# Thevenin equivalent- help

Discussion in 'Homework Help' started by alamri, Jul 9, 2009.

1. ### alamri Thread Starter New Member

Jul 9, 2009
6
0
Hey guys,
I have a problem solving two of my homework problems..

It's about thevenin equivalent. I get the voltages right on both of them. but I can't get the Rth right for some reason! ( I'm pretty sure it's because both problem have dependant sources).

Please show me how you can get the RTh. Thanks!

2. ### hgmjr Retired Moderator

Jan 28, 2005
9,030
218
Can you post a scan of your work in solving the problem?

hgmjr

3. ### alamri Thread Starter New Member

Jul 9, 2009
6
0
I don't have a scanner, put lemme take a pic of it

4. ### alamri Thread Starter New Member

Jul 9, 2009
6
0

Here you go, I hope it's not too big

Last edited: Jul 9, 2009
5. ### hgmjr Retired Moderator

Jan 28, 2005
9,030
218
Since the dependent voltage source has a zero resistance you should be able to replace it with a short-circuit.

hgmjr

6. ### alamri Thread Starter New Member

Jul 9, 2009
6
0
But if i combine the two resistors I still get wrong answer! :S I'm really confused, I tried combining them in series and parellel but didn't work!

Jan 28, 2005
9,030
218

hgmjr

8. ### alamri Thread Starter New Member

Jul 9, 2009
6
0
No I submit the homework online.

9. ### The Electrician AAC Fanatic!

Oct 9, 2007
2,643
468
I think it's a dependent current source, hgmjr.

Besides, when you're calculating a Thevenin equivalent, you can't eliminate dependent sources like you can the independent sources.

alamri, do you know the nodal method for solving networks?

Number the nodes along the top edge of the circuit, from left to right.

The top of the 200V source will be node 1, the top of the dependent current source will be node 2, and the output will be node 3.

Can you set up the 3 nodal equations?

10. ### alamri Thread Starter New Member

Jul 9, 2009
6
0
I really don't.
I know that I can work it out by doing the node analysis and the mesh current analysis.. I don't really know what u mean by the nodal method

11. ### hgmjr Retired Moderator

Jan 28, 2005
9,030
218
Electrician,

You are exactly right.

hgmjr

12. ### The Electrician AAC Fanatic!

Oct 9, 2007
2,643
468
Go read this, particularly the section on the node voltage method:

then give it a go and show us your work.

13. ### Ratch New Member

Mar 20, 2007
1,068
4
alamri,

In the attachment, refer to the figure in post #1.

Ratch

File size:
895.9 KB
Views:
44
14. ### hgmjr Retired Moderator

Jan 28, 2005
9,030
218
It seems that the twist to this problem lies in the presences of the VCCS (voltage-controlled current source). Due to its presences in the circuit, the Thevenin's Equivalent voltage is not a constant but will need to contain a term that account for the this load dependent factor.

As for the Thevenin's Equivalent resistance, a VCCS is a current source and so to calculate the Thevenin's Resistance, the impedance of the VCCS can be replaced by a open circuit.

At least that is my take on this interesting circuit.

hgmjr

Last edited: Jul 10, 2009
15. ### The Electrician AAC Fanatic!

Oct 9, 2007
2,643
468
Rth would be 2.5Ω without the dependent current source.

With it, Rth would be either 1.9Ω or 3.1Ω, depending on how the polarity of Vx is taken.

I think you got it backwards.

16. ### Ratch New Member

Mar 20, 2007
1,068
4
hgmjr,

It sounds plausible, but it isn't so. The Thévenin equivalent I worked out previously of 200 volts in series with 1.9 ohms, and no other term, works for all values of resistance you can hang on points a,b.

Ratch

17. ### Ratch New Member

Mar 20, 2007
1,068
4
The Electrician,

I decided to define the polarity of Vx by the direction of the assumed current and the voltage from the common point or "ground". Your point is valid, and it is easy to compute the answer with Vx as negative.

Ratch

18. ### The Electrician AAC Fanatic!

Oct 9, 2007
2,643
468
But why would you make that decision ('I decided to define the polarity of Vx ... from the common point or "ground".') when the polarity of Vx is indicated on the schematic?

19. ### Ratch New Member

Mar 20, 2007
1,068
4
The Electrician,

That's an easy question to answer. I am used to seeing voltages on a schematic defined as a designated positive value, not a negative one. If the computed value turns out to be negative, then fine, but its designation is still positive. Notice that no matter which way the voltage across Rvx is interpreted, Vx's value proves to be positive. I am also used to seeing a controlling voltage current source (CVCS) with a negative controlling voltage to be written as -0.4Vx or 0.4(v2-v1), which is much clearer. Therefore I thought the bass-ackwards designation of Vx was an error, which I corrected. I hope this answer clears up why I did what I did. It is really the method that the OP was looking for, not the interpretation.

Ratch

Last edited: Jul 10, 2009
20. ### The Electrician AAC Fanatic!

Oct 9, 2007
2,643
468
When I saw the - and + designations on Vx, I thought "this would be an easy thing to lose a few points on." When I saw your answer was the other one (1.9 instead of 3.1), I thought I had messed up, but on checking again, I think the correct answer is 3.1, for the designation shown. Do you agree?