I know how to implement the method and so on, but i can't make any sense of it. The two ways we find out R(th) and V(th) seem to contradict each other. We find R(th) by looking at the whole resistance of the circuit from R(L) perspective, but the way we find V(th) sounds to me like finding the voltage of the LOOP in which R(L) is in, and not from R(L) perspective. I assumed that V(th) should be more like the voltage drop across the very R(L) resistor itself not the loop in which it is located. I spent much time trying to understand the logic behind the theorem but i need help.

Appreciate your attention.

 

It would be helpful if you could post a sample of a Thevenin Problem that you have encountered. That will give you and our members a point of discussion so that this thread can be more effect to you and others that may have similar questions.

Remember, if you are confused there are others who share your confusion.

hgmjr

 

Have a look here:

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_10/8.html

 

It would be helpful if you could post a sample of a Thevenin Problem that you have encountered. That will give you and our members a point of discussion so that this thread can be more effect to you and others that may have similar questions.

Remember, if you are confused there are others who share your confusion.

hgmjr

I am considering the theorem in general so there isn't really a particular problem. please read my first post in this thread as it describes my issue in details.

 

It would still be helpful if you could find a specific problem that would permit a more detailed discussion of the specifics of your question about the Thevenin Method.

hgmjr

 

The Thevenin voltage is the voltage across the two points of interest without the load resistor in the circuit. Use any method you want to calculate that voltage.

 

In short, you are basically simplifying the desired circuit connected to a certain load into a voltage and resistor in series. This essentially is all that the load sees. Though it might seem from the diagrams that V(Th) is the voltage around R(L), it is not. V(Th) is the open circuit voltage that would be seen before the load was connected (open circuit). R(Th) is the value that encompasses the entire resistivity of the circuit before R(L) is set in place.

With V(Th) and R(Th), the whole functionality of the circuit between the nodes around R(L) can be shown in the simplified series form.

Hope that helped.

 

|--R2---|----R3--|
| **** |****** |
| *****R1**** R(L)
O V ***|****** |
| *****|****** |
|______|________|

|--R2---|--------|
| **** |****** |
| *****R1**** R(L)
O V ***|****** |
| *****|****** |
|______|________|


lines & dashes represent wires
asterisks represent space so nvm them
O represents voltage source
R(L) = resistor load

"blah2222" adressed the type of confusion am facing in making a correct intuitive sense of the theorem. V(th) is said to be the voltage "seen" by R(L) while R(th) is the resistance "seen" by R(L). However, i still can't understand V(th). if some one could follow on from blah2222's "Though it might seem from the diagrams that V(Th) is the voltage around R(L), it is not. V(Th) is the open circuit voltage that would be seen before the load was connected (open circuit). R(Th) is the value that encompasses the entire resistivity of the circuit before R(L) is set in place." i would be grateful.

Thanks your kind attention