Circuit Response
every model has an edge, and the figure carries it
Concept

Bisection — where it appears

Finding a value by repeatedly halving an interval known to contain it, which converges slowly and cannot be fooled by a curve's shape. It is how every edge in this collection is located, because the quantity being searched is usually a measurement rather than an expression.

Named by 6 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Fourteen decades of imbalance, fourteen digits gone, and a matrix in perfect health. computed by solving, not by drawing. A Wheatstone bridge walked towards balance, with the relative error of the solved output against a closed form that cannot lose digits. The condition number of the nodal matrix is 505.0 at every imbalance and the smallest pivot is 2.0e-3 of the matrix norm — orders above the 1e-12 at which this solver refuses to answer at all. Neither number moves, and the answer still loses one digit per decade of imbalance, reaching 33% at δ = 1e-15. The bound drawn over it is the round-off divided by the imbalance, which the measurement stays under at every point. The third curve is the same closed form written as ½ − 1/(2+δ) — algebraically identical, and it loses its digits at the same rate, which is where the loss lives: in the subtraction of two nearly equal numbers, not in the matrix.

The matrix that is ill, and the answer that is not

Every other essay here treats the solve as exact, and it is not. A bridge walked towards balance loses one digit per decade of imbalance and has none left at a part in 10¹⁵ — on a matrix whose condition number never moves and whose smallest pivot stays four orders above the threshold this solver refuses at. A feedback amplifier does the opposite: the solver declines to answer at a gain of 10⁹, one decade after it returned an answer that was exact to the last bit.

networks · Conditioning 5 sections, equal ripple, and the band that is 134% rather than 97. computed by solving, not by drawing. The repaired five-section equal-ripple design over the band it was designed for. The horizontal rule is the 0.1 the specification allows and the 4 interior peaks sit on it, level to 8.5e-4 per cent — which is the condition for a minimax solution and is now checked rather than assumed. The dots are the eighty-one frequencies the objective used to be evaluated at: the worst of them is 0.09999998 and the worst of the design over the whole band is 0.10013858, so an optimiser shown only the dots drove them down to the specification and left the true peaks 13.9 parts in ten thousand above it. That is nothing until something downstream is a threshold, and the band measurement was one: it reported 97.34 per cent for a design that holds 134.04.

The number that was wrong

The rung below printed 97.3 per cent of band for a five-section transformer where the answer is 134, said in its own text that the figure was wrong, and blamed a search that had converged to eight digits. The search was fine. The objective was the worst of a grid rather than the worst of a band, the band was then measured by bisecting a function that crosses its threshold five times, and the assertion guarding all of it passed — because 97.3 is still more than 92.6.

lines · Matching Three cliffs, not one, and the fastest damping is on the last of them. computed by solving, not by drawing. Settling time against damping for a third-order response — a complex pair at unit natural frequency and a real pole at 3 — with the second-order case behind it. Both are staircases: the settling time is set by the last excursion outside the band, so there is one step for each excursion that stops happening, and there are 3 of them between 0.3 and 0.98. They are at 0.378, 0.522, 0.773, with jumps of 1.24, 1.30, 1.42. The rung below found the last and largest of them and did not look below it. The fastest damping is 0.775, sitting on the edge of the last step, and a design a hundredth to the left of it settles 42 per cent slower.

Three cliffs, and where they are

The rung below sweeps a second-order step's damping, finds the settling time falling by a third in one step of a five-thousandth sweep, and calls it the cliff. There are three of them between 0.3 and 0.98, one for each excursion that stops leaving the band, and adding a third pole moves all three left and makes all three shallower — so the classic 0.78 for fastest two per cent settling is a second-order number, and at a third pole one and a half times the natural frequency the answer is 0.745 and 0.78 is on the wrong side of the step.

transients · Damping Every order buys less range than the one before, and above 9 Vₜ the sixth is worse than the fourth. computed by solving, not by drawing. The error of the same expression truncated at three orders, against the drive it is evaluated at, with the measurement it is chasing being a Newton-solved transfer curve that knows about no series at all. Each truncation's error grows as its own order in the drive — fitted at 2.00, 4.00, 5.88 against 2, 4 and 6 — so each buys a further range at a stated accuracy: inside 1% the leading expression is good to 1.12 thermal voltages, the fourth order to 3.88 and the sixth to 7.03, factors of 3.46 and 1.81. Beyond all of them the series stops helping: at 8.9 thermal voltages, where the second harmonic is 11.4%, the sixth-order expression is exactly as wrong as the fourth and is worse above it. What a designer does there is bisect the curve.

The order that stops helping

Three essays in this field have derived expressions for the amplitude at which a degenerated stage's distortion reaches a target, each one order longer than the last, and each one nearer the measurement. This is where that stops. The error of an expression truncated at order m grows as the m-th power of the drive — 2.00, 4.00 and 5.88 measured — so every added order buys a range that ends sooner than the last one bought, and above 8.9 thermal voltages the six-term expression is further from the device than the four-term one.

semiconductors · Emitter degeneration The direct form works at 28 bits and fails again at 29. computed by solving, not by drawing. The largest pole radius of an order-8 Butterworth at a 1 kHz corner and a 48 kHz clock, at every coefficient word length from 6 to 40 bits, for both realisations. Above the unit circle the filter is not inaccurate but unstable. The direct form is outside at 23 of the 35 word lengths drawn; the cascade at none of them, its worst radius being 1.000000. The failures are not an interval: 28 bits works and 29 bits does not, so the smallest word length that works is 1 below the largest that does not and a search for the crossing has no crossing to find. The direct form's curve is clipped at 1.24: a radius of 4.5 and a radius of 1.01 are the same verdict.

The word length that is not a threshold

The essay below this one measured an eighth-order direct form at five word lengths, found its poles outside the unit circle at every one, and left behind a phrase — the coefficient resolution required. Sixty word lengths later there is no such resolution. That filter is stable at 28 bits, unstable at 29 and stable again at 30, and the smallest word length a search would return is not one anybody can use. What survives is a law with a slope: 4.53 bits of coefficient for every pole added, rising to 47 bits at twelfth order, and none at all for a cascade.

digital · Digital realisation The fastest damping is a surface, and the band is worth 5 times the third pole. computed by solving, not by drawing. Each point is the last settling cliff, bisected — the damping at which the first overshoot's peak lands exactly on the band's edge, which is where the fastest settling is. Across the five bands the optimum moves by 0.231 of damping ratio; across a third pole from 1.5 times the natural frequency out to a second-order response it moves by 0.047. The two axes are worth 5.0 to one, and the expensive one is the specification rather than the parasitic. The classic 0.78 for fastest two per cent settling is the second-order curve's value at ±2%, 0.7797; at ±1% the same response wants 0.8261.

The best damping is not the one to build

The fastest settling damping is the right-hand limit at a discontinuity, so two thousandths below it costs 41 per cent and two thousandths above it costs 0.34 — a ratio of 120 in the penalty for the same error. With ±2 per cent on the damping ratio the nominal that minimises the worst case is 0.7927 rather than the optimum's 0.7734, and it guarantees 4.243/ωₙ against 5.943. The band moves the optimum by 0.231 of damping ratio and the third pole by 0.047, and 0.78 is exact at ±2% and 55 per cent slow at ±1%.

transients · Damping

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Closed formPolesComponent toleranceDamping ratioModel rangeModel refusalNumerical errorOvershootSettling timeTransient responseVerificationAsymptotic series

All concepts