Calculating Current in a Circuit without an Ammeter

  • Thread starter Thread starter saw176
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ammeter Current
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the actual current in a circuit without an ammeter, given an ammeter's internal resistance and its reading. Initially, the voltage across the ammeter was incorrectly assumed to represent the battery voltage. The correct approach involves using Kirchhoff's Voltage Law to find the battery voltage by considering the total resistance in the circuit, including the ammeter's internal resistance. After recalculating, the correct current when the ammeter is removed was determined to be 5.52 mA. The participants emphasized the importance of distinguishing between voltage drops across components and the actual battery voltage for accurate calculations.
saw176
Messages
14
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


An ammeter whose internal resistance is 63 ohm reads 5.25 mA when connected in a circuit comtaining a battery and two resistors in series whose values are 750 ohm and 480 ohm. What is the actual current when the ammeter is absent?

Homework Equations


V = IR
Rseries = R1 + R2

The Attempt at a Solution



First I found the voltage using the internal resistance of the ammeter and the current:
V = IR
V = 5.25 x 10-3 (63) = 0.33 V

Then I added the two resistances in series to find the total resistance
R = 750 + 480 = 1230 ohm

Then I tried to apply V = IR with the new resistance to find the current
0.33 V = I (1230 ohm)
And get a value of 2.68 x 10-4A, which is not correct (correct answer: 5.52 x 10-3)

I'm not very good at these problems, so I have a feeling I'm doing something silly wrong, thanks for the input!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The voltage that you calculated is the voltage that appears across the ammeter when it's in the circuit. It's not helpful when the ammeter is removed...

Instead, can you find the voltage of the battery?
 
I think I got it! Okay, I went V = 5.25 x 10-3A (480 +750)ohm to get a battery voltage of 6.45 volts. I then added the 0.33 volts that the ammeter was reading to this, to get 6.78 volts. Then, I applied V=IR, 6.78 V = I (1230 ohm) to get the answer 5.52 x 10-3A. This is the correct answer, so I assume my thinking of adding the 0.33 volts the ammeter "took" to the battery voltage was correct? Thanks for your help!
 
saw176 said:
I think I got it! Okay, I went V = 5.25 x 10-3A (480 +750)ohm to get a battery voltage of 6.45 volts. I then added the 0.33 volts that the ammeter was reading to this, to get 6.78 volts. Then, I applied V=IR, 6.78 V = I (1230 ohm) to get the answer 5.52 x 10-3A. This is the correct answer, so I assume my thinking of adding the 0.33 volts the ammeter "took" to the battery voltage was correct? Thanks for your help!

Well, you got to the answer, but by way of some shifty moves :smile:

An ammeter doesn't read voltage, it reads current. Any voltage that appears across the ammeter is due to that current flowing through the meter's internal resistance (63 Ohms in this case). The battery voltage will be the sum of the voltage drops across all three resistances.

Since all the resistances (including the ammeter) are in series, you can just add them up to find a total resistance. Since the same current flows through all of them you can find the battery voltage by Ohm's law: V = I*R.

Once you know the battery voltage you can always find the current through any resistive load, again using Ohm's law. So you can remove one resistor (the ammeter for example :smile:) and calculate the current that the battery will cause through the remaining resistance.
 
saw176 said:
I think I got it! Okay, I went V = 5.25 x 10-3A (480 +750)ohm to get a battery voltage of 6.45 volts. I then added the 0.33 volts that the ammeter was reading to this, to get 6.78 volts. Then, I applied V=IR, 6.78 V = I (1230 ohm) to get the answer 5.52 x 10-3A. This is the correct answer, so I assume my thinking of adding the 0.33 volts the ammeter "took" to the battery voltage was correct? Thanks for your help!
You obtained the correct solution but your reasoning is incorrect?
When you multiplied 5.25mA times the sum of the two resistors you tell us "you get a battery voltage of 6.45 volts"
That's not true. That is the voltage drop across those two resistors with the ammeter connected.
To determine the voltage on the battery, you may apply KVL (Kirchoff's Voltage Law), to this circuit (with the ammeter in line).
From KVL: Vbatt = iA(Rint+750+480), where Vbatt is battery's voltage
iA is given = 5.52mA and Rint is given = 63 ohm
So you may then solve for Vbatt.
Once you have Vbatt, you remove the ammeter and solve for current (i) in this circuit
with only the two resistors in series.
Using KVL: Vbatt = i (750+480) so i = Vbatt/(750+480)
 
Last edited:
Oh okay I see, that makes sense, thanks gneill!

Edit: I see Ouabache's reply now too, you guys are right in pointing out my mistake of assuming the the voltage drop was the voltage of the battery, I knew it seemed kind of fishy but didn't really know what I was doing. Thanks guys!
 
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 '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...

Similar threads

Replies
42
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
542
Replies
2
Views
422
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
31
Views
5K
Back
Top