This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

LP2953QML-SP: Any possibility of generating a device specific PSpice model for this device?

Part Number: LP2953QML-SP
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: LP2954

Hi Folks

There are some applications where this device is still the best fit, especially those requiring low quiescent current.

The lack of a Spice model (or evaluation board) makes it difficult for customers to use in their programs, even when the device would be the best fit.

Is there any possibility of generating a specific Spice model for this device? How about an evaluation board?

Thanks!

Jim B

  • Hi Jim,

    I've noted the model request for future development, but can't make any specific guarantees about if/when this would be available for now.

    If customers are ok with not being able to access the REF, COMP_INPUT, and COMP_OUTPUT pins then the LP2954A model and schematic (Unencrypted netlist) could be a good stand-in for now since the electrical characteristics for this device are quite similar to the LP2953QML-SP. 

    This should be good for nominal design prototyping sims, but I can't speak to how accurately it is modeled over all use cases and configurations. It would not be something I recommend using for worst-case analysis since temperature and other sources of variation are likely not modeled. 

    Would this cover the majority of customer needs?

    Thanks,

    Sarah

  • Hi Sarah

    Per the customer: 

    "I’ve been using the LP2954 model for PSPICE simulation, but there are differences in the parts that worry me, such as the voltage setting.  I’d like to see if it would be possible for TI to generate a PSPICE simulation model specifically for the LP2953QML-SP device."

    Most of our space customers are interested in good device feature/function accuracy, and something that can support WCA analysis. 

    Best regards,

    Jim B

  • Hi Jim,

    Thanks for passing on this feedback. We are focused on providing high-quality models for new devices as we release then, but new model development for some of the pre-existing released parts can take time to get approved and completed.

    If you think it would be useful, it could be more feasible for now to do a general evaluation of the existing model and then update you here in the future if it looks promising for simulating nominal (not worst-case) behavior. It would still take time to address, but this is probably a more realizable option than new development - at least for now. 

    Thanks,

    Sarah