GR0177 #85



Alternate Solutions 
BerkeleyEric 20101003 11:38:34  Since the resistance is directly proportional to the length and inversely proportional to the area, we know that the longer wire is four times as resistant as the shorter one. This means that the voltage drop is four times as much for the longer wire, so it is . Subtracting this from 8.0 V gives the answer, (A).   BerkeleyEric 20101003 11:38:02  Since the resistance is directly proportional to the length and inversely proportional to the area, we know that the longer wire is four times as resistant as the shorter one. This means that the voltage drop is four times as much for the longer wire, so it is . Subtracting this from 8.0 V gives the answer, (A).   94709 20071029 23:04:05  You can calculate current although one doesn't have to. This is just a voltage divider.
, , Volts.
Therefore,
Since the base is V, the potential at the dividing segment is 2.4V.  

Comments 
Dudeleb 20161027 15:16:34  here is a fun little rhyme to help you remember the resistance of a wire. Resistance = RHO RHO RHO YOUR BOAT L OVER A! RESISTANCE RESISTANCE RESISTANCE LIFE IS BUT A DREAM (of an electron traveling down some conducting material). The rest is math. Plug and chug. Like a beer. Am I RIGHT!? Ah man. This test is making me crazy. Cheers all.   ChildAtPlay 20120416 04:14:14  R = rho * L / A. Rho is the same for both wires.
Setting L = 1, A = 1:
Wire 1: R1 = 2L/A = 2
Wire 2: R2 = L/2A = 1/2
Rtotal = R1 + R2 = 2.5.
deltaV for wire 2 is R2/Rtotal = 0.5/2.5 = 0.2.
The voltage drop across wire 2 is 20% of the total voltage drop (Kirchoff).
Voltage @ junction = 1V + 0.2 * (8V7V) = 1V + 1.4V = 2.4V.
  BerkeleyEric 20101003 11:38:34  Since the resistance is directly proportional to the length and inversely proportional to the area, we know that the longer wire is four times as resistant as the shorter one. This means that the voltage drop is four times as much for the longer wire, so it is . Subtracting this from 8.0 V gives the answer, (A).   BerkeleyEric 20101003 11:38:02  Since the resistance is directly proportional to the length and inversely proportional to the area, we know that the longer wire is four times as resistant as the shorter one. This means that the voltage drop is four times as much for the longer wire, so it is . Subtracting this from 8.0 V gives the answer, (A).   grae313 20071101 10:17:36  Alternately, (and this is essentially equivalent 94709's solution, but involves simpler calculations, IMO), once you have the two resistances for the two wires, you can realize that which means that the ratio of the voltage drops in each wire segment has to be 1:4, or:
and also
easy math to arrive at the answer.
grae313 20071101 10:17:59 
ack, I meant to classify this as an alternate solution

  94709 20071029 23:04:05  You can calculate current although one doesn't have to. This is just a voltage divider.
, , Volts.
Therefore,
Since the base is V, the potential at the dividing segment is 2.4V.
94709 20071029 23:14:15 
eh, you might not be checking this site any more, but thanks a lot, yosun.

  keflavich 20051110 22:38:30  There are a few typos here. , you left out the 5. That 0 at the end should be a ')'.
But also... where does the 1 come from in ?
yosun 20051110 22:49:04 
keflavich: thanks for the typo alert; the typo has been corrected.
the 1 comes from the fact that the potential at the end of the fatter wire is 1V, and thus the voltage across the junction is just the voltage at the end of the fat wire plus the current times the resistance of the fatter wire. (i tend to leave off the units to avoid confusion with variables)

Richard 20071029 10:07:52 
A perhaps conceptually easier approach would be to simply find the potential difference across the first wire, and then subtract it from the potential at the end of the thin wire. In my view, this is consistent with how you went about finding the current...

jmason86 20090709 23:54:25 
Alternatively, you could have done yielding the same value for I, but negative.
Then following along Yosun's line (where he implied ), we now have instead, where I is now negative. Plug in to get
I was kind of confused by the above response that Yosun gave using the fatter wire for everything... so I decided to try flipping it around to make sure it still works... and it does :)
Cheers

 

Post A Comment! 

Bare Basic LaTeX Rosetta Stone

LaTeX syntax supported through dollar sign wrappers $, ex., $\alpha^2_0$ produces .

type this... 
to get... 
$\int_0^\infty$ 

$\partial$ 

$\Rightarrow$ 

$\ddot{x},\dot{x}$ 

$\sqrt{z}$ 

$\langle my \rangle$ 

$\left( abacadabra \right)_{me}$ 

$\vec{E}$ 

$\frac{a}{b}$ 





The Sidebar Chatbox...
Scroll to see it, or resize your browser to ignore it... 

