Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Norton's theorem big problem

  1. Jun 17, 2011 #1
    Hello,

    I encountered a paradox.


    When I solve this system using matrix form of electric potentials between circuit knots( i think its called that) I get that the current in R4 is ~86 mA. Using simulations in National Instruments, I got that the current is indeed ~86 mA.

    How I did this? Well, I unhooked the branch where R4 is and then calculated what is R Thevenin is 19,9 Ohms. Using further this method, I found that the potential difference between those 2 knots where R is hooked is 5,2 V which in deed is the case.

    Inorton=0,26 A. After that calculation of current through resistor R4 is trivial.(86 mA)



    But when I use 'classsic' way of solving this circuit and finding Inorton, I get weird results.

    When finding R thevenin(for the circut) u unhook the R4 right? and then make all voltage sources short circuited.(I transformed those current sources into voltage sources)

    Again I get the right result of ~19 Ohms for R Thevenin. But when I calculate Inorton, I short circuit a branch I am looking current in.

    https://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=36138&d=1307125539

    I get this case.


    By my thoughts I should delete this branch with source and resistor. But that gives me wrong result. I get that the current in that branch is: ~ 760mA waaay off.

    Problem here is only this branch with source and resistor, what do I do when I short circuit branch with resistor R4.

    Any thoughts here?

    I hope I was clear
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jun 17, 2011
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 17, 2011 #2
    Yes. You find the equivalent resistance as seen by the terminals of the load.

    I'm not sure what you're asking in the rest of your post...

    Are you telling us that you've solved it with Thevenin's theorem, but can't with Nortons?

    Post the circuit after you've done all the source transformations and we'll go from there.
     
  4. Jun 17, 2011 #3
    When I use Norton's classic approach, I get bad results. Rthevenin=Rnorton, i just misplaced the therms.

    Hmmm I will upload that in about an hour. Very long calculations.
     
  5. Jun 17, 2011 #4
    Here u go, an attachment. Hope you can see my problem
     

    Attached Files:

  6. Jun 17, 2011 #5
    In your last circuit on page 3, why did you remove R3 and E3? (I jumped to the last page, assuming all your work up to that point is correct)

    How did you get the value for the voltage source on the LHS to be 80V?
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2011
  7. Jun 17, 2011 #6
    Because in norton's process of finding its current, You have to short circuit that branch. Resulting in shout circuiting a voltage source. So you have to remove that.

    80V=40V+Ig2*R1. Look at the first page. I transformed current sources into voltage sources.
     
  8. Jun 17, 2011 #7
    Taking a look at the first few pages now, it seems as though the first source transformation you did to obtain the voltage source with a value of Ig2*R1 is incorrect.

    R1 is not connected in parallel with the current source.

    Do a source transformation with E1 and R1 followed by combining the parallel current sources/resistors. If you wish do to so you can then convert the resulting current source and parallel resistance to a branch with a voltage source and series resistance.
     
  9. Jun 17, 2011 #8
    I tested it in National instruments, this transformation, and it is correct. This is not the problem. Problem is that short circuit on R4.
     
  10. Jun 17, 2011 #9
    Yes you are correct, sorry I had made a mistake in my calculations. Let me take a look at your work in full.
     
  11. Jun 17, 2011 #10
    EDIT: I am making mistakes all over the place today. Working on it!

    ...
     
  12. Jun 17, 2011 #11
    ... I disagree. I checked, me and my mates, and following strictly nortons procedure, Rth is 19,90 ohms. Checked with matrix forms. Resistance is not the problem.
     
  13. Jun 17, 2011 #12
    This is a good problem!

    I can't see what's not clicking... I'll give it a fresh look again later.
     
  14. Jun 17, 2011 #13
    I think there is a problem because u neglect this voltage source, work around that. Studiot where are you :(
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Norton's theorem big problem
  1. Thevinin and Norton (Replies: 2)

  2. Norton's theorem (Replies: 6)

Loading...