Talk:Electronic circuit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Engineering (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Electronics (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk page
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Technology (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Restructuring of electric/electronic topics[edit]

OK, here’s the deal. This page used to be redirected to Electrical Networks, along with about 650 other pages. Electrical Networks are usually thought of as electrical distribution networks, the things with lots of big towers and high-voltage power lines. There also seems to be some sort of collection of electrical components NOT arranged in a loop, but which seems to have no practical application (it doesn’t do anything). Also, plenty of distinct concepts were redirected to this page instead of being explained in their own right, such as Circuit Theory. Circuit Theory was even added to the list of To Do pages. Adding to the confusion is the fact that Electric Circuit, Electronic Circuit and Electrical Circuit all mean the same thing.

I took it upon myself to clean things up. I left a message on the talk page advising that I was going to do it, and nobody objected. The task ended up being bigger than I thought, but at least I could make a dent in it.

The plan is to start off rearranging the redirects and move the existing text to this page from Electrical networks. Then I will plow through the What Links Here pages, directing things either here or to other pages where it makes more sense. I will put some short text in appropriate places, together with stub tags.

I think the article still needs some work: links to circuit theory and circuit analysis - stuff link that. Also I think the discussion about circuit analysis software needs to be moved to its own page.

If you have any comments to share, put them here on this page for everyone to see, and drop me a one-line note directing my attention here. Thanks.

Cbdorsett 10:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

At the moment I can't see the justification for an electronic circuit page, especially as it's just a stub. What could be said here that isn't already said, or shouldn't be said, in electronics? Electronic circuit should redirect there, IMHO... Robert K S 08:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Definition[edit]

This definition is confusing to me.

I have a bit of a problem with the definition of "electronic circuit" as laid out in this article. A flashlight fits the the definition as presently written, but a flashlight is not an electronic device. I will refrain from rewriting before more input and/or sourcing is given. Suggestions/comments, anyone? Robert K S 12:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Much better now, thanks. Robert K S 03:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops[edit]

I messed up. I tried to move it to electrical circuit, but misspelled it electral circuit. And now I can't move it to electrical circuit because that already exists, as a redirect. In the mean time I made an electronic circuit article, so I can't go back there. So I'll work on the requested move procedure... Dicklyon 20:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You can always edit a redirect page to replace the redirect with the text that ought to be there instead. This is non-controversial because it is always easily reverted if necessary. Robert K S 03:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

OK, I've request a move, which I assume will be uncontroversial, but since there was already a bit of discussion here and a recent move from electrical network, maybe I'm wrong. Pipe up now if you have a better idea than just fixing my attempt to move it to electrical network. Note that electronic circuit has its own (stub) article now to say how it relates to electrical circuit. Dicklyon 20:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Better idea: Dear admins and others, I just realized that a better plan would be to restore the contents of electrical network, which was improperly moved by copying the contents to electronic circuit. Then, we could optionally move that to electrical circuit. I think I'll fix it all for now by restoring the one that was improperly moved by copying, and worry about the move later. Dicklyon 20:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I fixed it. Original content is back at electrical network where it started. Sorry for the confusion. Dicklyon 21:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies to those who were personally offended by my moving of content from one page to another. Next time, I'll check the accepted protocols. In the meantime, somebody should delete Electral circuit --Cbdorsett 07:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Dependent source[edit]

Some anonymous vandal inserted a complaint that the analog paragraph makes no sense and, y'know, he's approximately right. Without definitions for "independent power source" and its opposite, this business about "represented by a model" makes no sense. Jim.henderson 04:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No citations?[edit]

Is it just me or does anyone else notice this article has no citations except websites. With the wealth of electrical engineering books out there, it should not be hard to find better references. I'll see what I can put in. Zohair Ahmad (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

electric fence for dog containment[edit]

I'm working on installing an electric fence to contain my dogs in a particular area. The wire runs between PVC poles and is held in place by cotter pins---it's all visible, nothing in ground except a ground rod. The energy source is an energizer box. The light on the energizer box is to flash when the fence is working. It is not flashing though I know the energizer box did work before I set up the wiring and the contained area. I did run the wire around a wooden fence post to secure the closest pole; could the wooden post be interrupting the electrical signal and prevent the fence from working? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.217.140 (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

discrete vs digital[edit]

Currently this article (incorrectly, in my opinion) uses "discrete" as a synonym for "digital". I'm going to try to fix that.

There's a "digital -- mixed signal -- analog" category.

And, completely orthogonal to that, a "uses only discrete components -- uses at least some integrated circuits" category.

Combined, that creates 6 different types of electronic circuit, all of which are in use.

Right? Does the article reflect that now? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Energy source?[edit]

"Energy source - converts nonelectric energy into electric energy"???

For generic circuits this is not true - they receive energy from the power grid, and conversion usually is from AC to DC. If we are going to go beyond the boundaries of particular circuit we might fall into an endless loop. For example the "nonelectric" energy of the chemical batteries comes from "electrical" bonding of valence electrons. --192.28.65.210 (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Solid state Class A single ended to Hybrid or hybrid pushpull ![edit]

7-mar-2010

hi guys,

need opinions, my recently amp was single ended class A with single mosfet 2sk1058 building from www.diyaudioprojects.com Mark Housten. but it's diffuiclt to drive my 2 way bookshelf How to modified to hybrid with use tube 2c51, or hybrid pushpull ? my amp was mono, the travo 5A , 2'nd : 15 v, 3'rd 12 v. can i use to be buffer ? any suggestion are wellcome, thank's anyway !

best regard.

er —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritm2r (talkcontribs) 01:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

otor efficiency evaluation enables the energy savings in industry. However, because of the uninterrupted characteristic of industrial processes, traditional methods defined in IEEE Std-112 cannot be used for these in-service motors. A novel nonintrusive method for in-service motor efficiency estimation based on a modified induction motor equivalent circuit has been developed by the authors. A highly nonlinear and 4-dimensional system of equations needs to be solved to obtain the parameters of the motor equivalent circuit and finally the motor efficiency. This paper continues this topic and presents an in-depth discussion on solving these motor parameters using three numerical methods under various conditions. Newton's method exhibits the best suitability in this application because of its simplicity and fast convergence. In the rare cases where Newton's method does not converge, the particle swam optimization and simulated annealing methods are used. Finally, the proposed motor efficiency estimation method is verified by the experimental results from a 4-pole 7.5 hp TEFC induction motor. The performances of these three numerical methods are evaluated and compared — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.5.143.4 (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Fundamentally Easier?[edit]

I have not yet received my EE degree but I am fairly certain that this quote is wrong on many different levels. Digital circuits are fundamentally easier to design than analog circuits for the same level of complexity, because each logic gate regenerates the binary signal, so the designer need not account for distortion, gain control, offset voltages, and other concerns faced in an analog design. I think it needs to go. XantheTerra (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"Easier" is almost certainly not the right word. "Different" might be better. Has anyone ever seen a box with a million *analog* transistors doing something? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)