[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Help-gnucap] level 3 model problem

From: Philipp Klaus Krause
Subject: Re: [Help-gnucap] level 3 model problem
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 10:21:50 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100411 Icedove/3.0.4

On 05.07.2010 07:03, al davis wrote:
> You didn't say what version of gnucap.  There is a big
> difference between the stable branch (0.35) and the development
> branch (2009-12-07).

I currently use the gnucap 0.35 that comes with Debian unstable, but
will try the development snapshot.

> In the development branch, with plugins, there are 4 level 3
> mosfet models to choose from.  It might be interesting to see
> what the difference is.  Perhaps a convergence problem might be
> solved by using a different one.
> I didn't run it, but I see a few issues ....
> + IS=7.4960E-9
> + N=2.0077
> + RS=.80464
> *+ IKF=.1058
> + CJO=515.09E-15
> + M=.115
> + VJ=.6389
> + ISR=1.4182E-9
> + NR=4.9950
> + BV=90.375
> + IBV=10
> + TT=2.1640E-9
> The * on the IKF line doesn't do what you think it does.  It
> makes the line a comment, and also disconnects lines that
> follow, so the CJO line is an extension to the comment, not to
> the model.  Gnucap does it like most programming languages do
> it.  I didn't realize how spice was different.

Thanks. I'm ratehr new to gnucaĆ¼ (and no prior spice experience), gnucap
complained about the IKF, so I tired to comment it out the way I would
in C using //.m I would probably have been wrong using spice, too.
I now moved all the lines that gnucap doesn't like (IKF, ISR, NR) to the
end. It even makes a (though barely noticeable) difference in my
simulation results.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]