Equivalent resistance in a parallel circuit

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that the equivalent resistance (Rt) in a parallel circuit with two resistors (R1 and R2) is always less than either resistor. The key equation used is Rt = (R1 x R2) / (R1 + R2), which shows that the sum of the resistances in parallel results in a smaller value. Participants emphasize that since R1 and R2 are positive, the reciprocal relationship (1/Rt = 1/R1 + 1/R2) confirms that both ratios Rt/R1 and Rt/R2 are less than one. The conclusion drawn is that the difference between Rt and each resistor is negative, reinforcing that Rt is indeed less than R1 and R2. This mathematical proof solidifies the understanding of equivalent resistance in parallel circuits.
Kurokari
Messages
36
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Prove that the equivalent resistance in a parallel circuit with 2 resistors with resistance R1 and R2 is always lesser than the resistance of either resistor.

Homework Equations



Rt= (R1 x R2)/(R1 + R2)


The Attempt at a Solution



I tried starting from R1 + R2 > R1 , where R2 > 0
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If Rt is smaller than either R1 or R2, then what does that say about the ratios Rt/R1 and Rt/R2?
 
Kurokari said:

Homework Statement



Prove that the equivalent resistance in a parallel circuit with 2 resistors with resistance R1 and R2 is always lesser than the resistance of either resistor.

Homework Equations



Rt= (R1 x R2)/(R1 + R2)


The Attempt at a Solution



I tried starting from R1 + R2 > R1 , where R2 > 0

That is a good start. The resistances are all positive, R1, R2 and also Rt.

You know that the reciprocal of the parallel resistances add up:

1/Rt=1/R1+1/R2

Multiply the equation by Rt. ...

ehild
 
You can simply compute the difference between R_t and R_1 or R_2 which is easily seen to be positive

\frac {R_1 R_2} {R_1 + R_2} - R_1 =
 
EDIT: I've come up to R1/(R1 + R2) > R1 , where R2 > 0

since R1+R2>R1 , then when R1 is divided by R1+R2(a larger number), surely R1/(R1+R2) is lesser than the original number.

now I can't have any reasoning that when I multiply R1/(R1+R2) by R2, tht this inequality still stands.

EDIT:
willem2 said:
You can simply compute the difference between R_t and R_1 or R_2 which is easily seen to be positive

\frac {R_1 R_2} {R_1 + R_2} - R_1 =

I see thanks, but isn't it the other way around?
 
Last edited:
willem2 said:
You can simply compute the difference between R_t and R_1 or R_2 which is easily seen to be positive

\frac {R_1 R_2} {R_1 + R_2} - R_1 =

You must have meant negative, the way that difference was written.

For the thread starter: this is a simple way to do it. Just express the second term over the same denominator, and combine terms and cancel stuff out. The end result should be obviously negative. You can then repeat it for ##R_2##.
 
ehild said:
That is a good start. The resistances are all positive, R1, R2 and also Rt.

You know that the reciprocal of the parallel resistances add up:

1/Rt=1/R1+1/R2

Multiply the equation by Rt. ...

ehild

1=Rt/R1+Rt/R2

As both terms on the right-hand side must be positive, both are smaller than 1.

ehild
 
Back
Top