
Home  Forums  Rules  Articles  The diyAudio Store  Gallery  Blogs  Register  Donations  FAQ  Calendar  Search  Today's Posts  Mark Forums Read  Search 
Tubes / Valves All about our sweet vacuum tubes :) Threads about Musical Instrument Amps of all kinds should be in the Instruments & Amps forum 

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.
Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving 

Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
12th December 2011, 05:34 PM  #511 
diyAudio Member

It is contest for Proper Application of Theorem.
__________________
The Devil is not so terrible as his math model is! 
12th December 2011, 05:49 PM  #512 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Nov 2011

janneman, please take a look at the Thevenin theorem if you are not already familiar with it. A good presentation can be found at Thévenin's theorem  Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In it, will see first that there is nothing special about ground  it's just another node. Second, you will see that the theorem is about measuring the impedance between a pair of nodes, not a trio of them (ground being one of the three.)
Any attempt to measure impedances by shorting three nodes together lacks theoretical underpinning and violates the Thevenin theorem. Also, Thevenin will not allow you to place shorts between two pairs of nodes in a circuit. This is because the second short affects the impedance seen at the first, and the first short affects that seen at the second. You wouldn't think of applying a second short somewhere inside a circuit with just one output when you measure its output impedance  that would mess up your result drastically. So why would the mere fact that the circuit has a second output that just happens to be the negative of the first give you dispensation to short the second to ground when you measure the groundreferenced impedance of the first? I know that there is an intuitive appeal to a number of people (SY chief among them) to subject the circuit to what he calls boundary conditions during testing. But a clear reading of the Thevenin theorem simply does not allow it  UNLESS the "boundary conditions" means that you can connect a single load from the P to the K when you are measuring the Zpk impedance. That would be a valid twonode Thevenin impedance measurement. The current source circuit should get you thinking. You'll note I can't get a response to it out of SY.
__________________
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry."  Thomas Paine 
13th December 2011, 12:06 AM  #513  
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Metro Atlanta, Georgia

Quote:
If the Thevenin circuits are independent, i.e., represent two separate circuits, then there's no problem with testing both at the same time. They're independent; one doesn't affect the other at all. But these Thevenin equivalent circuits in question are not independent, i.e., they are coupled. Let's say that you wanted to find the Thevenin equivalent of some circuit and started by measuring the opencircuit voltage. You are ready to measure the shortcircuit current but, before you do, you change the value of one of the resistors in the circuit and then measure the shortcircuit current. I imagine that you would instinctively know that you measured the opencircuit voltage of one circuit and the shortcircuit current of another, different circuit and that you couldn't combine the two measurements in any meaningful way. But look, if both loads are changed at the same time as SY does, the above is precisely what is happening; the change in the cathode load changes the circuit between the anode and ground nodes and vice versa. SY is changing the circuit between measurements. This makes it impossible to determine the actual Thevenin equivalents for the anode and cathode nodes. 

13th December 2011, 12:18 AM  #514  
diyAudio Moderator

Actually, it's quite easy you apply a signal, open both nodes and measure the voltage at the one you're interested in (or both simultaneously physics allows you to do that). Then short both to ground and measure the current at the one you're interested in (or both simultaneously physics allows you to do that). If you honor the boundary conditions, the coupling is irrelevant the next stage is driven by two equal and opposite sources.
When you do that, honoring the boundary conditions, you find both Thevenin source impedances to be low and equal. Experiment is consistent with that prediction. I'm still waiting for the pair of loads which cause the simple model to make a wrong prediction. The crickets are getting hoarse from all that chirping... Quote:
__________________
“Instead of Rational Law, objective truths perceptible to any who will undergo the necessary intellectual discipline, Knowledge will degenerate into a riot of subjective visions. . ."  Auden 

13th December 2011, 12:31 AM  #515 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Metro Atlanta, Georgia

Seriously SY, is that the best you can do? Is that all you've got?
Last edited by Alfred Centauri; 13th December 2011 at 12:35 AM. 
13th December 2011, 12:41 AM  #516 
diyAudio Moderator

Yep. All I've got is a simple, intuitive, and useful model that gives correct predictions, and two unhappy people who can't come up with a single example that causes it to give the wrong answer.
__________________
“Instead of Rational Law, objective truths perceptible to any who will undergo the necessary intellectual discipline, Knowledge will degenerate into a riot of subjective visions. . ."  Auden 
13th December 2011, 12:54 AM  #517 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Metro Atlanta, Georgia


13th December 2011, 12:57 AM  #518 
diyAudio Moderator

OK, what's the pair of loads which cause this model to give the wrong answer?
__________________
“Instead of Rational Law, objective truths perceptible to any who will undergo the necessary intellectual discipline, Knowledge will degenerate into a riot of subjective visions. . ."  Auden 
13th December 2011, 01:04 AM  #519 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dallas

All real loads are the problem. Your assumption of correlation is not math.

13th December 2011, 01:09 AM  #520 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Metro Atlanta, Georgia


Thread Tools  Search this Thread 


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Phase Splitter Help  famousmockingbird  Tubes / Valves  16  10th May 2011 10:40 PM 
Phase splitter  Hojvaelde  Tubes / Valves  9  6th May 2011 08:32 PM 
phase splitter  grungeman91  Tubes / Valves  2  5th May 2011 02:58 AM 
Need help on phase splitter  guwakzhai  Power Supplies  7  23rd December 2010 06:51 PM 
Phase Splitter Name  Gold_xyz  Tubes / Valves  17  21st February 2008 10:48 AM 
New To Site?  Need Help? 