Problem in identifying a short circuit in a diagram

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the confusion in identifying a short circuit in a circuit diagram involving resistors R2 and R4. The original poster simplified the diagram but lost critical connections, leading to a misunderstanding about R2 and R4 being short-circuited. Participants emphasized that R2 and R4 are indeed in parallel and significant, and the simplification made the circuit non-equivalent. Suggestions included labeling nodes to clarify connections and using Millman's theorem for calculations. Overall, the importance of maintaining accurate connections in circuit diagrams was highlighted to avoid misinterpretations.
Amaelle
Messages
309
Reaction score
54
Hi all!
while simplifying this diagram, I thought that R2 and R4 are in parallel
while
20200129_115455.jpg

so I simplified the diagram to this
20200129_115700.jpg

BUT THE SOLUTION CONSIDER THAT R4 AND R2 HAVE BEEN COUR CIRCUITED!
Any help would be highly appreciated particularly a rule of thumb that helps me to identify a short circuit with a fault!
many thanks in advance!
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
In your top schematic, R5 R4 R2 R3 all share a common node. In your "simplified" schematic, this feature has been lost, so it is not equivalent.
 
  • Like
Likes Amaelle
thank you! BUT HOW COULD THEY SAY THAT R4 AND R2 ARE SHORT CIRCUITED?
 
DID they say, "R4 and R2 are court circuit" ? Else what did they actually say or show in a diagram?

They are in parallel. They are significant and not short circuited. But your diagram is in no way equivalent to the original circuit. You have removed the connection between R3 and R5. In your diagram you have connected R3 to the opposite end of R2 and R4 from the original diagram.

I would suggest you label the nodes and note which nodes the components connect to.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Amaelle
thanks a lot for your prompt reply,
let start from the begining:
the exercice ask to calculate the current i(t)
1.jpg


so i simplified the circuit as follow considering that R4 and R2 are parallel ( the circuit is not equivalent to the first but i guess the value i(t) will not change (please correct me if I'm wrong)
2.jpg
2.jpg
then I simplified further the circuit by using the conversion between the current generator a1(t) and it's voltage generator equivalent
4.jpg


after this step I used millman theorem to compute the potential between the nodes 4 and 3
6.jpg
and then divide by the resistance of the branch to find i(t)

5.jpg
the problem is that in solution they totally ignore R4 and R2 as they short circuited!
final.jpg


many thanks in advance!
 
  • Like
Likes Merlin3189
If you begin with:
1580315034588.png


and combine R2 with R4 you get this:

1580315084645.png
 
  • Love
Likes Amaelle
you are awsome! thanks a million you totally solved my problem! God bless you!
 
  • Like
Likes gneill
gneill said:
If you begin with:

gneill,
I know it's off-topic, but what did you use to create those circuit diagrams? They look nice, and it seems like you were able to draw them quickly.
 
eq1 said:
gneill,
I know it's off-topic, but what did you use to create those circuit diagrams? They look nice, and it seems like you were able to draw them quickly.
I use an ancient copy of Visio. I created my own template for electronic symbols (the one that came with Visio was incomplete a rather crude).
 
  • #10
Also a bit off topic:
For more readable schematics avoid any connections that have 4 "wires" leaving from a single node. Try to make all connections "T intersections" with large dots. This avoids the confusion of whether connections are joined or crossing. Then all 4 wire nodes are crossing, by definition.
Back in the day this was an absolute Mil-Spec requirement for schematics because poor quality reproductions could add or remove the dots that indicate connections.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur and Merlin3189
Back
Top