Author |
Topic: Sierpinski circuit (Read 5037 times) |
|
JocK
Uberpuzzler
Gender: 
Posts: 877
|
Attached network represents an electric circuit. This circuit contains an infinite number of 1 Ohm resistors, each represented by a simple link. What is the resistance between two outer corner contacts?
|
|
 IP Logged |
solving abstract problems is like sex: it may occasionally have some practical use, but that is not why we do it.
xy - y = x5 - y4 - y3 = 20; x>0, y>0.
|
|
|
SMQ
Guest
|
Your diagram seems to have been eaten by the switch to the new forum software, and wasn't entirely clear to me (was it meant to be a standard Sierpinski gasket composed of 1 Ohm resistors or were there some extra links in there? If there were extra links were they resistors too, or wires?)
In any case, after a couple hours of crunching and double-and-tripple-checking nasty algebra on paper, I don't believe there exists a finite positive solution to any interpretation of the diagram that I considered. The standard Sierpinski has a trivial solution of 0; the other configurations all led to negative solutions.
If anyone wants me to go into detail on my methods (the basic method was always the same: replace each of the three suboccurrances of the gasket in the corners with a triangle of resistors of value Re, apply voltages of +1 and -1 volts at the bottom two corners, solve the resulting diagram using KCL to find the current between the two bottom corners, giving the resulting effective resistance Rs across the side in terms of Re, observe that the suboccurrances of the gasket are symmetrical and, by definition, cungruent to the whole gasket and so Rs = 2Re/3, solve for the value of Re) I can post the complete analyses later this week...
-- SMQ
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
JocK
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 877
|
 |
Re: Sierpinski circuit
« Reply #2 on: Feb 16th, 2005, 12:59pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Feb 16th, 2005, 11:30am, SMQ wrote:| Your diagram seems to have been eaten by the switch to the new forum software, and wasn't entirely clear to me (was it meant to be a standard Sierpinski gasket composed of 1 Ohm resistors or were there some extra links in there? If there were extra links were they resistors too, or wires?) |
|
Hope William will be able to get the picture back. (I can't add any attachments anymore.)
The circuit is not a 'standard' Sierpinski gasket: extra links indeed have been added. These extra links are essential in rendering the total resistance finite. The resistance of all links (including the 'extra' ones) is 1 ohm each. (So the length of the link is not of any relevance to the resistance of the link.)
|
|
IP Logged |
solving abstract problems is like sex: it may occasionally have some practical use, but that is not why we do it.
xy - y = x5 - y4 - y3 = 20; x>0, y>0.
|
|
|
SMQ
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2084
|
|
Re: Sierpinski circuit
« Reply #3 on: Feb 17th, 2005, 11:45am » |
Quote Modify
|
Ok, JocK was kind enough to email me the orginal diagram, and since I run my own web server I can host my own images  , so here it is:
And here's my analysis which I think shows :: there is no positive finite solution to the circuit as presented. ::
Due to the figures I don't see a good way to hide the rest of this, so
Don't Read any further unless you want to see how I approached this! Don't Read any further unless you want to see how I approached this! Don't Read any further unless you want to see how I approached this! Don't Read any further unless you want to see how I approached this! Don't Read any further unless you want to see how I approached this! Don't Read any further unless you want to see how I approached this! Don't Read any further unless you want to see how I approached this! Don't Read any further unless you want to see how I approached this! Don't Read any further unless you want to see how I approached this! Don't Read any further unless you want to see how I approached this! Don't Read any further unless you want to see how I approached this! Don't Read any further unless you want to see how I approached this! Don't Read any further unless you want to see how I approached this! Don't Read any further unless you want to see how I approached this!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
My basic premise, which I present without full proof, is that the entire circuit can be functionally replaced with a simple triangle of equal-valued resistors (fig. 1).
My argument: 1) The circuit is only ever interfaced at the corners, both in the final problem statement (find the resistance between two outer corner contacts) and in its recursive inclusion within itself. 2) Under these conditions, any finite network constructed exclusively of resistors can proveably be replaced by a simple network of resistors joining the interface points. 3) It is permissible to (initially) assume for analysis that the given infinite network also has a finite representation, that is the limit of its resistance as the depth of recursion approaches infinity converges; failure of the analysis would then invalidate this assumption. 4) Since the given circuit is symmetrical with respect to its corners, the values of the equivalent resistances, RE, must all be equal, and the resistance RS between any two corners is then 2/3RE.
 
At the "top" level the circuit consists of three copies of itself joined at the corners by a network of 1 Ohm resistors (fig. 2). By replacing each of the copies with the equivalent network (fig. 3), it is possible to solve for the resistance across one side of the network in terms of RE. Note that this solution is also the resistance RS of fig. 1. Note also that since the circuit in fig. 3 is symmetrical left-to-right, all points along the dotted line are equipotential and may be joined and only half the circuit needs to be solved.
 
The two resistors spanning the equipotential line can be split into two resistors each (of half their original value) terminating on the equipotential line (fig. 4a), and then resistors terminating on the equipotential line combined (fig. 4 b,c) to eventually yield a circuit of only four resistors (fig. 5). This circuit is readily solved for R3,0, the resistance between points V3 and V0, using KCL as follows:
Let the voltage V3 be 1 and V0 be 0, with V1 and V2 unknown. By KCL the current into node V1 is equal to the current out:
1) (1 - V1)/RE = (V1 - V2)/RE + (V1 - 0)/[(4RE + 15)/(3RE + 12)]
and likewise at node V2
2) (1 - V2)/RE + (V1 - V2)/RE = V2/1
Solving for V1 and V2 in terms of RE gives
3) V1 = (4RE + 15)/(3RE2 + 17RE + 15)
4) V2 = (3RE + 15)/(3RE2 + 17RE + 15)
The total current through the circuit I = I1 + I2 (fig. 5) = (1 - V1)/RE + (1 - V2)/RE which gives
6) I = (6RE + 27)/(3RE2 + 17RE + 15)
So R3,0 = (V3 - V0)/I = 1/I which is
7) R3,0 = (3RE2 + 17RE + 15)/(6RE + 27)
This result from KCL is half the resistance of a side of fig. 3, which from fig. 1 gives us RS = 2/3RE = 2R3,0, finally giving
8 ) RE2 + 8RE + 15 = 0
9) RE = {-3, -5}
10) RS = {-2, -10/3}
Which, I believe, shows, together with point 3 of my argument above, that there are no positive finite solutions to the given curcuit.
So, where am I wrong?  I'll have to try to solve this with infinite series (a bit more rigorous than my approach above) and see if I still get the same result...
-- SMQ
|
| « Last Edit: Feb 17th, 2005, 11:47am by SMQ » |
IP Logged |
--SMQ
|
|
|
JocK
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 877
|
|
Re: Sierpinski circuit
« Reply #4 on: Feb 17th, 2005, 2:36pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Feb 17th, 2005, 11:45am, SMQ wrote:
... there are no positive finite solutions to the given curcuit.
So, where am I wrong? I'll have to try to solve this with infinite series (a bit more rigorous than my approach above) and see if I still get the same result...
|
|
Ooops!  You are right. I made an error when constructing this problem... 
It is actually easy to sea that Sierpinsky-type fractal circuits consisting of resistive links always lead to infinite resistances, unless 'outer resistors' are added. Maybe I'll post a correct fractal circuit (one with finite resistance) later... In case anyone still is interested in trying these... 
Sorry for leading you up the wrong path SMQ. You posted a very precise and concise solution! (Leading to the correct answer R = [Infty].)
|
|
IP Logged |
solving abstract problems is like sex: it may occasionally have some practical use, but that is not why we do it.
xy - y = x5 - y4 - y3 = 20; x>0, y>0.
|
|
|
Grimbal
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 7527
|
|
Re: Sierpinski circuit
« Reply #5 on: Feb 17th, 2005, 2:42pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I was about to say that. To get anywhere from the upper corner, you have to cross an infinity of 1 ohm resistors. So, the total resistance is futile infinite.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
SMQ
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2084
|
|
Re: Sierpinski circuit
« Reply #6 on: Feb 18th, 2005, 8:19am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Feb 17th, 2005, 2:36pm, JocK wrote:
Ooops! You are right. [...] Sorry for leading you up the wrong path SMQ. [...] |
|
No need to apologize; around here it's the journey not the destination, right? Besides, it gave me something to do with my EE degree and math minor--which are mostly wasted on my current job as an applications programmer...gotta keep the ol' noggin tuned up. 
--SMQ
|
|
IP Logged |
--SMQ
|
|
|
JocK
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 877
|
|
Re: Sierpinski circuit
« Reply #7 on: Feb 18th, 2005, 5:05pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Actually...
... the problem is well-defined if you assume that the fractal pattern extends indefinitely. So: what is the resistance between the two points indicated assuming the fractal pattern keeps 'growing'...? 
|
|
IP Logged |
solving abstract problems is like sex: it may occasionally have some practical use, but that is not why we do it.
xy - y = x5 - y4 - y3 = 20; x>0, y>0.
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print
Remove