Circuit Analysis Theorem For the Number of Independent Equations

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the application of circuit analysis theorems regarding the number of independent equations derived from current and voltage laws. It highlights a discrepancy in the expected number of equations based on the given number of nodes and currents, specifically noting that while the current law yields three equations, the voltage law unexpectedly provides three additional equations instead of one. The conversation suggests that while many equations can be generated from Kirchhoff's laws, not all are necessary for solving the circuit. A connection is made between circuit theory and polyhedral geometry, proposing that nodes correspond to vertices and loops to faces, leading to a mathematical interpretation of the relationships in circuit analysis. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding the concept of independent equations in circuit analysis.
rtareen
Messages
162
Reaction score
32
I attached a screenshot of the book (sorry no pdf available for this book). Right above the somewhat central line they give the theorem that if there are m currents and n nodes, then there will be n - 1 independent equations from the current law and m - n - 1 from the voltage law.

I count 4 (branching) nodes and 6 currents. So the number of equations given by the current law is 4 - 1 = 3. Thats fine. But then we should get one more (6- 4 - 1) from the voltage law. But they end up with three more from the voltage law leading to a total of six equations, which they will need because there are six unknown currents.

So what's going on here?
 

Attachments

  • Theorem.jpg
    Theorem.jpg
    76.4 KB · Views: 192
Engineering news on Phys.org
rtareen said:
I count (...) 5 currents (...) because there are six unknown currents.

So what's going on here?

Good question.
 
Borek said:
Good question.
Well I fixed that. It still leads to only one more equation according to this theorem. What else is wrong?
 
What is reference to the book?
 
I think the issue here is "independent equations". You can make lots of equations from KVL & KCL, but you don't need all of them. For example, in the bridge circuit shown, if I told you the values for I1, I2, and I3, couldn't you solve the whole circuit?

But, honestly, I haven't really thought about this much. I never liked the network theory classes I had to take (several decades ago).
 
I've just made a post that ties circuits to polyhedrons. Essentially every node is a vertex, every branch is an edge, and every indivisible loop is a face. There is a current continuity EQ for every node/vertex, and a voltage loop EQ for every loop/face. Because the continuity EQs are all equal to zero, the resultant vector is the zero vector, and thus there is 1 nullspace DOF in that set. And since a polyhedron can topographically be stretched so that 1 face could have the image of all the rest (i.e., a Schlegal diagram), it is a combination of loops, and thus there is 1 nullspace DOF in the set of loop/face EQs - and since there must be an EMF element in some branch to have a non-null system, the resultant vector is not the zero vector, and thus there is no other nullspace DOF. Therefore, the net rank of the combined set is ( # of node/vertices + # of loop/faces - 2 ), which of course as per Euler's Law of Polyhedra is equal to the # of branch/edge currents.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/circuit-analysis-via-polyhedron.1050802/
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
353
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
8K