开云体育

Correction "*Though I do remember nothing significant in phase angle within the audio band*" should be no significant change in resistance. I don't remember what the reactive elements were. CT

Tony, I missed this reply of yours earlier. I hadn't thought of the skin effect, though given that is the result of penetration of fields, it must have some reactive element, surely? I did actually

Hi again Tony, My starting question was whether radiation impedance actually held up as only real - his example of a possibility. John then slightly moved the goalposts in response by saying that they

Why not? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? This is a serious question because Help both clearly explains that you must provide a model statement to define your switch and gives you a link

Hello Michael, From the Help: S1 out 0 in 0 MySwitch .model MySwitch SW(Ron=.1 Roff=1Meg Vt=0 Vh=-.5 Lser=10n Vser=.6) You don't say what your switch will be used for, but I'm betting that if you

<snip> </snip> Hello Hubert, You are of course correct: the only resistor possible that had no reactive component would also have zero size. Any conductor of finite size inevitably has both inductance

That's a pretty damning point! But does it hold? You've squared up a vector quantity to get something that by definition has no direction. Telling me that power is a scalar is surely a starting point,

The model for SW appears to missing. If anyone can help me create a .model statement for schematic. That would be great. I could not figure out how to do it from the help file alone. Thanks, //Michael

In message <CANj54jz_C3C0wTdO5kkCRbVh3qDQsrda9qatksP5h1bX+ohtqA@...>, dated Thu, 15 Sep 2011, Christian Thomas <ct.waveform@...> writes: By definition: they are notionally

Tony, All valid points. I agree that creating SPICE models for s-parameter characterized passive parts using only native SPICE passives (C, L, and R) is an art and the native models are often

John I put my caveat in for good reason ... The way I thought about it was to think what I would do to design one. I would need a reactive component somewhere, to do it easily, and then I would cancel

I believe it is impossible to have a physically realizable resistor that is frequency dependent and has no reactive component. A transmission line comes close in that its resistance is almost constant

There is a whole field of active filter synthesis based on FDNR (Frequency Dependent Negative Resistance).... LTspice makes it easier to synthesize...

<snip> </snip> Hello Christian, I'm sure you ask the question tongue-in-cheek, because you surely must be aware of instances where the real part of an impedance changes with frequency without

I have made some. They work perfect, except when I put them in a circuit, then they behave unbelievably weird. I'm working the issue.

In message <CANj54jwDGEMhNQA5E=DD=cMmYJTwDN=mMCrX2FaMfB4YgiLxuw@...>, dated Thu, 15 Sep 2011, Christian Thomas <ct.waveform@...> writes: I'm not sure. We have real resistances

Well, that's a question AG. Might we not be looking at a naive question here? Ie. Can I please have a resistor that changes with frequency but with none of those nasty reactive elements? If that's the

Should Laplace be turning in his grave?