Theme

The thread: Two routes to a number

A phase margin from the loop gain and an overshoot from the step response. A transfer function from the matrix and the same one from the poles it was factored into. A ladder solved by nodal analysis and by a chain-matrix product. Neither route in any of those pairs can confirm itself, and they share no arithmetic.

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.

Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

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.

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.

One step response, computed twice: from the poles, and by walking the network forward. A damping ratio of 0.22, so the overshoot is 49.2%. The two curves are drawn on top of each other; the panel below is the difference between them, which is the trapezoidal rule's error at 500 steps and reaches 1.70e-3 V.

Before the steady state

One step, computed twice

A step response from the poles is exact. The same step walked forward in time is not, and the difference between them is the trapezoidal rule's own error rather than anything about the circuit. It falls by a factor of four every time the step is halved, which is a claim about a method and can be watched.

A 20 Ω, 50 mH load on 230 V at 50 Hz. computed by solving, not by drawing. The load draws 1636 W and 1285 var, an apparent power of 2080 VA at a power factor of 0.786. The reactive side is confirmed by a route that touches no impedance: 2ω times the energy stored in the inductor gives 1285 var. The cable carries 9.04 A and only 7.11 A of it does anything.

Power, and the part that does no work

The current that does no work

A solved network has been reporting its own real power on every page of this collection, as the second of the two checks each answer passes before it is drawn. What that check discards is the imaginary half — the power that flows out to a reactance and back again, does nothing, and is still carried by the cable, still heats the transformer, and is still on the bill.

The noise of a 1.6 kΩ resistor through a 10.0 kHz filter. computed by solving, not by drawing. A seeded white sequence of 5.06 nV/√Hz marched through the network gives 619.3 nV across six seeds, spread 1.79%. Integrating the same density against the solved |H(f)|² gives 620.6 nV — -0.21% apart, well inside the spread. The noise bandwidth is 15.03 kHz against a −3 dB point of 10.00 kHz.

The floor, which bounds from below

The floor a resistor sets

A kilohm at room temperature produces 4.00 nanovolts per root hertz, and it does so because it is warm rather than because of anything about how it was made. That is the first boundary in this collection that bounds a model from below — gain does not help, because gain amplifies it too — and it is the only field here whose figures are samples.

Two probes on a 2.0 kΩ source. computed by solving, not by drawing twice per frequency: the node alone, and the node with the probe's elements across it. The one-to-one probe's 115.0 pF makes the reading one per cent wrong at 6.79 kHz. The ten-to-one probe puts 12.8 pF in series with the cable, so its tip sees 11.5 pF and the same error arrives at 69.2 kHz — 10 times further up, bought with a factor of ten in signal — the two edges stand in the ratio of the tip capacitances, 10.00. At direct current neither probe is capacitive at all and the ten-to-one still reads 0.02% low, because 10 MΩ across 2.0 kΩ is a divider.

Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

The probe is part of the circuit

A one-to-one oscilloscope probe on a two-kilohm source gives a reading that is one per cent wrong at 6.8 kHz. Not because the instrument is inaccurate — it is reading correctly — but because the hundred and fifteen picofarads at the end of the cable are across the node, and above that frequency the trace on the screen is a picture of a circuit that only exists while the probe is attached.

A 1 V step onto 1.00 m of 50 Ω line into an open circuit. computed by solving, not by drawing as a sum of 81 arrivals. The source drives 0.8333 V into the line immediately — set by 10 Ω against the line's 50 Ω, and not by the load, which it cannot yet know about. One delay of 4.83 ns later the far end reaches 1.6666 V. The staircase settles at 0.999990 V, which is what the resistive divider gives.

Lines, where a wire has a length

The staircase in time

A source driving a metre of cable does not know what is on the far end of it for 4.83 nanoseconds. What it drives into during that time is decided by the cable's characteristic impedance and nothing else — and when the far end finally answers, the answer comes back as a staircase whose limit is the resistive divider the circuit was going to be all along.

Three filter families at order 5, all with the same half-power point. At three times the corner the Chebyshev is -64.0 dB down, the Butterworth -47.7 dB and the Bessel -28.3 dB. The inset is the passband at forty times the vertical magnification, which is the only place the Chebyshev's half-decibel of ripple is visible at all.

Filters, measured not tabulated

Three families, one corner

Butterworth is flat, Chebyshev is steep, Bessel has good delay. None of those is a number, so the table they appear in cannot answer the question anybody has. Here each family's poles are computed from its definition, built as an actual network, and then measured — starting with the step every comparison skips.

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.

Loop gain of a three-pole amplifier closed for a gain of 100. Unity loop gain at 5.73 kHz, where 34.9° of phase remains before −180°. The phase reaches −180° at 89.6 kHz, where the loop gain is 46.1 dB below unity.

Feedback, and the margin

What is left at crossover

A feedback loop is stable or not according to one number read at one frequency — how much phase remains before −180° at the point where the loop gain passes unity. The loop gain here is obtained the way it is obtained on a bench: cut the loop, drive one side of the cut, and measure what comes back to the other.

20 inductor-capacitor sections, against the line they are meant to be. computed by solving, not by drawing by the trapezoidal rule over 2,600 steps. The LC ladder reaches two per cent of full scale at 0.86 delays, before the wave picture says anything can have arrived, and its plateaus are wrong by up to 0.079 V. Neither is a small correction to the wave answer; they are what a network of 20 poles does when asked to be a delay.

Lines, where a wire has a length

A ladder is not a line

A transmission line is usually introduced as the limit of a chain of inductors and capacitors as the number of sections goes to infinity. That is true, and it gives entirely the wrong impression of how close a finite chain gets. Forty sections still ring through every plateau by five per cent, and extrapolating the fitted convergence, reaching one per cent would need about nine hundred and sixty.

What the reconstruction returns, either side of 5.0 kHz. computed by solving, not by drawing. The Whittaker–Shannon sum is evaluated on the samples and compared with two things: the signal that was sampled, and the frequency the samples report. Below 5.00 kHz these are the same curve and the error is 4.88e-3 — the truncation of the sum at sixty-four samples either side, and nothing else. Above it they part: at 9.00 kHz the reconstruction is 1.59e-3 from the alias and 2.000 from the input. The small number is the interesting one. A reconstruction cannot be improved into the right answer, because it is already an exact answer to a different question.

Where a signal becomes a number

An exact answer to a different question

The reconstruction that turns samples back into a signal is normally introduced as the thing that recovers what was there. Measured on both sides of half the sample rate it does something more interesting than failing: above the boundary it returns the alias to 1.6 parts in a thousand, which is the same accuracy it returns the input with below the boundary, and it is wrong about the input by twice the amplitude. Its error is not a degradation. It is exactness about something else.

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.

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

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

The amplitude nothing linear predicts

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

A single pole, and the brick wall that passes the same noise. computed by solving, not by drawing and integrated over 267 frequencies. The equivalent noise bandwidth is 1.5706 times the −3 dB point, and π/2 is 1.5708. A noise voltage computed with the corner frequency instead is 20.2% low. The area under the curve and the area of the rectangle are the same number.

The floor, which bounds from below

The bandwidth noise sees

A single pole passes π/2 times as much noise power as a brick wall at its own corner frequency, so a noise voltage computed with the −3 dB point is twenty-one per cent low. Measured by integrating the solved response rather than taken from the table it usually comes from, the ratio is 1.5706 and π/2 is 1.5708. A five-pole Chebyshev's is 0.964 — less than one.

Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

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.

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.

Networks, and how a solve is checked

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.

Three element voltages closing on one source, at 1.59 kHz. Solved at 1.59 kHz, which is 1.00× the frequency at which the two reactances cancel. The three phasors add head to tail to the 1 V source exactly; their magnitudes sum to 5.26 V, which is not the same statement.

Frequency, which is the same solve

Three voltages that close on one, and the steady state they assume

Kirchhoff's voltage law drawn as a polygon in the complex plane. The three element voltages of a series circuit add head to tail to the source exactly — while their magnitudes add to five times it. And the whole picture is a statement about a settled circuit, which takes a computable number of cycles to arrive.

One loop, two measurements of the same margin. The loop gain crosses unity at 5.73 kHz with 34.9° of phase left. The closed-loop step overshoots by 35.2%, which the second-order relation says corresponds to 34.8°. They differ by 0.1°, and the difference is the third pole.

Feedback, and the margin

Two measurements of one margin

A phase margin is computed from the loop gain in the frequency domain, without ever looking at a step. An overshoot is measured from the closed-loop step response in the time domain, without ever looking at a Bode plot. Inverting the standard relation on the second returns 34.9° against the first's 34.9°, and the residue is the third pole.

What each family costs, at order 5. Measured on the solved networks. The Chebyshev is 36 dB further down at three times the corner than the Bessel, and pays for it in delay: its group delay varies 49.0% across the passband against the Bessel's 0.06%.

Filters, measured not tabulated

What a steep skirt costs

A filter's order buys attenuation at a known rate — twenty decibels per decade per pole, and no arrangement of components changes it. What varies between families is how quickly the slope is reached, and the currency it is paid for in is delay: the steepest of the three distorts delay eight hundred times more than the gentlest.

Two poles at ζ = 0.3, recovered from the matrix. The poles are at -477.5 ± j1518 hertz. Their distance from the origin is the natural frequency to six digits; the cosine of their angle from the negative real axis is the damping ratio. The step response beside them follows.

Before the steady state

Where the behaviour is written down

Two numbers in the complex plane contain everything a second-order circuit will ever do. Their distance from the origin is the natural frequency, the cosine of their angle is the damping — and the fastest-settling circuit is not the critically damped one, which is the case the textbooks name.

Group delay across the passband, at order 5. The Bessel filter's delay varies 0.1% below 0.8 of the corner; the Chebyshev's peaks near the band edge and is several times its low-frequency value. Every family here has the same half-power frequency, so this is a difference in behaviour rather than in scaling.

Filters, measured not tabulated

Flat magnitude, unflat delay

A filter that passes every frequency in its band at the right amplitude and the wrong time has not passed the signal. Group delay is the measurement that says so, it is absent from the classical comparison, and it varies by fifty per cent across the passband of the two families everybody uses.

A resonant circuit of Q = 8, and its measured bandwidth. The half-power points are 1.50 kHz and 1.69 kHz, a bandwidth of 198.9 Hz. The components predict f₀/Q = 198.9 Hz. They differ by 0.000%.

Frequency, which is the same solve

Resonance, and the bandwidth it sets exactly

The half-power bandwidth of a resonant circuit is f₀/Q — not approximately, but to every digit the arithmetic has, which is rare enough to be worth checking. What is not exact, and is drawn as though it were, is the idea that the band sits centred on the resonance. At a quality factor of one its middle is twelve per cent above.

The neutral of a three-phase supply with one phase 30% off. computed by solving, not by drawing. Balanced, the three line currents sum to 4.6e-16 of one of them and the neutral carries nothing. With one phase 30% heavier the neutral carries 2.65 A against a line current of 11.50 A. The neutral reaches a tenth of a line current at 11.1% imbalance.

Power, and the part that does no work

Three phases, and the wire that carries nothing

Three sources a third of a cycle apart, feeding three equal loads, return a current of 5×10⁻¹⁵ amperes down the wire between the star points. That is zero, and the whole of three-phase distribution rests on it. What is worth measuring is how fast it stops being zero, and the answer is that an eleven per cent imbalance in one phase puts a tenth of a line current down a conductor often sized on the assumption that it carries none.

Measuring with 50 mΩ of lead in each wire. computed by solving, not by drawing at 61 resistances, twice each. The two-wire arrangement measures the leads too, so its error is 2×50 mΩ over whatever is being measured: one per cent at 10 Ω, and 10000% at 1 mΩ. The four-wire arrangement senses on a separate pair that carries almost no current, and its error stays under 1.0e-2% across the whole range.

Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

Two terminals measure the leads as well

Fifty milliohms in each lead makes a two-wire measurement one per cent high at ten ohms, ten per cent high at one ohm, and a hundred per cent high at a tenth. Not approximately — the reading is the resistance plus the leads, and below about ten ohms most of what is being reported is the wire between the instrument and the thing.

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%.

Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

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.

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

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

What the limiter charges for

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

Which mechanism sets the upper edge, against the load. computed by solving, not by drawing. Two candidate upper edges drawn against the measurement. The one every textbook names is a resonance between the leakage inductance and the winding capacitance; the one that actually binds at ordinary loads is the leakage in series with the load, a first-order corner at R/2πL. At 50 Ω they are 80.4 kHz and 1.13 MHz — a factor of 14 apart — and the measurement follows the first, to 19.5% at worst across nine loads. They swap at about 1500 Ω, above which the resonance is the binding one and the usual picture is right — which is why a transformer feeding a high impedance behaves as the textbooks say and one feeding fifty ohms does not.

Two windings, and the band between them

Which picture sets the upper edge

Every account of a transformer's high-frequency limit names the same mechanism: the leakage inductance resonating with the winding capacitance. At fifty ohms that resonance is at 1.13 MHz and the measured edge is at 81.3 kHz — a factor of fourteen away — because what actually binds is the leakage in series with the load, a first-order corner with no resonance in it at all. The two swap at about 1500 Ω, and both accounts are current because both are sometimes right.

The usable range of one stage, in a 10 kHz measurement. computed by solving, not by drawing. The floor is the Johnson noise of a 1 kΩ source in the measurement's own noise bandwidth — 501.6 nV, using 15.7 kHz rather than the 10 kHz corner. The ceiling is the drive at which an exponential's distortion reaches one per cent, 1.03 mV. Between them is 66.3 dB, and nothing a designer does moves either number without changing the circuit.

The floor, which bounds from below

A floor and a ceiling

Every other boundary these essays measure is a ceiling. This one puts a floor underneath and measures the distance between them — 4.00 nanovolts per root hertz at the bottom, one per cent of harmonic distortion at 1.03 millivolts at the top, and 66.3 decibels of range in a ten-kilohertz measurement. Both ends are computed, neither is on a datasheet, and the arrangement of the stages decides which one moves.

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.

Networks, and how a solve is checked

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.

Lines, where a wire has a length

Several sections, and the band they buy

A quarter-wave transformer is exact at one frequency, and a 4:1 transformation holds |Γ| under 0.1 over 17.1% of it. Several sections whose reflections cancel over a band take that to 47.7, 67.9, 82.1 and 92.6% — which is filter design with the reflection as the shaped quantity. An equal-ripple design found by minimax search buys a further 35 to 46% at the same worst reflection, and its ripples come out level to four decimals.

A loop whose phase comes back, at a gain of 1.0e+7. computed by solving, not by drawing. Three identical poles take the phase to −270°, two lead sections bring it back to −158°, and their own poles take it down again — so ∠L = −180° at 189 Hz, 3.46 kHz and 23.5 kHz. The gain moves the magnitude curve and not those three frequencies, so it decides only which side of each the unity-gain point falls. At 1.00e+7 the crossover is 10.6 kHz, in the recovered band, and the loop is stable.

Feedback, and the margin

Stable, and unstable with less gain

A three-pole loop with two lead sections is stable for gains between 1.81 × 10⁶ and 3.36 × 10⁷ and unstable on both sides of that window. Turning its gain *down* is what breaks it. Neither margin can see this, because a phase margin describes the loop at one frequency and a gain margin at one other, and this loop's phase crosses −180° at three: 189 Hz, 3.46 kHz and 23.5 kHz.

How long a second-order step takes to arrive inside ±2%. computed by solving, not by drawing from the residue expansion at 260 damping ratios. The fastest is ζ = 0.780 at 3.60/ω₀; critical damping takes 5.83/ω₀, which is 62% longer. Between ζ = 0.775 and 0.780 the time falls by 33% in one step of the sweep, because which excursion is the last one outside the band changes there — the overshoot at the fastest damping is 1.99%, which is the band itself, and one step to the left it is larger. The faint curves are the other bands, each with its own step in a different place.

Before the steady state

The cliff before the fastest settling

Settling time against damping is not a smooth curve with a minimum. It falls by a third in one step of a sweep of five thousandths, and the fastest damping sits on the edge of that step — so a design a hundredth of a damping ratio to the left of the optimum settles forty-eight per cent slower, with a waveform that looks no different.

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.

How much faster an instrument must be for 10% of inflation. computed by solving, not by drawing. The quadrature rule answers 2.182× and gives the same answer for every instrument, because it contains no instrument. Measured on the solved network, a one-pole front end needs 2.79×, two poles need 3.97×, three need 4.87× and four need 5.62× — between 28% and 215% more than the rule asks for. The rule errs optimistic at every pole count, which is the wrong direction.

Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

The instrument's own rise time

Rise times add in quadrature, so ten per cent of inflation needs an instrument 2.18 times faster than the edge. That constant contains no instrument. Measured on the solved network it is 2.79 for a one-pole front end, 3.97 for two, 4.87 for three and 5.62 for four — the rule is optimistic at every pole count, which is the wrong direction for a rule of thumb to err in.

Three balanced rectifier loads conducting 60°, and their neutral. computed by solving, not by drawing. The three phase currents are drawn faint and the neutral heavy. Balanced loads, identical in every respect, and the neutral carries 0.968 A against a line current of 0.559 A — a ratio of 1.7321, where √3 is 1.7321. The pulse trains are disjoint, so the neutral is their union and its mean square is three times one phase's. Rebuilding the same current from the multiples of three in one phase's spectrum gives 0.966 A, 0.13% away, by a route sharing only the waveform.

Power, and the part that does no work

The neutral that carries more than a line

Three balanced loads draw currents summing to 5.3 × 10⁻¹⁵ amperes in the neutral. That is a theorem about sinusoids, and it uses nothing except that each current is a single frequency. A harmonic of order three is shifted by 360° between phases, which is no shift at all — so the third harmonics add, and for any conduction angle narrow enough that the pulse trains stay disjoint the neutral carries exactly √3 times a line current.

Four families at order 5, and the 2 zeros in the stopband. computed by solving, not by drawing. The elliptic design is drawn at a selectivity of 0.8, so its stopband is asked to begin at 1.250 times the corner, and the degree equation returns 38.68 dB for it at 0.5 dB of ripple. From the stopband edge outward the elliptic response never rises above -38.7 dB; the steepest all-pole family of the same order is only -19.0 dB down there and does not reach -38.7 dB until 1.77 times the corner. That is what 2 transmission zeros buy. The price is in the same picture: the elliptic stopband has a floor and an all-pole one does not, so beyond 2.0×fc the all-pole response is the lower of the two and keeps going.

Filters, measured not tabulated

The zeros that buy an order

Butterworth, Chebyshev and Bessel all fall because their denominator grows, so the only way to make one fall faster is another pole. An elliptic filter puts zeros in the stopband instead, and reaches forty decibels at twice the corner with two poles where the steepest all-pole family needs five. What it charges is a stopband that stops falling — measured here at −38.7 dB, and overtaken by an ordinary Chebyshev two corners out.

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.

$How much of the amplifier reaches the answer, at 35° of phase margin. computed by solving, not by drawing by multiplying the forward path's gain by 1 + 10⁻⁵ and solving again. At low frequency 0.0999% of a fractional change in the device reaches the closed-loop gain, which is one over the loop gain of 995.04. It changes sign at 258 Hz — above there a better amplifier gives a smaller gain — and reaches 1.61 at 8.08 kHz, which is worse than having no feedback, and settles at exactly 1 above crossover (5.73 kHz), where there is no loop gain left to spend. The second route, the real part of 1/(1 + T) from the cut loop, agrees to 9.6e-6.$ Feedback, and the margin

How much of the amplifier gets through

The reason to build an amplifier from a bad amplifier and two resistors is that a change in the device barely reaches the answer — a tenth of a per cent of it at low frequency, measured by making the device better and solving again. Near crossover the same fraction rises above one, so feedback makes the gain more device-dependent than no feedback at all, and below fifty degrees of margin it changes sign on the way.

The coupling coefficient, from two measurements that do not know it. computed by solving, not by drawing. Two windings in series, connected one way and then the other, each solved as a netlist and its inductance read out of the impedance. The two differ by four times the mutual inductance, so k comes out of the difference and the geometry never enters. The recovered value matches the one stamped into the coupling to 2.4e-15 at eight couplings from 0.1 to 0.99 — which is the second route the new element needed, since neither current law nor the energy balance can see a mutual inductance at all. Their sum stays at L₁ + L₂ throughout, which is the check that the two measurements are of one pair.

Two windings, and the band between them

One number from two measurements

Neither of the two standing checks on a solved circuit can see a mutual inductance. A coupling adds no current anywhere, so Kirchhoff's law is unmoved by it; a coupled pair dissipates nothing, so the energy balance is unmoved too. A coupling stamped into the wrong row would produce a well-formed solution to a different circuit and both checks would pass — so the field needed a third route, and the one it uses is the bench method: connect the windings in series one way, then the other, and the difference is four times the mutual inductance.

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.

Networks, and how a solve is checked

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.

Averaging a white sequence, and averaging a pink one. computed by solving, not by drawing. Both sequences are the same seeded white stream, one of them put through the 1/f network. Averaged in non-overlapping blocks, the white one's spread falls as n to the -0.510 ± 0.006 across five seeds — the √N law — and the pink one's as n to the -0.087 ± 0.013, which is very nearly not at all. A thousand-sample average buys a factor of 36.9 on the first and 2.1 on the second.

The floor, which bounds from below

The corner where averaging stops working

Average N samples and the noise falls by √N. That is a statement about independent samples, and flicker noise's samples are not independent — its correlation extends over every time scale, which is what a spectrum with no bottom means. Measured on the same seeded stream filtered and not: the white sequence falls as the −0.510 power of the block length and the pink one as the −0.087 power, so a thousand-sample average buys a factor of 36.9 on one and 2.1 on the other.

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

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

The direct voltage that is a sawtooth

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

What a charge through 1 kΩ costs, against how long it is given. computed by solving, not by drawing, marched, with the energies rebuilt from the element laws. A step loses 1.00000 of ½CV² — 12.5 µJ here — and that number is the same through 10 Ω and through 100 kΩ, which is what the faint curves show. What the resistance decides is where the fall starts: the loss goes as 2τ/T once the ramp is long against τ = 1 ms, with a fitted exponent of -0.994 and no floor beneath it. The circles are marched; the line through them is a closed form that never sees a netlist.

Before the steady state

The half that never arrives

Charging a capacitor from a step loses exactly as much energy as it stores, and the resistance it is lost in does not appear in the answer — the same 12.5 microjoules through ten ohms and through a hundred kilohms, to nine figures. Drive the same network with a ramp instead and the loss falls as two time constants over the ramp, with no floor beneath it at all.

Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

The millivolts in the wire

Ten millimetres of one-ounce copper is five milliohms and ten nanohenries, and if a hundred-milliamp load and a ten-millivolt sensor both return through it, half a millivolt of somebody else's current is added to the reading — five per cent of it, before anything has been amplified. Above 79.6 kilohertz the error rises a decade per decade with no ceiling, and shortening the shared run moves the whole curve down and the corner not at all.

Frequency, which is the same solve

The Q the components allow

Resonance and its bandwidth measured a half-power width of exactly f₀/Q at every Q tried, for a circuit whose only resistance was the one deliberately put there. Real components arrive with resistance of their own, and the consequence is a ceiling rather than a penalty. The reciprocals of the component quality factors add, so the total sits below the smallest of them: an inductor of 79 beside a capacitor of 1 581 gives a resonator of 75. The worst component decides and the best one cannot help.

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.

Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

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.

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

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

A source below a frequency

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

A sum that is exact, and the bandwidth estimate that is not. computed by solving, not by drawing, at 28 spreads of the three capacitor values in a resistor chain. The sum of the open-circuit time constants — each capacitor's own value times the resistance seen at its terminals with the other two removed — is 600.00 µs here, and it equals the ratio of the first two coefficients of the denominator to 2.0e-9 and the sum of the negated reciprocal poles to 2.0e-9. That much is a theorem. What is an estimate is the bandwidth: one over 2πΣτ gives 265.3 Hz against a measured 309.2 Hz, low by 14.2%. It is low at every spread on the axis — the estimate is never optimistic — and comes within ten per cent only once one of the three time constants is 7.48 times the others.

Before the steady state

A sum that is exact, and the estimate that is not

Add each capacitor's value times the resistance seen at its own terminals with the others removed, and the total is the ratio of the first two coefficients of the denominator polynomial — a theorem, holding to a part in a billion at every spread tested. Divide one by two pi times it and you have a bandwidth estimate that is 14 per cent low with three equal capacitors and never once optimistic. Two settings of the slider have the same three time constants and bandwidths two per cent apart, which is why the sum can never be more than an estimate.

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 100 ms pulse through a 0.159 Hz corner, 9.52% shorter by the end of it. computed by solving, not by drawing. Marched. The dashed line is the pulse that was sent. The solid line is what a 1 MΩ input with 1 µF in front of it receives: the top decays as exp(−t/RC) for the whole 100 ms, ending 9.515% down, and the trailing edge undershoots by exactly the same amount. The closed form for the same two components gives 9.516%. The input's specification is a corner at 0.159 Hz; a top flat to one per cent needs a pulse shorter than 10.1 ms, which is a rate 625.2 times the corner — a constant with no component in it, and the reason a low-frequency specification says nothing useful about an edge.

Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

The corner that says nothing about an edge

An AC-coupled input is sold on a low-frequency corner, and a corner is a statement about steady sinusoids. What an instrument is usually shown is a pulse, and for a pulse the number is a sag: a hundred-millisecond pulse through a 0.159 hertz corner comes out 9.5 per cent shorter than it went in. A one per cent flat top needs a pulse rate 625 times the corner, which is a constant with no component in it — and above fifty per cent duty an AC-coupled pulse never reaches half its own height at all.

Two tracks, and a far end that cancels exactly when the field is all in one material. computed by solving, not by drawing, on 12 coupled sections of a 100 mm pair terminated in 50 Ω at all four ends. A mutual capacitance injects a current proportional to dV/dt and splits it towards both ends of the quiet track; a mutual inductance injects a voltage proportional to dI/dt and drives the two ends in opposite directions. So the near end goes as Cm/Ct + Lm/Lt and the far end as their difference, with the same constant in front of both — measured here as 1.048e-2 either way, over a slider that moves the ratio by five times. The consequence is that the far end is not a smaller effect but a cancellation: at a ratio of one it is 7.52e-19 of the drive, which is zero to the last bits of a double, while the near end is 1.048e-3. That is why a stripline has no far-end crosstalk and a microstrip has some — what shows up there measures the field that is in air, not the spacing. The model is lumped and stops where it says: a section is one degree long at 50.0 MHz.

Lines, where a wire has a length

The far end that cancels

Two mechanisms couple two parallel tracks: a mutual capacitance injecting a current and a mutual inductance injecting a voltage. They add at the near end of the quiet track and subtract at the far end, with the same constant in front of both — measured here as 1.048 times ten to the minus two either way, across a slider that moves their ratio by five times. So the far end is not a smaller effect: when the two couplings are equal it is 3.5 times ten to the minus nineteen of the drive, which is zero to the last bits of a double.

What the summing junction of an inverting amplifier actually is, at 1.00 MHz of gain–bandwidth. computed by solving, not by drawing by driving a current into the node and reading the voltage. It is 100 mΩ at direct current, rises 1.000 decades per decade of frequency, and settles at 909.5 Ω — which is the 1 kΩ and 10 kΩ in parallel, with the amplifier contributing nothing. It passes one per cent of the input resistor at 995 Hz, a factor of 1,005 below the gain–bandwidth. The second route — the open-loop impedance over one plus the return ratio from the cut loop — agrees to 0.045%.

Feedback, and the margin

The node that is at ground for a while

An inverting amplifier's summing junction is held at ground by the loop, so it is at ground exactly as well as the loop is strong. Driven with a current and measured, it is a tenth of an ohm at direct current, ten ohms at a kilohertz, and 909 ohms above a megahertz — which is the two feedback resistors in parallel, with the amplifier contributing nothing.

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.

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.

Networks, and how a solve is checked

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.

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.

Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

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.

Where a signal becomes a number

When a floor stops being a floor

Quantisation error is treated as noise and behaves like noise while the input crosses many levels. As the amplitude falls it stops: measured at the bins its harmonics occupy, the share of the error's power sitting in harmonics of the input rises from 0.29% at 230 levels to 76% at 1.3. The floor has not moved. It has become a distortion product locked to the signal, and the fix is to add noise on purpose — one whole least significant bit, and no more.

One bit, oversampled — and where the quantisation noise went. computed by solving, not by drawing. A first-order modulator is marched forward one sample at a time with a one-bit quantiser inside the loop, and the noise inside the band is read out of the transform of the error. It falls by 8.99 dB for every doubling of the oversampling ratio — measured 9.33, 10.12, 6.96, 9.54 — against 3.01 dB for plain oversampling, which is drawn beside it from the same starting point. The loop does not make less noise; it moves the noise out of the band, and at a ratio of 128 one bit is worth 9.18.

Where a signal becomes a number

One bit, and where the noise went

Sampling faster spreads a fixed quantity of quantisation noise over a wider band, so the part inside the band of interest falls by 3.01 dB for every doubling — half a bit. Putting the quantiser inside a loop with an integrator does something different in kind: measured on a modulator marched forward one sample at a time, with its test tone inside the band the ratio is quoted over, the in-band noise falls by 8.99 dB per doubling. At an oversampling ratio of 128, one bit is worth 9.18 — and the octaves scatter by a decibel each, which is the loop telling the truth about what its error is made of.

One diode curve, eight one-decade fits, and eight different ideality factors. computed by solving, not by drawing. A junction with two conduction mechanisms — recombination near n = 2 at low current, diffusion near n = 1 above it — and a series resistance, which is what a real diode is. Fitting ln(i) against v over each decade in turn returns an ideality factor for each, and they run from 1.227 to 1.984 without being monotonic: the factor rises through the recombination region, falls through the diffusion region, and rises again where the series resistance takes over. Two of the windows are straight to a few parts in a thousand, so the residual gives no warning. The bars are what each fit predicts for the forward voltage at 1 mA: the worst is out by -186 millivolts, which is a current 0.01 times the truth.

Where the models stop

The constant that is a window

A diode's ideality factor is quoted as a number and defined as a derivative, which means it has a value at every current and no value anywhere. Eight one-decade fits to one curve return factors from 1.23 to 1.98, two of them straight to a few parts in a thousand — so the residual gives no warning at all. Asked for the forward voltage at a milliamp, the window containing it is right to a third of a millivolt and the worst is out by 186, which is a current a hundredth of the truth.

50 Ω + j100 Ω of line, and the load angle past which the far end rises. computed by solving, not by drawing at 71 load resistances and four load angles. A source of 50 Ω + j100 Ω feeding loads of the same resistance and different power factor: at unity power factor the voltage across the load climbs towards the source's and stops there, reaching 0.9675 of it at the largest load drawn. A lagging load leaves less. A leading one leaves more, and past a computable angle it leaves more than the source has: the condition is 2Rₗ(Rₛ + Xₛ·tanφ) + |Zₛ|² < 0, which for the largest load here is 28.35° of lead — bisected on the solve at 28.35° — tending to atan(Rₛ/Xₛ) = 26.57° as the load grows. So the edge is a property of the line and the load angle together, and "voltage regulation" quoted as a percentage carries neither.

Power, and the part that does no work

The far end that rises

Voltage regulation is quoted as a percentage: how far the voltage at the end of a line falls when the load is applied. The percentage carries neither of the two things that decide it. Past a computable angle of leading load the voltage at the far end goes above the source's — 28.35 degrees for a line of fifty ohms and a hundred of reactance — and with no reactance in the line there is no such angle at all, because the rise is a partial resonance and needs both halves.

An inverting unity gain, and the 100 pF that only the loop can see. computed by solving, not by drawing. Two ten-kilohm resistors around a 10 MHz amplifier make a gain of 1.00, and a loop that closes against 2.01 — one plus the ratio, not the ratio. Adding 100 pF at the summing junction leaves the closed-loop gain at a kilohertz unchanged — 0.99998051 against 0.99997988, three parts in a million at the far end of the slider — and takes the phase margin from 90.0° to 14.4°, because the noise gain now rises a decade per decade and the loop closes at forty decibels per decade instead of twenty. Forty-five degrees is reached at 9.00 pF, bisected on the netlist. The capacitance is not part of the signal path and does not appear in any expression for the gain.

Feedback, and the margin

The gain the loop closes against

An inverting amplifier with two equal resistors has a gain of one and a loop that closes against two, so it has half the bandwidth of a follower built from the same part — 4.99 megahertz against ten. Nine picofarads at the summing junction, less than a scope probe, takes the phase margin from ninety degrees to forty-five, and a hundred picofarads puts twelve decibels of peaking on a response whose designed gain is nought decibels and whose measured gain at a kilohertz has not moved by three parts in a million.

A passive network, read from each end — and the two readings are one number. computed by solving, not by drawing. A five-element RLC 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.

Networks, and how a solve is checked

The reading that does not care which way round it is

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

The same millivolts, subtracted — and what four resistors leave behind. computed by solving, not by drawing at 145 frequencies. A 10 mm run of one-ounce copper carries the return of a 100 mA load and the reference of a 10 mV sensor. Its 5.00 mΩ and 10.0 nH put 500.0 µV in series with the sensor at low frequency — 5.00% of the reading — rising a decade per decade above 79.6 kHz until at 1.59 MHz the error is the whole signal. The full solve and the interfering current times the shared impedance agree to 4.4e-7. The slider is the length of the shared run: both the resistance and the inductance are proportional to it, so every point on the curve moves down together and the corner stays at 79.6 kHz. The second curve is the same measurement made differentially: a unity-gain difference amplifier across the sensor, its four resistors carrying the worst-case skew 0.1% allows. It divides the error by 500.5 — 53.99 dB against a closed-form (1 + G)/(4·tolerance) of 53.98 dB — at every frequency, because four resistors have no frequency in them. What is left is 998.9 nV, which is not zero: the amplifier subtracts the interference and the resistors decide how much of it survives.

Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

The rejection four resistors decide

Measuring a ten-millivolt sensor against a ground that somebody else's hundred milliamps is also using puts five hundred microvolts of their current into the reading. Subtracting the two ends of that conductor with a difference amplifier removes it — by 53.99 decibels with one-tenth-per-cent resistors, against a closed form of 53.98, which is a factor of five hundred and not a removal. The amplifier has nothing to do with it: the number is one plus the gain over four times the resistor tolerance.

A 10 kΩ resistor, and the 19.3 MHz it is one below. computed by solving, not by drawing. The dashed line is R, which is what the symbol means. The solid line is the same part with 8.0 nH of lead inductance in series and 0.40 pF across the body, solved as a three-element network and checked against the closed form for the same three elements to 3.3e-16. It is ten per cent below its own value by 19.3 MHz, and which of the two parasitics does that depends on the resistance: the shunt capacitance wins above 91.02 Ω and the lead inductance below it. The slider is the resistance, and the departure frequency it moves is not monotonic — it rises a decade per decade of resistance, peaks near 91.02 Ω at 2.00 GHz, and falls a decade per decade after that.

Frequency, which is the same solve

The resistor that is only a resistor

A capacitor becomes an inductor above a frequency its leads decide, and an inductor becomes a capacitor. The third member of that family is the one nobody draws, and it is the only one whose edge is not monotonic in its own value: a ten-megohm resistor stops being one at 19 kilohertz, a ten-ohm resistor at 92 megahertz, and between them sits a resistance whose impedance is flat to fourth order — 91.02 ohms here, which is the square root of L over C divided by the root of one plus root two.

Five resistances, five corner frequencies, and one total on the capacitor. computed by solving, not by drawing. The noise density at a 1 pF capacitor charged through 100 Ω, 1 kΩ, 10 kΩ, 100 kΩ and 1 MΩ, at 290 K. The densities are 100 times apart and the noise bandwidths 1.0e+4 times apart, in opposite directions, so the area under every curve is the same: 63.2762 µV against 63.2762 µV, and √(kT/C) is 63.2762 µV. The resistance has cancelled out of the answer, and the reason is that ½C⟨v²⟩ is the ½kT a degree of freedom in contact with a bath holds — which no arrangement of resistors can change. The claim is about the whole frequency axis and nothing less: inside a 15.9 MHz band the same five networks give 5.05 µV to 63.07 µV, a factor of 12.5.

The floor, which bounds from below

The total that has no resistor in it

A larger resistor is noisier and makes a narrower filter, and the two dependences are exactly reciprocal: the density goes as the square root of the resistance and the noise bandwidth as its inverse. Five decades of resistance charging one picofarad therefore give five decades of corner frequency, two and a half decades of density, and one total — 63.2762 microvolts at every one of them, which is the square root of kT over C and contains no resistance at all.

A step on a series RLC at ζ = 0.079, and the two numbers read off H(s). computed by solving, not by drawing. A 50.3 kHz series RLC driven by a one-volt step, with the capacitor voltage and the inductor voltage drawn together. Two limits of the transfer function are two points of the waveform and neither needs the waveform: H(0) = 1.000000 is where the capacitor ends up, and H(∞) across the inductor is 1.0000, which is what it does at the first instant — the expansion gives 1.000000 for it at t = 0. Here the damping ratio is 0.0791, the response is inside ±2% after 7.6 cycles, and 100.0% of the last twenty-four cycles sit there. The poles are at a real part of -7.91e-2 of ω₀, which is the condition the final-value theorem actually has — not a property of H but of where sY(s) has its poles.

Before the steady state

Two numbers without solving for the waveform

Where a step response starts and where it ends are two limits of the transfer function, and neither needs the waveform. Both are exact here — 1.000000000 volts at the end and the whole step at the first instant — and one of them is a lie waiting to happen: take the damping to zero and the final-value theorem still returns 1.000000 for a response that swings between 0 and 2 for ever. Its condition is not on the transfer function but on where the poles are, and the practical condition is narrower still: at five ohms the poles are safely in the left half-plane and sixty cycles is not enough time.

The voltage a winding may carry, which is a volt-second limit read at a frequency. computed by solving, not by drawing. The dots are bisections on a marched flux — the voltage integrated sample by sample until the peak excursion reaches 0.35 T — and the line is N·Ae·Bsat·2πf. They agree to 0.001% over three decades, and the fitted slope is 1.000000: exactly proportional, because flux is the integral of voltage and nothing else. The quantity that belongs to the core is the 3.500 mWb-turn, which has no frequency in it. A transformer "rated for 50 Hz" is a transformer whose volt-second product was divided by 2π × 50 once.

Two windings, and the band between them

A boundary in volt-seconds

A core saturates on the integral of the voltage applied to it, not on the current through it and not at a frequency. The quantity that belongs to the core is N·Ae·Bsat — 3.500 mWb-turn here — and it has no frequency in it at all. Everything a data sheet says about a transformer's frequency rating is that one number divided by 2πf once: measured on a marched flux, the voltage a winding may carry is proportional to frequency to a fitted exponent of 1.000000.

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.

Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

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.

A 1.0% doublet: 0.078 dB in the magnitude, 36× the settling time. computed by solving, not by drawing. Above, the magnitude of a fast circuit followed by a pole and a zero that were meant to cancel and miss by 1.00%, against the same circuit with the cancellation exact: the worst disagreement anywhere up to the fast corner is 0.0777 dB. Below, the error left in the step response, in units of the tail's own amplitude of 0.909%. Settling to 0.10% takes 245.2 fast time constants against 6.9 with the cancellation exact, and the closed form τ·ln(A/B) gives 245.2 — a time that contains nothing of the fast circuit at all.

Before the steady state

The cancellation that leaves a tail

A pole and a zero placed on top of each other disappear from the response. Miss by one per cent and the magnitude changes by 0.078 decibels, which no measurement would report as a fault, while the time to settle to a thousandth goes from 6.9 time constants to 245 — thirty-six times longer. The settling time has a closed form containing neither the fast circuit nor the doublet's separation as such, and its consequence is blunt: settling to a part in ten thousand needs a cancellation good to a part in ten thousand, however fast the amplifier in front of it is.

An inverting unity gain driving 2.2 nF, and the pole that is inside the loop. computed by solving, not by drawing. Two ten-kilohm resistors around a 10 MHz amplifier make a gain of 1.00, and a loop that closes against 2.01 — one plus the ratio, not the ratio. Hanging 2.2 nF on the output leaves the closed-loop gain at a kilohertz unchanged — 0.99998002 against 0.99997988 — and takes the phase margin from 90.0° to 30.1°. The mechanism is at the other end of the amplifier from the summing-junction case and the arithmetic is the same: the load works against the amplifier's own fifty ohms of output resistance, which puts a second pole in the forward path — inside the loop, where the feedback has to live with it — while the gain the loop closes against does not move at all. Forty-five degrees is reached at 905 pF, bisected on the netlist. The capacitance is not part of the signal path and does not appear in any expression for the gain.

Feedback, and the margin

The load that gets inside the loop

Hanging a capacitor on an amplifier's output changes nothing a reader can find in any expression for its gain, and takes the phase margin of a unity-gain inverter from ninety degrees to thirty. The mechanism is fifty ohms of output resistance that no data sheet page puts next to the stability page: the load works against it, the pole that results is in the forward path, and forty-five degrees arrives at 905 picofarads — which is a metre of coaxial cable.

The floor, which bounds from below

The noise a clock does not make

A hundred-megohm resistor has a noise density of 1.27 microvolts per root hertz. A switched capacitor that behaves as a hundred megohms has none of it: the noise on the capacitor it charges is kT/C, with the holding capacitor in it and nothing else — not the clock, not the switched capacitor, not the on-resistance. And it is exact rather than asymptotic, at every capacitor ratio from a thousandth to ten.

One magnitude curve, two phase curves, and the one of them the magnitude decides. computed by solving, not by drawing. A passive lead network — a resistor with a capacitor across it, over a second resistor, its zero at 1.00 kHz — and the same network followed by a first-order all-pass. The two magnitudes agree to the last bits of a double at every one of the 1601 frequencies sampled, and the phases differ by as much as 180°. Bode's gain–phase integral, fed the magnitudes alone with their phases discarded, returns 39.29° at the corner against a solved 39.29°, and tracks the minimum-phase curve to 0.02° across the band — while being wrong about the second network by the all-pass's own phase, which is what excess phase means. The edge here is the span of the sweep rather than a frequency of the circuit: ±3 decades of magnitude carries 99.92% of the integral's weight, and what is left out is the tail of a logarithm.

Frequency, which is the same solve

The phase the magnitude already knows

For one class of network the phase is not an independent measurement: it is fixed everywhere by the magnitude, through an integral Bode wrote down in 1945. Fed nothing but the magnitudes of a solved lead network, that integral returns 39.289 degrees at the corner against a solved 39.289, and tracks the whole curve to two hundredths of a degree. Cascade an all-pass and the magnitudes agree to the last bits of a double while the phases part by 180 degrees — so the recovery is exact for one of the two and cannot see the other at all.

Where a signal becomes a number

The staircase on the way out

A converter does not emit impulses. It holds each sample for a whole clock period, which is a convolution with a rectangle and therefore a multiplication by a sinc — 0.14 dB down at a tenth of the sample rate, 0.91 at a quarter, and 3.92 at half, which is exactly 20 log(2/π). Nobody chose that droop and it is nearly eight times the half-decibel ripple of a Chebyshev passband. Measured on the transform of the staircase itself, it agrees with the closed form to 0.008%.

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%.

Networks, and how a solve is checked

The tolerance that is not on any part

Four one per cent resistors in a divider give an answer whose worst case is one per cent, whose measured spread is 0.29 per cent, and whose root-sum-square bound — offered everywhere as though it were a standard deviation — is 1.70 of one. Adding parts does not move the worst case at all and shrinks the spread as one over their root, so the gap between the promise and the fact widens with every resistor. And the same arithmetic draws a boundary in tolerance rather than in frequency: an R–2R ladder is a twelve-bit converter only while its resistors are inside 0.14 per cent.

The floor, which bounds from below

The amplifier inside the sample

kT/C is exactly independent of the clock, of the capacitor ratio and of the switch resistance — two essays measured that and found it identically true rather than nearly so. The amplifier in the same loop behaves in the opposite way in every respect: its noise is white, it is sampled, and the number of times it folds into the band is exactly the number of time constants the settling needs. So the switches set the floor below sixty megahertz and the amplifier sets it above, and asking for two more bits of settling costs fifteen per cent more noise before anything else has changed.

A 4 kHz Butterworth, mapped to 48 kHz two ways. computed by solving, not by drawing. The upper panel is the digital response on the unit circle; the lower one is where each analogue frequency lands. The bilinear transform compresses the axis as it approaches half the sample rate — -3.11% at a tenth of the rate and -15.2% at a quarter — so a design mapped straight through is -3.432 dB at its own corner instead of -3.010. Pre-warping puts that one frequency back exactly and no other: above it the pre-warped curve is the further of the two from the analogue prototype. It is a choice of where to be right, not a correction.

Where a signal becomes a number

The corner that moved

The bilinear transform has to fit an infinite frequency axis onto a circle, so something must be compressed, and what is compressed is everything near half the sample rate. A 4 kHz Butterworth mapped to a 48 kHz clock is 3.432 dB down at its own corner instead of 3.010, and at a quarter of the sample rate the axis is 15.2% out. Pre-warping puts one frequency back exactly and no other — it is a choice of where to be right, not a correction.

The reverse peak reaches the forward current at 12.6 A/µs. computed by solving, not by drawing. The peak current a diode conducts backwards while its stored charge is removed, against the rate the external circuit drives its current down. The charge equation is integrated in closed form and marched trapezoidally, and the two agree to a part in a thousand. Drawn over it are the two expressions that describe the limits: √(2·IF·a·τ), which is what a reference gives and which is 16.7% high at this slope, and aτ, which contains no forward current at all and is what the peak approaches when the ramp is slow. At 100 A/µs the junction goes on conducting for 48.3 ns and reaches 3.83 A backwards — 3.83 times the current it was carrying forwards — and the two are equal at 12.6 A/µs.

Before the steady state

The diode that conducts backwards

Every diode in this collection is an instantaneous function of its own voltage, which is exact for an operating point and has no time in it at all. A conducting junction holds a charge, and until that charge is gone it cannot block: drive its current down at a hundred amperes a microsecond and it conducts 3.83 amperes backwards for 48 nanoseconds, against the one ampere it was carrying forwards. The expression every reference gives for that peak is 17 per cent high there, and is right to a per cent only above sixteen thousand amperes a microsecond.

A first stage of 100 buys 40.0 dB of rejection, and gives it back above 10.0 kHz. computed by solving, not by drawing. The rejection of a three-amplifier instrumentation amplifier against frequency, beside the one-amplifier difference stage it is built around. At low frequency the two differ by 39.99 dB against 20 log 100 = 40.00 dB, and the reason is that the input stage passes a common-mode voltage at exactly unity: the common-mode gain of the whole instrument is 1.998 mV/V, which is the difference stage's own. So the four resistors around the last amplifier decide the rejection and the two that set the gain do not — ten per cent between them moves it by less than a hundredth of a decibel. What ends it is bandwidth: above 10.0 kHz, which is the amplifier's gain–bandwidth divided by the gain that bought the rejection, the differential gain falls and the rejection falls with it at twenty decibels a decade.

Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

The four resistors that decide, and the two that do not

A difference amplifier's rejection is decided by four resistors and one-tenth-per-cent parts give 54 decibels. Putting a two-amplifier stage in front adds exactly twenty times the log of its gain — 94 decibels at a gain of a hundred — and the reason is not that the input stage rejects anything. It passes common mode at exactly unity, so the common-mode gain of the whole instrument is 1.998 millivolts per volt at every gain tried, and the improvement is entirely the differential signal arriving larger. The two resistors that set that gain may be ten per cent apart without moving the answer a hundredth of a decibel.

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.

Networks, and how a solve is checked

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 stub holds the far end at two thirds for twice its own delay. computed by solving, not by drawing. A series-terminated net with a branch on it, marched as waves on a delay grid. Three lines of equal impedance meet at the junction, so each presents the others with Z₀/2 and a wave arriving is reflected by exactly −1/3 with two thirds going on. The far end therefore receives 66.7% of the swing at one line delay instead of all of it, and is held there for 0.400 line delays — twice the stub's own delay of 0.41 ns, being the round trip to its open end and back. The same net without the branch is drawn beside it and settles in one round trip, which is what a series termination is for. Each further round trip of the stub divides what is left of the error by three and turns it over, because the returning wave doubles at the open far end — so the receiver approaches its level alternately from below and from above.

Lines, where a wire has a length

The receiver that is a branch

A lattice diagram has two ends, and an interior receiver is not a point on a net — it is a short piece of track leading off it to a pin, open at the far end. Three lines of equal impedance meeting at a junction present each other with half the impedance, so a wave arriving is reflected by exactly minus a third and two thirds goes on: the far end receives two thirds of the swing and sits there for twice the stub's own delay, whatever the net is terminated with and wherever on it the branch is.

9.9 Ω restores 45°, 23 Ω restores 60°, and the load pays for it in ohms. computed by solving, not by drawing. Phase margin against the resistor placed between a unity-gain inverter's output and 2.2 nF of load capacitance, with the feedback taken from the amplifier's own side of it. With no resistor the margin is 30.11°; 9.90 Ω restores 45° and 23.20 Ω restores 60°. The lower curve is the same resistor with the feedback taken from the load instead, where it makes every value worse — the pole is then inside the loop rather than outside it, and at 220 Ω the margin is 13.4°. The rising curve is what it costs: the loop no longer regulates the load's node, so 1 kΩ of resistive load pulls the output down by 0.990% at 10 Ω, uncorrected, at direct current.

Feedback, and the margin

The resistor that buys the margin back

Two point two nanofarads takes a unity-gain inverter's phase margin from ninety degrees to thirty. Ten ohms between the amplifier and the load restores forty-five, twenty-three restores sixty, and it works for a reason that reads as a cheat: the feedback is taken from the wrong side of the resistor, so its pole is outside the loop. Take the feedback from the load instead — which is what anyone controlling the load would do — and the same resistor makes every value worse. What it costs is that the loop no longer regulates the load's node at all: ten ohms is one per cent of error into a kilohm, at direct current, uncorrected.

A pair at Q = 0.7071: the sketch is -3.01 dB out at the corner. computed by solving, not by drawing. The solved magnitude against the two straight lines that stand in for it. At a conjugate pair the error at the corner is 20 log Q = -3.010 dB, which is unbounded in both directions, and the worst error anywhere is 3.010 dB at 1.00× the corner. No damping brings it inside 0.770 dB: that is the minimax, at Q = 0.9152, where the corner error and an interior maximum are equal.

Frequency, which is the same solve

The straight lines, and where they are not the curve

Two straight lines through a corner is the most-used approximation in this subject and almost the only one with no number attached. It has one, and it is exact: at a single real pole the sketch is 3.0103 decibels high at the corner and nowhere worse, and its error is the same a factor above the corner as the same factor below — a symmetry the construction does not suggest. A pole pair has no such bound at all, and the best any two-slope sketch can do on one is 0.770 decibels, at a quality factor of 0.9152.

Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

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.

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

Every derivative, and the one that is zero

How much does this response move if that capacitor is one per cent out? A difference quotient answers it one component at a time, in two solves each, and its best possible accuracy is four parts in a hundred million. Transposing the matrix and solving once more answers it for every component at once, exactly. Pointed at a claim the essays on ladder filters have made from the start and never tested directly — that a doubly terminated ladder filter's response is stationary in every element at its passband maxima — it returns two parts in ten billion, where the cascade realising the identical response returns 0.72.

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 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.

Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

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.

The second path costs nothing at 12 pF and an order at 100 pF. computed by solving, not by drawing. Settling time to 0.01% of final value, marched on the closed loop, against the value of the second feedback path's capacitor — with the phase margin of the same circuit divided by ten drawn on the same axis so the two can be compared. The direct-current error the previous rung recorded as the isolation resistor's cost, 0.99% into 1 kΩ, falls to 1.20e-4% with the second path in. What the second path costs instead is a range: at 12 pF the circuit settles in 0.745 µs against the isolation resistor's 1.419 µs — faster than the thing it repairs — and at 100 pF it takes 9.18 µs, 12 times longer, at a phase margin of 47.9° that reports nothing whatever about it. What it is settling by there is one exponential of time constant 0.99 µs, which is the feedback network's own RC and contains no amplifier.

Feedback, and the margin

The path that buys the error back

An isolation resistor restores a capacitively loaded amplifier's phase margin and costs it the thing feedback was for: the loop stops regulating the node the load is on, and a kilohm of load pulls the output down by a per cent. The standard repair is a second feedback path, and its cost is not an error or a margin — it is a range. At twelve picofarads it settles to a hundredth of a per cent in 0.745 microseconds, faster than the circuit it repairs; at a hundred it takes 9.18, and the phase margin there is better.

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

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

The period a delay lengthens

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

The floor, which bounds from below

The sample that is subtracted

Three earlier measurements found floors that no gain moves and no filter reaches, because both arrive as numbers already sampled. One of them can be subtracted: the reset level a capacitor holds is the same number in two consecutive samples and cancels exactly. What it costs is that the amplifier's own noise is not — two samples of it are independent, so its variance doubles. That is thirty times better at a megahertz, a loss above sixty, and the crossing is the one an earlier essay computed for a different question.

$Two of the three are one mechanism at 19.0°; the third arrives at ninety. computed by solving, not by drawing. The cosine between each pair of error waveforms at 30.0 kHz, against how much output the ideal model is asked for. Bandwidth and slewing sit at 0.9454 — 19.0 degrees — and close only slowly, reaching 0.8813 at 16 V. Clipping does not exist below 12.00 V, where its error is 4.0e-9 per cent of the signal and its direction is the direction of rounding; above it the mechanism is real — 18.1 per cent at the top of the sweep — and its cosine against both of the others stays under 0.0025. The bandwidth error is 0.615 per cent at every amplitude here, unchanged to 5.3e-15, because a linear stage's fractional error has no amplitude in it.$ Where the models stop

Where the mechanisms are one mechanism

An amplifier is said to run out of three separate things — bandwidth, slew rate and rails — and errors from separate mechanisms add in quadrature while errors from one mechanism add as magnitudes. Measured as waveforms rather than as numbers, two of the three sit 18.4349 degrees apart, which is exactly the angle between a sinusoid and its own cube, and the third sits at ninety: its cosine against both of the others stays under 0.0025 wherever it exists. So the arithmetic is neither of the two anybody reaches for, and a budget built the right way is within 2.9 per cent where quadrature is 17 per cent low and a straight sum 37 per cent high.

What 10 ps of aperture jitter is worth, in bits. computed by solving, not by drawing. Samples are taken at instants displaced by a seeded Gaussian of 10 ps and the error is measured against the same sinusoid sampled exactly. The line is −20 log(2π f × jitter), which the measurement matches to 0.12 dB across three decades. The penalty is exactly twenty decibels a decade of input frequency, because the error is the signal's slope times the timing error and nothing else — so a converter holds 16 bits only up to 199 kHz and 12 bits up to 3.18 MHz. An aperture figure quoted without an input frequency states no resolution at all.

Where a signal becomes a number

A picosecond, read as bits

Every other boundary in this collection has a frequency, an amplitude or a size on its axis. This one has a duration. A converter that samples at t + δ instead of t gets a value wrong by the slope times δ, so the damage is proportional to input frequency and to nothing else about the part: ten picoseconds holds sixteen bits up to 199 kHz and twelve bits up to 3.18 MHz, falling at exactly twenty decibels a decade. An aperture figure quoted without an input frequency states no resolution at all.

The same three stages, in two orders. computed by solving, not by drawing by Friis's cascade. With the low-noise amplifier first the chain's noise figure is 3.31 dB; with the mixer first it is 12.01 dB. The gain is identical either way — 48.0 dB — so the 8.70 dB is bought with nothing but an ordering. Everything after the first stage contributes 26.0% of the total. The 2.0 dB of cable in front has gain below one, so it multiplies every later stage's contribution rather than dividing it.

The floor, which bounds from below

The loss in front, counted twice

A decibel of cable before an amplifier costs a decibel of signal, which everybody expects, and a decibel of noise figure, which is a separate decibel arriving from a separate place. Measured across the slider it is exact: 1.31 dB of chain noise figure becomes 2.31 with one decibel of cable and 9.31 with eight, every time, while the 8.70 dB that stage ordering is worth does not move at all. A lossless reactive network in the same position costs nothing, because only the real part of an impedance is warm.

What 1.5 mm of length mismatch does to a differential pair. computed by solving, not by drawing. Two lines of the same impedance and different lengths, driven differentially. The solid rising curve is what arrives as common mode; the dashed one beside it is sin(ωΔτ/2), which is what a lossless pair gives and is the same curve until the null. The flat curve at the top is the differential signal, and it is the point: at 3.04 GHz a tenth of the launched amplitude is common mode and the differential has lost 5011 parts per million of itself. The conversion is first order in the skew and the loss is second order, so the error is not missing from the signal — which is why a pair can pass its own eye and fail an emissions test. At 95.3 GHz the closed form has a null and the real pair does not: the longer conductor is also the lossier one, and an amplitude imbalance has no null in it.

Lines, where a wire has a length

The millimetre that becomes common mode

A pair carries two modes rather than two signals, and a length mismatch between its halves converts one into the other. A millimetre and a half of skew is ten picoseconds, a tenth of the signal is common mode by three gigahertz, and the differential signal has lost five thousand parts per million of itself getting there — so the error is not missing from the signal, which is why a pair can pass its own eye and fail an emissions test. The product in the answer is ωΔτ, which is what the instruments field's rejection corner is one over.

Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

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.

Sixteen more digits move the boundary by sixteen decades and leave it exactly where it was. computed by solving, not by drawing. The earlier essay'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 earlier essay 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.

Networks, and how a solve is checked

The digits the arithmetic did not have

Bounding the arithmetic of double-precision circuit solving finds two boundaries that cannot be attributed to it: a bridge with no correct figures left at an imbalance of 10⁻¹⁵, and a filter synthesis that stalls at order 14. An ill-conditioned problem stays ill-conditioned however many digits are used, and a well-conditioned one computed badly gets better — so adding digits is the experiment that tells them apart. The bridge's loss is entirely the arithmetic's. The synthesis's is mostly the data's, and doubling the digits makes it worse.

Alternating-current resistance against foil thickness, 4 layers. computed by solving, not by drawing. The falling dashed curve is the direct-current resistance, which is what more copper buys. The solid curve is the alternating-current resistance at 100 kHz for a portion of 4 layers, and it turns over: past ξ = 0.663 skin depths, thicker foil has MORE resistance, not less. The minimum sits at 1.3368 times the direct-current resistance of the same foil, which is four thirds and is the same number for every layer count above one. The resistance per turn there is 2.016 against √m = 2.000, which is the law the layer count obeys.

Two windings, and the band between them

The copper that makes it worse

The rung below measured one conductor pushing its own current to its rim, and there is nothing to optimise in it: thicker wire is always less resistance. Stack the conductors and the quantity changes character. Each layer sits in the field of the ones below it, the loss that field drives has no upper bound in the thickness, and the product turns over — so a portion of four layers has a best foil thickness, and above it more copper is more resistance. The best thickness is the fourth root of three over the square root of the layer count, in skin depths, and the penalty at it is four thirds for every layer count above one.

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

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

The delay that is two delays

Modelling one comparator delay applied to both transitions makes the two half cycles equal by construction, and the fix is a change of one line. Made, the duty cycle moves by 0.28 per cent for twenty nanoseconds of skew rather than the 0.40 the obvious expression gives, more hysteresis improves the duty cycle and worsens the volt-seconds at the same time, and ten nanoseconds of skew saturates a hundred-turn core in 231 cycles.

$The frequency at which a pulse train becomes an average. computed by solving, not by drawing. The same 5 watts of average dissipation at every frequency, delivered 2 per cent at a time. The flat line is the steady-state answer, which does not know about the frequency. The falling curve is the marched peak junction temperature, which does. They meet at 308 Hz, and that frequency is not a property of the converter: it is a fraction of one junction time constant per period — f·τ = 0.738 at this duty, with τ = 2.40 ms, and between 0.78 and 0.56 across the duties on the slider. A hundred-kilohertz converter fits 240 periods inside that time constant, and at the top of the sweep — 10.0 kHz — the steady state is already exact to 0.46 per cent, so the averaged-power fixed point is right and this is the measurement that says why. The march puts 48 steps inside each pulse, which is what the answer is sensitive to: at six it put the boundary 19 per cent too high.$ Before the steady state

The pulse the heatsink does not feel

A thermal resistance iterated to a fixed point with a diode or a switch is a statement about a power — so it assumes that a hundred and fifty watts for two per cent of the time is three watts. The die's own heat capacity decides whether that is true, and it decides it at a frequency: above 308 hertz the junction integrates, by a hundred kilohertz the fixed point is exact to five parts in ten thousand, and at one hertz the same average power on the same heatsink puts the junction three hundred kelvin hotter.

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.

A fit to the held curve reads the series resistance falling to nothing at 532 K/W. computed by solving, not by drawing. Each point is a three-parameter fit — a constant, an ideality factor and a series resistance — to the held forward curve between 10 and 100 mA, for a junction built with 0.6 Ω and no temperature coefficient on it, mounted at the thermal resistance on the axis. With no thermal resistance the fit returns 0.580 Ω with a residual of 43.9 µV. At 350 K/W it returns 0.184 Ω, an ideality of 1.086 and a residual of 34.0 µV. The resistance it reports reaches zero at 531.7 K/W and is negative beyond.

Where the models stop

The resistance a slow curve cannot see

A diode's series resistance is read off the top of its forward curve, and a bench curve is a slow one: each point is held until the junction has warmed to it. Through 350 kelvin per watt the held curve sits 39.7 millivolts below the pulsed one at 100 milliamps, and the three-parameter fit that reads 0.580 ohms from the pulsed curve reads 0.184 from the held one — with a smaller residual. The fitted resistance reaches zero at 531.7 kelvin per watt, and the resistance it hid is what keeps the junction from folding back: with 0.05 ohms instead of 0.6 the held curve turns over at 87.6 milliamps.

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.

The load sees 10.0 Ω, 1.2e-3 Ω or 1.2e-3 Ω at direct current, and the peak is lowest for the arrangement with both paths. computed by solving, not by drawing. The impedance at the load node of all three arrangements, measured by grounding the input and driving a unit current into the load. Feedback from the amplifier leaves the load looking at the isolation resistor — 10.0 Ω, with no loop gain in it at all. Feedback from the load gives 1.2e-3 Ω, and the two-path arrangement has the same, which is what its direct-current path is for. All three resonate with the load capacitance near 3.2 MHz, and the two-path arrangement's peak is the lowest — 27.6 Ω against 37.4 and 59.2. What it gives up is between: above the 159 kHz handover it has let go of the load node.

Feedback, and the margin

What the load sees looking back

Four rungs of this argument have measured what the amplifier does to the signal — the margin, the settling, the error, the noise. None has asked the question from the other end. A load that draws its own current sees an impedance looking back, and with the feedback taken from the amplifier that impedance is the isolation resistor, with no loop gain in it whatever: ten ohms, and a load step leaves an error that never goes away. The two-path arrangement recovers to a thousandth of it and charges for that in a quantity none of the four rungs below measured.

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.

Networks, and how a solve is checked

The derivative of a root

An earlier essay turned one transposed solve into the derivative of a response with respect to every element, and found a doubly terminated ladder filter stationary at its ripple peaks to a part in ten to the eighth. A pole is a different object — a value of s at which the matrix loses rank — and its derivative comes from two null vectors and a division. Pointed at the same two realisations, the ladder filter's advantage is a factor of 2.17, not eight orders of magnitude: what is stationary is the magnitude at one frequency, and it says nothing about where the poles are.

The charge that comes back: a 0.2% dielectric, 10 s shorted, read at 900 s. computed by solving, not by drawing. The capacitor is charged to 10 V until every relaxation is complete, shorted for 10 seconds, then opened and watched. It climbs back to 20.00 millivolts — 0.2000 per cent of where it was — and the shape is the finding: it is a straight line on a logarithmic time axis, gaining 0.097 per cent of the charging voltage per decade. There is no time constant after which it is over, because there is no single time constant: one branch of the model comes to equilibrium per decade, for as many decades as the dielectric has. A decade before the reading it was at 0.1033 per cent.

Before the steady state

The capacitor that remembers

Charge a capacitor, short it for ten seconds, open it, and it climbs back to a fifth of a per cent of where it was. Nothing leaked and nothing was gained: some of the dielectric had not finished discharging. The same defect measured as an admittance says the part is 0.593 per cent more capacitance at a tenth of a millihertz than at a kilohertz, and measured in a sample-and-hold it says a millisecond of hold costs a hundred parts per million — thirteen bits, on a part specified at nothing.

One part, three saturation currents: 1.90 A, 2.40 A, 2.69 A. computed by solving, not by drawing. B(H) is μ₀H plus a saturating magnetisation, written as a flux linkage, and the inductance drawn here is dλ/di — the slope of that flux, which is what a small signal on a direct current actually meets. It is 18.92 µH at no current, 16.73 µH at two amps and 10.43 µH at three, and it never reaches zero: the vacuum is still there, so the part falls to its air-core 0.05 µH and stays. The three marks are the ten, twenty and thirty per cent drops different manufacturers print as the saturation current — 1.896, 2.395, 2.694 amps, a spread of 42 per cent on one part.

Two windings, and the band between them

The inductance the current decides

The rung below bounded the flux and the boundary is exact: the volt-seconds decide the flux swing whatever the material does, and a cycle whose current ripple runs from 519 mA to 75 A has the same flux excursion to better than two per cent. What saturation breaks is the relationship between that flux and the current — so a ripple the design expression puts at 514 mA is 1,022 mA at 2.56 A of load, the peak reaches 3.57 A where the part is at a fifth of its nameplate inductance, and the same part has three saturation currents depending on which per cent it was quoted at.

At a stationary point a tolerance has a mean, not a spread. computed by solving, not by drawing. Six hundred ladder filters 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.

Networks, and how a solve is checked

The tolerance that can only take away

At a doubly terminated ladder filter's ripple peak the first derivative of the magnitude with respect to every reactance is zero to ten digits, which an earlier essay measured and which says nothing about how much the response moves. This says how: every second derivative is negative, so of six hundred ladder filters built from one per cent components not one is above nominal, the mean has shifted rather than the spread having grown, and doubling the tolerance quadruples the damage instead of doubling it.

A coil of 500 nF and a capacitor of 100 µH give the loop three features, not one. computed by solving, not by drawing. The current round the loop for a volt across it, with the coil carrying 500 nanofarads of its own capacitance and the capacitor 100 microhenries of its own inductance. Three features rather than one: the resonance the two nameplate values set, at 4.02 kHz; the coil's own self-resonance at 7.12 kHz, which is a parallel tank and so a null in a series loop, 5.67e+3 times below the peak beside it; and a second series resonance at 28.2 kHz that belongs to neither component. Above the null the coil is a capacitance, that capacitance is in series with the tuning capacitor, and the capacitor's own inductance resonates with the pair — which is why removing either parasitic removes this peak and neither alone can produce it.

Frequency, which is the same solve

Two parasitics, and the resonance neither of them has

A resonator's quality factor is supposed to sit below the worst of its components, because reciprocals add. Give the capacitor half a millihenry of its own inductance and the loop measures 92.21 against a coil that allows 64.55 and a reciprocal sum that predicts 62.47 — the ceiling passed exactly where ESL/L crosses ESR/DCR, at 5.00 per cent. Add the coil's own capacitance beside it and the loop grows a second resonance at 28.2 kHz that neither part has alone, taller than the first by 40.4, and the half-power level is then crossed four times.

5 sections, equal ripple, and the band that is 134% rather than 97. computed by solving, not by drawing. The repaired five-section equal-ripple design over the band it was designed for. The horizontal rule is the 0.1 the specification allows and the 4 interior peaks sit on it, level to 8.5e-4 per cent — which is the condition for a minimax solution and is now checked rather than assumed. The dots are the eighty-one frequencies the objective used to be evaluated at: the worst of them is 0.09999998 and the worst of the design over the whole band is 0.10013858, so an optimiser shown only the dots drove them down to the specification and left the true peaks 13.9 parts in ten thousand above it. That is nothing until something downstream is a threshold, and the band measurement was one: it reported 97.34 per cent for a design that holds 134.04.

Lines, where a wire has a length

The number that was wrong

An earlier figure printed 97.3 per cent of band for a five-section transformer where the answer is 134, said in its own text that the figure was wrong, and blamed a search that had converged to eight digits. The search was fine. The objective was the worst of a grid rather than the worst of a band, the band was then measured by bisecting a function that crosses its threshold five times, and the check guarding all of it passed — because 97.3 is still more than 92.6.

Where a signal becomes a number

A floor, or a line

Two clocks with identical two-picosecond jitter sample the same sinusoid, and the total error power is the same to a tenth of a decibel — the closed form an earlier essay computed, right for both. One of them puts that error across two thousand bins at −120 dB each; the other puts it into two lines at −91.5. The gap is the processing gain, it grows with the record length because a density falls and a line does not, and nothing in a specification quoted in picoseconds root-mean-square distinguishes the two cases.

A major hysteresis loop at 9.0 A/m of coercivity, and the anhysteretic curve it closes onto. computed by solving, not by drawing. The B–H loop of a core driven sinusoidally to ±400 A/m, marched through a superposition of twenty-four play operators and drawn over the single-valued magnetisation curve with no hysteresis in it. The loop encloses 12.481 joules per cubic metre per cycle, which is the core loss and which no single-valued model can produce, because a curve has no area. The coercivity is 8.96 amperes per metre and the remanence 22.3 millitesla; both are read off the marched descending branch rather than handed in. The slider takes the threshold spread down to zero, where the two branches become one, the area falls to 9.8e-15 J/m³, and the object is exactly the core the field already had.

Two windings, and the band between them

The area a curve cannot have

Every magnetic model in this collection is a single-valued B(H), and a single-valued B(H) cannot dissipate: ∮H dB around a curve is zero, so the transformers and inductors here have all run cold. Giving the material a second branch costs one object — a play operator, which lags the field by a threshold and is otherwise nothing — and a superposition of twenty-four of them produces a loop with 12.481 joules per cubic metre in it, a coercivity of 8.958 amperes per metre and a remanence of 22.3 millitesla, none of which was handed in. At zero threshold the whole thing collapses onto the curve the field already had, to fifteen figures.

Power, and the part that does no work

The degrees a thermocouple cannot see

Every thermal answer in this collection has been one temperature, and a core makes its heat in its volume and loses it from a surface, so it has two. Solved as a conduction problem, a twenty-millimetre core in still air is 2.59 kelvin hotter in the middle than on the outside — 2.9 per cent of a ninety-kelvin rise, which is why the lumped answer has been good enough. Cool the same core on a plate and the gradient does not shrink; it grows to 3.37 kelvin and becomes 78 per cent of what is left.

40.0 dB of gain change and 180.0 degree-decades of phase, peaking at 109.8°. computed by solving, not by drawing. The gain and the phase of two leads of 10:1, together, each section buffered from the next. The gain changes by 40.000 dB from one end of the sweep to the other. The area under the phase, integrated on the solve over seven decades beyond the outermost corner, is 180.000 degree-decades, against 180.000 for ninety per twenty decibels of gain change. The peak is 109.806° at 3.16 kHz, below the 131.93° no arrangement of real leads sharing that rise can pass.

Frequency, which is the same solve

The phase a decibel buys

The area under a minimum-phase network's phase, counted in degrees across decades of frequency, is fixed by how far its gain moves from one end of the spectrum to the other: ninety degree-decades for every twenty decibels, however the network is arranged. One 100:1 lead peaks at 78.579 degrees and two 10:1 leads stacked together at 109.806, and both enclose 180.000. The peak is a design decision and the area is a bill — and a network that gives its gain back gives its phase back with it.

The step at which the output impedance stops being a number. computed by solving, not by drawing. The excursion divided by the step, against the step. The flat line is the linear model, and it is flat to 0.0 parts per million across four decades — which is what an impedance is. The rising curve is the same netlist with the differential pair's tanh in the transconductor, and it leaves at 10.6 mA: the input error there is 3.63 thermal voltages, so the boundary is an amplitude in the pair's own units rather than a current with the amplifier's name on it. At 300 mA the ratio is 54.5 Ω against the linear 23.6 — 131 per cent, and it is no longer a property of the circuit at all. The slew rate that decides it is 3.25 V/µs, which is twice the thermal voltage times the gain-bandwidth in radians, and contains no design choice.

Feedback, and the margin

The step too large to have an impedance

The rung below drove the load node with a current step and reported an impedance: a voltage divided by a current, which is a number only if the ratio does not depend on the current. Give the amplifier the differential pair's own tanh in place of a linear transconductor and it is a number up to 10.6 milliamps and not above — where the input error is 3.63 thermal voltages, and where the slew rate that decides it is twice the thermal voltage times the gain-bandwidth in radians, containing no design choice at all.

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.

Networks, and how a solve is checked

The three tolerances that do nothing

An earlier essay computed every second derivative of a ladder filter's magnitude at a ripple peak, found them all negative, and built six hundred ladder filters to argue that no combination of tolerances could raise the response. The whole matrix says so outright — and says something six hundred samples could not have found, because a sample of a five-dimensional box never lands on a three-dimensional subspace: two of the five eigenvalues are of order one and the other three are nine decades down.

A hold capacitor's band closes at 6.43 MHz, where a resistor's does. computed by solving, not by drawing. The switch of 0.5 Ω closed, 100 MΩ open and 5 pF across it, driving a capacitor. The lower edge is the smallest capacitance onto which the open switch feeds through no more than 1%: 495 pF far above 318 Hz, rising as the reciprocal of frequency below it because the leakage charges the capacitor. The upper edge is the largest capacitance the closed switch tracks to 1%, counted as a vector. The two meet at 6.43 MHz; a resistor on the same switch closes at 6.43 MHz, and counted as a magnitude the capacitor's band closes at 91.6 MHz. At the closure the closed switch's phase is 0.57 degrees.

Where the models stop

The width no load can change

A switch's band was drawn against a load resistor and closed at 6.43 megahertz. Put a hold capacitor where the resistor was and the band changes axis and shape — a diagonal below 318 hertz, a floor of 495 picofarads above it — and stays exactly as wide: 1.8083 decades at 100 kilohertz for both loads, closing at 6.43 megahertz for both. Count the capacitor's error as a magnitude, as the resistor's always was, and the band appears to stay open to 91.6 megahertz. That extra room is 8.11 degrees of lag the count cannot see.

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 by expanding the transfer curve 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%.

Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

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.

The null is a V and not a bowl: one per cent of ratio error is 5.0e-3 of the near end. computed by solving, not by drawing. The same twelve coupled sections read at 10.0 MHz, with the ratio of the two couplings swept across the null rather than sat at one setting. The far end divided by the near end is |1 − r|/(1 + r) at every point — a straight-sided V through zero, first order in the departure with a coefficient of one half, and not a rounded minimum with a flat bottom. So there is no tolerance band: a ratio one per cent off gives 4.98e-3 of the near end and ten per cent off gives 4.76e-2, and the exchange rate between them is fixed. The upper trace is the near end over the same sweep, which moves by 11 per cent while the lower one moves through 14 decades — the two ends are the same coupling read as a sum and as a difference, which is why one of them has a zero in it and the other cannot.

Lines, where a wire has a length

How wide a null is

A far end at 3.5×10⁻¹⁹ of the drive is a statement about arithmetic until somebody asks how far the two couplings may differ before it comes back. The answer has no flat bottom in it: the far end divided by the near end is |1−r|/(1+r) exactly, so the null is a V and a ratio one per cent off returns 4.98×10⁻³ of the near end. On the axis a board is built to that is a difference of 0.0081 between the two modes' effective permittivities, out of 3.99 — two parts in a thousand, and 0.675 picoseconds of mode skew over a hundred millimetres.

One component of a gyrator moves the response by 0.50; the passive ladder's inductor moves it by 3e-8. computed by solving, not by drawing. The magnitude sensitivity at the passband maximum of a gyrator ladder, against the resistance scale the gyrators are built at, for a single component and for the combination of both halves that actually changes the synthesised inductance. The passive ladder realising the identical response is at 3.2e-8. A single component sits at about a half whatever the resistance scale is, and the combination falls as one over it — the 0.97 power over 3 decades. So the stationarity has not been destroyed, it has become a statement about a combination of components rather than about a component, and independent parts do not come in combinations.

Filters, measured not tabulated

One inductor, and ten components

The rung below built an inductor out of an amplifier and ended with a boundary that is not a frequency: one end of it is soldered to ground. A ladder's series inductors are floating, so making one takes four amplifiers rather than two — and the four-amplifier version is exactly floating, to five figures, and reproduces the ladder's response to a hundredth of a decibel. It does not reproduce its stationarity. Each of a gyrator's ten components moves the response by exactly a half, where the inductor it replaced moved it by ten to the minus eight.

Two curves that only rise, and the gap between them that has a minimum. computed by solving, not by drawing. The source's own Johnson density, √(4kTR), and the amplifier's total input-referred density, √(4kTR + eₙ² + (iₙR)²), for a part with 4 nV/√Hz and 0.6 pA/√Hz. Neither curve has a minimum: the total is 4 nV/√Hz at a source of nothing, is 4.196 at 100 Ω, and rises without limit. What has a minimum is the ratio, at 6.67 kΩ, where the noise figure is 1.138 dB and the total density is 11.780 nV/√Hz — 2.81 times noisier in volts than at 100 Ω, where the noise figure reads 10.41 dB. The two statements are about different questions and the figure is what stops them being confused.

The floor, which bounds from below

The bowl, and the bottom of it

An amplifier's noise figure has a minimum against source resistance and its input-referred noise has none: the 4 nV/√Hz part reads 1.138 dB into 6.67 kΩ and 10.41 dB into 100 Ω, and is 2.81 times noisier in volts at the first. The bowl is one shape scaled by its own depth, so the quieter the part the flatter it is — ±30.1 times for a decibel on the best of four, ±2.16 on the worst — and three parts of equal eₙiₙ share a floor of 0.3138 dB at optima 16 times apart.

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

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

The current that sizes the transformer

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

The 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 filter. Every one is symmetric under the filter'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.

Networks, and how a solve is checked

The direction a response is most sensitive to

An earlier essay diagonalised a ladder filter's curvature at one ripple peak and read only the eigenvalues: rank two of five, three directions of nothing. The eigenvectors say what the two directions are, and doing it at every peak rather than one changes the conclusion. The most sensitive combination at 554.9 Hz and the one at 897.9 Hz are 86.5 degrees apart, the curvature that belongs to them grows from −0.556 to −75.4 across a ninth-order passband, and exactly one combination survives the whole band at every order — which turns out to be the ripple depth.

The sensitivity of a pole against the room it has. computed by solving, not by drawing. A series R–L–C whose damping is walked from 0.3 to 0.999999, which slides its two poles together along a straight line and changes nothing else. The exact derivative of a pole with respect to the capacitor climbs from 0.5241 to 353.6 as the gap between them falls from 19078 to 28.28 radians a second. The fitted exponent over the closest four is -1.0000, and the product of the two is the natural frequency itself — 9999.6894 against 9999.6894, at every damping drawn and not merely in the limit, which a closed form gives and this computation never sees. The resistor's curve runs at 2ζ times the capacitor's — below it at 0.3 and at twice it by the time the poles have met — and the inductor's lies exactly under the capacitor's throughout.

Before the steady state

The gap a derivative needs

The derivative of a pole is exact and has no step size in it, and beside the formula sits a sentence nobody had measured: it divides by a quantity that vanishes when two poles meet. Driven together, the sensitivity climbs as the reciprocal of the gap — fitted exponent −1.0000, the product a constant 1.00000 times the natural frequency — while the largest change it still describes falls as the gap *squared*. A one per cent capacitor is outside first order once the poles are 3194 radians a second apart, which is an ordinary critically damped design.

Power, and the part that does no work

The loop gain one temperature understates

Every thermal loop gain this collection has computed was computed at a single temperature, because a lumped fixed point has only one — and the essay that measured the gradient inside a core recorded, without measuring it, that this makes each of those numbers a lower bound. It is a lower bound by three per cent where a ferrite usually sits and by thirty-eight per cent at the well-cooled end, always in the direction that makes the part safer than the calculation said. The obvious candidate for what decides it is refused: three geometries at one Biot number are 3.3 times apart.

The straight lines report 45.00° of margin, and the solved loop has 51.83°. computed by solving, not by drawing. The gain and phase of a loop made of an integrator and one pole, the corner at 1.00 kHz, with the integrator set so that the straight-line asymptotes cross unity at 1.00 kHz. The solved loop crosses at 786 Hz instead. Read at the lines' crossover, with the phase taken from the solve, the margin is 45.00°; at the loop's own crossover it is 51.83°. Closed, the loop is stable: the largest real part among its closed-loop poles is -5.00e-1 of the corner's angular frequency. The solved gain never rises above its asymptotes, so the lines cannot report more margin than the loop has.

Frequency, which is the same solve

The margin the straight lines report

A phase margin read off a sketch is read where the straight lines cross unity, and that is not where the loop does. For an integrator and one real pole the lines report 45.00 degrees on a loop that has 51.83 — short, and always short, because a real pole's response never rises above its asymptotes. A pair that peaks reverses the sign and removes the bound: at a quality factor of two the lines report 71.57 degrees on a loop that has no margin at all, and at five they report 82.41 on a loop that is unstable.

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.

Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

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.

What each factor of attenuation buys on a 2.0 kΩ source. computed by solving, not by drawing at 12 probe ratios: the one-per-cent frequency bisected on the node with and without the probe, against the frequency a tip capacitance alone would predict. A one-to-one probe reaches 6.79 kHz and a hundred-to-one 692 kHz. The first step, from 1× to 2×, multiplies the bandwidth by 2.03 for a factor of two in signal; the two routes differ by at most 1.8% across the sweep, and they differ at all only because the probe's 1.0 MΩ is already 0.20% of the reading before any frequency is applied.

Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

The probe that takes a tenth

A ten-to-one probe buys an order of bandwidth for a tenth of the signal, and on a two-kilohm source the bandwidth is exact: 6.79 kHz becomes 69.2 kHz. The tenth of the signal is not a tenth of the signal-to-noise ratio. Solved resistor by resistor, the noise referred to the tip goes from 1.782 µV to 55.78 µV — a factor of 31.3 — because the divider that does the attenuating is nine megohms and a megohm, and √(n(n−1)kT/C) on the cable's own capacitance has no source resistance in it at all.

Where 8 channels leak to: 91.0 MHz from buffered sources, 901 kHz from 50 Ω. computed by solving, not by drawing. The frequency at which the open channels of a multiplexer built from the 0.5 Ω, 100 MΩ, 5 pF switch leak 1% of the signal onto the shared output, against the impedance of the source driving the selected channel, into 1 MΩ. 2 channels: 637 MHz buffered, 6.30 MHz from 50 Ω; 8 channels: 91.0 MHz buffered, 901 kHz from 50 Ω; 16 channels: 42.4 MHz buffered, 420 kHz from 50 Ω. Each falls as the reciprocal of the source impedance plus the on-resistance, and the single switch's own band closes at 6.43 MHz.

Where the models stop

Where an open switch leaks to

A lone switch has a band whose width no load can change, because its open state leaks into the load. In a multiplexer the seven open channels leak into a node the selected channel holds, so the load leaves the answer and the source takes its place: one per cent of leak at 91.0 megahertz from buffered sources and 901 kilohertz from fifty ohms, moving as the first power of the tolerance rather than the second. Adding the channels' capacitance into one forty-picofarad switch puts it at 804 kilohertz, near the fifty-ohm figure by coincidence and a hundred and thirteen times low for a buffered one.

Fed nothing, an eighth-order cascade sits 88 least significant bits from zero. computed by solving, not by drawing. Where each section of a 12-bit rounded cascade settles with zero input and a seeded state. Nothing decays to zero: a constant state survives whenever rounding returns it to itself, which needs only |y·(1 + a₁ + a₂)| ≤ q/2, and that denominator is small precisely because the corner is far below the sample rate. Each section's own band is 30, 31, 32, 33 least significant bits and the settled offsets are -27, -50, -70, -88 — accumulating, because a section's dead-band output is the next section's input and the next section passes direct current. In volts the offset halves with every bit added; in least significant bits it does not move at all.

Where a signal becomes a number

Zero in, and not zero out

Rounding a filter's coefficients and marching it in double precision leaves out the other half: the products are rounded too. Put that in and a twelve-bit eighth-order cascade fed nothing at all settles two per cent of full scale away from zero and stays there — and the offset does not shrink with the word length, it grows as the square of how far the corner sits below the sample rate, reaching eighteen per cent at a hundred and twenty-eight times.

Flat in angle at √(L/C), 141.42 Ω, and flat in size at 91.018 Ω. computed by solving, not by drawing, at 127 resistances on the closed form the network was checked against. The upper curve is the frequency at which the part's size is 1% away from R, the lower one the frequency at which its angle reaches 1°. Both are V-shaped and their points are in different places: the angle's first-order term vanishes at √(L/C) = 141.42 Ω, bisected on the measured slope to ten figures, and the size's second-order term at 91.018 Ω. The widest 1° band is 1.13 GHz, at 150.69 Ω; the widest 1% band is 1.66 GHz, at 95.806 Ω. At 91.018 Ω, flattest in size, the angle reaches 1° by 53.9 MHz. The flat line is 139 MHz, where a 6 mm body is one degree long: it binds the angle's edge from 118.72 Ω to 168.88 Ω and the size's from 43.947 Ω to 359.53 Ω.

Frequency, which is the same solve

The resistor that is right in size and wrong in angle

A resistor's impedance departs from its value in size as the square of frequency and in angle as the first power, so the angle always leaves first: at ten milliohms and at a megohm alike, where the angle has reached a degree the size is still only 152 parts per million out. One time constant, L/R − RC, sets that degree — 4.00 nanoseconds and 695 kilohertz at ten kilohms, 800 nanoseconds and 3.47 kilohertz for a ten-milliohm shunt. The resistance flattest in angle is exactly √(L/C), 141.42 ohms, the value the size question rejected; at the 91.02 ohms flattest in size the angle reaches a degree by 53.9 megahertz, and no resistance is flat in both.

Twenty metres buys 20 dB of apparent match and costs 10 dB of noise figure. computed by solving, not by drawing. The same cable and the same 200 Ω load as the reading, with the amplifier that is actually behind the instrument. The rising trace is the return loss the instrument reads, which is the load's own 4.44 dB plus twice the one-way loss. The lower pair is the chain's noise figure: a 2 dB amplifier with the cable in front of it, counted as a matched attenuator whose noise factor is its loss, and counted honestly from the available gain of a lossy line driven by a source that reflects 0.60. The first says the exchange rate is exactly two decibels of match per decibel of noise figure, at every length here. The second is higher everywhere — by (1−Γ²u²)/(1−Γ²), which is 0.028 dB at five centimetres and 1.938 dB, the load's own mismatch loss, once the cable is long enough to have absorbed the reflection. At twenty metres the instrument reads 24.4 dB and the chain costs 13.92 dB against the amplifier's own 2.

Lines, where a wire has a length

The cable that hides two things

A length of cable improves a return-loss reading by twice its loss and raises a noise figure by once it, so the rule of thumb is two decibels of apparent match per decibel of floor. Both halves are owned here and neither essay had the other. Put together they say what an acceptance limit costs: making a 4.0:1 load read 1.50:1 spends 6.53 decibels of noise figure, against a mismatch that was itself costing 1.938 — and the exchange rate is not two but 2(1−Γ²)/(1+Γ²), which is 0.94 where a pad is actually short.

$From 50 Ω into 50 Ω: a T isolates to 643 MHz, a changeover to 6.34 MHz. computed by solving, not by drawing. The fraction of the drive that arrives with the path open, against frequency, from a 50 Ω source into 50 Ω, for the 0.5 Ω, 100 MΩ, 5 pF switch used three ways. A T reaches 1% at 643 MHz; a changeover reaches 1% at 6.34 MHz; one switch reaches 1% at 3.18 MHz.$ Where the models stop

The capacitance a third switch moves

A changeover's open channel leaks into the source of the channel that is closed, so its isolation into fifty ohms falls from 643 megahertz with a buffered source to 6.34 megahertz with a fifty-ohm one. Put a third switch to ground between two series switches and the leak lands on half an ohm of closed switch instead: 814, 643 and 2,240 megahertz from sources of nothing, fifty ohms and a kilohm, rising forty decibels a decade where a changeover's rises twenty. The price is the shunt switch's own capacitance, moved under the closed path, which makes the T one per cent wrong as a waveform at 6.59 megahertz beside the changeover's 6.61.

A 4.0:1 flux slope ratio and a sinusoid enclose the same loop to 0.00%. computed by solving, not by drawing. A core driven in flux rather than in field — the way a winding drives it, by integrating a rectangular voltage — around a triangle of ±100 millitesla at a duty cycle of 0.2, whose two slopes differ by 4.00 to one. The loop it traces encloses 2.1006 joules per cubic metre, against 2.1007 for a symmetric triangle and 2.1006 for a sinusoid of the same peak: the same number to 0.001 per cent. That is not an approximation, it is a theorem about the model — a rate-independent locus depends on where the flux went and not on how fast — and it is the prediction that real cores disagree with by tens of per cent. The disagreement is the measurement of what the model has left out.

Two windings, and the band between them

The duty cycle that costs nothing

A converter drives its core with a rectangular voltage, so the flux is a triangle whose two slopes differ by nineteen to one at a five per cent duty. The play-operator core charges exactly the same for all of them — 2.1006 joules per cubic metre at every duty and for a sinusoid of the same peak, to three parts in ten thousand — because a rate-independent locus depends on where the flux went and not on how fast. Real cores charge tens of per cent more, and the standard correction hides its entire waveform dependence in α − 1, which is the one term a rate-independent model has none of.

Correcting a 20 Ω, 50 mH load to unity, and what it stores. computed by solving, not by drawing. A capacitor across a 230 V, 50 Hz supply is swept from nothing to 300 µF against a load drawing 1636 W and 1285 var. The reactive power falls through zero at 77.31 µF and keeps going; the energy stored in the installation rises from 2044.9 mJ to 4089.7 mJ at that point — exactly twice, because unity power factor means the two stores are equal — and goes on rising afterwards. Only the cable current has a least value, 7.113 A against 9.044 A.

Power, and the part that does no work

The energy a unity power factor doubles

Reactive power can be computed three ways, and their agreement is easily called a verification. Two of the three are one theorem written twice and cannot disagree about anything; only the third is independent, and what it computes is a difference. Correcting a 20 Ω, 50 mH load to a power factor of 1.000000 takes its reactive power from 1,285 var to nothing and takes the energy stored in the installation from 2,044.9 mJ to 4,089.7 mJ — exactly twice, at every load and every frequency.

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.

A junction's noise against its own resistance's: exactly one at zero volts, and a half only far from it. computed by solving, not by drawing. A junction carries two currents at once, Is·e^(V/nVt) forwards and Is backwards, and each has its own shot noise. Their noise over the Johnson noise of the junction's own conductance is n(1 + e^−u)/2. At n = 1 it is 1.000000 at zero volts, 0.5676 at 50 mV, within one per cent of 0.50 only above 115.1 mV — where the forward current is ninety-nine saturation currents — and 2.978 at −40.00 mV of reverse bias. The half the forward-biased junction is known for is the limit of this curve, not its value.

The floor, which bounds from below

The junction that is a resistor at zero volts

A forward-biased junction makes half the noise power of a resistor of its own dynamic resistance, and that half is a limit rather than a value. Kept with the saturation current that flows backwards across it, the ratio is one exactly at zero volts, 0.5676 at 50 millivolts, and within one per cent of the half only above 115.1 — at ninety-nine saturation currents, which is a picoampere on a small silicon diode and a microampere on a leaky one. A photodiode held at zero volts has the Johnson noise of its shunt resistance and nothing else, and it becomes shot-noise-limited at 49.981 millivolts of photocurrent drop.

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

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

The ripple that arrives as a comb

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

Four wires against a 10 MΩ voltmeter. computed by solving, not by drawing at 81 resistances, twice each, with a voltmeter of 10 MΩ and 50 mΩ in every lead. The four-wire error is not zero: it is the voltmeter's own divider, −(R + 2R_lead)/(R + 2R_lead + R_m), which grows with the resistance being measured rather than shrinking. The two-wire error is that same quantity plus the leads, so it passes through zero at 1000 Ω — where the reading is right to 1.8e-12 while the four-wire reading is 0.0100% low — and above 707 Ω the two-wire arrangement is the more accurate of the two at every resistance.

Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

The voltmeter four wires do not remove

A four-terminal measurement is described everywhere as removing the leads from the answer. It moves them. What is left is the voltmeter's own input resistance, and it grows with the resistance being measured rather than shrinking: with a ten-megohm voltmeter and fifty milliohms of lead, the four-wire reading is 0.0100 per cent low at a kilohm, where the two-wire reading is exactly right — 1.8 × 10⁻¹² — because its lead error and its loading error cancel. Above 707 Ω the two-wire arrangement is the more accurate of the two at every resistance.

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.

Networks, and how a solve is checked

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.

Before the steady state

Ten seconds, and fifteen minutes

A data sheet's dielectric absorption is quoted as a property of the part. It is not: the same modelled capacitor reads 0.4050 per cent with a tenth-of-a-second short and 0.0305 per cent with a thousand-second one, and 0.0047 against 0.2948 depending on when the reading is taken. Seventeen marched tests collapse onto one line — the recovery is 1.0288 parts per thousand for every decade between the two durations — and four dielectrics the specified test declares identical read a factor of 3.31 apart one decade away from it.

Frequency, which is the same solve

The arrow that goes past where it settles

A phasor is where a driven resonator ends up, and counting the cycles it takes to get there says nothing about the path. Switched on from rest a little away from resonance, the capacitor's arrow circles its settled tip instead of approaching it: a Q of 50 driven at 0.8 of resonance reaches 1.854 times its settled voltage, and a Q of 200 at 1.25 switched on through zero reaches 2.182. At resonance exactly, where the settled voltage is largest, the arrow never passes its mark. So a resonance read by the largest voltage after switch-on is 1.20 times wider than its phasor says.

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.

Two of the four errors are divided by the gain; the best the instrument gets is 110.1 dB, at ×776. computed by solving, not by drawing. The four mechanisms that limit a three-amplifier instrumentation amplifier's common-mode rejection, each measured alone against the gain of its input stage and then all four together, at 50.0 Hz with 1 kΩ of imbalance between the source resistances and 10 pF at each input. The difference stage's four resistors and the difference amplifier's own rejection are injected after the gain, so their common-mode gain is a constant — 1.998 mV/V and 0.0100 mV/V — and the rejection they allow rises decibel for decibel with the gain. The input pair's mismatch and the source's time-constant gap are injected before it, so they are amplified by exactly the gain the signal is and the rejection they allow is flat. The four add as complex numbers: the two largest are real and of opposite sign, they cancel at a gain of 776, and what is left there is the source's 3.142 µV/V, which is purely imaginary because it is ωΔτ. The instrument's best is 110.07 dB against the source's own 110.06, and above that gain more of it buys nothing.

Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

The errors that arrive before the gain

Four earlier measurements each found a different owner of one instrument's common-mode rejection and each measured it alone. Solved together, the four are complex numbers that add — to 1.25 parts in ten thousand — and two of them carry a factor of the first stage's gain while two do not. The two that do cancel the two that do not at a gain of 776, and what is left there is 110.066 decibels, which is exactly the number the cable sets. Better-matched amplifiers move that gain from 93 to 3392 and do not move the ceiling by a hundredth of a decibel.

$The two sequences a neutral current says nothing about. computed by solving, not by drawing at 61 imbalances. Three 20 Ω loads on a 230 V, 50 Hz star supply, one of them raised by a fraction of itself, with the neutral in place. The zero-sequence current is the one the neutral carries three times and is the only one a neutral ammeter reads; the negative sequence is a balanced set of three phasors rotating the other way. At 30.0 per cent imbalance it is 0.8846 A against 10.6154 A of positive sequence, 8.333 per cent, against 8.333 per cent from x/(3 + 2x). Two per cent arrives at 6.250 per cent imbalance, bisected on the network.$ Power, and the part that does no work

The half the neutral does not carry

A star load unbalanced in one phase produces two things, not one. The neutral carries three times the zero-sequence current, which is the half a neutral ammeter reads; the other half is a negative-sequence set of exactly the same size, rotating backwards, that the neutral never sees. With 0.5 Ω of line in front of 20 Ω loads, losing a phase entirely puts 50.00 per cent negative sequence in the current and 0.8265 per cent in the voltage a switchboard meter reads.

The ratio of the two readings, drawn where it lives. computed by solving, not by drawing. The same five-element RLC 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

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

The floor, which bounds from below

The resistor in the same loop

A resistor's noise and a junction's are equal as bare densities at 49.98 millivolts of drop, and a junction in series with the resistor that carries its current is the arrangement every current source is built from. In one loop each noise current has to cross the other element, so the two supply equal shares at 12.50 millivolts, a quarter of the crossing; at the crossing itself the resistor supplies 80 per cent and the loop is 2.553 decibels below both floors, which is further than it gets anywhere else. The same resistor multiplies the stage's input-referred noise by five.

Where a signal becomes a number

A floor, or five tones

The field's sharpest statement about a one-bit loop is that three quarters of its in-band error sits in five lines, against the 1.953 per cent a white error would put in any five — a factor of thirty-eight. The comparison is to a white error, and a shaping loop exists to make its error anything but white. Measured against the loop's own transfer function, which the loop reproduces line by line to a part in five hundred when it is dithered, the same error is 17.4 times tonal at a fiftieth of full scale and 8.9 times at nine tenths. And 99.5 per cent of it at the quiet end is two harmonics of the input.

Frequency, which is the same solve

How long a sweep waits at each step

A resonance measured by a stepped sweep that starts each frequency from rest and reads the last cycle of its wait comes out 19.6 per cent too wide after Q cycles a step, and within one per cent of its width only from 1.65Q cycles at a Q of ten and 1.60Q at fifty. That is longer than the 1.47Q the transient takes to fall to a per cent, and the reason is the centre rather than the skirts: the width's error is the peak's shortfall read twice, while at the half-power frequencies the transient swings through its settled value and partly cancels itself. A reading that holds its peak instead is twenty per cent wide however long it waits.

A true-RMS reading of a sine: ripple a second filter removes, and a bias it cannot. An explicit converter — square, average through a one-pole of τ = 100 ms, take the root — in steady state on a sine of unit root-mean-square value, integrated exactly over a period at 91 frequencies and by a fourth-order march of its own equation at 6, which agree to 1.9e-8. The upper curve is half the ripple on the reading and the lower one the amount by which its mean is low. The reading is low at every frequency, because the square root is concave; it is 1% low below 1.86 Hz, while the ripple is inside ±1% only above 39.8 Hz. The dashed curve is the small-ripple form, an eighth of the averaged square's ripple power, which the bias approaches as the ripple shrinks.

Power, and the part that does no work

The average a square root pulls low

A true-RMS converter squares, averages and takes the root, and the root of a quantity that ripples averages below the root of its mean. With a hundred-millisecond averager a sine is read one per cent low below 1.86 hertz, where the ripple is still ±20 per cent — and a second filter that steadies the display takes the ripple away and leaves the reading exactly as low as it was. A square wave is read exactly at any averaging time; a rectifier current conducting for twenty degrees needs 2.41 times the averaging a sine does. The implicit converter is the explicit one at half the time constant, and a reading falls 1.38 times slower than it rises.

The cure changes shape at 909 Ω, which is a property of the feedback network and of nothing else. computed by solving, not by drawing. What balancing actually does to the circuit, against the source resistance it is done for, at a gain of 11 with a 1.0 kΩ bottom resistor. The inverting input looks back into 909 Ω — the bottom resistor times (G−1)/G — and that number is the whole of the knee. Below it the cure is a resistor in series with the source and the feedback network is untouched. Above it there is no resistor to add, and the network is scaled up to meet the source instead: 1100× at 1.0 MΩ, which puts 11 MΩ in the feedback path. The scaled feedback resistor is the source resistance times the gain exactly, so the network's own size has left the answer — it decided where the knee was and nothing after it.

Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

The cure that becomes a different circuit

The classical cure for an amplifier's input current is to make the two resistances its inputs look back into equal, and it reads as one instruction. Solved, it is two circuits meeting at 909 ohms — the feedback network's bottom resistor times (G−1)/G — and above that knee there is no resistor to add: the network is scaled to the source, which at a megohm means 11 megohms of feedback and at a gain of 1001 means 1001. Above the knee three different networks become one instrument to twelve figures, the noise penalty settles at 1.41420 against a √2 of 1.41421, and the benefit at 10.49 against two currents whose ratio is ten.

The eddy term is f² below the skin-depth frequency and f^1.5 above it, both exactly. computed by solving, not by drawing. Eddy-current loss in a 0.35 millimetre lamination held at a mean flux of 1 tesla, against frequency, with the classical uniform-flux expression drawn beside it and the local exponent across the top. Below the frequency at which the sheet is two skin depths thick — 465 Hz here — the two agree and the exponent is 2.0000. Above it the flux is confined to a layer whose thickness falls as one over the square root of the frequency, and the exponent is 1.5000: three halves, exactly. It does not arrive there monotonically — it undershoots to 1.4847 at ξ = 3.28 and comes back up, which is the bounded cosine term the asymptotic statement drops. At 1.00 kHz the classical term is already 1.74 times the truth. The solve and the closed form agree to 7.5e-3 per cent across six decades.

Two windings, and the band between them

The current inside the iron

Every core-loss law has an eddy term of the form d²f²B²/6ρ, and it is derived by assuming the flux is uniform across the lamination — an assumption that is a frequency and that the expression does not carry. Solved instead as a diffusion, the exponent is exactly 2 below the frequency at which the sheet is two skin depths thick, exactly 1.5 above it, and it undershoots to 1.485 on the way. For a 0.35 mm sheet the crossing is 465 hertz, so at a kilohertz the classical term is 1.74 times the truth and at ten kilohertz it is forty-seven times.

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

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

The decision taken where the ramp is slowest

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

A transistor's two noise generators are one current: their product is 0.8008 nV·pA/Hz at every bias. computed by solving, not by drawing. The input voltage noise of a bipolar stage, √(2kT·rₑ), is its collector current's shot noise referred through gₘ, and falls as the current rises; its input current noise, √(2qI_C/β), is its base current's, and rises. At β = 100 their product is 2kT/√β = 0.8008 nV·pA/Hz at every collector current from a microampere to ten milliamps, so the best noise figure, 0.4139 dB, does not depend on the bias. What does is where it is: the optimum source resistance times the current is √β·Vt = 249.9 mV, and the two lines cross where that resistance is a kilohm, at 250 µA.

The floor, which bounds from below

The two generators that are one current

An amplifier's noise is two generators, a voltage in series with its input and a current across it, and the essays on its noise figure treat them as independent numbers. In a bipolar input stage they are one current's shot noise divided two ways, by the collector and the base, and their product is 2kT/√β at every collector current: 0.8008 nV·pA per hertz at a current gain of a hundred, from a microampere to ten milliamps. The best noise figure, 0.4139 dB, does not depend on the bias. The bias decides only where the best source is, and 50 ohms of base resistance decides what the best actually is below 500.

The winding current a hysteretic core asks for, and the current the same circuit's single-valued core asks for. computed by solving, not by drawing. One netlist — a 22.6 volt peak sinusoid at 5.00 kHz through 4 ohms into a sixty-turn winding — marched twice, once with the core as a superposition of play operators and once with the single-valued saturating curve every earlier figure in this field used. The two currents differ in shape and not only in size: the hysteretic one leads the flux by an angle that is not ninety degrees, which is the whole of the core loss, and its peak is 59.45 milliamperes against 50.12. The energy the source delivers over a complete cycle is 17.19 microjoules for the loop and 2.5e-5 for the curve, which is zero to the resolution of the march. The slider takes the flux the drive demands from a twentieth of the material's saturation to most of it.

Two windings, and the band between them

The core the solver has to remember

A saturating inductor's state is one number, because the current is a function of the flux linkage. A hysteretic core's is not: half an amp is one flux on the way up and a different flux on the way down, and there is no function of the current that returns the flux. So the march's state vector gains twenty-four more numbers, one per play operator, and the Newton loop is forbidden to touch them. The circuit and the bench then agree on the loss to three parts in ten million — one integral taken at two wires, the other inside the material.

Where a signal becomes a number

The dither that is a decision

One whole least significant bit is quoted everywhere as the dither, which makes a decision look like a constant. Swept, the axis is a corner and a comb. An eighth of a step leaves 64.5 per cent of the error locked to the signal and one whole step leaves 0.34; above that the sweep mean is 0.283, 0.297, 0.297 and 0.301 per cent at one, two, three and four steps and 0.526 at a step and a half, which fails at exactly the small amplitudes dither exists for. The price is 10·log₁₀(1 + L²) to 0.118 of a decibel, and four steps cost 12.41 for nothing.

$Two networks of one magnitude deliver the same energy, and the minimum-phase one delivers half of it 5.61 times sooner. computed by solving, not by drawing. A low-pass with poles at 1.00 kHz and 10.0 kHz and a zero at 3.00 kHz, and the same network with an all-pass behind it that moves the zero into the right half-plane. Their magnitudes agree at every frequency sampled to 4.4e-16. The energy of each impulse response, from the residues in closed form, is 6029.319 for both, and the integral of |H|² over frequency gives 6029.305. What differs is when it arrives: the minimum-phase network has delivered half its energy by 11.27 µs and its mirror by 63.23 µs; by 20 µs the fractions are 0.658 and 0.352, by 100 µs 0.918 and 0.676; and at no instant has the mirror delivered more.$ Frequency, which is the same solve

The energy that arrives first

Two networks with the same magnitude at every frequency have the same impulse-response energy, and Parseval's theorem says so before either is solved. They do not deliver it on the same schedule. A low-pass with poles at one and ten kilohertz and a zero at three delivers half its energy by 11.27 microseconds; the same network with its zero mirrored into the right half-plane, which changes no magnitude anywhere, takes 63.23, and at no instant has it delivered more. Its step response starts the wrong way, to −0.170 of the final value, before it turns round. Minimum phase is minimum delay, and the delay is in the energy rather than in any one number a frequency plot shows.

Three averagers passing the same noise, and three different half-power points. Integrated by eight-point quadrature on every lobe, with the tail past the last lobe in closed form. A mean over 20 ms has the response sin(πfT)/(πfT), and the area under its square is 25.000000 Hz against the 25 Hz of 1/(2T) — the brick wall drawn shaded. A mean over the window passes half its power at 22.147 Hz, so the noise bandwidth is 1.12880 times that frequency; A one-pole averager passes half its power at 15.915 Hz, so the noise bandwidth is 1.57080 times that frequency; Two means in cascade pass half their power at 23.919 Hz, so the noise bandwidth is 1.04521 times that frequency. Every curve drawn encloses the same area; they differ in where they spend it.

The floor, which bounds from below

The filter an average is

A mean taken over a window is a filter, and the area under its squared response is exactly one over twice the window — 25 hertz of noise bandwidth for twenty milliseconds, passing half its power at 22.15. Built to the same noise, a one-pole averager passes half its power at 15.92 hertz and takes 2.33 times as long to settle to one per cent, and two means in cascade pass half at 23.92 and take 1.25 times as long. Between its nulls a mean rejects the mains no better than the one-pole does, and one per cent off a null it rejects it by forty decibels however many cycles the window holds.

Power, and the part that does no work

The load that has two voltages or none

A load that takes a fixed power takes more current as its voltage falls, and on a line with impedance in it every power below a limit is delivered at two voltages and every power above it at none. The limit sits at the load the maximum-power theorem describes, half the source voltage on a resistive line. On fifty ohms and a hundred of reactance a load leading by sixty degrees reaches that limit with its far end at 1.055 of the source, and at nine tenths of it reads 1.172 — so a far end that reads high is not a far end with margin. On a direct-current bus the lower of the two voltages is not a state at all: one per cent below it the bus runs down to nothing in 3.48 milliseconds.

Loop gain of a two-pole amplifier closed for a gain of 100. Unity loop gain at 5.73 kHz, where 35.0° of phase remains before −180°. The phase never reaches −180° at any frequency, so there is no gain margin to quote: 2 poles contribute at most 180° and the last of it arrives only at infinity.

Feedback, and the margin

The loop that never crosses

Every loop this field draws carries two margins, and one of them is not always a number. Take the third pole out of the standard loop and its crossover moves by 2.45 parts per million and its phase margin by 0.164 degrees — the third pole's own arctangent there, to five decimal places — while its gain margin goes from 46.06 decibels to no number at all. The phase reaches −180° only where the magnitude has already reached −62 decibels, and the two instruments that are supposed to notice report 3.19 × 10⁻⁶ either way.

Where the models stop

The straight line between two models

Between a constant seven-tenths of a volt and an exponential sits the model a designer actually reaches for: a drop plus a resistance. Fitted so that its worst error over a decade of current is as small as it can be, it is out by ±8.00 millivolts where the best constant is out by ±29.76 — and both numbers are the same over every decade, because a decade of a logarithm is the same shape wherever it is taken. On a real two-mechanism junction the line does best in the top decade, ±8.71 against a constant's ±58.53, because a series resistance is exactly the term the line has and the constant has none. And the resistance the fit returns is the part's plus 701 milliohms that is not there.

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

What is warm in a capacitor, by its two loss models. computed by solving, not by drawing. One 100 nF capacitor of loss tangent 0.02, written as a 3.183 Ω resistance in series with it and as a 7.958 kΩ resistance across it — the pair that converts exactly at 10.0 kHz and nowhere else. The noise at the terminals is 4kT times the real part of the impedance, so the two models give the same density at 10.0 kHz and are 33.0 dB apart at 100 Hz and 40.0 dB apart at a megahertz. The dots are the same quantity computed the other way — the resistor split out of the netlist, a source put in its place and the network re-solved — agreeing to 3.3e-16. The reactance itself contributes nothing at either end: a lossless capacitor has no real part and is not warm.

The floor, which bounds from below

Only the real part is warm

Johnson's 4kTR is the special case of a statement about impedances: the noise across any passive two-terminal in equilibrium is 4kT·Re{Z}, so a reactance contributes nothing however large it is. That turns a modelling convenience into a noise figure. A 100 nF capacitor of loss tangent 0.02 written as 3.183 Ω in series and as 7.958 kΩ across it — the pair that converts exactly at 10 kHz — gives 0.226 and 10.10 nV/√Hz at 100 Hz, 33 dB apart, and 40 dB apart the other way at a megahertz.

The lower corner, estimated from short-circuit time constants. computed by solving, not by drawing, on three coupling capacitors and three shunt resistors at 28 spreads of the capacitor values. Each capacitor's short-circuit time constant is its own value times the resistance between its terminals with the other two shorted; the sum of the RECIPROCALS is 60000 s⁻¹ here, and it equals the ratio of the denominator's two highest coefficients to 1.4e-12 and the negated sum of the poles to 1.4e-12. That much is the same theorem as the other end. What is an estimate is the corner: 9549 Hz against a measured 8192 Hz, high by 16.6%. It is high at every spread drawn — the error reverses direction with the construction, so both ends of a band are estimated inwards.

Before the steady state

Shorted instead of opened, and the error changes sign

The same construction with the other capacitors shorted rather than removed sums the reciprocals of the products, and that sum is the ratio of the denominator's two HIGHEST coefficients — the negated sum of the poles, exact to a part in 10¹². Divided by 2π it estimates the lower corner of a band, and it is 16.6 per cent HIGH with three coupling capacitors and never once low. Two settings of the slider give the same three time constants in a different order, the same sum, and corners two per cent apart.

1 pF across a 50 Ω line: a dip of 0.320 V and an area of 25 ps. computed by solving, not by drawing as a cascade of two-ports, with a raised-cosine edge of 59 ps sent into it. The incident edge is the faint curve; what comes back is the shaded dip and what goes on is the third. The dip reaches -0.3202 V and its area is 25 ps, which is Z₀C/2 to a part in ten thousand. Driven by an edge fifty times faster the same cascade returns the single exponential the closed form gives, to 9.3e-6 of a volt. The transmitted edge leaves at 81.1 ps, against 59 ps arriving.

Lines, where a wire has a length

The dip whose area is fixed

A picofarad across a 50 Ω line makes a dip in what comes back. Its depth is 0.833 volts to a six-picosecond edge and 0.0196 volts to a nanosecond one, forty-two times less; its area is 25 picoseconds to both, to six parts in a hundred thousand, because the area is Z₀C/2 and contains nothing about the edge. Two half-picofarad discontinuities too close to tell apart read as exactly one picofarad, and so do two far enough apart to be separate — the area is additive where the depth is not. And what a reflectometer calls the capacitance of an impedance step is the step's real excess capacitance times 1 + Z/Z₀.

$The load that may be complex, and what a resistor alone gives up. computed by solving, not by drawing, with the best load searched over BOTH of its parts on the solved network rather than substituted. Against a source of 50 Ω + j100 Ω the search returns 50.00 − j100.0 Ω — the conjugate — which delivers the available 500.00 mW at exactly 50.00% efficiency, and does so at every source reactance. A load that may only be a resistance takes 2/(1 + √(1 + x²)) of that, matching the solved answer to 4.4e-16 at ten reactances — and at x = 2 that fraction is exactly the golden ratio less one, 0.618034. The resistor-only load is the MORE efficient of the two at every non-zero reactance, rising towards one while the conjugate match sits at a half for ever, so the familiar "maximum power at fifty per cent" belongs to the conjugate and not to the load.$ Power, and the part that does no work

The load that may be complex

Freed of the constraint that it be a resistance, the best load is the source's conjugate — found here by a two-dimensional search on the solved network rather than assumed — and it takes the available power at exactly fifty per cent efficiency whatever the source's reactance. A load that may only be a resistance takes 2/(1 + √(1+x²)) of that, and at a source reactance of twice its resistance that is exactly the golden ratio less one, 0.618034. The resistor-only load is also the MORE efficient of the two, rising towards one while the conjugate sits at a half for ever.

An L-section from 50 Ω to 1 kΩ: Q 4.359, fixed by the two resistances, and a band of 4.73%. computed by solving, not by drawing. A series inductor and a shunt capacitor matching 50 Ω to 1 kΩ at 1.00 MHz, their values from the series–parallel conversion: the load with the capacitor across it is 50 Ω in series with a reactance of 217.9 Ω at the design frequency, and the inductor cancels the reactance. The reflection there is 3.6e-16. The section's Q is √(20 − 1) = 4.3589 and no choice of parts changes it. |Γ| stays under a tenth from 976 kHz to 1.02 MHz, 4.73% of the design frequency, against 0.2/Q = 4.59%; and under half the power from 727 kHz to 1.21 MHz, 48.53%, against 2/Q = 45.88%.

Frequency, which is the same solve

The match with no knob

An L-section — a series inductor and a shunt capacitor — is the series–parallel conversion used on purpose: a load with a capacitor across it is, at one frequency, the source's resistance in series with a reactance an inductor cancels. Matching fifty ohms to a kilohm that way reflects 3.6 × 10⁻¹⁶ at its design frequency and has a Q of √19 = 4.359 that no choice of parts can change, so it holds its reflection under a tenth over 4.73 per cent of band whatever it is built from. The band is 0.2/Q to within three per cent, it depends on nothing but the ratio, and only splitting the match widens it: 14.98 per cent in two sections, 30.34 in three — and 30.83 in four.

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.

Where a signal becomes a number

The nulls are where nothing is

A zero-order hold multiplies the whole repeated spectrum by one sinc, so it attenuates every image at the image's own frequency and its nulls land exactly on the multiples of the clock. Nothing is ever at a null: the two first-order images straddle it, and the closer the signal comes to half the clock the closer they come to each other. The hold gives 25.6 dB of image rejection to a tone at a twentieth of the clock, 1.74 dB at 0.45 of it, and nothing at all at half — which is the frequency the band most needs it at.

Where the models stop

Three amplitudes, all of them one per cent

The amplitude at which linearising an exponential is one per cent wrong is 7.30 mV, and that is a statement about the gain. Two other quantities are also one per cent wrong somewhere: the second harmonic reaches one per cent at 1.03 mV and the shift in the operating point the model was linearised about reaches it at 5.17 — which is √2 below the gain boundary exactly, because the mean goes as a²/4 and the fundamental as a²/8. And the spacing is not a property of the device: tighten the criterion to a part in ten thousand and the same three spread to 1 : 50 : 70.7.

Four threshold densities, all matched to the same measured coercivity. computed by solving, not by drawing. Every hysteresis figure below this one used a uniform density of play-operator thresholds, and the reason given was that a uniform density makes the small-signal loss law come out cubic — Rayleigh's law, which is what soft ferrites do. That is a real constraint and it is a weak one. These four are all bisected to a measured coercivity of 9 amperes per metre on a deeply driven loop, and they need threshold spreads from 30.1 to 76.0 amperes per metre to get there. The slider moves the coercivity they are all matched to.

Two windings, and the band between them

The distribution the bench cannot see

Six rungs of this ladder assumed a uniform density of operator thresholds, and the reason given was that a uniform density makes the small-signal law come out cubic. That reason is weaker than it looks: every density finite at the origin does the same. Matched on a measured coercivity, four distributions whose spreads differ by 2.5 times give the same remanence to 0.6 per cent, the same loop area to 1.0, and the same branch-slope ratio to 0.54 — and small-signal exponents from 2.81 to 3.81. The major loop cannot see the shape and the small signal cannot see anything else.

What a pair does to the three boundaries: removes two, moves one. computed by solving, not by drawing, with every harmonic taken from a transform of the waveform rather than from a series. A differential pair's transfer is an odd function, so the mean and every even harmonic are zero — -3.2e-17 and 9.1e-17 at a drive of two thermal voltages, which is absent rather than small. Two of the three one-per-cent boundaries therefore do not exist for a pair at all. The third, the loss of gain, moves by √2 in the limit of a tight criterion and by 1.42610 at the one per cent quoted here — 10.42 mV against 7.304 mV at 27 °C, against √2 = 1.41421 and 1.41433 at a criterion a hundred times tighter. So a pair reached for as headroom has bought forty per cent of it and a pair reached for as linearity has bought something else entirely. Twenty millivolts of imbalance brings the even orders straight back, which is what says the cancellation belongs to the symmetry rather than to the topology.

Where the models stop

Two boundaries removed, and one moved

A differential pair's transfer is odd, so its mean and every even harmonic are zero — −3.2×10⁻¹⁷ and 9.1×10⁻¹⁷ at a drive of two thermal voltages, absent rather than small. Two of the three one-per-cent boundaries therefore do not exist for a pair at all. The third, the loss of gain, moves by √2 in the limit and by 1.42610 at the one per cent usually quoted: 10.42 mV against 7.304. So a pair reached for as headroom has bought forty per cent of it, and twenty millivolts of imbalance brings the even orders straight back.

Where the bandwidth estimate stops being conservative. computed by solving, not by drawing. A Sallen–Key low-pass at unity gain, its quality factor swept by the ratio of its two capacitors. The sum of its open-circuit time constants is 2RC₂ and nothing else — the feedback capacitor sees zero resistance — so the estimate is 7957.7 Hz at every setting while the measured corner walks down past it. Below a quality factor of √2 the estimate is low, as it is on every network with real poles; above it the estimate is HIGH, by 6.45 times at a Q of ten. The crossing, bisected on the solved response, is at 1.414213032 against √2 = 1.414213562, and the estimate is at its worst at the Butterworth value 1/√2 where it is low by exactly 1 − 1/√2 = 29.29%.

Before the steady state

Where the estimate stops being a bound

The sum of open-circuit time constants is never optimistic on a network with real poles, and the claim is about the network rather than about the theorem. On a second-order section the ratio of the estimate to the truth is Q/√(k + √(k²+1)) with k = 1 − 1/2Q², which is exactly 1/√2 at the Butterworth quality factor — its worst point, 29.29 per cent low — and exactly 1 at a quality factor of √2. Above that the estimate is high, by 6.45 times at a Q of ten, and the crossing bisected on the solved response is 1.414213 against 1.414214.

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.

Two windings, and the band between them

The assumption that is a geometry

Every alternating-resistance number this collection has computed for a winding rests on one sentence — the field is parallel to the layers everywhere — and the sentence has never been tested, because testing it needs a field. Solved as one, a portion of foils that fills its window returns Dowell's expression to 0.155 per cent; the same copper filling a quarter of it returns 9.00 against the expression's 16.38, and dissipates 0.528 watts a metre against 0.232. The ratio falls by 45 per cent and the loss more than doubles.

The straight lines report 6.02 dB of gain margin on a loop that has none. computed by solving, not by drawing. The gain and phase of a loop made of an integrator and a pair at Q = 2, the corner at 1.00 kHz, the integrator set so that the straight-line asymptotes cross unity at 500 Hz. The loop's phase passes −180° at 1.00 kHz. There the lines put the loop gain at −6.02 dB and the solve at 0.00 dB, so the gain margin they report is 6.02 dB against 0.00 dB. The difference is 6.0206 dB, which is 20 log Q exactly with Q = 2, at any integrator gain. Closed, the loop is on the edge: the largest real part among its poles is -5.87e-17 of the corner's angular frequency.

Frequency, which is the same solve

The gain margin the straight lines get exactly wrong

A phase margin read off the straight lines is wrong by an amount that depends on where the loop crosses unity. A gain margin read off them is not: for an integrator and a pole pair the phase passes −180° at the pair's own frequency whatever the gain, and the lines are out there by exactly 20 log Q — 6.0206 dB for two real poles, 13.98 dB at a quality factor of five, at every integrator gain drawn. The stability condition for the loop turns out to be the same inequality: it is stable exactly when the gain margin the lines report exceeds that error.

Power, and the part that does no work

The headroom that is the line's own charge

A line of 50 + j100 ohms delivers at most 0.6180 of a matched resistive line's power to a unity-power-factor load, with 0.5878 of the source voltage left. Give the line its own shunt capacitance — a π, half at each end, B|Z| = 0.4 in all — and the nose moves to 0.7025 at 0.6895: 13.7 per cent more power and 17.3 per cent more voltage. It is headroom, but not the headroom the far end advertises, which with no load rises 21.1 per cent. The capacitance turns the source and line into a Thevenin equivalent with more voltage behind more impedance, and it moves a voltage threshold's meaning in opposite directions depending on whether it is referred to the source or to the unloaded far end.

The shunt's resistance as a function of what it is measuring. computed by solving, not by drawing, as a fixed point: the shunt dissipates I²R, its temperature rises by 20 K per watt, and at 50 ppm/K its resistance rises with its temperature — so the resistance the reading is divided by depends on the reading. Iterated to convergence it agrees with the closed form R₀/(1 − αθI²R₀) to 2.2e-16. Along the burden-voltage optimum, where R = u⁄I, the dissipation is I·u rather than I²R, so the temperature rise is 155 mK per ampere and the error is the FIRST power of the current — fitted exponent 1.0007 over five decades. That is the only one of the shunt's errors with the current in it, and it puts a term in I² into the reading, which is a curvature no single-current calibration removes. The upper curve is a shunt of fixed resistance, where the error is quadratic. The fixed point stops existing at 129 kA and never at a current a shunt will see.

Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

The resistance that depends on the reading

Three of a shunt's errors are free of the current being measured, which is the whole content of the burden-voltage optimum. The fourth is not: the shunt dissipates, warms, and its resistance rises — so the divisor the reading uses is a function of the reading. Solved as a fixed point it agrees with R₀/(1 − αθI²R₀) to 2×10⁻¹⁶, and along the optimum, where the dissipation is I·u* rather than I²R, the error is the FIRST power of the current: 7.75 ppm at an ampere, 775 at a hundred, fitted exponent 1.0007.

Stepped at 20 of its time constant, a 1 µs pole rings between 1.818 and 0.331 V, and needs 23 steps to settle. Marched with the trapezoidal rule at a step of 20.0 µs. A 1 µs pole (1 kΩ, 1 nF) drives, through a unity buffer, a 1 ms pole (1 kΩ, 1 µF). The fast node's exact response reaches its final volt within a few microseconds; the march's first values are 1.8182, 0.3306, 1.5477, 0.5519, 1.3666 V. Its distance from its final volt is multiplied by (1 − h/2τ)/(1 + h/2τ) = −0.8182 every step, measured and checked against that form, so it changes sign every step and takes 23 steps to fall below 1% — 460 µs. The slow node it drives is 1.23e-5 V from exact at 1 ms, because a 1 ms pole averages an alternation at half the stepping rate to nothing.

Before the steady state

The ringing that belongs to the rule

The trapezoidal rule is stable for every stable circuit and every step size, and it is not damping. March a one-microsecond pole with twenty-microsecond steps and its node reads 1.818, 0.331, 1.548, 0.552 volts — an oscillation at half the stepping rate, its distance from the final volt multiplied by exactly −0.8182 every step, taking twenty-three steps to fall below one per cent. The slow node that pole drives is right to 1.2 × 10⁻⁵ V at a millisecond. One backward-Euler step at the discontinuity cuts the first swing from 0.818 V to 0.048 and two to 0.0023, because backward Euler multiplies the same error by 1/(1 + h/τ) and the trapezoidal rule by (1 − h/2τ)/(1 + h/2τ), which approaches −1.

An order buys 38.7 dB at 1.25× the corner and 56.6 at 1.67×. computed by solving, not by drawing. The degree equation for an order-5 elliptic filter, swept over the two quantities a designer sets. The horizontal axis is where the stopband is required to begin; the five curves are passband ripples from 0.01 to 3 decibels. Nothing on this page is a choice: pick a ripple and a transition width and the attenuation is decided. At a half decibel of ripple, order 5 gives 38.68 dB with the stopband beginning at 1.25 times the corner and 66.09 dB with it beginning at twice — a factor of two in transition width for 27.4 decibels. The vertical spacing between the curves is the ripple's own term and is the same at every transition width: relaxing from a half decibel to three buys 9.12 dB wherever it is spent.

Filters, measured not tabulated

The selectivity that is not free

The filter trade is normally drawn with two quantities in it. It has three, and an order fixes a relation between all of them: at order five and half a decibel of ripple, a stopband asked to begin at twice the corner is worth 66.1 decibels and one asked to begin at 1.25 times is worth 38.7. The exchange is exact addition in decibels — relaxing the ripple from a half to three buys 9.12 dB wherever it is spent — and there is a fourth price nobody writes down: settling to a tenth of a per cent goes from 9.04 milliseconds to 23.23 while the overshoot does not move.

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°.

A via's area changes sign at 44.7 Ω, and two impedances give its 0.5 pF and 1 nH back. computed by solving, not by drawing, as a cascade of two-ports: a via of 0.25 pF, 1 nH and 0.25 pF, met by an edge of 59 ps from reference lines of 20 to 150 Ω. The area under the reflection is −Z₀C/2 + L/2Z₀ at every impedance: a bump below 44.7 Ω, where the inductance's term is the larger, nothing at it, and a dip above. From 50 Ω the area is 2.5 ps of dip, which a single-capacitance reading calls 0.100 pF. From 50 and 75 Ω together the two areas give 0.5000 pF and 1.0000 nH. An error of 50 fs on each area moves them by up to 0.8% and 1.5%.

Lines, where a wire has a length

The via two lines can weigh

The area under a reflection is a property of the discontinuity rather than of the edge, and for a via it is one number made of two: −Z₀C/2 from its pads and +L/2Z₀ from its barrel, with opposite signs. A via of half a picofarad and a nanohenry, seen from fifty ohms, leaves 2.5 picoseconds of dip — which a reading that assumes a capacitor calls 0.100 pF, a fifth of what is there. From fifty and seventy-five ohms together the two areas give 0.5000 pF and 1.0000 nH back, and fifty femtoseconds of error on each costs 0.8 per cent of the capacitance and 1.5 of the inductance. A second line at fifty-five ohms costs five times as much.

The net noise power between two resistors at two temperatures. computed by solving, not by drawing. A 1 kΩ resistor at 400 K joined to a second one at 290 K, whose resistance runs over six decades. Each delivers 4kTR₁R₂/(R₁+R₂)² per hertz to the other; the net is 1.5187 zW/Hz at the match, which is exactly kΔT and contains no resistance — a gigohm pair at the same two temperatures exchanges the same. Away from the match the exchange falls, to 0.0596 zW/Hz at a ratio of a hundred, so the maximum-power argument applies to noise as it does to a signal. At one temperature the net is zero at every ratio, to 7.5e-37 W/Hz, which is the statement a wrong noise model would break.

The floor, which bounds from below

Which way the noise goes

Two warm resistors joined together each drive the other, and the net flow is 4kΔT·R₁R₂/(R₁+R₂)² per hertz. At the match that is kΔT exactly — 1.5187 zeptowatts per hertz between 400 K and 290 K — and a kilohm pair and a gigohm pair at the same two temperatures exchange the same, which is why noise is quoted as a temperature. At one temperature the net is zero at every ratio to a part in 10³⁷, and that zero is the second law rather than a tolerance.

The sign change follows the 0.51 power of the amplifier, not the inductor. computed by solving, not by drawing. Both of the arrangement's frequency boundaries against the gain–bandwidth of the two amplifiers in it, over three decades. The lower curve is the frequency at which the series resistance changes sign, bisected on the sign of the real part; the upper one is where the inductance leaves one per cent. The crossing grows as the 0.513 power of the gain–bandwidth, and the dashed prediction over it is ½√(fc·fₚ) — half the geometric mean of the arrangement's own corner r/2πL = 1.59 kHz and the amplifier's open-loop pole f_t/A₀ — which is inside one per cent while that pole is at least fifteen times below the corner and 8.7 per cent out at the top of the sweep, where it is not. The two boundaries stay between 1.61 and 2.30 per cent of one another throughout, so a faster amplifier moves the active region rather than removing it.

Filters, measured not tabulated

The boundary that improves when the part gets worse

A synthetic inductor's series resistance changes sign at 63.0 Hz with one-megahertz amplifiers, and that frequency is not a property of the inductor. It is half the geometric mean of the arrangement's own corner and the amplifier's open-loop pole — half the square root of their product, which the bisection confirms to a part in a thousand — and it therefore falls as the amplifier's direct-current gain rises, from 686 Hz at a gain of a thousand to 19.9 Hz at a million. The quantity that decides whether a resonator starts does not move at all: it is the transition frequency over four times the Q, 2.50 kHz for a tank of a hundred.

An order-8 Butterworth: the whole sketch is 3.0103 dB out at the corner, and its 4 sections −5.85 to +8.17 dB. computed by solving, not by drawing. The error of the straight-line sketch against the solved response — for each buffered section of an order-8 Butterworth lowpass at 1.00 kHz, and for the whole cascade. At the corner the sections are out by −5.852 dB (Q = 0.5098), −4.418 dB (Q = 0.6013), −0.915 dB (Q = 0.9000), +8.175 dB (Q = 2.5629), which add to −3.0103 dB: the whole filter's error, the same 10 log 2 as a single pole. The whole sketch is never further out than that anywhere; the section with the highest quality factor is +8.343 dB out at 1.04 kHz. The quality factors multiply to 1/√2.

Frequency, which is the same solve

The corner error a filter hides in its sections

The straight lines of an eighth-order Butterworth filter are 3.0103 dB out at the corner and nowhere worse — the same as one pole, at every order. The lines of the four sections it is built from are out by −5.85, −4.42, −0.92 and +8.17 dB there, which must add to the whole because the sections multiply. The whole sketch never gets worse with order and the worst section's error grows as 20 log(n/π). And the section the sketch misrepresents most is the one whose frequency error moves the filter most: 0.312 dB for one per cent, against the 0.173 dB any section's stopband shift gives.

At 20 steps a cycle, ten cycles of an undamped LC: the trapezoidal rule keeps the amplitude and falls 29.2° behind; backward Euler keeps 0.0082% of it. Marched, both rules, against 1 − cos ωt for a 1 kHz inductor–capacitor pair stepped with no resistance at all. At 20 steps a cycle the trapezoidal march's amplitude stays at 1.00000 a cycle and its frequency is slow: it loses 2.918° a cycle, measured from the march's own recurrence, against 2π − 2N·atan(π/N) = 2.918°, so after ten cycles it is 29.2° behind. Backward Euler keeps 0.3901 of its amplitude a cycle, against (1 + (2π/N)²)^(−N/2) = 0.3901, so 0.0082% is left after ten, and it loses 11.19° a cycle. No resistance is in the circuit; every loss is the rule's.

Before the steady state

The phase the rule loses

An inductor and a capacitor with no resistance ring for ever, and two ways of marching them disagree about how. The trapezoidal rule keeps the amplitude exactly — its factor per step has a magnitude of one — and loses phase instead: 2π − 2N·atan(π/N) a cycle, 2.918° at twenty steps a cycle, so ten cycles later it is 29.2° behind the circuit. Backward Euler keeps 0.3901 of the amplitude a cycle at the same step, and after ten cycles 0.0082 per cent of the ringing is left, in a circuit that has no loss. The two errors fall at different rates: the trapezoidal rule's phase as the square of the steps a cycle, backward Euler's amplitude as the first power. A hundred cycles to within one per cent needs 182 steps a cycle of one and 196,404 of the other.

At 44.7 Ω the via's area is zero; its reflection is a doublet falling as the 1.99 power of the edge, not the first. computed by solving, not by drawing, as a cascade. A via of 0.25 pF, 1 nH and 0.25 pF on a line of √(L/C) = 44.72 Ω, met by an edge of 59 ps, against the same capacitance alone on the same line. The via's reflection is a doublet — a dip and a bump of equal area — whose largest excursion is 24.4 mV against 166 mV for the capacitance alone. Over edges from 5.9 ps to 295 ps the capacitance's reflection falls as the −0.97 power of the edge and the via's as the −1.99 power: 24.4 mV at 59 ps, 994 µV at 295 ps. The via delays the edge going past it by 22.4 ps, against √(LC) = 22.4 ps.

Lines, where a wire has a length

The via that is a piece of line

A via of half a picofarad of pad and a nanohenry of barrel puts no area under its reflection from a line of √(L/C) = 44.72 ohms, from any edge. It has not vanished. It delays the edge going past it by 22.4 picoseconds, which is √(LC) exactly, and it still reflects: a doublet whose largest excursion falls as the −1.99 power of the edge where a lone capacitance's falls as the −0.97 — 24.4 millivolts for a 59-picosecond edge against 166 for the pads alone, and 994 microvolts for a 295-picosecond one against 35. The balanced via is a short piece of line, and the reflection it leaves is the reflection of its length rather than of its size.

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

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

Two capacitors that are one

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

The bandwidth a windowed density is divided by, against the one bin an analyser assumes. Computed from the weights, from the coefficients in closed form, and out of the bins by Parseval — three routes agreeing to a part in 10¹². A record of N samples weighted by a window and transformed gives bins whose noise bandwidth is N·Σw²/(Σw)² in units of the bin spacing: 1 exactly for an unwindowed record, 1.5000 for Hann — three halves, exactly, because (a₀² + ½a₁²)/a₀² is (0.25 + 0.125)/0.25 with no record length in it — 1.3628 for Hamming, 1.7268 for Blackman and 2.0044 for Blackman–Harris. A density divided by one bin instead is wrong by the figure beside each bar. The bandwidth is not ordered with the sidelobe: Hamming's first sidelobe is 11.2 dB below Hann's and it costs less bandwidth as well, so the received sequence of windows fails at its second entry. What Hann buys is the far skirt instead, and that is a different measurement.

The floor, which bounds from below

The bandwidth a bin is not

A density read off a transform is divided by a bandwidth, and the bandwidth belongs to the window rather than to the bin spacing — exactly three halves of a bin for a Hann window, so a density divided by one bin is 1.761 decibels high in power. Measured three ways that share only the weights. And the received sequence of windows fails at its second entry: Hamming's first sidelobe is 11.2 decibels below Hann's and it costs less bandwidth as well, with Hann collecting its debt at the fourth sidelobe and every one after it.

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. Bisecting on the SIGN of the pole's real part returns 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.

Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

What the cure at the base costs

Bisecting for the smallest base resistor that stops an emitter follower oscillating gives 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.

A true-RMS converter reads noise low by 1/(16Bτ): 0.600% at Bτ = 10 and 672 ppm at 100, where a sine at fτ = 100 is 0.0396 ppm. Seeded, and measured. An explicit true-RMS converter — square, one-pole average of time constant τ, root — reading Gaussian noise of unit power, against the product of the noise's bandwidth and τ, from 1 to 100. Each point is 2²¹ samples at eight times the bandwidth, with the reading compared against the record's own root-mean-square and its standard error from batch means. Bτ = 1: 4.550% ± 150 ppm (band from zero), 4.081% (band of the same width about 3B). Bτ = 2: 2.598% ± 114 ppm (band from zero), 2.411% (band of the same width about 3B). Bτ = 5: 1.149% ± 75.4 ppm (band from zero), 1.098% (band of the same width about 3B). Bτ = 10: 0.600% ± 53.1 ppm (band from zero), 0.576% (band of the same width about 3B). Bτ = 20: 0.309% ± 39.1 ppm (band from zero), 0.295% (band of the same width about 3B). Bτ = 50: 0.127% ± 26.3 ppm (band from zero), 0.119% (band of the same width about 3B). Bτ = 100: 672 ppm ± 19 ppm (band from zero), 623 ppm (band of the same width about 3B). The dashed line is 1/(16Bτ), an eighth of the averaged square's variance, which the readings approach above Bτ = 10 and fall short of below it. A sine read by the same converter at the same product of frequency and τ is low by 3.96 ppm at 10 and 0.0396 ppm at 100 — the square of the noise's rate rather than its first power.

Power, and the part that does no work

The noise a true-RMS meter reads low

A true-RMS converter reads a sine low by an amount that falls as the square of its frequency, and for anything but a slow sine that amount vanishes: 3.96 parts per million at ten times the averager's corner. Noise is not a sine. Its square fluctuates at every frequency down to zero, and the averager passes a share of that set by its own bandwidth against the noise's, so the reading is low by 1/(16Bτ) — the first power, not the second. Measured on seeded noise at Bτ = 10 it is 0.600 per cent low against a predicted 0.625; at 100, 672 parts per million. One reading scatters by eighteen times that, so no single reading shows the bias and the mean of a few hundred is nothing but bias.

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 a third-order account never measures.

Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

The product that is not the third

Every distortion result in this field is odd-order, and every two-tone calculation behind those results computed the second-order product and threw 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.

$A step through r sections starts as (t/τ)^r: it reaches 1% at 10.1 µs, 105 µs, 243 µs, 380 µs, 508 µs for r = 1 to 5. Solved, and expanded two ways. The step response of buffered RC sections of time constants τ, τ/2, … τ/r, with τ = 1 ms, on logarithmic axes. The relative degree of the recovered transfer function is r, so the first r − 1 derivatives of the step are zero at the start and the r-th is lim s^r·H(s) = r!/τ^r, read off the network solved far above its poles and off the expansion of H about infinity; the step therefore starts as (t/τ)^r, a straight line of slope r. The expansion about infinity and the residue expansion agree to a part in a million where both are well conditioned. The output reaches 1% at 10.1 µs (r = 1), 105 µs (r = 2), 243 µs (r = 3), 380 µs (r = 4), 508 µs (r = 5), and half its final value at 693 µs, 1.23 ms, 1.58 ms, 1.84 ms, 2.04 ms. For these time constants the whole step is (1 − e^(−t/τ))^r, checked against both expansions, so the time to a fraction ε is −τ·ln(1 − ε^(1/r)).$ Before the steady state

The start a step takes from infinity

The initial-value theorem reads where a step starts off H at infinite frequency. Apply it again to s·H, s²·H and on, and it reads how the step starts: the first r − 1 derivatives are zero for a network r degrees more poles than zeros, and the r-th is the ratio of the leading coefficients. So a step through r sections begins as a power of time — for sections of τ, τ/2, … τ/r, exactly (t/τ) to the r — and reaches one per cent at 10.1 µs through one section, 105 µs through two and 508 µs through five. Put a zero anywhere, even a thousand times above every pole, and the step starts linearly instead, with a slope of twice the zero's time constant over τ² that is the larger term for the first two of them.

$The load alternates with parity between 1 and 1.9841, at every order. computed by solving, not by drawing. The last quotient of the continued fraction that turns a reflection polynomial into element values, which is the load resistance the design demands, drawn against order. A Butterworth returns exactly one at every order. A Chebyshev alternates: one at every odd order and 1.984056 at every even one, the same number each time, and it is the closed form (√(1+ε²)+ε)² to a part in 10¹⁵. The mechanism is in the last two rows of the panel. A lossless ladder filter is two resistances at direct current, so it must deliver the maximum available power there, which requires that zero be one of the frequencies the design reflects nothing at — and an even-order Chebyshev's reflection zeros are the roots of an even Chebyshev polynomial, none of which is zero. The synthesis stalls at order 9 for a Butterworth, which is why that series stops at eight.$ Filters, measured not tabulated

The termination an even order cannot have

Every even-order Chebyshev ladder terminates in 1.984056 times its source resistance at half a decibel of ripple, the same number at orders two, four, six and eight, and it is (√(1+ε²)+ε)² to a part in 10¹⁵. Building one between equal terminations instead — which is what a table of g-values and a matched pair gives — turns 0.5000 dB of ripple into 1.8123 at order four, deletes one of the passband maxima outright, and moves the worst tolerance corner from the 2.000 power of the component tolerance to the 1.109 power: a factor of 95 at one per cent parts.

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

The walk the core sees

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

A porosity of 0.50, with the field the substitution smooths away. computed by solving, not by drawing. The flux lines between the conductors are the whole difference. The porosity substitution replaces this layer with a foil of the same direct-current resistance spread over the full breadth, in which the field is parallel to the layers by construction; here it is not, and it crowds between the turns. The solved ratio is 5.816 against the substitution's 6.212, 6.4 per cent apart. The copper is shaded by its own loss, which is what says the turns inside a layer are not alike either.

Two windings, and the band between them

The wire that is not a foil

Almost no winding is made of foil, and the closed form for a winding's alternating-current resistance is about foils. The bridge between them is a substitution — squeeze the layer's conductors together, spread the result back across the breadth, divide the conductivity by the porosity — and it replaces a two-dimensional geometry with a one-dimensional one. Solved as a field it is exact where it must be, at a porosity of one, and 7.2 per cent high at a porosity of 0.40. It errs on the safe side, which is the half of the answer nobody could have assumed.

Lead zero at 500 Hz: the lines over-report by at most 3.12° with the loop's phase, and short by up to 20.6°. computed by solving, not by drawing. The error in the phase margin read off the straight lines of an integrator, two poles at 1.00 kHz and a lead section with its zero at 500 Hz and its pole 10 times higher, against where the lines cross unity, measured in decades from the zero. Gaps are placements where the lines are flat at unity or the loop crosses more than once. Read with the loop's own phase the reading is over by at most +3.12°, with the lines crossing −0.01 decades from the zero on a loop with 73.4° of margin, and never over on any loop with 60° or less; it is short by as much as 20.65°. Read with the phase off its straight lines too, on loops with 60° or less, it is never over.

Frequency, which is the same solve

The zero that lifts the lines

A phase margin read off the straight lines of an all-pole loop can only be short, and the proof takes three steps. A lead section breaks two of them: a zero's response lies above its lines, and between a zero and its pole the phase rises. The two breaks pull opposite ways, and measured across every placement of the crossing, in every sweep drawn, they leave an over-report of at most 6.58°, on a loop with 87.5°; on loops with sixty degrees or less it never exceeds 1.52°. The phase sketch is another matter: with the lines crossing at a lead zero above the plant's corner, it reports 17.91° on a loop with 1.17°.

$Two tracks 1 mm apart share all of the plane's resistance at direct current and 14.5% of it above the band. computed by solving, not by drawing, across a 50 mm plane cut into 239 strips, with two tracks 200 µm above it and 1 mm apart — 5.0 heights. One track carries the current and the voltage along the other's loop is measured. The shared resistance, as a fraction of the driven loop's own, is 1 at direct current, where both returns spread across the whole plane and share its 10 mΩ/m; it falls through a half at 183 kHz and settles at 0.1454 above 10.0 MHz, where each return has gathered under its own track. The shared inductance is 0.398 of the loop's own at direct current and 0.0341 above the band.$ Lines, where a wire has a length

Two returns in one plane

Two tracks over one plane share the whole of its resistance at direct current, however far apart they are routed: 10 milliohms a metre on a fifty-millimetre plane, from tracks a millimetre apart or ten. The sharing ends across the same band a single return gathers over, and it ends sooner the farther apart the tracks are — through a half at 525 kilohertz for tracks three heights apart and at 9.88 kilohertz for fifty. Above the band what is left is the overlap of two image distributions, 4h²/(4h² + d²): 14.5 per cent of the resistance at a millimetre, 0.68 at five. And in the middle of the band the two loops' mutual inductance changes sign.

Where "the noise is the density over twice the window" is true for a mean of 600 samples. The exact sampled autocorrelation of a one-pole front end, summed in closed form and checked against seeded samples through the same filter. The solid curve is the reading's noise power divided by what the rule gives. It crosses one at 0.1355 of half the sample rate and nowhere else, so the rule is right at one front-end bandwidth rather than over a range: it is within one per cent from 0.0712 to 0.205 of half the sample rate, a window a factor of 2.88 wide. Above it the front end admits noise from past half the sample rate and the sampler folds it in, the ratio tending to (x/2)·coth(x/2) with x = 1/(τ·fₛ), which has no N in it — so the sample rate must be 9.7 times the front end's noise bandwidth for one per cent, not twice it. Below it the front end has already removed noise the rule charges for, and the faint curve — the √N law's own error, which is a claim about the samples rather than about a density — shows why: consecutive samples are correlated by ρ = e^(−1/(τ·fₛ)) and a mean of 600 of them is a mean of fewer things.

The floor, which bounds from below

The window the square-root law has

Averaging N readings divides the noise power by N only if the readings are independent, and samples of a filtered noise are independent only over a band. Measured on the exact sampled autocorrelation, the rule that a reading's noise is the density over twice the window is right at one front-end bandwidth and wrong on both sides — a factor of three wide at six hundred samples, asking the sample rate to exceed the front end's noise bandwidth by about ten rather than by two. Above it the folded noise arrives at full amplitude; below it the front end has removed noise the rule is still charging for.

Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

One voltage added to two readings

A difference amplifier across a shared return rejects somebody else's current by 54 decibels, and the number is four resistors rather than the amplifier. Two sensors referenced to the same node do better by a different mechanism entirely: the interfering voltage is one voltage on one node, so it is added to both readings identically and the difference between them has none of it — 511 microvolts in each reading against two and a half picovolts in the difference, which is 166 decibels and is exact rather than good. What is left is not a tolerance but a mismatch between the two sensors' own return paths, ten nanovolts per per cent of it.

Zeroing the dependent source too: an answer that does not depend on the gain. computed by solving, not by drawing. Two independent sources reach a node through resistors; a voltage-controlled source of gain −10 is driven from that node and fed back to it through 10 kΩ. Solved whole, the output is -25.0000 V. Solved by superposition with the dependent source LEFT IN each of the two solves it is -25.0000 V — the same number to 1.1e-16, so superposition is exact here as it is everywhere else in a linear network. Zeroing the dependent source along with each independent one gives nought volts at the output and 4.06250 V at the node, against the node's true 2.50000 V — 62.5 per cent out — because a controlled voltage source set to zero is a short circuit and the three solves are then of three different circuits. What makes it unmistakable is that the wrong answer is 4.06250 V at EVERY gain from one to three hundred: the route has deleted the only element that knows what the gain is, while the true answer moves by more than a factor across the same range.

Networks, and how a solve is checked

The source that must not be zeroed

Superposition says to zero all the sources but one, and the care usually taken over that instruction is that zeroing is not deleting — a voltage source with no voltage is a short circuit and it stays in the netlist. A dependent source needs the opposite care: it must not be zeroed at all, because it is an element whose law involves another node rather than a source the theorem is about. Zeroed, it is a short circuit, and the answer that comes back is 4.0625 volts at every gain from one to three hundred — while the true answer moves from 3.82 volts to 0.206.

Where a signal becomes a number

Two thirds of a bit for a factor of twenty-eight

An anti-alias filter costed in clock rate gets steeply cheaper with order — fifty times Nyquist at the second and 1.76 at the tenth — and the obvious objection is noise, since the filter is in the signal path and every section adds resistors. Measured, the objection barely holds: from order two to order ten the clock demand falls by a factor of 28.7 and the resolution the filter's own noise allows falls by 0.69 of a bit. What does cost resolution is the impedance level, at five thirds of a bit per decade of capacitance, and nobody argues about that at all.

Summed over whole periods 1.3% too long, a sine is read to ±0.65% for up to 38 periods, whatever their number. Integrated exactly over each window, the worst over every starting phase. The error in a root-mean-square summed over N assumed periods 1.3% too long, against N, for a sine and a 60° rectifier current, beside an explicit converter averaging over a comparable time, τ of N/2 periods. For the sine the worst error is 0.643% at one period and stays near δ/2 until N approaches 1/(2δ) = 38; it vanishes where Nδ is a whole number of half-periods of the square, and beyond it is bounded by 1/(4πN). The rectifier current's is 1.274% at one period, near δ(CF² − 1)/2 with a crest factor of 1.732. The converter at τ = N/2 periods is low by 15.8 ppm on the sine at N = 10, with a ripple of ±0.796%; on the rectifier current, low by 46.3 ppm with ±1.665%.

Power, and the part that does no work

The cycle a converter has to know

Summing a waveform's square over a whole number of periods reads its root-mean-square exactly: no averager, no ripple, no bias. It needs the period, and a period known one per cent long puts a hundredth of a period too much into the window. Wherever that extra piece falls, the reading moves — on a sine by up to 0.50 per cent over one period, and by 0.46 per cent over ten, because the extra piece grows with the window as fast as the window does. The worst error is δ(CF² − 1)/2, set by the crest factor and the period error and not by how many periods are summed, until the excess reaches half a period. A square wave is read exactly from any window, and a 60° rectifier current twice as badly as a sine.

How much larger a gap is than its own length says. computed by solving, not by drawing. A magnetic circuit prices a gap as g/(µ₀A) and everybody knows that is low, because the flux bulges out of the sides. The usual repair is to add one gap length to each dimension of the gap's area, which is the dashed line. The measurement is the solid one: at a 0.3 mm gap in a 6 mm leg the true correction is 1.100 and the rule offers 1.050, so the rule supplies 50 per cent of a correction worth 10 per cent of the inductance; at 1.7 mm it supplies 85 per cent. The rule is not wrong so much as it is a rule whose accuracy depends on the thing it is correcting.

Two windings, and the band between them

The gap that is bigger than it is

A magnetic circuit prices a gap as g/µ₀A and everybody knows that is low, because the flux bulges out of the sides. The usual repair — add one gap length to each dimension of the gap's area — supplies half the correction at a 0.3 mm gap and 85 per cent at 1.7 mm, on a correction worth 10 per cent of the inductance at the first and 33 at the second. It is not a rule that is right or wrong; it is a rule whose accuracy is a function of the very thing it is correcting.

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.

Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

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.

20 sections imitating a 1 m line: its delay is 1% long at 318 MHz and its group delay at 185 MHz, and it passes nothing above 1.32 GHz. computed by solving, not by drawing, as a chain of 20 series inductors and shunt capacitors carrying the inductance and capacitance of a metre of 50 Ω line of delay 4.83 ns, terminated in 50 Ω at both ends, beside the Bloch phase of an endless chain, 2·arcsin of ω over the cutoff, a section. The chain's cutoff is the cutoff 2/√(LₛCₛ), 1.32 GHz. Its phase delay is too long by arcsin(x)/x − 1 with x = f over that cutoff, 1% at 318 MHz (x = 0.2417); its group delay by 1/√(1 − x²) − 1, 1% at 185 MHz (x = 0.1404). Well below cutoff the solved chain's delay follows the closed form; nearer it the fifty-ohm terminations, which are not the LC ladder's own impedance there, add a ripple. Ten sections per wavelength is 414 MHz for this chain.

Lines, where a wire has a length

The sections a wavelength needs

A ladder of inductors and capacitors is a line only below its own cutoff, 2/√(LC) of one section, and in the frequency domain how far below can be written down exactly: its delay is too long by arcsin(x)/x − 1 and its group delay by 1/√(1 − x²) − 1, where x is π over the number of sections per wavelength. One per cent of delay needs 13.0 sections per wavelength; one per cent of group delay, 22.4. The rule of ten per wavelength is 1.72 per cent slow in phase and 5.33 in group delay. Twenty sections imitating a metre of cable are a line to a per cent of group delay up to 185 megahertz and pass nothing at all above 1.32 gigahertz.

An integrator's summing junction is flat at 15.7 Ω, and worst at direct current. computed by solving, not by drawing. A current is driven into the node and the voltage read. The dashed curve is the same amplifier with a 10 kΩ resistor as its feedback element: a tenth of an ohm at direct current, rising a decade per decade, 909.5 Ω at the top. With a 10 nF capacitor instead, the loop gain has no frequency in it — the amplifier's gain falls as 1/f while the feedback factor rises as f — so it is flat at 62.83 and the node is flat with it, at Rin/(1 + 2π·GBW·C·Rin) = 15.666 Ω, measured 15.668 Ω and holding to 0.50 per cent from 100 Hz to 5.31 kHz — between the amplifier's own pole and the capacitor's corner, which is where a loop gain with no frequency in it lives. Both ends are the other way round from the resistive case: at direct current the capacitor is an open circuit, there is no loop at all, and the node is 843.0 Ω — a factor of 8388 worse than the resistor's 100 mΩ. Above the amplifier's crossover the capacitor is a short and the node is 47.6 Ω against 909.5. The two cross at 1.56 kHz, which is the frequency above which an integrator is the better virtual earth of the two.

Feedback, and the margin

The shelf a capacitor makes

An inverting amplifier's summing node rises a decade per decade to the two resistors in parallel. Replace the feedback resistor with a capacitor and it does neither: an integrator's loop gain has no frequency in it, so the node is flat at Rin/(1 + 2π·GBW·C·Rin) — 15.67 ohms over four decades, to half a per cent. Both ends invert. At direct current the capacitor is an open circuit, there is no loop at all, and the node is 843 ohms against the resistor's tenth of one; above the amplifier's crossover the capacitor is a short and the node is nineteen times better.

Adding powers is wrong by the number of sources, when they are coherent. computed by solving, not by drawing, at five source counts. 8 ten-volt sources reach one hundred-ohm load through a hundred ohms each. With every source in phase the load takes 790.1 mW against the 98.77 mW that adding their separate powers gives — exactly 8 times, at every count, to a part in 10¹², because all 28 cross terms are positive and equal. With seeded random phases it takes 0.9865 times the sum over 64 runs, against a standard error of 0.125 — the cross terms average to nothing, which is the reason noise powers add and a root-sum-square is the right arithmetic for uncorrelated interference. The factor between the two limits is the source count itself, so it grows without bound: adding powers is not wrong by a bounded amount, it is wrong by how many things are being added.

Networks, and how a solve is checked

The cross terms that outnumber the sources

With two sources the power in a load has one cross term, and adding the separate powers is wrong by a factor of two. With thirty-two there are four hundred and ninety-six of them, and the factor is thirty-two: 940 milliwatts delivered against the 29.4 that adding gives. With the same thirty-two sources at seeded random phases it is 26.9 milliwatts — the sum itself, inside the standard error of sixty-four runs, because every cross term averages to nothing. One identity, two limits, and the two are a phased array's gain and a noise sum's.

Frequency, which is the same solve

Four readings of one distance

Reactance, phase, the corner frequency and the roll-off are four readings of one complex number, and the number has a geometry. A single pole's magnitude is the pole's distance from the origin divided by its distance from the point on the imaginary axis, and the phase is minus the angle that separation subtends — agreeing with the nodal solve to a part in 10¹² over five decades. So the corner is where the distance is root two times its smallest, the roll-off is the distance becoming omega, the flat passband is the distance not yet changing, and the phase is the angle. One distance, four readings.

$A twin-T's null: everything fills it, and at one order. computed by solving, not by drawing. A twin-T of 10 kΩ and 10 nF nulls at 1591.5 Hz, where a low-pass T of two resistors and a high-pass T of two capacitors deliver equal and opposite contributions. With exact components the null is -Infinity dB, which is the arithmetic's floor. A tolerance fills it at 20.0 decibels per decade — first order, where an LC notch splits into twenty and forty depending on which way two errors go, because there a product can be left alone and here there is no product. Loss fills it at 20.0 decibels a decade too, and barely moves it — 1591.55 to 1595.52 Hz across four decades of series resistance — because a resistance of r in a capacitor branch is a fractional error of r/R and nothing else: one ohm gives -88.5 dB against a hundredth of a per cent of tolerance's -92.0. So a notch's two mechanisms are not exchanged here — they are one mechanism, because a twin-T's null is stationary in nothing and an LC notch's frequency is stationary in the product of its two components.$ Filters, measured not tabulated

The null that is stationary in nothing

An LC notch has two mechanisms and they do different things: a tolerance moves its null rather than filling it, because the resonance depends on a product two errors can leave alone, and loss fills it at twenty decibels per decade of arm resistance. A twin-T has no resonance and no arm. Measured, everything fills it at twenty decibels a decade and nothing moves it — one ohm in series with its capacitors gives 88 decibels where a hundredth of a per cent of tolerance gives 92, because a series resistance in a capacitor branch is a fractional error of r over R and nothing else.

Where a transformer's leakage inductance actually is. computed by solving, not by drawing. Both windings carry the same ampere-turns in opposite directions, which is the short-circuit condition a leakage measurement is made under, so the flux drawn here is the flux that fails to link the two — the leakage field, and nothing else. It is largest in the insulation between the portions, where the magnetomotive force is at its full value and there is no copper to be in. The energy in this window is 2.058 microjoules per metre, which is 4.116 microhenries per metre referred to the primary against a closed form of 5.213.

Two windings, and the band between them

The inductance that is a shape

Leakage inductance is the one transformer parameter that belongs to the geometry rather than to the material: twice the magnetic energy in the window under equal and opposite ampere-turns, divided by the square of the current. Solved as a field it is 3.086 microhenries a metre against a closed form's 3.128 when the copper fills the window, and 4.608 against 6.255 when it fills half of it. Interleaving is worth 3.11 times and not the four it is quoted as, and the missing 0.89 is the insulation nobody puts in the formula.

The gain recovered from the phase alone, right in shape, with its level supplied by the gain at direct current. computed by solving, not by drawing. The lead, 1.00 kHz to 10.0 kHz, solved at 1601 frequencies over sixteen decades, and its gain rebuilt by Bode's companion integral from the phase alone over ±3 decades of 1.00 kHz. The integral returns a difference of log-magnitudes and nothing else, so the curve it gives has no level: drawn as if the direct-current gain were one, it is the dashed curve. Supplying the direct-current gain, −20.000 dB, places it. The placed curve lies within 0.055 dB of the solved gain across the drawn band, worst at 794 kHz.

Frequency, which is the same solve

The level the phase cannot know

Bode's gain–phase relation runs both ways. Given only the phase of a lead network, its companion integral returns the gain's shape across six decades to 0.055 dB. It cannot return the gain's level, because multiplying a network by a constant changes no phase anywhere. The level is one number, −20.000 dB here, and it has to come from outside the phase: one gain reading at any frequency supplies it. The same integral fed an all-pass reads a flat gain as a double pole, 6.021 dB down at the all-pass's frequency and 40.086 dB down a decade above it.

4 branches read with 10 Ω ammeters: one at a time every reading is low, all at once they add up and the small branches are high. computed by solving, not by drawing. A 1 A source into 4 parallel branches of 100 Ω, 1 kΩ, 10 kΩ, 100 kΩ, each read with an ammeter of 10 Ω. With one ammeter moved from branch to branch, each reading is low — by −0.989%, −0.902%, −0.099%, −0.010% — exactly r over the resistance that meter looks back into plus r, and the four readings add to 990.275 mA rather than 1000.000. With an ammeter in every branch at once the readings add to 1000.000 mA and are wrong by −0.892%, +7.939%, +8.910%, +9.008%: the meter in the largest branch pushes current out of it, and the small branches take it.

Networks, and how a solve is checked

The readings that add up and are wrong

Four branches of 100 Ω, 1 kΩ, 10 kΩ and 100 kΩ share a 1 A source. Read them one at a time with a single 10 Ω ammeter moved from branch to branch, and every reading is within one per cent of the truth, but the four add to 990.275 mA. Put a 10 Ω ammeter in every branch at once and the four readings add to 1000.000 mA exactly, satisfying Kirchhoff's current law to the last digit. Yet three of them are 7.9 to 9.0 per cent high. The check a reader would run on the readings is passed by the wrong set and failed by the right one.

A lossy cancelling capacitor beats a resistor alone only above Q = 3.236 if it cancels everything, and only above 1.618 at all. computed by solving, not by drawing. A source of 50 Ω + j100 Ω, its reactance cancelled by a capacitor whose quality factor is Q, so that the capacitor carries a series resistance of its reactance over Q. Cancelling fully, with the load resistor matched to the source and capacitor resistances together, the load takes 1/(1 + x/Q) of the available power, at exactly half efficiency; a resistor alone takes 0.6180, 2/(1 + √(1 + x²)). They are equal at Q = 3.2361, twice the golden ratio. Cancelling only part of the reactance does better than either: it helps at all above Q = (√(1 + x²) + 1)/x = 1.6180, and at Q = 3 takes 0.6650 against 0.5971 cancelled fully.

Power, and the part that does no work

The reactance that is not free

A conjugate match cancels the source's reactance with an opposite one and takes all the available power, where a resistor alone takes 2/(1 + √(1 + x²)), 0.618 of it when the reactance is twice the resistance. The cancelling capacitor is not free. With quality factor Q it carries a resistance of its reactance over Q, and cancelling fully then delivers 1/(1 + x/Q). That beats the resistor alone only above Q = 2(√(1 + x²) + 1)/x, 3.236 here, twice the golden ratio. But full cancellation is not the best use of a lossy capacitor. Cancelling part of the reactance beats both, and helps at all above Q = (√(1 + x²) + 1)/x, the golden ratio itself. Below that, the right amount to cancel is none.

BDF2 loses amplitude as N⁻³ and phase as N⁻², four times the trapezoidal rule's: a hundred cycles to 1% needs 363 steps a cycle, against 182 and 196,404. Each rule's error a cycle on an undamped inductor–capacitor pair, against the steps a cycle, measured from BDF2 marches and drawn with the trapezoidal rule's and backward Euler's closed forms. BDF2 loses amplitude a cycle as the −2.91 power of N and phase as the −1.95 power, its phase loss 3.988 times the trapezoidal rule's at 128 steps a cycle. To keep 99% of the amplitude over a hundred cycles it needs 157 steps a cycle, and to stay within 1% of a cycle in phase 363; the trapezoidal rule needs 182 for the phase and loses no amplitude, and backward Euler needs 196,404 for the amplitude.

Before the steady state

The rule between the two

The trapezoidal rule keeps an undamped ringing's amplitude and loses its phase, and it preserves a stiff pole's error with its sign alternating. Backward Euler damps the stiff error at once and damps the ringing too, keeping 0.0082 per cent after ten cycles at twenty steps a cycle. The second-order backward difference sits between them in a precise sense. It damps the stiff error by 1/√(3 + 2h/τ), 0.152 a step at twenty time constants, and settles in three steps where the trapezoidal rule needs twenty-three. It loses a ringing's amplitude only as the cube of the steps a cycle, and its phase as the square with a constant four times the trapezoidal rule's. A hundred cycles to one per cent costs 363 steps a cycle, against 182 and 196,404.

Where a signal becomes a number

The pole a straight line is worth

A converter that joins its samples with straight lines instead of holding each one is convolving with a triangle rather than a rectangle, and its transform is the hold's sinc squared. Every decibel doubles: 5.28 dB of droop at a 20 kHz band edge on a 48 kHz clock instead of 2.64, and 5.85 dB of image rejection instead of 2.92. Both exponents of the oversampling ratio are unchanged. The second sinc is worth exactly one pole of reconstruction filter at every ratio, because a sinc's rejection of the nearest image is twenty times the log of that image's distance from the band edge, identically. A single analogue pole allowed the same droop gives a fraction of that rejection. The price is a whole clock of delay rather than half.

Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

The resistor that moves the lag

A guarded input driven by a one-megahertz follower presents a negative resistance of −1/(ωₜC), −1.59 kΩ behind 100 pF of cable. The standard remedy is a resistor between the follower and the ring. It weakens the negative resistance, to −6.5 kΩ at 1 kΩ and −403 kΩ at 100 kΩ, but it does not remove it: the resistor and the ring's own capacitance to ground make a lag of their own. With a large enough resistor the worst value is −R(C + Cₛ)²/(C·Cₛ) for a drive resistor R — minus four times the resistor when the ring is as capacitive to ground as to the input — and the same at every length of one cable. The length moves somewhere else instead. The frequency where the bootstrap is given up, 1/(2πR(C + Cₛ)) for a drive resistor R, falls with every metre.

1 pA in 10.0 kHz: 312 carriers a window, and a Gaussian of the same variance that looks right and is not in its tails. computed by solving, not by drawing. A direct current of 1 pA counted in windows of 1/(2B) for a noise bandwidth of 10.0 kHz: the mean count is N = I/(2qB) = 312.1, and the count is Poisson, drawn as bars, against a Gaussian of the same mean and variance, drawn as a curve. The variance is N exactly, so 2qI is right; the signal-to-noise ratio is √N = 17.67 and the skewness 1/√N = 0.0566. The count exceeds its mean by five standard deviations with probability 7.84 × 10⁻⁷, against the Gaussian's 2.87 × 10⁻⁷. A seeded arrival train counted in 20,000 windows gives a mean of 312.200 and a variance of 314.461.

The floor, which bounds from below

The count under the density

Shot noise's density, 2qI, is exact at every current, because it is the variance of a count of independent carriers, and that count is Poisson at any size. Reading that variance as a Gaussian floor is not exact. A picoampere in a 10 kHz noise bandwidth is 312 carriers a window, and it passes five standard deviations above its mean 2.74 times as often as a Gaussian of the same variance says. At 10 femtoamperes it is 359 times as often, and 4.4 per cent of the windows are empty. A single pole reads a third more skewness than a count does, (4/3)/√N against 1/√N. The density is right and the shape is wrong, and the shape is what a threshold uses.

At 50° of margin a capacitor across the resistor carries 85.2 µV and a tee 347 µV: the tee is dominated everywhere. computed by solving, not by drawing. A photodiode amplifier of 500 kΩ transimpedance on 33 pF of detector, behind a 10 MHz amplifier with 4 nV/√Hz of voltage noise, compensated either by a capacitor across a single feedback resistor, swept from none to 4 pF, or by a tee of the same transimpedance and factor 3 to 64. Each design's phase margin is drawn against its output noise integrated to its own bandwidth. At every margin a tee reaches, the capacitor reaches it with less noise: at 50.4° the capacitor's design (0.97 pF) carries 85.2 µV in 396 kHz and the tee (factor 32) 347 µV in 401 kHz, 4.1 times more. The ratio runs from 1.29 to 7.47 across the margins compared.

Feedback, and the margin

The compensation that costs nothing

A photodiode amplifier can be compensated with a capacitor across its feedback resistor, or with a feedback tee, whose raised noise gain also raises the phase margin. At one transimpedance, 500 kΩ on 33 pF of detector, each design's margin is drawn against its output noise over its own bandwidth. The capacitor dominates at every margin the tee can reach: at 50° it carries 85 µV where the tee carries 347, in the same 400 kHz. The two keep the same band to within 1.3 per cent at equal margin, so the tee's noise buys no bandwidth. The conjecture that the answer would turn on which noise dominates does not survive either. With the amplifier's voltage noise cut tenfold, the tee is still 5.6 times worse.

$Four networks of one magnitude: the first and last are fixed at every instant, and the two between swap at 12.64 µs. computed by solving, not by drawing. A low-pass with poles at 1, 10 and 100 kHz and zeros at 3.00 kHz and 30.0 kHz, and the three networks that share its magnitude with one or both zeros moved into the right half-plane by an all-pass. The magnitudes agree to 6.7e-16 and each impulse response carries 9261.008 of energy. The fraction delivered by each instant: the all-left network is never behind any other and the all-right network never ahead of any other. The two between are not ordered. Half the energy arrives at 2.13, 2.80, 10.1, 11.2 µs in the order listed, so mirroring the higher zero is the later; nine tenths arrives at 50.2, 156, 60.9, 167 µs, so mirroring the lower zero is the later. The curves cross at 12.64 µs.$ Frequency, which is the same solve

The two mirrors that change places

A low-pass with two zeros has four networks that share its magnitude, one for each choice of side for each zero. The one with both zeros on the left delivers its energy first at every instant, and the one with both on the right delivers last. The two in between are not ranked at all. With zeros at 3 and 30 kHz, mirroring the higher zero delays half the energy more and mirroring the lower zero delays nine tenths more. They swap at 12.64 µs, and that instant depends only on the product of the two zeros: it is where the all-pole response is rising at a rate of √(ω₁ω₂). And the network that delivers last does not start the wrong way at all.

Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

The source that rings against its guard

A bootstrapped cable is a capacitance in series with a negative resistance that falls as the square of frequency, −1/(ω²·C/ωₜ). Drive it from a source with resistance R and inductance L and the loop's reactances cancel at 1/√(LC). Its resistances cancel where R = L·ωₜ, so the input oscillates once the source's own time constant L/R passes the follower's 1/ωₜ. The poles of the whole netlist say 17.6 µH for a 100 Ω source behind a 1 MHz follower, against 15.9 from the expression. The cable's length moves that by at most a factor of two and sets only the frequency it rings at. The same source without the guard is stable. A resistor in the guard drive raises the limit, to 164 µH through 1 kΩ, and pays for it in bootstrap bandwidth.

At the same rise time a lossy edge draws 2.9–4.0 times more from a balanced via than a clean one, and the square law survives. computed by solving, not by drawing. The largest excursion of the reflection from a balanced via and from a 0.5 pF capacitive via against the 10–90 rise time of the edge that reaches them: behind 5 to 50 cm of lossy line, with a 20 ps edge sent in, and from clean raised-cosine edges of the same rise times on a lossless line. Behind the loss the balanced via's reflection falls as the −1.97 power of the rise time and the capacitive one's as the −0.82. Against clean edges of the same rise time the lossy edge draws 2.93 to 3.97 times as much from the balanced via and 1.07 to 1.54 times as much from the capacitive one.

Lines, where a wire has a length

The edge the loss delivers

A balanced via's reflection falls as the square of the edge's rise time, so the loss in front of it should hide it. A 20 ps edge sent down 20 cm of lossy line arrives with a 10–90 rise time of 194 ps, and the via's reflection falls to 9.1 mV. But a clean edge with that same 194 ps rise time draws only 2.29 mV from the same via. The lossy edge excites it 3.97 times as much, because loss makes an edge steep in the middle and slow at both ends, 3.07 times steeper at its centre than a raised cosine of the same 10–90 time. Across 10 to 50 cm the square law survives, an exponent of −1.97. It survives shifted: the 10–90 time overstates, by a factor of three or four, how slow the edge is to anything that reads its curvature.

The cascode device's collector noise is cancelled below 7.22 MHz and its base noise never is. computed by solving, not by drawing. The output noise current of a cascode stage at 1 mA and β = 150, driven from 1 kΩ, into a short, source by source, with 20 pF at the node between the two devices. At low frequency the upper device's base shot noise contributes 0.667% of the lower device's collector noise power, 1/β, and its collector shot noise 4.88 × 10⁻⁵, about 1/β². The collector's contribution overtakes the base's at 7.22 MHz, where the admittance reaches gₘ/√β — 7.21 MHz from the lower half's solved admittance, against 25.1 MHz from the node capacitance alone, because the lower device's Cμ, seen from its collector, is multiplied by its own gain; it passes the lower device's own collector noise near 316 MHz.

Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

The noise the cascode device does add

A cascode's upper device is said to add no noise, because it is a common-base stage fed from a high impedance and its own noise current has nowhere to go but round itself. That is true of its collector noise, which reaches the output at 4.88 × 10⁻⁵ of the lower device's, about one part in β². It is false of its base noise. The partition of the emitter current into collector and base cannot cancel, so it arrives whole: one part in β, 0.667 per cent at a current gain of 150. The cancellation also needs the node between the devices to stay high-impedance. The lower device's own base-collector capacitance, seen from its collector, is multiplied by its gain, so the upper device's collector noise comes through above 7.2 MHz with 20 pF at that node, and at 100 MHz the cascode stage is up to 0.55 dB noisier than the plain one.

A field-effect input beats a bipolar one biased for each source from 2.83 kΩ to 5 GΩ. computed by solving, not by drawing. The noise figure a field-effect input shows a source — drain current 1 mA, voltage noise 2.31 nV/√Hz from its channel, current noise 0.566 fA/√Hz from 1 pA of gate leakage — against a bipolar input of β = 100 and 50 Ω of base resistance with its collector current set for each source, whose best is 1 + rb/Rₛ + 1/√β. The field-effect input is quieter between 2.83 kΩ and 5 GΩ; the closed forms √β·(Rₙ − rb) and 2Vₜ/(√β·Iₗ) give 2.83 kΩ and 5 GΩ. Its own best, 0.0007 dB, is at 4.08 MΩ; the bipolar floor never goes below 0.414 dB.

The floor, which bounds from below

The window a field-effect input wins in

A bipolar input's two noise generators are one current's shot noise split two ways, so their product, and with it the best noise figure, is fixed at 1 + 1/√β, 0.414 dB at a gain of a hundred, whatever the bias. A field-effect input's are two unrelated things. Its voltage noise is its channel's and its current noise is the shot noise of its gate leakage, so their product is a design variable: 0.0007 dB at a milliampere of drain and a picoampere of leakage. Against a bipolar input biased for each source, the field-effect input wins in a window of source resistance with two ends in closed form, from 2.83 kΩ, set by the two inputs' noise resistances, up to 5 GΩ, set by the gate leakage. A nanoampere of leakage brings the top down to 5 MΩ, and 438 nA closes the window.

The R–2R ladder is the chain designed for the rest of itself: every node halves exactly, in place and only in place. computed by solving, not by drawing. A current source into an 8-bit R–2R ladder, each bit's 2R returned to a virtual earth. With the rest of the ladder in place every node splits the current arriving at it exactly in half, so bit k carries 2 to the −k of the source and the step at the major carry is exactly one least significant bit. A stage alone, into a short, would send a third on rather than a half; it is right because of what is connected to it. The same ladder with every resistor equal — the three-divider chain's habit — gives 0.61803, 0.23607 and then falls away by 2.6182 a stage, which is the square of the golden ratio, 2.6180, to the fourth figure.

Networks, and how a solve is checked

The R–2R ladder, built for the rest of itself

Three equal voltage dividers in a row deliver 0.076923 of their input instead of 0.125. Their error sits in the front stage, at 0.3846, 0.4000 and 0.5000 per stage. The dual chain, three current dividers fed by a current source, gives the same three numbers to the last digit, and its repair runs the other way: each stage's resistance must fall, not rise. The R–2R ladder is the chain whose stages are wrong alone and right in place, halving exactly at every node. It still keeps its error at the front: a one per cent error in its first resistor makes an eight-bit ladder step backwards at the major carry, and the same error in its last shunt moves that step by 0.0034 LSB.

Where a signal becomes a number

Four rectangles and no filter

A converter's output pulse can be any number of one-clock rectangles convolved together: one is the hold, two the straight line, four the cubic B-spline. Measured on its own waveform, n rectangles give the hold's sinc to the n-th power to a few parts in ten million, so each one rejects the nearest image by exactly what one analogue pole could at best — and each saves exactly one pole of reconstruction filter until none is left. At the Nyquist rate that is three poles of nineteen and a half, bought with 10.56 dB of droop. From about 2.8 times oversampling the cubic pulse needs no analogue filter at all for 60 dB, for 0.62 dB of droop at four times and two clocks of delay. The cost is that from three rectangles on the output no longer passes through its samples.

On a 300 kHz amplifier the stage lags 27.9° at the null: the Q stays at 25.4 and the peak moves 1.02% below it. computed by solving, not by drawing. The 10 kΩ, 10 nF twin-T, exact, as the feedback network of a stage of gain 100 whose own bandwidth is the amplifier's gain–bandwidth over 100, so that at the null, 1591.5 Hz, it lags 27.95° (solid); dashed is an ideal stage. The quality factor is 25.440 against 25.247 — hardly moved — and so is the peak's height, 99.7 against 100.0. What moves is where the peak is: 1.024% below the null, where 2·f₀/GBW is 1.061%. At the null itself the gain is 88.3, 0.886 of the peak. With the shunt elements 1% out, the Q is 33.72 against 33.50.

Filters, measured not tabulated

The peak the amplifier moves

A twin-T around a stage of gain A makes a peak of quality factor (A + 1)/4, and a real stage has a bandwidth of its own, so its gain at the null is complex. The expectation is that the lag turns the loop's gain and the Q rises by 1/cos φ, doubling at 60°. It does not: a single pole that turns the gain by φ also shrinks it by cos φ, and the two cancel in the width of the peak — the Q holds to about one part in the gain up to 60°, and the loop still oscillates at the same shunt error, 4.1% at a gain of 100, to three per cent. What the stage's bandwidth moves is the peak itself: 2·f₀/GBW below the null, with the gain nowhere in it. At 45° of lag the frequency the circuit was built to select sits on its own −3 dB edge.

1 nF at the node lifts the inverting stage's virtual earth 1.28-fold at its resonance, the integrator's 1.09-fold. computed by solving, not by drawing. The impedance looking into the summing junction of an inverting stage (1 kΩ in, 10 kΩ feedback) and an integrator (1 kΩ in, 10 nF feedback) on the same 1 MHz amplifier, bare (dashed) and with 1 nF of sensor capacitance from the node to ground (solid). The inverting stage's node rises as an inductance, and a capacitance across an inductance is a resonance: its node reaches 909 Ω at 126 kHz, 1.28 times the bare node there. The integrator's node is a resistance, the shelf of 15.9 Ω, and a capacitance across a resistance is a corner: the loaded node is at most 1.086 times the bare one, and only where the amplifier's own output resistance is part of the loop.

Feedback, and the margin

The sensor an integrator does not see

A sensor's capacitance at an inverting stage's summing junction sits across a node that rises like an inductance, and makes a resonance: 10 nF lifts the node 2.50-fold at 39.8 kHz, the lift is the resonance's Q, and the loop's margin falls from 90° to 24.8°, and to 8.0° at 100 nF. The same capacitance at an integrator's node sits across a resistance — the shelf, 1/(2π·GBW·Cf) — and the shelf does not move, because the capacitance enters the open node and the loop gain together and cancels. With an ideal output the integrator's margin is 90.91° at every sensor from 1 pF to 100 nF. What it does see is its amplifier's output resistance: 50 Ω driving the feedback and sensor capacitors in series is a pole, worst when the two are equal, 58.3° at 10 nF, and it recovers on both sides.

At full capacitance the margin falls with the load, and below a tenth of an ampere no divider capacitor gets it past 36.9°. computed by solving, not by drawing. Phase margin of the five-volt regulator with a 5 mΩ ceramic keeping 10 µF, against the load current from 5 mA to 1 A, for four capacitors across the upper divider resistor. 630 pF, which held 45° at every capacitance at an ampere, gives 49.7° at 1 A and 36.0° at 5 mA. With no capacitor the margin at 5 mA is 0.1°. The dotted level is 36.87°, the most phase a zero and a pole four times apart can ever lead by, and every curve ends under it. The crossover stays between 12.9 kHz and 13.2 kHz over the whole range.

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

The lead a divider can give

At an ampere one capacitor across the upper divider resistor holds this ceramic regulator above 45° at every capacitance the part keeps. At 5 mA nothing does. The crossover stays at 13 kHz while the output pole falls from 3.20 kHz to 31.8 Hz, so the loop arrives at unity with every lag it has and the only phase left is the lead the divider capacitor makes — and that lead has a ceiling, arcsin((G − 1)/(G + 1)), set by the divider's ratio alone. For a five-volt output from a 1.25 V reference it is 36.87°, and the best capacitor reaches 36.83°. Over the rectangle from 5 mA to an ampere and ten microfarads to two, the best single capacitor gives 32.4°. Putting 416 mΩ back in series with the ceramic restores 45° over all of it, and lowers the droop rather than raising it.

$At gₘRₑ = 1 a pair holds its gain to one per cent up to 29.2 mV, a single transistor to 29.9 mV. computed by solving, not by drawing, every point a waveform solved sample by sample and its fundamental read from its transform. The fractional departure of the fundamental from the small-signal gain against the peak drive, for a differential pair (solid) and a single transistor (dashed), each device with an emitter resistor of 1 times its own 1/gₘ at 27 °C. The pair reaches one per cent at 29.2 mV; the cubic law 0.4·Vₜ·(1 + gₘRₑ)^(3/2) says 29.3 mV, which holds while the drive leaves most of the tail unsteered and overstates the boundary beyond; the single transistor at 29.9 mV, a ratio of 0.974. Without degeneration the ratio was √2 in the limit; with heavy degeneration it approaches two; and near gₘRₑ = ½, where the single transistor's cubic vanishes, the single transistor briefly holds its gain longer.$ Where the models stop

Symmetry and a resistor together

A pair linearises by symmetry and an emitter resistor by feedback, and the two are normally used together. Solved together, the pair's one-per-cent gain boundary is 0.4·Vₜ times (1 + gₘRₑ) to the three-halves power up to gₘRₑ = 3: 10.4 mV bare, 29.2 mV at gₘRₑ = 1, 80.9 at 3. The √2 by which it outlasted a single transistor does not survive: at gₘRₑ = 1 the two are within three per cent, near ½ the single transistor outlasts the pair fourfold, because its cubic vanishes there and a pair's never can, and with heavy degeneration the ratio climbs to 1.95 at gₘRₑ = 50 — two, for a reason that has nothing to do with junctions: a single transistor cuts off when the drive reaches Ic·Re, and a pair has steered its whole tail at 2·Ic·Re, its two emitter resistors in series. What symmetry alone buys is the even orders, at every degeneration.

The one number the window does not move. computed by solving, not by drawing. Loss against foil thickness, at three window fills, with each curve's minimum located by a parabola through its three lowest points rather than read off the grid. The optimum sits at 0.654 skin depths at full fill, 0.708 at forty per cent, against the closed form's 0.663 — a drift of 8.3 per cent while the ratio the same winding carries moves by eighty. The alternating-current resistance at the optimum is 1.340, 1.351, 1.406, against four thirds. What did move is the loss it costs: 0.0555 watts a metre at full fill and 0.1383 at forty per cent, for the same current in the same number of layers.

Two windings, and the band between them

The optimum that does not move

A foil winding has a best thickness — past it, more copper is more resistance — and at that thickness the alternating-current resistance is four thirds of the direct-current resistance, whatever the layer count. Both of those are one-dimensional results, and this ladder has spent three rungs finding that the one-dimensional picture is 82 per cent wrong about the resistance ratio. Solved as a field, the optimum drifts by 8.3 per cent between a full window and a quarter-full one, and four thirds becomes 1.34, 1.35, 1.41. The trade barely moves while everything it is made of moves a great deal.

Where a signal becomes a number

Half a clock against a pole

Inside a digitally controlled loop a converter's delay is phase at the crossover, and a straight-line output pays one more half clock than a hold: 180 degrees times the crossover over the clock. The analogue pole that rejects the nearest image as much as the straight line's second sinc does turns out to sit at the crossover itself — 0.990 of it when the loop crosses over at a tenth of its clock, sinc(r) of it in general — so it costs forty-five degrees however slow the loop is. By the phase estimate the half clock is the cheaper filter below 26% of the clock. Marched as a sampled loop the answer is 17.6%, and at a tenth of the clock a step overshoots 13.7% through the straight line against 32.8% through the hold and its pole, for the same image rejection measured on both waveforms.

A parasitic of 0.01 ms changes the start only inside itself: t³ until 30.0 µs with a pole, t until 20.0 µs with a zero. Expanded about infinity, and by residues after. The start of the step through two buffered RC sections (τ = 1 ms and 0.5 ms) on logarithmic axes: bare, a straight line of slope two (dashed); with one more pole of 0.01 ms (solid), slope three until the asymptotes cross at (r + 1)τp = 30.0 µs; and with a zero of the same time constant (dotted), slope one until r·τz = 20.0 µs. Well inside the parasitic's time constant the pole multiplies the bare step by t/((r + 1)τp) and the zero by r·τz/t, both checked on the expansions; outside it both curves rejoin the bare one, displaced. A parasitic a hundred times above the network's bandwidth decides the start's power law for its own few time constants and no longer.

Before the steady state

The parasitic that moves the start

A pole far above a network's bandwidth raises its relative degree by one, so the initial-value theorem says its step now starts as tʳ⁺¹ instead of tʳ; a zero lowers it. Both are true and both expire. Added to a two-section step, a 10 µs parasitic pole holds the start at the cube of time until the asymptotes cross at (r + 1)τp = 30 µs and a 10 µs zero holds it at the first power until r·τz = 20 µs; thirty time constants later the local power is back within 0.07 of the bare step's. After that each does one thing only: it moves every threshold by its own time constant, the pole later and the zero earlier. Since the time is the same at every threshold, the fraction it costs is not — 9.1% of a 1% delay, 0.82% of a 50% one — and a pole and a zero together keep the start's power, scale it by τz/τp, and move every later threshold by τp − τz.

A 1 ms pulse of 100 A warms the element 98.7 mK: 4.94 ppm at its end, 2.86 ppm averaged, against 775 ppm held. computed by solving, not by drawing, from the exact step response of the shunt's thermal network — element, terminations and board, 0.2, 4 and 15.8 K/W with 5 mJ/K, 0.1 J/K and 2 J/K — expanded into its Foster modes. A 100 A pulse of 1 ms through the 77.5 µΩ shunt the burden optimum picks, dissipating I·u* = 0.775 W: the element rises 98.7 mK by the pulse's end and cools after it. At 50 ppm/K that is 4.94 ppm of error at the end of the pulse and 2.86 ppm averaged over it, where the same current held long enough for the board to settle would read 775 ppm high.

Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

The pulse that ends before the heat

A shunt's self-heating error is a fixed point in the steady state — 775 ppm at 100 A for the shunt the burden optimum picks, through 20 K/W. A pulse never reaches it. Heat leaves the element through a ladder network — the element's own 5 mJ/K, its terminations, the board — and a pulse short against the element's millisecond heats it adiabatically, by P·t over its heat capacity alone: 0.737 ppm for 100 µs at 100 A, a thousandth of the held figure, 10.7 ppm for 10 ms. Along the burden optimum the error is linear in the current, so the current a pulse may carry for 100 ppm is exact: 12.9 A held, 936 A for 10 ms, 13.6 kA for 100 µs. A reading averaged over the pulse carries half the error of one taken at its end while the heating is adiabatic, and the section-by-section thermal model a data sheet quotes is 10% wrong at 7 ms.

A bridged-T with R₁/R₂ = 100 bottoms out at 34.2 dB, and in a loop of gain 1000 it makes a Q of 4.76. computed by solving, not by drawing. A bridged-T of two 10 nF capacitors, R₁ = 100 kΩ bridging them and R₂ = 1.00 kΩ from their junction to ground, which puts its minimum at the twin-T's 1591.5 Hz: its own transfer (dashed), bottoming at 0.0196, 34.2 dB, rather than a null; and the loop it makes as the feedback network of a gain of 1000 (solid), a peak of 48.5 with a Q of 4.760. Dotted, for scale, is the exact twin-T in a loop of gain 100: a Q of 25.2.

Filters, measured not tabulated

The residue that has only one sign

A bridged-T puts its minimum where a twin-T puts its null, with one fewer part, and its residue there is exactly 2R₂/(2R₂ + R₁): real, like the twin-T's, but positive for any values the parts can take. In a loop of gain A the two networks follow one law — the Q falls by 1 + A·ρ — and they sit on opposite sides of it. The twin-T's residue is zero with exact parts and either sign with real ones, so its loop's Q can be anything, up to oscillation. The bridged-T's loop is always damped: it rises with the gain and stops at a ceiling near √(R₁/R₂)/2, 5.00 for a ratio of 100, with no gain up to a million able to make it oscillate. What the ceiling buys is steadiness: at a Q of five, ±1% parts move the twin-T's loop by 9.1% and the bridged-T's by 2.0%.

A 100 kΩ resistor across the capacitor: the node rises a decade per decade and stops at the shelf. computed by solving, not by drawing. The summing-junction impedance of the integrator (1 kΩ in, 10 nF feedback, 1 MHz amplifier) with 100 kΩ across its capacitor (solid), beside the ideal integrator (dashed) and the 10 kΩ inverting stage (dotted). At the lowest frequencies the resistor closes a direct-current loop and the node is 0.999 Ω; it rises a decade per decade, as a resistive stage's does, and stops on the integrator's shelf of 15.9 Ω at the feedback's own corner, 1/(2π·Rp·Cf) = 159 Hz. Its highest point below a tenth of the amplifier's bandwidth is 16.3 Ω.

Feedback, and the margin

The resistor that holds the bottom of the shelf

An integrator's summing junction sits on a flat shelf, 1/(2π·GBW·Cf), over its working band, and at direct current it is nearly its whole input resistor, because a capacitor closes no loop there. A resistor across the capacitor closes one. Below the feedback's own corner the node is then an inverting stage's, rising a decade per decade from Rp/A₀, and the rise meets the shelf exactly at that corner, 1/(2π·Rp·Cf), for any resistor and any amplifier — so the node never rises above its shelf at all. That holds for every resistor below 1/(2π·f₁·Cf), the one that puts the feedback's corner on the amplifier's own pole: 1.59 MΩ here. Above it the bottom climbs past the shelf. The same 1.59 MΩ is where a millivolt of offset becomes 1.58 V at the output, and the price below it is a flat gain of Rp/Rin and arctan(1/(2π·f·Rp·Cf)) of phase.

With 100% of its capacitance to its mounting, a 141.4 Ω helix is 1.37° out at 100 MHz, not 2.7 × 10⁻³°. computed by solving, not by drawing. The angle of the impedance of a 141.4 Ω resistor — √(L/C) for 8 nH of lead and 0.4 pF — against frequency: the three-element part with all 0.4 pF across its film (dashed), and a helix of 32 turns with the same totals (solid), 0% of the capacitance between adjacent turns and 100% from the turns to the part's mounting, with one end grounded. At √(L/C) the three-element part has no first-order angle and rises as the cube of frequency. The helix is not flat there: its capacitance to the mounting counts only a third, so its own flat resistance is √(3L/C) = 244.9 Ω, and at 141.4 Ω its angle is first order in frequency — 1.37° at 100 MHz against 2.7 × 10⁻³°.

Frequency, which is the same solve

The resistor that is a helix

A spiral-cut film resistor is a helix, and its capacitance is distributed along the cut rather than lumped across the ends. Where it goes decides whether the three-element model survives. Capacitance between adjacent turns bridges each turn's own piece of film, and a helix of any number of turns built that way is the three-element part exactly — to 8×10⁻¹³ at 64 turns. Capacitance from the turns to what the part is mounted over is different: its current returns through only part of the film, it weighs (4N² − 1)/(12N²) of its value, a third in the limit, and the resistance with the flattest angle moves from √(L/C) = 141.4 Ω to √(3L/C) = 245 Ω. At 141.4 Ω such a part is 1.37° out at 100 MHz where the lumped model says 0.0027°. The third is a first-order rule; above about a gigahertz the helix is a line.

With each source 0.8 of the one before, 32 coherent sources cost 8.99 times the sum of their powers, and never more than 9.00. computed by solving, not by drawing, at five counts and five amplitude ratios. Sources of 10 V, 10q V, 10q² V … each reach one 100 Ω load through 100 Ω; with all in phase the load's power over the sum of each source's power alone is (Σ|a|)²/Σa² to ten figures. Equal sources (q = 1) give the count itself, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32. Falling amplitudes give less, and a limit: for q = 0.8, 1.98, 3.77, 6.41, 8.51, 8.99, tending to (1 + q)/(1 − q) = 9; for q = 0.5, 3.000 against 3. The coherent penalty counts sources by their participation, not their number.

Networks, and how a solve is checked

How many sources the cross terms count

N equal coherent sources on one load deliver N times the sum of their separate powers. Sources of unequal size deliver (Σ|a|)²/Σa² times it — solved on the network to ten figures — which is the number of equal sources that would carry the same penalty: a participation ratio. Amplitudes falling by 0.8 a source cap it at (1 + q)/(1 − q) = 9 however many there are; one large source and thirty-one at a tenth of its amplitude give 12.8, not 32, and for small sources the excess is 2(N − 1)ε — their amplitudes, not their powers, so thirty-one sources carrying a hundredth of the large one's power each turn 1.31 times its power into 16.8 times it when they line up. Random amplitudes take a fixed fraction off the count, (mean)²/(mean square): 0.75 for uniform ones. And with random phases none of it matters: the load takes the sum.

A 6 dB pad at 290 K turns a cold source into 217.2 K and a 290 K one into 290 K. computed by solving, not by drawing, every resistor's Johnson noise carried to the pad's open output. A matched 50 Ω T-pad of 6 dB (arms 16.61 Ω, shunt 66.93 Ω) at 290 K, fed from a 50 Ω source at the temperature on the horizontal axis. The output's noise temperature (dots) is Tₛ/L + T·(1 − 1/L), with T the pad's own temperature, to nine figures (line): a slope of 1/L = 0.2512 and an intercept of 217.2 K — the pad's own noise, (1 − 1/L)·290 K, seen at its output. The dotted diagonal is no pad at all. The two cross at 290 K, where the source is at the pad's temperature and the output is too.

The floor, which bounds from below

The noise a pad adds is its temperature

A matched resistive pad of loss L at physical temperature T presents a noise temperature of Tₛ/L + T(1 − 1/L) at its output, for a source at Tₛ,, and summing its four resistors' Johnson noise to the open output confirms it to nine figures. Referred to its input its own noise is (L − 1)·T — 288.6 K at 3 dB, 28,710 K at 20 dB — so its noise figure in decibels is its loss in decibels at 290 K, which Friis states from the definition and the resistors reach by themselves. At its output a pad can never add more than its own temperature: cooled to 4 K, a 20 dB pad adds 3.96 K there, and still 396 K referred to its input. Most of a heavy pad's noise is made in its last resistor — 82.6% at 20 dB. And set between a 400 K source and a 290 K load, a pad stops the net flow of noise power at a temperature that depends on its loss, or, below 1.40 dB, at none.

With the period 1.3% long, eight periods read a sine 0.599% wrong through a rectangle, 79.4 ppm through a triangle, 22.8 ppm through a Hann window. Integrated over each weighted window, the worst over every starting phase. The error in a sine's root-mean-square summed over N assumed periods 1.3% too long, against N, for four weights across the window. The rectangle is the plain sum: 0.640% at two periods and flat in N, δ/2 as the earlier measurement found. The triangle is flat in N too but 75 times smaller at eight periods. The Hann window falls with N, as the −2.67 power: 414 ppm at two periods, 0.293 ppm at thirty-two. The four-term Blackman–Harris is below 4.85 ppm at every count from two. A weight that falls to zero at the window's ends counts the extra sliver of period at almost nothing.

Power, and the part that does no work

The window that forgives the period

A converter that sums a waveform's square over whole periods reads its RMS exactly, and one that sums over periods 1.3% too long reads a sine 0.6% wrong — δ/2, for any number of periods — because the extra sliver of period counts at full weight. Weight the window down to zero at its ends and the sliver barely counts. Over eight periods a triangular weight reads the same sine 79 ppm wrong and a Hann weight 23 ppm; and they are different kinds of cure. The triangle is the only one that changes the error's order, from first to second in δ, so it wins when the period is nearly right; the Hann weight keeps first order but falls with the number of periods, about as its inverse square, so it wins over long windows. Both cost nothing with the period exact — from two periods up. Over one, a Blackman–Harris weight reads even a sine 10% wrong. The price is noise: a Hann-weighted reading of noise scatters √1.5 as widely.

A tenth of a per cent of screen mismatch on the gauge's side cancels the pair's own phase: 18.2 kHz becomes 143 kHz. computed by solving, not by drawing. A 350 Ω quarter bridge at 1000 µε read through ten metres of screened pair: 100 pF a metre from each conductor to the screen, Cs, and 50 pF a metre between the two, Cp. The loss of the synchronously demodulated reading, 1 − cos φ, against the excitation frequency: for the capacitance between the conductors alone, for the screen capacitances alone with a mismatch of 0.1% on the gauge's side, for both together, and for a matched screen with nothing between. For a 200 ppm budget they allow 18.2 kHz, 18.3 kHz, 143 kHz and 205 kHz. The pair's capacitance lags the reading; extra screen capacitance on the gauge's own terminal leads it, by an amount divided by the signal, so at a mismatch of δ·Cp/Cs the two cancel to first order.

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

The capacitance that is already a difference

A screened pair has capacitance from each conductor to the screen, which cancels in a bridge's difference when the two match, and capacitance between the conductors, which is a difference from the start and cannot cancel. Ten metres of it between a 350 Ω quarter bridge and its carrier amplifier allows 18.2 kHz for a 200 ppm loss, against 205 kHz for the screen alone. The two phases are ωR·ΔC/δ and ωR·C, the same slope with one divided by the signal, so a screen mismatch of δ·Cp/Cs on the gauge's own terminal cancels the pair's lag exactly: 0.10% at 1000 µε takes the limit to 143 kHz. That is what a carrier amplifier's capacitance balance finds when it nulls the quadrature — and because the mismatch's phase changes sign with the strain and the pair's does not, the balance holds in tension above half the strain it was set at and never in compression.

With 1 mV of offset the pair's second harmonic returns in proportion to the drive, and the third harmonic reaches one per cent first. computed by solving, not by drawing, every harmonic read from a solved waveform. A differential pair at 27 °C with 1 mV of input offset: its second harmonic (solid) and third (dashed) over its fundamental, against the peak drive, beside a single transistor's second harmonic (dotted). The third is the balanced pair's own, u²/12, and reaches one per cent at 17.9 mV whatever the offset. The second is (u/2)·tanh(Vos/2Vₜ) at small drive, the single transistor's second harmonic times tanh(Vos/2Vₜ) = 1.93e-2, and never reaches one per cent: it peaks at 0.74% as the pair begins to saturate and falls again.

Where the models stop

The offset that brings the even orders back

A balanced pair has no second harmonic. An offset gives it one, and the closed form is exact: the second harmonic over the fundamental is (u/2)·tanh(Vos/2Vₜ), with u the drive over 2Vₜ — a single transistor's second harmonic times the fraction of the tail the offset steers aside, 1.93% of it at a millivolt, not the twentieth usually estimated. It is first order in the offset up to 9.0 mV. It does not grow with the drive for ever: it peaks as the pair saturates and falls again, so below 1.36 mV of offset it never reaches one per cent at any drive, and above 3.14 mV it reaches one per cent before the pair's own third harmonic does, at 17.9 mV. Read the other way, a matching specification is a distortion specification: −60 dB of second harmonic at 10 mV of drive allows 0.535 mV of offset.

A mirror, cascoded or not, delivers two transistors' shot noise at low frequency — and cascoding it does not add a third. computed by solving, not by drawing. The output noise current of a 1 mA NPN mirror into a short, in units of one device's collector shot noise 2qI, against frequency, for a plain two-transistor mirror, the stacked cascode mirror and the wide-swing cascode with its upper base held by a separate diode at 100 µA. At 1 kHz they deliver 1.986, 1.960 and 1.965: the reference transistor's shot noise, copied, and the output transistor's own. At 100 MHz the mirror's own pole and the capacitance at the output transistor's collector have begun to take noise away, and the three read 1.681, 1.196 and 1.512.

Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

The base current the mirror counts twice

A current mirror delivers two transistors' shot noise — the reference device's, copied, and the output device's own — and cascoding it does not add a third: 1.960 and 1.965 of one device's noise for the stacked and wide-swing cascodes against 1.986 for the plain mirror. What the cascode adds is its upper output transistor's base noise, and there the two arrangements differ by a factor of four. In the wide-swing mirror the base current goes to a separate bias and counts once, one part in β. In the stacked mirror it goes into the reference branch, which mirrors it back into the node it left, and it counts 3.82 times at β = 150 — the same base current that took 43 per cent of that mirror's output resistance. The reference resistor's noise, meanwhile, adds almost nothing even at 1.8 V, because it takes its place in the diode's node rather than adding to it.

$The gain's sensitivity to the device and to the divider add to one at every frequency, and at crossover each is exactly one half (34.9° of margin). computed by solving, not by drawing, three times at each of 241 frequencies: nominal, with the amplifier's gain raised by one part in 10⁵, and with the feedback fraction raised by one part in 10⁵. The fraction of the device's change reaching the closed-loop magnitude is 9.97 × 10⁻⁴ at 10.0 Hz and 1.60 at its peak near 7.94 kHz; the fraction of the divider's change is 0.99899 at 10.0 Hz and falls to −0.60 at 7.94 kHz. They add to one within 1.16 × 10⁻⁵ everywhere, and at the loop's crossover, 5.73 kHz, they are 0.5000 and 0.5000: the real parts of 1/(1 + T) and T/(1 + T), which are one half at |T| = 1 for any phase. The cut loop, a second route, agrees to 9.55 × 10⁻⁶.$ Feedback, and the margin

Half to the amplifier, half to the resistors

A feedback amplifier is supposed to hand its accuracy to the resistors, and at low frequency it does — 99.9 per cent of a change in the divider reaches the gain and 0.1 per cent of a change in the device. The two fractions are measured here by nudging each and solving again, and they add to one at every frequency, to five parts in a hundred thousand. At the loop's crossover each is exactly one half, whatever the margin: the gain's magnitude answers the amplifier and the resistors equally. As complex numbers both are 1/(2 sin(φ/2)) there, above one for any margin under sixty degrees, and around the crossover lies a band where the gain is more sensitive to both than it would be with no feedback at all.

A band from zero to its top frequency takes 4.77 dB less from 10 ps of jitter than a tone at the top: it is the rms frequency that counts, not the highest. computed by solving, not by drawing. Forty-eight equal tones at random phases filling a band from 0 to 1 of its top frequency, sampled 16,384 times at instants displaced by a seeded 10 ps Gaussian, at seven top frequencies from 100 kHz to 100 MHz. The measured signal-to-error ratio (dots) is 88.64 dB at 1 MHz, against −20 log(2π × rms frequency × jitter) = 88.76 dB from the band's power-weighted rms frequency, 580 kHz — and against 84.04 dB for a tone at 1 MHz itself. The gap is 4.77 dB at every frequency, 10 log(3/(1 + r + r²)) for a flat band from r to 1 of the top: 4.77 dB (a factor of √3 in frequency) for a band from zero, nothing for a narrow one. At 1 MHz the band holds 14.43 bits where the tone holds 13.67.

Where a signal becomes a number

The frequency a band moves at

The jitter rule is written for a sinusoid: ten picoseconds holds a tone at 1 MHz to 84.04 dB. A signal that fills the band up to 1 MHz holds 88.64 dB against the same clock, because each sample's error is its own slope times its own timing error, and a band's slope is set by its rms frequency — the top frequency over √3 for a flat band, 4.77 dB better. Pink content up to 1 MHz is 11 dB better than the rule and content falling as 1/f² is 29 dB better. So the same ten picoseconds hold sixteen bits to 199 kHz for a tone, 344 kHz for a flat band and 734 kHz for a pink one: an aperture figure needs a signal as well as a frequency.

Two coupling capacitors 1% apart reject common mode by only 46.0 dB at their corner, 0.159 Hz — and perfectly at direct current and far above it. computed by solving, not by drawing at 281 frequencies: one common-mode source driving two coupling networks, each 1 µF into 1 MΩ, with the capacitors 1% apart. The difference between the two outputs, per volt of common mode, agrees with the difference of the two first-order high-passes to 6.9e-14. It is zero at direct current, where both block, and zero far above the corner, where both pass; between, it peaks at the corner, 0.159 Hz, at 5.000e-3 — half the mismatch — which is 46.0 dB of rejection. Behind a 90 dB amplifier (grey), the coupling network decides the rejection from 0.000503 Hz to 50.3 Hz.

Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

The rejection two capacitors lose at their corner

AC-couple both inputs of a differential instrument and the two coupling networks become part of its common-mode path. Two 1 µF capacitors one per cent apart turn common mode into difference at exactly half their mismatch at their shared corner — 46.0 dB of rejection at 0.159 Hz, from a pair that is perfect at direct current and far above. Behind a 90 dB amplifier they decide the instrument's rejection over five decades around that corner. A 10 V common-mode step arrives as a 36.8 mV differential pulse one time constant later. Four hundred pairs of 20 per cent electrolytics reject a median 25 dB. Coupling the difference instead of each side removes the dip and hands the common mode to the amplifier.

Cancelling 50% of the line's reactance: a 0.3 lagging load's regulation goes from 7.78% to 4.18%, a unity one's from 2.17% to 1.96%, a 0.7 leading one's from −3.78% to −1.26%. computed by solving, not by drawing, at 50 Hz: a 230 V feeder of 0.05 + j0.2 Ω carrying 20 kVA, its regulation against the load's power factor from 0.7 leading to 0.3 lagging, with no compensation (dashed) and with 50% of the line's reactance cancelled by a series capacitor (solid). The solve agrees with the voltage divider in closed form to 9e-10 of a per cent. At 0.3 lagging the regulation falls from 7.781% to 4.176%; at 0.9 lagging, from 5.168% to 3.381%; at unity, only from 2.171% to 1.960%; and at 0.7 leading the far end, above the source at −3.778%, comes down to −1.255%. The capacitor cancels what the load's reactive current does in the line's reactance, in either direction, and pulls every load towards the regulation the line's resistance alone would give.

Power, and the part that does no work

The drop a series capacitor can reach

A series capacitor cancels part of a line's reactance, so it can only cancel the part of the drop that the reactance makes — and that part is set by the load, not the line. On a 230 V feeder of 0.05 + j0.2 Ω carrying 20 kVA, half compensation takes a 0.3 lagging load from 7.78% regulation to 4.18% and a unity load only from 2.17% to 1.96%, and it brings a 0.71 leading load's raised far end back down. Cancel all of it and a leading load and its lagging twin sit at exactly the same voltage. Cancel more and the far end rises with its load; at exactly 100% the resonance is the fundamental and a far-end fault draws 4,600 A. Where the capacitor goes, the load cannot tell.

Frequency, which is the same solve

The circle a peak sits on

A pole pair's response at a frequency is ω₀² over the product of two distances — from the point on the imaginary axis to each pole — to a part in 10¹⁵ of the nodal solve. That turns a resonance into geometry. The peak is where a circle centred on the pair's real part and through both poles meets the axis: at Q = 2, 0.9354 of ω₀ and a height of 2.0656, found the same by a search. The quality factor is an angle, Q = 1/(2 cos θ), and a peak exists exactly when the pair is closer to the imaginary axis than to the real one — past forty-five degrees. The half-power width is where the short leg has grown by √2, twice the pair's distance from the axis. And the step, marched, rings at the pole's height and decays at its distance: a projection, not a length.

10 pF on the far end of 10 cm of 50 Ω track: a 1 ns edge overshoots by 47.5% and rings near 174 MHz, against 40.0% with no capacitance. computed by solving, not by drawing, by the method of characteristics: 10 cm of 50 Ω track on FR-4 (a 0.70 ns transit), driven from 10 Ω by a 1 V edge rising in 1 ns into 200 Ω with 10 pF across it, and the far end's voltage against time. With no capacitance (dashed) the far end is the staircase of the rise-time essay, overshooting by 40.0% and settling on the divider, 0.952 V. With 10 pF the reflection is no longer a number: the capacitor first holds the far end down and then lets it swing, the overshoot is 47.5%, and the ringing is near one over 2π√(LC) = 174 MHz, with L the track's own 35.0 nH and C its own 14.0 pF plus the load's. Both settle on the divider.

Where the models stop

The load that rings with the line

Put 10 pF on the far end of ten centimetres of 50 Ω track and the reflection stops being a number. A one-nanosecond edge from 10 Ω into 200 Ω overshoots by 47.5 per cent instead of 40.0, and rings near 174 MHz — the track's own 35 nH against its 14 pF and the load's 10 together. The one-per-cent boundary, a rise time of 39.9 ns on a bare track, becomes 50.4 ns with 10 pF and 83.4 with 50: a rise time and a capacitance together. As the load outweighs the track the lumped model comes back, missing the line's waveform by 55 per cent of the settled value with no load capacitance and by 2.2 with 200 pF. And a source matched to the line turns every capacitance's ring into a delay of about 2.2·Z₀·C.

Four 1% parts spread evenly across their band: the divider's error has a spread of 0.289%, and 8.6% of builds are beyond ±0.5%. computed by solving, not by drawing: a divider of four equal 10 kΩ resistors tapped at the middle, built 6000 times from seeded parts uniform across ±1%, each copy's output error taken from the ratio in closed form and the first four hundred also solved on the netlist, agreeing to 7e-16. The inset is the parts' own distribution; the histogram is the divider's error. Its standard deviation is 0.2894%, half the parts' 0.5780%, because each part moves the output by a quarter of its own error and four quarters add in quadrature to a half. 8.60% of builds fall beyond ±0.5%, which is half the worst case the printed tolerance allows.

Networks, and how a solve is checked

The shape a tolerance does not print

A resistor marked 1% promises only that its value lies within one per cent. How the values fill that band is not printed, and it decides almost everything a design does with the part. Four populations that all honour ±1% — spread evenly, Gaussian with the band at three standard deviations, screened from a wider population, and sorted with the best parts removed — give a four-resistor divider spreads of 0.289, 0.168, 0.267 and 0.378 per cent, a factor of 2.26 under one label. Specify the divider at ±0.5 per cent and the yield is 91.4, 99.8, 93.7 and 85.3 per cent. The shape's signature fades as one over the number of parts, so it bites hardest in the circuits with fewest.

$Three imbalances, three slopes: a 2% amplitude imbalance is 1% common mode at every frequency, 1 mm of skew overtakes it above 455 MHz, and a 5 ps rise-time mismatch climbs at forty decibels a decade. computed by solving, not by drawing, from the transforms of the two conductors' edges and checked against the sampled edges transformed by FFT to two per cent: the common mode at the far end of a pair, as a fraction of the differential, for three separate imbalances between its halves. An amplitude imbalance of 2% gives 1.00% at every frequency. A skew of 1 mm on FR-4, 7.00 ps, gives sin(ωΔτ/2), rising at twenty decibels a decade: 2.20% at 1 GHz. Edges of 50 and 55 ps, perfectly timed and equal in size, give a common mode rising at forty decibels a decade: 0.043% at 1 GHz and 5.38% at 10 GHz. The skew passes the amplitude imbalance near 455 MHz, which is a/(2πΔτ).$ Lines, where a wire has a length

The common mode that has three slopes

A differential pair turns into common mode wherever its two halves differ, and they can differ in three ways — in size, in timing and in edge rate — each with its own slope. A 2 per cent amplitude imbalance is 1 per cent common mode at every frequency. A millimetre of skew rises at twenty decibels a decade and overtakes it above 455 MHz, a/(2πΔτ). Edges of 50 and 55 picoseconds, perfectly timed, rise at forty: 0.043 per cent at a gigahertz and 5.4 at ten. In time they are a step that stays, a pulse with an area, and a doublet with none — each slope is a moment that vanishes. And an amplitude imbalance and an edge-rate mismatch of the right signs cancel at one frequency, down 74 dB, which half a picosecond of skew fills back to −25.

Settling to 0.01% takes 1.47 µs for any step up to 79.6 mV, and twice that only from 1.02 V — the slew limit arrives in the settling time gently. computed by solving, not by drawing, marched and in closed form: an amplifier of 1 MHz gain–bandwidth and a 0.5 V/µs slew rate, at unity gain, settling to 0.01% of its step, against the step's size. Up to SR·τ = 79.6 mV it never slews and settles in τ·ln(1/ε) = 1.466 µs whatever the size. Above it, it slews until its error is SR·τ and settles exponentially from there, in (V − SR·τ)/SR + τ·ln(SR·τ/εV): 1.56 µs at 200 mV, 2.01 µs at 500 mV, 2.90 µs at 1 V, 4.79 µs at 2 V, 10.65 µs at 5 V, 20.54 µs at 10 V. The march and the closed form agree to a per cent. The curve leaves the flat line with zero slope and joins the pure slewing line V/SR (dashed) from below; the settling time has doubled only at 1.02 V, 12.8 times the linear boundary.

Before the steady state

How long a large step takes to settle

An amplifier of 1 MHz gain–bandwidth and 0.5 V/µs slew rate stops being linear above an 80 mV step. Its settling time does not notice for a long while: to 0.01 per cent it is 1.47 µs for any step up to 79.6 mV, 1.56 at 200 mV, 2.90 at a volt, and twice the linear figure only from 1.02 V, thirteen times the boundary. The reason is that a large step slews until its error is SR·τ and then settles exactly as a small one does, so the extra time is τ(x − 1 − ln x) — second order at the boundary and the whole slewing time far beyond it. A data sheet's 20.5 µs for a 10 V step therefore says almost nothing about a 1 V step, which takes 2.9, and nothing about 100 mV.

A 0.5 dB Chebyshev ladder of order five passes what it does not reflect: the two powers sum to one to 2e-15. computed by solving, not by drawing: a fifth-order Chebyshev ladder of 0.5 dB ripple between 1 kΩ terminations, solved at 481 frequencies. The transmitted power is the transducer gain, read from the load voltage; the reflected power is |ρ|², read from the impedance the filter presents to its source. Their sum is one to 2.0e-15 everywhere. The reflection reaches 0.1087 at each ripple trough, against ε²/(1 + ε²) = 0.1087 with ε² = 10 to the power ripple/10, less one, a return loss of 9.64 dB, and falls to zero at direct current and at 0.555 and 0.898 of the corner, where the transmission is at its maxima. The ripple band ends at 0.944 of the corner. The slider is the ripple.

Filters, measured not tabulated

What a filter does not pass, it sends back

A passive LC ladder built from lossless reactances has nowhere to put power except the load and the source. So the power it transmits and the power it reflects sum to what the source makes available — to 2 × 10⁻¹⁵ across a fifth-order Chebyshev, read from two different ports — and every passband specification is a return-loss specification in disguise: half a decibel of ripple is 9.64 dB of return loss at every order, a hundredth of a decibel is 26.4. The same identity predicts the filter's response from any source resistance out of one input impedance, and bounds the damage a wrong source can do by composing two reflections.

The floor, which bounds from below

The source resistance the flicker moves

An amplifier's optimum source resistance is the ratio of its voltage noise to its current noise, and both densities rise below their flicker corners — which are rarely the same frequency. With the voltage noise's corner at 10 Hz and the current noise's at 1 kHz, a part whose optimum is 6.67 kΩ at high frequency wants 2.11 kΩ at 100 Hz and 699 Ω at 1 Hz, tending to the white value times the square root of the ratio of the corners. Over the audio band the drift costs 0.012 dB; over a band from 1 to 100 Hz, choosing the white optimum costs 3.77 dB, and the spot optimum at the band's centre recovers all but a tenth of a decibel.

$The winding window solved electrostatically, in two portions. computed by solving, not by drawing. The same cross-section the loss solve reads, read with ∇·(ε∇φ) = 0 instead. Two things are the opposite way round from the magnetic problem and both are the whole difference. The iron is now a Dirichlet boundary rather than a Neumann one — an earthed core is an equipotential, so the field meets it at right angles instead of running along it — and a conductor carries a prescribed potential rather than a prescribed current. The thin curves are equipotentials, which are contours of φ, so equal spacing is equal potential step and crowded curves are a strong field. The copper is shaded by the potential each foil sits at, which rises along the winding rather than being one number. Winding to winding this window is 926.9 picofarads a metre, and 89 per cent of the energy is inside insulation that occupies a fraction of the window.$ Two windings, and the band between them

The other half of the same window

The two-dimensional solve that settled what a winding's alternating-current resistance really is computed one of the window's two parameters and never mentioned the other. Read with Laplace instead of the vector potential, the same cross-section returns 926.9 picofarads a metre — and 89 per cent of that energy sits inside films that occupy 14.1 per cent of the window. The instrument agrees with a layered slab to three parts in ten thousand billion and converges on a real winding at order 1.34, and the reason for the shortfall is not the arithmetic but the corner of a conductor.

A second coupling stage with the same time constant: the top sags to 0.303 instead of 0.607, and the tail crosses zero at 2.27 s and overshoots to +0.025. computed by solving, not by drawing, marched and checked against the closed form to 3.0e-4: a half-second pulse through a 1 µF, 1 MΩ coupling stage (dashed), and through that stage followed by a buffered second one with a time constant of 1 s (solid). One stage sags to 0.6065 by the pulse's end and its undershoot decays monotonically to zero. Two stages sag to 0.3033, undershoot to −0.6966, cross zero 2.271 s after the pulse began and overshoot positive — the second capacitor removes the first moment of the waveform as well as its area, so the tail has to change sign.

Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

The second capacitor, and the tail that changes sign

One coupling stage turns a pulse into a sagging top and an undershoot that returns to zero from below. Add a second stage with the same one-second time constant and a half-second pulse sags to 0.303 of itself instead of 0.607, undershoots to −0.697, crosses zero 2.27 s after it began and overshoots positive before settling. The step response becomes (1 − t/τ)·exp(−t/τ), through zero at exactly one time constant and down to −e⁻² at two. The reason is arithmetic: one capacitor removes the waveform's area, two remove its area and its first moment, and a pulse with a one-signed tail cannot have both. Built to the same stated corner, two stages still sag 1.29 times as fast, and a 1% flat top needs a pulse rate 806 times the corner rather than 625.

$Two 230 V sources joined by 0.05 + j0.2 Ω: the most that can be received is 194 kW, at 76.0°; with 50% of the reactance cancelled it is 262 kW, at 63.4°. computed by solving, not by drawing, at 50 Hz: two 230 V sources, the sending one leading the receiving one by an angle δ, joined by a line of 0.05 Ω and j0.2 Ω with a series capacitor cancelling a fraction of the reactance; the real power absorbed at the receiving end against δ. Uncompensated (dashed) the maximum is 194.37 kW at 75.96°, the line's impedance angle. With 50% cancelled (solid) it is 261.55 kW at 63.43°. Both maxima match V² cos β (1 − cos β)/R, found by a search on the solve to a part in a million. Past its maximum the received power falls as the angle grows: a larger angle drives more current, and past the impedance angle the extra current's loss outgrows what it carries.$ Power, and the part that does no work

Sixty degrees, and the limit compensation stops raising

Series capacitors are put in transmission lines to raise how much power can pass between two sources before the angle between them runs out. The lossless textbook limit, V²/X(1 − k), rises without bound as the reactance is cancelled. With the line's resistance kept, the limit is V² cos β (1 − cos β)/R for an impedance angle β, and it peaks where β is exactly sixty degrees: 56.7 per cent cancellation and 264.5 kW on a 230 V tie of 0.05 + j0.2 Ω, against 194.4 uncompensated — then falls, to nothing at full cancellation. A line of R/X 0.1 can nearly triple its limit; one above 1/√3 cannot raise it at all. And at the best compensation the line delivers exactly half of what it is sent.

$One per cent more C moves the Q = 5 pair straight down, parallel to the axis, and the response by up to 3.20% at 1.093 ω₀. computed by solving, not by drawing. The upper pole of the Q = 5 series RLC low-pass before and after a 1% increase in C, solved from both netlists (upper panel: the displacement, magnified to a fixed length, beside the tangent to the circle |s| = ω₀ and the direction parallel to the axis), and the fractional change in the response's magnitude against frequency (lower panel): solved as the ratio of the two responses (solid) and predicted as the displacement projected onto the two legs (dashed, on top of it), agreeing to 3.9% of the largest change. The pole moves 0.00 × 10⁻⁴ ω₀ towards the axis and 49.88 × 10⁻⁴ ω₀ down. The largest change in the response is −3.198% at 1.093 ω₀: beside the peak, where the short leg is at forty-five degrees.$ Frequency, which is the same solve

A tolerance is an arrow

Change one part of a series RLC low-pass by one per cent and its pole pair moves by a few ten-thousandths of ω₀ — and the response moves by the displacement projected onto the two distances that make it, to within four per cent of the solve. The direction is set by the part. A resistor moves the pair round its circle, away from the axis, and is felt at the peak: 0.99 per cent at Q = 5. A capacitor moves it straight down, parallel to the axis, and is felt beside the peak: +1.78 and −3.20 per cent at the half-power points and almost nothing at the peak itself. Because the short leg is ω₀/2Q long, the capacitor's effect grows by half a per cent for every unit of Q, to 10.1 per cent at Q = 20. Two hundred builds from 1% parts spread by ±2.5 per cent at the band edge.

Where a signal becomes a number

A jitter that grows with the look

Two clocks with the same 0.1 ps spread in every period sample the same 10 MHz tone. If each edge is displaced independently, the error is 107.0 dB down at any record length. If each edge is displaced from where the last one landed — a free-running oscillator — the edges walk, and the error after fitting the best delay and frequency is 92.6 dB down over 256 samples, 80.3 over 4,096 and 68.2 over 65,536: ten decibels a decade of record, as the period spread times √(n/15). The one oscillator honestly has jitter figures from 0.10 to 4.7 ps depending on the length named. A locking loop is what gives the jitter a value: with a time constant of a hundred periods it stops growing at 87.0 dB.

On a linear frequency axis the loop's desensitisation is an area, and the area it gives back above crossover is the same: 6.74 and 6.74 kilohertz-nepers at 34.9° of margin. computed by solving, not by drawing. The logarithm of the device sensitivity |1/(1 + T)|, from the cut loop at 3601 frequencies between 0.01 Hz and 10 GHz, drawn in decibels against linear frequency to 60 kHz. It is −60.0 dB at low frequency, crosses zero at 4.47 kHz (the crossover is 5.73 kHz), peaks at +5.70 dB at 6.87 kHz, and returns towards zero as the loop gain goes. The area below zero is 6.74 kHz·Np (58.6 dB·kHz); the area above, integrated to 10 GHz, is 6.74, of which 6.11 lies inside the drawing. The net is −1.48 × 10⁻⁸ Hz·Np. Bode's sensitivity integral says it must be zero for a loop that falls two poles or more and is stable when cut.

Feedback, and the margin

The area that feedback only moves

A feedback amplifier divides its device's variation by the loop gain, sixty decibels of it at low frequency, and pays for it with a sensitivity peak near crossover. The payment is exact. Integrated over linear frequency, the logarithm of the sensitivity has as much area above zero as below — 6.74 kilohertz-nepers each side at 34.9° of margin, net zero to eight parts in a billion — at every margin and every gain, because the loop falls by more than one pole. Margin decides only the shape of the repayment: a 14-decibel spike at 11.7°, a one-decibel hump spread past half a megahertz at 80.4°. Only a loop that falls as a single pole keeps any of it, (π/2) times its crossover, and no amplifier is one.

$Parts sharing 90% of their error: the divider's ratio spreads 0.091% and the chain's total resistance 0.559% — one from the same four parts, cancelling, and one adding. computed by solving, not by drawing, over 20,000 seeded builds: four 1% resistors whose errors share a fraction ρ = 0.9 of their variance — as parts from one reel, one wafer or one temperature do — built into a divider tapped at the middle. The ratio's error (solid bars) has a standard deviation of 0.0912%, half the parts' 0.577% times √(1 − ρ); the total resistance of the same four in series (outline bars) has 0.5587%, the parts' spread times √(ρ + (1 − ρ)/4). Correlation that makes a ratio better makes a sum worse, by the same arithmetic.$ Networks, and how a solve is checked

What a ratio does not see

Parts from one reel, one wafer or one temperature share part of their error, and a circuit that uses them as a ratio cancels exactly the part they share. Four 1% resistors sharing ninety per cent of their error make a divider whose ratio spreads 0.091 per cent and a series chain whose total spreads 0.559 — the same four parts, one answer six times better than independent parts would give and one nearly twice as bad. The ratio's spread falls as √(1 − ρ), the total's rises as √(ρ + (1 − ρ)/4). From −40 to 85 °C the chain moves by up to 0.76 per cent and the ratio by 0.135, inside the ±25 ppm/K the coefficients differ by. And a resistor array whose parts share 99.5 per cent of their error puts a divider inside ±0.1 per cent every time that four discrete parts manage it one time in four.

Before the steady state

The tail the source decides

A capacitor with one per cent of dielectric absorption does not leave a one-per-cent tail in the circuit it is in. Driven through a kilohm, the eight slow branches that model the absorption leave 2.58×10⁻⁵ of the step at its terminals — the source resistance over the branch resistances in parallel — and settling to 10⁻⁴ takes 9.49 µs against 9.21 with no absorption at all. The share of the capacitance is not the amplitude; it is a ceiling the circuit reaches only when the source's own time constant falls inside the spread of the branches, and there the cost is 2.2 times the settling at 10⁻⁴ and 16 times at 10⁻⁵.

With 1 RC of tracking, sixteen samples average like 7.8 independent ones. computed by solving, not by drawing. The rms noise on the average of N consecutive held samples of a 1 pF capacitor, against N, for track times of 0.25, 1, 3 and 10 RC between samples, with the 1/√N law for independent samples dotted. A sample shares exp(−Tₜ/RC) of its value with the one before, so at 1 RC the correlation is 0.368 and sixteen samples are worth 7.81 independent ones; 1,024 are worth 473.6. The closed form is checked against a seeded march of the held sequence.

The floor, which bounds from below

The average that is not N times quieter

Averaging sixteen samples of a 1 pF capacitor is supposed to take its 63.3 µV of kT/C noise down by four. With one RC of tracking between samples it takes it down by 2.8: the switch has not been closed long enough for the capacitor to forget the last sample, each shares 37 per cent of its value with the one before, and sixteen samples are worth 7.8 independent ones. At a quarter of an RC they are worth 2.6. Sampling faster never helps past a ceiling: however quickly the samples come, an average gathers at most one independent sample per 2RC of time — the continuous average's own limit. And a sampler that settles its signal to 8 bits has already waited long enough for its noise.

The dual bridged-T is the same function: at a ratio of 100 both floor at 0.0196 and both loops make a Q of 4.76. computed by solving, not by drawing. The transfer of an RC bridged-T — two 10 nF capacitors bridged by 100 kΩ with 1 kΩ from their junction to ground — and of its dual — two 10 kΩ resistors bridged by 1 nF with 100 nF from their junction to ground — over two decades about 1591.5 Hz. The two curves are one to 5.7e-8 of each other, which is the solver's own conditioning: the dual's capacitor ratio plays the resistor ratio's part exactly, the residue is 2/(2 + n) for both, and in a loop of gain 1000 both make a Q of 4.760. What differs is which components carry the ratio.

Filters, measured not tabulated

The dual that is the same function

Swap a bridged-T's resistors for capacitors and its capacitors for resistors and the transfer does not change: two 10 kΩ resistors bridged by 1 nF with 100 nF to ground are the RC network's 100 kΩ and 1 kΩ around two 10 nF capacitors, to 5.7×10⁻⁸, which is the solver's own conditioning. The residue is 2/(2 + n) for both and the loop's ceiling √n/2 for both. So the choice between them is not about the response; it is about which components carry the ratio. Near the ceiling the Q moves by half the ratio's error, and a ratio of two capacitors at ±5% spreads the Q by 10.0% where two resistors at ±1% spread it by 2.1% — and drifts 2.0% over a hundred kelvin where the resistors drift 0.25.

Calibrated at the carrier, a matched cable allows 121 kHz where its phase allowed 16.5 kHz. computed by solving, not by drawing. A 350 Ω quarter bridge read through ten metres of screened pair, excited over leads of 0.35 Ω and 3 µH each with 500 pF between them. Solid: the worst error of a synchronous reading over strains from −2000 to +2000 µε after a calibration at +1000 µε at the operating carrier, with the reference taken from the source at the instrument; dashed, from the bridge's own terminals on sense wires; dotted, the phase measure 1 − cos φ the earlier readings of this cable used. For a 200 ppm budget: 16.5 kHz by phase, 119 kHz calibrated against the source and 121 kHz calibrated against the bridge.

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

What a calibration at the carrier removes

The phase a cable puts on a carrier-excited bridge is a loss of 1 − cos φ, and a loss that is the same at every strain is a gain error — which a shunt calibration at the operating carrier exists to remove. Calibrated there, a synchronous reading of a quarter bridge through ten metres of matched screened pair allows 121 kHz for 200 ppm over ±2000 µε, where the phase measure allowed 16.5; the capacitance between the conductors, which no matching could improve, stops mattering. Where the reference is taken — at the instrument or from sense wires at the bridge — moves that by 1.2 per cent. What calibration cannot touch is a screen mismatch: its leak is a fixed voltage, not a fixed gain, and a hundredth of a per cent of it takes 121 kHz back to 11.5.

With Rₜₕ = 10 kΩ, a tenfold range of β moves the collector current by 17.3%. computed by solving, not by drawing. The collector current of a transistor biased from a 2 V Thévenin source through 1, 10 and 100 kΩ, with 4.7 kΩ in the collector, 1 kΩ in the emitter and a 12 V supply, against its current gain from 30 to 1000, each point a Newton solve of the netlist with both junctions in the device. Dotted: one resistor from the supply to the base, 876 kΩ, sized for the same current at β = 100; it is proportional to β until it saturates. With Rₜₕ = 10 kΩ the current moves by 17.3 per cent from β = 50 to 500.

Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

The bias the gain does not set

A transistor's current gain varies tenfold across the parts one type number covers, and a bias network is judged by how little of that reaches the collector current. One resistor from the supply to the base passes all of it — 0.61 mA at β = 50, 1.16 at 100, and saturation from 200. The four-resistor network passes 98.5 per cent of a tenfold change with a 100 kΩ divider, 17.3 with 10 kΩ and 3.4 with 1 kΩ, and never less than the 1.78 per cent the ratio β/(β + 1) keeps however stiff the divider. Each tenfold cut in that spread costs a tenfold rise in the divider's standing current, so the design is a point on a hyperbola rather than a rule.

Three bias points below a coupling of 56.6 kΩ, one above — and the middle one is where Newton from nought lands. computed by solving, not by drawing. Two transistors, each with 1 kΩ to a 5 V supply and each biased from the other's collector through a coupling resistor into a 10 kΩ base resistor, solved by Newton on the netlist from six starting guesses and de-duplicated. Below a coupling of 56.6 kΩ there are three operating points: two latched, with one collector at 0.061 V and the other at 4.615 V at 10 kΩ, and a symmetric one at 1.702 V whose Jacobian determinant is negative, so the circuit cannot rest there. Above it the three merge into one symmetric point, and the circuit is an amplifier rather than a memory.

Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

The circuit with three bias points

Two transistors, each biased from the other's collector, have three operating points: one collector at 0.061 V and the other at 4.615, the same the other way round, and both at 1.702. All three solve the circuit to a part in 10⁹, and Newton started from nought — where a simulator starts — finds the symmetric one, which is the one the circuit can never sit at: its Jacobian determinant is negative, so any positive capacitance at the nodes makes it run. Weaken the coupling past 56.6 kΩ and the three merge into one, the loop gain around the symmetric point having fallen through one. Which answer a solver returns depends on where it begins, and from 1,681 starting guesses at 10 kΩ, 437 return the one that is not a state.

An amplifier gain of 1000 caps a switched-capacitor integration at 8000 cycles' worth of averaging. computed by solving, not by drawing. The noise, referred to the input, of the estimate a switched-capacitor integrator makes by integrating a steady input for N cycles, with 1 pF sampling and 4 pF feedback capacitors, against N, for amplifier gains of 100, 1,000, 10,000 and infinity. Each cycle adds 2kT/Cs — 89.5 µV rms — and an ideal integrator averages it as 1/√N without limit. A finite gain leaks, and the noise stops falling at √(kT/(A·Cf)) = 1.000 µV for A = 1000, reached after about 8000 cycles. The closed form is checked against a seeded march.

The floor, which bounds from below

The average an integrator can hold

A switched-capacitor integrator is an averager whose samples are exactly independent, because every cycle resets the sampling capacitor — and it pays for that with two switch phases, 2kT/Cs a cycle, 89.5 µV rms with a picofarad. An ideal integrator averages that as 1/√N without end. A real one leaks through its amplifier's finite gain, and the leak caps the average at 2A·Cf/Cs cycles: 8,000 for a gain of a thousand and a 4 pF feedback capacitor, where the noise stops at √(kT/(A·Cf)) = 1.00 µV. That floor contains the feedback capacitor and the gain and not the sampling capacitor at all, which decides only how long the integration takes to reach it.

Returning the shunt resistor to k times the output divides the residue by up to 30 and never takes it through zero. computed by solving, not by drawing. The residue of an RC bridged-T with R₁/R₂ = 100 at its null frequency, with its shunt resistor returned to k times its own output rather than to ground, against 1 − k: solved (dots) and 2/(2 + n(1 − k)) (line). An inverting return raises the effective ratio to n(1 − k) — at k = −15 it is 1600 — so the residue falls to 0.00125. But the null's slope falls with it, and the loop's ceiling, the slope over twice the residue, is 4.994 against 4.902 earthed: it approaches √n/2 = 5.000 of the resistors' own ratio and never passes it. At no k below one does the residue reach zero, because the trim is a ratio and the residue is positive for every ratio.

Filters, measured not tabulated

The residue that falls with its slope

A bridged-T's residue at its null is 2/(2 + n), and a loop around it stops at a Q near √n/2. Returning its shunt resistor to −15 times the output instead of to ground divides the residue by sixteen, to 0.00125 — and the loop's ceiling stays at 5.00, because the slope through the null falls with the residue. It has to: at a transmission zero the output is zero, so a trim that acts through the output leaves the zeros where they were, and the ceiling of a loop with unlimited gain is the zeros' own Q. What the trim does change is the gain the ceiling needs — nine-tenths of it at A = 9/ρ, 449 earthed and 14,400 at k = −31. No return gain below one takes the residue through zero, and a non-inverting one lowers the ceiling.

The best reference is the middle of the chain below 2.37 kHz and ground above it — the node the capacitors return to. computed by solving, not by drawing. The condition number of the nodal matrix of an 8-section RC ladder — 1 kΩ in series, 10 nF and 1 MΩ to ground at each node — solved at s = jω with each of its 10 nodes in turn called zero, against frequency. Drawn: ground, the input, the middle node and the far end; the others lie between. At direct current n4 is best, near the middle as the earlier resistor chain found; from 2.37 kHz ground is — well below a single section's 15.9 kHz corner, where each capacitor's admittance is already 0.15 of a series resistor's conductance, and all 8 together about 1.2 of one.

Networks, and how a solve is checked

The reference a sweep should keep

At direct current the best node to call zero in a resistor chain is its middle. Put a capacitor to ground at each node and solve at s = jω, and the best reference moves: the middle of an eight-section RC ladder below 2.37 kHz, ground above it, where every capacitor returns. So a solver that chooses its reference once for a whole sweep is choosing wrongly somewhere, as the earlier essay suspected — but the two wrong choices are not alike. Kept for the whole sweep, ground is never worse than 1.27 times the best condition number, a tenth of a digit. The middle node, best at direct current and kept, is 143 times worse at a megahertz, 2.2 digits. A fifth-order LC filter says the same: ground within 2.18 times throughout.

A second pole at 3.00 MHz makes a 9.49 Ω source 4.1 times safer and a 949 Ω one 20% less safe. computed by solving, not by drawing. The source inductance above which a guarded input oscillates — a 100 pF cable bootstrapped by a 1.00 MHz follower with 10 pF of input capacitance — bisected on the sign of the rightmost pole of the whole netlist, against the source resistance, for a follower with no second pole and with one at 30 MHz, 3 MHz and 1.5 MHz; the thin line is R/ωₜ. With a second pole at 3.00 MHz the critical inductance is 6.85 µH at 9.49 Ω against 1.66 with one pole, and 141 µH at 949 Ω against 177: a low-resistance source rings high above the follower's crossover, where the second pole takes gain away, and a high-resistance one rings near it, where the pole adds phase.

Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

The second pole the ringing guard sees

A guarded input driven through an inductive source oscillates once L/R passes 1/ωₜ — for a follower with one pole. Give the follower the second pole every real amplifier has and the rule stops being a bound in either direction. A 9.49 Ω source that rang above 1.66 µH now needs 6.85 µH with a second pole at 3 MHz, four times safer; a 949 Ω source that rang above 177 µH now rings above 141, a fifth worse. The dividing line is the frequency the input rings at: above the geometric mean of the follower's crossover and its second pole, the pole takes gain from the bootstrap and helps; below it the pole adds phase and hurts. On three poles a decade apart the change of sign falls within 2.4 per cent of √(fₜ·f₂).

$Degenerated to gₘRₑ = 1, a pair with 1 mV of offset peaks at 0.41% of second harmonic, against 0.74% bare. computed by solving, not by drawing, every harmonic read from a solved waveform. The second (solid) and third (dotted) harmonics, as fractions of the fundamental, of a differential pair with 1 mV of input offset and emitter degeneration gₘRₑ = 1, against the peak drive; the same pair undegenerated in grey (dashed: second; dot-dash: third). Degeneration lowers both and moves both to larger drives. At small drive the second harmonic follows (u/4)·g″/g′² at the offset's operating point, which for a small offset is (u/2)·(Vos/2Vₜ)/(1 + gₘRₑ)³. Its largest value over all drives is 0.406 per cent at 177 mV, against 0.736 per cent at 76 mV undegenerated.$ Where the models stop

Two decibels of matching for one of gain

An offset gives a differential pair back the second harmonic its symmetry removed. Put resistors in the emitters and that second harmonic falls as the cube of one plus gₘRₑ at a fixed input and as its square at a fixed output — measured slopes of −3.00 and −2.00 — so each decibel of gain given up buys two decibels of distortion, or two decibels more offset at the same distortion. A matching specification that allowed 0.535 mV for −60 dB at 10 mV of output allows 2.14 mV at gₘRₑ = 1. The worst case over all drives relaxes more slowly: the offset below which the second harmonic can never reach one per cent goes from 1.36 mV to 4.39 mV as gₘRₑ goes to three, because the peak it limits sits where the pair saturates, and degeneration only moves that further out.

$Over ±25% of the centre, three elements deliver 97.3% at worst; Bode and Fano allow 99.8%. computed by solving, not by drawing. The fraction of the available power a source of 2 times its resistance in inductive reactance delivers to a resistive load through the best matching network of 0, 1, 2 and 3 reactive elements for a band of ±25 per cent about the centre, each network the one whose worst transfer in the band is largest; the vertical lines mark the band. The worst in-band transfer is 54.2%, 82.8%, 89.5%, 97.3%; the Bode–Fano limit for any lossless network, reached only with infinitely many elements, is 99.81%.$ Power, and the part that does no work

What each element buys against the limit

A source whose resistance sits behind twice as much inductive reactance can deliver, over ±25 per cent of its centre frequency, 54.2 per cent of its available power to the best plain resistor and at worst 82.8 per cent through the best single capacitor. That single-element answer is exactly the fixed load for an uncertain reactance: the capacitor makes the reactance swing ±1 across the band and the load is √2 times the source. Two elements lift the worst case to 89.5, three to 97.3, and a fourth, in a chain of single elements, to 97.4. Bode and Fano bound every lossless network at 99.81 per cent over that band — a limit three elements come within a tenth of a decibel of and no finite network reaches.

Where a signal becomes a number

The windows a real filter leaves

A band from 100 to 120 MHz can be sampled at any clock in six disjoint windows — for a band with hard edges. Put a real bandpass filter in front and ask that whatever folds onto the band be 60 dB down, and every window's edges move inward by half the filter's transition band: an eighth-order Butterworth keeps three of the six, a fourth-order one two, and the window from 120 to 200 MHz shrinks from ±25 per cent of clock tolerance to ±19.1 per cent at order eight and ±5.4 per cent at order four. The windows depend on the rejection only through the rejection per order: 40 dB at order four, 60 at order six and 80 at order eight all leave the same ±15.7 per cent. So a filter's order is bought in clock tolerance, at one order per ten decibels.

Swept at η = 1, a resonance reads 93.6% of its height, 0.45 bandwidths late and 1.26 bandwidths wide. computed by solving, not by drawing. The envelope of a series resonator's capacitor voltage, Q 50 at 1591.5 Hz, while its drive sweeps linearly upwards through resonance, plotted against the frequency the drive has reached, for sweep rates η = r/B² of 0.1, 0.3, 1 and 3; dashed, the steady-state response the sweep is chasing. At η = 1 — 1013 Hz a second, Q cycles for every bandwidth crossed when η is one — the reading peaks at 93.6 per cent of the true height, 0.445 bandwidths above resonance, and is 1.263 bandwidths wide. Swept at η = 0.03 it is the steady curve to 0.2 per cent.

Frequency, which is the same solve

A sweep that never stops

Sweep a drive continuously through a resonance and read the envelope against the frequency the drive has reached, and the reading depends on one number: the rate in hertz a second divided by the square of the bandwidth. At that rate equal to one — Q cycles for every bandwidth crossed, the dwell a stepped sweep needed — a Q-50 resonance reads 93.6 per cent of its height, 0.445 bandwidths late and 1.263 bandwidths wide, and at Q 10 or 200 the same within a per cent. A tenth of that rate gets within 0.3 per cent of the height and costs ten times the time. The peak always lands beyond resonance in the direction of travel, so an upward and a downward sweep together find it to 0.0075 bandwidths where either alone is off by nearly half.

With a leak of a hundred periods the flux settles to a spread of 1.22% of the swing at β = 0.5 — 0.759 of what independent duty errors would give. Seeded: three runs of sixty thousand periods of the event map, 5 mV of threshold noise, β = 0.5, driving a magnetising branch whose flux leaks with τ = L/R. The stationary spread of the period-end flux in volt-nanoseconds against τ in periods, quoted here as a percentage of one half cycle's swing V·T/2 = 5493 V·ns: 1 → 0.146% (closed form 0.145%), 3 → 0.233% (closed form 0.232%), 10 → 0.401% (closed form 0.397%), 30 → 0.685% (closed form 0.673%), 100 → 1.25% (closed form 1.22%), 300 → 2.16% (closed form 2.10%). The closed form linearises one period, keeping the leak inside each half and the covariance −AB between consecutive periods' imbalances; dropping that covariance gives the upper curve, 1.61% at a hundred periods. For a slow leak the spread is V·σ·|B − A|·√(τ/T), the drawn asymptote.

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

The spread a winding resistance holds

A relaxation oscillator's threshold noise walks an ideal core's flux without limit. Put the winding's resistance back and the walk stops at a spread: 1.22% of a half cycle's swing when L/R is a hundred periods, growing as the square root of L/R, while a comparator skew's offset grows as L/R itself. The anticorrelation between consecutive duty errors is worth 24% of that spread at β = 0.5 and 62% at β = 0.2 — but only in a core slow enough to remember several periods. And the resistance that bounds the walk is a boundary in its own right: with a millihenry and a fifth of the swing to spare, an ohm tolerates 12.9 mV of noise, and a hundred picoseconds of skew needs at least 0.14 Ω.

Where a signal becomes a number

The loop a reference allows

A sampling clock is a free-running oscillator held by a loop to a reference, and the reference has an error of its own. With 0.1 ps of period spread in the oscillator and 2 ps of white error in the reference, a first-order loop of 20 periods leaves the clock 0.453 ps from ideal — 90.9 dB on a 10 MHz tone — and that is the best any first-order loop can do: the oscillator's share rises as the square root of the loop's time constant, the reference's falls as one over it, and they are equal at σᵣ/σₒ. The clock's error there is the geometric mean of the two, so a reference a hundred times worse costs ten. On a spectrum the rule reads as one instruction: put the loop's corner where the free oscillator's skirt meets the reference's floor. And it holds only for long captures. Below about seven loop time constants the free oscillator beats every loop.

A 10 µs delay in the loop: the peak rises to 13.53 dB and the sensitivity above crossover becomes a comb, and the two areas are still equal — 7.14 kHz·Np each side. computed by solving, not by drawing, from the loop's closed form, held against the netlist's cut loop to a part in a billion. The three-pole amplifier of the area essay (second pole 4 kHz) with a pure delay of 10 µs in its loop. Its margin falls from 34.9° to 14.3° at an unchanged crossover of 5.73 kHz, and the peak of |1/(1 + T)| rises from +5.70 to +13.53 dB. Above crossover the delay keeps turning the loop's phase, so the sensitivity rises and falls about zero with a period of 100 kHz. The area below zero is 7.144 kHz·Np, the area above 7.144, net 9.00 × 10⁻⁵ Hz·Np — integrated to 50 MHz on a grid that takes sixty steps a tooth.

Feedback, and the margin

The phase a delay never stops adding

Put a pure delay in a feedback loop and Bode's sensitivity integral does not notice: with 10 µs in the three-pole amplifier's loop the logarithm of the sensitivity still has equal areas above and below zero, 7.14 kHz·Np each side. What changes is where they are. The delay keeps turning the loop's phase above crossover, so the sensitivity becomes a comb with a tooth every 100 kHz; the desensitisation shrinks from 6.74 to 6.48 kHz·Np, the main peak rises from 5.70 dB to 13.53 and overpays it by 7%, and the comb hands the excess back below zero. The margin reads the peak from below by about 1.4 dB at every delay. Past 16.9 µs the loop is unstable and the integral stops balancing — by exactly the growth rate of the pole pair that has crossed.

$With inductors of Q 100 the filter absorbs up to 10.5% of the available power, and the loss rate times its delay predicts the curve's shape — 11.2% at the same frequency. computed by solving, not by drawing. The fifth-order 0.5 dB Chebyshev ladder filter of the reflection essay, each inductor given a series resistance ωL/Q at the corner, so that each loses energy at the rate σ = 2πfc/Q. The power absorbed in the inductors, as a fraction of the available power, against frequency; beside it the lossless ladder filter's delay, D = |t|²τ₂₁ + |ρ|²τ₁₁, times σ — the stored energy over the available power, times the loss rate. At Q 100 the absorption peaks at 10.53% at 0.957 of the corner, where σ·D is 11.24%; between 0.3 and 0.95 of the corner the two agree to 7%, the rest being the split between magnetic and electric energy and the terms of second order in the loss. The slider is the inductors' Q.$ Filters, measured not tabulated

The heat a delay predicts

A lossy LC ladder filter absorbs power where it stores energy, and a lossless ladder filter stores energy in exact proportion to its delay — the transmitted delay weighted by what it transmits plus the reflected delay weighted by what it reflects. So the droop of a lossy filter is its loss rate times that delay: with equal losses in inductors and capacitors, to 0.09% at Q 10,000. With inductors of Q 100 in a fifth-order Chebyshev, 10.5% of the available power is absorbed at the band edge against 11.2% predicted. Inductor loss alone misses only by the split between magnetic and electric energy — near one in the passband, 4.6 to one at 1.6 times the corner — and the dual ladder filter mirrors the split. The law is first order, and it overstates the band-edge peak by 17.5/Q.

Without the buffer, a second stage of 1 times the first's impedance: the top sags to 0.175 instead of 0.303, and the tail crosses at 2.00 s and overshoots to +0.010. computed by solving, not by drawing, marched and checked against the closed form to 4.5e-4: a half-second pulse through two one-second coupling stages, buffered (dashed) and with the second hung directly on the first (solid), its resistor 1 times the first's and its capacitor 1/1 of it, so that each stage alone keeps its one-second time constant. Buffered, the top sags to 0.3033 and the tail crosses zero 2.27 s after the pulse began. Unbuffered, the denominator gains the cross term R1·C2 and its poles move to −0.382 and −2.618 per second; the top sags to 0.1751, undershoots to −0.8245, crosses zero at 2.002 s and overshoots to +0.0103. The slider is the second stage's impedance relative to the first's.

Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

Two coupling stages without a buffer

Hang a second coupling stage directly on the first, with equal parts, and the pair's denominator gains a third time constant — the first resistor carrying the second capacitor's current. The poles spread from a double pole to −0.382 and −2.618 per time constant, a half-second pulse's top sags to 0.175 instead of the buffered pair's 0.303, and the sag rate is exactly 2 + 1/k per time constant for a second stage k times the first's impedance — the sum of the two short-circuit time constants. The tail still crosses zero, because the two zeros at the origin are untouched, and a step's lowest point is still at exactly twice its zero crossing. Then a reversal: specified by the overall corner rather than by the parts, the loaded pair sags only 1.12 times as fast as one stage and undershoots 7.6% rather than 13.5% — the buffer the cascade essay assumed makes the specified input worse.

$With the capacitor tracking the inductor, one per cent of drift moves the Q = 5 response by at most 1.00%, at the peak — against −2.73% beside it with the capacitor held. computed by solving, not by drawing, from two netlists. The Q = 5 series RLC low-pass with its inductor raised by 1% and its capacitor changed by (1.01)^(−t) − 1, so that at t = 1 their product is unchanged; here t = 1. The fractional change in the response against frequency (solid), against the inductor alone with the capacitor held (dashed). The upper pole moves 9.90 × 10⁻⁴ ω₀ towards the axis and 0.99 × 10⁻⁴ ω₀ up it, and ω₀ by 0.00%. The largest change is 1.00% at 1.000 ω₀; with the capacitor held it is −2.73% at 1.115 ω₀. The slider is the tracking.$ Frequency, which is the same solve

Two parts that drift together

A one per cent change in the inductor of a Q = 5 resonant low-pass moves its pole pair mostly downwards, and the response by 2.73% beside the peak. Let the capacitor fall by the same fraction as the inductor rises and their product is fixed, so ω₀ is: the pair can only go round its circle, sideways near the top, and the response changes by 1.00% at the peak and nowhere else — the change a resistor makes. The difference grows with Q: at Q = 20 one per cent of drift moves the band edge 10.2% with the capacitor held, 20.7% with it drifting the same way, and 1.00% with it tracking. Over −40 to 85 °C an inductor of +150 ppm/K moves a Q = 20 band edge 9.1% with a zero-coefficient capacitor and 0.57% with a −150 ppm/K one. Correlation between two parts' errors is itself a tolerance.

$With a correlation of −0.3 between the two generators the bowl's bottom stays at 6.67 kΩ and its floor moves from 1.14 dB to 0.83. computed by solving, not by drawing, with the optimum found twice — in closed form and by a direct search of the noise factor, which agree to a part in a million. The 4 nV/√Hz, 0.6 pA/√Hz amplifier of the earlier essays, its two generators given a real correlation coefficient γ = −0.3. The noise figure against source resistance: the cross term 2γ·e·i·R adds the same fraction of the source's own noise at every resistance, so the bowl moves vertically and its bottom stays at e/i = 6.67 kΩ. The floor's excess over one scales as 1 + γ: 0.827 dB against 1.138 for independent generators. The slider is the correlation.$ The floor, which bounds from below

Two generators with one cause

The two-generator model of an amplifier assumes its voltage and current noise independent. Give them a correlation γ and the source sees a cross term, 2·Re(γ·e·i·Z*), linear in its resistance and its reactance. A real correlation leaves the quietest source resistance at e/i and moves the floor in proportion to 1 + γ: 0.83 dB instead of 1.14 at γ = −0.3. An imaginary one moves the optimum off the resistance axis — 5.77 kΩ with 3.33 kΩ of capacitive reactance at γ = 0.5j — and the noise figure's contours become circles about it; a resistive source cannot use it at all. If the two flicker components share one cause, the sign of the sharing decides the low-frequency floor: at 1 Hz, 3.9 dB or 18.0 instead of 15.1. And the correlation is measurable with three resistors, best with the middle one next to the optimum.

$Two 1% parts sharing 90% of their error: the divider's output spreads 0.129% at a half, 0.236% at ten to one and 0.258% at a hundred to one. computed by solving, not by drawing, over 20,000 seeded builds at each of seven ratios, every ratio computed exactly: a divider of two 1% parts, each with a uniform part's 0.577% spread and sharing a fraction ρ = 0.9 of it, with the top resistor N times the bottom. The output ratio's standard deviation (dots) against N, beside N/(N + 1)·√2·σ·√(1 − ρ) (line) and the same law for the other shared fractions (faint). N 1: 0.1286%; N 2: 0.1712%; N 5: 0.2145%; N 10: 0.2356%; N 20: 0.2477%; N 50: 0.2536%; N 100: 0.2581%. What is shared cancels at every ratio; what is not reaches the output with a leverage of N/(N + 1), which is a half for a halving divider and nearly one for a large ratio — so the same two parts make a ten-to-one divider 1.83 times worse.$ Networks, and how a solve is checked

The small leg of a large ratio

A divider of two 1% parts sharing ninety per cent of their error spreads 0.129 per cent at a half and 0.236 at ten to one — the same two parts, nearly twice as bad, because what they do not share reaches the output with a leverage of N/(N + 1) rather than one half. Correlation cancels at every ratio; the leverage does not. Built from equal units of one array, a divider of N to one spreads as σᵤ·√(N/M), so at any one area a ten-to-one ratio costs √10 against a half and needs ten times the units to match it, and the units it needs are the bottom leg's. And a ratio far from a half heats its own parts unequally: at 50 V across 11 kΩ the top of a two-part ten-to-one divider runs 46 K hotter than the bottom and the ratio moves 1,055 ppm with perfectly matched coefficients, where a chain of eleven equal units moves at most 29.

$With 0.05 Ω of machine reactance at each end the sixty-degree peak needs 107% of the line cancelled — out of reach — so the limit rises all the way to full cancellation, 261.6 kW against 145.3. computed by solving, not by drawing, at 50 Hz, searched over the angle between the two EMFs on the solve (dots) and from V²·cos β·(1 − cos β)/R with the totals in it (line): the 230 V tie of 0.05 + j0.2 Ω with each source a machine whose EMF is held behind 0.05 Ω of its own reactance, against the fraction of the LINE's reactance cancelled. The capacitor cannot reach the machines' reactance, so the total impedance angle reaches sixty degrees only at k* = (X + 2Xₘ − √3·R)/X = 106.7%, beyond full cancellation; the limit rises from 145.34 to 261.55 kW and never turns. Dashed: the bare tie, peaking at 56.7%. The slider is the machines' reactance.$ Power, and the part that does no work

The reactance the capacitor cannot reach

A series capacitor raises a tie's transfer limit until the loop's impedance angle is sixty degrees, and on a bare 0.05 + j0.2 Ω line that is 56.7% cancellation. Put a machine at each end, its EMF held behind a reactance of its own, and the capacitor still cancels only the line: the sixty degrees now needs the line's reactance plus twice a machine's, less √3 times the resistance, as a fraction of the line's reactance, which passes 100% as soon as each machine's reactance exceeds √3/2 of the line's resistance — 0.043 Ω here. Beyond that the limit rises at every step to full cancellation, and the lossless estimate of the gain, wildly high on a bare line, becomes nearly right: 1.43 against 1.50 at 0.2 Ω. The higher limit is reached with the receiving terminal lower — 180 V falling to 148 at 0.1 Ω — and the capacitor's own resistance is negligible for any power capacitor: a Q of 222 keeps the peak within 1%.

A core walked from lossless to lossy, and the three straight lines it walks along. computed by solving, not by drawing. Loop area, measured coercivity and measured remanence against the threshold spread the model was handed, over five decades of it, driven sinusoidally to ±400 A/m. None of the three is an input: the area is ∮H dB round the marched loop, the coercivity is interpolated where the descending branch crosses zero, and the remanence is read at zero field. Over the lowest four decades all three are exactly proportional to the spread — 0.625961 joules per cubic metre per ampere-metre of spread, a coercivity 0.4499 of it and a remanence of 1.1304 millitesla per ampere-metre — and at 80 A/m the area is 2.69 per cent below the line and the remanence 16.42 per cent, because the pinned operators have reached the flat of the magnetisation curve. At zero the area is 9.8e-15 J/m³, which is the single-valued core of the anhysteretic model.

Two windings, and the band between them

One dissipation, two exponents

The core this ladder built takes two numbers — a threshold spread and the fraction of the magnetisation that follows the field with no threshold — and seven rungs moved the first and left the second at 0.55 without ever saying why. The first decides how much loss there is: area, coercivity and remanence are all exactly proportional to it over four decades, at 0.625961 joules per cubic metre, 0.449775 and 1.130408 millitesla per ampere-metre of spread, the last two of which are closed forms. The second decides nothing about the loss at all — it is single-valued, so it contributes exactly zero to the loop area, to twelve digits — and it moves the Steinmetz exponent from 1.5042 to 2.9860.

With a 300 ps skew and 5 mV of noise a core with 100 ns of headroom saturates after 502 periods on average — the 500 the skew alone gives — and one drive in a hundred by 184. Seeded: 2,000 drives of an ideal core by the event map at β = 0.5, 5 mV of threshold noise and a comparator skew of 300 ps, each run until the summed high-minus-low time leaves ±100 ns. A histogram of the counts on logarithmic bins, against the closed-form first-passage distribution, between two barriers, of a walk with drift 0.200 ns a period and spread 1.89 ns per root period. Mean 501.9 against 499.9; quantiles 1% 184, 10% 275, 50% 463; the empirical and closed-form cumulative distributions differ by at most 0.014.

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

The count a core survives

A relaxation oscillator with a 300 ps comparator skew and 5 mV of threshold noise saturates an ideal core with 100 ns of volt-second headroom after 502 periods on average — the 500 the skew alone gives — and one drive in a hundred by 184. The mean does not see the noise at all until the noise is large enough to saturate the core the other way first; the early tail sees nothing else. Every skew and noise level falls on one curve in one ratio, the skew's count over the count at which its ramp overtakes the walk. Read as a burst, a thousand periods with one failure in a thousand allows 150 ps of skew with no noise, 93.5 ps at a millivolt, and none at all above 2.41 mV.

Where a signal becomes a number

A frequency that wanders

Below its flicker corner an oscillator's phase noise falls thirty decibels a decade instead of twenty, because the oscillator's frequency itself wanders. A clock with 0.1 ps of period spread and a 100 kHz corner samples a 10 MHz tone at 84.1 dB over 1,024 samples and 52.9 over 65,536 — 14.7 dB worse than the walk alone — because past 2,277 samples its error grows as the capture rather than its square root. That crossing is 1.42 periods of the corner frequency for every corner. Fitting a parabola as well as a line buys 3.88 dB at every length and changes no slope; each further term buys a fixed fraction. And a first-order locking loop cannot stop it: the locked clock's variance grows with the logarithm of the record, 1.92 dB lost between 4,096 and 262,144 samples, until a loop with an integrator holds it at 87.5.

Sampled at 100 kHz, the loop repays its whole debt below 50.0 kHz: 6.60 kHz·Np each side, with a peak of 8.72 dB — the continuous loop had repaid 89% by then. computed by solving, not by drawing, from the loop's exact zero-order-hold equivalent. The three-pole amplifier of the area essay (second pole 4 kHz), closed through a sampler and hold at 100 kHz. The device sensitivity, in decibels, against linear frequency from zero to half the sample rate, where the discrete response ends. Margin 24.7° at a crossover of 5.71 kHz, against 34.9° for the continuous loop; peak +8.72 dB at 6.45 kHz. The area below zero is 6.598 kHz·Np and the area above, all of it inside the band, 6.598; net 1.84 × 10⁻² Hz·Np. The continuous loop, by 50.0 kHz, had repaid 88.6% of its own.

Feedback, and the margin

The band a sampled loop repays in

Close the three-pole amplifier's loop through a sampler and hold at 100 kHz and Bode's sensitivity integral still balances — but only over the band below 50 kHz, because that is all the band a sampled loop has. The whole debt, 6.60 kHz·Np, is repaid there; the continuous loop had repaid 88.6% of its own by the same frequency and spends decades above on the rest. Below a tenth of the sample rate the sampled loop is the continuous loop with half a sample of delay, 24.7° of margin against 24.6°. And the finite band turns the equality into a floor: hold the sensitivity 20 dB down over a third of the band and no loop can peak below 10 dB. This loop's floor is low and its margin sets its peak; the sample rate at which the peak is 3 dB above the continuous loop's is 18 times the crossover.

$With the receiving end at 0.9 of the sending voltage the limit peaks at 62.6% cancellation, where the impedance angle is 56.3° — and the peak is still Vₛ²/4R = 264.5 kW. computed by solving, not by drawing, at 50 Hz, searched over the angle between the sources on the solve (dots) and from (Vᵣ·cos β/R)·(Vₛ − Vᵣ·cos β) (line): the 0.05 + j0.2 Ω tie with the sending source at 230 V and the receiving one at 207 V, against the fraction of the reactance cancelled; dashed, equal ends. The limit is a parabola in cos β with its top at cos β = Vₛ/(2Vᵣ) = 0.5556, an impedance angle of 56.25°, reached at k = 62.58%; its height there is Vₛ²/4R = 264.50 kW, the same as for equal ends. Uncompensated, this tie carries 180.53 kW at most. The slider is the receiving voltage as a fraction of the sending.$ Power, and the part that does no work

The peak a sagging receiver keeps

The sixty degrees at which series compensation stops raising a tie's transfer limit is a statement about two ends at equal voltage. With the receiving end lower, the limit is a parabola in the cosine of the impedance angle whose top is at cos β = Vₛ/2Vᵣ: 56.3° and 62.6% cancellation for a receiver at 0.9 of the sender, 33.6° and 83.4% at 0.6, full cancellation at one half. But the height of that top is Vₛ²/4R whatever the receiving voltage — 264.5 kW for the 0.05 + j0.2 Ω tie from a receiver at 1.1 of the sender down to one at 0.5 — and at it the receiving end takes exactly half of what is sent, to four decimal places, for every receiving voltage tried. The best compensated tie is the sending source driving a matched load, and the receiving source's voltage only decides how much capacitor that takes.

A pair with 2.0% saturation-current mismatch, nulled at 300 K: trimmed by a constant it drifts 1.706 µV/K, trimmed by its load ratio 0.000 µV/K. computed by solving, not by drawing, at 31 temperatures — each a Newton solve of both junctions, a bisection for the tail current and a bisection for the input that nulls the output — a bipolar pair at 10 µA a side whose second transistor has 1.02 times the first's saturation current. Untrimmed (grey) it needs 511.9 µV at 300 K and 682.6 µV at 400 K. Trimmed at 300 K by subtracting a constant (dashed) it is zero there and 170.6 µV at 400 K, drifting 1.706 µV/K — the untrimmed offset's drift, untouched. Trimmed at 300 K by making the collector loads 1.02000 to one (solid) it is 0.0 µV at 400 K, drifting 0.000 µV/K. The load ratio acts inside the same logarithm the mismatch does, so it cancels the mismatch at every temperature, not at one.

Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

The trim that takes the drift with it

A bipolar pair's offset from a saturation-current mismatch is proportional to absolute temperature, so trimming it to zero at one temperature can trim its drift to zero too — but only if the trim acts inside the same logarithm the mismatch does. Trimmed by its collector-load ratio, a 2% mismatched pair is zero from 250 to 400 K; trimmed by subtracting a constant after it, it drifts the same 1.706 µV/K it drifted untrimmed. Add 20 kΩ of source resistance and a 10% current-gain mismatch, and a fifth of the offset follows the current gain instead: the load trim now leaves −0.574 µV/K, the constant trim 1.256, and above 34 kΩ the constant trim is the better one. A trim cancels the drift of the share whose temperature law it shares and converts the rest; two knobs, set for value and slope, leave 11 µV of curvature.

With a 0.30 µF coupling capacitor and a stiff driver the transformer's damping is 0.289: the pulse's tail crosses zero 8 times in sixty units of L/Rₗ. computed by solving, not by drawing, marched and checked against the closed form to 2.3e-4: a pulse two L/Rₗ long through a series coupling capacitor into a 1 mH magnetising inductance with 100 Ω reflected across it, from a stiff driver. The capacitor is 0.30 µF, x = CRₗ²/L = 3. The poles are those of 3.000e-10·s² + 1.000e-5·s + 1, a damping of 0.2887 and a natural frequency of 9.19 kHz. The top ends at 0.128 of the high-frequency gain, and after the pulse the tail crosses zero 8 times, with lobes above a thousandth of the pulse, in the sixty units drawn. The slider is the capacitor.

Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

The ring a blocking capacitor buys

A series capacitor in front of a transformer stops its flux from walking: a 55%-duty drive that walks a bare core by 0.40 units of volt-time a period settles within a few dozen periods once the capacitor takes the drive's average. The price is a second-order high-pass with the magnetising inductance, and an inductance lets its poles go complex where two resistive coupling stages never could. Between equal resistances the damping cannot fall below 1/√2, and the poles are complex only for a capacitor between 0.17 and 5.8 times L/R². From a stiff driver the damping is √(L/C)/2R and has no floor: a capacitor large enough to make the droop small — the droop is 1/RC, the capacitor's and not the transformer's — makes the tail ring, from one zero crossing at a tenth of L/R² to thirty-five at a hundred.

At 20 steps a cycle backward Euler cannot show a quality factor above 3.27 and BDF2 none above 77.9; the trapezoidal rule shows every Q, 1.6% high. computed by solving, not by drawing: a series resistor–inductor–capacitor resonance at 1 kHz, its quality factor set by the resistor, marched at 20 steps per undamped cycle with each rule; the quality factor the march shows — its decay per radian of its own ringing — against the circuit's, from 1 to 500. Lines are each rule's factor per step in closed form; dots are marched and measured from the record at Q = 3, 30, 300, agreeing to 0.3%. Backward Euler's shown Q flattens at 3.272 and BDF2's at 77.9, whatever the circuit's; the trapezoidal rule's sits 1.64% above the diagonal at every Q. Q 3: trapezoidal 3.05, BDF2 3.06, backward Euler 1.62; Q 30: trapezoidal 30.5, BDF2 22.5, backward Euler 2.97; Q 300: trapezoidal 305, BDF2 62.6, backward Euler 3.24.

Before the steady state

The Q a rule can show

A resonance marched forward in time decays at the circuit's rate plus whatever the marching rule adds, and the rule's share has a ceiling built into it. At twenty steps a cycle backward Euler cannot show a quality factor above 3.27 and BDF2 none above 77.9, whatever resistor the circuit has; the ceilings rise as N/2π and N³/4π³. The trapezoidal rule has no ceiling at all — it shows every Q 1.64 per cent high at twenty steps a cycle, a ratio fixed by the step alone. So the steps a cycle needed to read a resonance's Q to one per cent are about 26 for the trapezoidal rule at any Q, 99 for BDF2 at Q = 100 and 62,202 for backward Euler. Marched at Q = 50, the circuit has 0.533 V of ringing left after ten cycles, the trapezoidal rule 0.536 and BDF2 0.346.

A 50 Ω source over 20.0 Hz–20.0 kHz: the best turns ratio is 10.7, giving 1.30 dB; the white optimum's 11.5 gives 1.31, and no transformer at all 13.2. computed by solving, not by drawing, the band integrals checked by quadrature. The drifting part of the essay before — 4 nV/√Hz and 0.6 pA/√Hz white, flicker corners at 10 Hz and 1 kHz — fed from a 50 Ω source through an ideal step-up transformer of ratio n, so it sees n²·50 Ω. The noise figure over 20.0 Hz to 20.0 kHz against n: least at n = √(√(E/I)/Rₛ) = 10.73, where the amplifier sees 5.76 kΩ, at 1.298 dB. The ratio that matches the white optimum, 11.55, gives 1.310 dB; the source connected directly, 13.23 dB. The slider is the band.

The floor, which bounds from below

One turns ratio for a band

A 50 Ω source and an amplifier whose optimum is 6.67 kΩ want a step-up transformer, and the ratio that matches the white optimum, 11.5, is the one a design note computes. Over the audio band it is nearly right: 1.31 dB against 1.30 at the band's own best ratio, 10.7. Over 1 Hz to 100 Hz it is badly wrong — 9.2 dB where a ratio of 4.8 gives 5.4 — because the band's noise lives in its bottom decade, where the flicker has moved the optimum down. One ratio for a two-decade band costs at most 0.24 dB against a ratio that could follow the optimum. The transformer's winding resistance multiplies the whole noise factor by one plus the winding's resistance over the source's, not just its own share: a tenth of the source costs 0.41 dB where its own noise alone would cost 0.31. And 115 amplifiers in parallel are an ideal 10.7:1 transformer, noise for noise.

In the stopband the series-first ladder filter is an inductance — 5.24 R₀ at three times the corner — and its dual a capacitance, 0.191 R₀: the same filter, opposite loads. computed by solving, not by drawing. The input impedance of the order-5 0.5 dB Chebyshev ladder filter realised with a series inductor first and with a shunt capacitor first, both terminated in the design resistance R₀, against frequency from a tenth of the corner to ten times it. In the passband both sit near R₀ and are nearly resistive. Above the corner they part: at 1.2 times the corner 1.33 R₀ at 89.4° against 0.749 R₀ at −89.4°; 2 times the corner 3.19 R₀ at 90.0° against 0.314 R₀ at −90.0°; 3 times the corner 5.24 R₀ at 90.0° against 0.191 R₀ at −90.0°; 5 times the corner 8.90 R₀ at 90.0° against 0.112 R₀ at −90.0°. The product of the two is R₀² at every frequency to 2e-15, which is what duality means for an input impedance. The slider is the order.

Filters, measured not tabulated

The load a filter is in its stopband

A fifth-order Chebyshev ladder filter can begin with a series inductor or, as its dual, with a shunt capacitor, and between its design resistances the two transmit identically. In the stopband they are opposite loads: at three times the corner the first is 5.24 R₀ of inductance and the second 0.191 R₀ of capacitance, their product R₀² at every frequency. That stops mattering only while the source is the design resistance. From a tenth of R₀ the shunt-first ladder filter rejects 55.9 dB at three times the corner instead of 64.0, draws 14 times the passband current at five times the corner against the series-first ladder filter's 0.24, and with a lead inductance of a tenth of R₀ over the corner's angular frequency grows a hole in its stopband — −33.8 dB where a matched source gives −54.0. A soft source does the mirror image to the series-first ladder filter. The first element has to be the one the source cannot short or open.

An L-section whose coil has a Q of 50 and whose capacitor has a Q of 1000. computed by solving, not by drawing at 89 ratios, the loss read as one minus power into the load over power into the section. It follows Qₛ(1/Qcoil + 1/Qcap) (dashed) to 3% wherever it is under 2%: at a ratio of 20 it is 8.39% against 9.15%. Two parts of Q 95.2 each — the harmonic mean of 50 and 1000 — lose 8.40% there (faint), and within 0.4% of the unequal pair at every ratio: the section hardly cares which part is lossy, only what the two reciprocals sum to.

Frequency, which is the same solve

The part that decides the match

An L-section's loss is not twice its Q over the components' Q unless the two components are equally good. Given a coil of Q 50 and a capacitor of Q 1000, a 50 Ω to 1 kΩ match loses 8.39%, which is what two parts of Q 95.2 — the harmonic mean — would lose: the reciprocals of the two Qs add, each weighted by the loaded Q, and 95% of the heat is in the coil. Both parts carry the same circulating energy, so they share the loss in the inverse ratio of their Qs, which makes the coil the one to spend on: Q 50 to 100 halves the loss, and past the capacitor's own Q a better coil buys almost nothing. The high-pass section, with each part in the other arm, loses the same to 0.01%; per hundred watts delivered the coil runs at 4.36 W; and the ratio above which splitting the match pays, 9 to 10, does not move with the parts at all.

The bootstrap with 1 nF at its node: one natural frequency, against the gain. computed by solving, not by drawing: the natural frequency of the network found as the root of its determinant at each of 31 gains. It is −G/C to a part in a million at every gain, where G is the Thévenin conductance the reduction gives: −200 thousand per second at A = 0, zero at A = 2 where the resistance passes through infinity, and +100 thousand at A = 3 — a growth rather than a decay. The gain at which the pole crosses into the right half-plane is the gain at which the resistance changes sign, and the capacitor's size moves the pole's speed and nothing else.

Networks, and how a solve is checked

The pole that crosses with the resistance

A bootstrap's Thévenin resistance passes through infinity and turns negative at a gain of two. Put one nanofarad at its node and the network has one natural frequency, −G/C to a part in a million: −200 thousand per second with no gain, zero at A = 2, +100 thousand at A = 3. The gain at which the pole crosses is the gain at which the resistance changes sign — for this network. Loaded by a resistor it crosses at one plus R₂ times the sum of the conductances to ground, so a negative resistance is stable across a smaller load and not a larger one; a lag in the source slows the growth and does not move the crossing; a tank on the node turns the runaway into a 30.5 kHz oscillation once its coil is below about 1.5 Ω; and with an inverting source the resistance is positive at every gain and the node still oscillates beyond A = −16.

The delay of 50 Ω FR-4 track against frequency, with nothing dispersing, the dielectric causal, and the conductor causal as well. computed by solving, not by drawing at 108 frequencies on one track: 4.4 and a loss tangent of 0.02 at a gigahertz, 2 Ω/m of copper rising as √f above 1 MHz. Held constant (faint), the delay is flat above the resistance's corner. With the permittivity allowed to disperse (dashed), it falls 209.6 fs/mm from 100 MHz to 10 GHz. With the conductor's internal reactance put beside its resistance (solid), it falls 464.4 fs/mm over the same two decades: 7.389 ps/mm at 100 MHz, 7.094 at 1 GHz, 6.925 at 10 GHz.

Lines, where a wire has a length

The conductor made causal too

A dielectric that loses energy must disperse, and the essay before this one made FR-4's permittivity do so: the track's delay then falls 209.6 fs/mm from 100 MHz to 10 GHz. The copper has the same obligation. A conductor whose resistance rises as √f has an internal impedance (1 + j) times that rise, and putting the reactance beside the resistance more than doubles the fall, to 464.4 fs/mm — the conductor's share largest at low frequency, 418 of 584 fs/mm between 10 and 100 MHz, and the dielectric's constant at about 100 a decade. On a 30 ps edge after 300 mm the toe sharpens from 74.5 to 55.6 ps and the tail stretches from 221 to 398: the rise time is 453 ps against 295, and the tail-over-toe ratio a scope can read is 8.0 at 400 mm against 2.6.

The same imbalance at five winding resistances, and the fixed point three of them reach. computed by solving, not by drawing. The peak flux density in each cycle, against the cycle, under a square drive whose positive half carries 1 per cent more volt-seconds than its negative one, for winding resistances of 0, 0.05, 0.15, 0.4, 1.5 ohms. With none the flux walks to 0.35 T in 15 cycles, which is the walk an earlier measurement of this drive found. With 1.5 Ω it settles at an offset of 5.67 millitesla and stays there, because the offset draws a direct magnetising current and that current's drop across the winding opposes the imbalance. The resistance at which the two outcomes change places is 0.1014 ohms, bisected on whether saturation is reached at all. Every curve carries the identical drive; the resistance is the only difference between them.

Two windings, and the band between them

The walk that stops

A drive whose two half-cycles differ in volt-seconds walks the flux to saturation in a count of cycles, and the essay that measured it concluded that no amplitude puts the design inside a limit. That model has a stiff source and a winding of no resistance. With resistance in the loop the walk has a fixed point, held by an identity the material is not in — the mean magnetising current is the drive's direct component divided by the resistance, to seven parts in 10¹³ — and the boundary becomes a resistance rather than a time: 0.1014 ohms bisected, at a one per cent imbalance and half the volt-second limit.

Two junctions at 8 to 1 in area, at four currents from 10 µA to 10 mA. computed by solving, not by drawing: each drop is the diode law solved at its own temperature, from 200 to 400 K, with a saturation current that rises 15.0 orders of magnitude over the range. The two drops themselves sit 179 mV apart across the four currents; their difference does not move at all. It is Vₜ·ln 8 to 0.40 parts in a million at 10 mA and to 0.040% at the worst point, 10 µA at 400 K, where the larger junction's saturation current is no longer negligible against the current — 53.758 mV at 300 K, rising 179.19 µV/K — and the straight line through it reaches 0.001 µV at absolute zero (dashed).

Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

The voltage at which the slope is zero

Two junctions carrying one current, one of them eight times the other's area, differ by exactly the thermal voltage times ln 8 — 53.758 mV at 300 K, rising 179.19 µV/K along a line that reaches zero at absolute zero to a thousandth of a microvolt — while each drop alone moves 1.9 mV/K. Weighted by 10.72 and added to one drop, the difference cancels it, and the sum is then 1.171704 V. That voltage is not a coincidence of this design: every weighting of the sum leaves the band gap at absolute zero, so a reference's slope at 300 K is its distance from 1.1717 V divided by 300 K, and two hundred references built wrong three different ways sit on that one line to 0.16 nV/K. A reference is trimmed by its voltage, at one temperature, and the voltage it is trimmed to is a statement about how its current is made.

A gain of −1 on a part stable only at gains of ten, with 1.25 kΩ across its inputs. computed by solving, not by drawing. A 100 MHz amplifier whose second pole is at 20 MHz, wired as an inverter with two 10 kΩ resistors. Its signal gain is one at a kilohertz on every curve. Its noise gain is two with nothing across the inputs (dashed): 35.0° of margin and 4.4 dB of peaking. A resistor from the summing junction to ground raises the noise gain without touching the signal: at a noise gain of 10 the margin is 65.6°, the peak is 0.00 dB and the −3 dB point is 14.1 MHz.

Feedback, and the margin

The gain added to buy a margin

An amplifier sold as stable only at gains of ten — 100 MHz of gain–bandwidth, its second pole at 20 MHz — has 35.0° of margin and 4.4 dB of peaking as a gain of −1, because that gain closes its loop against two. A 1.25 kΩ resistor from the summing junction to ground raises the noise gain to ten without touching the signal gain, which stays one to a part in ten thousand, and the margin becomes 65.6°: still 14.1 MHz of bandwidth, 2.19 times what a unity-stable part from the same die gives at its natural gain. The price is everything the amplifier contributes, multiplied by ten instead of two — 64.0 nV/√Hz at the output against 20.5 — and a capacitor in series with the resistor buys back the low-frequency half of it and none of the wideband total.

A 10:1 divider into 100 pF and 15 pF more behind 1.0 kΩ, trimmed for the calibrator, on a 1 ns edge. computed by solving, not by drawing from the residues of its four poles, on a time axis from 0.1 ns to 1 ms. The trimmer is set to 12.8 pF, where a 1 kHz square wave reads flat: the upper arm then matches the lower arm's total of 115 pF. On a 1 ns edge the output overshoots to 1.128 times where it settles, because for the first few nanoseconds the late 15 pF is not yet part of the divider, and falls back over that branch's own time constant, 15 ns, within 1% only by 35.5 ns. With a second branch in the upper arm, 9.0 kΩ and 1.7 pF — a scaled copy of the late branch — the same edge is flat to 7.0e-11 (dashed).

Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

The time constant one trimmer cannot reach

A ten-to-one divider whose lower arm is 100 pF of instrument input and 15 pF more reached through a kilohm reads flat on a 1 kHz calibrator with its trimmer at 12.8 pF — the same setting as a lower arm of 115 pF lumped — and overshoots 12.8% on a 1 ns edge, settling within 1% only after 35.5 ns. No setting of the one trimmer is flat: the best judged on a fast edge is 6.1%, at 11.9 pF, and a trimmer set by eye so the fast edge lands flat leaves the calibrator's square wave 9.9% low with a 114 µs slope on its top. Flat at every time needs the upper arm to be a scaled copy of the lower one — a second branch of 9 kΩ and 1.7 pF — and then a 1 ns edge is flat to 10⁻¹⁰, with a window of −18 to +24% on that resistor and ±6% on its capacitor.

Power, and the part that does no work

The capacitor two-thirds of the way out

A feeder's reactive current costs loss in every section it passes through, and on a feeder whose load is spread along its length that current is largest at the substation and falls to nothing at the far end. Correcting it at the substation removes no loss at all. One phase of an 11 kV feeder carrying 2 MW at 0.8 lagging over ten kilometres loses 16.8 kW, of which 5.66 kW is the reactive current's; the best single capacitor is about two-thirds of the load's reactive power placed about two-thirds of the way out, and it removes 87.6% of that share — against the eight-ninths the textbook rule gives for an idealised line. Two capacitors at 2/5 and 4/5 remove 95.6%. The same capacitor left in at light load costs more than it saves below half load, and the rule for a continuous load is a statement about many taps.

The bootstrap reduced both ways: Thévenin's resistance diverges at A = 2, Norton's conductance crosses zero there. computed by solving, not by drawing at 121 gains, R₁ = R₂ = 10 kΩ. The Norton current is Vs/R₁, 0.500 mA, at every gain to a part in a billion (dashed, at 1), because shorting the node also shorts the bootstrap's input. The Norton conductance times R₁ is a straight line, 2 at A = 0 through zero at A = 2 to −1 at A = 3 (solid). The Thévenin resistance over R₁ is its reciprocal (faint, clipped at ±3): 0.5, 1 at A = 1, infinite at A = 2, −1 at A = 3. One network, two coordinate systems, and only one of them is singular exactly where the network is interesting.

Networks, and how a solve is checked

The reduction that stays finite

The bootstrap's Thévenin pair diverges at A = 2: its resistance and its open-circuit voltage both pass through infinity and the solve that finds them refuses. Its Norton pair does not. The short-circuit current is Vs/R₁, 0.5 mA, at every gain to a part in a billion, and the conductance is a straight line through zero. A bench that drives a current and reads a volt loses the network for every gain from 1.992 to 2.008; a bench that drives a volt and reads a current sees it to a nanosiemens throughout. A 0.1% error in the gain moves the conductance by a constant 0.1 µS and the resistance by an amount that diverges at the pole — and four hundred bootstraps built from 0.1% parts to sit on it have conductances within ±0.3 µS of zero and resistances that are a median 10.6 MΩ, 196 of them negative.

3 equal lags in a loop closed by an inverting gain k, from k = 0 to 12.8. computed by solving, not by drawing: the closed-loop poles, rooted from the netlist's determinant at 61 gains. At k = 0 the 3 poles coincide at −1/τ; as k rises they leave along 3 straight lines at angles π(2j + 1)/3, each ∛k/τ from the start, to the imaginary axis at k = sec(π/3) to the power 3 = 8.000. A gain of a hundredth moves them 21.5% of their own frequency; a single lag would move 1%.

Before the steady state

The root a ring of equal stages takes

Two coincident poles separate as the square root of whatever splits them; three as the cube root; m as the m-th. In a loop of m equal lags closed by a gain k, the m-fold pole leaves along an m-pointed star, each point the m-th root of k from where it started — fitted exponents 1.0000, 0.5000, 0.3333 and 0.2500 over six decades — so a loop gain of a hundredth moves a triple pole 21.5% of its frequency where a single lag would move 1%. The star's nearest points reach the imaginary axis at k = secᵐ(π/m): 8 for three lags, 4 for four, 1.884 for eight, falling towards one. Staggering three lags by a factor of four raises the gain they tolerate from 8 to 26.6, and at the same gain cuts a step's overshoot from 53.9% to 20.6% — or, at the same gain margin, buys nothing.

The Chebyshev 5's sections, each node's peak before and after equal-maxima scaling. computed by solving, not by drawing. Unscaled (lighter), section by section the largest signal anywhere inside reaches 4.537×, 3.109×, 1.000× the input, so the ceiling is 4.537× at F0b. With a gain of 0.220 at the input, 1.000 and 1.602 between sections and 2.833 at the output, every section peaks at 1× (darker) and the response is unchanged. The floor rises from 249.7 to 883.8 nV, so the range gains 2.16 dB of the 13.14 dB the internal peak was costing.

The floor, which bounds from below

The ceiling a gain gives back

A fifth-order Chebyshev loses 13.14 dB of its range because its first section's capacitor node carries 4.537 times the input. The textbook repair is to scale: divide the signal in front of the loud section, restore it later, so that every node peaks at the same level. Done exactly, with silent gains of 0.220, 1.000, 1.602 and 2.833 and the response unchanged to the last digit, it lowers the ceiling to the input and raises the floor from 249.7 to 883.8 nV — and gives back 2.16 dB of the 13.14. Every section between the division and the restoration has its noise multiplied by what the signal was divided by. On the even-order Chebyshevs scaling loses half a decibel; on the seventh-order it recovers 3.77 of 22.45. Reordering the sections and scaling them together gives 4.75 dB. The rest of the ceiling belongs to the high-Q section and no gain moves it.

Fifth-order filters between Bessel (m = 0) and Butterworth (m = 1), all at one corner: the step at m = 0.5. computed by solving, not by drawing: each pole set interpolated between the Bessel and Butterworth poles of the same rank, renormalised to a 1 kHz half-power point, built as a network and its step taken from the residues. m 0: 0.77% overshoot, 0.68 periods to 1%, 14.1 dB at 2 kHz; m 0.25: 2.19% overshoot, 0.94 periods to 1%, 16.6 dB at 2 kHz; m 0.5: 4.53% overshoot, 1.27 periods to 1%, 20.7 dB at 2 kHz; m 0.75: 7.99% overshoot, 1.58 periods to 1%, 25.7 dB at 2 kHz; m 1: 12.78% overshoot, 2.21 periods to 1%, 30.1 dB at 2 kHz. Every quantity moves monotonically from one end to the other: the families are the two ends of one line, not two choices.

Filters, measured not tabulated

The line from Bessel to Butterworth

Bessel, Butterworth and Chebyshev are taught as three choices, and measured at one order and one corner they are points on one line. Interpolate each Bessel pole towards its Butterworth partner and every quantity moves smoothly: a fifth-order filter's step overshoots 0.77% and settles to 1% in 0.68 periods of the corner as a Bessel, 4.53% and 1.27 periods halfway, 12.78% and 2.21 periods as a Butterworth, while its attenuation at twice the corner climbs from 14.1 to 30.1 dB. The Chebyshevs carry the same line on to 47.0 dB at 4.97 periods, and every step along it buys attenuation with settling time — a frontier, with no member beaten on both. Overshoot is not the price: past 0.05 dB of ripple a Chebyshev overshoots less while ringing longer. And a specification of 25 dB at twice the corner within 1.6 periods is met first at order five, by a member nobody names.

The gain a Wien oscillator needs, when one of its four parts is off its value. computed by solving, not by drawing: for each part moved alone from −5% to +5%, the gain at which the poles reach the axis, bisected on the netlist, against 1 + Rs/Rp + Cp/Cs (to ten digits at every point). A series resistor or shunt capacitor 1% high raises the gain needed to 3.0100; a shunt resistor or series capacitor 1% high lowers it to 2.9901. Every part moves the frequency the same way, by half its error: 1% high on any one of them, 1.58 kHz against 1.59 kHz. The gain needed moves by the error itself, a third of it relative to three.

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

The gain a tolerance demands

A Wien oscillator needs a gain of exactly three only when its four network parts are exactly equal. In general it needs 1 + Rs/Rp + Cp/Cs — bisected on the netlist to ten digits — so a series resistor 1% high asks for 3.0100 and a shunt resistor 1% high for 2.9901. Four thousand seeded oscillators from 1% parts set to the textbook's comfortable 3.02 leave a quarter of them silent; 99.9% start only at 3.072, and at that setting the median unit distorts 2.6% — the limiter has to absorb a margin the tolerance forced. The frequency spreads by one part's own spread, 0.58% for 1% parts, as large as the limiter's own 0.771% shift. Parts from one array, tracking to 0.05%, need only 3.0035, because the gain depends on ratios and the frequency on products.

A reference flattened at 300 K, from −40 to 125 °C, with its core current as T to the 1. computed by solving, not by drawing every 1.25 K. The reference has zero slope at 300 K by construction and its output there is 1.17170 V. It is never flat anywhere else: it falls 1.391 mV by −40 °C and 2.526 mV by 125 °C, a bow of 2.526 mV that no choice of the weight can remove, and the residue matches −(xti − α)·Vₜ·[x ln x − (x − 1)] with x = T/300 K (dashed) to within the diode law's "+1".

Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

The bow a trim leaves

A band-gap reference trimmed to zero slope at 300 K is flat at exactly one temperature. Everywhere else it falls: 1.39 mV by −40 °C and 2.53 mV by 125 °C for a core biased proportional to absolute temperature, 3.79 mV for one run at a constant current, and nothing at all for one whose current rises as the cube of temperature. The residue is (xti − α) thermal voltages times x ln x − (x − 1), with x the temperature over the trim temperature, and six references of different bias, exponent and current fall on that one curve. The least box, 1.9 mV, comes from making the slope zero at 39 °C rather than at room temperature; quoted per kelvin it is 9.8 ppm/K over the automotive range and 4.2 over the commercial one. A third junction supplies the bow's own shape, and subtracting it leaves 18 µV — at an output that is then the band gap itself.

Two windings, and the band between them

The leakage a series reading cannot see

The series-aiding and series-opposing readings recover a coupling coefficient to fifteen figures on a netlist, and on a bench with a 0.1% meter they recover it to about 0.001 at every coupling — which is useless exactly where transformers live. At k = 0.999 the leakage, L₁(1 − k²), is two thousandths of the winding, and the series route leaves it 133% uncertain: 88 of 400 seeded benches report a negative leakage. Shorting the other winding reads the leakage directly, to the meter's own 0.1%, and recovers k 943 times more precisely at 0.999. The short is a short only where the shorted winding's reactance dwarfs its resistance by 10k/√(1 − k²), and the winding to short is the one with the longer time constant.

A capacitor charged from 5 V through 1 mH, with and without a diode, at a circuit Q of 10. computed by solving, not by drawing, from the netlist's poles. Without a diode the capacitor rings about 5 V and settles there, and the resistance takes 1.00000 of ½CV² — exactly what a resistor alone would take. With an ideal diode in series the current stops at its first zero, 99.5 µs in, and the capacitor is left at 9.272 V, which is V(1 + d) with d = 0.8545 the step's overshoot. That charge cost 0.2699 of ½CV².

Before the steady state

The swing a diode keeps

Charging a capacitor through a resistor loses half the energy whatever the resistance, and putting an inductor in the path changes nothing: twenty-four settled charges from 10 µH to 10 mH and Q from 0.3 to 100 lose ½CV² to 1.4 parts in a hundred million. A diode that stops the current at its first zero changes everything. The capacitor keeps the overshoot, V(1 + d), the loss falls to ½CV²(1 − d²), and a charge of duration T costs π²/8 of what a ramp of the same duration costs.

Five readings of one passive ladder network, each taken forwards and backwards. computed by solving, not by drawing; every reading built as its own netlist, never converted from another. Transimpedance (current in, open-circuit voltage out), transadmittance (voltage in, short-circuit current out) and the reverse voltage gain against minus the forward current gain all give a ratio of one, to 1.0e-13. The voltage gain forwards against backwards does not: 1.000 at 100 Hz, 2.129 at 1 MHz. Nor does the current gain.

Networks, and how a solve is checked

The readings that come back the same

Reciprocity is usually stated as 'swap the source and the meter and the reading is unchanged', and that is true of some readings and false of others. On one passive ladder network the transimpedance, the transadmittance, and the reverse voltage gain against the forward current gain each come back the same to 10⁻¹³, while the voltage gain forwards and backwards differ by 13.1 times at 82.5 kHz — exactly z₂₂/z₁₁. A 600-to-50-ohm pad has voltage gains of 0.0426 and 0.511 and one power gain both ways. A controlled source breaks all three reciprocal pairs by the same factor.

Near-end crosstalk from a 200 ps edge, 100 mm of coupled track against 10 mm. computed by solving, not by drawing, the pair solved mode by mode and returned to time from its harmonics. Over 100 mm the near end rises with the edge, holds a plateau of 12.51 mV per volt for twice the line's delay, 1.33 ns, and falls. Over 10 mm the round trip is shorter than the edge and the pulse never reaches the plateau: 8.34 mV. The plateau is Kb, a quarter of the sum of the two couplings, on the 0.5 V the driven line carries: 12.50 mV.

Lines, where a wire has a length

The near end that stops growing

Near-end crosstalk is a length only until the coupled run's round trip equals the edge's rise time; past that it is a constant. Solved mode by mode and returned to time, a 200 ps edge on 100 mm of coupled track gives a plateau of 12.51 mV per volt — Kb, a quarter of the sum of the two couplings, on the driven line's half-volt — held for the 1.33 ns round trip. The knee is at v·tr/2: 7 mm for a 100 ps edge, 75 mm for 1 ns. Past it a longer run adds width and not height, and the pulse's area keeps growing as Kb times the round trip.

A chebyshev low-pass of order 5: where its impulse response balances, and where its step crosses half. computed by solving, not by drawing, the step built from the network's poles and the impulse response its derivative. The impulse response (dark, scaled to its peak) balances at 0.7090 ms; the group delay at a thousandth of the corner is 0.7090 ms — the same number by a different route. The step (pale) crosses half its final value at 0.7238 ms, 2.1% after it.

Filters, measured not tabulated

The delay that is a centre of mass

A filter's group delay at zero frequency is not an approximation to when its step arrives; it is exactly where its impulse response balances. Across three families and orders one to seven the two agree to 5.7 parts in a million by routes that share only the netlist. The step's half-way point is a different thing: ln 2 of the delay for one pole, approaching it from below for a Bessel filter, and passing it — by up to 16.9 per cent — for Butterworth and Chebyshev filters whose impulse responses swing negative. Elmore's RC-tree delay is the same centre of mass, and a uniform ladder network crosses half at 0.757 of it.

One series resonator of Q = 1, read five ways. computed by solving, not by drawing; every reading from the solved network, none from its formula. The half-power bandwidth, the phase slope at resonance and the energy ratio driven at resonance give 1.0000, 1.0000 and 1.0000 — Q exactly. The ring-down's logarithmic decrement gives 0.8660, and the largest capacitor-voltage magnification 1.1547.

Frequency, which is the same solve

Five readings of one Q

A resonator's Q can be read from its bandwidth, from the slope of its phase, from the energy it stores against the energy it loses, from how fast its ringing dies and from how high its response peaks. On one series resonator at Q = 1 the first three give 1.0000 and the last two 0.8660 and 1.1547. Bandwidth, phase slope and energy are Q exactly at every Q, because they are one equation read three ways; the ring-down reads Q√(1 − 1/4Q²) because a damped cycle is longer than a natural one, and the peak reads the reciprocal because the peak is not at resonance. Each is within 1% of Q only above 3.5.

The quantisation error's power as a function of where the input sits, for four dithers. computed by solving, not by drawing; the error's mean square given the input, integrated over each dither's density through the converter's own quantiser, and checked against seeded draws to 6 × 10⁻³. Undithered it is the square of a sawtooth, x² up to half a step and (1 − x)² beyond. One uniform step makes it x(1 − x): zero at a code, a quarter of a step² between codes — the error's power is carried by the signal. Two steps (triangular) hold it at ¼ everywhere, and one step subtracted after the converter at 1/12 everywhere. Averaged over the input the prices are 3.01, 4.77 and 0.00 dB against the undithered 1/12.

Where a signal becomes a number

One step of dither per moment

A whole step of uniform dither makes a quantiser's error average to zero wherever the input sits, and leaves its power at x(1 − x) steps²: zero at a code and a quarter between codes, so the noise rises and falls with the signal. Two steps — a triangular dither — hold the power at a quarter everywhere and leave the third moment swinging by 0.096 steps³; three steps fix that too. Each added step fixes one more moment of the error and costs a twelfth of a step² of power: 3.01 dB for one, 4.77 for two. Subtracted after the converter, one step fixes the error's whole distribution for 0.00 dB.

A 1 µF capacitor at 5 V joined through 100 Ω to an empty one of the same size. computed by solving, not by drawing, from the netlist's poles. Charge is conserved and both settle at 2.500 V. Energy is not: the pair holds 50.0% of the 12.50 µJ the first one started with, and the resistor has taken 50.00% — C2/(C1 + C2), with no resistance in it.

Before the steady state

The energy two capacitors cannot share

Join a charged capacitor to an empty one and the charge is shared exactly while the energy is not: the pair loses C₂/(C₁ + C₂) of what the first one held, through 1 Ω or 10 kΩ, with an inductor ringing for hundreds of cycles or without one. An inductor and a diode turn the sharing into an exchange — equal capacitors swap 96.9% of the energy at a loop Q of 50. And a charge pump is the sharing loss billed once a cycle: a doubler's efficiency is its output voltage over twice its input, to four parts in ten million, at every load and every clock.

Power, and the part that does no work

The harmonic that names an inrush

A transformer's differential relay sees an inrush as current going in and nothing coming out, which is what an internal fault looks like, and it tells them apart by the second harmonic. Marched cycle by cycle, an inrush starts at 79% second harmonic and stays above the usual 15% restraint for thirty cycles — long after its current has fallen from 88 A to 205 mA, because the current unwinds in a few cycles and the flux offset under it takes seconds. A fault's offset is a smooth exponential and peaks at 14.6% only when X/R is as low as three.

A terminated ladder network's output noise three ways: one solve per resistor, one solve from the output, and 4kT·Re{Z}. computed by solving, not by drawing, at 290 K. The line is 4kT·Re{Zout}. The dots sum each resistor's 4kT/R through its own transfer to the output, one solve per resistor. The rings get the same transfers from a single solve with an ampere injected at the output — reciprocity — and agree to 4.4e-16; the sum agrees with Nyquist's expression to 4.4e-16. 4.60 nV/√Hz at 100 Hz, 3.82 at 1 MHz.

Networks, and how a solve is checked

The resistance colder than the room

In a passive network the noise at a port is 4kT times the real part of its impedance, and reciprocity is why: the transfer from each resistor to the port equals the transfer from the port to that resistor, so one solve from the output gives every resistor's share and the shares add to Nyquist's expression, here to 4.4 × 10⁻¹⁶. With gain in the network both fail. A 50-ohm termination made by feedback around an amplifier of gain A presents 50.000 Ω and has the noise of a 50-ohm resistor at 290/(1 + A) kelvin — 2.90 K at a gain of 99 — but only where the amplifier still has its gain.

Both ends of the quiet line, 100 mm of microstrip-like coupling, edge 200 ps. computed by solving, not by drawing. The near end (pale) is the saturated plateau, 16.28 mV per volt. The far end (dark) is a single pulse arriving with the edge after one delay, 0.676 ns, as wide as the edge and 25.16 mV per volt deep — negative, because the inductive coupling exceeds the capacitive. Its depth is the coupling difference, the delay and the edge's slope multiplied: 24.96 predicted.

Lines, where a wire has a length

The far end that is a derivative

Where the two couplings are unequal the far end does not cancel, and in time it is the derivative of the edge: a single pulse as wide as the rise time, arriving after one delay, its height the coupling difference times the delay times the edge's slope. On 100 mm of microstrip-like coupling a 200 ps edge gives −25.16 mV per volt against 24.96 predicted, and the height falls as one over the rise time with a fitted slope of −1.000 while the saturated near end sits still. It grows with length without a knee until the two modes separate by a whole edge — 249 mm for a 50 ps edge — and then stops at half the driven line's voltage.

A 1 kHz tone burst through a band-pass of Q = 10, centred on its resonance. computed by solving, not by drawing, marched twice — sine and cosine carriers — so the output's envelope is the modulus of the two, exactly. The input envelope (pale) peaks at 240 ms; the output's (dark) at 243.171 ms, 3.171 ms late. The group delay at resonance is 2Q/ω₀ = 3.183 ms. The phase there is zero, so the carrier itself is not delayed at all.

Filters, measured not tabulated

The envelope that leaves early

A band-pass's group delay at its centre is the delay of an envelope, not of a carrier. Marched twice — on a sine and a cosine carrier, so the envelope is their modulus exactly — a 1 kHz burst through a band-pass of Q = 10 comes out 3.171 ms late against 2Q/ω₀ = 3.183, while the carrier's zero crossings come out within 6.4 µs of where they went in. Through a notch, whose group delay at its centre is −3.810 ms, the envelope peaks 3.746 ms before the input's. Neither is a paradox, and both hold only for bursts long against the inverse bandwidth: 60.6 per cent wrong at 0.6 of it, 0.7 per cent at 20.

The Q a 10 mH coil with 1.2 Ω of winding and 8 pF across it shows, against frequency. computed by solving, not by drawing, the coil's impedance at each frequency and its reactance over its resistance. The straight ωL/R line (pale) rises without limit; the coil's Q follows it at first, peaks at 11340 at 325 kHz — 0.5773 of the 563 kHz self-resonance, which is 1/√3 — and falls to zero at the resonance. The peak is 0.3849 of what the line reaches at resonance, 2/(3√3).

Two windings, and the band between them

The Q that peaks before resonance

A coil's quality factor is quoted as ωL/R and drawn rising with frequency, and its own winding capacitance turns it over: Q peaks at the self-resonance over √3 and falls to zero at the resonance. Eighteen coils from 1 mH with 300 pF to 100 mH with 1 pF all peak at 0.5774 of their resonance, at 2/(3√3) of the line's value there. Skin effect moves the peak down toward the resonance over √5. And the falling Q is a property of the coil read alone: in a tank tuned at 0.8 of its self-resonance, the same coil gives the full ωL/R, 23,570 against the 8,485 a meter reads off the bare part.

Three loops with exactly 45° of phase margin, and their step responses. computed by solving, not by drawing; three lags spaced by a ratio r, the amplifier's gain bisected in each for a 45.000° margin, the step from the closed loop's residues. Lags a hundredfold apart need a loop gain of 141 and overshoot 23.6%. Spaced by three they need 4.7 and overshoot 34.5%; coincident, 2.83 and 41.0%. The same margin, and overshoots 1.73 times apart.

Feedback, and the margin

One margin, and the gain under it

A phase margin of 45° is quoted as an overshoot of 23 per cent, and on a loop with plenty of gain below its crossover it is: three lags a hundredfold apart, closed at 45°, overshoot 23.6%. Bring the same three lags together and the loop reaches 45° at a loop gain of 2.83 instead of 141, and overshoots 41.0% — the same margin, 1.73 times the ringing. The closed-loop peak follows the overshoot where the margin does not: predicted from the peak the worst error over 27 loops is 3.1 points, from the margin 22.2. The gain margin moves with it, from 37.2 dB to 9.0.

The common-emitter stage from a 100 Ω source: the solved response against the Miller estimate. computed by solving, not by drawing. The stage of 1 mA, 5 kΩ load, Cπ 20 pF and Cμ 2 pF has a gain from base to collector of 182.0. From 100 Ω the network's bandwidth is 3.41 MHz; the Miller estimate — Cμ moved to the input, multiplied by one plus the gain — says 4.23 MHz, 1.24 times it. The estimate has one pole, at the input; the network has two, and from a low source the second is the one that sets the bandwidth.

Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

The node the bandwidth belongs to

The Miller estimate puts a common-emitter stage's bandwidth at its input node, and whether that is right depends on the source. From 10 kΩ it is within 1% at every load from a gain of 19 to 1,190; from 100 Ω it is 24% optimistic and from 10 Ω 3.41 times, because the input node has become fast and the output node sets the bandwidth. The stage's two poles split from 92 to 2,993 times apart as the source rises. A load capacitance the estimate cannot see takes the bandwidth from 12.1 MHz to 1.49 MHz from 10 Ω and moves it 6% from 100 kΩ. And the multiplier is the gain from base to collector, 182 — not the 144.7 from the source.

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

The gain an amplifier asks for, squared

A Wien oscillator built round a real amplifier needs more than a gain of three, and the excess is easy to overrate: the amplifier's lag moves the frequency in proportion to the lag and the required gain only in proportion to its square. At a gain–bandwidth product a hundred times the oscillation frequency the frequency is 4.22 per cent low and the gain needed is 3.00257 — fifty-one times smaller in proportion. The square is also what makes the bias spread: an amplifier 30 per cent slow asks for 1.94 times the typical excess. Against 1 per cent parts the amplifier matches the network's share at a ratio of 16; against a network matched to 0.05 per cent, not until 86.

A zero on the right at 1.00 kHz: the straight lines report 46.47° of margin, and the loop has 18.19°. computed by solving, not by drawing, the closed form held to the netlist — an inverting differentiator added back to its input makes the zero — at three frequencies and to the closed loop's poles. An integrator with a zero in the right half-plane at 1.00 kHz, the integrator set so that the straight lines cross unity at 950 Hz. The magnitude, and so the lines, are those of a zero on the left; the phase falls by the zero's angle where the left zero's would rise (dashed). The loop crosses at 3.04 kHz. Read at the lines' crossing with the loop's own phase the margin is 46.47°, and 133.53° with the phase the magnitude implies; at the loop's own crossing it is 18.19°.

Frequency, which is the same solve

The zero the lines put on the wrong side

A zero in the right half-plane has exactly the magnitude of its mirror on the left, so it has exactly the same straight lines, and nothing drawn from a magnitude can say which side it is on. The phase can: it falls where the mirror's rises. An integrator and such a zero, read off its lines, reports 90° − atan x of margin on a loop that has acos x, where x is where the lines cross as a fraction of the zero — so the lines say 45° of a loop with none. Behind one real pole the over-report reaches 37.6° on a loop of 2.1° when the zero sits below the pole, and vanishes when it sits above it: the reading is unsafe exactly when the zero comes first.

An eighteen-segment diode table built at 300 K, carried to other temperatures four ways: the worst error over six decades of current. computed by solving, not by drawing: the two-mechanism junction's law moved with temperature, eighteen equal-ratio minimax segments from 100 nA to 100 mA fitted at 300 K (worst 1.886 mV). Unchanged, the table is out by 163.0 mV at 250 K and 265.5 mV at 400 K. One shift of every drop leaves 47.14 mV and 38.32 mV at 250 and 350 K. A shift per segment leaves 3.768 mV and 3.839 mV — and 14.67 mV at 400 K. Refitting every segment on the same breakpoints holds 1.573 mV to 2.379 mV at every temperature: the breakpoints never need to move.

Where the models stop

The table that has to be refitted

Eighteen straight segments model a real diode from 100 nA to 100 mA to within 1.886 mV at 300 K. Carried to 350 K unchanged they are 149 mV out; moved by one common shift, 38.3 mV, because the drops at the bottom of the table fall 3.31 mV a kelvin and those at the top 1.54; moved by a shift each, 3.84 mV. That last correction holds within twice the table's own error over fifty kelvin either way and fails at 400 K, where the bottom of the table has dropped below the junction's own recombination current and is no longer an exponential at all. Refitted on the same breakpoints the table holds 1.57 to 2.38 mV at every temperature: the breakpoints never need to move, and the lines always do.

One, two, three and four means of twenty milliseconds in cascade: the response, and the band each holds forty decibels down. computed by solving, not by drawing: |sin(πfT)/(πfT)|ⁿ with T = 20 ms, held against running means on samples at three frequencies. Each mean nulls 50 Hz, so n of them null it to order n, and their first sidelobe sits at −13.26 dB a mean. Forty decibels down, one mean holds 49.50–50.51 Hz, two 45.40–55.69, three 40.71–69.49 — its sidelobe at −39.78 dB just above the line — and four everything above 36.90 Hz: the null has become a stopband.

The floor, which bounds from below

The mean that makes a stopband

A cascade of n means of one mains period holds, at a depth D, exactly the band a single mean holds at D/n — to a part in a million, because the cascade's response is the single mean's raised to the nth power. That one identity answers whether the third mean pays. Forty decibels down, two means hold 45.4 to 55.7 Hz, three 40.7 to 69.5, and four hold everything above 36.9 Hz: once D/n is shallower than one mean's first sidelobe, 13.26 dB, the null stops being a null and becomes a stopband. The price is a mains period of settling per mean and a noise bandwidth that exceeds a single mean of the same length by √(3n/π) — a factor that never stops growing.

A second-order four-bit loop whose integrators are built round amplifiers of finite gain: the ratio in the band against oversampling. computed by solving, not by drawing: each integrator's pole at 1 − 1/A, half-scale input, half a step of shaped dither, three seeds averaged, squared Hann window. With perfect integrators the ratio rises 15.1 dB an octave, to 138.9 dB at 512. With A = 1000: 138.5 dB at 512, 0.4 below; with A = 100: 122.3 dB at 512, 16.6 below; with A = 30: 102.9 dB at 512, 35.9 below; with A = 10: 85.0 dB at 512, 53.9 below. Each curve leaves the ideal one near a ratio of about πA; for A = 10 the last octave gains 2.7 dB against the ideal's 15.1 — toward the three an octave a floor that is not shaped improves at.

Where a signal becomes a number

The integrator that leaks the zero away

A noise-shaping loop puts its error's zero at zero frequency because its integrators never forget. An integrator built round an amplifier of gain A forgets a part in A every sample, and the zero moves off zero frequency to a floor. The cost is a function of one number, the oversampling ratio over π times the gain: for two leaky integrators it is 10 log(1 + (10/3)x² + 5x⁴), which the marched loops follow to within two decibels from gains of 10 to 300, and keeping it under a decibel needs a gain of 1.2 times the oversampling ratio. A first-order loop pays a second way: inputs within exactly 1/(2A − 1) of zero leave its output where it was.

Frequency, which is the same solve

The ring a drive leaves behind

Stopping a resonator's drive removes the arrow that turned at the drive's frequency and leaves the one that turns at the circuit's own, and how long that arrow is depends on the instant the drive stopped. Its length is the energy the circuit held at that instant, and off resonance the energy is not constant through a cycle: it breathes between the capacitor's peak and the inductor's, which differ by (ω/ω₀)². So above resonance a drive stopped as the capacitor's voltage passes through zero leaves a ring 1.2015 times the settled amplitude at 1.2 times resonance, and its first crest passes the settled value; below resonance no instant does.

A chain of identical one-pole stages: the time its step takes to settle within 1%, against the number of stages. computed by solving, not by drawing: the chain's step response is the Erlang distribution's, and its 1% settling bisected on it, held against a fourth-order march of the chain at one, four and sixteen stages. One stage settles in 4.61τ, the familiar ln 100; four in 10.0τ, sixteen in 26.7τ, a thousand and twenty-four in 1099.9τ. The frequency edge's rule, √N stretched by the bandwidth that holds 1% (faint), says sixteen stages need 4.02 times one stage's time; they need 5.81. For a long chain the settling time approaches the delay, N time constants (dashed): 1.074 of it at 1024 stages. For one stage (τ = 1.59 µs at 100 kHz) the 1% time is 7.33 µs.

Where the models stop

The delay a chain adds

A chain of one-pole stages leaves its flat band as the square root of the number of stages, and it leaves its settling time faster: four stages take 10.0 time constants to settle within 1 per cent against one stage's 4.61, sixteen take 26.7 — 5.81 times one stage, where the frequency rule allows 4.02. The difference is a delay. The chain's step is the sum of N exponential lags, so it is an edge of mean N time constants and spread √N; the magnitude response sees only the spread. At a thousand stages the 1 per cent time is 1.074 of the delay. A chain budgeted to stay flat to 1 per cent settles to 1 per cent 45 per cent late.

A gain of ten round an amplifier with a second pole: its half-power bandwidth and its noise bandwidth, each over what the gain–bandwidth product predicts. computed by solving, not by drawing: the stage as a netlist round a two-pole amplifier of 1 MHz, the second pole placed at r times GBW/G. The half-power bandwidth agrees with the second-order closed form √r·g(√r/2) to two parts in a thousand at every placement: 1.000 at r = 0.5, 1.272 at r = 1, 1.414 at r = 2, 1.231 at r = 5, 1.110 at r = 10, 1.010 at r = 100 times GBW/G. It is 1.414 times the product's prediction at r = 2 and within ten per cent only beyond r = 10. The noise bandwidth is (π/2)·GBW/G to half a per cent at every r: the second pole moves the one and leaves the other where it was.

Feedback, and the margin

The bandwidth the product still gets right

Gain times bandwidth is a constant for an amplifier with one pole, and real amplifiers have a second. Put it at r times the closed-loop bandwidth the product predicts and the half-power bandwidth becomes √r·g(√r/2) times GBW/G — 41.4 per cent wide at r = 2, within ten per cent only beyond r = 10 — so a follower round a 1 MHz part with its second pole at 2.5 MHz runs 40 per cent wider than the rule says. The noise bandwidth does not move at all. A second-order loop's noise bandwidth is set by one coefficient the second pole cannot touch, and it stays (π/2)·GBW/G at every r and every gain, to half a per cent on the netlist. A third pole is what breaks it.

The group delay of fifth-order filters along the line from Bessel to Butterworth, and of a 0.1 dB Chebyshev, all with one half-power point. computed by solving, not by drawing: the delay as a sum over each pole set's poles, held to the slope of each realised network's own phase at four frequencies. At zero frequency the delay is 0.386, 0.413, 0.449, 0.488, 0.515, 0.633 periods of the corner; across the passband it varies by 0.40%, 5.7%, 16.4%, 34.1%, 59.6%, 122.7% of that. The Bessel is flat to the corner and beyond; every step toward Butterworth bends the delay up into a peak near the corner, and the Chebyshev's peak is the largest.

Filters, measured not tabulated

The attenuation a flat delay cannot buy

Along the fifth-order line from Bessel to Butterworth the group delay's spread across the passband grows at every step, from 0.40 per cent to 59.6, and on through the Chebyshevs to 191 — monotone, like overshoot and settling, and lost fastest in the first eighth of the way. The third axis turns the frontier into something sharper than a trade. More order flattens a Bessel's delay four to seven times an order and buys it no attenuation at all: 14.17 dB at twice the corner at order six is the most any Bessel reaches, and from there the attenuation falls toward the 12.04 dB of the Gaussian every delay-flat filter tends to. A flat delay and a steep skirt cannot both come from poles.

A 3.3 V edge from a 10 Ω driver down a 50 Ω line of 1 ns, received through 50 Ω in series with four capacitors, beside a plain 50 Ω and an open end. computed by solving, not by drawing: the line marched by its characteristics. The open end rings up to 5.50 V; the plain resistor holds 2.750 V, the launched level, and never reaches the swing. With the capacitor the far end arrives at the same 2.75 V and then climbs as the capacitor charges and stops terminating: with a time constant of half a round trip (20.0 pF) it overshoots to 4.48 V; with one, 3.83 V; with three (120 pF) it rises without overshoot to 3.30 V by 24 ns; with ten, 3.13 V by 24 ns, still on its way.

Lines, where a wire has a length

The termination that runs out

A 50 Ω resistor at the end of a line terminates every edge and draws current for as long as the line is held high: 75.6 mW on an alternating pattern from a 3.3 V, 10 Ω driver. Put a capacitor in series with it and the standing current is gone, and so, eventually, is the termination: the far end reflects nothing as an edge arrives and the whole of it once the capacitor has charged, by one less the exponential of −t/2Z₀C exactly. Under two round trips of time constant the receiver overshoots — 54.8 per cent at a quarter of one — and above it the receiver waits on the capacitor to reach the swing. On a pseudo-random pattern the levels are tightest at three round trips, and on a fast pattern the capacitor holds the line's mean and the resistor still burns half of what a plain one does.

$Three trackers finding a panel's maximum power from open circuit, against the number of readings each takes. computed by solving, not by drawing: the single-diode panel of 81.0 W at 17.244 V, every tracker starting at 0.995 of the 19.85 V open-circuit voltage. Perturb-and-observe with 0.2 V steps walks down and then oscillates about the maximum, within two parts in a thousand of it from reading 39. Newton on I + V·dI/dV, two readings a step for the current and its slope, is within a part in a million from reading 10. The fractional open-circuit rule needs one reading and lands exactly, because its fraction, 0.8686, was taken at this light.$ Networks, and how a solve is checked

How many readings a maximum takes

A panel's maximum power sits where I + V·dI/dV is zero, and a tracker finds it by reading the panel. From open circuit, perturb-and-observe in 0.2 V steps takes 39 readings to come within two parts in a thousand and then oscillates about the maximum forever, giving up 7|P''|δ²/24 of it; Newton's method on the condition itself takes 10 readings to come within a part in a million, the digits doubling at each step. Newton converges only from a window: above 15.82 V on a panel whose maximum is at 17.24, because below it the condition is nearly the short-circuit current and nearly flat, and one step leaves the characteristic. And the one-reading rule — a fixed fraction of the open-circuit voltage — loses nothing at the light it was set at and 17 per cent at a fiftieth of it.

The harmonics of one phase of three balanced rectifier loads conducting 60°, each sorted into the sequence its three phasors form. computed by solving, not by drawing: each harmonic of the three phases decomposed into zero, positive and negative sequence. Every one is a single sequence to the arithmetic's floor: h1 positive, h3 zero, h5 negative, h7 positive, h9 zero, h11 negative, h13 positive, h15 zero. A balanced set shifts harmonic h by h × 120° between phases, so the third and its multiples are not shifted at all — zero sequence — the seventh is shifted as the fundamental is, and the fifth the other way round. Relative to the fundamental, the zero-sequence harmonics together are 72.5%, the negative 24.1% and the positive 16.7%.

Power, and the part that does no work

The sequence a harmonic belongs to

Symmetrical components are defined on phasors, so they describe one frequency, and a rectifier load's current has many. Taken harmonic by harmonic, three balanced loads give a single sequence at every harmonic, to the arithmetic's floor: the third and its multiples zero sequence, the seventh, thirteenth and nineteenth positive, the fifth, eleventh and seventeenth negative — because harmonic h is shifted h × 120° between phases. The sequence decides where each harmonic can go. Connected line to line, the loads put no triplen in a line at all: 3.32 A of them circulates round the delta and never leaves it. Fed through a delta–wye transformer beside a second group, the fifth and seventh cancel in the supply and the eleventh and thirteenth remain, because the transformer turns the two sequences opposite ways.

A half-micron field-effect device's current against its gate voltage at 250, 300, 350 and 400 K, and the gate voltage at which they agree. computed by solving, not by drawing: mobility falling as T^−1.5, threshold falling 2 mV a kelvin, velocity saturation at 2 V. Below the crossing a warmer device draws more, because its threshold has fallen; above it less, because its mobility has. The curves agree at 1.7000 V, 1.0000 V of overdrive — the closed form's 2κT·vc/(1.5·vc − κT) — where 300 K draws 0.667 mA and 250 and 400 K draw 0.669 and 0.673 mA.

Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

The overdrive at which temperature cancels

A field-effect device's current has two temperature coefficients pulling opposite ways: its threshold falls about two millivolts a kelvin, which raises the current, and its mobility falls as the temperature to the −1.5, which lowers it. They cancel at one overdrive, (4/3)κT = 0.800 V for a long channel, and the device's curves at every temperature cross there. Velocity saturation moves the crossing up — to 1.000 V at half a micron and 2.400 V at 0.15 µm — and, if the saturation velocity does not itself change with temperature, removes it altogether below a hundred nanometres. Below the zero a warmer device takes more current, the bipolar runaway in a device said to be free of it: 26 per cent more for 10 K at 0.1 V of overdrive.

A 10 µs lead-inductance resonance holds the start at t⁴ until √12·τr = 34.6 µs, at a damping of 0.1 or any other. Expanded about infinity, and by residues after. The start of the step through two buffered RC sections (τ = 1 ms and 0.5 ms) on logarithmic axes: bare, a line of slope two (dashed), and with a buffered series resistance and lead inductance into a stray capacitance of natural time constant τr = 10 µs and damping 0.1 (solid). The relative degree rises by two, so the start is the bare step times t²/(12τr²) — the faint line, checked on the expansion to three per cent a hundredth of τr in — until the two meet at √12·τr = 34.6 µs. The damping does not enter that coefficient: it is the inductance and the capacitance, through τr² = LC, and nothing else. After it the curve rejoins the bare one, displaced by a delay that the damping does set.

Before the steady state

The delay an inductance does not add

Lead inductance against a stray capacitance is a resonance, and far above a network's bandwidth it raises the relative degree by two: a two-section step starts as t⁴ instead of t² until √12·τr — 34.6 µs for a 10 µs resonance — at any damping, because the coefficient is LC and nothing else. After that the resonance moves a half-way threshold by R·C, its first moment, and the inductance is not in it. It moves every threshold by R·C only at ζ = 1/√2, where its second moment is a pure delay's, and below that its variance is negative: at ζ = 0.1 the 1% point moves by 1.48 R·C while the 10–90 rise time gets shorter. The ring that reaches the output is the network's own gain at the resonance, 2.0 × 10⁻⁴ at ω0τ = 100, and the quality factor decides only how long it lasts. Lightly damped, the start is a staircase that touches the bare step once a period and never overtakes it.

A milliohm read four-terminal with a drifting thermoelectric EMF: the error against the test current, read three ways, and the shunt's own heating. computed by solving, not by drawing: an EMF of 0.5 µV settled plus 1 µV relaxing with a minute's time constant, read thirty seconds after a disturbance with readings a second apart; the shunt 20 ppm/K and 20 K/W. At 10 mA one polarity is out by 11.1%, a reversal by 501 ppm, the three-reading delta by 4.14 ppm. Every EMF error falls as 1/I; the heating, 0.400 ppm at an ampere, rises as I². The best current is 11 A for one polarity (149 ppm in all), 1.8 A reversed (4.08 ppm) and 0.37 A with the delta (0.167 ppm).

Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

The voltage four wires carry in

Four wires remove a resistance measurement's leads by keeping the sense loop free of current, and that loop is exactly where a thermoelectric voltage lives. Ten milliamps through a milliohm is ten microvolts, so every microvolt where a copper lead meets a brass terminal moves a single-polarity reading by a tenth. Reversing the current removes any EMF that holds still and leaves the change over one interval; the + − + delta leaves the second difference; four readings leave the third — 501 ppm, 4.14 and less at 10 mA while a disturbed junction settles. Against the shunt's own heating each scheme has a best current, and the least error rises only as the cube root of the shunt's temperature coefficient: the reading method moves the error by orders of magnitude, the alloy by a cube root.

The Q of a 10 mH coil with 1.2 Ω of winding and 8 pF across it, with cores whose own Q is 1000, 300, 100 and 50. computed by solving, not by drawing: the core's loss a resistance ωL·Qc across the inductance, constant loss tangent, the coil solved at each frequency. Without a core loss the Q peaks at 11340 at 325 kHz, the self-resonance over √3. With the cores: 825.6 at 136 kHz for Qc = 1000, 274.9 at 94.0 kHz for Qc = 300, 95.9 at 66.2 kHz for Qc = 100, 48.7 at 52.8 kHz for Qc = 50. The peak falls to just under the core's own Q for a poor core and further under it for a good one, and moves down from the self-resonance over √3.

Two windings, and the band between them

The Q a core allows

A coil's Q, limited by its winding and its own capacitance, peaks at the self-resonance over √3. Put a core with a loss of its own across the inductance and the peak falls and moves: with a core whose own Q is 100, the 10 mH coil that peaked at 11,340 near 325 kHz peaks at 95.9 near 66 kHz. The peak sits where x³ = a/2 — x the frequency over the self-resonance, a the core's Q over the winding's — and reaches the core's Q less three times the two-thirds power of a/2 of it. At that peak the core carries 97 per cent of the loss, so a better winding hardly moves it. A core whose loss is a fixed resistance instead puts the peak at the geometric mean of two corners, as high as half the square root of the core's resistance over the winding's; a loss tangent that rises with frequency drags the peak down to the material's corner.

A 20 dB line from 300 K down to 4 K, fed from a 300 K source: how much of the noise at its cold end each piece of it makes. computed by solving, not by drawing: the line as forty matched pads, each at the temperature of its own place on a linear gradient, each pad's law held to the resistor-by-resistor sum. The noise temperature at the cold end is 67.7 K — the continuous line's closed form gives 67.63 K — of which 3 K is the source's, attenuated, and the rest the line's own. Each piece emits (1 − 1/L)T at its own temperature and is attenuated by every piece after it, so the warm pieces at the start, which emit most, are attenuated most: the warm half of the line supplies 17.99 K, the cold half 46.71 K.

The floor, which bounds from below

The end a lossy line looks like

A line running from room temperature into a 4 K stage is a chain of pads, each at its own temperature, and its noise at the cold end is each piece's emission attenuated by everything after it. Cut into forty pads along a linear gradient, a 20 dB line fed from a 300 K source delivers 67.7 K to the cold end, where the continuous closed form says 67.63; its cold half supplies 46.7 K of that and its warm half 18.0. Read from the warm end, the same line's own noise is 184 K at 10 dB against 89.7 at the cold: a lossy line looks like the end it is read from. And twenty decibels placed as one attenuator at the 4 K stage deliver 6.96 K, where at room temperature they deliver 300.

A cascode is 15.9 times wider than the plain stage from 100 kΩ and 1.30 times from 10 Ω, with a 5 kΩ load. computed by solving, not by drawing, each bandwidth bisected on the solved magnitude. The common-emitter stage of 1 mA, Cπ 20 pF and Cμ 2 pF into 5 kΩ, alone and with a second device stacked on its collector, across four decades of source resistance. The plain stage falls from 12.1 MHz to 110 kHz as its Miller-multiplied input node slows. The cascode runs from 15.8 MHz, where its output node sets the bandwidth — Cμ2 against 5 kΩ, 15.9 MHz — to 1.75 MHz, where its input node does: rπ in parallel with the source, against Cπ and twice Cμ, 1.78 MHz. Neither single-node figure is ever below the stage's own bandwidth. The faint line is the cascode with the upper device's own Cπ left out of the middle node, and it is never below the solid one and at most 0.74% above it.

Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

The nodes a cascode hands the bandwidth to

A cascode is said to remove the Miller effect, and into 5 kΩ it does: from a 100 kΩ source it is 15.9 times wider than the plain stage. From 10 Ω it is 1.30 times wider, because there the bandwidth was never the input's — it belongs to the output node, Cμ2 against the load, 10.0 ns from every source. From a high source it belongs to the input, which is now rπ against Cπ and twice Cμ rather than against a multiplied Cμ, 74.7 ns of Cπ beside 15.4 of Cμ. The node the cascode adds holds 0.545 ns and moves the bandwidth less than one per cent. Its three poles cross rather than split, the sum of time constants is worst — 24% low — at the source where two nodes are equally slow, and the removal is not unconditional: the middle node's gain is 1.01 at a 1 kΩ load, 12.3 at 1 MΩ, and above 3.11 MΩ the cascode is narrower than the stage it replaced.

$A complex pair of zeros at 30.0 kHz, damping 0.5, and its mirror: one magnitude, and half the energy 10.6 µs later — 4ζ/ω₀ is 10.6. computed by solving, not by drawing. A low-pass with poles at 1, 10 and 100 kHz and a pair of zeros at 30.0 kHz with damping ζ = 0.5, against the same network with the pair mirrored into the right half-plane; the fraction of the impulse response's energy delivered by each instant, from the residues, with the mirrored network also marched from its polynomials (dots, within 6e-7). Both carry the same energy. The left-half-plane network is ahead at every instant; half its energy arrives at 75.4 µs against 86.0, a delay of 10.62 µs, where the mirror's all-pass delays a low frequency by 4ζ/ω₀ = 10.61 µs.$ Frequency, which is the same solve

The zeros that have no side

A complex pair of zeros can be mirrored into the right half-plane without changing a magnitude anywhere, and what the mirror adds is a second-order all-pass whose delay is 4ζ/ω₀ at low frequency. Above the band that is the whole story: with the pair at 30 kHz on a 1 kHz low-pass, half the energy arrives 0.21 µs later at ζ = 0.01, 2.12 µs at 0.1 and 21.2 µs at 1, linear in the damping — so the zeros of a notch, which sit on the axis, have no side worth choosing. Inside the band the all-pass's delay peaks at a millisecond exactly where the notch has removed the energy, and the energy's centroid moves by the delay averaged over |H|², which for fifteen pairs from 2 to 100 kHz matches a quadrature over frequency to five parts in a hundred thousand. And unlike one mirrored zero, a mirrored pair never starts a step the wrong way: it is only late.

Averaging an input that drifts 1 µV a cycle through a 1 pF switched-capacitor averager: too short a memory keeps the noise, too long a lag, and the best is 16.5 cycles at 27.2 µV. computed by solving, not by drawing, and seeded. A switched-capacitor exponential averager — 1 pF sampling capacitor, an equal damping capacitor for unity gain, memory set by the feedback capacitor — fed a ramp of 1 µV a cycle. The rms error against the input (solid) is the lag (dashed), (a/(1 − a))·r, and the switch noise (dotted), 2kT(Cs + Cd)/(Cf²(1 − a²)), together; seeded marches of sixty thousand cycles (dots) agree to 5%. The best memory is 16.55 cycles against (kT/(Cs·r²))^(1/3) = 15.88, with 27.2 µV of error: 15.5 µV of lag and 22.3 µV of noise.

The floor, which bounds from below

The leak worth building in

An integrator that never forgets cannot follow an input that moves. Give a switched-capacitor integrator a deliberate leak — a damping capacitor that samples the output each cycle and takes its charge away — and it becomes an exponential average with a memory of Cf/Cd cycles. Fed an input drifting 1 µV a cycle, through a 1 pF sampling capacitor, too short a memory passes the switch noise and too long a memory lags the drift; the best, on the exact closed form and on seeded marches of sixty thousand cycles, is 16.5 cycles, for 27.2 µV of error against 89.5 µV in a single sample. The best memory follows a cube-root law, the cube root of kT/(Cs·r²), ten times the drift for a memory 4.64 times shorter, and at it the noise variance is twice the squared lag. And the leak is not free: the damping capacitor is switched too, and at unity gain it samples half of the averager's noise.

One loop, cut at its output wire with 160 nF on it: the voltage injection crosses unity twice, the current injection reads 57 dB too much at low frequency, and together they are the loop gain. computed by solving, not by drawing. A three-pole amplifier closed for a gain of a hundred, with 100 Ω of output resistance and 160 nF of load. The loop gain read at the controlled source's own input, which draws no current (solid); read by a voltage injected in series with the output wire (dashed); and by a current injected into the same wire (dotted). The true loop crosses unity at 5.31 kHz with 8.9° of margin. The voltage reading first crosses at 5.04 kHz with 15.1°, and rises through it again at 10.6 kHz, because above 9.95 kHz the load is a lower impedance than the source. The current reading crosses at 5.82 kHz with 19.8°. Combined through 1/(1 + T) = 1/(1 + Tv) + 1/(1 + Ti) (dots), the two give the controlled source's reading to 3e-9 at every frequency.

Feedback, and the margin

Two wrong readings and one loop gain

A loop gain measured on a bench is measured at a wire, and a wire has an impedance on each side. Cut an amplifier's output with 100 Ω behind it and 160 nF ahead, inject a voltage in series, and the reading is the loop gain plus (1 + T)·Zs/Zl — 15.1° of margin where the loop has 8.9°, and a second unity crossing at 10.6 kHz that the loop does not have. Inject a current into the same wire and the error is (1 + T)·Zl/Zs: 19.8°, and 57 dB too much loop gain at low frequency. The two errors are reciprocal, so the readings combine exactly: 1/(1 + T) = 1/(1 + Tv) + 1/(1 + Ti) returns the loop gain at the controlled source's own input to a few parts in a billion, at every frequency and every load.

Forty thousand periods at β = 0.5: each period's error against the same period's duty error, correlated by 0.008. Seeded: forty thousand periods of the event map, β = 0.5, 5 mV of threshold noise; one in twenty is drawn, each scaled by its own standard deviation (3.4 ns for the period, 2.49 ns for the high-minus-low time). A period is three draws with coefficients A, A + B, B and its duty error the same three with A, B − A, −B, so their covariance is σ²[A² + (A + B)(B − A) − B²], which is zero at every β. Measured, the correlation is 0.0080, inside the ±0.0100 that forty thousand samples resolve. With normal draws, uncorrelated is independent: the cloud is round.

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

Every draw shared, and nothing in common

A relaxation oscillator's period error and its volt-second error are made of the same threshold draws, and they are exactly uncorrelated. A period weighs its three draws A, A + B and B; the high half less the low weighs the same three A, B − A and −B; the products sum to A² + B² − A² − B², which is zero at every hysteresis. Over forty thousand periods the measured correlation is 0.008 against a resolution of 0.010. What the two do share is one draw with the period on either side, ±0.157 at β = 0.5, and over any whole burst those two lags cancel term for term. Four thousand bursts judged against twenty-five pairs of limits fail both ways exactly as often as the product of the two rates says: the margins specified separately double-count nothing.

Three matches of one length, half a wavelength at f₀: two quarter-wave sections are bad again at 2f₀ and 4f₀; an exponential and a Klopfenstein taper are not bad again at all. computed by solving, not by drawing, as cascades of exact line input impedances. 50 Ω into 200 Ω through three matching sections each half a wavelength long at f₀: a two-section binomial transformer (dashed), an exponential taper (solid) and a Klopfenstein taper designed for 5% ripple (dotted), the tapers as four hundred thin slices. The stepped transformer is a band-pass: matched at f₀, and at 2f₀, where each section is half a wavelength and transparent, |Γ| is the bare mismatch, 0.600, again — and at 4f₀, and every even multiple. The tapers are high-pass: the exponential is 0.0194 at f₀ and under 0.131 everywhere above 1.6f₀; the Klopfenstein holds 0.050 from 1.1f₀ up.

Lines, where a wire has a length

The match with no upper edge

A stepped quarter-wave transformer is a band-pass in disguise: at twice its design frequency every section is half a wavelength and transparent, and a 50-to-200 Ω match reflects the bare 0.600 again. Let the steps multiply over a fixed length and the staircase of n steps returns the mismatch at n·f₀; in the limit the upper edge has gone, and what is left is a taper — a high-pass match. An exponential taper half a wavelength long is 0.019 at f₀ and never above 0.131 past 1.6f₀. The Klopfenstein profile, the Chebyshev design's continuous limit, holds 0.050 from 1.1f₀ up, needs half the exponential's length for |Γ| ≤ 0.1 and an eighth of it for 0.02, and is not continuous: it starts with a step from 50 to 52.6 Ω. And the small-reflection formula that defines all of them as a Fourier transform overstates a 10:1 taper's reflection by 41% — the line gives tanh of it.

The bank's impedance peaks at 0.966 Ω at 7.12 MHz; a one-ampere load step moves the supply by 132.4 mV. computed by solving, not by drawing. The bulk-and-ceramic pair of the decoupling essays — 10 µF with 5 mΩ and 5 nH, 100 nF with 30 mΩ and 1 nH — standing on a regulator of 2 mΩ and 20 nH, and the voltage at the bank when the load's current steps by one ampere, from the impedance's own step response by residues (solid). The impedance this bank presents peaks at 0.966 Ω at 7.12 MHz (upper line), the parallel resonance of the bulk part's inductance with the ceramic. The step rings at that frequency and its largest swing is 132.4 mV, 31.3 ns after the step — about a quarter period — which is 14% of the peak and 59% of the resonance's characteristic impedance √(L/C) = 0.224 Ω (lower line).

Power, and the part that does no work

The peak a load step does not see

A decoupling bank is specified by its impedance against frequency, and the number that fails a target is the anti-resonance peak — 0.966 Ω at 7.12 MHz for the bulk-and-ceramic pair standing on a regulator. A load that steps by one ampere moves that supply by 132 mV, 14% of what the peak suggests: a step rings the resonance once, and its first swing is set by the resonance's characteristic impedance √(L/C) = 0.224 Ω, not by its Q. The peak is the voltage per ampere of a load that sits at the resonance; switched at 7.12 MHz the same load builds over six cycles to ±611 mV, the peak times the current's fundamental. So damping, the cure for the peak, is a cure for that load only: sixteen times the ESR cuts the peak 8.9-fold and leaves a step's swing between 120 and 155 mV. What decides a step is its edge — 132 mV for anything faster than a few nanoseconds, 28 mV for a microsecond.

A 150 nH ground lead on a ten-to-one probe, at a 50 Ω source: the screen shows 49.4% of overshoot ringing at 121 MHz on an edge that has none. computed by solving, not by drawing, twice. A 1 V step from a 50 Ω source, watched through a ten-to-one probe with 11.5 pF at its tip, its ground returned through 150 nH of lead — about fifteen centimetres — and the scope reading the tip against the lead's end (solid, from residues; dots, a trapezoidal march, peak 1.4942). The same probe with its ground at the circuit's ground (dashed). The node itself steps cleanly. With the lead the tip capacitance and the lead inductance resonate at 1/(2π√(LC)) = 121 MHz, damped only by the source: ζ = (Rs/2)√(C/L) = 0.219, and the display overshoots by 49.4%.

Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

The ring the ground lead adds

Every earlier measurement of a probe returned it to the circuit's ground directly. A real ten-to-one probe returns through fifteen centimetres of clip lead, about 150 nH, and its 11.5 pF tip and that lead are a series resonance at 121 MHz across the node being watched. The only damping it has is the source's own resistance, ζ = (Rs/2)·√(C/L), so the screen shows 49.4% of overshoot on a clean step from 50 Ω, 87.1% from 10 Ω, and none above 228 Ω — the stiffer the node, the worse the picture. Solved by residues and by a march of the netlist, the overshoot follows the second-order law at every source. A spring tip's 5 nH rings at 664 MHz and not at all from 50 Ω; a 150 Ω resistor in series with the tip brings a clip lead under 2% at the price of a 3.65 ns rise.

At a fixed output a 0.5 mV junction mismatch's second harmonic falls as (1 + gₘRₑ)⁻² and a 1% resistor mismatch's as (1 + gₘRₑ)⁻¹: past gₘRₑ = 1.93 the resistors set it. computed by solving, not by drawing, every waveform solved arm by arm in currents. A pair on a 1 mA tail, its output held at what the bare, balanced pair gives for 10 mV of peak drive; the second harmonic over the fundamental from a 0.5 mV VBE mismatch alone (dashed), from a 1% mismatch between the emitter resistors alone (dotted), and from both in the same sense (solid), against one plus the degeneration. Between gₘRₑ = 5 and 20 the junction's falls with slope −2.00 and the resistors' with −0.89, still approaching −1, since the local slope of gₘRₑ/(1 + gₘRₑ)² is 1/gₘRₑ − 1. The resistors' mismatch is an input offset of Vₜ·gₘRₑ·δ, which grows with the degeneration that divides it, so the two cross where gₘRₑ = ΔVBE/(Vₜδ) = 1.93; beyond it each decibel of gain given up buys one decibel of distortion, not two.

Where the models stop

The resistor mismatch that is only an offset

Two emitter resistors that differ by δ unbalance a degenerated pair, and with an ideal tail they do it in the simplest way possible: the arm currents always sum to the tail, so the mismatch adds the constant (Iₜ/2)·R·δ = Vₜ·gₘRₑ·δ to the input and nothing else. Solved arm by arm, a 1% mismatch at gₘRₑ = 3 is the balanced pair moved by 0.776 mV to 4 × 10⁻¹⁶ of the tail, and a trim of that size leaves no second harmonic at any drive. What separates it from a junction's offset is that it grows with the degeneration meant to divide it: at a fixed output its second harmonic falls as gₘRₑ/(1 + gₘRₑ)², one decibel per decibel of gain rather than two, and it takes over from 0.5 mV of base–emitter mismatch at gₘRₑ = 1.93. For −80 dB at 10 mV of output the resistors must match to 0.823% at gₘRₑ = 1 even with perfect transistors.

A 63.7 Ω resistor in series with a gyrator's capacitor moves its series resistance's sign change from 63 Hz to 754 Hz, and 70.0 Ω removes it below the amplifiers' edge. computed by solving, not by drawing. The one-henry synthetic inductor of four 10 kΩ resistors, a 10 nF capacitor and two 1 MHz amplifiers with a gain of 10⁵, its series resistance against frequency with a resistor r₄ in series with the capacitor of 0 (grey), 0.9, 1 and 1.1 times 4/(ωₜ·C) = 63.66 Ω. Without it the resistance is −0.153 Ω at 100 Hz and −25.2 Ω at 1 kHz, negative from 63.0 Hz. r₄ adds ω²·L·C·r₄, the same frequency law, so at exactly 4/(ωₜ·C) the resistance is 0.099 Ω at 100 Hz and −0.075 Ω at 1 kHz and changes sign only at 754 Hz; at 1.1 times it stays positive throughout: 2.44 Ω at 1 kHz.

Filters, measured not tabulated

The resistor that pays the amplifiers back

A synthetic inductor's negative resistance grows as the square of frequency, and so does the real part a resistor in series with the gyrator's capacitor adds: Zᵢₙ = sL/(1 + sCr₄) ≈ sL + ω²LCr₄. Fitted on solves across six designs, the resistor that cancels the amplifiers' term is 4/(ωₜ·C) to 1.8% — 63.7 Ω for 10 nF and 1 MHz amplifiers, whatever the resistance level or the open-loop gain. Put in, it moves the sign change from 63 Hz to 754 Hz; a tenth more removes it below the amplifiers' edge and gives a quality factor of 2,579 at 1 kHz where the bare inductor had −250. The catch is that the cancellation is as good as the gain–bandwidth is known: amplifiers 10% slower than the resistor was chosen for leave −2.9 Ω at 1 kHz. Chosen a tenth over the slowest amplifier a ±30% spread allows, the inductor's Q at 1 kHz runs from 312 to 1,847 and is never negative.

Where a signal becomes a number

The rounding a section keeps

A fixed-point biquad that remembers its last two rounding errors and adds them back with weights −2 and +1 before it rounds again sends its error to the output through (1 − z⁻¹)²/A(z) instead of 1/A(z). For a low-pass clocked far above its corner that double zero lands exactly on the recursion's largest gain. Fed nothing, an eighth-order 12-bit cascade at 48 times its corner sat 88 least significant bits from zero; with the error kept, a constant state needs (1 + a₁ + a₂)·y = 0, its only solution is zero, and the output never strays more than one bit at any clock rate from 8× to 128×. The round-off floor at 128× falls 89 times, 6.5 bits, for two additions and a shift per section — and the white-noise model, which the plain cascade broke by a factor of ten at eight bits, holds to 2.3% from six bits to twenty.

A fifth-order Chebyshev ladder built from parts of Q = 100: its passband sags by 0.94 dB near the edge and 0.38 dB at low frequency — 8.686·δ·τg, the group delay times the dissipation. computed by solving, not by drawing. A doubly terminated 0.5 dB Chebyshev ladder, fifth order, 1 kHz edge, 1 kΩ terminations, lossless (dashed) and with every inductor given a series resistance and every capacitor a shunt conductance for a uniform dissipation δ = ωc/Q = 62.8 s⁻¹ (solid), and the lossless response plus 8.686·δ·τg(f), with τg read off the lossless filter's phase (dots). The prediction holds to 3.6% of the extra loss across the passband. The extra is smallest where the delay is smallest, 0.383 dB at 38 Hz, and largest at 953 Hz near the edge, 0.943 dB, where the delay peaks at 1.79 ms: the ripple the design specified is rounded off where it was steepest.

Networks, and how a solve is checked

The derivative that is a delay

A doubly terminated ladder filter is stationary in every element's value at its ripple peaks, and that insensitivity says nothing about the parts' losses. Give every reactance the same dissipation δ — a series resistance δL in each inductor, a shunt conductance δC across each capacitor — and every reactance has the impedance it had at s + δ, so the lossy ladder is exactly H(s + δ). By the Cauchy–Riemann equations the loss then rises by 8.686 times δ times the group delay, in decibels: the derivative of a ladder filter's response with respect to its parts' dissipation is its group delay. Solved with the resistors in, a fifth-order 0.5 dB Chebyshev of Q = 100 parts sags 0.383 dB at low frequency and 0.943 dB near its edge, where the delay peaks at 1.79 ms, the law holding to 3.6%. The sag falls as one over Q, grows with the order — 0.37 dB at third order, 2.74 at ninth — and is set by the mean of the inductors' and capacitors' dissipations.

One step of refinement in the same double precision returns the stopband's lost digits: 1.1e-12 at 10 kHz before, under 2.4 units of round-off after. computed by solving, not by drawing. The 5th-order Chebyshev ladder solved at every frequency in double precision (solid), and again after one step of iterative refinement — the residual b − A·x formed in double, the correction solved with the same elimination and added (dashed) — each against the same network eliminated in a pair of doubles. Plain, the response's error tracks the round-off divided by the response (dotted), from 1.1e-16 at 10 Hz to 1.1e-12 at 10 kHz, where the output is 6.78e-7 of the input. One step brings every frequency to within 2.4 units of round-off of the truth. No more digits were used: the loss belonged to the elimination's errors in the small component, and the residual, computed against the original matrix, sees them.

Networks, and how a solve is checked

The step that returns the digits

A fifth-order ladder filter solved in double precision loses four decades in its stopband — 1.1 × 10⁻¹² of relative error at ten times the cutoff — on a solution vector that is right to round-off. One step of iterative refinement, in the same double precision, returns all of it: form the residual b − A·x, solve for a correction with the same elimination, add it, and every frequency is within 2.4 units of round-off of a 31-digit solve. The reason is that the plain solve is stable by the norm and not by the row — its componentwise backward error is 5.3 × 10⁻¹³ in the stopband rows — and one step makes it componentwise stable. The bridge walked to balance cannot be helped at all. Its node voltages are already right to the last bit; its digits are lost storing two numbers whose difference is the answer, and again storing its conductances, which moves the network itself by round-off over δ before anything is solved.

A 100 µs pulse through the transformer whose band runs 400 Hz to 81.3 kHz: it rises in 4.03 µs, droops 21.6% along its top, and swings 21.6% below zero after it. computed by solving, not by drawing, twice. A 1 V, 100 µs pulse into the 1:1 transformer of the band essays — 10 mH windings, coupling 0.99, 50 Ω each side — from residues (solid) and from a trapezoidal march of the netlist (dots, within 0.34% of the plateau). The upper edge, 81.3 kHz, is a rise of 4.03 µs from 10 to 90%; the lower edge, 400 Hz, is a droop with time constant 1/(2πfₗ) = 398 µs, and the top ends at 0.7842 of the 0.4901 V plateau against exp(−T/τₗ) = 0.7778. When the pulse ends the output falls by the full plateau and goes negative by what the top lost, then recovers with the same time constant.

Two windings, and the band between them

The band counted in rise times

A transformer's band is two frequencies and its pulse response is two times, and they are the same two facts. Through the 1:1, k = 0.99 transformer whose band runs 400 Hz to 81.3 kHz, a 100 µs pulse rises in 4.03 µs — 0.35 over the upper band edge — and droops 21.6% along its top with a time constant of one over 2π times the lower edge, 398 µs; solved by residues and by a march of the netlist, they agree to a third of a per cent. Coupling buys rise time and nothing else: from 30.8 µs at k = 0.9 to 422 ns at 0.999, while the droop's time constant moves from 414 to 396 µs. The longest pulse that droops no more than 10%, over the rise, is 0.048 times the ratio of the upper band edge to the lower — the band ratio counted in rise times, 10.4 at k = 0.99 and 98.8 at 0.999. And the droop is not lost: a transformer has no gain at direct current, so the output swings below zero afterwards by exactly what the top lost, and the two areas match to 0.08%.

$A stray of a tenth of the sampling capacitor moves a one-plate integrator's coefficient by 9.85%; switched at both plates, by 0.14%, nearly all of it the amplifier's own gain error. computed by solving, not by drawing. A switched-capacitor integrator with a 1 pF sampling capacitor, 4 pF of feedback and 0.5 pF at the amplifier's input, and a stray capacitance to ground at the sampling capacitor's switched plate; the error of the per-cycle coefficient against Cs/Cf, against the stray as a fraction of Cs. With one plate switched (solid) the stray is charged to the input and dumped with the capacitor, so it is part of the capacitor: the error is the stray's fraction less the amplifier's small gain error, 9.85% at a tenth. With both plates switched (dashed, A = 1000; dotted, A = 10⁵) the plate that meets the summing node moves between ground and −Vo/A, so the stray's charge carries a factor 1/A: its sensitivity falls from 1/Cf to Cs/(A·Cf²), 4000 times smaller, and what is left, 0.14%, is the amplifier's gain error (1 + (Cx + Cs)/Cf)/A, which the one-plate arrangement has as well.$ Filters, measured not tabulated

The capacitance at the switched plate

A switched-capacitor filter's corner is a ratio of two capacitors, and every plate on a chip has a capacitance to the substrate that is on no schematic. Switch one plate of the sampling capacitor and that stray is charged to the input and dumped with it: a stray a tenth of the capacitor is a tenth of error, and a bottom plate's fifteen per cent is fifteen per cent at any size. Switch both plates and integrate into a virtual ground and the stray at the plate that meets the summing node moves only between ground and −Vₒᵤₜ/A — its sensitivity falls from 1/Cf to Cs/(A·Cf²), four thousand times less at a gain of a thousand, and what is left is the amplifier's own gain error, 0.14%. The stray has not vanished: it has moved out of the coefficient that sets the corner and into the integrator's leak, where the direct-current gain becomes A·Cs/(Cs + Cp).

A 4:1 load on a cable of 3 dB matched loss costs the cable 1.53 dB more: the standing wave makes the line lossier, by up to the mismatch loss. computed by solving, not by drawing. The extra loss — power into the line over power reaching the load, beyond the matched line's — against the matched loss, for loads giving a standing-wave ratio of 1, 1.5, 2 and 4: 10·log((a² − |Γ|²)/(a(1 − |Γ|²))) − 10·log a (lines), with a 200 Ω load on a 50 Ω line solved exactly as a line whose loss is all series resistance (dots). At a ratio of 4 the extra is 0.109 dB on a 0.1 dB line, 0.82 on a 1 dB line, 1.53 on 3 dB and 1.94 on 20 dB — rising towards the mismatch loss 10·log(1/(1 − |Γ|²)) = 1.94 dB, which it reaches when the reflected wave is burnt before it can return.

Lines, where a wire has a length

The heat a standing wave leaves

A cable improves a mismatch's apparent return loss by twice its own loss because the reflection is burnt on the way back, and the burning is not free: it is extra loss in the cable. For one unit delivered to a load reflecting |Γ| through a line of matched loss a, the line must be fed (a² − |Γ|²)/(a(1 − |Γ|²)). A 4:1 load on a 3 dB cable costs 1.53 dB more than a matched one; on a 20 dB cable, 1.94 dB, which is exactly the mismatch loss, because by then every reflected watt is heat. Short lines multiply their dissipation by (1 + |Γ|²)/(1 − |Γ|²), long ones by 1/(1 − |Γ|²). Solved exactly on a line whose loss is in its conductor, the heat stands where the current does: the hottest point runs at the standing-wave ratio times a matched line's, 4.04 against 4.00, so a power rating limited by temperature falls by the ratio, not by the average.

A Wien oscillator with a lamp for its lower gain arm, τ = 100 ms: the envelope rings 63.6 times in ten time constants at 63.6 Hz and settles at 1.000 V. computed by solving, not by drawing: three state equations marched through every cycle of the 1.59 kHz carrier. The peak at the network's node, over its settled value (solid), from a millivolt with a cold filament, against time in units of the filament's time constant τ = 100 ms. Cold, the 50 Ω filament asks for a gain of 11 and the output sits on the 12 V rail until the filament has warmed. It leaves the rail after 1.99 ms, falls through the operating point, overshoots and rings at 63.6 Hz with a damping ratio of 0.0225. The dashed bound is the linear loop's decay, exp(−(1 + m)t/2τ) with m = 0.8, and it contains neither the carrier's frequency nor the amplitude. The settled amplitude, 1.000 V at the node and 3.00 V at the output, is the one at which the filament is at 250 Ω.

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

The lamp that has to be slow

A small lamp in a Wien oscillator's gain network adjusts the gain to whatever each unit needs, so the margin a limiter spends is no longer spent, and the price is an amplitude loop of its own. The envelope is an integrator and the filament is a lag, which makes a second-order loop that rings at the square root of 2ω₀m/τ and decays at (1 + m)/2τ. The filament's ripple at twice the carrier is the only distortion, 0.201/ω₀τ. So the slowness that lowers the distortion lengthens the settling in exact proportion: distortion times settling is 0.163 cycles at any time constant, and 0.01 per cent takes a second at 1.59 kHz and 82 seconds at 20 Hz.

A stage with its second pole at 3 times the bandwidth the product predicts settles within 0.1% in 5.06τ, against 6.91τ for the one-pole stage the product describes. computed by solving, not by drawing: the step of a stage whose amplifier has a second pole at r = 3 times GBW/G (solid), against the one-pole stage of the same product (dashed). Time is in units of τ = G/(2π·GBW). Settled within 0.1% at 5.055τ, against ln(1000) = 6.908τ, with the netlist of a gain-of-ten stage agreeing at 5.057τ. The stage with the second pole is usually faster, whatever it does on the way.

Feedback, and the margin

The gain that stops making a stage faster

The gain–bandwidth product says a stage of gain G settles in time proportional to G, and a stage with a second pole does something else. Below r = 4 the closed loop's poles are a complex pair whose real part is half the sum of the open loop's, π times the second pole's frequency, with neither the gain nor the product in it: a 1 MHz amplifier with a 0.5 MHz second pole takes 4.10 µs to settle within 0.1 per cent at unity gain, 4.04 at two and 4.22 at five, where the product says 1.10 to 5.50. Above the knee at G = 4·GBW/f₂ the product returns. In between lies the fastest stage, r = 3.32 for a 0.1 per cent band, which settles in 3.44 time constants against the one-pole stage's 6.91: half the time, and not at the r that gives the widest band.

A megohm part with one picofarad to its mounting, heavier at one end: 0.433 pF with that end driven and 0.233 pF turned round, 1.56° against 0.84° at 10 kHz. computed by solving, not by drawing: the angle of the impedance of a 1 MΩ resistor as 200 sections, with 1 pF in total from its film to its mounting tapered as c(x) ∝ 1 + a(1 − 2x), a = 0.6, read at the terminal with the far end grounded. Driving the end nearer the mounting (solid) it presents 0.433 pF and 1.56° at 10 kHz; turned round (dashed), 0.233 pF and 0.84°. The first-order weight is ∫c(x)(1 − x)²dx, which is C(1/3 + a/6) and C(1/3 − a/6). The part's total capacitance has not changed, nor has its resistance, and neither of the readings is that total.

Frequency, which is the same solve

The resistor turned round

A resistor's stray capacitance is usually drawn as one capacitor across its ends, and a stray to the part's mounting is not one number. Read at the terminal with the far end grounded it is weighted by the square of the distance from ground, so a uniform stray counts as a third of itself, and turned round a part with a tapered stray reads differently: 0.433 pF one way and 0.233 pF the other from one picofarad in all. In the current through the part the weight is x(1 − x), a sixth, and the current reaching the far end is 3 dB down at ωRC = 9.18 rather than at one. Two readings of one part separate the total from the taper, and a distributed stray's phase never reaches a capacitor's: it stops at 45 degrees.

A ten-to-one divider with 15 pF of its arm behind a kilohm, stepped through 1 kΩ: one trimmer overshoots 0.00936% where an ideal source shows 13.2%, and the second branch that was exact no longer settles first. computed by solving, not by drawing: the step of the divider of the earlier essay, 9 MΩ and a trimmer over 1 MΩ with 100 pF direct and 15 pF behind a kilohm, through a source resistance of 1 kΩ, by residues. One trimmer at its calibrator setting (solid) overshoots 0.00936%, and the second branch that made the arm a scaled copy (dashed) rises without overshoot on the source's own lag. An ideal source (dotted) shows a 13.2% hook with one trimmer and nothing with two. A source resistance charges the input capacitance, 11.5 pF, so its lag and the hook act on one edge, and when they are comparable the hook's excess goes into shortening the lag.

Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

The source the hook hides behind

A compensated divider with a late branch in its lower arm overshoots 13.2 per cent on an ideal step, and every measurement of that hook has been made from a source with no resistance. Through a real source the input capacitance charges first, and the hook and the source's lag act on the same edge. The overshoot is 10.5 per cent from 50 Ω, 4.13 from 300 Ω and gone by a kilohm, where the source's lag equals the hook's. The excess has not gone away: it is in the edge, which the screen shows 15 per cent faster than the source and the probe's capacitance allow. And the second branch that made the divider exact only makes its ratio exact, so from a kilohm the exact divider settles in 65.6 ns and the one with the hook in 44.

Eight stages of damping 0.8 against eight one-pole stages of the same bandwidth: settled within 1% at 18.75τ against 16.00τ, with 2.02% of overshoot. computed by solving, not by drawing: the step of eight identical second-order stages of damping ζ = 0.8, each with its half-power bandwidth at ω = 1, marched (solid), against eight one-pole stages with the same bandwidth from the closed Erlang step (dashed). Within 1% at 18.75τ against 16.00τ, the overshoot being 2.02% and each stage's delay 1.393 against one. At ζ = 1 the march agrees with the Erlang step of order sixteen.

Where the models stop

The stage that overshoots a little

A stage with a little overshoot settles sooner than a one-pole stage of the same bandwidth, 3.53 time constants against 4.61 within one per cent, and a chain of them should do better still, since a stage at the right damping adds almost no spread. It does not. The saving is 17 per cent at two stages, 11 at four and 2 at eight, and at sixteen the chain is 5 per cent slower than the one-pole chain, because a stage's extra delay adds as the number of stages and the spread it removes adds only as the root. The best damping stays near 0.83 at every length, just short of letting the overshoot out of the band. In frequency the same stages are five times flatter at their best, at a different damping, and so the two edges of a chain ask for two different stages.

Scaling a Chebyshev 5 with real 4 nV/√Hz amplifiers everywhere: 118.18 dB at equal maxima and 118.32 dB with no gain stages at all, so the gains cost 0.14 dB, where silent ones promised 2.16 dB. computed by solving, not by drawing: the dynamic range on ±15 V of a fifth-order Chebyshev with gains d^α in front of each section and after the last, against α. Every amplifier has a voltage noise of 4 nV/√Hz, the sections' own and the stages', and each stage carries a kilohm in its divider or lower feedback arm (solid). With every amplifier and gain silent (dashed), equal maxima recovers 2.16 dB over no scaling, 142.44 dB to 144.60 dB. With real ones: 118.32 dB with no stages, and with stages 115.75 dB at α = 0.2, 116.27 dB at α = 0.4, 116.86 dB at α = 0.6, 117.50 dB at α = 0.8, 118.18 dB at α = 1. Merely having the stages is a step down at the smallest α, since each is a real amplifier in the path, and the curve climbs from there to equal maxima. The response is unchanged to a part in a billion at every α.

The floor, which bounds from below

The floor the gains bring

Equal-maxima scaling recovers 2.16 decibels of a fifth-order Chebyshev's range when its gains make no noise and its amplifiers make none either. Give every amplifier in the circuit a voltage noise of 4 nV/√Hz, the sections' own and the stages', and the unscaled filter reads 118.32 dB over a 1 MHz band and the scaled one 118.18: the last gain has nothing after it to filter its noise, so it multiplies 4 µV of wide-band noise by 2.83, and the lower ceiling is spent paying for it. At 1 nV/√Hz scaling costs 6.61 dB, and at 16 nV/√Hz it gains 0.99, so a noisier amplifier makes it look better. A narrower measuring band does not rescue it. On a Chebyshev 7, with a node 13.26 times the input, the same arrangement gains 6.15 dB.

A reference 0° behind the excitation at 20 kHz, after a calibration at +1000 µε: matched, the worst error is 5.79 ppm; with a tenth of a per cent of screen mismatch, 0.607%. computed by solving, not by drawing: the error of a synchronous reading of a 350 Ω quarter bridge through ten metres of screened pair, against the strain read, with the reference 0° from the excitation at the bridge and a shunt calibration at +1000 µε through the same reference, for a matched screen (solid) and for 0.01 and 0.1 per cent of mismatch. The calibration takes out cos(φ − θ), because it multiplies the signal at every strain. It cannot take out a voltage that does not scale with the strain, and the mismatch's leak is such a voltage: a hyperbola through zero at the calibration strain. Worst over ±2000 µε: 0%: 5.79 ppm, 0.01%: 606 ppm, 0.1%: 0.607%.

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

The reference that should be late

A carrier amplifier's reference is taken from the excitation because that is what the output is meant to be in phase with, and nothing says that is where it belongs. A screen mismatch's leak arrives late by the common-mode node's lag and the difference's together, 525 ns on ten metres of pair and a 350 Ω bridge, so a reference on the excitation reads sin 3.7° of it at 20 kHz: 0.607 per cent of error at a tenth of a per cent of mismatch, and 72.6 parts per million with the reference 3.7° late. The null is a delay rather than a phase and does not move with the mismatch, and a delayed reference allows about five times the carrier on any mismatched screen. How exactly it must be held narrows as mismatch times carrier.

A Gaussian edge read at 3 samples per rise, at the worst sampling phase: straight chords between the samples say the rise is 8.78% from its true value. computed by solving, not by drawing: a Gaussian edge (solid), its samples at 3 per 10–90% rise at the sampling phase that reads worst (dots), and the straight lines an instrument's linear interpolation draws through them (dashed). The chord crosses 10 and 90 per cent earlier and later than the edge does, because a Gaussian edge curves in opposite senses at the two thresholds. The reading is 1.0878 rises against 1.

Where a signal becomes a number

The samples a rise time needs

A rise time is read from two thresholds, and an instrument that draws straight chords between its samples is wrong at each by an amount that goes as the square of the interval. For a Gaussian edge at the worst sampling phase that is 5.02 per cent at four samples per rise and 0.818 at ten; the rule of thumb of three to five is a five per cent rule, and one per cent takes nine. The reading is not monotonic in the rate: above 20.9 per rise a first-order edge reads exactly at whole numbers and 0.046 per cent at 24.5, because its two errors subtract at one phase, and a Gaussian edge reads worse there because its two add. Reconstructing before reading needs 1.87 per rise for one per cent, and at four times the edge's 3 dB bandwidth the reading is still 11.7 per cent out.

Two loops with exactly 45° of margin and the same crossover: with 100% of the extra lag a delay, the step overshoots 28.7%, against 23.3% for two poles. computed by solving, not by drawing: the closed-loop step of a loop K·exp(−sD)/(s(1 + s/p)) with its crossover at one, its phase margin exactly 45°, and 100% of the 45° beyond the integrator supplied by the delay (solid), against the same margin from a lag alone (dashed). Delay 0.785, lag's pole absent. Overshoot 28.7% against 23.3%; settled within 2% at 7.03 against 7.06; gain margin 6.0 dB against no limit. Marched with a history buffer, and at δ = 1 checked against the exact series of the method of steps.

Feedback, and the margin

The margin a delay spends

A phase margin can be made of a lag or of a delay, and the number is the same either way. Forty-five degrees from a lag overshoots 23.3 per cent, and forty-five degrees from a delay overshoots 28.7; at sixty degrees the sign reverses, 8.77 against 5.57, and the two cross near 54 degrees. The overshoot is the smaller difference. A two-pole loop's gain margin has no limit at all, and five per cent of its extra lag as delay brings that to 25.5 dB; with all of it delay the gain margin is 90°/(90° − margin), which is 6.0 dB at 45°, and nothing else is in the expression. Across twenty-one such loops the margin alone misses the overshoot by 13.1 points. The closed-loop peak, which already reads the whole band, misses by 1.2.

A tank with its loss in its coil, Q = 3: the voltage is largest at 0.9972 of 1/√(LC) and in phase with the current at 0.9428, and neither is where the poles sit. computed by solving, not by drawing, by closed form and by a netlist of L, Rs and C. The impedance of a coil of inductance L and series resistance Rs across a capacitor, against frequency, for Q = √(L/C)/Rs = 3. The poles are the series circuit's, at 1/√(LC) with a damping of Rs/2L. The coil's own zero at −Rs/L moves the peak to ωₘ = 0.9972·ω₀ and the zero-phase point to ωᵣ = 0.9428·ω₀, and the ring is at 0.9860·ω₀. Four frequencies, which a series circuit's voltage across its resistor would have as one.

Frequency, which is the same solve

The reading a coil leaves nearly exact

On a series resonator three readings of Q agreed exactly and two did not. A parallel tank whose loss is in its coil has no exact readings at all, and the order is not the one its schematic suggests. Its poles are the series circuit's, but the coil's own zero puts the peak, the zero-phase point and the ring at three different frequencies, and all of them below 1/√(LC). At Q = 3 the phase slope reads 16.2 per cent low, the stored energy 5.72 low and the peak height 5.42 high, while the bandwidth reads only 0.307 low: the loss that a parallel resistance stands in for tilts across the band, and the tilt is nearly antisymmetric about the centre, so the reading that spans it cancels it. The instrument's own source then decides what is being read.

$The same 15 pF spread along 2 kΩ of line, on a 1 ns edge: with 1 of its branches copied the output is flat to 1.07%, against 11.2% with one trimmer alone. computed by solving, not by drawing: the response to a 1 ns edge of a ten-to-one divider whose lower arm is 100 pF direct and 15 pF along a 2 kΩ resistive line, with one trimmer (dashed) and with the first 1 branch of the line's exact partial-fraction expansion copied into the upper arm (solid). The expansion's time constants are 12.2 ns, 1.35 ns, 486 ps and so on, as 1/(2k − 1)². Inverted numerically by Talbot's method, and the line itself checked against a netlist of sections.$ Measurement, which is a circuit on a circuit

The branches a square root needs

A resistive cable's late charge is a continuum and not one branch, and the partial fractions of its tanh are an exact description of it: 81.1 per cent of the capacitance behind a time constant of 12.2 ns, 9.01 per cent behind a ninth of that, 3.24 behind a twenty-fifth, all through the same kilohm. So a divider's upper arm can copy it one piece at a time. On a 1 ns edge one trimmer alone is 11.2 per cent out, one copied branch 1.07, two 0.252 and four 0.0353. The first branch does most of the work and the uncopied capacitance falls only as one over the count; what saves the rest is that a branch faster than the edge is averaged away. Faster edges ask for more branches, and the tolerance on the first ends the series before the arithmetic does.

Paralleling a 4 nV/√Hz amplifier on a 50 Ω source, summed through 100 Ω from each: the best is 1.19 dB at 140 parts, against 1.14 dB at 134 parts with a perfect summing node. computed by solving, not by drawing: the noise figure from a 50 Ω source against the number of amplifiers in parallel, each 4 nV/√Hz and 0.6 pA/√Hz, with a perfect summing node (dashed) and with their outputs averaged through 100 Ω each into one node (solid), which adds a thermal 4kTR/N at the node. The summing resistors' noise falls as 1/N exactly as the amplifiers' voltage noise does, so their ratio is the same at every N, and a summing resistor comparable with the resistance an amplifier's voltage noise is worth is a constant factor on that term.

The floor, which bounds from below

The resistors that sum a hundred amplifiers

A hundred amplifiers in parallel across a 50 Ω source are an ideal transformer of ratio ten, and the summing network between them and the output is where the comparison was left. Its resistors turn out to be the least of it. N resistors averaging N outputs make the noise of R/N, falling exactly as the amplifiers' voltage noise does, so the resistor equal to a 4 nV/√Hz amplifier is about a kilohm at every N, and at 133 parts 200 Ω costs only a tenth of a decibel. The stage that was forgotten is whatever reads the sum. Averaging leaves it alone, so a following amplifier as good as one of the parts costs 12.14 dB, and each part needs a gain of 26 to bring that under a tenth. Parallel amplifiers then match a transformer with one ohm of winding.

A follower section of Q = 5 on an amplifier 100 times the corner: +4.79% as designed from the formula; designed for that amplifier, exact at it, and +1.64% and −0.966% on parts 30% slow and fast. computed by solving, not by drawing: the realised Q of a unity-gain Sallen–Key section against the actual amplifier's gain–bandwidth, relative to the typical value it was chosen for, from the poles of the netlist. Designed from the textbook formula (solid): +6.51% at 0.7, +4.79% at 1, +3.78% at 1.3. Predistorted, with its capacitance ratio and resistors found by iteration on the netlist so that the typical part is exact (dashed): +1.64% at 0.7, exact at 1, −0.966% at 1.3. Predistortion moves the line down without changing its slope much: it removes the error the amplifier has in common and leaves what differs between amplifiers.

Filters, measured not tabulated

The Q designed for the amplifier

A follower section's Q comes out 4.79 per cent high at Q = 5 with an amplifier a hundred times the corner, and nothing stops a designer asking for 4.771 so that the real circuit lands on 5.000. That removes the error the amplifier has in common and leaves what differs between amplifiers: parts 30 per cent slow and fast read +1.64 and −0.97 per cent. So the exchange rate is the spread itself, and it is large. One per cent of Q across ±30 per cent asks for 725 times the corner from the formula and 196 designed for the part. The design runs out at a definite ratio, 7.2 times at Q = 5, below which no value of its parts reaches the Q wanted. On a whole Chebyshev 5 the passband error falls from 1.43 dB to nothing on a typical part and 0.55 on a slow one.

A line ten rises long stood in for by 20 LC sections, matched at both ends: the edge overshoots 17.5% and takes 1.66 rises to climb, where the line delivers it unchanged. computed by solving, not by drawing: an edge of 10–90% rise tr at the far end of a chain of 20 LC sections with a total delay of 10 tr, matched at both ends, marched (solid), against the same edge delayed by exactly 10 tr, which is what a line delivers (dashed). Overshoot 17.5%, rise 1.66 tr. With no reflections at either end, everything here is the chain's own dispersion: a section has a group delay that rises with frequency, so the fast end of the edge arrives late and rings behind it.

Lines, where a wire has a length

The sections an edge needs

A chain of LC sections rings on an ideal step however many sections it has, because a step has energy all the way to the chain's cut-off. An edge has a top frequency, and for a matched chain carrying one the section count has a clean answer: for one per cent of overshoot, 6 sections on a line one rise long, 183 on ten rises and 5,760 on a hundred, 5.8 times the length in rises to the three-halves power, within a few per cent from end to end. So sections per rise is not a constant. A section's phase error goes as the cube of frequency and the inverse square of the count, and it accumulates along the line. A 1 ns edge on a metre of cable asks for 62 sections, a 100 ps edge for 2,048, and the delay is right long before the edge is.

$A shorted reading at k = 0.99: within 1% of the leakage from 279 Hz to 112 kHz, too high below through the winding's resistance and above through the leakage's resonance with 100 pF, at 1.13 MHz. computed by solving, not by drawing, in closed form, and by a netlist with a coupling element at three frequencies. The reading Im(Z)/ω at the driven terminals of a 10 mH and 40 mH pair, with the other winding shorted through its own 1 Ω, 0.5 Ω in the driven winding and 100 pF across it, against frequency, as a fractional distance from the leakage L₁(1 − k²) = 199.00 µH. Below the band the short does not cancel the shared flux. Above it the leakage and the capacitance resonate, at 1.13 MHz, and the reading rises to meet them. Band: 279 Hz to 112 kHz, a ratio of 402.1.$ Two windings, and the band between them

The window that moves

A shorted winding reads its own leakage only above the frequency at which the short really cancels the shared flux, and only below the leakage's resonance with whatever capacitance is across it. A tighter coupling raises the first edge as one over the root of 1 − k², and it was expected to pull the second down and close the window. It raises the second as well, by the same factor. So the band is 82 Hz to 36 kHz at k = 0.9, 279 Hz to 112 kHz at 0.99 and 2.81 kHz to 1.12 MHz at 0.9999, about four hundred times wide throughout. Its width is 0.01·L₂/(R₂k√(L₁C)), with the leakage nowhere in it, so what closes the window is the winding and not the coupling. Reading the real part as well is exact on paper and limited by phase.

What a simulator's small conductance reports: at 10⁻¹² S a resistive divider reads 5 V, 1 µA into a capacitor reads 1 MV with a residual at machine precision, and the slope says which of those belongs to the circuit. computed by solving, not by drawing on the nodal matrix at direct current, with a conductance g from each node to ground. A divider of two 1 kΩ on 10 V (flat, 5 V at every g); 1 µA into a capacitor, which the solver refuses without g and which reads I/g with it (slope −1, 1 MV at 10⁻¹² S, 100 mV at 10⁻⁵ S); a biased stage behind a coupling capacitor, 100 mV (flat until g is comparable with its 1 MΩ); and two capacitors in series on 10 V, whose node reads 0 mV at every g, since a conductance to ground is the only thing at that node and it has nothing to divide against. Every one of these passes Kirchhoff's law with g included to machine precision. The residual has no way to tell these answers apart.

Networks, and how a solve is checked

The conductance added so it would invert

A solver that refuses a node with no direct-current path can be made to answer by adding a tiny conductance from every node to ground, which is what a circuit simulator does. Kirchhoff's law then holds to machine precision, and the numbers are of three kinds. A real divider's node is exact at any conductance. 1 µA into a capacitor reads a megavolt at 10⁻¹² S, ten times that at 10⁻¹³, and is purely the reciprocal of what was added. A floating 9 V source reads ±4.5 V, a centre tap nobody built, and follows the ratio of two conductances that do not exist. Scaling the conductance finds the first kind and misses the third. One test current per node finds them all, because a node held only by what was added has a resistance to ground near one over it.

A 640 kvar bank on a 16 MVA 400 V bus: alone its resonance with the supply is at h = 5.00, and with a 7% reactor in series at 3.01, with the bank's own null at 3.78 between that and everything above it. computed by solving, not by drawing: the impedance per phase at a 400 V bus, with a short-circuit level of 16 MVA and a 640 kvar correction bank, against harmonic order, in closed form and at the fifth by a netlist. The bank alone (dashed) resonates with the supply at h = 5.00, where the bus impedance peaks. With a reactor of 7% of the capacitor's fundamental reactance in series (solid), the bank's own series resonance is at h = 1/√0.07 = 3.78, a deep null, and the parallel peak has moved down to h = 3.01. Above the null the bank is an inductor, in parallel with the supply's inductance, so there is nothing for any higher harmonic to resonate with.

Power, and the part that does no work

The reactor that keeps a bank out of it

A correction bank on a stiff bus resonates with the supply at a harmonic set by the two sizes, and at 640 kvar on 16 MVA that harmonic is the fifth, which it multiplies by 34. A reactor of 7 per cent of the capacitor's reactance in series puts a null at h = 3.78, and above that null the bank is an inductor, in parallel with another inductor, with nothing left to resonate. So the fifth is never raised at any size of bank. It was not free. The capacitor now stands 7.5 per cent above the bus, the resonance has gone below the null and can land on the third, 22.7 times at 654 kvar, and the number that looks like a detail, 7 rather than the 4 that would tune the bank to the fifth, is what keeps an ageing bank on the right side of its null.

An exponential stage at 20% output, with a loop gain of 1: second 2.5% from 4.97%, third 0.0415% from 0.165%, and fifth 0.68 ppm from 0.814 ppm. computed by solving, not by drawing: the harmonics of an exponential stage with emitter resistance, gm·Re = T, solved point by point on the implicit curve and transformed, at a fixed output fundamental of a fifth of the quiescent current, for T = 1 (dots a) against no feedback (dots b). 2: 2.5%, against 4.97%; 3: 0.0415%, against 0.165%; 4: 5.36 ppm, against 40.9 ppm; 5: 0.68 ppm, against 0.814 ppm; 6: 0.0202 ppm, against 0.0135 ppm; 7: 0.000245 ppm, against 0.000192 ppm; 8: 0.0000478 ppm, against 0.00000239 ppm; 9: 0.00000178 ppm, against 2.62e-8 ppm. The series gives the second and third at small drive: the implicit function's Taylor coefficients are 1/(1 + T), 1/2(1 + T)³ and (1 − 2T)/6(1 + T)⁵, and they agree. The third therefore has a null at T = ½, and past that it has the opposite sign, and feedback that reduces the low orders puts some of them back into the high ones.

Devices, and the amplitude they stop being linear at

The fifth a resistor adds

Local feedback's reputation is that it reduces distortion, and on the second order it does: 4.97 per cent falls to 2.5 at a loop gain of one and 0.46 at ten, with the output held fixed. The third has a null at a loop gain of exactly a half and comes back with its sign changed. And from the fifth upward, a harmonic rises above its open-loop value before it falls: the fifth 1.42 times, the sixth 5.23, the seventh 24.6, the ninth 960, peaking at a loop gain between six and twenty. The second order, carried back through the resistor, mixes with the signal and makes them. A total-harmonic reading shows only improvement throughout, because the second dominates it. A differential pair has no second order to carry back, and its fifth never passes its open-loop value.

$A 0.2% part sampling 0 V after long at 10 V, holding 1 ms: the first reading is 109 ppm of the step, and the hundredth still 4.5 ppm, every one of them made from the same branches. computed by solving, not by drawing: the reading at each sample, as a fraction of the step, when a sample-and-hold with a 1 µF part of 0.2% absorption samples 0 V after a long time at 10 V, acquiring for 100 µs and holding for 1 ms. The first reading agrees with a march of the netlist. It is 109 ppm, the tenth 46.7 ppm, the hundredth 4.5 ppm and the four-hundredth 0.904 ppm. The earlier samples are still being read, and for far longer than an acquisition suggests, because each acquisition can reach a branch only in proportion to the fraction of its time constant it lasts.$ Before the steady state

The sample before the sample

A sample-and-hold whose capacitor has 0.2 per cent of dielectric absorption reads a 10 V step 109 parts per million wrong on the first sample after it, 46.7 on the tenth, and 4.5 on the hundredth, because every earlier sample is still in the dielectric. That error has been described as distortion, since it grows with the signal. It is not. The state is linear and one period is a single matrix, so the reading is a fixed weighted sum of earlier samples, a filter with a very long tail: a sine reads 28.1 parts per million low and its largest harmonic is 1.5 × 10⁻¹² of the fundamental. A filter can be undone. Subtracting fifty earlier samples takes a stepped signal from 51.6 parts per million to 1.61, and with the absorption known to 20 per cent it stops at 5.47.

All themes