This was already mentioned by Russel, but I hope to present it in a different way.

The main problem here, it seems to me, is that your book (or whatever source of information you're using) missed one important point: **The voltage between inverting and non-inverting inputs of an ideal operational amplifier should always be zero with this and similar setups**. If we include that assumption and take a look at the circuit, we can get a logical answer.

The output of an op-amp is modelled as an ideal controlled voltage source. The input impedance is infinite and no current flows into the op-amp. So far so good. Next, we know that the voltage between the inputs is zero, so we know that the voltage with respect to ground and the inverting input is same as the one on the non-inverting input. That voltage comes from the ideal controlled voltage source at the output. Next, let's take a look at the current issue. Since we have infinite input impedance, no current flows into the operational amplifier, so from where does the output current come? Well from the ideal controlled voltage source at the output.

As I said, the voltage source is ideal, so it can source infinite current, it's controlled so you have your gain, the current is set by resistor and there's no contradiction there at all. In reality, the current will come from the power supply pins and be limited by construction of the operational amplifier, but this is a mathematical model. So let's take a look at a pretty pictures now:

The first image may seem a bit drastic:

I've crossed out the op-amp on purpose here. It seems to me that trees are obstructing your view of the forest here. If we remove the op-amp symbol and take a look at how we're supposed to model it instead (note the \$ 100 \mbox{ }G \Omega \$ resistor):

We can clearly see that the current is coming from the one terminal voltage source which is the output of the op-amp.

Next, I'll show a bit more complex version of the same circuit and explain how it degenerates into what you've shown:

Let's see what we can see here:

We've got the input voltage \$U_i\$, the output voltage \$U_o\$ and the resistors \$R_1\$ and \$R_2\$.

Now we know from our model that the voltage between the inputs is zero, so we can write following safely: \$U_i-R_1I=0\$, since the resistor \$R_1\$ has a short circuit to inverting input. From that we get the current: \$I=\frac{U_i}{R_1}\$. The current can only come from the op-amp output in this case, so we know that it is the current going through the resistor \$R_2\$ too. From that we get the equation for the output voltage of the op-amp: \$ U_o-R_2I-U_i=0\$ and after that: \$U_o=R_2 I + U_i= R_2 \frac{U_i}{R_1} + U_i=U_i(\frac{R_2}{R_1}+1)\$. From this, we have \$ \frac{U_o}{U_i}=1+ \frac{R_2}{R_1}\$. In the circuit you showed, equivalent elements would be \$R_2=0\$ and \$R_1=\infty\$. As you can see, the output current isn't a problem with this setup and again, there's no contradiction here.

With the few assumptions I've shown and few equations, you can do basic op-amp circuits without any problems. I recommend that you read from freely downloadable books `Amplifiers and Bits: An Introduction to Selecting Amplifiers for Data Converters`

pages 6 and 7 and from `Op Amps for Everyone Design Guide`

chapter 3 (or at least take a good look at the pictures there). Both books (well, a book and an application report) are by Texas Instruments (a major op-amp manufacturer) and should come up on most popular search engines as the first response.

## Best Answer

No - it is not a problem of simulation software. Surprisingly, the result is correct - but not realistic. What does this mean?

Theoretically, the result would be correct under two environmental conditions:

No power switch-on transients (power available since (t-infinity))

No external disturbances (noise, etc).

During simulation, the program automatically assumes these two conditions - unless you specify other conditions.

However, if you would switch-on both (or one) supply voltage at t=0, a transient analysis would reveal that the circuit is saturated due to positive feedback.

The situation can be compared with a mechanical model: A system of two balls - one lying upon the other one - could be stable as long as there is absolutely no external disturbance. But this is NEVER the case. The same applies to the real opamp usage: Power switch-on transients, supply voltage is not absolutely constant, noise,...)

I think, in 99.9% of all cases, the simulator does not fail but the user (misinterpretation of the results)

Comment: But there are two indications that the simulation result is "problematic" (not wrong, because the simulator was correct) and should be investigated in detail (under real conditions):

In your simulation, the output is positive - even with an input at the inv. node.

An AC analysis would show a rising phase function (which is also not realistic).