[SI-LIST] Re: lumped model vs distributed model
- From: Jason D Leung <jleung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: cclewell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,"si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 15:34:44 -0500
Hi Craig:
thanks very much for your reply , since you are also the first one who tried to
explain this phenomeon to me.
I understand your point, however what I mean from
*****However, the "distributed model" is not freq dependent eh, but it already
capture most of the discontiunity.
*********
is that when we have a lumped R,L,C model and then we find out that this lumped
model can't model the transmission line really well , so we decided to chop the
lumped R,L,C model into smaller sections and this is what I mean for
"distributed model " . The question is since the original lumped R,L,C model
we have is not freq dependent and I guess it is also true when we chop a non
freq dependent lumped R,L,C model into distributed model , the distributed
model itself is still not freq dependent.
thanks
Regards
Jason Leung
"Clewell, Craig" wrote:
> Jason,
>
> I couldn't let you walk away from this topic without adding to your last
> statement below.
>
> Your initial question was what is the difference between lumped vs.
> distributed. I and others have tried to answer that it similar, but
> different ways. Due to the nature of your question I initially tried to
> simplify things by not clouding the picture with the lossy T-line mechanisms
> (conductor and dielectric). But, since they have now been introduced...you
> shouldn't go away thinking that a distributed model is not lossy. The
> choice is yours and it depends on what you are looking for. If all you want
> is the delay through something then you may not want to include the losses.
> However, if you are looking for ac characteristics like insertion/return
> loss then you should add the losses into your distributed model.
>
> Craig
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason D Leung [mailto:jleung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 8:58 AM
> To: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: lumped model vs distributed model
>
> Hi all,
> thanks all for the participation, I have got a better understanding now.
> So depends on the application, if the rise time is small and the time delay
> is large , for our example we are talking about 100 ps rise time and 1m of
> something with a time delay of 6.23ns ,then we have to chop the lumped
> model into " distributed model" .
> However, the "distributed model" is not freq dependent eh, but it already
> capture most of the discontiunity.
> thanks
> Jason Leung
>
> Jason D Leung wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone:
> > For transmission line we can always use a lumped R,L,C model to
> > represent a simple transmission line, or we can use a distributed model
> > .(I know that the distributed model is more accurate and for high freq
> > application we should use this model)
> > But my question is : what is the main difference between the lumped
> > model and distributed model?
> > If we are just using the lumped model for our SI simulation, what are we
> > going to miss ?
> > looking forward for your insight
> > thanks
> > Regards
> > Jason Leung
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from si-list:
> > si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
> >
> > or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
> > //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
> >
> > For help:
> > si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
> >
> > List archives are viewable at:
> > //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
> > or at our remote archives:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages
> > Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
> > http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from si-list:
> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
>
> or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>
> For help:
> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
>
> List archives are viewable at:
> //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
> or at our remote archives:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages
> Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
> http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from si-list:
> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
>
> or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>
> For help:
> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
>
> List archives are viewable at:
> //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
> or at our remote archives:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages
> Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
> http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from si-list:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
//www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
For help:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
List archives are viewable at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
or at our remote archives:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages
Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
Other related posts:
