1
\$\begingroup\$

Well I'm currently asking a question and couldn't find a tag to specify it..

The simple tag "RC-circuit" would've been a complete description and I'm wondering why those aren't there? When asking about the specifics of those circuits shouldn't they be tagged as such? Or maybe "RC-filter", not sure that's as quickly found though.

Other tags:

"RLC-circuit"
"LC-circuit"
"RL-circuit"

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ "RC-circuit" is ambiguous as it could mean "resistor-capacitor" or "remote control", and as remote control it has been used in the past for remote controlled cars as well as TV remotes. We don't want this kind of ambiguity, do we? \$\endgroup\$
    – amadeus
    Dec 18, 2013 at 13:26

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2
\$\begingroup\$

In the past, we have decided that having tags for each type of network is too fine of a distinction. For example, there's not a whole lot of difference between RC and RL networks. (See Ambiguity of the "RC" tag)

Currently, questions that are strictly about passive components can be served by the tag. This lets it cover the elementary RC, RL, LC, and RLC circuits, as well as more complicated arrangements and combinations.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ Could synonyms be added then? Or some way this tag can be "found" when typing the tags? \$\endgroup\$
    – paul23
    Dec 16, 2013 at 0:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ @paul23 Done - it seems like it was only done for rl-networks \$\endgroup\$
    – W5VO
    Dec 16, 2013 at 0:53

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .