Talk:Gyrator

message: * "The voltage and current on the right hand side of the gyrator...are transformed into dual quantities on the other side..."
* Defines TF and GY in a similar way to ref below.
* "current...voltage...treated in a symmetric, dual way".  "TF and GY are each others partial dual"
* "The potential difference sources depend on a flow through the source in the other sub-system" and vice versa
*
* "yielding a relation between current, voltage or power at the input and output"
SpinningSpark 22:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible sources

message: User:Spinningspark wants a smaller archive size 17500 bytes. I think that the maximum size 17500 Byte of one archive is very small. Sawol (talk) 07:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not have this discussion repeated on multiple pages. See Talk:Fractal antenna#Archiving size. SpinningSpark 09:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving size 

message: User:Alexander Davronov, is it possible to say what is vague in the following?
Gyrators permit network realizations of two-(or-more)-port devices which cannot be realized with just the conventional four elements. In particular, gyrators make possible network realizations of isolators and circulators.
Of course it may be hard to say what is lacking when it isn't there.  Taking a statement of the same form, but substituting protractor for gyrator:
Protractors permit geometric constructions which cannot be achieved with straightedge and compass alone. In particular, protractors make possible trisection of any given angle.
...is that equally vague? or is the vagueness specific to the gyrator version? catslash (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The lede should just summarize the body.  If there is vagueness, those tags ought to be in the body. Constant314 (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: True; this matter should be mentioned in the body of the article, and it is not.  A little while ago, I drew circuit diagrams of gyrator-based circulators (probably based on the book cited in the lede), , , but failed to get around to using them. catslash (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Thanks for reaching me out. I think the word "realized" should be clarified. Best. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 01:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Realization" is not a vague term, it is a well recognised term of art in network analysis.  It means a given response function can be achieved with a construction of real components or elements.  There is something on this at Network synthesis#Realisation.  That could serve as a link target, but it is not totally general. SpinningSpark 13:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

text:  wikt:realization meaning #2 has "The act of making real", which shows that this is a perfectly normal usage of the word. SpinningSpark 13:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well... I've undone my last edit: [Jun 21, 2022, 17:15]. In this context the term is rather technical, than vague. I'm going to link the word to the appropriate article if you don't mind. My best. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vagueness 

message: The gyrator article under the "Passive gyrators" heading states this: "Numerous passive circuits exist in theory for a gyrator function. However, when constructed of lumped elements there are always negative elements present." I can't seem to find such a circuit, does anyone know what this is referring to? 100.16.222.85 (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no clue.  I tagged it with needing a citation. Constant314 (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the editor that added that information is no longer active. Constant314 (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If our esteemed friend was referring to circuits consisting of only transformers and linear impedances (R, L & C), then he may have been mistaken.  It is not obvious how the admission of negative impedances would allow such circuits to evade the reciprocity theorem. I had intended to raise this point with him years ago, but failed to do so.  If nobody objects in the next week or so, then I shall delete this paragraph. catslash (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if we cannot get clarification or a reliable source, then it should probably be removed. Constant314 (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. catslash (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passive lumped circuit