/sci/ - Science & Math

> If so, does the voltage-supply deliver effect to the current-supply, or vice versa?

Yes.

>>2021565

Elaborate please.

Are you sure these numbers are correct?

>>2021571

Yes it does.

SPOILER ALERT

There is 20V across the 20V voltage supply. There are 1A flowing through the 20V supply, the 1A supply, and the 9R resistor. Each of the 2R resistors in parallel have 0.5V flowing through them.

Voltage across each of the resistors can be determined through V=IR

Voltage across the current source can be determined through kirchoff's voltage law (voltage around any loop must sum to 0)

>>2021623

so, you're saying it's invalid?

since, the algebraic sum of voltages around the loop does not equal 0?

>>2021636
No, it is valid. He just hints the way to resolve the voltages and the currents.

>>2021641

how the FUCK is it valid???

am i getting trolled?

>>2021560
>>2021560
No,

Resistance is (1/2+1/2)^-1 + 9 = 10Ohms
Volatge is 20
Current is 1A

V=IR is violated, this circuit will not work

>>2021648
-10v being supplied by the current supply

>>2021657
fucking retard. There's a voltage difference over the current supply.

>>2021661

Where do you get that from?

>>2021677
Combine the resistors to get 10, current source means 10v drop over resistors. KVL to find -10v as the current source voltage.

>>2021689

i don't get this at all. the 20v over the 10 ohm would mean 2 ampere is flowing through the voltage source and the current source.

but the current source says 1.

there is no voltage across the current source

>>2021698
There is a voltage over the current source. It is whatever it takes to force 1a through the rest of the circuit.

>>2021698
There's a +20V over the voltage source. Set the bottom of the V-source to zero, and the top to 20V. The resistors are 10Ohms and have 1 amp flowing through. Therefore they have a 10V drop. So the voltage is 10V at the bottom of the resistors. That makes a 10V drop over the current source.

>>2021705

i disagree. there is no voltage across an ideal current source.

>>2021718
Dude thats an ameter not a current source.

FFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

this fucking question made me get a B instead of an A :@

>>2021718
That doesn't even make sense. If there's no voltage across the terminals, then there's no voltage across the rest of the circuit, and current isn't flowing.

>itt dumbasses who will fail circuits 1

>>2021746
If there's no voltage across it it means there is no resistance in the ammeter. If theres no resistance there shouldn't be any drop in voltage across it

>>2021772
It's not an ameter it's a current source.

>>2021772
that's supposed to be an ammeter? Looks like a current source to me.

EE here
this thread is terrible

>>2021793
Another ee here. Lets get some transistors up in this bitch.

>>2021718
That makes no sense whatsoever. How can it produce current without voltage?

>>2021793
EE here. This thread is hillarious.

>>2021847
I think we're being trolled.

>>2021793
>>2021882

who the hell is 'EE'?

>>2021811

Fuck yeah, Field Effect!

>>2021888
electrical engineer

no need to get a sandy vagina

>>2021909
Please ignore tripfags. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

(⓪, 2Ω, ①), (⓪, 2Ω, ①), (①, 9Ω, ②), (②, →1A→, ③), (③, - 20V +, ⓪)

(⓪, 2Ω, ①) + (⓪, 2Ω, ①) = (⓪, 1Ω, ①)
(⓪, 1Ω, ①) + (①, 9Ω, ②) = (⓪, 10Ω, ②)
(⓪, 10Ω, ②) + (②, →1A→, ③) = (⓪, + 10V -, ③)
(⓪, + 10V -, ③) + (③, - 20V +, ⓪) = (⓪, + 30V -, ⓪)
(⓪, + 30V -, ⓪) ≠ (⓪, 0V, ⓪) so circuit is invalid.

>>2021909
Electrical Kengineer standing by ;)

>>2021914
no
There is 1 amp flowing through the circuit. We know this because the little current source says 1 amp. 1 amp through 10 ohms is 10 volts. The voltage supply gives 20 volts, therefore the remaining voltage across the terminals of the current source is 10 volts, of the same polarity as the voltage over the resistors.

The end.

Wait, so what is the answer??

Can you please agree?

valid/invalid?

I was an EE once. They turned me into an SE at work.
My entire SE team is EEs ;_;

>>2021929
Everyone who isn't retarded agrees: valid.

>>2021916
EK? are you homosexual?

>>2021925
There is indeed 1 Amp flowing through the circuit between ① to ②, ② to ③, and ③ to ⓪. At ⓪ to ①, the Amperage splits evenly along both paths, making two ⓪ to ① routes that each have 0.5Amps. Adding the resistances to combine them gives us a 10Ohm resistor, and pushing 1Amp through it gives us 10V. This puts the two paths from ⓪ to ③ at different voltages, which is not allowed.

That voltage source is pretty much irrelevant. It changes the voltage across the current source by 20V, but otherwise has no effect on the circuit since the voltage across the current source can be anything. Because they're in series, the currents through them have to be equal, and it's the current source that affects the rest of the circuit. If they were parallel, the behavior of the rest of the circuit would be determined by the voltage source.

So obviously, voltage across the 2-ohm and 9-ohm resistors is 1 and 9 volts, respectively, and the voltage across the current source is also 10 volts, but in the direction opposite what it would be if the voltage source wasn't there.

>>2021963
Whats the current voltage parameters of a troll source?

>>2021962
>nope.jpg

I think it works if the 1A supply delivers -10V. Amrite?

>>2021955
nope, straight.

>>2021986
Yes, exactly. Assuming there is no voltage across a current source is as dumb as assuming there is no current through a voltage source.

People who question the validity of this circuit should also refuse to solve problems involving massless springs, frictionless ramps and perfect circles.

elements parects

Hmmm

OP here, im starting to agree with all the valid-fags

>>2022009
Why would there be a doubt in your mind? I current source cannot produce a current without also producing a voltage.

Pic is a real current source I have used to protect LEDs against overcurrent. Note that there is a voltage across it.

>>2022035
Not that a real current source includes a resistor which has a voltage across it, making it different from an ideal current source whose symbol is a circle with an arrow in it, and which has no resistance and therefore no voltage across it.

>>2022058
Note that my current source does not have a resistor, only a transistor. Ideal current sources also have a voltage across them.

Check the pic. With a single resistor and single current source, the current source must have a voltage across it. Or are you dumb enough to argue that this incredibly simple circuit is invalid?

>>2022058
BUT THAT'S FUCKING WRONG

If a 1 amp ideal current source is driving a 1 ohm load, then the current source has a 1 volt voltage difference across it. Can we stop being retarded now please?

This is /sci/. In addition to bullshitting each other back and forth, we also do experiments.
Experiments like this one.
It works, dumbasses.

>>2022058
You've failed your classes, I hope.

> In circuit theory, an ideal current source is a circuit element where the current through it is independent of the voltage across it.

>>2022147
>calling a simulation an experiment

>>2022183
>implying simulations aren't experiments

>>2022194
They are not; they are theoretical calculations. The simulator doesn't tell you anything that hasn't already been said in this thread.
Learn what an experiment is, or GTFO /sci/.

>>2022212
>implying the laws governing circuits aren't well-understood by the makers of the simulators.
>implying simulations aren't experiments.

The resistors combined are equivalent to a 10ohm resistor.

1 amp flowing through the circuit.
This gives 10 volts drop across the resistor.
Thus, we have 10 volts drop across the current source.

Valid as the current source provides current of 1 mp regardless of the potential difference across it.

>>2022222
No one is saying the simulation is wrong. But if you think it's an experiment, you need to get off the computer and invest in a solderless breadboard so you can learn what reality looks like.

>>2022271
I have breadboards. Simulations are a type of experiment too, fag.

>>2022293
Yes, they tell you what the simulation writer would have thought the answer was if he had bothered to calculate it. In addition to their role as a design tool, figuring out what already-established science says about a design, they can also be operated in science mode, where you use them to discover the laws the programmer programmed in. The latter is very useful when we don't care about the laws of nature, but only what people think those laws are.