FET models

Kevin Aylward · Jul 7, 2005

Mike Engelhardt wrote:

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
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.

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.

Ahmmm...indeed they do. According to relativistic electromagnetics,
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.

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.

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
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."

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 · Jul 7, 2005

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 · Jul 7, 2005

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 20:05:11 GMT, "Mike Engelhardt" <nospam@spam.org>
wrote:

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

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Kevin Aylward · Jul 8, 2005

Mike Engelhardt wrote:

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 · Jul 8, 2005

Kevin Aylward wrote:

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 · Jul 8, 2005

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

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 asshole)"

Kevin Aylward · Jul 9, 2005

Mike Engelhardt wrote:

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

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
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.

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:

"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.

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 · Jul 9, 2005

Kevin,

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

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

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.

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.
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

Kevin Aylward · Jul 9, 2005

Mike Engelhardt wrote:

Kevin,

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

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

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.

And so you should. You obviously committed fraud.
...Read my lips dude, you are wrong...

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
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.

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.

analog · Jul 9, 2005

Kevin Aylward wrote:

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.

Mike Engelhardt · Jul 9, 2005

Kevin,

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.

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

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
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.

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.

"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

analog · Jul 9, 2005

Jim Thompson wrote:

Mike Engelhardt wrote:

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, 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.

Kevin Aylward · Jul 10, 2005

analog wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

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.

Kevin Aylward · Jul 10, 2005

Mike Engelhardt wrote:

Kevin,

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.

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

This is patently false.

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.

Fred Bartoli · Jul 10, 2005

"Kevin Aylward" <see_website@anasoft.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
news:793Ae.15432$O22.8904@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

analog wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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
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

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

--
Thanks,
Fred.

Kevin Aylward · Jul 10, 2005

Fred Bartoli wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <see_website@anasoft.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
news:793Ae.15432$O22.8904@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
analog wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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 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

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 · Jul 10, 2005

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.
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

"Capacitance stores charge. Inductance stores flux."
Mike Engelhardt, 2005

Mike Engelhardt · Jul 10, 2005

Kevin Aylward wrote:

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 · Jul 17, 2005

Fred Bartoli wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <see_website@anasoft.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
news:793Ae.15432$O22.8904@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

analog wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

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.

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.

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.
*** 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.

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

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

FET models

Kevin Aylward

Guest

Mike Engelhardt

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Kevin Aylward

Guest

Paul Burke

Guest

Mike Engelhardt

Guest

Kevin Aylward

Guest

Mike Engelhardt

Guest

Kevin Aylward

Guest

analog

Guest

Mike Engelhardt

Guest

analog

Guest

Kevin Aylward

Guest

Kevin Aylward

Guest

Fred Bartoli

Guest

Kevin Aylward

Guest

Mike Engelhardt

Guest

Mike Engelhardt

Guest

Robert Baer

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor