Solving for Unknown Currents in a Circuit: KCL and Homework Statement

  • Thread starter Thread starter STEMucator
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Kcl
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on solving for unknown currents, I_x and I_1, in a circuit using Kirchhoff's Current Law (KCL). The user applies KCL to two nodes, successfully deriving I_x as 2 mA and I_1 as 4 mA. There is confusion about the necessity of using all nodes, with clarification that only two equations are needed for the two unknowns. The user explores alternative equations for other nodes, questioning the validity of their approach. Ultimately, it is confirmed that the bottom right node can be treated as ground, simplifying the analysis.
STEMucator
Homework Helper
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
140

Homework Statement



Find ##I_x## and ##I_1## in the following circuit:

Screen Shot 2014-09-14 at 11.24.24 AM.png


Homework Equations



##\sum I = 0##

The Attempt at a Solution



I want to know if I'm actually envisioning these currents correctly.

Applying KCL to the upper left node:

##(1) \quad 6 mA - I_1 - I_x = 0##

Applying KCL to the bottom left node:

##(2) \quad I_x + 1 mA + 1.5 I_x - 6 mA = 0##

Right away now I see that ##(2) \Rightarrow 2.5 I_x - 5 mA = 0 \Rightarrow I_x = 2 mA##.

Subbing into ##(1)## I see that ##I_1 = 4 mA##.

Am I applying those properly ^? Why did I not need the other nodes at all? Is this because there are four equations and only two unknowns?

Would these be the correct equations for the upper right node and bottom right node respectively?

##(3) \quad I_1 - 1 mA - 1.5I_x = 0## <- Using this with ##(2)## gives the same answer.

##(4) \quad 1 mA + 1.5I_x = 0## <- This does not make any sense and I'm not quite sure why. Is there current flowing out of this node?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your first equation is fine, and the rest may be fine too, but I got vertigo when you chose the bottom right node for your second equation. A more typical approach would be to call the bottom node ground, and write your second KCL equation for the top right node. Do you get the same answer doing it that way?
 
berkeman said:
Your first equation is fine, and the rest may be fine too, but I got vertigo when you chose the bottom right node for your second equation. A more typical approach would be to call the bottom node ground, and write your second KCL equation for the top right node. Do you get the same answer doing it that way?

Indeed ##(3)## and ##(2)## in combination give the same answer as ##(1)## and ##(2)##.

So the bottom right node would be a reference to ground?
 
Zondrina said:
Indeed ##(3)## and ##(2)## in combination give the same answer as ##(1)## and ##(2)##.

So the bottom right node would be a reference to ground?

The whole bottom line is one node, and yes, normally I would label it as ground.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person

Similar threads

Back
Top