¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Re: Probing phase


Steve Kale
 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Actually I just now found the problem with the missing model definition statement although I don¡¯t understand why it is one. ?In my older schematic I had, at one stage, wanted to test the impact of a different pass transistor and rather than use a .inc statement for this new transistor¡¯s subcircuit statement I had pasted it directly into the circuit (see below). ?If I make it a comment, I no longer get the error message in relation to the missing model statement for Qd44vh10. ?If I make it a Spice directive I do - even though I am not using the subcircuit at all in the sim and the error doesn¡¯t relate to the 2sc6144sg at all. ?

???

Now, the sub 1kHz behaviour remains the same as the image I had uploaded in the zip file (i.e. different from my new circuit) so I need to track down what¡¯s causing that difference.



2SC6144SG SPICE PARAMETER ***
* DATE : 2015/03/13 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??
* Temp = 27 deg

.SUBCKT 2SC6144SG 1 2 3
Q1 1 2 3 ?C6144SG ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??
.MODEL C6144SG npn ( ? ? ? IS ? ? ? = 3.500p ? ? ? ? BF ? ? ? = 335 ? ? ? ? ??
+NF ? ? ? = 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?VAF ? ? ?= 9 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?IKF ? ? ?= 13 ? ? ? ? ? ?
+ISE ? ? ?= 50.00p ? ? ? ? NE ? ? ? = 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?BR ? ? ? = 160 ? ? ? ? ??
+NR ? ? ? = 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?VAR ? ? ?= 26 ? ? ? ? ? ? IKR ? ? ?= 2.9 ? ? ? ? ??
+ISC ? ? ?= 230.0p ? ? ? ? NC ? ? ? = 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?RB ? ? ? = 910.0m ? ? ? ?
+IRB ? ? ?= 100.0m ? ? ? ? RBM ? ? ?= 22.20m ? ? ? ? RE ? ? ? = 20.50m ? ? ? ?
+RC ? ? ? = 3.300m ? ? ? ? XTB ? ? ?= 1.9 ? ? ? ? ? ?EG ? ? ? = 1.11 ? ? ? ? ?
+XTI ? ? ?= 3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?CJE ? ? ?= 1.420n ? ? ? ? VJE ? ? ?= 750.0m ? ? ? ?
+MJE ? ? ?= 383.0m ? ? ? ? TF ? ? ? = 450p ? ? ? ? ? XTF ? ? ?= 7 ? ? ? ? ? ??
+VTF ? ? ?= 1.000K ? ? ? ? ITF ? ? ?= 20 ? ? ? ? ? ? PTF ? ? ?= 0 ? ? ? ? ? ??
+CJC ? ? ?= 230.0p ? ? ? ? VJC ? ? ?= 520.0m ? ? ? ? MJC ? ? ?= 418.0m ? ? ? ?
+XCJC ? ? = 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?TR ? ? ? = 1.000n ? ? ? ? FC ? ? ? = 500.0m ? ? ? ?
+KF ? ? ? = 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?AF ? ? ? = 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
* ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??
.ENDL 2SC6144SG ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??
* ?Information herein is for example only; ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
* ?it is not guaranteed for volume production. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??
* ON Semiconductor

On 9 Aug 2016, at 11:11, Steve ?wrote:

I have poured over the two schematics including all value/spice line statements (CTRL-left click on a device) and can see no differences. ?I can¡¯t run the old schematic at the moment as I¡¯m currently getting an error ¡°missing model definition for QD44VH10¡± even though I clearly have the .inc statement for the model file (I have even deleted the Spice directive - it¡¯s not a comment - and added it again) and CTRL-left click on every QD44VH10 device reveals exactly the same as the new file I posted. (Both .asc files sit in the same folder and so both have access to the same model text file.) I will go back to it at some point (and may even check older versions via Mac¡¯s Time Machine facility) as I do want to see if the sub 1k behaviour remains the same. ?

Join [email protected] to automatically receive all group messages.