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.
 
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