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

Model refusal — where it appears

A model declining to answer outside its own range, by name and with a reason, rather than returning a number that looks like every other number. It is what a solver should return for a singular network or an amplifier asked to work above its gain–bandwidth, and it is checked by feeding the refusal cases that must still be refused.

Named by 16 essays across 11 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A gain of 100 asked of an amplifier with 1.00 MHz of gain–bandwidth. The ideal amplifier — a nullor, so the two golden rules exactly — holds 100 at every frequency. The real one is 0.10% low at direct current, 1% low by 1.35 kHz, and 3 dB down at 10.0 kHz. Above 10.0 kHz there is no loop gain left and the ideal answer is not an approximation to anything.

The ideal amplifier, and where it stops being one

An ideal operational amplifier's closed-loop gain is set by two resistors and nothing else — a horizontal line at every frequency. The real one is already a tenth of a per cent low at direct current, one per cent low by 1.35 kHz, and above 10 kHz has no loop gain left, at which point the ideal answer is not an approximation to anything.

feedback · Gain-bandwidth A network the solver will answer, and should not be asked, into 0.01 Ω. computed by solving, not by drawing at 61 spreads. A hundredth of an ohm either side of a wire whose resistance is made smaller and smaller, into 0.01 Ω — an element written where the right answer is no element at all. The solution stays exact: 0.499999998422607 at the last spread before the refusal, against 0.500000000000000. What grows is the current-law residual, as the 0.96 power of the spread. The solve is refused at a spread of 2.5e+8, where the smallest pivot falls under 1e-12; the residual tolerance of 1e-7 would have been reached at about 3.3e+9. Two guards written for unrelated reasons, arriving within a decade of one another.

The answer that is perfect and absurd

A network with a wire written into it as a small resistance returns the right node voltage to fifteen figures, passes both verifications with a residual of two parts in ten to the sixteenth, and reports two hundred thousand amperes. The solver refuses it one decade further on, and by then it has been answering for eight decades.

networks · Singular-network 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 Where four of this site's models stop being true. In order: the ideal operational amplifier at 1.42 kHz, a 10 V output at full amplitude at 7.96 kHz, Kirchhoff's laws on 10.0 cm at 3.97 MHz, the ideal 100 nF capacitor at 4.69 MHz. The fifth boundary is an amplitude rather than a frequency and cannot share this axis: a small-signal model is 1% wrong above 7.3 mV, at every frequency there is.

The edges that are lengths

Almost every boundary in this collection is a frequency or an amplitude, and both of those are things a circuit designer chooses. A handful are lengths — the 0.60 millimetres a gap's field reaches into a window, the 200 microns between a track and its plane, the 10 centimetres at which Kirchhoff's laws are a degree out — and they behave differently in one way that matters: nobody chooses them at the schematic, they are set by whoever builds the thing, and they appear in no netlist at all.

limits · Model edges Five boundaries, one tolerance, and three exponents. computed by solving, not by drawing. Each of five model boundaries re-solved at forty-one tolerances from 0.1% to 30%, divided by its own value at 0.1% so that an amplitude in millivolts and four frequencies can share one axis — an exponent has no units. Fitted over the two decades to 10%: Kirchhoff's laws 1.000, the ideal amplifier 0.513, the small-signal model 0.497, the ideal capacitor 0.500, and the full-power bandwidth 0.000. A boundary set by a first-order departure moves in proportion to the tolerance, one set by a second-order departure moves as its square root, and a refusal does not move at all — so relaxing the tolerance from 0.1% to 10% buys a factor of 100 on the board and 10.0 on the capacitor.

A boundary is a model and a tolerance

Every edge in this collection is computed from a fraction of error nobody states, and the four on its opening axis use three different ones. Swept over two decades, each boundary moves as a power of that fraction — Kirchhoff's laws exactly as the first power, the amplifier and the capacitor and the small-signal model as its square root to within three per cent, and a full-power bandwidth not at all. The exponent identifies the mechanism, and it re-orders the axis twice: the board fails before the capacitor below 0.424 per cent, and the output before the amplifier above 21.7.

limits · Model edges Fourteen decades of imbalance, fourteen digits gone, and a matrix in perfect health. computed by solving, not by drawing. A Wheatstone bridge walked towards balance, with the relative error of the solved output against a closed form that cannot lose digits. The condition number of the nodal matrix is 505.0 at every imbalance and the smallest pivot is 2.0e-3 of the matrix norm — orders above the 1e-12 at which this solver refuses to answer at all. Neither number moves, and the answer still loses one digit per decade of imbalance, reaching 33% at δ = 1e-15. The bound drawn over it is the round-off divided by the imbalance, which the measurement stays under at every point. The third curve is the same closed form written as ½ − 1/(2+δ) — algebraically identical, and it loses its digits at the same rate, which is where the loss lives: in the subtraction of two nearly equal numbers, not in the matrix.

The matrix that is ill, and the answer that is not

Every other essay here treats the solve as exact, and it is not. A bridge walked towards balance loses one digit per decade of imbalance and has none left at a part in 10¹⁵ — on a matrix whose condition number never moves and whose smallest pivot stays four orders above the threshold this solver refuses at. A feedback amplifier does the opposite: the solver declines to answer at a gain of 10⁹, one decade after it returned an answer that was exact to the last bit.

networks · Conditioning Nine tenths of the heat is in the switch, and above 1.28 MHz there is no temperature at all. computed by solving, not by drawing. The junction temperature a recovering diode settles at, against switching frequency, with the carrier lifetime rising as the 1.8 power of absolute temperature so that the recovery gets worse as the junction gets hotter. Each event costs 15.43 µJ when cold, of which 90% is dissipated in whatever is pulling the current down rather than in the diode: while the junction is still conducting it holds almost no voltage, and the recovered charge is delivered through the switch at the full 100 V. That energy equals the diode's own conduction loss at 29.2 kHz. The fixed point T = Ta + Rth·P(T) is iterated from the ambient upward; the junction passes its rated 150 °C at 904 kHz, and above 1.28 MHz there is no temperature that satisfies it at all — the loop has gain and the solver reports the refusal rather than the last iterate.

The heat a recovery leaves behind

The essay below this one measured how much current a diode conducts backwards and for how long, and stopped there. Both numbers are multiplied by a voltage somewhere, and the surprise is where: while the junction is still conducting it holds almost nothing, so nine tenths of the energy is dissipated in the transistor pulling the current down and not in the diode. Repeat it a hundred thousand times a second and it is 1.5 watts, the lifetime rises with temperature, and above 1.28 megahertz the diode's own loop has no fixed point at all.

transients · Reverse-recovery The floor rises as the 1.06 power of the order, and the arithmetic gives out first. computed by solving, not by drawing. The least departure a doubly terminated ladder can achieve at any impedance level, against order — the floor, which is what is left when the tolerance the band is drawn at is taken away. It rises from 0.0087 dB at order three to 0.0389 dB at order 13, as the 1.06 power of the order, so the order at which it reaches the 0.1 dB the band is drawn at is near 32. Drawn over it are the same networks with one imperfection removed at a time, and they do not add: the winding loss alone leaves a larger departure than the complete realisation does, because the track resistance is in series with the load and lifts the passband exactly where the winding loss droops it. The stray capacitance contributes nothing at all, since the level that minimises the departure is a few ohms. What ends the sweep is neither: the continued-fraction synthesis loses its leading coefficients to cancellation and stalls at order 9 for a Butterworth and 14 for a Chebyshev.

The floor that outlives the arithmetic

A band of impedance levels is what a tolerance allows; a floor is what a structure has. Measured at six orders, a doubly terminated ladder's floor rises as the 1.06 power of the order and would not reach a tenth of a decibel until order thirty-two — an order nobody builds. What stops the sweep is neither the structure nor the parasitics: the continued fraction that turns a reflection polynomial into element values loses its leading coefficients to cancellation and stalls at order nine for a Butterworth and fourteen for a Chebyshev.

filters · Impedance scaling The noise bandwidth of four families at 8 orders, and the one that has none. computed by solving, not by drawing. Every one of the 32 entries is an integral of the realised network's own squared magnitude, divided by that network's own measured −3 dB point. At order one the four families are the same filter and return 1.5706, which is π/2 — the calibration the rest of the table is quoted against. Only Butterworth then does what the ratio is usually said to do: it falls at every order, to 1.0065 at 8. Bessel is least at order 5 (1.0385) and rises to 1.0441; Chebyshev alternates with parity, 0.9637 at five against 1.0686 at six; and an even-order elliptic has no noise bandwidth at all, because its stopband comes back up to a constant — its magnitude at the top of the range moves by 0.00 decades per decade of frequency, so the integral grows with whatever limit it is stopped at.

The ratio that does not walk to one

A single pole passes π/2 times as much noise as a brick wall at its corner, and every account of it says the ratio falls towards one as the skirt steepens. Over thirty-two realised filters only Butterworth does that. Bessel is least at order five, 1.0385, and rises again; Chebyshev alternates with parity and the two branches separate only above 0.1968 decibels of ripple; and an even-order elliptic has no noise bandwidth at all, its integral returning 380 or 38,005 depending on where it was stopped.

noise · Noise bandwidth The sensitivity of a pole against the room it has. computed by solving, not by drawing. A series R–L–C whose damping is walked from 0.3 to 0.999999, which slides its two poles together along a straight line and changes nothing else. The exact derivative of a pole with respect to the capacitor climbs from 0.5241 to 353.6 as the gap between them falls from 19078 to 28.28 radians a second. The fitted exponent over the closest four is -1.0000, and the product of the two is the natural frequency itself — 9999.6894 against 9999.6894, at every damping drawn and not merely in the limit, which a closed form gives and this computation never sees. The resistor's curve runs at 2ζ times the capacitor's — below it at 0.3 and at twice it by the time the poles have met — and the inductor's lies exactly under the capacitor's throughout.

The gap a derivative needs

The derivative of a pole is exact and has no step size in it, and beside the formula sits a sentence nobody had measured: it divides by a quantity that vanishes when two poles meet. Driven together, the sensitivity climbs as the reciprocal of the gap — fitted exponent −1.0000, the product a constant 1.00000 times the natural frequency — while the largest change it still describes falls as the gap *squared*. A one per cent capacitor is outside first order once the poles are 3194 radians a second apart, which is an ordinary critically damped design.

transients · Poles 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 Inside the passband the matrix is worst at the edge, and at no ripple peak. computed by solving, not by drawing. The condition number of a 5th-order Chebyshev filter's nodal matrix at every frequency from a hundredth of its cutoff to ten times it. It is 4.004e+3 at direct current, rises to 1.5868e+7 at 964.0 Hz — located by golden section rather than read off the sweep — falls to 4.970e+6 at 1520 Hz and rises again through the stopband. The maximum is above every ripple peak (the highest is at 897.9 Hz) and within 3.6 per cent of the half-power frequency: the worst-conditioned place in the passband is where the filter stops passing and starts blocking, which is a place the response curve has no feature at. It is a local maximum: above the band κ climbs again, reaching 2.702e+7 at ten times the cutoff, because the susceptances in the matrix grow with the frequency and κ counts them. Nothing about any of these numbers says whether a digit is actually lost anywhere.

Where the matrix is worst, and where the answer is not

When a solve stops being exact has been answered with two networks at direct current. Swept along the frequency axis, a resistive chain's nodal matrix has a condition number of 4.00×10³ at direct current and 1.59×10⁷ at 964 Hz — a maximum at the band edge, at no ripple peak and at no feature the response has. It predicts nothing. The solution vector is right to three units of round-off everywhere, the response taken out of it loses four decades into the stopband, and the same filter written at 400 kΩ instead of 10 Ω has a condition number 1.4×10⁹ times larger and returns the same twelve digits.

networks · Conditioning The direct form works at 28 bits and fails again at 29. computed by solving, not by drawing. The largest pole radius of an order-8 Butterworth at a 1 kHz corner and a 48 kHz clock, at every coefficient word length from 6 to 40 bits, for both realisations. Above the unit circle the filter is not inaccurate but unstable. The direct form is outside at 23 of the 35 word lengths drawn; the cascade at none of them, its worst radius being 1.000000. The failures are not an interval: 28 bits works and 29 bits does not, so the smallest word length that works is 1 below the largest that does not and a search for the crossing has no crossing to find. The direct form's curve is clipped at 1.24: a radius of 4.5 and a radius of 1.01 are the same verdict.

The word length that is not a threshold

The essay below this one measured an eighth-order direct form at five word lengths, found its poles outside the unit circle at every one, and left behind a phrase — the coefficient resolution required. Sixty word lengths later there is no such resolution. That filter is stable at 28 bits, unstable at 29 and stable again at 30, and the smallest word length a search would return is not one anybody can use. What survives is a law with a slope: 4.53 bits of coefficient for every pole added, rising to 47 bits at twelfth order, and none at all for a cascade.

digital · Digital realisation The same core at the same current has two inductances, 1.80 times apart. computed by solving, not by drawing. The small-signal inductance of a sixty-turn winding on a core walked down from 400 amperes per metre, measured by pushing the excitation up and by pushing it down at each bias. They are never the same: 14.899 millihenries against 8.297 at zero bias, a factor of 1.796, and up to 1.796 across the sweep. The mechanism is that an operator held inside its own backlash contributes nothing to dB/dH, so a reversal is measured by whichever operators are still moving, and that is a different set in each direction. The single-valued curve the field already had is drawn above both, which is what it is: an optimistic reading of an object with two answers.

Two inductances at one current

A data sheet prints one L(i) curve and there are two. An operator sitting inside its own backlash contributes nothing to dB/dH, so a small excitation sees only the operators still moving — every one at the tip of a loop, none just after a reversal — and the same core at zero bias measures 14.90 millihenries pushed downward and 8.30 pushed upward, a factor of 1.80. The same split decides what a converter's ripple costs: held at the flux swing volt-seconds actually fix, a twenty-millitesla ripple costs twelve times more at a hundred and seventy-five amperes per metre of bias than at none, and above a hundred and eighty-three the question has no answer at all.

magnetics · Magnetic loss 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 One output in saturation takes 6.5% off another that is at five volts. computed by solving, not by drawing. A three-transistor mirror: a reference, an output taken down into saturation, and a third output held at five volts throughout. The upper curve is the saturating output's own loss and the lower one is the sibling's. At 50 mV the saturating output is 27.3 per cent down and the sibling, which is nowhere near saturation, is 6.54 per cent down. The reference current moves by -0.0188 per cent, which is nothing: a base current is a hundred and fiftieth of a collector current and the reference is set by a resistor from the supply. What does move is the base-emitter voltage every output shares — by -1.75 millivolts — and every output is an exponential of it.

The refusal, and what it was protecting

A current mirror's model has declined to answer below two hundred millivolts of collector-emitter voltage since it was written, because it has no base-collector junction and would return a forward-active current for a saturated transistor. Put the junction in and the refusal turns out to have been placed where the model it protects is still right to seven parts in ten thousand — and the mirror's real failure is somewhere else entirely: a saturated output takes six and a half per cent off an output that is sitting at five volts.

semiconductors · Current mirror

Named alongside it

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

Design tradeoffModel rangeNumerical errorVerificationMeasurement conditionGain–bandwidth productModified nodal analysisParasiticsSingular matrixBisectionClosed formComponent tolerance

All concepts