Zorro
|
Hi again,
please see the attached picture with 3 resistances r1, r2, r3.
code1: using named branches branch (a, x) res1, (x, c) res2, (a,c) res3; V(res1) <+ I(res1)*r1; V(res2) <+ I(res2)*r2; I(res3) <+ V(res3)/r3;
code2: using unnamed branches I(a,x) <+ V(a,x)*r1; I(x,c) <+ V(x,c)*r2; I(a,c) <+ V(a,c)*r3;
now a particular situation...
let's say that I start my definition like this (using unnamed branches):
V(a,c) <+ I(a,c)*r1+I(a,c)*r2; indicates that r1 and r2 are in series which is correct.
now I need to describe the behavior of R3.
Situation 1: if I add the second line to describe r3 like this: V(a,c) <+ I(a,c)*r1+I(a,c)*r2; V(a,c) <+ I(a,c)*r3; this is a mistake because it's like saying that r1, r2 and r3 are in series, which is false.
Situation 2: if I add the second line to describe r3 like this: V(a,c) <+ I(a,c)*r1+I(a,c)*r2; I(a,c) <+ V(a,c)*r3; error, simultaneously treating the branch between "a" and "c" as a flow source and a potential source
this means that if for any reason I start describing the network like this: V(a,c) <+ I(a,c)*r1+I(a,c)*r2;
there is no option left to describe what happens on r3. this is just an example assuming extrictly that the description starts with: V(a,c) <+ I(a,c)*r1+I(a,c)*r2;
can I do this? V(a,c) <+ I(a,c)*r1+I(a,c)*r2; // extrictly so, just for education/understanding purposes branch (a,c) res3; V(res3) <+ I(res3)*r3;
i.e. using the nodes (a,c) first as an unnamed branch and then as a named branch.
thank you!
|