Re: Re: FLOW disciplines and KCL

No, you are confusing implicit equations which support
having the simulator solve for the solution with
signal-flow which lets you use
--- peterl@xpedion.com <peterl@xpedion.com> wrote:
> I think the original idea behind signal flow is to
make it an "unknown" 
> in a differential algebraic equation so it can be
solved as part of the 
> system and then used.  As I originally stated,
something like
> "V(n1) <+ 2*V(n1) +1;" is definitally allowed.
> We can then use the simulator as a more general
solver.
> NOTE: A signal flow node should be the similar to a
free quantity in 
> VHDL-AMS.
> 
> Peter Liebmann
> 
> Marq Kole wrote:
> > 
> > Jonathan,
> > 
> > A resulting limitation for the signal flow
disciplines connecting to a 
> > conservative discipline would be that a signal
flow node can have only 
> > one conservative instance connected to it, and
that all signal-flow 
> > instances need to have the same port direction,
i.e. all in or all out.
> > 
> > Should an inout port direction not be allowed for
signal flow models: it 
> > has to be either in or out. I can image a model
where a signal-flow port 
> > is either read or driven, dependent on a parameter
setting, but it 
> > cannot read and drive at the same time...
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Marq
> > 
> > 
> > Marq Kole
> > Competence Leader Analog Simulation, Philips ED&T
> > 
> > 
> > Marq Kole/EHV/RESEARCH/PHILIPS wrote on 02-06-2006
16:08:32:
> > 
> >  > Jonathan,
> >  >
> >  > Your reply required some thinking before I
could answer; I'll also
> >  > copy the reflector as I think this is relevant
to our discussions.
> >  >
> >  > Regards,
> >  > Marq
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > Marq Kole
> >  > Competence Leader Analog Simulation, Philips
ED&T
> >  >
> > 
> >  > Jonathan David <jb_david@yahoo.com> wrote on
31-05-2006 18:41:25:
> >  >
> >  > > Hi Marq,
> >  > >
> >  > > thanks for the reply. It looks like you
missed part of
> >  > > my point.
> >  > >
> >  > > Let me ask a question;  For a potential
nature, do you
> >  > > expect KVL to be obeyed? I do, and I think
you do
> >  > > also..
> >  > > V(B) = V(A) + V(B,A)
> >  > > V(A,gnd) + V(B,A) + V(gnd,B) = 0;
> > 
> >  > This is not necessarily the KVL: in mathematics
this is also known
> >  > as associativity. If you consider 0 to be the
mathematical ground
> >  > i..e reference, then with V(B) = 2 and V(A) = 3
you say:
> >  >
> >  > 2 = 3 + (2 - 3)
> >  > (3 - 0) + (2 - 3) + (0 - 2) = 0
> >  >  
> >  > > therefor when I flip to the FLOW side, I
expect KCL to
> >  > > be obeyed.
> >  > > KCL: Sum(I)@node = 0;
> >  > >
> >  > > In fact if it isn't, it wouldn't be possible
to
> >  > > connect the flow type to the flow connection
of the
> >  > > compatible conservative discipline.
> >  > >
> >  > > but your example doesn't show a violation.
> >  > > Without the context (how the block is
connected) we
> >  > > can't talk about KCL.
> >  > > Your example has no context.. its not
connected up
> >  > > with any thing else, and without the
connection nodes,
=== Message Truncated ===