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 .... > > .MODEL BAV99 D > + 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 gnucaü (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. Philipp _______________________________________________ Help-gnucap mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnucap
