Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: fast NPN in LT Spice
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:00:54 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 127
Message-ID: <2e6j6jt4mq7ihdqaamf467r4es79qtmkbv@4ax.com>
References: <ikir5jdbv9rbponup9btn3bcfsm5326ea2@4ax.com> <v3kiso$3u1if$1@dont-email.me> <q9a26jdroatud3o1hgaqve5r4bc6got063@4ax.com> <v3scus$1gr7m$1@dont-email.me> <nmt36j9bm5ohrjla58o7e2kg7pvhbtr0e3@4ax.com> <v3u0qd$1tric$1@dont-email.me> <on166jteri1u6ihlh2eh297akpjnif7oln@4ax.com> <v3vg1i$256ko$3@dont-email.me> <sqre6jlt7t26l8g15gbjotn88v1c96mpkh@4ax.com> <v49ncj$1380d$1@dont-email.me> <hqqg6jdfj86p3poosm1qdi36e933prvhhg@4ax.com> <v4bf9q$1hbuq$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 14:59:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e2f54a19476d2476ca8cf9c60eda0261";
	logging-data="1761029"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+6YqkFGkQBqxG4628Du+P6"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AA2dFUNz0wS88ijDT2xRnCmZTj8=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118
Bytes: 6936

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