Finding current and Power delivered to Resistors

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a circuit problem involving two voltage sources and resistors, where participants are tasked with finding the current through each resistor and the power delivered to them. The circuit includes two batteries and a resistor, with specific values provided for the voltages and resistance.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore various methods for solving the circuit, including the use of Kirchhoff's laws and node voltage methods. There are attempts to apply the V=IR equation, but confusion arises regarding the total resistance and current calculations. Some participants express uncertainty about how to set up their equations and the significance of certain voltage relationships.

Discussion Status

Several participants are actively engaging with the problem, sharing their attempts and calculations. There is a recognition of the need to clarify the application of Kirchhoff's rules, and some guidance has been offered regarding the setup of equations. However, there is no explicit consensus on the correct approach or solution yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity introduced by the presence of multiple resistors and voltage sources, leading to questions about the assumptions made in their calculations. There is also mention of varying values in similar problems, which may affect the interpretation of the circuit behavior.

elizabethrae
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



In the figure below, find the following. (Let E1 = 26.0 V, E2 = 13.0 V, and R = 9.0 Ω.)
(attachment)

(a) the current in each resistor
I1 =
I2 =
I3 =

(b) the power delivered to each resistor
P1 =
P2 =
P3 =


Homework Equations



V=IR, Req=R1+R2 for resistors in series, Req=1/R1 + 1/R2 for resistors in parallel

The Attempt at a Solution



Ok so I figured for at least I1 I could use the V=IR equation but I keep getting the wrong answer. Would I have to find the total resistance of all the resistors and then use Req in the equation with E1 for I1? Thanks
 

Attachments

  • 28-p-029-alt.gif
    28-p-029-alt.gif
    4 KB · Views: 1,356
Physics news on Phys.org
That lone resistor R is what prevents you from just applying V=IR. The current I3 = I1 + I2 passes through it on the way back to the battery negative terminal.

One way or another you'll have to solve for the currents or at least the voltage at the "top" of R (so you can compute voltage differences across all the resistors).

There are several possible approaches, depending upon how far along in your studies you are. Pick a method you're familiar with. Maybe Kirchoff node or loop methods, or Thevenin-Norton transformations.
 
I'm still kinda lost as to how to start it.. we've learned the node and volatge laws and I think we are supposed to use them but I am not sure how. I don't have any values for current so I can't really use the node law, and what significance is V1+V2-V=0? I'm still just confused :S
 
Well, try the node voltage method. Take the place where the resistors all connect as one node. Call it node A. Set the "common" node as the place where the two batteries meet (it may be helpful to picture the circuit diagram rotated 90 degrees to the left so that node A is on top).

Now suppose the voltage at node A is VA. Can you write the equations for the branches that connect to that node?
 
I am actually working on precisely the same problem, with the exception that [itex]\mathcal{E}_1 = 22.0 V[/itex], [itex]\mathcal{E}_2 = 13.0 V[/itex], and [itex]R = 18. 0~ \Omega[/itex]

For the junction rule, [itex]I_3 - I_1 - I_2 = 0[/itex]

For the first loop, [itex]\mathcal{E}_1 - I_1(28.0) - I_3(18.0)=0[/itex]

Solving for [itex]I_1[/itex] gives me [itex]I_1 = \frac{\mathcal{E}_1 - I_3(18.0)}{28.0}[/itex]

For the second loop, [itex]\mathcal{E}_2 - I_2(12.0) - I_3(18.0)[/itex]

Solving for [itex]I_2[/itex] gives me [itex]I_2 = \frac{\mathcal{E}_2 - I_3(18.0)}{12.0}[/itex]

Taking [itex]I_1[/itex] and [itex]I_2[/itex], and substituting them into the equation for the junction rule, I get that[itex]I_3 = 0.872[/itex]. The true answer is 0.595. I did the calculation several times, but futile were the attempts. Have I applied Kirchhoff's incorrectly?
 
Last edited:
Bashyboy said:
I am actually working on precisely the same problem, with the exception that [itex]\mathcal{E}_1 = 22.0 V[/itex], [itex]\mathcal{E}_2 = 13.0 V[/itex], and [itex]R = 18. 0~ \Omega[/itex]

For the junction rule, [itex]I_3 - I_1 - I_2 = 0[/itex]

For the first loop, [itex]\mathcal{E}_1 - I_1(28.0) - I_3(18.0)=0[/itex]

Solving for [itex]I_1[/itex] gives me [itex]I_1 = \frac{mathcal{E}_1 - I_3(18.0)}{28.0}[/itex]

For the second loop, [itex]\mathcal{E}_2 - I_2(12.0) - I_3(18.0)[/itex]

Solving for [itex]I_2[/itex] gives me [itex]I_2 = \frac{mathcal{E}_2 - I_3}{12.0}[/itex]
In that last equation, what happened to the 18.0 that multiplied I3 in the previous line?
 
Whoops, I neglected to type that in--I'll fix it.
 
Bashyboy said:
Whoops, I neglected to type that in--I'll fix it.

Did you then re-solve the simultaneous equations for I3?
 
Yes, I substituted in I_1 and I_2, moved the terms that didn't have I_3 in them, and factored out I_3.
 
  • #10
Bashyboy said:
Yes, I substituted in I_1 and I_2, moved the terms that didn't have I_3 in them, and factored out I_3.

When I do that using your equations, I get the 0.595A result...
 
  • #11
I am still getting the same answer.

Here is my work:

[itex]I_3 - (\frac{\mathcal{E}_1 - I_3(18.0)}{28.0}) - (\frac{\mathcal{E}_2 -I_3(18.0)}{12.0}[/itex]

[itex]I_3(\frac{18.0}{28.0} + \frac{18.0}{12.0}) = \frac{\mathcal{E}_1}{28.0} + \frac{\mathcal{E}_2}{12.0}[/itex]

Finally,

[itex]I_3 = 0.872~A[/itex]
 
  • #12
Bashyboy said:
I am still getting the same answer.

Here is my work:

[itex]I_3 - (\frac{\mathcal{E}_1 - I_3(18.0)}{28.0}) - (\frac{\mathcal{E}_2 -I_3(18.0)}{12.0}[/itex]

[itex]I_3(\frac{18.0}{28.0} + \frac{18.0}{12.0}) = \frac{\mathcal{E}_1}{28.0} + \frac{\mathcal{E}_2}{12.0}[/itex]
What about the "lone" I3 term on the left? Why did it disappear?
 
  • #13
What lone I3 term? I didn't intend for any to disappear.

Bashyboy said:
I am still getting the same answer.

Here is my work:

[itex]I_3 - (\frac{\mathcal{E}_1 - I_3(18.0)}{28.0}) - (\frac{\mathcal{E}_2 -I_3(18.0)}{12.0}[/itex]

[itex]I_3(\frac{18.0}{28.0} + \frac{18.0}{12.0}) = \frac{\mathcal{E}_1}{28.0} + \frac{\mathcal{E}_2}{12.0}[/itex]

Once I got to this step, I divided both sides by [itex]\frac{18.0}{28.0} + \frac{18.0}{12.0}[/itex]

Which gave me

Bashyboy said:
Finally,

[itex]I_3 = 0.872~A[/itex]
 
  • #14
What happened to the first I3 term?

attachment.php?attachmentid=57129&stc=1&d=1364304842.gif
 

Attachments

  • Fig1.gif
    Fig1.gif
    2.9 KB · Views: 1,926
  • #15
Oh, I see...It should be (1 + 18.0/28.0 + 18.0/12.0). I kept neglecting the 1.
 
  • #16
Bashyboy said:
Oh, I see...It should be (1 + 18.0/28.0 + 18.0/12.0). I kept neglecting the 1.

Exactly :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
2K