Kevin thinks he is the third flavor of quark, the Strange Quark ;-)
...Jim Thompson
-- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | |
Well... we obviously have a different understanding of what "fundamental physics" means. Please do stick to your own, its obviously fundamental to you.
Meaningless nonsense.
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.
For example,
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 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...
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 snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
Kevin,
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
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.
"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 snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
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
Kevin,
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:
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)"
And so you should. You obviously committed fraud.
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.
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.
Capaciters store energy. End of story.
Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
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.
The VDMOS model* with built-in nonlinear Cdg is LTspice specific.
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,
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:
--Mike
ROTFLMAO
I have already posted a site that explains the basics of GR for Teletubbies such as yourself.
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
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.
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 snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
Kevin,
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.
One tell-tale sign of a quack is in the miss-application of physics, not just getting all the details incorrect.
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."
"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
Sure, I admit that there is a bit of trolling going on here. Its fun to wind Mike up.
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.
Yes, and universal identified incorrectly. My education and experience allows me to understand when accepted descriptions are false.
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?
Sure:-)
Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
Yep it is. If you had even read the most simplistic account of GR, you would understand that this is not true.
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?
Nope.
Indeed.
A capacitor is a capacitor is a capacitor.
Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
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 snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
I have a flying capacitor that have 1pF parasitics to the surrounding. This capacitor does store charge.
Never rubbed a plastic case capacitor? Again this capacitor stores charge.
I admit that there is a bit of trolling going on here. Its fun to wind you up too.
-- Thanks, Fred.
Kevin,
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!)
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.)
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:
--Mike
"Capacitance stores charge. Inductance stores flux." Mike Engelhardt, 2005
Just for clarification, Kevin is quoting himself.
--Mike
*** 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.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.