User talk:155.98.131.3

The steps for return ratio analysis are accurate but ugly. While the Grey and Meyer a core text, it is not the best choice. If someone is so inclined, I would suggest reformatting; for example, do not use the name of the operator ('minus xxx') but rather name of the operation being performed ('negate xxx', 'negative xxx' or 'the negative of') when referring to the steps being performed. Step 5 is especially poorly worded;

"For a voltage source the return ratio is minus the ratio of the voltage across the dependent source divided by the voltage of the independent replacement source."

Whereas step six is seems a bit better;

"The return ratio is minus the ratio of the resulting short-circuit current to the current of the independent replacement source."

If you can not see the issue outright, the problem in step 5 is that the return ratio is either; 'the return ratio is the the ratio of the dependent source to the independent source' or 'the return ratio is the dependent source divided by the independent source'

Alternatively, I would suggest scrapping this section and reference and just use something similar to what is outlined in these course notes (see 2nd slide);

http://pallen.ece.gatech.edu/Academic/ECE_6412/Spring_2004/L290-ReturnRatio-2UP.pdf

January 2024

Hello, I'm Ternera. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Kathryn Bond Stockton, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Ternera (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

---