Need a force-like unit for classical particle system simulation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the challenge of defining a suitable unit to replace Newton in a classical particle system simulation, particularly for modeling interactions among motionless and effectively mass-less particles in a non-compressible fluid context. Participants explore various aspects of circuit simulation, fluid mechanics, and the mathematical background necessary for such simulations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks a unit that operates independently of acceleration for simulating interactions in a non-compressible fluid, suggesting the need for a "fictitious shove magnitude" as a force surrogate.
  • Another participant questions the appropriateness of using fluid mechanics to model current flow, suggesting that solid-state physics equations may be more suitable for atomic-level modeling.
  • A participant shares their background in circuit simulation using SPICE and expresses interest in writing xspice libraries and understanding field simulation methods.
  • There is a suggestion that simulations are only as good as the underlying rules, emphasizing the reliability of established methods like SPICE.
  • One participant acknowledges the need to learn prerequisites for proper semiconductor simulation, indicating a recognition of the complexity involved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the best approach to modeling current flow, with some advocating for fluid mechanics and others suggesting solid-state physics. There is no consensus on the appropriate unit to replace Newton or the best modeling techniques to use.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention limitations in their mathematical backgrounds and the complexity of modeling at different levels, indicating that further learning may be necessary for effective simulation.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in circuit simulation, fluid mechanics, and those looking to deepen their understanding of mathematical modeling in physics and engineering contexts may find this discussion relevant.

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
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · 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