[Pease Porridge]
What's All This Time-Domain Stuff, Anyhow?
Bob Pease
ED Online ID #20565
February 12, 2009
Copyright © 2006 Penton Media, Inc., All rights reserved. Printing of this document is for personal use only.
Reprints
Last night, I was attacking a thorny problem
and thought about the time domain. I think about circuits,
as an engineer, in the time domain. When something
happens, or changes, then something else can
happen—or may start to happen. Is that something
that I like? Or is it something I don’t like?
I have used this analysis many times, as in “What’s
All This Fuzzy-Logic Stuff, Anyhow? (Part 4)” (Nov.
6, 2000; www.electronicdesign.com, ED Online
4915) and “What’s All This Ball-On-Beam Balancer
Stuff, Anyhow?” (Nov. 20, 1995, ED Online 6126).
I know some engineers who like to work in the
time domain and some guys who like to work in the
frequency domain. We have different kinds of heads.
We may each be able to solve a problem, but from
completely different angles. Different strategies. And
sometimes we have to collaborate. That can be fun! I
mean, I am not completely ignorant of the F domain,
but I rarely find it helpful.
I know a lot of good engineers who work primarily
in the time domain. Often we can solve some problems
that the frequency-domain guys have trouble with,
such as the ball-on-beam balancer (BOBB) and the
fuzzy controller for steam boilers. I get insights that
the fuzzy-logic guys and the F-domain guys don’t.
KEY QUESTIONS
Several years ago, a guy asked me, “When an
LM308 has its dc gain increase, don’t you get in trouble
when its ac gain increases proportionately?” I
asked him where he got that notion from. He said he
read it in a book. I told him to drag out that book and
X out that idea.
I explained that the gain-bandwidth of any modern
op amp (designed in the last 40 years) is invariant
of the dc gain. He said his simulations did not show
that. I told him his simulations and models were just
wrong. The book was wrong.
Then I asked him if he ran a simulation of an
LM108 with high gain (–500,000), another one with
low gain (–50,000), and another one with reversed
gain (+500,000), what if the simulation told him some
of them would not work well? What if he ran the
amplifiers and they all worked well (as I am sure they
would)? Which would he believe, the simulation or
the silicon?
He did not know how to answer my questions. He
went away. He never came back. I hope he believed
the real amplifiers. A few weeks ago, I bumped into
another guy who still believed that:
AV = AVO × 1/(1 + s × FO)
where FO is the purported “low-frequency rolloff” frequency.
Even at Philbrick, we used to say that. Even
when we were wrong. Even when we should have
known better. For him, I cooked up a better expression.
For mid-frequencies, it is fair to say:
–VO = 2pfH?VIN dt
which is the same as saying:
–VIN = p × VOUT/2pfH
where fH is the gain-bandwidth product or the unitygain
frequency. Or if you want to add a second highfrequency
rolloff near fH, that’s easy. But for the lowfrequency
rolloff, the correct way to look at it is:

The default value of gain when f gets very small
becomes AV = ~AVO, as the other terms cancel out. But
the low-frequency “break frequency” moves around
as AVO changes. It’s FO = 2pfH/AVO, and that’s okay.
The frequency domain guys can analyze this any
way they want to. The fuzzy-logic guys can analyze
it any way they want to. But I have a bunch of friends
who have sold several billion op amps, and we are
right, and most frequency-domain guys are wrong,
about how to describe an op amp.
If the dc gain goes up to 10 million, or more, that’s
not really bad. The f-3dB could fall to 0.1 Hz, or lower,
but that does not mean that the amplifier’s response
will have long settling tails at 0.1 Hz—as I pointed
out in “What’s All This Output Impedance Stuff, Anyhow?
(Part 2)” (Aug. 28, 2008; ED Online 19555).
Am I any expert on poles and zeros? Uh-uh. The
frequency-domain guys have those tools. They like to
use those to solve some problems that I would probably
have trouble with. I prefer to solve those problems
in the time domain. I like to use p = d/dt. The derivative
operator. In linear systems, in the frequency
domain, p = s = 2pj(f), but I won’t waste much time
with that. How can I sell you on the time domain?
Where can you learn more? I dunno. More later.
Comments invited! rap@galaxy.nsc.com —or:
Mail Stop D2597A, National Semiconductor
P.O. Box 58090, Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090
|