Re: LVDS line receiver with an unencrypted SPICE model?

JM <sunaecoNoSpam@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 16:02:56 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
 

Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2024-07-04 18:58, JM wrote:

On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 21:49:10 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
 

So I have this new gig making a very low cost TDR system for soil
moisture and conductivity, for use in agriculture.  All very interesting
and topical, what with droughts and low aquifers and all.
 
As one does, I'm planning to use a fast ramp and two comparators to
generate the TX pulse and the sampling gate.  One will have a fixed
comparison voltage, and the other one's will be set by a DAC, or
possibly by a slower ramp, depending on the BOM vs performance tradeoff
we wind up with.
 
Sooo, naturally I pulled out my fave LVDS line receiver, the FIN1002.
It has nice 250-300 ps edges and pretty low jitter, comes in SOT23, and
and costs 30 cents on LCSC.
 
It even has SPICE models, but of course they're nasty encrypted HSPICE
things.
 
TI's seem to be the same.
 
Anybody got a nice LVDS receiver with a real SPICE model that mere
mortals are allowed to use?

 

 
I have sent you a link.
 

Thanks, John!  We'll see if LTspice can digest it.

 
 
Ah well, not unexpectedly LTspice puked its guts over the model syntax and
the unsupported BSIM3 version 3.11.
 
I tried a few things, including changing it to call out BSIM 3.3, which
LTspice claims to support, but no joy.
 
Back to behavioral. :(
 
Thanks again!
 
Phil Hobbs

 
Just tried it in LTspiff 24.0.11 and 17.0.36.  It will run if you change
value of R6 (about line 214) from 0.0 to something other than 0.0 (say 1e-12).
(This with the subckt with package model.)
 
LTspice does ignore a lot of the BSIM parameters, but you get what you pay for...
 
 
 
 

>
Right you are, thanks!
>
Lots of warnings, but seems to do vaguely sensible things—220 ps rise, 300
ps fall, 1.5 ns delay.
>
Overall, probably closer than I would have got with a simple behavioral.
>
Cheers
>
Phil Hobbs