Which values for voltage dividerVoltage DividerPassive Voltage Divider attenuator design techniqueResistor Magnitudes in Voltage DividersNext level of resistor dividerCalculate absolute values for resistor bridge to use with op amp lm358Determining values of voltage divider resistors which interface an OpAmp and an input impedance?voltage divider - ohm valueUpper limit for resistance values in voltage divider?3,8 Volt to 1 Volt via Voltage DividerHow to combine a LPF and a Voltage divider?

Keeping the dodos out of the field

Why the work done is positive when bringing 2 opposite charges together?

Is my company merging branches wrong?

Team member is vehemently against code formatting

Is Enceladus the moon with salty water?

nginx conf: http2 module not working in Chrome in ubuntu 18.04

Managing heat dissipation in a magic wand

How to remove unwanted horizontal line from diagbox

Why is 'additive' EQ more difficult to use than 'subtractive'?

How would a physicist explain this starship engine?

Real Analysis: Proof of the equivalent definitions of the derivative.

Is there an idiom that means that you are in a very strong negotiation position in a negotiation?

Axiom of Choice in General Topology

Must every right-inverse of a linear transformation be a linear transformation?

One word for 'the thing that attracts me'?

If I arrive in the UK, and then head to mainland Europe, does my Schengen visa 90 day limit start when I arrived in the UK, or mainland Europe?

Proto-Indo-European (PIE) words with IPA

Can a UK national work as a paid shop assistant in the USA?

Department head said that group project may be rejected. How to mitigate?

why "American-born", not "America-born"?

Is the default 512 byte physical sector size appropriate for SSD disks under Linux?

Is it normal to "extract a paper" from a master thesis?

Is there a word for pant sleeves?

Passport queue length in UK in relation to arrival method



Which values for voltage divider


Voltage DividerPassive Voltage Divider attenuator design techniqueResistor Magnitudes in Voltage DividersNext level of resistor dividerCalculate absolute values for resistor bridge to use with op amp lm358Determining values of voltage divider resistors which interface an OpAmp and an input impedance?voltage divider - ohm valueUpper limit for resistance values in voltage divider?3,8 Volt to 1 Volt via Voltage DividerHow to combine a LPF and a Voltage divider?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








2












$begingroup$


I just learned about voltage dividers and how to calculate the relative values for the resistors to use. For instance, to go from 5v to 3.3v I could use a 1 kohm and a 2 kohm resistor. However I could also use a 100 ohm and 200 ohm, or 15 and 30 ohm or as far as I can tell just any two values with the correct relative values. I think however there are up and downsides of different absolute resistor values.



So my question is, how do I decide which specific values to use?










share|improve this question









New contributor



Frank Bakker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    @Barry: I deleted my answer thanks to your comment and learning from it, so thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – Michel Keijzers
    1 hour ago

















2












$begingroup$


I just learned about voltage dividers and how to calculate the relative values for the resistors to use. For instance, to go from 5v to 3.3v I could use a 1 kohm and a 2 kohm resistor. However I could also use a 100 ohm and 200 ohm, or 15 and 30 ohm or as far as I can tell just any two values with the correct relative values. I think however there are up and downsides of different absolute resistor values.



So my question is, how do I decide which specific values to use?










share|improve this question









New contributor



Frank Bakker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    @Barry: I deleted my answer thanks to your comment and learning from it, so thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – Michel Keijzers
    1 hour ago













2












2








2





$begingroup$


I just learned about voltage dividers and how to calculate the relative values for the resistors to use. For instance, to go from 5v to 3.3v I could use a 1 kohm and a 2 kohm resistor. However I could also use a 100 ohm and 200 ohm, or 15 and 30 ohm or as far as I can tell just any two values with the correct relative values. I think however there are up and downsides of different absolute resistor values.



So my question is, how do I decide which specific values to use?










share|improve this question









New contributor



Frank Bakker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$




I just learned about voltage dividers and how to calculate the relative values for the resistors to use. For instance, to go from 5v to 3.3v I could use a 1 kohm and a 2 kohm resistor. However I could also use a 100 ohm and 200 ohm, or 15 and 30 ohm or as far as I can tell just any two values with the correct relative values. I think however there are up and downsides of different absolute resistor values.



So my question is, how do I decide which specific values to use?







resistors voltage-divider






share|improve this question









New contributor



Frank Bakker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.










share|improve this question









New contributor



Frank Bakker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 hours ago









SamGibson

12.1k41840




12.1k41840






New contributor



Frank Bakker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








asked 2 hours ago









Frank BakkerFrank Bakker

111




111




New contributor



Frank Bakker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




New contributor




Frank Bakker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.













  • $begingroup$
    @Barry: I deleted my answer thanks to your comment and learning from it, so thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – Michel Keijzers
    1 hour ago
















  • $begingroup$
    @Barry: I deleted my answer thanks to your comment and learning from it, so thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – Michel Keijzers
    1 hour ago















$begingroup$
@Barry: I deleted my answer thanks to your comment and learning from it, so thank you.
$endgroup$
– Michel Keijzers
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
@Barry: I deleted my answer thanks to your comment and learning from it, so thank you.
$endgroup$
– Michel Keijzers
1 hour ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

The best way to see the differences is to use the Thevenin equivalent for a resistor divider set up between two ideal (no source resistance of their own) voltage sources. Often, this is just some supply voltage and ground.



Let's look at the obvious case:





schematic





simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab



The left side has a resistor divider between an ideal voltage source and ground and, without any load hanging off of $V_textOUT$ (it's just open, as you can see), the voltage is easy to compute as $V_textOUT=V_textINcdotfracR_2R_1+R_2$. However, what's missing from that simple calculation is the fact that $V_textOUT$ is no longer ideal. It now has a source resistance that makes it non-ideal. That's because any current required by a load (currently not present) attached between $V_textOUT$ and ground must cause an additional voltage drop across $R_1$ and that changes the voltage that the load experiences. So, again, $V_textOUT$ is no longer ideal.



The effective, non-ideality of $V_textOUT$ is expressed by first setting up a fictional $V_textTH$ which is equal to the unloaded $V_textOUT$ and then inserting a series resistor between this fictional $V_textTH$ and $V_textOUT$. This is shown on the right side, above. This resistor that represents the non-ideality of the voltage source is $R_textTH=fracR_1cdot R_2R_1+R_2$.



The upshot of all this is that you now have a simpler way to view the resistor divider and you can easily see exactly how non-ideal it is by simply examining the value of $R_textTH$. The closer this value is to zero, the more ideal is the voltage source. But the price you pay for getting closer to zero is a rapidly increasing power dissipation wasted in the resistor divider, itself.




Just to completely generalize the above, let's look at a resistor divider that sits between two different ideal voltage sources, where one is NOT zero volts. (That's just an arbitrary reference point, anyway.)





schematic





simulate this circuit



The only difference here is that now both voltages can be non-zero. In this case, the only new computation is the more general version: $V_textTH=fracV_textBcdot R_1+V_textAcdot R_2R_1+R_2$. That reduces to the equation I gave earlier, above, when $V_textB=0:textV$.




The choice of resistor values will depend on the range of load impedances you want to allow attached to $V_textOUT$ and how much voltage variation your loads can tolerate.



For example, suppose you have a power supply rail of $5:textV$ and want to use a voltage divider to create a voltage source at $3.3:textV$. Suppose also that the maximum current required by the device you'll attach to $V_textOUT$ is $10:textmA$. Suppose that the device must not experience more than $3.6:textV$ nor less than $3.1:textV$ or else it won't work properly. And finally that the worst-case minimum current required by the device is $100:mutextA$.



Given these specifications, we want a worst-case $Delta V=3.6:textV-3.1:textV=500:textmV$ with a worst case current variation of $Delta I=10:textmA-100:mutextA=9.9:textmA$. This suggests an effective source impedance of $R_textTH=R_textSRC=frac500:textmV9.9:textmAapprox 50.5:Omega$.



You now have two equations and two unknowns:



$$beginalign*
50.5:Omega &= fracR_1cdot R_2R_1+R_2\\
5:textVcdotfracR_2R_1+R_2 &=3.6:textV+100:mutextAcdot 50.5:Omega
endalign*$$



Roughly speaking, you'd need $R_1approx 70:Omega$ and $R_2approx 181:Omega$. Note that just operating this divider requires $fracleft(5:textVright)^270:Omega+181:Omegaapprox 100:textmW$. (Also note that the output voltage (if the device didn't draw any current at all) might reach about $5frac12 :textmV$ above the maximum $3.6:textmV$ spec. Which may be acceptable.)






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$




















    1












    $begingroup$

    The resistors‘ values depend on how much current you want to flow. For 5 V:



    R = 1kOhm + 2kOhm = 3 kOhm -> I = U/R = 1.67 mA or
    R = 100 Ohm + 200 Ohm = 300 Ohm -> I = 16.67 mA



    Usually you use voltage deviders for a voltage reference and not as power source because the voltage is highly dependable on the load and the resistors also dissipate power.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor



    Thauer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





    $endgroup$




















      1












      $begingroup$

      It's a tradeoff - between stability and wasted power..



      When you connect two resistors across your power supply, a current will flow through them. This current does nothing but warm those resistors up; it's essentially wasted. So you want the resistors to be as high as possible, so less power is wasted.



      If you are creating a voltage divider, then presumably you want to connect something to the middle point, which sees the voltage created. That something will have some resistance, or will otherwise draw some current. Drawing that current will disturb the voltage set by the voltage divider. The more that current is, in comparison with the current flowing through the resistors, the worse the effect will be.



      So you want the current through the two resistors to be as low as possible, subject to the limitation that the current drawn by the load must only be a small fracrion of the current through the resistors.



      Note that if the load is actually a fixed resistor, then there is no point in using two resistors as a voltage divider. Use the load itself as one of the resistors instead.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$




















        0












        $begingroup$

        Voltage dividers are a bundle of tradeoffs. The feedback voltage divider in a 1uA(max) Idd rated LDO will have 10,000,000 ohm resistors; these are nearly 1,000X noiser than 50 ohm resistors used in high-sensitivity radio circuits; you may not want to use such an LDO to provide VDD for a Local Oscillator (or channel-selection Frequency Synthesizer) for a radio, nor for the amplifier circuit of a non-electret microphone, because such an LDO will have nearly 1milliVolt PeakPeak random noise riding atop the regulated output.
        But that 1uA LDO only consumes ----- 1uA or less, just sitting in your circuit, and some such LDOs include a "Sleep" pin allowing the MCU to manage power usage.



        If you want a "quieter" regulated voltage, the voltage-divider resistors must become substantially lower in value to reduce the random thermal (Boltzmann, Johnson, Nyquist) noise; the lower resistor values (again, in the feedback divider) allow a much higher feedback bandwidth and 60Hz and harmonics are much better suppressed for the tradeoff of 100x or 1,000x high Iddq of the LDO.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$













          Your Answer






          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("schematics", function ()
          StackExchange.schematics.init();
          );
          , "cicuitlab");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "135"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );






          Frank Bakker is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f439326%2fwhich-values-for-voltage-divider%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes








          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          2












          $begingroup$

          The best way to see the differences is to use the Thevenin equivalent for a resistor divider set up between two ideal (no source resistance of their own) voltage sources. Often, this is just some supply voltage and ground.



          Let's look at the obvious case:





          schematic





          simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab



          The left side has a resistor divider between an ideal voltage source and ground and, without any load hanging off of $V_textOUT$ (it's just open, as you can see), the voltage is easy to compute as $V_textOUT=V_textINcdotfracR_2R_1+R_2$. However, what's missing from that simple calculation is the fact that $V_textOUT$ is no longer ideal. It now has a source resistance that makes it non-ideal. That's because any current required by a load (currently not present) attached between $V_textOUT$ and ground must cause an additional voltage drop across $R_1$ and that changes the voltage that the load experiences. So, again, $V_textOUT$ is no longer ideal.



          The effective, non-ideality of $V_textOUT$ is expressed by first setting up a fictional $V_textTH$ which is equal to the unloaded $V_textOUT$ and then inserting a series resistor between this fictional $V_textTH$ and $V_textOUT$. This is shown on the right side, above. This resistor that represents the non-ideality of the voltage source is $R_textTH=fracR_1cdot R_2R_1+R_2$.



          The upshot of all this is that you now have a simpler way to view the resistor divider and you can easily see exactly how non-ideal it is by simply examining the value of $R_textTH$. The closer this value is to zero, the more ideal is the voltage source. But the price you pay for getting closer to zero is a rapidly increasing power dissipation wasted in the resistor divider, itself.




          Just to completely generalize the above, let's look at a resistor divider that sits between two different ideal voltage sources, where one is NOT zero volts. (That's just an arbitrary reference point, anyway.)





          schematic





          simulate this circuit



          The only difference here is that now both voltages can be non-zero. In this case, the only new computation is the more general version: $V_textTH=fracV_textBcdot R_1+V_textAcdot R_2R_1+R_2$. That reduces to the equation I gave earlier, above, when $V_textB=0:textV$.




          The choice of resistor values will depend on the range of load impedances you want to allow attached to $V_textOUT$ and how much voltage variation your loads can tolerate.



          For example, suppose you have a power supply rail of $5:textV$ and want to use a voltage divider to create a voltage source at $3.3:textV$. Suppose also that the maximum current required by the device you'll attach to $V_textOUT$ is $10:textmA$. Suppose that the device must not experience more than $3.6:textV$ nor less than $3.1:textV$ or else it won't work properly. And finally that the worst-case minimum current required by the device is $100:mutextA$.



          Given these specifications, we want a worst-case $Delta V=3.6:textV-3.1:textV=500:textmV$ with a worst case current variation of $Delta I=10:textmA-100:mutextA=9.9:textmA$. This suggests an effective source impedance of $R_textTH=R_textSRC=frac500:textmV9.9:textmAapprox 50.5:Omega$.



          You now have two equations and two unknowns:



          $$beginalign*
          50.5:Omega &= fracR_1cdot R_2R_1+R_2\\
          5:textVcdotfracR_2R_1+R_2 &=3.6:textV+100:mutextAcdot 50.5:Omega
          endalign*$$



          Roughly speaking, you'd need $R_1approx 70:Omega$ and $R_2approx 181:Omega$. Note that just operating this divider requires $fracleft(5:textVright)^270:Omega+181:Omegaapprox 100:textmW$. (Also note that the output voltage (if the device didn't draw any current at all) might reach about $5frac12 :textmV$ above the maximum $3.6:textmV$ spec. Which may be acceptable.)






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$

















            2












            $begingroup$

            The best way to see the differences is to use the Thevenin equivalent for a resistor divider set up between two ideal (no source resistance of their own) voltage sources. Often, this is just some supply voltage and ground.



            Let's look at the obvious case:





            schematic





            simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab



            The left side has a resistor divider between an ideal voltage source and ground and, without any load hanging off of $V_textOUT$ (it's just open, as you can see), the voltage is easy to compute as $V_textOUT=V_textINcdotfracR_2R_1+R_2$. However, what's missing from that simple calculation is the fact that $V_textOUT$ is no longer ideal. It now has a source resistance that makes it non-ideal. That's because any current required by a load (currently not present) attached between $V_textOUT$ and ground must cause an additional voltage drop across $R_1$ and that changes the voltage that the load experiences. So, again, $V_textOUT$ is no longer ideal.



            The effective, non-ideality of $V_textOUT$ is expressed by first setting up a fictional $V_textTH$ which is equal to the unloaded $V_textOUT$ and then inserting a series resistor between this fictional $V_textTH$ and $V_textOUT$. This is shown on the right side, above. This resistor that represents the non-ideality of the voltage source is $R_textTH=fracR_1cdot R_2R_1+R_2$.



            The upshot of all this is that you now have a simpler way to view the resistor divider and you can easily see exactly how non-ideal it is by simply examining the value of $R_textTH$. The closer this value is to zero, the more ideal is the voltage source. But the price you pay for getting closer to zero is a rapidly increasing power dissipation wasted in the resistor divider, itself.




            Just to completely generalize the above, let's look at a resistor divider that sits between two different ideal voltage sources, where one is NOT zero volts. (That's just an arbitrary reference point, anyway.)





            schematic





            simulate this circuit



            The only difference here is that now both voltages can be non-zero. In this case, the only new computation is the more general version: $V_textTH=fracV_textBcdot R_1+V_textAcdot R_2R_1+R_2$. That reduces to the equation I gave earlier, above, when $V_textB=0:textV$.




            The choice of resistor values will depend on the range of load impedances you want to allow attached to $V_textOUT$ and how much voltage variation your loads can tolerate.



            For example, suppose you have a power supply rail of $5:textV$ and want to use a voltage divider to create a voltage source at $3.3:textV$. Suppose also that the maximum current required by the device you'll attach to $V_textOUT$ is $10:textmA$. Suppose that the device must not experience more than $3.6:textV$ nor less than $3.1:textV$ or else it won't work properly. And finally that the worst-case minimum current required by the device is $100:mutextA$.



            Given these specifications, we want a worst-case $Delta V=3.6:textV-3.1:textV=500:textmV$ with a worst case current variation of $Delta I=10:textmA-100:mutextA=9.9:textmA$. This suggests an effective source impedance of $R_textTH=R_textSRC=frac500:textmV9.9:textmAapprox 50.5:Omega$.



            You now have two equations and two unknowns:



            $$beginalign*
            50.5:Omega &= fracR_1cdot R_2R_1+R_2\\
            5:textVcdotfracR_2R_1+R_2 &=3.6:textV+100:mutextAcdot 50.5:Omega
            endalign*$$



            Roughly speaking, you'd need $R_1approx 70:Omega$ and $R_2approx 181:Omega$. Note that just operating this divider requires $fracleft(5:textVright)^270:Omega+181:Omegaapprox 100:textmW$. (Also note that the output voltage (if the device didn't draw any current at all) might reach about $5frac12 :textmV$ above the maximum $3.6:textmV$ spec. Which may be acceptable.)






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$















              2












              2








              2





              $begingroup$

              The best way to see the differences is to use the Thevenin equivalent for a resistor divider set up between two ideal (no source resistance of their own) voltage sources. Often, this is just some supply voltage and ground.



              Let's look at the obvious case:





              schematic





              simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab



              The left side has a resistor divider between an ideal voltage source and ground and, without any load hanging off of $V_textOUT$ (it's just open, as you can see), the voltage is easy to compute as $V_textOUT=V_textINcdotfracR_2R_1+R_2$. However, what's missing from that simple calculation is the fact that $V_textOUT$ is no longer ideal. It now has a source resistance that makes it non-ideal. That's because any current required by a load (currently not present) attached between $V_textOUT$ and ground must cause an additional voltage drop across $R_1$ and that changes the voltage that the load experiences. So, again, $V_textOUT$ is no longer ideal.



              The effective, non-ideality of $V_textOUT$ is expressed by first setting up a fictional $V_textTH$ which is equal to the unloaded $V_textOUT$ and then inserting a series resistor between this fictional $V_textTH$ and $V_textOUT$. This is shown on the right side, above. This resistor that represents the non-ideality of the voltage source is $R_textTH=fracR_1cdot R_2R_1+R_2$.



              The upshot of all this is that you now have a simpler way to view the resistor divider and you can easily see exactly how non-ideal it is by simply examining the value of $R_textTH$. The closer this value is to zero, the more ideal is the voltage source. But the price you pay for getting closer to zero is a rapidly increasing power dissipation wasted in the resistor divider, itself.




              Just to completely generalize the above, let's look at a resistor divider that sits between two different ideal voltage sources, where one is NOT zero volts. (That's just an arbitrary reference point, anyway.)





              schematic





              simulate this circuit



              The only difference here is that now both voltages can be non-zero. In this case, the only new computation is the more general version: $V_textTH=fracV_textBcdot R_1+V_textAcdot R_2R_1+R_2$. That reduces to the equation I gave earlier, above, when $V_textB=0:textV$.




              The choice of resistor values will depend on the range of load impedances you want to allow attached to $V_textOUT$ and how much voltage variation your loads can tolerate.



              For example, suppose you have a power supply rail of $5:textV$ and want to use a voltage divider to create a voltage source at $3.3:textV$. Suppose also that the maximum current required by the device you'll attach to $V_textOUT$ is $10:textmA$. Suppose that the device must not experience more than $3.6:textV$ nor less than $3.1:textV$ or else it won't work properly. And finally that the worst-case minimum current required by the device is $100:mutextA$.



              Given these specifications, we want a worst-case $Delta V=3.6:textV-3.1:textV=500:textmV$ with a worst case current variation of $Delta I=10:textmA-100:mutextA=9.9:textmA$. This suggests an effective source impedance of $R_textTH=R_textSRC=frac500:textmV9.9:textmAapprox 50.5:Omega$.



              You now have two equations and two unknowns:



              $$beginalign*
              50.5:Omega &= fracR_1cdot R_2R_1+R_2\\
              5:textVcdotfracR_2R_1+R_2 &=3.6:textV+100:mutextAcdot 50.5:Omega
              endalign*$$



              Roughly speaking, you'd need $R_1approx 70:Omega$ and $R_2approx 181:Omega$. Note that just operating this divider requires $fracleft(5:textVright)^270:Omega+181:Omegaapprox 100:textmW$. (Also note that the output voltage (if the device didn't draw any current at all) might reach about $5frac12 :textmV$ above the maximum $3.6:textmV$ spec. Which may be acceptable.)






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$



              The best way to see the differences is to use the Thevenin equivalent for a resistor divider set up between two ideal (no source resistance of their own) voltage sources. Often, this is just some supply voltage and ground.



              Let's look at the obvious case:





              schematic





              simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab



              The left side has a resistor divider between an ideal voltage source and ground and, without any load hanging off of $V_textOUT$ (it's just open, as you can see), the voltage is easy to compute as $V_textOUT=V_textINcdotfracR_2R_1+R_2$. However, what's missing from that simple calculation is the fact that $V_textOUT$ is no longer ideal. It now has a source resistance that makes it non-ideal. That's because any current required by a load (currently not present) attached between $V_textOUT$ and ground must cause an additional voltage drop across $R_1$ and that changes the voltage that the load experiences. So, again, $V_textOUT$ is no longer ideal.



              The effective, non-ideality of $V_textOUT$ is expressed by first setting up a fictional $V_textTH$ which is equal to the unloaded $V_textOUT$ and then inserting a series resistor between this fictional $V_textTH$ and $V_textOUT$. This is shown on the right side, above. This resistor that represents the non-ideality of the voltage source is $R_textTH=fracR_1cdot R_2R_1+R_2$.



              The upshot of all this is that you now have a simpler way to view the resistor divider and you can easily see exactly how non-ideal it is by simply examining the value of $R_textTH$. The closer this value is to zero, the more ideal is the voltage source. But the price you pay for getting closer to zero is a rapidly increasing power dissipation wasted in the resistor divider, itself.




              Just to completely generalize the above, let's look at a resistor divider that sits between two different ideal voltage sources, where one is NOT zero volts. (That's just an arbitrary reference point, anyway.)





              schematic





              simulate this circuit



              The only difference here is that now both voltages can be non-zero. In this case, the only new computation is the more general version: $V_textTH=fracV_textBcdot R_1+V_textAcdot R_2R_1+R_2$. That reduces to the equation I gave earlier, above, when $V_textB=0:textV$.




              The choice of resistor values will depend on the range of load impedances you want to allow attached to $V_textOUT$ and how much voltage variation your loads can tolerate.



              For example, suppose you have a power supply rail of $5:textV$ and want to use a voltage divider to create a voltage source at $3.3:textV$. Suppose also that the maximum current required by the device you'll attach to $V_textOUT$ is $10:textmA$. Suppose that the device must not experience more than $3.6:textV$ nor less than $3.1:textV$ or else it won't work properly. And finally that the worst-case minimum current required by the device is $100:mutextA$.



              Given these specifications, we want a worst-case $Delta V=3.6:textV-3.1:textV=500:textmV$ with a worst case current variation of $Delta I=10:textmA-100:mutextA=9.9:textmA$. This suggests an effective source impedance of $R_textTH=R_textSRC=frac500:textmV9.9:textmAapprox 50.5:Omega$.



              You now have two equations and two unknowns:



              $$beginalign*
              50.5:Omega &= fracR_1cdot R_2R_1+R_2\\
              5:textVcdotfracR_2R_1+R_2 &=3.6:textV+100:mutextAcdot 50.5:Omega
              endalign*$$



              Roughly speaking, you'd need $R_1approx 70:Omega$ and $R_2approx 181:Omega$. Note that just operating this divider requires $fracleft(5:textVright)^270:Omega+181:Omegaapprox 100:textmW$. (Also note that the output voltage (if the device didn't draw any current at all) might reach about $5frac12 :textmV$ above the maximum $3.6:textmV$ spec. Which may be acceptable.)







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited 17 mins ago

























              answered 2 hours ago









              jonkjonk

              36.3k12876




              36.3k12876























                  1












                  $begingroup$

                  The resistors‘ values depend on how much current you want to flow. For 5 V:



                  R = 1kOhm + 2kOhm = 3 kOhm -> I = U/R = 1.67 mA or
                  R = 100 Ohm + 200 Ohm = 300 Ohm -> I = 16.67 mA



                  Usually you use voltage deviders for a voltage reference and not as power source because the voltage is highly dependable on the load and the resistors also dissipate power.






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor



                  Thauer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  $endgroup$

















                    1












                    $begingroup$

                    The resistors‘ values depend on how much current you want to flow. For 5 V:



                    R = 1kOhm + 2kOhm = 3 kOhm -> I = U/R = 1.67 mA or
                    R = 100 Ohm + 200 Ohm = 300 Ohm -> I = 16.67 mA



                    Usually you use voltage deviders for a voltage reference and not as power source because the voltage is highly dependable on the load and the resistors also dissipate power.






                    share|improve this answer








                    New contributor



                    Thauer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.





                    $endgroup$















                      1












                      1








                      1





                      $begingroup$

                      The resistors‘ values depend on how much current you want to flow. For 5 V:



                      R = 1kOhm + 2kOhm = 3 kOhm -> I = U/R = 1.67 mA or
                      R = 100 Ohm + 200 Ohm = 300 Ohm -> I = 16.67 mA



                      Usually you use voltage deviders for a voltage reference and not as power source because the voltage is highly dependable on the load and the resistors also dissipate power.






                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor



                      Thauer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.





                      $endgroup$



                      The resistors‘ values depend on how much current you want to flow. For 5 V:



                      R = 1kOhm + 2kOhm = 3 kOhm -> I = U/R = 1.67 mA or
                      R = 100 Ohm + 200 Ohm = 300 Ohm -> I = 16.67 mA



                      Usually you use voltage deviders for a voltage reference and not as power source because the voltage is highly dependable on the load and the resistors also dissipate power.







                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor



                      Thauer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.








                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer






                      New contributor



                      Thauer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.








                      answered 2 hours ago









                      ThauerThauer

                      111




                      111




                      New contributor



                      Thauer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.




                      New contributor




                      Thauer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.























                          1












                          $begingroup$

                          It's a tradeoff - between stability and wasted power..



                          When you connect two resistors across your power supply, a current will flow through them. This current does nothing but warm those resistors up; it's essentially wasted. So you want the resistors to be as high as possible, so less power is wasted.



                          If you are creating a voltage divider, then presumably you want to connect something to the middle point, which sees the voltage created. That something will have some resistance, or will otherwise draw some current. Drawing that current will disturb the voltage set by the voltage divider. The more that current is, in comparison with the current flowing through the resistors, the worse the effect will be.



                          So you want the current through the two resistors to be as low as possible, subject to the limitation that the current drawn by the load must only be a small fracrion of the current through the resistors.



                          Note that if the load is actually a fixed resistor, then there is no point in using two resistors as a voltage divider. Use the load itself as one of the resistors instead.






                          share|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$

















                            1












                            $begingroup$

                            It's a tradeoff - between stability and wasted power..



                            When you connect two resistors across your power supply, a current will flow through them. This current does nothing but warm those resistors up; it's essentially wasted. So you want the resistors to be as high as possible, so less power is wasted.



                            If you are creating a voltage divider, then presumably you want to connect something to the middle point, which sees the voltage created. That something will have some resistance, or will otherwise draw some current. Drawing that current will disturb the voltage set by the voltage divider. The more that current is, in comparison with the current flowing through the resistors, the worse the effect will be.



                            So you want the current through the two resistors to be as low as possible, subject to the limitation that the current drawn by the load must only be a small fracrion of the current through the resistors.



                            Note that if the load is actually a fixed resistor, then there is no point in using two resistors as a voltage divider. Use the load itself as one of the resistors instead.






                            share|improve this answer









                            $endgroup$















                              1












                              1








                              1





                              $begingroup$

                              It's a tradeoff - between stability and wasted power..



                              When you connect two resistors across your power supply, a current will flow through them. This current does nothing but warm those resistors up; it's essentially wasted. So you want the resistors to be as high as possible, so less power is wasted.



                              If you are creating a voltage divider, then presumably you want to connect something to the middle point, which sees the voltage created. That something will have some resistance, or will otherwise draw some current. Drawing that current will disturb the voltage set by the voltage divider. The more that current is, in comparison with the current flowing through the resistors, the worse the effect will be.



                              So you want the current through the two resistors to be as low as possible, subject to the limitation that the current drawn by the load must only be a small fracrion of the current through the resistors.



                              Note that if the load is actually a fixed resistor, then there is no point in using two resistors as a voltage divider. Use the load itself as one of the resistors instead.






                              share|improve this answer









                              $endgroup$



                              It's a tradeoff - between stability and wasted power..



                              When you connect two resistors across your power supply, a current will flow through them. This current does nothing but warm those resistors up; it's essentially wasted. So you want the resistors to be as high as possible, so less power is wasted.



                              If you are creating a voltage divider, then presumably you want to connect something to the middle point, which sees the voltage created. That something will have some resistance, or will otherwise draw some current. Drawing that current will disturb the voltage set by the voltage divider. The more that current is, in comparison with the current flowing through the resistors, the worse the effect will be.



                              So you want the current through the two resistors to be as low as possible, subject to the limitation that the current drawn by the load must only be a small fracrion of the current through the resistors.



                              Note that if the load is actually a fixed resistor, then there is no point in using two resistors as a voltage divider. Use the load itself as one of the resistors instead.







                              share|improve this answer












                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer










                              answered 1 hour ago









                              Simon BSimon B

                              5,481918




                              5,481918





















                                  0












                                  $begingroup$

                                  Voltage dividers are a bundle of tradeoffs. The feedback voltage divider in a 1uA(max) Idd rated LDO will have 10,000,000 ohm resistors; these are nearly 1,000X noiser than 50 ohm resistors used in high-sensitivity radio circuits; you may not want to use such an LDO to provide VDD for a Local Oscillator (or channel-selection Frequency Synthesizer) for a radio, nor for the amplifier circuit of a non-electret microphone, because such an LDO will have nearly 1milliVolt PeakPeak random noise riding atop the regulated output.
                                  But that 1uA LDO only consumes ----- 1uA or less, just sitting in your circuit, and some such LDOs include a "Sleep" pin allowing the MCU to manage power usage.



                                  If you want a "quieter" regulated voltage, the voltage-divider resistors must become substantially lower in value to reduce the random thermal (Boltzmann, Johnson, Nyquist) noise; the lower resistor values (again, in the feedback divider) allow a much higher feedback bandwidth and 60Hz and harmonics are much better suppressed for the tradeoff of 100x or 1,000x high Iddq of the LDO.






                                  share|improve this answer









                                  $endgroup$

















                                    0












                                    $begingroup$

                                    Voltage dividers are a bundle of tradeoffs. The feedback voltage divider in a 1uA(max) Idd rated LDO will have 10,000,000 ohm resistors; these are nearly 1,000X noiser than 50 ohm resistors used in high-sensitivity radio circuits; you may not want to use such an LDO to provide VDD for a Local Oscillator (or channel-selection Frequency Synthesizer) for a radio, nor for the amplifier circuit of a non-electret microphone, because such an LDO will have nearly 1milliVolt PeakPeak random noise riding atop the regulated output.
                                    But that 1uA LDO only consumes ----- 1uA or less, just sitting in your circuit, and some such LDOs include a "Sleep" pin allowing the MCU to manage power usage.



                                    If you want a "quieter" regulated voltage, the voltage-divider resistors must become substantially lower in value to reduce the random thermal (Boltzmann, Johnson, Nyquist) noise; the lower resistor values (again, in the feedback divider) allow a much higher feedback bandwidth and 60Hz and harmonics are much better suppressed for the tradeoff of 100x or 1,000x high Iddq of the LDO.






                                    share|improve this answer









                                    $endgroup$















                                      0












                                      0








                                      0





                                      $begingroup$

                                      Voltage dividers are a bundle of tradeoffs. The feedback voltage divider in a 1uA(max) Idd rated LDO will have 10,000,000 ohm resistors; these are nearly 1,000X noiser than 50 ohm resistors used in high-sensitivity radio circuits; you may not want to use such an LDO to provide VDD for a Local Oscillator (or channel-selection Frequency Synthesizer) for a radio, nor for the amplifier circuit of a non-electret microphone, because such an LDO will have nearly 1milliVolt PeakPeak random noise riding atop the regulated output.
                                      But that 1uA LDO only consumes ----- 1uA or less, just sitting in your circuit, and some such LDOs include a "Sleep" pin allowing the MCU to manage power usage.



                                      If you want a "quieter" regulated voltage, the voltage-divider resistors must become substantially lower in value to reduce the random thermal (Boltzmann, Johnson, Nyquist) noise; the lower resistor values (again, in the feedback divider) allow a much higher feedback bandwidth and 60Hz and harmonics are much better suppressed for the tradeoff of 100x or 1,000x high Iddq of the LDO.






                                      share|improve this answer









                                      $endgroup$



                                      Voltage dividers are a bundle of tradeoffs. The feedback voltage divider in a 1uA(max) Idd rated LDO will have 10,000,000 ohm resistors; these are nearly 1,000X noiser than 50 ohm resistors used in high-sensitivity radio circuits; you may not want to use such an LDO to provide VDD for a Local Oscillator (or channel-selection Frequency Synthesizer) for a radio, nor for the amplifier circuit of a non-electret microphone, because such an LDO will have nearly 1milliVolt PeakPeak random noise riding atop the regulated output.
                                      But that 1uA LDO only consumes ----- 1uA or less, just sitting in your circuit, and some such LDOs include a "Sleep" pin allowing the MCU to manage power usage.



                                      If you want a "quieter" regulated voltage, the voltage-divider resistors must become substantially lower in value to reduce the random thermal (Boltzmann, Johnson, Nyquist) noise; the lower resistor values (again, in the feedback divider) allow a much higher feedback bandwidth and 60Hz and harmonics are much better suppressed for the tradeoff of 100x or 1,000x high Iddq of the LDO.







                                      share|improve this answer












                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer










                                      answered 37 mins ago









                                      analogsystemsrfanalogsystemsrf

                                      17k2823




                                      17k2823




















                                          Frank Bakker is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                                          draft saved

                                          draft discarded


















                                          Frank Bakker is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                                          Frank Bakker is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











                                          Frank Bakker is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














                                          Thanks for contributing an answer to Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange!


                                          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                          But avoid


                                          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                                          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          StackExchange.ready(
                                          function ()
                                          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f439326%2fwhich-values-for-voltage-divider%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                          );

                                          Post as a guest















                                          Required, but never shown





















































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown

































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

                                          Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

                                          François Viète Contents Biography Work and thought Bibliography See also Notes Further reading External links Navigation menup. 21Google Bookspp. 75–77Google BooksDe thou (from University of Saint Andrews)ArchivedGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle booksGoogle Bookscc-parthenay.frL'histoire universelle (fr)Universal History (en)ArchivedAdsabs.harvard.eduPagesperso-orange.frArchive.orgChikara Sasaki. Descartes' mathematical thought p.259Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle Bookspp. 152 and onwardGoogle BooksGoogle BooksScribd.comGoogle Books1257-7979Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGallica.bnf.frGoogle BooksGoogle Books"François Viète"Francois Viète: Father of Modern Algebraic NotationThe Lawyer and the GamblerAbout TarporleySite de Jean-Paul GuichardL'algèbre nouvelle"About the Harmonicon"cb120511976(data)1188044800000 0001 0913 5903n82164680ola2013766880073431702w6vt1sb70287374827140948071409480