Field

Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

An operating point is where a transcendental equation and a linear network agree, and finding it is Newton's method on the whole netlist. Past that, the thing a linear model cannot express at all: distortion. It arrives seven times sooner than gain error does, its harmonics are Bessel functions of the drive, and a differential pair removes every even one of them exactly.

A diode fed from 5 V through 1.0 kΩ. computed by solving, not by drawing. The operating point is where the exponential meets the load line: 0.692544 V and 4.3075 mA, reached in 13 damped Newton steps from a cold start. The one-line Newton on Vs = v + R·i(v), which touches no matrix, gives 0.692544 V. The "drop" is not a constant: it moves 59.53 mV per decade of current, measured between two solved operating points.

A bias point is a solution, not a choice

The phrase "the diode drops 0.7 volts" is a constant standing in for the root of a transcendental equation. Solved properly, from a five-volt supply through a kilohm, it drops 0.692544 V — and from forty-eight volts through the same kilohm it drops 0.754459 V, because the drop moves about sixty millivolts for every decade of current through it.

The distortion a linear model cannot have

A small-signal model's output is a scaled copy of its input by construction, so it has no second harmonic and asking it for one is not a hard question but a meaningless one. Measured on the curve itself, an exponential produces one per cent of harmonic distortion at 1.03 mV of drive — seven times sooner than the 7.30 mV at which its gain is one per cent wrong.

One exponential and one pair, both driven 20.0 mV. computed by solving, not by drawing. The pair's characteristic is odd, so its even harmonics vanish: the second comes out at 1.5e-16 of the fundamental against 18.88% for the single stage. It is not a small residue but the floor of the arithmetic. The price is the third harmonic, 1.202% against 2.404%, and total distortion of 1.202% against 19.03%.

What a pair cancels, and what it only halves

A differential pair's transfer characteristic is an odd function, and an odd function driven symmetrically produces no even harmonics at all. Measured, the second harmonic comes out at 10⁻¹⁶ of the fundamental — the arithmetic's own floor, not a small physical residue. The third harmonic is a different story, and it comes out at exactly half the single stage's, which is a reduction and not a cancellation.

A common-emitter stage with 2.0 pF from collector to base. computed by solving, not by drawing. The stage's midband gain is 144.7 and its −3 dB point is at 504 kHz. The Miller approximation lumps 311 pF at the input and predicts 643 kHz — 21.6% high. The network's second pole is at 336 MHz and its right-half-plane zero at 3.08 GHz, both of which the approximation has no room for.

The frequency a device sets for itself

A common-emitter stage's bandwidth is decided by two picofarads between its collector and its base. The Miller approximation says how — lump it at the input, multiplied by one plus the gain — and predicts 643 kHz where the solved network gives 504 kHz. Twenty-two per cent optimistic, and it has no room at all for the second pole or for the zero in the right half-plane that the network also has.

A diode's drop from 250 to 400 K, at 1.00 mA. computed by solving, not by drawing. Thirty-one operating points, each Newton's method on the exponential at its own temperature. The drop falls at 1.828 mV/K measured against 1.830 mV/K from the closed form — falls, although the thermal voltage in the exponent rises, because the saturation current rises faster. Over the same range the slope per decade of current goes the other way, from 49.6 mV to 79.4 mV, because that one is Vₜ ln 10 and nothing else.

Two millivolts a kelvin, and the wrong sign

Every number in the semiconductor field was computed at 300 K, and the model had no temperature in it at all. Putting it in moves a diode's drop by 1.828 mV/K — downwards, although the thermal voltage in the exponent is rising, because the saturation current rises by nine orders of magnitude across the same range. Two temperature dependences of one device, of opposite sign, from one solve.

What a 5% mismatched pair leaves behind, across 150 K. computed by solving, not by drawing. A saturation-current mismatch of 5.0% appears as an input offset of Vₜ·ln(m) — 1.2613 mV at 300 K — which is proportional to absolute temperature and therefore drifts at 4.2044 µV/K, exactly the offset divided by the temperature. That is 3333 ppm per kelvin at every mismatch on the slider, because the ratio is 1/T and contains nothing about the device. One junction on its own drifts 1.828 mV/K, 435 times harder.

What matching does about temperature

A pair cancels the 1.8 mV/K that broke the previous essay, and what it leaves behind is exact: a saturation-current mismatch of m shows up as an offset of the thermal voltage times ln(m), which is proportional to absolute temperature and therefore drifts in proportion to itself. 3 333 parts per million per kelvin, at every mismatch on the slider, because the ratio is 1/T and contains nothing about the device at all.

A copy out by 1.3% for the reason everybody names, and 11% for the one nobody does. computed by solving, not by drawing at 60 output voltages, with the Early conductance iterated to self-consistency against the current that sets it. Two base currents are stolen from the reference, so the copy is β/(β+2) of it — 1.32% low at β = 150 — and that is exact at exactly one output voltage, 0.7043 V, which is 9.39 mV under the reference's own base-emitter voltage of 0.7137 V — a displacement that goes as 1/(β+2), so that the product of the two is 1.427 V at every β the slider offers. Everywhere else the Early effect is larger: the current rises at 1.21% per volt, so moving the output from one volt to ten changes it by 11.2%. One per cent holds over 0.810 V, which is the Early voltage over a hundred and contains neither the current nor any resistor. The slider is β: it moves the first error by fifty times and the second by nothing at all.

The copy, and its two errors

Every account of a current mirror leads with the base currents: two are stolen from the reference, so the copy is beta over beta plus two, which is 1.32 per cent at beta of 150 and is what a third transistor is spent on. The Early effect is a footnote and is nine times larger over any useful swing — 11.2 per cent between one volt and ten. Moving beta from 20 to 1000 changes the first by a factor of forty-five and the second by nothing at all.

A follower's output impedance from 1 kΩ of source, bare and with 100 pF on it. computed by solving, not by drawing, on a small-signal follower at 2.0 mA with β = 150 and fT = 560 MHz. At 100 Hz the emitter presents 19.08 Ω against a textbook 1/gₘ + Rₛ/(β+1) of 19.55 Ω — the expression is an upper bound here and at every source resistance on the slider, 2.4% high at this one. What it cannot describe is the frequency axis: the β that divided the source resistance down is itself falling, so the impedance rises, and the reactance at 3 MHz is 4.3 Ω — an inductance of 0.229 µH against Rₛ/ωT = 0.284 µH. With 100 pF hung on the output that impedance peaks at 67.0 Ω at 29.3 MHz, 3.51 times its own low-frequency value: an inductive source and a capacitive load are a resonant circuit, and this one is inside a part whose output impedance is quoted as a single number.

The buffer that is not a buffer

An emitter follower is reached for when something has to be driven without being loaded: unity gain in, high impedance seen, low impedance presented. The last of those is a number with a range, and the range is narrow. At a kilohm of source the emitter presents 19.08 ohms at low frequency and 67 ohms at 29 megahertz, because the current gain that made it small is falling — and the peak is worst in the middle of the slider, so it cannot be avoided by making the source stiffer or softer.

What a resistor in the emitter buys

Degeneration is described as a trade: give up gain, get linearity. Measured on the transfer curve, the two sides of that trade are not the same size. Dividing the gain by six moves the amplitude at which distortion reaches one per cent by thirty-five times — the square of the factor — and the amplitude at which the gain is one per cent out by only twelve. So the two edges close up, and a well-degenerated stage stops being limited by its linearity and starts being limited by how accurately its gain is known.

A follower with 1000 pF on it looks like -1182 Ω of negative resistance. computed by solving, not by drawing. The impedance looking into the base of an emitter follower carrying 5.0 mA, with 1000 pF on its emitter. The real part is negative from 1.25 MHz upward and reaches -1182 Ω at 3.40 MHz: the load's reactance multiplied by a complex current gain, with nothing added to the model. A negative resistance is not an oscillator until a reactance cancels, and the base lead supplies it — the total loop reactance passes through zero at a frequency the inductance chooses, and the loop resistance there goes negative above 74.9 nH with 10 Ω of source, which is a few centimetres of wire. A hundred ohms of source raises that to 913 nH: the repair is a resistor in the base, and it works by making the source worse.

The input that pushes back

An emitter follower with a capacitor on its emitter has a negative resistance looking into its base — 1182 ohms of it at 3.4 megahertz for a nanofarad, with nothing added to the model. A negative resistance is not an oscillator until a reactance cancels, and the base lead supplies it: with ten ohms of source the loop goes unstable above 74.9 nanohenries, which is seven centimetres of wire. The repair is the opposite of the instinct — a hundred ohms of source raises the threshold to 913 nanohenries, so the fix for a follower that oscillates is to make the thing driving it worse.

Where the two exponents come from

What a resistor in the emitter buys measured two exponents and could explain neither: the distortion edge moves as the square of the degeneration factor and the gain edge as its 0.950 power, and at a factor of exactly three halves the gain error vanished. The degenerated transfer curve has no closed form forwards and an exact one backwards, and reverting that series gives all three. The distortion exponent is exactly two; the gain edge is proportional to D squared over the root of the absolute value of three minus twice D, which is infinite at three halves and tends to a three-halves power; and the two edges are 7.07 apart on the bare device and 1.62 at a factor of eleven, against 7.06 and 1.61 measured.

The square law is within 1% over a factor of 1.06 in overdrive. computed by solving, not by drawing. One field-effect device drawn against the two models it is between: the square law, which is zero below threshold and rises as the square of the overdrive, and the weak-inversion exponential, which rises at 77.4 mV per decade. The device is neither and approaches both. The two errors point opposite ways — the subthreshold current lifts it above the square law below, and velocity saturation holds it below above — so the square law is exact at 156.5 mV and the shaded band is where it is inside 1%: 152.0 mV to 161.7 mV, a factor of 1.06. The slider is the velocity-saturation voltage, which is the channel length times a critical field, so what it moves is the band's width and not its position.

The exponent that is a square

Every device in this collection so far has been an exponential, and the whole of its arithmetic — 59.5 millivolts a decade, a distortion edge at 1.03 millivolts, 3,333 parts per million a kelvin — comes out of that one law. A field-effect device obeys a different one, and the interesting part is that it obeys both: an exponential below threshold and a square above it. The square law is within one per cent over a factor of 1.06 in overdrive at half a micron, and the two errors that bound it point opposite ways.

A pair's third-order intercept is 7.8 dB above anything it can produce. computed by solving, not by drawing. Two equal tones through a differential pair, transformed coherently so every product lands in a bin of its own. The fundamental rises with slope 1.000 and the third-order product with slope 3.000, both fitted over the decade marked, and the dashed extensions are the extrapolation a specification quotes. They meet at a drive of 4.00 thermal voltages and an output of 2.00 — against a largest output of 0.8108, which is 8/π² and is what two equal tones give through a limiter. The intercept is 7.84 dB above it, which is π²/4 exactly.

The point the device is never at

A device's linearity is specified by one number, and that number is a place on no curve. The third-order intercept is where two straight lines would cross if both went on being straight, and neither does. For a differential pair the crossing sits π²/4 — 7.84 decibels — above the largest output the device can produce at any drive whatever, and the arithmetic that says so contains no tail current and no temperature.

The fourth-order term explains 95% of what the third leaves out. computed by solving, not by drawing. Two closed forms for the amplitude at which a degenerated stage reaches 1% of second harmonic, each against the same measurement — a bisection on the harmonic content of a Newton-solved curve, which shares no arithmetic with either. The leading expression is 4Vₜ·t·D², derived at the rung below this one and exact in the limit of small drive; its error grows as the 1.96 power of the drive it is evaluated at. At a degeneration of eleven that drive is 4.53 thermal voltages and the expression is 6.89% optimistic. Carrying the reversion one order further takes it to 0.362%.

What the fourth order says about the third

A closed form derived by neglecting the fourth-order term is a claim with an error, and the error is a quantity the fourth-order term can be asked about. Carried one order further, the degenerated exponential's reversion predicts 7.33 per cent where the leading expression was measured to be 6.89 per cent optimistic — and takes the residue to 0.362 per cent. The correction has its own edge, in the same quantity, and it is measured too.

Every order buys less range than the one before, and above 9 Vₜ the sixth is worse than the fourth. computed by solving, not by drawing. The error of the same expression truncated at three orders, against the drive it is evaluated at, with the measurement it is chasing being a Newton-solved transfer curve that knows about no series at all. Each truncation's error grows as its own order in the drive — fitted at 2.00, 4.00, 5.88 against 2, 4 and 6 — so each buys a further range at a stated accuracy: inside 1% the leading expression is good to 1.12 thermal voltages, the fourth order to 3.88 and the sixth to 7.03, factors of 3.46 and 1.81. Beyond all of them the series stops helping: at 8.9 thermal voltages, where the second harmonic is 11.4%, the sixth-order expression is exactly as wrong as the fourth and is worse above it. What a designer does there is bisect the curve.

The order that stops helping

Three essays in this field have derived expressions for the amplitude at which a degenerated stage's distortion reaches a target, each one order longer than the last, and each one nearer the measurement. This is where that stops. The error of an expression truncated at order m grows as the m-th power of the drive — 2.00, 4.00 and 5.88 measured — so every added order buys a range that ends sooner than the last one bought, and above 8.9 thermal voltages the six-term expression is further from the device than the four-term one.

A cascode multiplies rₒ by β, not by gₘrₒ — and the two are 21× apart. computed by solving, not by drawing. The output resistance of a cascode stage, measured by driving the output node with a current source and reading the voltage, against the current gain of the upper device. The plain stage's is 80 kΩ — rₒ and nothing else. The cascode's is 11.5 MΩ at β = 150, which is βrₒ to within a tenth and is 21 times below the gₘrₒ² every reference gives. The reason is in the netlist rather than in the algebra: the upper device's base draws current, so its rπ sits from the lower device's collector to signal ground and shunts the node the feedback works through. What the arrangement buys therefore scales with β and stops when β does, and the curve is the two expressions drawn against the measurement.

The device that never sees the swing

A second transistor standing between the first and the load does two things that every reference gives one expression each for, and one of the two expressions has no ceiling in it. The output resistance is not gₘrₒ² — that is 248 megohms here, and the measurement is 11.5 — it is βrₒ, because the upper device's base draws current and shunts the very node the feedback works through. The bandwidth really is fourteen times better, and what it costs is two volts of a five-volt supply.

A cascoded mirror is 90× the output resistance, and 43% of it goes back into the reference. computed by solving, not by drawing. The output resistance of a two-transistor mirror and of the same mirror with a cascode on each branch, measured by moving the output a little either side of its operating point and reading the current, against the current gain of every device. The plain mirror sits at rₒ = 89 kΩ and does not move. The cascoded one reaches 7.39 MΩ at β = 150 and rises with β until β stops being the smaller of the two quantities, where it saturates on gₘrₒ² = 268 MΩ. The third curve replaces the diode-connected upper device with a held voltage at the same potential and recovers 1.76 times the resistance, which is the upper device's base current being charged a second time — to the reference branch, where it moves the mirror's own bias.

The source that holds to the supply

Putting a second transistor on each branch of a current mirror is always described as buying output resistance and costing headroom, and both halves of that are measured here rather than repeated. The resistance goes from 82 kΩ to 7.39 MΩ, the floor rises by 0.71 volts — and the range over which the current is actually what it was set to goes from 1.70 volts to 9.09, because a plain mirror's current never stops climbing. Forty-three per cent of the resistance that should be there is missing, and it is in the reference branch.

300 mirrors built to one design, with 2% device mismatch. computed by solving, not by drawing. Every pair in the population is a full Newton solve of the same netlist with two saturation currents drawn from a normal distribution, the Early conductances iterated to self-consistency for each. The mean is 3.836 per cent, which is the systematic error the rung below computed with identical devices (3.937 per cent) — the mismatch does not move it. The spread about it is 1.955 per cent, which is the device mismatch arriving with nothing dividing it, and the worst pair of the 300 is 8.43 per cent out. A design whose specification is the mean has specified the one mirror nobody has.

The error that is a distribution

The rung below solved a mirror and separated two errors — one that falls with beta and one that does not. Neither is what limits a real mirror. Two transistors on the same die differ, a fractional difference in saturation current is a fractional difference in collector current with nothing dividing it, and the honest object is a spread rather than a number: mean 3.84 per cent, standard deviation 1.96, worst of three hundred 8.43. Degeneration divides it by one plus gm·R and stops at the resistors' own tolerance, and where it stops is a voltage — a hundred millivolts, containing nothing but the ratio of two tolerances.

A follower fed through 100 nH has an output resistance of -21.9 Ω. computed by solving, not by drawing. The real part of the impedance looking into the emitter, driven by a current source and read, at every frequency. At direct current it is 5.50 ohms, which is the same rₛ/(β+1) + 1/gₘ the follower's first essay computed. Between 110 MHz and 301 MHz it is negative: r_π and C_π delay the current the transistor sources into the emitter, and past a quarter of a cycle of delay pushing the emitter up makes the device push it up as well. The dashed curve is the same follower with no inductance between the source and the base, and it never goes below zero — the sign belongs to the wire and the transistor together, and to neither alone.

The resistance that is below zero

An emitter follower's output resistance is 5.5 Ω at direct current and −21.9 Ω at 257 MHz, and the sign is not the transistor's: with an ideal source at the base there is no negative band at all, and a hundred nanohenries of wire between the source and the base produces one from 110 to 301 MHz. A capacitance resonating inside that band is a resonator with loss of the wrong sign, so 4.7 to 100 pF on the emitter oscillates while 1 pF and 470 pF do not — a band of load capacitance with quiet ground on both sides of it.

One output in saturation takes 6.5% off another that is at five volts. computed by solving, not by drawing. A three-transistor mirror: a reference, an output taken down into saturation, and a third output held at five volts throughout. The upper curve is the saturating output's own loss and the lower one is the sibling's. At 50 mV the saturating output is 27.3 per cent down and the sibling, which is nowhere near saturation, is 6.54 per cent down. The reference current moves by -0.0188 per cent, which is nothing: a base current is a hundred and fiftieth of a collector current and the reference is set by a resistor from the supply. What does move is the base-emitter voltage every output shares — by -1.75 millivolts — and every output is an exponential of it.

The refusal, and what it was protecting

A current mirror's model has declined to answer below two hundred millivolts of collector-emitter voltage since it was written, because it has no base-collector junction and would return a forward-active current for a saturated transistor. Put the junction in and the refusal turns out to have been placed where the model it protects is still right to seven parts in ten thousand — and the mirror's real failure is somewhere else entirely: a saturated output takes six and a half per cent off an output that is sitting at five volts.

A diode thermometer measuring its own sense current, at 600 K/W. computed by solving, not by drawing. The same fixed point as the core and the thermistor, on a junction: the dissipation is I·V and V falls with temperature, so the loop gain is negative and the equation has one root at every current. What it costs is two errors. The junction sits above ambient by 0.29 millikelvin at a microamp and 4.26 kelvin at ten milliamperes, which a calibration removes; and a kelvin of ambient produces less than a kelvin of junction, by 1/(1 − R_th·dP/dT), which it does not. After a calibration at 25 degrees the reading at 85 is out by -583 millikelvin at ten milliamperes and -0.09 at a microamp. The coefficient itself moves too — -2.403 against -1.613 millivolts a kelvin — so a quoted tempco carries a sense current as well as a junction.

The sensor inside its own answer

A junction driven from a current source cannot run away, because its forward voltage falls with temperature and its loop gain is therefore negative. What that costs is a thermometer that is warmer than what it is measuring by 4.26 kelvin at ten milliamperes, and — the part a calibration cannot remove — under-reports every change in ambient by 9,584 parts per million, because the sense current's own dissipation falls as the reading rises. Calibrated at 25 degrees, it is out by 583 millikelvin at 85.

The band closes over a stage's own bias at 7.93 microns. computed by solving, not by drawing. The overdrive over which the square law is within 1.0 per cent, against the channel length that sets it — the velocity-saturation voltage is Ec·L, so the axis is a size and not a bias. The shaded region is the band; the curve through it is the overdrive at which the square law is exact, which exists at every length because the subthreshold and velocity-saturation errors have opposite signs. Both edges move: the lower one from 79.6 mV to 252.9 mV and the upper from 81.2 mV to 1200.0 mV, so the band is a factor of 1.021 at 0.050 µm and 4.7 at 30 µm. The fourth curve is the overdrive a common-source stage with a fixed gate voltage and a fixed source resistor solves to, which barely moves at all; it leaves the band at 7.929 microns and is outside it for every shorter device. What the square law would have said about that stage is the last two rows: 220 per cent too much current on the 0.050 µm device and 53 per cent too much efficiency, against 0.15 and 0.66 per cent at 30 µm.

The length that is a voltage

The square law's band is closed from above by a parameter that is not a bias, a current or a temperature: it is the channel length, wearing a voltage's units. Swept, the band goes from a factor of 4.74 on a thirty-micron device to 1.021 at fifty nanometres — and the overdrive a stage actually biases itself to barely moves at all, so the two cross at 7.93 microns and every shorter device is biased outside the band. The band was also measured in the wrong quantity: the square law is exact in the current somewhere at every length, and its error in the transconductance is never below 42.5 per cent at fifty nanometres and reaches one per cent only above 6.502 microns.

The resistance that just stabilises it is 17 times smaller than the one that damps it. computed by solving, not by drawing. Two consequences of one base resistor, against how much of it there is, for a follower fed through 100 nH of wire with 47 pF on its emitter. The falling curve is the Q of the worst pole pair, rooted from the determinant so that no frequency grid is involved; the rising one is the output impedance the stage presents at low frequency. The rung below bisected on the SIGN of the pole's real part and returned 69.7 Ω — at which the pair is stable with a Q of 1.7e+15, which is to say no damping and a peak whose height belongs to the arithmetic. A Q of one needs 1.15 kΩ, 16.6 times more, and that resistor takes the output impedance from 5.66 to 13.10 Ω — exactly R/(β+1) added, which is the bare follower's own expression with the base resistance in the place of the source resistance.

What the cure at the base costs

The rung below bisected the smallest base resistor that stops an emitter follower oscillating and got 8 to 79 ohms. That bisection stops at the sign change, so at the value it returns the pole pair sits on the imaginary axis with a real part of 10⁻⁷ per second and a quality factor of 1.7 × 10¹⁵ — stable, and undamped. A quality factor of one needs 1.15 kΩ at 47 pF, sixteen times more, and that resistor takes the output impedance from 5.66 to 13.10 ohms. The other cure the model has always accepted and nothing has ever used is a resistor at the emitter: it reaches the same damping with 5.68 ohms and costs half the signal.

Degeneration removes the second-order product 9 times less well than the third. computed by solving, not by drawing. Both intermodulation products of a degenerated stage at 5 mV a tone, against the degeneration factor. The second-order product falls as D⁻² — the straight reference is exactly that law, anchored at D = 1 — and the fitted exponent is -2.000. The third-order product falls faster, as D⁴/|3 − 2D|, which is one more power of D at large factors, and it collapses altogether at D = 1.5 where its coefficient changes sign. So the ratio between the two goes from 20.7 at D = 1 to 183 at D = 16: the more linear the stage is made, the more completely its distortion is the product this collection had never measured.

The product that is not the third

Every distortion result in this field is odd-order, and the two-tone machinery has computed the second-order product on every call since the day it was written and thrown it away. On a bare exponential it is the drive over twice the thermal voltage — 1.934 × 10⁻² of the fundamental at a millivolt, against 1.870 × 10⁻⁴ for the third-order product, a ratio of 4Vₜ/a and a hundred and three to one. A differential pair puts it at 6.2 × 10⁻¹⁶. And degeneration removes it as D⁻² where it removes the third order as D⁴/|3 − 2D|, so a stage linearised until its third-order product is negligible is a stage whose distortion is almost entirely the one nobody measured.

Three mismatches, and only one of them reaches the output. computed by solving, not by drawing. Each of the three quantities that can differ between the two transistors is given a spread of its own, one at a time, and 200 pairs are solved at each. The saturation currents produce a spread that follows them exactly — exponent 0.998, so 1.910 per cent of copy error for two per cent of mismatch. The current gains produce a line of slope 2.003, which is second order rather than first, and land at 2.20e-4 per cent for the same two. There is no third line because there is no third component: with no emitter resistors there is nothing for a resistor tolerance to be a tolerance of, and matching a mirror is a statement about emitter area and about nothing else.

The mismatch that cancels itself

A current mirror's copy error is spread by three things the two transistors can differ in, and the population that measures it has always drawn all three at once. Turned on one at a time, a two per cent spread of saturation currents gives 1.910 per cent of copy error and a two per cent spread of current gains gives 0.00022 — because the gains enter only as a sum of reciprocals, which has no first derivative where they are equal. Then the standard cure un-cancels it, by a factor of 86.

All essays