Resistors in Series, in Parallel

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on solving a circuit problem involving resistors in series and parallel, applying Ohm's Law and Kirchhoff's Law. The user attempts to find the unknown resistor value (Rx) by equating voltage drops across resistors in parallel, leading to the equation Rx=19Ω. There is some uncertainty about the correctness of this solution, but another participant confirms that 19Ω is a plausible answer, suggesting the reasoning is likely sound. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding voltage drops in parallel circuits. Overall, the calculations and application of circuit laws appear to be on the right track.
rabcdred
Messages
13
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



See the attached image.

Homework Equations



V=IR, Kirchoff's Law

The Attempt at a Solution



The voltage drop across resistors in parallel are equivalent due to Kirchoffs law (at least I think so?), so V=R(eq,top)I(top)=R(eq,bottom)I(bottom)--> I(top)(52)=I(bottom)(7+Rx)

For each resistor, an equation using Ohm's Law:
V1=I(top)(14)
V2=I(top)(38)
V3=I(bottom)(7)
V4=I(bottom)(Rx)

As the ammeter reads zero, I thought the voltage drop across resistor 1 and 3 were equal, so V1=V3. Rearranging the equation and substituting in the top equation-->
(V/14)(52)=(V/7)(7+Rx), which yields Rx=19.

I don't think this is right though. Please help! Thanks.

 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2012-02-13 at 8.41.51 PM.png
    Screen shot 2012-02-13 at 8.41.51 PM.png
    13.4 KB · Views: 465
Physics news on Phys.org
rabcdred said:

Homework Statement



See the attached image.

Homework Equations



V=IR, Kirchoff's Law

The Attempt at a Solution



The voltage drop across resistors in parallel are equivalent due to Kirchoffs law (at least I think so?), so V=R(eq,top)I(top)=R(eq,bottom)I(bottom)--> I(top)(52)=I(bottom)(7+Rx)

For each resistor, an equation using Ohm's Law:
V1=I(top)(14)
V2=I(top)(38)
V3=I(bottom)(7)
V4=I(bottom)(Rx)

As the ammeter reads zero, I thought the voltage drop across resistor 1 and 3 were equal, so V1=V3. Rearranging the equation and substituting in the top equation-->
(V/14)(52)=(V/7)(7+Rx), which yields Rx=19.

I don't think this is right though. Please help! Thanks.

19Ω is a perfect answer - so probably your reasoning is correct too as answers like 19 don't usually appear by co-incidence.
 
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