View Single Post
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-09-2016, 01:02
ratdude747's Avatar
ratdude747 ratdude747 is offline
Official Scorekeeper
AKA: Larry Bolan
no team
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Madison, IN
Posts: 1,064
ratdude747 has a reputation beyond reputeratdude747 has a reputation beyond reputeratdude747 has a reputation beyond reputeratdude747 has a reputation beyond reputeratdude747 has a reputation beyond reputeratdude747 has a reputation beyond reputeratdude747 has a reputation beyond reputeratdude747 has a reputation beyond reputeratdude747 has a reputation beyond reputeratdude747 has a reputation beyond reputeratdude747 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Can I branch the CAN to go to two separate places?

Quote:
Originally Posted by philso View Post
My coworkers and I are puzzled by some your statements.
That's how I was taught in Electromagnetics class. Of course resistance is still present, but it's not 100% of the picture and looking at it alone will lead to results more puzzling that the statements I made.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireties View Post
All the normal rules still apply but there are additional rules (terms in the equations). You are looking at the complex impedance of the load (which did not factor in at low frequencies) rather than simple resistance. The size and shape of the wire and connector pins all matter because they help determine the reactance portion of the impedance (resistance plus reactance). Balancing the impedance of the source and the load become important to reduce mismatches that can cause ringing (reflected waves bouncing around willy-nilly).
That's more or less what I was trying to say. But that means the normal rules do NOT apply, as V doesn't nessarily equal IR any more. As mentioned earlier in this post resistance doesn't go away, but it's not the only factor and in many situations is negligible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jee7s View Post
This is taking the thread a tad off topic, but, I respectfully disagree. It's not that there are additional rules. The rules are the same but you can't use as simple a model of the rules.

The so-called "normal" rules are really a number of simplifications and assumptions that apply at DC that don't apply when there is change in the signal. Even the complex impedance is a simplification that applies to lumped element models. Fundamentally, both of these are case specific subsets/simplifications of Maxwell's Equations, which are the set of laws that govern electromagnetism at non-relativistic conditions.

I say this because I think it further illustrates the bad thinking I highlighted earlier: one must acknowledge the assumptions that are used (like assuming conductors are ideal) before applying a concept. It's one thing to use a suitable simplification because a set of conditions are met. I don't think any engineering would happen if we needed to do vector calculus when determining a load instead of using V=IR. But, as a good engineer, you need to know when you can simplify the model and when you cannot.

As an aside, @ratdude: even Kirchhoff's Laws don't always apply, particularly if a changing magnetic flux is present.
I was taught in electromagnetics class that Kirchoff's laws do apply in RF, and specifically those alone are what do translate from circuit theory to RF unchanged. While a changing flux can cause all sorts of fun voltages, in a pure snapshot of an RF system all voltages will be accounted for someplace. It may be someplace you don't expect, but it will be accounted for.

Otherwise, obviously I agree.
__________________
Dean's List Semi-finalist 2010
1747 Harrison Boiler Robotics 2008-2010, 2783 Engineers of Tomorrow 2011, Event Volunteer 2012-current

DISCLAIMER: Any opinions/comments posted are solely my personal opinion and does not reflect the views/opinions of FIRST, IndianaFIRST, or any other organization.
Reply With Quote