Here's the circuit for which I need to find the Norton equivalent:

I learned that in the case where we have a dependent source in the network to be simplified, we need to find Voc and Isc to find Zth = Voc/Isc (or Rth if this wasn't a phasor analysis problem). My question is:

In the above example, if the independent source is replaced by a short circuit, then doesn't this mean that the network is completely dead, i.e., VL must be zero? If so, then the voltage-controlled current source is really an open circuit, so Zth is simply the series combination of j2 - j = j Ω (given that ω = 1 rad/s). I know that this can't be right because using Voc/Isc (after completing phasor analysis), Zth = 0.5 + j Ω.

I'm looking for a general, intuitive reason. Thanks in advance for any help!

I learned that in the case where we have a dependent source in the network to be simplified, we need to find Voc and Isc to find Zth = Voc/Isc (or Rth if this wasn't a phasor analysis problem). My question is:

**Why can't we find Zth by making the network inactive and finding the equivalent Zth of the inactive network?**In the above example, if the independent source is replaced by a short circuit, then doesn't this mean that the network is completely dead, i.e., VL must be zero? If so, then the voltage-controlled current source is really an open circuit, so Zth is simply the series combination of j2 - j = j Ω (given that ω = 1 rad/s). I know that this can't be right because using Voc/Isc (after completing phasor analysis), Zth = 0.5 + j Ω.

I'm looking for a general, intuitive reason. Thanks in advance for any help!

Last edited: