passive Sign convention more disected updated 5 extra frames 2c
0showing more inner details of the passive sign definition . Then with new circuit examples to show it\Eq writing in action.
circuit analysis
my double +-polarity depiction is a "pattern" . The good book's
drift off into patterns too. They usually show , mesh Ia Eq. as: ALL passive elements of mesh Ia are pos+ ohms law , we automatically write : ( R1 + R2 + Rn.. )*Ia
also for mesh Ia , any shared passive elements such as R2 get a neg- ohms law and we automaticllay write: - Ib*R2
the complete mesh Ia Eq. can quickly be written as:
( R1 + R2 )*Ia - R2*Ib = V
and no +- polarities need be shown on the schematic diagram .
If we use "pattern analysis"
too often , we may become "rusty" at using the basics of KVL KCL ohms law and the passive sign convention .
The good books usually give circuits that analyze easy from the above pattern , then they pounce with some twists , and if we have become skewed ,..then we're screwed .
it's possible to inadvertantly mix conventions when using the
pattern\cheat tricks,..our Eqs. are then improperlly written in
context of the passive sign convention,..and nothing will work.
i tend to stay with the basic concepts , they always work .
Been trying to come up with a simple but yet with enough depth
where we really need to go with the straight and narrow usage of the passive sign , KVL, KCL and ohms law . I hope the final frames
of this tut do just that .
One thing the good books do after they describe the many variations of passive sign usage ,,...when they write their Eqs. in the book , they Never comment of how they wrote it
Did they use pattern , or Vrise as pos+ and Vdrop as Neg- ? or did they use the +-sign as they exit each componants terminal ?
They do leave everyone guessing . That's why I tell how I write the Eqs.
Document how the Eqs. are written for each circuit. Dazed Amazement will follow in 6 months. A couple of quick notes to review and we are right back on top of it.
I hope this tut does just that.