1. stacymckenna

    Thread Starter New Member

    Nov 26, 2007
    5
    0
    Having completed the volume on DC I'm now working my way thorugh AC and hit a comprehension snag in Chapter 9. In section 9.1 you refer to a "heavier load" of 15 Ohm compared to a "lighter load" of 1 kOhm. Again in 9.6 you refer to a "heavy" 200 Ohm vs a "light" 1 kOhm. My brain shorted out. Am I incorrect in that we'd previously been referring to heavier resistances as higher/heavier loads? I understand the concept that a lower resistance means more current flow/power draw, but it was completely counterintuitive for me, and requires a conscious step of mental translation every time the text refers to a higher resistance as a lighter load. I would swear that circuit analysis in the DC volume referenced higher resistance loads as heavier. Is it a difference of DC vs AC? Did the vocabulary suddenly shift at this point in the text resulting in this confusion? Did we flip from referencing the "[resistance] load" to referencing the "[current] load" without specifying what the unwritten modifier should be?
     
  2. redwin88

    Member

    Dec 17, 2007
    11
    0
    Keep the focus on what you wrote below (it is true).
    Stacymckenna wrote:
    "... lower resistance means more current flow/power draw..."

    Don't worry about subtle grammar issues.
    What really matters is that energy usage will increase, whenever
    the resistance is decreased in a circuit (that’s an inverse relationship there).
     
  3. recca02

    Senior Member

    Apr 2, 2007
    1,211
    0
    the sooner you can get that the better, else it creates a lot of confusion later.

    u can consider a ac outlet having lot of bulbs in paprallel.
    even though resistance f each bulb is same effective resistance is
    (resistance of one bulb)/n..n being the number of bulbs.
    and the total power supplied to bulbs is n*(power of 1 bulb).
    and the total current for same terminal voltage is now n times initial.
     
  4. stacymckenna

    Thread Starter New Member

    Nov 26, 2007
    5
    0
    I understand the lower resistance/higher current relationship. My concern is that the point of a textbook/manual is to make concepts clear and understandable, and if how things are described for over 500 pages previous suddenly makes a very basic concept confusing... then it might be worth looking into how to reword things throughout so that all of the concepts are clear and easy to understand. When a "subtle grammar issue" makes thing confusing, I think that's a rather important grammar issue.
     
  5. recca02

    Senior Member

    Apr 2, 2007
    1,211
    0
    was there such an error?
    in both of above quotes, lesser resistance was treated as heavier load.
     
  6. stacymckenna

    Thread Starter New Member

    Nov 26, 2007
    5
    0
    Both specific examples referenced a higher current load, yes. My point is that the previous 500 pages of text had trained my brain to think of a higher RESISTANCE load as a "heavier load", so as far as intuitive thinking, the sudden reference to CURRENT load required a 180 in how my brain translated things. Technically speaking, none of the wording has been inaccurate, it's just resulting in confusion because of [I believe] a lack of specificity or consistency somewhere between the first volume and second. Hence my original comment asking for clarification on how things were referenced in the previous Volume/chapters.
     
  7. redwin88

    Member

    Dec 17, 2007
    11
    0
    I went back and re-read the original post.

    In that post (sentence number 4) Stacy asks...
    Yes, it is true... you were incorrect (about that one thing).
    A "heavy" resistance will only allow a small amount of current to
    flow, which leads to a "light" load on that circuit.

    The rest of the things Stacy wrote about were well constructed,
    communicated, and show wonderful logic with thorough integration.
    That; is why I'm writing, to share that (I hope) I've found a way
    to help by spotlighting the (logic) "error" in the original post, as I do not
    believe previous references (to resistance/loads) were as she remembered.
     
  8. Dcrunkilton

    E-book Co-ordinator

    Jul 31, 2004
    416
    11
    I have modified the master copy at ibiblio by addition of (higher current) next to the heavy load references and (less current) next to the light load references.
     
Loading...