Saturation — where it appears
Named by 16 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
A boundary in volt-seconds
A core saturates on the integral of the voltage applied to it, not on the current through it and not at a frequency. The quantity that belongs to the core is N·Ae·Bsat — 3.500 mWb-turn here — and it has no frequency in it at all. Everything a data sheet says about a transformer's frequency rating is that one number divided by 2πf once: measured on a marched flux, the voltage a winding may carry is proportional to frequency to a fitted exponent of 1.000000.
The flux that walks
The previous essay's saturation limit is an amplitude, and an amplitude can be respected. This one cannot. A drive whose two half-cycles differ in volt-seconds by one per cent adds the same small area to the flux every cycle, so it reaches saturation after 64 cycles — and halving the drive gives 128, and a tenth of it gives 637. Reducing the amplitude buys time in exact proportion and removes nothing. There is no amplitude at which the design is inside a limit.
Where the mechanisms are one mechanism
An amplifier is said to run out of three separate things — bandwidth, slew rate and rails — and errors from separate mechanisms add in quadrature while errors from one mechanism add as magnitudes. Measured as waveforms rather than as numbers, two of the three sit 18.4349 degrees apart, which is exactly the angle between a sinusoid and its own cube, and the third sits at ninety: its cosine against both of the others stays under 0.0025 wherever it exists. So the arithmetic is neither of the two anybody reaches for, and a budget built the right way is within 2.9 per cent where quadrature is 17 per cent low and a straight sum 37 per cent high.
The delay that is two delays
Modelling one comparator delay applied to both transitions makes the two half cycles equal by construction, and the fix is a change of one line. Made, the duty cycle moves by 0.28 per cent for twenty nanoseconds of skew rather than the 0.40 the obvious expression gives, more hysteresis improves the duty cycle and worsens the volt-seconds at the same time, and ten nanoseconds of skew saturates a hundred-turn core in 231 cycles.
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.
The core the solver has to remember
A saturating inductor's state is one number, because the current is a function of the flux linkage. A hysteretic core's is not: half an amp is one flux on the way up and a different flux on the way down, and there is no function of the current that returns the flux. So the march's state vector gains twenty-four more numbers, one per play operator, and the Newton loop is forbidden to touch them. The circuit and the bench then agree on the loss to three parts in ten million — one integral taken at two wires, the other inside the material.
The loss that depends on what it causes
Every thermal figure in this collection has had the power handed in. A ferrite's has no business being: its saturation flux falls with temperature, its permeability rises, and both move the loss. Closing that loop makes the temperature a fixed point rather than a product — and the fixed point has a stable root at 89 degrees whose loop gain is negative, an ignition root at 191 whose loop gain is 120, and a thermal resistance of 183 kelvin per watt at which the two touch and neither exists.
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.
The drop the lower device did not need
A cascode mirror's floor is a whole base-emitter drop plus the upper device's own minimum, because the stack that biases the upper base holds it two drops above ground. The lower device needs only a few hundred millivolts. Hold the upper base one drop and 300 mV up instead, and on a model whose transistors saturate the one-per-cent floor falls from 0.832 V to 0.403 V. The output resistance does not fall with it: it rises from 7.39 to 13.2 MΩ, because the upper device's base current no longer comes out of the reference. The cost has moved into the margin itself. Below about 150 mV the lower device saturates, and at 50 mV the resistance is 0.51 MΩ and the copy ratio 0.7665.
The boundary that is a starting point
A wound part with a stable operating point at 88.8 degrees and an ignition temperature at 191.1 will never reach the second, because nothing takes it there. Marched in time rather than solved for its steady states, the same equation says what does: a trajectory starting at 189.6 degrees settles back and one starting at 192.6 leaves the material's range in twelve seconds — two starts three kelvin apart. And an overload of four times the normal loss is survivable for ever, while seven times is survivable for seventeen minutes.
The bias the gain does not set
A transistor's current gain varies tenfold across the parts one type number covers, and a bias network is judged by how little of that reaches the collector current. One resistor from the supply to the base passes all of it — 0.61 mA at β = 50, 1.16 at 100, and saturation from 200. The four-resistor network passes 98.5 per cent of a tenfold change with a 100 kΩ divider, 17.3 with 10 kΩ and 3.4 with 1 kΩ, and never less than the 1.78 per cent the ratio β/(β + 1) keeps however stiff the divider. Each tenfold cut in that spread costs a tenfold rise in the divider's standing current, so the design is a point on a hyperbola rather than a rule.
The circuit with three bias points
Two transistors, each biased from the other's collector, have three operating points: one collector at 0.061 V and the other at 4.615, the same the other way round, and both at 1.702. All three solve the circuit to a part in 10⁹, and Newton started from nought — where a simulator starts — finds the symmetric one, which is the one the circuit can never sit at: its Jacobian determinant is negative, so any positive capacitance at the nodes makes it run. Weaken the coupling past 56.6 kΩ and the three merge into one, the loop gain around the symmetric point having fallen through one. Which answer a solver returns depends on where it begins, and from 1,681 starting guesses at 10 kΩ, 437 return the one that is not a state.
The walk that stops
A drive whose two half-cycles differ in volt-seconds walks the flux to saturation in a count of cycles, and the essay that measured it concluded that no amplitude puts the design inside a limit. That model has a stiff source and a winding of no resistance. With resistance in the loop the walk has a fixed point, held by an identity the material is not in — the mean magnetising current is the drive's direct component divided by the resistance, to seven parts in 10¹³ — and the boundary becomes a resistance rather than a time: 0.1014 ohms bisected, at a one per cent imbalance and half the volt-second limit.
The instant a transformer is worst at
A capacitor-input rectifier draws its worst inrush when it is switched on at the peak of the mains. A transformer's own magnetising branch is the other way round: switched on at the voltage zero, a 230 V primary worked at 1.4 T draws 87.6 A in its first half-cycle, 791 times its settled magnetising current, and at the voltage peak it draws nothing extra at all. The core's flux has to start from zero, the voltage does not, and how close the working flux sits to half of saturation decides the size.
The harmonic that names an inrush
A transformer's differential relay sees an inrush as current going in and nothing coming out, which is what an internal fault looks like, and it tells them apart by the second harmonic. Marched cycle by cycle, an inrush starts at 79% second harmonic and stays above the usual 15% restraint for thirty cycles — long after its current has fallen from 88 A to 205 mA, because the current unwinds in a few cycles and the flux offset under it takes seconds. A fault's offset is a smooth exponential and peaks at 14.6% only when X/R is as low as three.
The flux the reset leaves behind
A transformer driven one way only — a forward converter, a single-ended pulse transformer — is reset each cycle by letting its magnetising current fall to zero, and zero current is not zero flux. Marched on the hysteretic core, a power ferrite with 90.6 mT of remanence driven to 0.3 T starts every pulse but the first at 90.8 mT, and keeps 34.9% of the swing a symmetric drive would get, where half is the most a one-way drive could; a square-loop core starts at 212 mT and keeps 14.7%. A gap shears the loop: the current is zero where H = −lg·B/(μ₀·le), so the start is bounded by μ₀·Hc·le/lg and falls onto the bound as the gap grows — 22.0 mT at 0.1 mm, recovering 69 mT of swing for 239 mA more magnetising current. The first pulse from a demagnetised core is the only one that starts at zero, and it is the one a bench test sees.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Model rangeMarchingVolt-secondsFlux densityCoreDesign tradeoffFlux linkageMagnetising inductanceNewton raphsonFixed pointInrush currentMagnetic loss