What about transmission lines?
Yep a transmission line is what is used to model that travel time in lumped circuits. The actual implementation of a transmission line probably varies a bit, but for simulators you usually specify a characteristic impedance and propagation delay.
And yeah SPICE does not do any of the thinking for you. Its the users responsibility for giving it a accurate circuit model so you still need to know what you are doing. So why would spice be bad? Its just a programatical implementation of existing circuit analysis theory.
circuit simulators like EMTP (Electromagnetic's Transient Program).
You mistakenly think so because as you already demonstrated, you do not comprehend what di/dt and "current at the time of observation" means.
Well, I may not understand a lot of things, but you surely don't know the difference between an inductor and a generator. Please, read this.
Although it would be nice to take credit for Kirchhoff's work and say that the formula is mine, we'd better not only attribute it to Kirchhoff but also not try to surreptitiously and clandestinely sneak "corrections" into it.
Who the hell is advocating for "deficient knowledge" as being an advantage?
You don't have to apologise for anything, no one has a gun to your head demanding that. But people are free to think of you and the way you express yourself in any way they like, including having a not so good opinion of you.
When you say that Mehdi "should not be addressed as (an) engineer", you aren't going to win many friends on here.
Not to mention calling Mehdi's audience "dimwitted"
Well lump modeling is used quite a bit in RF too.
The EM simulations of distributed element filters on PCBs or 3D filter structures can get very slow. So often the results of those simulations are converted into a lumped equivalent circuit that can then be used to run simulations quickly in efficiently with tools like SPICE while still behaving accurately.
Tho these sorts of equivalent circuits can become quite a bit mess of resistors inductors and capacitors and very few nodes in that cirucit have any actual meaning to the real life cirucit.
Most voltages and currents in these big complex lump models are just partial math results of something, its only the voltage across the terminals of the whole black box is the one that actually matches a real voltage in the real cirucit.
Its all about engineers being efficient with there time because they have to deal with things called deadlines.
@beefefees
You said you wrote the book ? What was the subject? I did not follow the drama, but it looks for me like the discussion about pedagogy. Not the scientific matters. Please do not be discouraged. The only problem I have observed was that there is good and bad way to deliver the knowledge. Quality of explanation matters. Students shall not be made confused.
Fair enough. I'm here because of your invitation to "anyone involved in electronics design" and because "This is where everyone hangs out and rants and chats about whatever electronics topics that don't fit into the other more specific categories on this forum."
So, here I am ranting like crazy about what I find to be wrong with the world when it comes to electronics. If I don't win friends or influence people (I have the book), at least I hope someone can learn something with it.
This thread has proved that if you don't understand the underlying physics of electromagnetism you'll be limited in your ability to design and analyze circuits.
Oh, you think that transformer (inductor with two windings) is generator?
Perpetum mobile formula of voltage drop on loads that does not include voltage source (EMF) is truly yours.
Do not disgrace Kirchoff, please.
QuoteIts all about engineers being efficient with there time because they have to deal with things called deadlines.
It's all about engineers knowing what they're doing. If you don't know what you're doing will never be efficient and will never meet any deadlines.
People are learning, and technical input like yours is always massively appreciated.
But unfortunately your approach has been somewhat abrasive (even for an engineering forum, were lack of tact and copious amounts of abrasion are commonplace) and I'm not surprised it's rubbed some people the wrong way. That was just inevitable with your approach.
This thread has proved that if you don't understand the underlying physics of electromagnetism you'll be limited in your ability to design and analyze circuits.
And this sentence proves without doubt, that bsfeechannel is not an electrical/electronics engineer or anything remotely similar. Here you have it, the Dunning–Kruger effect at work. It reminds me of Dr. Lewin solving his problem 34
But look what I have to deal with.This thread has proved that if you don't understand the underlying physics of electromagnetism you'll be limited in your ability to design and analyze circuits.And this sentence proves without doubt, that bsfeechannel is not an electrical/electronics engineer or anything remotely similar. Here you have it, the Dunning–Kruger effect at work. It reminds me of Dr. Lewin solving his problem 34
I don't think I have said something abrasive here. How do I reply to that?
This is not the first time this guy says this about me and he did it long before I said that Mehdi shouldn't be addressed as an engineer. He is not even molested by the moderation and he'll probably be even thanked by it.
So I'm really at a loss as to what are the acceptable limits for "abrasion" in this forum.
I like to contribute, but it is really frustrating to be mocked for that when guys like this are free to troll at will.
This thread has proved that if you don't understand the underlying physics of electromagnetism you'll be limited in your ability to design and analyze circuits.And this sentence proves without doubt, that bsfeechannel is not an electrical/electronics engineer or anything remotely similar. Here you have it, the Dunning–Kruger effect at work. It reminds me of Dr. Lewin solving his problem 34
I don't think I have said something abrasive here. How do I reply to that?
This is not the first time this guy says this about me and he did it long before I said that Mehdi shouldn't be addressed as an engineer. He is not even molested by the moderation and he'll probably be even thanked by it.
So I'm really at a loss as to what are the acceptable limits for "abrasion" in this forum.
I like to contribute, but it is really frustrating to be mocked for that when guys like this are free to troll at will.
...
I like to contribute, but it is really frustrating to be mocked for that when guys like this are free to troll at will.
You better behave
Here's a dollar, kid. Go get yourself a better education.
His video is a crime against humanity.
Who is being arrogant, after all? Mabilde and all those who recalcitrantly refuse to learn, or Lewin who dedicated an entire life to teaching?
This stubborn attitude is what is getting under our skin.
So don't fool yourself. You're not doing science a favor. If you really love science do as we all do: humbly learn.
So, never try anymore to hide your lack of knowledge behind excuses like that. Convince yourself and others of the need to be ready to learn something new every day.
Oh, you think that transformer (inductor with two windings) is generator?
Where did you find a transformer in the circuit? There are only two wires connected to each other forming a closed figure. Exactly as Kirchhoff said it had to be.
Now let's take the open secondary of a transformer, for example, comprised of a single turn.
QuotePerpetum mobile formula of voltage drop on loads that does not include voltage source (EMF) is truly yours.
There is no voltage source in the circuit. Only two resistive wires.
The EMF is 1V (my MOT can give me 600mV for a single turn).
You said it is transformer:Now let's take the open secondary of a transformer, for example, comprised of a single turn.
You are making your own reality on the go:The EMF is 1V (my MOT can give me 600mV for a single turn).
Nope. This is a different circuit. It only has one wire and one EMF. The other one has two wires and no EMF where Kirchhoff said it should be.
Nope. This is a different circuit. It only has one wire and one EMF. The other one has two wires and no EMF where Kirchhoff said it should be.
Why would KVL say there is no EMF?
See this equation: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_22.html#mjx-eqn-EqII2234
Yep since KVL works in lumped circuits and attributes the voltage to an inductor while with Maxwell its just sums it in as a whole. Just two different ways of going about the same thing that come to the same result when used correctly.
So if you take yourself as being so knowledgeable in how to analyze circuits, have you decided yet what is the correct way to analyze the behavior of this circuit?
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/does-kirchhoffs-law-hold-disagreeing-with-a-master/msg2189216/#msg2189216
I can give a trip that gain degradation on the transistor plays no role in the operation so a ideal transistor with a fixed Hfe can be used, but the parasitic capacitance in the transistor are important to the operation, all of them are stated in the datasheet for that transistor (Tho a ballpark figure for most small signal transistors is close enugh)
The boxes are microstrip lines (see Dave's videos of spectrum analyzer teardowns). Does Kirchhoff's law apply?
How about not such an easy one:
The boxes are microstrip lines (see Dave's videos of spectrum analyzer teardowns). Does Kirchhoff's law apply?