Same way you always do it: Calculate the open circuit voltage from a to b. Short a to b, and calculate the current.
I'm puzzled by your diagram.
Is the current source = square root of 2 = 1.414sin(wt) ?
Is the voltage source = 2sin(wt)?
Since no phase shift between the current source and the voltage source is indicated, I would assume that they are both either sin(wt) or cos(wt); not one of each.Hi Mike
Yes, the current source is square root of 2. However I think the voltage and current source is a cosine function as it is a real number or am I incorrect in my assumption?
... But the Thevenin and Norton methods by themselves are invalid for circuits with dependent sources.
SteveB said:Wow, did you see that trick the reviewer played? He claimed that a resistor can be considered as a dependent voltage source, OR as a dependent current source. Then he sets up a circuit that forces constraints that allows only one voltage AND one current in the resistor R1. Hmmm, don't voltage sources allow arbitrary currents, and don't current sources allow arbitrary voltages?
Note that V1=(I1+I2)/g and the current through R1 is (I1+I2)/(R1 g). Both values depend on parameters that are pre-specified. So, the resistor R1 acts simultaneously as a voltage source and as a current source, which doesn't give any freedom in the external loading.
Consider a case where I1=I2 , not equal to zero, and R3=R2. This circuit is symmetrical, so V1 must be zero, hence the current in R1 is zero. This also means that the dependent current source has no current, and the currents in R2 and R3 are equal to zero. So, we have two current sources I1 and I2 pumping current into the circuit, but that current doesn't flow into any of the allowed current paths.
I'm happy to see this newer paper. It ties up some loose ends and gives the well deserved credit to W. Marshall Leach, Jr. and gets it into the official scientific literature.
As interesting and informative as those two documents are, I have to wonder why they are referenced in this thread. This thread started out answering a question about the validity and application of Thevenin's theorem, whereas Prof Leach's paper and its followup addresses the validity of superposition. Thevevin's theorem is only mentioned incidently in the solution of one problem, and not mentioned at all in the second paper. Therefore, I believe we wandered off the reservation a bit.
Hi There
How would one go about determining the Thevenin resistance in the following circuit? Would it be correct if I turn off the 2 A source (thus it becomes an open circuit with no current flowing through) and then use nodal analysis to determine the in going current and then use it to calulate R(Thevenin) using Ohm's Law?
What would the answer be?
Thanks in advance
JeanTech
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?