Come Cross Test Circuit Theory in Simulation, Over Unity Circuit

There is no need for discussion, you are mistaken.

As to your simulator proofs, simulators make tons of assumptions about reality. There are holes the size of a football field in most of those assumptions. When an engineer uses a simulator, he does so with an understanding of the limitations of the underlying models, or he gets garbage for his results.

-Chuck

Over Unity == Under Educated

But what do you expect from someone who posts via Googlegroups ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

"The Flavored Coffee Guy" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news: snipped-for-privacy@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

Hello,

Have you ever heard of reactive power? In your circuit energy is only exchanged between capacitors and inductors.

I will tell you now how to measure power with LTspice.

Run your example stage1.asc.

Press the Alt-key and keep it pressed. Move the cursor over the output capacitor C1. It will change to a thermometer. Click the left mouse button. Now the power in this capacitor will be plotted. V(N003)*I(C1) It's roughly +/-1kVA. Watch it's plus and minus!

Activate the plot window. Press the Ctrl-key and keep it pressed. Click with the left mouse button on the plot label V(N003)*I(C1) A small dialog will appear: Average 3W This is the average power dissipation in the capacitor.

There is nowhere 1kW power dissipation in this circuit. There are only a few Watts in the componenents due to their specified series resistance. The sum of all the losses in the components is the same as the power delivered from V1. It's simply a proof of power conservation as known since hundred(s) of years.

Best regards, Helmut

I suggest you learn about power factor. Try find "A Course in Electrical Engineering, Volume II, Alternating Currents"; Dawes, Chester; McGraw-Hill; 1947. It has chapters of wonderful information that modern books don't cover about power factor and how to measure power.

Hey Jim T., did you know Arthur Casey or Jordan Miller back in MIT? My copy of the above book was used by them back in the late 1950s. Book was only $4.90 (used) back then.

Nope.

My "core curriculum" was...

Fields: Fano/Chu/Adler and permutations thereof.

Circuits: Notes (no books) by H.B.Lee and Melcher; and books by Zimmerman/Mason and permutations thereof.

Machinery/Energy Conversion: White/Woodson and Woodson/White ;-)

Calculus: Thomas (who else ?)

...Jim Thompson

I had Woodson for 6.06. That was back in '64 or '65.

It was one of the most enjoyable courses I've ever taken.

Steve and I were getting to his office at 9AM on Friday morning to get our homework back. (Neither of us were morning people, but it was worth it.) It usually took 5 or 10 minutes to go over our homework. Then for the rest of the hour, we stood at the whiteboard and he would toss problems at us. They were all easy after you saw how to do it. As soon as we got one, he'd toss us another. It was a lot of work, but a lot of fun.

I teched in Woodson's MHD lab from '59-'62. Woodson was a really nice guy. Used to go to his house for BBQ.

Prof. Jackson was my thesis adviser.

Jim Melcher was a grad student, working on his PhD under Woodson, at the time and was teaching one of the active circuits courses as well... don't remember the course number, but it was the course where I was the only one in the class to get the start-up limit cycle right for a tube oscillator.... after being graded the only one wrong, I convinced Melcher I was right ;-)

Melcher went on to become head of the EE Department, but died young of colon cancer, just like my youngest son :-(

...Jim Thompson

I had Melcher for 6.014 (6.04) and 6.601 in the mid '70s. He was by far the best teacher I ever had, though I had other good ones. He understood the material so well that, rather than missing the point of a student's question, as is common, he could put two examples on the board illustrating the student's confusion and the correct way to view the problem. It was a shame he died so young.

One of my favorite texts is "Electromechanical Dynamics, Pt I", by Woodson and Melcher. Appendix B has the clearest review of E+M that I have ever seen, and in only 38 pages. I don't know if it was Woodson or Melcher that wrote that part, but I am sure that Melcher could have.

Just bought a used copy... figured I owed it to myself to have a collector's item ;-)

Since I knew both men well I'll try to decipher who wrote it.

...Jim Thompson