Notices
Results 1 to 34 of 34
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By billvon
  • 1 Post By jarhead42

Thread: Ac inverter

  1. #1 Ac inverter 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    hello! is it possible to create ac voltage from dc by connecting two electric motors together and putting dc through one?


    It is obvious that Star Trek (excluding Voyager and enterprise) is the future of Humanity. --Jarhead
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    A DC motor and an AC motor/generator? Yes. But it wouldn't be as efficient as an electronic inverter.


    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,972
    Quote Originally Posted by jarhead42 View Post
    hello! is it possible to create ac voltage from dc by connecting two electric motors together and putting dc through one?
    Sure, provided the second motor was a permanent magnet AC motor (or a DC brushless motor without a controller.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    It's called a motor-generator set, or M-G set. Motor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    thanks. i need a simple way to convert my 6v dc to AC so i can use a transformer.
    It is obvious that Star Trek (excluding Voyager and enterprise) is the future of Humanity. --Jarhead
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by jarhead42 View Post
    thanks. i need a simple way to convert my 6v dc to AC so i can use a transformer.
    Tell us what you are trying to do. What is the source of 6 volt power and what are you trying to use it for?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,972
    Quote Originally Posted by jarhead42 View Post
    thanks. i need a simple way to convert my 6v dc to AC so i can use a transformer.
    Double it with a voltage doubler then use a 12V to 120V inverter. Or boost it to 12v with a boost converter and then use a 12V to 120V inverter. Or just build a 6V DC to 120V AC inverter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jarhead42 View Post
    thanks. i need a simple way to convert my 6v dc to AC so i can use a transformer.
    Double it with a voltage doubler then use a 12V to 120V inverter. Or boost it to 12v with a boost converter and then use a 12V to 120V inverter. Or just build a 6V DC to 120V AC inverter.
    how exactly do you build a 6V DC to 120V AC inverter?
    It is obvious that Star Trek (excluding Voyager and enterprise) is the future of Humanity. --Jarhead
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by jarhead42 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jarhead42 View Post
    thanks. i need a simple way to convert my 6v dc to AC so i can use a transformer.
    Double it with a voltage doubler then use a 12V to 120V inverter. Or boost it to 12v with a boost converter and then use a 12V to 120V inverter. Or just build a 6V DC to 120V AC inverter.
    how exactly do you build a 6V DC to 120V AC inverter?
    An inverter is really nothing more than a high-power oscillator. For mains frequencies, you can often get away with a discrete approximation to a sinusoid (e.g., you can use a staircase approximation). I own an older inverter that plugs into the cigarette lighter in my car. It generates square waves. Ugly, but many appliances don't care.

    Google "power inverter" for details. However, unless you are reasonably skilled at electronics, it would be better to buy one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,972
    Quote Originally Posted by jarhead42 View Post
    how exactly do you build a 6V DC to 120V AC inverter?
    There are a lot of ways to do it. The easiest way is to get a 6V to 120V transformer, then feed the 6V side with a 6V square wave. You can create a 6V square wave with four switches in an H-bridge configuration. Alternatively use a 6 volt center tapped transformer, connect the center tap to 6 volts in, then use two switches (MOSFETs, bipolars etc.) to generate the 6V square wave. This requires a big transformer but is pretty straightforward. This gets you a 120 volt square wave which is usually enough to run most common AC loads,. but it's hard on motors.

    Here are a few designs:

    Design Tips on making a battery powered inverter with 5A output - Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange
    taibaniimran likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    One of these might work, along with a 12 vdc to 120 vac inverter.
    6 to 12 Volt Inverter Voltage Booster Converts Positive to Negative GND | eBay
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    i had a crazy inspiration for an experiment. do you know how to get 6.e+120 watts for about 1.1777659001 seconds? i cant think of anything.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by jarhead42 View Post
    i had a crazy inspiration for an experiment. do you know how to get 6.e+120 watts for about 1.1777659001 seconds? i cant think of anything.
    Considering that the total mass-energy of the (observable) universe is less than your total energy requirement by over 50 orders of magnitude, your experiment will have to wait...for another universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by jarhead42 View Post
    for about 1.1777659001 seconds?
    About? With 10 digits of precision?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    fine. for exactly 1.1777659001 seconds
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    So what is significant about that time period?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    because in exactly 1.1777659002 seconds my coil would destroy itself with that much power.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by jarhead42 View Post
    because in exactly 1.1777659002 seconds my coil would destroy itself with that much power.
    It would be destroyed much, much, much, much .... much sooner than that (the forces would rend the coil at nearly light speed -- remember, you're concentrating into the coil 50 orders of magnitude more energy than the total mass-energy of the observable universe; that's worse than Ghostbusters-bad). That aside, 11 significant digits? Nope.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,972
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    It would be destroyed much, much, much, much .... much sooner than that (the forces would rend the coil at nearly light speed
    Not if his device was 353,310 kilometers long!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Not if his device was 353,310 kilometers long!
    my coil is not 353,310 kilometers long. However, the electricity would have to travel 500,000 kilometers.
    It is obvious that Star Trek (excluding Voyager and enterprise) is the future of Humanity. --Jarhead
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    It would be destroyed much, much, much, much .... much sooner than that (the forces would rend the coil at nearly light speed
    Not if his device was 353,310 kilometers long!
    I'm not sure that it matters. If one assumes that the energy is somehow coupled to the whole structure at once, it disintegrates nearly instantaneously. If one assumes that the energy is delivered to one end of the structure, that end of the structure disintegrates. If the energy propagates down the structure nevertheless, you have a propagating wave of disintegration that still sends coil bits out at light speed.

    I think that it's Ghostbusters-bad no matter what. That's a lot of mass-energy!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    no, because this coil is built in special sections, each one able to withstand 0.001 seconds of this power, and only having to deal with this amount of power in them for 0.00099 seconds.
    It is obvious that Star Trek (excluding Voyager and enterprise) is the future of Humanity. --Jarhead
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by jarhead42 View Post
    no, because this coil is built in special sections, each one able to withstand 0.001 seconds of this power, and only having to deal with this amount of power in them for 0.00099 seconds.
    You're not thinking about this correctly. Pause and consider what "50 orders of magnitude greater than the total mass-energy of the observable universe" means. It doesn't matter if you build it in "special sections." It doesn't matter if they have to withstand this power for "only" a millisecond or so. The game is over many orders of magnitude sooner than that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,972
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    If the energy propagates down the structure nevertheless, you have a propagating wave of disintegration that still sends coil bits out at light speed.

    I think that it's Ghostbusters-bad no matter what. That's a lot of mass-energy!
    Agreed! But it takes over a second to _completely_ destroy it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jarhead42 View Post
    no, because this coil is built in special sections, each one able to withstand 0.001 seconds of this power, and only having to deal with this amount of power in them for 0.00099 seconds.
    You're not thinking about this correctly. Pause and consider what "50 orders of magnitude greater than the total mass-energy of the observable universe" means. It doesn't matter if you build it in "special sections." It doesn't matter if they have to withstand this power for "only" a millisecond or so. The game is over many orders of magnitude sooner than that.
    i have considered it and that is why shortly after the coil is powered on it will detonate with the force of 90 atomic bombs.
    It is obvious that Star Trek (excluding Voyager and enterprise) is the future of Humanity. --Jarhead
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by jarhead42 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jarhead42 View Post
    no, because this coil is built in special sections, each one able to withstand 0.001 seconds of this power, and only having to deal with this amount of power in them for 0.00099 seconds.
    You're not thinking about this correctly. Pause and consider what "50 orders of magnitude greater than the total mass-energy of the observable universe" means. It doesn't matter if you build it in "special sections." It doesn't matter if they have to withstand this power for "only" a millisecond or so. The game is over many orders of magnitude sooner than that.
    i have considered it and that is why shortly after the coil is powered on it will detonate with the force of 90 atomic bombs.
    I'll repeat myself until you really pause and consider what "50 orders of magnitude greater than the total mass-energy of the observable universe" really means. Your calculation is off by many, many, many orders of magnitude.

    If it helps you to get unstuck, write out the number, rather than keeping it in scientific notation.

    Or consider this: Concentrating that much mass-energy in the volume of a human-accessible structure will have serious GR effects. You are talking about cramming the mass-energy of our universe, and 50 orders of magnitude more universes, into a coil. The party will not last a millisecond. It will not last any time unit that has an official prefix associated with it.

    Finally, you have overlooked the obvious: 90 atomic bombs clearly possess much less mass-energy than the universe. The energy you are talking about, once again, exceeds the total mass-energy of our observable universe by a multiplicative factor of 1000000000000000000000...00000.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    If the energy propagates down the structure nevertheless, you have a propagating wave of disintegration that still sends coil bits out at light speed.

    I think that it's Ghostbusters-bad no matter what. That's a lot of mass-energy!
    Agreed! But it takes over a second to _completely_ destroy it.
    Yes, if you add the qualifier "completely," then I happily agree. It would be fun to watch, in any event (from a very great distance, not in our universe).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    i have redone my calculations and i have thought about what 50 orders of magnitude is for two years and i am prepared to work on it for the rest of my life if i have to. (which i probably will)
    It is obvious that Star Trek (excluding Voyager and enterprise) is the future of Humanity. --Jarhead
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by jarhead42 View Post
    i have redone my calculations and i have thought about what 50 orders of magnitude is for two years and i am prepared to work on it for the rest of my life if i have to. (which i probably will)
    Look, I'm trying to be helpful, but you are insisting on saying quite ridiculous things. Simply repeating an absurdity doesn't make it sensible. You have obviously never considered what 50 orders of magnitude actually means. Never. I have given you the information you need to figure out that what you are talking about is utter nonsense. It doesn't matter a whit how long you are prepared to work on it. What you are saying is actually much more grandiose and absurd than "I can carry the whole universe in my finger. Don't bother me with facts. I am prepared to work on it for the rest of my life if I have to."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    That's because you don't understand it. if you saw the blueprints and calculations i (and 12 others, 10 of them unknowingly) have done, you would understand.
    It is obvious that Star Trek (excluding Voyager and enterprise) is the future of Humanity. --Jarhead
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by jarhead42 View Post
    That's because you don't understand it. if you saw the blueprints and calculations i (and 12 others, 10 of them unknowingly) have done, you would understand.
    I am basing my conclusions entirely and solely on the numbers you gave. If the power and duration are what you wrote, then everything I wrote follows necessarily. Period.

    To refute my conclusions, you'd have to revise the power and duration numbers you typed. It's really that simple.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    the numbers i have provided are correct. however, i have not given you all the information because the people would steal my idea.
    It is obvious that Star Trek (excluding Voyager and enterprise) is the future of Humanity. --Jarhead
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,972
    Quote Originally Posted by jarhead42 View Post
    That's because you don't understand it.
    Well, certainly one person in this thread doesn't understand basic numeric representation (or the energy that those numbers represent.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by jarhead42 View Post
    the numbers i have provided are correct.
    Then my conclusions are correct as well.


    however, i have not given you all the information because the people would steal my idea.
    Sorry, but that doesn't fly. You've confirmed that you did not commit a typo in writing the power and time numbers. That suffices to compute the total energy required. I have pointed out (repeatedly, and with your tacit agreement) that the total mass-energy of the observable universe is much smaller than your requirement by an inconceivably large factor. Therefore, to continue asserting that "additional information" would overcome the objection simply makes zero sense, for it's the equivalent of asserting that this additional information would suddenly create more energy than exists in 10E50 universes. That puts the idea into hard-crank territory. You are certainly free to believe as you wish, but make no mistake: Your idea is pure bollocks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Inverter vs. DC/DC converter
    By Stanley514 in forum Electrical and Electronics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 7th, 2013, 12:14 AM
  2. inverter
    By sabari raja in forum Electrical and Electronics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 29th, 2012, 10:42 AM
  3. true sine wave inverter
    By sak in forum Electrical and Electronics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 2nd, 2008, 06:07 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •