How to Transform a Circuit to One Resistor?

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
33 replies · 5K views
builder_user
Messages
196
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


It's only one question. How to transform this ciruit to only one resistor?

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 

Attachments

  • fff.JPG
    fff.JPG
    10.8 KB · Views: 421
Physics news on Phys.org
you haven't said anything about what you know or what you have tried. No one is going to just DO it for you, but I'm sure folks will be happy to help you learn how to do it if you say what you know and what you've tried. "Don't know squat and haven't tried anything" is not likely to get you any help.
 
phinds said:
what you have tried

that all my ideas for now(where Rx Ry Rz are the results of "triangle->star" transformation)
 

Attachments

  • dfd.JPG
    dfd.JPG
    7.5 KB · Views: 396
Yes, a Delta-Y transformation will get you there.

Another approach is to imagine a voltage source V across the terminals and solve the loop equations for the current in the voltage source loop. The ratio V/I is the equivalent resistance.
 
gneill said:
Another approach is to imagine a voltage source V across the terminals and solve the loop equations for the current in the voltage source loop. The ratio V/I is the equivalent resistance.

What does it mean "imagine"?(Not a word)


For this circuit(?) Delta-Y transformation does not help.(Find U1/U2)
 

Attachments

  • jg.JPG
    jg.JPG
    12 KB · Views: 418
gneill said:
Imagine: pretend; postulate; suppose

I mean in equatations.
Use U or some "image U(E)"?
 
builder_user said:
I mean in equatations.
Use U or some "image U(E)"?

I meant to suggest that you imagine that you've connected a voltage source V (or U, or E, or whatever variable name you wish) at the open terminals where you want to find the resistance. If you solve for the current that this voltage produces, then you can find the resistance as V/I.
 
gneill said:
I meant to suggest that you imagine that you've connected a voltage source V (or U, or E, or whatever variable name you wish) at the open terminals where you want to find the resistance. If you solve for the current that this voltage produces, then you can find the resistance as V/I.

I still don't understand.Sth like this?
 

Attachments

  • lpeg.JPG
    lpeg.JPG
    11.9 KB · Views: 378
gneill said:
Yes, exactly.

But how can it help?What loop includes E?
 
builder_user said:
But how can it help?What loop includes E?

E --> R3 --> R4 --> back to E
 
gneill said:
E --> R3 --> R4 --> back to E
A!I see now.

What's with 5# scheme?
 
builder_user said:
A!I see now.

What's with 5# scheme?

You could use a similar method, solving for the current in the final loop to find the voltage across R5. Once again it's just three loops to be concerned with.

As an alternative, I might be tempted to start from U1 and build Thevenin equivalents, absorbing more and more of the network as I progress across, until I'd be left with one Thevenin voltage and resistance.
 
Can I do like that?

When I find I2-I3=I(on R=30 Ohms) will be I=U2/R(30)?
 

Attachments

  • filer.JPG
    filer.JPG
    15.6 KB · Views: 445
builder_user said:
Can I do like that?

When I find I2-I3=I(on R=30 Ohms) will be I=U2/R(30)?

What happened to diagonal resistor R4? It should make two loops out of the "square" R3-R2-R5-R6.

You don't want U2 to be in a loop: it's a 'measurement' that you want to make, not a source voltage. It happens to be the voltage across R5.
 
The loops I had in mind are as depicted in the attached figure.
 

Attachments

  • Fig4.gif
    Fig4.gif
    5.4 KB · Views: 461
gneill said:
What happened to diagonal resistor R4?.

Delta-y transformation
 
builder_user said:
Delta-y transformation

Ah. I see. So now you're down to a situation with just two loops to worry about.
 
When I find I1 && I2 then I can find I3.I3*R(30)=U2 right?
 
builder_user said:
When I find I1 && I2 then I can find I3.I3*R(30)=U2 right?

Since the terminals where U2 is measured are an open circuit, I3 must be zero.

The current through the 30 Ohm resistor (R5) will be determined by your I2.
 
gneill said:
Since the terminals where U2 is measured are an open circuit, I3 must be zero.


Does it mean that if I have such circuit(pic.) current i through R1 exists but when circuit does not have R1 there is no current i?
 

Attachments

  • t.JPG
    t.JPG
    6.9 KB · Views: 359
builder_user said:
Does it mean that if I have such circuit(pic.) current i through R1 exists but when circuit does not have R1 there is no current i?

I'm not sure that I follow what you are saying. Is U in this circuit a real voltage source? Can you draw the circuit you have in mind that does not have R1?
 
I'm not sure that I follow what you are saying. Is U in this circuit a real voltage source? Can you draw the circuit you have in mind that does not have R1?

Here
 

Attachments

  • t1.JPG
    t1.JPG
    6.5 KB · Views: 401
builder_user said:
Here

Well, if U is a voltage source, then the current i exists with or without R1. It will of course have different values for the two cases.
 
It is U like U2(or U1) in previous circuit
 
builder_user said:
It is U like U2(or U1) in previous circuit

In the previous circuit you're looking for a relationship between U1 and U2. That means, if you put a real source (say V1) where U1 is, you want to find what the open-terminal voltage is at the terminals U2. In such a case the terminals at U2 are open -- not connected to anything (except perhaps a voltmeter!). So no current will flow through U2.

Alternatively, you could put a real voltage source (say V2) where U2 is, and measure the resulting voltage at the U1 terminals. Again, in such a case the terminals at U1 would be open -- not connected to anything, and no current would flow there.
 
gneill said:
In the previous circuit you're looking for a relationship between U1 and U2. That means, if you put a real source (say V1) where U1 is, you want to find what the open-terminal voltage is at the terminals U2. In such a case the terminals at U2 are open -- not connected to anything (except perhaps a voltmeter!). So no current will flow through U2.

Alternatively, you could put a real voltage source (say V2) where U2 is, and measure the resulting voltage at the U1 terminals. Again, in such a case the terminals at U1 would be open -- not connected to anything, and no current would flow there.

А!There is no current if I have voltage source in the circuit?
 
builder_user said:
А!There is no current if I have voltage source in the circuit?

All I am saying is, if the terminals at U2 are open (not connected to a source), then there is no loop and no current flows (through terminals U2).