Talk:Series and parallel circuits

Early discussion

If you want, add the pictures I will be putting under resistor, capacitor, and inductor. - Omegatron 17:26, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

That would be nice theresa knott 23:03, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

but of course - Omegatron

First time contributer. Just thought I'd fix what I think was just a simple error in arithmetic. The formula for the total current in a parallel circuit was given as I_total = V/(R₁ + R₂ + ... + R_n). It should be I = V * (1/R₁ + 1/R₂ + ... 1/R_n) since I_total = I₁ + I₂ ... = V/R₁ + V/R₂ ... = V * (1/R₁ + 1/R₂ ...). If I'm wrong (I'm not a science major, so I might be), disregard this, revert the article, and chastise me. -- Anon

Thanks to the newbie for that. I was the one who made the slip up back in july, and despite a whole host of edits since then no one else spotted it. So good work! theresa knott 10:15, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

yeah, thanks. should we make all of the equations TeX? - Omegatron 14:40, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Done. - Omegatron 03:51, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Personaly, I think both are the different ways of writing the same thing - Oatzy

Could do with a redirect from the parallel disambiguation page.

It may be worth pointing out, for those not as good at math, that for 3 resistors in parallel, the notation is not (R₁R₂R₃)/(R₁+R₂+R₃) but in fact (R₁R₂R₃)/((R₁R₂)+(R₁R₃)+(R₂R₃)) Just a thought (yes it did catch me out for a short time) 8) - Oatzy

Power ratings

Should we cover the way power ratings work with multiple components? — Omegatron 06:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Split the article?

I suggest a split between Parallel (electronics) and Series (electronics). This article openly acknowledges the presence of two distinct topics by using 'and' in the title, and goes on to talk about them in two disjoint sections. --Smack (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not. — Omegatron 20:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Any reason? --Smack (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Why would they be split? They're inherently related. Two sides of the same coin. — Omegatron 21:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Not any more than parallel (geometry) and perpendicular, summer and winter, white and black. Their effects and uses are very different, and their elegant symmetry does not justify lumping them together in a single article. --Smack (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think they are inherently more related than your examples. Let's see what other people think. — Omegatron 05:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think splitting is necessary. Black and White are both sides of the same coin too, but they have individual meanings and interpretations. That's not true of cricuits like these. Broken S 06:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd support a split, although I would choose the titles 'series circuit' and 'parallel circuit'. My main reason is practical: long articles tend to deter reading and editing, and splitting them tends to encourage people to expand the new, shorter articles.

Another way of looking at it this: ignoring the title, what is the content of the article? In this case, it is mainly two large sections called 'series circuits' (3 screens' worth) and 'parallel circuits' (3½ screens), with very little common content (1 screen, not including the TOC). We could still have an overview of how the two concepts are linked in an article such as circuit theory, or we could even keep the intro of the present article and just split off the two subsections. --Heron 12:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I have an informal rule that I use to judge cases like this. Every article must be featureable. I don't think there is enough content to feature one them by themselves. Broken S 13:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This article may have enough content to be featured, but it suffers from an awkward, concatenated structure.

Also, let's not get tunnel vision here. This article deals with only two of the many possible interconnections, and only three of the many different kinds of components. Even among the restricted world of two-terminal components, to the exclusion of more complex things like transistors and amplifiers, it neglects switches and diodes, and also disregards the general complex impedance. The elegant symmetry between resistors, capacitors and inductors does demand an explanation, but nobody past high school should get hung up on it. --Smack (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The article has to be accessible to everyone (including students). Here's my challenge. Write content that belongs to just series or just parallel circuits, if it gets long enough then we'll have to split the article. Until then, let's leave them as one article. Broken S 23:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the fact that the article is broken up into two sections, we could just as easily split it up into three sections; one for each type of component, with parallel and series sub-headings. Should we then break it up and put the content in each component article? (Hint: it's already there.)

These are inherently related, and need to be on the same page so you can compare. The series equations for capacitors are the same as the parallel equations for inductors. You wouldn't see that as clearly if we left the equations only on the individual pages. — Omegatron 16:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you should add seperate or better definations for the series and parallel circuits. They are hard to seperate in the opening paragraph. Just a breif mention how series circuit is set up so that the electricty flows through each device in turn, while parallel circuits current passes through more than one pathway simultaneously. It just isnt that clear in the paragraph. --Ajihood

These articles should be split. Similarly "text and binary files" was once a single article that looked a lot like this one -- a short introduction and then two large sections on the two topics, because the original author thought of them together. Just because you think of series and parallel circuits together, and learned about them together, it doesn't mean that each cannot be explained in the absence of the other (and this article already shows that is possible). —Pengo 06:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to add a bit more theory/what actually happens in regards to current in these articles?

It would help a lot.

The article does say that in series circuits the current is the same in each element, and in parallel circuits the current in each element is the common voltage divided by the impedance of the element. Can you be more specific about what you need to know? --Heron 20:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

History of terms "Series" and "Parallel" for circuits

In another Wiki article (Battery) there is mention of Franklin using capacitors in series and in parallel in the 18th century, which seems unlikely. In the 1820s and 1830s there was a lot of confusion over series vs parallel, with some denying the truth of Ohm's Law. So who introduced these terms to the electrical field? Clearly they were not in use when Henry spoke of "intensity" and "quantity" circuits meaning series and parallel in the 1830's. A little historical section might be appropriate.Edison 18:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Lead image

I’ve made an SVG version of the lead image. Well, I was going to, anyway; this is up with what I ended (click for large version):

I intend to put it in the lead section instead of the current image. Comments? Also, can somebody please check the numbers? It has been a while since I did anything of this kind. —xyzzy_n 16:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Total resistance or equivalent resistance

Should we use the term "equivalent resistance", "total resistance", or both? They both mean the same thing in a sense, but I think equivalent resistance is better, and all the books I see use equivalent resistance. —METS501 (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer "equivalent resistance". Occasionally I'll hear "total" in conversation, but in writing I've usually seen it as "equivalent". Carlsotr (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Change of varriable

I am not into electrical engineering, but I was wondering about the following:

for components in series with resistances R₁, R₂, etc. To find the current I use Ohm's law:

The first time I read that, it seemed that the author had gone into first person, even though I quickly noticed that I was a variable. Is I a symbolic variable, or can it be replaced with something else? ffm ✎talk 21:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it can't really be replaced. I is the standard universally-accepted abbreviation for current. I didn't think of it that way, but I can see where your confusion comes from. :-) —METS501 (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Italicizing it is fine. — Omegatron 13:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Compare:

• To find the current, I use Ohm's law.
• To find the current I, use Ohm's law.

Ah, grammar.  :-) — Omegatron 14:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)