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

Large-signal — where it appears

The regime in which a device's response no longer scales with its drive, so a waveform's shape depends on its size. Its boundary is an amplitude rather than a frequency, and for a bipolar pair it is a fixed number of thermal voltages independent of everything else in the circuit.

Named by 7 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Five steps, each divided by its own size, from an amplifier limited to 0.50 V/µs. A linear circuit would put these five curves exactly on top of each other. The 20.0 mV step is linear; everything above 79.6 mV is not, and the largest step takes 16.0 µs to travel a distance the linear model says takes 0.159 µs.

The step that is too big

A linear circuit scales — double the input and the output doubles, exactly. A real amplifier does not, because its output can only move at a fixed rate, and the amplitude at which the two stop agreeing is about eighty millivolts for an ordinary part. No transfer function contains that number, because no transfer function can.

transients · Slew rate The ideal amplifier is good to 1% over a region, and its corner is 21% inside the specifications. computed by solving, not by drawing. The 1 per cent contour of the ideal-amplifier model for a non-inverting stage of gain 2 built from a 10 MHz part, drawn over frequency and output amplitude at once. Each point is bisected on a marched circuit: the error is the root-mean-square difference between the marched output and 2 times the input, which counts the gain that is low, the phase that is late and the peak that is flat. Three mechanisms bound the region — finite gain–bandwidth on the left, the input pair's slew rate on the diagonal, and the rails at 12.19 V along the top. The two dashed lines are the numbers a data sheet gives: a small-signal edge at 48.8 kHz with no amplitude in it, and a full-power bandwidth of slew rate over 2πV̂ with no gain–bandwidth in it. They cross at 10.60 V and 48.8 kHz; the measured contour passes 38.5 kHz at that amplitude, which is 0.790 of it.

The edge that is a region

Every boundary this collection has drawn is a number on one axis, and the figure that gathers four of them admits in its own caption that the fifth is an amplitude and cannot go there. Drawn on both axes at once, the ideal amplifier's one per cent boundary is a region with three sides and a corner — and the corner sits at 38.5 kilohertz where the two numbers a data sheet quotes cross at 48.8, because the two mechanisms are lags on the same waveform and add as magnitudes rather than in quadrature.

limits · Model edges Three capacitances, all correct: 2.000 µF, 5.814 µF and 2.105 µF at 5 V. computed by solving, not by drawing. The charge is C∞·v + Q_s·tanh(v/V_k) — a linear backbone and a polarisation that saturates — with both parameters pinned by the capacitance at zero volts and at the rated voltage, so there is no third degree of freedom to tune the answer with. The three curves are three questions. The small-signal value is the slope at the bias, which is what a ripple sees. The charge-average is the total charge moved from zero divided by the voltage, which is what a reservoir or a hold capacitor obeys. What a bridge reads is neither: it is the fundamental of the charge waveform under a one-volt test, which is a measurement condition. At 5 V they are 2.000 µF, 5.814 µF and 2.105 µF — a factor of 2.91 between the extremes, and every one of them is the capacitance.

The capacitance that is not one number

A ten-microfarad ceramic at its rated five volts is 2.000 µF as a slope, 5.814 µF as a charge average and 2.105 µF as a bridge reads it — three answers to three different questions, all correct, all called the capacitance. At zero bias the standard one-volt test alone reads 5.2 per cent low. Marched in a circuit the same part distorts as the square of the drive with no bias and in proportion to it with a bias, because the bias is what puts a second harmonic there.

frequency · Real capacitor One part, three saturation currents: 1.90 A, 2.40 A, 2.69 A. computed by solving, not by drawing. B(H) is μ₀H plus a saturating magnetisation, written as a flux linkage, and the inductance drawn here is dλ/di — the slope of that flux, which is what a small signal on a direct current actually meets. It is 18.92 µH at no current, 16.73 µH at two amps and 10.43 µH at three, and it never reaches zero: the vacuum is still there, so the part falls to its air-core 0.05 µH and stays. The three marks are the ten, twenty and thirty per cent drops different manufacturers print as the saturation current — 1.896, 2.395, 2.694 amps, a spread of 42 per cent on one part.

The inductance the current decides

The rung below bounded the flux and the boundary is exact: the volt-seconds decide the flux swing whatever the material does, and a cycle whose current ripple runs from 519 mA to 75 A has the same flux excursion to better than two per cent. What saturation breaks is the relationship between that flux and the current — so a ripple the design expression puts at 514 mA is 1,022 mA at 2.56 A of load, the peak reaches 3.57 A where the part is at a fifth of its nameplate inductance, and the same part has three saturation currents depending on which per cent it was quoted at.

magnetics · Saturation The step at which the output impedance stops being a number. computed by solving, not by drawing. The excursion divided by the step, against the step. The flat line is the linear model, and it is flat to 0.0 parts per million across four decades — which is what an impedance is. The rising curve is the same netlist with the differential pair's tanh in the transconductor, and it leaves at 10.6 mA: the input error there is 3.63 thermal voltages, so the boundary is an amplitude in the pair's own units rather than a current with the amplifier's name on it. At 300 mA the ratio is 54.5 Ω against the linear 23.6 — 131 per cent, and it is no longer a property of the circuit at all. The slew rate that decides it is 3.25 V/µs, which is twice the thermal voltage times the gain-bandwidth in radians, and contains no design choice.

The step too large to have an impedance

The rung below drove the load node with a current step and reported an impedance: a voltage divided by a current, which is a number only if the ratio does not depend on the current. Give the amplifier the differential pair's own tanh in place of a linear transconductor and it is a number up to 10.6 milliamps and not above — where the input error is 3.63 thermal voltages, and where the slew rate that decides it is twice the thermal voltage times the gain-bandwidth in radians, containing no design choice at all.

feedback · Capacitive load Which limit binds is a property of the load, and they change places near 22 nF. computed by solving, not by drawing. Each limit measured on its own, as the departure of its march from the linear one, at a load step of half the output stage's rating. The input pair's departure falls with load capacitance — a bigger reservoir holds the node while the loop responds, which is the sixth rung's own result — and the output stage's does not fall nearly as fast, because what it has to supply is the charge the capacitor wants. Below about 22 nanofarads the thermal voltage decides the answer and above it the output stage does, and nothing about the amplifier changed.

The current above which there is no impedance

The sixth rung found the impedance leaving at 10.6 mA, where the input pair's own tanh takes over and the slew rate is twice the thermal voltage times the gain-bandwidth in radians, with no design choice in it. A real output stage has a second limit that is nothing but design choice, and the two do not bind at the same load: at 0.47 nF the input pair's departure is 19.4 per cent against the output stage's 4.2, at 22 nF it is 0.9 against 2.3, and above the output stage's rating the excursion does not come back at all — 2,254 Ω for a quantity that was 37.

feedback · Capacitive load Two large-signal limits, each alone and then both, at 20 mA and half of it. computed by solving, not by drawing. Four marches of one netlist at each load: neither limit, the input pair's tanh alone, the output stage's 20 mA alone, and both, driven by a 10 mA step. The three curves are each limit's departure from the linear march and the departure with both present; the faint line is the two singles added. Both lies on the sum and a little above it — 1.112 times it at 0.47 nF and 1.022 at 47 nF — so the limits are present together rather than taking turns. Where the two singles cross, near 10 nanofarads, the pair costs 1.88 times what the worse of them costs alone.

The load that neither limit owns

Nine rungs of this argument asked which of an amplifier's two large-signal limits binds, and drew the load capacitance where the answer changes hands. Both are present at every load: the excursion with both in the netlist is the two departures added and between 2 and 12 per cent more, never the larger of them. So the crossing is not a handover but a maximum — at 12 nanofarads the pair costs 2.084 times what the worse of them costs alone, against 1.35 at 2.2 nanofarads and 1.07 at 47 — and the same peak sits on the resistance axis at 20 ohms and the gain-bandwidth axis at 50 megahertz.

feedback · Capacitive load

Named alongside it

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

Model rangeSlew rateDesign tradeoffMarchingCapacitive loadOutput impedanceGain–bandwidth productSettling timeThermal voltageCoreDielectric absorptionDifferential pair

All concepts