Resolving Multiloop Circuit Configurations with Delta Star Transformation

  • Thread starter Thread starter nanotubez
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Circuit Diagram
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on resolving a multiloop circuit with resistances R1, R2, R3, R4, and junction resistance Rj. Participants suggest using Kirchhoff's Current Law (KCL) to analyze the circuit, as simplifying using series and parallel combinations may not be effective. The goal is to find the equivalent resistance, and it is recommended to apply delta-star transformation for simplification. If resistors are identical, Rj can be eliminated due to the symmetry of a Wheatstone bridge. The conversation emphasizes the importance of setting up simultaneous equations to derive the total resistance accurately.
nanotubez
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


So, imagine that there are two wires stretched across 2 electrodes crossing over each other, dividing each wire into two pieces at a junction, j. Each wire is connected to two electrodes, one at each end. The pieces have resistances R1, R2, R3, and R4 and the resistance at the junction is Rj.

Homework Equations



Series: Rtot = R1 + R2

Parallel 1/Rtot = 1/R1 + 1/R2

The Attempt at a Solution



Circuit Diagram(attached)

I tried saying R1, Rj, and R4 are in series and are parallel to R2 and R3 and for (1/R2 + 1/(R1+RJ + R4) + 1/R3)^-1, but then you could say that R3, RJ, and R2 are in series and parallel to R1 and R4, but (1/R1 + 1/(R2 + Rj + R3) + 1/R4)^-1 does not equal the same thing. Please help?

Thanks!
 

Attachments

  • Circuit.jpg
    Circuit.jpg
    11.5 KB · Views: 516
Physics news on Phys.org
nanotubez said:

Homework Statement


So, imagine that there are two wires stretched across 2 electrodes crossing over each other, dividing each wire into two pieces at a junction, j. Each wire is connected to two electrodes, one at each end. The pieces have resistances R1, R2, R3, and R4 and the resistance at the junction is Rj.

Homework Equations



Series: Rtot = R1 + R2

Parallel 1/Rtot = 1/R1 + 1/R2

The Attempt at a Solution



Circuit Diagram(attached)

I tried saying R1, Rj, and R4 are in series and are parallel to R2 and R3 and for (1/R2 + 1/(R1+RJ + R4) + 1/R3)^-1, but then you could say that R3, RJ, and R2 are in series and parallel to R1 and R4, but (1/R1 + 1/(R2 + Rj + R3) + 1/R4)^-1 does not equal the same thing. Please help?

Thanks!

Welcome to the PF.

What does the problem ask for you to solve? Solve for the equivalent resistance? Or current given some battery voltage?

In the general case, I think the best way to solve this is to use KCL equations at the nodes. In the general case, I'm not sure you can use parallel & series combinations to simplify the circuit.
 
berkeman said:
Welcome to the PF.

What does the problem ask for you to solve? Solve for the equivalent resistance? Or current given some battery voltage?

In the general case, I think the best way to solve this is to use KCL equations at the nodes. In the general case, I'm not sure you can use parallel & series combinations to simplify the circuit.


Solve for total resistance resistance. No mention of current
 
Are any of the resistors the same?

If not then I'd number the nodes at each end of Rj and assign them unknown voltages (eg V1 and V2) then write lots of simultaneous equations (eg for the current through each resistor and into and out of the various nodes). Then laborious job of reducing them down to one for the total R (eliminating Vbat, V1 and V2 and all the currents along the way).

If the resulting equation doesn't have a certain symetry about it then it's probably wrong.
 
Last edited:
if you need equivalent resistance, then it can be reduced to series/parallel combination by first using delta star transformation.
 
As pcm stated, you can use delta star transformation and if the resistors are identical, you can remove RJ because it's a wheat stone bridge then.
 
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 '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...

Similar threads

Back
Top