Multisim shows once again overunity with differant setup 60.000 times ou

[Magluvin]

reposted to the proper quote below

Mags

[Magluvin]

There are many issues to which he doesnt want to answer to.  Like the 2 dc sources, they are not being measured individually to see if those are where these large currents are coming from.  And if they are, i believe they are, these losses are not factored in.

Im tired of looking at it any further. Its like it was designed to be hard to follow. XMM1 for some odd reason is almost all the way to the left buried into the circuit but its leads go to measure things on the far right, for just 1 example. I cannot conceive why. I would have naturally put it close to where it is connected for the measurement, all just to make things easier for me, let alone for others to see and go over. Just because of the few major issues, Im not going to waste more time in it, like redrawing for ease of reading the circuit. I have a good enough eye for this that I already see these big problems. And TK has a better eye for it. I didnt see the problem with the source you pointed out. I lost interest after what has been pointed out already. Hopefully he figures it all out and stops badgering others for seeing what he didnt, and still doesnt.

It is what it is. Ive said my piece, and hopefully he figures out the issues and learns from it.

Mags

Lol, remove the sig gen and the transistor from the primary circuit and it probably still has these huge currents. So we can probably throw that portion of the circuit out.

Mags

[Magluvin]

Your V2 source 1100 is shorted:
Follow this path:
V2+ > up > left > down > left > down > right > up > right > down > right > up (scope XSC1 input) > right > down > left > up > right > down > right > up  (V2 -)

There are many issues to which he doesnt want to answer to.  Like the 2 dc sources, they are not being measured individually to see if those are where these large currents are coming from.  And if they are, i believe they are, these losses are not factored in.

Im tired of looking at it any further. Its like it was designed to be hard to follow. XMM1 for some odd reason is almost all the way to the left buried into the circuit but its leads go to measure things on the far right, for just 1 example. I cannot conceive why. I would have naturally put it close to where it is connected for the measurement, all just to make things easier for me, let alone for others to see and go over. Just because of the few major issues, Im not going to waste more time in it, like redrawing for ease of reading the circuit. I have a good enough eye for this that I already see these big problems. And TK has a better eye for it. I didnt see the problem with the source you pointed out. I lost interest after what has been pointed out already. Hopefully he figures it all out and stops badgering others for seeing what he didnt, and still doesnt.

It is what it is. Ive said my piece, and hopefully he figures out the issues and learns from it.

Mags

[TinselKoala]

about the whole wattmeter discusion i can be clear
an wattmeter has 4 terminals 2 for amps and 2 for voltage both plus and minus
all it does is calculate how much amps are going trough the wire and how much voltage is aplied
it multiplies that and show you the watts, there are no amps lost there neither does it create amps it's a meter

THE WIRE

The problem is that your "wattmeter" is not being used to measure voltage and current through the "same wire". You are NOT USING IT CORRECTLY. To have a valid power reading you must connect the V and I inputs of the wattmeter to THE SAME "WIRE" (that is, to the same circuit branch). You connect the V inputs in parallel with the voltage source to the "wire" (circuit branch) and the I inputs in series with the "wire" (circuit branch). THE SAME CIRCUIT BRANCH. All your simulation schematics have your Wattmeter's voltage input connected to one branch and the current input connected to A DIFFERENT BRANCH. So you have garbage in (values from different circuit branches) yielding garbage out (invalid "power" readings).

The simulator is pretty smart but it can only do what you are telling it to do, and if you are telling it to do something stupid or ignorant -- it will do it, and return the ridiculous (and invalid) results that you are seeing.

Furthermore, if you want to claim "OU" you have to compare INPUT POWER -- that is, the correctly measured TOTAL power that is put into your device -- with OUTPUT POWER, which is the power delivered to a load. You have no clear total input, and no clear load, in your simulation. In fact the huge "power" you are incorrectly measuring could just as well be considered INPUT since part of that "power" measurement comes from a SOURCE of power not a load. However as I have explained your wattmeter is not really giving you a POWER measurement at all, of any kind, since it is not measuring V and I in the same circuit branch.

Now go play in the street, or something.

[Magluvin]

sow not thats 2000 wndings on the primairie and 5 on the secondairie, if you can give me som  ohm specs for that i can fill it in

thnx

The ohms would depend on the design. lets say you just put in 1ohm, which would be a far shot probably at even 2000 turns, but if you plug in 1ohm for the pri and .4ohm on the sec, you are going to see a drastic change from what you are seeing, even though the circuit is whacked out. Unless one of the sources is directly across an amp meter somehow in that mess. But I dont think thats possible as the supplies are not erroring due to infinite amps. Actually Im not sure why they are not erroring when you run the circuit, unless the inductances are varying as such with the input. Dunno. But if you plug in those numbers that are still unrelistic, but very low for your sake to give you a possible edge here, the difference will be an order of magnitude going from absolute 0ohms to some real world resistance numbers. 
,1ohm is an infinite distance away from 0ohms. We can whack that .1ohm in half forever and not reach 0ohms.  I remember Segan explained if you cut an apple pie in half, then cut 1 half into 1/4, then a 1/4 into 1/8 and keep going, it would take approximately 90 cuts to get down to 1 atom.  But 90 is just where he stops because the limit was to just get down to the size of 1 atom. So we could go infinitely smaller if we wanted to try and split the individual parts of the atom in 2, then 4, then 8 etc parts, if we could.

Mags