Finding the potential difference in a circuit

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating the potential difference (PD) in an electrical circuit using Kirchhoff's laws. The participants identify discrepancies in the specified currents for the resistors, particularly noting that the current for the 4 Ω resistor is incorrectly stated. The conclusion is that the circuit described is impossible as it violates Kirchhoff's circuit law for voltage, leading to inconsistent PD calculations. It is emphasized that the problem may contain a misprint, rendering it unsolvable.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Kirchhoff's circuit laws
  • Familiarity with Ohm's Law
  • Basic knowledge of electrical circuits and components
  • Ability to perform calculations involving voltage, current, and resistance
NEXT STEPS
  • Review Kirchhoff's voltage law and its applications in circuit analysis
  • Study the implications of incorrect current specifications in circuit problems
  • Learn how to identify and correct misprints in circuit problems
  • Practice solving circuit problems with varying resistor values and configurations
USEFUL FOR

Electrical engineering students, circuit designers, educators in physics, and anyone involved in analyzing electrical circuits.

jolly_math
Messages
51
Reaction score
5
Homework Statement
For the circuit below, calculate the potential difference between points a and b. The current in the 2.00 Ω resistor is 0.909 A, and the current in the 4.00 Ω resistor is 1.636 A.
Relevant Equations
loop rule
junction rule
1675383984537.png

The solution chooses the centre wire to determine the potential difference, where Va−(0.909 A)(2.00 Ω)=Vb and Vb - Va = -1.82

If I choose the top wire (passing through the 12 V battery and 4 Ω resistor), Va - 12 + (1.636 A)(4.00 Ω)=Vb, and Vb - Va is different (= -5.46 V). Why would this path not work?

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think the problem is that the situation they describe is impossible, as it breaks Kirchhoff's circuit law for voltage. Given the currents they've specified for the top two resistors, the PDs across the three elements in the upper circuit are 12, 0.909 x 2 and 1.636 x 4 and, whatever signs we give to either of those last two, we cannot get the three PDs to add to zero as Kirchhoff requires.

I suspect the question just contains a misprint, which makes it unsolvable.

For an impossible circuit, we should not be surprised if it gives different measurements when approached in different ways.

EDIT: In fact, they should not specify any currents in the circuit. We can calculate all currents using just the voltages of the two cells and the three resistances. Use Kirchhoff's laws. The current they specify for the 2 Ohm resistor is correct but that for the 4 Ohm resistor is not. It needs to be way more than that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jolly_math, phinds, TSny and 1 other person
andrewkirk said:
The current they specify for the 2 Ohm resistor is correct but that for the 4 Ohm resistor is not.
Yes. The 1.636 A is the current in the 6 Ohm resistor.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SammyS and andrewkirk
andrewkirk said:
I think the problem is that the situation they describe is impossible, as it breaks Kirchhoff's circuit law for voltage. Given the currents they've specified for the top two resistors, the PDs across the three elements in the upper circuit are 12, 0.909 x 2 and 1.636 x 4 and, whatever signs we give to either of those last two, we cannot get the three PDs to add to zero as Kirchhoff requires.

I suspect the question just contains a misprint, which makes it unsolvable.

For an impossible circuit, we should not be surprised if it gives different measurements when approached in different ways.

EDIT: In fact, they should not specify any currents in the circuit. We can calculate all currents using just the voltages of the two cells and the three resistances. Use Kirchhoff's laws. The current they specify for the 2 Ohm resistor is correct but that for the 4 Ohm resistor is not. It needs to be way more than that.
Okay, thank you. Ignoring the actual values, could either path be used to get the same potential difference?
 
jolly_math said:
Okay, thank you. Ignoring the actual values, could either path be used to get the same potential difference?
yes
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jolly_math

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
Replies
6
Views
17K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K