Talk:Electrical network/Archive 1

History of electronic circuits
Is anyone able to provide some references to the historical origins and development of electronic circuit schematics? Who was the first person/ group to propose the notation? Where, why? How has it been used and adopted? Etc. I think the article would benefit from a little more historical explanation. Sholto Maud 22:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the article about?
Is it about:
 * Networks
 * network theory
 * network analysis
 * network design
 * network components

It seems confused ATM and needs sorting.--Light current 22:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Definition of electric networks
''An electrical network is an interconnection of electrical elements such as resistors, inductors, capacitors, diodes, switches and transistors. It can be as small as an integrated circuit on a silicon chip, or as large as an electricity distribution or transmission network.''

I would have said that diodes and transistors ICs etc should not be included in this definition as these are electronic components. Network analysis usually deals with sources and impedances, if my memory serves me corectly.--Light current 22:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I see that I have commented before on this. I think we should define Network theory here as dealing only with sources and impedances (as per my book Electric Circuits by Joseph Edminster publ McGraw Hill 197X). Otherwise I think we may start straying into the SPICE territory and it may start to then get messy. I feel inclusion of transistors diodes etc belongs more under a heading of semiconductor circuit design and analysis. What do you think Heron? --Light current 19:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I thought I had expunged the small number of mentions of semiconductor devices from the article.--Light current 19:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There are two issues here:
 * Whether the word electrical excludes or includes electronic devices.
 * Whether passive networks can contain sources or sinks.
 * On the first point, I think that this article should describe electrical networks in the broadest possible sense. All network types, such as linear and nonlinear, active and passive, series and parallel, unilateral and bilateral, all-pass and frequency-selective, are special cases of this definition and can be dealt with separately, either within this article or elsewhere.  If we exclude any types of network from this article, then we're going to need a new higher-level article to deal with the whole subject.  By the way, a whole chunk of this article is about linearization, which also contradicts the 'passive = linear' definition.
 * On the second point, my dictionary says that passive networks can't contain sources or sinks, which differs from what you just said. Passive networks probably deserve their own article, since they are fundamental analytical models and are a subject in their own right (hybrid parameters and all that). --Heron 20:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My initial reactions.
 * I believe that the word electrical should exclude electronic devices: electronic devices depend on charge carrier transport phenomena- linear electrical circuits (such as power networks) dont use non linear devices and dont generally depend on these phenomena for operation. . (Im not including AC DC and DC AC converters etc- just the normal distribution networks).
 * In my book, yes passive networks can contain voltage and current sources to activate them- otherwise nothing would happen. Internal dependent sources - no! I assume thats what you were referring to.
 * No, nothing would happen, but that's the definition of a passive network. Things like attenuators, matching networks, terminators and filters are passive networks - they just sit there doing nothing until you connect a source to them. --Heron 12:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It is possible to work out the ABCD parameters without sources. However sources can be used to help in thinking about the problem, but they do not as such form a part of the network being analysed. In conclusion, I would say that ideal independent sources can be used if necessary.--Light current 13:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I will ponder your other comments and reply later.--Light current 20:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You say: ''If we exclude any types of network from this article, then we're going to need a new higher-level article to deal with the whole subject. By the way, a whole chunk of this article is about linearization, which also contradicts the 'passive = linear' definition.''

I dont think this is true. THis article can be about electrical (passive) networks and electronic circuit diagrams can, if necessary, be dealt with elsewhere. I have not seen the part of the article about linearisation only about computer analysis. Perhaps someone removed it.--Light current 13:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As I asked before here, the question we must ask ourselves is: What is the article supposed to be about?--Light current 15:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is this page called Electric "Networks"
I've never heard electric circuits being called networks before, and the fact that searching for "electric circuits" redirects here makes me wonder in what language they're called "networks". The article itself refers to circuits quite alot - I think the mention of "networks" should be a small note, while the word "circuits" should become the main word. Am I wrong that the word "circuits" is the most prevalant word for these things? Fresheneesz Nov 3 2005 US West time 13:33

after writing that I realized that electric circuits are a subset of electric networks. Since electric circuits are a HUGE area of research and learning, circuits should have a separate article and should LINK to this one, not redirect to it. Fresheneesz Nov 3 2005 US West time 13:37


 * Hear hear! I don't see any reason why there can't be a page on electrical circuits that deals with the basics of voltage/current/resistance, and not electrical engineers and complex number theory. When I look up "electric circuit", I don't want to know about the difficulties in designing an efficient power distribution network (the leading subsection? Seriously?), I want to know about a battery, a wire, and a light bulb. --AdjectiveAnimal 17:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Im not sure about the difference (if there is any) between the defns of 'network' and 'circuit'. Some books dealing with passive circuits call them networks; whereas books dealing with active circuits tend to use the term 'circuits'. Im sure Ive had a similar discussion elesewher on this topic - but where?--Light current 18:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Tellegen's theorem
I was surprised to note the absence of Tellegen's theorem. --Ancheta Wis 12:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Major Edit 12/31/2006
This issue irritated me, too. I looked for a talk archive to see if there was anything about it, and came up dry. I am going to propose an editorial change, and in a few days, I will do it, unless I hear a well-reasoned objection.


 * Change proposed:
 * Move the content of this page to Electric circuit, except for the comments that have to do exclusively with electric networks.
 * Modify all the pages I find on What Links Here so that they refer to electric circuits.


 * Reasons for the change:
 * A bunch of electric devices which are connected together in a way that is NOT a circuit is just a bunch of junk. It does no work, as that term is understood in physics, so it has no function.
 * I can't claim to have read all the millions of articles which refer to electrical circuits, but in all my years, I never ran across an instance of "electrical networks" which are not circuits. It seems like a definition without a concept for it to refer to.
 * There are in fact electrical networks, but they are a specialized type of circuit which is used for distributing electricity - and I think there's a Wiki article on just that. So there should be a redirect to that page at least.


 * The small amount of text provided which is actually ON the topic of "electrical networks" does little to explain what the phrase means. If the phrase is of any use, it has to refer to an actual device or concept, even if purely theoretical or even imaginary. I would not want to see a Wikipedia article entitled "bunch of junk" for all these same reasons.


 * What you can do:
 * If you agree with me, either do nothing, or drop me a note on my talk page.
 * If you disagree with me and want to see the article stay with the title "electrical networks", write your comments here and write a brief note on my talk page to let me know that you have weighed in on the issue.


 * What I will do:
 * Wait a few days (not months)
 * Make the changes
 * Leave my comments here on this talk page

--Cbdorsett 12:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Jan 1 2007 restoration
Cbdorsett, after a bit of wild good chase of trying to properly distinguish electronic circuits from electrical ones, I ended up reverting your major edit which was an improper move of contents that left this talk page behind. Please see the edits I've done that distinguish the circuit types that you had lumped as one.

I'm not opposed to moving electrical networks to electric circuits, but I oppose moving to electronic circuits. Dicklyon 21:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Red-linked acronym
If someone wants to explain EMTP we can have it in the article. But not as a red-linked acronym, which is just a meaningless teaser. Dicklyon 23:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Network vs circuit
I see discussion here on the difference, if any, between an "electric circuit" and an "electric network". Well, I'm a computer nerd, not an EE, so my understanding of this is limited, but FWIW: At work we have these things called network analyzers. They have nothing to do with computer data networks. They analyze electrical networks. They can do this even if there is nothing like a circuit in the traditional sense. You can attach a device-under-test to only one port on the analyzer, and it can still make certain measurements (like signal reflection). I have no idea how much of this usage of "electrical network" applies to the current article, but I figured it is worth mentioning. Check out the Network analyzer article; it has some links to background information (which is way over my head). The article on Scattering parameters also seems like it has useful information. Hope this helps. --DragonHawk 08:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced there's any accepted difference between an electrical circuit and an electrical network, but your network analyzer example does not contradict either that view or the one stated in the article. That is, it can treat an individual component such as a capacitor as a network, and anayze its impedance.  Dicklyon 08:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear: I have no idea what I'm talking about here. I'm only trying to present information so that people who do understand this stuff (presumably, you) can do their research.  The best definition I can find for "electrical network", as it pertains to the stuff I see at work, is at Scattering parameters.  The only reason I bring this up at all is that I know this equipment works on what they call an "open" calibration, where there is no circuit.  For example, Network Analyzer Basics (PDF, 5.69 MB), Page 12, Paragraph 2, states. "Now let us leave our line open.  This time, Ohm's law tells us that the open can support no current...".  That doesn't seem like the definition of "circuit" I learned in my classes at school.  I'll see if I can get one of the EE's at work to explain this stuff to me, so I can report back here.  Again, this stuff is all way over my head, so if you don't think any of it applies, I'm willing to bow to your superior knowledge.  I only bring it up in case you do find it useful.  Thanks.  --DragonHawk 09:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There most certainly is a circuit when you connect a network analyzer to an open line. The circuit involves the analyzer in this case, and just because the line has infinite impedance at DC doesn't mean there's no current or no circuit. Dicklyon 19:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Okie dokie. I thought a circuit, ya know, made a circuit.  As in a circle, a closed loop.  Not one end of a cable hanging loose.  But it appears I don't understand.  As I already know I don't understand, that seems perfectly reasonable.  :)  FWIW, I did ask the resident EE at work, and also the Chief Engineer (who is more of a materials guy, but still knows this stuff) if they had ever seen a formal definition of "network" as used in our shop, and they were both self-surprised to realize they had not.  Apparently, this is just one of those things "everyone knows".  —DragonHawk (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct that a circuit needs a closed path. An "open" transmission line is a component that has an AC path, just not a DC path.  When you connect it to a network analyzer, you get a closed circuit, a loop that includes your transmission line and the signal generator in the analyzer.  By measuring the voltages and currents where those parts connect, you are observing the circuit behavior so you can draw conclusions about the network that is the external part of the circuit (which may itself be a circuit, depending on how you look at it). A network is any interconnection of components, whether other not there's a circuit. Dicklyon 21:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Electromagnetism vs Template:Electromagnetism2
I have thought for a while that the electromagnetism template is too long. I feel it gives a better overview of the subject if all of the main topics can be seen together. I created a new template and gave an explanation on the old (i.e. current) template talk page, however I don't think many people are watching that page.

I have modified this article to demonstrate the new template and I would appreciate people's thoughts on it: constructive criticism, arguments for or against the change, suggestions for different layouts, etc.

To see an example of a similar template style, check out Template:Thermodynamic_equations. This example expands the sublist associated with the main topic article currently being viewed, then has a separate template for each main topic once you are viewing articles within that topic. My personal preference (at least for electromagnetism) would be to remain with just one template and expand the main topic sublist for all articles associated with that topic.--DJIndica 16:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Power networks
This article deals with light current networks. What about power networks ie electric power transmission and electricity distribution? Add them here or set up new pages? And I think single line circuit diagrams would help. Tiles 05:34 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

The diagram of the electrical circuit is wrong. It shows the electrcity flowing from the positive rather than the negative —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.217.45 (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Lack of basic information
Both Electrical circuit and Electric circuit currently redirect here. There is, as far as I know, currently no basic discussion on Wikipedia of what a circuit or a network is or how one works. A user recently created the page Incomplete circuit, which consists solely of a definition of what an open or incomplete circuit is. (For what its worth, Open circuit is a disambiguation page whose most relevant link is Electric circuit.) I would be inclined to redirect Incomplete circuit to Electrical circuit, but the lack of basic information on this page makes me hesitate. Would some editor or editors consider creating a page with more basic information at one of the former names, or perhaps adding a section with more basic information to this one? Thank you, Cnilep (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Incomplete circuit has been prodded and I support deletion, it is not really a common phrase at all, despite the claim in the article. In the context of closing a switch, "completing the circuit" is a common enough phrase, but I would not support that having its own article either.  "Circuit" as a general term in engineering is discussed at circuit theory and the electrical meaning in particular at network analysis (electrical circuits).  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  16:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I prodded it because a) it's not a very common term, b) the current page is not encyclopedic or particularly useful, and c) I knew of nothing to redirect to that would be informative or useful to a person looking for such basic information.


 * Circuit theory gives the basic sorts of information I was looking for. I agree with Spinningspark that it's probably best to let Incomplete circuit be deleted. I wonder, though, if it would be useful to have Electrical circuit redirect there rather than to Electrical network? (It's slightly counter-intuitive that an article whose title includes the word "theory" has more basic information; I associate e.g. "theory" courses in university with more in-depth understanding than "survey" courses.) I suppose it's a question of what Wikipedia readers are likely to be looking for. On the third hand, I notice that Circuit does not include a link to Circuit theory; I think I'll add one. Cnilep (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be a mistake to redirect electrical terms to circuit theory, as you say, that is counter-intuitive and I also have doubts about the validity of that article. The right approach is to improve the target article(s) as necessary.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  18:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted paragraph with phantom loop
I deleted this paragraph:
 * "The ground and atmosphere can be used to produce a Phantom Loop circuit, using the ground as a return and atmosphere as a feed. The energy is grounded out and inducted to the circuit again from the Geomagnetism phenonomen."

Perhaps I'll make article, when I've figured out exactly what the term means. -- Heron —Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 13 July 2003 (UTC)

currents,geomagnetism,phantom loop comments
Howdy ... 1st ... currents are measured in amperes [look @ the wki article definition] ... Geomagnetism should be a wikilink to the Earth's magnetic field. 2nd ... The phantom loop is a term from NASA. Please look up the NASA research on the Electrodynamic Space Tethers. A "phantom loop" is the circuit a device uses in an natural environment to complete a circuit. Same thing that most wireless application use. Broadcasting out into the atmoshper and grounding out thus returing to the main circuit. This is shown in the induction of energy, then ultization in the Tether, and then the reemission of the energy into the ionosphere. This can occur on the surface of the earth too.

reddi 15:51 13 July 2003 (UTC) ... more later [revision reddi 01:52 14 July 2003 (UTC) ]


 * - Thank you for creating the phantom loop article, Reddi. You are mistaken, though, in saying that wireless transmission uses the ground as the return circuit.  Wireless broadcasting does not rely on the existence of an electrical circuit between transmitter and receiver.  It uses electromagnetic radiation, which can travel through free space just as easily as around a planet. -- Heron —Preceding undated comment added 12:16, 14 July 2003 (UTC)


 * - I find the term rather fascinating [especially since it's from rocket scientists =-] I found it in the technical paper on the electrodynamic tether from NASA ... in referencing some wireless transmissions, grounding is the return circuit. You return the energy to the potential of the earth [or ground ... the source of much of our energy here]. you can see it in the early radio patents (patents are neat). In wireless broadcasting, the electrical circuit between transmitter and receiver is the medium between them. This can take several forms [most commonly, solids, liquids, and gases). If it's an alternating system it can form a phantom loop in the air or in the ground [by returnin to the sources transciever]. AND yes ....electromagnetic radiation can travel through vacuum free space just as easily as through a medium. I understand that ... [matter o' fact, the vacuum creates electromagnetic energy ... see the quantum flux and casimir effect ] -- I'll try to wok on the phantom loop article to flesh it out, it's applicablt in alot of things IMO .... more later ... reddi 02:38 15 July 2003 (UTC)


 * - The vacuum giveth and the vacuum taketh away, leaving naught but an effective potential energy, as useful for generating energy as a hole in the ground down which rocks can be thrown. For soon the hole will be full, and soon, the all the world's metal plates will be close together. -- Tim Starling 03:30 15 July 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with that 1st part ... the vacuum giveth and the vacuum taketh ... from the potentials and back to the potentials .... as no one can capture energy ... it's always flowing in and flowing out ... it's what you do with it when you have it and how you manipulate it, that matters. But i thought you knew that ....


 * As useful for generating energy as a hole in the ground down which rocks can be thrown? What? .... hmmm mabey you need to read some real patents on electricity ... perferably Nikola Tesla's, but Edison or Armstong would do ya good ....


 * [as to the rocks representing the energy potentials] As soon the hole will be filled back in .... and then you take some more out to use =-]....


 * more later ... reddi 03:40 15 July 2003 (UTC)


 * Patents aren't exactly Phys. Rev.-quality science. I'll stick to textbooks, research papers and Scientific American, thank you very much. Except if I'm in need of some comic relief -- then I might head over to here. BTW it's spelt "maybe". -- Tim Starling 01:43 18 July 2003 (UTC)


 * Alot of electricity patents are exactly about physics [like the electrodynamic tether patent] ... applied physics ... go theorize all you want .... but when you wanna implement something, read up on how ppl do it. Oh and thank, sorry about the spelling infraction [check the badge] I didn't know the grammar force was here ... reddi 01:51 18 Jul 2003 (UTC) "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla


 * If I want applied physics I'll go here, not here. I'll have you know I topped my class in 3rd year lab, so don't go accusing me of having no grip on reality. Sorry about the spelling correction, I don't usually pick up on people's spelling. It was just annoying me. -- Tim Starling 05:10 18 July 2003 (UTC)


 * If you want applied physics, go to here or here or there (among the many other good sources) and try to look up some key terms in there [like electrodynamic] .... BUT definitely don't go to there.


 * A "lab" and the "chaos of reality" are 2 different things ... labs have controlled environments ... they are a bit different [i believe ... but i could be wrong]...


 * Congrates on the achievement though, always a good thing to do good [BTW, that's just a general quote on all of science, not directed @ you personally] .... try to forgive my americanish and spelling flaws also, as most stuff here in talk is done in haste [and sometimes in the articles too]. I can be annoying ... not that i try but i think i come off that way, pardon that too ... reddi 22:39 18 July 2003 (UTC)

Memristor?
I think some thought should be given as to when (and if) the memristor should be included in the component list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.48.171 (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What list? There is no list of components in this article. There is electronic component however, where memristor is listed.  Spinning  Spark  21:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The bright list on the right hand side of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.48.171 (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The template shows linear components and theorems. Memristors are not linear.  Spinning  Spark  21:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarified homogeneity
I removed the disputed term "homogeneity" in the definition of a linear circuit. I believe it is not the (physics) idea of being the same everywhere but the math idea of having no RHS in a linear equation. This is a distraction or wrong; "superposition" already says what we need. 84.227.254.143 (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)