I think that is taking it too far. I think "resistive" means that there are not just ideal inductors and capacitors, but that there are some losses. It could include transformers, inductors and capacitors and active devices but not necessarily even actual resistors. For a transistor alone which I think this problem was about, note that h11 (or hie as it is sometimes designated) and h22 (or hoe) are resistive parameters--they're lossy.

Like I said, had the description been "Resistor network" there could be no argument about what that meant. Saying "Resistive network" leaves room for the possibility that it's not just a bunch of resistors (and I would rule out negative resistors if it had said "Resistor network"). It's possible the instructor could have defined "Resistive network" to be distinct from "Resistor network".

A "resistive network" can consist only of resistors and ideal voltage and current sources. That definition is widespread.

I was reading it as a resistor network and missed the distinction. Since a resistive network can contain controlled sources, it can model the simple behavior of a transistor. So my objection to that label was misplaced.

 

I've notified numerous authors of errors in their texts and have been acknowledged in the next editions on several occasions.

That is all one can do. Notify upon first discovery. If they fail to correct ... shame on them. Write your disappointment in a review of their book, or in your evaluation in other outlets.

 

I think that is taking it too far. I think "resistive" means that there are not just ideal inductors and capacitors, but that there are some losses. It could include transformers, inductors and capacitors and active devices but not necessarily even actual resistors. For a transistor alone which I think this problem was about, note that h11 (or hie as it is sometimes designated) and h22 (or hoe) are resistive parameters--they're lossy.

Like I said, had the description been "Resistor network" there could be no argument about what that meant. Saying "Resistive network" leaves room for the possibility that it's not just a bunch of resistors (and I would rule out negative resistors if it had said "Resistor network"). It's possible the instructor could have defined "Resistive network" to be distinct from "Resistor network".

Hi,

Not entirely sure what you mean here. What i was saying was that basically it does not have a time response that includes the variable "t" and that is because there are no inductors or capacitors (at least that do not cancel). An ideal transformer could be included, but that would not show any inductive qualities external to the circuit so it would act as a power transformation only, again with no "t" in the time response required.
"Resistive" also implies I^2*R losses somewhere as no resistive network that can be driven by a variable source voltage can show zero power dissipation i dont think. If there is a phase shift it must be all inside the circuit with no external effects, so no measurable phase shift.

A question you might ask is, why say it is resistive if there are effective inductors and capacitors in it too. That would make a "resistive" circuit just about any circuit and so would not convey any useful additional information to us.

 

Hi again,

I realized that to illustrate my original point a little better and make my position more clear is to redraw the circuit with the current arrow next to Ro instead of in the lead of Ro. The way i have it drawn there changes nothing but it makes it a little more clear that the arrow in the original drawing seems to indicate the current thought Ro instead of into the port.

To contrast, i also show a question from a good textbook on circuit analysis with that modified one.