Otakar Nieder, Senior Director of Development at Bohemia Interactive Simulations, discusses how simulation apps are different from gaming with host Kanchan Shringi.

Simulations of transport of time over packet networks

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Modelling and Simulation of Robot Manipulators

In this episode, Majid Almaadeed gives us a demonstration of Cisco Packet Tracer for Mac, a versatile network simulation and visualization tool designed for learning and practicing networking concepts. It provides a virtual environment where users can create, configure, and simulate network topologies and devices, enabling them to gain hands-on experience with networking technologies without the need for physical hardware.

Cisco Packet Tracer for Mac allows individuals to design and simulate complex network setups. It supports a wide range of Cisco devices, such as routers, switches, and wireless access points, enabling users to configure and interconnect them to create functional networks. You can explore various networking concepts, including routing, switching, wireless communications, and network security. It facilitates the simulation of network protocols and their behaviors, allowing users to understand how data flows through different network layers and devices.

In addition to its simulation capabilities, Cisco Packet Tracer for Mac offers a range of learning resources and activities, making it an ideal tool for educational institutions and self-paced learning. It allows users to test their network configurations, troubleshoot issues, and visualize the impact of changes before implementing them in real-world scenarios.

Pop culture, and especially science fiction, has played host to several of philosophy’s biggest questions that can trace their origins back thousands of years, according to David Chalmers, philosopher and author of Reality+.

LLM-powered multiagent persona simulation for imagination enhancement and business insights. - microsoft/TinyTroupe

In-depth coverage of proteomic analysis could enhance our understanding to the mechanism of the protein functions. Unfortunately, many highly hydrophobic proteins and low-abundance proteins, which play critical roles in signaling networks, are easily lost during sample preparation, mainly attributed to the fact that very few extractants can simultaneously satisfy the requirements on strong solubilizing ability to membrane proteins and good enzyme compatibility. Thus, it is urgent to screen out ideal extractant from the huge compound libraries in a fast and effective way. Herein, by investigating the interior mechanism of extractants on the membrane proteins solubilization and trypsin compatibility, a molecular dynamics simulation system was established as complement to the experimental procedure to narrow down the scope of candidates for proteomics analysis. The simulation data shows that the van der Waals interaction between cation group of ionic liquid and membrane protein is the dominant factor in determining protein solubilization. In combination with the experimental data, 1-dodecyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride (C12Im-Cl) is on the shortlist for the suitable candidates from comprehensive aspects. Inspired by the advantages of C12Im-Cl, an ionic liquid-based filter-aided sample preparation (i-FASP) method was developed. Using this strategy, over 3,300 proteins were confidently identified from 10³ HeLa cells (~100 ng proteins) in a single run, an improvement of 53% over the conventional FASP method. Then the i-FASP method was further successfully applied to the label-free relative quantitation of human liver cancer and para-carcinoma tissues with obviously improved accuracy, reproducibility and coverage than the commonly used urea-based FASP method. The above results demonstrated that the i-FASP method could be performed as a versatile tool for the in-depth coverage proteomic analysis of biological samples.

Exploring Transatlantic Responses to Far-right Populism in Europe: Simulation Exercise Research paper sysadmin 1 May 2018

A new paper summarizes the findings of a recent simulation exercise exploring how governments on both sides of the Atlantic might respond to a descent towards populist authoritarianism in an EU member state.

Summary

• To better understand how governments on both sides of the Atlantic might respond to a descent towards populist authoritarianism in an EU member state, Chatham House organized a simulation event involving a group of experts drawn from the public sector, academia and NGOs.
• Simulation exercises enable the testing and modelling of the responses of different actors when presented with specific situations; participants’ interactions in a given set of circumstances are explored, and patterns of negotiation are captured and analysed.
• In this simulation, European, US and multilateral representatives were given the task of managing relations with Baltia, a fictional Eastern European state on the verge of electing a far-right nationalist, Eurosceptic government. They were then challenged to manage their relationship with Baltia after it had elected such a government, which was pushing for a ‘leave’ vote in a planned referendum on the country’s continued EU membership.
• The simulation highlighted a number of issues:
  • Limited instruments are available to liberal democratic governments where there is cause for concern regarding the outcome of an election in an allied country. There are relatively few tools at the disposal of governments to support political allies, or to prevent outcomes that are perceived as threatening democratic norms. The simulation reinforced the view that interventionist moves, either from the European Commission or from individual national governments, would be more likely to come in response to an unfavourable development rather than pre-emptively.
  • The EU, and caucuses of European states, are the main international interlocutors in this type of political crisis involving an EU member state. The US opted to play a limited role in the negotiations; the same was largely true for NATO, aside from its action in sharing intelligence about a potential coup in Baltia. France and Germany formed a natural working partnership, taking meetings together and coordinating policies first before discussing them with a wider European circle, although their positions did not always align.
  • The UK’s capacity to shape the outcome of collective EU discussions appeared more restricted, while Brexit also seemed to shape the response of other EU states to the developing situation in Baltia. Although member states were undoubtedly reluctant to see another country go down this route, they were also resolute in demonstrating a unity of approach and limited flexibility in the face of the new populist government’s attempt to divide them.

PITTSBURGH, Sept. 24, 2024 — Ansys and TSMC today announced a successful pilot with Microsoft that significantly speeds-up the simulation and analysis of silicon photonic components. Together, the companies achieved […]

The post TSMC Collaborates with Ansys and Microsoft to Accelerate Photonic Simulations appeared first on HPCwire.

Oct. 25, 2024 — Aggregation of proteins underlies many human disorders, including Alzheimer’s. Teams from the New Jersey Institute of Technology and Princeton University joined forces to study how the amyloid […]

The post PSC: Anton Simulations Reveal How Alzheimer’s Fibril Growth May Accelerate appeared first on HPCwire.

TROY, Mich., Oct. 17, 2024 — Altair, a global leader in computational intelligence, is proud to announce its collaboration with Motivo, a product engineering firm for clients in the mobility, […]

The post Altair’s HPC and Simulation Solutions Advance Motivo’s Aerospace Prototyping appeared first on HPCwire.

CALGARY, Alberta, Nov. 5, 2024 — Computer Modelling Group Ltd. (CMG) has announced it is collaborating with NVIDIA to further develop and optimize CMG subsurface simulation solutions for increased speed, […]

The post CMG Targets Faster Simulation Solutions with NVIDIA for Enhanced Reservoir Modeling appeared first on HPCwire.

BOSTON, Dec. 12, 2023 — Aliro Quantum today announced the controlled availability of Aliro Simulator, a versatile, modular quantum network simulator equipped to model all portions of a quantum network from […]

The post Aliro Quantum Debuts Aliro Simulator, Enhancing Quantum Network Simulation and Visualization appeared first on HPCwire.

The teachers say they've suffered emotional distress and anxiety for months after being shot at with plastic bullets in a voluntary active-shooter drill in 2019.

Robotics programmers can now use SolidWorks 3D CAD models for more powerful simulations

Windsave Turbines are Small, and Can Help Customers Save up to 30 percent on Electricity Costs

World-Class Sports Car Manufacturer Reduces Number of Prototypes by Half for Newly Redesigned, Hand-crafted D8 GTO

David Radice, associate professor of physics and of astronomy and astrophysics, has been selected to receive a Sustainment Award from NASA to advance an open-source code called AthenaK for computational astrophysicists. The grant will provide nearly $920,000 over three years.

A previous article shows a simulation of two different models of a foraging animal. The first model is a random walk, which assumes that the animal chooses a random direction, then takes a step that is distributed according to a Gaussian random variable. In the second model, the animal again [...]

The post Levy flight and vectorizing a simulation in SAS appeared first on The DO Loop.

Hello Community,

I have encountered an issue that is a mystery to me and hope somebody could give me a clue about what is happening in Cadence and maybe even a solution?

I am running a test scripted in a SKILL file that sequentially opens two different projects with MC analyses and in between I get an error message box and also multiple logs in CIW with exactly the same text.

Both projects run a simulation with a call like this:

historyName = maeRunSimulation(?session sessionName ?waitUntilDone t)

After this the script closes the current project, opens the next project and executes the same line with maeRunSimulation() for the second project. Then immediately this error message happens, and also is logged repeatedly in the CIW window

The message box looks like this:

The logs I get in CIW:

nil
hiCancelProgressBox(_axlNetlistCreateProgressBar)
nil
hiCancelProgressBox(_axlUILoadForm)
nil
when(dwindow('axlDataViewessWindow1) hiMapWindow(dwindow('axlDataViewessWindow1)))
t
when(dwindow('axlRunSummaryessWindow1) hiMapWindow(dwindow('axlRunSummaryessWindow1)))
t
ERROR (ASSEMBLER-1600): Cannot find an active session named fnxSession0.
You can only modify an ADE Assembler session that is active.
Perhaps the session name was misspelled or has not yet been created.
Verify the session name matches an existing ADE Assembler session.

1>
ERROR (ASSEMBLER-1600): Cannot find an active session named fnxSession0.
You can only modify an ADE Assembler session that is active.
Perhaps the session name was misspelled or has not yet been created.
Verify the session name matches an existing ADE Assembler session.

*WARNING* hiDisplayAppDBox: modal dbox 'adexlMessageDialog' is already displayed!
ERROR (ASSEMBLER-1600): Cannot find an active session named fnxSession0.
You can only modify an ADE Assembler session that is active.
Perhaps the session name was misspelled or has not yet been created.
Verify the session name matches an existing ADE Assembler session.

*WARNING* hiDisplayAppDBox: modal dbox 'adexlMessageDialog' is already displayed!
ERROR (ASSEMBLER-1600): Cannot find an active session named fnxSession0.
You can only modify an ADE Assembler session that is active.
Perhaps the session name was misspelled or has not yet been created.
Verify the session name matches an existing ADE Assembler session.

When starting a new design, it's important to take the time to consider design recommendations that prevent problems that can arise later in the design cycle. This two-part compilation of guidelines for starting a new design is the result of years of Cadence AWR Design Environment platform Support experience with designs. Pre-design decisions for user interface, simulation, layout, and library configuration lay the groundwork for a successful and efficient AWR design. This blog covers the user interface (UI) and simulation considerations designers should note prior to starting a design.(read more)

New online training course for AXIEM EM Simulator in AWR Microwave Office is available.(read more)

Introduction

Multiphysics is an integral part of the concepts around digital twins. In this post, I want to discuss the mechanical aspects of multiphysics in system simulations, which are critical for 3D-IC, multi-die, and chiplet design.

The physical world in which we live is growing ever more electrified. Think of the transformation that the cell phone has brought into our lives, as has the present-day migration to electronic vehicles (EVs). These products are not only feats of electronic engineering but of mechanical as well, as the electronics find themselves in new and novel forms such as foldable phones and flying cars (eVOTLs). Here, engineering domains must co-exist and collaborate to bring about the best end products possible.

Start with the electronics—chips, chiplets, IC packaging, PCB, and modules. But now put these into a new form factor that can be dropped or submerged in water or accelerated along a highway. What about drop testing, aerodynamics, and aeroacoustics? These largely computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and/or mechanical multiphysics phenomena must also be accounted for. And then how does the drop testing impact the electrical performance? The world of electronics and its vast array of end products is pushing us beyond pure electrical engineering to be more broadly minded and develop not only heterogeneous products but heterogeneous engineering teams as well.

Cadence's Unique Expertise

It's at this crossroad of complexity and electronic proliferation that Cadence shines. Let's take, for example, the latest push for higher-performing high-bandwidth memory (HBM) devices and AI data center expansion. These technologies are growing from several layers to 12, and I can't emphasize enough the importance of teamwork and integrated solutions in tackling the challenges of advanced packaging technologies and how collaboration is shaping the future of semiconductor innovation and paving the way for cutting-edge developments in the industry.

These layered electronics are powered, and power creates heat. Heat needs to be understood, and thus, the thermal integrity issues uncovered along the way must be addressed. However, electronic thermal issues are just the first domino in a chain of interdependencies. What about the thermal stress and warpage that can be caused by the powering of these stacked devices? How does that then lend to mechanical stress and even material fatigue as the temperature cycles from high to low and back through the use of the electronic device? This is just one example in a long list of many...

Cadence Multiphysics Analysis Offerings

The confluence of electrical, mechanical, and CFD is exactly why Cadence expanded into multiphysics at a significant rate starting in 2019 with the announcement of the Clarity 3D Solver and Celsius Thermal Solver products for electromagnetic (EM) and thermal multiphysics system simulations. Recent acquisitions of Numeca, Pointwise, and Cascade (now branded within Cadence as the Fidelity CFD Platform) as well as Future Facilities (now the Cadence Reality Digital Twin product line) are all adding CFD expertise. The recent addition of Beta CAE brings mechanical multiphysics to the suite of solutions available from Cadence. The full breadth of these multiphysics system analyses, spanning EM, thermal, signal integrity/power integrity (SI/PI), CFD, and now mechanical, creates a platform for digital twinning across a wide array of applications. You can learn more by viewing Cadence's Reality Digital Twin platform launch on the keynote stage at NVIDIA's GTC in March, as well as this Designed with Cadence video: NV5, NVIDIA, and Cadence Collaboration Optimizes Data Centers.

Conclusion

Ever more sophisticated electronic designs are in demand to fulfill the needs of tomorrow's technologies, driving a convergence of electrical and mechanical aspects of multiphysics in system simulations. To successfully produce the exciting new products of the future, both domains must be able to collaborate effectively and efficiently. Cadence is fully committed to developing and providing our customers with the software products they need to enable this electrical/mechanical evolution. From EM, to thermal, to SI/PI, CFD, and mechanical, Cadence is enabling digital twinning across a wide array of applications that are forging pathways to the future.

For more information on Cadence's multiphysics system analysis offerings, visit our webpage and download our brochure.

hi,

     I save the waveform file of the oscilloscope as CSV file format.

     Now, I need to use this waveform file as the source of the low-pass filter .

     I searched and read the PSPICE help documents, and did not find any  methods. 

     How to realize it?

     Are there any reference documents or examples?

     Thanks!

During a mixed-signal simulation, the analog engine usually dominates the simulation time and resources. If you need to run only the analog engine in several windows, or if you would like to to run multiple tests of the same circuit with different stimuli or test pattern, then you need to run the simulation multiple times. View this blog to know more about the the two advanced technologies that Spectre AMS Designer provides to help you improve the efficiency of your mixed-signal designs and to increase the simulation speed.(read more)

This blog describes an efficient way to name the histories saved by the simulation runs in Virtuoso ADE Assembler.(read more)

Dear all,

I defined two design variables in ADE Assembler, say V1 and V2, that define the voltage 1 and voltage 2 of a "vpulse" voltage source in my schematic.

Then, I define V1 = 1.0, and V2 = 2.0, run a transient simulation, and everything is as expexcted. The source provides pulses between 1.0 V and 2.0 V.

Next, I set V1 = 1.0:0.5:1.5, thereby creating a parametric sweep with 1.0 V and 1.5 V for V1. I keep V2 at 2.0 V. Then the simulation fails, and all I get is "netl err" in my Output Expressions and an error message that the results directory does not exist and nothing can be plotted: This is reasonable, as the results directory is deleted on starting a new simulation, and as there is no simulation result, none of my output expressions can be plotted.

WARNING (OCN-6040): The specified directory does not exist, or the directory does not contain valid PSF results.
        Ensure that the path to the directory is correct and the directory has a logFile and PSF result files.
WARNING (ADE-1065): No simulation results are available.
ERROR (WIA-1175): Cannot plot waveform signals because no waveform data is available for plotting.
One of the possible reasons can be that 'Save' check box for these signals are not selected in the Outputs Setup pane. Ensure that these check boxes are selected before you run the simulation.

Normally, this kind of para,metric sweep is not a problem, I have done this many times before. There must be something special in THIS PARTICULAR test bench or simulator setup. The trouble is, I don't get any useful error messages.

Does anyone know what might be the problem here OR where to find useful information to investigate further (log files stored somewhere)? Thank you!

Regards,

Volker

P.S. Using Corners instead does not help either. Running it through all values by hand works, though.

Hi, 

When I try to run Monte Carlo it gives me a 3 items message for possible failure:

1. It says the machine selected in the current job setup policy isnot reachable

2. The Cadence hierarchy is not detected, not installed properly. or

3. Job start script (with a path and a name like swiftNetlistService#) is not found on the remote machines.

Any recommendation on how to fix this?

Hello Everybody

Recently, I want to design a high output Power Amplifier at 2.4GHz using TSMC 1P6M CMOS Bulk Process. I use its nmos_rf_25_6t transistor model to determine the approximate mosfet size

I use the most common Common-Source Differential Amplifier topology with neutralizing capacitor to improve its stability and power gain performance

Because I want to output large power, the size of mosfet is very large, the gate width is about 2mm, when I perform harmonic balance analysis, everything is alright, the OP1dB is about 28dBm (0.63Watt)

But When I perform Transient simulation, the magnitude of voltage and current waveform at the saturation point is too small, for voltgae, Vpeaking is about 50mV, for current, Ipeaking is about 5mA

I assume some reasons: the bsim4 model is not complete/ the virtuoso version is wrong (My virtuoso version is IC6.1.7-64b.500.21)/the spectre version is wrong (spectre version is 15.1.0 32bit)/the MMSIM version is wrong/Transient Simulation setting is wrong (the algorithm is select gear2only, but when I select other, like: trap, the results have no difference), the maxstep I set 5ps, minstep I set 2ps to improve simulation speed, I think this step is much smaller than the fundamental period (1/2.4e9≈416ps)

I have no idea how to solve this problem, please help me! Thank you very very much!

I'm completely new to Cadence. I've been able to run a very simple simulation with the -gui option. Simvision opens, I add the variables to the waveform viewer, and press run. All is good.

I don't understand the flow when using the -nogui option. It appears that the simulation runs and returns control to the OS. When I launch Simvision, is there a database or file that I can open to display the already-simulated data?

My command is of the form:

xrun -gui -64bit -sv -access +rwc -top tb_top.sv <src files>

Hi, I'm using the xcelium simulator to simulate a testbench, in which I first stimulate my design to do something (part "A") and then do a direct follow-up test on the design (part "B").

I need two things from this testbench: the results of the test (part "B", passed/failed) and coverage information, but the coverage information should only include part A and explicitly not part B.

I could do the following: run the testbench with part A and B, get the "passed/failed" result of the test and then follow up another simulator run with another testbench, that only includes part A and get the coverage information from that simulation run.

Is there a way to force xcelium to give me the coverage information of only a part of the simulation? Ideally, I would like to write the verilog code of my testbench to look something like this:

• do A
• dump coverage information
• do B

But maybe there is another way to tell xcelium to consider only part of the testbench for the coverage information. I did have a look at the manual, but was not able to find something useful for this problem. Any ideas?

Hello,

 I am working in a digital design. The functional, post synthesis and post P&R without IO pads are all working fine, i.e., functionally and with clean timing reports "no setup/hold violations". I just added the IO pads to the same design, I had to change the timing constraints a bit for the synthesis but I have a clean design at SOC Encounter, i.e., clean DRC and clean timing reports "no setup/hold violations". However, when I perform simulation using the exported net-list from SOC Encounter together with SDF exported from the same tool, I got a lot of hold violations. Consequently, the design is not funcitioning.

Why and how I can overcome or trobleshoot this issue?

In waiting for your feedback and comments.

Regards.

Join this insightful on-demand webinar event "SI/PI Simulation and Measurement Correlation Forum" available through Signal Integrity Journal that features industry expert presentations ranging from chip to package to complex board designs.(read more)

Dear All,

To design an outphasing combiner, I need to extract the input impedances when the circuit is driven by two sources concurrently with a varying phase-shift and plot them on a Smith Chart. However, I can't find a way to display the simulated S-parameters on a Smith Chart.

The testbench, shown below, consists of two sources set to 50 Ohm with variable phase (PORT0: theta, PORT1: -theta) swept from -90° to 90°. The NPORTs are couplers used to isolate the forward and reflected power at each source, i.e. the S-parameters are:

• S13 = S31 = 1; through path
• S21 = S41 = 1; forward and reflected power
• All other are zero

The testbench is simulated with an "hb" analysis instead of "sp", as the two sources have to be excited simultaneously with varying phase-shift to see their load-modulation effect. The sweep is setup in the "Choosing Analysis" window. The powers of the forward (pXa) and reflected (pXb) waves are found through the "Direct Plot" window, e.g. pvr('hb "/p1a" 0 50.0 '(1)) as the power for p1a, and named P1A_Watt. The S-parameters are then calculated as the reflected power w.r.t. the forward power P1B_Watt/P1A_Watt. This approach is based on a Hot S-parameter testbench from ADS.

At this point I would like to display these S-parameters on a Smith Chart. However, this seemed more challenging than expected. One straightforward method would seem to create an empty Smith Chart window in the Display Window and dragging the S-parameters from the rectangular plot on it, but this just deletes them from the Display Window. Hence my question:

How can I display these S-parameters on a Smith Chart?

Dear all,

Hi!

I'm trying to do a Harmonic Balance (HB) Large-Signal S-Parameter (LSSP) simulation to figure out the input impedance of a nonlinear circuit.

Through this simulation, what I want to know is the large-signal S11 only (not S12, S21 and S22).

So, I have simulated with only single port (PORT0) at input, but LSSP simulation is terminated and output log shows following text.

" Analysis `hb' was terminated prematurely due to an error "

The LSSP simulation does not proceed without second port.

Should I use floating second port (which is not necessary for my circuit) to succeed the LSSP simulation?

Does the LSSP simulation really need two ports?

Below figure is my HB LSSP simulation setup.

Additionally, Periodic S-Parameter (PSP) simulation using HB is succeeded with only single port.

What is the difference between PSP and LSSP simulations?

I get multiple results at the same frequency in a 3-tone simulation.

I try to determine the IP3 of a mixer. I have 3 large signal tones: 0.75 GHz, 1.25 GHz and 1.26 GHz.

At the IM3 frequency of 490 MHz I observe 4 results, see also the screenshot of the table output. The frequencies are exactly the same (even when I subtract 490 MHz by using xval() ).

Which of the values do I have to use to determine the correct IP3?

Is there an option to merge these results?

Hello everybody,

As you can find in the attached image, I am trying to simulate a Colpitts oscillator. However, using pss analysis it shows a high output power. 

My question is where is the problem of my structure or simulation setup?

Best,

Hello everyone,

I am trying to perform a load pull simulation of a transistor to verify some gain calculations I made using its S-parameters. Specifically, I have calculated the optimal conjugate impedances for the input and output to later calculate the power dissipated and transmitted in each stage of the transistor. Then, I only varied the output impedance and recalculated these powers, noticing that the power delivered to the load is lower.

Now, what I want to do is simulate this behavior using the Load Pull simulation. I have taken the model shown in the image, but I believe it is a linear model. My question is: if the chosen model is linear, is the load pull simulation accurate? In the calculations I made, nonlinearities are not considered. I don’t want to take nonlinearities into account.

In short, do you have any ideas on how to verify the calculations made with the transistor’s S-parameters through a load pull simulation?

Can you recommend any transistor model that is nonlinear and also has an S-parameter file?

Thank you very much in advance.

Hello everyone,

For my cross-coupled oscillator design, I have a problem with stability analysis. Based on my achieved results which are attached, where is my design problem?

Best,

https://ibb.co/bgKFP4N

https://ibb.co/3FGRLmV

https://ibb.co/pwSZDSF

Hi everyone,

I'm currently working on my thesis, which involves a beamformer system using CMOS 65nm technology. I'm trying to use the EMX tool for EM simulation but have encountered a few problems. Before diving into my questions about EMX, let me briefly explain how I conduct EM simulations with other software (ADS).

In ADS, I use the EM simulator with the Momentum microwave engine. However, my EM layout is quite large, and the mesh generated is extremely detailed, making it difficult to simulate the entire system. As a workaround, I divide the system into smaller parts and simulate each one individually. I've attached a snapshot of my setup, which includes an amplifier and a 1-to-2 Wilkinson power divider. I've separated these circuits and placed pins to facilitate EM simulations for each. I also placed ground pins at the boundaries of each circuit to connect them to the ground plane.

Here’s the link to the image (I'm unable to upload it due to an error): https://drive.google.com/file/d/13Qn4-DvMBj_K1JQLXrTWaWZ8uaLJr15u/view?usp=sharing

Now, moving on to EMX (version 6.3). For a maximum frequency of 31 GHz, I set the edge mesh = thickness = 0.4 µm (approximately the skin depth). However, when I simulate the circuit (amplifier + divider), the mesh on the ground plane becomes very dense, which makes running the simulation impossible due to excessive memory requirements. I reverted to my ADS approach and divided the circuit into two parts, placing ports to connect them. Unfortunately, EMX doesn't allow me to place multiple edge ports on the same edge for the ground plane, which has left me confused. Here are a couple of questions I have:

1. Is breaking the circuit into smaller parts a valid approach? Given the large ground plane, the mesh size for the ground is significant, making simulations challenging. Are there any methods to manage this issue?

2. Regarding the ground pins, why can't I place multiple edge ports to connect the ground planes of both circuits as I did in ADS? If this approach is incorrect, could you suggest alternative methods for simulating individual circuits and connecting them to estimate system performance?

Any insights would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your help!

Hello Everybody

Recently, I want to design a high output Power Amplifier at 2.4GHz using TSMC 1P6M CMOS Bulk Process. I use its nmos_rf_25_6t transistor model to determine the approximate mosfet size

I use the most common Common-Source Differential Amplifier topology with neutralizing capacitor to improve its stability and power gain performance

Because I want to output large power, the size of mosfet is very large, the gate width is about 2mm, when I perform harmonic balance analysis, everything is alright, the OP1dB is about 28dBm (0.63Watt)

But When I perform Transient simulation, the magnitude of voltage and current waveform at the saturation point is too small, for voltgae, Vpeaking is about 50mV, for current, Ipeaking is about 5mA

I assume some reasons: the bsim4 model is not complete/ the virtuoso version is wrong (My virtuoso version is IC6.1.7-64b.500.21)/the spectre version is wrong (spectre version is 15.1.0 32bit)/the MMSIM version is wrong/Transient Simulation setting is wrong (the algorithm is select gear2only, but when I select other, like: trap, the results have no difference), the maxstep I set 5ps, minstep I set 2ps to improve simulation speed, I think this step is much smaller than the fundamental period (1/2.4e9≈416ps)

I have no idea how to solve this problem, please help me! Thank you very very much!

Robotics developers can greatly accelerate their work on AI-enabled robots, including humanoids, using new AI and simulation tools and workflows that NVIDIA revealed this week at the Conference for Robot Learning (CoRL) in Munich, Germany. The lineup includes the general availability of the NVIDIA Isaac Lab robot learning framework; six new humanoid robot learning workflows Read Article

In this upcoming webinar, explore how to leverage the state-of-the-art high-frequency simulation capabilities of Ansys HFSS to innovate and develop advanced multiband antenna systems.

Overview

This webinar will explore how to leverage the state-of-the-art high-frequency simulation capabilities of Ansys HFSS to innovate and develop advanced multiband antenna systems. Attendees will learn how to optimize antenna performance and analyze installed performance within wireless networks. The session will also demonstrate how this approach enables users to extract valuable wireless and network KPIs, providing a comprehensive toolset for enhancing antenna design, optimizing multiband communication, and improving overall network performance. Join us to discover how Ansys HFSS can transform wireless system design and network efficiency approach.

What Attendees will Learn

• How to design interleaved multiband antenna systems using the latest capabilities in HFSS
• How to extract Network Key Performance Indicators
• How to run and extract RF Channels for the dynamic environment

Who Should Attend

This webinar is valuable to anyone involved in antenna, R&D, product design, and wireless networks.

Register now for this free webinar!

This paper begins with a look at both optimization modeling and discrete-event simulation modeling, and explores how they can most effectively work together to create additional analytic value. It then considers two examples of a combined optimization and simulation approach and discusses the resulting benefits.

Clinical Simulations are Center Stage in Keeping Patients Safe