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

Measurement error — where it appears

The difference between what an instrument reads and what the circuit would do without it. Computed here by solving the network twice, with the instrument present and absent, because it is a property of the pair rather than of either one on its own.

Named by 5 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A clean board is 14.0 mV of error, and a guard makes it 1.0 nV. computed by solving, not by drawing. Two boards differing by one wire, solved with the leakage present and again with it removed, so the number plotted is the leakage's own contribution and nothing else. Unguarded, a teraohm across the laminate from a 15 V rail through a 1 GΩ source is 13.99 millivolts — and a humid morning takes that resistance down two decades, which is the left-hand end of this axis. Guarded, the ring is held at the input's own potential by the amplifier, so what is across the leakage is the amplifier's own error and the result is 1.00 nanovolts. The guarded line is flat in the rail and proportional to the signal: the offset has become a gain error of 1.00 parts per billion, and the reading is low by it rather than high: the ring sits a little below the input, so the last of the leakage pulls the input down.

The current that does not reach the input

A teraohm across a board from a fifteen-volt rail is fourteen millivolts of error through a gigohm source, and a humid morning takes that resistance down two decades. A ring held at the input's own potential leaves a nanovolt — proportional to the signal rather than to the rail, so an offset has become a gain error of one part in a billion — and the same wire multiplies the input resistance by the loop gain, which makes it 10¹⁸ Ω at direct current and 10¹² Ω at a megahertz.

instruments · Guarding A tenth of a per cent of lead is 999 µε of strain that is not there. computed by solving, not by drawing. A 350 Ω quarter bridge at zero load, against the resistance in each lead. With both leads in the changing arm the output is 4.99500 mV at 350 mΩ — an apparent fractional change of 0.1998%, which at a gauge factor of 2 is 999 microstrain. With one lead in that arm and one in the arm beside it the output is zero to the last bit, at every lead resistance drawn. The lower panel is what the second arrangement costs: the sensitivity falls as 1/(1 + Rlead/R), which is 0.100% at the same lead and is a calibration constant rather than a drift.

The leads that are in the bridge

A strain gauge on the end of two long wires cannot be told from a strain gauge under load: both leads in the changing arm is bit for bit the same netlist as a quarter bridge whose fractional change is larger by twice the lead over the gauge, which at 350 milliohms on a 350 ohm gauge is 999 microstrain that is not there. Moving one of those leads into the arm beside it leaves the output at exactly zero for every lead resistance drawn, and turns a twenty-kelvin drift of 76.8 microstrain into 0.077. That factor is two over the strain being read — 999 at a thousand microstrain and 9990 at two hundred — and it costs 0.100 per cent of sensitivity.

applied · Bridge A whole number of steps: 1, 2, 3 and 4 agree to 7% and a step and a half is 1.9× worse. computed by solving, not by drawing. The upper panel is the share of the quantisation error sitting in harmonics of the input against the amount of dither added — the upper curve the largest share anywhere on the amplitude sweep, with the spread across the five tones each point averages drawn as a bar, and the lower curve that sweep's mean. Undithered the worst is 76.5 per cent. It falls steeply up to one whole step (4.70 per cent at three quarters, 0.34 at one) and then stops improving — but only AT whole steps. The sweep means at 1, 2, 3, 4 steps are 0.283, 0.297, 0.297, 0.301 per cent, flat to 7 per cent; at 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 they are 0.526, 0.345, 0.311, each above both whole steps beside it. The lower panel is what each costs in signal-to-noise ratio, with 10·log₁₀(1 + L²) drawn through it — the measurement is that curve to 0.118 dB everywhere, so the price is known in advance and only the benefit has to be measured. The choice is a corner and a comb: nothing here is minimised, something stops improving, and between the places where it has stopped it is worse again.

The dither that is a decision

One whole least significant bit is quoted everywhere as the dither, which makes a decision look like a constant. Swept, the axis is a corner and a comb. An eighth of a step leaves 64.5 per cent of the error locked to the signal and one whole step leaves 0.34; above that the sweep mean is 0.283, 0.297, 0.297 and 0.301 per cent at one, two, three and four steps and 0.526 at a step and a half, which fails at exactly the small amplitudes dither exists for. The price is 10·log₁₀(1 + L²) to 0.118 of a decibel, and four steps cost 12.41 for nothing.

digital · Quantisation The "offset" a switch leaves moves by 1.863 mV across a volt of signal. computed by solving, not by drawing. The charge a switch leaves on a 1 pF hold capacitor, as the input it was sampling changes. It is W·L·C_ox·(V_gs − V_th) with the clock's high level for the gate, so it falls as the input rises for two reasons at once: less gate drive, and a threshold that rises with the source potential through the body effect. The dashed line is the part that does not know what the signal is — the clock coupling through the gate overlap capacitance, -1.649 mV — and it is the only part of this that is honestly an offset. The curve stops where the switch does: an n-channel device passes nothing within a threshold of its own gate, and the model refuses rather than returning a zero.

The offset that knows the signal

The charge a switch leaves on the capacitor it was sampling is the gate oxide capacitance times the channel area times the overdrive, and both terms in that overdrive depend on the input — one directly and one through the body effect. So the 5.67 mV a data sheet would call an offset moves by 1.86 mV across a volt of signal, which is a gain error of 0.186 per cent and only 3.4 µV of anything else. Opening the summing-node switch first divides the gain error by the amplifier's own gain, exactly, and what is left goes from twenty-nine times the sampled-noise floor to nineteen times below it.

filters · Switched capacitor Two leads nobody counts cost 1995 parts per million, and two more leads remove all of it. computed by solving, not by drawing. The error in the reported strain against the resistance in each of the two excitation leads, at 1000 µε on a quarter bridge of 350 Ω excited at 10 V. With four wires the instrument takes the excitation to be the supply's voltage, so every reading is scaled by R/(R + 2r): 1995 parts per million at 0.35 Ω, 54029 at 10. Two more leads brought back from the bridge's own terminals, carrying only the instrument's input current, leave 3.5e-4 parts per million. Exciting with a current instead of a voltage does the same thing with no extra leads at all, because the lead resistance is in series with a source that does not care.

The two leads nobody counts

The leads that are in the bridge moved a lead out of the changing arm and turned a 999-microstrain error into nothing. The two leads carrying the excitation are still there, and they scale every reading: 0.35 ohms each on a 350-ohm bridge is 1,995 parts per million, exactly −2r/(R + 2r), the same on a full bridge as on a quarter one, and drifting 0.153 microstrain over twenty kelvin — twice what the three-wire fix left behind. Two more wires brought back from the bridge's own terminals leave 0.00035 parts per million. So does exciting the bridge with a current, which needs no extra wires at all.

applied · Bridge

Named alongside it

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

ExcitationFour-terminal sensingKelvin connectionLead resistanceLoop gainStrain gaugeTemperature coefficientWheatstone bridgeBootstrappingCharge injectionClosed formDesensitivity

All concepts