Field

Circuits that do a job, and the range they do it over

Thirteen fields measure an element and the edge it has. This one composes several of them into a circuit with a purpose and asks the same question of the whole, where the answer is almost never the worst of the parts: an oscillator whose design condition is an exact equality no resistor can hold, a regulator that is a voltage source below three kilohertz and a capacitor above it, a threshold whose hysteresis is set by the noise underneath it, and a bridge that is linear near one point. It needed machinery the other twelve did not — a netlist with a nonlinearity in it, marched forward in time — because an oscillator's frequency comes from the linear part and its amplitude from the nonlinear part, and no analysis that drops either one returns both.

The closed-loop poles at a gain of 3.05. The locus of the two poles as the amplifier's gain runs from 2.7 to 3.3. It crosses the imaginary axis at a gain of 3.000000 — bisected on the netlist, not quoted — and at 3.05 the real part is 2.500e+2 radians a second, which is an envelope multiplying by 1.17015 every cycle. The crosses are the closed form ω₀(k−3)/2 and they sit on the measured circles.

The gain that is exactly one

An oscillator is designed by making the loop gain one at the frequency where the phase is zero. The gain at which this circuit's poles reach the imaginary axis is 3.000000000000, bisected on the netlist — an equality, not a range. A gain three per cent high multiplies the envelope by 1.0987 every cycle and reaches the rails in 61 milliseconds; three per cent low divides it by the same factor. A one per cent resistor cannot hold the condition, and neither can any other component.

Started from a millivolt at a gain of 3.20. The output grows by 1.8804 a cycle — the factor the poles give — and then stops, at 858 mV of amplitude and 1.58 kHz. The lower panel is the envelope on a logarithmic axis, where the linear model's prediction is the straight line that keeps going. What ends it is the diode pair across the feedback resistor, and no direct-current analysis of this circuit returns that number.

The amplitude nothing linear predicts

A linear model's poles say the envelope grows by 1.88 a cycle and never say when it stops. Two diodes across the feedback resistor stop it, at 858 millivolts — a number no pole, no transfer function and no bias point contains. Getting it needs a netlist with a nonlinearity in it, marched forward in time, and that pairing is what the whole field is built on.

The limit cycle's spectrum at a gain of 3.20. Ten lines of the settled waveform. The third is 5.692% of the fundamental and the fifth 0.982%; the second and fourth are 6.8e-7, which is the arithmetic's floor and not a small residue. Two diodes facing opposite ways make a symmetric characteristic and a symmetric characteristic produces no even harmonic at all.

What the limiter charges for

The diodes that set the amplitude are the only nonlinear thing in the loop, so every harmonic in the output is theirs. Across the gain slider the amplitude rises by a factor of 1.51 and the distortion by 15.4 — an amplitude that goes as the 0.11 power of the excess gain and a distortion that goes as the 0.74 power. Two diodes facing opposite ways produce no even harmonic at all, at seven parts in ten million, which is the arithmetic's floor rather than a small residue.

The frequency that is not the formula

The Wien network's zero-phase frequency is one over two pi RC to every digit the arithmetic has. The circuit does not run there. With a perfect amplifier it runs 0.771 per cent low, because the limiter's harmonics are part of the waveform whose period is being measured; with a real one it runs lower still, by an amount inversely proportional to the gain-bandwidth product. The two are equal at a ratio of 578, and above that a faster amplifier buys nothing.

1000 µF across a 100 Ω load, rectified from 17 V peak. The output sits at 15.69 V with 1.331 V of ripple, against the 1.569 V the expression I/2fC gives — 15.1% high, because the capacitor is being recharged for part of the cycle rather than discharging throughout it. The lower panel is why: the diode conducts for 28.8° of each half cycle and carries 2.10 A at the peak, which is 13.4 times the 157 mA the load draws.

The direct voltage that is a sawtooth

A rectifier and a reservoir capacitor make what everybody calls a direct voltage. Marched with the diodes in the netlist, a thousand microfarads across a hundred ohms gives 15.69 volts with 1.33 volts of ripple on it, against the 1.57 the textbook expression predicts. The expression is high by the fraction of the cycle the diode conducts for — measured at 0.94 to 0.96 of it across two sweeps — and it has no opinion at all about the quantity that actually sizes the transformer, which is a peak diode current 13.4 times the current the load draws.

A five-volt regulator's output impedance, with 1.00 Ω of series resistance. 0.430 mΩ at direct current, 1.95 Ω at 10.0 kHz — a factor of 4.52e+3 — and it has already doubled by 4.81 Hz. The upper curve is the same circuit with its loop opened, and the ratio between them is the loop gain. A regulator is a voltage source below a frequency and the datasheet's milliohms are the value at the bottom of it.

A source below a frequency

A five-volt regulator's output impedance is 0.43 milliohms, which is the number a datasheet quotes. It has doubled by 4.8 hertz, is ten times worse by 27, and reaches 1.95 ohms at ten kilohertz — four and a half thousand times its own specification, and higher there than the same circuit with its feedback loop cut. Two routes to that curve, sharing only the netlist, agree to a part in ten to the thirteenth.

The window a 10 µF capacitor leaves. Above 939 mΩ the loop holds 45° of margin; below it the regulator rings and then oscillates. The droop after a 100 mA step is smallest at 817 mΩ — 129 mV — and by 19.9 Ω it is 1.468 V, because at the first instant of a step the capacitor cannot move and the whole step falls across its series resistance. Two requirements, opposite directions, and the useful values are between them.

Two requirements pulling one capacitor

The output capacitor's series resistance is a stability requirement and a transient requirement at once, and they pull it in opposite directions. Below 939 milliohms this loop has less than 45 degrees of margin; above about 850 the droop after a load step starts to grow, because at the first instant of a step the capacitor cannot move and the whole step falls across that resistance. The droop is smallest 10 per cent inside the unstable region, which means the best transient this design can have is one it must not be built with.

Rejection is not a property of the loop. The same regulator with the same loop gain and the same 46.5° of phase margin, drawn twice. With the amplifier's output referred to ground the rail reaches the output at -67.3 dB at the bottom and 5.79 dB at 10.0 kHz — where it is amplified. Referred to the rail instead, every point is 60.00 dB lower, which is 20 log(gm·ro) for the pass device and not a design choice.

What gets through from the rail

A regulator's job is to hold its output still while its input moves, and the measurement says it does that well at ten hertz, badly at a kilohertz, and not at all at ten kilohertz — where this one puts out 1.9 times what arrives. Then the same netlist with one node moved, the same loop gain and the same 46.5 degrees of margin, rejects 60.009 decibels better at every frequency in six decades. The sixty decibels is the pass device's own intrinsic gain and it is not a design choice.

A threshold crossed once, in 20k samples of noise. With no hysteresis the comparator changes its mind 22.7 times on average and as many as 29, on a signal that crosses the threshold once. The vertical bars are the range over twelve seeds. The expected number of extra transitions falls below a tenth at 3.57 standard deviations — so the hysteresis a threshold needs is set by the noise under it and not by the signal over it.

Two thresholds because there is a floor

A comparator with one threshold, watching a slow signal cross it once, changes its mind 22.7 times on average and as many as 29 — because there is noise under the signal and no threshold is ever crossed once. Hysteresis fixes it, and how much is needed is a multiple of the noise's own standard deviation rather than a voltage: 3.57 of them here. The multiple grows with how long the threshold is watched, and slowly — a hundredfold longer record needs three times the hysteresis, not a hundred times.

A comparator's delay, at a divider ratio of 0.50. Each nanosecond of comparator delay adds 2.650 nanoseconds to the period — measured as a slope between two delays, both exact multiples of the marching step — against the 2.667 that 4/(1+β) gives and the 2 that counting the delay twice gives. A 50 ns comparator therefore holds the frequency to one per cent only below 75.0 kHz.

The period a delay lengthens

Feed a comparator's output back through a resistor to the capacitor on its own input and the two thresholds stop defending a decision and start setting a period. The closed form is two RC times the log of one plus beta over one minus beta, and a marched circuit recovers it as the step shortens. A comparator that responds fifty nanoseconds late does not add fifty nanoseconds to each half cycle: it adds 4/(1+beta) times the delay to the period, 2.65 here against the 2 that counting it twice gives, because during the delay the capacitor keeps going the way it was going.

$A 350 Ω bridge, with ideal leads. The straight line is the expression every textbook gives, Vδ/4; the curve is the solve. They part company at half the fractional change — 0.498% at 1.0% — so the tangent is worth one per cent only up to 2.020%. Driving the bridge from a current source instead halves the departure at every point and moves that edge to 4.040%.$

The bridge that is linear near one point

The expression for a Wheatstone bridge's output is V delta over four, and the solve says it is V delta over two times two plus delta — low by half the fractional change, exactly, at every change tested. So the tangent is worth one per cent only up to a two per cent change and a tenth of a per cent only up to two tenths. Driving the bridge from a current source instead halves the departure at every point and doubles both edges, which is a change of one component and no change at all to the four resistors being measured.

Twenty nanoseconds of skew is 0.28% of duty, not 0.40. computed by solving, not by drawing. The duty cycle of a relaxation oscillator whose comparator takes longer to go one way than the other, marched, against the expression that lengthens each half cycle by its own delay. The two part company immediately and by a constant factor of about 1.42: during a delay the capacitor keeps charging past the threshold it already crossed, so the next half cycle starts further out and takes longer, and the two halves partly cancel. At 200 ns of skew on a 2585 ns period the duty is 52.805 per cent where the expression says 54.004. The open circles are the same quantity in closed form — the overshoot is V(1 − (1 − β)e^(−d/τ)) and the next half starts from it — which the march reproduces to parts in ten thousand.

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 growth per cycle, and the form that is a fifth low at the top of the range. computed by solving, not by drawing. The factor the envelope is multiplied by each cycle, against the gain. The solid curve is exp(π(k−3)/√(1 − ((k−3)/2)²)), which is what the characteristic equation gives and what the netlist's own poles return to twelve digits; the dashed one is exp(π(k−3)), which drops the denominator. The circles are the marched envelope, fitted over the cycles that are still small — 80 of them at k = 3.01 and 4 at k = 3.2, and none at all above that. The two expressions differ by 3.9e-7 at k = 3.01 and by 20.462% at k = 3.8, so the approximation fails exactly where nothing is left to check it against.

Two exponentials, and where they meet

An oscillator's envelope grows by exp(π(k−3)/√(1 − ((k−3)/2)²)) a cycle, and the form usually quoted drops the denominator — exact to four parts in ten million at a hundredth above three, and 20.462 per cent low at 3.8, which is precisely where too few small cycles are left to measure it. Where the growth stops is the diode's own exponential: 108.5 millivolts of amplitude for every decade of saturation current, proportional to the ideality to four parts in a thousand. Above 60.121 nanoamperes the limiter is already conducting at zero signal and there is no oscillation at all.

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

The leads that are in the bridge

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

The crest factor is 13.4 and the winding is sized by 3.01. computed by solving, not by drawing. Three ratios of the same settled march, against the reservoir. The crest factor — the peak diode current over the load's direct current — runs 6.43 to 24.25. The form factor, which is the root-mean-square current over the same direct current and is what a winding heats by, runs 2.114 to 4.077. Its square is the copper loss against a winding carrying the direct current alone, and that runs 4.47 to 16.62. The first ratio is 3.04 times the second at 220 µF and 5.95 times at 4700, so quoting one of them tells a reader nothing about the other.

The current that sizes the transformer

A reservoir's crest factor is 13.374 at a thousand microfarads and the winding is not sized by it. The root-mean-square of the same marched current is 3.0069 times the load's direct current, so the copper dissipates 9.0417 times what it would carrying the direct current alone — and the two ratios diverge, from 3.04 apart at 220 microfarads to 5.95 apart at 4700. The expression for the mean output is wrong in three places whose signs differ, and at 313.9 microfarads they cancel to six microvolts while the ripple expression inside it is still 32.3 per cent high.

The ripple 1000 µF leaves, through the regulator: 60.62 mV rather than 21.11 mV. One settled cycle of the reservoir's output — 1.331 V peak to peak across 1000 µF — split into 1000 Fourier lines, each passed through the solved regulator's rail-to-output response, and summed. The output is 60.62 mV peak to peak. The ripple times the rejection at 100 Hz, -36.00 dB, gives 21.11 mV, which is 2.872 times too little: the rejection worsens at twenty decibels a decade, so each harmonic of the sawtooth arrives at nearly the size of the first. The 100 Hz line carries 23.4% of the output's mean square and the lines above 1 kHz 10.4%; the first three arrive at 7.731 mV at 100 Hz, 7.200 mV at 200 Hz, 6.388 mV at 300 Hz. The dashed curve is the 100 Hz line alone.

The ripple that arrives as a comb

The rejection essay multiplied two numbers: 1.331 volts of reservoir ripple and the regulator's 36.0 decibels of rejection at a hundred hertz, for 21 millivolts at the output. The ripple is a sawtooth, a comb of lines at every multiple of a hundred hertz, and the rejection worsens at twenty decibels a decade — so the second line arrives at nearly the size of the first, and the third too. Summed with their phases, the output is 60.62 millivolts, 2.87 times the estimate, and the hundred-hertz line carries only 23.4 per cent of it. A reservoir twenty-one times larger cuts the rail's ripple 14.8 times and the regulated ripple 5.95.

The capacitor across the upper resistor

The rejection essay said a regulator reproduces its reference times its divider's four, and that a capacitor across the lower divider resistor brings that down to one at high frequency. Measured, the loop peaks the reference's gain to 5.68 near its crossover before any capacitor is added; a nanofarad across the lower resistor raises the peak to 11.2; and the capacitor that brings it down belongs across the upper resistor, where a nanofarad keeps the gain from ever exceeding four. The same capacitor is a lead pair in the loop: 836.5 picofarads takes the phase margin from 46.5 to 90.9 degrees, and ten nanofarads, past that optimum, still holds 66 while cutting the output ripple from 60.6 millivolts to 35.4.

The period's spread is 1.20 times what counting two crossings gives. computed by solving, not by drawing. 19999 periods of a relaxation oscillator with 5 mV rms of noise on its thresholds, computed from the exact flip instants rather than marched, at β = 0.5. The measured standard deviation is 3.4 ns and the closed form — three partial derivatives of the period with respect to the three draws it depends on — gives 3.4 ns. The estimate that counts two threshold crossings and divides the noise by the slope at each gives 2.83 ns, which is 17 per cent low. The curve is the closed form's Gaussian, drawn on the measured histogram rather than fitted to it.

The decision taken where the ramp is slowest

A relaxation oscillator decides at its thresholds, and a threshold is the one place on a charging exponential where the slope is smallest. Noise there costs 3.399 units of period against the 2.828 that counting two crossings gives, because a draw moves the crossing it is armed for and the level the next ramp starts from. Consecutive periods share that draw, so they are positively correlated and the jitter accumulates at 3.771 per root period rather than at 3.399. And at a fixed frequency there is a best hysteresis: β = 0.648, where β·ln((1+β)/(1−β)) = 1.

A capacitor across the upper divider resistor removes the output capacitor's resistance floor. computed by solving, not by drawing. Two series resistances against the capacitance across the upper divider resistor: the smallest the loop tolerates at 45° of margin (lower curve), and the one that gives the smallest droop after a 100 mA load step (upper). With no capacitor they are 939 mΩ and 885 mΩ — the second BELOW the first, which is the conflict this design has: the best transient is one the loop refuses. The floor falls as the capacitor grows and between 500 and 836.5 pF it leaves the sweep altogether, so every series resistance down to a milliohm is stable. Past about 5000 pF the floor climbs back and overtakes the optimum again. The shaded band is where the design a transient wants is one the loop allows.

The floor a second capacitor removes

Two requirements pulling one capacitor found a regulator whose best transient is one it must not be built with: below 939 milliohms of output-capacitor series resistance the loop has under 45 degrees of margin, and the droop is smallest at 885. The capacitor across the upper divider resistor, added for the reference's sake, dissolves that conflict. At 836.5 picofarads the 45-degree floor leaves the sweep entirely — every series resistance down to a milliohm is stable — and the droop falls 40 per cent at the same time. The band of capacitances that do it runs from 100 picofarads to 5 nanofarads, and above it the conflict returns.

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

The two leads nobody counts

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

The series resistance that makes the ripple smaller. computed by solving, not by drawing, marched with the diodes in the netlist. A 1000 µF reservoir with 30 mΩ of its own series resistance. The resistance adds a step of ESR times the diode's peak current to the output and at the same time limits that peak current, and the two nearly cancel: the ripple has an interior minimum of 1.330 V at 17.0 mΩ, BELOW the 1.331 V a perfect capacitor gives, and rises to 1.711 V at an ohm. What the resistance buys monotonically is the peak current: the crest factor falls from 13.37 to 6.550 at an ohm, which more than halves the current that sizes the transformer, for 380 mV of mean output and a root-mean-square diode current that falls from 0.4717 A to 0.3484. The textbook ripple expression says 1.568 V here and moves by 2.4% across the whole axis, because it has no term for a series resistance at all.

The resistance that lowers the ripple

Two earlier essays here marched a reservoir with a perfect capacitor. A real one has tens of milliohms of its own, and the obvious expectation — that the resistive step it adds makes the ripple worse — is wrong in an interesting direction: the resistance also limits the charging current, and the ripple has an interior minimum of 1.3303 V at 17.0 mΩ, below the 1.3312 V a perfect capacitor gives. What the resistance buys monotonically is the peak current, which falls from 13.37 times the load's to 6.55 at an ohm, for 380 mV of mean output.

The same 100 mΩ in the winding instead of the capacitor: 1.317 V of ripple against 1.335 V, at the same crest factor of 11.15. computed by solving, not by drawing, marched with the diodes in the netlist: a 1000 µF reservoir behind a centre-tapped rectifier, with a series resistance from 1 mΩ to 1 Ω placed either in the capacitor or in each half-winding. The crest factor is the same in both places to two parts in a thousand at every resistance — 13.34, 13.26, 13.03, 12.49, 11.15, 9.069, 6.548 — because both limit the charging current alike. The ripple is not: in the capacitor it has a minimum and rises to 1.711 V at an ohm; in the winding it falls throughout, to 1.172 V, against 1.331 V with no resistance. At an ohm the winding costs 534 mV of mean output and the capacitor 380 mV. The diode's root-mean-square current at an ohm is 0.3449 A with the resistance in the winding and 0.3484 A with it in the capacitor.

The resistance that belongs in the winding

A reservoir capacitor's series resistance lowers the ripple to a minimum of 1.3303 V at 17 mΩ and raises it past that. The same resistance moved into the transformer's winding limits the peak current by the same amount — the crest factor agrees to two parts in a thousand at every value from a milliohm to an ohm — and the minimum is gone: the ripple falls throughout, to 1.172 V at an ohm against 1.711 V in the capacitor. The two resistances each carry a current the other does not, and that one asymmetry decides where a deliberate one should go.

Two 1000 µF parts of 100 mΩ each against one 2000 µF part of 100 mΩ: 709 mV against 728 mV of ripple, and a crest factor of 14.41 against 12.61. computed by solving, not by drawing, marched with each capacitor behind its own series resistance. Two identical 500 µF, 60 mΩ parts give 1.330303 V of ripple and one 1000 µF, 30 mΩ part 1.330303 V — the same network. Two 1000 µF parts of a stated resistance each, against one 2000 µF part of the same resistance: at 10 mΩ, 704 mV against 704 mV of ripple and a crest factor of 17.40 against 16.93; at 30 mΩ, 704 mV against 705 mV of ripple and a crest factor of 16.51 against 15.48; at 100 mΩ, 709 mV against 728 mV of ripple and a crest factor of 14.41 against 12.61; at 300 mΩ, 758 mV against 867 mV of ripple and a crest factor of 11.45 against 9.490; at 1000 mΩ, 1.013 V against 1.334 V of ripple and a crest factor of 8.170 against 6.620. The pair's ripple is lower only where one part's resistance is past the ripple's minimum, and its peak current is higher at every resistance.

Two capacitors that are one

Two identical reservoir capacitors in parallel are not a new circuit to be marched: 500 µF at 60 mΩ twice gives 1.330303 V of ripple and so does 1000 µF at 30 mΩ once, to the sixth decimal. So a pair against one part of the same capacitance is one curve read at two resistances, and the pair always sits at the lower one — which lowers the ripple only past the curve's minimum, 709 mV against 728 at 100 mΩ a part, and raises the peak current at every value, a crest factor of 14.41 against 12.61. Mismatch the pair and the current still divides by capacitance, so a part with twice the resistance carries 2% less current and 1.93 times the heat.

The walk the core sees

Threshold noise in a relaxation oscillator walks its timing at 3.77 nanoseconds per root period at β = 0.5, because the draw two half cycles share adds. A transformer driven by the same square wave sees the difference of the halves instead, where the shared draw subtracts, and that walks at 1.89 — exactly β times the timing, 18.3 ns against 35.9 after a hundred periods over six hundred seeded runs. The per-period duty error does not vanish with the hysteresis and the walk does, consecutive duty errors are anticorrelated where consecutive periods are not, a comparator skew outruns the walk after 2(σB/d)² periods, and at a fixed frequency the core wants less hysteresis than the clock does.

All essays