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

Convergence order — where it appears

The power of the step, the sample count or the section count at which an approximation's error falls, fitted from measurements rather than quoted. An exponent measured this way is a stronger claim than any single error, because it says what halving the step or doubling the count will do.

Named by 16 essays across 9 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A diode fed from 5 V through 1.0 kΩ. computed by solving, not by drawing. The operating point is where the exponential meets the load line: 0.692544 V and 4.3075 mA, reached in 13 damped Newton steps from a cold start. The one-line Newton on Vs = v + R·i(v), which touches no matrix, gives 0.692544 V. The "drop" is not a constant: it moves 59.53 mV per decade of current, measured between two solved operating points.

A bias point is a solution, not a choice

The phrase "the diode drops 0.7 volts" is a constant standing in for the root of a transcendental equation. Solved properly, from a five-volt supply through a kilohm, it drops 0.692544 V — and from forty-eight volts through the same kilohm it drops 0.754459 V, because the drop moves about sixty millivolts for every decade of current through it.

semiconductors · Operating point One step response, computed twice: from the poles, and by walking the network forward. A damping ratio of 0.22, so the overshoot is 49.2%. The two curves are drawn on top of each other; the panel below is the difference between them, which is the trapezoidal rule's error at 500 steps and reaches 1.70e-3 V.

One step, computed twice

A step response from the poles is exact. The same step walked forward in time is not, and the difference between them is the trapezoidal rule's own error rather than anything about the circuit. It falls by a factor of four every time the step is halved, which is a claim about a method and can be watched.

transients · Step response 20 inductor-capacitor sections, against the line they are meant to be. computed by solving, not by drawing by the trapezoidal rule over 2,600 steps. The LC ladder reaches two per cent of full scale at 0.86 delays, before the wave picture says anything can have arrived, and its plateaus are wrong by up to 0.079 V. Neither is a small correction to the wave answer; they are what a network of 20 poles does when asked to be a delay.

A ladder is not a line

A transmission line is usually introduced as the limit of a chain of inductors and capacitors as the number of sections goes to infinity. That is true, and it gives entirely the wrong impression of how close a finite chain gets. Forty sections still ring through every plateau by five per cent, and extrapolating the fitted convergence, reaching one per cent would need about nine hundred and sixty.

lines · Distributed vs lumped What the reconstruction returns, either side of 5.0 kHz. computed by solving, not by drawing. The Whittaker–Shannon sum is evaluated on the samples and compared with two things: the signal that was sampled, and the frequency the samples report. Below 5.00 kHz these are the same curve and the error is 4.88e-3 — the truncation of the sum at sixty-four samples either side, and nothing else. Above it they part: at 9.00 kHz the reconstruction is 1.59e-3 from the alias and 2.000 from the input. The small number is the interesting one. A reconstruction cannot be improved into the right answer, because it is already an exact answer to a different question.

An exact answer to a different question

The reconstruction that turns samples back into a signal is normally introduced as the thing that recovers what was there. Measured on both sides of half the sample rate it does something more interesting than failing: above the boundary it returns the alias to 1.6 parts in a thousand, which is the same accuracy it returns the input with below the boundary, and it is wrong about the input by twice the amplitude. Its error is not a degradation. It is exactness about something else.

digital · Sample rate How much faster an instrument must be for 10% of inflation. computed by solving, not by drawing. The quadrature rule answers 2.182× and gives the same answer for every instrument, because it contains no instrument. Measured on the solved network, a one-pole front end needs 2.79×, two poles need 3.97×, three need 4.87× and four need 5.62× — between 28% and 215% more than the rule asks for. The rule errs optimistic at every pole count, which is the wrong direction.

The instrument's own rise time

Rise times add in quadrature, so ten per cent of inflation needs an instrument 2.18 times faster than the edge. That constant contains no instrument. Measured on the solved network it is 2.79 for a one-pole front end, 3.97 for two, 4.87 for three and 5.62 for four — the rule is optimistic at every pole count, which is the wrong direction for a rule of thumb to err in.

instruments · Probe loading Averaging a white sequence, and averaging a pink one. computed by solving, not by drawing. Both sequences are the same seeded white stream, one of them put through the 1/f network. Averaged in non-overlapping blocks, the white one's spread falls as n to the -0.510 ± 0.006 across five seeds — the √N law — and the pink one's as n to the -0.087 ± 0.013, which is very nearly not at all. A thousand-sample average buys a factor of 36.9 on the first and 2.1 on the second.

The corner where averaging stops working

Average N samples and the noise falls by √N. That is a statement about independent samples, and flicker noise's samples are not independent — its correlation extends over every time scale, which is what a spectrum with no bottom means. Measured on the same seeded stream filtered and not: the white sequence falls as the −0.510 power of the block length and the pink one as the −0.087 power, so a thousand-sample average buys a factor of 36.9 on one and 2.1 on the other.

noise · Device noise One bit, oversampled — and where the quantisation noise went. computed by solving, not by drawing. A first-order modulator is marched forward one sample at a time with a one-bit quantiser inside the loop, and the noise inside the band is read out of the transform of the error. It falls by 8.99 dB for every doubling of the oversampling ratio — measured 9.33, 10.12, 6.96, 9.54 — against 3.01 dB for plain oversampling, which is drawn beside it from the same starting point. The loop does not make less noise; it moves the noise out of the band, and at a ratio of 128 one bit is worth 9.18.

One bit, and where the noise went

Sampling faster spreads a fixed quantity of quantisation noise over a wider band, so the part inside the band of interest falls by 3.01 dB for every doubling — half a bit. Putting the quantiser inside a loop with an integrator does something different in kind: measured on a modulator marched forward one sample at a time, with its test tone inside the band the ratio is quoted over, the in-band noise falls by 8.99 dB per doubling. At an oversampling ratio of 128, one bit is worth 9.18 — and the octaves scatter by a decibel each, which is the loop telling the truth about what its error is made of.

digital · Noise shaping A 0.5 mm conductor's resistance against frequency, exact and asymptotic. computed by solving, not by drawing. The exact ratio is computed from the Kelvin functions by their series; the dashed curve is the asymptote everybody quotes, which treats the current as flowing in one skin depth of the rim and is drawn only where that annulus is inside the wire. At 17.4 kHz, where the skin depth equals the radius and the rule of thumb says the effect "starts", the asymptote says 1.0000 — no effect at all — and the exact answer is already 1.0208. The rule of thumb names a frequency the effect has passed, which is the same shape as the tenth-of-a-wavelength criterion marking a point at which the lumped model is already 30% wrong. Two decades above, the two agree to 0.00%, which is what makes it an asymptote rather than a formula.

The resistance that grows with frequency

The rule of thumb names the frequency at which the skin depth equals the conductor's radius as the point where the effect begins. Computed exactly from the Kelvin functions, the resistance is already 2.05% up there — and the rule's own asymptote says 1.0000, no effect at all. Two decades higher the two agree to 0.01%, which is what makes it an asymptote rather than a formula, and what makes the frequency it names the wrong one to design at.

magnetics · Winding Sixteen more digits move the boundary by sixteen decades and leave it exactly where it was. computed by solving, not by drawing. The rung below's bridge, walked towards balance and solved twice: once in double precision and once with a pair of doubles carrying about 31 decimal digits, against a closed form that cannot lose any. The 33 per cent error at an imbalance of 10⁻¹⁵ becomes 7.0e-18 — so that loss was the arithmetic's and not the network's, which is what the rung below could not say. Each arithmetic's error is its own round-off divided by the imbalance, drawn as the two straight lines, so the second boundary is the first one moved by exactly the extra digits. The condition number is 505 in both cases and at every point, which is the diagnostic being blind twice over.

The digits the arithmetic did not have

The rung below bounded this site's own arithmetic and found two boundaries it could not attribute: a bridge with no correct figures left at an imbalance of 10⁻¹⁵, and a filter synthesis that stalls at order 14. An ill-conditioned problem stays ill-conditioned however many digits are used, and a well-conditioned one computed badly gets better — so adding digits is the experiment that tells them apart. The bridge's loss is entirely the arithmetic's. The synthesis's is mostly the data's, and doubling the digits makes it worse.

networks · Conditioning A bridge's reading turns over at 1.885 V, where the test level stops mattering. computed by solving, not by drawing. What a bridge reads is the fundamental of the charge waveform over the fundamental of the voltage, so it is a function of the bias AND of the amplitude, and a data sheet names one point of it: zero bias, one volt. The four curves are four test levels on one part. At zero bias they run from 9.999 µF down to 8.312 µF — the harder the drive the lower the reading, because the capacitance is at its maximum there and a sinusoid spends most of its time off the peak. At the rated 5 volts they run the other way, 2.000 µF up to 2.426 µF, because the curve is convex. Between them is one bias where the two effects cancel: at 1.8848 V a tenfold change of test level moves the reading by nothing at all, and that voltage is 0.6645 of the polarisation's own characteristic voltage.

The reading a data sheet does not take

A class II ceramic's temperature envelope leaves its working capacitance 29 points wide at one end and 79 across, because one printed number cannot pin a two-parameter model. One further bridge reading recovers almost all of it — and where the reading is taken decides everything. Turning the test level down to a fiftieth separates five parts a data sheet cannot tell apart by 17.76 per cent; moving the bias to half the rated voltage separates them by 176.02, and pins the working capacitance to ±0.512 per cent from a reading known to one.

frequency · Real capacitor The fourth-order term explains 95% of what the third leaves out. computed by solving, not by drawing. Two closed forms for the amplitude at which a degenerated stage reaches 1% of second harmonic, each against the same measurement — a bisection on the harmonic content of a Newton-solved curve, which shares no arithmetic with either. The leading expression is 4Vₜ·t·D², derived at the rung below this one and exact in the limit of small drive; its error grows as the 1.96 power of the drive it is evaluated at. At a degeneration of eleven that drive is 4.53 thermal voltages and the expression is 6.89% optimistic. Carrying the reversion one order further takes it to 0.362%.

What the fourth order says about the third

A closed form derived by neglecting the fourth-order term is a claim with an error, and the error is a quantity the fourth-order term can be asked about. Carried one order further, the degenerated exponential's reversion predicts 7.33 per cent where the leading expression was measured to be 6.89 per cent optimistic — and takes the residue to 0.362 per cent. The correction has its own edge, in the same quantity, and it is measured too.

semiconductors · Emitter degeneration 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 Stepped at 20 of its time constant, a 1 µs pole rings between 1.818 and 0.331 V, and needs 23 steps to settle. Marched with the trapezoidal rule at a step of 20.0 µs. A 1 µs pole (1 kΩ, 1 nF) drives, through a unity buffer, a 1 ms pole (1 kΩ, 1 µF). The fast node's exact response reaches its final volt within a few microseconds; the march's first values are 1.8182, 0.3306, 1.5477, 0.5519, 1.3666 V. Its distance from its final volt is multiplied by (1 − h/2τ)/(1 + h/2τ) = −0.8182 every step, measured and checked against that form, so it changes sign every step and takes 23 steps to fall below 1% — 460 µs. The slow node it drives is 1.23e-5 V from exact at 1 ms, because a 1 ms pole averages an alternation at half the stepping rate to nothing.

The ringing that belongs to the rule

The trapezoidal rule is stable for every stable circuit and every step size, and it is not damping. March a one-microsecond pole with twenty-microsecond steps and its node reads 1.818, 0.331, 1.548, 0.552 volts — an oscillation at half the stepping rate, its distance from the final volt multiplied by exactly −0.8182 every step, taking twenty-three steps to fall below one per cent. The slow node that pole drives is right to 1.2 × 10⁻⁵ V at a millisecond. One backward-Euler step at the discontinuity cuts the first swing from 0.818 V to 0.048 and two to 0.0023, because backward Euler multiplies the same error by 1/(1 + h/τ) and the trapezoidal rule by (1 − h/2τ)/(1 + h/2τ), which approaches −1.

transients · Step response At 20 steps a cycle, ten cycles of an undamped LC: the trapezoidal rule keeps the amplitude and falls 29.2° behind; backward Euler keeps 0.0082% of it. Marched, both rules, against 1 − cos ωt for a 1 kHz inductor–capacitor pair stepped with no resistance at all. At 20 steps a cycle the trapezoidal march's amplitude stays at 1.00000 a cycle and its frequency is slow: it loses 2.918° a cycle, measured from the march's own recurrence, against 2π − 2N·atan(π/N) = 2.918°, so after ten cycles it is 29.2° behind. Backward Euler keeps 0.3901 of its amplitude a cycle, against (1 + (2π/N)²)^(−N/2) = 0.3901, so 0.0082% is left after ten, and it loses 11.19° a cycle. No resistance is in the circuit; every loss is the rule's.

The phase the rule loses

An inductor and a capacitor with no resistance ring for ever, and two ways of marching them disagree about how. The trapezoidal rule keeps the amplitude exactly — its factor per step has a magnitude of one — and loses phase instead: 2π − 2N·atan(π/N) a cycle, 2.918° at twenty steps a cycle, so ten cycles later it is 29.2° behind the circuit. Backward Euler keeps 0.3901 of the amplitude a cycle at the same step, and after ten cycles 0.0082 per cent of the ringing is left, in a circuit that has no loss. The two errors fall at different rates: the trapezoidal rule's phase as the square of the steps a cycle, backward Euler's amplitude as the first power. A hundred cycles to within one per cent needs 182 steps a cycle of one and 196,404 of the other.

transients · Step response 20 sections imitating a 1 m line: its delay is 1% long at 318 MHz and its group delay at 185 MHz, and it passes nothing above 1.32 GHz. computed by solving, not by drawing, as a chain of 20 series inductors and shunt capacitors carrying the inductance and capacitance of a metre of 50 Ω line of delay 4.83 ns, terminated in 50 Ω at both ends, beside the Bloch phase of an endless chain, 2·arcsin of ω over the cutoff, a section. The chain's cutoff is the cutoff 2/√(LₛCₛ), 1.32 GHz. Its phase delay is too long by arcsin(x)/x − 1 with x = f over that cutoff, 1% at 318 MHz (x = 0.2417); its group delay by 1/√(1 − x²) − 1, 1% at 185 MHz (x = 0.1404). Well below cutoff the solved chain's delay follows the closed form; nearer it the fifty-ohm terminations, which are not the LC ladder's own impedance there, add a ripple. Ten sections per wavelength is 414 MHz for this chain.

The sections a wavelength needs

A ladder of inductors and capacitors is a line only below its own cutoff, 2/√(LC) of one section, and in the frequency domain how far below can be written down exactly: its delay is too long by arcsin(x)/x − 1 and its group delay by 1/√(1 − x²) − 1, where x is π over the number of sections per wavelength. One per cent of delay needs 13.0 sections per wavelength; one per cent of group delay, 22.4. The rule of ten per wavelength is 1.72 per cent slow in phase and 5.33 in group delay. Twenty sections imitating a metre of cable are a line to a per cent of group delay up to 185 megahertz and pass nothing at all above 1.32 gigahertz.

lines · Distributed vs lumped The best foil thickness for 4 layers, for three currents with the same fundamental. computed by solving, not by drawing. The loss of a portion of 4 layers against foil thickness, with the loss weighted by the current in each harmonic rather than computed for one frequency. A sinusoid wants 0.6631 skin depths and lands at 1.3368 times the direct-current resistance — four thirds, the rung below's constant, reproduced. A triangular ripple wants 0.6432, which is the same answer to within 3.0 per cent, so a winding carrying one needs none of this. A square current of the same fundamental wants 0.3838 — thinner by a factor of 1.728 — and lands at 1.8313, which is not four thirds and is not any constant the geometry knows. Building to the sinusoid's answer costs 16.8 per cent more loss.

The optimum a spectrum moves

The best foil thickness for a winding is derived for one sinusoid and quoted as a property of the geometry: a minimum at four thirds of the direct-current resistance, whatever the layer count. Weight the loss by the current in each harmonic instead and a square current of the same fundamental wants foil 1.728 times thinner and lands at 1.83, and a narrow pulse wants it 3.68 times thinner. Four thirds is a property of the current. The constant that replaces it for an ideal square edge is exactly two, and a real winding sits between them at a place its edge rate decides.

magnetics · Winding

Named alongside it

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

Model rangeNumerical errorStep responseTrapezoidal ruleVerificationArtificial delay lineClosed formDesign tradeoffEmitter degenerationLumped approximationMarchingMeasurement condition

All concepts