Finding the potential difference in a circuit

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the potential difference (PD) in a circuit using different paths and highlights inconsistencies in the given current values. It points out that the specified currents violate Kirchhoff's circuit law, as the PDs across the circuit elements do not sum to zero. The participants suggest that the problem may contain a misprint, rendering it unsolvable. They emphasize that currents should not be specified, as they can be derived from the voltages and resistances using Kirchhoff's laws. Ultimately, the conclusion is that either path could theoretically yield the same potential difference if the circuit were valid.
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 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 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
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top