SAVE//

Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Sep 26, 2021, 4:13:32 AM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
SAVE// AP's 151st book, Do a Problem Sample of Kirchhoff law on Parallel Circuit

Getting rid of the Counterintuitiveness of Resistance in Parallel Circuit


Alright I am looking for the terms in AP-EM Equations (replacement of the error filled Maxwell Equations), I am looking for the terms that are the two Kirchhoff's laws. And the best way to proceed is a numbers problem. Yet, usually AP finds geometry sample problems to help understand but in this case of Kirchhoff's law and series or parallel circuits, AP finds, it strange that a numbers algebra problem sample would be best to employ.

Parallel Circuit Sample Problem:

Voltage is 120 V
Resistors 3 of them: 10 ohms, 20 ohms, 30 ohms
What is the current in each resistor?
120/10 = 12 A
120/20 = 6 A
120/30 = 4 A

The total current would be 12+6+4 = 22 A

What is the overall Resistance in Old Physics of this parallel circuit?

R= V/i = 120/22 = 5.45 ohms and considerably smaller than any of the three resistors.

So AP has to make clear what is going on here in this counterintuitive physics.

I am going to have to get a Series circuit problem sample to compare with parallel circuit.

Alright, earlier today I gave a example of Parallel Circuit using Kirchhoff law, now I need the contrast with Series Circuit.

Series Circuit Problem Example.

Battery of 12 Volts
Three resistors R_1 = 1 ohm , R_2 = 2 ohm , R_3 = 3 ohm of bulbs
Current in circuit is V/R_summed = 12/6 = 2 A
Current is a constant while voltage and resistance vary. In Parallel circuit the Voltage is constant while current and resistance vary.
Voltage drop across R_1 is V_1 = iR_1 , and so 2 A x 1ohms = 2 V
Voltage drop across R_2 is V_2 = iR_2 , and so 2A x 2ohms= 4 V
Voltage drop across R_3 is V_3 = iR_3 , and so 2A x 3ohms= 6 V

In a series connection you have a Voltage drop across the circuit, whereas in parallel the voltage is a constant.

From H&R, page 677
Kirchhoff's 1st law (Junction Rule) : The sum of the currents entering any junction must be equal to the sum of the currents leaving that junction. (Conservation of electric monopoles)

Kirchhoff's 2nd law (Loop Rule) : The algebraic sum of the changes in potential encountered in a complete traversal of any closed circuit must be zero.. (Conservation of energy)

So why did not the Kirchhoff laws appear in Maxwell Equations? Why are they periphery to the Maxwell Equations in Old Physics? The answer lies in the fact that Old Physics had no magnetic monopole and had their Maxwell Equations based upon modeling, rather than based on the calculus permutations of V= CBE.


Alright, I did algebras of both Parallel and Series circuits hoping to find an escape from the counterintuitive overall resistance in parallel circuit decreases. And I am getting to that resolution. Looking at the algebra of Series, can we find something that is decreasing to match the decrease in resistance for Parallel circuits?

Yes, we see the voltage decreases in each resistor and is called a "voltage drop" in Series, but in Parallel since voltage is a constant, something else decreases, and that something else is resistance.

River Analogy

I know a website gave a Highway with toll booths analogy, but I am trying a river analogy and specifically the Niagra Falls.

So in series water can only flow in one path direction, but in parallel since the closed loops are each individual closed loops, not just one closed loop as in series. The analogy of water flow is that water can flow upstream, up the river. So in series we have a decrease of voltage as the water tumbles down the Falls at Niagra. But in Parallel, the water can flow from the ocean back upstream and meet the waters flowing downstream, meet at Niagra Falls and have a constant Voltage there.
-- finis analogy--

So a resolution of the Counterintuitive is slowly coming out. That in Series we have just one closed loop and hence the Voltage must drop as electricity encounters each resistor. In Parallel, you have 3 closed loops in my examples above and each of the 3 closed loops receives the same amount of Voltage and thus the overall resistance is decreased as the voltage meets each resistor from both sides of the resistor. Whereas in Series, the voltage meets the first resistor on one side but not the other and causing a drop in voltage on the other side of the resistor before it moves on to the next resistor.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Sep 26, 2021, 10:39:42 PM (17 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
AP's 151st book, part 5, TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College

I was speaking to a electrician to see if he could shed some light on how tradesman electrician handle the "Counterintuitive Resistors in Parallel Circuits decrease overall resistance".

He spoke of the idea of "short circuiting a resistor by adding another".

So can this be a viable true explanation?

Can we short circuit a existing resistor by adding another resistor in parallel and thus decreasing overall resistance in the circuit?

Having a look on the Google web, I see websites discussing the concept of "short circuiting a resistor".

So, what is the deal here? Is the best explanation for decreasing overall resistance in a parallel circuit due to short circuiting the resistors by adding more?

AP

Yes, I believe I have found the most excellent way of explaining the DECREASE in overall resistance in Parallel Circuit, an explanation that gets rid of the Counterintuitive result of Old Physics.

And I should have realized this form of questioning early on. You see, people that work around electricity, the electricians, power company employees, tradesmen working everyday in the field have a better handle, the collective sum of these people, than the physics professors sitting around and reading books and writing books that only on one occasion,here or there actually handle live electricity.

So upon asking a former electrician I hear the words "short circuit resistor".

And then things begin to fall in place in my mind as to how best to Get Rid of the Counterintuitive notion of Decrease in Resistance overall in Parallel Circuit.

You cannot explain that decrease from reading college physics professors yakkity yacking, for they never had a lifetime of handling electricity, perhaps only just 4 hours of their life in handling electricity.

So, what happens in Parallel Circuits is that one is "short circuiting the Resistors" and this leads to a decrease in overall resistance.

Now we all know that a Short Circuit in Current is when you make the closed loop smaller, you decrease the length of wire.

And, there is a Short Circuit of Voltage, by simply having the two terminals close together.

So here we have a pathway of getting rid of the Counterintuitive decrease of Resistance in Parallel Circuits.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

måndag 27 september 2021 kl. 22:36:16 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> SAVE//
>
> Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Sep 26, 2021, 4:13:32 AM (yesterday)
> 
> 
> 
> to Plutonium Atom Universe
> SAVE// AP's 151st book, Do a Problem Sample of Kirchhoff law on Parallel Circuit
>
> Getting rid of the Counterintuitiveness of Resistance in Parallel Circuit
> 
>
> Alright I am looking for the terms in AP-EM Equations (replacement of the error filled Maxwell Equations), I am looking for the terms that are the two Kirchhoff's laws. And the best way to proceed is a numbers problem. Yet, usually AP finds geometry sample problems to help understand but in this case of Kirchhoff's law and series or parallel circuits, AP finds, it strange that a numbers algebra problem sample would be best to employ.
>
> Parallel Circuit Sample Problem:
>
> Voltage is 120 V
> Resistors 3 of them: 10 ohms, 20 ohms, 30 ohms
> What is the current in each resistor?
> 120/10 = 12 A
> 120/20 = 6 A
> 120/30 = 4 A
>
> The total current would be 12+6+4 = 22 A
>
> What is the overall Resistance in Old Physics of this parallel circuit?
>
> R= V/i = 120/22 = 5.45 ohms and considerably smaller than any of the three resistors.
>
> So AP has to make clear what is going on here in this counterintuitive physics.
>
> I am going to have to get a Series circuit problem sample to compare with parallel circuit.
>
>
> Alright, earlier today I gave a example of Parallel Circuit using Kirchhoff law, now I need the contrast with Series Circuit.
>
> Series Circuit Problem Example.
>
> Battery of 12 Volts
> Three resistors R_1 = 1 ohm , R_2 = 2 ohm , R_3 = 3 ohm of bulbs
> Current in circuit is V/R_summed = 12/6 = 2 A
> Current is a constant while voltage and resistance vary. In Parallel circuit the Voltage is constant while current and resistance vary.
> Voltage drop across R_1 is V_1 = iR_1 , and so 2 A x 1ohms = 2 V
> Voltage drop across R_2 is V_2 = iR_2 , and so 2A x 2ohms= 4 V
> Voltage drop across R_3 is V_3 = iR_3 , and so 2A x 3ohms= 6 V
>
> In a series connection you have a Voltage drop across the circuit, whereas in parallel the voltage is a constant.
>
> From H&R, page 677
> Kirchhoff's 1st law (Junction Rule) : The sum of the currents entering any junction must be equal to the sum of the currents leaving that junction. (Conservation of electric monopoles)
>
> Kirchhoff's 2nd law (Loop Rule) : The algebraic sum of the changes in potential encountered in a complete traversal of any closed circuit must be zero. (Conservation of energy)
>
> So why did not the Kirchhoff laws appear in Maxwell Equations? Why are they periphery to the Maxwell Equations in Old Physics? The answer lies in the fact that Old Physics had no magnetic monopole and had their Maxwell Equations based upon modeling, rather than based on the calculus permutations of V= CBE.
> 
>
> Alright, I did algebras of both Parallel and Series circuits hoping to find an escape from the counterintuitive overall resistance in parallel circuit decreases. And I am getting to that resolution. Looking at the algebra of Series, can we find something that is decreasing to match the decrease in resistance for Parallel circuits?
>
> Yes, we see the voltage decreases in each resistor and is called a "voltage drop" in Series, but in Parallel since voltage is a constant, something else decreases, and that something else is resistance.
>
> River Analogy
>
> I know a website gave a Highway with toll booths analogy, but I am trying a river analogy and specifically the Niagra Falls.
>
> So in series water can only flow in one path direction, but in parallel since the closed loops are each individual closed loops, not just one closed loop as in series. The analogy of water flow is that water can flow upstream, up the river. So in series we have a decrease of voltage as the water tumbles down the Falls at Niagra. But in Parallel, the water can flow from the ocean back upstream and meet the waters flowing downstream, meet at Niagra Falls and have a constant Voltage there.
> -- finis analogy--
>
> So a resolution of the Counterintuitive is slowly coming out. That in Series we have just one closed loop and hence the Voltage must drop as electricity encounters each resistor. In Parallel, you have 3 closed loops in my examples above and each of the 3 closed loops receives the same amount of Voltage and thus the overall resistance is decreased as the voltage meets each resistor from both sides of the resistor. Whereas in Series, the voltage meets the first resistor on one side but not the other and causing a drop in voltage on the other side of the resistor before it moves on to the next resistor.
>
> AP
> Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Sep 26, 2021, 10:39:42 PM (17 hours ago)
> 
> 
> 
> to Plutonium Atom Universe
> AP's 151st book, part 5, TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College
>
> I was speaking to a electrician to see if he could shed some light on how tradesman electrician handle the "Counterintuitive Resistors in Parallel Circuits decrease overall resistance".
>
> He spoke of the idea of "short circuiting a resistor by adding another".
>
> So can this be a viable true explanation?
>
> Can we short circuit a existing resistor by adding another resistor in parallel and thus decreasing overall resistance in the circuit?
>
> Having a look on the Google web, I see websites discussing the concept of "short circuiting a resistor".
>
> So, what is the deal here? Is the best explanation for decreasing overall resistance in a parallel circuit due to short circuiting the resistors by adding more?
>
> AP
>
> Yes, I believe I have found the most excellent way of explaining the DECREASE in overall resistance in Parallel Circuit, an explanation that gets rid of the Counterintuitive result of Old Physics.
>
> And I should have realized this form of questioning early on. You see, people that work around electricity, the electricians, power company employees, tradesmen working everyday in the field have a better handle, the collective sum of these people, than the physics professors sitting around and reading books and writing books that only on one occasion,here or there actually handle live electricity.
>
> So upon asking a former electrician I hear the words "short circuit resistor".
>
> And then things begin to fall in place in my mind as to how best to Get Rid of the Counterintuitive notion of Decrease in Resistance overall in Parallel Circuit.
>
> You cannot explain that decrease from reading college physics professors yakkity yacking, for they never had a lifetime of handling electricity, perhaps only just 4 hours of their life in handling electricity.
>
> So, what happens in Parallel Circuits is that one is "short circuiting the Resistors" and this leads to a decrease in overall resistance.
>
> Now we all know that a Short Circuit in Current is when you make the closed loop smaller, you decrease the length of wire.
>
> And, there is a Short Circuit of Voltage, by simply having the two terminals close together.
>
> So here we have a pathway of getting rid of the Counterintuitive decrease of Resistance in Parallel Circuits.
>
> AP
> King of Science, especially Physics

What's up with your new habit of responding to almost 30 year old threads?