On Jan 31, 12:20*pm, "Antonio Vernucci" wrote:
Yesterday, while repairing my antenna, something came to my mind I had never
focused on before.

Let us consider a bipole, that is a "black box" having TWO terminals and
including plain passive elements only (like capacitors, inductors, ... , no
diodes or other special devices), arranged the way you prefer, it does not
matter.

In my mind it was quite clear that, when fitting such a bipole into a circuit,
the sense makes no difference, i.e. one can reverse the two terminals with no
consequence. As a matter of fact, the bipole has an equivalent impedance that
remains the same independently of the way it is put in the circuit.

Yesterday a case occurred to me in which this is not actually true.

Instead of directly telling which it is, just for fun I wonder whether anyone
can figure out a case in which a bipole may not be reversed without
consequences. Not difficult, but it anyway requires some thinking.

Although probably unnecessary, let me recall that a filter is typically a
THREE-terminal device (IN, OUT, GROUND), not a TWO-terminal one.

73

Tony I0JX
Rome, Italy

I have a circuit I've been working on lately which has a simple series
LC in it, no other connection to the node between the inductor and
capacitor. It turns out that the order of the inductor and capacitor
makes a big difference in the circuit performance. I anticipated that
it would, and put them in the intuitively obvious order, only to find
out that it was the wrong order! A proper model cleared things up
quite nicely. However, in no way would I call that particular part of
the circuit a "two terminal" network. The effect is the same as Wim
mentioned.

Cheers,
Tom