Hey, I think u guys are making the problem more difficult than it really is. you just need to remember that the resistors in the middle are defunct as potential diff. across them is 0. No need to use delta-wye and such hi-fi stuffscato88 wrote:I felt as if an electrical engineering background would be more useful than a physics background. If there were more quantum questions I would change my mind. Ann EE student would have taken classical mech and E&M.temujin_cosmobug wrote: In the test however I found one mean mean question, a Delta-wye transformation, I have taken a lot of electronics classes but, i couldnt remember the formula (it was easy considering all the resistors were the same value, but mean because that was completely unexpected, and more relating to electrical engineering than physics ). I know not every one has the same question set, did anyone else also get a question relating to a delta- wye transformation?
Nov 8, 2008 was an easy test..!!
Re: Nov 8, 2008 was an easy test..!!
Re: Nov 8, 2008 was an easy test..!!
I agree with TrueBLUE, there was no Delta-Wye transformation necessary in that problem. That circuit can be seen as an extension of Wheatstone bridge, with six branches instead of four. So, the potential drop across them (and hence the current) is zero. Thus, the equivalent resistance of that circuit was 2R/3...TrueBLUE wrote:Hey, I think u guys are making the problem more difficult than it really is. you just need to remember that the resistors in the middle are defunct as potential diff. across them is 0. No need to use delta-wye and such hi-fi stuffscato88 wrote:I felt as if an electrical engineering background would be more useful than a physics background. If there were more quantum questions I would change my mind. Ann EE student would have taken classical mech and E&M.temujin_cosmobug wrote: In the test however I found one mean mean question, a Delta-wye transformation, I have taken a lot of electronics classes but, i couldnt remember the formula (it was easy considering all the resistors were the same value, but mean because that was completely unexpected, and more relating to electrical engineering than physics ). I know not every one has the same question set, did anyone else also get a question relating to a delta- wye transformation?
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:58 pm
Re: Nov 8, 2008 was an easy test..!!
...
Last edited by lallooprasad on Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Nov 8, 2008 was an easy test..!!
I didn't finish as many questions as I liked, but I was happy about the content. This astrofan was very happy with the specialty problems ETS decided to include.
I am also glad I took that cosmology course; I am still in shock that the question came up.
I am also glad I took that cosmology course; I am still in shock that the question came up.
Re: Nov 8, 2008 was an easy test..!!
i was flummoxed by that question about how much more melting ice in the cavity heated by EM waves .. WTF was that about ?!?
and diamond structure ??!!? WHY WHY WHY !!??!
and diamond structure ??!!? WHY WHY WHY !!??!
Last edited by rohit on Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Nov 8, 2008 was an easy test..!!
I think the diamond prob was just another one of those you either knew it or you didnt problems.rohit wrote:i was flummoxed by that question about how much more melting ice ..
and diamond structure ??!!? WHY WHY WHY !!??!
Re: Nov 8, 2008 was an easy test..!!
well 99percent, i dont remember u , but i came in room 5 after most people had settled down, i was wearin blue jeans/sweater , tall ,very fair, huge spectacles.. i thought that annoying invigilator started after 9 o clock but ended early, damn her ... maybe i'm wrong