Direction of current in Kirchoff's second law

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of current direction in the context of Kirchhoff's second law, focusing on the implications of current flow in circuit analysis and the necessity of closed loops for applying the law. Participants explore various scenarios regarding current direction and the conditions under which they operate.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why current cannot flow in the directions indicated by red and green arrows in a provided example, seeking clarification on the limitations of current flow.
  • Another participant asserts that current can flow in any direction as needed, emphasizing that the direction chosen for analysis is arbitrary and that negative currents are acceptable in circuit analysis.
  • A different participant highlights that while the direction of current can be arbitrary, Kirchhoff's second law requires that currents form closed loops, arguing that the proposed red and green arrows do not represent closed loops.
  • This participant further notes that the assumption that the currents entering and leaving the terminals of the batteries must be equal does not necessarily hold true in the context of the red and green arrows.
  • Another participant agrees that a closed loop is necessary for applying Kirchhoff's law and references Faraday's Law and Stokes's theorem to support this point, indicating that the integration must occur over a closed surface.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the interpretation of current flow and the necessity of closed loops in Kirchhoff's second law. While some agree on the importance of closed loops, others maintain that current direction can be arbitrary without necessarily adhering to this requirement.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the nature of current flow, the definitions of closed loops in circuit analysis, and the implications of negative currents, which remain unresolved.

Roroy
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I'm going through Kirchoff's second law, and stumbled across this example on this page:

kirchhoff-2nd-law.jpg


In the image above, you can see that the blue arrows (both arrow 1 and arrow 2) indicate the direction that the current goes in. However, I am wondering why the current cannot go as per the red and green arrows depicted in the image below?
What stops the electrons from going from Negative end of 10V battery to positive end of 20V battery (as per red arrow)? What stops them going from negative end of 20V to positive end of 10V (as per green arrow)?

kirchhoff_2nd_law.jpg


Any help much appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Roroy said:
What stops the electrons from going from Negative end of 10V battery to positive end of 20V battery (as per red arrow)? What stops them going from negative end of 20V to positive end of 10V (as per green arrow)?
Nothing. The current (not the electrons) goes wherever it needs too go. In your first example, the current arrows does not indicate where the current goes, they are just indicators that you are going to use when calculating the currents. If one of the current turns out to be negative - you just guessed wrong and the current goes against the arrow.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: CWatters
But it's not wrong to get negative currents. How you choose the direction of currents in circuit analysis is arbitrary. Maybe it's intuitive to have only positive currents, but it's not necessary. For AC you have anyway time-dependent currents with positive and negative values like ##i(t)=i_0 \cos(\omega t)## :-).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: CWatters and Dale
Hold on a min folks. I agree that it doesn't matter if 1) or 2) are clockwise or anticlockwise as long as you are consistent but...

In the first image the arrows 1) and 2) show the currents going right around their respective loops. For example 1) goes from the +ve of the 10V battery all the way around the left hand loop back to the +ve of the 10V battery. eg back to where it started.

In the second image the currents don't go around a loop at all. The red arrow starts at the +ve of the 10V battery and ends at the -ve of the 20V battery. It's not a closed loop. I don't think that works at all as far as Kirchoff's second law is concerned. However if someone wants to prove me wrong...

Edit: If you look at the 10V battery the current leaving the +ve terminal is the red current. The current entering the -ve terminal is the green current. That implies the red and green currents must be the same value which clearly doesn't have to be true.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Roroy
CWatters said:
Hold on a min folks. I agree that it doesn't matter if 1) or 2) are clockwise or anticlockwise as long as you are consistent but...

In the first image the arrows 1) and 2) show the currents going right around their respective loops. For example 1) goes from the +ve of the 10V battery all the way around the left hand loop back to the +ve of the 10V battery. eg back to where it started.

In the second image the currents don't go around a loop at all. The red arrow starts at the +ve of the 10V battery and ends at the -ve of the 20V battery. It's not a closed loop. I don't think that works at all as far as Kirchoff's second law is concerned. However if someone wants to prove me wrong...

Edit: If you look at the 10V battery the current leaving the +ve terminal is the red current. The current entering the -ve terminal is the green current. That implies the red and green currents must be the same value which clearly doesn't have to be true.

This cleared a lot of it up! Thanks!
 
Indeed the loop must be closed. What you do there is just to integrate Faraday's Law over a surface ##S## with boundary ##\partial S## (which is necessarily a closed loop), using Stokes's theorem
$$\frac{1}{c} \dot{\vec{B}}=-\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{E} \; \Rightarrow \; \frac{1}{c} \int_S \mathrm{d} \vec{S} \cdot \dot{\vec{B}}=-\int_{\partial S} \mathrm{d} \vec{x} \cdot \vec{E}.$$
You can integrate along the circuit, and as long as it is at rest you get
$$\mathcal{E}=\int_{\partial S} \mathrm{d} \vec{S} \cdot \vec{E}=-\frac{1}{c} \dot{\Phi}_S=-\frac{1}{c} \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} \int_S \mathrm{d} \vec{S} \cdot \vec{B}.$$
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
994