On 13 jun, 21:27, Owen Duffy wrote:
lu6etj wrote :

...

I should tell owen he was inadvertently moving towards a logical
bifurcation's fallacy because is not absolutely true that Thevenin
theorem can not be used to calculate -for example- circuit efficience.
There are an exception to this limitation = It can be used to
efficience calculations when disconnecting the load in the original
circuit the dissipated power is null.

Miguel, when I said "cannot" I was of course meaning in the general case,
as most readers would understand.

Obviously there are cases where the efficiency calculations will be
correct, the obvious one being where the Thevnin equivalent is identical
to the original network.

If you want to make inferences about a source solely on the basis of its
Thevenin equivalent, you are on dangerous ground because you will not
always be correct.

People making the inference for example, that Zeq of a certain source
cannot be 50+j0 because the conversion efficiency of that source with a
50+j0 load is greater than 50% are wrong.

Owen

Hello Owen, OK at your comment I understand, here my apologies =

In earlier post I write:
"The final Thevenin circuit is an idealization built with an ideal
voltage source in series with an ideal resistor. This new idealized
circuit It is a new born entity whose properties are now fully
described for these only two idealized circuit elements. These are
the
virtues and the defects of reductionist models :("

And in the first post I was thinking about Thevenin resulting scheme
ceases to represent fully the original circuit and place the problem
in a more elementary and different situation that a real world
transmitter, enabling a clear answer to much simpler scheme for the
behavior of standing waves in such elementary context. And I thought
it was pretty clear beacuse was clear enough in my mind... :)
When one write in his own language, normally think is communicating
very well the idea in his mind, until notice his partner take it in
another way! Difficult is multiplied when you are trying communicate
to a mind that also thinks in a different language...!
Later I realized that having formulated in terms of a simple generator
in series with a resistor would not have generated a false
interpretation and not difficult the flow of ideas.

I sincerely believe (correct me if I am wrong) this newsgroup does not
seems make (do?) efforts enough (sufficient?) to totally (completely?)
solve the more simpler cases before skip to more advanced and
sofisticated considerations on more complex systems.
For example: do you (*) recognize Roy Lewallen late example in "Food
for tought" assuming (or conceding that) as not representing a real
rig but a simple constant voltage source in series with a resistor, at
least? to give some credit to his ideas Until now, I could not
know...
(*) I do not know how clearly denote plural in "do you"

73 Miguel - LU6ETJ.
Here 04:46 LT - I am not responsible for anything written by me :)