Foster's reactance theorem is currently a Computing and engineering good article nominee. Nominated by SpinningSpark at 18:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic
A fact from Foster's reactance theorem appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 June 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Plot of the reactance of a parallel LC circuit against frequency
Odd that for the formulator of this theorem, a function such as x/(1-x^2) is considered to be increasing (for the range x>0). Won't this lead to difficulties in the application of the theorem to situations where values are being compared? 84.227.254.143 (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can use Foster's theorem in that way (comparing two discrete measurements) to determine if the network is a Foster network or not. Clearly, it will fail if there is a pole between the two measurements. One must have knowledge of the sign of the slope of the function across the whole frequency range. SpinningSpark13:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There might be another way to formulate it that won't lead to initial confusion. There's a hint of this in the reference to going clockwise in a Smith diagram -- the monotonicity is really a kind of "around the clock" phase monotonicity, like for tan(x). Not being familiar with the field, I wonder if there is a formulation that draws on the specialist literature, but would also satisfy literalists. Perhaps simply "except when crossing poles"? 84.227.254.143 (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative formulation is to say the function always has a positive slope. A function becoming less negative is still increasing. SpinningSpark17:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg?lang=en){kind=small}
