Calculating current in circuit with multiple emf's using Kirchhoff's

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating currents I_1, I_2, and I_3 in a circuit using Kirchhoff's Rules after closing a switch. Initial attempts included setting up equations based on Kirchhoff's laws, but the first equation was identified as incorrect, leading to confusion in the calculations. After correcting the equation to I_2 = I_1 + I_3, the user recalculated the currents and found values of I_1 = 72/83 A, I_2 = -51/83 A, and I_3 = -123/83 A. The final solution was achieved by organizing the equations into a matrix format, demonstrating the effectiveness of using a calculator for complex calculations. The discussion highlights the importance of accurate equation setup in circuit analysis.
Spudnik
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Circuit.jpg
Find I_1, I_2 and I_3 if the switch, k, is closed using Kirchhoff's Rules.

Homework Equations


V=IR

The Attempt at a Solution



I've had multiple attempts at this and this one is the one that came closest to a solution.

Setting up 3 equations:
1) I_1 = 1_2 + I_3 => I_1 - I_2 - I_3 =0
2) 12V + I_3*(4 Ohm) - I_1*(7 Ohm) = 0
3) 12V - 9V - I_2*(5 Ohm) - I_1*(7 Ohm) = 0

2) 12 = 7*I_1 - 4*I_3 => 12 = 7*(I_2 + I_3) - 4*I_3 => 12 = 7*I_2 + 3*I_3
3) 3 = 7*I_1 + 5*I_2 => 3 = 7*(I_2 + I_3) + 5*I_2 => 3 = 12*I_2 + 7*I_3

Getting rid of I_3:

84 = 49*I_2 + 21*I_3
09 = 36*I_2 + 21*I_3
---------------------------
75 = 13*I_2

I_2 = 5.75

By substituting in, I get

I_1 = -3.7
I_3 = -9.5

Is this anywhere near correct, I don't know why, but somehow this seems fishy to me :S
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Spudnik said:
1) I_1 = 1_2 + I_3 => I_1 - I_2 - I_3 =0

I think your first equation is not correct. Pay close attention to the direction of the arrows. See how the sum together at either center top node, or center bottom node. You'll find that

I2 = I1 + I3

(not, I1 = I2 + I3 that you originally had.)

[Edit: Oh, and Spudnik, welcome to Physics Forums!]
 
Last edited:
OK, I redid it with the new formula and I got

I1=0.25
I2=0.25
I3=-2.5625

Clearly this does not fit the initial equation I2=I1+I3

It's strange though because those are the same values I got for I1 and I2 for part A) where it asked for the currents with the switch open...
 
Double posting because I figured it out:

I1= 72/83 A
I2= -51/83 A
I3= -123/83 A

Using
I2=I1+I3
12+4I3-7I1=0
12-9-5I2-7I1=0

Setting them up for a matrix:

I1 + I2 + I3 = Voltage
+1 -1 +1 =0
-7 +0 +4 =-12
-7 -5 +0 =-3

Letting the calculator do the rest for you: priceless.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top