Finding the absolute error for equation of total resistance

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the equation for total resistance (ΔRC) in a circuit involving resistors in parallel and series. The user initially misapplied logarithmic properties, specifically in the equation for total resistance, leading to incorrect conclusions. A suggestion to isolate ΔR// helped clarify the misunderstanding, emphasizing that ln(a+b) does not equal ln(a) + ln(b). The user acknowledged their error and successfully corrected their approach based on feedback.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electrical circuits, specifically series and parallel resistor configurations.
  • Familiarity with logarithmic properties and their application in equations.
  • Basic knowledge of calculus, particularly differentiation as it relates to error analysis.
  • Ability to interpret and manipulate mathematical equations related to resistance.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the total resistance formula for resistors in parallel and series.
  • Learn about error propagation techniques in electrical engineering.
  • Explore advanced logarithmic identities and their applications in circuit analysis.
  • Review calculus concepts related to differentiation and their relevance in error analysis.
USEFUL FOR

Students in electrical engineering, circuit designers, and anyone involved in analyzing and calculating resistance in electrical circuits.

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: 519
  • 222.png
    222.png
    11.4 KB · Views: 446
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 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K