Talk:Load pull

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Engineering Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I got lost at, "are the processes". Can someone elaborate on the word "processes"? There are so many meanings of this word, including 'fabrication processes', 'test processes' (or 'procedures'), 'functional processes', as in how the circuit is made to function, etc. (especially 'etc.'). What is the "process" that is being refered to?; we need a modifier here (meaning an adjective or adverb), at least. I'll say nothing about that weird word "whilst". I know, I know, it's British, I know. :) --Jelsova (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Think of a process as a sequence of actions which yield a result. It's not necessary to describe the mechanisms of the process in order to understand, at least as a concept, that the result is achieved. In your examples, a fabrication process results in fabrication, a test process is the sequence of actions employed to perform the test, and a functional process is a process which affects functionality; the modifiers (fabrication, test, functional) are just shorthand descriptions of either the result, the purpose or the methodology, and they're only necessary where we choose to omit more verbose descriptions. In this case of this article the text says that the result is altering the impedances at the output and input and goes on to give examples of the purpose and application of the process; this seems to be perfectly clear without a modifier. What's lacking is detailed methodology, but that would be straying into the realms of writing a text book-- Timberframe (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry but if I needed the word "process" defined, I would have looked it up in the dictionary. Explaining that a process is "a series of actions" is a rather circular exercise. The word "pull" itself suggests that a process is taking place; I don't have to be reminded that "pull" refers to an action of some kind. Actions of or by whom? on who or what?... What on earth is the context? To begin an article in a catholic repository of knowledge like Wikipedia with the phrase "XYZ is a process of...", without first contextualizing the process, is simply bad form. Not the end of the world, just sloppy thinking. If I were reading a circuits text book, I would not need to be told by the time I got to page 112, say, that the topic is electronics and the processes are happening in the electrical domain, or, if I were studying optoelectronics, in the optical domain. It is precisely because the author "chose to omit more verbose descriptions" that I suggested he add a "shorthand description" and steer our fellows who are non-engineers into our realm somewhat more gracefully than suddenly confronting them with the word 'impedance'..--Jelsova (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I dont see a disambiguation of the term/phrase "Load Pull" in US electrical power grid terminology it refers to the increase in load during the morning or evening and the required increase in generation to match the increased demand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.200.60.7 (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply