Talk:Gyrator

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)

Let's not have this discussion repeated on multiple pages. See Talk:Fractal antenna#Archiving size. SpinningSpark 09:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

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^[vague] with just the conventional four elements. In particular, gyrators make possible network realizations of isolators and circulators.^[vague]

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^[vague] with straightedge and compass alone. In particular, protractors make possible trisection of any given angle.^[vague]

...is that equally vague? or is the vagueness specific to the gyrator version? catslash (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

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), File:Circulator-from-gyrator-1.svg, File:Circulator-from-gyrator-2.svg, but failed to get around to using them. catslash (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Catslash: Thanks for reaching me out. I think the word "realized" should be clarified. Best. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 01:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

"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)

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)

@Spinning🧹Spark🧹: 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)

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)

I have no clue. I tagged it with needing a citation. Constant314 (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the editor that added that information is no longer active. Constant314 (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Done. catslash (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

From this article's version as of 2025-07-01  :

A gyrator is a passive, linear, lossless, two-port electrical network element proposed in 1948 by Bernard D. H. Tellegen as a hypothetical fifth linear element after the resistor, capacitor, inductor and ideal transformer.

Notwidthstanding the statement's validity, I have never heard of the linear transformer to be considered one of the hypothetical (fundamental?) linear elements. Is this statement therefore just Tellegen's own interpretation and viewpoint? Abdull (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

The ideal transformer is mentioned in the electrical element article, so that might be the place to take this question. catslash (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

My question is more about the particular wording used in this article here. Why should the ideal transformer to be considered one of the first four (discovered, identified?) linear elements? Abdull (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

At least some earlier authors worked with ohmic resistances, condensers, and inductance coils which may or may not be mutually coupled (Brune), whereas Tellegen says For general considerations on networks we can better regard this ideal transformer as being the fourth network element rather than the general system of two coupled coils. Tellegen is pondering the essential nature of each element, and what it brings to the party that the others do not, so it's clear why he thinks this (also a transformer is characterized by a single value, rather than three for coupled coils). Unfortunately, he doesn't make it clear whether or not this is an original thought on his part. catslash (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)