In the following lecture by Prof. Anant Agarwal at 36:00, he intuitively proves Thevenin's Theorem using the following circuit
simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab
If we consider the voltage across, points a & b, we will be able to guess the form of the answer using superposition theorem as the sum of Voltage sources and current sources multiplied by a corresponding factor, So, $$e= \alpha _1 V_1 + \alpha _2 V_2 + ... + \beta_1 I_1 + \beta_2 I_2 +... + \mathbf i\, \mathbf R_{th} \\ e= \sum \alpha_n V_n + \sum \beta_n I_n + \mathbf i\,\mathbf R_{th}$$
The primary terms \$\sum \alpha_n V_n + \sum \beta_n I_n\$ ultimately form an voltage, so we can write them as \$V_{th}\$ and so the total circuit can be reduced to an Voltage source( \$V_{th}\$) and a Resistor(\$R_{th}\$) in series with current source.
My Question
If the current source in the circuit was replaced by a resistor,
then there would be no \$\mathbf i \mathbf R_{th}\$ term in the equation for \$e\$ . So we will just be able to reduce the circuit into an voltage source \$V_{th}\$ in series with the current source.
Absurd Thevenin's equivalent \$\downarrow\$
So how will you keep up the argument when there is no current source?
I know I'm obviously wrong at two places
- I'm wrong when I say, that the source \$V_{th}\$ and \$R_{th}\$ are in series with the current source.
- That new Thevenin's equivalent is absurd .
But I don't know why? In short, prove Thevenin's circuit intuitively with superposition theorem
In almost, every proof I visited, they introduce a current source between the nodes(under study). But in the actual circuit there may not be a current source, but we can use Thevenin's theorem to find the current across any Resistor or generally two nodes. So, why do they introduce a test current source to prove the theorem?
PS: How to decrease the size of the circuit?