• fast NPN in LT Spice

    From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jun 2 15:36:35 2024
    There are many NPNs in the standard LT Spice library.

    Does anyone know of a fast, RF type, transistor? It's hard to tell
    from the jillion lines of fine-print parameters.

    I want to make a model of the MC10EP89 gate.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Jun 2 22:45:17 2024
    On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 15:36:35 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    There are many NPNs in the standard LT Spice library.

    Does anyone know of a fast, RF type, transistor? It's hard to tell from
    the jillion lines of fine-print parameters.

    I want to make a model of the MC10EP89 gate.

    Define "fast".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Jun 2 19:46:14 2024
    "john larkin" <jl@650pot.com> wrote in message news:eqsp5jde87vqs6du4a7djoalag7kpkuhkr@4ax.com...
    There are many NPNs in the standard LT Spice library.

    Does anyone know of a fast, RF type, transistor? It's hard to tell
    from the jillion lines of fine-print parameters.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=".model+BFR92A"


    I want to make a model of the MC10EP89 gate.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to cd999666@notformail.com on Sun Jun 2 16:28:43 2024
    On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 22:45:17 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 15:36:35 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    There are many NPNs in the standard LT Spice library.

    Does anyone know of a fast, RF type, transistor? It's hard to tell from
    the jillion lines of fine-print parameters.

    I want to make a model of the MC10EP89 gate.

    Define "fast".

    2 GHz or so. Something that works inside the 10EP89.

    2SC3838K looks OK.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to invalid@invalid.invalid on Sun Jun 2 17:17:48 2024
    On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 19:46:14 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <jl@650pot.com> wrote in message news:eqsp5jde87vqs6du4a7djoalag7kpkuhkr@4ax.com...
    There are many NPNs in the standard LT Spice library.

    Does anyone know of a fast, RF type, transistor? It's hard to tell
    from the jillion lines of fine-print parameters.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=".model+BFR92A"


    I want to make a model of the MC10EP89 gate.



    That doesn't seem to be in the LT Spice library.

    2SC3838K looks OK.

    It's hard to pick parts, discrete or ICs, from the library.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Jun 2 20:23:53 2024
    "john larkin" <jl@650pot.com> wrote in message news:4n2q5jln0sb9oqbfp81jm723tbjf7tol80@4ax.com...
    On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 19:46:14 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <jl@650pot.com> wrote in message news:eqsp5jde87vqs6du4a7djoalag7kpkuhkr@4ax.com...
    There are many NPNs in the standard LT Spice library.

    Does anyone know of a fast, RF type, transistor? It's hard to tell
    from the jillion lines of fine-print parameters.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=".model+BFR92A"


    I want to make a model of the MC10EP89 gate.



    That doesn't seem to be in the LT Spice library.

    2SC3838K looks OK.

    It isn't but models are easy to find, make sure the link I posted includes the end quote.

    I've never done any ECL modeling but https://www.google.com/search?q=AN1560+spice
    looks useful if I wanted to do so.


    It's hard to pick parts, discrete or ICs, from the library.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Jun 2 20:35:02 2024
    "john larkin" <jl@650pot.com> wrote in message news:4n2q5jln0sb9oqbfp81jm723tbjf7tol80@4ax.com...
    On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 19:46:14 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <jl@650pot.com> wrote in message news:eqsp5jde87vqs6du4a7djoalag7kpkuhkr@4ax.com...
    There are many NPNs in the standard LT Spice library.

    Does anyone know of a fast, RF type, transistor? It's hard to tell
    from the jillion lines of fine-print parameters.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=".model+BFR92A"


    I want to make a model of the MC10EP89 gate.



    That doesn't seem to be in the LT Spice library.

    2SC3838K looks OK.

    It's hard to pick parts, discrete or ICs, from the library.

    Yes it would be nice if a description of the part as well as the part number could be included.



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to invalid@invalid.invalid on Sun Jun 2 20:22:57 2024
    On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 20:35:02 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <jl@650pot.com> wrote in message news:4n2q5jln0sb9oqbfp81jm723tbjf7tol80@4ax.com...
    On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 19:46:14 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <jl@650pot.com> wrote in message news:eqsp5jde87vqs6du4a7djoalag7kpkuhkr@4ax.com...
    There are many NPNs in the standard LT Spice library.

    Does anyone know of a fast, RF type, transistor? It's hard to tell
    from the jillion lines of fine-print parameters.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=".model+BFR92A"


    I want to make a model of the MC10EP89 gate.



    That doesn't seem to be in the LT Spice library.

    2SC3838K looks OK.

    It's hard to pick parts, discrete or ICs, from the library.

    Yes it would be nice if a description of the part as well as the part number could be included.




    A sortable column of Ft would be nice for transistors. Lacking that,
    sorting on Vce helps spot the RF parts. Low voltage suggests RF.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Mon Jun 3 09:58:52 2024
    On 6/3/24 00:36, john larkin wrote:
    There are many NPNs in the standard LT Spice library.

    Does anyone know of a fast, RF type, transistor? It's hard to tell
    from the jillion lines of fine-print parameters.

    I want to make a model of the MC10EP89 gate.


    I always used the -now obsolete- BFR92A for such things.
    That's a 5GHz Ft NPN that I used often. It's not in the
    library, I think. Below the model. Mind the line wraps.

    Jeroen Belleman

    .model BFR92A NPN IS=4.11877E-016 BF=1.02639E+002 NF=9.97275E-001 VAF=6.26719E+001 IKF=3.20054E+000 ISE=4.01062E-015 NE=1.57708E+000 BR=1.81086E+001 NR=9.96202E-001 VAR=3.36915E+000 IKR=1.28155E+000 ISC=2.79905E-016 NC=1.07543E+000 RB=1.00000E+001 IRB=1.00000E-006 RBM=1.00000E+001 RE=1.16450E+000 RC=2.32000E+000 EG=1.11000E+000 XTI=3.00000E+000 CJE=8.90512E-013 VJE=6.00000E-001 MJE=2.58570E-001 TF=1.54973E-011 XTF=3.91402E+001 VTF=2.15279E+000 ITF=2.13776E-001 CJC=5.46563E-013 VJC=3.80824E-001 MJC=2.02935E-001

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From piglet@21:1/5 to john larkin on Mon Jun 3 07:50:37 2024
    john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
    On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 20:35:02 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <jl@650pot.com> wrote in message
    news:4n2q5jln0sb9oqbfp81jm723tbjf7tol80@4ax.com...
    On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 19:46:14 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <jl@650pot.com> wrote in message
    news:eqsp5jde87vqs6du4a7djoalag7kpkuhkr@4ax.com...
    There are many NPNs in the standard LT Spice library.

    Does anyone know of a fast, RF type, transistor? It's hard to tell
    from the jillion lines of fine-print parameters.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=".model+BFR92A"


    I want to make a model of the MC10EP89 gate.



    That doesn't seem to be in the LT Spice library.

    2SC3838K looks OK.

    It's hard to pick parts, discrete or ICs, from the library.

    Yes it would be nice if a description of the part as well as the part
    number could be included.




    A sortable column of Ft would be nice for transistors. Lacking that,
    sorting on Vce helps spot the RF parts. Low voltage suggests RF.





    Ft isn’t one of the model parameters, guess you have to look for low Tf and Tr transit times or low junction capacitances?

    --
    piglet

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Mon Jun 3 17:18:15 2024
    On 3/06/2024 1:22 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 20:35:02 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <jl@650pot.com> wrote in message news:4n2q5jln0sb9oqbfp81jm723tbjf7tol80@4ax.com...
    On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 19:46:14 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <jl@650pot.com> wrote in message news:eqsp5jde87vqs6du4a7djoalag7kpkuhkr@4ax.com...
    There are many NPNs in the standard LT Spice library.

    Does anyone know of a fast, RF type, transistor? It's hard to tell
    from the jillion lines of fine-print parameters.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=".model+BFR92A"


    I want to make a model of the MC10EP89 gate.



    That doesn't seem to be in the LT Spice library.

    2SC3838K looks OK.

    It's hard to pick parts, discrete or ICs, from the library.

    Yes it would be nice if a description of the part as well as the part number could be included.

    A sortable column of Ft would be nice for transistors. Lacking that,
    sorting on Vce helps spot the RF parts. Low voltage suggests RF.


    Here's a circuit that includes a 5GHz ft BFR92A, which a typical
    broad-band transistor. I had to put in the Spice model into the .asc
    file myself.
    There used to be quite a few of them around, but - as Phil Hobbs has
    mentioned - most of them have gone obsolete. He has tracked down a
    surviving PNP equivalent, but you won't need that to simulate ECL.

    It's not the first time I've posted such a .asc file here.

    Version 4
    SHEET 1 2924 1040
    WIRE 128 -720 -768 -720
    WIRE 304 -720 128 -720
    WIRE 656 -720 304 -720
    WIRE 1088 -720 656 -720
    WIRE 1376 -720 1088 -720
    WIRE 1584 -720 1376 -720
    WIRE 1088 -576 1088 -720
    WIRE 1376 -576 1376 -720
    WIRE 128 -560 128 -720
    WIRE 304 -560 304 -720
    WIRE 656 -560 656 -720
    WIRE 1584 -544 1584 -720
    WIRE 1088 -400 1088 -496
    WIRE 1088 -400 960 -400
    WIRE 1248 -400 1088 -400
    WIRE 960 -368 960 -400
    WIRE 1248 -352 1248 -400
    WIRE 656 -320 656 -480
    WIRE 896 -320 656 -320
    WIRE 1376 -304 1376 -496
    WIRE 1376 -304 1312 -304
    WIRE 128 -288 128 -480
    WIRE 176 -288 128 -288
    WIRE 304 -288 304 -480
    WIRE 304 -288 240 -288
    WIRE 656 -208 656 -320
    WIRE 1376 -192 1376 -304
    WIRE 1584 -192 1584 -480
    WIRE 1584 -192 1376 -192
    WIRE 304 -160 304 -288
    WIRE 448 -160 304 -160
    WIRE 592 -160 448 -160
    WIRE -768 -64 -768 -720
    WIRE 128 48 128 -288
    WIRE 1376 48 1376 -192
    WIRE -272 96 -432 96
    WIRE 64 96 -192 96
    WIRE 304 160 304 -160
    WIRE 448 176 448 -160
    WIRE -432 240 -432 96
    WIRE -768 416 -768 16
    WIRE -768 416 -880 416
    WIRE -736 416 -768 416
    WIRE -432 416 -432 320
    WIRE -432 416 -736 416
    WIRE 304 416 304 240
    WIRE 304 416 -432 416
    WIRE 960 416 960 -272
    WIRE 960 416 304 416
    WIRE 1376 416 1376 128
    WIRE 1376 416 960 416
    WIRE 1424 416 1376 416
    WIRE 1520 416 1424 416
    WIRE 128 464 128 144
    WIRE 656 464 656 -112
    WIRE 656 464 128 464
    WIRE 1424 480 1424 416
    WIRE -880 496 -880 416
    WIRE 656 496 656 464
    WIRE 1248 624 1248 -256
    WIRE 1296 624 1248 624
    WIRE 1424 624 1424 560
    WIRE 1424 624 1296 624
    WIRE -736 640 -736 416
    WIRE -736 656 -736 640
    WIRE 1424 688 1424 624
    WIRE -736 944 -736 720
    WIRE 448 944 448 256
    WIRE 448 944 -736 944
    WIRE 656 944 656 576
    WIRE 656 944 448 944
    WIRE 1424 944 1424 768
    WIRE 1424 944 656 944
    WIRE 1648 944 1424 944
    FLAG -880 496 0
    FLAG 1296 624 out
    SYMBOL npn 64 48 R0
    SYMATTR InstName Q1
    SYMATTR Value BFR92A
    SYMBOL npn 592 -208 R0
    SYMATTR InstName Q2
    SYMATTR Value BFR92A
    SYMBOL voltage -768 -80 R0
    WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
    WINDOW 39 24 44 Left 2
    SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=0.1
    SYMATTR InstName V1
    SYMATTR Value 15.0
    SYMBOL voltage -736 624 R0
    WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
    WINDOW 39 24 44 Left 2
    SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=0.1
    SYMATTR InstName V2
    SYMATTR Value 15.0
    SYMBOL voltage -432 224 R0
    WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
    WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
    SYMATTR InstName V3
    SYMATTR Value PULSE(0 .2 1n 300p 300p 100p 100n 2)
    SYMBOL res -176 80 R90
    WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 2
    WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 2
    SYMATTR InstName R1
    SYMATTR Value 27
    SYMBOL res 640 480 R0
    SYMATTR InstName R3
    SYMATTR Value 3k0
    SYMBOL res 112 -576 R0
    SYMATTR InstName R4
    SYMATTR Value 2k
    SYMBOL res 288 144 R0
    SYMATTR InstName R5
    SYMATTR Value 100
    SYMBOL res 640 -576 R0
    SYMATTR InstName R6
    SYMATTR Value 1k
    SYMBOL res 288 -576 R0
    SYMATTR InstName R2
    SYMATTR Value 5k
    SYMBOL cap 240 -304 R90
    WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 2
    WINDOW 3 32 32 VTop 2
    SYMATTR InstName C1
    SYMATTR Value 10p
    SYMBOL res 432 160 R0
    SYMATTR InstName R7
    SYMATTR Value 7k5
    SYMBOL pnp 1312 -256 R180
    SYMATTR InstName Q3
    SYMATTR Value 2N3906
    SYMBOL pnp 896 -272 M180
    SYMATTR InstName Q4
    SYMATTR Value 2N3906
    SYMBOL res 1072 -592 R0
    SYMATTR InstName R8
    SYMATTR Value 100
    SYMBOL res 1360 -592 R0
    SYMATTR InstName R9
    SYMATTR Value 3k3
    SYMBOL res 1360 32 R0
    SYMATTR InstName R10
    SYMATTR Value 12k
    SYMBOL res 1408 464 R0
    SYMATTR InstName R11
    SYMATTR Value 56
    SYMBOL res 1408 672 R0
    SYMATTR InstName R12
    SYMATTR Value 360
    SYMBOL cap 1568 -544 R0
    SYMATTR InstName C2
    SYMATTR Value 10n
    TEXT -272 1000 Left 2 !.model BFR92A NPN(IS=0.1213E-15 VAF=30 BF=94.73 IKF=0.46227 XTB=0 BR=10.729 CJC=946.47E-15 CJE=10.416E-15 TR=1.2744E-9 TF=26.796E-12 ITF=0.0044601 VTF=0.32861 XTF=0.3817 RB=14.998
    RC=0.13793 RE=0.29088 Vceo=15 Icrating=4m mfg=Infineon)
    TEXT -904 1024 Left 2 !.tran 0 300n 0

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From legg@21:1/5 to john larkin on Mon Jun 3 08:33:14 2024
    On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 15:36:35 -0700, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:

    There are many NPNs in the standard LT Spice library.

    Does anyone know of a fast, RF type, transistor? It's hard to tell
    from the jillion lines of fine-print parameters.

    I want to make a model of the MC10EP89 gate.

    From the standard.bjt spice parameter spreadsheet, compiled some time
    ago, there are a few ecl spice models.

    .MODEL ECLTN04P75 NPN(IS=6.50E-18 ISE=3.40E-16 ISC=0 ISS=0.0 XTI=4
    BF=120 BR=10 IKF=8.0E-3 IKR=7E-4 XTB=0.73 VAF=30 VAR=5
    VJE=0.9 VJC=0.67 VJS=0.75 RE=17.5 RB=378.5 RC=74 RBM=120
    CJE=2.36E=14 CJS=5.38E-14 CJC=2.74E-14 XCJC=.3 FC=0.9 NF=1 NR=1 NE=2
    NC=2 NS=1.0 MJE=0.4 MJC=0.32 MJS=0.4 TF=8E-12 TR=1E-9 Trb1=0 Tre1=0.0
    Trc1=0.0 TRM1=0.0 IRB=1E-5 ITF=2.1E-2 VTF=1.4 XTF=10 GAMMA=1E-11
    Rco=0 Nk=0.5 PTF=0 EG=1.1 KF=0 AF=1 Qco=0 Vo=10 Quasimod=0
    IBVbe=1E-10
    Bvbe=1E5 BVcbo=1E5 Vceo=5.5 Icrating=0 MFG=1.74u_x_4.75u_emitter)

    .MODEL ECLTN06 NPN(IS=8.56E-18 ISE=4.48E-16 ISC=0 ISS=0.0 XTI=4
    BF=120 BR=10 IKF=1.05E-2 IKR=9.22E-4 XTB=0.73 VAF=30 VAR=5
    VJE=0.9 VJC=0.67 VJS=0.75 RE=13.3 RB=291.4 RC=62.7 RBM=95
    CJE=2.99E-14 CJS=6.09E-14 CJC=3.12E-14 XCJC=.3 FC=0.9 NF=1 NR=1 NE=2
    NC=2 NS=1.0 MJE=0.4 MJC=0.32 MJS=0.4 TF=8E-12 TR=1E-9 Trb1=0 Tre1=0.0
    Trc1=0.0 TRM1=0.0 IRB=1.32E-5 ITF=2.76E-2 VTF=1.4 XTF=10 GAMMA=1E-11
    Rco=0 Nk=0.5 PTF=0 EG=1.1 KF=0 AF=1 Qco=0 Vo=10 Quasimod=0 IBVbe=1E-10
    Bvbe=1E5 BVcbo=1E5 Vceo=5.5 Icrating=0 MFG=1.75u_x_6.0u_emitter)

    .MODEL ECLTN13P5 NPN(IS=2.09E-17 ISE=1.09E-15 ISC=0 ISS=0.0 XTI=4
    BF=120 BR=10 IKF=2.57E-2 IKR=2.25E-3 XTB=0.73 VAF=30 VAR=5
    VJE=0.9 VJC=0.67 VJS=0.75 RE=5.44 RB=122.6 RC=32.8 RBM=42.2
    CJE=6.74E-14 CJS=1.03E-13 CJC=5.38E-14 XCJC=.3 FC=0.9 NF=1 NR=1 NE=2
    NC=2 NS=1.0 MJE=0.4 MJC=0.32 MJS=0.4 TF=8E-12 TR=1E-9 Trb1=0 Tre1=0.0
    Trc1=0.0 TRM1=0.0 IRB=3.22E-5 ITF=6.75E-2 VTF=1.4 XTF=10 GAMMA=1E-11
    Rco=0 Nk=0.5 PTF=0 EG=1.1 KF=0 AF=1 Qco=0 Vo=10 Quasimod=0 IBVbe=1E-10
    Bvbe=1E5 BVcbo=1E5 Vceo=5.5 Icrating=0 MFG=1.75u_x_13.5u_emitter)

    .MODEL ECLTN4 NPN(IS=5.27E-18 ISE=2.75E-16 ISC=0 ISS=0.0 XTI=4
    BF=120 BR=10 IKF=6.48E-3 IKR=5.67E-4 XTB=0.73 VAF=30 VAR=5
    VJE=0.9 VJC=0.67 VJS=0.75 RE=21.6 RB=461.6 RC=83.1 RBM=142.5
    CJE=19.9E-15 CJS=49.6E-15 CJC=25.1E-15 XCJC=0.3 FC=0.9 NF=1 NR=1 NE=2
    NC=2 NS=1.0 MJE=0.4 MJC=0.32 MJS=0.4 TF=8E-12 TR=1E-9 Trb1=0 Tre1=0.0
    Trc1=0.0 TRM1=0.0 IRB=8.1E-6 ITF=1.7E-2 VTF=1.4 XTF=10 GAMMA=1E-11
    Rco=0 Nk=0.5 PTF=0 EG=1.1 KF=0 AF=1 Qco=0 Vo=10 Quasimod=0 IBVbe=1E-10
    Bvbe=1E5 BVcbo=1E5 Vceo=5.5 Icrating=0 MFG=1.75u_x_4.0u_emitter)

    .MODEL ECLTNECLIPS NPN(IS=2.27E-16 ISE=1.19E-14 ISC=0 ISS=0.0 XTI=4
    BF=120 BR=10 IKF=0.279 IKR=2.44E-2 XTB=0.73 VAF=30 VAR=5
    VJE=0.9 VJC=0.67 VJS=0.75 RE=0.501 RB=15.98 RC=11.1 RBM=4.17
    CJE=6.11E-13 CJS=6.68E-13 CJC=4.4E-13 XCJC=.3 FC=0.9 NF=1 NR=1 NE=2
    NC=2 NS=1.0 MJE=0.4 MJC=0.32 MJS=0.4 TF=8E-12 TR=1E-9 Trb1=0 Tre1=0.0
    Trc1=0.0 TRM1=0.0 IRB=3.49E-4 ITF=0.733 VTF=1.4 XTF=10 GAMMA=1E-11
    Rco=0 Nk=0.5 PTF=0 EG=1.1 KF=0 AF=1 Qco=0 Vo=10 Quasimod=0 IBVbe=1E-10
    Bvbe=1E5 BVcbo=1E5 Vceo=5.5 Icrating=0 MFG=ECLout)


    This is a simple text copy/paste into notepad, with tabs removed and
    carriage returns added.

    RL

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to erichpwagner@hotmail.com on Mon Jun 3 07:09:40 2024
    On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 07:50:37 -0000 (UTC), piglet
    <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote:

    john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
    On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 20:35:02 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <jl@650pot.com> wrote in message
    news:4n2q5jln0sb9oqbfp81jm723tbjf7tol80@4ax.com...
    On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 19:46:14 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <jl@650pot.com> wrote in message
    news:eqsp5jde87vqs6du4a7djoalag7kpkuhkr@4ax.com...
    There are many NPNs in the standard LT Spice library.

    Does anyone know of a fast, RF type, transistor? It's hard to tell >>>>>> from the jillion lines of fine-print parameters.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=".model+BFR92A"


    I want to make a model of the MC10EP89 gate.



    That doesn't seem to be in the LT Spice library.

    2SC3838K looks OK.

    It's hard to pick parts, discrete or ICs, from the library.

    Yes it would be nice if a description of the part as well as the part
    number could be included.




    A sortable column of Ft would be nice for transistors. Lacking that,
    sorting on Vce helps spot the RF parts. Low voltage suggests RF.





    Ft isn’t one of the model parameters, guess you have to look for low Tf and >Tr transit times or low junction capacitances?

    Agreed, but reading hundreds of lines of fine print, or looking up
    hundreds of data sheets, is a nuisance.

    I sorted on lowest Vce and then found the capacitances and then looked
    up the data sheets. LT Spice is not friendly to people with bad
    vision.

    I should have used one of the LS3xx parts. They have Vceo and Ic both
    = 0.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Tue Jun 4 00:10:32 2024
    On 3/06/2024 11:59 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 17:18:15 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 3/06/2024 1:22 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 20:35:02 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <jl@650pot.com> wrote in message news:4n2q5jln0sb9oqbfp81jm723tbjf7tol80@4ax.com...
    On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 19:46:14 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <jl@650pot.com> wrote in message news:eqsp5jde87vqs6du4a7djoalag7kpkuhkr@4ax.com...
    There are many NPNs in the standard LT Spice library.

    Does anyone know of a fast, RF type, transistor? It's hard to tell >>>>>>> from the jillion lines of fine-print parameters.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=".model+BFR92A"


    I want to make a model of the MC10EP89 gate.



    That doesn't seem to be in the LT Spice library.

    2SC3838K looks OK.

    It's hard to pick parts, discrete or ICs, from the library.

    Yes it would be nice if a description of the part as well as the part number could be included.

    A sortable column of Ft would be nice for transistors. Lacking that,
    sorting on Vce helps spot the RF parts. Low voltage suggests RF.


    Here's a circuit that includes a 5GHz ft BFR92A, which a typical
    broad-band transistor. I had to put in the Spice model into the .asc
    file myself.

    There used to be quite a few of them around, but - as Phil Hobbs has
    mentioned - most of them have gone obsolete. He has tracked down a
    surviving PNP equivalent, but you won't need that to simulate ECL.

    It's not the first time I've posted such a .asc file here.

    Gosh, what a hideous mess, in many respects.

    Do tell us why. You do claim to revel in electronic discussion.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jun 3 06:59:23 2024
    On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 17:18:15 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 3/06/2024 1:22 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 20:35:02 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <jl@650pot.com> wrote in message news:4n2q5jln0sb9oqbfp81jm723tbjf7tol80@4ax.com...
    On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 19:46:14 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <jl@650pot.com> wrote in message news:eqsp5jde87vqs6du4a7djoalag7kpkuhkr@4ax.com...
    There are many NPNs in the standard LT Spice library.

    Does anyone know of a fast, RF type, transistor? It's hard to tell >>>>>> from the jillion lines of fine-print parameters.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=".model+BFR92A"


    I want to make a model of the MC10EP89 gate.



    That doesn't seem to be in the LT Spice library.

    2SC3838K looks OK.

    It's hard to pick parts, discrete or ICs, from the library.

    Yes it would be nice if a description of the part as well as the part number could be included.

    A sortable column of Ft would be nice for transistors. Lacking that,
    sorting on Vce helps spot the RF parts. Low voltage suggests RF.


    Here's a circuit that includes a 5GHz ft BFR92A, which a typical
    broad-band transistor. I had to put in the Spice model into the .asc
    file myself.
    There used to be quite a few of them around, but - as Phil Hobbs has >mentioned - most of them have gone obsolete. He has tracked down a
    surviving PNP equivalent, but you won't need that to simulate ECL.

    It's not the first time I've posted such a .asc file here.

    Gosh, what a hideous mess, in many respects.







    Version 4
    SHEET 1 2924 1040
    WIRE 128 -720 -768 -720
    WIRE 304 -720 128 -720
    WIRE 656 -720 304 -720
    WIRE 1088 -720 656 -720
    WIRE 1376 -720 1088 -720
    WIRE 1584 -720 1376 -720
    WIRE 1088 -576 1088 -720
    WIRE 1376 -576 1376 -720
    WIRE 128 -560 128 -720
    WIRE 304 -560 304 -720
    WIRE 656 -560 656 -720
    WIRE 1584 -544 1584 -720
    WIRE 1088 -400 1088 -496
    WIRE 1088 -400 960 -400
    WIRE 1248 -400 1088 -400
    WIRE 960 -368 960 -400
    WIRE 1248 -352 1248 -400
    WIRE 656 -320 656 -480
    WIRE 896 -320 656 -320
    WIRE 1376 -304 1376 -496
    WIRE 1376 -304 1312 -304
    WIRE 128 -288 128 -480
    WIRE 176 -288 128 -288
    WIRE 304 -288 304 -480
    WIRE 304 -288 240 -288
    WIRE 656 -208 656 -320
    WIRE 1376 -192 1376 -304
    WIRE 1584 -192 1584 -480
    WIRE 1584 -192 1376 -192
    WIRE 304 -160 304 -288
    WIRE 448 -160 304 -160
    WIRE 592 -160 448 -160
    WIRE -768 -64 -768 -720
    WIRE 128 48 128 -288
    WIRE 1376 48 1376 -192
    WIRE -272 96 -432 96
    WIRE 64 96 -192 96
    WIRE 304 160 304 -160
    WIRE 448 176 448 -160
    WIRE -432 240 -432 96
    WIRE -768 416 -768 16
    WIRE -768 416 -880 416
    WIRE -736 416 -768 416
    WIRE -432 416 -432 320
    WIRE -432 416 -736 416
    WIRE 304 416 304 240
    WIRE 304 416 -432 416
    WIRE 960 416 960 -272
    WIRE 960 416 304 416
    WIRE 1376 416 1376 128
    WIRE 1376 416 960 416
    WIRE 1424 416 1376 416
    WIRE 1520 416 1424 416
    WIRE 128 464 128 144
    WIRE 656 464 656 -112
    WIRE 656 464 128 464
    WIRE 1424 480 1424 416
    WIRE -880 496 -880 416
    WIRE 656 496 656 464
    WIRE 1248 624 1248 -256
    WIRE 1296 624 1248 624
    WIRE 1424 624 1424 560
    WIRE 1424 624 1296 624
    WIRE -736 640 -736 416
    WIRE -736 656 -736 640
    WIRE 1424 688 1424 624
    WIRE -736 944 -736 720
    WIRE 448 944 448 256
    WIRE 448 944 -736 944
    WIRE 656 944 656 576
    WIRE 656 944 448 944
    WIRE 1424 944 1424 768
    WIRE 1424 944 656 944
    WIRE 1648 944 1424 944
    FLAG -880 496 0
    FLAG 1296 624 out
    SYMBOL npn 64 48 R0
    SYMATTR InstName Q1
    SYMATTR Value BFR92A
    SYMBOL npn 592 -208 R0
    SYMATTR InstName Q2
    SYMATTR Value BFR92A
    SYMBOL voltage -768 -80 R0
    WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
    WINDOW 39 24 44 Left 2
    SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=0.1
    SYMATTR InstName V1
    SYMATTR Value 15.0
    SYMBOL voltage -736 624 R0
    WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
    WINDOW 39 24 44 Left 2
    SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=0.1
    SYMATTR InstName V2
    SYMATTR Value 15.0
    SYMBOL voltage -432 224 R0
    WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
    WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
    SYMATTR InstName V3
    SYMATTR Value PULSE(0 .2 1n 300p 300p 100p 100n 2)
    SYMBOL res -176 80 R90
    WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 2
    WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 2
    SYMATTR InstName R1
    SYMATTR Value 27
    SYMBOL res 640 480 R0
    SYMATTR InstName R3
    SYMATTR Value 3k0
    SYMBOL res 112 -576 R0
    SYMATTR InstName R4
    SYMATTR Value 2k
    SYMBOL res 288 144 R0
    SYMATTR InstName R5
    SYMATTR Value 100
    SYMBOL res 640 -576 R0
    SYMATTR InstName R6
    SYMATTR Value 1k
    SYMBOL res 288 -576 R0
    SYMATTR InstName R2
    SYMATTR Value 5k
    SYMBOL cap 240 -304 R90
    WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 2
    WINDOW 3 32 32 VTop 2
    SYMATTR InstName C1
    SYMATTR Value 10p
    SYMBOL res 432 160 R0
    SYMATTR InstName R7
    SYMATTR Value 7k5
    SYMBOL pnp 1312 -256 R180
    SYMATTR InstName Q3
    SYMATTR Value 2N3906
    SYMBOL pnp 896 -272 M180
    SYMATTR InstName Q4
    SYMATTR Value 2N3906
    SYMBOL res 1072 -592 R0
    SYMATTR InstName R8
    SYMATTR Value 100
    SYMBOL res 1360 -592 R0
    SYMATTR InstName R9
    SYMATTR Value 3k3
    SYMBOL res 1360 32 R0
    SYMATTR InstName R10
    SYMATTR Value 12k
    SYMBOL res 1408 464 R0
    SYMATTR InstName R11
    SYMATTR Value 56
    SYMBOL res 1408 672 R0
    SYMATTR InstName R12
    SYMATTR Value 360
    SYMBOL cap 1568 -544 R0
    SYMATTR InstName C2
    SYMATTR Value 10n
    TEXT -272 1000 Left 2 !.model BFR92A NPN(IS=0.1213E-15 VAF=30 BF=94.73 >IKF=0.46227 XTB=0 BR=10.729 CJC=946.47E-15 CJE=10.416E-15 TR=1.2744E-9 >TF=26.796E-12 ITF=0.0044601 VTF=0.32861 XTF=0.3817 RB=14.998
    RC=0.13793 RE=0.29088 Vceo=15 Icrating=4m mfg=Infineon)
    TEXT -904 1024 Left 2 !.tran 0 300n 0

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Mon Jun 3 07:18:01 2024
    On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 09:58:52 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 6/3/24 00:36, john larkin wrote:
    There are many NPNs in the standard LT Spice library.

    Does anyone know of a fast, RF type, transistor? It's hard to tell
    from the jillion lines of fine-print parameters.

    I want to make a model of the MC10EP89 gate.


    I always used the -now obsolete- BFR92A for such things.
    That's a 5GHz Ft NPN that I used often. It's not in the
    library, I think. Below the model. Mind the line wraps.

    Jeroen Belleman

    .model BFR92A NPN IS=4.11877E-016 BF=1.02639E+002 NF=9.97275E-001 >VAF=6.26719E+001 IKF=3.20054E+000 ISE=4.01062E-015 NE=1.57708E+000 >BR=1.81086E+001 NR=9.96202E-001 VAR=3.36915E+000 IKR=1.28155E+000 >ISC=2.79905E-016 NC=1.07543E+000 RB=1.00000E+001 IRB=1.00000E-006 >RBM=1.00000E+001 RE=1.16450E+000 RC=2.32000E+000 EG=1.11000E+000 >XTI=3.00000E+000 CJE=8.90512E-013 VJE=6.00000E-001 MJE=2.58570E-001 >TF=1.54973E-011 XTF=3.91402E+001 VTF=2.15279E+000 ITF=2.13776E-001 >CJC=5.46563E-013 VJC=3.80824E-001 MJC=2.02935E-001

    2SC3838K is in the library, and has Ft = 3.5G typically. It's good
    enough for what I want to do now.

    This is actually a bit faster than the MC10EP89:

    Version 4
    SHEET 1 1208 700
    WIRE 112 -64 -16 -64
    WIRE 272 -64 112 -64
    WIRE 400 -64 272 -64
    WIRE 576 -64 400 -64
    WIRE 576 0 576 -64
    WIRE -16 16 -16 -64
    WIRE 272 16 272 -64
    WIRE 400 96 400 -64
    WIRE 272 144 272 96
    WIRE 336 144 272 144
    WIRE 576 144 576 80
    WIRE -192 192 -368 192
    WIRE -128 192 -192 192
    WIRE -128 224 -128 192
    WIRE 112 224 112 -64
    WIRE -368 240 -368 192
    WIRE 400 256 400 192
    WIRE 576 256 400 256
    WIRE 624 256 576 256
    WIRE 640 256 624 256
    WIRE -16 272 -16 96
    WIRE 48 272 -16 272
    WIRE -368 352 -368 320
    WIRE -192 352 -368 352
    WIRE -128 352 -128 304
    WIRE -128 352 -192 352
    WIRE 112 384 112 320
    WIRE 400 384 112 384
    WIRE 624 384 400 384
    WIRE 640 384 624 384
    WIRE -368 400 -368 352
    WIRE -16 432 -16 272
    WIRE 272 432 272 144
    WIRE 400 432 400 384
    WIRE 576 432 576 256
    WIRE -16 560 -16 512
    WIRE 272 560 272 512
    WIRE 400 560 400 512
    WIRE 576 560 576 512
    FLAG 576 144 0
    FLAG -192 192 A
    FLAG -192 352 B
    FLAG 624 256 X
    FLAG 624 384 Y
    FLAG -16 560 0
    FLAG 272 560 0
    FLAG -368 400 0
    FLAG 400 560 0
    FLAG 576 560 0
    SYMBOL npn 336 96 R0
    WINDOW 0 100 21 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 71 55 Left 2
    SYMATTR InstName Q1
    SYMATTR Value 2SC3838K
    SYMBOL voltage 576 -16 R0
    WINDOW 0 48 40 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 54 75 Left 2
    SYMATTR InstName V1
    SYMATTR Value 5
    SYMBOL res 256 0 R0
    WINDOW 0 -65 38 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 -70 76 Left 2
    SYMATTR InstName R2
    SYMATTR Value 200
    SYMBOL npn 48 224 R0
    WINDOW 0 100 21 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 71 55 Left 2
    SYMATTR InstName Q2
    SYMATTR Value 2SC3838K
    SYMBOL res -32 0 R0
    WINDOW 0 53 46 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 48 80 Left 2
    SYMATTR InstName R1
    SYMATTR Value 200
    SYMBOL bi -16 432 R0
    WINDOW 0 58 111 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 -343 170 Left 2
    SYMATTR InstName B1
    SYMATTR Value I=4m*( 1 - tanh (200 * ( V(B)-V(A) ) ) )
    SYMBOL res -144 208 R0
    WINDOW 0 -60 48 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 -69 79 Left 2
    SYMATTR InstName R5
    SYMATTR Value 10K
    SYMBOL bi 272 432 R0
    WINDOW 0 -91 109 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 -100 169 Left 2
    SYMATTR InstName B2
    SYMATTR Value I=4m*( 1 - tanh (200 * ( V(A)-V(B) ) ) )
    SYMBOL voltage -368 224 R0
    WINDOW 0 -58 -21 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 -94 -80 Left 2
    WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
    WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
    SYMATTR InstName V2
    SYMATTR Value PULSE(-1 1 1n 500p 500p 2n)
    SYMBOL res 384 416 R0
    WINDOW 0 53 40 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 47 71 Left 2
    SYMATTR InstName R3
    SYMATTR Value 200
    SYMBOL res 560 416 R0
    WINDOW 0 49 36 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 46 71 Left 2
    SYMATTR InstName R4
    SYMATTR Value 200
    TEXT -288 48 Left 2 !.tran 5n
    TEXT 416 232 Left 2 ;1.6v pp
    TEXT -296 -40 Left 2 ;MC10EP89
    TEXT 136 360 Left 2 ;1.6v pp
    TEXT -328 0 Left 2 ;JL Jun 2 2024

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to piglet on Tue Jun 4 00:27:33 2024
    On 3/06/2024 5:50 pm, piglet wrote:
    john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
    On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 20:35:02 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <jl@650pot.com> wrote in message
    news:4n2q5jln0sb9oqbfp81jm723tbjf7tol80@4ax.com...
    On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 19:46:14 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <jl@650pot.com> wrote in message
    news:eqsp5jde87vqs6du4a7djoalag7kpkuhkr@4ax.com...
    There are many NPNs in the standard LT Spice library.

    Does anyone know of a fast, RF type, transistor? It's hard to tell >>>>>> from the jillion lines of fine-print parameters.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=".model+BFR92A"


    I want to make a model of the MC10EP89 gate.



    That doesn't seem to be in the LT Spice library.

    2SC3838K looks OK.

    It's hard to pick parts, discrete or ICs, from the library.

    Yes it would be nice if a description of the part as well as the part
    number could be included.

    A sortable column of Ft would be nice for transistors. Lacking that,
    sorting on Vce helps spot the RF parts. Low voltage suggests RF.

    Ft isn’t one of the model parameters, guess you have to look for low Tf and Tr transit times or low junction capacitances?

    Or you can look at wide-band transistors, pick one and plug the
    manufacturers Spice model into LTSpice yourself, which is something I've
    done from time to time (and posted the .asc files here), and John Larkin doesn't seem to be able to manage.

    He's just described the example I pulled out of the circuit file on my
    computer as "hideous mess", which is inaccurate. Nobody would use +/-15V
    rails to drive just that circuit, but if +/-15V rails are what you have
    got, that circuit could solve a specific problem.

    --
    Bill sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Tue Jun 4 01:22:10 2024
    On 4/06/2024 12:09 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 07:50:37 -0000 (UTC), piglet
    <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote:

    john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
    On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 20:35:02 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <jl@650pot.com> wrote in message
    news:4n2q5jln0sb9oqbfp81jm723tbjf7tol80@4ax.com...
    On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 19:46:14 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <jl@650pot.com> wrote in message
    news:eqsp5jde87vqs6du4a7djoalag7kpkuhkr@4ax.com...
    There are many NPNs in the standard LT Spice library.

    Does anyone know of a fast, RF type, transistor? It's hard to tell >>>>>>> from the jillion lines of fine-print parameters.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=".model+BFR92A"


    I want to make a model of the MC10EP89 gate.



    That doesn't seem to be in the LT Spice library.

    2SC3838K looks OK.

    It's hard to pick parts, discrete or ICs, from the library.

    Yes it would be nice if a description of the part as well as the part
    number could be included.

    A sortable column of Ft would be nice for transistors. Lacking that,
    sorting on Vce helps spot the RF parts. Low voltage suggests RF.

    Ft isn’t one of the model parameters, guess you have to look for low Tf and
    Tr transit times or low junction capacitances >
    Agreed, but reading hundreds of lines of fine print, or looking up
    hundreds of data sheets, is a nuisance.

    Looking at what distributors offer is easier and quicker.

    They have an interest in offering their various customer the parts they
    are likely to buy. Mouser did let me pick out the BFR92A pretty quickly.

    I sorted on lowest Vce and then found the capacitances and then looked
    up the data sheets. LT Spice is not friendly to people with bad
    vision.

    LTSpice is in the business of modelling the parts you select, not
    selecting them for you

    I should have used one of the LS3xx parts. They have Vceo and Ic both
    = 0.

    https://cms.nacsemi.com/content/AuthDatasheets/LISIS00171-1.pdf

    All have an Ft of 200MHz. Not fast enough for ECL.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Tue Jun 4 01:46:01 2024
    On 4/06/2024 12:18 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 09:58:52 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 6/3/24 00:36, john larkin wrote:
    There are many NPNs in the standard LT Spice library.

    Does anyone know of a fast, RF type, transistor? It's hard to tell
    from the jillion lines of fine-print parameters.

    I want to make a model of the MC10EP89 gate.


    I always used the -now obsolete- BFR92A for such things.
    That's a 5GHz Ft NPN that I used often. It's not in the
    library, I think. Below the model. Mind the line wraps.

    Jeroen Belleman

    .model BFR92A NPN IS=4.11877E-016 BF=1.02639E+002 NF=9.97275E-001
    VAF=6.26719E+001 IKF=3.20054E+000 ISE=4.01062E-015 NE=1.57708E+000
    BR=1.81086E+001 NR=9.96202E-001 VAR=3.36915E+000 IKR=1.28155E+000
    ISC=2.79905E-016 NC=1.07543E+000 RB=1.00000E+001 IRB=1.00000E-006
    RBM=1.00000E+001 RE=1.16450E+000 RC=2.32000E+000 EG=1.11000E+000
    XTI=3.00000E+000 CJE=8.90512E-013 VJE=6.00000E-001 MJE=2.58570E-001
    TF=1.54973E-011 XTF=3.91402E+001 VTF=2.15279E+000 ITF=2.13776E-001
    CJC=5.46563E-013 VJC=3.80824E-001 MJC=2.02935E-001

    2SC3838K is in the library, and has Ft = 3.5G typically. It's good
    enough for what I want to do now.

    This is actually a bit faster than the MC10EP89:

    <snipped two transistor model>

    It is worth noting that even 3.5GHz transistors tend to need
    base-stopper resistors in real life. Collector-base capacitive feedback
    can make them self-oscillate without it. Phil Hobbs has found two Murata ferrite bead/chips which are specified as presenting resistive
    impedances of 60R and 200R at 5GHz which seems to do the job too.

    Jim Thompson designed that kind of integrated circuit, but he's been
    dead for a while now.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From legg@21:1/5 to john larkin on Mon Jun 3 13:36:46 2024
    On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 20:22:57 -0700, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 20:35:02 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <jl@650pot.com> wrote in message news:4n2q5jln0sb9oqbfp81jm723tbjf7tol80@4ax.com...
    On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 19:46:14 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <jl@650pot.com> wrote in message news:eqsp5jde87vqs6du4a7djoalag7kpkuhkr@4ax.com...
    There are many NPNs in the standard LT Spice library.

    Does anyone know of a fast, RF type, transistor? It's hard to tell
    from the jillion lines of fine-print parameters.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=".model+BFR92A"


    I want to make a model of the MC10EP89 gate.



    That doesn't seem to be in the LT Spice library.

    2SC3838K looks OK.

    It's hard to pick parts, discrete or ICs, from the library.

    Yes it would be nice if a description of the part as well as the part number could be included.




    A sortable column of Ft would be nice for transistors. Lacking that,
    sorting on Vce helps spot the RF parts. Low voltage suggests RF.



    Tr and Tf are useful for models.

    There are a few more ecl models in the current spreadsheet.
    Some are duplicates from different revs or sources - variations
    possibly due to published typos. (~ varying XTI, VJS, IKF, ITF)

    http://ve3ute.ca/query/bjt_spice_parameter.zip

    RL

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From legg@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jun 5 23:46:24 2024
    On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 00:10:32 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:
    <snip>
    Gosh, what a hideous mess, in many respects.

    Do tell us why. You do claim to revel in electronic discussion.

    Perhaps its the nonlinearity of the output stage, which is biased off.

    So it's a switch, but the slow speed of the output, if engaged,
    results in a stretched pulse.

    The assertion that spice parameter Tf is related to spec sheet Ft is
    only a guess.

    The bfr92a model written into your simulation turns out to
    be part of a more complete model published as a die-within-a-package.
    There's little difference in performance when substituted into the
    simulation.

    If all the models with Tf<20ps are evaluated, you get unpredictable
    results. Note that the bfr92a model doesn't actually meet this
    limitation, but other similar models do (~bfr93). There are roughly
    270 of them.

    Each will either:

    - fail to engage with the slow output detector.(31)
    - act roughly like the original simulation.(217)
    - oscillate at an unrelated frequency.(19)
    - stall.(1)
    - give incoherent wild results (2)

    http://ve3ute.ca/query/Tf_20ps_vs_bfr92a.zip

    Just why one model does one thing, while another does something
    else might be interesting to figure out.

    RL

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to legg on Thu Jun 6 23:18:12 2024
    On 6/06/2024 1:46 pm, legg wrote:
    On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 00:10:32 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:
    <snip>
    Gosh, what a hideous mess, in many respects.

    Do tell us why. You do claim to revel in electronic discussion.

    Perhaps its the nonlinearity of the output stage, which is biased off.

    So it's a switch, but the slow speed of the output, if engaged,
    results in a stretched pulse.

    The pulse stretching happens between the two BFR92 transistors, which
    act as a classical emitted-coupled monostable, which stretch the input
    spike out to about 30nsec

    Q3 and Q4 just level shift this down to provide an ECL-level output
    pulse which is also 30nsec wide.

    There are other ways of doing this kind of level shifting and you can
    use faster transistors.

    The assertion that spice parameter Tf is related to spec sheet Ft is
    only a guess.

    Not one that I made. The BFR92a is just the default broad-band
    transistor, which is why Jeroen Belleman picked it too.

    The bfr92a model written into your simulation turns out to
    be part of a more complete model published as a die-within-a-package.
    There's little difference in performance when substituted into the simulation.

    If all the models with Tf<20ps are evaluated, you get unpredictable
    results. Note that the bfr92a model doesn't actually meet this
    limitation, but other similar models do (~bfr93). There are roughly
    270 of them.

    Each will either:

    - fail to engage with the slow output detector.(31)

    If they aren't fast enough to get triggered as emitter-coupled
    monostable by a pulse that is 400psec wide at hallf-maximium voltage
    of 100mV.

    - act roughly like the original simulation.(217)
    - oscillate at an unrelated frequency.(19)

    Broad-band transistors will oscillate without a base-stopper of adequate resistance - I tended to end up with resistors between 22R and 33R.
    There are better solutions, but in the work I did it wasn't worth the
    trouble of finding them.

    - stall.(1)

    Up the gain.

    - give incoherent wild results (2)

    Change the base-stopper resistance.

    http://ve3ute.ca/query/Tf_20ps_vs_bfr92a.zip

    Just why one model does one thing, while another does something
    else might be interesting to figure out.

    No model is perfect. If you model something and it seems to work, it's
    worth putting together a real circuit (which takes longer) and seeing
    what it actually does.

    If it doesn't work, or doesn't work all that well. fiddling with the
    model may point the way to something that might work better.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to legg on Thu Jun 6 09:02:51 2024
    On Wed, 05 Jun 2024 23:46:24 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

    On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 00:10:32 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:
    <snip>
    Gosh, what a hideous mess, in many respects.

    Do tell us why. You do claim to revel in electronic discussion.

    Perhaps its the nonlinearity of the output stage, which is biased off.

    I believe that a Spice model should be treated as an engineering
    document: visible title, author, and correct latest-edit date, and it
    should be neatly drawn, with coherent comments where appropriate. It
    should be obvious where the inputs and outputs are, and important
    nodes should have useful net names.

    Versions should be identifiable as such.

    A sim should be useful days or years after it's started. We often have
    a README.txt file alongside the .asc files to explain the situation.

    Most amateur Spice sims are messy tangled horrors.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Jun 7 02:58:40 2024
    On 7/06/2024 2:02 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 05 Jun 2024 23:46:24 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

    On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 00:10:32 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:
    <snip>
    Gosh, what a hideous mess, in many respects.

    Do tell us why. You do claim to revel in electronic discussion.

    Perhaps its the nonlinearity of the output stage, which is biased off.

    I believe that a Spice model should be treated as an engineering
    document: visible title, author, and correct latest-edit date, and it
    should be neatly drawn, with coherent comments where appropriate. It
    should be obvious where the inputs and outputs are, and important
    nodes should have useful net names.

    Versions should be identifiable as such.

    If they are part of production documentation, all this goes without saying.

    If we are posting a simple circuit here to make a point, it is less
    obvious that we need to conform to your production standards.

    What I posted was a very simple four transistor circuit - two fast NPNs arranged as an emitter-coupled 30nsec monostable and a slower
    long-tailed pair level shifter to turn the output into an ECL-level pulse.

    Anybody who has done discrete transistor design should have been able to
    parse it by looking at it.

    The only messy object in the diagram was the Spice directive defining
    the BFR92a Spice model, and the only reason I posted the .asc file was
    to provide an example of that approach in action.

    I've no idea why I put the sim together - it's paired with a bare
    two-BFR92a emitter coupled monostable sim where the components were
    strung between +5V and and -5V rails. The real life examples it was
    probably drawn from had a +5V rail for the old TTL and a -4.5V rail for
    the old ECL, though I did some work with the Gigabit Logic's GaAs parts
    that needed two negative rails, -3.3V and -5.2V which was a real pain,
    but that was just before ECLinPs and if you needed the speed, that was
    what it took.

    A sim should be useful days or years after it's started. We often have
    a README.txt file alongside the .asc files to explain the situation.

    You shouldn't have needed a README.txt file to tell you how to parse
    that circuit.

    Most amateur Spice sims are messy tangled horrors.

    If you can't parse a circuit diagram, it always looks like a messy
    tangled horror, and anything complicated always takes a certain amount
    of inspection before it starts making sense.

    If you though that what I posted was a "messy tangled horror" you are at
    the "cat sat on the mat" level of schematic reading.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From legg@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jun 6 14:05:24 2024
    On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 23:18:12 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 6/06/2024 1:46 pm, legg wrote:
    <snip>

    If all the models with Tf<20ps are evaluated, you get unpredictable
    results. Note that the bfr92a model doesn't actually meet this
    limitation, but other similar models do (~bfr93). There are roughly
    270 of them.

    Each will either:

    - fail to engage with the slow output detector.(31)

    If they aren't fast enough to get triggered as emitter-coupled
    monostable by a pulse that is 400psec wide at hallf-maximium voltage
    of 100mV.

    - act roughly like the original simulation.(217)
    - oscillate at an unrelated frequency.(19)

    Broad-band transistors will oscillate without a base-stopper of adequate >resistance - I tended to end up with resistors between 22R and 33R.
    There are better solutions, but in the work I did it wasn't worth the
    trouble of finding them.

    - stall.(1)

    Up the gain.

    - give incoherent wild results (2)

    Change the base-stopper resistance.

    http://ve3ute.ca/query/Tf_20ps_vs_bfr92a.zip

    Just why one model does one thing, while another does something
    else might be interesting to figure out.

    No model is perfect. If you model something and it seems to work, it's
    worth putting together a real circuit (which takes longer) and seeing
    what it actually does.

    If it doesn't work, or doesn't work all that well. fiddling with the
    model may point the way to something that might work better.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    It's difficult to isolate a model parameter or product of parameters
    that predict the performance demonstrated in this simulation.

    Oscillators seem to have ( ~ mostly) high Rbb, which is
    device-specific. . . . but also lower ( 1/100) IKR, which you'd
    think was irrelevant.

    Bf, Tr, Tf and capacitances don't stand out.

    I suppose you'd need to look at the numbers separating astable from
    monostable operation. You wouldn't want an unspecified component
    characteric to dominate basic circuit function.

    RL

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to legg on Fri Jun 7 14:03:16 2024
    On 7/06/2024 4:05 am, legg wrote:
    On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 23:18:12 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 6/06/2024 1:46 pm, legg wrote:

    <snip>

    It's difficult to isolate a model parameter or product of parameters
    that predict the performance demonstrated in this simulation.

    Oscillators seem to have ( ~ mostly) high Rbb, which is
    device-specific. . . . but also lower ( 1/100) IKR, which you'd
    think was irrelevant.

    Bf, Tr, Tf and capacitances don't stand out.

    I suppose you'd need to look at the numbers separating astable from monostable operation. You wouldn't want an unspecified component
    characteric to dominate basic circuit function.

    You don't get the choice, unless you are in the position of developing a
    new transistor for a new market.

    Most of us are in the position of finding a transistor which we can buy
    - preferably off the shelf - which we can use to do a specific job.

    The options tend to be pretty restricted. There are a lot fewer
    broad-band transistors on the market than there used to be.

    The manufacturer's Spice model give us the option of modelling a circuit
    which might work in some version of Spice, and tweaking the circuit to
    get the simulation to perform our job tolerably well.

    We can't sell the simulation - customers want real circuits that work in
    real life.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From legg@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jun 7 09:24:10 2024
    On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 14:03:16 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 7/06/2024 4:05 am, legg wrote:
    On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 23:18:12 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 6/06/2024 1:46 pm, legg wrote:

    <snip>

    It's difficult to isolate a model parameter or product of parameters
    that predict the performance demonstrated in this simulation.

    Oscillators seem to have ( ~ mostly) high Rbb, which is
    device-specific. . . . but also lower ( 1/100) IKR, which you'd
    think was irrelevant.

    Bf, Tr, Tf and capacitances don't stand out.

    I suppose you'd need to look at the numbers separating astable from
    monostable operation. You wouldn't want an unspecified component
    characteric to dominate basic circuit function.

    You don't get the choice, unless you are in the position of developing a
    new transistor for a new market.

    Most of us are in the position of finding a transistor which we can buy
    - preferably off the shelf - which we can use to do a specific job.

    The options tend to be pretty restricted. There are a lot fewer
    broad-band transistors on the market than there used to be.

    The manufacturer's Spice model give us the option of modelling a circuit >which might work in some version of Spice, and tweaking the circuit to
    get the simulation to perform our job tolerably well.

    We can't sell the simulation - customers want real circuits that work in
    real life.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    That's sort of what I'm talking about. You choose a part, you choose a
    model, you choose a parameter that allows a model to simulate
    performance more accurately. You choose a circuit configuration
    with component values.

    From the larger spreadsheet, you see models for 'similar devices
    varying widely in performance in a particular circuit configuration.

    So what is it, in the model, or in the circuit configuration, that
    allows such a wide variation in performance. What parameter is a
    true predictor? What weakness in the circuit is the wild card?

    Looking for understanding or beneficial increase in knowledge here.
    Not pushing or pulling the benefits or disadvantages of modeling
    or breadboarding - already have pretty fixed opinions about that.

    RL

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to legg on Sat Jun 8 03:29:11 2024
    On 7/06/2024 11:24 pm, legg wrote:
    On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 14:03:16 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 7/06/2024 4:05 am, legg wrote:
    On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 23:18:12 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 6/06/2024 1:46 pm, legg wrote:

    <snip>

    That's sort of what I'm talking about. You choose a part, you choose a
    model, you choose a parameter that allows a model to simulate
    performance more accurately. You choose a circuit configuration
    with component values.

    You mostly can't chose an EBIC model because the manufacturers treat
    them as "commercial in confidence".

    Gummel-Poon isn't as good, but it's mostly adequate.

    From the larger spreadsheet, you see models for 'similar devices
    varying widely in performance in a particular circuit configuration.

    So what is it, in the model, or in the circuit configuration, that
    allows such a wide variation in performance. What parameter is a
    true predictor? What weakness in the circuit is the wild card?

    Silly question. Gummel-Poon doesn't model inverted bipolar transistor
    operation particularly well, but if you want anything else you will have measure the device parameters for yourself, and nobody here has ever
    claimed to have done that.

    Looking for understanding or beneficial increase in knowledge here.
    Not pushing or pulling the benefits or disadvantages of modeling
    or breadboarding - already have pretty fixed opinions about that.

    Do try to understand what practical circuit designers actually do.

    I've never seen anybody set up a "spreadsheet" of transistor models.

    The process is mostly working out what you can do with what you can get.

    The models aren't perfect, and individual devices aren't identical, so
    coping with production variation is part of the job. Some parts are
    sorted by the manufacturer after production, which gives you
    funny-looking parameter distributions.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney




    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From legg@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jun 7 17:58:26 2024
    On Sat, 8 Jun 2024 03:29:11 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 7/06/2024 11:24 pm, legg wrote:
    On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 14:03:16 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 7/06/2024 4:05 am, legg wrote:
    On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 23:18:12 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 6/06/2024 1:46 pm, legg wrote:

    <snip>

    That's sort of what I'm talking about. You choose a part, you choose a
    model, you choose a parameter that allows a model to simulate
    performance more accurately. You choose a circuit configuration
    with component values.

    You mostly can't chose an EBIC model because the manufacturers treat
    them as "commercial in confidence".

    Gummel-Poon isn't as good, but it's mostly adequate.

    From the larger spreadsheet, you see models for 'similar devices
    varying widely in performance in a particular circuit configuration.

    So what is it, in the model, or in the circuit configuration, that
    allows such a wide variation in performance. What parameter is a
    true predictor? What weakness in the circuit is the wild card?

    Silly question. Gummel-Poon doesn't model inverted bipolar transistor >operation particularly well, but if you want anything else you will have >measure the device parameters for yourself, and nobody here has ever
    claimed to have done that.

    Looking for understanding or beneficial increase in knowledge here.
    Not pushing or pulling the benefits or disadvantages of modeling
    or breadboarding - already have pretty fixed opinions about that.

    Do try to understand what practical circuit designers actually do.

    I've never seen anybody set up a "spreadsheet" of transistor models.

    http://ve3ute.ca/query/bjt_spice_parameter.zip

    This was compiled to keep track of models floating around in
    the LTSpice community. Names were assigned that could be
    related to a source.

    Some obvious typos showed up, duplicates and variations,
    derivatives, dated precursors etc.

    Depth of parameter assignment, redundant default listings and
    misinterpreted 'intended to default' values also became apparent.

    Some attempt at performance over temperature also shows up in the
    listing.


    The process is mostly working out what you can do with what you can get.

    The models aren't perfect, and individual devices aren't identical, so
    coping with production variation is part of the job. Some parts are
    sorted by the manufacturer after production, which gives you
    funny-looking parameter distributions.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    I don't think that perfection is attempted; more representation of
    performance in known physical circuitry or test measurement setups.
    Test circuitry is sometimes illustrated in, or accompanies the
    published specification for, the physical product.

    The performance in the simulation in question doesn't touch inverted
    operation, that I can see, but linear operation and ~saturated
    switching may be. It's not an AC analysis.

    RL

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From legg@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jun 10 17:27:59 2024
    On Sat, 8 Jun 2024 03:29:11 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 7/06/2024 11:24 pm, legg wrote:
    On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 14:03:16 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 7/06/2024 4:05 am, legg wrote:
    On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 23:18:12 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 6/06/2024 1:46 pm, legg wrote:

    <snip>

    That's sort of what I'm talking about. You choose a part, you choose a
    model, you choose a parameter that allows a model to simulate
    performance more accurately. You choose a circuit configuration
    with component values.

    You mostly can't chose an EBIC model because the manufacturers treat
    them as "commercial in confidence".

    Gummel-Poon isn't as good, but it's mostly adequate.

    From the larger spreadsheet, you see models for 'similar devices
    varying widely in performance in a particular circuit configuration.

    So what is it, in the model, or in the circuit configuration, that
    allows such a wide variation in performance. What parameter is a
    true predictor? What weakness in the circuit is the wild card?

    Silly question. Gummel-Poon doesn't model inverted bipolar transistor >operation particularly well, but if you want anything else you will have >measure the device parameters for yourself, and nobody here has ever
    claimed to have done that.

    Looking for understanding or beneficial increase in knowledge here.
    Not pushing or pulling the benefits or disadvantages of modeling
    or breadboarding - already have pretty fixed opinions about that.

    Do try to understand what practical circuit designers actually do.

    I've never seen anybody set up a "spreadsheet" of transistor models.

    The process is mostly working out what you can do with what you can get.

    The models aren't perfect, and individual devices aren't identical, so
    coping with production variation is part of the job. Some parts are
    sorted by the manufacturer after production, which gives you
    funny-looking parameter distributions.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    Right, I see Q2 normally inverted.

    C2 seems unneccessarily loaded.

    RL

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to legg on Wed Jun 12 00:35:59 2024
    On 11/06/2024 7:27 am, legg wrote:
    On Sat, 8 Jun 2024 03:29:11 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 7/06/2024 11:24 pm, legg wrote:
    On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 14:03:16 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 7/06/2024 4:05 am, legg wrote:
    On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 23:18:12 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:

    On 6/06/2024 1:46 pm, legg wrote
    <snip>


    Right, I see Q2 normally inverted.

    C2 seems unneccessarily loaded.

    If you are talking about the .asc file I posted on the 3rd June, Q2
    isn't "normally inverted" - its mostly on, and it gets turned off for
    the 30nsec in which the stretched pulse is being generated. Inverted
    operation of a bipolar transistor is usually taken to mean running
    current through them in the opposite direction than is seen in normal operation.

    C2 isn't carrying any current worth worrying about. It stabilises the
    voltage at the base of Q3 against the base current drawn when the output
    pulse is turned on and turned off, -6.7mA when it is turned on an +2mA
    when it is turned off, and holds the voltage excursion down to 3.7mV,
    not that I ever bothered working this out.

    If you want to discuss when the circuit does and how it does it, feel
    free, but this wasn't a good start.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From legg@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jun 11 11:27:20 2024
    On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:35:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 11/06/2024 7:27 am, legg wrote:
    On Sat, 8 Jun 2024 03:29:11 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 7/06/2024 11:24 pm, legg wrote:
    On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 14:03:16 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 7/06/2024 4:05 am, legg wrote:
    On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 23:18:12 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:

    On 6/06/2024 1:46 pm, legg wrote
    <snip>


    Right, I see Q2 normally inverted.

    C2 seems unneccessarily loaded.

    If you are talking about the .asc file I posted on the 3rd June, Q2
    isn't "normally inverted" - its mostly on, and it gets turned off for
    the 30nsec in which the stretched pulse is being generated. Inverted >operation of a bipolar transistor is usually taken to mean running
    current through them in the opposite direction than is seen in normal >operation.

    Just returning to this, trying to see what determines the switch from non-switching to astable operation (ECLTN0E - ECLTN0D). Misreading a
    current and voltage waveform with similar color coding.

    C2 isn't carrying any current worth worrying about. It stabilises the
    voltage at the base of Q3 against the base current drawn when the output >pulse is turned on and turned off, -6.7mA when it is turned on an +2mA
    when it is turned off, and holds the voltage excursion down to 3.7mV,
    not that I ever bothered working this out.

    If you want to discuss when the circuit does and how it does it, feel
    free, but this wasn't a good start.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    Not so much interested in the circuit, as its reaction to model
    parameters presented by similar devices.

    Not Beta, Tr or Tf in this case.

    RL

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to legg on Wed Jun 12 16:30:02 2024
    On 12/06/2024 1:27 am, legg wrote:
    On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:35:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
    On 11/06/2024 7:27 am, legg wrote:
    On Sat, 8 Jun 2024 03:29:11 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >>>> On 7/06/2024 11:24 pm, legg wrote:
    On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 14:03:16 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
    On 7/06/2024 4:05 am, legg wrote:
    On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 23:18:12 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
    On 6/06/2024 1:46 pm, legg wrote
    <snip>

    Right, I see Q2 normally inverted.

    C2 seems unneccessarily loaded.

    If you are talking about the .asc file I posted on the 3rd June, Q2
    isn't "normally inverted" - its mostly on, and it gets turned off for
    the 30nsec in which the stretched pulse is being generated. Inverted
    operation of a bipolar transistor is usually taken to mean running
    current through them in the opposite direction than is seen in normal
    operation.

    Just returning to this, trying to see what determines the switch from non-switching to astable operation (ECLTN0E - ECLTN0D). Misreading a
    current and voltage waveform with similar color coding.

    C2 isn't carrying any current worth worrying about. It stabilises the
    voltage at the base of Q3 against the base current drawn when the output
    pulse is turned on and turned off, -6.7mA when it is turned on an +2mA
    when it is turned off, and holds the voltage excursion down to 3.7mV,
    not that I ever bothered working this out.

    If you want to discuss when the circuit does and how it does it, feel
    free, but this wasn't a good start.

    Not so much interested in the circuit, as its reaction to model
    parameters presented by similar devices.

    You need to work out how the emitter-couple monostable works.


    https://www.daenotes.com/electronics/digital-electronics/monostable-multivibrators-working-construction-types

    actually does try to spell this out (in it's second section on
    emitter-coupled monstables) . It doesn't do it well, but it does it well
    enough that you should be able to work out what is going on, and keep
    track of the base-emitter voltages across both transistors and their
    effect on the collector current.

    The Gummel-Poon transistor model keeeps track of the various currents
    flowing in and out of each transistor junction while this is going on,
    and subtle differences in the parameter values can give you different
    currents (and different trajectories)

    Not Beta, Tr or Tf in this case.

    If you don't know what the circuit is doing, speculation about what the
    model might be doing it is a bit pointless.

    The emitter-coupled monstable isn't well understood here.

    This is from the end of a long thread in 2013.

    On Mar 9,
    3:54=A0am,JohnLarki<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
    On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 01:18:53 -0600,
    John_Fiel<jfie...@austininstruments.com>

    > wrote:
    >
    > >On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:02:49 -0800, John Larkin
    > ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
    >
    > >>http://www.highlandtechnology.com/DSS/T240DS.shtml
    >
    > >---
    > >That's not a pulse stretcher, cheater, that's a puls_generator_.
    >
    > It's a one-shot. It has no internal trigger. It generates no pulses.
    >
    > And neither you nor Jim have a clue as to how this might be done.
    >
    > We have a customer who wants us to take this down to 10 ps
    pulses. At that point, I'm not sure that I know how that might be done.
    We're thinking about it.

    http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=3D-pi4vP6xMOQC&pg=3DPA571&lpg=3DPA571&dq= =3D%22emitter-coupled%22+monostable&source=3Dbl&ots=3DCFsGlVE2YN&sig=3DTUbj= QhyQPk_cd5tj_UKlIhFVXt8&hl=3Den&sa=3DX&ei=3DTZw6UYmmPMeNyAHA4oHYAg&ved=3D0C= EIQ6AEwAw#v=3Donepage&q=3D%22emitter-coupled%22%20monostable&f=3Dfalse

    describes the emitter-coupled monostable. Put one together out of a
    pair of wide-band transistors - BFR92 or better - with 33R up against
    each base, and you can certainly get below 10nsec. Since the mechanism
    depends on the change of base-emitter impedance with emitter current,
    it isn't as easy as it might be to get a wide range of output pulse
    widths.

    Jim Thompson could probably remember a better solution for you. The long-obsolete MC10198 ECL monostable

    http://www.digchip.com/datasheets/parts/datasheet/343/MC10198-pdf.php

    could just get down to 10nsec, but we used two of them when we wanted
    to offer long pulses as well - being able to switch in bigger
    capacitors put too much stray capacitance on the relevant input pin
    for 10nsec operation.

    Something boringly obvious with a constant current ramp and a fast
    comparator would do the job, but - as with the MC10198, being able to
    switch in bigger capacitors to generate much longer pulses is probably incompatible with a 10nsec pulse width.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From legg@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jun 12 09:00:54 2024
    On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:30:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 12/06/2024 1:27 am, legg wrote:
    On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:35:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >>> On 11/06/2024 7:27 am, legg wrote:
    On Sat, 8 Jun 2024 03:29:11 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
    On 7/06/2024 11:24 pm, legg wrote:
    On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 14:03:16 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
    On 7/06/2024 4:05 am, legg wrote:
    On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 23:18:12 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
    On 6/06/2024 1:46 pm, legg wrote
    <snip>

    Right, I see Q2 normally inverted.

    C2 seems unneccessarily loaded.

    If you are talking about the .asc file I posted on the 3rd June, Q2
    isn't "normally inverted" - its mostly on, and it gets turned off for
    the 30nsec in which the stretched pulse is being generated. Inverted
    operation of a bipolar transistor is usually taken to mean running
    current through them in the opposite direction than is seen in normal
    operation.

    Just returning to this, trying to see what determines the switch from
    non-switching to astable operation (ECLTN0E - ECLTN0D). Misreading a
    current and voltage waveform with similar color coding.

    C2 isn't carrying any current worth worrying about. It stabilises the
    voltage at the base of Q3 against the base current drawn when the output >>> pulse is turned on and turned off, -6.7mA when it is turned on an +2mA
    when it is turned off, and holds the voltage excursion down to 3.7mV,
    not that I ever bothered working this out.

    If you want to discuss when the circuit does and how it does it, feel
    free, but this wasn't a good start.

    Not so much interested in the circuit, as its reaction to model
    parameters presented by similar devices.

    You need to work out how the emitter-couple monostable works.


    https://www.daenotes.com/electronics/digital-electronics/monostable-multivibrators-working-construction-types

    actually does try to spell this out (in it's second section on >emitter-coupled monstables) . It doesn't do it well, but it does it well >enough that you should be able to work out what is going on, and keep
    track of the base-emitter voltages across both transistors and their
    effect on the collector current.

    The Gummel-Poon transistor model keeeps track of the various currents
    flowing in and out of each transistor junction while this is going on,
    and subtle differences in the parameter values can give you different >currents (and different trajectories)

    Not Beta, Tr or Tf in this case.

    If you don't know what the circuit is doing, speculation about what the
    model might be doing it is a bit pointless.

    The emitter-coupled monstable isn't well understood here.

    This is from the end of a long thread in 2013.

    On Mar 9,
    3:54=A0am,JohnLarki<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
    On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 01:18:53 -0600,
    John_Fiel<jfie...@austininstruments.com>

    > wrote:
    >
    > >On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:02:49 -0800, John Larkin
    > ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
    >
    > >>http://www.highlandtechnology.com/DSS/T240DS.shtml
    >
    > >---
    > >That's not a pulse stretcher, cheater, that's a puls_generator_.
    >
    > It's a one-shot. It has no internal trigger. It generates no pulses.
    >
    > And neither you nor Jim have a clue as to how this might be done.
    >
    > We have a customer who wants us to take this down to 10 ps
    pulses. At that point, I'm not sure that I know how that might be done.
    We're thinking about it.

    http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=3D-pi4vP6xMOQC&pg=3DPA571&lpg=3DPA571&dq= >=3D%22emitter-coupled%22+monostable&source=3Dbl&ots=3DCFsGlVE2YN&sig=3DTUbj= >QhyQPk_cd5tj_UKlIhFVXt8&hl=3Den&sa=3DX&ei=3DTZw6UYmmPMeNyAHA4oHYAg&ved=3D0C= >EIQ6AEwAw#v=3Donepage&q=3D%22emitter-coupled%22%20monostable&f=3Dfalse

    describes the emitter-coupled monostable. Put one together out of a
    pair of wide-band transistors - BFR92 or better - with 33R up against
    each base, and you can certainly get below 10nsec. Since the mechanism >depends on the change of base-emitter impedance with emitter current,
    it isn't as easy as it might be to get a wide range of output pulse
    widths.

    Jim Thompson could probably remember a better solution for you. The >long-obsolete MC10198 ECL monostable

    http://www.digchip.com/datasheets/parts/datasheet/343/MC10198-pdf.php

    could just get down to 10nsec, but we used two of them when we wanted
    to offer long pulses as well - being able to switch in bigger
    capacitors put too much stray capacitance on the relevant input pin
    for 10nsec operation.

    Something boringly obvious with a constant current ramp and a fast
    comparator would do the job, but - as with the MC10198, being able to
    switch in bigger capacitors to generate much longer pulses is probably >incompatible with a 10nsec pulse width.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    The only parameters that I see in the ECLTN0E model that differs from
    it's 'grouping', is a half order magnitude reduction in all junction capacitances - this feature acting to prevent oscillatory behavior,
    monostable or otherwise. It's ECL companion models oscillate (astable) generally, despite Rbb parameters ranging over two orders of
    magnitude, in this circuit configuration.

    RL

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to legg on Thu Jun 13 01:20:20 2024
    On 12/06/2024 11:00 pm, legg wrote:
    On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:30:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 12/06/2024 1:27 am, legg wrote:
    On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:35:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
    On 11/06/2024 7:27 am, legg wrote:
    On Sat, 8 Jun 2024 03:29:11 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
    On 7/06/2024 11:24 pm, legg wrote:
    On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 14:03:16 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
    On 7/06/2024 4:05 am, legg wrote:
    On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 23:18:12 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
    On 6/06/2024 1:46 pm, legg wrote
    <snip>

    The only parameters that I see in the ECLTN0E model that differs from
    it's 'grouping', is a half order magnitude reduction in all junction capacitances - this feature acting to prevent oscillatory behavior, monostable or otherwise. It's ECL companion models oscillate (astable) generally, despite Rbb parameters ranging over two orders of
    magnitude, in this circuit configuration.

    The broad-band transistors - of which the BFR92 is the most obvious
    example - famously have low collector base feedback capacitance, and a
    very thin base layer (2V base to emitter breakdown voltage).

    Looking at the parameters, without thinking about the transistor
    behaviour that that they are intended to model, isn't a constructive or
    useful activity.

    When I was working for Cambridge Instruments were selling the EBMF10.5
    electron beam microfabricator to write the fine-line masks that made
    those sorts of devices.

    Sometimes they were used to direct-write very fine features on
    particularly exotic (and expensive) devices. On one occasion the
    acceptance test for the machine was to write three wafers full of
    devices, which - when diced and package - would have paid for the
    million-odd dollar price of the machine.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)