Talk:Current divider

message: Can someone change the current divider law picture. The law is Rx_current_unknown = Itotal_x(R_total/Rx) the picture has an extra R total at the bottom of the denominator  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.120.189 (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A merge to Ohm's Law would seem more appropriate. Note that merge means summarise in the other article, not just redirect. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Gee, really?  And how do you think the current divider (and potential divider come to that) equations are derived?  Please note: I do have some minor understanding of this, my (B.Eng) degree is in electrical engineering and I learned Ohm's law on my father's knee, since he was an electrical engineering teacher at a college :-) I'd say that at the very least Voltage divider and Current divider should be merged and actually I'd put both in Ohm's law since the three articles are inextricably linked. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It is true that the CDR and VDR and Ohms law are the very basics of electrical enginering. however i disagree with you comments that they should be merged into the ohms law.
Current Divider and Voltage Divider do use ohms law and are a pratical application of it. however they are seperate elements and most textbooks i read have them divided up into different sections as well.
08:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The rules 

message: There seems to be another way of using the current divider rule. The formula is slightly different. I suggest adding this to the article as well if this method is correct. Here's the link to the site:
http://www.wisc-online.com/objects/index_tj.asp?objID=DCE3502
--Pavithran 08:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, it looks the same. Only difference might be that they define RT = R1 + R2. -Roger (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: While the answer is the same, I think that the algebraic idea of using RT = (the total resistance of the "parallel network") pedagogically makes more sense for people learning how to solve circuits. If we use a property of parallel circuits, that the voltage across each component is the same: VT = V1, and then apply Ohm's law for finding voltage from resistance and current, then IT*RT = I1*R1. From this stage, solving for the current is significantly more simple, I1 = RT/R1*IT . This solution was inspired by my Circuits I professor's lecture. ~(Can't sign for security reasons, the IP Address is at Rochester Institute of Technology).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.69.191 (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative Method? 

message: Since current division is the dual of voltage division, I propose we rename this article for consistency. Plus I don't think I've ever heard the term "current divider rule". People usually just say "current divider". -Roger (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the added word "rule" for both current and voltage cases departs from standard usage. It should be dropped in both cases. Brews ohare (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In addition, the voltage divider article is more complete and should be made a model for this page as well.Brews ohare (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have rewritten the intro, made some corrections, and redirected this page to avoid the term rule. Brews ohare (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article should be renamed for consistency 

message: Can someone please double check I was correct in making my last edit? I changed RTotal to RX  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:880:C100:69D0:C414:6EEF:8F2A:646A (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. I just double checked the simple derivation from Ix Rx = (IT - Ix) RT. digital_me (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RTotal -> RX 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Current divider. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070227223015/http://utwired.engr.utexas.edu/rgd1/lesson05.cfm to http://utwired.engr.utexas.edu/rgd1/lesson05.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi! A friend of mine has pointed out to me that maybe I_X = \frac{Z_T} {Z_X}I_T \  should be edited in I_X = \frac{Z_T} {Z_X+Z_T}I_T \ , and I_X = \frac{R_T}{R_{X} }I_T \  in I_X = \frac{R_T}{R_{X}+R_T}I_T \ , and the sentence "where ZT refers to the equivalent impedance of the entire circuit" is probably wrong. Could someone have a look? Thank you, --Epìdosis 10:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible error