Just to clarify.

[Rick Christopherson]

Again, we are not "violating" any laws. It is a matter of concept and how things are defined. We are trying to develop a concept to avoid any law violations.

No it is not. Because you keep ignoring the minus sign, you violate electrical laws. If you would just acknowledge the minus sign, this discussion would come to an abrupt end.

 

[mivey]

No it is not. Because you keep ignoring the minus sign, you violate electrical laws. If you would just acknowledge the minus sign, this discussion would come to an abrupt end.

This post appears to miss the concept target.

 

[rattus]

See how easy:

See how easy:

One of the unresolved issue:

Is this what you had in mind?
V1n = 120 @0
V2n = 120 @180
V12 = 240 @0 {V1n - V2n = 120@0 - 120@180}
V21 = 240 @180 {V2n - V1n = 120@180 - 120@0}
I4 = 240/R4 @180 {V21/R4 = 240@180/R4}
I3 = 240/R3 @0 {V12/R3 = 240@0/R3}
I1 = 120/R1 @0 {V1n/R1 = 120@0/R1}
I2 = 120/R2 @180 {V2n/R2 = 120@180/R2}

Now, let us assign the value of 10 Ohms to each resistor, then,

I1 = 12A @ 0
I2 = 12A @ 180
I3 = 24A @ 0
I4 = 24A @ 180

Then,

In = I1 + I2 = 12 @ 0 + 12 @ 180 = 0

The direction of In is determined by the direction of the larger current.

Then the source current is,

I12 = I1 + I3 - I4 = 12 @ 0 + 24 @ 0 - 24 @ 180 = 60 A @ 0

Do not confuse I1 with 11, etc.

Now anyone can work this with any R values they wish.

 

[mivey]

Phase shifting may work in Star Trek and other science fiction

Is there some science fiction theory about phase shifting that would help with this topic? I do agree that a lot of the advances we see today are an outgrowth of the creative thinking that goes into science fiction works.

I like watching some of the "Buck Rogers" and "Star Trek" type classics to see how a lot of modern technology tries to model the imaginary devices seen years ago. How many ever thought a Dick Tracy watch would ever be real? But, we actually have better than that today.

 

[Rick Christopherson]

This post appears to miss the concept target.

Are you out of arguments to support your ideas?

If I am missing the target, then why do you think you have been arguing with some of the best minds on this forum for the last 4 days?

 

[mivey]

Now, let us assign the value of 10 Ohms to each resistor, then,

I1 = 12A @ 0
I2 = 12A @ 180
I3 = 24A @ 0
I4 = 24A @ 180

Then,

In = I1 - I2 = 12 @ 0 + 12 @ 180 = 0

The direction of In is determined by the direction of the larger current.

Then the source current is,

I12 = I1 + I3 - I4 = 12 @ 0 + 24 @ 0 - 24 @ 180 = 60 A @ 0

Do not confuse I1 with 11, etc.

Now anyone can work this with any R values they wish.

In = I1 - I2 = 12 @ 0 + 12 @ 180 = 0
should be
In = I1 + I2 = 12 @ 0 + 12 @ 180 = 0

 

[mivey]

Are you out of arguments to support your ideas?

If I am missing the target, then why do you think you have been arguing with some of the best minds on this forum for the last 4 days?

Refer to post #130

 

[coulter]

rattus teaser (washed by Jimmy Neutron)

rattus teaser (washed by Jimmy Neutron)

One of the unresolved issue:

or this way:

Some currents appear to be backwards, but that will come out in the wash.

I'll wash it first

Now who will solve this simple problem using correct phasor notation and without changing the reference, ?N??

I won't change 'N", but I will ignore it. As for using "correct phasor notation", I don't have a clear understanding of your concept,

So try the attachment:

carl

 

[Rick Christopherson]

Is there some science fiction theory about phase shifting that would help with this topic? I do agree that a lot of the advances we see today are an outgrowth of the creative thinking that goes into science fiction works.

I like watching some of the "Buck Rogers" and "Star Trek" type classics to see how a lot of modern technology tries to model the imaginary devices seen years ago. How many ever thought a Dick Tracy watch would ever be real? But, we actually have better than that today.

Well Star Trek uses the "Heisenberg Compensator" to address how they can bypass the Heisenberg principle, so I guess you could somehow create a "Kirchoff Compensator" to let you also do what is not normally doable too.

 

[coulter]

Okay, by inspection:
What's the currents through the two sources?
What's the current into N?

No fair looking at my answer

carl

edit: Ten posts happened. Scratch this one. Scratch the attachment

 

[mivey]

The good way to forgive a mistake:

In = I1 - I2 = 12 @ 0 + 12 @ 180 = 0
should be
In = I1 + I2 = 12 @ 0 + 12 @ 180 = 0

The bad way: "You just violated a law"

 

[Rick Christopherson]

I'll wash it first

You "boy genius". So do you have the hairdo to go with that diagram? :grin:

P.S. To the unobserved reader, If you don't have kids, you won't get the joke.

 

[coulter]

You "boy genius". So do you have the hairdo to go with that diagram? :grin:

P.S. To the unobserved reader, If you don't have kids, you won't get the joke.

Nope. I'm sporting a #4 buzz in few spots on my head that have hair. The kid that's coaching me has a #2 buzz.

carl

 

[Rick Christopherson]

The good way to forgive a mistake: (quote of a quote not shown)

The bad way: "You just violated a law"

No. If it was just a "Mistake" we would not have been arguing this topic for over two weeks and several threads! This wasn't just a mistake. This is about an error in the overall thought process.

 

[mivey]

No. If it was just a "Mistake" we would not have been arguing this topic for over two weeks and several threads! This wasn't just a mistake. This is about an error in the overall thought process.

Review the results of rattus's teaser analysis and describe what you define to be the error.

 

[Rick Christopherson]

Review the results of rattus's teaser analysis and describe what you define to be the error.

Your postings are getting shorter and shorter, and less on topic as we go along.....Face it, you are running out of arguments.

Now you are trying to utilize Rattus' patented "Distraction Technique" to divert the topic. There is nothing new in this Distraction Diagram that we have not already discussed, but you are trying to distract the topic off the current issue. This didn't work for Rattus earlier in this thread, and it will not work for you now. We will remain on-task and will not be distracted from the core topic until this is properly resolved. We can discuss this information after we have resolved the current issue.

 

[mivey]

We can discuss this information after we have resolved the current issue.

I did not post the teaser circuit.

The idea of looking at the teaser circuit is that it was posted by rattus try to illustrate his point. Evidently he recognized that he had not been able to communicate his position clearly and used the teaser circuit as an example of his position.

He may have made a mis-statement about his position, I could not be sure without going back and reading everything. Is there no mercy among men? Don't we try to over-look each other's mistake and help each other out? Trying to keep holding on to every little thing that is said and not trying to move forward and understand what is being said is counter-productive.

 

[rattus]

Thanks:

Thanks:

In = I1 - I2 = 12 @ 0 + 12 @ 180 = 0
should be
In = I1 + I2 = 12 @ 0 + 12 @ 180 = 0

Thanks for recognizing the typo:

 

[mivey]

Thanks for recognizing the typo:

No problem. Does this circuit analysis illustrate the point you were trying to make or are there any outstanding issues?

 

[rattus]

Now, let us assign the value of 10 Ohms to each resistor, then,

I1 = 12A @ 0
I2 = 12A @ 180
I3 = 24A @ 0
I4 = 24A @ 180

Then,

In = I1 + I2 = 12 @ 0 + 12 @ 180 = 0

The direction of In is determined by the direction of the larger current.

Then the source current is,

I12 = I1 + I3 - I4 = 12 @ 0 + 24 @ 0 - 24 @ 180 = 60 A @ 0

Do not confuse I1 with 11, etc.

Now anyone can work this with any R values they wish.

Can anyone find a fault with the results of this analysis without rearranging things?