Finding the absolute error for equation of total resistance

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the absolute error for the equation of total resistance in a circuit, specifically focusing on the equation for ΔRC. Participants are examining the mathematical relationships involved in the equation and the validity of certain logarithmic transformations.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are analyzing the steps taken in the original poster's attempt, particularly questioning the use of logarithmic properties in the context of resistance calculations. There are suggestions to isolate specific components of the equation, such as ΔR//, to clarify the reasoning.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing feedback on the original poster's approach and pointing out errors in the mathematical transitions. Some guidance has been offered, particularly regarding the handling of logarithmic expressions, but there is no explicit consensus on the correct path forward.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of confusion regarding the application of logarithmic identities in the context of the resistance equation, and some participants express difficulty with the initial steps of the problem. The original poster acknowledges mistakes in their initial attempt.

AdrianMachin
Messages
40
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


Prove the equation for ΔRC. (See the first attachment with the circuit schematic inside)

Homework Equations


(The equation for RC, in both attachments)

The Attempt at a Solution


You can see my attempt at a solution in the second attachment. I'm stuck at the step shown in the picture. Maybe that needs a bit algebra, or my attempt was incorrect.
 

Attachments

  • 111.png
    111.png
    10.3 KB · Views: 530
  • 222.png
    222.png
    11.4 KB · Views: 456
Physics news on Phys.org
I already have difficulty with the first step: If ##R_C = R_{//} + R_3 ## then it certainly is not so that ##\log R_C = \log R_{//} + \log R_3 ## !
And then the ##\Rightarrow## is also unjustified.

I suggest you try to find ##\Delta R_{//}## on its own...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: AdrianMachin
ln(a+b) and ln(a) + ln(b) are not the same (first -> second line and also within the second line) and the result is wrong.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: AdrianMachin
BvU said:
I already have difficulty with the first step: If ##R_C = R_{//} + R_3 ## then it certainly is not so that ##\log R_C = \log R_{//} + \log R_3 ## !
And then the ##\Rightarrow## is also unjustified.

I suggest you try to find ##\Delta R_{//}## on its own...
Thanks a lot, dear BvU! I tried your suggestion and it worked! :smile:
Yes, I had a big mistake in my first attempt as you mentioned.

What do you mean by this:
And then the ##\Rightarrow## is also unjustified.
Is that because of my mistake in taking logarithms or it's generally not considered right to use in these equations?
 
Transition from first line in attachment to second line was in error.
The transition from before the ##\Rightarrow## to after was also in error, hence my remark.
$$\ln{R_1 R_2\over R_1+R_2} =\ln R_1+\ln R_2-\ln(R_1+R_2) $$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: AdrianMachin

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K