Circuit Response
every model has an edge, and the figure carries it
Theme

The thread: The schematic is a label

Two drawings of the same circuit with different placement are the same circuit, so the layout carries no information — which is exactly not true of a mechanism, where the geometry is the content. Schematics here are small, drawn in one hand, and put in a corner. The canvas belongs to the response.
A single-pole low-pass with its corner at 995 Hz. Solved at 209 frequencies. The straight-line sketch, drawn faintly, is 3.01 dB wrong at the corner and within a tenth of a decibel only below 152 Hz. The phase is already −5.7° a decade before the corner and −84° a decade after it. Frequency, which is the same solve

One solve, read four ways

Reactance, phase, the corner frequency and the roll-off are not four ideas. They are four readings of one complex number, obtained from the same matrix that answers direct-current questions — and the straight-line sketch every engineer draws of them is itself a model, three decibels wrong exactly where it is read.

 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. Networks, and how a solve is checked

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.

 10.0 cm of track, solved as a lumped circuit and as a line. The two agree to 0.030% at 3.97 MHz, where the track is one degree long, and to 30.1% at 143 MHz, where it is a tenth of a wavelength. Above that the lumped model is not approximately right; it is describing a different object. Where the models stop

Kirchhoff's own frequency

The current law says the current entering a node equals the current leaving it at the same instant, which assumes the signal crosses the circuit in no time. It crosses at about two-thirds the speed of light, so the law has a frequency of its own — set by nothing but the physical size of the board.

 Matching 50 Ω to 200 Ω with 51.7 mm of 100.0 Ω line. computed by solving, not by drawing at 261 frequencies. The reflection at the design frequency is 4.6e-17 — nothing, to the arithmetic — against 0.600 for the bare junction, which throws 36% of the power back. It stays under 0.1 from 0.914 to 1.086 of that frequency, a band of 17.1%. Lines, where a wire has a length

A quarter wave, and the path the current takes back

A line a quarter of a wavelength long, whose impedance is the geometric mean of the two it joins, matches them exactly — reflecting 5×10⁻¹⁷ of what arrives, which is the arithmetic's floor. At one frequency. Seventeen per cent either side of it the reflection is back to a tenth, and that band is the whole of what the technique is worth.

 A 100 nF capacitor, and what it is above 14.5 MHz. The dashed line is 1/(ωC), which is what the symbol means. The solid line is the same part with 30 mΩ of series resistance and 1.2 nH of series inductance, solved. They part company at 4.69 MHz and by a decade above resonance the part's impedance is 99.0× what its capacitance predicts. Frequency, which is the same solve

The capacitor that is an inductor

A hundred-nanofarad capacitor follows 1/(2πfC) for four decades and then turns round and climbs. Above 14.5 MHz it is an inductor, and a decade past that its impedance is ninety-nine times what its capacitance predicts — all of it caused by about a nanohenry of lead and via that nobody chose and nobody drew.

 The floor an amplifier adds, against the source it is given. computed by solving, not by drawing. A part with 4.00 nV/√Hz of voltage noise and 0.60 pA/√Hz of current noise is quietest into 6.67 kΩ, where its noise figure is 1.138 dB. That resistance is the ratio of the two generators and the floor there depends only on their product. Matching the same part for maximum power into its own 1 MΩ input instead — a resistance 150 times larger — costs 12.57 dB. The floor, which bounds from below

The floor a circuit has

A resistor's noise is 4kTR and there is nothing to choose about it. An amplifier adds two generators that belong to the device — 4 nV/√Hz in series with its input and 0.6 pA/√Hz across it — and because one matters most into a small source and the other into a large one, there is a source resistance at which their sum is least. It is 6.67 kΩ, it is the ratio of the two, and it is not the resistance that transfers maximum power.

 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. Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

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.

 One per cent on one component, in two realisations of the same order-5 filter. computed by solving, not by drawing. The two realisations agree to 3e-14 dB before anything is moved. Moving each element in turn by 1%, the worst deviation at the 2 ripple peaks is 0.1621 dB for the cascade and 0.0030 dB for the LC ladder — 54 times smaller. Across the whole passband the two are within 3% of each other, because near the band edge both are dominated by the response's own steepness rather than by the realisation. Filters, measured not tabulated

A ladder is not a cascade

The same fifth-order Chebyshev, built two ways. A one per cent component moves the buffered cascade's passband by 0.162 dB at the ripple peaks and the doubly terminated LC ladder's by 0.003 dB — fifty-four times less. The number is not the claim: the claim is the exponent. Fitted over two decades of tolerance the cascade's error grows as the 0.99 power and the LC ladder's as the 2.00 power, because at maximum power transfer the response is stationary in every element it contains.

 The return under 10.0 cm of track, 200 µm above the plane. computed by solving, not by drawing, as an estimate from the geometry: a low-frequency path assumed to be three track-widths wide, 83.3 mΩ, and the parallel-plate inductance µ₀h/w, 125.7 nH, which is the limit for a track much wider than its height. The estimated resistance and reactance are equal at 106 kHz. Solved across the plane instead of assumed, the return does not change path at one frequency: it gathers beneath the track across a band about three decades wide, and this corner falls inside that band. Above the band the loop is the track's length times its height, 20.0 mm², and a milliamp round it at 100 MHz radiates -1.1 dBµV/m at three metres. Lines, where a wire has a length

Where the current comes back

The return current under a track spreads out at low frequency and runs directly beneath it at high. Estimated from two paths chosen in advance, the change is a corner at 106 kilohertz for any track two hundred micrometres above a half-milliohm plane, with neither the length of the track nor its width in it. Solved, it is a band three decades wide rather than a corner, and the width enters it after all — but the length is still absent and the stack-up still sets the top, which is the part of the argument a designer needs.

 A fifth-order chebyshev delay, and 1 all-pass section in front of it. computed by solving, not by drawing at 60 frequencies across the passband. The delay varies by 891 µs from end to end; 1 all-pass section, with pole pair found by search rather than taken from a table, brings that to 498 µs — a factor of 1.79. The price is that everything is later: 722 µs more at direct current, which is more than the 392 µs of variation removed. Filters, measured not tabulated

Flat delay, bought with more delay

An all-pass section has a magnitude of one at every frequency — measured here on a solved network as 1 to within 9 × 10⁻¹⁶ over six decades — which makes it the only thing that can change a filter's delay without touching its magnitude response. It flattens by adding. A fifth-order Chebyshev's 891 microseconds of delay variation comes down to 498, and everything leaves 722 microseconds later than it did.

 A coupled pair as a two-port, at k = 0.8. computed by solving, not by drawing. Each port driven in turn with the other open, four solves, and the four impedance parameters read out. The diagonal terms measure each winding's own inductance — 10.0000 mH and 40.0000 mH against 10 and 40 — and both transfer terms measure the mutual inductance, 16.0000 mH against k√(L₁L₂) = 16.0000. The two transfer terms agree to 2.83e-16, which is reciprocity — a property of the device rather than of the measurement, and the first thing a coupling stamped into the wrong row would break. Neither of this site's two standing checks can see it: a coupling adds no current and dissipates nothing. Two windings, and the band between them

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.

 A series-terminated net holds half a swing for 1.0 delays at 50% along it. computed by solving, not by drawing. What a receiver 50% of the way along one net sees under three terminations, from a lattice evaluated at that point rather than at the ends. The shaded strip is the interval in which a logic input has no defined answer — between 30% and 70% of the swing. The series-terminated net sits in it for 4.83 ns, which is 2(1 − x) delays exactly and is zero only at the far end; the unterminated net sits in it for 4.83 ns and then overshoots by 82%; the parallel-terminated net never does, and draws 60 mA down the line for as long as the level is held. Lines, where a wire has a length

The resistor at the wrong end

A lattice diagram is read at the two ends of a line, and that is where the two respectable terminations look identical: a clean step, one delay late, at the receiver. Anyone standing halfway along a series-terminated net sees half the swing held for a full round trip, which for a logic input is not a level at all. The interval is 2(1−x) delays exactly, it is zero only at the far end, and the scheme that never has it draws sixty milliamperes for as long as the level is held.

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

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.

 The first conduction carries 26× the repetitive peak, and the factor of 7 is the user's. computed by solving, not by drawing. The largest diode current in the first conduction after switch-on, against the phase of the mains at the instant of switching, marched from an empty capacitor through the same netlist the ripple and the conduction angle are read from. The settled circuit's largest current is 1.230 A; the first one is 32.39 A at the worst instant and 4.64 A at the best, so which of them a design has to survive is decided by nothing in the design. The estimate that treats the capacitor as a short circuit gives 34.00 A, 4.7% high, the difference being the charge the capacitor takes during the pulse itself. Holding the first peak to ten times the repetitive one would need 1.90 Ω of winding resistance. Power, and the part that does no work

The first cycle, which no steady state contains

Every number this field computes about a rectifier — the ripple, the crest factor, the conduction angle, the power factor — is read from the settled state, and the march that produces them starts from an empty capacitor and throws the first cycle away. That first conduction carries 32.4 amperes against a repetitive peak of 1.23, it is 26 times larger than anything the circuit ever does again, and how large it is depends on when somebody's hand closed the switch.

 A part in ten thousand of ratio, and half a degree that costs 18% of a power reading. computed by solving, not by drawing. The two errors of a 1000:1 current transformer into a 10 Ω burden, read off one solve of a netlist driven by a current source. The magnetising inductance puts a high-pass under the measurement with a corner at 0.456 Hz, so the ratio error falls as the frequency rises — and stops falling at 100 parts per million, which is 1 − k and is a coupling rather than a frequency. The phase error falls too and is worth far more: 0.522° at 50 Hz is 0.0142% of the current and 18.2% of the power at a power factor of 0.05. What bounds it from above is not on this plot: the burden voltage is integrated by the core, so the largest primary current is 916 A at 50 Hz and proportionally more at 400. Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

The ammeter that is not in the circuit

A shunt measures a current by putting a resistance in the circuit, and every objection to it follows from that. A current transformer puts nothing in the circuit at all — a thousand-turn secondary reflects twelve microhms into the primary — and charges for it in a different currency: no response at direct current, a ratio error that stops falling at one minus the coupling, and a phase error of half a degree at fifty hertz that costs eighteen per cent of a power reading at a power factor of 0.05.

 A switched capacitor is a resistor below a ratio, not below a frequency. computed by solving, not by drawing. The exact response of a capacitor shuttled between the input and a holding capacitor at 1.00 MHz — a difference equation with one pole, evaluated on the unit circle — against the continuous R–C its equivalent resistance is supposed to make. The corner is 3.15 kHz against the model's 3.18 kHz, 0.99% out, and the discrepancy is set by the capacitor ratio alone: one per cent needs a ratio under 0.0201, which is a clock 315 times the corner. The second difference has no counterpart at all — the sampled response repeats at the clock, so the image rising on the right of this plot is signal at 997 kHz arriving as though it were at the corner. The third is settling: 1 pF charged through 1 kΩ gets 500.0 time constants a half period at this clock, and being short of full charge raises the equivalent resistance by 0.000%, which puts a ceiling on the clock at 108 MHz. Filters, measured not tabulated

A resistor made of a clock

A capacitor shuttled between two nodes at a megahertz behaves as a megohm, and a tenth of a picofarad shuttled at ten kilohertz behaves as a gigohm — which is how a filter with a one-hertz corner fits on a chip. What the equivalence costs is three conditions, and they bind on three different quantities: a capacitor ratio under 0.0201, a signal below half the clock, and a clock below the frequency at which the charge stops arriving.

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

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.

 A ±15% envelope on what a bridge reads permits 29 points of working capacitance. computed by solving, not by drawing. The charge-average capacitance between zero and the rated voltage — the number a reservoir or a hold capacitor obeys — against how the data sheet's stated temperature change is divided between the model's two parameters. Every point honours the envelope exactly: the measured value at zero bias with a one-volt test signal is 15 per cent from nominal at each point on each curve, by construction. The working capacitance is not. At the cold end it is anywhere from -42.9 to -13.9 per cent — 29.0 points of ambiguity at a temperature where the measured value is pinned exactly — and at the hot end from 13.9 to 36.2. Across the whole envelope that is 79.0 points against the 30 the specification bounds, a factor of 2.63. The left-hand end of the upper curve is missing because it is impossible: with the amplitude fixed, no characteristic voltage makes the measured value exceed the zero-bias capacitance. Frequency, which is the same solve

The coefficient that is about one reading

A class II ceramic's temperature coefficient is a third printed number, and it is a coefficient of the one capacitance a data sheet reports: what a bridge sees at zero bias with a one-volt test. The model behind the part has two parameters, one number does not determine two, and every way of dividing a ±15 per cent envelope between them honours the envelope exactly while putting the working capacitance anywhere across twenty-nine points — and two parts a bridge cannot tell apart differ by 1.80 at the voltage they are used at.

 Three nanohenries of copper move the peak to 5.63 MHz and raise it to 1.29 Ω. computed by solving, not by drawing. The same two capacitors, with and without the inductance of the way to them: one nanohenry of mounting loop per part and two nanohenries of plane between the bank and the load. The dashed curve is the bank as the rung below drew it, peaking at 1.187 Ω at 6.52 MHz; the solid one is what the load sees, peaking at 1.293 Ω at 5.63 MHz. The peak moves down because the branch that is inductive at that frequency got more inductive, and it rises for the same reason. Above about twenty megahertz the two part company entirely: the bank is still falling toward its parts' own resistances and the load is rising on two nanohenries that no capacitor is across. Power, and the part that does no work

The capacitor that is not where the load is

The rung below this one connects two capacitors to a load through nothing, and says so. Put three nanohenries of ordinary copper in — one of mounting loop per part and two of plane between the bank and the load — and the anti-resonance moves down to 5.63 megahertz and up to 1.29 ohms, a probe touching the ceramic reads a twelfth of what the load sees at 16.7 megahertz and three and a half times too much at 8.35, and the twentieth capacitor is worse than the second.

 One part, two corners: 3.98 kHz to the common mode and 7.86 MHz to the signal. computed by solving, not by drawing. Two windings on one core with a coupling of 0.999, driven twice from the same netlist — once with the two conductors in opposition, which is the signal, and once with them in parallel, which is everything the cable picked up. The mode that goes the same way round both windings meets (1+k)L and is down three decibels by 3.98 kHz; the mode that goes opposite ways meets the leakage, (1−k)L, and is untouched until 7.86 MHz. The ratio is 1975, which is 2/(1−k) and contains no inductance at all. Neither number is computed here: both modes are driven and the answer is read. Lines, where a wire has a length

The inductor one mode cannot see

Two windings on one core present a millihenry to a current that goes the same way round both and a microhenry to one that goes opposite ways, so the same component has a corner at 3.98 kHz and another at 7.86 MHz — a ratio of two thousand, which is 2/(1−k) and contains no inductance at all. It is bought to remove the conversion the previous essay measured, and five picofarads across each winding turn it over at 1.59 MHz and leave it worth 0.02 decibels by ten gigahertz.

 A bridge's reading turns over at 1.885 V, where the test level stops mattering. computed by solving, not by drawing. What a bridge reads is the fundamental of the charge waveform over the fundamental of the voltage, so it is a function of the bias AND of the amplitude, and a data sheet names one point of it: zero bias, one volt. The four curves are four test levels on one part. At zero bias they run from 9.999 µF down to 8.312 µF — the harder the drive the lower the reading, because the capacitance is at its maximum there and a sinusoid spends most of its time off the peak. At the rated 5 volts they run the other way, 2.000 µF up to 2.426 µF, because the curve is convex. Between them is one bias where the two effects cancel: at 1.8848 V a tenfold change of test level moves the reading by nothing at all, and that voltage is 0.6645 of the polarisation's own characteristic voltage. Frequency, which is the same solve

The reading a data sheet does not take

A class II ceramic's temperature envelope leaves its working capacitance 29 points wide at one end and 79 across, because one printed number cannot pin a two-parameter model. One further bridge reading recovers almost all of it — and where the reading is taken decides everything. Turning the test level down to a fiftieth separates five parts a data sheet cannot tell apart by 17.76 per cent; moving the bias to half the rated voltage separates them by 176.02, and pins the working capacitance to ±0.512 per cent from a reading known to one.

 Which resistor the noise of a Chebyshev 5 actually comes from. computed by solving, not by drawing, one solve per resistor. Each bar is that resistor's share of the noise power at the output, found by splitting its node, putting a source of √(4kTR) in series with it and re-solving the whole network — so what is drawn is not how much noise each resistor makes but how much of it arrives. The largest contributor is F2R at 64.1 per cent, the smallest F0R at 9.0, and the shares add to 1.000000000000 because noise powers add. A resistor's share of the noise is not its share of the resistance: the largest departure between the two is 3.9 percentage points. The floor, which bounds from below

The resistor the noise comes from

Two identical 1.59 kΩ resistors in one third-order filter contribute 60.0 and 40.0 per cent of its output noise, because a resistor's noise is filtered by everything after it and by nothing before it. Solved one resistor at a time, the rule everybody carries — the resistance in the noise bandwidth — comes out 1.551 times the truth on a seventh-order Chebyshev and 0.791 times on a sixth-order Bessel. It is wrong in both directions on the same axis, so no factor repairs it.

 Every node of a Chebyshev 5, and the one that clips first. computed by solving, not by drawing. The largest signal each node of the realised network ever carries, over the whole frequency sweep, relative to the input. The output reaches 1.000 times the input and F0b reaches 4.537, so on a ±15 V supply the input can be driven to 3.31 V rather than 15.00 before something clips — and the thing that clips is not the output. With the floor at 249.7 nV that is 142.44 dB of range against the 155.57 dB an instrument on the output would report, a difference of 13.14 dB that no measurement at the output can see. The floor, which bounds from below

The ceiling is not at the output

A fifth-order Chebyshev's noisiest node is its output and its largest signal is not. F0b carries 4.537 times the input, so on ±15 V the range is 142.44 decibels and not the 155.57 an instrument on the output reports. Across fifteen realised filters the output reading spans 3.97 dB and the range they actually have spans 22.34 — and one family of the three has no internal peaking at all, at any order.

 A clean board is 14.0 mV of error, and a guard makes it 1.0 nV. computed by solving, not by drawing. Two boards differing by one wire, solved with the leakage present and again with it removed, so the number plotted is the leakage's own contribution and nothing else. Unguarded, a teraohm across the laminate from a 15 V rail through a 1 GΩ source is 13.99 millivolts — and a humid morning takes that resistance down two decades, which is the left-hand end of this axis. Guarded, the ring is held at the input's own potential by the amplifier, so what is across the leakage is the amplifier's own error and the result is 1.00 nanovolts. The guarded line is flat in the rail and proportional to the signal: the offset has become a gain error of 1.00 parts per billion, and the reading is low by it rather than high: the ring sits a little below the input, so the last of the leakage pulls the input down. Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

The current that does not reach the input

A teraohm across a board from a fifteen-volt rail is fourteen millivolts of error through a gigohm source, and a humid morning takes that resistance down two decades. A ring held at the input's own potential leaves a nanovolt — proportional to the signal rather than to the rail, so an offset has become a gain error of one part in a billion — and the same wire multiplies the input resistance by the loop gain, which makes it 10¹⁸ Ω at direct current and 10¹² Ω at a megahertz.

 A one-henry inductor with nothing magnetic in it, good for 3.6 decades. computed by solving, not by drawing. The impedance at the input of an Antoniou impedance converter, read as an inductance: a current source drives the node and the voltage is solved for, and the imaginary part divided by ω is what is plotted. Five components — four resistors of 10 kΩ and a 10 nF capacitor — behave as 1000 mH, which as a wound coil would be several henries of wire. It is that inductance to within one per cent from 1.00 Hz to 3.65 kHz, 3.56 decades, and the upper edge belongs to the amplifiers rather than to the arrangement: with ideal ones in the same netlist the inductance is exact everywhere drawn. Nothing in it stores energy in a magnetic field — the current lags because an amplifier is holding a capacitor's voltage somewhere else in the loop. Filters, measured not tabulated

The inductor that is an amplifier

Four resistors and a capacitor, arranged around two amplifiers, present one henry at a node — an inductance with nothing magnetic in it, which as a wound coil would be several henries of wire. It is that inductance to within one per cent over three and a half decades, and its series resistance goes negative at 63 hertz, which is well inside the band where it is still an excellent inductor. A resonator built around it there does not have a high quality factor; it has a negative loss, and starts on its own noise.

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

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.

 A switched-capacitor low-pass driven past half its own clock. computed by solving, not by drawing. The clock is 1.00 MHz and the corner the rung below fitted is 1.59 kHz. The falling dashed curve is that continuous model, which knows nothing about a clock and goes on falling. The circles are the marched circuit, read at the frequency the output actually appears at. They part company past half the clock and by 992 kHz the model is 42.1 decibels wrong — an input just below the clock arrives just above direct current, in the middle of the passband, with the passband's own gain. The third curve is the exact discrete transfer function evaluated at the folded frequency, and it agrees with the march to 0.26 decibels, which is what says the march is measuring the folding rather than an artefact of itself. Filters, measured not tabulated

The filter that samples

The rung below built a resistor out of a clock and measured two ways it is not one: a settling time, and a corner that is a capacitor ratio rather than an R–C product. Both are errors in a value and both get smaller as the design gets better. This is an error of a different kind — the arrangement is not a continuous system at all, and nothing below half the clock shows it. An input at 992 kilohertz arrives at 7.8 kilohertz with the passband's own gain, where the continuous model the rung below fitted says it is 56 decibels down.

 One channel's load step reaches another through the supply, and the compensation decides by 4497×. computed by solving, not by drawing. Two identical amplifiers on one rail — sharing no signal node — with an ampere of load step pulled from the first and the second's output read. With the wiring left out the coupling is exactly zero, which is what the seven rungs below this one computed. With 30 nanohenries and fifty milliohms of rail and 10 microfarads of decoupling it is not: 3.84 microvolts per ampere at 271 kHz if the compensation capacitor returns to ground, and 17.29 millivolts per ampere at 2.33 MHz if it returns to the rail. That is a factor of 4497 decided by a modelling choice, which is why both are drawn. The channel that caused the step is unaffected: its own loop corrects the disturbance along with everything else, and the crosstalk is entirely a problem for the channel that did not. Feedback, and the margin

The rail the load moves

Seven rungs of this ladder end by saying the same thing: the supply is an ideal voltage source, so a load step is drawn from a node that cannot be disturbed. Giving the rail an impedance turns out to change the disturbing channel's own output impedance by three parts in ten million — its loop corrects the supply along with everything else — and to open a path to a second amplifier that shares nothing with it but a wire. How large that path is is a modelling choice: 3.84 microvolts per ampere with the compensation capacitor returned to ground, 17.3 millivolts with it returned to the rail, a factor of four and a half thousand.

 Twenty-four orderings, and 11 of them are choices. computed by solving, not by drawing. Every ordering of the four sections of an eighth-order 0.5 dB Chebyshev, at 16 bits, drawn against the two things an ordering decides. The horizontal axis is the round-off floor the arrangement adds — 24.2 least significant bits at best and 99.8 at worst. The vertical axis is the largest value any section's output reaches, which is what decides whether a word overflows: 0.088 of full scale at best and 0.699 at worst, a range of 18.0 decibels. 13 of the twenty-four are beaten on both counts by another ordering and are simply mistakes; the 11 on the lower-left frontier are the actual choices, and no one of them is best. Where a signal becomes a number

Which section goes first

A cascade of four biquads can be assembled in twenty-four orders, all of which realise exactly the same transfer function. They do not cost the same: the round-off floor runs from 24 to 100 least significant bits and the largest value any section reaches runs over eighteen decibels — and the two go opposite ways, so eleven of the twenty-four are genuine choices and thirteen are beaten on both counts by another arrangement.

 The capacitor across the upper resistor: 90.9° of margin at 836.5 pF, and less ripple past it. The regulator's phase margin against a capacitor across the upper divider resistor, with the output ripple the 1000 µF reservoir leaves beside it. With no capacitor the margin is 46.47° at a crossover of 9.73 kHz, the output impedance at 10 kHz is 1.95 Ω, the worst rail rejection is 5.79 dB and the ripple 60.62 mV. The margin is greatest, 90.929°, at 836.5 pF — a zero at 6.34 kHz and a pole at 25.4 kHz around a crossover moved to 16.9 kHz — where the output impedance at 10 kHz is 828 mΩ, the worst rail rejection -1.50 dB and the ripple 52.33 mV. At 10 nF the margin has fallen back to 66.34° and the ripple is 35.40 mV. Circuits that do a job, and the range they do it over

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 return under a track gathers from 26.3 kHz to 1.42 MHz, not at one frequency. computed by solving, not by drawing, on a cross-section of a 50 mm plane cut into 120 strips, each with its resistance and its partial inductance to every other strip and to the track. The solid curve is the share of the return current inside one track-height of the point beneath the track; the second is the share inside ten heights. At direct current the return spreads evenly — 0.8 per cent within one height — and far above the band it is the image-current distribution, 48.7 per cent, which the closed form gives as 48.7. Between them it gathers across three decades: a tenth of the way by 26.3 kHz, half by 283 kHz, nine tenths by 1.42 MHz, shaded. The resistance of the path equals its reactance at 1.59 kHz, where the return has not yet moved. The single corner estimated from a path three track-widths wide and a parallel-plate inductance is 106 kHz, 28 per cent of the way through the band. Lines, where a wire has a length

The corner that is three decades wide

Where the current comes back put the change in a return current's path at 106 kilohertz, from a low-frequency path assumed three track-widths wide and an inductance taken from a parallel-plate formula. Solved across a plane cut into a hundred and twenty strips, the loop's resistance equals its reactance at 1.59 kilohertz, where the current has not moved at all, and the return then gathers beneath the track over three decades — half of the way by 283 kilohertz, nine tenths by 1.42 megahertz. The single corner is a point about a quarter of the way through a band.

 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. Networks, and how a solve is checked

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. Networks, and how a solve is checked

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.

 An amplifier a hundred times the corner moves the unity-gain section's Q by 2.0%. computed by solving, not by drawing. A unity-gain Sallen–Key section designed for Q = 2 at 1.00 kHz, built with a one-pole amplifier, and its poles recovered by rooting the determinant. The section as drawn has two poles; as built it has three, and the pair is not where it was put. At a gain-bandwidth of a hundred times the corner — which is the rule of thumb — the quality factor is 1.97 per cent high and the pole frequency is 1.97 per cent low. The two are the same number with opposite signs over the window where the amplifier is well clear of the section and its own pole is still resolvable, and the number is the designed quality factor, 2, divided by the ratio: 2.00 per cent at 100 times the corner. Filters, measured not tabulated

The Q the amplifier decides

A second-order section's quality factor is set by a capacitance ratio and its pole frequency by a product of four passive values, and neither expression contains the amplifier. Build it with one that has a gain-bandwidth a hundred times the corner — the usual rule — and the Q comes out 1.97 per cent high while the pole comes out 1.97 per cent low, the same number in both directions, and the number is the designed Q divided by the ratio. A fifth-order half-decibel Chebyshev built that way has 2.1 decibels of ripple.

 The "offset" a switch leaves moves by 1.863 mV across a volt of signal. computed by solving, not by drawing. The charge a switch leaves on a 1 pF hold capacitor, as the input it was sampling changes. It is W·L·C_ox·(V_gs − V_th) with the clock's high level for the gate, so it falls as the input rises for two reasons at once: less gate drive, and a threshold that rises with the source potential through the body effect. The dashed line is the part that does not know what the signal is — the clock coupling through the gate overlap capacitance, -1.649 mV — and it is the only part of this that is honestly an offset. The curve stops where the switch does: an n-channel device passes nothing within a threshold of its own gate, and the model refuses rather than returning a zero. Filters, measured not tabulated

The offset that knows the signal

The charge a switch leaves on the capacitor it was sampling is the gate oxide capacitance times the channel area times the overdrive, and both terms in that overdrive depend on the input — one directly and one through the body effect. So the 5.67 mV a data sheet would call an offset moves by 1.86 mV across a volt of signal, which is a gain error of 0.186 per cent and only 3.4 µV of anything else. Opening the summing-node switch first divides the gain error by the amplifier's own gain, exactly, and what is left goes from twenty-nine times the sampled-noise floor to nineteen times below it.

 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 first rung's r_s/(β+1) + 1/g_m. 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. Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

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 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. Networks, and how a solve is checked

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 ladder's step response, and the sum of its own stages — 0.95 per cent apart at worst. computed by solving, not by drawing. A step of power into a three-stage thermal ladder, and the junction's rise divided by it. The solid curve is exact: the impedance is a continued fraction in s, its denominator has 3 real negative roots, and the partial-fraction expansion of Z(s)/s is a sum of that many ordinary exponentials — no march, no step size. The dashed curve is the sum every account of a thermal path writes, each stage's own resistance times 1 − exp(−t/RC) with its own local time constant, and it is an approximation because the stages load each other. What that costs is 0.950 per cent, once, at 12.9 ms — between the fastest stage's 2.4 ms and the next one's 200 ms, which is the only place two stages are moving together. It is one-sided: the sum never reads low. Before the steady state

Two ladders the terminals cannot tell apart

A thermal path drawn as a ladder and the same path drawn as a sum of exponentials are called different models of one object, and the difference between them has never been priced because pricing it needs an exact answer. Solved in closed form, the sum is 0.950 per cent high at worst and never low; the marched netlist is right to a part in 21,169; and the largest disagreement in the picture was 2.919 per cent that has nothing to do with heat at all, which reading the curve one sample differently removes.

 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. Networks, and how a solve is checked

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.

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

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.

 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. Networks, and how a solve is checked

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.

 At Q = 2 and a hundred times the corner, one arrangement is 1.97% out and the other 2.83%. computed by solving, not by drawing. The same second-order section designed twice — a follower with a capacitance ratio, and equal passives with the Q supplied by a closed-loop gain of 2.5000 — built with the same one-pole amplifier and swept over its gain-bandwidth, with both pole pairs recovered by rooting the determinant. The unity-gain arrangement's error is Q over the ratio: 2.00 per cent at a hundred times the corner. The equal-component arrangement's is K²/2 over the ratio, 3.13 per cent, because its amplifier is a gain-of-K stage and therefore has K times less bandwidth to spend. Below about thirty times the corner both laws fail, and the second one changes sign. Filters, measured not tabulated

Where the Q comes from

Two second-order sections with no component value in common have the same transfer function to 1.8×10⁻¹⁰ of a decibel, and are not the same circuit. Against a slow amplifier the follower's Q error is Q over the gain-bandwidth ratio and the gain stage's is K²/2 over it — so the second is worse below Q = 3.08 and better above it. Against component tolerance the follower's worst element carries ½ and the gain stage's carries 2Q − ½, nineteen times as much at Q = 5. Neither oscillates at any gain-bandwidth at all.

 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. Networks, and how a solve is checked

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

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.

 What a feedback tee buys, and the single thing it charges. computed by solving, not by drawing. Two 50 kΩ resistors with a 6.250 kΩ tap give 500.0 kΩ of transimpedance, which is R₁(1 + R₂/R₃) + R₂ solved on the netlist. That expression has no term for the noise gain, and the tap sets it to 1 + R₁/R₃ = ×9.00 — against exactly one for a single resistor of any value, because at direct current the source is a capacitor. One quantity then does all three things at once. The signal and R₁'s own noise are multiplied together, so the tee buys no signal-to-noise ratio at all: 1846 against 5582 in a hertz at a nanoamp for one resistor of the same transimpedance, a factor of 3.02 which is the square root of the noise gain. The amplifier's own voltage noise and offset are multiplied where they were not before. And the phase margin RISES, from 1.8° to 15.9°, because starting the noise gain high shortens its climb to the peak — so the tee is a compensation that charges for itself in noise, and a capacitor across the feedback is the same compensation for nothing. With no tap the three effects are absent rather than small. Feedback, and the margin

The tee that charges for its own compensation

A feedback tee makes a large transimpedance out of small resistors, and R₁(1 + R₂/R₃) + R₂ is the whole of what is usually said about it. The expression has no term for the noise gain, and the tap sets that to 1 + R₁/R₃ — nine, where a single feedback resistor of any value gives exactly one, because at direct current the source is a capacitor. One quantity then does everything: the signal and R₁'s own noise are multiplied together so the tee buys no signal-to-noise ratio at all, and the phase margin RISES from 1.8° to 15.9°.

All themes