Thevenin & Norton Circuit with Current source?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the Thevenin and Norton equivalents of a circuit containing a current source. Participants explore the implications of a dependent current source and the relationships between voltages and currents in the circuit, particularly focusing on the open-circuit voltage (Voc) and the Thevenin resistance (Rth).

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about finding Voc, questioning how to apply Kirchhoff's laws without knowing the resistance or voltage of the current source.
  • Another participant points out that if the node voltage leads to the equation ix = 3ix, then ix must be zero, raising questions about the implications of this result.
  • Some participants discuss the potential difference across the 2 Ω resistor when ix is zero, suggesting that it must also be zero.
  • There is a debate about whether the Thevenin voltage can be concluded as zero if the current source is zero, with some arguing that a current source maintains its designated current regardless of the voltage across it.
  • One participant suggests using KVL to find the voltage across the current source, while others challenge this approach, indicating that the behavior of controlled sources complicates the analysis.
  • Participants explore the relationship between the Thevenin voltage and resistance, with some concluding that Rth is 11 Ω based on their calculations, while others caution against suppressing controlled sources in this determination.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach consensus on the value of Voc or the implications of a zero current source. There are competing views on how to analyze the circuit and the role of controlled sources in determining Thevenin resistance.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the behavior of the current source and the implications of dependent sources on circuit analysis. The discussion reflects uncertainty about applying KVL in the presence of a current source with unknown resistance.

Marcin H
Messages
306
Reaction score
6

Homework Statement


Screen Shot 2016-09-10 at 11.58.43 AM.png


Homework Equations


V=IR
Thevenin/Norton

The Attempt at a Solution


I am trying to find the Voc, but this circuit isn't making sense to me. So to start we can ignore the 9ohm resistor and that branch for now when Finding Voc so you are basically left with the square circuit on the left and I labeled my ground in the bottom right of that square. Now to find the Voc I have to find the voltage across the 3ix current source, but I am not sure how. How can I apply KVL or KCL to the loop if I don't know the resistance or voltage of the current source? And if you do KCL at the Top middle node then you get ix = 3ix which would give you 1=3 . Should I find I norton first and then I can find Rt which would just be 11ohms and then do V= InRt?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
As you've noticed, if ab is open then only the one loop is involved, hence only one current.

For what possible value of ##i_x## can ##i_x = 3 i_x##? What potential at the central node will guarantee this value of current?
 
gneill said:
As you've noticed, if ab is open then only the one loop is involved, hence only one current.

For what possible value of #i_x## can ##i_x = 3 i_x##? What potential at the central node will guarantee this value of current?

Your text is a bit glitchy for me, but are you asking what value of ix will give you ix = 3ix? 0 is the only value, but I don't really get how that works because if you take that equation and divide by ix you get 1=3 which gives you nothing. and how does a current of 0 in this circuit make sense? You have a voltage source and a current source.

Also, if it is 0, I am not sure how to find the potential that will make that true. Do I just use KCL at the node?
 
Marcin H said:
Your text is a bit glitchy for me, but are you asking what value of ix will give you ix = 3ix? 0 is the only value, but I don't really get how that works because if you take that equation and divide by ix you get 1=3 which gives you nothing. and how does a current of 0 in this circuit make sense? You have a voltage source and a current source.

Also, if it is 0, I am not sure how to find the potential that will make that true. Do I just use KCL at the node?

I did fix the text, undoubtedly shortly after you opened the post!

Yes, the only value of ##i_x## that can satisfy the requirement is zero. What must be the potential difference across the 2 Ω resistor in that case? So what is the potential at the center node?
 
gneill said:
I did fix the text, undoubtedly shortly after you opened the post!

Yes, the only value of ##i_x## that can satisfy the requirement is zero. What must be the potential difference across the 2 Ω resistor in that case? So what is the potential at the center node?
It would also have to be 0

EDIT* So if ix is 0 then does that mean the 3ix current source is also at 0A meaning that the voltage across there has to be 0 so that would mean Voc is also 0. So the thevenin voltage is 0?
 
Last edited:
Marcin H said:
It would also have to be 0

EDIT* So if ix is 0 then does that mean the 3ix current source is also at 0A meaning that the voltage across there has to be 0 so that would mean Voc is also 0. So the thevenin voltage is 0?
No.
Use KVL when Ix=0.
 
Ok so how could I show that exactly using some equations? Can I right Voc =V1 = 3(ix)R = 0. V1 is what I labeled my middle node.

Also, I am not sure how I could find my norton equivalent now. Since I have Vthevenin (0V) and Rthevenin (11ohms) can I just say Inorton = Vth/Rth = 0/11 = 0? This seems way to easy. I can get some node equations when I put a wire from a to b to find Isc but it looks like In would be 0 if you use KCL at the node. ix=3ix+In and if ix =0 then IN=0. I have never had a problem like this and it just doesn't seem right.

New Doc 24.jpg
 
Marcin H said:
Ok so how could I show that exactly using some equations?
Show what? Vth=0? It is not zero..I edited my post a couple of minutes after posting.
 
Marcin H said:
I have never had a problem like this and it just doesn't seem right.
Dependent sources can be a bit confusing in some cases. You got Ix=0 right. But since Ix=0, what is the voltage across the 2 ohm resistor? Apply KVL to the circuit and see.
 
  • #10
cnh1995 said:
Show what? Vth=0? It is not zero..I edited my post a couple of minutes after posting.
Oh. I didn't see your edit. If I use KVL (starting in the bottom left corner) I would get 0 = -8V +2ix + 3ix. But that doesn't make sense. how can I use KVL when there is a current source with an unkown resistance. I don't know how to find the voltage across the current source. That equation also does't make sense because if you plug in 0 for ix you will get -8V = 0 which is wrong.

EDIT*

Dependent sources can be a bit confusing in some cases. You got Ix=0 right. But since Ix=0, what is the voltage across the 2 ohm resistor? Apply KVL to the circuit and see.

If ix is 0 then V=IR = (0)*(2ohms) = 0
 
  • #11
Marcin H said:
If ix is 0 then V=IR = (0)*(2ohms) = 0
Right.
Current through the dependent source is 0. In fact, no current is flowing I am any branch.
What does this tell you about the current source?
 
  • #12
cnh1995 said:
Right.
Current through the dependent source is 0. In fact, no current is flowing in any branch.
What does this tell you about the current source?
Is the current source off or something? I am not too sure what that tells me about the current source. Would the coltage across it be 8V then? Is it acting just like its shorted? I can just remove that component?
 
  • #13
Marcin H said:
EDIT* So if ix is 0 then does that mean the 3ix current source is also at 0A meaning that the voltage across there has to be 0 so that would mean Voc is also 0. So the thevenin voltage is 0?
Your conclusion that if the current source is 0 Amps that the potential across it must be 0 Volts is not correct. A current source produces whatever potential difference is required in order to achieve and maintain its designated current. That can be any voltage, positive, negative, or zero.

In this case its goal is achieved if the current ##i_x## is zero, making ##3i_x## zero also. In order for that to happen the current through the 2 Ω resistor must be zero. So what what can you say about the potentials (with respect to your chosen reference point) at both ends of that resistor?
 
  • #14
gneill said:
Your conclusion that if the current source is 0 Amps that the potential across it must be 0 Volts is not correct. A current source produces whatever potential difference is required in order to achieve and maintain its designated current. That can be any voltage, positive, negative, or zero.

In this case its goal is achieved if the current ##i_x## is zero, making ##3i_x## zero also. In order for that to happen the current through the 2 Ω resistor must be zero. So what what can you say about the potentials (with respect to your chosen reference point) at both ends of that resistor?
Would it just be 8V then?
 
  • #15
Marcin H said:
Would it just be 8V then?
Well, confirm your hypothesis. Would KVL be satisfied for the loop?
 
  • #16
-8V+8V=0 so I guess it will. Hmm. So Vth is 8V.

SO if Vth is 8V I can just use Rth which is 11ohms and use that to find Inorton right? In = (8/11) A
 
  • #17
Marcin H said:
-8V+8V=0 so I guess it will. Hmm. So Vth is 8V.

SO if Vth is 8V I can just use Rth which is 11ohms and use that to find Inorton right? In = (8/11) A
How do you conclude that Rth is 11 Ω? Remember, you can't suppress a controlled source to find the Thevenin resistance: the actions of controlled sources will affect what the load "sees" as the impedance of the network, since they muck with the V-I characteristics that appear at the output.

Finding the open circuit voltage and the short circuit current is the way to finding the Thevenin or Norton equivalent. The Thevenin (or Norton) resistance is the ratio of Voc/Isc.
 
  • #18
gneill said:
How do you conclude that Rth is 11 Ω? Remember, you can't suppress a controlled source to find the Thevenin resistance: the actions of controlled sources will affect what the load "sees" as the impedance of the network, since they muck with the V-I characteristics that appear at the output.

Finding the open circuit voltage and the short circuit current is the way to finding the Thevenin or Norton equivalent. The Thevenin (or Norton) resistance is the ratio of Voc/Isc.
I thought we could find Rt by shorting all the sources and just looking at the resistors. I remember that rule from somewhere, but I'm not sure it's right. But if we said that the current through the 2 ohm and the current source is 0 then Wouldn't In also be 0? or would the voltage source be providing a current to IN now?
 
  • #19
Marcin H said:
I thought we could find Rt by shorting all the sources and just looking at the resistors. I remember that rule from somewhere, but I'm not sure it's right. But if we said that the current through the 2 ohm and the current source is 0 then Wouldn't In also be 0? or would the voltage source be providing a current to IN now?
You can suppress fixed sources (shorting voltage sources, opening current sources), but NOT controlled sources. Controlled sources are active components and change their voltage and/or currents depending upon the conditions in the circuit (or externally applied conditions). In some ways they appear to act like variable resistors.

So your path forward right now is to determine the short circuit current.
 
  • #20
gneill said:
You can suppress fixed sources (shorting voltage sources, opening current sources), but NOT controlled sources. Controlled sources are active components and change their voltage and/or currents depending upon the conditions in the circuit (or externally applied conditions). In some ways they appear to act like variable resistors.

So your path forward right now is to determine the short circuit current.
Would it not be 0? Can we use the KCL equation ix = 3ix + Isc and use the fact that ix=0 to show that In=0? Or is that not true once you put a wire from A to B. Here is what I came up with after shorting a-b. Is this correct?

New Doc 25.jpg
 
  • #21
No, Isc won't be zero. Once you short the output you have a new circuit, so your previous value of 8 V for V1 won't apply anymore. Analyse the new circuit from scratch. The node equation approach is convenient, but don't assume a value for V1. Instead, solve for it then obtain the short circuit current as the current through the 9 Ω resistor branch.

Hint: Identify the variable ##i_x## with the auxiliary equation ##i_x = \frac{8 - V1}{2}## in order to eliminate ##i_x## from the node equation.
 
  • #22
gneill said:
No, Isc won't be zero. Once you short the output you have a new circuit, so your previous value of 8 V for V1 won't apply anymore. Analyse the new circuit from scratch. The node equation approach is convenient, but don't assume a value for V1. Instead, solve for it then obtain the short circuit current as the current through the 9 Ω resistor branch.

Hint: Identify the variable ##i_x## with the auxiliary equation ##i_x = \frac{8 - V1}{2}## in order to eliminate ##i_x## from the node equation.
Is my way from the picture wrong? Are you saying I should take the equation for ix ( the one you just wrote) and plug it into 3ix and then solve for V1? How will V1 help me find Isc?

New Doc 25 (1).jpg
 
  • #23
Marcin H said:
Is my way from the picture wrong? Are you saying I should take the equation for ix ( the one you just wrote) and plug it into 3ix and then solve for V1? How will V1 help me find Isc?

When you write the node equation you have two unknowns: ##V1## and ##i_x##. The auxiliary equation allows you to eliminate ##i_x## and solve for ##V1##.

##I_{sc}## is the current through the 9 Ω resistor. What's the potential across it?
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Alternatively you could use mesh analysis to solve for the current in the second loop. But you'll need to use a supermesh, and another auxiliary equation tying the mesh currents together with the controlled source.
 
  • #25
gneill said:
When you write the node equation you have two unknowns: ##V1## and ##i_x##. The auxiliary equation allows you to eliminate ##i_x## and solve for ##V1##.

##I_{sc}## is the current through the 9 Ω resistor. What's the potential across it?
8V is the potential across so would the In just be I=V/R = 8V/9ohm = 8/9A?
 
  • #26
Marcin H said:
8V is the potential across so would the In just be I=V/R = 8V/9ohm = 8/9A?
Are you sure that it's 9 V 8 V ? Remember, V1 in this circuit is not guaranteed to be the same as in the previous one where the output was open. Show your solution for V1.

[Edit: Fixed the voltage value to match the quote]
 
Last edited:
  • #27
gneill said:
Are you sure that it's 9 V? Remember, V1 in this circuit is not guaranteed to be the same as in the previous one where the output was open. Show your solution for V1.
Oh, right. It won't be 9V. But it should be equal to V1 (the voltage across the 3ix current source) but I am not sure how to find that now after shorting ab. The way i did it in the picture of my solution is the only way I can think of it. I didn't learn mesh/super mesh yet so I have to do it using KCL and node voltage I think. Or loop analysis. I don't know how to find the potential across the 3ix source once the circuit is shorted.
 
  • #28
Write a node equation for the junction of the 2 and 9 Ohm resistors. The auxiliary equation remains ##i_x = \frac{8 - V_1}{2}##. Solve for ##V_1##. The current through the short ab is the same as the current through the 9 Ω resistor, and you'll have the potential across it.

upload_2016-9-10_19-39-3.png
 
  • #29
gneill said:
Write a node equation for the junction of the 2 and 9 Ohm resistors. The auxiliary equation remains ##i_x = \frac{8 - V_1}{2}##. Solve for ##V_1##. The current through the short ab is the same as the current through the 9 Ω resistor, and you'll have the potential across it.

View attachment 105734
Ok so my equation would be (V1-8)/2 = 3ix + (V1-0)/9

and plugging the ix in I get a value for V1 of 144/17

Then I=V/R = (16/17)A
 
  • #30
Marcin H said:
Ok so my equation would be (V1-8)/2 = 3ix + (V1-0)/9

and plugging the ix in I get a value for V1 of 144/17

Then I=V/R = (16/17)A
Check your node equation. You've got terms for currents flowing out of the node on both sides of the equation. If you're going to do it that way, one side or the other should describe a currents flowing into the node.

The best way to write a node equation consistently is to write a sum that equals zero. Choose either all currents flowing into the node or all currents flowing out. Then write all the terms on one side of the equation and set it equal to zero. So in this case if we assume that all currents are flowing out of the node:
$$\frac{V_1 -8}{2} + \frac{V_1}{9} + 3 \left(\frac{8 - V_1}{2} \right) = 0$$
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
12K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
7K