• WARNING: Tube/Valve amplifiers use potentially LETHAL HIGH VOLTAGES.
    Building, troubleshooting and testing of these amplifiers should only be
    performed by someone who is thoroughly familiar with
    the safety precautions around high voltages.

Vacuum Tube SPICE Models

Ayumi vs. (modified) Koren model for power pentodes

Hello,

in the example below You see a stage with two 6L6GC in push pull. The upper tube is modeled using the Ayumi model, the lower tube is done using a Koren model modified with µ-Tracer data. Only .OP analysis is done. Please note the voltage directly at G2: at least in the .OP simulation there is obviously no G2 current or an extremely small one with the Koren type model.

The .TRAN simulation does, however, show at least roughly plausible values of G2 if You check them with .MEAS commands.

So far, so good. Unfortunately the Ayumi models are computionally extremely expensive and can therefore not be used in general design work, but just "as the last step".

So there is the question if there exist other computationally lightweight models which come a bit closer to reality than the (otherwise useful) Koren models?
 

Attachments

  • 6L6PP_3_AN_Laurent.png
    6L6PP_3_AN_Laurent.png
    118.2 KB · Views: 441
Hi Bea

Nice to meet you again, for this time on the diyaudio site ;-)
You now, Norman Koren did not spent much effort to model accurate grid currents...
Why not try the Duncan Munro model? It is also fast (as it was also developed in the past century with its slow clocked computers), and (more or less) accurate grid currents was a high priority goal for Duncan.

Pentodes

all the best, Adrian

P.S: Be aware that the Ayumi models deliver a better overall fit quality!
 
... Unfortunately the Ayumi models are computionally extremely expensive and can therefore not be used in general design work ...

never experienced anything like taking minutes ... not even with my oldest Pentium 4 2GHz single core and even less so with modern 8-core 4-GHz hardware;
anyway, could it be that you use .step commands in your "general design work", maybe multiple nested ones ?

if you could post a complete .asc file (without your secret ingrediences of course) including model file we could try to douplicate your results and find a way to tune the LTSPICE setup
 
6FM7 compactron with two dissimilar triodes
#1: small signal mu=66
#2: vertical output 10W plate
can't find any Spice models anywhere ... appreciate volunteer with the necessary tools
here's datasheet: http://frank.yueksel.org/sheets/123/6/6FM7.pdf
curves attached (attention, there is an awkward intermediate at -25v in the 2nd)
 

Attachments

  • 6FM7_T1.png
    6FM7_T1.png
    372 KB · Views: 343
  • 6FM7_T2.png
    6FM7_T2.png
    133.6 KB · Views: 346
Last edited:
Hi Sorento

You will find the 6FM7 (section1) spice model on my website:
http://adrianimmler.simplesite.com/440956786
Same to the graphs, showing the achieved fit quality.

PS: The datasheet does not contain any grid current traces for the section 2 triode, so I decided to not fit this section (as I don't want to provide a model with perhaps "wrong" Ig behavior)

PPS: Please note that the grid current scale is different to the the anode current scale. I managed that by multiplying the grid current by 0.8 in the LTspice graph.

kind regards, Adrian
 
Ex-Moderator
Joined 2011
6FM7 SPICE Models

6FM7 (Section 1):
Code:
*
* Generic triode model: 6FM7_T1_AN
* Copyright 2003--2008 by Ayumi Nakabayashi, All rights reserved.
* Version 3.10, Generated on Tue Jan 29 11:36:34 2019
*                  Anode
*                  | Grid
*                  | | Cathode
*                  | | |
.SUBCKT 6FM7_T1_AN A G K
BGG   GG   0 V=V(G,K)+0.43055578
BM1   M1   0 V=(0.0046490712*(URAMP(V(A,K))+1e-10))**-0.51982331
BM2   M2   0 V=(0.74263922*(URAMP(V(GG)+URAMP(V(A,K))/55.357463)+1e-10))**2.0198233
BP    P    0 V=0.0016884355*(URAMP(V(GG)+URAMP(V(A,K))/74.54153)+1e-10)**1.5
BIK   IK   0 V=U(V(GG))*V(P)+(1-U(V(GG)))*0.00097329237*V(M1)*V(M2)
BIG   IG   0 V=0.00084421773*URAMP(V(G,K))**1.5*(URAMP(V(G,K))/(URAMP(V(A,K))+URAMP(V(G,K)))*1.2+0.4)
BIAK  A    K I=URAMP(V(IK,IG)-URAMP(V(IK,IG)-(0.00087830783*URAMP(V(A,K))**1.5)))+1e-10*V(A,K)
BIGK  G    K I=V(IG)
* CAPS
CGA   G    A 4p
CGK   G    K 2.4p
CAK   A    K 0.4p
.ENDS

6FM7 (Section 2):
Code:
*
* Generic triode model: 6FM7_T2_AN
* Copyright 2003--2008 by Ayumi Nakabayashi, All rights reserved.
* Version 3.10, Generated on Tue Jan 29 11:37:44 2019
*                  Anode
*                  | Grid
*                  | | Cathode
*                  | | |
.SUBCKT 6FM7_T2_AN A G K
BGG   GG   0 V=V(G,K)+1
BM1   M1   0 V=(0.10600611*(URAMP(V(A,K))+1e-10))**-1.2768421
BM2   M2   0 V=(0.54018197*(URAMP(V(GG)+URAMP(V(A,K))/4.337656)+1e-10))**2.7768421
BP    P    0 V=0.0047855456*(URAMP(V(GG)+URAMP(V(A,K))/8.0299904)+1e-10)**1.5
BIK   IK   0 V=U(V(GG))*V(P)+(1-U(V(GG)))*0.00389593*V(M1)*V(M2)
BIG   IG   0 V=0.0023927728*URAMP(V(G,K))**1.5*(URAMP(V(G,K))/(URAMP(V(A,K))+URAMP(V(G,K)))*1.2+0.4)
BIAK  A    K I=URAMP(V(IK,IG)-URAMP(V(IK,IG)-(0.0033139904*URAMP(V(A,K))**1.5)))+1e-10*V(A,K)
BIGK  G    K I=V(IG)
* CAPS
CGA   G    A 7p
CGK   G    K 7p
CAK   A    K 1.1p
.ENDS
 
Hi indra1,
Koonw has already fitted this tube, please see his reply #1405

Hi all

As we have now tow different 6FM7#1 approaches made from the same datasheet, it is a good occasion to compare to see where their strengths/weaknesses are.

calculation performance:
6FM7#1_i2: 8.85s for 585k working point calculations
6FM7_T1_AN: 6.64s for 585k working point calculations
=> winner is 6FM7_T1_AN

accuracy:
see attached images
=> winner is 6FM7#1_i2 (especially for pos. Vg)

all the best, Adrian

Comparison 6FM7#1 i2 vs AN negVg.PNG
Comparison 6FM7#1 i2 vs AN posVg.PNG
 

Attachments

  • Comparison 6FM7#1 i2 vs AN negVg.PNG
    Comparison 6FM7#1 i2 vs AN negVg.PNG
    603.9 KB · Views: 325
  • Comparison 6FM7#1 i2 vs AN posVg.PNG
    Comparison 6FM7#1 i2 vs AN posVg.PNG
    510.1 KB · Views: 296