Removing connections between equipotential points in solving circuits?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the correct method for simplifying circuit analysis by removing connections between equipotential points. It is emphasized that connections can only be removed if they do not carry current, as removing current-carrying wires leads to incorrect solutions. A symmetry argument is presented, suggesting that connections along the axis of symmetry can be safely eliminated without affecting the circuit's behavior. Participants clarify that equipotentiality alone is insufficient for determining removable connections, highlighting the importance of analyzing current flow. The conversation concludes with an acknowledgment of the intuitive understanding some have regarding current directions in circuits.
gregorspv
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
An octahedron is made of wire, where an edge has resistance R. What is the resistance between two adjacent points?
Relevant Equations
Kirchhoff's rules, in parallel and in series resistance.
A sketch of the setup and the equivalent circuit are attached.

I believe the correct way to solve this is to redraw the circuit as shown in Fig. 3 and then remove the connections between evidently equipotential points, which reduces the problem to a familiar setup of in parallel and in series resistors.

However, the circuit may also be redrawn as shown in Fig. 4 where there are also two lines connecting equipotential points, yet if one removes them, an incorrect solution is obtained.

How do I then know, when such connections are removable? I have encountered a statement that such a connection must lie on the circuit's axis of symmetry and this seems to do the trick in this example, but I don't understand why it works that way.

Please excuse the formatting, I'm sadly on mobile at the moment.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20191028_110426.jpg
    IMG_20191028_110426.jpg
    44.4 KB · Views: 278
  • IMG_20191028_113012.jpg
    IMG_20191028_113012.jpg
    32.8 KB · Views: 276
  • IMG_20191028_112303.jpg
    IMG_20191028_112303.jpg
    36.7 KB · Views: 264
  • IMG_20191028_110513.jpg
    IMG_20191028_110513.jpg
    34.5 KB · Views: 330
Physics news on Phys.org
gregorspv said:
the circuit may also be redrawn as shown in Fig. 4
Are you sure? Looks to me that you removed two current-carrying wires.
 
  • Like
Likes gregorspv
Oh, I did not word that correctly. In Fig. 4 the connections between equipotential points from Fig. 2 were removed. Perhaps then equipotentiality is not a valid criterion for removal, but rather the absence of current? Would you care to explain why there is no current in the wires removed in Fig. 3?
 
gregorspv said:
Perhaps then equipotentiality is not a valid criterion for removal, but rather the absence of current
They're the same thing. The wires you removed in fig 3 do connect equipotential points, so carry no current. But in fig 4 it looks to me that you removed wires that do carry current, so are not connecting equipotential points. As a result the resistance increased.
 
I think I see what you're saying, but it still seems odd to me that there can be a voltage drop (potential difference) between two points on a perfect conductor. Or else how are the wires removed in Fig. 4 connecting points of different potential?
 
gregorspv said:
I think I see what you're saying, but it still seems odd to me that there can be a voltage drop (potential difference) between two points on a perfect conductor. Or else how are the wires removed in Fig. 4 connecting points of different potential?
My statement that two points being equipotential implies no current flows between them is not correct when the connection has no resistance. The test should be whether they would still be equipotential were the wire removed.

So the flaw in your method is using the equipotentiality test on zero resistance wires while they are in place; it would justify removing all of them!
 
  • Like
Likes gregorspv
D'oh – it had occurred to me that my reasoning would lead to removing virtually any wire, but I could not have found a way out were it not for your edifying response. Thank you!

I find it remarkable that some people just happen to get this intuitively (the solution I was provided with does not comment on this step at all), whereas I just spent the last 20 minutes or so proving that the current is indeed zero. I believe the symmetry argument still rests on the assumption that one is intuitively able to figure out the current directions in a circuit which I don't think is necessarily a trivial task (especially when dealing with different resistors and other elements).
 
gregorspv said:
I believe the symmetry argument still rests on the assumption that one is intuitively able to figure out the current directions in a circuit
No, it's easier than that.
The circuit in the upper figure in image 3 is symmetric about a horizontal line through the middle. (Where that cuts a resistor, split that into two in series.) Consequently, all points it cuts are at the average potential, so all at the same potential.
This is still true if the two horizontal lines that lie on that central line are removed, so no current flows in those and they can be removed.
 
  • Like
Likes gregorspv
Aren't 7 resistors in series and then connected in parallel with one resistor?
I must be mssing something :confused:
 
  • #10
rude man said:
Aren't 7 resistors in series and then connected in parallel with one resistor?
I must be mssing something :confused:
No. Which figure are you looking at?
 
  • #11
I
haruspex said:
No. Which figure are you looking at?
I confused "octagon" and "octahedron".
 

Similar threads

Back
Top