A Viewpoint: Discrimination Between Two Equivalent Statements of Kirchhoff’s Current Law from the Ground of Precedenceness
In this paper, on the ground of precedenceness, the two equivalent statements in regard to the basic law of electrical from Kirchhoff’s current are discriminated. Here, this viewpoint of statements discrimination for the law of same does not means to regard that there is a differences in between, but to regard that the statement of one out of the two exist due to the existence of other. In addition, the current regulation function is discussed, which is always limited to the range of 0 to 1 as it determines the ratio of totality at each node for either sides of the branches collected by the converger and diverger respectively. In the case of a condition without unity, it determines that the law of conservation of charge does not hold.
KeywordsAlgebraic statement Converger Current regulation function Diverger Equality statement Precedence ground
The author would like to thank the referees for their direct and indirect support which helped to improve the paper considerably.
- 1.Steinmetz CP (1897) Theory and calculation of alternating current phenomena. The W. J. Johnston Company, 253 Broadway, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 2.Elliott RS (1979) Some useful analogies in the teaching of electromagnetic theory. IEEE Trans Educ E-22(1):7–10Google Scholar
- 3.Chakrabarti A (2008) Circuit theory analysis and synthesis, 5th revised ednGoogle Scholar