
about 0.17 and i cannot figure out what is wrong.
Jim Thompson - 05 Jul 2005 00:16 GMT
>   I would like to have a way of altering a FET model so that it follows
>the Vgs VS log(Is) instead of dropping rapidly near 1mA like:
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>   Any ideas?

[snip]

See attachment at...

Newsgroups: alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
Subject: Power MOS, Log(ID) versus Gate-Source Voltage -
LogIDvsVGS.pdf
Message-ID: <35fjc1t1n7jooj1slm5k1hb6i0a6srhbq3@4ax.com>

All the discussions here, S.E.D and in A.B.S.E about cobbling up a
"patched" power MOS Spice model to cover low-voltage-low-current
characteristics have always struck me as dangerous, fraught with
possibility for error in other parameters.

The attachment shows how Level=7 seems to naturally cover the region.

So I think two things are in order...

(1) Harass Power MOS manufacturers to provide a correct Spice model

or

(2) Roll you own, but use Level=7 parameters rather than patching a
lower level model.

                                       ...Jim Thompson
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
|  Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
|  Phoenix, Arizona            Voice:(480)460-2350  |             |
|  E-mail Address at Website     Fax:(480)460-2142  |  Brass Rat  |
|       http://www.analog-innovations.com           |    1962     |
           
I love to cook with wine.      Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Mike Engelhardt - 05 Jul 2005 01:53 GMT
Jim,

> All the discussions here, S.E.D and in A.B.S.E about
> cobbling up a "patched" power MOS Spice model to cover
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> (2) Roll you own, but use Level=7 parameters rather
>  than patching a lower level model.

Level=7 will handle sub-threshold, but for many applications
there's an even greater discrepancy between the model and
the part -- that being the way it stores charge, particularly
the Miller capacitance.  The only way I've seen that handled
properly in a native SPICE device is in LTspice's VDMOS device,
though the DC curves of that is just a Level 1 MOS with no
sub-threshold modeled.

The deal with the charge is that the vertical double-diffused
MOSFET qualitatively behavior entirely differently than a
monolithic device, particularly w.r.t. the Gate-Drain
capacitance.

--Mike
Jim Thompson - 05 Jul 2005 02:25 GMT
>Jim,
>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
>--Mike

Just amusing myself, reading up on the subject, the EKV model may be
best.

                                       ...Jim Thompson
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
|  Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
|  Phoenix, Arizona            Voice:(480)460-2350  |             |
|  E-mail Address at Website     Fax:(480)460-2142  |  Brass Rat  |
|       http://www.analog-innovations.com           |    1962     |
           
I love to cook with wine.      Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Mike Engelhardt - 05 Jul 2005 03:38 GMT
Jim,

>>> All the discussions here, S.E.D and in A.B.S.E about
>>> cobbling up a "patched" power MOS Spice model to cover
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> Just amusing myself, reading up on the subject, the EKV model
> may be best.

EKV's forte is really about D.C.(and some think that it a break-
through for a compact description of the monolithic FET).  But I
haven't seen the EKV charge model solve the Gate-Drain capacitance
modeling problem of a VDMOS power transistor.  The VDMOS transistor
typically used as descrete power transistors just fundamentally
stores charge differently than the monolithic MOSFET.

--Mike
Kevin Aylward - 05 Jul 2005 20:03 GMT
> Jim,
>
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
> typically used as descrete power transistors just fundamentally
> stores charge differently than the monolithic MOSFET.

Oh...you mean it uses an inductor?

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Mike Engelhardt - 05 Jul 2005 23:33 GMT
Kevin,

>>>>> All the discussions here, S.E.D and in A.B.S.E about
>>>>> cobbling up a "patched" power MOS Spice model to cover
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
> Oh...you mean it uses an inductor?

Inductors don't store charge, they store flux.
The VDMOS Miller capacitance behaves fundamentally
differently than that of a monolithic device.  See
LTspice help documentation for the VDMOS charge model.

--Mike
Kevin Aylward - 06 Jul 2005 06:40 GMT
> Kevin,
>
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
>
> Inductors don't store charge, they store flux.

Ahmmm...indeed they do. According to relativistic electromagnetics, all
magnetic and electric phenomena are one and the same, but observed from
different reference frames.

What we identify as magnetic or electric is simply one of convieniance,
not physical reality.

Hint: why should a magnetic field suddenly appear just because an
*observer* moves past a charge?

Hint: just what do you propose "magnetic flux" *actually* is?
Hint: just what do you propose "electric flux" *actually* is?
Hint: photon exchange.

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Mike Engelhardt - 06 Jul 2005 16:26 GMT
Kevin,

>>>> EKV's forte is really about D.C.(and some think that it a break-
>>>> through for a compact description of the monolithic FET).  But I
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> all magnetic and electric phenomena are one and the same, but
> observed from different reference frames.

Completely irrelevant for lumped-constant reactances and
doesn't change the fact that a power MOSFET's Gate-Drain
capacitance is fundamentally different then that of a
monolithic MOSFET, no matter what reference frame is used.

Your penance shall be to hand write "Inductors don't store
charge, they store flux." 100 times and tape it to your monitor
for 2 days.

--Mike
Jim Thompson - 06 Jul 2005 16:39 GMT
>Kevin,
>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
>--Mike

Sno-o-o-o-ort ;-)

                                       ...Jim Thompson
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
|  Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
|  Phoenix, Arizona            Voice:(480)460-2350  |             |
|  E-mail Address at Website     Fax:(480)460-2142  |  Brass Rat  |
|       http://www.analog-innovations.com           |    1962     |
           
I love to cook with wine.      Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Kevin Aylward - 06 Jul 2005 20:22 GMT
> Kevin,
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> capacitance is fundamentally different then that of a
> monolithic MOSFET, no matter what reference frame is used.

ROTHFLMAO.

You certainly walked right into that one with your eyes closed Micky
laddie.

So, fundamentally different, so, you cliam that gate capacitance is due
to moon cheese then?

> Your penance shall be to hand write "Inductors don't store
> charge, they store flux." 100 times and tape it to your monitor
> for 2 days.

As Inspector Clouseau would say, "you fooool"

First, it was obvious to any with any sense that I was trolling.

Second, regarding your last comment, as a point of fact, you should
indeed stick to what you know, like spice matrices.

I will tell you once more. *All* electromagnetic phenomena is due to
charge. Period. End of story. All electromagnetic energy storage is by
way of the effective charge position and charge motion. Charge is a
number that identifies aspects of the momentum flux of photons.
"Magnetic stuff" does not exist. Its all photons mate. Flux is no more
than a distribution of photons... oh dear...never mind...stick to
software...

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Mike Engelhardt - 06 Jul 2005 21:24 GMT
Kevin,

>>>>>> EKV's forte is really about D.C.(and some think that it a break-
>>>>>> through for a compact description of the monolithic FET).  But I
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>> capacitance is fundamentally different then that of a
>> monolithic MOSFET, no matter what reference frame is used.

> So, fundamentally different, so, you cliam that gate capacitance
> is due to moon cheese then?

See the reference(LTspice help pages).  It's because of the drain
being on the back of the die.  The functional dependence of the
gate-drain charge on the terminal voltages is fundamentally
different then that of monolithic devices.  As this is the
Miller capacitance, it fundamentally changes the the switching
behavior of the grounding source device.  Fundamental in that
the behavior is qualitatively distinct.  It's why MOSFET
vendors usually have to use a subcircuit to model their
MOSFET's, but LTspice has an intrinsic device with an appropriate
charge model.

> I will tell you once more. *All* electromagnetic phenomena
> is due to charge. Period. End of story.

I didn't said it was or wasn't.  But you're wrong, you need
space and time too, though.  Charge by itself won't cut it.
And moving charge has behavior to be reckoned with.  And the
laws of physics aren't invariant in non-inertial frames.
There's no inertial frame which converts all of the general
inductor's B-field to an E-field.  The formulation of lumped
constant reactances has no concept of space, you just have to
trade things like E-field times distance with electromotive
force.  Inductance and flux are as real as they are useful,
no matter how much you would like to dismiss it.  Of course
the joke is that I'm the one here that's the physicist in
real life and you're not.

>> Your penance shall be to hand write "Inductors don't store
>> charge, they store flux." 100 times and tape it to your monitor
>> for 2 days.

You were supposed to put your penance work on the FRONT of your
monitor for two days!

--Mike

"Capacitance stores charge, inductance stores flux."
   Mike Engelhardt 2005
Kevin Aylward - 07 Jul 2005 20:32 GMT
> Kevin,
>
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> MOSFET's, but LTspice has an intrinsic device with an appropriate
> charge model.

Well... we obviously have a different understanding of what "fundamental
physics" means.  Please do stick to your own, its obviously fundamental
to you.

>> I will tell you once more. *All* electromagnetic phenomena
>> is due to charge. Period. End of story.
>
> I didn't said it was or wasn't.  But you're wrong, you need
> space and time too, though.

Meaningless nonsense.

>Charge by itself won't cut it.
> And moving charge has behavior to be reckoned with.  And the
> laws of physics aren't invariant in non-inertial frames.

Complete nonsense. What part of "General Relativity" did you miss?

Oh dear...now please do get yourself an education dude. You're pissing
in the wind, and clueless with it. Just what do you think General
relativity is all about? Dah....

Hint. Its all about constructing general frame independent equations of
physics.

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/physics/gr/index.html

For example, http://www.anasoft.co.uk/physics/gr/einstien/einstien.html,
pay particular attention to the first paragraph, it will be the only one
you understand.

G_ab = Rab - R.g_ab +lambda.gab

We have the completely arbitrary frame independent Einstein equation:

G_ab = 8.PI.G.T_ab

> There's no inertial frame which converts all of the general
> inductor's B-field to an E-field.

There is a frame independent object, the Electromagnetic Field tensor
that is valid in *all* frames, inertial or not.

You simply don't know what your talking about mate. I'll give you a bit
of starter though:

"Gravitation" Misner, Thorne, Wheeler, Page 568, "Electrodynamics in
Curved Space time"

F is the electromagnetic field tensor

F^ab;b = 4J^a

F_ab;g + F_bg;a + F_ga = 0

ma^a = F^abqU_b

I quote MTW: "These are the basic equations of electrodynamics in the
presence of gravity, from them everything else follows"

Now, do I have to spell out how gravity and non-inertial frames are
related. Of indeed that ;, is the covariant derivative, or indeed again,
that the above is a , now get this, a tensor equation, of which all are
inherently frame independent. Dah...get a life dude...

>The formulation of lumped
> constant reactances has no concept of space, you just have to
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> "Capacitance stores charge, inductance stores flux."

Nonsense. The total charge on a capacitor is the same whether it is
charged or not, therefore it can't "store charge". Its the relative
position of charge, that determines storage.

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Mike Engelhardt - 07 Jul 2005 21:05 GMT
Kevin,

> First, it was obvious to any with any sense that I was trolling.

Oh come on, a Usenet troll is just an A-hole moving backasswards
faster than light.  You're just a quack.

--Mike

"Capacitance stores charge, inductance stores flux.  Be with it."
   Mike Engelhardt 2005
Jim Thompson - 07 Jul 2005 21:20 GMT
>Kevin,
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>"Capacitance stores charge, inductance stores flux.  Be with it."
>    Mike Engelhardt 2005

Kevin thinks he is the third flavor of quark, the Strange Quark ;-)

                                       ...Jim Thompson
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
|  Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
|  Phoenix, Arizona            Voice:(480)460-2350  |             |
|  E-mail Address at Website     Fax:(480)460-2142  |  Brass Rat  |
|       http://www.analog-innovations.com           |    1962     |
           
I love to cook with wine.      Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Kevin Aylward - 08 Jul 2005 06:27 GMT
> Kevin,
>
>> First, it was obvious to any with any sense that I was trolling.

> faster than light.  You're just a quack.

Yeah, sure. It was you that made all the arsine quack quotes showing
your complete lack of knowledge on Relativistic Electrodynanamics, which
you clearly have no supporting arguments for, hence the lack of any
further word on this from you. You are out classed dude. Stick with
software.

> --Mike
>
> "Capacitance stores charge, inductance stores flux.  Be with it."
>    Mike Engelhardt 2005

"Total charge on a capacitor is the same whether it is
charged or not, therefore it can't "store charge". Its the relative
position of charge, that determines storage."

Electric and magnetic effects are one and the same, they are the same
phenomena viewed from different reference frames". Live with it, mate.

Indeed, in physics the only "real" quantities are frame independent
ones.

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Paul Burke - 08 Jul 2005 08:19 GMT
> showing
> your complete lack of knowledge on Relativistic Electrodynanamics,

Well, Kevin, the only way is to produce a FET model, based on
Relativistic Electrodynamics, that performes better than other models.#

For myself, having no understanding of quantum stuff, relativity, and a
fairly feeble grasp of basic physics, all I want is a spice system that
will give reasonably believable results without the need for a PhD and
several years internment at MIT. For a dozen transistors, I don't do
40000 element circuits, but I do want to know how trustworthy Spice is
if you just pick it up and run. A design aid that misleads is worse than
no design aid at all.

Paul Burke
Mike Engelhardt - 08 Jul 2005 16:15 GMT
Kevin,

>> First, it was obvious to any with any sense that I was
>> trolling.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> showing your complete lack of knowledge on Relativistic
> Electrodynanamics

Darn!  Now I'm going to have to give back all the money
those universities paid me to teach physics all those years.
I'll have to do that while waiting for your frame independent
object that converts the general inductor's B-field to an
E-field to go up for sale on E-bay.  I'll be looking between
the Riemann oscillator in a curvilinear coordinate system used
to detect gravity waves the faster than light cable.

Anyway, the correct application of physics and relativity
was the version I've already posted.  But here's the problem:

>> "Capacitance stores charge, inductance stores flux."
>
> Nonsense. The total charge on a capacitor is the same
> whether it is charged or not, therefore it can't
> "store charge".

You assume people are saying things they're not saying, and
pretend not to know basic physics like how charge on a
capacitor is stored or measured for your own contrived reasons.
It's not the first time you had trouble with reactances.
Remember all the trouble you had implementing the Chan model
inductor, claiming various contradicting nonsense along
the way.

I don't know why it bothers you that the power MOSFET stores
charge fundamentally differently than the monolithic device.
Maybe you still blame me for preventing you from getting some
job and then subsequently flushing out the SPICE market.  Heck,
by now, maybe you even blame me for being fired from some job
in the past.  It may well take you a very long time to come
to accept that I am not the blame for any of that, but I
sincerely hope it doesn't as much as I am not to blame.

--Mike

Seen last night on a bumper sticker parked at the YMCA:

 "REMEMBER: Jesus loves you.  (But everybody
  else still thinks you're an a.shole)"
Kevin Aylward - 09 Jul 2005 09:35 GMT
> Kevin,
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Darn!  Now I'm going to have to give back all the money
> those universities paid me to teach physics all those years.

And so you should. You obviously committed fraud.

> I'll have to do that while waiting for your frame independent
> object that converts the general inductor's B-field to an
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Anyway, the correct application of physics and relativity
> was the version I've already posted.

What version was that? I didnt see any. I did see you make a daft cliam,
to wit:

"And the laws of physics aren't invariant in non-inertial frames".

Which conclusively proves that you haven't even the slightest idea about
what General Relativity is all about.

Read my lips dude, you are wrong. Einstein is rolling in his grave. As I
said, stick to something you actually know about. The idea that you
actually taught physics is nails down a blackboard.

> But here's the problem:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> pretend not to know basic physics like how charge on a
> capacitor is stored or measured for your own contrived reasons.

Pardon? I indicated exactly how charge is "stored" in a capacitor. To
wit, it isn't. The total charge on a capacitor is zero, uncharged or
charged. If this were not so, two capacitors sitting on a bench would
either attack or repel each other. I am correcting you misunderstand as
to what the true physics of the situation is.

Here is the deal, electrons are moved from side of a capacitor plate to
the other. The energy is stored by the position of the electrons, not by
adding charge to a capacitor. The capacitor is bloody well electrical
neutral. Dah...

I also corrected you erroneous idea of "flux storage". You are clueless
as to what flux actually is, despite being able to code such stuff,
blindly in your simulator. Fortunately for you, implanting equations in
software doesn't mean that you actually need to understand them.

> I don't know why it bothers you that the power MOSFET stores
> charge fundamentally differently than the monolithic device.

Capaciters store energy. End of story.

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Mike Engelhardt - 09 Jul 2005 16:44 GMT
Kevin,

>>>>> First, it was obvious to any with any sense that I was
>>>>> trolling.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> And so you should. You obviously committed fraud.
> ...Read my lips dude, you are wrong...

Since you keep pretending not to understand me,
take this this thread to some other physicists and
get their take on it.  I've already stated the
relativistically correct interpretations no matter
how much you like to corrupt it.(Of course this is
a trick suggestion, the old-boy physics oligarchy
conspire against the quack every time:)

The VDMOS device stores charge fundamentally differently
than monolithic devices.  The gate-drain capacitance is
qualitative distinct from the monolithic device and you
can't model common-source switching any better than you
can model the Miller capacitance.  The underlying reason
between the fundamentally different charge storage in the
VDMOS device lies in the drain being located on the other
side of the Silicon die.

I can only guess at the fundamental reason that you
want to post the non-sense you do:

> I don't know why it bothers you that the power MOSFET stores
> charge fundamentally differently than the monolithic device.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> to accept that I am not the blame for any of that, but I
> sincerely hope it doesn't as much as I am not to blame.

--Mike
Kevin Aylward - 09 Jul 2005 19:41 GMT
> Kevin,
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> Since you keep pretending not to understand me,

ROTFLMAO

> take this this thread to some other physicists and
> get their take on it.

I have already posted a site that explains the basics of GR for
Teletubbies such as yourself.

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/physics/gr/index.html

> I've already stated the
> relativistically correct interpretations no matter
> how much you like to corrupt it.

No you haven't. Not in the slightest. Its abundantly clear that what I
have stated is trivially correct. You just keep snipping it to avoid
further embasenment.

Look, mate you stated "And the laws of physics aren't invariant in
non-inertial frames".

This is patently false. Its in contadiction of the fundemental point of
General Relativity.

You have no idea what the the words "General Relativity" mean. Hint: The
"Relativity" bit, as in Special Relativity, was superseded to dah..
"General". The whole point of the name is to express how laws of physics
are relative to all motion, not just inertial motion. Your pissing in
the wind. Give it up.

(Of course this is
> a trick suggestion, the old-boy physics oligarchy
> conspire against the quack every time:)

Why you persist in this nonsense pretty much amazing. You are trivially
wrong, yet have the audacity you claim that I am in error. You a bloody
joke mate. There is only one physics quack here. To wit, you. If this
were not so, you could actually present an argument or reference to back
up your daft statement above.  I have you the equations and quote right
out of one of the leading authority on Gravitation, to wit MTW.

> The VDMOS device stores charge fundamentally differently
> than monolithic devices.  The gate-drain capacitance is
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> VDMOS device lies in the drain being located on the other
> side of the Silicon die.

Ho hummm. It stores *energy* not charge, and it does it in the same way
that *all* capacitors store energy, by rearrangement of the location of
charge.

Unless the energy is not stored capacitively, it is not "fundermentakly"
different. Its just a different in the physical structure. That's it.
Now go away. Your boring us all with your crap.

The issue here, is that you really only know the basic words like
"charge" and have no actual understanding of the subject itself. I
suppose that's what one gets when one has software engineers trying to
step out of their limits.

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Mike Engelhardt - 09 Jul 2005 21:31 GMT
Kevin,

>> I've already stated the relativistically correct
>> interpretations no matter how much you like to
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> This is patently false.

Of course it is not false.  Some laws are invariant in
non-inertial frames and some aren't.  I did give the
relativistically correct presentation.

> Its in contadiction of the fundemental point of
> General Relativity.

One tell-tale sign of a quack is in the miss-application of
physics, not just getting all the details incorrect.

> ...You are trivially wrong, yet have the audacity you claim
> that I am in error...

In serious discourse it usually good advice to try to read and
listen from the perspective of trying to see where others are
correct.  You're the one who wants to pretend to not understand,
"Capacitance stores charge and inductance stores flux."

>> The VDMOS device stores charge fundamentally differently
>> than monolithic devices.  The gate-drain capacitance is
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> physical structure. That's it. Now go away. Your boring
> us all with your crap.

"fundermentakly"?   Whatever.

But one can have fundamentally different capacitance behavior
which can in turn fundamentally change circuit behavior.
Capacitors can behave fundalmentally differently from normal
fix-plate capacitors when the charge-bearing electrodes move
as they do in MOSFETs with the terminal voltages.

--Mike

"Capacitance stores charge.  Inductance stores flux."
 Mike Engelhardt, 2005
Kevin Aylward - 10 Jul 2005 07:32 GMT
> Kevin,
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Of course it is not false.

Yep it is. If you had even read the most simplistic account of GR, you
would understand that this is not true.

>Some laws are invariant in
> non-inertial frames and some aren't.

Nope. You just don't get it do you. Sure, prior to General Relativity,
that was the idea. The laws of physics were believed to be different for
non-inertial frames. Einstein came along and fixed that.

Tell me, just what do you think GR is all about?

>I did give the
> relativistically correct presentation.

Nope.

>> Its in contadiction of the fundemental point of
>> General Relativity.
>
> One tell-tale sign of a quack is in the miss-application of
> physics, not just getting all the details incorrect.

Indeed.

> Capacitors can behave fundalmentally differently from normal
> fix-plate capacitors when the charge-bearing electrodes move
> as they do in MOSFETs with the terminal voltages.

A capacitor is a capacitor is a capacitor.

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Mike Engelhardt - 10 Jul 2005 15:48 GMT
Kevin,

>> I did give the relativistically correct presentation.
>
> Nope.

That's just your opinion -- well claim -- of what I said.
Take this thread, the part that I said, to some other
physicists not a and get their take on it.  (HINT: I did
give the relativistically correct presentation!)

>> Capacitors can behave fundalmentally differently from normal
>> fix-plate capacitors when the charge-bearing electrodes move
>> as they do in MOSFETs with the terminal voltages.
>
> A capacitor is a capacitor is a capacitor...

Capacitance is a differential quantity that describes
behavior.  Sometimes the behavior is fundamentally different
from the originating situation that inspired the concept --
like a non-linear capacitance behaves fundamentally different
than a linear capacitance.  MOSFET's are even more
complicated because they contain transcapacitances.
(Transcapacitance is to capacitance as transconductance
is to conductance.)

> This really all started with my objection to Mikes
> use of the word "fundamental".
> All the rest is fluff.

That does concisely identify your mistake.  It's an
error to take one application of the word fundamental
as it's definition.  But I can only guess at the
fundamental reason that you want to post the non-sense you do:

> I don't know why it bothers you that the power MOSFET stores
> charge fundamentally differently than the monolithic device.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> to accept that I am not the blame for any of that, but I
> sincerely hope it doesn't as much as I am not to blame.

--Mike

"Capacitance stores charge.  Inductance stores flux."
 Mike Engelhardt, 2005
analog - 09 Jul 2005 21:00 GMT
> I indicated exactly how charge is "stored" in a capacitor.  To
> wit, it isn't.  The total charge on a capacitor is zero, uncharged
> or charged.  

In your apparent zeal to score a point, any point, you've stooped
to the argument of a punctilious pedant.  Go ahead and knock over
your silly "total charge" straw man, but it in no way invalidates
the obvious point that, in a capacitor with voltage across it,
charge is stored upon and between the plates.  As someone of your
education and experience unquestionably knows, capacitance is, in
fact, defined as the quotient of charge to voltage.

Q=C*V *is* the charge stored within a capacitor and is clearly the
meaning of charge storage within the context of this thread.
Kevin Aylward - 10 Jul 2005 07:22 GMT
>> I indicated exactly how charge is "stored" in a capacitor.  To
>> wit, it isn't.  The total charge on a capacitor is zero, uncharged
>> or charged.
>
> In your apparent zeal to score a point, any point, you've stooped
> to the argument of a punctilious pedant.

Sure, I admit that there is a bit of trolling going on here. Its fun to
wind Mike up.

> Go ahead and knock over
> your silly "total charge" straw man, but it in no way invalidates
> the obvious point that, in a capacitor with voltage across it,
> charge is stored upon and between the plates.

No. Energy is stored, not charge. Its not silly because it identifies a
pretty much universal misconception about electrical effects.

The charge is always the same in a capacitor, it is the location of the
charge that is diferent.

>As someone of your
> education and experience unquestionably knows, capacitance is, in
> fact, defined as the quotient of charge to voltage.

Yes, and universal identified incorrectly. My education and experience
allows me to understand when accepted descriptions are false.

> Q=C*V *is* the charge stored within a capacitor

No it isn't. Its the charge that has been moved within a capacitor.

This implies that one takes charge (electrons) from say a battery, and
places it into a capacitor. This simply isn't true. Its *fundermenatlly*
wrong.

A plastic comb, when rubbed may be said to store charge. It has a real
charge different from uncharged. A capacitor does no such thing when
charged.

Sure, I understand that probably 99.999% of those engaged in electrical
aspects use the term, a charged capacitor, and only 0.001% actually
understand what that truly means. Where do you want to sit?

>and is clearly the
> meaning of charge storage within the context of this thread.

Sure:-)

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Fred Bartoli - 10 Jul 2005 11:39 GMT
> >> I indicated exactly how charge is "stored" in a capacitor.  To
> >> wit, it isn't.  The total charge on a capacitor is zero, uncharged
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> No. Energy is stored, not charge. Its not silly because it identifies a
> pretty much universal misconception about electrical effects.

I have a flying capacitor that have 1pF parasitics to the surrounding.
This capacitor does store charge.

> The charge is always the same in a capacitor, it is the location of the
> charge that is diferent.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> charge different from uncharged. A capacitor does no such thing when
> charged.

Never rubbed a plastic case capacitor? Again this capacitor stores charge.

> Sure, I understand that probably 99.999% of those engaged in electrical
> aspects use the term, a charged capacitor, and only 0.001% actually
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Sure:-)

I admit that there is a bit of trolling going on here. Its fun to
wind you up too.

Signature

Thanks,
Fred.

Kevin Aylward - 10 Jul 2005 12:17 GMT
>>>> I indicated exactly how charge is "stored" in a capacitor.  To
>>>> wit, it isn't.  The total charge on a capacitor is zero, uncharged
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
> I admit that there is a bit of trolling going on here. Its fun to
> wind you up too.

Indeed.

This really all started with my objection to Mikes use of the word
"fundamental". All the rest is fluff. Its almost as bad as his "paradigm
shift for the whole of mankind with my invention of LTSpice".

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Mike Engelhardt - 10 Jul 2005 17:18 GMT
> Its almost as bad as his "paradigm shift for the whole
> of mankind with my invention of LTSpice".

Just for clarification, Kevin is quoting himself.

--Mike
Robert Baer - 17 Jul 2005 11:01 GMT
>>>>I indicated exactly how charge is "stored" in a capacitor.  To
>>>>wit, it isn't.  The total charge on a capacitor is zero, uncharged
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>>charge different from uncharged. A capacitor does no such thing when
>>charged.
*** FALSE. Capacitors *do* "such things".
  Make a capacitor with two plates and a sheet of plastic or glass
betwen the plates.
  Charge up the capacitor to some high voltage, and disconnect the
charging supply.
  Then slide the insulator out, and note that the measured voltage is
essentially zero.
  Disconnect the meter and slide the insulator back in place.
  Measure the voltage, and find the value to be close to the previously
charged value.

> Never rubbed a plastic case capacitor? Again this capacitor stores charge.
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> I admit that there is a bit of trolling going on here. Its fun to
> wind you up too.
Jim Thompson - 05 Jul 2005 03:33 GMT
>Jim,
>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
>--Mike

Mike, Is that an LTspice-specific model or is it a subcircuit?

Does it solve Win's low-current fretting issues?

                                       ...Jim Thompson
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
|  Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
|  Phoenix, Arizona            Voice:(480)460-2350  |             |
|  E-mail Address at Website     Fax:(480)460-2142  |  Brass Rat  |
|       http://www.analog-innovations.com           |    1962     |
           
I love to cook with wine.      Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Mike Engelhardt - 05 Jul 2005 03:49 GMT
Jim,

>>> All the discussions here, S.E.D and in A.B.S.E about
>>> cobbling up a "patched" power MOS Spice model to cover
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
> Mike, Is that an LTspice-specific model or is it a subcircuit?

It's a LTspice specific device.  An intrinsic new SPICE device,
not a subcircuit and without internal nodes.  It's documented
toward the end of the section of the help LTspice=>Circuit
Elements=>M. MOSFET

> Does it solve Win's low-current fretting issues?

No, not at all.  It has no sub-threshold.  It just gets the
charge storage right.  It's forte is that it switches correctly
because it has the Miller capacitance correct.  It does not
handle the Win's problem with sub-threshold.  That's a real
problem, too.  If you wanted to fix both, an approach would
be to use a subcircuit with a Level 7 for DC(with no charge
storage) in parallel with an LTspice VDMOS with no conduction,
but supplying the charge storage.  I haven't added the power
MOSFET's sub-threshold to LTspice's VDMOS device because it
only comes up, well, in sub-threshold, not when you're actually
turning the thing on and off or even in proper linear range.
Besides, people can cobble some sub-threshold behavior in when
they need it.

--Mike
analog - 09 Jul 2005 22:29 GMT
>> Level=7 will handle sub-threshold, but for many applications
>> there's an even greater discrepancy between the model and
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Mike, is that an LTspice-specific model or is it a subcircuit?

The VDMOS model* with built-in nonlinear Cdg is LTspice specific.

> Does it solve Win's low-current fretting issues?

As Mike stated above, the VDMOS model does not. (Like most of the
rest of the models, current falls off the face of the earth in the
sub threshold region.)  Apparently level=7 models address the sub
threshold region, but didn't Win report that he thought the bend of
the curve wasn't quite right? (never checked myself)

The problem with all MOSFET models is that, as far as I know, none
address the dependence of terminal capacitances (and their loss
elements) on multiple terminal voltages (i.e. Cdg=f(Vdg,Vgs), etc.).
This effect is most clear when gate voltage is driven negative.  It
seems that as the terminal boundaries move around within the device,
significant capacitance is "switched" from between one set of
terminals to another.

Unfortunately, there isn't a lot in the literature about straight-
forward models for this, at least that I've found (good references
always welcome).

[*} From the LTspice Help File:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The discrete vertical double diffused MOSFET transistor(VDMOS) popu-
larly used in board level switchmode power supplies has behavior that
is qualitatively different than the above monolithic MOSFET models.  
In particular, (i) the body diode of a VDMOS transistor is connected
differently to the external terminals than the substrate diode of a
monolithic MOSFET and (ii) the gate-drain capacitance(Cgd) non-linear-
ity cannot be modeled with the simple graded capacitances of monolithic
MOSFET models.  In a VDMOS transistor, Cgd abruptly changes about zero
gate-drain voltage(Vgd).  When Vgd is negative, Cgd is physically based
a capacitor with the gate as one electrode and the drain on the back of
the die as the other electrode.  This capacitance is fairly low due to
the thickness of the non-conducting die.  But when Vgd is positive, the
die is conducting and Cgd is physically based on a capacitor with the
thickness of the gate oxide.

Traditionally, elaborate subcircuits have been used to duplicate the
behavior of a power MOSFET.  A new intrinsic spice device was written
that encapsulates this behavior in the interest of compute speed, reli-
ability of convergence, and simplicity of writing models.  The DC model
is the same as a level 1 monolithic MOSFET except that the length and
width default to one so that transconductance can be directly specified
without scaling.  The AC model is as follows.  The gate-source capaci-
tance is taken as constant.  This was empirically found to be a good
approximation for power MOSFETS if the gate-source voltage is not driven
negative.  The gate-drain capacitance follows the following empirically
found form:

Negative Vgd: Ggd = C*atan(a*Vgd)+D
Positive Vgd: Gdg = A*tanh(a*Vgd)+B

For positive Vgd, Cgd varies as the hyperbolic tangent of Vgd.  For neg-
ative Vdg, Cgd varies as the arc tangent of Vgd.  The model parameters a,
Cgdmax, and Cgdmax parameterize the gate drain capacitance.  The source-
drain capacitance is supplied by the graded capacitance of a body diode
connected across the source drain electrodes, outside of the source and
drain resistances.

name     parameter            units  default   example
------------------------------------------------------

l        Length                    m       1.     2.
w        Width                     m       1.     1.
Rg       Gate ohmic resistance    Ohms     0.
Rds      Drain-Source shunt       Ohms     0.
        resistance
VTO      zero-bias threshold       V       0.     1.
        voltage
KP       transconductance         A/V      1.     3.
PHI      surface potential         V       0.6    0.65
LAMBDA   channel-length           1/V      0.     0.02
        modulation

Cbd      zero-bias B-D             F       0.     20f
        junction capacitance
Cbs      zero-bias B-S             F       0.     20f
        junction capacitance
Rd       Drain ohmic resistance   Ohms     0.
Rs       Source ohmic resistance  Ohms     0.
Cgs      Gate-source overlap       F       0.    4e-11
        capacitance
Cgdmin   Minimum non-linear G-D    F       0.    4e-11
        capacitance
Cgdmax   Maximum non-linear G-D    F       0.    4e-11

        capacitance
a        non-linear Cgd            1       1.      .5
        capacitance parameter
Is       Body diode saturation     A      1e-14  1e-15
        current
Rb       Body diode ohmic         Ohms     0.
        resistance
n        Body diode emission       -       1.
        coefficient
Cjo      Body diode junction       F       0.    4e-11
        capacitance
Vj       Body diode junction       V       0.75
        potential
m        Body diode grading        -       0.5    0.5

        coefficient
Fc       Body diode forward        -       0.5
        bias junction fit
        parameter

tt       Body diode transit time  sec      0.     0.1n
Eg       Body diode activation    eV       1.11
        energy for temperature
        effect on Is
Xti      Body diode saturation     -       3
        current temperature
        exponent
nchan[*] N-channel VDMOS           -     (true)
pchan[*] P-channel VDMOS           -     (false)
Tnom     Parameter measurement     °C     27

        temperature
Kf       Flicker noise coefficient -       0
Af       Flicker noise exponent    -       0

*]The model name VDMOS is used both for a N-channel and P-channel device.  
The polarity defaults to N-channel.  To specify P-channel, flag the model
with the keyword "pchan", e.g., ".model xyz VDMOS(Kp = 3 pchan)" defines
a P-channel transistor.
Evgenii Rudnyi - 07 Jul 2005 09:13 GMT
Hello,

I have a small comment to the discussion. It is not too helpful at the
moment, but it shows some perspective that may become real in the
future.

The problem to make a compact transistor model happens to be close to
the goal of Model Order Reduction. We have contrasted compact modeling
with model order reduction in

MST MEMS model order reduction: Requirements and Benchmarks
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.laa.2005.04.002

preprint is at

http://www.imtek.uni-freiburg.de/simulation/mor4ansys/pdf/lienemann03LLA.pdf

Well, at present model reduction cannot be used in the case of
transistor, yet it is already working extremely well for linear
systems. You can try it for ANSYS models with our free software

http://www.imtek.uni-freiburg.de/simulation/mor4ansys/

I hope that one day mathematicians will extend it to nonlinear problems
as well.

Best wishes,

Evgenii Rudnyi
Signature

http://Evgenii.Rudnyi.Ru/

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.