Every essay — page 4
Lines, where a wire has a length
On the far side of the frequency at which Kirchhoff's laws give out. What a source drives into is decided by geometry before the load has any say; what comes back one delay later decides the rest. The wave picture is checked against a lumped ladder that has never heard of a wave — and the useful result is how badly the ladder does.
Where the plane runs out
The corner that is three decades wide solved a return current over a plane that extends well past the track on both sides. Where it does not, the two costs arrive at opposite ends of the band: at direct current a plane that ends under the track costs 27 per cent of inductance and not one part in a million of resistance, and above the band it costs 16 per cent of inductance and 199 per cent of resistance. Three track-heights of copper beside the track removes almost all of both, and the number three has no millimetres in it — sixteen times the whole cross-section gives the same ratios to a part in a billion.
The dip whose area is fixed
A picofarad across a 50 Ω line makes a dip in what comes back. Its depth is 0.833 volts to a six-picosecond edge and 0.0196 volts to a nanosecond one, forty-two times less; its area is 25 picoseconds to both, to six parts in a hundred thousand, because the area is Z₀C/2 and contains nothing about the edge. Two half-picofarad discontinuities too close to tell apart read as exactly one picofarad, and so do two far enough apart to be separate — the area is additive where the depth is not. And what a reflectometer calls the capacitance of an impedance step is the step's real excess capacitance times 1 + Z/Z₀.
The permittivity a loss forbids
A datasheet quotes a relative permittivity and a loss tangent as two independent numbers, and they are not two numbers. A material that dissipates has a permittivity that falls logarithmically with frequency at a rate its own loss fixes — 0.129 of permittivity a decade for FR-4, so the 4.4 quoted at a gigahertz is 4.79 at a megahertz and 4.14 at a hundred. Three hundred millimetres of track loses 62.9 picoseconds of delay between 100 MHz and 10 GHz, which a constant permittivity puts at 1.3; and the constant-permittivity model smears an edge backwards, taking 180 picoseconds to reach half height and 133 more to reach nine tenths.
The via two lines can weigh
The area under a reflection is a property of the discontinuity rather than of the edge, and for a via it is one number made of two: −Z₀C/2 from its pads and +L/2Z₀ from its barrel, with opposite signs. A via of half a picofarad and a nanohenry, seen from fifty ohms, leaves 2.5 picoseconds of dip — which a reading that assumes a capacitor calls 0.100 pF, a fifth of what is there. From fifty and seventy-five ohms together the two areas give 0.5000 pF and 1.0000 nH back, and fifty femtoseconds of error on each costs 0.8 per cent of the capacitance and 1.5 of the inductance. A second line at fifty-five ohms costs five times as much.
The via that is a piece of line
A via of half a picofarad of pad and a nanohenry of barrel puts no area under its reflection from a line of √(L/C) = 44.72 ohms, from any edge. It has not vanished. It delays the edge going past it by 22.4 picoseconds, which is √(LC) exactly, and it still reflects: a doublet whose largest excursion falls as the −1.99 power of the edge where a lone capacitance's falls as the −0.97 — 24.4 millivolts for a 59-picosecond edge against 166 for the pads alone, and 994 microvolts for a 295-picosecond one against 35. The balanced via is a short piece of line, and the reflection it leaves is the reflection of its length rather than of its size.
Two returns in one plane
Two tracks over one plane share the whole of its resistance at direct current, however far apart they are routed: 10 milliohms a metre on a fifty-millimetre plane, from tracks a millimetre apart or ten. The sharing ends across the same band a single return gathers over, and it ends sooner the farther apart the tracks are — through a half at 525 kilohertz for tracks three heights apart and at 9.88 kilohertz for fifty. Above the band what is left is the overlap of two image distributions, 4h²/(4h² + d²): 14.5 per cent of the resistance at a millimetre, 0.68 at five. And in the middle of the band the two loops' mutual inductance changes sign.
The sections a wavelength needs
A ladder of inductors and capacitors is a line only below its own cutoff, 2/√(LC) of one section, and in the frequency domain how far below can be written down exactly: its delay is too long by arcsin(x)/x − 1 and its group delay by 1/√(1 − x²) − 1, where x is π over the number of sections per wavelength. One per cent of delay needs 13.0 sections per wavelength; one per cent of group delay, 22.4. The rule of ten per wavelength is 1.72 per cent slow in phase and 5.33 in group delay. Twenty sections imitating a metre of cable are a line to a per cent of group delay up to 185 megahertz and pass nothing at all above 1.32 gigahertz.
The pad the stub comes out of
A via used to a middle layer leaves barrel hanging below the connection: an open stub. Under a via balanced on its √(L/C) line, a 10 ps stub is 0.224 pF of extra capacitance, 5 ps of area, and a reflection of 90.5 mV where the balanced via gave 24.4. Taking that capacitance out of the pads balances the area again whichever pad it comes from. Only one restores the doublet: out of both pads the via still reflects 56.1 mV, out of the bottom pad the stub hangs from, 24.6. The trim works for every stub whose capacitance fits inside that pad, delays up to Z·C/2 = 11.2 ps, whose quarter wave is above 22.4 GHz. A longer stub has nothing left to come out of. At 40 ps it is a notch in the transmission at 6.25 GHz.
The edge the loss delivers
A balanced via's reflection falls as the square of the edge's rise time, so the loss in front of it should hide it. A 20 ps edge sent down 20 cm of lossy line arrives with a 10–90 rise time of 194 ps, and the via's reflection falls to 9.1 mV. But a clean edge with that same 194 ps rise time draws only 2.29 mV from the same via. The lossy edge excites it 3.97 times as much, because loss makes an edge steep in the middle and slow at both ends, 3.07 times steeper at its centre than a raised cosine of the same 10–90 time. Across 10 to 50 cm the square law survives, an exponent of −1.97. It survives shifted: the 10–90 time overstates, by a factor of three or four, how slow the edge is to anything that reads its curvature.
The slot that does not separate
Cutting a slot in the plane between two tracks is the common response to coupling between their returns, and in a cross-section it looks as if it separates them. It does not, if the plane is one ground: the halves stay joined where the run ends, so at direct current both returns still spread across the whole plane and share all of its resistance — 1.0000 with a 0.4 mm slot — and above the band the slot makes the sharing worse, 4.98% against 4.03%, rising to 15.7% as the slot widens to 1.6 mm, because it takes away the copper between the tracks and pushes each return towards the other. Only a split into two grounds removes the shared resistance at DC, at the price of each loop's resistance multiplied by 2.10, and it leaves the in-band coupling 29% lower, not gone: most of two tracks' coupling at 100 MHz is their own magnetic field, which the plane's copper does not carry.
The common mode that has three slopes
A differential pair turns into common mode wherever its two halves differ, and they can differ in three ways — in size, in timing and in edge rate — each with its own slope. A 2 per cent amplitude imbalance is 1 per cent common mode at every frequency. A millimetre of skew rises at twenty decibels a decade and overtakes it above 455 MHz, a/(2πΔτ). Edges of 50 and 55 picoseconds, perfectly timed, rise at forty: 0.043 per cent at a gigahertz and 5.4 at ten. In time they are a step that stays, a pulse with an area, and a doublet with none — each slope is a moment that vanishes. And an amplitude imbalance and an edge-rate mismatch of the right signs cancel at one frequency, down 74 dB, which half a picosecond of skew fills back to −25.
The skew in the glass
Match a differential pair's two lengths exactly and it can still have tens of picoseconds of skew, because a circuit board is woven glass in resin and the two conductors need not sit over the same one. Over a weave of half a millimetre whose effective permittivity swings from 4.2 to 4.6, a pair of quarter-millimetre pitch with one conductor over a bundle and the other over a gap builds 0.318 ps of skew every millimetre — 63.6 ps in 20 cm, the equivalent of 13.6 mm of routed mismatch by 30 cm, and 68 per cent common mode at 2.5 GHz. Where the pair falls across the weave is a lottery from nothing to that. Rotate the route by ten degrees and the skew never exceeds 0.146 ps, however long the pair: each conductor crosses bundle and gap in turn, and the difference averages out.
The guard that is part of the return
Where a slot between two tracks makes their returns share more of the plane, adding copper instead — a grounded trace between them — makes them share less. But not much, and not at every width. At direct current a guard joined to the plane at the ends of the run is part of the same return and changes nothing: the whole plane's resistance is still shared. At 100 MHz a guard 1.4 mm wide in the 2 mm gap cuts the shared resistance from 4.03 to 2.55 per cent and the mutual inductance by half; a guard 0.1 mm wide raises the sharing to 4.44 per cent, since a thin trace beside both tracks carries both returns through its own small cross-section. The guard works by taking return current the quiet track's plane would have carried — 7 per cent of the neighbour's for a 0.6 mm guard — and it is bounded by exactly that.
The angle two weaves allow
Turning a differential pair a few degrees off a board's glass weave stops its skew growing with length — but a cloth has two weaves, and turning off the warp turns onto the weft. Counting both, the worst skew over every registration of the artwork to the cloth is a sum of two bounds, one falling as the route leaves the warp and one rising as it meets the weft, and it is least at an angle the cloth decides: 45° and 128 fs for two identical half-millimetre weaves and a quarter-millimetre pair, against 305 at 10°; 52° for a finer weft; 67° for a flatter one. Doing the count properly also finds the earlier bound a factor of two low, and finds the obvious answer a trap: on a square weave's exact diagonal the two weaves' product stops averaging and the skew grows again, 2.2 fs a millimetre, while a degree either side it stays at 128.
The conductor made causal too
A dielectric that loses energy must disperse, and the essay before this one made FR-4's permittivity do so: the track's delay then falls 209.6 fs/mm from 100 MHz to 10 GHz. The copper has the same obligation. A conductor whose resistance rises as √f has an internal impedance (1 + j) times that rise, and putting the reactance beside the resistance more than doubles the fall, to 464.4 fs/mm — the conductor's share largest at low frequency, 418 of 584 fs/mm between 10 and 100 MHz, and the dielectric's constant at about 100 a decade. On a 30 ps edge after 300 mm the toe sharpens from 74.5 to 55.6 ps and the tail stretches from 221 to 398: the rise time is 453 ps against 295, and the tail-over-toe ratio a scope can read is 8.0 at 400 mm against 2.6.
The skew that moves with frequency
A pair with one half over glass-rich laminate and one over resin-rich builds 0.318 ps of skew a millimetre when each permittivity is held at its 1 GHz value. But the two regions lose differently — tan δ 0.015 against 0.025 — so their permittivities fall at different rates, and the skew is a curve: 0.272 ps/mm at 100 MHz, 0.319 at 1 GHz, 0.366 at 10 GHz. A deskew set at one frequency leaves ±2.35 ps in 50 mm at the other two. The resin half also loses 3.7 dB more by 10 GHz over 200 mm, so its edge arrives 63.7 ps early and rises in 257 ps against 202; the halves differ in timing and in edge rate at once, and leave a common-mode pulse of 151 mV for each volt.
The near end that stops growing
Near-end crosstalk is a length only until the coupled run's round trip equals the edge's rise time; past that it is a constant. Solved mode by mode and returned to time, a 200 ps edge on 100 mm of coupled track gives a plateau of 12.51 mV per volt — Kb, a quarter of the sum of the two couplings, on the driven line's half-volt — held for the 1.33 ns round trip. The knee is at v·tr/2: 7 mm for a 100 ps edge, 75 mm for 1 ns. Past it a longer run adds width and not height, and the pulse's area keeps growing as Kb times the round trip.
The far end that is a derivative
Where the two couplings are unequal the far end does not cancel, and in time it is the derivative of the edge: a single pulse as wide as the rise time, arriving after one delay, its height the coupling difference times the delay times the edge's slope. On 100 mm of microstrip-like coupling a 200 ps edge gives −25.16 mV per volt against 24.96 predicted, and the height falls as one over the rise time with a fitted slope of −1.000 while the saturated near end sits still. It grows with length without a knee until the two modes separate by a whole edge — 249 mm for a 50 ps edge — and then stops at half the driven line's voltage.
The termination that runs out
A 50 Ω resistor at the end of a line terminates every edge and draws current for as long as the line is held high: 75.6 mW on an alternating pattern from a 3.3 V, 10 Ω driver. Put a capacitor in series with it and the standing current is gone, and so, eventually, is the termination: the far end reflects nothing as an edge arrives and the whole of it once the capacitor has charged, by one less the exponential of −t/2Z₀C exactly. Under two round trips of time constant the receiver overshoots — 54.8 per cent at a quarter of one — and above it the receiver waits on the capacitor to reach the swing. On a pseudo-random pattern the levels are tightest at three round trips, and on a fast pattern the capacitor holds the line's mean and the resistor still burns half of what a plain one does.
The match with no upper edge
A stepped quarter-wave transformer is a band-pass in disguise: at twice its design frequency every section is half a wavelength and transparent, and a 50-to-200 Ω match reflects the bare 0.600 again. Let the steps multiply over a fixed length and the staircase of n steps returns the mismatch at n·f₀; in the limit the upper edge has gone, and what is left is a taper — a high-pass match. An exponential taper half a wavelength long is 0.019 at f₀ and never above 0.131 past 1.6f₀. The Klopfenstein profile, the Chebyshev design's continuous limit, holds 0.050 from 1.1f₀ up, needs half the exponential's length for |Γ| ≤ 0.1 and an eighth of it for 0.02, and is not continuous: it starts with a step from 50 to 52.6 Ω. And the small-reflection formula that defines all of them as a Fourier transform overstates a 10:1 taper's reflection by 41% — the line gives tanh of it.
The heat a standing wave leaves
A cable improves a mismatch's apparent return loss by twice its own loss because the reflection is burnt on the way back, and the burning is not free: it is extra loss in the cable. For one unit delivered to a load reflecting |Γ| through a line of matched loss a, the line must be fed (a² − |Γ|²)/(a(1 − |Γ|²)). A 4:1 load on a 3 dB cable costs 1.53 dB more than a matched one; on a 20 dB cable, 1.94 dB, which is exactly the mismatch loss, because by then every reflected watt is heat. Short lines multiply their dissipation by (1 + |Γ|²)/(1 − |Γ|²), long ones by 1/(1 − |Γ|²). Solved exactly on a line whose loss is in its conductor, the heat stands where the current does: the hottest point runs at the standing-wave ratio times a matched line's, 4.04 against 4.00, so a power rating limited by temperature falls by the ratio, not by the average.
The sections an edge needs
A chain of LC sections rings on an ideal step however many sections it has, because a step has energy all the way to the chain's cut-off. An edge has a top frequency, and for a matched chain carrying one the section count has a clean answer: for one per cent of overshoot, 6 sections on a line one rise long, 183 on ten rises and 5,760 on a hundred, 5.8 times the length in rises to the three-halves power, within a few per cent from end to end. So sections per rise is not a constant. A section's phase error goes as the cube of frequency and the inverse square of the count, and it accumulates along the line. A 1 ns edge on a metre of cable asks for 62 sections, a 100 ps edge for 2,048, and the delay is right long before the edge is.
Two windings, and the band between them
The first two-sided model on this site. Everything else here is right below a number or above one; an ideal transformer is wrong at both ends and right in the middle, and what a designer buys is the distance between the two — measured on the solve, not taken from a T-model. Beside it, a core whose energy is almost all in its air gap, a saturation limit that is an integral rather than a frequency, and a flux that walks to it however small the imbalance. And a core that can get warm: a single-valued curve has no area, so it cannot dissipate, and giving the material a second branch turns its loss into an area, its Steinmetz exponents into local slopes, and its inductance into two numbers at one current.
The band a turns ratio holds over
Most circuit models are right below a number or above one. A transformer is wrong at both ends and right in the middle, and the flat part is not the turns ratio either — measured on the solve it is the turns ratio times the coupling, times what the two winding resistances leave of the whole loop — and the first version of that last factor was a coincidence that held for every coupling and broke at a different load.
What coupling buys, and where it does not
Winding a transformer better is winding it more tightly coupled, and the coupling coefficient is the number a maker works on. Measured across six designs from k = 0.8 to k = 0.999, it moves the upper band edge by 168 times and the lower one by 1.083 — so every hour spent on the winding buys bandwidth at one end of the band and, to within eight per cent, nothing at all at the other.
Which picture sets the upper edge
Every account of a transformer's high-frequency limit names the same mechanism: the leakage inductance resonating with the winding capacitance. At fifty ohms that resonance is at 1.13 MHz and the measured edge is at 81.3 kHz — a factor of fourteen away — because what actually binds is the leakage in series with the load, a first-order corner with no resonance in it at all. The two swap at about 1500 Ω, and both accounts are current because both are sometimes right.
Where the band goes entirely
The three essays before this one measure a transformer's band, and all three assume there is one. Past a few hundred ohms of load there is not: the leakage that sets the upper edge is also what damps the resonance behind it, and a lightly loaded, well-coupled transformer peaks at 3.03 times its own turns ratio. A passive component with voltage gain is not a transformer behaving badly. It is a resonant circuit, and asking for its band returns the skirts of a resonance.
One number from two measurements
Neither of the two standing checks on a solved circuit can see a mutual inductance. A coupling adds no current anywhere, so Kirchhoff's law is unmoved by it; a coupled pair dissipates nothing, so the energy balance is unmoved too. A coupling stamped into the wrong row would produce a well-formed solution to a different circuit and both checks would pass — so the field needed a third route, and the one it uses is the bench method: connect the windings in series one way, then the other, and the difference is four times the mutual inductance.
Two ports from two one-ports
An inductor is a one-port: one impedance, one number. Two of them coupled is a two-port, and the four impedance parameters that describe it are recovered here by four solves — each port driven with the other open, the definition read literally. Two of the four come out equal to 2.8 × 10⁻¹⁶, which is reciprocity, and is the first property a coupling stamped into one row instead of two would break.
The energy is in the gap
A ferrite core is chosen for its permeability and then deliberately cut, and the cut is not a compromise. Reluctance adds in series, so a two-hundred-micron gap in a µᵣ = 2000 core holds 87.0% of the stored energy while the ferrite holds thirteen — and the share is lg/(lg + le/µᵣ), a ratio of two lengths, containing neither the turns nor the area. The material chosen for its permeability holds almost none of what the component stores.
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.
The resistance that grows with frequency
The rule of thumb names the frequency at which the skin depth equals the conductor's radius as the point where the effect begins. Computed exactly from the Kelvin functions, the resistance is already 2.05% up there — and the rule's own asymptote says 1.0000, no effect at all. Two decades higher the two agree to 0.01%, which is what makes it an asymptote rather than a formula, and what makes the frequency it names the wrong one to design at.
The inductor that is a capacitor
The frequency field's second essay measures where a capacitor stops being one, because its own leads are an inductance. This is the same measurement with the components exchanged, and it comes out with the same structure and a different number: the ten-per-cent departure from ωL sits at f₀/3.317, and it sits at f₀/3.317 at every winding capacitance and every inductance tried. The shape of the departure belongs to the resonance rather than to either part.
The copper that makes it worse
The rung below measured one conductor pushing its own current to its rim, and there is nothing to optimise in it: thicker wire is always less resistance. Stack the conductors and the quantity changes character. Each layer sits in the field of the ones below it, the loss that field drives has no upper bound in the thickness, and the product turns over — so a portion of four layers has a best foil thickness, and above it more copper is more resistance. The best thickness is the fourth root of three over the square root of the layer count, in skin depths, and the penalty at it is four thirds for every layer count above one.
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 area a curve cannot have
Every magnetic model in this collection is a single-valued B(H), and a single-valued B(H) cannot dissipate: ∮H dB around a curve is zero, so the transformers and inductors here have all run cold. Giving the material a second branch costs one object — a play operator, which lags the field by a threshold and is otherwise nothing — and a superposition of twenty-four of them produces a loop with 12.481 joules per cubic metre in it, a coercivity of 8.958 amperes per metre and a remanence of 22.3 millitesla, none of which was handed in. At zero threshold the whole thing collapses onto the curve the field already had, to fifteen figures.
The exponent nobody put in
A catalogue prints core loss as a coefficient times the frequency raised to one power and the flux to another, and the two exponents look like material constants. Neither is. On a loop built from play operators the frequency exponent is exactly one — a theorem, not a fit, because a rate-independent locus has the same area however fast it is traced — and the flux exponent is a local slope that runs from 2.94 at half a millitesla to 1.46 near saturation, so five windows on one measured curve give β from 1.58 to 2.84 and predictions three times apart at a hundred and fifty millitesla.
The duty cycle that costs nothing
A converter drives its core with a rectangular voltage, so the flux is a triangle whose two slopes differ by nineteen to one at a five per cent duty. The play-operator core charges exactly the same for all of them — 2.1006 joules per cubic metre at every duty and for a sinusoid of the same peak, to three parts in ten thousand — because a rate-independent locus depends on where the flux went and not on how fast. Real cores charge tens of per cent more, and the standard correction hides its entire waveform dependence in α − 1, which is the one term a rate-independent model has none of.
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.
The current inside the iron
Every core-loss law has an eddy term of the form d²f²B²/6ρ, and it is derived by assuming the flux is uniform across the lamination — an assumption that is a frequency and that the expression does not carry. Solved instead as a diffusion, the exponent is exactly 2 below the frequency at which the sheet is two skin depths thick, exactly 1.5 above it, and it undershoots to 1.485 on the way. For a 0.35 mm sheet the crossing is 465 hertz, so at a kilohertz the classical term is 1.74 times the truth and at ten kilohertz it is forty-seven times.
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 distribution the bench cannot see
Six rungs of this ladder assumed a uniform density of operator thresholds, and the reason given was that a uniform density makes the small-signal law come out cubic. That reason is weaker than it looks: every density finite at the origin does the same. Matched on a measured coercivity, four distributions whose spreads differ by 2.5 times give the same remanence to 0.6 per cent, the same loop area to 1.0, and the same branch-slope ratio to 0.54 — and small-signal exponents from 2.81 to 3.81. The major loop cannot see the shape and the small signal cannot see anything else.
The assumption that is a geometry
Every alternating-resistance number this collection has computed for a winding rests on one sentence — the field is parallel to the layers everywhere — and the sentence has never been tested, because testing it needs a field. Solved as one, a portion of foils that fills its window returns Dowell's expression to 0.155 per cent; the same copper filling a quarter of it returns 9.00 against the expression's 16.38, and dissipates 0.528 watts a metre against 0.232. The ratio falls by 45 per cent and the loss more than doubles.
The turns nearest the gap
A gapped inductor's flux does not turn a corner into the iron on its way out of the gap; it bulges into the window and crosses the copper at right angles to the layers. Four tenths of a millimetre from a one-millimetre gap, the worst turn of an eight-turn winding dissipates 37.5 times its direct-current loss and the winding as a whole 14.1 times. Move the same winding three millimetres further out and those become 2.9 and 2.4 — and the distance that governs it is 0.60 millimetres, which is not the gap length and does not scale with it.
The wire that is not a foil
Almost no winding is made of foil, and the closed form for a winding's alternating-current resistance is about foils. The bridge between them is a substitution — squeeze the layer's conductors together, spread the result back across the breadth, divide the conductivity by the porosity — and it replaces a two-dimensional geometry with a one-dimensional one. Solved as a field it is exact where it must be, at a porosity of one, and 7.2 per cent high at a porosity of 0.40. It errs on the safe side, which is the half of the answer nobody could have assumed.
The gap that is bigger than it is
A magnetic circuit prices a gap as g/µ₀A and everybody knows that is low, because the flux bulges out of the sides. The usual repair — add one gap length to each dimension of the gap's area — supplies half the correction at a 0.3 mm gap and 85 per cent at 1.7 mm, on a correction worth 10 per cent of the inductance at the first and 33 at the second. It is not a rule that is right or wrong; it is a rule whose accuracy is a function of the very thing it is correcting.
The inductance that is a shape
Leakage inductance is the one transformer parameter that belongs to the geometry rather than to the material: twice the magnetic energy in the window under equal and opposite ampere-turns, divided by the square of the current. Solved as a field it is 3.086 microhenries a metre against a closed form's 3.128 when the copper fills the window, and 4.608 against 6.255 when it fills half of it. Interleaving is worth 3.11 times and not the four it is quoted as, and the missing 0.89 is the insulation nobody puts in the formula.
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 optimum that does not move
A foil winding has a best thickness — past it, more copper is more resistance — and at that thickness the alternating-current resistance is four thirds of the direct-current resistance, whatever the layer count. Both of those are one-dimensional results, and this ladder has spent three rungs finding that the one-dimensional picture is 82 per cent wrong about the resistance ratio. Solved as a field, the optimum drifts by 8.3 per cent between a full window and a quarter-full one, and four thirds becomes 1.34, 1.35, 1.41. The trade barely moves while everything it is made of moves a great deal.
The gap that is three gaps
Reluctances in series add, so one gap of 1.2 millimetres and three of 0.4 are the same magnetic circuit: the same inductance, the same saturation current, the same energy in the air. They are not the same field. Solved in two dimensions, the winding beside the single gap dissipates 6.52 times its direct-current loss and its worst turn 13.3; beside three gaps those are 3.00 and 3.7. And there is a best number of gaps rather than a monotone gain — past three, spreading them along the leg brings each one close to a different part of the winding.
The other half of the same window
The two-dimensional solve that settled what a winding's alternating-current resistance really is computed one of the window's two parameters and never mentioned the other. Read with Laplace instead of the vector potential, the same cross-section returns 926.9 picofarads a metre — and 89 per cent of that energy sits inside films that occupy 14.1 per cent of the window. The instrument agrees with a layered slab to three parts in ten thousand billion and converges on a real winding at order 1.34, and the reason for the shortfall is not the arithmetic but the corner of a conductor.
Interleaving is a choice, not an improvement
Splitting a transformer's windings into six sections divides its leakage inductance by 21.4 and multiplies its winding-to-winding capacitance by 11.0. The product of the two — which is what sets the frequency the part stops being a transformer at — moves by 1.94, and the resonance it decides goes from 1.804 to 2.515 megahertz for all that work. What interleaving really changes is the winding's characteristic impedance, 95.2 ohms down to 6.2, and nobody quotes it.
The optimum a spectrum moves
The best foil thickness for a winding is derived for one sinusoid and quoted as a property of the geometry: a minimum at four thirds of the direct-current resistance, whatever the layer count. Weight the loss by the current in each harmonic instead and a square current of the same fundamental wants foil 1.728 times thinner and lands at 1.83, and a narrow pulse wants it 3.68 times thinner. Four thirds is a property of the current. The constant that replaces it for an ideal square edge is exactly two, and a real winding sits between them at a place its edge rate decides.
One dissipation, two exponents
The core this ladder built takes two numbers — a threshold spread and the fraction of the magnetisation that follows the field with no threshold — and seven rungs moved the first and left the second at 0.55 without ever saying why. The first decides how much loss there is: area, coercivity and remanence are all exactly proportional to it over four decades, at 0.625961 joules per cubic metre, 0.449775 and 1.130408 millitesla per ampere-metre of spread, the last two of which are closed forms. The second decides nothing about the loss at all — it is single-valued, so it contributes exactly zero to the loop area, to twelve digits — and it moves the Steinmetz exponent from 1.5042 to 2.9860.
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 leakage a series reading cannot see
The series-aiding and series-opposing readings recover a coupling coefficient to fifteen figures on a netlist, and on a bench with a 0.1% meter they recover it to about 0.001 at every coupling — which is useless exactly where transformers live. At k = 0.999 the leakage, L₁(1 − k²), is two thousandths of the winding, and the series route leaves it 133% uncertain: 88 of 400 seeded benches report a negative leakage. Shorting the other winding reads the leakage directly, to the meter's own 0.1%, and recovers k 943 times more precisely at 0.999. The short is a short only where the shorted winding's reactance dwarfs its resistance by 10k/√(1 − k²), and the winding to short is the one with the longer time constant.
The Q that peaks before resonance
A coil's quality factor is quoted as ωL/R and drawn rising with frequency, and its own winding capacitance turns it over: Q peaks at the self-resonance over √3 and falls to zero at the resonance. Eighteen coils from 1 mH with 300 pF to 100 mH with 1 pF all peak at 0.5774 of their resonance, at 2/(3√3) of the line's value there. Skin effect moves the peak down toward the resonance over √5. And the falling Q is a property of the coil read alone: in a tank tuned at 0.8 of its self-resonance, the same coil gives the full ωL/R, 23,570 against the 8,485 a meter reads off the bare part.
The Q a core allows
A coil's Q, limited by its winding and its own capacitance, peaks at the self-resonance over √3. Put a core with a loss of its own across the inductance and the peak falls and moves: with a core whose own Q is 100, the 10 mH coil that peaked at 11,340 near 325 kHz peaks at 95.9 near 66 kHz. The peak sits where x³ = a/2 — x the frequency over the self-resonance, a the core's Q over the winding's — and reaches the core's Q less three times the two-thirds power of a/2 of it. At that peak the core carries 97 per cent of the loss, so a better winding hardly moves it. A core whose loss is a fixed resistance instead puts the peak at the geometric mean of two corners, as high as half the square root of the core's resistance over the winding's; a loss tangent that rises with frequency drags the peak down to the material's corner.
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.
The band counted in rise times
A transformer's band is two frequencies and its pulse response is two times, and they are the same two facts. Through the 1:1, k = 0.99 transformer whose band runs 400 Hz to 81.3 kHz, a 100 µs pulse rises in 4.03 µs — 0.35 over the upper band edge — and droops 21.6% along its top with a time constant of one over 2π times the lower edge, 398 µs; solved by residues and by a march of the netlist, they agree to a third of a per cent. Coupling buys rise time and nothing else: from 30.8 µs at k = 0.9 to 422 ns at 0.999, while the droop's time constant moves from 414 to 396 µs. The longest pulse that droops no more than 10%, over the rise, is 0.048 times the ratio of the upper band edge to the lower — the band ratio counted in rise times, 10.4 at k = 0.99 and 98.8 at 0.999. And the droop is not lost: a transformer has no gain at direct current, so the output swings below zero afterwards by exactly what the top lost, and the two areas match to 0.08%.
The window that moves
A shorted winding reads its own leakage only above the frequency at which the short really cancels the shared flux, and only below the leakage's resonance with whatever capacitance is across it. A tighter coupling raises the first edge as one over the root of 1 − k², and it was expected to pull the second down and close the window. It raises the second as well, by the same factor. So the band is 82 Hz to 36 kHz at k = 0.9, 279 Hz to 112 kHz at 0.99 and 2.81 kHz to 1.12 MHz at 0.9999, about four hundred times wide throughout. Its width is 0.01·L₂/(R₂k√(L₁C)), with the leakage nowhere in it, so what closes the window is the winding and not the coupling. Reading the real part as well is exact on paper and limited by phase.
Networks, and how a solve is checked
A circuit has one answer and a matrix finds it. What matters is not that the answer exists but that it can be checked: the branch currents are rebuilt from the element laws and summed at every node, and the energy is counted twice. Networks with no answer are refused by name rather than returned as a large plausible number.
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.
The divider, and the thing it does not know about
A two-resistor divider's output is set by the ratio of its resistances — with nothing connected. Connect anything at all and what decides the answer is the quantity the ratio was built to discard: the magnitude. Two dividers of identical ratio give six volts and one volt into the same load.
The source that is not a source
An ideal voltage source holds its voltage at any current, which makes it the flattest line in the subject and the most commonly assumed model in it. Its edge is a current, set by one resistance nobody draws — and past that current the model is not approximately right, it is describing a different object.
Exact outside and wrong within
Six elements reduce to one source and one resistor that no load can distinguish from them: the same voltage into every load across six decades, to the last bit of a double. The reduction is wrong about the heat by a factor of forty-three, and with nothing connected it says the network is dissipating nothing while it burns 48 milliwatts.
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.
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.
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.
The tolerance that is not on any part
Four one per cent resistors in a divider give an answer whose worst case is one per cent, whose measured spread is 0.29 per cent, and whose root-sum-square bound — offered everywhere as though it were a standard deviation — is 1.70 of one. Adding parts does not move the worst case at all and shrinks the spread as one over their root, so the gap between the promise and the fact widens with every resistor. And the same arithmetic draws a boundary in tolerance rather than in frequency: an R–2R ladder is a twelve-bit converter only while its resistors are inside 0.14 per cent.
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.
Every derivative, and the one that is zero
How much does this response move if that capacitor is one per cent out? A difference quotient answers it one component at a time, in two solves each, and its best possible accuracy is four parts in a hundred million. Transposing the matrix and solving once more answers it for every component at once, exactly. Pointed at a claim the essays on ladder filters have made from the start and never tested directly — that a doubly terminated ladder filter's response is stationary in every element at its passband maxima — it returns two parts in ten billion, where the cascade realising the identical response returns 0.72.
The digits the arithmetic did not have
Bounding the arithmetic of double-precision circuit solving finds two boundaries that cannot be attributed to it: a bridge with no correct figures left at an imbalance of 10⁻¹⁵, and a filter synthesis that stalls at order 14. An ill-conditioned problem stays ill-conditioned however many digits are used, and a well-conditioned one computed badly gets better — so adding digits is the experiment that tells them apart. The bridge's loss is entirely the arithmetic's. The synthesis's is mostly the data's, and doubling the digits makes it worse.
The derivative of a root
An earlier essay turned one transposed solve into the derivative of a response with respect to every element, and found a doubly terminated ladder filter stationary at its ripple peaks to a part in ten to the eighth. A pole is a different object — a value of s at which the matrix loses rank — and its derivative comes from two null vectors and a division. Pointed at the same two realisations, the ladder filter's advantage is a factor of 2.17, not eight orders of magnitude: what is stationary is the magnitude at one frequency, and it says nothing about where the poles are.
The tolerance that can only take away
At a doubly terminated ladder filter's ripple peak the first derivative of the magnitude with respect to every reactance is zero to ten digits, which an earlier essay measured and which says nothing about how much the response moves. This says how: every second derivative is negative, so of six hundred ladder filters built from one per cent components not one is above nominal, the mean has shifted rather than the spread having grown, and doubling the tolerance quadruples the damage instead of doubling it.
The three tolerances that do nothing
An earlier essay computed every second derivative of a ladder filter's magnitude at a ripple peak, found them all negative, and built six hundred ladder filters to argue that no combination of tolerances could raise the response. The whole matrix says so outright — and says something six hundred samples could not have found, because a sample of a five-dimensional box never lands on a three-dimensional subspace: two of the five eigenvalues are of order one and the other three are nine decades down.
The direction a response is most sensitive to
An earlier essay diagonalised a ladder filter's curvature at one ripple peak and read only the eigenvalues: rank two of five, three directions of nothing. The eigenvectors say what the two directions are, and doing it at every peak rather than one changes the conclusion. The most sensitive combination at 554.9 Hz and the one at 897.9 Hz are 86.5 degrees apart, the curvature that belongs to them grows from −0.556 to −75.4 across a ninth-order passband, and exactly one combination survives the whole band at every order — which turns out to be the ripple depth.
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.
The reading that does care which way round
An earlier essay 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.
The load a curve recommends
The maximum power theorem says to match the load to the source's internal resistance, and for a straight-line source the internal resistance, the slope and the open-circuit voltage over the short-circuit current are one number. On a photovoltaic panel they are three: the slope at the maximum is 3.6717 ohms, the load there is 3.6717, and the open-circuit voltage over the short-circuit current is 3.9709 — and a quarter of the open-circuit voltage times the short-circuit current, which is what a straight line would deliver, is 24.81 watts against the 80.99 that is there. The theorem survives with the incremental resistance in place of the internal one, and it survives only where the characteristic has a slope: on a supply whose current limit folds back, the most power is delivered at a corner.
The resistor that is not made of the resistors
Exact outside and wrong within reduced six elements to one source and one resistor and found the resistor two ways that agreed to the last bit. Put a dependent source in the network and one of those routes stops working, because setting the sources dead kills the independent ones and leaves the dependent one where it is. On a bootstrap of two ten-kilohm resistors the Thévenin resistance runs from five kilohms through infinity to minus ten, the open-circuit voltage of a five-volt source reaches 225, and above one gain the equivalent's resistor is negative — which the netlist refuses to stamp, correctly, because a negative resistance is a controlled source and not a resistor.
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.
The stage that is wrong is the far one
Three identical ten-kilohm dividers in a row give 0.076923 rather than the product of their ratios, 0.125 — 38.5 per cent low. Decomposed stage by stage with the rest of the chain in place, and the product of those three is the answer exactly, they are 0.3846, 0.4000 and 0.5000: the LAST stage is exactly its own ratio because nothing is connected to it, and the error is entirely at the front, which is the opposite end from where a probe goes. Staggering each stage's impedance up by a factor takes the departure down in proportion — fitted exponent −0.993.
The branch the other resistance decides
A voltage divider's output is set by the resistance the output is taken across; a current divider's is set by the resistance the current does not go through. The dual of a voltmeter's finite resistance is an ammeter's non-zero one, and the threshold has the same shape with one word changed: one per cent at a meter resistance of R/99 where R is what the meter looks back into — and removing an ideal current source means OPENING it, so that R is the two branches in series, 11 kΩ here, not the 909 Ω of their parallel combination — a factor of twelve in the same construction on the same network.
The peak that only has a bound
Power does not superpose and the gap has a closed form — two times the real part of one current times the conjugate of the other, exact at every setting. A peak has nothing of the kind. A ten-volt fundamental with a third harmonic a third its size has one root-mean-square value, 7.454 volts at every relative phase because the two are orthogonal, and a peak running from 9.428 to 13.333 volts across the same sweep — reaching the sum of the two peaks exactly at 180 degrees, where the harmonic's own crest lands on the fundamental's, and having no closed form at all at the other end.
The source that must not be zeroed
Superposition says to zero all the sources but one, and the care usually taken over that instruction is that zeroing is not deleting — a voltage source with no voltage is a short circuit and it stays in the netlist. A dependent source needs the opposite care: it must not be zeroed at all, because it is an element whose law involves another node rather than a source the theorem is about. Zeroed, it is a short circuit, and the answer that comes back is 4.0625 volts at every gain from one to three hundred — while the true answer moves from 3.82 volts to 0.206.
The cross terms that outnumber the sources
With two sources the power in a load has one cross term, and adding the separate powers is wrong by a factor of two. With thirty-two there are four hundred and ninety-six of them, and the factor is thirty-two: 940 milliwatts delivered against the 29.4 that adding gives. With the same thirty-two sources at seeded random phases it is 26.9 milliwatts — the sum itself, inside the standard error of sixty-four runs, because every cross term averages to nothing. One identity, two limits, and the two are a phased array's gain and a noise sum's.
The readings that add up and are wrong
Four branches of 100 Ω, 1 kΩ, 10 kΩ and 100 kΩ share a 1 A source. Read them one at a time with a single 10 Ω ammeter moved from branch to branch, and every reading is within one per cent of the truth, but the four add to 990.275 mA. Put a 10 Ω ammeter in every branch at once and the four readings add to 1000.000 mA exactly, satisfying Kirchhoff's current law to the last digit. Yet three of them are 7.9 to 9.0 per cent high. The check a reader would run on the readings is passed by the wrong set and failed by the right one.
The R–2R ladder, built for the rest of itself
Three equal voltage dividers in a row deliver 0.076923 of their input instead of 0.125. Their error sits in the front stage, at 0.3846, 0.4000 and 0.5000 per stage. The dual chain, three current dividers fed by a current source, gives the same three numbers to the last digit, and its repair runs the other way: each stage's resistance must fall, not rise. The R–2R ladder is the chain whose stages are wrong alone and right in place, halving exactly at every node. It still keeps its error at the front: a one per cent error in its first resistor makes an eight-bit ladder step backwards at the major carry, and the same error in its last shunt moves that step by 0.0034 LSB.
How many sources the cross terms count
N equal coherent sources on one load deliver N times the sum of their separate powers. Sources of unequal size deliver (Σ|a|)²/Σa² times it — solved on the network to ten figures — which is the number of equal sources that would carry the same penalty: a participation ratio. Amplitudes falling by 0.8 a source cap it at (1 + q)/(1 − q) = 9 however many there are; one large source and thirty-one at a tenth of its amplitude give 12.8, not 32, and for small sources the excess is 2(N − 1)ε — their amplitudes, not their powers, so thirty-one sources carrying a hundredth of the large one's power each turn 1.31 times its power into 16.8 times it when they line up. Random amplitudes take a fixed fraction off the count, (mean)²/(mean square): 0.75 for uniform ones. And with random phases none of it matters: the load takes the sum.
The shape a tolerance does not print
A resistor marked 1% promises only that its value lies within one per cent. How the values fill that band is not printed, and it decides almost everything a design does with the part. Four populations that all honour ±1% — spread evenly, Gaussian with the band at three standard deviations, screened from a wider population, and sorted with the best parts removed — give a four-resistor divider spreads of 0.289, 0.168, 0.267 and 0.378 per cent, a factor of 2.26 under one label. Specify the divider at ±0.5 per cent and the yield is 91.4, 99.8, 93.7 and 85.3 per cent. The shape's signature fades as one over the number of parts, so it bites hardest in the circuits with fewest.
What a ratio does not see
Parts from one reel, one wafer or one temperature share part of their error, and a circuit that uses them as a ratio cancels exactly the part they share. Four 1% resistors sharing ninety per cent of their error make a divider whose ratio spreads 0.091 per cent and a series chain whose total spreads 0.559 — the same four parts, one answer six times better than independent parts would give and one nearly twice as bad. The ratio's spread falls as √(1 − ρ), the total's rises as √(ρ + (1 − ρ)/4). From −40 to 85 °C the chain moves by up to 0.76 per cent and the ratio by 0.135, inside the ±25 ppm/K the coefficients differ by. And a resistor array whose parts share 99.5 per cent of their error puts a divider inside ±0.1 per cent every time that four discrete parts manage it one time in four.
The reference a sweep should keep
At direct current the best node to call zero in a resistor chain is its middle. Put a capacitor to ground at each node and solve at s = jω, and the best reference moves: the middle of an eight-section RC ladder below 2.37 kHz, ground above it, where every capacitor returns. So a solver that chooses its reference once for a whole sweep is choosing wrongly somewhere, as the earlier essay suspected — but the two wrong choices are not alike. Kept for the whole sweep, ground is never worse than 1.27 times the best condition number, a tenth of a digit. The middle node, best at direct current and kept, is 143 times worse at a megahertz, 2.2 digits. A fifth-order LC filter says the same: ground within 2.18 times throughout.
The small leg of a large ratio
A divider of two 1% parts sharing ninety per cent of their error spreads 0.129 per cent at a half and 0.236 at ten to one — the same two parts, nearly twice as bad, because what they do not share reaches the output with a leverage of N/(N + 1) rather than one half. Correlation cancels at every ratio; the leverage does not. Built from equal units of one array, a divider of N to one spreads as σᵤ·√(N/M), so at any one area a ten-to-one ratio costs √10 against a half and needs ten times the units to match it, and the units it needs are the bottom leg's. And a ratio far from a half heats its own parts unequally: at 50 V across 11 kΩ the top of a two-part ten-to-one divider runs 46 K hotter than the bottom and the ratio moves 1,055 ppm with perfectly matched coefficients, where a chain of eleven equal units moves at most 29.
The pole that crosses with the resistance
A bootstrap's Thévenin resistance passes through infinity and turns negative at a gain of two. Put one nanofarad at its node and the network has one natural frequency, −G/C to a part in a million: −200 thousand per second with no gain, zero at A = 2, +100 thousand at A = 3. The gain at which the pole crosses is the gain at which the resistance changes sign — for this network. Loaded by a resistor it crosses at one plus R₂ times the sum of the conductances to ground, so a negative resistance is stable across a smaller load and not a larger one; a lag in the source slows the growth and does not move the crossing; a tank on the node turns the runaway into a 30.5 kHz oscillation once its coil is below about 1.5 Ω; and with an inverting source the resistance is positive at every gain and the node still oscillates beyond A = −16.
The reduction that stays finite
The bootstrap's Thévenin pair diverges at A = 2: its resistance and its open-circuit voltage both pass through infinity and the solve that finds them refuses. Its Norton pair does not. The short-circuit current is Vs/R₁, 0.5 mA, at every gain to a part in a billion, and the conductance is a straight line through zero. A bench that drives a current and reads a volt loses the network for every gain from 1.992 to 2.008; a bench that drives a volt and reads a current sees it to a nanosiemens throughout. A 0.1% error in the gain moves the conductance by a constant 0.1 µS and the resistance by an amount that diverges at the pole — and four hundred bootstraps built from 0.1% parts to sit on it have conductances within ±0.3 µS of zero and resistances that are a median 10.6 MΩ, 196 of them negative.
The readings that come back the same
Reciprocity is usually stated as 'swap the source and the meter and the reading is unchanged', and that is true of some readings and false of others. On one passive ladder network the transimpedance, the transadmittance, and the reverse voltage gain against the forward current gain each come back the same to 10⁻¹³, while the voltage gain forwards and backwards differ by 13.1 times at 82.5 kHz — exactly z₂₂/z₁₁. A 600-to-50-ohm pad has voltage gains of 0.0426 and 0.511 and one power gain both ways. A controlled source breaks all three reciprocal pairs by the same factor.
The resistance colder than the room
In a passive network the noise at a port is 4kT times the real part of its impedance, and reciprocity is why: the transfer from each resistor to the port equals the transfer from the port to that resistor, so one solve from the output gives every resistor's share and the shares add to Nyquist's expression, here to 4.4 × 10⁻¹⁶. With gain in the network both fail. A 50-ohm termination made by feedback around an amplifier of gain A presents 50.000 Ω and has the noise of a 50-ohm resistor at 290/(1 + A) kelvin — 2.90 K at a gain of 99 — but only where the amplifier still has its gain.
How many readings a maximum takes
A panel's maximum power sits where I + V·dI/dV is zero, and a tracker finds it by reading the panel. From open circuit, perturb-and-observe in 0.2 V steps takes 39 readings to come within two parts in a thousand and then oscillates about the maximum forever, giving up 7|P''|δ²/24 of it; Newton's method on the condition itself takes 10 readings to come within a part in a million, the digits doubling at each step. Newton converges only from a window: above 15.82 V on a panel whose maximum is at 17.24, because below it the condition is nearly the short-circuit current and nearly flat, and one step leaves the characteristic. And the one-reading rule — a fixed fraction of the open-circuit voltage — loses nothing at the light it was set at and 17 per cent at a fiftieth of it.