Jahnavi
- 848
- 102
BvU said:Try to flatten the diagram: a top horizontal line is A, a bottom one is B.
BvU said:There are three paths from top to bottom: AB, ADB and ACB
As I indicated: a top horizontal line is A, a bottom one is B.Jahnavi said:How should I use this to simplify the circuit ?
ehild said:View attachment 223752
The red path is out of the plane, but it is equivalent with the blue path otherwise.What does that tell you about the potentials at D and C?
tnich said:Sorry. Symmetry is not going to help you on this problem.
What would happen if you interchanged the blue and red triangles, would be anything different?Jahnavi said:Thanks for replying .
This is exactly what I would like to understand.
If I draw a line perpendicular to AB , the left and right parts are mirror image , this make points D and C symmetric . But symmetric points so not necessarily have to be equipotential . Right ?
How can then we argue that points C and D are equipotential .
They don't look symmetric to me. Try it with a mirror.Jahnavi said:Thanks for replying .
If I draw a line perpendicular to AB , the left and right parts are mirror image , this make points D and C symmetric . But symmetric points so not necessarily have to be equipotential . Right ?
Oh, sorry, I see the symmetry now.tnich said:They don't look symmetric to me. Try it with a mirror.
tnich said:Oh, sorry, I see the symmetry now.
Redraw the circuit as @BvU has suggested. Then you will see it.Jahnavi said:I am not saying that the circuit is not symmmetric . All I would like to understand is that why points D and C are equipotential .
If you remember in the previous thread you had given a very nice symmetry argument . But points L and Q , although being symmetric were not equipotential .
Please help me understand why D and C are equipotential in this problem .
Remember in the previous thread, we redrew the circuit to make the symmetric obvious. We replaced one resistor with two resistors in series.Jahnavi said:If you remember in the previous thread you had given a very nice symmetry argument . But points L and Q , although being symmetric were not equipotential .
tnich said:Remember in the previous thread, we redrew the circuit to make the symmetric obvious. We replaced one resistor with two resistors in series.
And in this case, also, redrawing the circuit does not change it.Jahnavi said:But redrawing the circuit didn't change the circuit . Both were completely equivalent .
A B C D
A - 2 1 1
B 2 - 1 1
C 1 1 - 1
D 1 1 1 -
ehild said:View attachment 223752
The red path is out of the plane, but it is equivalent with the blue path otherwise.What does that tell you about the potentials at D and C?
ehild said:What would happen if you interchanged the blue and red triangles, would be anything different?
vela said:In analyzing a circuit, one of the most useful tools you have is redrawing the circuit in a way that it's easier to work with.
vela said:I'm not sure why you're so resistant (pun not intended, but I'll go with it) to the idea.
BvU said:As I indicated: a top horizontal line is A, a bottom one is B.
Have the three paths well separated, but going straight down from the top line to the bottom one