electronicsLearner77
- Jul 2, 2015
- 306
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2015
- Messages
- 306
My analysis of the circuit is since 5V is connected to both ends of the circuit there will be no current flow. Is it correct?
There is a transient analysis specified, but both V1 and V2 are shown as being a constant +5V.the transient source, V2, is not constantly at 5V
Yes.My analysis of the circuit is since 5V is connected to both ends of the circuit there will be no current flow. Is it correct?
Yes, you can do transient analysis with constant voltage supplies.I get 0 Amp.
Is it that i shall not do transient analysis for constant voltage supplies?
Yes, that value is approaching the precision of the Spice calculations.Can I assume this also as 0 amp current since it is in fA?
What don't you understand?I don't understand the behavior.
Since the current seem to be fluctuating increasing and decreasing instead of a straight line.What don't you understand?
With zero voltage across the components (the same signal from both sources) you get essentially zero current, as would be expected.
If you want to see some significant current, then make one source a DC voltage.
Yes i am trying that i will show.If you want to see some significant current, then make one source a DC voltage.
But that's a very tiny current, likely to the limits of the computing precision in the simulator.Since the current seem to be fluctuating increasing and decreasing instead of a straight line.
So are you happy with those results?I have applied inverted PWM's, now the current amplitude is bigger.
The circuit i have drawn and the results i am getting are completely mismatch, i think the circuit is wrong or the spice is not doing the simulations properly.Your calculations are good in the first part (0 ms -> 1 ms).
In the second part (1 ms -> 2 ms), however, you ignore the term (v1-v2)/r and use the result from part 1 to calculate a decaying current. What is your reasoning for doing so?
Consider instead [math] i(t) = \frac{(v_1 - v_2)}{R} \times (1 - e^{(-\frac{t}{\tau})})[/math] for [math] t \rightarrow \infty[/math]
I suggest you look at your own calculations first before blaming it on SPICE.or the spice is not doing the simulations properly.