Dear Tolga Soyata,

Source: Wikipedia.

In October 1745, Ewald Georg von Kleist of Pomerania in Germany found that charge could be stored by connecting a high-voltage electrostatic generator by a wire to a volume of water in a hand-held glass jar.

The following year, the Dutch physicist Pieter van Musschenbroek invented a similar capacitor, which was named the Leyden jar, after the University of Leiden where he worked.

Dear Tolga Soyata,

Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824-1887) was a German physicist. He announced the laws which allow calculation of the currents, voltages, and resistance of electrical networks in 1945 and we can call the invention of circuit theory.

Tolga, congratulations for the original question! It is a great idea to show the evolution of fundamental circuit ideas by means of such "historical excursions" where to reinvent and build step-by-step circuit ideas. We can think of it as of a kind of "movie" instead of a static "frame" (the usual teaching approach). I have been using this technique since 80's in the classes, labs and lections with my students. The pilosophy of Circuit Idea wikibook is based on this approach as well:

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Circuit_Idea/Philosophy#Philosophy_foundations

Dear Tolga Soyata,

Adolf Hurwitz analyzed system stability using differential equations in 1877, resulting in what is now known as the Routh–Hurwitz theorem [1], [2].

Reference:

1. Routh, E.J.; Fuller, A.T. (1975). Stability of motion. Taylor & Francis.

2. Routh, E.J. (1877). A Treatise on the Stability of a Given State of Motion, Particularly Steady Motion: Particularly Steady Motion. Macmillan and co.

Dear Tolga Soyata,

Source: Wikipedia

The Laplace transform is named after mathematician and astronomer Pierre-Simon Laplace, who used a similar transform (now called z transform) in his work on probability theory. The current widespread use of the transform came about soon after World War II although it had been used in the 19th century by Abel, Lerch, Heaviside, and Bromwich. The older history of similar transforms is as follows. From 1744, Leonhard Euler investigated integrals of the form:

z = integral (X(x)x^A)dx

Joseph Louis Lagrange was an admirer of Euler and, in his work on integrating probability density functions, investigated expressions of the form:

z = integral (X(x)e^-ax(ax))dx

which some modern historians have interpreted within modern Laplace transform theory.

These types of integrals seem first to have attracted Laplace's attention in 1782 where he was following in the spirit of Euler in using the integrals themselves as solutions of equations. However, in 1785, Laplace took the critical step forward when, rather than just looking for a solution in the form of an integral, he started to apply the transforms in the sense that was later to become popular. He used an integral of the form:

z = integral ( (x^s)phi(x))dx

To transform the whole of a difference equation, in order to look for solutions of the transformed equation. He then went on to apply the Laplace transform in the same way and started to derive some of its properties, beginning to appreciate its potential power.

Laplace also recognized that Joseph Fourier's method of Fourier series for solving the diffusion equation could only apply to a limited region of space as the solutions were periodic. In 1809, Laplace applied his transform to find solutions that diffused indefinitely in space.

Thanks for sharing this interesting question with us, Tolga. My interest of electricity started school time by ready some of the interesting history of electricity, but I can't much help of details now. I can see that colleague Afaq is much contributing to fill in the gaps. However, the interesting part of your example of history of circuit theory is that the Simon Laplace, in 1700's, was a mathematician and not an electrical engineer and the basic Ohms law was not yet. Electrical engineering concepts gradually found that his transform can be a useful tool. This emphasizes the relevance and importance of basic math sciences to engineers and engineering. Thanks. @Aldmour.

Ismat, precisely my point. Imagine a student learning Laplace transform in the context of circuit theory. (S)he would be inclined to think that, Laplace transform is invented to solve problems in theory. Completely wrong, since the chronology doesn't work out ... Laplace wasn't an electrical engineer , in fact, I don't know if there was such a thing called "electrical engineer" :) Back in his time, the mechanical engineering and physics disciplines were the hot thing ! Until the resistor, capacitor, inductor are invented, you don't really have electronics :)

This is why, I brought this question up out of the feeling that, I OWE my students to give them this chronology. I will put together a poster out of this, and will share it with all of the contributors. But, we got some work to do !

Its a real wow!! question. I was also wondering about some similar kind of question like how Laplace,fourier and DE stuffs are related and how we can visualize these stuffs. I dont know about historic development much but i think i can relate these stuffs.

All systems and signals can be described by some differential equations(DE) and laplace is the mathematics we defined to simplify our analysis techniques for systems. And Fourier analysis can be thought of as a subset of Laplace.

when we transform our system into Laplace we have all the informations encoded in simple algebraic maths(Laplace domain). Using Laplace domain we can define response of the system to any signal including transient(in DE defined by homogeneous equation or complementary function or system with internal excitation) and steady state response( in DE defined by particular integral or steady state or system with external excitation).

while the Fourier transform defines the steady state behavior of system to an excitation the Laplace has transient and steady state behavior both.

When the system is analysed for steady state behavior only we use jWL for inductor and this is fourier transform or special case of Laplace transform when we ignore transient response.

hopefully my explanation are little helpful

There is a very very good explanation in Network Analysis by M E Van Valkenburg. please do read this book once it has got some very clear and obvious explanation of stuffs

I am encouraged by your reply, Tolga. Yes, students need history. I believe that giving memory to concepts and theories enhances learning. I will be teaching circuits next semester after many years not doing so. Hence, I welcome your poster. Cyril said something about a "movie" show. May be instead of detailed names and dates you insert some gluing quests and answers. For example, what was Laplace at the beginning for?. How did Electrical practice and theory proceeded (without Laplacian)?. What brought Laplacian to electrical science and what electrical science benefited out of the Laplacian transform? and finally, can we imagine electrical science without a Laplacian?.

These questions if answered in a poster can help the students really appreciate the concept of a transform, whether Laplacian, Z, Fourier or any other transform as another dimension which reveals out things that are not seen immediately in the direct world or facilitate analyzing things that can't be done our way (e.g. in time domain). After all, giving the students this feeling is more important then involving them in solving problems around Fourier and Laplace unknowing why we do that.

Very sorry if I diverted away from the key request in your question, but I believe your idea is brilliant once you put it inline of the "movie" idea above. I will ask colleagues now to contribute by giving more on the chronology. Thanks. @Aldmour.

Afaq and Cyril, thank you very much for your willingness to help. Remember, we, as professors, now have to do HOMEWORK :) to give this valuable document to our students, and I will post it in front of my lab.

I will start a Word file with this chronology. Hwre is how I would like everybody interested in to contribute:

1) Please DO NOT copy Wikipedia pages, as, any one of us can do that. The value you bring to the discussion will be to provide the summarized information.

2) Please let me know if any one of the LOGICAL pieces is missing, such as a discovery I am skipping, for example, from Afaq's second post, it is clear that, I am missing KIRCHOFF's LAW ... So, please post short answers and say, "Tolga, I think, you are missing a discovery,

DIS 6: ... KIRCHOFF....." and I will add it to the list.

3) When you tell me that, I am missing a discovery, please indicate the DiscoveryID, year, name of the law, inventor, and the discovery details, in the following format:

***** DIS2 (1827) ::: OHM's LAW ::: GEORG OHM ::: V=IR

It is perfectly Ok, if you do not know a few things , like, the year, etc ... We can also discuss the logical steps missing in this puzzle.

We will discuss each posting among ourselves, and when we decide the correct answer, we will add it to the list. I will update the Word file, and re-post with a different Version ID. I will put each contributor's name in there ... Thanks

First question is : just because somebody figured out the concept of the capacitor doesn't mean that, they invented I=CdV/dt. Who invented that ? I mean, who invented DIS4 ?

Cyril, I love your OPAMP symbol, but, we are not there yet :) You are 50 years ahead :) We haven't invented the capacitor yet :)

OPAMP wasn't possible, with, at least, vacuum tube, which puts us at 1900+ ... We are still discussing 183x , which is where the capacitor lands ...

As a student i always like stuffs coming like a story and how people thought to develop that new theory or maths , what was their inspiration or need to develop that new theory. I would always like to look for the history and the reasoning why, what was the need and how that simplified our understanding or calculation or anything.

Tolga sir Laplace transform is applied to any system described by differential equations whether it is a mechanical system or fluid system or any physical system or electrical system. So even if Laplace transform was developed for mechanical system or physical system as u said earlier but our curious mind related laplace to electrical systems also.

All the systems described by DE more or less behaves similarly

thanks

Ismat, here is why Laplace is at the beginning of the list:

We want to show that, THINGS WEREN'T INVENTED FOR ELECTRONICS, but, rather, ELECTRONICS BENEFITED FROM THE EXISTING MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATION ...

This mathematical foundation was developed from the need to solve heat equations, mechanical equations, etc ... When electronics were being developed like I described above, it was clear that, the mathematics needed to solve equations encountered in electronics were also very similar to the ones in mechanical engineering, physics ... such as the ODEs, and this allowed the electronics world to "inherit" from the existing theory that was mature ...

Dear All, What Dr. Ismat Aldmour pointed in his first post is correct. While we discuss face to face then we quickly answer and clarify. But debate through communication media takes time and further at some point it deviates the spirit of the debate.

Why I agree with Dr. Ismat that evolution is not having demarcation line,

Dear All, We are remembering Laplace. May God give place to Late Simon Laplace in Heaven.

Set of Laplace Transform and Inverse Laplace transform is a tool and was in parallel to the set of Logarithmic and Antilogarithm transforms tool.

Those who invents gives their best about the scopes of their inventions but they cannot predict that after 500 years this or that invention will be useful in particular field/s.

Do not go back in long past and talk about invention of transistor in 1948 and realize the divergence of tastes, fruits and seeds of that evolution.

@Tolga, something more to add on Laplace issue. I do think it is DIS1. Historically, Laplace transformation /operational calculus/ as a subject originated in attempts to justify rigorously certain "operational rules" used by Heaviside in later part of 19th century for solving equations in electromagnetic theory. These attempts finally proved successful in the early part of the 20th century through the efforts of Bromwich, Carson, Van der Pol and other mathematicians who employed complex variable theory. This comes out of Murray R. Spiegel, professor of mathematics from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. He wrote a book "Laplace Transforms" .

If I find DIS#N, I will post with pleasure. I dig my memories and my books.

Dirk, I will have an M.S. student do that :) brilliant idea :) I will start with Keupfmueller ! We are educating a lot of electrical engineering students with IDENTITY CRISIS :) :) :) If you look at the list above, and analyze more, and, if someone asked you who the FATHER OF ELECTRONICS is ... Almost all of the discoveries that developed the field of electronics are coming back from other disciplines, when electronics didn't exists ... . In my view :

MOTHER OF ELECTRONICS IS MATHEMATICS ,

FATHER OF ELECTRONICS IS PHYSICS,

:)

do you guys agree ?

Oh, I will start putting together the list ...

@Ljubomir, I am definitely taking your comments into account about Laplace ...

@Afaq, here is my view, referring to your comment about logarithm, ...

*** Laplace transform turns derivatives into ADDITIONS,

*** Fourier transform turns adding frequency components into ADDITIONS

*** logarithm turns MULTIPLICATION into ADDITIONS

although they may make some other operations more complicated, their intention is to significantly simplify their intended target operation (e.g., derivatives for Laplace tfr.)

Dear Dr. Tolga Soyata, @ your immediate post

Let me express my self "it is not question of arithmetic operations" these transforms are meant beyond that ...

Solution of complex differential equation -- a problem

Laplace transform converts differential equations into simple algebraic equation. Then we talk about range and manipulate in terms of domains and finally think what is that value of range which has this value of Laplace transform. And finally, solution of the differential equation.

Afaq, I agree. You can arbitrarily complicate my simple description above, but, whenever I explained it to a student as above, it made immediate sense, and the details could always be developed later. But, explaining something very sophisticated like the Laplace transform as simple as "turns derivatives into additions" makes immediate sense even to a second year ECE student ... When I learned logarithms at high school, somebody told me "turns multiplications into additions" and 30 years later, this rings in my ears, and I know logarithms forever ...

Sometimes the difficult thing is in explaining 3-books worth of concepts in one sentence ! and, this is why I developed these one-sentence descriptions for every transformation ... Of course, there are many details unanswered when you say "turns multiplications into additions" , but, I learned those in time. What is most important is that, 30 years ago, that sentence allowed me to "make sense" from a then-USELESS-looking concept like "logarithm" ... No different when I learned Laplace transform at second year college. Only , this time, I am the one that came up with "turns derivatives into addition" and for Fourier "turns frequency component addition into addition"

Our ECE educational system is missing these INTUITIVE components !!! This is the primary reason why I came up with this original question in the first place ...

Currently our education system is THROWING a bunch of formulas at you, that you have no intuitive feeling for ... In that sense, Kuepfmueller (1928) might be a better circuits book than Sedra Smith (198x), since it is closer to the roots !!! and the author has a much better intuitive feeling for everything that was happening during the development circuit theory and the available mathematical tools of the time.

Hi everyone, I am still updating the list. Based on Ljubomir's comment, I added KIRCHOFF. I had to renumber some of them . Here are the additions:

***** DIS1 (1572) ::: RAFAEL BOMBELLI ::: notation +i and -i ::: central figure in understanding of the complex numbers

***** DIS2 (1799) ::: CARL FRIEDRICH GAUSS ::: proved that, you cannot solve ODEs using real numbers. You need to use complex numbers.

***** DIS7 (1845) ::: GUSTAV KIRCHOFF ::: KIRCHOFF'S CIRCUIT LAWS ::: Sum of currents into a node, i.e., Sum(In)=0, where In are complex values is zero.

Salvatore, I agree 100%. In fact, my postings are saying precisely what you just said. Most of the MATHEMATICAL TOOLS that were invented were useful in many areas of physics, mathematics, mechanical engineering (although the name for that discipline was possibly different back then). The point of the questions is not to credit someone for electronics, but, rather find the set of discoveries (in whatever discipline) that led to the development of the one specific circuit example I am showing here (even if ACCIDENTAL). For another different example, there will definitely be a different set of discoveries, although, they will share many common discoveries .... I am not qualified enough to credit anybody :)

The world already did that: Look at the terms:

AMPERE ::: in honor of Andre Marie Ampere

VOLT ::: in honor of Alessandro Volta

COULOMB ... you know how the list goes ...

The reason I am going through this exercise is that, putting the discoveries in chronological order puts a good logical perspective on "what could come after what" ... This is very important from an educational standpoint ... For example, in digging through these developments in chronological order, I had to read about the 1799 Gauss discovery. This makes it clear that, it isn't possible for the KIRCHOFF CIRCUIT LAW to come BEFORE 1799 and at the same time include complex voltages and currents . This is why I had to keep swapping them, until they are finally in meaningful order. Do you agree ?

Salvatore, I think we are saying EXACTLY the same thing !

*** If you look at one of my previous postings, I said that, "I think the father of electronics is physics."

*** you said "without electrons , you don't have electronics"

*** If you look at my previous posting, I said "I think the mother of electronics is MATHEMATICS" ... and you said

*** "the son of maths and physics is engineering" ...

I think, we might not be wording it 100% the same, but, it looks like, we agree about 100% :)

My list is populated a lot with applied mathematics, because, these are the tools that it took to arrive at the eventual formula : Z=Ls/(1+s^2*LC) + R.

Dear Dr. Tolga Soyata, I think it we should not forget about Theorems like Thevenin's, Norton's, Max. Power transfer, Superposition, .......

@Afaq, do you have specific suggestions on DISx ::: inventor ::: invention ?

I am trying to keep this thread limited to the simple equation above:

Z=Ls/(1+s^2*LC) + R

instead an open-ended discussion ... specifically, the missing piece of the puzzle now is, the capacitor formula. I am working on it. I=CdV/dt . any suggestions on this ?

Tolga, I want to congratulate you for the enthusiasm and energy with which you develop your brilliant ideas. Maybe I should share these thoughts in private correspondence with you (not to annoy the audience:), but I prefer to do it in public. This is hardly the best place, but I need somewhere to begin. To be honest, what I will say to you, I have long wanted to hear and for me ... but I never got to hear it ... But I am much older than you and was able to overcome its lack ... while you are young and need encouragement to continue in this direction ...

I have long watching your performances and I am deeply impressed by them. I think you have the makings of something more than simply an engineer, teacher or scientist:) You have the makings of a man that in the area of the policy would be a political scientist, in the area of the art - an art critic or historian, etc. You have the ability to see, analyze, grasp and generalize the trends in a particular area of technology, math, science ...

My advice to you is to better understand this and try to use these own unique gifts. Besides these interesting discussions in RG, you can shape (collect) your thoughts in the form of essays, publications, books, etc... since they are unique and you are a talent...

That was what someone had to say here about your talents... but nobody did it... So keep going in this direction... This famous thought of Albert Einstein is as though said especially for you:

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."

Now some more concrete remarks about your question. IMO there is some inconsistency between the title of the question (it is too common) and the following explanations (they are too specific). It is good to realize and develop this idea in the form of many interconnected issues.

About the chronology of events ... For purposes of understanding (teaching) it is not always the best events to be displayed in a chronological order (as they occurred historically). Quite possible (permissible and useful) is the intentional change of the "course of history" and keeping events in a more logical (for understanding) sequence.

Dear Dr. Tolga Soyata

Thevenin's theorem was independently derived in 1853 by the German scientist Hermann von Helmholtz and in 1883 by Léon Charles Thévenin , an electrical engineer with France's national Postes et Télégraphes telecommunications organization.

Source: Wikipedia

Dear Dr. Tolga Soyata

Norton's theorem was independently derived in 1926 by Siemens & Halske researcher Hans Ferdinand Mayer and Bell Labs engineer Edward Lawry Norton.

Source: Wikipedia

Dear Dr. Tolga Soyata, I am continuing .. to add .. more

According to Wikipedia, Moritz von Jacobi developed the maximum power theorem between 1837 and 1839 while working on battery-powered electric boats.

Interesting question! Along the lines of formulating Z=Ls/(1+s^2*LC) + R, you might examine Oliver Heaviside's work. For example, he coined the terms admittance, impedance, and inductance, invented operational calculus, and used the Heaviside step function to model the current in an electric circuit in the mid-1880's, according to his WIkipedia bio entry. Arthur Kennelly was first to represent impedance with complex numbers, according to the Wiki entry for impedance.

Dear Dr Tolga,

Your article really refresh my memory . My last attempt to field theorem was back to 1983 after my IEE part II filed theory paper .

Any way , it is a very good write up !

Cheers !

I agree with Derk Meyer

In the article on,"the History of Network Synthesis and Filter Theory" Sidney Darlington makes a passing remark on the History of Circuit Theory,Published by Belevitch.

1. Belevitch published a very fine history of circuit theory in the May 1962, 50th Anniversary Issue of the Proceedings of the IRE [1].

[1] V. Belevitch, “Summary of the history of circuit theory,” Proc. IRE ,

vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 848–855, May 1962.

http://www2.ee.ufpe.br/codec/historia%20RLC.pdf.pdf

2. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS—I: FUNDAMENTAL THEORY AND APPLICATIONS, VOL. 46, NO. 1, JANUARY 1999

A History of Network Synthesis and Filter Theory for Circuits Composed of Resistors, Inductors, and Capacitors

By SIDNEY DARLINGTON, FELLOW, IEEE

P.S.

Dear all, History is a great and nice thing, but since you made here some special stress on Thevenin theorem, I have to make an essential comment. At the time of Helmholtz, Thevenin, Norton, and the others mentioned by you, there were no dependent sources. With these sources, the classical "E-R", or simply "R", Thevenin equivalents, can be completed by the simply "E" one. This relates to the cases when the 1-port to be simplified has an output (terminating) dependent source with internal 1-port's controls. For SUCH circuit' there can be two cases: one when the equivalent is the usual Thevenin's "E-R", and the other when the external circuitry, connected to this 1-port sees it as an ideal (in the sense of the generated by it voltage or current function) source. See numbers 55, 59 and 69 at http://www.ee.bgu.ac.il/~gluskin/

Yours, Emanuel.