Field

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.

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

What a network answers, and how the answer is checked

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

A 10 kΩ + 10 kΩ divider, solved with its load. The unloaded answer is 6.00 V. It is 1% low at a load of 495 kΩ and 4.00 V at a load equal to the divider's own resistance. The ratio does not predict any of this; the magnitude does.

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.

A 9 V source with 500 mΩ inside it. The ideal source is the flat line. The solved terminal voltage leaves it at a rate set entirely by the internal resistance: 1% low at 180 mA, half gone at 9.0 A.

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.

The equivalent of six elements, and the heat it does not account for. computed by solving, not by drawing at 73 loads. The network reduces to 8.56032 V behind 599.768 Ω, obtained twice and agreeing to twelve figures. Into every load on the axis the two put the same voltage to 2.2e-16 of it and deliver the same power to 7.8e-16 — there is no load that can tell them apart. Inside, at a load of 5.62 kΩ, the real network is dissipating 49.168 mW and the equivalent claims 1.1349 mW, a factor of 43.3. With the port open the equivalent says nothing at all is being burned and the network is burning 48.03 mW. The slider moves the resistor bridging the two sources, which joins two ideal sources and so cannot change anything the port can reach: the equivalent stays 8.56032 V behind 599.768 Ω to the last bit at every setting, while the heat inside moves by two and a half times.

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.

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

The answer that is perfect and absurd

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

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

Two solves that add, and the one that does not

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

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

The reading that does not care which way round it is

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

A divider of 4 equal 1.0% resistors, solved 3000 times. computed by solving, not by drawing. Every resistor drawn from its tolerance band and the divider solved, 3000 times. The worst case is ±1.000% — the part tolerance itself, and it does not improve when the divider is built from more parts — while the measured spread is 0.2944% and the worst of 3000 draws reached 82% of the bound. The root-sum-square, offered as though it were a standard deviation, is 1.70 of one here: for uniformly distributed parts it is √3 σ, a coverage of about 92%.

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.

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

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

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

$A difference quotient is best at a step of 1e-5, and is 1e+6 times worse at 10⁻¹¹. computed by solving, not by drawing. The worst disagreement between the adjoint network's derivatives and a central difference quotient of the same quantities, against the fractional step the quotient is taken with, on a 7-element ladder at 1000 Hz. The curve has a minimum because two errors pull opposite ways: the curvature the quotient neglects falls as the square of the step, and the digits its subtraction destroys rise as one over the step. The best it reaches is 1.4e-9, against the 2.3e-11 that the two-thirds power of the machine epsilon predicts. The exact route costs 2 solves against 15, and has neither error term.$

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 this collection has made since its ladder essay and never tested directly — that a doubly terminated ladder'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.

Sixteen more digits move the boundary by sixteen decades and leave it exactly where it was. computed by solving, not by drawing. The rung below's bridge, walked towards balance and solved twice: once in double precision and once with a pair of doubles carrying about 31 decimal digits, against a closed form that cannot lose any. The 33 per cent error at an imbalance of 10⁻¹⁵ becomes 7.0e-18 — so that loss was the arithmetic's and not the network's, which is what the rung below could not say. Each arithmetic's error is its own round-off divided by the imbalance, drawn as the two straight lines, so the second boundary is the first one moved by exactly the extra digits. The condition number is 505 in both cases and at every point, which is the diagnostic being blind twice over.

The digits the arithmetic did not have

The rung below bounded this site's own arithmetic and found two boundaries it could not attribute: 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.

Where one pole goes when each component is 5% high. computed by solving, not by drawing. A series R–L–C, its poles recovered by rooting the determinant, and the derivative of the upper one with respect to each element taken exactly from the two null vectors at the pole. The dashed lines are the first-order prediction for a 5 per cent change; the filled circles are where the root actually goes when the element is changed and the determinant re-rooted. The three directions are the argument: the resistance moves the pole along a circle of constant radius, because the natural frequency does not contain it — its normalised sensitivity has a real part of 3.1e-16. The inductance and the capacitance each carry exactly −½ of the radius, and imaginary parts that are exact negatives. At 5 per cent the prediction is out by 0.122 per cent of the pole's own magnitude.

The derivative of a root

The rung below turns one transposed solve into the derivative of a response with respect to every element, and found a doubly terminated ladder 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'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.

At a stationary point a tolerance has a mean, not a spread. computed by solving, not by drawing. Six hundred ladders with every reactance drawn independently from ±1 per cent, measured at the ripple peak and at a frequency between the peaks. Away from the peak the distribution is centred on nominal and 325 of 600 are above it. At the peak none is: the whole distribution lies below, with a mean of -0.0030 per cent and a worst case of -0.0140. A yield calculation that assumes a symmetric spread at a frequency that has a stationary point is wrong in both directions at once — it allows parts above a limit that cannot exist, and it misses that the whole batch has moved.

The tolerance that can only take away

At a doubly terminated ladder's ripple peak the first derivative of the magnitude with respect to every reactance is zero to ten digits, which the rung below measured and which says nothing about how much the response moves. This says how: every second derivative is negative, so of six hundred ladders 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.

Five tolerances, and the response moves in two directions. computed by solving, not by drawing. The eigenvalues of the relative second-derivative matrix of a fifth-order 0.5 dB Chebyshev ladder's magnitude at its lower ripple peak, over its five reactances. Two are of order one — -0.9473 and -0.8051, both negative — and the other three are 3.9e-9, which is zero at the precision the arithmetic has. So the quadratic form is negative semi-definite of rank two, and there is a three-dimensional subspace of component errors that the peak cannot see. The open circles are the same matrix computed by four re-solves per pair, sharing no adjoint arithmetic with the filled ones: they agree to parts in ten thousand on the two that are there and place the three zeros about two decades higher, which is the price of differencing a difference.

The three tolerances that do nothing

The rung below computed every second derivative of a ladder's magnitude at a ripple peak, found them all negative, and built six hundred ladders 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 most sensitive direction at one ripple peak is not the one at the next. computed by solving, not by drawing. The eigenvector of the largest eigenvalue of the relative curvature matrix, at each of the 2 ripple peaks of a 5th-order 0.5 dB Chebyshev ladder, drawn as its components over the reactances in order along the ladder. Every one is symmetric under the ladder's own reversal and no two of them are the same direction: the largest overlap between any pair is 0.0603, which is 86.5 degrees apart. The eigenvalue that belongs to them grows from -0.9473 at 554.9 Hz to -12.005 at 897.9 Hz, a factor of 12.7, so the peak nearest the band edge is both the most sensitive place in the passband and sensitive to a different combination of parts. Each direction is confirmed by a second computation of the whole matrix — four re-solves per pair, sharing no adjoint arithmetic — which returns the same direction to 7.6e-7 radians.

The direction a response is most sensitive to

The rung below diagonalised a ladder'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.

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

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

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

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

The reading that does care which way round

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

The load that takes the most power is 3.67 Ω, and the open-circuit voltage over the short-circuit current is 3.97 Ω. computed by solving, not by drawing. The terminal characteristic of a photocurrent with a junction across it, with the power along it drawn on the same axes and scaled to fill them. The most power, 80.99 W, is delivered at 17.244 V and 4.696 A, which is a load of 3.67 Ω. The incremental resistance of the source there — the negative of the characteristic's own slope — is 3.67 Ω, the same number to four figures. A straight line drawn between the two end points has a resistance of 3.97 Ω and would promise 24.81 W. The ratio of the true maximum to that promise is 3.264, and its reciprocal is the fill factor, 0.8160.

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.

One gain takes the equivalent resistance from 5 kΩ through infinity to negative. computed by solving, not by drawing. A 5 V source drives a node through 10 kΩ; the node also reaches 10 kΩ whose far end is held at A times the node's own voltage. The Thévenin resistance looking into that node is r1 in parallel with r2/(1 − A), which the solve returns to a part in a billion without being told: 5 kΩ at no gain, 10 kΩ at unity where r2 takes no current at all, and unbounded at A = 2.00 where the two conductances cancel. Above that it is negative. The open-circuit voltage follows it, because the short-circuit current is 500.0 µA at every gain — a short across the controlling node leaves the dependent source nothing to be controlled by — so the open-circuit voltage is simply the short-circuit current times whatever the resistance is, and reaches 150.0 volts from a five-volt source inside the range drawn.

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

The node that is not in the circuit

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

Three dividers in a row, and where the error actually is. computed by solving, not by drawing. Three two-resistor dividers cascaded with nothing between them. The product of their ratios is 0.1250 and the solved output is 0.076923, 38.5% low at a staircase of ×1. 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, 0.5000: the LAST stage is exactly its own ratio because nothing is connected to it, and the error is at the front, which is the opposite of where a probe goes. Staggering each stage's impedance up by a factor takes the departure down in proportion, fitted exponent -0.993, so a decade a stage is within 4.88% and two decades within 0.50% — which is why a chain that has to be right is built as a staircase and not out of one value repeated.

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 current divider, and the resistance that is not in the branch. computed by solving, not by drawing. A current source into two parallel branches, the metered one 10.0 kΩ and the other 1.00 kΩ. The metered branch takes 0.090909 of the current, which is the OTHER branch's resistance over the sum; writing the subscripts the way a voltage divider writes them gives 0.90909, a different number at every ratio but one. The dual of a voltmeter's finite resistance is an ammeter's non-zero one, and the threshold has the same shape with the roles exchanged: one per cent of error at 111.1 Ω, which is that resistance over ninety-nine to 1.7e-12%. And the headline of the loaded divider holds in the dual too — two current dividers of identical ratio read 0.04762 and 0.09090 into one hundred-ohm meter — while a perfect ammeter reads them identically.

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.

All essays