Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tektronix!reed!psu-cs!psueea!daasch
From: daasch@psueea.UUCP (Robert Daasch)
Newsgroups: comp.lsi
Subject: Re: MOSIS Spice parameters
Message-ID: <478@psueea.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 13-Sep-87 22:51:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: psueea.478
Posted: Sun Sep 13 22:51:17 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Sep-87 04:10:14 EDT
References: <8709102152.AA05876@mimsy.umd.edu>
Reply-To: daasch@psueea.UUCP (Robert Daasch)
Organization: Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Portland State University; Portland OR
Lines: 25

In article <8709102152.AA05876@mimsy.umd.edu> smb@MIMSY.UMD.EDU (St
>given run is to adjust various model parameters to fit parametric
>curves from devices on the test structures.  Thus, the parameters
>they distribute may have very little in common with those of the
>actual devices on a given run -- they just happen to produce similar
>parametric curves.

Agreed with a but...

It mystifies me how any parametric fit to test structures would
produce counter intuitive results.  Generally it is intuition from
the physics of the device that bounds the fitting procedure.  So
when I see the p device with a VT0 > 0 and junction depths several
orders of magnitude out of whack, I don't use that set of device
parameters.

Maybe the fitting utility doesn't write out a model deck and MOSIS
people play rock, paper and scissors for "who TYPES in the models 
this week."

Rob D.
..!tektronix!psueea!daasch.uucp

P.S. He says sheepishly, a couple runs we did do weren't completely
bogus.