20 September 2013 41 594 Report

It is a common practice to consider the voltage divider as a voltage source, e.g. to say, "the circuit is supplied with a constant voltage by a voltage divider". Also widespread is the resistor to be considered as a current source, e.g. to say "the circuit is supplied with a constant current through a resistor".

IMO it is obvious that the voltage divider and the resistor are not sources; they are only components of composed sources containing additional voltage sources. Thus the composed voltage source consists of a voltage source and a voltage divider and the composed current source - of a voltage source and a resistor. In these arrangements, the voltage divider acts as a voltage-to-voltage converter and the resistor - as a voltage-to-current converter.

The explanation of this simplification is that when we say that the circuit is supplied "with a constant voltage by a voltage divider" or "with a constant current through a resistor", we implicitly assume the existence of an exciting voltage source.

What do you think about this simplification? Is it affordable? Is it misleading?

More Cyril Mechkov's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions