Need a force-like unit for classical particle system simulation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the challenge of defining a force-like unit for simulating classical particle interactions in a non-compressible fluid model, particularly in the context of capacitance and current flow among capacitors. The user seeks alternatives to Newton's laws for motionless, mass-less particles and explores the concept of a "fictitious shove magnitude" as a force surrogate. Recommendations include utilizing Fermi surfaces and solid-state physics equations for accurate current flow modeling, rather than fluid mechanics. The conversation highlights the importance of foundational knowledge in calculus, differential equations, and linear algebra for effective circuit simulation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Fermi surfaces and solid-state physics equations
  • Proficiency in SPICE simulation tools, specifically ngspice and ltspice
  • Knowledge of calculus, differential equations, and linear algebra
  • Familiarity with circuit simulation concepts and techniques
NEXT STEPS
  • Learn to model current flow using Fermi surfaces and solid-state physics equations
  • Explore advanced SPICE simulation techniques, including writing xspice libraries
  • Study the methods behind tools like FastCap for field simulation and netlist compilation
  • Practice coding circuit simulations based on SPICE equations and validate results
USEFUL FOR

Electrical engineers, circuit designers, and anyone interested in advanced simulation techniques for capacitors and current flow in electronic systems.

iteratee
Messages
6
Reaction score
3
TL;DR
How to deal with "non-compressible" fluids?
I am doing a learning project by writing a simulation that includes capacitance and current flow amongst capacitors that may potentially be in parallel. I don't care about certain details yet - dissipation factor, frequency dependent effects, temperature. Tiny capacitences within diode junctions and (importantly) FET gates are the relevant charge storage elements.

A pretty fundamental sub-problem eventually arises: what unit would one substitute for the Newton to describe the magnitude of interaction between motionless and effectively mass-less particles in a classical field simulation? I want to "simplify" the system so that my particles are essentially a non-compressible fluid, with the obvious immediate implication being that Newton's first law effectively goes away. Intuitively I need some kind of unit that works independently of acceleration, (and some googleable terms or else I just get pointed to a pile of "what is force?" articles.)

Are there methods for starting from a "fictitious shove magnitude" as a force surrogate for establishing initial conditions that later convert to back into conventional units for currents and voltages etc? I have looked at how spice handles operating point analysis with its initial conditions approximation, but I'm investigating alternatives.

Clues greatly appreciated! :biggrin:
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
iteratee said:
Summary:: How to deal with "non-compressible" fluids?

I am doing a learning project by writing a simulation that includes capacitance and current flow amongst capacitors that may potentially be in parallel. I don't care about certain details yet - dissipation factor, frequency dependent effects, temperature. Tiny capacitences within diode junctions and (importantly) FET gates are the relevant charge storage elements.

A pretty fundamental sub-problem eventually arises: what unit would one substitute for the Newton to describe the magnitude of interaction between motionless and effectively mass-less particles in a classical field simulation? I want to "simplify" the system so that my particles are essentially a non-compressible fluid, with the obvious immediate implication being that Newton's first law effectively goes away. Intuitively I need some kind of unit that works independently of acceleration, (and some googleable terms or else I just get pointed to a pile of "what is force?" articles.)

Are there methods for starting from a "fictitious shove magnitude" as a force surrogate for establishing initial conditions that later convert to back into conventional units for currents and voltages etc? I have looked at how spice handles operating point analysis with its initial conditions approximation, but I'm investigating alternatives.

Clues greatly appreciated! :biggrin:
What is your math background so far? Does it include Calculus, Differential Equations and Linear Algebra (matrices)?

Do you have experience with SPICE already? That is the gold standard for circuit simulations. If you do, have you done these simulations in SPICE and are now wanting to get into more of a FEA-type of analysis? If so, trying to model current flow with fluid mechanics is probably the wrong way to go. You should be using Fermi surfaces and solid state Physics equations to try to model current flow at an atomic level, IMO.
 
berkeman said:
What is your math background so far? Does it include Calculus, Differential Equations and Linear Algebra (matrices)?

Ha well I'm a self-taught computer science guy with my day-to-day being predictably irrelevant discrete math, logic, type-theory sorts of things. Learning the linear algebra necessary for solving matrices for circuit simulation looks pretty "within reach". I should do that. I have no formal math education.

Do you have experience with SPICE already? That is the gold standard for circuit simulations. If you do, have you done these simulations in SPICE and are now wanting to get into more of a FEA-type of analysis?

I've had a couple years playing around with ngspice, ltspice, and have done some reverse-engineering / modifying of old opamp macromodels to understand their workings. I'm kind of curious about trying my hand at writing xspice libraries and also in the methods underlying tools like fastcap that sort of compile a field simulation down into an equivalent netlist (kind of a hack but interesting nonetheless).

If so, trying to model current flow with fluid mechanics is probably the wrong way to go. You should be using Fermi surfaces and solid state Physics equations to try to model current flow at an atomic level, IMO.

Drats, OK somewhat expected answer. Modeling fermi-dirac distribution is a little "lower level" than I was thinking. I'll have to learn some prerequisites clearly, but I knew that. If I were really hardcore about proper semiconductor simulation I'd use the existing models for starters.

Thanks for the reply!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
iteratee said:
I've had a couple years playing around with ngspice, ltspice, and have done some reverse-engineering / modifying of old opamp macromodels to understand their workings. I'm kind of curious about trying my hand at writing xspice libraries and also in the methods underlying tools like fastcap that sort of compile a field simulation down into an equivalent netlist
I think that's a great next step for you. Learn to write code that simulates circuits using the same equations that SPICE simulators use. There are lots of examples out there, and it's pretty easy to see if your simulation is correct for simpler circuits. Post some of your time domain transient results for us to check! :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur and iteratee
berkeman said:
I think that's a great next step for you. Learn to write code that simulates circuits using the same equations that SPICE simulators use.
I couldn't agree more. Simulations are only as good as the rules they operate with. Quasi mechanical models for EM really don't work well at all and you could never be sure of an answer that such a simulation delivers. Spice is well founded so the OP could rely on how it works.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DaveE, iteratee and berkeman

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K