Maximum power transfer theorem: Revision history

30 November 2024

• curprev 02:5402:54, 30 November 2024 Citation bot talk contribs 15,135 bytes +58 Added bibcode. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Dominic3203 | Category:Circuit theorems | #UCB_Category 20/27 undo

14 June 2024

• curprev 20:1520:15, 14 June 2024 2001:4c3c:4100:8f00:497d:673f:11eb:683 talk 15,077 bytes −18 →Calculus-based proof for purely resistive circuits undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit

10 June 2024

• curprev 09:5209:52, 10 June 2024 2001:4c3c:4100:8f00:497d:673f:11eb:683 talk 15,095 bytes +1 →Proof undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• curprev 09:5109:51, 10 June 2024 2001:4c3c:4100:8f00:497d:673f:11eb:683 talk 15,094 bytes +8 →Proof undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• curprev 09:3309:33, 10 June 2024 2001:4c3c:4100:8f00:497d:673f:11eb:683 talk 15,086 bytes 0 No edit summary undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit

22 October 2023

• curprev 04:5404:54, 22 October 2023 Fgnievinski talk contribs 15,086 bytes +48 →Notes undo

28 September 2023

• curprev 14:0014:00, 28 September 2023 Marioosz talk contribs m 15,038 bytes +4 →Maximizing power transfer versus power efficiency: Correct the color name in the Power Transfer graph caption undo

2 September 2023

• curprev 17:3917:39, 2 September 2023 Catslash talk contribs m 15,034 bytes +11 wikt: to and fro is a set phrase in English, even though "from" would be used in all other contexts + Insert a few definite articles undo

24 August 2023

• curprev 17:2617:26, 24 August 2023 Iljhgtn talk contribs 15,023 bytes +3 Spelling/grammar/punctuation/typographical correction undo Tag: Visual edit

21 April 2023

• curprev 17:4317:43, 21 April 2023 Nojiratz talk contribs m 15,020 bytes +5 →Maximizing power transfer versus power efficiency: Moved the phrase "Note: voltage sources..." to the end of the "Consider three..." caption statement, to apply the phrase to all three conditions. undo
• curprev 16:5316:53, 21 April 2023 Nojiratz talk contribs 15,015 bytes −46 →Impedance matching: Removed "that could overload or damage the transmitter" because reflected power cannot overload or damage the transmitter, a popular misconception. undo

7 April 2023

• curprev 13:1613:16, 7 April 2023 Citation bot talk contribs 15,061 bytes +34 Add: s2cid. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Abductive | #UCB_webform 1318/3850 undo

20 March 2023

• curprev 18:4918:49, 20 March 2023 Patar knight talk contribs 15,027 bytes +56 Adding local short description: "Theorem in electrical engineering", overriding Wikidata description "theorem results in maximum power transfer, and not maximum efficiency" undo Tag: Shortdesc helper

17 June 2022

• curprev 18:4118:41, 17 June 2022 MrOllie talk contribs 14,971 bytes −765 Restored revision 1092108110 by Em3rgent0rdr (talk): Unsourced material undo Tags: Twinkle Undo

16 June 2022

• curprev 09:0809:08, 16 June 2022 DJ7BA talk contribs 15,736 bytes +765 Explaining, that and why maximum power transfer impedance matching and reflectionless impedance matching is different. undo Tag: Reverted

8 June 2022

• curprev 06:3906:39, 8 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs 14,971 bytes +197 →Maximizing power transfer versus power efficiency: this is a citation, though not the best citation. undo Tag: Visual edit

7 June 2022

• curprev 23:2723:27, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs 14,774 bytes +73 →Maximizing power transfer versus power efficiency: oh my god...there was an error in this definition of efficiency here...that might possibly have been my fault and if so I'm sorry...looking over now and I think I fixed it. undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 22:5922:59, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs m 14,701 bytes +9 →Maximizing power transfer versus power efficiency: minor edit...change "0.5" to "1/2" because there was a period after which makes "0.5." look funny. undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 22:5422:54, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs 14,692 bytes −58 Those articles were published in 2013, so I think should remove the word "Recent". And I don't think need to say "expository articles"...the citations at the end of this sentence will suffice to know that these are articles...anyway the fact that these are expository articles is sortof irrelevant info for this article. undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 19:2619:26, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs m 14,750 bytes −7 again slightly increase consistency in wording between these two sentences. undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 19:2519:25, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs m 14,757 bytes +29 again there is a "since" phrase that to be more consistent I will put in a parenthesis, so all these little "since" phrases are inside parentheses here. Oh and this is a good spot to point out that efficiency decreases here...now the sentence structure is similar to the previous sentence. undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 19:2219:22, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs m 14,728 bytes +4 I think it is better to include these "since" explanations inside of a parenthesis, because they are already nested inside of another phrase that is separated by a comma. undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 19:2019:20, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs 14,724 bytes −23 I am trying to use consistent wording here. So I think only use the words "increases" and "decreases". And there is a slight grammatical things I attempted to make a little better. undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 18:1518:15, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs m 14,747 bytes +21 →Maximizing power transfer versus power efficiency: I think better to spell out "normalized" relative to its "maximum possible". undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 18:1018:10, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs m 14,726 bytes +21 →Maximizing power transfer versus power efficiency: hyperlink first instance of "battery" undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 18:0918:09, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs m 14,705 bytes +2 minor grammar...this list entry should also be separated by commas (like the first two are) and the final one should end with a period. undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 18:0718:07, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs 14,703 bytes +44 I do think it is worth to point out that a voltage source with zero source resistance is only a hypothetical case, the ideal voltage source. undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 18:0218:02, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs m 14,659 bytes −1 this sentence belongs in this prior paragraph, because the prior paragraph talks about load larger than source as one case, and this is the second case. undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 17:5917:59, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs m 14,660 bytes +6 I do think should say "power source" here instead of just "source", because for ordinary readers, the word "source" by itself might be confusing. But "power source" they will know. And this better establishes that "source" in the rest of this article is referring to the power source. undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 17:5517:55, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs 14,654 bytes +44 the word "efficiency" was used by itself...and although it was hyperlinked to the general article on efficiency, I think it is useful to spell out in layman terms of exactly what "efficiency" is referring to here...so I'm writing as "efficiency of useful power out of total power consumed." That is consistent with the later definition of "the ratio of power dissipated by the load resistance to power dissipated by the voltage source resistance", while still being in lay man terms. undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 17:4817:48, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs 14,610 bytes +35 "across the circuit" was a bit vague because there is no direction implied by the word "across". I think it is better to be explicit by writing out: "from the power source to the load". Also I hyperlinked the first instance of "load" to electrical load so new readers know what that word refers to. undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 17:4417:44, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs 14,575 bytes −9 I don't understand the point of clarifying "a finite" internal resistance, considering that a voltage source with infinite internal resistance is sortof pointless and not really a voltage source to begin with. Simpler and reads better if remove "a finite" and just say "with internal resistance". undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 17:3917:39, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs m 14,584 bytes 0 also move hyperlink for power to be earlier. undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 17:3717:37, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs m 14,584 bytes +21 hyperlink first instance of internal resistance, of resistance, and of "resistance of the source" (to output impedance). undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 17:3417:34, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs 14,563 bytes +2 →Maximizing power transfer versus power efficiency: I'm moving the invoking of the term "short circuit" to earlier when say "load resistance approaches zero" so readers will better know what short circuit refers to. Also I don't think there is use in even mentioning the ideal voltage source case that R_S is 0, because as the article on output impedance states, "All devices and connections have non-zero resistance and reactance". At best we can talk about R_S approaching zero, I think. undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 17:1717:17, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs 14,561 bytes +54 →Maximizing power transfer versus power efficiency: this bullet point on R_L / R_S -> infinity is actually a good opportunity to hyperlink to impedance bridging. undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 17:1117:11, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs m 14,507 bytes −32 →Maximizing power transfer versus power efficiency: use consistent wording. Since using "if" at the start of the bullet point, I think might as well stick with the wording "if", instead of "when" or "as". (Alternatively the word could be "when", but I just want it to be consistent). undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 17:0417:04, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs m 14,539 bytes 0 →Maximizing power transfer versus power efficiency: rearranged these 3 conditions to be in increase order of value of both R_L / R_S and in order of efficiency. undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 17:0017:00, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs 14,539 bytes +56 →Maximizing power transfer versus power efficiency: rearrange this sentence so the word "Efficiency" starts the sentence, like the other two cases do. undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 16:5816:58, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs 14,483 bytes 0 →Maximizing power transfer versus power efficiency: I think it is better to understand if these verbal expressions of these conditions are put inside the bullet point list next to the particular condition they refer to. undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 16:5416:54, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs 14,483 bytes +1 →Maximizing power transfer versus power efficiency: since the diagram shows the relationship as a function of the ratio (R_L / R_S), I think it is better (and more consistent) to express these cases in that same format (R_L / R_S). Also I think since R_S = 0 is not a real possibility outside of special superconductivity, I think better to use the arrow R_S -> 0 to express apporaches 0...and this would be consistent with the subsequent text that uses "source resistance approaches zero". undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 16:4416:44, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs m 14,482 bytes −4 →Maximizing power transfer versus power efficiency: math template looks better. undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 15:1015:10, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs 14,486 bytes −25 →Calculus-based proof for purely resistive circuits: use consistent variable naming...since earlier in the article (and later) the voltage source voltage was "V_S" (both in article's text and the earlier diagram), then instead of calling the voltage as just "V" here, I am renaming it to be consistently "V_S". Also modified some text to make more consistent. And I removed the second diagram because it was a duplicate of the earlier diagram (but had the problematic "V"). Also use math format. undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 05:4205:42, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs 14,511 bytes −67 →Maximizing power transfer versus power efficiency: Rearranged sentences that describe the efficiency & power transfer curve points. undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 05:3405:34, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs 14,578 bytes −18 →Maximizing power transfer versus power efficiency: I think better and more concise to just start with "The efficiency η is..." rather than say "If we define..." undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 05:2405:24, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs m 14,596 bytes 0 →Maximizing power transfer versus power efficiency: minor reword...stick to "by" instead of "by" then "in". undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 05:2205:22, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs 14,596 bytes +44 →Maximizing power transfer versus power efficiency: better to stick to calling it "voltage source's resistance Rs" instead. And I see that "dissipated" is used here...so I'm thinking now should use the same wording...so instead of "lost" or "developed", just stick to "dissipated". undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 05:1905:19, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs m 14,552 bytes −5 →Maximizing power transfer versus power efficiency: earlier in the start of this section "power lost as heat in the battery" is used. But here for some reason the word "developed" was used instead of "lost". But "lost" is a better word than "developed", particularly since we are talking about efficiency. undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 05:1405:14, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs m 14,557 bytes +46 →Maximizing power transfer versus power efficiency: improved my caption to include variable naming scheme. undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 05:1105:11, 7 June 2022 Em3rgent0rdr talk contribs m 14,511 bytes −1 →Maximizing power transfer versus power efficiency: minor rearrange of this sentence structure to improve grammar. Earlier the comma placement was confusing, since "since" is the start of a new phrase in the sentence and so is better to have a comma before "since" instead of after it. undo Tag: Visual edit