editor's blog
Subscribe Now

Comparing Oscillator Temp Compensation

MEMS oscillators are making a serious challenge to quartz these days. We looked at Sand 9’s approach recently, but as I thumbed back through other recent announcements, I came back across one that, in retrospect, had some relevant bits to discuss.

Silicon Labs’ earlier announcement focused on the CMOS+MEMS aspect of their work. At the time, I didn’t see anything I could add to the discussion, so I let the announcement stand on its own. But in light of some of the issues I covered in Sand 9’s release, I thought there were some things to come back to on the Silicon Labs story – some of which weren’t immediately apparent in their release.

This relates to temperature compensation, which seems to be the number one concern with these devices. Yes, everyone tries to compensate with circuitry, but if you can minimize the raw temperature effects, then the compensation is easier.

We looked at the stack that Sand 9 built to do this – silicon and oxide having opposing temperature coefficients and therefore physically compensating for each other. Well, Silicon Labs does something similar but not identical.

They use SiGe as the active material for the resonator, but they back it with SiO2, which again opposes the temperature characteristics of the SiGe.

The other subtlety here relates to the CMOS processing aspect, although again, it seems to be two different ways of accomplishing the same thing. Sand 9 discussed how having the compensation ASIC in the same package was important so that the ASIC was experiencing the same temperature as the sensor it was compensating.

With the Silicon Labs approach, this happens as a direct result of combining MEMS and CMOS on the same die: The compensation circuitry isn’t just next to the sensor; it’s on the same die as the sensor. So again, it experiences the same temperatures as the sensor. It’s probably even closer, although at some point, if you start arguing about hot spots on the actual die, you could question whether mere monolithic integration guarantees better compensation. It depends on where things are on the die and how “hot” the circuits are. So it remains to be proven whether monolithic compensation is practically any more effective than a well-engineered die-by-die solution.

You can find more on Silicon Labs’ process here.

Leave a Reply

featured blogs
Apr 16, 2021
The Team RF "μWaveRiders" blog series is a showcase for Cadence AWR RF products. Monthly topics will vary between Cadence AWR Design Environment release highlights, feature videos, Cadence... [[ Click on the title to access the full blog on the Cadence Community...
Apr 16, 2021
Spring is in the air and summer is just around the corner. It is time to get out the Old Farmers Almanac and check on the planting schedule as you plan out your garden.  If you are unfamiliar with a Farmers Almanac, it is a publication containing weather forecasts, plantin...
Apr 15, 2021
Explore the history of FPGA prototyping in the SoC design/verification process and learn about HAPS-100, a new prototyping system for complex AI & HPC SoCs. The post Scaling FPGA-Based Prototyping to Meet Verification Demands of Complex SoCs appeared first on From Silic...
Apr 14, 2021
By Simon Favre If you're not using critical area analysis and design for manufacturing to… The post DFM: Still a really good thing to do! appeared first on Design with Calibre....

featured video

The Verification World We Know is About to be Revolutionized

Sponsored by Cadence Design Systems

Designs and software are growing in complexity. With verification, you need the right tool at the right time. Cadence® Palladium® Z2 emulation and Protium™ X2 prototyping dynamic duo address challenges of advanced applications from mobile to consumer and hyperscale computing. With a seamlessly integrated flow, unified debug, common interfaces, and testbench content across the systems, the dynamic duo offers rapid design migration and testing from emulation to prototyping. See them in action.

Click here for more information

featured paper

Understanding Functional Safety FIT Base Failure Rate Estimates per IEC 62380 and SN 29500

Sponsored by Texas Instruments

Functional safety standards such as IEC 61508 and ISO 26262 require semiconductor device manufacturers to address both systematic and random hardware failures. Base failure rates (BFR) quantify the intrinsic reliability of the semiconductor component while operating under normal environmental conditions. Download our white paper which focuses on two widely accepted techniques to estimate the BFR for semiconductor components; estimates per IEC Technical Report 62380 and SN 29500 respectively.

Click here to download the whitepaper

Featured Chalk Talk

Nano Pulse Control Clears Issues in the Automotive and Industrial Markets

Sponsored by Mouser Electronics and ROHM Semiconductor

In EV and industrial applications, converting from high voltages on the power side to low voltages on the electronics side poses a big challenge. In order to convert big voltage drops efficiently, you need very narrow pulse widths. In this episode of Chalk Talk, Amelia Dalton chats with Satya Dixit from ROHM about new Nano Pulse Control technology that changes the game in DC to DC conversion.

More information about ROHM Semiconductor BD9V10xMUF Buck Converters