Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
2N3819 JFET spice model
2,104 views
Skip to first unread message
Jean-Marie Bussat
Jun 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/11/98
to
Hello,
Does anybody have or can tell me where I can find the spice
model of a 2N3819 model JFET transistor.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Regards,
Jean-Marie
--
P.S. Warning the adress in the from field is wrong, please
use the one below (or remove __NOSPAM__).
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jean-Marie Bussat - Laboratoire d'Annecy-le-vieux de Physique |
| des Particules - BP 110 - 74941 ANNECY-LE-VIEUX - FRANCE |
| Email: bus...@lapp.in2p3.fr |
| Tel: +33 (0)4 50 09 17 65 Fax: +33 (0)4 50 09 89 13 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Stephane TOSTI
Jun 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/11/98
to
Voilà
.model J2N3819 NJF(Beta=1.57m Lambda=4m Vto=-1.954
+ Cgd=1.5p M=.3821 Pb=1 Fc=.5 Cgs=1.5p Is=173.3f
+ N=1 Xti=3 Kf=37.24E-18 Af=1)
A+ Stef.
jrg lbt
Feb 26, 2022, 2:14:21 PM2/26/22
to
El jueves, 11 de junio de 1998 a las 2:00:00 UTC-5, Stephane TOSTI escribió:
Ooooh! Thanks a lot !!!
legg
Mar 1, 2022, 1:49:51 PM3/1/22
to
Andrea Croci
Mar 3, 2022, 12:11:02 PM3/3/22
to
On 01.03.22 19:50, legg wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 11:14:20 -0800 (PST), jrg lbt <jrgl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> El jueves, 11 de junio de 1998 a las 2:00:00 UTC-5, Stephane TOSTI escribió:
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 11:14:20 -0800 (PST), jrg lbt <jrgl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> El jueves, 11 de junio de 1998 a las 2:00:00 UTC-5, Stephane TOSTI escribió:
>> Ooooh! Thanks a lot !!!
>
> from 1998 . . . .
>
> RL
It's never too late to thank your fellow engineers.
>
> from 1998 . . . .
>
> RL
legg
Mar 18, 2022, 11:13:08 AM3/18/22
to
+ Lambda=2.25m Vto=-3 Vtotc=-2.5m Is=33.57f Isr=322.4f
+ N=1 Nr=2 Xti=3 Alpha=311.7u Vk=243.6 Cgd=1.6p M=.3622
+ Pb=1 Fc=.5 Cgs=2.414p Kf=9.882E-18 Af=1 mfg=Vishay)
from current LTspice distribution.
2N3819 was always poorly defined w/r data sheet.
Many vendors, many wafers, many processes were used.
RL
Phil Hobbs
Apr 7, 2022, 10:29:26 AM4/7/22
to
going to lead to a lot of reasonable-looking wrong answers (my
least-favorite kind).
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com
Phil Hobbs
Apr 7, 2022, 11:48:09 AM4/7/22
to
The Fairchild datasheet shows a 15:1 range of pinchoff voltages, and
that's from just one vendor.
Using SPICE on a part like that is going to generate a lot of
Dave Platt
Apr 7, 2022, 3:08:05 PM4/7/22
to
In article <8ea114da-661e-405f...@electrooptical.net>,
It's a convenient part number into which you can reasonably throw a
whole lot of different JFET products. Test what you fab, and if they
don't meet tighter specs for a targeted part number, just call them
2N3819.
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>> 2N3819 was always poorly defined w/r data sheet.
>> Many vendors, many wafers, many processes were used.
>
>Wow, that's an amazingly crappy part, even for a JFET.
>
>The Fairchild datasheet shows a 15:1 range of pinchoff voltages, and
>that's from just one vendor.
I've always thought of 2N3819 as the JFET analog of the 2N3055 BJT.
>> 2N3819 was always poorly defined w/r data sheet.
>> Many vendors, many wafers, many processes were used.
>
>Wow, that's an amazingly crappy part, even for a JFET.
>
>The Fairchild datasheet shows a 15:1 range of pinchoff voltages, and
>that's from just one vendor.
It's a convenient part number into which you can reasonably throw a
whole lot of different JFET products. Test what you fab, and if they
don't meet tighter specs for a targeted part number, just call them
2N3819.
Phil Hobbs
Apr 7, 2022, 4:30:18 PM4/7/22
to
CPH3910, have much much tighter specs (and much lower noise).
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
"40,000 of them in stock"
jf03...@gmail.com
Apr 7, 2022, 4:45:37 PM4/7/22
to
On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:30:18 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> They must have made them in saucepans. Actual _good_ JFETs, such as the
> CPH3910, have much much tighter specs (and much lower noise).
I always assumed it reflected the manufacturing processes available at the time. By that time, the planar diffused process was pretty common, and it was much better controlled than using the grown-junction or alloy-junction processes. Good engineers learned how to design circuits that could tolerate the variations in those processes and the variations produced by varying operating temperatures and voltages. Ion implantation produced much tighter ranges, but it was still not a common manufacturing process in the mid 1970s.
> They must have made them in saucepans. Actual _good_ JFETs, such as the
> CPH3910, have much much tighter specs (and much lower noise).
Phil Hobbs
Apr 11, 2022, 1:30:51 PM4/11/22
to
This piece of crap's range is 15:1.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
legg
Apr 11, 2022, 4:21:00 PM4/11/22
to
On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 13:30:48 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>jf...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:30:18 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>> They must have made them in saucepans. Actual _good_ JFETs, such as the
>>> CPH3910, have much much tighter specs (and much lower noise).
>> I always assumed it reflected the manufacturing processes available at the time. By that time, the planar diffused process was pretty common, and it was much better controlled than using the grown-junction or alloy-junction processes. Good engineers learned how to design circuits that could tolerate the variations in those processes and the variations produced by varying operating temperatures and voltages. Ion implantation produced much tighter ranges, but it was still not a common manufacturing process in the mid 1970s.
>>
>
>IIRC the usual planar JFET of that era has a Vp range of around 3:1.
>This piece of crap's range is 15:1.
>
>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbs
I think the 3:1 range for one part number was achieved
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>jf...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:30:18 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>> They must have made them in saucepans. Actual _good_ JFETs, such as the
>>> CPH3910, have much much tighter specs (and much lower noise).
>> I always assumed it reflected the manufacturing processes available at the time. By that time, the planar diffused process was pretty common, and it was much better controlled than using the grown-junction or alloy-junction processes. Good engineers learned how to design circuits that could tolerate the variations in those processes and the variations produced by varying operating temperatures and voltages. Ion implantation produced much tighter ranges, but it was still not a common manufacturing process in the mid 1970s.
>>
>
>IIRC the usual planar JFET of that era has a Vp range of around 3:1.
>This piece of crap's range is 15:1.
>
>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbs
by binning a series of numbers (typically 4 or more) from
the same mfring process batch.
RL
jf03...@gmail.com
Apr 11, 2022, 10:57:14 PM4/11/22
to
On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 10:30:51 AM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> >
> IIRC the usual planar JFET of that era has a Vp range of around 3:1.
> This piece of crap's range is 15:1.
My recollection is that there were not very many other commercial JFETs for comparison. And the specs for the MOSFETs were even more poorly controlled because they did not understand the manufacturing hygiene required to control the surface states.
> >
> IIRC the usual planar JFET of that era has a Vp range of around 3:1.
> This piece of crap's range is 15:1.
I remember the standard bipolar transistor hfe spec had a 3:1 range. They narrowed by testing and selecting parts, so there were lots of "families" with consecutive numbers and similar specs except for the buckets for the selected parameter (hfe, BVceo, fT, etc).
0 new messages