Ohm's law (i.e., I forgot my Algebra)

ASEmech
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I'm an ASE certified Technician specializing in Brakes and Four-wheel Alignments. I'm going to go for my cert. in Electrical systems this fall. As I began my self-study in electrical systems, I realized...I forgot my Algebra.

I'm currently studying Ohm's Law. Within Ohm's Law, I'm studying Resistance in a parallel circuit. The formula I'm given is:

R0=1/(1/R1) + (1/R2) = (R1 x R2)/(R1 + R2)

...where R0 (read R-sub0) is a combination of resistances R-sub1 and R-sub2.

I thought the sum of the resistances in any circuit was R0=R1+R2. Why is 1 divided by (1/R1) + (1/R2) and in the "denominator portion" of the formula, why is 1 divided by R1 (same question for 1 divided by R2) and then added to 1/R2? Also, how do you get from R0=1/(1/R1) + (1/R2) to (R1 x R2)/(R1 + R2)?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
For resistors in series Rt = R1 + R2
In parallel it's 1/Rt = 1/R1 + 1/R2

For just a pair of resistors you can simplify this to
Rt = (R1*R2) / (R1 + R2)
 
This thread probably belongs in the EE forum.
Anyway,

R_{tot}=R_1+R_2 is only correct if the resistors are connected in series. In
a parallell ciruit the current can flow in several branches at once which is why you need to use the 1/R_{tot}=1/R_1+... formula.
This makes sense if you think about. Let's say you have two 1K resistors connected in parallell; now the current can flow via two different paths and since the resistors have the same value each one will carry half the current; plugging two 1K resistors into the formula for parallel resistors you will see that you end up with an equivalent resistance of 500 ohm. This is what you would expect since the two paths make "half as difficult" for the current to flow; i.e. connecting resistors in parallel REDUCES the total resistance.

You can derive the formula yourself by just using ohms law and remembering that the voltage across each of the resistors must be the same since they are connected in series.

Also

1/R=1/R1+1/R2 =R2/(R1*R2)+R1/(R2*R1=(R1+R2)/(R1*R2)
i.e.
1/R=(R1+R2)/(R1*R2)
meaning R=R1*R2/(R1+R2),
 
Thanks, guys. I put this here because when I first saw this formula the first thing I thought of was Alg. 1.

Thanks again!
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top