Talk:Virtual ground

message: I'm just a physicist not an EE, but this is too bad to be left alone.
Please help, if you have better info Awolf002 22:06, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup Request

message: Non-electrical domain: The "neutralizing" idea —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VirtualEarth (talk • contribs) 02:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Not every example of some kind of equilibrium process is relevant. Take the blue pencil to this article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need the following in the article? 

message: Although the author has taken a lot of time to make these colored diagrams, and whilst they may be ok for a personal note book, I dont think they are of sufficient quality for an encyclopedia. Also they try to show too much information on one diagram and are therefore confusing to the innnocent reader.
VirtualEarth
: I second that. The diagrams are confusing and too informal for an encyclopedia. They really should have been computer generated as well. Roger 19:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but we can't ask the author to do that. If he could do it, I presume he would have. It needs someone to redraw, but not before people have decided which diagrams are even worth keeping--VirtualEarth 19:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its best if we just leave the article short and to the point, until the current content can be re-written and the diagrams improved. I'm not being vicious. I agree with you that the author put alot of time into this article, but in its current states its just too long-winded and confusing. Roger 22:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I rather think others (and I) may disagree that this is the best way to go about it!--VirtualEarth 23:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think a concise but sparse article is better than a long and confusing one. Regardless, I'm not getting into an edit war with you unless others care to back me up. In the mean time I just want to point out that the Wikibooks project (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page) seems like a more fitting place for this article. Roger 00:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So do I actually. But rather than remove stuff wholesale, it need to be deciced carefully which bits to remove, and which to retain. I have already started to look at the figures to see which should be redrawn, which discarded and which kept. i would be interested in your comments.--VirtualEarth 11:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally, yes. But this article needs more than a few minor edits here and there. As Bmunden and yourself have said, the article is awkward and difficult to read. I'm an EE and I find it difficult to understand what the author is talking about. Judging from his website, this is from his own unique teaching method, and frankly, no offense to the author, I think the content here should be pretty straight forward. The previous article was short, but at least understandable. Roger 01:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with you, but it is very easy to dismiss a load of work and throw out some gems of insight in the process. That is why I ask you to discuss with me and others what we might safely discard, what we can keep and what must be rewritten. It maybe that we do have to discard most of this stuff, but I would like to give the authors work a fair 'trial' before junking it. Can we start on the diagrams to decide which are useful and which not?--VirtualEarth 01:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you're saying. There's definitely been alot of effort put into this article. The drawings alone look very meticulous drawn. Unfortunately I think they're are a bit too "busy". There's also alot of unnecessary content (such as "Energy considerations", which would be much better suited to a textbook). Anyway, I'd say Figures 2 and 3 are redundant, so are 4 and 5 and also figures 10 and 7a. Roger 01:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think fig 2 shows something. I think 10 and 7a are useful. Fig 3 is repeat of fig 2. Yes figs 4 & 5 are not really useful. --VirtualEarth 02:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Figures 10 and 7a are the same circuit BTW. Roger 02:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah! difficult to tell isnt it? OK we dont need 10., 7a is an acceptable drawing IMO.--VirtualEarth 05:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Drop a note on my talk page if you want any diagrams redrawing in Inkscape. — BillC talk 18:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK thanks a lot. When we have consensus on any diagrams needing (re)drawing, I will contact you! Thanks. --VirtualEarth 22:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagrams 

message: It seems that the author may not have english as the first language. I will try to rewrite some of the rather awkward sound phrases. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VirtualEarth (talk • contribs) 02:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language and terminology 

message: I think the author is confusing the two or has made his definition too broad. Roger 19:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virtual ground vs. small signal ground 

message: ===Fig 2===
Do we need Fig2? If not do we need to alter the text to compensate?--VirtualEarth 00:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figures to delete 

message: Do we need Fig2? If not do we need to alter the text to compensate?--VirtualEarth 00:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fig 2

message: This is the same as Fig 2 and can be removed. The text should then ref fig 2.--VirtualEarth 00:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fig 3

message: I have removed  since the article shows extremely simple, obvious and intuitive truths about the phenomenon that do not need to be proved (see also How do we evade NOR?). Circuit-fantasist (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks alot better now, thanks. I do see some mentions of "voltage conflict" a few places in your article. That might still be OR. -Roger (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there an OR in the article? 

message: Oli Filth, thank you for the assistance; this page needed improvement. I admire your edits although you have gone too far somewhere. Maybe, I will make some cosmetic edits here. Circuit dreamer (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this page is long overdue for a make-over.   The colorful diagrams need to be converted to an editable format.  I pruned some of the wordiness from a couple of paragraphs.  BTW no circuit is "perfect".  The correct terminology is "passive" (just uses resistors) and "active" (includes an amplifying device). Zen-in (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hopeful prospects 

message: I think that we should add that virtual ground at the inverting terminal of ann opamp is present only if the opamp is connected in (-ve)feed back configuration AND its output has NOT saturated (opamp is inlinear region). (Applications and design with analog integrated circuits by jacob michael. chapter 6)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cplusplusboy (talk • contribs) 15:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  opamp virtual ground 

message: when elements from the carbon group interact with a plasma field ,three virtual ground states can occur . one is the ground interaction with earth, two is the ground state when the observer interacts with the circuit, and the third is the same interactory metal outside the plasma field.all three conditions creating different node potientials or stops.50.93.20.150 (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like it's copied from a textbook. It's not relevant to this article, but possibly to ground state. Anyway, have a look at WP:TPG and try to make more useful comments in future. --Nigelj (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  virtual ground states 

message: How does current flows through an Op-Amp as input impedance is infinite in an ideal Op-Amp, since no current is entering in it? Vaibhav Singh (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Op-Amp 

message: As far as I can see, the expression "virtual ground" is highly context senitive,
compared with expressions like "Impedance" which have a clear context free definition.
The only common thing about the virtual gound idea, is that,
for some reason, we can refer to a specific node as being "Ground Potential",
in other words, a steady voltage compared to what we call ground potential (0V) in our schematics,
which does not have to be earth potential.
And we can use the fact, that we know that value, in our mathematics.
Not more and not less.
But which nodes my be seen as a virtual ground
and which implications will follow for the analysis of our schematics,
depends highly on the question, what we are analyising.
It is also not related to the question,
if the node behaves like a source reference point with low impedance or not.
But this has a strong impact on the behaviour of schematics,
not just practically, also theoretically.
So if we can see a point as a virtual gound,
that does not tell us anything about the role,
that this node plays for the reviewed schematics.
I saw this expression used in different meanings, sometimes as a node,
that will calcualte out to a stable voltage, sometimes a virtual reference for signals,
which are not related to ground.
In all scientific literature that I know,
where this expression is used, it was also explained,
what is ment with the term virtual ground in their specific case.
I would be much happier with this article, if these aspects would be mentioned more clearly.
Best Regards
Felix Seib  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:DF51:A040:4834:221D:BBF0:60A2 (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  I would suggest to pay more attention to the context sensitivity of the expression "virtual ground"