Proof of Wye-Delta Transform Doesn't Make Sense

  • Thread starter Thread starter yosimba2000
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Transform
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of equivalent resistance in a circuit involving resistors R1, R2, and R3, specifically addressing the interpretation of their arrangement and the implications for calculating equivalent resistance between terminals 1 and 2. The focus includes theoretical understanding and practical implications of the Wye-Delta transformation in circuit analysis.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that R1 and R3 are in series based on the definition of equivalent resistance, suggesting that R2 is redundant in this context.
  • Others challenge the assertion that R1 and R3 are in series, arguing that they do not share the same current due to the presence of R2, which affects the current paths.
  • One participant suggests conducting calculations or simulations to verify the theory and gain confidence in the results.
  • There is a discussion about the function of an ohm-meter, with some participants noting that it measures the equivalent resistance between the probes, while others express uncertainty about its behavior in complex circuits.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether R1 and R3 can be considered in series. There are competing views regarding the role of R2 and the interpretation of equivalent resistance.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights potential misunderstandings regarding circuit configurations and the definitions of equivalent resistance, as well as the limitations of intuitive reasoning in complex circuits.

yosimba2000
Messages
206
Reaction score
9
In the picture taken from my book, in the bottom red box, it states that the equivalent resistance seen between terminals 1 and 2 is R1 + R3, implying R1 and R3 are in series.

But clearly, there is a third resistor R3 at the same node where R1 and R2 meet. Then that means R1 and R3 cannot be in series. Then why does the book state the equivalent resistance is R1+R3?
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.png
    Untitled.png
    82.1 KB · Views: 704
Engineering news on Phys.org
yosimba2000 said:
Then that means R1 and R3 cannot be in series. Then why does the book state the equivalent resistance is R1+R3?
You need to understand the meaning of equivalent resistance. Here, R12 is the equivalent resistance between 1 and 2. This means if there were a source connected between 1 and 2, it would "see" the resistance of the network as R12. Hence, R1 and R3 are in series and R2 is redundant.
 
I don't think that's correct, that they're in series. If they were in series, Both R1 and R3 would have the same current passing through them. But if you pass a current downwards from R1, and downwards from R2, R3 gets the addition of both currents, not just from R1. No matter how I arrange the currents, I can't see any way for resistors R1 and R3 to have the same current, and hence be in series, unless R2 is disconnected.
 
yosimba2000 said:
I don't think that's correct, that they're in series. If they were in series, Both R1 and R3 would have the same current passing through them. But if you pass a current downwards from R1, and downwards from R2, R3 gets the addition of both currents, not just from R1. No matter how I arrange the currents, I can't see any way for resistors R1 and R3 to have the same current, and hence be in series, unless R2 is disconnected.
untitled-png.93122.png

When they refer to the equivalent resistance between terminals #1 and #2, that implies that the are no connections to the other two terminals. Therefore, for that euivalent resistance, resistor, R2 is not involved at all. The only path for current to flow would be through resistors, R1 and R3.
 
@yosimba200 If you have doubts about this then you could always put in some values, go through the calculations and see what you get. If the answers agree then, at least, you can believe the system works ('cos it does). You could then be 'emotionally OK' with the theory; intuition can often get in the way of understanding.
What I am suggesting involves putting a voltage source on the left and a resistive load on the right and working out the current into the load (in both cases, using the formulae to get the WYE values from the DELTA). If you don't like the sums then use a simulation to get your answer (or some resistors and a soldering iron :smile:)
 
Wait a minute...

The resistance measured in by the probes of an ohm-meter calculate only the resistors that are connected between the probes, right?
 
yosimba2000 said:
Wait a minute...

The resistance measured in by the probes of an ohm-meter calculate only the resistors that are connected between the probes, right?
Yes. It measures the equivalent resistance between those two points.
 
yosimba2000 said:
Wait a minute...

The resistance measured in by the probes of an ohm-meter calculate only the resistors that are connected between the probes, right?
I'm not sure precisely what you mean by that but, in a complex circuit, the Ohmmeter will see all the paths through the circuit and not just the 'obvious' path.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
13K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
13K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
11K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K