Subject: MCMs, SIMMs, and such

From: Stephen Peters <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 12:46:33 -0700

Hello All:

On 5/12 Jay Diepenbrock wrote:

>Now, as for Stephen's proposal itself, I may have missed something.  If
>I understand it correctly, Stephen proposes that self-inductance would
>be in the inductance matrix, but he described "zeroing out" the mutual
>terms.  Was this just for a specific example, I hope, or is this to say
>that all coupling terms are always to be capacitive?  If the latter, I
>would suggest that the model is inadequate.

     No, matrixes are provided for capactiace, resistance and inductance.
In other words, between the [Model data] and [End model data] keywords
one can put...

[Resistance Matrix] matrix_type
.
.
.
[Capacitance Matrix] matrix_type
.
.
.
[Inductance Matrix] matrix_type
.
.
.

     When I wrote of 'zeroing out' the mutuals I was refering to that
specific example where there was insiginifact mutual coupling for that
section.  Good question though.

          Regards,
          Stephen Peters
          Intel Corp.