At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
uploading pic in a moment
im confused do you want like a paragraph on junctions branches and loops?
I'd like to know the exact difference between junctions, branches and loops reflecting on the diagram uploaded.
if that's not too much to ask
alright give me a second watching a video on it
I can hear kirchoof's theory in the background
Yeah you bet it's based on Kirchoff's theory
Those terms are not often used so I am a little confused on my stance .
god damn it this would be easier about 2 years ago for me before i joined the army lol
They are basically the same as graph theory in mathematics. You need to redraw the diagram in familiar terms
start with the battery. Junctions are indicated by dots
This is quite a complex concept
what makes this complicated is that there is not one circuit, but two parts to this circuit
Exactly. This is not "according to the textbook" problem you need to improvise with certain degree of flexibility.
Lets redraw the circuit then
Seems to take a lot of time indeed.
Look at that all you have done is moved pellet!
Haha, openstudy converted the word S**T to pellet how interesting!
Now, as I am sure mate you are aware what you have is a parralel cct
Yes but how's that gonna help us?
|dw:1439458488882:dw| ~how many junctions here? i.e. that divide the current?
cool so , now that we have rearranged your diagram, how many junctions do you think there are (i.e where the current flows in separate routes)?
I think the same all 3
Thanks so much! What about the loops and the branches? They are kind of complicated
eliminate c, A F and G from the diagram, they are only there to confuse, that is what makes it a problem
Now you have rather a simple parallel circuit
the only problem is that bottom line! in particular that resistor between the two batteries. One solution is Combine the batteries into one battery, and let the resistor in the middle be a series resistor
So what's your final take on this?
redrawing this cct you now have: |dw:1439459727008:dw|
Looks like the major thing seems to be BH
Therefore B and H seem to be the ones so called "branches"?
It's amazing how Physics scientize words from our daily speechXD
It's actually Physics adopting our conversational English as being scientific
here is my final analysis: there are 2 loops between AB and AD. There are 3 branches (where current goes) B to A B to C and B to D. I can only see two loops for the current ( between the batteries) from 10V battery to 10V battery and from 80V battery to 80V battery.
This is totally cool my friend. reverse engineeringXD
I wish physics brings us more practicality like wormhole and time travelXD
Juntions? this is where the current splits off, again kirchoff's theory reduces this, as I have. I would say there is only one junction (B) which splits the current
lot of guys her very good at theoretical maths, unfortunately they not very good at applications
True. They like mental stimulation without being practical
you know that's a classy self cerebral stimulation right XD
I guess I am one of them( I mean I corrected my physics lecturer who said that a capacitor was charged in 2/3 of the time--> I showed mathematically it was never charged), so cant really say anything bad about them
Physics is contaminated with intuitive reasoning and lack of mathematical justifications.
Physicists in general are lackadaisical about numerical computations and they rely mostly on fully comprehensible concepts which are the foundations of our reasoning. If you know what I mean..
ah, we need intuition as well
Sad fact is physicists estimate from intuition too much. However I do believe physics is the fundamental science that aids us in understanding as well as becoming logical of our self. Too many people reason terribly due to naivety in fundamental logics. I mean you see those people everywhere making absurd claims of how an ideal person should be without knowing all the philosophical as well as physical concepts behind them. They say experience automatically makes one wise but that's a big no no. Understanding of physics and maths makes him wise and not the sole activity of existing without much mental venture.
I personally believe education should be catered to physics and less on tireless root memorization which relies of obsessive tendency of people to actually repeat them over and over without being conscious of the methodical learning.
If you understand physics everything else (being able to read/write/articulate/reason/justify/argue/) secondary because the nature of this subject necessitates them.
Take for example when we do physics our attention is applied to the profoundly complex thought which necessitates automatization of other foundational academic skills whose process of mastery is wasted over years after years when in fact understanding of physics fixes all these problems in light speed. Education other than math/physics is a mere means to demonstrate your stupidity in the studies of public service.