Are these 2 resistors in parallel?How to find Thevenin resistance of circuit with voltage source and three resistors?Is there a non recursive formula for mixed resistors?Are these resistors in parallelAre these resistors in parallel?Finding Equivalent ResistanceHow to sum resistors in parallel and series?Resistors in Parallel or Series?Finding the Thevenin resistanceCombined series and parallel resistors — adding resistors
Two people from small group of friends want to have a "meeting" with me. The circumstances are strange and give me a bad feeling
Should I present forged documents in a Penetration Test/Red team engagement?
Quantum circuits explain algorithms, why didn't classical circuits?
Who are the strongest non-professional GMs?
Is Earth's Surface "In orbit"?
I noticed an error in a graded exam during office hours. Should I give the student the lower grade?
How can I find out where to buy uncommon (for the location) items while traveling?
In a world where Magic steam Engines exist would would keep people from making cars
Wifi in my spaceship at high speed
How to handle a colleague who appears helpful in front of manager but doesn't help in private?
Physical interpretation of gamma matrices
How can you determine the hostname associated with an IP on the network?
Why does this process map every fraction to the golden ratio?
Hough transform algorithm - Idiomatic c++
Make me speak L33T
What are these color strips for?
YALMIP-like modeling environment in Python
What type of interpreter were most 8-bit BASIC implementations?
Why is BER higher for binary modulation compared to quaternary?
Did any 360-compatible machine implement registers in core?
Does Airplane Mode allow GPS location to pass through?
C - wrapping globals in a struct?
Large products with glass doors
Is there any reason as to why the schematic symbol of comparators is almost equivalent to that of op amps?
Are these 2 resistors in parallel?
How to find Thevenin resistance of circuit with voltage source and three resistors?Is there a non recursive formula for mixed resistors?Are these resistors in parallelAre these resistors in parallel?Finding Equivalent ResistanceHow to sum resistors in parallel and series?Resistors in Parallel or Series?Finding the Thevenin resistanceCombined series and parallel resistors — adding resistors
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
So I had a circuit to analyse and I needed to find the equivalent resistor and then I arrived to a confusion. Are R1 and R3 in parallel?
Here is the circuit.
simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab
voltage resistors resistance voltage-divider source
asked Oct 15 at 14:28
Peter MurrPeter Murr
1031 silver badge4 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
So I had a circuit to analyse and I needed to find the equivalent resistor and then I arrived to a confusion. Are R1 and R3 in parallel?
Here is the circuit.
simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab
voltage resistors resistance voltage-divider source
asked Oct 15 at 14:28
Peter MurrPeter Murr
1031 silver badge4 bronze badges
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
It is common to draw the voltage source on the left hand side. If you draw R1 in the middle and V1 and R2 to the left, it becomes more obvious.
$endgroup$
– Dampmaskin
Oct 15 at 14:50
$begingroup$
Yes they are - their ends are connected to each other
$endgroup$
– Reversed Engineer
Oct 17 at 20:47
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
So I had a circuit to analyse and I needed to find the equivalent resistor and then I arrived to a confusion. Are R1 and R3 in parallel?
Here is the circuit.
simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab
voltage resistors resistance voltage-divider source
asked Oct 15 at 14:28
Peter MurrPeter Murr
1031 silver badge4 bronze badges
$endgroup$
So I had a circuit to analyse and I needed to find the equivalent resistor and then I arrived to a confusion. Are R1 and R3 in parallel?
Here is the circuit.
simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab
voltage resistors resistance voltage-divider source
voltage resistors resistance voltage-divider source
asked Oct 15 at 14:28
Peter MurrPeter Murr
1031 silver badge4 bronze badges
asked Oct 15 at 14:28
Peter MurrPeter Murr
1031 silver badge4 bronze badges
asked Oct 15 at 14:28
Peter MurrPeter Murr
1031 silver badge4 bronze badges
asked Oct 15 at 14:28
Peter MurrPeter Murr
1031 silver badge4 bronze badges
asked Oct 15 at 14:28
Peter MurrPeter Murr
1031 silver badge4 bronze badges
1031 silver badge4 bronze badges
7
$begingroup$
It is common to draw the voltage source on the left hand side. If you draw R1 in the middle and V1 and R2 to the left, it becomes more obvious.
$endgroup$
– Dampmaskin
Oct 15 at 14:50
$begingroup$
Yes they are - their ends are connected to each other
$endgroup$
– Reversed Engineer
Oct 17 at 20:47
add a comment
|
7
$begingroup$
It is common to draw the voltage source on the left hand side. If you draw R1 in the middle and V1 and R2 to the left, it becomes more obvious.
$endgroup$
– Dampmaskin
Oct 15 at 14:50
$begingroup$
Yes they are - their ends are connected to each other
$endgroup$
– Reversed Engineer
Oct 17 at 20:47
7
7
$begingroup$
It is common to draw the voltage source on the left hand side. If you draw R1 in the middle and V1 and R2 to the left, it becomes more obvious.
$endgroup$
– Dampmaskin
Oct 15 at 14:50
$begingroup$
It is common to draw the voltage source on the left hand side. If you draw R1 in the middle and V1 and R2 to the left, it becomes more obvious.
$endgroup$
– Dampmaskin
Oct 15 at 14:50
$begingroup$
Yes they are - their ends are connected to each other
$endgroup$
– Reversed Engineer
Oct 17 at 20:47
$begingroup$
Yes they are - their ends are connected to each other
$endgroup$
– Reversed Engineer
Oct 17 at 20:47
add a comment
|
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Redrawing schematics is a great way to analyze circuits, but also an exercise in why schematics are drawn in particular ways — to more clearly communicate to other engineers.
simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab
The rearrangement above should be a little more clear. If you trace a path from one terminal of the battery to the other, you can hopefully see that there are two paths (the split occurs at the junctions on either side of R1).
Series means one-after-another current flow (like a series of events or a television serial). Parallel means that current flows through two or more components at the same time (proportional to the component values).
Just as when you measure voltage, where the value depends on your reference point, components can be series or parallel depending on what you are comparing them to:
You could say:
- R2 is in series with the voltage source, or
- R2 forms a series-parallel circuit with R1 and R3, or
- R1 and R3 are parallel with each other, or
- R1 and R3 are parallel with a voltage source and some resistance R2
answered Oct 15 at 15:15
JYeltonJYelton
21.8k28 gold badges97 silver badges205 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
I see a few answers already, but none provides the definition of "parallel":
Two two-pins components are in parallel when the voltage across them is the same
Conversely, with "series", you have:
Two two-pins components are in series when the current through them is the same
Bear in mind that "the same" literally means "the same" in this context. If you have two resistors with two different voltage generators connected to them, and the generators provide the same voltage, then the voltage across the resistors will numerically be the same, but it won't be the same voltage.
The definitions above also solve the confusion if you only have two components, as highlighted in the comments to this answer. In that case, the components are both in series and in parallel, since the voltage across them and the current through them is the same.
Being in series and in parallel with something else at the same time is not impossible, a very common example can be a voltage generator and its load.
answered Oct 15 at 15:01
Vladimir CraveroVladimir Cravero
14.4k1 gold badge26 silver badges57 bronze badges
$endgroup$
10
$begingroup$
While the statements you make about voltage in parallel and current in series being "the same" are true, these are necessary but not sufficient conditions - there are circuits where components which are not in parallel nevertheless have the same voltage drop across them.
$endgroup$
– Stobor
Oct 16 at 6:32
8
$begingroup$
This seems like an awfully roundabout way of saying things. Why say "A and B are parallel if the difference-in-potential-between-the-two-termini-of-A is the difference-in-potential-between-the-same-two-termini as the difference-in-potential-between-the-two-termini-of-B" when you could just say "A and B are parallel if the two termini of A are the same two termini as the two termini of B"? If the termini matter and the voltage doesn't matter, why mention the voltage at all?
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
Oct 16 at 17:02
1
$begingroup$
This is a confusing way to look at it, especially for a beginner. In a beginner's mind, I could see easy confusion with your definition that would make R2 seem to be parallel. Yes, the voltage across them is the same and yes, it comes from the same separation of charge, but that's just the result of them sharing terminals. How can you differentiate between the voltage drop across two identical resistors in two identical circuits without it being arbitrary in order ensure that they aren't "the same"? The better definition, in which they share terminals, doesn't require anything arbitrary.
$endgroup$
– gormadoc
Oct 16 at 20:14
1
$begingroup$
Another issue is that it doesn't work for non-parallel loads that don't have any voltage drop. In both cases the voltage is exactly the same, both in magnitude and origin. Saying R1's separation of no charge is different from R2's separation of no charge requires a look at their terminals, necessitating the easier definition again.
$endgroup$
– gormadoc
Oct 16 at 20:16
1
$begingroup$
Because you delineate between "same" voltage and "equal" voltage in an unnatural manner. To a beginner, they see one voltage source and that it's doing all the work. In my experience with Intro to Circuits students, they don't always see that the voltage across one component is different from another when they are hooked up differently. For a more clear explanation, consider removing R3 and making R1=R2. Now the voltages are the same, exactly V/2. The source is the same. They are still not in parallel.
$endgroup$
– gormadoc
Oct 17 at 17:12
|
show 9 more comments
$begingroup$
Yes, because there are two different flows:
- V1 -> R2 -> R1 -> V1
- V1 -> R2 -> R3 -> V1
R2 and the combination (R1, R3) are in series, but R1 and R3 are in parallel.
answered Oct 15 at 14:31
Michel KeijzersMichel Keijzers
10.9k11 gold badges39 silver badges86 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
R1 and R2 have their ends connected to the same nodes.
simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab
Figure 1. Remove R2 and V1 and it becomes very obvious that R1 is in parallel with R3.
answered Oct 15 at 14:35
TransistorTransistor
102k9 gold badges104 silver badges227 bronze badges
$endgroup$
14
$begingroup$
Yes but no, if you remove R2 and V1 it becomes ambiguous. It also looks like R1 and R3 are in series. :)
$endgroup$
– Dampmaskin
Oct 15 at 14:42
2
$begingroup$
How is a drawing with single path suppose to show parallelism, something that requires more than one paths?
$endgroup$
– ikegami
Oct 16 at 5:32
1
$begingroup$
It's easier to see for some people that, but removing the voltage source from a network makes all definitions about serial and parallel meaningless, so it's likely to add more confusion than clarification. Topological transformations (like moving the middle branch to the left) are much more helpful.
$endgroup$
– toolforger
Oct 16 at 7:46
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Yes, R1 and R3 are in parallel. Both their ends land at the same places. As a mains electrical guy I'm not supposed to presume wires are zero ohms, but if I do, this becomes a fairly simple matter. Conductance = 1/resistance.
R1 (50.5 ohms) has a conductance of 0.01980198 siemens.
R2 (55.83 ohms) has a conductance of 0.01791152 siemens.
In parallel, conductances simply add. So 0.0377135 siemens.
Stated in resistance, R1/3 is 26.52 ohms.
R1/3 and R2 are in series. In series, resistances simply add. 26.52+1.54 = 28.06 ohms.
This shunts a 10V constant-voltage supply, so we can plug 10V into Ohm's Law and done.
edited Oct 18 at 17:26
Elliot Alderson
13.4k2 gold badges13 silver badges25 bronze badges
answered Oct 17 at 1:41
Harper - Reinstate MonicaHarper - Reinstate Monica
8,44711 silver badges33 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
protected by Dave Tweed♦ Oct 18 at 18:55
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Redrawing schematics is a great way to analyze circuits, but also an exercise in why schematics are drawn in particular ways — to more clearly communicate to other engineers.
simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab
The rearrangement above should be a little more clear. If you trace a path from one terminal of the battery to the other, you can hopefully see that there are two paths (the split occurs at the junctions on either side of R1).
Series means one-after-another current flow (like a series of events or a television serial). Parallel means that current flows through two or more components at the same time (proportional to the component values).
Just as when you measure voltage, where the value depends on your reference point, components can be series or parallel depending on what you are comparing them to:
You could say:
- R2 is in series with the voltage source, or
- R2 forms a series-parallel circuit with R1 and R3, or
- R1 and R3 are parallel with each other, or
- R1 and R3 are parallel with a voltage source and some resistance R2
answered Oct 15 at 15:15
JYeltonJYelton
21.8k28 gold badges97 silver badges205 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Redrawing schematics is a great way to analyze circuits, but also an exercise in why schematics are drawn in particular ways — to more clearly communicate to other engineers.
simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab
The rearrangement above should be a little more clear. If you trace a path from one terminal of the battery to the other, you can hopefully see that there are two paths (the split occurs at the junctions on either side of R1).
Series means one-after-another current flow (like a series of events or a television serial). Parallel means that current flows through two or more components at the same time (proportional to the component values).
Just as when you measure voltage, where the value depends on your reference point, components can be series or parallel depending on what you are comparing them to:
You could say:
- R2 is in series with the voltage source, or
- R2 forms a series-parallel circuit with R1 and R3, or
- R1 and R3 are parallel with each other, or
- R1 and R3 are parallel with a voltage source and some resistance R2
answered Oct 15 at 15:15
JYeltonJYelton
21.8k28 gold badges97 silver badges205 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Redrawing schematics is a great way to analyze circuits, but also an exercise in why schematics are drawn in particular ways — to more clearly communicate to other engineers.
simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab
The rearrangement above should be a little more clear. If you trace a path from one terminal of the battery to the other, you can hopefully see that there are two paths (the split occurs at the junctions on either side of R1).
Series means one-after-another current flow (like a series of events or a television serial). Parallel means that current flows through two or more components at the same time (proportional to the component values).
Just as when you measure voltage, where the value depends on your reference point, components can be series or parallel depending on what you are comparing them to:
You could say:
- R2 is in series with the voltage source, or
- R2 forms a series-parallel circuit with R1 and R3, or
- R1 and R3 are parallel with each other, or
- R1 and R3 are parallel with a voltage source and some resistance R2
answered Oct 15 at 15:15
JYeltonJYelton
21.8k28 gold badges97 silver badges205 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Redrawing schematics is a great way to analyze circuits, but also an exercise in why schematics are drawn in particular ways — to more clearly communicate to other engineers.
simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab
The rearrangement above should be a little more clear. If you trace a path from one terminal of the battery to the other, you can hopefully see that there are two paths (the split occurs at the junctions on either side of R1).
Series means one-after-another current flow (like a series of events or a television serial). Parallel means that current flows through two or more components at the same time (proportional to the component values).
Just as when you measure voltage, where the value depends on your reference point, components can be series or parallel depending on what you are comparing them to:
You could say:
- R2 is in series with the voltage source, or
- R2 forms a series-parallel circuit with R1 and R3, or
- R1 and R3 are parallel with each other, or
- R1 and R3 are parallel with a voltage source and some resistance R2
answered Oct 15 at 15:15
JYeltonJYelton
21.8k28 gold badges97 silver badges205 bronze badges
answered Oct 15 at 15:15
JYeltonJYelton
21.8k28 gold badges97 silver badges205 bronze badges
answered Oct 15 at 15:15
JYeltonJYelton
21.8k28 gold badges97 silver badges205 bronze badges
answered Oct 15 at 15:15
JYeltonJYelton
21.8k28 gold badges97 silver badges205 bronze badges
21.8k28 gold badges97 silver badges205 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
I see a few answers already, but none provides the definition of "parallel":
Two two-pins components are in parallel when the voltage across them is the same
Conversely, with "series", you have:
Two two-pins components are in series when the current through them is the same
Bear in mind that "the same" literally means "the same" in this context. If you have two resistors with two different voltage generators connected to them, and the generators provide the same voltage, then the voltage across the resistors will numerically be the same, but it won't be the same voltage.
The definitions above also solve the confusion if you only have two components, as highlighted in the comments to this answer. In that case, the components are both in series and in parallel, since the voltage across them and the current through them is the same.
Being in series and in parallel with something else at the same time is not impossible, a very common example can be a voltage generator and its load.
answered Oct 15 at 15:01
Vladimir CraveroVladimir Cravero
14.4k1 gold badge26 silver badges57 bronze badges
$endgroup$
10
$begingroup$
While the statements you make about voltage in parallel and current in series being "the same" are true, these are necessary but not sufficient conditions - there are circuits where components which are not in parallel nevertheless have the same voltage drop across them.
$endgroup$
– Stobor
Oct 16 at 6:32
8
$begingroup$
This seems like an awfully roundabout way of saying things. Why say "A and B are parallel if the difference-in-potential-between-the-two-termini-of-A is the difference-in-potential-between-the-same-two-termini as the difference-in-potential-between-the-two-termini-of-B" when you could just say "A and B are parallel if the two termini of A are the same two termini as the two termini of B"? If the termini matter and the voltage doesn't matter, why mention the voltage at all?
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
Oct 16 at 17:02
1
$begingroup$
This is a confusing way to look at it, especially for a beginner. In a beginner's mind, I could see easy confusion with your definition that would make R2 seem to be parallel. Yes, the voltage across them is the same and yes, it comes from the same separation of charge, but that's just the result of them sharing terminals. How can you differentiate between the voltage drop across two identical resistors in two identical circuits without it being arbitrary in order ensure that they aren't "the same"? The better definition, in which they share terminals, doesn't require anything arbitrary.
$endgroup$
– gormadoc
Oct 16 at 20:14
1
$begingroup$
Another issue is that it doesn't work for non-parallel loads that don't have any voltage drop. In both cases the voltage is exactly the same, both in magnitude and origin. Saying R1's separation of no charge is different from R2's separation of no charge requires a look at their terminals, necessitating the easier definition again.
$endgroup$
– gormadoc
Oct 16 at 20:16
1
$begingroup$
Because you delineate between "same" voltage and "equal" voltage in an unnatural manner. To a beginner, they see one voltage source and that it's doing all the work. In my experience with Intro to Circuits students, they don't always see that the voltage across one component is different from another when they are hooked up differently. For a more clear explanation, consider removing R3 and making R1=R2. Now the voltages are the same, exactly V/2. The source is the same. They are still not in parallel.
$endgroup$
– gormadoc
Oct 17 at 17:12
|
show 9 more comments
$begingroup$
I see a few answers already, but none provides the definition of "parallel":
Two two-pins components are in parallel when the voltage across them is the same
Conversely, with "series", you have:
Two two-pins components are in series when the current through them is the same
Bear in mind that "the same" literally means "the same" in this context. If you have two resistors with two different voltage generators connected to them, and the generators provide the same voltage, then the voltage across the resistors will numerically be the same, but it won't be the same voltage.
The definitions above also solve the confusion if you only have two components, as highlighted in the comments to this answer. In that case, the components are both in series and in parallel, since the voltage across them and the current through them is the same.
Being in series and in parallel with something else at the same time is not impossible, a very common example can be a voltage generator and its load.
answered Oct 15 at 15:01
Vladimir CraveroVladimir Cravero
14.4k1 gold badge26 silver badges57 bronze badges
$endgroup$
10
$begingroup$
While the statements you make about voltage in parallel and current in series being "the same" are true, these are necessary but not sufficient conditions - there are circuits where components which are not in parallel nevertheless have the same voltage drop across them.
$endgroup$
– Stobor
Oct 16 at 6:32
8
$begingroup$
This seems like an awfully roundabout way of saying things. Why say "A and B are parallel if the difference-in-potential-between-the-two-termini-of-A is the difference-in-potential-between-the-same-two-termini as the difference-in-potential-between-the-two-termini-of-B" when you could just say "A and B are parallel if the two termini of A are the same two termini as the two termini of B"? If the termini matter and the voltage doesn't matter, why mention the voltage at all?
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
Oct 16 at 17:02
1
$begingroup$
This is a confusing way to look at it, especially for a beginner. In a beginner's mind, I could see easy confusion with your definition that would make R2 seem to be parallel. Yes, the voltage across them is the same and yes, it comes from the same separation of charge, but that's just the result of them sharing terminals. How can you differentiate between the voltage drop across two identical resistors in two identical circuits without it being arbitrary in order ensure that they aren't "the same"? The better definition, in which they share terminals, doesn't require anything arbitrary.
$endgroup$
– gormadoc
Oct 16 at 20:14
1
$begingroup$
Another issue is that it doesn't work for non-parallel loads that don't have any voltage drop. In both cases the voltage is exactly the same, both in magnitude and origin. Saying R1's separation of no charge is different from R2's separation of no charge requires a look at their terminals, necessitating the easier definition again.
$endgroup$
– gormadoc
Oct 16 at 20:16
1
$begingroup$
Because you delineate between "same" voltage and "equal" voltage in an unnatural manner. To a beginner, they see one voltage source and that it's doing all the work. In my experience with Intro to Circuits students, they don't always see that the voltage across one component is different from another when they are hooked up differently. For a more clear explanation, consider removing R3 and making R1=R2. Now the voltages are the same, exactly V/2. The source is the same. They are still not in parallel.
$endgroup$
– gormadoc
Oct 17 at 17:12
|
show 9 more comments
$begingroup$
I see a few answers already, but none provides the definition of "parallel":
Two two-pins components are in parallel when the voltage across them is the same
Conversely, with "series", you have:
Two two-pins components are in series when the current through them is the same
Bear in mind that "the same" literally means "the same" in this context. If you have two resistors with two different voltage generators connected to them, and the generators provide the same voltage, then the voltage across the resistors will numerically be the same, but it won't be the same voltage.
The definitions above also solve the confusion if you only have two components, as highlighted in the comments to this answer. In that case, the components are both in series and in parallel, since the voltage across them and the current through them is the same.
Being in series and in parallel with something else at the same time is not impossible, a very common example can be a voltage generator and its load.
answered Oct 15 at 15:01
Vladimir CraveroVladimir Cravero
14.4k1 gold badge26 silver badges57 bronze badges
$endgroup$
I see a few answers already, but none provides the definition of "parallel":
Two two-pins components are in parallel when the voltage across them is the same
Conversely, with "series", you have:
Two two-pins components are in series when the current through them is the same
Bear in mind that "the same" literally means "the same" in this context. If you have two resistors with two different voltage generators connected to them, and the generators provide the same voltage, then the voltage across the resistors will numerically be the same, but it won't be the same voltage.
The definitions above also solve the confusion if you only have two components, as highlighted in the comments to this answer. In that case, the components are both in series and in parallel, since the voltage across them and the current through them is the same.
Being in series and in parallel with something else at the same time is not impossible, a very common example can be a voltage generator and its load.
answered Oct 15 at 15:01
Vladimir CraveroVladimir Cravero
14.4k1 gold badge26 silver badges57 bronze badges
answered Oct 15 at 15:01
Vladimir CraveroVladimir Cravero
14.4k1 gold badge26 silver badges57 bronze badges
answered Oct 15 at 15:01
Vladimir CraveroVladimir Cravero
14.4k1 gold badge26 silver badges57 bronze badges
answered Oct 15 at 15:01
Vladimir CraveroVladimir Cravero
14.4k1 gold badge26 silver badges57 bronze badges
14.4k1 gold badge26 silver badges57 bronze badges
10
$begingroup$
While the statements you make about voltage in parallel and current in series being "the same" are true, these are necessary but not sufficient conditions - there are circuits where components which are not in parallel nevertheless have the same voltage drop across them.
$endgroup$
– Stobor
Oct 16 at 6:32
8
$begingroup$
This seems like an awfully roundabout way of saying things. Why say "A and B are parallel if the difference-in-potential-between-the-two-termini-of-A is the difference-in-potential-between-the-same-two-termini as the difference-in-potential-between-the-two-termini-of-B" when you could just say "A and B are parallel if the two termini of A are the same two termini as the two termini of B"? If the termini matter and the voltage doesn't matter, why mention the voltage at all?
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
Oct 16 at 17:02
1
$begingroup$
This is a confusing way to look at it, especially for a beginner. In a beginner's mind, I could see easy confusion with your definition that would make R2 seem to be parallel. Yes, the voltage across them is the same and yes, it comes from the same separation of charge, but that's just the result of them sharing terminals. How can you differentiate between the voltage drop across two identical resistors in two identical circuits without it being arbitrary in order ensure that they aren't "the same"? The better definition, in which they share terminals, doesn't require anything arbitrary.
$endgroup$
– gormadoc
Oct 16 at 20:14
1
$begingroup$
Another issue is that it doesn't work for non-parallel loads that don't have any voltage drop. In both cases the voltage is exactly the same, both in magnitude and origin. Saying R1's separation of no charge is different from R2's separation of no charge requires a look at their terminals, necessitating the easier definition again.
$endgroup$
– gormadoc
Oct 16 at 20:16
1
$begingroup$
Because you delineate between "same" voltage and "equal" voltage in an unnatural manner. To a beginner, they see one voltage source and that it's doing all the work. In my experience with Intro to Circuits students, they don't always see that the voltage across one component is different from another when they are hooked up differently. For a more clear explanation, consider removing R3 and making R1=R2. Now the voltages are the same, exactly V/2. The source is the same. They are still not in parallel.
$endgroup$
– gormadoc
Oct 17 at 17:12
|
show 9 more comments
10
$begingroup$
While the statements you make about voltage in parallel and current in series being "the same" are true, these are necessary but not sufficient conditions - there are circuits where components which are not in parallel nevertheless have the same voltage drop across them.
$endgroup$
– Stobor
Oct 16 at 6:32
8
$begingroup$
This seems like an awfully roundabout way of saying things. Why say "A and B are parallel if the difference-in-potential-between-the-two-termini-of-A is the difference-in-potential-between-the-same-two-termini as the difference-in-potential-between-the-two-termini-of-B" when you could just say "A and B are parallel if the two termini of A are the same two termini as the two termini of B"? If the termini matter and the voltage doesn't matter, why mention the voltage at all?
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
Oct 16 at 17:02
1
$begingroup$
This is a confusing way to look at it, especially for a beginner. In a beginner's mind, I could see easy confusion with your definition that would make R2 seem to be parallel. Yes, the voltage across them is the same and yes, it comes from the same separation of charge, but that's just the result of them sharing terminals. How can you differentiate between the voltage drop across two identical resistors in two identical circuits without it being arbitrary in order ensure that they aren't "the same"? The better definition, in which they share terminals, doesn't require anything arbitrary.
$endgroup$
– gormadoc
Oct 16 at 20:14
1
$begingroup$
Another issue is that it doesn't work for non-parallel loads that don't have any voltage drop. In both cases the voltage is exactly the same, both in magnitude and origin. Saying R1's separation of no charge is different from R2's separation of no charge requires a look at their terminals, necessitating the easier definition again.
$endgroup$
– gormadoc
Oct 16 at 20:16
1
$begingroup$
Because you delineate between "same" voltage and "equal" voltage in an unnatural manner. To a beginner, they see one voltage source and that it's doing all the work. In my experience with Intro to Circuits students, they don't always see that the voltage across one component is different from another when they are hooked up differently. For a more clear explanation, consider removing R3 and making R1=R2. Now the voltages are the same, exactly V/2. The source is the same. They are still not in parallel.
$endgroup$
– gormadoc
Oct 17 at 17:12
10
10
$begingroup$
While the statements you make about voltage in parallel and current in series being "the same" are true, these are necessary but not sufficient conditions - there are circuits where components which are not in parallel nevertheless have the same voltage drop across them.
$endgroup$
– Stobor
Oct 16 at 6:32
$begingroup$
While the statements you make about voltage in parallel and current in series being "the same" are true, these are necessary but not sufficient conditions - there are circuits where components which are not in parallel nevertheless have the same voltage drop across them.
$endgroup$
– Stobor
Oct 16 at 6:32
8
8
$begingroup$
This seems like an awfully roundabout way of saying things. Why say "A and B are parallel if the difference-in-potential-between-the-two-termini-of-A is the difference-in-potential-between-the-same-two-termini as the difference-in-potential-between-the-two-termini-of-B" when you could just say "A and B are parallel if the two termini of A are the same two termini as the two termini of B"? If the termini matter and the voltage doesn't matter, why mention the voltage at all?
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
Oct 16 at 17:02
$begingroup$
This seems like an awfully roundabout way of saying things. Why say "A and B are parallel if the difference-in-potential-between-the-two-termini-of-A is the difference-in-potential-between-the-same-two-termini as the difference-in-potential-between-the-two-termini-of-B" when you could just say "A and B are parallel if the two termini of A are the same two termini as the two termini of B"? If the termini matter and the voltage doesn't matter, why mention the voltage at all?
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
Oct 16 at 17:02
1
1
$begingroup$
This is a confusing way to look at it, especially for a beginner. In a beginner's mind, I could see easy confusion with your definition that would make R2 seem to be parallel. Yes, the voltage across them is the same and yes, it comes from the same separation of charge, but that's just the result of them sharing terminals. How can you differentiate between the voltage drop across two identical resistors in two identical circuits without it being arbitrary in order ensure that they aren't "the same"? The better definition, in which they share terminals, doesn't require anything arbitrary.
$endgroup$
– gormadoc
Oct 16 at 20:14
$begingroup$
This is a confusing way to look at it, especially for a beginner. In a beginner's mind, I could see easy confusion with your definition that would make R2 seem to be parallel. Yes, the voltage across them is the same and yes, it comes from the same separation of charge, but that's just the result of them sharing terminals. How can you differentiate between the voltage drop across two identical resistors in two identical circuits without it being arbitrary in order ensure that they aren't "the same"? The better definition, in which they share terminals, doesn't require anything arbitrary.
$endgroup$
– gormadoc
Oct 16 at 20:14
1
1
$begingroup$
Another issue is that it doesn't work for non-parallel loads that don't have any voltage drop. In both cases the voltage is exactly the same, both in magnitude and origin. Saying R1's separation of no charge is different from R2's separation of no charge requires a look at their terminals, necessitating the easier definition again.
$endgroup$
– gormadoc
Oct 16 at 20:16
$begingroup$
Another issue is that it doesn't work for non-parallel loads that don't have any voltage drop. In both cases the voltage is exactly the same, both in magnitude and origin. Saying R1's separation of no charge is different from R2's separation of no charge requires a look at their terminals, necessitating the easier definition again.
$endgroup$
– gormadoc
Oct 16 at 20:16
1
1
$begingroup$
Because you delineate between "same" voltage and "equal" voltage in an unnatural manner. To a beginner, they see one voltage source and that it's doing all the work. In my experience with Intro to Circuits students, they don't always see that the voltage across one component is different from another when they are hooked up differently. For a more clear explanation, consider removing R3 and making R1=R2. Now the voltages are the same, exactly V/2. The source is the same. They are still not in parallel.
$endgroup$
– gormadoc
Oct 17 at 17:12
$begingroup$
Because you delineate between "same" voltage and "equal" voltage in an unnatural manner. To a beginner, they see one voltage source and that it's doing all the work. In my experience with Intro to Circuits students, they don't always see that the voltage across one component is different from another when they are hooked up differently. For a more clear explanation, consider removing R3 and making R1=R2. Now the voltages are the same, exactly V/2. The source is the same. They are still not in parallel.
$endgroup$
– gormadoc
Oct 17 at 17:12
|
show 9 more comments
$begingroup$
Yes, because there are two different flows:
- V1 -> R2 -> R1 -> V1
- V1 -> R2 -> R3 -> V1
R2 and the combination (R1, R3) are in series, but R1 and R3 are in parallel.
answered Oct 15 at 14:31
Michel KeijzersMichel Keijzers
10.9k11 gold badges39 silver badges86 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Yes, because there are two different flows:
- V1 -> R2 -> R1 -> V1
- V1 -> R2 -> R3 -> V1
R2 and the combination (R1, R3) are in series, but R1 and R3 are in parallel.
answered Oct 15 at 14:31
Michel KeijzersMichel Keijzers
10.9k11 gold badges39 silver badges86 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Yes, because there are two different flows:
- V1 -> R2 -> R1 -> V1
- V1 -> R2 -> R3 -> V1
R2 and the combination (R1, R3) are in series, but R1 and R3 are in parallel.
answered Oct 15 at 14:31
Michel KeijzersMichel Keijzers
10.9k11 gold badges39 silver badges86 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Yes, because there are two different flows:
- V1 -> R2 -> R1 -> V1
- V1 -> R2 -> R3 -> V1
R2 and the combination (R1, R3) are in series, but R1 and R3 are in parallel.
answered Oct 15 at 14:31
Michel KeijzersMichel Keijzers
10.9k11 gold badges39 silver badges86 bronze badges
answered Oct 15 at 14:31
Michel KeijzersMichel Keijzers
10.9k11 gold badges39 silver badges86 bronze badges
answered Oct 15 at 14:31
Michel KeijzersMichel Keijzers
10.9k11 gold badges39 silver badges86 bronze badges
answered Oct 15 at 14:31
Michel KeijzersMichel Keijzers
10.9k11 gold badges39 silver badges86 bronze badges
10.9k11 gold badges39 silver badges86 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
R1 and R2 have their ends connected to the same nodes.
simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab
Figure 1. Remove R2 and V1 and it becomes very obvious that R1 is in parallel with R3.
answered Oct 15 at 14:35
TransistorTransistor
102k9 gold badges104 silver badges227 bronze badges
$endgroup$
14
$begingroup$
Yes but no, if you remove R2 and V1 it becomes ambiguous. It also looks like R1 and R3 are in series. :)
$endgroup$
– Dampmaskin
Oct 15 at 14:42
2
$begingroup$
How is a drawing with single path suppose to show parallelism, something that requires more than one paths?
$endgroup$
– ikegami
Oct 16 at 5:32
1
$begingroup$
It's easier to see for some people that, but removing the voltage source from a network makes all definitions about serial and parallel meaningless, so it's likely to add more confusion than clarification. Topological transformations (like moving the middle branch to the left) are much more helpful.
$endgroup$
– toolforger
Oct 16 at 7:46
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
R1 and R2 have their ends connected to the same nodes.
simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab
Figure 1. Remove R2 and V1 and it becomes very obvious that R1 is in parallel with R3.
answered Oct 15 at 14:35
TransistorTransistor
102k9 gold badges104 silver badges227 bronze badges
$endgroup$
14
$begingroup$
Yes but no, if you remove R2 and V1 it becomes ambiguous. It also looks like R1 and R3 are in series. :)
$endgroup$
– Dampmaskin
Oct 15 at 14:42
2
$begingroup$
How is a drawing with single path suppose to show parallelism, something that requires more than one paths?
$endgroup$
– ikegami
Oct 16 at 5:32
1
$begingroup$
It's easier to see for some people that, but removing the voltage source from a network makes all definitions about serial and parallel meaningless, so it's likely to add more confusion than clarification. Topological transformations (like moving the middle branch to the left) are much more helpful.
$endgroup$
– toolforger
Oct 16 at 7:46
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
R1 and R2 have their ends connected to the same nodes.
simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab
Figure 1. Remove R2 and V1 and it becomes very obvious that R1 is in parallel with R3.
answered Oct 15 at 14:35
TransistorTransistor
102k9 gold badges104 silver badges227 bronze badges
$endgroup$
R1 and R2 have their ends connected to the same nodes.
simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab
Figure 1. Remove R2 and V1 and it becomes very obvious that R1 is in parallel with R3.
answered Oct 15 at 14:35
TransistorTransistor
102k9 gold badges104 silver badges227 bronze badges
answered Oct 15 at 14:35
TransistorTransistor
102k9 gold badges104 silver badges227 bronze badges
answered Oct 15 at 14:35
TransistorTransistor
102k9 gold badges104 silver badges227 bronze badges
answered Oct 15 at 14:35
TransistorTransistor
102k9 gold badges104 silver badges227 bronze badges
102k9 gold badges104 silver badges227 bronze badges
14
$begingroup$
Yes but no, if you remove R2 and V1 it becomes ambiguous. It also looks like R1 and R3 are in series. :)
$endgroup$
– Dampmaskin
Oct 15 at 14:42
2
$begingroup$
How is a drawing with single path suppose to show parallelism, something that requires more than one paths?
$endgroup$
– ikegami
Oct 16 at 5:32
1
$begingroup$
It's easier to see for some people that, but removing the voltage source from a network makes all definitions about serial and parallel meaningless, so it's likely to add more confusion than clarification. Topological transformations (like moving the middle branch to the left) are much more helpful.
$endgroup$
– toolforger
Oct 16 at 7:46
add a comment
|
14
$begingroup$
Yes but no, if you remove R2 and V1 it becomes ambiguous. It also looks like R1 and R3 are in series. :)
$endgroup$
– Dampmaskin
Oct 15 at 14:42
2
$begingroup$
How is a drawing with single path suppose to show parallelism, something that requires more than one paths?
$endgroup$
– ikegami
Oct 16 at 5:32
1
$begingroup$
It's easier to see for some people that, but removing the voltage source from a network makes all definitions about serial and parallel meaningless, so it's likely to add more confusion than clarification. Topological transformations (like moving the middle branch to the left) are much more helpful.
$endgroup$
– toolforger
Oct 16 at 7:46
14
14
$begingroup$
Yes but no, if you remove R2 and V1 it becomes ambiguous. It also looks like R1 and R3 are in series. :)
$endgroup$
– Dampmaskin
Oct 15 at 14:42
$begingroup$
Yes but no, if you remove R2 and V1 it becomes ambiguous. It also looks like R1 and R3 are in series. :)
$endgroup$
– Dampmaskin
Oct 15 at 14:42
2
2
$begingroup$
How is a drawing with single path suppose to show parallelism, something that requires more than one paths?
$endgroup$
– ikegami
Oct 16 at 5:32
$begingroup$
How is a drawing with single path suppose to show parallelism, something that requires more than one paths?
$endgroup$
– ikegami
Oct 16 at 5:32
1
1
$begingroup$
It's easier to see for some people that, but removing the voltage source from a network makes all definitions about serial and parallel meaningless, so it's likely to add more confusion than clarification. Topological transformations (like moving the middle branch to the left) are much more helpful.
$endgroup$
– toolforger
Oct 16 at 7:46
$begingroup$
It's easier to see for some people that, but removing the voltage source from a network makes all definitions about serial and parallel meaningless, so it's likely to add more confusion than clarification. Topological transformations (like moving the middle branch to the left) are much more helpful.
$endgroup$
– toolforger
Oct 16 at 7:46
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Yes, R1 and R3 are in parallel. Both their ends land at the same places. As a mains electrical guy I'm not supposed to presume wires are zero ohms, but if I do, this becomes a fairly simple matter. Conductance = 1/resistance.
R1 (50.5 ohms) has a conductance of 0.01980198 siemens.
R2 (55.83 ohms) has a conductance of 0.01791152 siemens.
In parallel, conductances simply add. So 0.0377135 siemens.
Stated in resistance, R1/3 is 26.52 ohms.
R1/3 and R2 are in series. In series, resistances simply add. 26.52+1.54 = 28.06 ohms.
This shunts a 10V constant-voltage supply, so we can plug 10V into Ohm's Law and done.
edited Oct 18 at 17:26
Elliot Alderson
13.4k2 gold badges13 silver badges25 bronze badges
answered Oct 17 at 1:41
Harper - Reinstate MonicaHarper - Reinstate Monica
8,44711 silver badges33 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Yes, R1 and R3 are in parallel. Both their ends land at the same places. As a mains electrical guy I'm not supposed to presume wires are zero ohms, but if I do, this becomes a fairly simple matter. Conductance = 1/resistance.
R1 (50.5 ohms) has a conductance of 0.01980198 siemens.
R2 (55.83 ohms) has a conductance of 0.01791152 siemens.
In parallel, conductances simply add. So 0.0377135 siemens.
Stated in resistance, R1/3 is 26.52 ohms.
R1/3 and R2 are in series. In series, resistances simply add. 26.52+1.54 = 28.06 ohms.
This shunts a 10V constant-voltage supply, so we can plug 10V into Ohm's Law and done.
edited Oct 18 at 17:26
Elliot Alderson
13.4k2 gold badges13 silver badges25 bronze badges
answered Oct 17 at 1:41
Harper - Reinstate MonicaHarper - Reinstate Monica
8,44711 silver badges33 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Yes, R1 and R3 are in parallel. Both their ends land at the same places. As a mains electrical guy I'm not supposed to presume wires are zero ohms, but if I do, this becomes a fairly simple matter. Conductance = 1/resistance.
R1 (50.5 ohms) has a conductance of 0.01980198 siemens.
R2 (55.83 ohms) has a conductance of 0.01791152 siemens.
In parallel, conductances simply add. So 0.0377135 siemens.
Stated in resistance, R1/3 is 26.52 ohms.
R1/3 and R2 are in series. In series, resistances simply add. 26.52+1.54 = 28.06 ohms.
This shunts a 10V constant-voltage supply, so we can plug 10V into Ohm's Law and done.
edited Oct 18 at 17:26
Elliot Alderson
13.4k2 gold badges13 silver badges25 bronze badges
answered Oct 17 at 1:41
Harper - Reinstate MonicaHarper - Reinstate Monica
8,44711 silver badges33 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Yes, R1 and R3 are in parallel. Both their ends land at the same places. As a mains electrical guy I'm not supposed to presume wires are zero ohms, but if I do, this becomes a fairly simple matter. Conductance = 1/resistance.
R1 (50.5 ohms) has a conductance of 0.01980198 siemens.
R2 (55.83 ohms) has a conductance of 0.01791152 siemens.
In parallel, conductances simply add. So 0.0377135 siemens.
Stated in resistance, R1/3 is 26.52 ohms.
R1/3 and R2 are in series. In series, resistances simply add. 26.52+1.54 = 28.06 ohms.
This shunts a 10V constant-voltage supply, so we can plug 10V into Ohm's Law and done.
edited Oct 18 at 17:26
Elliot Alderson
13.4k2 gold badges13 silver badges25 bronze badges
answered Oct 17 at 1:41
Harper - Reinstate MonicaHarper - Reinstate Monica
8,44711 silver badges33 bronze badges
edited Oct 18 at 17:26
Elliot Alderson
13.4k2 gold badges13 silver badges25 bronze badges
edited Oct 18 at 17:26
Elliot Alderson
13.4k2 gold badges13 silver badges25 bronze badges
edited Oct 18 at 17:26
Elliot Alderson
13.4k2 gold badges13 silver badges25 bronze badges
13.4k2 gold badges13 silver badges25 bronze badges
answered Oct 17 at 1:41
Harper - Reinstate MonicaHarper - Reinstate Monica
8,44711 silver badges33 bronze badges
answered Oct 17 at 1:41
Harper - Reinstate MonicaHarper - Reinstate Monica
8,44711 silver badges33 bronze badges
answered Oct 17 at 1:41
Harper - Reinstate MonicaHarper - Reinstate Monica
8,44711 silver badges33 bronze badges
8,44711 silver badges33 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
protected by Dave Tweed♦ Oct 18 at 18:55
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
7
$begingroup$
It is common to draw the voltage source on the left hand side. If you draw R1 in the middle and V1 and R2 to the left, it becomes more obvious.
$endgroup$
– Dampmaskin
Oct 15 at 14:50
$begingroup$
Yes they are - their ends are connected to each other
$endgroup$
– Reversed Engineer
Oct 17 at 20:47