Talk:Series and parallel circuits

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title: History of terms "Series" and "Parallel" for circuits

message: 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. —xyzzyn 16:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Total resistance or equivalent resistance 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Italicizing it is fine. — Omegatron 13:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of varriable 

message: An important concept in constructing battery packs is the differences in assembling battery cells in series vs parallel to make larger battery packs. In series voltage adds and capacities must be the same. In parallel the capacity adds and the voltage stays the same. I was surprised to see battery circuits omitted.
--Tmenet (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battery Circuits are missing 

message: Series ciruit is an electric circuit in which the components are arranged one after the other in series
-Only 1 path along which the electrons can flow
-If the pathway is interrupted, the whole circuit cannot function
-Amount of current is the same in all parts of the circuit. (resistors will increase the total resisitance and decrease the current. e.g. adding and extra bulb to a series string of lights makes the lights dimmer.)
-Electrons use up all their potential difference going around the circuit, no matter how many loads are in a circuit.  E.g. electrons that leave a 12V battery will lose all 12 V before they return to the + end of the battery.  Each load will use part of the total potential difference, depending on how much it resists the flow of electrons. 
A parallel circuit is an electric circuit in which the parts are arranged so that electrons can flow along more than one path
Junction points-points where the circuit divides into different paths or where paths combine.
Taken from: Pearson, Investigating Science 9, Pearson Canada Inc., 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyehaveyou (talk • contribs) 22:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an incorrect definition of parallel.  I have never had a very high opinion of Pearson training and that just confirms it. SpinningSpark 23:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series and Parallel Circuits 

message: Can 02 Bulbs of variable wattage be connected in a series connection?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taklujoy (talk • contribs) 12:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Light bulbs can be connected in series, including bulbs of different rated power (aka wattage), but the results are likely to be disappointing!  However, bulbs are rarely connected in series because of difficulties with potential difference (aka voltage).  For example, if two bulbs are series-connected to a supply of 120 Volts, the bulbs need to be rated for 60 Volts each (otherwise they won't produce rated power) and such bulbs probably aren't readily available.  If one of the bulbs is required to produce 100 Watts and the other 60 Watts, the first needs to be rated for 75 Volts and the other for 45 Volts.  Such bulbs are, almost certainly, not available so you might series-connect one bulb rated at 100 Watts and one rated at 60 Watt, but they won't produce 100 and 60 Watts respectively because they are not supplied with the appropriate voltage.  There is a perfect solution - connect them in parallel! Dolphin (t) 12:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulbs in a series connection 

message: I don't think that infinite grids belong in this simple article on series and parallel circuits.  There are many networks that go beyond straightforward series and parallel long before infinity is reached.  The material should be moved somewhere more suitable.  I have several other problems with the contribution.  The cited reference does not contain the formula given.  I fail to understand the utility of the accompanying diagram; it does not convey anything useful and completely fails to demonstrate that the discussion is limited to two-dimensional grids (unlike the source paper which goes beyond three-dimensional grids to discuss hyper-grids).  It is also divorced from any practical application so examples cannot be described to help.  The problems where this sort of thing are needed (in geophysics and bulk resistivity of materials measurements) require a three-dimensional model, continuous resistivity (not lumped) and a boundary surface. SpinningSpark 15:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As there have been no comments for three weeks I have gone ahead and removed it. SpinningSpark 06:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infinite grid 

message: There's some weird spacing problem - loads of extra whitespace everywhere, where someone's put additional spaces in the middle of sentences. I copied the text out, fixed the spaces, and copied it back - I don't think anything's broken while copying back and forth, but if you see anything please fix. Anyone know where the spaces came from? --129.234.252.67 (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spacing 

message: The opening text includes a series circuit image, but nothing showing a parallel circuit. 72.48.211.133 (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacks picture of parallel circuit 

message: It will be useful if encyclopedia explains this query.I have provided some info on it.I hope it will be useful.
Consider the circuit of series consisting of two resistors,where R1>R2. I meant to say that resistance offered by the resistor 1 is greater than the resistance offered by the resistor 2. Keep t constant i,e calculate the charge transferred through each resistor over the time t. All the way it means that charge transferred through the resistor 1 (Q1) is slightly(go through NOTE part) less than charge transferred through the resistor 2 (Q2) over the same time t.Because,resistor 1 offers high resistance than resistor 2,amount of charge flowed through resistor 1 will be less than the amount of charge flowed through resistor 2 over the same time t.
As it is well known that basic equation for current (I) can be given as I=Qt,where Q is the electric charge transferred through the resistor over a time t.
If you agree with the previous points,current through each resistor can be given as: I1=Q1t and I2=Q2t
Thus if you have agreed all the three points you will conclude that "current through each resistor is different."
But the current through each resistor is considered to be same through all the resistors in case of series connection. So,here comes the unanswered question at the end "How can you explain this contradiction?"
NOTE 1: I have noticed many saying that,if current(motion of charge per unit time) "I" had pass through the conductor then same current(motion of charge per unit time) should come out of the conductor taking the analogy that same water(not considered rate of water) which had flown into the pipe should come out.It is not so,if they have considered rate of motion of charge at first they must consider rate of flow of water latter.They even say that there can't be delay in motion of the charges,so that there would be gap in between.It is not so,there will be atoms in between with free electrons.You can see Nabeshin explaining problem with analogy of flowing water by clicking at adjacent.click here.They say that if current through each resistor is different,electrons would pile up.Yes,there will be slight piling up,that is what results in heating of resistors.But considering this any one can't say current could not be different through different resistors.
NOTE 2: I have notice many others proving current through each resistor to be same,by keeping the ammeter in between the resistor's and else any where,and the value comes out to be same!!It doesn't mean current through each resistor is same,they have calculated current in between the resistor and else any where,but not through the resistor.I think we must find any other way to find current through the resistor,because you can't place an ammeter through a resistor.Well,you might ask "why current is coming out to be same in between the resistors and else any where?",this is because charges get compensated to form a steady flow after coming pass through resistors.We can't expect the same current through both of the resistors in series it depends on the resistance value they offer.Due to compensated motion of the charge the current difference that flowed through either of the resistors might be tending to zero,so that researcher's would have considered the current to be same.
Click on this to view a discussion on this topic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CURIE WILLEY (talk • contribs) 09:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken.  The current is the same through both resistors.  The charge transferred is the same through both resistors. SpinningSpark 22:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The key is that the larger resistor grabs more voltage, too, out of the total amount of voltage available, and this pulls harder to make the current exactly the same. Physical laws sometime specify a seemingly unintuitive outcome and you have to explain it to yourself till you agree with the outcome. 84.227.254.143 (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why current is same in series connection? 

message: I'm not an electrical engineer so I don't feel confident enough to edit this article directly without introducing new errors, but I do know that 'current flow' is really misleading. Current doesn't flow, current *is* a flow of charge:
:Since a current is a flow of charge, the common expression "flow of current" should be avoided, since literally it means "flow of flow of charge.
:- Modern College Physics: Sears, Wehr, & Zemanski
See also: ELECTRIC CURRENT IS A FLOW OF ENERGY? Wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.226.224 (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article doesn't talk about a current flow. It says a "current flows". The expression is so the same current flows through all of the components. Dolphin (t) 00:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are right! I'll just attribute my post to English not being my native language combined with hyper-vigilance after reading the text in the aforementioned link :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.226.224 (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Current Flow'... 

message: I feel like the introduction is confusing (first two sentences). I am pretty sure all components can be viewed as being in either series or parallel with one another. The topology specifically doesn't care about how components relate to each other - it only talks about what happens between them. Thus, I suggest a change along the lines of: 
:"Components of an electrical circuit are either in series or parallel with one another. The number of connections between components can change (see: topology), but, fundamentally, a component is always either in series or parallel with another component." 
CCSTOOS (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not correct.  Counterexamples of some very simple circuits can easily be found that cannot be expressed as any combination of series and parallel operations. SpinningSpark 08:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The simplest circuit consists of nothing more than an emf and a resistor. This simple arrangement qualifies as a series connection because the same current flows through both; and also as a parallel connection because both components experience the same potential difference. I think this arrangement might be called simple connection rather than series or parallel connection. Dolphin (t) 13:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the fact that both series and parallel work as a description of that circuit does not contradict the OP's assertion.  However, a simple circuit that does contradict it is the well known bridge circuit.  It is impossible to describe that with any combination of just series and parallel operators.  More fundamentally, a description in terms of series and parallel operators implicitly assumes a one-port.  Even some of the simplest two-port networks, such as a T-network, cannot be described by series and parallel operations unless a port reduction transform is first applied.  By the way, the reason your basic circuit with two elements is ambiguous is because it is not even a one-port, it is a zero-port.  The OP is also fundamentally wrong in the assertion that the "topology specifically doesn't care about how components relate to each other".  Actually, that is the only thing that topology cares about. SpinningSpark 15:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Introduction 

message: "Simply put, in a parallel circuit current increases but the voltage stays the same, and in a series circuit current stays the same but the voltage increases".
In a series circuit the voltage actually decreases after each resistor, also known as voltage drop. Let's say we have a series circuit with 12v and 2 resistors. The first resistor has 10 ohms and the second resistor has 50 ohms. We have a total of 60 ohms resistance and 0.2 amps. The voltage drops by 2v after the first resistor, then drops by 10v for the second resistor. What am I missing here? Unless I am mistaken the statement above should change?? 199.19.248.122 (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  contention with into statement 

message: HI  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F21:4C60:A9A0:4DFD:EE37:1E3C (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  HI