Should the 3A Current Source Be Included in KCL Equations for Nodes a and c?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether the 3A current source should be included in Kirchhoff's Current Law (KCL) equations for nodes a and c. It is clarified that the 3A does not enter or exit nodes a or b directly, but it does need to be considered when analyzing the overall circuit. Including the 3A in KCL equations for nodes a and c is acceptable as long as the current through other branches is also accounted for. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding how nodes are defined and how all branches connected to them must be included in KCL analysis. Overall, the inclusion of the 3A simplifies the problem-solving process.
princejan7
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
http://postimg.org/image/mk8vo32in/

Just wondering whether the 3A from the current source should be included when writing a KCL equation for nodes a and c,
and if yes, why the full 3A? Wouldn't it split up along the way


thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
KCl is not potassium chloride but some relevant relationship (yes, I know). If you use the template (required by PF rules), you make it easier for helpers to help you. 1. Introduces us to what is asked, 2. helps us help you if you miss some relationship or use the wrong ones and 3. Helps us help you by indicating what you can and can not do and where you get stuck.

Your direct question has a direct answer: No. the 3A isn't entering or exiting point a nor point b. If you smack KCL on the points just above a and b, then it shows up!
 
BvU said:
KCl is not potassium chloride but some relevant relationship (yes, I know). If you use the template (required by PF rules), you make it easier for helpers to help you. 1. Introduces us to what is asked, 2. helps us help you if you miss some relationship or use the wrong ones and 3. Helps us help you by indicating what you can and can not do and where you get stuck.

Your direct question has a direct answer: No. the 3A isn't entering or exiting point a nor point b. If you smack KCL on the points just above a and b, then it shows up!

http://postimg.org/image/j6jddk8if/

But the solution to the problem treats the 3A as entering both node a and node c? Is it wrong?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not 'legally' wrong, as long as you take the current through "2" into account. And the j6jddk8if link seems to do so Ok (I didn't try to untangle what V1,2,3, stand for (lazy me, because it's pretty obvious :-); in general answers supplied are pretty decent).

My general impression is that you understand what's going on and how it is dealt with. Am I far off? If so (or if not so) I'm glad to answer further questions.
 
A node consists of any contiguous network of wiring. So in your diagram, reproduced here, all of the blue highlighted wiring comprises node a, while all of the green highlighted wiring comprises node c. So yes, when writing KCL for either of those nodes you need to include all branches connecting to them, which of course includes the 3 A current source.

attachment.php?attachmentid=66675&stc=1&d=1392590908.gif
 

Attachments

  • Fig1.gif
    Fig1.gif
    9.4 KB · Views: 718
Last edited:
Fully agree. Makes life easier too. Conductors and chunks of wire are ideal conductors in homework assignments. I stand (actually, I sit) corrected.
 
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...
Back
Top