FET models
|
|
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/
|
|
|