Uncertainty error of resistors in parallel

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the uncertainty of total resistance for two parallel-connected resistors, R1 = 2.2 kΩ ± 5% and R2 = 1.8 kΩ ± 20%. The correct approach involves using the formula R_t = 1 / (1/R1 + 1/R2) and applying the rules of error propagation. The participants conclude that the teacher's method overestimates the uncertainty, yielding a total resistance uncertainty of 990Ω ± 13.25%, which is more accurate than the teacher's calculation. The discussion emphasizes the importance of using the correct error propagation methods to avoid inaccuracies in resistance calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of parallel resistor circuits
  • Knowledge of error propagation techniques
  • Familiarity with calculating percentage errors
  • Ability to manipulate algebraic equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of error propagation in electrical engineering
  • Learn about advanced resistor network analysis techniques
  • Explore the impact of tolerance in resistor specifications
  • Investigate methods for calculating uncertainties in complex circuits
USEFUL FOR

Electrical engineers, physics students, and anyone involved in circuit design and analysis will benefit from this discussion, particularly those focused on accurate resistance calculations and error management.

valiantt
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Find the Uncertainty of the Total Resistance of two (2) parallel-connected resistors:
R1 = 2.2 kΩ ± 5\% \ ;\ R2 = 1.8 kΩ ± 20\%.

Homework Equations



We know that resistors in parallel are:

\frac{1}{R_t}={\frac{1}{R_1±\delta_{R_1}}+\frac{1}{R_2±\delta_{R_2}}}

This implies: (Eq. 1)
R_t=\frac{1}{\frac{1}{R_1±\delta_{R_1}}+\frac{1}{R_2±\delta_{R_2}}}

Which is also equal to: (Eq. 2)
R_t=\frac{(R_1±\delta_{R_1})(R_2±\delta _{R_2})}{( R_1±\delta_{R_1}) + (R_2±\delta _{R_2)}}

The Attempt at a Solution



According to rules established by our teacher:

In addtion: if given f±\delta_f = (x±\delta_x)+(y±\delta_y).
it implies:
f±\delta_f = (x+y)±(\delta_x+\delta_y)
This means that in addition, δf is equal to the sum of the absolute errors.

In multiplication: if given f±\delta_f = (x±\delta_x)(y±\delta_y).
it implies:
f±\frac{\delta_f}{f} = (x*y)±(\frac{\delta_x}{x}+\frac{\delta_y}{y})

From here on, let's established for simplification that:

\frac{\delta_f}{f} = \%Err_x

This means that in multiplication, δf is equal to the sum of the relative errors. (Note that this also applies to division)-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So given those above, when should those rules be applied? My teacher insists that you should apply those rules at Eq. 2. This means his method yields:

R_t = \frac{(R_1*R_2) ± (\%Err_{R_1}+\%Err_{R_2})}{(R_1+R_2) ± (R_1 * \%Err_{R_1}+R_2*\%Err_{R_2})}

\Rightarrow \frac{2.2kΩ * 1.8kΩ ± (5\% + 20\%)} {2.2kΩ + 1.8kΩ ± (110Ω + 360Ω)} = \frac{3.96MΩ±25\%}{4000 ±(470Ω)} = \frac{3.96MΩ±25\%}{4000Ω ±11.75\%}

\Rightarrow \frac{3.96MΩ}{4kΩ }±(25\%+11.75\%) 990Ω±36.75\%

\Rightarrow990Ω±36.75\%But according to this link, http://uregina.ca/~szymanss/uglabs/companion/Ch3_Error_Prop.pdf , Eq. 2 is not in a appropriate form for error calculation. It then shows that:

if \quad r_x = \frac{1}{x} ,~ then\quad \frac{\delta_{r_x}}{r_x} = \frac{\delta_{x}}{x}

In this case, it says that the relative error is unchanged if you take the reciprocal of a quantity. This is also supported by this link: http://ipl.physics.harvard.edu/wp-uploads/2013/03/PS3_Error_Propagation_sp13.pdf

Now using Eq. 1 and the reciprocality rule:

R_t=\frac{1}{\frac{1}{R_1±\delta_{R_1}}+\frac{1}{R_2±\delta_{R_2}}} = \frac{1}{\frac{1}{R_1}±\%Err_{R_1}+\frac{1}{R_2}±\%Err_{R_2}}

\Rightarrow \frac{1}{\frac{1}{2.2kΩ±5\%}+\frac{1}{1.8kΩ±20\%}} = \frac{1}{\frac{1}{2.2kΩ}±5\%+\frac{1}{1.8kΩ}±20\%}

\Rightarrow \frac{1}{\frac{1}{2.2kΩ}+\frac{1}{1.8kΩ} ± (\frac{1}{44kΩ}+\frac{1}{9kΩ})} = \frac{1}{\frac{1}{990}±\frac{53}{39600}} = \frac{1}{\frac{1}{990}±13.25\%}

\Rightarrow990Ω±13.25\%That's pretty much it. But I do remember someone telling me that uncertainty error should always increase so I don't know...

And also, if assuming that the second case is correct, would that mean given a bunch of resistors, say for example, 1 pc. of a 1kΩ ±20% and 99 pcs. of 1kΩ ±5% resistors, all connected in parallel, what would happen? I tried making an equation but I'm not sure if I got the math right...

R_t = \frac{1}{\frac{1}{1kΩ}*100} ± \frac{\frac{1}{1kΩ}*(0.20+(0.05*99)}{\frac{1}{1kΩ}*100} = 10Ω±5.15\%

lastly, given enough 1kΩ± 5% resistors to parallel, would that mean that the %error value will approach 5%?
Not really part of the homework but just a thought experiment. =D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your teacher is wrong. To demonstrate this, try calculating ##R_t## using the extreme values for ##R_1## and ##R_2##. I found a range for ##R_t## from 853 ohms to 1116 ohms, which is consistent with the 13% error you obtained using the second method. Your teacher's method grossly overestimates the error.
 
Both calculations are corrected. The worst possible combination is the key to report the worst possible range to others so that your teacher has no mistake. However, when you stand on manufacturer side, you may report the lowest one.
 
valiantt said:
##
\Rightarrow \frac{1}{\frac{1}{2.2kΩ}+\frac{1}{1.8kΩ} ± (\frac{1}{44kΩ}+\frac{1}{9kΩ})} = \frac{1}{\frac{1}{990}±\frac{53}{39600}} = \frac{1}{\frac{1}{990}±13.25\%}##
Your notation is rather confusing. Sometimes your r±x means r(1±x) and at other times literally r±x.
This item is particularly puzzling: ##\frac{1}{\frac{1}{990}±\frac{53}{39600}}##.
I think you mean ##\frac{1}{\frac{1}{990}±\frac{53\%}{39600}}##.
However, 13.25% is so large that you can't really use ## \frac{\delta_{r_x}}{r_x} = \frac{\delta_{x}}{x}##. If you don't use that you get a touch over 15%.

As @vela notes, your teacher's method is unnecessarily pessimistic. It overlooks that the errors that make the numerator largest also make the denominator largest, so they partly cancel.
 
MC Wong said:
Both calculations are corrected. The worst possible combination is the key to report the worst possible range to others so that your teacher has no mistake. However, when you stand on manufacturer side, you may report the lowest one.
No, the teacher's calculation is wrong, as demonstrated.
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
15K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K