Equivalent Resistance: How to Rank Resistors from Highest to Lowest

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on ranking equivalent resistances of resistors, specifically using a value of R=2 for calculations. Participants clarify that resistors in series are summed directly, while those in parallel require the reciprocal summation. The original poster made errors in their calculations, particularly in understanding the arrangement of resistors and the application of formulas for parallel and series connections. The correct approach involves using the formula for parallel resistors, 1/Rnet = 1/R1 + 1/R2, to derive the equivalent resistance accurately.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Ohm's Law
  • Knowledge of series and parallel resistor configurations
  • Familiarity with the concept of equivalent resistance
  • Basic algebra for manipulating equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the calculation of equivalent resistance in series and parallel circuits
  • Learn about the implications of resistor values on circuit performance
  • Explore practical applications of resistors in electronic circuits
  • Investigate common mistakes in resistor calculations and how to avoid them
USEFUL FOR

Electronics students, electrical engineers, and hobbyists working with circuit design and analysis will benefit from this discussion.

MitsuShai
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
The question was to rank from highest to lowest equivalent resistance. This is what I came up with, but it was counted wrong and I don't understand why.

http://i324.photobucket.com/albums/k327/ProtoGirlEXE/100_0687-1.jpg

The equivalent resistance of resistors in series are added while in parallel the reciprocal is added.


Each resistor as the same R, so I used R=2

Here are my numbers, in the order that I ranked, wronging:

1. (1/2) + .5= 1 + 2= 3

2. 2

3. .5+ .5+ .5= 1.5

4. .5 + .5= 1

5. 2+2 = 4
(1/4)+ .5 = .75
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
It would be easier to troubleshoot your answers if you presented them in the order of the figures left to right. However, just by looking at what you have, I see no figure that shows two resistors in series corresponding to 2+2=4.
 
MitsuShai said:
3. .5+ .5+ .5= 1.5

5. 2+2 = 4
(1/4)+ .5 = .75

How have you done these? they seems to be wrong
 
kuruman said:
I see no figure that shows two resistors in series corresponding to 2+2=4.

Its for upper part of last figure which he has done correctly

_________________

I guess you have solving parallel connections
 
cupid.callin said:
How have you done these? they seems to be wrong[/QUOTE


Since R is equal in every resistor, I chose R=2


so for parallel the R is summed by the reciprocal (1/2)=.5
in series they are summed
 
for parallel,

\frac{1}{R_{net}} = \frac{1}{R_1} + \frac{1}{R_2} \ ...

so your answer is 1/(1.5)
 
cupid.callin said:
for parallel,

\frac{1}{R_{net}} = \frac{1}{R_1} + \frac{1}{R_2} \ ...

so your answer is 1/(1.5)


Thank you so much for catching that error. I've looked over this problem many times to see if I was making an error, but I find it very hard to catch my own mistakes. :(
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K