Measuring Currents

How to measure currents, and how to characterize power sources

It is essential for success in electronics to understand the contents of this page. The material is easy to
read and understand as theory, but it is important for you to carry out the suggested activities physically,
while thinking about what is involved. The measurement of a current seems straightforward. One simply
obtains a meter with a scale in amperes and measures the current. Of course, things are not that simple.
First of all, a current is a current through a conductor, so to use a current meter one must break the circuit
and insert the meter in series. The meter you are using is probably a Digital Multimeter, so you rotate the
selector to the Current function, perhaps selecting the current range if your meter is not autoranging.
Then, you may notice that the meter has two jacks for the red or positive lead, one marked + and the other
A. Of course, you select the A jack, and now connect the leads to the ends of the wires where you
have broken the circuit. Now you read the current; if it shows a negative sign, the current is passing in the
direction of the black lead to the red lead. Otherwise, the current is moving from the red lead to the black
lead. Don't actually do this now, but just consider it.

If you now set your meter aside, and later pick it up to measure a voltage, you may not notice that the
meter is set to current, and that the lead is plugged into the A jack. When you try to measure the
voltage, you will get zero. Noticing that the selector is set to current, you will now move it to voltage--but
still get zero. Oh yes, the lead should be plugged into the + jack. When you do this, the reading is still
zero. What has happened is that you blew the protective fuse the very first time, so you still have a
healthy meter, but it needs a new fuse. As long as you leave the lead in the + jack, this cannot happen, and
you are safe. If the lead is in A, and the selector is in either current or resistance function, a fuse will
blow to protect the meter as soon as you touch the leads across a voltage. The safest idea of all is to leave
the lead in the + jack at all times and only measure voltages. If you have to measure a resistance or a
current, make a habit of always moving back to the + jack afterwards, or else buy a lot of fuses.

There is another way to measure currents that is utterly safe and convenient, and very practical in
electronics. Most currents in electronics pass through resistances whose value is marked and obvious, and
the current can be obtained from Ohm's law, I = V/R. Usually, it is convenient to measure I in mA, V in
volts, and R in kiloohms. V is the voltage across the resistor, and I is the current through it. The fact that
we often measure voltages with respect to some common point (ground or earth) should not lead you to
ignore that voltages are always between two points, never just at a point. Also, both currents and voltages
have direction, for which some reference direction that is called positive is arbitrarily assumed. The
opposite direction is then indicated by a minus sign. The reference direction is completely arbitrary,
though one generally makes a choice to get as few negative signs as possible. The fact that no sign is used
instead of an explicit + should not lead you to ignore the fact that there is always a sign, + or -.

Collect some 1/4 W resistors of values between 1k and 10k (k = k), and note the color codes. The usual
5% resistors are fine, but you can stick in some 1% resistors if you want. Measure their resistances, and
note that the values are rather close to the nominal values given by the color code. This was not always
the case in the past, but now manufacturing methods produce resistors of precise values, instead of a
continuous range. It will always be sufficent in electronics to assume that the resistance of a resistor is the
marked nominal value. In the examples, I will use the values and readings that I
obtained myself, which you should replace by the values and readings that you
make.

Let's first measure the current through a resistor, using the two principal methods
available to us. I'll suppose that you have two meters available, which will give
us a bonus, but only one meter will do. Connect a 1k resistor from the +5 row in
a breadboard to some hole below it, the red lead of the meter to this end of the
resistor, and the black lead to the G (ground or earth) row of the breadboard. The
circuit is shown in the diagram on the right, with my actual measurements shown. Yours will be a little
different. The red lead should be in the A jack, and the selector should be to DC current, 2 mA range (or
as appropriate for your meter). Turn on the power, and read the current, which should be about +5.0 mA.
It is very seldom necessary to take readings to a greater accuracy than two digits in electronics, but you
can include a third digit as a guard, rounding off later. Now take another meter, set to DC volts, 20 V
range (or as appropriate), and connect its leads to the ends of the resistor. If you have only one meter,
connect the lower end of the resistor to the G row. You will get about +5.0 V (in my case, 5.08 V), which
divided by 1k gives 5 mA. In the figure, 5.02 is about the same as 5.06, and trying to make them exactly
the same is not worth the effort. We are using different meters, and the resistance is not exactly 1.000k
anyway. It's comforting for you to see that the two methods give the same result, so don't omit the
experiment. Otherwise, your unconscious will always have a doubt.

If you have two meters, use the second meter to measure not only the voltage across the resistor, but also
the voltage across the other meter. It will not be zero, but will be in the millivolt range. My meter gave 60
mV, on the 2 mA scale. This is much less than the 5 V applied to the resistor, but it is not zero. In my
case, it was equivalent to a resistance of 12 , compared to the resistance of 1000 in series with it. The
actual value is not of much importance, except that its presence should be recognized, and that the
insertion of the meter has a disturbing effect on the circuit, here about 1%. In the voltmeter method of
determining the current, there is a similar effect due to the shunting of some of the current through the
meter. In my case, the meter has a resistance of some 10M (M = megohm), which is in parallel with the
1k resistor. The effect on the circuit is only 0.1% in this case. However, if the resistor were a 1M resistor,
the disturbance would amount to 10%. The effect of the meter on the circuit should always be
remembered. A digital multimeter disturbs the typical electronic circuit with resistances of 100k and
below very little, but watch out when the resistances are high and the currents low.

A simple series-parallel circuit is shown in the figure. I have labeled the resistors the
usual way, and chosen the postitive directions of the currents and labeled them. The
values of the resistors are given with the convention that a value with a decimal point
is assumed to by kiloohms, with no decimal point, simply ohms.The currents will all
turn out positive, but this is only a convenience. It is easy to find the currents in any
such circuit by combining resistors in series and parallel, and you probably know
how to do this already. The parallel combination of the two lower resistors is
equivalent to 1.14k, so i1 = 5.08 / 2.14 = 2.37 mA. This current divides in the lower
resistors in inverse ratio to the resistances, so i2 = 2.37 (1.5/6.2) = 0.57 mA, and i3 =
2.37 (4.7/6.2) = 1.80 mA, using the current divider rule. The voltage across the upper
resistor is 5.08 (1.0/2.14) = 2.37 V, and the voltage across the lower resistors is 5.08
(1.14/2.14) = 2.71 V, by the voltage divider rule. All such circuits can be solved by such means, but
usually you do not have to do this, unless you enjoy doing it.

There is a node marked "a" in this circuit. We know that the sum of the currents flowing into this node is
zero, and indeed 2.37 - 0.57 - 1.80 = 0, for the currents we have just found. If we knew the voltage at
node "a" with respect to ground, we would then know the voltages across each of the resistors, and could
find the currents by Ohm's Law. In fact, we could take the voltage of node a as an unknown, and solve the
equation we get from equating the sum of the currents to zero for this unknown voltage, and then find all
the currents. This is the nodal method of solution, which you learned in your Circuits course. We have an
easier way--simply use the digital multimeter to measure this voltage
directly. Of course, the result is 2.70 V, from which we can find all the
currents immediately, with no need for algebra. It's curious that the Circuits
course is a course in learning how to do what you will never need to do! In
general, we measure the node voltages (with respect to ground) and
determine all the currents from them, in any practical circuit. This is also
the fundamental way to find out if a circuit is working as intended. Simply
measure the node voltages and compare them with the normal values.

The circuit in the figure cannot be solved as a series-parallel circuit. If we

had to solve it, the two unknown node voltages can be taken as unknowns,
two nodal equations written, and the two unknowns found. Only a professor
would use two loop currents, only a sophomore five unknown currents. If you have just two unknowns,
there is some hope of getting a correct solution. Humans cannot work out determinants of order 3 and
greater without error, so we never do this. Wire up the circuit, and measure the node voltages. For my
circuit, Va = 3.21 V, and Vb = 2.29 V, from which all five currents can be found at once. I get 1.87, 0.97,
0.59, 1.53 and 0.92 mA. Check that the net current flowing into each node is zero; this will pick up any
errors in finding the currents.

Now there is something very important to learn about power sources. We have been using the +5
regulated supply on the breadboard. Within limits, it supplies very close to 5 volts no matter what we
connect to it, or, in other words, no matter how much current we draw from it. It is, in fact, a pretty good
voltage source, as are batteries and the 115 V AC supply. We know that it is not nice to connect a low
resistance across its output, since I = V/R, and low R means high I. Our 5 V supply is nicely protected; it
will give us a certain amount of current, and then no more, reducing its voltage as necessary to limit the
current. The AC supply will give a zap and a blown fuse--it's also protected. The battery will give a
current depending on its construction--a lead-acid car battery is supposed to give a large current on near
short-circuit, and a flashlight bulb is a pretty low resistance, too. In any case, the power output will be
E2/R, so if R is small, there will be some heat somewhere!

In electronics, we often have power sources and their loads, with more complicated characteristics than
DC power supplies and batteries. Build a source by
connecting a voltage divider between +5 and G on the
breadboard, as shown in the figure, taking the output from
the node between the resistors. With no load (infinite
resistance) the voltage at the output node is 5.08 (3.3/4.8)
= 3.49 V. This is the open circuit output voltage, VOC.
Now connect resistances of 10k, 4.7k and 1.0k
successively to the output node, and measure the voltage.
Finally, connect a short circuit. If you want, use the
current function of the digital multimeter. The short circuit
output current ISC of about 3.4 mA won't blow any fuses.
With a source like this one, you can connect either an open
circuit or a short circuit with no damage. The normal
effect of a decreasing output voltage with an increasing
output current is observed.

Now plot the output voltage against the output current. An accurate sketch will be sufficient to show you
the result. The plot is a straight line connecting VOC on the vertical axis with ISC on the horizontal axis. Of
course the line is straight, because resistors are linear circuit elements, and this is just what is meant by
that name. The slope of the line is VOC/ISC, a resistance called the Thvenin or internal resistance of the
source. In this example, it is about 1.03k. In the figure are shown two other circuits that would give
exactly the same output voltage and current as the actual source. The Thvenin equivalent has an ideal
voltage source equal to VOC, while the Norton equivalent has an ideal current source equal to ISC. With the
example source, it is practical to measure each of these quantities directly. Usually, this is not practical. In
the case of the AC power line, or a lead-acid battery, ISC is dangerously large, and the low internal
resistance of these sources will allow it to flow. In this case, it is necessary to use some reasonable
resistance instead of a short circuit, and note the drop in output voltage, which will be small. From this
the internal resistance can be found. For example, if the output voltage drops by 2.8 V when a current of
0.7 A is drawn, then the internal resistance is 2.8 / 0.7 = 4.0 .

The compliance of a current source is the range of voltages it can place across a load. A stiff current
source is one with a large Norton resistance, so the current that it supplies is nearly constant.

Use the Thvenin equivalent of the example source to find the output voltages for each of the load
resistances. Simply use the voltage divider rule in each case, which is easier than solving the actual
circuit, even in this simple case. With practical electronic sources, the saving in work is dramatic. The
currents can be found in the same way by using the Norton equivalent.
It is well to observe that the currents and voltages inside the equivalent circuits are not those found in the
actual circuit, where conditions can be quite different. The equivalent circuits are for use only to find the
current and voltage supplied to the load, not for finding anything out about the source, and certainly not
for any power calculations. For example, if the load for the example source is a short circuit, then the
actual power dissipated in the source, in the 1.5k resistor, is 17.2 mW, but in the Thvenin equivalent, it
would be only 11.5 mW. In the Norton equivalent, it would be zero! The internal resistance does not exist
as an actual resistance (unless the actual circuit is identical to the equivalent circuit), and does not
dissipate actual power.

The usual voltage source has a small internal resistance, so the plot of voltage versus current is nearly
horizontal, and is used near the vertical axis, where the voltage is roughly the open circuit voltage. The
short circuit current is well out of the normal range of operation, and would be quite large if the source
did not destroy itself in trying to reach it. Such a source must never be short-circuited. The usual current
source has a large internal resistance, so the plot of voltage versus current is nearly vertical, and is used
near the horizontal axis, where the current is roughly the short-circuit current. The open circuit voltage is
well out of the normal range of operation, and would be very high if the source did not destroy itself in
trying to reach it. Such a source must never be open-circuited. Voltage sources are quite common in most
applications of electricity, but in electronics current sources are also common.

An Exercise

The three-dimensional circuit at the right is a good test of your reasoning with respect to circuits. All the
resistances are equal, so symmetry can be used to analyze the circuit. Find the
resistance between node "a" and node "b" at the ends of a body diagonal of the
cube. Now find the resistance between node "a" and node "c" across a face
diagonal, and finally the resistance from node "a" to node "d" along an edge. The
first is rather easy, the second harder, and the third the most difficult. In every case,
there is no need to use determinants or loop currents, or any other excessive
complication, just series-parallel circuit analysis helped by symmetry. The answers
are: 5R/6, 3R/4 and 7R/12. Solder 12 resistors together to make a cube and test
these results.