Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Resistors in Parallel..... tabulated?

J

John O'Flaherty

Jan 1, 1970
0
kontiki said:
thank you for your replies....the "math" is fine,....
lets say I want to shunt a 120k res. to get a
15.6k how long does it take to find the required value? a table is much
faster ,and if you are limited by values "at hand" again an alternative
pair is easily/quickly chosen.This is useful for establishing the
practical effects of temperature compensating resistors and
thermistors.
I tend not to fire up the pc each time I need to do the math...

It's very simple. Product over difference. For your example, the needed
parallel resistor is
120k * 15.6 k / (120k - 15.6k) = 17.931 k. This is by algebraic
manipulation of the parallel resistance formula.
 
J

Jamie

Jan 1, 1970
0
kontiki said:
kontiki wrote:





thank you for your replies....the "math" is fine,....
lets say I want to shunt a 120k res. to get a
15.6k how long does it take to find the required value? a table is much
faster ,and if you are limited by values "at hand" again an alternative
pair is easily/quickly chosen.This is useful for establishing the
practical effects of temperature compensating resistors and
thermistors.
I tend not to fire up the pc each time I need to do the math...
2 ways.
You just reverse the standard method..

(120K*15.6K)/(120K-15.6K) = 17.931K which is what you need.

Personally i like this one.
1/(1/15.6K- 1/120k) = 17931;

I can hit the inverse( reciprocal ) key on me calculator at the
end instead of starting it off with a 1/(... , this saves in a 2 key
strokes.
 
J

John Larkin

Jan 1, 1970
0
2 ways.
You just reverse the standard method..

(120K*15.6K)/(120K-15.6K) = 17.931K which is what you need.

Personally i like this one.
1/(1/15.6K- 1/120k) = 17931;

I can hit the inverse( reciprocal ) key on me calculator at the
end instead of starting it off with a 1/(... , this saves in a 2 key
strokes.

RPN:

15.6
1/x
120
1/x
-
1/x
 
J

John Fields

Jan 1, 1970
0
Here's an interesting technique for finding parallel resistor values that I
found in a 1961 issue of "Electronics World".



Take the desired resistor value and multiply by any number to get R1. So if
we desire a value of 500 ohms we can multiply 500 ohms by 3 to get our R1
value of 1500 ohms. To get the value of R2 divide the R1 resistor value we
calculated, in this case 1500 ohms, by 1 less than the multiplier number we
used to get R1. Our multiplier number was 3 we will now divide 1500 ohms by
1 less than 3, or 2, to get 750 ohms. These two resistor values 1500 ohms
and 750 ohms will give you the required value of 500 ohms when connected in
parallel. This simple method can be done by most people without a
calculator. This works with any set of multiplier and divider numbers you
choose and the numbers don't have to be whole numbers.



If you need more than two resistor values to get your parallel value you can
still use this method. For example let's say I need a total resistance value
of 25 ohms. I first pick a number that when multiplied by my required
resistance gives me a value I have in stock, in this case I'll pick 6
because 6 x 25 ohms gives me 150 ohms for R1. 150 ohms divided by 5 (1 less
than the multiplier value of 6) gives me 30 ohms for R2. If I don't have a
30 ohm resistor in stock I can take my original divider number and split it
up into two new numbers that add up to the original divider number. In this
case I can use 2 and 3 since they add up to 5. 150 divided by 2 = 75 ohms
and 150 divided by 3 = 50 ohms. If I have these two resistor values I'm
finished. If we do the math we see that 150 ohms in parallel with 50 ohms
and 75 ohms = 25 ohms.



Whether you end up using this method or not it still provides an interesting
insight into the math behind the parallel resistor formula.



Hope at least some of you find this useful or interesting.
 
J

John O'Flaherty

Jan 1, 1970
0
kontiki said:
Hi, does anyone know where a reference table of parallel resistors
could be found?The table is very useful for quick accurate resultant
resistances (to two places of decimal), the tables I've got are from
Practical Electronics Jan. 1990? and have faded to the point of being
unusable.Most non-standard resistance values are easily ascertained
e.g.for 17 ohms->75//22
quickly and easily!

This may be of use, if you have Matlab- it uses a set of standard
values to find a paralleled resistance within a specified tolerance.
You invoke it by
parallel(neededResistance, tolerance).

It is followed by an almost identical program to find voltage divider
combinations, given a desired ratio and a tolerance.

The final entry in this post is a list of standard ratios for precision
resistors. It can be copied and pasted into the Matlab command window,
and it will save the list to a file, which will be called by the two
programs.
You could easily substitute a list of your own available resistors.
With the given list of resistors, the programs work within one decade;
they could be improved by automatically going up and down a decade, but
that won't matter if you enter a list of the actual resistors you have.
--
John


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Find standard resistor values to get a paralleled resistance.
% Result will be shown as columns with resistance achieved and
% the resistors used.
% Call function with needed resistance and optional tolerance
% (1% will be used if not specified).
function [result] = parallel(neededR, tol)
if (nargin < 2) tol = 0.01; end
load('resistors.mat')
lowlim = 1 - tol;
hilim = 1 + tol;
format compact
p = [0; 0; 0];
L = length(r);
for k = 1 : L
for m = 1 : L
g = r(k) * r(m) / (r(k) + r(m));
if ((g >= lowlim * neededR ) & (g <= hilim * neededR))
p1=[g; r(k); r(m)];
p = [p p1]; % concatenate current value to the result
end
end
end

if (size(p,2)>1)
result = p:),2:size(p,2));
else result = 'no combination found';
end


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Find standard resistor values to get voltage division ratio
% enter ratio as such or as explicit division- e.g, 0.4 or 2/5.
% Result will be shown as columns with ratio achieved and
% the resistors used.
% Call function with needed resistance and optional tolerance
% (1% will be used if not specified).

function [result] = vdivide(ratio, tol)
if (nargin < 2) tol = 0.01;
end
load('resistors.mat') % load up list of resistors
lowlim = 1 - tol;
hilim = 1 + tol;
format compact
p=[0;0;0];
L = length(r);
for k = 1 : L
for m = 1 : L
g = r(k) / (r(k) + r(m));
if ((g >= lowlim * ratio ) & (g <= hilim * ratio))
p1=[g; r(k); r(m)];
p = [p p1]; % concat value found to result
end
end
end
if (size(p,2)>1)
result = p:),2:size(p,2));
else result = 'no combination found';
end

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
r=[1.0000 1.0200 1.0500 1.0700 1.1000 1.1300 1.1500 1.1800 1.2000...
1.2100 1.2400 1.2700 1.3000 1.3300 1.4000 1.4700 1.5000 1.5400...
1.5800 1.6000 1.6200 1.6500 1.6900 1.7400 1.7800 1.8000 1.8200...
1.8700 1.9100 1.9600 2.0000 2.0500 2.1000 2.1500 2.2000 2.2100...
2.2600 2.3200 2.3700 2.4000 2.4300 2.4700 2.4900 2.5500 2.6100...
2.6700 2.7000 2.7400 2.8000 2.8700 2.9400 3.0000 3.0100 3.0900...
3.1600 3.2400 3.3000 3.3200 3.4000 3.4800 3.5700 3.6000 3.6500...
3.7400 3.8300 3.9000 3.9200 4.0200 4.1200 4.2200 4.3000 4.3200...
4.4200 4.5300 4.6400 4.7000 4.7500 4.8700 4.9900 5.0000 5.1000...
5.2300 5.3600 5.4900 5.6000 5.6200 5.7600 5.9000 6.0400 6.1900...
6.2000 6.3400 6.4900 6.6500 6.8000 6.8100 6.9800 7.1500 7.3200...
7.5000 7.6800 7.8700 8.0600 8.2000 8.2500 8.4500 8.6600 8.8700...
9.0000 9.0900 9.1000 9.3100 9.5300 9.7600 10.0000]
save 'resistors.mat',r;
 
E

ehsjr

Jan 1, 1970
0
kontiki said:
Hi, does anyone know where a reference table of parallel resistors
could be found?The table is very useful for quick accurate resultant
resistances (to two places of decimal), the tables I've got are from
Practical Electronics Jan. 1990? and have faded to the point of being
unusable.Most non-standard resistance values are easily ascertained
e.g.for 17 ohms->75//22
quickly and easily!
with thanks,

Watch for line wrap in the url below.

http://www.radio-electronics.com/info/circuits/resistors_in_parallel/resistors_in_parallel.php

Ed
 
K

kontiki

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi, thank you all for your kind replies...(sic.), I'll
"persevere" with the Excel tables (my 12 year-old will relish adding
the embelleshments...).
P.S. for what its worth a "shop assistant" I know well is finishing her
degree (Electrical eng.) this year,some people have to do these fill-in
jobs to make ends meet.
 
C

Chris

Jan 1, 1970
0
kontiki said:
Hi, thank you all for your kind replies...(sic.), I'll
"persevere" with the Excel tables (my 12 year-old will relish adding
the embelleshments...).
P.S. for what its worth a "shop assistant" I know well is finishing her
degree (Electrical eng.) this year,some people have to do these fill-in
jobs to make ends meet.

Hi, Kontiki. Good luck with your little project.

You should be able to do it yourself easily. For the most part,
getting skill in spreadsheets comes down to having something to do, and
learning how to do it. Since every one of your calc cells has the same
equation (Rp = 1/(1/R1 + 1/R2) you can spend your energy in formatting,
learn a trick or two, and balance the prettyprinting effort with the
time you have available. Just look around in the help files and any
tutorials available with the program for advice.

Cheers
Chris
 
kontiki skrev:
thank you for your replies....the "math" is fine,....
lets say I want to shunt a 120k res. to get a
15.6k how long does it take to find the required value? a table is much
faster ,and if you are limited by values "at hand" again an alternative
pair is easily/quickly chosen.This is useful for establishing the
practical effects of temperature compensating resistors and
thermistors.
I tend not to fire up the pc each time I need to do the math...

Very easy:
120k*15.6k / (120k - 15.6k) = 17.93k
 
J

John Larkin

Jan 1, 1970
0
you guys with your polish calculators. :)

Once you learn how to think upside-down, it's hard to break the habit.

John
 
S

Sambo

Jan 1, 1970
0
kontiki said:
kontiki wrote:





thank you for your replies....the "math" is fine,....
lets say I want to shunt a 120k res. to get a
15.6k how long does it take to find the required value? a table is much
faster ,and if you are limited by values "at hand" again an alternative
pair is easily/quickly chosen.This is useful for establishing the
practical effects of temperature compensating resistors and
thermistors.
I tend not to fire up the pc each time I need to do the math...
So are you saying you are modifying existing circuit?
With one resistor given, there is only 1 best choice.
Although instinctively I thought of 16K,
18K is the ideal choice, giving 15652 ohms.
Depending on what you are doing, it is not always so critical and 16K might be good enough.

Otherwise I'd start with some even value close to my target( your case 15.6K).
Lets say I have 20K I need to reduce it by 1/4 so something 4-1 = 3 times larger would be 60K
62K is close, if I have 68K I check if it is better after all we are aiming for 15.6 not 15K.
(20*68)/(20+68) = 16.078K

If you don't have mutimeter to check the 2 you instinctively chose, you aren't doing anything critical enough for it to matter , unless you are dealing with small (>500ohm ) resistances.

Most likely, however, I'd first look for double the value, knowing of 33K ( and I happen to know I have bunch of 30K ) , I may pick those two for starters.
 
J

john jardine

Jan 1, 1970
0
kontiki said:
Hi, does anyone know where a reference table of parallel resistors
could be found?The table is very useful for quick accurate resultant
resistances (to two places of decimal), the tables I've got are from
Practical Electronics Jan. 1990? and have faded to the point of being
unusable.Most non-standard resistance values are easily ascertained
e.g.for 17 ohms->75//22
quickly and easily!
with thanks,

Don't know how this link will break up but ...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Practical-Electronic-Calculations-Formulae-BP/dp/090
0162708/sr=1-1/qid=1167875830/ref=sr_1_1/202-3328544-0989461?ie=UTF8&s=books

has the parallel tables, along with a shedload of other useful basic stuff.
I'd have scanned the pages for you but winXP has junked my perfectly good
scanner .
john
 
Top