My concern is that, when I tried checking my work, it doesn't match up with what's found on Logic Friday, a program I tried using to minimize the function.
How so? We used 741 OP Amps in lab running on 15V. Unless you mean for this specific configuration shown? Also, in the original schematic up top shown it says 741 next to each op amp.
@berkeman
@gneill
So, for the hand calculations, I'm doing them for any V1 or V2 since my goal is to find an expression for Vout as a function of V1 and V2.
For the LTSpice simulation, I just plugged in 5V for both sources and 15V for the OP Amps. There's no particular reason for these...
Here's the circuit in question:
Solution:
Now, when I try simulating in LTSpice, this is what I get:
So, Vout appears to be around -13 V, which doesn't agree with the equation if V1=V2= 5 is plugged in.
Does anyone see the mistake here?
THanks.
Interesting. I hate to turn down simpler solutions but I think, since this is a course in linear algebra and we've just covered diagonalization, that we're expected to solve this using that technique.
Did you look through the first example I was shown in lecture? That general solution only has powers of n in it, which I think is the goal. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
Example done in class:
The problem and my solution:
My solution seems incorrect because if I try to plug in 0, I don't get the initial condition given in the problem.
Does anyone see what I've done wrong along the way?
Thanks.
Here's a screenshot of the relevant slide.
What you say of course works and makes sense. It's just strange the other alternative doesn't work here. Do you think that alternative way may not apply here because we're working with node voltages, and the node voltage doesn't have a sign component...
Interesting. What you say for the KVL walk makes sense, but I had thought that for KVL walks you simply write down the first sign you encounter. Here, for a clockwise loop, I hit the minus terminal first, which results in -125 instead of +125. What is the flaw in this "first sign you encounter"...
Why should it involve i3?
And, for the signs, it feels like there's something wrong with the Vc - 125 - Va part since, if GND were in C's spot, i1 would = 125- Va. Could you provide any clues as to what's going on here?
Hello,
Here's the example I'm looking at now.
I am wondering if I swap ground and Node C... will this still be correct? I can see how it's more useful to have ground where it is above, but I'd still like to know if it would work for a swap of C and GND.
Here's my work trying this:
Does...