• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Subscribers 48 subscribers
  • Views 2447 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Similar topics

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

Mistakes in "Op Amps for Everyone" noise section?

Jonathan9420
Expert 2056 points
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: TLC2201, TINA-TI

In Op Amps for Everyone, there's a section on noise calculations "Op Amp Noise Theory and Applications" which is hard for me to follow.  I see a few obvious errors, so I wonder if this section is just wrong.

Can someone go through each of these and confirm if the book is wrong or explain to me why I'm wrong?

  1. Twice it says "The output noise equals the input noise multiplied by the gain, which is 100 (40 dB)".  But shouldn't it be multiplied by the non-inverting noise gain, which is 101?  For this circuit it's a small difference, but for other circuits it's a big difference.  This source says to multiply by the non-inverting gain: Part III: Resistor Noise And Sample Calculations
  2. The IC in Fig 10-15 and 10-16 should be a TLC2201, not TLE2201, which doesn't exist.
  3. The capacitor in Fig 10-15 and 10-16 should be 0.1 µF, not 0.1 F.
  4. Equation 10-23 is supposed to be the total output noise of the amplifier and the resistor divider, but I don’t think it’s correct:
    • The noise of the two resistors is summed (5.73 µV²‎ + 5.73 µV²‎), which would produce a total noise of 8.1 µV.  But don’t the resistors load down each other’s noise sources, so the total contribution is equivalent to the resistors in parallel?  It would be equal to a single 50 kΩ resistor producing 4.0 µV.  A 1 MΩ resistor in parallel with a 1 Ω resistor produces the same noise as a lone 1 Ω resistor, not the noise of a lone 1 MΩ, right?
    • The noise of the resistors (5.7 µV) that appears at the input of the op-amp is being summed with the output noise of the op-amp (1.13 µV x 100 = 113.1 µV).  Shouldn’t the resistor noise be multiplied by the gain, too?  It says “The amplifier noise is swamping the resistor noise”, but this isn’t true if you multiply the resistor noise by the gain, too.
  5. Equation 10-25 is not right.
    • The left side of the equation is equal to 113.2, but the right side says 126.8.  It was probably meant to include 57.3, not 5.73.
    • The text says “Adding this [the 57.3 µV noise from the 10M] and the 100-kΩ resistor noise to the amplifier noise”.  This is three terms (10 MΩ, 100 kΩ, op-amp), but there are only two in the equation.
    • But again, these two resistors should be paralleled before the noise is calculated.  The noise is actually that of a single 99 kΩ resistor, (5.707 µV).
    • Again, the resistor noise is not multiplied by the gain, even though the text says it should be:  “The noise associated with it appears as a voltage source at the inverting input of the op amp, and, therefore, is multiplied by a factor of 100 through the circuit.”
    • If I understand correctly, I think the correct equation would be the noise of a 50 kΩ resistor (100k||100k) summed with a 99 kΩ resistor (10M||100k) and summed with the op-amp’s input noise, which is then multiplied by the non-inverting noise gain:   √(4.06 µV²‎ + 5.707 µV²‎ + 1.131 µV²‎) × 101 = 716.3 µV
    • A TINA-TI simulation of this circuit produces 633.44 µV, which is not quite the same, but the text gives only 126.8 µV
  6. Equation 10-27 has similar problems to the others.
    • Because of the addition of the 0.1 µF cap, the resistor divider is being ignored.  The equation then seems to be summing the 100 kΩ and 1 kΩ of the inverting side, but they should be in parallel instead (100 kΩ || 1 kΩ = 990.1 Ω → 0.5707 µV).
    • If the 50 kΩ resistor is ignored, it becomes: √(0.5707 µV²‎ + 1.131 µV²‎) × 101 = 127.9 µV
    • A TINA simulation with the cap in place gives 112.3 µV
    • So in this case the book’s answer of 113.2 µV is close to correct, but I think the derivation is not.
  • 0
    TI__Mastermind 21577 points

    Jonathan,

    Thanks for the feedback.  I am going through your list and confirming all the corrections.  I will also find out what we can do to make the corrections in the PDF.  Thanks again.  I'll send you an update later with more details.

    Art Kay

  • 0 in reply to Art Kay
    TI__Mastermind 21577 points

    Jonathan9420,

    Sorry for the delay.  I looked through the list of issues that you provided and I agree with all of your points.  This particular chapter needs some significant revisions.  I will contact the authors and publisher of the book.  In general I think the book is a good reference, but the chapter on noise needs a little help.

     As an alternative I suggest “Low-Noise Electronic System Design, by C.D. Motchenbacher and J. A. Connely”.  Also you can look over my article series on en-genius.net (I noticed you already reference one of the articles).  Also at the end of the month I am publishing a book based on the series.

     

    http://www.en-genius.net/site/zones/audiovideoZONE/technical_notes/avt_120511

    http://www.amazon.com/Operational-Amplifier-Noise-Techniques-Analyzing/dp/0750685255

    http://www.amazon.com/Low-Noise-Electronic-System-Design-Motchenbacher/dp/0471577421/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326862047&sr=1-1

     

     

  • 0
    Prodigy 10 points

    It is unfortunate I didn't see this post until after edition four was published.  The noise chapter has been demoted to an Appendix and reduced greatly in size because it was so problematic.  I believe that the elimination of that really bad noise example has addressed every one of your issues.  I found that a noise calculation spreadsheet - done in Excel - was much more useful than the lengthy example.  Give the new edition a try, I think you will find that it is a lot better.  I reluctantly have been moving away from some of the material written by my mentor - the great Ron Mancini - but I am moving this and subsequent editions away from the theoretical and towards the practical.  As it is no longer a Texas Instruments publication, I've had a lot more freedom to include helpful material from other manufacturers, and will continue that trend in future editions, which seem to be about 5 years apart.  As I am no longer a TI employee, you are welcome to email me privately should you find mistakes in the 4th edition.  I've found that dealing with a publisher is an exercise in statistics - statistically I can reduce the number of errors about 90% in a new edition, but differences in style by ghostwriters (primarily English majors) at the publisher, combined with "improvements" they make to graphics introduce about 10% more errors that easily slip by even the most careful review, or are introduced after I've approved the last revision.  A good example is the 'micro" and "Ohm" symbols - not a part of the standard character set, and it only takes one editor on a Mac or a Linux machine to mangle them or delete them.  I do have a Yahoo group established for the book, you are welcome to join and contribute - help make this a better design resource for all.  I can't guarantee that all suggestions will make it into the book.  An excellent Fliege filter derivation from a contributor - a derivation that stumped me, Ron Mancini, and Jim Karki by the way - didn't make the editorial cut.  The Yahoo group is at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Op_Amp_Applications, and I answer all technical inquiries there, not just about the book.  Be aware that I now give technical advice and recommend parts from all manufacturers, not just TI.