Kirchoffs Law and simple circuit problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter QuarkCharmer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Circuit Law
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a circuit problem involving Kirchhoff's laws, specifically focusing on the application of Kirchhoff's junction and voltage laws to analyze a given circuit. The original poster expresses confusion regarding the consistency of their equations and the identification of potential differences across nodes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply Kirchhoff's laws to find currents and voltages in the circuit but encounters inconsistencies. Some participants suggest assigning a reference potential to simplify the analysis, while others question the implications of choosing specific nodes as reference points.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring different interpretations of the circuit analysis methods. There is a recognition that the original poster's choice of loops may not have included all components, which could lead to inconsistencies in their equations. Guidance has been offered regarding the necessity of covering all components in the analysis.

Contextual Notes

There is an emphasis on the importance of selecting a reference node and ensuring that all components are included in the analysis. The original poster has expressed uncertainty about the implications of their choices in the circuit setup.

QuarkCharmer
Messages
1,049
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


The problem is in the attached image. I can't figure out what is going on. The circuit as given is at the top, I have circled what I am trying to find.

Homework Equations



The Attempt at a Solution


I used the junction law to find the current through the 3 ohm resistor to be 8 amps. Then I took three loops of the system and applied kirchhoffs voltage law, and solved the system of three equations and 3 unknowns, but it's inconsistent. I don't see where I am going wrong but I suspect it has something to do with my loops.

2ptdsb8.jpg


No matter how I do this, it always works out to be impossible?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you're overthinking this :smile:

Assign a potential of 0V to the node labeled d (make it a reference node). Then using the known currents and resistances, assign relative potentials to nodes b, h, f. Continue...
 
That potential of 0 volts is from which voltage source though? I'm not sure I understand what you mean exactly. I have done about 20 problems like this, finding currents and resistances and emf's without any problems just doing loops and solving. It should work?

If you mean, using node d as the "ground" if I were say, hooking up a multimeter or something, then how do you know that node d has 0 potential?
 
QuarkCharmer said:
That potential of 0 volts is from which voltage source though? I'm not sure I understand what you mean exactly. I have done about 20 problems like this, finding currents and resistances and emf's without any problems just doing loops and solving. It should work?

If you mean, using node d as the "ground" if I were say, hooking up a multimeter or something, then how do you know that node d has 0 potential?

It's zero because you say it is :smile: It's a point of reference, as you say, as if you were to connect the negative lead of your multimeter to it. The same thing is done when you choose a reference node for nodal analysis. The circuit as a whole has no absolute potential reference to anything external, so you're free to assign your own "zero" reference point.

EDIT: Note that your choice of loops did not include the 3 Ω resistor in any path. That's why the system of equations you wrote would not yield a consistent result. Your equations must cover every component.
 
Last edited:
I didn't know that you had to hit every component, but that makes sense since most/all of the variables are dependent on the others. To be clear, I need to make sure I cover all the components in my system, but that does not mean I need to do all possible loops right?
(I got the right solution now, knowing that information, thanks!)
 
QuarkCharmer said:
I didn't know that you had to hit every component, but that makes sense since most/all of the variables are dependent on the others. To be clear, I need to make sure I cover all the components in my system, but that does not mean I need to do all possible loops right?
Correct.
 
Got it, thanks Gneill.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
928
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K