Available Noise Power and Amplifiers

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding noise calculations in amplifiers, particularly regarding the impact of impedance matching on noise spectral density. The user presents a scenario involving a noisy resistor and an amplifier, questioning why the textbook emphasizes maximum power transfer through matched impedances when it seemingly reduces output noise. They express confusion over the relationship between impedance matching and noise voltage, suggesting that higher impedance would yield maximum noise output. Responses indicate that real-world applications prioritize noise power over voltage, making matched impedance a more practical consideration. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the balance between theoretical noise analysis and practical amplifier design.
Runei
Messages
193
Reaction score
17
Hello there,

I'm working with the textbook by Wim van Etten, "Introduction to Random Signals and Noise". And right now I'm preparing for an exam in a stochastic processes course.

I have a question regarding some noise calculations, that I just can't wrap my head around. I hope someone will be able to shed some light!

The situation
So we have a noisy resistor of value R. By using approximation we can say that the RMS voltage across this resistor due to thermal noise, is equal to (Vr is assumed to be the rms voltage).

V_r = \sqrt{4kTRB}

And here B is of course the bandwidth of whatever measuring system you use to determine the voltage. So far so good.

The noise spectral density of the noise voltage is

S_r= 2kTR

Now we connect this to to an amplifier (noiseless to begin with). The amplifier has an input resistance of Ri, and output resistance of Ro, a frequency response of H(ω) and connected to a load resistor of RL. All resistors other than R are assumed to be noiseless.

Now, what I would do then is to say:

The noise spectral density at the input is then given by

S_i = S_r \frac{R_i^2}{(R_i + R)^2}

The output spectral density (not across the load by the voltage generated before the output resistance), is then given by

S_o = S_i \cdot |H(\omega)|^2

Looking then at the spectrum seen across the load resistor we have

S_L = S_o \frac{R_L^2}{(R_L + R_o)^2}

The totality of this becomes the following

S_L = S_r \frac{R_i^2}{(R_i + R)^2} \frac{R_L^2}{(R_L + R_o)^2} |H(\omega)|^2

This is all well and good, however, what I don't understand is why he goes ahead in the book and want to create the maximum power transfer (real power).

As I see it, if the impedances are matched, the spectral density at the loads go down, as opposed to the case where the input impedance was set to infinity, and the Load resistance was also set to infinity. This would give an indication of maximum possible noise voltage we could see at the output, due to that single resistor (or noisy circuit with an equivalent temperature of T and equivalent resistance of R).

I know that if we DO match the impedances, the R dissapears, but why is this a "smart" thing to do? Don't we want to analyze situations in which the noise signal we get out is the maximum, to see what the worst case scenario is? Or am I completely missing something?

I know it's nice that have the available noise power as

P_a = kT/2

But this is only the case of matched impedances, which make the signal become smaller, and hence, create a smaller output noise than in the case of a larger impedance...

Am I ranting? Or am I making sense? o_O

My general problem is that I don't see why we go ahead and assume matched impedances.

Thank you for any help you might give!Rune
 
I'm not sure, but I expect real world applications are generally more concerned with noise power than noise voltage. Assuming a noiseless matching resistance is less "unreal" than assuming a noiseless infinite input impedance and load.
 
  • Like
Likes Runei
Thread 'Weird near-field phenomenon I get in my EM simulation'
I recently made a basic simulation of wire antennas and I am not sure if the near field in my simulation is modeled correctly. One of the things that worry me is the fact that sometimes I see in my simulation "movements" in the near field that seems to be faster than the speed of wave propagation I defined (the speed of light in the simulation). Specifically I see "nodes" of low amplitude in the E field that are quickly "emitted" from the antenna and then slow down as they approach the far...
Hello dear reader, a brief introduction: Some 4 years ago someone started developing health related issues, apparently due to exposure to RF & ELF related frequencies and/or fields (Magnetic). This is currently becoming known as EHS. (Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a claimed sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, to which adverse symptoms are attributed.) She experiences a deep burning sensation throughout her entire body, leaving her in pain and exhausted after a pulse has occurred...
Back
Top