Talk:Maximum power transfer theorem

message: Rewritten most of intro. Can people say whether it now makes adequate sense to them?Light current 01:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does it make Sense Now? 

message: "Power factor correction(where an inductive reactance is used to "balance out" a capacitive one), is essentially the same idea as conjugate impedance matching although it is done for entirely different reasons."
:How is it "essentially the same idea"? - Omegatron 23:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
::Makes the over all impedance look resistive and hence near to unity PF Light current 23:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PFC 

message: There has been something of a hoo haa over my article on Maximum power. Some have suggested that it be merged with this article. The maximum power article was meant to document the use of maximum power in ecology by H.T.Odum, who considered maximum power the 4th principle of energetics (following on from the first 4 laws of thermodynamics). I suggest that this article be merged with the maximum power article including the history of the development of the theorem, together with a section applications such as those in systems ecology, and biology for example. Also...this article current could do with some more specific and authoritative references. Sholto Maud 07:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't merge.  That article is about something completely different (though I'm not sure what, exactly...) — Omegatron 23:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RE Merge: Ecological application of maximum power as a principle of energetics

message: Does the maximum power transfer theorem apply when we convert from the electrical form of energy into the mechanical form of energy? That is, does maximum power transfer only apply when we restrict the power transfer to the electrical form of energy, and NOT when we are converting from electrical to other forms of energy like mechanical, heat, light etc.? It seems to me that the article has some confusion about this point. Sholto Maud 02:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The maximum power theorem is about altering the load impedance to obtain maximum power at the load (not maximum efficiency).  Converting from one form of power to another is concerned with efficiency. — Omegatron 13:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The only meaning I can think of for "sidestepping" a theorem is violating the assumptions of the theorem.  For instance, Earnshaw's theorem conclusively proves that there is no way to stably levitate an object using classical unmoving magnets.  It is certainly possible to levitate things, though, and it's done by using moving magnets or diamagnets. — Omegatron 23:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RE Maximising power transfer versus power efficiency

message: I believe "Maximum power transfer theorem" is the more common name for this theorem. I propose renaming the article accordingly. -Roger (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct:  I was taught it as the 'Maximum power transfer theorem'.  I have even taught it as the 'Maximum power transfer theorem'.  Every electrical text book that I have used refers to it as the 'Maximum power transfer theorem'.  Ergo, the article name is cutrrently incorrect.  Sadly, I don't know how to rename an article, otherwise I would do it. 86.179.167.116 (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

text: What does that have to do with renaming the article? 86.179.167.116 (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Renamed, using the confusingly-named "move" button; oh well, we're all used to clicking on "start" to shutdown a computer. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What 'Move' button would that be?  I don't seem to have one. 86.179.167.116 (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename article 

message: When we decide to only find the minimum of the denominator, RL gets put in the denominator of R^2 when it should be in the numerator.  When we switch everything, then RL goes in the denominator (which we have right).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.140.167.192 (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The step by step through the equation has a problem. 

message: My suggestion is to also include the equivalent circuit and equations for maximum power transfer if source is a pure current source (Norton equivalent circuit). 
128.104.199.64 (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maximum power transfer for current source 

message: These are just other names for variations of devices that present itself to the power source as a  resistance value that provides the most power transfer. Instead of wasting our research effort on redundant information, I suggest we combine them so that we can consolidate all the good stuff. I also have some materials I researched and added to solar inverter and solar micro inverter. I am thinking combining all of the discussion that has to do with V/I conversion device here and move solar specific discussions to one of PV articles. thoughts? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well first off, the article on power transfer is related to this one, but certainly not the "same thing" by any definition or stretch of the imagination. Moreover, an optimizer may or may not use MPPT, the Tigo is a counterexample. I really don't see any logic behind this merge. If there's too much duplication of content between the articles we can fix that, but merging them is wrong. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

text: 'Oppose merge - theorem is not the same as hardware. We wouldn't merge Ohm's law and resistor, either. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because you opppose (sic) the merge, that does not give you the right to delete the merge tag from the article.  Especially as you left the tags on the two source articles.  Once this discussion has run its course and there is a reasonable concensus, then the merge can be closed.  And unlike you, someone else will probably do it correctly. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have cleaned up the stale tags on the other articles. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Oppose:  Not sufficiently closely related. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging MPPT and power optmizer