Timeline for Equivalent circuit and substitution
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
30 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 23, 2021 at 1:05 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Aug 24, 2021 at 18:06 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Apr 20, 2021 at 10:49 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Dec 20, 2020 at 16:01 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Aug 18, 2020 at 4:07 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Apr 18, 2020 at 9:02 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Nov 19, 2019 at 23:26 | history | edited | asv | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 71 characters in body
|
| Nov 19, 2019 at 23:17 | history | edited | asv | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 5 characters in body
|
| Nov 19, 2019 at 23:09 | history | edited | asv | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 657 characters in body
|
| Nov 19, 2019 at 23:04 | history | edited | asv | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 657 characters in body
|
| Nov 19, 2019 at 22:59 | history | edited | asv | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 657 characters in body
|
| Nov 18, 2019 at 19:24 | comment | added | Curd | @KingDuken: just because the pictures are the same the question is not. In the previous question asv first asked just for a definition of equivalence and later edited and added another question which should be asked as separate one. | |
| Nov 18, 2019 at 17:21 | comment | added | The Photon | Also related: Using Thevenin's Theorem?. | |
| Nov 18, 2019 at 17:18 | comment | added | The Photon | Previously asked on Physics.SE: Proof of Thevenin and Norton theorem. | |
| Nov 18, 2019 at 17:16 | comment | added | The Photon | @KingDuken, to be fair, in a long comment chain on the answer there, OP was asked to open a new question. | |
| Nov 18, 2019 at 16:52 | answer | added | Deep | timeline score: 0 | |
| Nov 18, 2019 at 16:49 | comment | added | user103380 | HEY WAIT A MINUTE... This question is starting to look like your previous question. Why are you asking the same thing? Was the answer that you accepted not clear? Don't accept answers unless you fully understand what they're talking about. If it didn't make sense to you, then you should ask the person who wrote that answer. If my assumption is wrong, then can you tell us why this question is different from your previous question? | |
| Nov 18, 2019 at 16:22 | history | edited | JYelton | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Spelling
|
| Nov 18, 2019 at 16:09 | history | edited | asv | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 270 characters in body
|
| Nov 18, 2019 at 16:07 | comment | added | asv | "the voltage across it and current flowing through it will be the same, when placed in the same context" is not my definition. I would like prove your property from my definition. | |
| Nov 18, 2019 at 16:06 | comment | added | asv | You give a definiton of equivalent that in first instance is not equals to what I wrote. | |
| Nov 18, 2019 at 16:00 | comment | added | Harnex | You said it yourself : A and B are equivalent. So that means their behaviour will be the same. In "2D electronics" that means that the voltage across it and current flowing through it will be the same, when placed in the same context. That's just what equivalent means. | |
| Nov 18, 2019 at 15:56 | comment | added | asv | I made an update | |
| Nov 18, 2019 at 15:55 | history | edited | asv | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 287 characters in body
|
| Nov 18, 2019 at 15:43 | comment | added | user103380 | Is KCL not sufficient proof? If you want "rigorous proof" then set up an experiment. | |
| Nov 18, 2019 at 15:40 | history | edited | asv | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 82 characters in body
|
| Nov 18, 2019 at 15:40 | answer | added | Elliot Alderson | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 18, 2019 at 15:40 | comment | added | asv | I gave that picture only for example, I want a proof that it is true in general. | |
| Nov 18, 2019 at 15:35 | comment | added | user103380 | Voltages in parallel are the same but the current won't be. If you're solving the voltage across \$R_2\$ and \$R_3\$ then combining them won't alter your results. The proof is rather conceptual but if you want to verify it, you can apply Kirchhoff's Current Law. You'll find that the current across the resistors are different but when you apply Ohm's Law, the voltage will be the same. | |
| Nov 18, 2019 at 15:24 | history | asked | asv | CC BY-SA 4.0 |