Talk:Thévenin's theorem

message: Why (in the current example picture) is R1 ignored when calculating the Vth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.234.129 (talk • contribs) 
: It isn't.  Why do you think it is?  Looking at the circuit from the output, you see R1 + ...  Let me add  the equation to the article. — Omegatron 20:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the equation with Rs in it.  Clearer now? — Omegatron 20:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Example requires further explanation

message: A reader's note:  I believe the example is wrong -- according to my calculations, Vth should be 13.8V, not 172.5V.  Please check.
:I too, have done this calculation and got 13.8V. (When you think about it, it can't possibly be MORE than 15 volts). I think the diagram is too confusing, as a simple example, to begin with. (I would use 1k, 1k, 2k). I'd like to replace it with another diagram, but I don't know how to go about doing that. Can you wiki pictures? Or will I have to change the tags? I'm going to post this in "Pages needing attention." - Sim
::Changed the diagram. This new version is a .jpg file. I have not deleted the old .png file, as I do not know the standard for such things. Sim 15:04, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
::: Diagrams should be in PNG, for the record. — Omegatron 20:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Example is (was) wrong

message: source not that its hard to calculate on your own. Comments on my pretty large changes? Fresheneesz 05:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conversion to norton

message: It's not notable.  Albert Einstein is notable, Garfield is notable, but a mention of Einstein in a Garfield strip would certainly not be notable, and would not be in the Einstein article.  — Omegatron 15:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally, I would be the first to agree with you, there are too many articles in Wikipedia whose "in popular culture," section is both useless and distracting.  A prime example is the article on the poem "O Captain! My Captain!," whose "popular culture," section is longer than any other, save the poem itslef.  However, in this case, I would like to beg your indulgence to disagree with you.  In your analagy, "Einstein," is a bit too notable---references to him in popular culture are a dime a dozen.  Unfortunately, Thévenin does not enjoy quite the same reputation.  Myself, even though I have had enough physics classes to qualify for a minor in the subject, the Doonsebury strip is the first time I have heard of this therom.  I looked it up because to me "which is the current source, and which is the voltage," did not make any sence.  Not that the article helped clarify my confusion, but I did learn something new.  As will, I think, a future peruser of the article from this very small "popular culture," section---it is a very rare mention of this subject in the broader world.  --VonWoland 19:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doonesbury 

message: The following comment was added on my talk page Fresheneesz 17:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The direction of the current source in "Conversion to a Thévenin equivalent" is incorrect. It would generate a negative voltage across the output terminals. The Thevenin equivalent circuit generates a positive voltage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by THeeren (talk • contribs) 17:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think he's correct, but I'm putting his comment here just to make sure. Fresheneesz 17:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't even remember what I was talking about. I can't find it anymore, so I assume you are correct. THeeren (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion to a Thévenin equivalent - wrong? 

message: The article has recently had added a proof by Cramer's rule.  I have doubts that what is stated is actually a proof.  I agree that proving that the load current is in the form;
:I_L = \frac {E}{R_L + R} 
is equivalent to proving Thevenin's theorem.  However, it is merely stated without proof that this is the result from using Cramer's rule.  Doubtless Cramer's rule can be used in a proof of Thevenin and the article can say this (ideally with a suitable citation) but it should not be claiming to present a proof when no proof is given. SpinningSpark 10:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so too. There's no need calculating to prove this theorem. The linearity of the network is the sole basis of it. There are lots of proof wich are better and simpler than this. http://fourier.eng.hmc.edu/e84/lectures/ch2/node3.html http://netlecturer.com/NTOnLine/T08_THEOREMS/p03ThevA.htm http://www.eng.fsu.edu/~depriest/EE3003Lab/circuit_theorems.ppt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.111.183 (talk) 09:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cramer's rule 

message: In the part
    "Step 2 could also be thought of as:
         2a. Replace voltage sources with short circuits, and current sources with open circuits.
         2b. Calculate the resistance between terminals A and B. This is RTh. "
It should be noted that this method only works for circuits with independent voltage/current sources.
(in case the circuit has dependent sources, some other method must be used)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.107.63.44 (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  On determining Rth 

message: The term 'single-frequency AC systems' may be too restrictive.  See for example http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=harmonic+addition+theorem.Cblambert (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Single-frequency AC systems

message: The notation after the phrase "Calculating equivalent resistance:"  R1 + [ (R2 + R2) || R4 ]  seems obscure and confusing. For example, I do not find this notation in H&H, Delaney, or any other textbook on my shelf.   Can you please express this in a way that a non-initiate will understand without a lot of additional and unnecessary searching? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKN1 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some text that I hope clarifies that R1||R2 means the effective resistance of R1 in parallel with R2. The notation is common. Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notation is not clear to a general reader 

message: "The replacements of voltage and current sources do the opposite of what the sources themselves are meant to do. A voltage source creates a difference of electric potential between its terminals; its replacement, a short circuit, equalizes potential. Likewise, a current source generates a certain amount of current, whereas an open circuit stops electric flow altogether."
Here I feel that the opposite of a + 5 Voltage source would be -5 Voltage source not 0 Volt. Similarly with the current source. The opposite of matter, is antimatter while it's absence would be vacuum.
Aditya 09:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Opposite is not the correct word.Constant314 (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not really opposite 

message: The section titled "Proof" did not actually contain a proof, and the text that was there, I found completely opaque and unenlightening. The actual proof (as given by Thevenin) is actually simpler to understand than this section! So, I replaced the section with the actual proof. It then made sense to move this section nearer the beginning, which I did. LyleHoward (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof added