smlogan
Community Member
Offline
Posts: 52
Boston, MA
|
Dear eye_see_design,
> I have a transient testbench where I use acnames to break and run noise > analysis. I have utilized the “@sigoutCross” function to define the threshold > crossing at 0.5V that the noise analysis is to be performed. That is done > using acnames.
If I understand your methodology correctly, it appears you are running an AC noise analysis at the time at which your oscillator is crossing its threshold voltage.
> ...The PNOISE analysis (red plot) does not look correct to me as it is 500x higher > than what I calculated in NOISE analysis. Is there something obvious that I am > doing wrong?
First, I am not sure how you calculated the AC noise result. From your ViVA plot, its units are shown as nV/root Hz. An AC noise analysis output has the units of V/root Hz or V^2/Hz. Secondly, an AC noise analysis is a small-signal simulation only and creates a linear model of devices based on the operating point at which which you specify the analysis. As a result, there is no folding of signal/noise harmonics due to the non-linear nature of the limiting mechanism of the oscillator. a large-signal PSS analysis followed by a pnoise analysis does include the non-linear behavior of the limiting mechanism and will include noise due to folding of signal and noise. Therefore, I would expect the total noise over some bandwidth of a PSS/pnoise set of simulations to be much larger than that predicted by an AC noise analysis.
Hence, I am not surprised at your results.
Shawn
|