Need a force-like unit for classical particle system simulation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on creating a simulation for capacitance and current flow in capacitors, focusing on the challenge of finding an appropriate unit to replace Newton for motionless, mass-less particles in a classical field simulation. The goal is to simplify the system to resemble a non-compressible fluid, which raises questions about how to establish initial conditions without relying on traditional force concepts. Participants suggest that modeling current flow using fluid mechanics may not be ideal and recommend utilizing solid-state physics equations instead. The original poster has experience with SPICE simulations and is interested in developing their understanding of circuit simulation further. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the importance of using established models and equations for accurate simulation results.
iteratee
Messages
6
Reaction score
3
TL;DR 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:
 
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!
 
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 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 DaveE, iteratee and berkeman
Hi all I have some confusion about piezoelectrical sensors combination. If i have three acoustic piezoelectrical sensors (with same receive sensitivity in dB ref V/1uPa) placed at specific distance, these sensors receive acoustic signal from a sound source placed at far field distance (Plane Wave) and from broadside. I receive output of these sensors through individual preamplifiers, add them through hardware like summer circuit adder or in software after digitization and in this way got an...
I have recently moved into a new (rather ancient) house and had a few trips of my Residual Current breaker. I dug out my old Socket tester which tell me the three pins are correct. But then the Red warning light tells me my socket(s) fail the loop test. I never had this before but my last house had an overhead supply with no Earth from the company. The tester said "get this checked" and the man said the (high but not ridiculous) earth resistance was acceptable. I stuck a new copper earth...
I am not an electrical engineering student, but a lowly apprentice electrician. I learn both on the job and also take classes for my apprenticeship. I recently wired my first transformer and I understand that the neutral and ground are bonded together in the transformer or in the service. What I don't understand is, if the neutral is a current carrying conductor, which is then bonded to the ground conductor, why does current only flow back to its source and not on the ground path...
Back
Top