EEL-3115L.

001F13
Laboratory Experiment 1: Demonstration of
Circuit Laws/Theorems
Gregory Keener
U-51971841
9/11/2013


This lab report was written and assembled solely by myself, Gregory Keener. In-lab measurements were
taken in conjunction with my lab partner, Erin Ritter. Use of any portion of this lab report by any other
students (with the exception of measurements for Erin Ritter) constitutes cheating. In addition to being
reported to appropriate USF faculty, violators will be publicly ridiculed, berated, and/or cursed out in
front of large groups of people by me. This document is provided on Scribd.com for the sole purposes of
demonstrating proper lab report formatting and experimental methods. Copyright 2013. All rights
reserved. If you are an instructor and are receiving this document, please slap your student for me.
They're cheating in your course.


____________________________________________________ ________________
Signature Date
Table of contents
Introduction and Objectives..2
Pre-lab Calculations..2
Materials and Equipment..4
Experimental Procedure5
Experimental Data.....8
Data Analysis..11
Experimental Concerns, Issues, and Future Improvements12
Conclusion...13
Works Cited15
List of Tables and Figures
Figure 2.1: Circuit Diagram of Circuit A3
Figure 2.2: Circuit Diagram of Circuit B3
Table 2.1: Circuit A Theoretical Values.3
Table 2.2: Circuit B Theoretical Values.4
Figure 4.1: Live of Circuit A...6
Figure 4.2 Live of Circuit B6
Table 5.1: Circuit A Experimental Values.8
Table 5.2: Circuit B Experimental Values.10
1. Introduction and Objectives
This purpose of this lab was to learn the proper use of laboratory equipment, including
digital multimeters, power supplies, breadboards, and basic circuit components. To accomplish
this, two circuits were to be created as shown in the lab manual (refer to section 3. Experimental
Procedures for detailed layout). These circuits were to be used to verify that KVL, KCL, and the
Thevenin Theorem hold in a laboratory environment. In addition to reinforcing fundamental
circuit laws and theorems, this experiment provided the opportunity to gain hands-on
experience with professional lab equipment. Also, this experiment demonstrated how to measure
experimental values for node voltages, branch currents, Thevenin voltages, Norton currents,
resistor voltages, and Thevenin resistances.
2. Pre-lab Preparations and Calculations
In preparation for this experiment, circuits A and B (see fig. 2.1 and 2.2, respectively)
were analyzed using KVL, KCL, Thevenin Theorem, and basic circuit laws such as Ohms law.
For circuit A, the node voltages, resistor voltages, and branch currents were calculated for the
entire circuit. For circuit B, the Thevenin voltage, Norton current, and Thevenin resistance were
calculated by hand using basic circuit laws and theorems.

Figure 2.1: Circuit A diagram Figure 2.2: Circuit B diagram

The theoretical values for Circuit A and Circuit B were then recorded and are listed in Tables 2.1
and 2.2, respectively.
Circuit A Theoretical Values
Node Voltages
V
1
12V
V
2
4.062V
V
3
Not calculated, mistakenly read node 3 as
ground

Branch Currents
I
1
3.777mA
I
2
2.898mA
I
3
Not calculated, mistakenly read node 3 as
ground

Resistor Voltages
V
1.5k
5.666V
V
3.3k
2.901V
V
910k
3.437V
V
1k
-2.901V
Table 2.1

Circuit B Theoretical Values
Thevenin and Norton Equivalents
V
th
6.974V
I
N
11.9355mA
R
th
582.08
Table 2.2

3. Materials and Equipment
The following materials and equipment were used to obtain experimental values:
1x Agilent U8030A Triple Output DC Power Supply
1x HP3441A Digital Multimeter
1x 910 , W resistor
1x 3.3 k, W resistor
1x 1.5 k, W resistor
1x 1 k, W resistor
1x Heavy duty, banana plug-to-alligator clip wiring set
1x Heavy duty, probe test lead set.
1x Elenco Precision Model 9433 breadboard circuit design station


Note: Jumper wires in graphic diagrams are for illustrative purposes only and were not used for
the experimental circuit. As such, they are not included in this section

4. Experimental Procedure
Two identical circuits were prepared on a breadboard in accordance with the
specifications listed for circuit A and circuit B in figures 2.1 and 2.2, respectively. Although the
two circuits extremely similar, and could therefore be interchanged via a small change in wiring,
separate circuits were prepared in advance of the experiment in order to save time. A live
illustration of these circuits are shown below (see figures 4.1 and 4.2).

Figure 4.1: Live model of circuit A

Figure 4.2: Live model of circuit B


In this experiment, circuit A was tested first. For the first part of this experiment, the
power supply was set to provide a constant 12VDC to the circuit, with a maximum current of
10mA (the lowest current setting possible on the power supply used). In order to obtain the node
voltages, the voltage was taken from each node, using node zero as the ground point for the
probes. The circuit was not broken or modified during this series of measurements, thereby
causing the probes to be in parallel to the selected node during measurement. Next, the voltages
were measured across each resistor. Once again, the circuit was measured as-is. Then, the
current was measured through each resistor. For this series of measurements, one side of the
resistor was removed from the circuit. The circuit was then reconnected using the test lead
probes to short the previously created open circuit.
After this was completed, the power supply was set to 0V and the resistances were
measured across each resistor while still in the circuit. Next, the power supply was turned off and
resistances were taken across each node. Once again, all resistors were left connected to the
circuit. Finally, each resistor was removed from the circuit and individually measured for
resistance using the digital multimeter.
Circuit B was the next system to be tested. For this circuit, the power supply was set to
provide two separate voltages to the circuit. As such, 8VDC and 12VDC signals were connected
to the circuit at the points shown in figure 4.2. The node voltages and voltages across each
resistor were measured using the same methods used for circuit A. Next, the open circuit voltage
was measured across node 3 and 4. Then, a short circuit was created along nodes 3 and 4 using
the probe kit. The resulting value was recorded as the Norton current. Finally, the power supply
connections were removed and the circuit was shorted along these points. The resistance between
nodes 3 and 4 was then recorded as the Thevenin voltage, thereby concluding the experiment.
5. Experimental Data
Circuit A Experimental Values
Node Voltages
Measurement By-hand Experimental % Error
V
1
12V 12.001V .00833%
V
2
4.062V 6.335V 35.88%
V
3
Not calculated,
mistakenly read node 3
as ground
3.442V N/A

Branch Currents
Measurement By-hand Experimental %Error
I
R1
3.777mA 3.825mA 1.25%
I
R2
2.898mA .896mA 223.44%
I
R3
Not calculated,
mistakenly read node 3
as ground
2.942mA N/A
I
R4
3.777mA 3.839mA 1.62%

Resistor Voltages
Measurement By-hand Experimental % Error
V
1.5k
5.666V 5.664V .035%
V
3.3k
2.901V 2.912V 0.38%
V
910
3.437V 3.422V 0.44%
V
1k
-2.901V -2.912V 0.38%

Node Resistances
Measurement By-hand Experimental % Error
R
(0-1)
N/A 3.122k N/A
R
(1-2)
N/A 1.474k N/A
R
(3-0)
N/A 890.1 N/A
R
(2-3)
N/A 988.8 N/A

Resistances of Resistors in Connected Circuit
Measurement By-hand Experimental % Error
R
1.5k
N/A 1.472k N/A
R
3.3k
N/A 3.247k N/A
R
910k
N/A 890.1 N/A
R
1k
N/A 988.8 N/A

Resistances of disconnected resistors
Measurement By-hand Experimental % Error
R
1.5k
N/A 1.740k N/A
R
3.3k
N/A 757.77 N/A
R
910k
N/A 757.74 N/A
R
1k
N/A 890.44 N/A
Table 5.1
Circuit B Experimental Values
Node Voltages
Measurement By-hand Experimental % Error
V
1
N/A 7.99V N/A
V
2
N/A 8.908V N/A
V
3
N/A 3.090V N/A
V
4
N/A -.3415V N/A

Resistor Voltages
Measurement By-hand Experimental % Error
V
R1
N/A 0.567V N/A
V
R2
N/A 8.907V N/A
V
R3
N/A 3.090V N/A
V
R4
N/A -0.3415V N/A

Thevenin and Norton Equivalents
Measurement By-hand Experimental % Error
V
th
-6.974V -3.089V 125.77%
I
N
11.9355mA 5.337mA 123.64%
R
th
582.08 573.96 1.41%
Table 5.2
6. Data Analysis
For circuit A, the node voltage V
2
and branch current I
R2
showed extremely high percent errors
of 35.88% and 223.44%, respectively. After reviewing the experimental process and pre-lab
calculations, it was determined that the discrepancy was caused by incorrect analysis in the by-
hand calculations. Specifically, node 3 was mistakenly used as a reference node, in addition to
the reference node at node 0. This was due to misreading the circuit and overlooking R
4
(910
resistor) while performing circuit analysis. Once the circuit is correctly analyzed without node 3
being treated as an additional reference, the theoretical values of V
2
and I
R2
become 6.24V and
.835mA, respectively. This causes a percent error of 1.4996% for V
2
and 6.81%, respectively.
These values can also be determined using voltage and current division, in which they hold the
same respective values. All other calculations correlated properly with experimental results.
The same error occurred during analysis of circuit B. In this case, node 4 was treated as a
reference node, in addition to the reference node at node 0. As a result, the Thevenin voltage
values had a percent error of 125.77%, while the Norton current showed a percent error of
123.64%. Once again, correct analysis of the circuit (by removing the ground from node 4)
substantially reduced the percent error for both V
th
and I
N
. Proper analysis resulted in a sub-4%
percentage error for both values. The experimental Thevenin resistance was within an acceptable
error margin of calculated values.
7. Experimental Concerns, Issues, and Future Improvements
While the experiment was ultimately successful, there were a few issues. First, the
breadboard circuits were configured incorrectly at first. This caused delays in completing the
experiment due to requiring time to troubleshoot anomalous multimeter readings (0 voltage).
This could have been avoided by designing the physical circuits in a manner that more closely
resembled circuit diagrams 1.1 and 1.2. Instead, the circuits were configured in a manner that
used as little breadboard space as possible, causing them to appear cluttered and causing
confusion during assembly. An example of this cleaner layout is given in figures 4.1 and 4.2.
A substantial amount of time was also used for familiarization with both the digital
multimeter and power supply. Since neither party performing this experiment had any experience
with the specific equipment models being used, a large amount of laboratory time was wasted
attempting to figure out the proper use of said equipment. Specifically, setting maximum
currents on the power supply and ensuring the proper test lead connections on the digital
multimeter proved to be time-consuming due to lack of experience. This could have been easily
avoided by reading the instruction manuals provided in the lab manual prior to arriving in the
laboratory.
In the future, spending more pre-lab time verifying correct circuit configuration,
experiment procedures, and equipment familiarization prior to the laboratory session would
greatly reduce the number of problems experienced during the actual experiment. Additionally,
using gator clip probes instead of the needle test lead probes would make measurements much
easier to take, given the ease and stability of using such clips and reduced reliance on steady
hands.
8. Conclusion
The experiment proved to be extremely successful. After removing the erroneous additional
reference nodes from circuits A and B, the theoretical and experimental values for both circuits
showed a high degree of correlation. Since the theoretical calculations were performed using
KVL, KCL, and Thevenin theorem, the experiment proved successful in verifying said circuit
laws and theorems. Furthermore, applying these theorems and laws to the experimental data
itself also produces results consistent with said procedures. Additionally, the resistance
combinations, being independent of voltage and current for the given circuits, were able to be
verified using both the initial, incorrect analysis and the corrected circuit analysis.
Finally, while neither voltage nor current division were used in either analysis of this
circuit, they can both be easily applied to experimental values in order to verify their accuracy.
For instance, using circuit As I
R1
value of 3.825mA as a given current, current division can be
applied to obtain an I
R2
and I
R3
of .8895mA and 2.935mA, respectively. Both values are well
within 1% error margins of expected values.
After accounting for the aforementioned pre-lab calculation errors, the experimental data
was highly consistent with expected values. Furthermore, applying KVL, KCL, Thevenin
theorem, current/voltage division, and resistance combinations to the experiment itself yields
values that are within 1-2% of expected values. As such, the experiment was able to successfully
verify the aforementioned circuit laws and theorems.
Additionally, this experiment provided invaluable experience with both the digital
multimeters and power supplies used in this course. This experience vastly increased the
experimenters proficiency and confidence in dealing with such equipment in a professional
laboratory environment. In the future, this learning curve should become irrelevant, as most basic
operations of said lab equipment have now been performed and mastered.


9. Works Cited
None

Remainder of page intentionally left blank.