Re: LTspice
From: ldg (asfd_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 03/21/05
- Next message: Jim Thompson: "Re: LTspice"
- Previous message: ldg: "Re: LTspice"
- In reply to: Jim Thompson: "Re: LTspice"
- Next in thread: Jim Thompson: "Re: LTspice"
- Reply: Jim Thompson: "Re: LTspice"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:21:57 -0800
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:44:34 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
>"[area]" is a number, it IS NOT SPECIFIED as M=, except in
>non-standard-conforming ***-for-brains simulators.
Really? How interesting. It's not an accepted spice "lexicon"?
Since Helmut says this has been implemented in LTspice now, this
simulator also is bad?
So using a 6 bit dac example again, you wouldn't weight the
transistors 1,2,4,8,16,32? Or you would just place 64 transistors?
Perhaps you'd write a subcircuit to create the M= function yourself?
Or maybe you'd try to make the transistors physically larger so the
current densities would match?
The dacs I've done seemed to be help greatly by doing these arrays.
It also seemed to me that if you want things to match they should be
the same, hence the arrays. Using M= greatly simplifies this.
Regards,
Larry
- Next message: Jim Thompson: "Re: LTspice"
- Previous message: ldg: "Re: LTspice"
- In reply to: Jim Thompson: "Re: LTspice"
- Next in thread: Jim Thompson: "Re: LTspice"
- Reply: Jim Thompson: "Re: LTspice"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]