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 24 essays across 5 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 with no inductance in the way, 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

A decoupling bank is usually drawn as two capacitors joined to a load through nothing, which is a stated simplification. 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

An earlier figure 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 check 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

A lossy cancelling capacitor beats a resistor alone only above Q = 3.236 if it cancels everything, and only above 1.618 at all. computed by solving, not by drawing. A source of 50 Ω + j100 Ω, its reactance cancelled by a capacitor whose quality factor is Q, so that the capacitor carries a series resistance of its reactance over Q. Cancelling fully, with the load resistor matched to the source and capacitor resistances together, the load takes 1/(1 + x/Q) of the available power, at exactly half efficiency; a resistor alone takes 0.6180, 2/(1 + √(1 + x²)). They are equal at Q = 3.2361, twice the golden ratio. Cancelling only part of the reactance does better than either: it helps at all above Q = (√(1 + x²) + 1)/x = 1.6180, and at Q = 3 takes 0.6650 against 0.5971 cancelled fully.

The reactance that is not free

A conjugate match cancels the source's reactance with an opposite one and takes all the available power, where a resistor alone takes 2/(1 + √(1 + x²)), 0.618 of it when the reactance is twice the resistance. The cancelling capacitor is not free. With quality factor Q it carries a resistance of its reactance over Q, and cancelling fully then delivers 1/(1 + x/Q). That beats the resistor alone only above Q = 2(√(1 + x²) + 1)/x, 3.236 here, twice the golden ratio. But full cancellation is not the best use of a lossy capacitor. Cancelling part of the reactance beats both, and helps at all above Q = (√(1 + x²) + 1)/x, the golden ratio itself. Below that, the right amount to cancel is none.

power · Power transfer

Matched at 1 kHz, the conjugate load wins only from 730 Hz to 1.84 kHz; the resistor-only load is a low-pass, not a broadband answer. computed by solving, not by drawing. A source of 50 Ω and an inductance of 100 Ω at 1 kHz, with the conjugate load for 1 kHz — 50 Ω and a capacitor of −j100 Ω — and the resistor-only load for 1 kHz, 111.8 Ω, both held fixed while the frequency moves. The conjugate match takes all the available power at 1 kHz and stays within a decibel of it from 777 Hz to 1.29 kHz, a band of 50.9% of the centre, 1.0176/x. The resistor-only load takes 0.6180 at 1 kHz, 0.8509 at 100 Hz, and less at every frequency above: a low-pass whose peak is at direct current. The conjugate load is the better of the two only between 730 Hz and 1.84 kHz.

The load for a source that will not hold still

A conjugate match is exact at one frequency. Held fixed while the frequency moves, it stays within a decibel of the available power over 1.0176/x of the centre: 51 per cent of it when the source's reactance is twice its resistance, 12.7 per cent at eight times. It beats the resistor-only load only between 0.73 and 1.84 of the centre frequency. The resistor-only load is not a broadband answer, as it is usually called. It is a low-pass whose best frequency is direct current. And for a source whose reactance could be anywhere within ±Δx of a centre, the fixed load that guarantees the most power cancels the centre exactly and takes a resistance of √(1 + Δx²) times the source's. That guarantees 2/(1 + √(1 + Δx²)): the resistor-only rule, applied to the uncertainty instead of to the reactance.

power · Power transfer $Over ±25% of the centre, three elements deliver 97.3% at worst; Bode and Fano allow 99.8%. computed by solving, not by drawing. The fraction of the available power a source of 2 times its resistance in inductive reactance delivers to a resistive load through the best matching network of 0, 1, 2 and 3 reactive elements for a band of ±25 per cent about the centre, each network the one whose worst transfer in the band is largest; the vertical lines mark the band. The worst in-band transfer is 54.2%, 82.8%, 89.5%, 97.3%; the Bode–Fano limit for any lossless network, reached only with infinitely many elements, is 99.81%.$

What each element buys against the limit

A source whose resistance sits behind twice as much inductive reactance can deliver, over ±25 per cent of its centre frequency, 54.2 per cent of its available power to the best plain resistor and at worst 82.8 per cent through the best single capacitor. That single-element answer is exactly the fixed load for an uncertain reactance: the capacitor makes the reactance swing ±1 across the band and the load is √2 times the source. Two elements lift the worst case to 89.5, three to 97.3, and a fourth, in a chain of single elements, to 97.4. Bode and Fano bound every lossless network at 99.81 per cent over that band — a limit three elements come within a tenth of a decibel of and no finite network reaches.

power · Power transfer $With the receiving end at 0.9 of the sending voltage the limit peaks at 62.6% cancellation, where the impedance angle is 56.3° — and the peak is still Vₛ²/4R = 264.5 kW. computed by solving, not by drawing, at 50 Hz, searched over the angle between the sources on the solve (dots) and from (Vᵣ·cos β/R)·(Vₛ − Vᵣ·cos β) (line): the 0.05 + j0.2 Ω tie with the sending source at 230 V and the receiving one at 207 V, against the fraction of the reactance cancelled; dashed, equal ends. The limit is a parabola in cos β with its top at cos β = Vₛ/(2Vᵣ) = 0.5556, an impedance angle of 56.25°, reached at k = 62.58%; its height there is Vₛ²/4R = 264.50 kW, the same as for equal ends. Uncompensated, this tie carries 180.53 kW at most. The slider is the receiving voltage as a fraction of the sending.$

The peak a sagging receiver keeps

The sixty degrees at which series compensation stops raising a tie's transfer limit is a statement about two ends at equal voltage. With the receiving end lower, the limit is a parabola in the cosine of the impedance angle whose top is at cos β = Vₛ/2Vᵣ: 56.3° and 62.6% cancellation for a receiver at 0.9 of the sender, 33.6° and 83.4% at 0.6, full cancellation at one half. But the height of that top is Vₛ²/4R whatever the receiving voltage — 264.5 kW for the 0.05 + j0.2 Ω tie from a receiver at 1.1 of the sender down to one at 0.5 — and at it the receiving end takes exactly half of what is sent, to four decimal places, for every receiving voltage tried. The best compensated tie is the sending source driving a matched load, and the receiving source's voltage only decides how much capacitor that takes.

power · Series compensation

A 50 Ω source over 20.0 Hz–20.0 kHz: the best turns ratio is 10.7, giving 1.30 dB; the white optimum's 11.5 gives 1.31, and no transformer at all 13.2. computed by solving, not by drawing, the band integrals checked by quadrature. The drifting part of the essay before — 4 nV/√Hz and 0.6 pA/√Hz white, flicker corners at 10 Hz and 1 kHz — fed from a 50 Ω source through an ideal step-up transformer of ratio n, so it sees n²·50 Ω. The noise figure over 20.0 Hz to 20.0 kHz against n: least at n = √(√(E/I)/Rₛ) = 10.73, where the amplifier sees 5.76 kΩ, at 1.298 dB. The ratio that matches the white optimum, 11.55, gives 1.310 dB; the source connected directly, 13.23 dB. The slider is the band.

One turns ratio for a band

A 50 Ω source and an amplifier whose optimum is 6.67 kΩ want a step-up transformer, and the ratio that matches the white optimum, 11.5, is the one a design note computes. Over the audio band it is nearly right: 1.31 dB against 1.30 at the band's own best ratio, 10.7. Over 1 Hz to 100 Hz it is badly wrong — 9.2 dB where a ratio of 4.8 gives 5.4 — because the band's noise lives in its bottom decade, where the flicker has moved the optimum down. One ratio for a two-decade band costs at most 0.24 dB against a ratio that could follow the optimum. The transformer's winding resistance multiplies the whole noise factor by one plus the winding's resistance over the source's, not just its own share: a tenth of the source costs 0.41 dB where its own noise alone would cost 0.31. And 115 amplifiers in parallel are an ideal 10.7:1 transformer, noise for noise.

noise · Device noise

An L-section whose coil has a Q of 50 and whose capacitor has a Q of 1000. computed by solving, not by drawing at 89 ratios, the loss read as one minus power into the load over power into the section. It follows Qₛ(1/Qcoil + 1/Qcap) (dashed) to 3% wherever it is under 2%: at a ratio of 20 it is 8.39% against 9.15%. Two parts of Q 95.2 each — the harmonic mean of 50 and 1000 — lose 8.40% there (faint), and within 0.4% of the unequal pair at every ratio: the section hardly cares which part is lossy, only what the two reciprocals sum to.

The part that decides the match

An L-section's loss is not twice its Q over the components' Q unless the two components are equally good. Given a coil of Q 50 and a capacitor of Q 1000, a 50 Ω to 1 kΩ match loses 8.39%, which is what two parts of Q 95.2 — the harmonic mean — would lose: the reciprocals of the two Qs add, each weighted by the loaded Q, and 95% of the heat is in the coil. Both parts carry the same circulating energy, so they share the loss in the inverse ratio of their Qs, which makes the coil the one to spend on: Q 50 to 100 halves the loss, and past the capacitor's own Q a better coil buys almost nothing. The high-pass section, with each part in the other arm, loses the same to 0.01%; per hundred watts delivered the coil runs at 4.36 W; and the ratio above which splitting the match pays, 9 to 10, does not move with the parts at all.

frequency · Series-parallel

A pi network matching 50 Ω to 1 kΩ at a loaded Q of 8, coil Q 100, capacitor Q 1000. computed by solving, not by drawing at 10 design Qs from √19 = 4.36 — the least a pi network can have, at which it is the L-section and loses 4.58% — upwards. At a Q of 8 it loses 9.47% (solid) and its band for |Γ| under 0.1 is 2.3% of the frequency (dashed, scaled to the left end), against 4.7% for the L-section. At 30 it loses 28.73% for a band of 0.6%. The chosen Q is paid for in both currencies at once.

The Q a pi network makes a designer choose

An L-section has no choice of Q; a pi network adds a third part and can be built at any loaded Q above √(ratio − 1). Matching 50 Ω to 1 kΩ with coils of Q 100 and capacitors of Q 1000, it is the L-section at its least Q of 4.36 — 4.58% lost, a band of 4.7% — and at a Q of 8 it loses 9.47% for a band of 2.3%; at 30, 28.7% for 0.6%. What the extra loss buys is rejection: the second harmonic 16.0 dB down at the least Q, 29.8 at Q 10, 39.1 at 30. A tee network, with two coils where the pi has one, loses within 0.8% of the pi at every Q, because the loss follows the energy the Q makes the network circulate rather than the number of coils that carry it. And the freedom runs one way only: no pi or tee is less selective than the L-section; a lower Q needs more sections.

frequency · Series-parallel

Five readings of one passive ladder network, each taken forwards and backwards. computed by solving, not by drawing; every reading built as its own netlist, never converted from another. Transimpedance (current in, open-circuit voltage out), transadmittance (voltage in, short-circuit current out) and the reverse voltage gain against minus the forward current gain all give a ratio of one, to 1.0e-13. The voltage gain forwards against backwards does not: 1.000 at 100 Hz, 2.129 at 1 MHz. Nor does the current gain.

The readings that come back the same

Reciprocity is usually stated as 'swap the source and the meter and the reading is unchanged', and that is true of some readings and false of others. On one passive ladder network the transimpedance, the transadmittance, and the reverse voltage gain against the forward current gain each come back the same to 10⁻¹³, while the voltage gain forwards and backwards differ by 13.1 times at 82.5 kHz — exactly z₂₂/z₁₁. A 600-to-50-ohm pad has voltage gains of 0.0426 and 0.511 and one power gain both ways. A controlled source breaks all three reciprocal pairs by the same factor.

networks · Reciprocity

Three matches of one length, half a wavelength at f₀: two quarter-wave sections are bad again at 2f₀ and 4f₀; an exponential and a Klopfenstein taper are not bad again at all. computed by solving, not by drawing, as cascades of exact line input impedances. 50 Ω into 200 Ω through three matching sections each half a wavelength long at f₀: a two-section binomial transformer (dashed), an exponential taper (solid) and a Klopfenstein taper designed for 5% ripple (dotted), the tapers as four hundred thin slices. The stepped transformer is a band-pass: matched at f₀, and at 2f₀, where each section is half a wavelength and transparent, |Γ| is the bare mismatch, 0.600, again — and at 4f₀, and every even multiple. The tapers are high-pass: the exponential is 0.0194 at f₀ and under 0.131 everywhere above 1.6f₀; the Klopfenstein holds 0.050 from 1.1f₀ up.

The match with no upper edge

A stepped quarter-wave transformer is a band-pass in disguise: at twice its design frequency every section is half a wavelength and transparent, and a 50-to-200 Ω match reflects the bare 0.600 again. Let the steps multiply over a fixed length and the staircase of n steps returns the mismatch at n·f₀; in the limit the upper edge has gone, and what is left is a taper — a high-pass match. An exponential taper half a wavelength long is 0.019 at f₀ and never above 0.131 past 1.6f₀. The Klopfenstein profile, the Chebyshev design's continuous limit, holds 0.050 from 1.1f₀ up, needs half the exponential's length for |Γ| ≤ 0.1 and an eighth of it for 0.02, and is not continuous: it starts with a step from 50 to 52.6 Ω. And the small-reflection formula that defines all of them as a Fourier transform overstates a 10:1 taper's reflection by 41% — the line gives tanh of it.

lines · Matching

A 4:1 load on a cable of 3 dB matched loss costs the cable 1.53 dB more: the standing wave makes the line lossier, by up to the mismatch loss. computed by solving, not by drawing. The extra loss — power into the line over power reaching the load, beyond the matched line's — against the matched loss, for loads giving a standing-wave ratio of 1, 1.5, 2 and 4: 10·log((a² − |Γ|²)/(a(1 − |Γ|²))) − 10·log a (lines), with a 200 Ω load on a 50 Ω line solved exactly as a line whose loss is all series resistance (dots). At a ratio of 4 the extra is 0.109 dB on a 0.1 dB line, 0.82 on a 1 dB line, 1.53 on 3 dB and 1.94 on 20 dB — rising towards the mismatch loss 10·log(1/(1 − |Γ|²)) = 1.94 dB, which it reaches when the reflected wave is burnt before it can return.

The heat a standing wave leaves

A cable improves a mismatch's apparent return loss by twice its own loss because the reflection is burnt on the way back, and the burning is not free: it is extra loss in the cable. For one unit delivered to a load reflecting |Γ| through a line of matched loss a, the line must be fed (a² − |Γ|²)/(a(1 − |Γ|²)). A 4:1 load on a 3 dB cable costs 1.53 dB more than a matched one; on a 20 dB cable, 1.94 dB, which is exactly the mismatch loss, because by then every reflected watt is heat. Short lines multiply their dissipation by (1 + |Γ|²)/(1 − |Γ|²), long ones by 1/(1 − |Γ|²). Solved exactly on a line whose loss is in its conductor, the heat stands where the current does: the hottest point runs at the standing-wave ratio times a matched line's, 4.04 against 4.00, so a power rating limited by temperature falls by the ratio, not by the average.

lines · Line loss

Named alongside it

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

Design tradeoff Available power Insertion loss Reflection coefficient Maximum power transfer Model range Equivalent series resistance Measurement condition Noise figure The quality factor Quarter-wave transformer Transmission line

All concepts