[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/wsr/ - Worksafe Requests

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: Screenshot_2.jpg (41 KB, 478x308)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
What's the best way to simplify this circuit?
I think i can do it like this:
>Ra = R5,R4 (Series)
>Rb = Ra,R11 (Paralel)
>Rc = R3, Rb (Series)
>Rd = R10,R9 (paralel)
>Re = R6,R3,R2 (series)
>Rf = Re,Rd (series)
>Rg = Rf,Rc (series)
>Rh = Rg,R1,R7 (series)

Is this well done? or im committing some mistake?
>>
>>925359
You got the first 3 right, then fucked up. You should be drawing every move you make, every step you take. Might help if you redraw the diagonal ones to be horizontal or vertical.
>>
>>925359
> " What's the best way to simplify this circuit? ..." ;

consider using :
> " delta-star transforms " :

https://www.electrical4u.com/delta-star-transformation-star-delta-transformation/

The question is clearly expecting you to use them,
[ if not necessarily expecting you to derive them from first principles ]
>>
File: Screenshot_1.jpg (18 KB, 473x307)
18 KB
18 KB JPG
>>925363
It looks like this at this point (After First 3 steps).

I should just continue in series with R10?
>>
File: snake.jpg (65 KB, 1280x720)
65 KB
65 KB JPG
>>925466
In series with what?
>>
>>925480
In series with RC!, [RC - R10] = RD!
>>
File: series or parallel.png (4 KB, 400x400)
4 KB
4 KB PNG
>>925512
OP, do you still not know the difference between series and parallel?
>>
File: Screenshot_1.png (25 KB, 252x204)
25 KB
25 KB PNG
>>925518
Oh... Sorry for that, i think it was similar to Capacitors (Got the wrong idea in Resistors)... So this link here is in paralel, uh?
>>
File: Screenshot_1.png (37 KB, 336x240)
37 KB
37 KB PNG
>>925527
Or a more accurate aproach will be calculating first this paralel link right here?
>>
>>925371
>The question is clearly expecting you to use them
It clearly isn't. It's asking him to tell parallel and series connections apart.

>>925527
>>925528
Look at the right side of >>925518. Parallel isn't about one shared node, but two. Series is one shared node with no split/branching. Parallel components have the same voltage because they share two nodes with two potentials (subtracted, they make the same voltage). You can't just look at a singular node and go "dude parallel", because then you get stupid shit like thinking 9 and 10 are parallel. 9 to 10 is like 5 to 11, which is nothing. You had to combine 5 with 4 in series before realizing that Ra is in parallel with 5.
Rc and R10 share two common nodes, therefore they are parallel. R9 and R10 share only one node, the other one has R2 stuck in the middle.
>>
File: Screenshot_1.png (17 KB, 471x303)
17 KB
17 KB PNG
>>925657
I think im starting to get it:
>R5 and R4 have 1 node in common, they are in series and are Ra
>Ra and R11 have 2 nodes in common, they are in paralel and are Rb
>R3 and Rb have 1 node in common, they are in series and are Rc
>Rc and R4 have 2 nodes in common, they are in paralel and are Rd
>Rd and R9 have 1 node in common, they are in series and are Re
>>
File: Screenshot_2.png (15 KB, 473x304)
15 KB
15 KB PNG
>>925788
>Re and R2 have 1 node in common, they are in series and are Rf
>>
File: Screenshot_3.png (12 KB, 476x304)
12 KB
12 KB PNG
>>925789
And i guess that RF is in series with R8, that at the same time is in series with R6, so i can get Rg and Rh here, right?
>>
>>925788
See >>925657
>Series is one shared node with no split/branching.
You should seriously google this if you don't have this in your notes somehow. This shit is as easy as it comes.
>>
File: Screenshot_4.png (77 KB, 486x205)
77 KB
77 KB PNG
>>925806
Hmm... I see. I think i got an idea
>>
File: Screenshot_1.png (17 KB, 474x308)
17 KB
17 KB PNG
>>925812
>>
File: Screenshot_2.png (13 KB, 476x307)
13 KB
13 KB PNG
>>925813
>>
File: Screenshot_3.png (7 KB, 425x303)
7 KB
7 KB PNG
>>925814
>>
>>925788
R4 R5 in series as Ra
Ra R11 in parallel as Rb
Rb R3 in series as Rc
Rc R10 in parallel as Rd
Rd R2 in series as Re
Re R9 in parallel as Rf
Rf R6 in series as Rg
Rg R3 in parallel as Rh
Rh R1 R7 in series as Ri
If you didn't do this in >>925788 >>925789 >>925790 >>925813 >>925814 >>925818, you should reconsider and rework your ability to recognize parallel/series connections, because damn, it's the simplest thing around.
Again, the node aspect depends on whether or not there are other components between the connections. I don't know what increments you tried to do in your last 3 posts, but they don't seem right. If two resistors are in series, you have 3 nodes: A-B-C. First resistor is connected between A and B, the second resistor is connected between B and C. There's nothing else connected to B. The equivalent resistor will be between nodes A and C. If two resistors are in parallel, you have 2 nodes: A-B. Both resistors are connected between A and B. There's no other node involved between A and B as there is no resistor bridging between the other resistors and their nodes. The equivalent resistor will be between nodes A and B.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.