Checking the Gains of the Given Circuit

[NascentOxygen]

Nope. Go back to the original post, and the circuit in the second attachment that I was referring to with that comment

Oops, I was looking at the wrong diagram? Then that explains why your analysis seemed awry!

 

[NHLspl09]

For (a) it's not the sign of G1 that matters, it's the sign of the gain. G1's sign is positive because it's just a common conductance (unit of conductance is Siemans = 1/Ohms, usually designated S = 1/Ω). In other words, the sign is associated with the gain, not anyone component value.

For (e) the units are fine: S²/S², so the proposed gain is unitless as required. I would say that this result is plausible, if incorrect

I understand what you've said about (a), but not (e) - how can it be considered plausible if the terms in the denominator aren't correct?

 

[gneill]

I understand what you've said about (a), but not (e) - how can it be considered plausible if the terms in the denominator aren't correct?

It's plausible because, without doing the circuit analysis to check its details, the expression contains no errors in the form of addition of unlike units and it yields a unitless result as required; it looks like it might be a gain expression for some circuit (if not this one!).

Note that there's a vast gulf between "plausible" and "is".

 

[NHLspl09]

It's plausible because, without doing the circuit analysis to check its details, the expression contains no errors in the form of addition of unlike units and it yields a unitless result as required; it looks like it might be a gain expression for some circuit (if not this one!).

Note that there's a vast gulf between "plausible" and "is".

Ahhhh ok now I understand what you meant in saying it's plausible!