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

Energy-storage — where it appears

The energy a capacitor or inductor holds by its state, returnable in full, unlike the energy a resistance takes from a charge on the way in. It is what makes an inductance a different kind of current limiter from a resistance: one stores the difference and the other dissipates it.

Named by 13 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

What a charge through 1 kΩ costs, against how long it is given. computed by solving, not by drawing, marched, with the energies rebuilt from the element laws. A step loses 1.00000 of ½CV² — 12.5 µJ here — and that number is the same through 10 Ω and through 100 kΩ, which is what the faint curves show. What the resistance decides is where the fall starts: the loss goes as 2τ/T once the ramp is long against τ = 1 ms, with a fitted exponent of -0.994 and no floor beneath it. The circles are marched; the line through them is a closed form that never sees a netlist.

The half that never arrives

Charging a capacitor from a step loses exactly as much energy as it stores, and the resistance it is lost in does not appear in the answer — the same 12.5 microjoules through ten ohms and through a hundred kilohms, to nine figures. Drive the same network with a ramp instead and the loss falls as two time constants over the ramp, with no floor beneath it at all.

transients · Switching energy A gapped core: where the inductance goes, and where the energy is. computed by solving, not by drawing. Reluctance in series — the gap's lg/µ₀Ae and the core's le/µ₀µᵣAe — with the inductance N²/ℛ and the share of the stored energy in each proportional to its share of the reluctance. At two hundred microns on a µᵣ = 2000 core the inductance has fallen from 41.89 mH to 5.366, and 87.2% of the energy is in the gap — which is air. The share is lg/(lg + le/µᵣ), so it contains neither the turns nor the area and what decides it is µᵣ·lg against the path length; the slider shows the same gap holding 40% at µᵣ = 200 and 98% at 15,000. That is the reason a gap is a design parameter: it is the part of the magnetic circuit whose properties do not drift, do not saturate and do not depend on temperature.

The energy is in the gap

A ferrite core is chosen for its permeability and then deliberately cut, and the cut is not a compromise. Reluctance adds in series, so a two-hundred-micron gap in a µᵣ = 2000 core holds 87.0% of the stored energy while the ferrite holds thirteen — and the share is lg/(lg + le/µᵣ), a ratio of two lengths, containing neither the turns nor the area. The material chosen for its permeability holds almost none of what the component stores.

magnetics · Magnetic path Five resistances, five corner frequencies, and one total on the capacitor. computed by solving, not by drawing. The noise density at a 1 pF capacitor charged through 100 Ω, 1 kΩ, 10 kΩ, 100 kΩ and 1 MΩ, at 290 K. The densities are 100 times apart and the noise bandwidths 1.0e+4 times apart, in opposite directions, so the area under every curve is the same: 63.2762 µV against 63.2762 µV, and √(kT/C) is 63.2762 µV. The resistance has cancelled out of the answer, and the reason is that ½C⟨v²⟩ is the ½kT a degree of freedom in contact with a bath holds — which no arrangement of resistors can change. The claim is about the whole frequency axis and nothing less: inside a 15.9 MHz band the same five networks give 5.05 µV to 63.07 µV, a factor of 12.5.

The total that has no resistor in it

A larger resistor is noisier and makes a narrower filter, and the two dependences are exactly reciprocal: the density goes as the square root of the resistance and the noise bandwidth as its inverse. Five decades of resistance charging one picofarad therefore give five decades of corner frequency, two and a half decades of density, and one total — 63.2762 microvolts at every one of them, which is the square root of kT over C and contains no resistance at all.

noise · Kt over c The inductance divides the current by 7 and leaves the capacitor 29% above the mains peak. computed by solving, not by drawing. The first conduction of a rectifier whose transformer has a leakage inductance as well as a winding resistance, marched from an empty capacitor at the worst instant of the mains. The peak falls from 36.4 A at 20 µH to 5.3 A at 5000, and — unlike the winding resistance the rung below measured, which limits the current and leaves ∫i²dt exactly where it was — the inductance takes the energy down with it, from 0.370 to 0.073 A²s. What it costs is the second curve: the inductor's current cannot stop at the instant the two voltages are equal, so the capacitor overshoots to 21.86 V at 1000 µH — 28.6% above the 17 V peak of its own supply — and the diodes will not let the charge back out. The overshoot has an interior maximum, because past it the mains reverses before the ring has finished.

The inductance that limits, and lifts

Adding winding resistance to a rectifier limits the first peak and does not reduce the energy at all — the essay below measured ∫i²dt as two per cent apart over a factor of four in the resistance. Adding leakage inductance does both: it divides the peak by seven and the energy by five, and dissipates nothing to do it. What it buys instead is a rectifier whose output sits 29 per cent above the peak of its own supply, permanently, which every steady-state expression in this field says cannot happen.

power · Inrush A major hysteresis loop at 9.0 A/m of coercivity, and the anhysteretic curve it closes onto. computed by solving, not by drawing. The B–H loop of a core driven sinusoidally to ±400 A/m, marched through a superposition of twenty-four play operators and drawn over the single-valued curve the two rungs below this one measured. The loop encloses 12.481 joules per cubic metre per cycle, which is the core loss and which no single-valued model can produce, because a curve has no area. The coercivity is 8.96 amperes per metre and the remanence 22.3 millitesla; both are read off the marched descending branch rather than handed in. The slider takes the threshold spread down to zero, where the two branches become one, the area falls to 9.8e-15 J/m³, and the object is exactly the core the field already had.

The area a curve cannot have

Every magnetic model in this collection is a single-valued B(H), and a single-valued B(H) cannot dissipate: ∮H dB around a curve is zero, so the transformers and inductors here have all run cold. Giving the material a second branch costs one object — a play operator, which lags the field by a threshold and is otherwise nothing — and a superposition of twenty-four of them produces a loop with 12.481 joules per cubic metre in it, a coercivity of 8.958 amperes per metre and a remanence of 22.3 millitesla, none of which was handed in. At zero threshold the whole thing collapses onto the curve the field already had, to fifteen figures.

magnetics · Magnetic loss Correcting a 20 Ω, 50 mH load to unity, and what it stores. computed by solving, not by drawing. A capacitor across a 230 V, 50 Hz supply is swept from nothing to 300 µF against a load drawing 1636 W and 1285 var. The reactive power falls through zero at 77.31 µF and keeps going; the energy stored in the installation rises from 2044.9 mJ to 4089.7 mJ at that point — exactly twice, because unity power factor means the two stores are equal — and goes on rising afterwards. Only the cable current has a least value, 7.113 A against 9.044 A.

The energy a unity power factor doubles

Reactive power was computed three ways on this site and the agreement was called a verification. Two of the three are one theorem written twice and cannot disagree about anything; only the third is independent, and what it computes is a difference. Correcting a 20 Ω, 50 mH load to a power factor of 1.000000 takes its reactive power from 1,285 var to nothing and takes the energy stored in the installation from 2,044.9 mJ to 4,089.7 mJ — exactly twice, at every load and every frequency.

power · Reactive power A staircase costs one Nth, computed rather than quoted. computed by solving, not by drawing, marched, with the energies rebuilt from the element laws. The charge is broken into N equal risers, each held for 16 time constants so that it completes. The measured losses are 1.00000, 0.500001, 0.250000, 0.125000, 0.0625000, 0.0312500 of ½CV² — which is 1.000004, 1.000002, 1.000001, 1.000001, 1.000000, 1.000000 times 1/N, so the law is exact to four parts in a million at the worst rather than approximately true. The fitted exponent is -1.00000 and the energy account closes to 2.17e-6 at the worst.

The half a switch keeps

The rung below found that charging a capacitor from a step loses half the delivered energy whatever the resistance, and that a ramp takes the loss down as 2τ/T with no floor. A staircase of N settled risers costs one Nth of the step, exact to four parts in a million, and the law ends at a dwell of 5.272 time constants. A switch is the other half of the same product and buys nothing at all: with the supply held at five volts and the channel conductance ramped over a thousand time constants, the loss is 1.00000000 of ½CV².

transients · Switching energy The ratio of the two readings, drawn where it lives. computed by solving, not by drawing. The rung below's ladder at 10 kHz, read from each end, with the quotient of the two readings plotted in the complex plane. A reciprocal network sits at the point 1. One transconductance moves it along a straight ray, 1 − gm·Z, whose direction is the phase of the single branch between the source's control node and its output node and whose length is gm|Z| — 62.83 Ω for the 1 mH inductor, 120 Ω for a resistor, 72.34 Ω for 220 nF, all at 10 kHz. A mirrored pair of transconductances stays at 1 to 2.3e-15; reversing one of them runs the ratio around the unit circle to 8.9e-16, where the two readings are the same size and differ only in phase. The straight-ray law needs the two nodes joined by exactly one branch, and a second path between them takes it away by a factor rather than by a percentage.

The reading that does care which way round

The rung below measured a network's departure from reciprocity and left its size as a constant — 62.8 per siemens, for that network at that frequency. It is not a constant and it is not the network's: it is 2πfL for the single inductor between the controlled source's control node and its output node, 62.832 ohms at ten kilohertz, and the ratio of the two readings is 1 − gm·Z to 8.8 parts in 10¹⁴ over ninety-nine readings. So 4.5455 millisiemens across a 220 ohm branch makes a ladder that transmits a hard zero forwards at every frequency at once, and 206.13 ohms back at ten kilohertz.

networks · Reciprocity How much larger a gap is than its own length says. computed by solving, not by drawing. A magnetic circuit prices a gap as g/(µ₀A) and everybody knows that is low, because the flux bulges out of the sides. The usual repair is to add one gap length to each dimension of the gap's area, which is the dashed line. The measurement is the solid one: at a 0.3 mm gap in a 6 mm leg the true correction is 1.100 and the rule offers 1.050, so the rule supplies 50 per cent of a correction worth 10 per cent of the inductance; at 1.7 mm it supplies 85 per cent. The rule is not wrong so much as it is a rule whose accuracy depends on the thing it is correcting.

The gap that is bigger than it is

A magnetic circuit prices a gap as g/µ₀A and everybody knows that is low, because the flux bulges out of the sides. The usual repair — add one gap length to each dimension of the gap's area — supplies half the correction at a 0.3 mm gap and 85 per cent at 1.7 mm, on a correction worth 10 per cent of the inductance at the first and 33 at the second. It is not a rule that is right or wrong; it is a rule whose accuracy is a function of the very thing it is correcting.

magnetics · Magnetic path Where a transformer's leakage inductance actually is. computed by solving, not by drawing. Both windings carry the same ampere-turns in opposite directions, which is the short-circuit condition a leakage measurement is made under, so the flux drawn here is the flux that fails to link the two — the leakage field, and nothing else. It is largest in the insulation between the portions, where the magnetomotive force is at its full value and there is no copper to be in. The energy in this window is 2.058 microjoules per metre, which is 4.116 microhenries per metre referred to the primary against a closed form of 5.213.

The inductance that is a shape

Leakage inductance is the one transformer parameter that belongs to the geometry rather than to the material: twice the magnetic energy in the window under equal and opposite ampere-turns, divided by the square of the current. Solved as a field it is 3.086 microhenries a metre against a closed form's 3.128 when the copper fills the window, and 4.608 against 6.255 when it fills half of it. Interleaving is worth 3.11 times and not the four it is quoted as, and the missing 0.89 is the insulation nobody puts in the formula.

magnetics · Transformer 3 gaps of 0.40 mm, where one of 1.20 would do. computed by solving, not by drawing. The same total gap, the same turns, the same core, and very nearly the same inductance — cut into 3 instead of one. Each gap now drops one part in 3 of the magnetomotive force, so the field it throws into the window is that much weaker; and because the field's own energy goes as its square, the loss it causes falls faster than the field does. The winding dissipates 3.00 times its direct-current loss here against 6.52 with a single gap, and its worst turn 3.7 against 13.3.

The gap that is three gaps

Reluctances in series add, so one gap of 1.2 millimetres and three of 0.4 are the same magnetic circuit: the same inductance, the same saturation current, the same energy in the air. They are not the same field. Solved in two dimensions, the winding beside the single gap dissipates 6.52 times its direct-current loss and its worst turn 13.3; beside three gaps those are 3.00 and 3.7. And there is a best number of gaps rather than a monotone gain — past three, spreading them along the leg brings each one close to a different part of the winding.

magnetics · Magnetic path The winding window solved electrostatically, in two portions. computed by solving, not by drawing. The same cross-section the loss solve reads, read with ∇·(ε∇φ) = 0 instead. Two things are the opposite way round from the magnetic problem and both are the whole difference. The iron is now a Dirichlet boundary rather than a Neumann one — an earthed core is an equipotential, so the field meets it at right angles instead of running along it — and a conductor carries a prescribed potential rather than a prescribed current. The thin curves are equipotentials, which are contours of φ, so equal spacing is equal potential step and crowded curves are a strong field. The copper is shaded by the potential each foil sits at, which rises along the winding rather than being one number. Winding to winding this window is 926.9 picofarads a metre, and 89 per cent of the energy is inside insulation that occupies a fraction of the window.

The other half of the same window

The two-dimensional solve that settled what a winding's alternating-current resistance really is computed one of the window's two parameters and never mentioned the other. Read with Laplace instead of the vector potential, the same cross-section returns 926.9 picofarads a metre — and 89 per cent of that energy sits inside films that occupy 14.1 per cent of the window. The instrument agrees with a layered slab to three parts in ten thousand billion and converges on a real winding at order 1.34, and the reason for the shortfall is not the arithmetic but the corner of a conductor.

magnetics · Winding capacitance The trade, in the plane where both halves of it live. computed by solving, not by drawing. Leakage inductance across, interwinding capacitance up, both solved on the same cross-section with the same cells. The faint diagonals are lines of constant leakage-times-capacitance, so a design action that runs along one of them has bought nothing and only moved where the energy is kept. Interleaving runs at slope -0.78, which is nearly along them: six sections cut the leakage 21.3 fold and multiply the capacitance 11.0 fold, and the product moves by 1.94. What it does change is the winding's characteristic impedance, 95 ohms down to 6.2 — a factor of 15. Thickening the interlayer instead runs at -4.8, steeply across the diagonals, and moves the product 5.2 fold over the same sweep. It is the cheaper action by that measure and it is not free either: the millimetre it spends is a millimetre of window that is not copper.

Interleaving is a choice, not an improvement

Splitting a transformer's windings into six sections divides its leakage inductance by 21.4 and multiplies its winding-to-winding capacitance by 11.0. The product of the two — which is what sets the frequency the part stops being a transformer at — moves by 1.94, and the resonance it decides goes from 1.804 to 2.515 megahertz for all that work. What interleaving really changes is the winding's characteristic impedance, 95.2 ohms down to 6.2, and nobody quotes it.

magnetics · Winding capacitance

Named alongside it

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

Model rangeField solutionAir gapDesign tradeoffLeakage inductanceMagnetic pathReluctanceVerificationCharging exponentialClosed formFringing fieldGyrator

All concepts