
Two batteries of different $emf$ and internal resistances connected in series with each other and with an external load resistor. The current is $3A$ . When the polarity of one battery is reversed, the current becomes $1A$ . The ratio of the $emf$ of the two batteries is:
(A) $2.5:1$
(B) \[2:1\]
(C) $3:2$
(D) $1:1$
Answer
218.4k+ views
Hint: We will use Kirchhoff's rule to find a relation of the resistances and the $emf$ of the two batteries. Then, we will equate them with each other.
Step By Step Solution

Here,
\[{V_1}\] is the $emf$ of the first battery and \[{V_2}\] is that of the second one. \[{r_1}\] is the internal resistance of the first battery and \[{r_2}\] is that of the second. \[R\] in the load resistance.
Now,
For the first situation when current is $3A$ .
By Kirchhoff’s Law,
\[\frac{{\mathop V\nolimits_1 \mathop { + V}\nolimits_2 }}{{\mathop {R + r}\nolimits_1 \mathop { + r}\nolimits_2 }} = \mathop 3\nolimits_{} \]
Thus, we can say
$\mathop {(R + r}\nolimits_1 \mathop { + r}\nolimits_2 ) = \frac{{\mathop V\nolimits_1 \mathop { + V}\nolimits_2 }}{3} \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot (1)$
Similarly for the second case when current is $1A$ ,
$\mathop V\nolimits_1 \mathop { - V}\nolimits_2 = \mathop {R + r}\nolimits_1 \mathop { + r}\nolimits_2 $
Now,
Putting in equation $(1)$, we get
$\mathop {3V}\nolimits_1 \mathop { - 3V}\nolimits_2 = \mathop V\nolimits_1 \mathop { + V}\nolimits_2 $
After further evaluation, we get
$\mathop {2V}\nolimits_1 = \mathop {4V}\nolimits_2 $
In the question, it is asked for $\frac{{\mathop V\nolimits_1 }}{{\mathop V\nolimits_2 }}$
Thus, we get
\[\frac{{\mathop V\nolimits_1 }}{{\mathop V\nolimits_2 }} = \frac{2}{1}\]
Hence, the answer is (B).
Additional Information: The Kirchhoff’s rules are handy to use in the cases for internal resistance, multiple $emf$ and in the cases indulging potentiometer. These rules are simple and very intuitive. Just that they were placed in a standardized manner by Kirchhoff.
The internal resistance we are talking about is referring to the resistance offered by the battery itself at initiation. This internal resistance value decides about the behavior of the circuit. Though minimal, but still of concern.
Note: We directly evaluated the result due to the application of the Kirchhoff’s law. One should not be confused about the direct relation. It is trivially coming from Kirchhoff's law.
Step By Step Solution

Here,
\[{V_1}\] is the $emf$ of the first battery and \[{V_2}\] is that of the second one. \[{r_1}\] is the internal resistance of the first battery and \[{r_2}\] is that of the second. \[R\] in the load resistance.
Now,
For the first situation when current is $3A$ .
By Kirchhoff’s Law,
\[\frac{{\mathop V\nolimits_1 \mathop { + V}\nolimits_2 }}{{\mathop {R + r}\nolimits_1 \mathop { + r}\nolimits_2 }} = \mathop 3\nolimits_{} \]
Thus, we can say
$\mathop {(R + r}\nolimits_1 \mathop { + r}\nolimits_2 ) = \frac{{\mathop V\nolimits_1 \mathop { + V}\nolimits_2 }}{3} \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot (1)$
Similarly for the second case when current is $1A$ ,
$\mathop V\nolimits_1 \mathop { - V}\nolimits_2 = \mathop {R + r}\nolimits_1 \mathop { + r}\nolimits_2 $
Now,
Putting in equation $(1)$, we get
$\mathop {3V}\nolimits_1 \mathop { - 3V}\nolimits_2 = \mathop V\nolimits_1 \mathop { + V}\nolimits_2 $
After further evaluation, we get
$\mathop {2V}\nolimits_1 = \mathop {4V}\nolimits_2 $
In the question, it is asked for $\frac{{\mathop V\nolimits_1 }}{{\mathop V\nolimits_2 }}$
Thus, we get
\[\frac{{\mathop V\nolimits_1 }}{{\mathop V\nolimits_2 }} = \frac{2}{1}\]
Hence, the answer is (B).
Additional Information: The Kirchhoff’s rules are handy to use in the cases for internal resistance, multiple $emf$ and in the cases indulging potentiometer. These rules are simple and very intuitive. Just that they were placed in a standardized manner by Kirchhoff.
The internal resistance we are talking about is referring to the resistance offered by the battery itself at initiation. This internal resistance value decides about the behavior of the circuit. Though minimal, but still of concern.
Note: We directly evaluated the result due to the application of the Kirchhoff’s law. One should not be confused about the direct relation. It is trivially coming from Kirchhoff's law.
Recently Updated Pages
A square frame of side 10 cm and a long straight wire class 12 physics JEE_Main

The work done in slowly moving an electron of charge class 12 physics JEE_Main

Two identical charged spheres suspended from a common class 12 physics JEE_Main

According to Bohrs theory the timeaveraged magnetic class 12 physics JEE_Main

ill in the blanks Pure tungsten has A Low resistivity class 12 physics JEE_Main

The value of the resistor RS needed in the DC voltage class 12 physics JEE_Main

Trending doubts
JEE Main 2026: Application Form Open, Exam Dates, Syllabus, Eligibility & Question Papers

Derivation of Equation of Trajectory Explained for Students

Hybridisation in Chemistry – Concept, Types & Applications

Understanding the Angle of Deviation in a Prism

Understanding Collisions: Types and Examples for Students

Understanding Atomic Structure for Beginners

Other Pages
JEE Advanced Marks vs Ranks 2025: Understanding Category-wise Qualifying Marks and Previous Year Cut-offs

How to Convert a Galvanometer into an Ammeter or Voltmeter

Understanding Centrifugal Force in Physics

Ideal and Non-Ideal Solutions Explained for Class 12 Chemistry

Degree of Dissociation: Meaning, Formula, Calculation & Uses

Understanding Electromagnetic Waves and Their Importance

