CMRR formula gives wrong result

  • Thread starter Thread starter simpComp
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a misunderstanding of the Common-Mode Rejection Ratio (CMRR) calculation for operational amplifiers. One participant initially calculates an output error of ±222mV instead of the expected ±316µV. Another participant clarifies the correct approach, emphasizing the use of the formula dB = 20log(ratio) to derive the correct output. After revisiting algebra concepts and following the provided guidance, the original poster successfully recalculates the output error to confirm the correct value of 316µV. The exchange highlights the importance of understanding logarithmic calculations in electronics.
simpComp
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Hello,

If you go to this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-mode_rejection_ratio

and scroll all the way down to the bottom where they show the:

"Example: operational amplifiers"

section... we have:

So for example, an op-amp with 90dB CMRR operating with 10V of common-mode will have an output error of ±316uV.

I get +/-222mv ?

Am I doing the math wrong?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
simpComp said:
Hello,

If you go to this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-mode_rejection_ratio

and scroll all the way down to the bottom where they show the:

"Example: operational amplifiers"

section... we have:



I get +/-222mv ?

Am I doing the math wrong?

I get the 316mV number. Can you show how you are typing the numbers into your calculator?
 
90/10
then the result is multiplied by 10.

then
10/the result above

hence:
10/((90/20)10) = 0.222?

and they get 316 micro volts?
 
simpComp said:
90/10
then the result is multiplied by 10.

then
10/the result above

hence:
10/((90/20)10) = 0.222?

and they get 316 micro volts?

I think there are several issues with the way you are trying to solve this. First remember that for voltage ratios, the equation is dB = 20log(ratio).

So for this problem, you start with 90dB = 20log(10/x).

To solve that equation, you divide both sides by 20, and then take 10^ for both sides.

Can you take it from there...?
 
Hi berkeman,

You talking to a very slow guy here!
so I try:

I went back to my algebra notes of 20 years ago and saw the example:

2 = log(base10)(100)

then I tried doing the reverse:

10^2 = 100

So then I understood that its 10 to the power of (90/20)...

So I did the same while following your instructions...

90dB = 20log(10/x)

90dB/20 = (20log(10/x))/20

4.5dB = log(10/x)

Antilog = 10^4.5 so:

10^4.5 = 10/x

which becomes:

10/31622.8 = x

316 uVThankyou for your help!
 
Last edited:
Woot! Good job! :smile:
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top