Possible confusion regarding application of Kirchoff's Laws?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the application of Kirchhoff's Laws to determine the currents I1, I2, and I3 in a circuit. The user expresses confusion about correctly applying the Loop Law and Junction Rule, particularly when encountering junction J1. They derive equations based on their circuit analysis but question the inclusion of I3 in Loop A. Other participants confirm that the user's equations appear correct, emphasizing that three equations can be derived from the junction and loop rules, which can be solved for the unknown currents. Clarification is sought on a specific reasoning that seems inconsistent with the established equations.
Enharmonics
Messages
29
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement



Determine Currents ##I_{1}, I_{2}, I_{3}##

Homework Equations



Kirchoff's Rules:

$$\sum_{i=1}^n I_{i} = 0$$

$$\sum_{i=1}^n V_{i} = 0$$

The Attempt at a Solution



zJe4NbGl.jpg


Basically, I'm not sure if I'm applying the Loop Law correctly. For example, in Loop A, going clockwise from the upper leftmost corner of the circuit, it's easy enough to see that I'd have ##-\epsilon_{1}## and ## +I_{1}R_{1}## based on the direction I'm "tracing" the circuit in, but when I come to the first junction, ##J_{1}##, I'm not sure what to do.

Applying Kirchoff's Junction rule to it based on the entirety of the circuit shows that

$$\sum_{i=1}^n I_{i} = I_{2} + I_{3} - I_{1} = 0 \rightarrow I_{1} = I_{2} + I_{3}$$

But ##I_{3}## isn't in Loop A... so then

$$\sum_{i=1}^n I_{i} = I_{2} - I_{1} = 0 \rightarrow I_{1} = I_{2}$$

I used a similar argument to set up my equation for Loop B.

Is the way I have my system of equations set up (in the image above) correct? If not, would I have to calculate the voltage drop using ##I_{2} = I_{1} - I_{3}##?

Using my current system of equations, my values for the currents are

##I_{1} = \frac{935}{626} A , I_{2} = \frac{205}{313} A, I_{3} = \frac{525}{626} A##

Is that correct?

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It looks correct to me.

The metaphor I use is about swimming up or downstream. Imagine that the stream is flowing in the direction of the arrow that indicates the direction of each current ##I_k##. Start at one point in the loop and go around the loop, adding a positive or negative term for every item we encounter. For a resistor, we add (subtract) the term ##I_kR_j## if we are swimming upstream (downstream) because that is how much the potential increases as we pass through the resistor from the downstream end to the upstream end. For a power cell, we add (subtract) the voltage of the cell if we enter at the - (+) terminal and leave at the + (-) terminal.

EDIT: When I say it looks correct I'm referring only to the image of the hand-written calcs. As per @LemmeThink's post below, I cannot follow your reasoning in the bit he quoted, which is not in the hand-written calcs. Nor do you need that bit. You already have one equation from the Kirchoff Junction rule, and on the handwritten page you get two more equations from the loop rules. So you have three equations and three unknowns, which can be solved.
 
Last edited:
Enharmonics said:
But I3I3I_{3} isn't in Loop A... so then

n∑i=1Ii=I2−I1=0→I1=I2​
Hi!
Your equations seem to have been setup correctly. However, the above quoted text doesn't seem to make sense. How did you get this?
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top