The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: "R. Lewis"
Subject: Re: output impedance
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 23:55:37 -0000
Organization: Nextra UK
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 23:54:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
> > The impedance is in parallel with the current source, not in series.
> > the Thevenin-Norton theorem.
> I have had 60 or more years of understanding electric circuits and have
> NEVER NEVER needed to refer to a "theorem". I have never even heard or
> long forgotten most of them or what they are about. Nothing beyond Ohm's
> Law has ever been of any use.
> Anybody who drags up a theorem in support of some explanation or other
> understands very little of what he/she is waffling about and is merely
> plagiarising and parotting an old wives' tale. To mention a theorem is an
> admission of ignorance. Or an admission that he/she has a memory and has
> read something somewhere. Or who had a teacher who was none the wiser
> Painting by numbers? The answer to your question is Theorem 19. Or is it
> 33.5 ? End of answer.
> OK? Next question please.
As a student I was somewhat bemused by Kirchoffs law - and surely a law has
considerably higher status than a mere theorem - which seems to state that
'electric current' does not spontaneously appear or disappear from any
I thought the Daleks proved this to be incorrect but a law is a law and must
be obeyed - hence the dearth of Daleks since Mr Kirchoff's pronouncement.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup