OK, now that clears up a lot of my confusion since I saw the C reacting with both the parallel and series resistance.I don't know what you mean with the left hand Z. Is it supposed to be a series combination of C and R2? If so, then that would be wrong because C is not in series with R2. To be in series, whatever current flows in one component MUST flow in the other.
OK I am burnt out for now, taking a break, more tomorrow... Thx for putting up with me!So how does Floyd have you combine arbitrary impedances? Using phasor diagrams?
Trying to determine whether C is "reacting" with other resistances is not a technique that will be helpful when solving networks containing reactive components (capacitors and inductors).OK, now that clears up a lot of my confusion since I saw the C reacting with both the parallel and series resistance.
Hi,There isn't one Jony, hence this thread. I tried to find one using LTS but am not getting the same answer.
Did you investigate something like Nodal Analysis or similar yet?Al I appreciate that but at this point, I am trying to understand what is being given in the textbook. I thought I was pretty good at Thevenizing but this pi resistor arrangement has me stumped it seems. I can't find a text describing how to handle it.
Not as yet. Still working on DC & AC fundamentals. Still on the to-do list are Malvino's "Resistive and Reactive Circuits" and Floyd's "Electronic Devices".Did you investigate something like Nodal Analysis or similar yet?
The approach they are driving you towards is to look at the circuit from the capacitor's point of view. Doing that let's you find a Thevenin equivalent for the rest of the circuit that is purely resistive. With that, you can then find the voltage across the capacitor. See if that helps.Al I appreciate that but at this point, I am trying to understand what is being given in the textbook. I thought I was pretty good at Thevenizing but this pi resistor arrangement has me stumped it seems. I can't find a text describing how to handle it.
Your comment seems directed toward the circuit shown in post #47, but SamR is actually working on the circuit in post #48.The approach they are driving you towards is to look at the circuit from the capacitor's point of view. Doing that let's you find a Thevenin equivalent for the rest of the circuit that is purely resistive. With that, you can then find the voltage across the capacitor. See if that helps.
I'm talking about that one.Your comment seems directed toward the circuit shown in post #47, but SamR is actually working on the circuit in post #48.
The problem statement you posted in post #41 doesn't require you to use Thevenin's theorem, so why are you trying to use it? As just a voltage divider problem it's easier.So it wants the Thevenin equivalent circuit of:
You are fine up to this point:I tried the Thevenin method and here is what I am getting, close but not exact...
View attachment 202401
Unless someone sees some egregious errors, I'm calling this close enuff...
I remember that very well from going through Grob's.There are all kinds of opportunities to mess up these relationships. Working with complex impedances eliminates the vast majority of them because it tracks them for you.
I calculated Rth as Rleak||R1||(R2+R3) = 687.5ΩConsider the Thevenin circuit that has a series resistor of 687.5 Ω and a capacitive reactance of -3386 Ω.