3

This is from this lecture video. Please check the video link if you're not familiar with the terms. I can explain it but I think the video lecture is pretty good at it.

enter image description here

Because the feedback amplifier is linear, signals \$s_{ic}\$ and \$s_{out}\$ can be expressed as linear functions of the outputs of the two sources, \$s_{oc}\$ and \$s_{in}\$:

enter image description here enter image description here enter image description here

\$A_{∞}\$ is defined as the closed loop gain \$A\$ when \$ \mathscr{R}\to ∞\$.
Why don't you remove \$\frac{g}{\mathscr{R}}\$ as it would also approach zero when \$ \mathscr{R}\to ∞\$?
The excerpt is from Analysis and Design of Analog Integrated Circuits, 5th Edition Book by Paul R Gray. enter image description here

emnha
  • 1,547
  • 4
  • 34
  • 84

3 Answers3

0

Well you could say:

\$\lim_{\mathscr{R}\to\infty}A_{∞}=\frac{g}{\mathscr{R}}+d=d\$

But what that does is esentialily takes the feedback loop out of the equation and you are left with feed forward only (which is d)

so basically what you are saying is if you turn the closed loop feedback portion of the loop (kH) all the way up to infinity it takes the closed loop portion of the feed back out of the equation.

You could also say:

\$\lim_{\mathscr{R}\to\infty}A=\frac{g}{1+\mathscr{R}}+d=d\$

and then say: \$ A_{∞}=A=d \$

but that doesn't really tell you that, because physically you've eliminated the closed loop portion of the equation.

What you want to do is relate them directly and that is why they use equation 8.209

Also the 3rd edition of the book does not go through this derivation, feed forward is not used in most opamp configurations or control loops, while it's a nice academic exercise, I prefer the derivation without feed forward.

Voltage Spike
  • 75,799
  • 36
  • 80
  • 208
0

I'll try to add a more intuitive understanding of why they derived the equation in the form they did. First, I agree with the previous comment (and your intuition) about taking the limit of R as it approaches infinity. $$\lim_{\mathscr{R} \to \infty}\frac{g}{1+ \mathscr{R}} + {d} = d$$ But, they purposely defined and isolated the term $${A_\infty} = \frac{g}{\mathscr{R}} + {d}$$ to get it in the following form $${A} = {A_\infty}\frac{\mathscr{R}}{1+ \mathscr{R}} + \frac{d}{1+ \mathscr{R}}$$ We can see that if we let the return ratio, R go to infinity, we are just left with $$A = A_\infty$$.

Now about the intuition, there is a similar form shown under the asymptotic gain model, which expresses gain of negative feedback amplifiers as the asymptotic gain relation. $${G} = {G_\infty}\frac{{T}}{1+ {T}} + {G_o}\frac{1}{1+ {T}}$$ Notice, this is the same form shown earlier, just using different variables. T here is the return ratio (R), G is gain (A) at asymptotic infinite return ratio (Ginf), and when return ratio is zero (G0). I'm going to suggest (as previous poster alluded to) that we ignore the direct transmission term on the right as that represents the feedforward portion of the network we are modeling. Not only do most EE texts usually not cover this feedforward part, but the important part in circuit design is the feedback portion. So,$${G} = {G_\infty}\frac{{T}}{1+ {T}}$$

Now we can use some of the definitions shown on wiki, of the classical feedback theory. The most important (feedback) equation you will use in circuits is $${A_{FB}} = \frac{A}{1+B_{FB}{A}}$$ This well known form expresses gain as a function of open loop gain and closed loop feedback terms. If the open loop gain, A, is infinite then the closed loop feedback will be precisely 1/Bfb as desired.

Using the expressions, for Ginf, and T, we see $${{B_{FB}} = {B} = \frac{1}{G_\infty}}$$ and $${{A} = {G_\infty T}}$$

This translates the form G and T to the form with AFB and A. And you can just think of T (return ratio) as AB, known as the loop gain. Ginf is just 1/Bfb or the inverse of the closed loop gain.

We can further use the form $${A_{FB}} = {A_{CL}} = \frac{1}{B}\frac{1}{\frac{1}{AB} +1 }$$ Note, this is the final form they led you to (A) and the feedback portion of the classical feedback equation (G).

The importance of this equation and form is that if the open loop gain (A) and hence loop gain (AB) is very large, the closed loop gain just becomes the term on the left or 1/B. This is why op amps are usually designed with very large open loop gain, so that the closed loop gain is accurate with very small errors.

Leaving it in the form $${A} = {A_\infty}\frac{\mathscr{R}}{1+ \mathscr{R}} = {A_\infty}$$ (and ignoring d, feedforward term) is equivalent to having the classical form - $${A} = A_{CL} = {\frac{A}{AB}}{\frac{AB}{1 + AB}} = {1/B}$$ (with loop gain, AB, and transmission ratio R, approaching infinity).

It should be clear why this form is useful as it expresses asymptotic closed loop gain as a function of open loop gain (which is ideally infinite). And notice if the AB term was by itself as one single variable (as in the original author's R term) the whole term would go to zero, just as in your original question. The important part is breaking out g/R and A/T into A/AB so the As cancel and 1/B is the clear feedback gain.

pat
  • 2,075
  • 12
  • 11
0

Return ratio R is going to infinity because we are assuming \$k->\infty\$, i.e. we have a dependent source with infinite gain.

Then actually the g/R term will not go to zero as R approaches infinity because g itself will be increasing with k. $$\frac{g}{R} = \frac{B_1kB_2}{kH} = \frac{B_1B_2}{H} \ne 0$$ Thus the approximation you say is not correct. The other answers are making the same mistake.

sarthak
  • 3,646
  • 4
  • 19
  • 31
  • Very good point. – Mitu Raj Aug 18 '21 at 09:43
  • 1
    The issue the OP had is R term was not factored out as in your case. And if you factor out k, it is no longer R. So yes, g/R does go to zero as R approaches infinity. If it was factored as you showed, the OP would not have any dilemna. The original authors could have made this clearer. – pat Aug 19 '21 at 00:11
  • @pat I did not do any factoring....I just substituted the values for g and R...And there is no way that g/R term goes to zero for infinite R because then the asymptotic gain is same is direct feedthrough implying no feedback at all. You are absolutely wrong – sarthak Aug 19 '21 at 05:53
  • @sarthak. Take your factored or substituted form if you want to call it that. g/R = B1kB2/kH. Assign a value to k say 1. Tell me what happens to g/R if you let kH go to infinity. It's different if you use the original form – pat Aug 19 '21 at 21:06
  • 1
    @pat That is what I am trying to explain...You do not have k = 1 for asymptotic loop gain...k is infinity and R is infinity **because** k is infinity. As R goes to infinity (because of k) so does g (again because of k). So their ratio stays at some finite value. Also if \$A_\infty\$ = d , then A = d , this is as if there is no feedback at all. – sarthak Aug 19 '21 at 23:24
  • Your answer is right and pat is also right. It's a bit confusing that they left the term with R inside. It's better just simplifying it to B1B2/H. – emnha Aug 20 '21 at 07:09
  • @sarthak. I agree with your point. However, you are taking k approaching infinity in the numerator, and R (kH) approaching infinity in the denominator (actually it is k that is approaching infinity here)-- not just R (kH) . So I still stand by g/R as R approaches infinity goes to zero. You could use the original form g/(1+R) = B1kB2/(1+kH) = B1k(H/H)B2/(1+kH) = B1(kH)(1/H)B2/(1+kH) divide through by kH = (B1B2/H)/(1/kH +1) and take R = kH to infinity. In this case, it does converge to B1B2/H as above while only taking R to infinity. No messy infinity/infinity limits to deal with, either. – pat Aug 20 '21 at 10:43