Voltage drop over dependent current source?

Click For Summary
In a circuit with three meshes, the presence of a dependent current source (CCCS) can affect mesh current equations due to potential voltage drops. It is suggested to either convert the current source and its parallel resistor into a Thevenin equivalent voltage source or introduce a new variable for the voltage drop across the current source. The first method simplifies the mesh equations by reducing the circuit to two loops, while the second method requires an additional equation to account for the dependency. The discussion confirms that Thévenin and Norton equivalents can be used with dependent sources, provided the dependencies are maintained. Proper handling of the dependent source is crucial for accurate mesh current analysis.
Inertigratus
Messages
123
Reaction score
0
I have a circuit with 3 meshes for which I have to find the mesh currents, and I have.
However, I just thought that there might be a voltage drop over the dependent current source in the circuit, which would change the mesh current equations.
The CCCS is shared by two meshes.
When I did the calculations I simply ignored the CCCS.
Any ideas?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Inertigratus said:
I have a circuit with 3 meshes for which I have to find the mesh currents, and I have.
However, I just thought that there might be a voltage drop over the dependent current source in the circuit, which would change the mesh current equations.
The CCCS is shared by two meshes.
When I did the calculations I simply ignored the CCCS.
Any ideas?

Can you post the circuit diagram?
 
Sure, http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/7081/namnlskei.jpg
I'm not asking for the solution, just wondering what I should do with the dependent source when writing the mesh equations?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Two suggestions. First, you could convert the current source and the 4R resistor in parallel with it to a Thevenin equivalent voltage source. That would let you write the KVL mesh equations without worrying about mystery voltages. It would also reduce the circuit to just two loops.

Second, you could introduce a new variable, say vx, which is the voltage drop across the current source, and one new equation (with a new variable you need another equation). This equation would be the additional constraint on the mesh currents implied by the current source, namely i2 - i3 = k*i1.

attachment.php?attachmentid=38884&stc=1&d=1316101327.gif


I think that the first suggestion would be simpler. Note that the third mesh current i3 is strictly dependent upon the voltage vx via Ohm's Law with the 4R resistor.
 

Attachments

  • Fig1.gif
    Fig1.gif
    10.1 KB · Views: 2,639
I see, thanks!
So it's possible to use Thévenin and Norton equivalents when the sources are dependent as well?
 
Inertigratus said:
I see, thanks!
So it's possible to use Thévenin and Norton equivalents when the sources are dependent as well?

Sure, as long as you maintain the dependencies through the calculations.
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
845
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K