Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix responsivity in iv #416

Open
satoru99 opened this issue Feb 7, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Fix responsivity in iv #416

satoru99 opened this issue Feb 7, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@satoru99
Copy link
Member

satoru99 commented Feb 7, 2024

There are two issues.
1. Calculation of R_L
The load resistance (R_L) should be shunt resistance (R_sh) + parasitic resistance (R_par) as written in comment.
It is calculated as follows

R = R_sh * (iva.i_bias/(iva.resp[i]) - 1)
R_n = np.nanmean(R[nb_fit_idx:])
R_L = np.nanmean(R[1:sc_idx])

However, from the equation of voltage:
R_sh * I_bias = (R_tes + R_sh + R_par) * I_tes.
the R evaluated here should be R_tes + R_par,
and, the R_L only contains R_par and not R_sh.
(Also, R_n might include contribution from R_par.)
To give the expected R_L, we should add + R_sh.

2. Calculation of dV/dI
The responsivity is calculated as follows. Note that the rL comes from R_L above and thus underestimated by R_sh.

si = -(1./(i0*r0*(2+beta)))*(1-((r0*(1+beta)+rL)/(dv_tes/di_tes)))

Here, dv is calculated from v_tes.
But from the theoretical model, the correct value seems to be the derivative of v_bias.
Since, v_tes = v_bias * R / (R + R_L), this difference affects at small R.

These two issues affect the responsivity calculation. It's necessary to be fixed.

@satoru99
Copy link
Member Author

satoru99 commented Feb 7, 2024

Oh, there is another v_bias. Here, I mean v_bias = i_bias * R_sh and not following i_bias * bias_line_resistance.

iva.i_bias = iva.v_bias / iva.meta['bias_line_resistance']

@msilvafe
Copy link
Contributor

msilvafe commented Feb 7, 2024

Thanks @satoru99, yes we (I) seem to have dropped R_par completely from all of these equations and we did not use the thevenin equivalent voltage (i_bias*R_sh) as you pointed out here. I follow your math/logic (from Irwin-Hilton) and agree that we should fix this. These seem like the are pretty simple changes to make, and I would love to see things tightening up at small R from this. Are you planning to show some example re-analyzed IVs and submit a PR with these fixes or work with @RemingtonGerras to do this?

RemingtonGerras added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 4, 2024
…by calculating RP curve from satoru's work.
@RemingtonGerras
Copy link
Contributor

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants