Differential Amplifier Common Mode Thevenin Equivalent

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the small signal analysis of a MOSFET differential amplifier, specifically regarding its common-mode equivalent circuit. The initial confusion arises from the characterization of a Norton equivalent circuit, which the author believes does not align with the typical definition involving a parallel resistance and current source. The second figure presents a Thevenin equivalent resistance as just RL, leading to a calculation that initially appears incorrect. Upon further analysis, the author realizes that neglecting to turn off the common-mode input voltage (vc) affects the dependent current source, which should not be the case for a proper Thevenin equivalent. This insight clarifies the situation, highlighting the importance of correctly shutting down vc to obtain the accurate Thevenin equivalent resistance.
anvoice
Messages
16
Reaction score
3
TL;DR Summary
A sanity check on a text I am using to learn EE. Cannot replicate the result for the common mode Thevenin resistance in a figure in the text.
I am currently reading about small signal analysis of a MOSFET differential amplifier. The text I am using has the below two figures for a common-mode equivalent circuit for the amplifier. The first makes sense to me except where it calls it a "Norton equivalent circuit", whereas I thought a Norton between either the vx or vy terminals would need to have a single resistance in parallel with a current source, and I don't see how this qualifies.
More importantly, the second figure has the Thevenin equivalent resistance as just RL. Seeing that exciting the subcircuits on the leftmost figure with a voltage and measuring the current seems to be a reasonable way of finding Rth in this case, I did that and ended up with a Rth of
2RL / (2 + (RL) x (vc)). Am I missing something major or is this a typo in the text? Granted it doesn't invalidate the main result (vx - vy = 0), it bothers me.

DiffAmp.png
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
I think I figured it out. Looking at just this subcircuit, I forgot to shut down the signal vc (common-mode input) to the MOSFETs. If vc is off, naturally the dependent current source becomes an open circuit and the resistance is indeed RL. It is also a warning sign in this case that if you forget to shut down vc, the Thevenin equivalent resistance is actually dependent on the excitation voltage, which shouldn't be the case. The hints were there, but just managed to piece them together.
 
Hey guys. I have a question related to electricity and alternating current. Say an alien fictional society developed electricity, and settled on a standard like 73V AC current at 46 Hz. How would appliances be designed, and what impact would the lower frequency and voltage have on transformers, wiring, TVs, computers, LEDs, motors, and heating, assuming the laws of physics and technology are the same as on Earth?
While I was rolling out a shielded cable, a though came to my mind - what happens to the current flow in the cable if there came a short between the wire and the shield in both ends of the cable? For simplicity, lets assume a 1-wire copper wire wrapped in an aluminum shield. The wire and the shield has the same cross section area. There are insulating material between them, and in both ends there is a short between them. My first thought, the total resistance of the cable would be reduced...
I used to be an HVAC technician. One time I had a service call in which there was no power to the thermostat. The thermostat did not have power because the fuse in the air handler was blown. The fuse in the air handler was blown because there was a low voltage short. The rubber coating on one of the thermostat wires was chewed off by a rodent. The exposed metal in the thermostat wire was touching the metal cabinet of the air handler. This was a low voltage short. This low voltage...
Back
Top