Possible confusion regarding application of Kirchoff's Laws?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the application of Kirchhoff's Laws in circuit analysis, specifically addressing the confusion surrounding the Loop Law and Junction Rule. The user correctly applies Kirchhoff's Junction Rule, establishing the relationship \(I_{1} = I_{2} + I_{3}\) and \(I_{1} = I_{2}\) based on their circuit analysis. The currents calculated are \(I_{1} = \frac{935}{626} A\), \(I_{2} = \frac{205}{313} A\), and \(I_{3} = \frac{525}{626} A\). The consensus is that the equations are set up correctly, although some reasoning in the user's explanation requires clarification.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Kirchhoff's Laws, specifically the Junction Rule and Loop Law.
  • Basic knowledge of circuit analysis and current flow in electrical circuits.
  • Familiarity with Ohm's Law and voltage drop calculations.
  • Ability to solve systems of equations involving multiple variables.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study advanced applications of Kirchhoff's Laws in complex circuits.
  • Learn techniques for solving systems of linear equations using matrix methods.
  • Explore circuit simulation software such as LTspice for practical circuit analysis.
  • Investigate the impact of non-ideal components on circuit behavior.
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in electrical engineering, circuit designers, and anyone involved in analyzing and solving electrical circuits using Kirchhoff's Laws.

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?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
897
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K