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

Grid convergence — where it appears

The rate at which a solved quantity approaches its true value as a grid's cells are made smaller, fitted as an exponent rather than asserted. It is the only statement a field solve can make about its own accuracy with no closed form to compare against, and where it falls short of the scheme's own order the geometry rather than the arithmetic is usually the reason.

Named by 4 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

What one temperature costs the loop gain of a part that has a gradient. computed by solving, not by drawing. The thermal loop gain of a 30 mm core, solved as a body with its own internal temperature profile and again as a single lump at that profile's mean, against the Biot number. Both are negative, so the core is a stabilising feedback either way — but the body's loop is the more negative of the two at every point, by 3.0 per cent at a Biot number of 0.108 and 38 per cent at 10.8. A lumped calculation therefore understates how stable a wound part is, and the amount it understates by is not a property of the material but of how well the surface is cooled relative to how well the inside conducts. Below a Biot number of about a tenth it is worth under two per cent and the lump is the right model; at the cooled end the part has 7 kelvin inside it and half the feedback is invisible to a single temperature.

The loop gain one temperature understates

Every thermal loop gain this collection has computed was computed at a single temperature, because a lumped fixed point has only one — and the essay that measured the gradient inside a core recorded, without measuring it, that this makes each of those numbers a lower bound. It is a lower bound by three per cent where a ferrite usually sits and by thirty-eight per cent at the well-cooled end, always in the direction that makes the part safer than the calculation said. The obvious candidate for what decides it is refused: three geometries at one Biot number are 3.3 times apart.

power · Thermal feedback A core loss of 100 kΩ gives the resonance a floor at −66 dB, and by 10.0 GHz the choke is worth 0.02 dB. computed by solving, not by drawing. The common mode at the load, in decibels against the same circuit with no choke in it, with 5 pF across each winding and a core loss of 100 kΩ across each, drawn over the lossless curve. At the winding's resonance, 1.59 MHz, the inductance and the capacitance cancel and what is left is the loss, so the deepest point is 66.02 dB — 20·log(1 + (Rp/2)/(Zs + Zl)), with no inductance and no capacitance in it. Above the resonance the part is a capacitor across the path it was fitted to block, and by 10.0 GHz it attenuates 0.02 dB.

The depth a resonance does not have

The inductor one mode cannot see printed its choke's best attenuation as 102 decibels at 1.59 megahertz. Swept with 1,999, 2,000 and 2,001 samples the same lossless part reports 110.0, 96.3 and 103.6 decibels, because a resonance with nothing to dissipate has no bottom and a sweep reports how near its nearest sample fell. Give each winding a core loss and the depth is 20·log(1 + (Rp/2)/(Zs + Zl)) — 66.02 decibels at a hundred kilohms, twenty more per decade of loss, with no inductance and no capacitance in it, and half of it belonging to the circuit the choke sits in.

lines · Common-mode choke The winding window solved in two dimensions, copper filling 100% of it. computed by solving, not by drawing. The grey frame is iron of infinite permeability, which in this formulation is a Neumann boundary — flux enters it at right angles and pays nothing. The thin curves are flux lines, which are contours of the vector potential, so equal spacing is equal flux. The copper is shaded by its own share of the loss. At 100 per cent fill the solved ratio is 16.280 against Dowell's 16.382, and the difference is entirely the flux that curls round the ends of the foils — which the one-dimensional model has no way to hold.

The assumption that is a geometry

Every alternating-resistance number this collection has computed for a winding rests on one sentence — the field is parallel to the layers everywhere — and the sentence has never been tested, because testing it needs a field. Solved as one, a portion of foils that fills its window returns Dowell's expression to 0.155 per cent; the same copper filling a quarter of it returns 9.00 against the expression's 16.38, and dissipates 0.528 watts a metre against 0.232. The ratio falls by 45 per cent and the loss more than doubles.

magnetics · Winding field 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

Named alongside it

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

Design tradeoffModel rangeVerificationField solutionMeasurement conditionModel refusalCommon-mode chokeCoreEnergy-storageInsertion lossInterwinding capacitanceLeakage inductance

All concepts