On 9/4/2009 1:35:45 AM, jmG wrote:
>Your circuit does not make
>sense. Z1, Z2, Z3, Z4 in
>parallel make up for 'Z'
>equivalent from handbook. Then
>complement adding Zin for the
>equivalent complex Z.
Yes, Z1 to Z4 can be simplified as parallel combination; agree with you. However, I have 4 different current branches and I am interested in calculating rms value of current of each branch. That is why I have Z1 to Z4.
>What you
>call Isource viewed from the
>RHS, but the circuit show
>nowhere to feed from this
>source ... then Isource as you
>draw is Iload.
You are right; taking Vdc as input voltage source, Isource is the load in my circuit. However, if I were to draw this circuit in a circuit simulator, I would chose a current source from the parts library to define "Isource" in my schematic. That is why I used the name source. However, it is a load, too. No big deal...
>Read more and
>you define Vdc, then Z could
>be interpreted as "resistive"
>only from the first look, but
>it can be transient and more
>generally complex depending
>upon the load. The load may
>and will surely reflex true
>complex in the system. These
>are circuit details.
>
>Your calculations for Z1...4
>don't understand. They are in
>parallel including the
>internal reistance of what you
>call Isource. And be cautious
>if they are complex. You have
>to look more carefully how to
>setup the circuit for the
>maths. Your discontinuous
>function is incompletely
>defined ... read some of the
>work sheets I posted. So,
>there is nothing to solve yet,
>only "calculate" !
Solving or calculation, I don't mind. Either one is ok. Numeric solution is fine...
>You have switched horse so
>drastically from your original
>sheet that this one is
>completely new, out of the
>blue.
I attemted to solve it by Y-Matrix approach and I was asking about details of this approach. Then I posted the circuit itself in case someone suggests that there is an easier way to tackle this circuit in MC14 rather than Y-matrix approach.
>Calculate the Fourier
>p(x) as I did and please don't
>persist saying it does not
>work in Mathcad 14 if you want
>to go your own wrong way
>instead of as guided. If you
>can't put units correctly,
>don't put any that makes no
>sense. m is "metre" and that's
>it. What is 'm' doing for
>calculating impedance 'Z', Oh
>! you could argue on that.
I never used or intented to use units in Mathcad. However, my circuit component values are mostly miliohms, micro or nano or pico farads and micro henries. It makes it easier to define "m", "n", and "p" as multipliers and that go with the component values instead of typing 10^(-3) for mili, for example.
>
>If you think Laplace will
>solve something in there, it
>might if you construct the
>equivalent circuit in the
>Laplace domain. You might have
>seen that from books, then
>show the book page circuit to
>limit the search. 's' in your
>work sheet is 1*s (time in
>seconds). Your 's' is any wild
>argument. The Laplace 's'
>results from transforming the
>independent domain (t, x,,,)
>of a function into the Laplace
>domain 's'. What I mean here
>is that if the equivalent
>circuit is constructed in the
>Laplace domain then it is the
>XFR function [XFR = transfer].
>Here, you don't have a closed
>circuit, rather a dividing
>circuit that goes resistive
>and/or an hybrid system of
>resistive and complex
>components, that does not
>involve Laplace. It could be
>that what you call "Isource"
>is by itself a 2nd order
>system, but the representation
>is totally incorrect and
>incomplete. There are curious
>numbers, but here out of 4
>numbers you have two most
>curious ones 5454545454545454
>.... 303030303030303 !!! For
>God sake, I think it's joke.
>
>jmG
>
>Maybe something you don't
>tell.
No it is not a joke :-). The cap values in my fle are standard values. However, 1/C becomes a weird number. That is how I got them.
I plan to post this circuit in "Electrical Engineering" section since more electrical engineers may see my file in this section and possibly tackle my problem.
Mark.
