why potential difference divide in series circuit

why potential difference divide in series circuit
This is potentially an interesting question. The current flow through the circuit is determined by dividing the applied voltage (potential) by the total resistance and will be constant in all parts of a series circuit. The voltage drop across any of the resistances in the circuit will be then determined by multiplying the current by that particular resistance.
You could kind of think of it like if you had a water hose of a certain size and a certain water pressure and the hose had some kinks in it. The water pressure will be greatest across the worst kink in the hose as there is greater resistance to the water flow, but the water flow will be the same in all parts of the hose.
If you are talking about Kirchhoff's voltage "law," the reason is as given by x0x. In a conservative field, the net potential around any loop is zero. I don't know if you are yet familiar with vector calculus, but in the language of that branch of maths, we can derive Kirchhoff's voltage law from Maxwell's equations as follows:
1) If there is no timevarying magnetic field, then the Efield will be curlfree (del X E = 0). That then allows us to define the Efield in terms of the gradient of a potential, V: E = div(V).
2) Substitute the second equation into the first: del X [div(V)] = 0. This is actually trivially true; it's a vectorcalculus identity.
3) The potential V along a closedpath, in turn, is given by the line integral of the Efield. Another vector calculus identity equates the line integral to the surface integral of the curl. But we began with a curlfree Efield. So, that all implies that the line integral of the Efield around any closed path is zero. In discrete circuit terms, that means that the sum of the voltages around any loop must be zero. Hence, any applied voltage must equal (minus) the sum of the voltages across all seriesconnected elements driven by that applied voltage. That's Kirchhoff's voltage law.
I am starting to think that some people here are way over educated with little knowledge of how things actually work.
Moderator note (just playing) = Mayflow you are way out of line for calling out people who can post stuff from science classes in places they are not warranted just because they want to look smart, which they do not do to your frame of reference.
Since you are way undereducated, you lack the competence to make such determinations. From other posts, you can't even properly interpret Kirchhoff's laws within their limited domain of applicability, let alone identify what that domain is. I'm certain you have no idea what "curlfree Efield" implies physically; it is a part of how things actually work.
By definition, anything you don't understand is apparently "superior teaching" and must be mocked. Be that as it may, rather than trying to learn from what you have identified as superior knowledge, you fear it. Worse, you wish to deny it to others. Your aversion to learning is already well documented in several threads (I'm certain that you still smugly wallow in ignorance of the fact that logperiodic antennas are dispersive; looking up the references to find the truth would risk finding out something new  can't have that!). But keep your love of ignorance to yourself, Mayflow. Maybe, just maybe, there are those that choose enlightenment instead.
You are ignorant of Maxwell's equations, without which we would not have the wireless technology we have. Without engineers and physicists understanding what "curl free" means, we wouldn't have been able to build the cyclotron, with which Lawrence was able to probe the constituents of matter.
And before you mock the cyclotron, you should look it up first. It begat the synchrotron, and then successive generations of particle accelerators, leading to the LHC in CERN. If we had stayed with a "curl free" field, the cyclotron would not have been possible.
You need to up your game, Mayflow. Stop fearing what you don't understand. Stop assuming that those with superior knowledge are "showing off."
« welcome to ICQC  Really, to the moon and back? » 