At school we have been learning the rules for equivalent resistance in series and parallel (which I covered at least two years ago, so I'm bored) and I asked my teacher about the circuit shown, which cannot be decomposed into a collection of series and parallel circuits.

I spent most of a lesson just bashing it with algebra, and in the end I found a three-line fraction for \(R_{eq}\) in terms of \(R_{1}\), \(R_{2}\), \(R_{3}\), \(R_{4}\) and \(R_{5}\).

So I was wondering: is there a nice method?

No vote yet

1 vote

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...

Easy Math Editor

`*italics*`

or`_italics_`

italics`**bold**`

or`__bold__`

boldNote: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctlyparagraph 1

paragraph 2

`[example link](https://brilliant.org)`

`> This is a quote`

Remember to wrap math in \( ... \) or \[ ... \] to ensure proper formatting.`2 \times 3`

`2^{34}`

`a_{i-1}`

`\frac{2}{3}`

`\sqrt{2}`

`\sum_{i=1}^3`

`\sin \theta`

`\boxed{123}`

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewestI think delta - star method can help .

Log in to reply

Can you give me an explanation/link to an explanation? Thanks

Log in to reply

@Sophie Crane It's trivial using Y-\(\Delta\) transformation. Just apply this on any of the ends of \(\text{R}_{5}\).

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

If u use loop rule instead of junction rule, the expression would have been simpler. For making it even simpler u can assume the circuit to be connected across a

good emf(I mean u can take different emfs if values of the resistances are known)Log in to reply

I used both. The emf is an arbitrary value. All resistances are unknown, and are to be treated as algebraic variables. I am trying to find a general expression for the equivalent resistance in terms of these variables.

Log in to reply

That would be a

very big formulaLog in to reply

Log in to reply

But u can still assume any value for emf as that wouldn't change the equivalent resistance.

Log in to reply

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the outline of a Wheatstone bridge? If \(\dfrac{R_2}{R_4}=\dfrac{R_1}{R_3}\), then the equivalent can be easily calculated since the resistance \(R_5\) will be ineffective. Is that condition given, or the variables \(R_1,R_2,R_3,R_4,R_5\) can have any positive real value?

Log in to reply

You are correct on every count. The condition is that the resistors can take on any positive real value.

Log in to reply

I got a fraction of 8 terms over 4 terms

Log in to reply

Did you use delta-wye or something else?

Log in to reply