Talk:Circuit analysis

Merger
The suggested merge makes sense. 13:34, 13 February 2008 Special:Contributions/12.109.10.194 (Talk) manually signed by SS

I agree with the merge. There is nothing in analysis of resistive circuits which cannot be straightforwardly extended to the general case and it is also the better article. I think that the name of the new article should be Network analysis (electronics) with a disambiguation at the top of the Network analysis article and redirects from Analysis of resistive circuits and Circuit analysis. Any other ideas on this?  Sp in ni ng  Spark  15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. But now that you've brought it up, is there a difference between "network analysis" and "circuit analysis"? I've always used the two interchangeably, but I think "network analysis" is a broader term. I'm thinking "Circuit analysis" would be a better title until the article is sufficiently expanded. Also, do we want to emphasize in the title that we're talking about passive, linear networks?
 * Anyway, the current circuit analysis article is rather sparse. The initial merger should be as easy as moving analysis of resistive circuits to circuit analysis, changing R's → Z's and perhaps adding a few sentences from circuit analysis. -Roger (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggested Network Analysis because that is by far the more common term - there are many textbooks with that, or a variation as the title. There are many articles on Wikipedia claiming to be a topic in network analysis.  It also emphasises that it is a branch of the more general network analysis topic in mathematics.  If you want to be pedantic, circuit analysis, strictly speaking, refers to a single port.  Clearly network analysis is far more general than that.  I am with you on the move procedure except that I would also dump the contents of this article on the talk page of the new article so people can pick over it in slow time and recover anything worth keeping.  So, in summary,


 * 1) Move Analysis of resistive circuits to Network analysis (electronics)
 * 2) Disambiguation at the top of Network analysis
 * 3) Copy Circuit analysis to Talk:Network analysis (electronics)
 * 4) Redirect Circuit analysis to Network analysis (electronics)
 * Any objectors?  Sp in ni ng  Spark  16:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, and on the issue of "linear". I see no reason to exclude non-linear analyses.  There is none at the moment and if the article starts to collect too much material we can always start another article. That's a nice problem to have!  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  16:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good! We should also clarify the difference between circuit and network analysis in the article so people aren't confused. -Roger (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to suggest having two articles, one at a more elementary level, and one more sophisticated. If the Rs are turned to Zs, you're going to lose a certain fraction of the audience. I could understand the Rs when I was in high school, but not the Zs until college physics. Linear v non-linear is similar. I think it would be OK to have Circuit Analysis be the simpler and Network Analysis be more sophisticated. User:mamling 2008-05-02 20:21 Z


 * You realise the merger has already taken place and this article is just a redirect? The generalisation from resistances to impedances was largely accomplished by no more than changing R's into Z's in the equations.  There has been no complex analysis added so the equations still have their original simple form.  All the articles on basic circuits like series, parallel, voltage divider etc are still referenced and these articles are in terms of resistances only.  Finally, there is still the article resistive circuit, which admittedly, is only a stub but you could add to it if you feel an overview page is needed at a lower level than the Network Analysis page.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  23:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)