Author Topic: Art of Electronics question 1.4  (Read 540 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RichardcavellTopic starter

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 12
  • Country: gb
Art of Electronics question 1.4
« on: March 21, 2024, 03:32:15 pm »
In The Art of Electronics, 3rd edition,

I have photographed the question. The next photo is my answer. I am satisfied that it works. But in the third photo, I am alluding to an idea. What I really want to do is what’s in the fourth photo.
 

Offline jwet

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 461
  • Country: us
Re: Art of Electronics question 1.4
« Reply #1 on: March 21, 2024, 04:19:36 pm »
I can think of a few ways to do it-

A hint- you can always take a subcircuit of parallel R's and make an equivalent single R.  If you take N-1 resistors and consolidate them into one R and then add the last- does this give you an idea?
 

Offline golden_labels

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1209
  • Country: pl
Re: Art of Electronics question 1.4
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2024, 04:32:12 pm »
A hint: conductance.
People imagine AI as T1000. What we got so far is glorified T9.
 

Offline Terry Bites

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2393
  • Country: gb
  • Recovering Electrical Engineer
Re: Art of Electronics question 1.4
« Reply #3 on: March 21, 2024, 05:05:06 pm »
Legit
 

Online wasedadoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1370
  • Country: gb
 

Online ebastler

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6510
  • Country: de
Re: Art of Electronics question 1.4
« Reply #5 on: March 21, 2024, 07:34:54 pm »
 

Online wasedadoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1370
  • Country: gb
Re: Art of Electronics question 1.4
« Reply #6 on: March 21, 2024, 07:52:39 pm »
A hint: conductance.
Did you mean "induction"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction

No, I don't think that's what he meant. But you got the "Wikipedia" bit right.  ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistance_and_conductance
The OP's question was about the fourth photo.  Conductance is at the heart of the first equation in that photo, but I could argue that going from that equation to the second one is mathematical induction.
 

Online ebastler

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6510
  • Country: de
Re: Art of Electronics question 1.4
« Reply #7 on: March 21, 2024, 08:06:52 pm »
The OP's question was about the fourth photo.  Conductance is at the heart of the first equation in that photo, but I could argue that going from that equation to the second one is mathematical induction.

Well, once you phrase the problem in terms of conductance, you don't really need to bring out the heavy artillery to see that a+(b+c+d) = a+b+(c+d) = a+b+c+d.  ;)
 

Offline golden_labels

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1209
  • Country: pl
Re: Art of Electronics question 1.4
« Reply #8 on: March 22, 2024, 05:33:19 am »
In the exercise we read “beginners tend to get carried away with complicated algebra […]. Now is the time to begin learning intuition and shortcuts.” I take that as a suggestion to not use algebraic approach. If one states the problem in terms of conductance, it becomes equivalent to joining small pipes to make a large one.



I believe this is something so intuitive, that a child would understand the concept. :)
« Last Edit: March 22, 2024, 05:35:33 am by golden_labels »
People imagine AI as T1000. What we got so far is glorified T9.
 

Offline Smokey

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2593
  • Country: us
  • Not An Expert
Re: Art of Electronics question 1.4
« Reply #9 on: March 22, 2024, 05:58:04 am »
LTSpice :)
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf