Talk:Circuit Idea/Philosophy

The point is that we are human beings needing something more than scientific facts, reports, formal explanations and definitions. In order to really comprehend the phenomenon of negative resistance (and of every new thing in this life), we need first to know what the general idea behind it is. Only, basic circuit ideas are in fact "non-electrical". They do not depend on the specific implementation (tube, transistor, op-amp etc.); they are eternal. So, we may find them in our routine. Then, let's ask the first question.

A story about developing the Wikipedia page about negative resistance
I have copied below a text from an old Wikipedia talk page about negative resistance that contains interesting thoughts about human creativity. Circuit-fantasist (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In the end of 2006, I made a major edit of the existing article by presenting a new fresh viewpoint at the negative resistance phenomenon. My idea was to unveil the mystery of this strange, odd and unrecognized phenomenon, to show in a human friendly manner that there was nothing mystic, magic and supernatural behind it... Circuit-fantasist (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Now, two years later, as I can see, I have not succeeded in doing that:( No one has appreciated my insights into the phenomenon although they are unique and based only on human common sense; instead, there are only negative reactions to them. I can understand these Wikipedians as I know people do not like someone to express own ideas even if they are more than obvious. This upsets their mental equilibrium and they react to this "intervention" trying to redress the "balance". The sorry truth is that people do not prefer to use their own brains; contrary, they like "nameless" facts or speculations expressed by famous reputable persons even when they have not explained anything. People adopt willingly, use and benefit from nobody's ideas. I have known this truth from my experience since, being an individualist who has own philosophy about circuit phenomena, I have been bearing the reactions of people around me through my life. I have even reserved a special page (Why creative persons are unhappy) about these human "phenomenon" in Circuit idea wikibook.

As I can see, the idea behind the (reasonable) suggestions above that are expressed through these two years is: "Let some super-expert in this area get the absolute true from some completely reputable sources and write it fully encyclopedically". It sounds wonderful but...no one has still done it... just because the simple fact - there are not such experts, the true is hidden and there are not such sources! There are only capable wikipedians that can rewrite the article encyclopedically... but they do not like to do it. What do we do then?

Of course, it would be wonderful if there were such nice places on the web where to get the absolute truth from. And, more generally speaking, it would be wonderful, if we live in a well-arranged and a predictable world where all is clear and we know exactly what to do. For example, then we, ordinary human beings, will know whether or not we should fall in love and whom to fall in love:) Also, if you have graduated a reputable university and then if you are a reputable professor, you will know all the secrets of electronic circuits and will show them to students, etc. Unfortunately:) or maybe fortunately, I think:), quite frequently there is not any logic in our world... and exactly this feature is its charm! I am 54-years old man and I know I should not fall in love but I have fallen in love with woman that I have never supposed. I have not graduated a reputable university but I have managed to reveal the secrets of electronic circuits while for thousands graduates from such universities circuit phenomena look like "black magic". I am (still:) not a reputable professor but I reveal the secrets of electronic circuits to my students while thousands professors do not show the truth about circuits as just they do not know it. Further, I know I should not devote myself to this thankless task - revealing the ideas behind circuits and I should not contribute the non-profit Wikipedia and Wikibooks; instead, I have to write dull (pseudo)scientific articles to climb up the academic ladder. And finally, I know I should not expose my new insights into negative resistance phenomenon on this page and I should not take up rewriting, restructuring and tiding it up as this initiative will bring about me only troubles; instead I should place them on my site of circuit-fantasia.com or in Circuit idea or in papers or a book...everywhere only not here...but yet I resume here this discussion...

Doing that, I do not cherish the hope that some reputable professionals will support me; instead, I expect sooner they will try to depress me and to kill my enthusiasm (I recommend a list of sophisticated "idea-killing" techniques to help them:) I can understand all these people - reputable engineers, designers, lecturers, authors. It is pity for them to realize they have spent a lot of money to educate and then many years of time to apply their knowledge... and now to realize they do not actually know the truth about the phenomenon. Only imagine how a famous old professor that has been teaching circuitry to the poor students decade of years on end will react if he/she realizes the naked truth?!? Can you guess what he/she will do after reading these speculations? I can... Circuit-fantasist (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

How to present circuits in Wikipedia
(a copy from the Wikipedia Archive_4 talk page about negative resistance)

I don't think that to show the basic ideas behind circuits in such clear and intuitive manner is pseudo-Science and to veil the truth about circuit ideas by vague definitions and mazy mathematical expressions is Science. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a detailed course on electronic circuit design. The electronics part of Wikipedia is not intended only for "those who pursue a career in Electrical Engineering"; it is intended to all curious people interested in electronic circuits.

IMO, the main goals of every Wikipedia electronics article are first to reveal the general ideas behind the circuit, then to analyze the circuit operation and finally, to give some directions about calculating the component parameters (not in detail). The first part is qualitative; so, it needs specific qualitative methods based on human imagination, intuition and some abilities to generalize and to make associations between apparent different phenomena. Mathematical methods are wonderful but useless for the purposes of the first part; they are useful for the rest. It is a great mistake to "explain" circuits by means of mathematical models. It is also a mistake to play down people having aptitudes to discern the fundamental circuit ideas. Circuit-fantasist (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

How do we present op-amp circuits?
(a copy from the Wikipedia talk page about op-amp applications)

Intuitive versus formal tools
Of course, circuits can be and have to be analyzed by formal methods but first basic ideas behind them have to be shown. At this first stage, mathematical expressions will not help us to grasp circuit ideas; they can't explain circuits. Formal methods will not answer all WHAT and HOW questions needed (what a problem electronic components solve, why they are connected there, what they actually do in circuits, how they do what they do, etc.) as they are quantitative tools while circuit ideas are something qualitative. It is more than obvious that we have to explain qualitative things by qualitative tools and quantitative things by quantitative tools. It is a great mistake to explain qualitative things by quantitative tools; at this stage, quantitative tools can serve only as secondary means.

Do not forget that these circuits have seen the light of day thanks to human fantasy, imagination and enthusiasm. We, human beings, understand, explain and even invent circuits by using our human intuition, imagination and emotions and only then we analyze, calculate and design them by using our reason, mind and intelligence. Circuits are systems of subsystems (functional blocks or more-elementary circuits consisting of components connected according to some clever idea). In order to understand/explain complex circuits, we have to discern/show these functional blocks (the basic op-amp circuits described in this page). For this purpose, we have to have very good notion about them.

Every, even the most elementary circuit solution, is based on some fundamental idea. When we see a new circuit and we try to understand it, we need to know this idea, the clever trick on which the circuit is based. Our page visitors need too the fundamental circuit ideas and concepts to understand circuits.

How to show circuit concepts in this page
In this current state, the article does not show the concepts behind op-amp applications. That is why, I would like to insert some text (two-three sentences) in the beginning of every op-amp application (subsection) where to show the basic idea. Some groups of circuits are based on the same general idea that may be shown in the beginning of the group. The problem is that now the op-amp circuits are classified only according to linearity. With the same success they may be classified by the presence of the feedback (without or with), by the kind of the feedback (negative or positive), by the way of feedback applying (parallel or series), etc. But the page will become too branched. So, I suggest to show (where it is possible) the general idea in the beginning of the common sections and to show the specific implementation in the beginning of the concrete subsections. Circuit dreamer (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Returning at the beginning
(a copy from the Wikipedia virtual ground)

Oli Filth, I am a little surprised by you as I have been expecting you to join the discussion about storage properties of gyrators. But you have preferred to leave me along on the field of battle:) I have been thinking about the clever ideas behind these so odd gyrator circuits but you have ceased my chain of thoughts... As I can see, you have almost blanked the page about virtual ground and returned it nearly to its initial stage.

Honestly, I was a little stressed by your "edits" this morning and I decided to examine thoroughly your contributions to see the reason for your high spirits. Looking at your edits (more of them in complex and abstract areas), I have the feeling that you are (too) able, clever and intelligent. But, at the same time, you are formal and sterile thinking specialist who does not like powerful, clear and simple intuitive explanations based on common reason. I am absolutely sure you understand perfectly great circuit ideas but the entire problem is that you do not see any need of showing them to people, to Wikipedia visitors. You looks like a famous professor or (worse) a researcher, that has decided, for some reasons, to teach pupils in a primary school but he/she is nervous as he/she wastes his/her so valuable time on explaining trivial things. But you please, do not forget that Wikipedia visitors are not mainly engineers, designers, scientists; they are mostly ordinary people that would like to know the basic circuit ideas, the clever tricks on which circuits are based, the simple truth about circuits.

Let's see only one example that is closely related to virtual ground and to simulated inductor - the page about the simple RC circuit (in particular, the sections about the passive integrator and differentiator). Will the reader understand what the main problem of these humble circuits is? Will the visitor come to know what the general solution is? No, the reader will learn that "...more accurate integration and differentiation can be achieved by placing resistors and capacitors as appropriate on the input and feedback loop of operational amplifiers..." The information in this sentence is almost zero... But if we show here the problem (the voltage drop across the grounded element), and if we suggest, right here, the general solution (compensating the voltage drop by adding an equivalent voltage), the reader will understand momentarily how the op-amp integrator and differentiator work, what the op-amp does in these circuits. What is more, the reader will understand what the op-amp does in all the op-amp inverting circuits there...

Wikipedia is intended to human beings, not to computers. If we continue creating so formal, sterile, dull and synthetic pages, people will not read them! These pages will be read only by bots! Circuit dreamer (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

...This is a happy example; it illustrates the unique negative feedback feature to reverse the causality in circuits. Read more about it in this wikibooks talk and in this story about the famous current mirror. IMO, it is high time to realize that understanding, explaining, inventing, analyzing and designing are different things; so, they need different means. Formal analysis will never replace human imagination (see more about the topic here)... Circuit dreamer (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC