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

Modified nodal analysis — where it appears

Writing a circuit as node voltages plus a current unknown for each element that fixes a voltage, so sources and inductors need no admittance. Written over the complex plane from the first line, it makes direct current the value at s = 0 and a frequency sweep the same solve along the imaginary axis.

Named by 8 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A network solved, and checked: a bridge, which no series-parallel reduction reaches. Node potentials from modified nodal analysis. The branch currents are then recomputed from each element's own law and summed at every node; the residual is 2.7e-16 of the largest current in the circuit, which is floating-point rounding and nothing else.

What a network answers, and how the answer is checked

A circuit has exactly one answer and a matrix finds it. The part that matters is not that the answer exists but that it can be checked twice, by routes that share no arithmetic — and that a circuit with no answer is refused by name rather than returned as a large plausible number.

networks · Nodal analysis 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 Superposition holds for the solution and not for its square. computed by solving, not by drawing, at 81 settings of the second source. Two ten-volt sources reach one hundred-ohm load through a hundred ohms each. Every node voltage and every branch current is the sum of the two single-source solves to 3.8e-16 of itself — superposition, exactly. The power is not: the difference is 2·Re(I₁·conj(I₂))·R to 1.0e-15, and at 0° between the sources and equal size it is 444.4 mW against the 222.2 mW that adding gives. Adding the two powers is within one per cent of the truth only when one source is below 0.00505 of the other. The slider is the angle between them: at 90° the two curves coincide to the last bit, and at 180° the true power falls to zero while the sum does not.

Two solves that add, and the one that does not

Every node voltage and every branch current in a linear network is the sum of the per-source solves, here to the last bit of a double at eighty-one settings. The power is not, and the gap is not a correction: two equal sources in antiphase put nothing at all into a load while adding their powers gives 222 milliwatts, and the sum is within one per cent of the truth only when one source is two hundred times the other.

networks · Superposition A passive network, read from each end — and the two readings are one number. computed by solving, not by drawing. A five-element ladder with a current injected at one port and the voltage read at the other, then the two exchanged. With no controlled source the two readings agree to 4.9e-14 of themselves over four decades, which is the arithmetic's noise rather than a physical difference — the network cannot tell which way round it is being used. A mutual inductance keeps that: a 1 mH and a 4 mH winding at k = 0.7 give 0.0e+0, because the coupling puts the same entry in both halves of the matrix. A transconductance does not, and the departure is proportional to it with a fitted exponent of 1.000 over four decades — so there is no small amount of gain that is harmless. It passes the arithmetic's own floor at 0.781 femtosiemens, and the smallest transistor in this collection is nine orders above that.

The reading that does not care which way round it is

Inject a current at one end of a network and read the voltage at the other; then swap the two. A passive network gives back the same number — not a similar one, but the same to five parts in ten to the fourteenth over four decades of frequency, and for a coupled pair of windings the same double. Put a transconductance of eight tenths of a femtosiemens anywhere in it and the two readings part company.

networks · Reciprocity 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 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 ratio of the two readings, drawn where it lives. computed by solving, not by drawing. The rung below's ladder at 10 kHz, read from each end, with the quotient of the two readings plotted in the complex plane. A reciprocal network sits at the point 1. One transconductance moves it along a straight ray, 1 − gm·Z, whose direction is the phase of the single branch between the source's control node and its output node and whose length is gm|Z| — 62.83 Ω for the 1 mH inductor, 120 Ω for a resistor, 72.34 Ω for 220 nF, all at 10 kHz. A mirrored pair of transconductances stays at 1 to 2.3e-15; reversing one of them runs the ratio around the unit circle to 8.9e-16, where the two readings are the same size and differ only in phase. The straight-ray law needs the two nodes joined by exactly one branch, and a second path between them takes it away by a factor rather than by a percentage.

The reading that does care which way round

The rung below measured a network's departure from reciprocity and left its size as a constant — 62.8 per siemens, for that network at that frequency. It is not a constant and it is not the network's: it is 2πfL for the single inductor between the controlled source's control node and its output node, 62.832 ohms at ten kilohertz, and the ratio of the two readings is 1 − gm·Z to 8.8 parts in 10¹⁴ over ninety-nine readings. So 4.5455 millisiemens across a 220 ohm branch makes a ladder that transmits a hard zero forwards at every frequency at once, and 206.13 ohms back at ten kilohertz.

networks · Reciprocity The circuit does not care which node is called zero, and the matrix does. computed by solving, not by drawing. The condition number of the nodal matrix for a 12-section chain, against which of its nodes was taken as the reference. The network, its elements and its physics are identical in every case — only a label has moved — and every branch voltage and branch current comes back the same to 1.1e-13. The condition number runs from 5.25e+4 at "n6" to 1.72e+5 at "n12", a factor of 3.28, which is 0.52 decimal digits of the arithmetic's own margin.

The node that is not in the circuit

Nodal analysis needs a node to call zero and no circuit contains one. Moving it changes every node voltage by the same amount and no branch voltage or branch current at all — to a part in ten to the fourteenth on a well-behaved chain. What it does change is the matrix: the condition number of a twelve-section chain moves by a factor of 3.3 with the reference, and on a star whose resistances span nine decades by 8.0. Measured against the same matrix solved in twice the precision, the worst reference costs four decimal digits of the answer, and it is the reference the condition number named before the error was looked at.

networks · Nodal analysis

Named alongside it

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

VerificationSingular matrixNumerical errorKirchhoffs current lawModel refusalClosed formConditioningControlled sourceMutual inductanceReciprocitySymmetric matrixTransconductance

All concepts