This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

3/4, 1985

**Signal and Noise Theory for a DC SQUID Amplifier
**

John M. Martinis and John Clarke

Department of Physics, Universityof California, and Materials and MolecularResearch Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, California (Received May 7, 1985) A theory is presented for the gain and noise in an amplifier based on a dc SQUID. In the lumped circuit approximation, the total inductance of the input circuit Lr is coupled to the S Q U I D inductance L via a mutual inductance Mi = c~e(LLT) 1/2 and is in series with a voltage source with a resistance Ri and a capacitance Ci. The results are expressed in terms of parameters for a S Q U I D with reduced inductance (I - a ~ ) L . The voltage gain of the amplifier at frequency to/ 2~r is MiV~,/Z*T(to), while the total voltage noise at the output of the S Q U I D is V~(to) + M i 2V,JN(to)(Ri + 1/jwCi) / L r Z * (w). Here, r r Z* (to) = ZT (tO) -- J~M ~ (Ri + I / j to Ci) / Lr, where ZT(to) is the total impedance of the unloaded input circuit, V~, and J~, are the flux-to-voltage and flux-tocirculating current transfer functions of the reduced SQUID, and V~(to) and J~(to) are the noise voltage and noise current of the reduced SQUID.

1. I N T R O D U C T I O N Several years ago, Clarke, Tesche, and Giffard I (CTG) discussed the optimization of voltmeter and magnetometer circuits involving dc SQUIDs. This paper took into account the two noise sources of the SQUID, namely the voltage noise across the SQUID and the current noise circulating around the loop, and the partial correlation of these two noises. Expressions were derived for the optimized noise temperature of voltmeters and the minimum detectable signal energy of magnetometers for both the tuned and untuned cases. For SQUIDs in the thermal limit, computed values of the noise sources 2'3 were used to make estimates of realizable noise temperatures and signal energies. The essential approximation in these calculations was that the SQUID was relatively weakly coupled to the input circuit and that the parameters of the SQUID were not significantly affected by the presence of that circuit. Subsequently, planar, thin-film dc SQUIDS have been developed that are strongly coupled to their input coils, 4-11 so that the assumption of weak

227

0022-2291/85/1100-0227504.50/0 © 1985 Plenum Publishing Corporation

one needs to develop a theory that takes into account possible modifications of the parameters of the SQUID due to the presence of the input circuit. these values can be used in the equivalent circuit model that enables one to optimize the circuit parameters in a straightforward way. and at the same time possible changes in the impedance of the input circuit due to the presence of the SQUID. one is required to compute the transfer functions and noise parameters for a single value of inductance only. . but does not account for the SQUID impedance reflected into the input circuit in a self-consistent way. our theory requires a knowledge of the dynamic input impedance of the SQUID loop. that is. described in Section 2. although it makes contact with both. 17 This paper is the first of a series of three papers that are closely linked. Within the approximations made in Section 2. In Section 3 we comment briefly on a formal method of incorporating the effects of parasitic capacitance into the theory. there have been two approaches to this problem. As we shall see. The equivalent circuit model and the values of the transfer functions and noise parameters depend on how the equations are divided into linear and nonlinear parts. Each of these theories attempts to construct an equivalent circuit model for the amplification and noise properties of a dc SQUID coupled to an input circuit. a theory by Koch 12 and a series of three papers by T e s c h e . Since there has been no previous detailed study of this aspect of SQUID behavior. the current response to a small applied flux. to an output circuit. the second paper 18 presents a comprehensive study of the dynamic impedance both on an analog computer and on real SQUIDS. is to break up the full equations of motion into linear and nonlinear parts. in the present work. A brief presentation of the work has been made elsewhere. in our view. The present work makes use of a method that differs from those used in the previous theories. The approach we have adopted. The nonlinear part is assumed to be solved on a computer for the transfer functions and noise parameters that are then used in the equivalent circuit model obtained from the linear part of the equations. and. 13-15 The latter theory.228 John M. this division is made so that the nonlinear part describes a "reduced SQUID ''12-16 with a reduced inductance that depends only on the effective coupling coefficient to the input circuit and is independent of frequency. as will be made clear at appropriate places in the paper. Martinis and John Clarke coupling is not necessarily valid. correctly calculates the effect of the input circuit on the SQUID. while Section 4 contains a concluding discussion. Such a model is desirable because the exact solution of the nonlinear circuit equations on a computer for given input and output circuits is time-consuming and must be repeated for a range of circuit parameters to enable one to optimize the parameter values. Instead. As a result. To our knowledge.

The circuit shown in Fig. Model circuit for a voltage amplifier based on a de SQUID.1. tuned or untuned. 1. and a shunt resistance R. T H E O R Y OF T H E C O U P L E D DC SQUID 2. each with a critical current Io. . or a preamplifier. By choosing Lp. The third paper a9 draws on the work of the first two papers to discuss the optimization of tuned and untuned SQUID voltage amplifiers.Signal and Noise Theory for a DC SQUID Amplifier 229 In addition. a stray inductance Ls. a tuned circuit.~ of the input circuit via a mutual inductance Mi = a (LLi) u2. + 1/jtoC~ +jtOLT (1) The input voltage V~ could arise from a voltage source (the resistance of which is included in R~) or from a time-varying magnetic flux in the pickup coil. The SQUID is biased with a constant current I and develops a voltage V(t) across the input impedance ZA of the next stage. and a resistance Ri. between turns of the input coil or between the input coil and the SQUID. this paper includes an experimental study of the effects of parasitic capacitance and a discussion of the validity of the lumped circuit model that is used in the present paper. which might be a transformer. o Lt R Ci IF j_ Fig. the total impedance of the input circuit is ZT(tO) = Ri + 1/jtoC. Thus. 1. + L. 1 neglects parasitic capacitance. 2. The SQUID consists of two identical Josephson tunnel junctions. a self-capacitance C. one can use this circuit to represent a voltage amplifier or a magnetometer. a capacitance Ci. The input circuit contains a pickup loop with inductance Lp. is coupled to the inductance L. +j~o (L. + L~) = R. for example. and then describes the performance that has been achieved with practical amplifiers. and R~ appropriately. M o d e l Circuit Our model for an amplifier involving a dc SQUID is shown in Fig. which has an inductance L. Ci. The SQUID loop.

( t ) + INl( t ) 82(t)+IN2(t ) hC. The lumped circuit model is expected also to break down if the wavelength at the Josephson frequency becomes comparable with the dimensions of the input circuit.J( t) .82(t)]dgo/27r = dp + LJ(t) + MiI~(t) (6) where 8-= 08/Ot.2. 2. Martinis and John Clarke which may have a significant effect on the dynamics of the SQUID at the Josephson frequency.230 John M. • is the externally applied magnetic flux. the currents through these junctions are 11 and /2. J is the current around the SQUID loop. For the moment. 8"-. 2 with the addition of the last (linear) terms on the right-hand side of Eqs. and concern ourselves with developing a solution to the equations of motion that describe Fig. the equations of motion for the SQUID coupled to an input circuit are V(t) = [ 81(t) + t%(t)] h/4e hC .( t ) . 1. 2e 82(t)+ 2 . The equations are identical to those used previously to describe the bare dc SQUID. which account for the loading of the SQUID by the next stage and for the influence of the input circuit. These effects may be particularly important for thinfilm devices with tightly coupled input coils.(0 +2--~ 8. .Io sin 8. Equations of Motion for the Coupled DC S Q U I D In the time domain. which we assume to be much less than the Josephson frequency. (5) and (6). and the noise currents produced by the shunt resistors are IN~ and IN2.° (2) (3) 2e 8. f denotes the Fourier transform of f and (f* g)(t) denotes the convolution (27r) -1/2 I~_oof(t')g(t .ZA'(to) * V and (4) (5) [8~(t) . The phase differences across the junctions are 81 and 82.t') dt' In these equations. 12-16 respectively. At the signal frequency. the parasitic capacitances should be relatively unimportant. we neglect these parasitic effects. and Ii is the current in the input circuit.~ "82(t)=I2(t)+J(t)-Iosin Ii(t) + I2(t) = I . V is the voltage across the SQUID.028/0t 2.( t ) = I..

Thus. the high-frequency term in Eq./)j) =jc.[floMz~/ZT(~O)] * J + [M.{[floM~/ZT(OJ)] * J}HF (9) TO simplify Eqs.a e L J + 2 2 [oteLJ]L F (11) Because the [ ]LF terms in Eqs. the current J(~o) in the SQUID loop induces a voltage* -joJMiJ(o~) into the input circuit. we rewrite Eqs.[Z'-A'(O~)* V]HF (8) [t~l(t ) -. (8) is negligible.. we now introduce low.j w M .82(t)]aPo/2~r = • + L J + { . SOthat ZT((. J ( ~o) ]/ Z T ( to ) (7) In order to resolve the equations into linear and nonlinear parts. (8) and (9) as I1(t) + 12(t) = I + A I ( t ) *The negative sign of this term was inadvertently omitted in CTG. Under this assumption. To solve the nonlinear equations of motion for a SQUID inductance that is independent of frequency and the input circuit. (5)-(7) in the form ll(t)+I2(t) and = I . The second assumption is that R~.ojL T. (9) becomes [--ot2 LJ]HF. so that I. IZT(~O)] * V~}LF -. these terms can be regarded as small changes AI and AO in the bias parameters I and qb. in order to separate effects at the signal frequency from those at the Josephson frequency. We can then rewrite Eqs. t (12) . where ct~ = M 2 / L L T (10) is an effective coupling coefficient involving the total inductance of the input circuit. (8) and (9). The first is that the output loading of the SQUID is negligible at the Josephson frequency oJj/2m so that the high-frequency term in Eq.( to ) = [ V~( w ) . The cutoff frequencies of these filter functions are chosen to lie between the signal and Josephson frequencies.and high-frequency filter functions [ ]LF and [ ]HF into the terms that represent the coupling of the SQUID to the input and output circuits. I1/jogj Ci[ << IjoJjLT[.[ z a l ( o g ) * V]LF-.Signal and Noise Theory for a DC SQUID Amplifier 231 In the frequency domain. (8) and (9) are at frequencies much less than the Josephson frequency. we introduce two assumptions. by using J = JLF+ JHF we make the separation [__ot2LJ]HF = .

We use the small-signal. 2. and S~ and cross-spectral density S~j. T h e L i n e a r A p p r o x i m a t i o n To solve for the effects of the input and output circuits using the linear approximation.a2)L: the inductance is reduced by the shielding effect of the input circuit. we obtain. Wx=-(OV/OI) r. (12). Martinis and John Clarke and [ (~1(t) -. and for the voltage and current noise terms WN(t) and J~v(t).-= (OV/O(~) r. the transfer functions will contain both real and imaginary components. (12). which we have assumed to be purely inductive at the Josephson frequency. 18'2° The noise terms are characterized by the low-frequency spectral densities S~. (14) and (15) into Eqs.a2)L.82( t)]qbo/2~" = qb + ( 1 -. Eqs. we describe a method for solving the equations of motion. The superscript r implies that these quantities are computed for a SQUID with reduced inductance (1 . (3). We now reintroduce the low-frequency terms AI and A~P by regarding them as small changes in the bias parameters.3. (2)-(4).a 2) LJ + Aqb(t) where AI(t) = --[Zal(to)] * V]LF and (14) (13) A¢(t)={[Mi/Zr(oJ)]* V~-[joJM~/ZT(oJ)]*J+a~LJ}LF (15) With AI = Aqb = 0. (16) and (17). and Jr1=--(OJ/OI)r. we initially set AI =Aqb = 0 and solve Eqs.232 John M.A~(t)+ W~AI(t) and J ( t ) = J~¢(t) + J o Aqb(t) + J~ AI(t) (16) (17) Inserting Eqs. and (13) for the set of low-frequency transfer functions that represent time averages over the voltage and current at the Josephson frequency. Jr~=-(OJ/O~)r. W~. In the next section. at low . and (13) are the equations of motion for a reduced S Q U I D 12-16 with an inductance (1 . in general. (4). We note that. linear approximation to find the new output voltage and circulating current at low frequency with these terms included: V(t) = WN(t)+ V~.

(18) to find V(~)= WN(oJ)+M. which was not included in the work of TescheJ 3-15 In general.W~.. (19) to optimize the component values for any type of input circuit. one can readily use Eq. when the SQUID is followed by a transformer--this approximation is not valid.. The term MiJ~(to)(Ri+l/jtoCi)/Lr in the numerator is identical to that obtained by Tesche13-15 (with L p = L s = 0 ) .* In this limit... . the r 2 denominator of Eq. (19) contains the additional term -Ja. On the other hand. *This is an excellent approximation for the amplifiers studied in the two papers that follow. representing tlae aodification of the input circuit by the presenbe of the SQUID.M~ 2 1\ J(~)/ = Za(~o) -J~ ZA(~o) + v (0. " ~ ' ( .~ V~(to) + MJ~N( ~o)( R.Signal and Noise Theory for a DC SQUID Amplifier 233 frequency. however.)4 zT(o.(o)) H zT(~o) The linear equations (18) can be solved in a straightforward manner.. we consider the limit ZA(tO)~ 0O in which the loading of the SQUID by the following circuitry is negligible. To focus attention on the interaction of the input circuit and the SQUID and to simplify the solution. and one should retain the terms in 1/Za(tO).r ( o ~ ~ ~ ./. we solve Eqs. Thus.) (18) \. Mi(R~+ !Z}~Q)/Lr. We note. that for many low-frequency applications--for example. F-j. this term modifies both the signal and noise measured at the output of the SQUID. The second term in square brackets represents the noise current flowing in the input circuit in the equivalent circuit model: this current produces a flux in the SQUID and thus an additional voltage noise at the output. + 1/jtoCi) / Lr] "/ (19) Equation (19) expresses the output voltage in terms of reduced SQUID parameters that are dependent only on the effective coupling coefficient ae and are otherwise independent of the input circuit.

becomes oj2M~/~. one finds . for example. that is. . 1.9 00. may differ from those for a bare SQUID.[ ' ~ / Z r ( ~ ] * V/}LF . As a simple example. (7)] apart from the introduction of the (correct) negative sign and the substitution of ~(to) for 4Vt. . it is difficult to incorporate their effects into the equation of motion. the high-frequency dynamics. . Martinis and John Clarke 3.t~2(t)]qbo/2"rr = Op+ L J + { . Z . 18'21 Because these capacitances are distributed. Eq. Thus.[ Ui(t.[ Z A l ( t o ) * V]LF--[UA(03) * V]HF (20) and [81(t) -. and therefore the low-frequency transfer coefficients and noise. to obtain I ~ ( t ) + I 2 ( t ) = 1 . where ~(to) is the dynamic impedance of the SQUID loop. we consider the limiting case UA(COj)= Ui(taj) = 0. at least in principle. As a result. (22) is the CTG result [Eq. EFFECTS OF PARASITIC CAPACITANCE Practical~ SQUID amplifiers generally contain parasitic capacitances.j t o / ~ . among the turns of the input coil or between the input coil and the SQUID. We note that if one writes H J~ = . However. (22) differs from that of Eq. by replacing ZAI(to) and j~M2/ZT(CO) in the high-frequency parts of Eqs. that no currents at the Josephson frequency flow in the input circuit or in the stage following the SQUID. (19) because of the way in which the high-frequency parts of the SQUID inductance were treated in the two approximations. one can proceed as in Section 2. For the c a s e ZA(tO ) . even when the input coil is open-circuited.r ~ (22) The form of the equivalent circuit model of Eq. together with any other parasitic effects due to the breakdown of the simple lumped circuit of Fig. E-jtoMiJN(to) V(to) = V N ( w ) + &li V~. and.[ j t o ~ ) ] * J 4. as expected. The result can be found easily using the approach of Section 2 and by noting that the reduced SQUID parameters are replaced with the bare SQUID parameters.. One common manifestation of these parasitic effects is the appearance of structure on the current-voltage characteristics. the problem can be solved. the reflected SQUID impedance f i o M 2 j . respectively.o)* J]H F (21) If UA(tO) and U~(to) are known. (8) and (9) with the functions UA(W) and U~(to)..234 John M. in a formal sense one can allow for these effects.

405 (1979). it is likely that neither Eq. Ketchen and J. 37. In a real SQUID. . Albrecht. the validity of the lumped circuit model. we have deferred a discussion of the optimization of amplifiers until the third paper 19 in this sequence. Low Temp. Phys. Zahn. K185 (1979). Tesche and J. Richter. (a) 51. 5. 2. Thus. REFERENCES 1. J. W. gratefully acknowledges the receipt of an NSF graduate fellowship and an IBM predoctoral fellowship during the course of this research. The first. (22). Which of the two results is the more appropriate is likely to depend on the details of the structure of the SQUID and its input coil and on the conditions under which the SQUID is operated. M. Office of Energy Research. 37. Phys. J. we regard the question of whether to use Eq.Signal and Noise Theory for a DC SQUID Amplifier 235 4. 397 (1979). the CTG result is essentially Eq. Tesche and J. G. obvious difference is the replacement of the bare SQUID parameters in the CTG result with the reduced parameters in Eq. (22) is exactly applicable. Stat. The second paper 18 is devoted to the effects of parasitic capacitance. Eq. Phys. Lett. M. differs from the CTG result that was obtained under the assumption that the SQUID parameters were unaffected by the presence of the input circuit. The second difference is the replacement of the CTG expression for the noise voltage induced into the input circuit. 29. with the expression M~J~(to)(Ri + 1/jtoC~)/Lr that was first obtained by Tesche. Sol. 736 (1982). Low Temp. (22) to optimize the input circuit and noise temperature of the SQUID amplifier as one to be answered experimentally. Dettman. 4. J. and R. -jtoMJN(~o). We also thank Michel Devoret and Claude Hilbert for countless helpful discussions and Claude Hilbert for a critical reading of the manuscript. Jaycox. C. for the moment. (19) nor Eq. J. to whom we express our appreciation. Clarke. DISCUSSION We have presented a theory for the gain and noise properties of an amplifier based on a dc SQUID. S. D. M. (19). Clarke. Our central result using the lumped circuit model. Phys. and W. M. 14 The third difference is in the form of the denominator of Eqs. 301 (1977). D. (19). Low Temp. F. (19) or Eq. Office of Basic Energy Sciences. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC03-76SF00098. P. Giffard. Tesche. C. 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was stimulated by the work of Roger Koch. Phys. This work was supported by the Director. For this reason. D. C. and measurements of the impedance induced into the input circuit by the presence of the SQUID. (19) and (22). J. 40. Materials Sciences Division of the U. Appl. Clarke. B.

20. Savelli. 137. . eds. K. Phys. and P. 19. IEEE Trans. New York. Ketchen. and W. C. IEEE Trans. D. 21. W. 263 (1985). P. 61. T. M. MAG-19. C. Klapwijk. Jones. Mag. presented at Applied Superconductivity Conference.236 John M. MacDonald. Kleinsasser. Clarke. Phys. D. V. Johnson. M. 8. IEEE Trans. G. Ph.237 (1985). and S. M. Martinis and J. 1032 (1985). H. 1983). K. B. H. Zimmerman. C. W. C. and J. J. Greiner. MAG-21. J. 13. 1984). Z Low Temp. MAG-21. and A. Low Temp. (Plenum Press. A. Hutson. Lett. Mag. Appl. G. M. R. C. Muhfelder. H. 556 (1984). M. M. 42. 18. Phys. C. R. 10. M. van den Hamer. in Optical Bistability 2. Johnson.-P. Thesis. H. 11. 15. D. A.. 427 (1985). Kim. A. Phys.. D. H. Clarke. Berkeley (1982). J. Proto. H. M. Wang. M. Tesche. Cromar. Clarke. R. and J. Mag. MAG-19. 375. 287 (1983). 4483 (1971). M. Muhlfelder and W. J. MAG-21. 490 (1982). Clarke. A. J. Mag. Ono. C. H. 12. IEEE Trans. Mag. D. K. 17. Martinis. Tesche. 53. eds. Tesche. McCall. IEEE Trans. G. Callegari. 1036 (1985). 424 (1985). W. 7. Appl. 446 (1983). and T. J. W. September 9-13. Nongier. M. Gibbs. D. 1984 (unpublished). in Noise in Physical Systems and 1/fNoise. Martinis and John Clarke 6. Lecoy. Phys. Foglietti. 44. Appl. p. 458 (1983). Phys. C. Chen. Low Temp. p. E. J. B. B. 16. 61.D. (North-Holland. de Waal. San Diego. 41. Tugwell. Lett. Yogi. Hilbert and J. J. Hilbert. IEEE Trans. Mag. C. University of California. C. B. MAG-21. Bowden. Tesche. Beall. Pegrum. J. Koch. Amsterdam. Carelli and V. Brown. 9. 14. Notarys. H. C. Donaldson. G. L. Hilbert and J.

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful- 893
- 2110005 EEE
- Field theory QP
- Course Descriptions
- electronics & instrumentation 4yr be syllabus
- Introduction to Electric Circuits_8th Edition_dorf_2010
- Introduccion a Circuitos Electricos -Dorf
- Introduction to Electric Circuit 8th Edition -C.dorf,A.svoboda
- BM 2209 - Lab Manual
- PuSPI2013 Induct Site
- Circuito Snubber
- UL Series ManualV2
- Electrical Engineering
- 10.1.1.161
- Part I - Electric Circuit - Mallek AbdeRRAHMANE
- Nt Lab Manual
- Very Accurate LC Meter Base..
- syllabus new diploma
- 2
- Basic Op Amp
- Importance of doing sweep response on a CATV system.pdf
- Electronics Engineering Test Question
- Compre Elex (FAITH)
- Dm 00027198
- UT803 Eng Manual
- Electrical Measurements in Laboratory Practice (Undergraduate Lecture Notes in Physics)
- Electricity
- EC6403
- 0010A PWL Analysis Ansrs
- Short Circuit Current Calculation Theory & Techniques (3).pdf
- SQUID Amplifier