Concept

Impedance matching — where it appears

Choosing a load or a transformation so that a source delivers its available power, or so that a line carries no reflection. The two meanings are different conditions — most power into a load, and no reflection from a line — and they coincide only for a resistive source.

Named by 14 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Matching 50 Ω to 200 Ω with 51.7 mm of 100.0 Ω line. computed by solving, not by drawing at 261 frequencies. The reflection at the design frequency is 4.6e-17 — nothing, to the arithmetic — against 0.600 for the bare junction, which throws 36% of the power back. It stays under 0.1 from 0.914 to 1.086 of that frequency, a band of 17.1%.

A quarter wave, and the path the current takes back

A line a quarter of a wavelength long, whose impedance is the geometric mean of the two it joins, matches them exactly — reflecting 5×10⁻¹⁷ of what arrives, which is the arithmetic's floor. At one frequency. Seventeen per cent either side of it the reflection is back to a tenth, and that band is the whole of what the technique is worth.

lines · Matching

Several sections, and the band they buy

A quarter-wave transformer is exact at one frequency, and a 4:1 transformation holds |Γ| under 0.1 over 17.1% of it. Several sections whose reflections cancel over a band take that to 47.7, 67.9, 82.1 and 92.6% — which is filter design with the reflection as the shaped quantity. An equal-ripple design found by minimax search buys a further 35 to 46% at the same worst reflection, and its ripples come out level to four decimals.

lines · Matching

The load that takes the most

A load equal to the source resistance takes more power than any other, and it does so at exactly fifty per cent efficiency — the source burns as much as the load receives. Ninety per cent efficiency needs a load nine times the source and delivers 36% of what was available, and a load half the source resistance delivers exactly as much as one twice it.

power · Power transfer

A 4.0:1 load reads 1.13:1 through twenty metres of cable. computed by solving, not by drawing. A 200 Ω load on a 50 Ω line — a standing-wave ratio of 4.00 at the load itself — measured from the other end of a length of cable that attenuates 0.500 dB per metre at 1 GHz. The reading falls as the length grows, exactly as |Γ| times ten to the minus twice the one-way loss over twenty, and reaches 1.5 at 9.5 m and 1.128 at twenty metres, which is 24.4 dB of return loss and would pass any acceptance test. The load is unchanged; the instrument is looking at it through 10.0 dB of attenuator. The length that hides it falls 3.16× per decade of frequency, which is the root of ten and is the attenuation's own law.

The mismatch that the cable hides

A lossless line carries a reflection back unchanged, so the standing-wave ratio at the instrument is the standing-wave ratio at the load. A real line does not, and the departure is exact: ten decibels of one-way loss improves any mismatch by twenty. A four-to-one load at the end of twenty metres of ordinary coaxial cable measures 1.13 at the near end, a return loss of 24 decibels, and passes an acceptance test the load could never pass. The boundary is a loss rather than a length, which makes it a frequency: 30.2 metres at 100 megahertz, 9.5 at a gigahertz, 3.0 at ten.

lines · Line loss

The same three stages, in two orders. computed by solving, not by drawing by Friis's cascade. With the low-noise amplifier first the chain's noise figure is 3.31 dB; with the mixer first it is 12.01 dB. The gain is identical either way — 48.0 dB — so the 8.70 dB is bought with nothing but an ordering. Everything after the first stage contributes 26.0% of the total. The 2.0 dB of cable in front has gain below one, so it multiplies every later stage's contribution rather than dividing it.

The loss in front, counted twice

A decibel of cable before an amplifier costs a decibel of signal, which everybody expects, and a decibel of noise figure, which is a separate decibel arriving from a separate place. Measured across the slider it is exact: 1.31 dB of chain noise figure becomes 2.31 with one decibel of cable and 9.31 with eight, every time, while the 8.70 dB that stage ordering is worth does not move at all. A lossless reactive network in the same position costs nothing, because only the real part of an impedance is warm.

noise · Johnson noise

A bulk capacitor and a ceramic, and the peak between them at 6.52 MHz. computed by solving, not by drawing. Each capacitor is three elements — its capacitance, its series resistance and its series inductance — and a one-amp source drives the node, so the node voltage is the impedance. Alone, each dips to its own series resistance at its own self-resonance and rises on either side. Together they do not: between the two resonances the bulk part is an inductor and the ceramic is still a capacitor, and an inductance across a capacitance is a parallel resonance. The pair reaches 1.187 Ω at 6.52 MHz, where the bulk alone would give 0.2023 Ω and the ceramic alone 0.2055 — 5.87 times worse than either. The dashed curves are the two parts on their own; the solid one is what the load actually sees.

The pair that is worse than either

A bulk capacitor and a ceramic are fitted together because each is good where the other is not, and between them is a frequency at which the pair presents six times the impedance either one does alone. The peak is a parallel resonance between one part's inductance and the other's capacitance, its height is one over the series resistance every data sheet asks to be minimised, and at it the two capacitors exchange 5.87 amps for every amp the load draws.

power · Decoupling

Three nanohenries of copper move the peak to 5.63 MHz and raise it to 1.29 Ω. computed by solving, not by drawing. The same two capacitors, with and without the inductance of the way to them: one nanohenry of mounting loop per part and two nanohenries of plane between the bank and the load. The dashed curve is the bank as the rung below drew it, peaking at 1.187 Ω at 6.52 MHz; the solid one is what the load sees, peaking at 1.293 Ω at 5.63 MHz. The peak moves down because the branch that is inductive at that frequency got more inductive, and it rises for the same reason. Above about twenty megahertz the two part company entirely: the bank is still falling toward its parts' own resistances and the load is rising on two nanohenries that no capacitor is across.

The capacitor that is not where the load is

The rung below this one connects two capacitors to a load through nothing, and says so. Put three nanohenries of ordinary copper in — one of mounting loop per part and two of plane between the bank and the load — and the anti-resonance moves down to 5.63 megahertz and up to 1.29 ohms, a probe touching the ceramic reads a twelfth of what the load sees at 16.7 megahertz and three and a half times too much at 8.35, and the twentieth capacitor is worse than the second.

power · Decoupling

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

Two curves that only rise, and the gap between them that has a minimum. computed by solving, not by drawing. The source's own Johnson density, √(4kTR), and the amplifier's total input-referred density, √(4kTR + eₙ² + (iₙR)²), for a part with 4 nV/√Hz and 0.6 pA/√Hz. Neither curve has a minimum: the total is 4 nV/√Hz at a source of nothing, is 4.196 at 100 Ω, and rises without limit. What has a minimum is the ratio, at 6.67 kΩ, where the noise figure is 1.138 dB and the total density is 11.780 nV/√Hz — 2.81 times noisier in volts than at 100 Ω, where the noise figure reads 10.41 dB. The two statements are about different questions and the figure is what stops them being confused.

The bowl, and the bottom of it

An amplifier's noise figure has a minimum against source resistance and its input-referred noise has none: the 4 nV/√Hz part reads 1.138 dB into 6.67 kΩ and 10.41 dB into 100 Ω, and is 2.81 times noisier in volts at the first. The bowl is one shape scaled by its own depth, so the quieter the part the flatter it is — ±30.1 times for a decibel on the best of four, ±2.16 on the worst — and three parts of equal eₙiₙ share a floor of 0.3138 dB at optima 16 times apart.

noise · Device noise

Twenty metres buys 20 dB of apparent match and costs 10 dB of noise figure. computed by solving, not by drawing. The same cable and the same 200 Ω load as the reading, with the amplifier that is actually behind the instrument. The rising trace is the return loss the instrument reads, which is the load's own 4.44 dB plus twice the one-way loss. The lower pair is the chain's noise figure: a 2 dB amplifier with the cable in front of it, counted as a matched attenuator whose noise factor is its loss, and counted honestly from the available gain of a lossy line driven by a source that reflects 0.60. The first says the exchange rate is exactly two decibels of match per decibel of noise figure, at every length here. The second is higher everywhere — by (1−Γ²u²)/(1−Γ²), which is 0.028 dB at five centimetres and 1.938 dB, the load's own mismatch loss, once the cable is long enough to have absorbed the reflection. At twenty metres the instrument reads 24.4 dB and the chain costs 13.92 dB against the amplifier's own 2.

The cable that hides two things

A length of cable improves a return-loss reading by twice its loss and raises a noise figure by once it, so the rule of thumb is two decibels of apparent match per decibel of floor. Both halves are owned here and neither essay had the other. Put together they say what an acceptance limit costs: making a 4.0:1 load read 1.50:1 spends 6.53 decibels of noise figure, against a mismatch that was itself costing 1.938 — and the exchange rate is not two but 2(1−Γ²)/(1+Γ²), which is 0.94 where a pad is actually short.

lines · Line loss $The load that may be complex, and what a resistor alone gives up. computed by solving, not by drawing, with the best load searched over BOTH of its parts on the solved network rather than substituted. Against a source of 50 Ω + j100 Ω the search returns 50.00 − j100.0 Ω — the conjugate — which delivers the available 500.00 mW at exactly 50.00% efficiency, and does so at every source reactance. A load that may only be a resistance takes 2/(1 + √(1 + x²)) of that, matching the solved answer to 4.4e-16 at ten reactances — and at x = 2 that fraction is exactly the golden ratio less one, 0.618034. The resistor-only load is the MORE efficient of the two at every non-zero reactance, rising towards one while the conjugate match sits at a half for ever, so the familiar "maximum power at fifty per cent" belongs to the conjugate and not to the load.$

The load that may be complex

Freed of the constraint that it be a resistance, the best load is the source's conjugate — found here by a two-dimensional search on the solved network rather than assumed — and it takes the available power at exactly fifty per cent efficiency whatever the source's reactance. A load that may only be a resistance takes 2/(1 + √(1+x²)) of that, and at a source reactance of twice its resistance that is exactly the golden ratio less one, 0.618034. The resistor-only load is also the MORE efficient of the two, rising towards one while the conjugate sits at a half for ever.

power · Power transfer

An L-section from 50 Ω to 1 kΩ: Q 4.359, fixed by the two resistances, and a band of 4.73%. computed by solving, not by drawing. A series inductor and a shunt capacitor matching 50 Ω to 1 kΩ at 1.00 MHz, their values from the series–parallel conversion: the load with the capacitor across it is 50 Ω in series with a reactance of 217.9 Ω at the design frequency, and the inductor cancels the reactance. The reflection there is 3.6e-16. The section's Q is √(20 − 1) = 4.3589 and no choice of parts changes it. |Γ| stays under a tenth from 976 kHz to 1.02 MHz, 4.73% of the design frequency, against 0.2/Q = 4.59%; and under half the power from 727 kHz to 1.21 MHz, 48.53%, against 2/Q = 45.88%.

The match with no knob

An L-section — a series inductor and a shunt capacitor — is the series–parallel conversion used on purpose: a load with a capacitor across it is, at one frequency, the source's resistance in series with a reactance an inductor cancels. Matching fifty ohms to a kilohm that way reflects 3.6 × 10⁻¹⁶ at its design frequency and has a Q of √19 = 4.359 that no choice of parts can change, so it holds its reflection under a tenth over 4.73 per cent of band whatever it is built from. The band is 0.2/Q to within three per cent, it depends on nothing but the ratio, and only splitting the match widens it: 14.98 per cent in two sections, 30.34 in three — and 30.83 in four.

frequency · Series parallel

What an L-section costs when its parts have a quality factor of 100. computed by solving, not by drawing. The same L-section as the ideal one, with each component given a series resistance of its own reactance over 100, and the efficiency read off a solve rather than from an expression. The section circulates Qₛ times the load's current through its own parts, and Qₛ is √(ratio − 1) with nothing left to choose, so the loss is TWICE Qₛ/100 — once in the inductor and once in the capacitor — to 4.40% wherever it is small. The consequence is that a match starts to cost something at a ratio nobody would call demanding: one per cent at a ratio of 1.253 — which is fifty ohms to 62.7, and is 1 + (Q/200)² to 0.25%. Splitting the match buys efficiency only above a ratio of 10.0: at a ratio of three one section loses 2.76% against 3.35% in two, and at a hundred 16.6% against 11.2%. The best number of sections for efficiency is 2 at a ratio of twenty and 4 at a ratio of a thousand — which is not the answer the band gives, where the band keeps improving with every section.

The efficiency a fixed Q costs

An L-section's quality factor is √(ratio − 1) with nothing left to choose, and the same fixed Q that decides its band decides what it dissipates. The circulating current is Q times the load's and it goes through both components, so the loss is twice Qₛ over the components' own Q — measured to 0.03 per cent. With parts of Q 100 that is one per cent at a resistance ratio of 1.253, which is fifty ohms to sixty-three. And splitting the match buys efficiency only above a ratio of 10.02: below it a second section adds two more lossy parts for less than it takes off anybody's Q.

frequency · Series parallel

The net noise power between two resistors at two temperatures. computed by solving, not by drawing. A 1 kΩ resistor at 400 K joined to a second one at 290 K, whose resistance runs over six decades. Each delivers 4kTR₁R₂/(R₁+R₂)² per hertz to the other; the net is 1.5187 zW/Hz at the match, which is exactly kΔT and contains no resistance — a gigohm pair at the same two temperatures exchanges the same. Away from the match the exchange falls, to 0.0596 zW/Hz at a ratio of a hundred, so the maximum-power argument applies to noise as it does to a signal. At one temperature the net is zero at every ratio, to 7.5e-37 W/Hz, which is the statement a wrong noise model would break.

Which way the noise goes

Two warm resistors joined together each drive the other, and the net flow is 4kΔT·R₁R₂/(R₁+R₂)² per hertz. At the match that is kΔT exactly — 1.5187 zeptowatts per hertz between 400 K and 290 K — and a kilohm pair and a gigohm pair at the same two temperatures exchange the same, which is why noise is quoted as a temperature. At one temperature the net is zero at every ratio to a part in 10³⁷, and that zero is the second law rather than a tolerance.

noise · Johnson noise

Named alongside it

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

Design tradeoff Model range Reflection coefficient Available power Insertion loss Johnson noise Maximum power transfer Measurement condition Noise figure Quarter-wave transformer Transmission line Chebyshev

All concepts