Calculate Currents Through Ideal Batteries with Kirchhoff's Loop Rule

AI Thread Summary
Using Kirchhoff's rules, the currents through the ideal batteries were calculated as i1=-2/3A, i2=-1/3A, and i3=-1/3A. The signs indicate that all currents flow opposite to the assumed directions shown in the circuit diagram. It was clarified that the current direction in the batteries corresponds to the calculated values, meaning that a negative current indicates flow into the battery, suggesting it is being charged. The discussion emphasized that the assumption of current direction is crucial, and negative results are common when applying Kirchhoff's rules. The final interpretation of the current directions aligns with the calculated values, confirming the analysis is correct despite the initial assumptions.
subzero0137
Messages
91
Reaction score
4
"Use Kirchhoff’s rules to calculate the current through each ideal battery in the figure
below. R1=1Ω, R2=2Ω, ε1=2V, ε2=ε3=4V. You should apply Kirchoff’s loop rule to the ε1-R1-R2-ε2-R1 loop, and the ε2-R2-R1-ε3-R1 loops respectively, each time starting from the negative end of the battery and assuming that the currents flow in the directions shown."




My attempt: i1=i2+i3 (using junction rule).
Left loop:
ε1-i1R1-i3R2-ε2-i1R1=0, therefore i1+i3=-1A.
Right loop:
ε2+i3R2-i2R1-ε3-i2R1=0, therefore i3=i2.

Therefore i1=-2/3A, i2=-1/3A, and i3=-1/3A. But I'm not sure if these are the final values. The question is asking for currents through each ideal battery, so do I have to change the signs of the i2 and i3?
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.png
    Untitled.png
    9 KB · Views: 743
Physics news on Phys.org
It says "assuming that the currents flow in the directions shown" so I would treat those directions as positive which is what you appear to have done. eg no changes needed. If that turns out to be wrong then I would argue the question is badly worded.
 
CWatters said:
It says "assuming that the currents flow in the directions shown" so I would treat those directions as positive which is what you appear to have done. eg no changes needed. If that turns out to be wrong then I would argue the question is badly worded.

I see. So the currents in the batteries would flow in the same directions as the currents i1, i2 and i3?
 
subzero0137 said:
I see. So the currents in the batteries would flow in the same directions as the currents i1, i2 and i3?
Yes, a branch current direction and magnitude is common to all series elements in that branch.
 
subzero0137 said:
...

Therefore, i1=-2/3A, i2=-1/3A, and i3=-1/3A. But I'm not sure if these are the final values. The question is asking for currents through each ideal battery, so do I have to change the signs of the i2 and i3?

subzero0137 said:
I see. So the currents in the batteries would flow in the same directions as the currents i1, i2 and i3?

You assumed the directions indicated in the figure.

attachment.php?attachmentid=67249&d=1393968467.png


When you assume a direction, you can't always be sure that the current will actually flow in this direction. If the current turns out to be negative, then it flows opposite the direction assumed.

That's the case here for ALL of the currents. That doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with the way the problem is set-up. It simply shows that for the particular values used, the currents flow opposite the assumed direction. This happens frequently when applying Kirchhhoff's circuit rules.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
subzero0137 said:
I see. So the currents in the batteries would flow in the same directions as the currents i1, i2 and i3?

Yes, you couldn't have the current through ε1 going the opposite way to current i1.

However the current in the battery is not necessarily in the direction of the arrows on the drawing. That's where the calculated sign comes in. The arrow for I1 defines +ve to be out of the +ve terminal of the battery ε1. However you calculated I1 to be -2/3A which means current is actually flowing into the battery ε1 (eg it's being charged).
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top