Re: Volts, amps and electric power supplies/components

[Julian Barnes]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:20:39 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 10/12/15 14:17, TomSawer wrote:
>> On 10/12/2015 14:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 10/12/15 13:44, TomSawer wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2015 12:42, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 8 December 2015 13:39:13 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 08 Dec 2015 01:47:17 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/12/2015 20:11, nt wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, 7 December 2015 16:42:43 UTC, nt wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 7 December 2015 16:39:32 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 06:41:06 -0800, nt wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> no, not arranged as a doubler. Go rename yourself Rodney. Or
>>>>>>>>>>> are you him?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I see. So you're allying yourself with "ed" who asserts that
>>>>>>>>>> rectified mains voltage in the UK is 650V, then?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you don't know that uk mains 230/240v ac can be rectified to
>>>>>>>>> either 320 or 640 there really is no sense in any further
>>>>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For the benefit of electronics newbies, D1 goes from L to C1,
>>>>>>>> providing +320v D2 goes from L to C2, providing -320v.
>>>>>>>> The potential difference on the output is thus 640v.
>>>>>>>> For the benefit of pedants, no voltage doubling has occurred,
>>>>>>>> it's just sample & hold of the 230/240v ac waveform.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It may not be a voltage doubler in your eyes, but a number of text
>>>>>>> books quite happily describe this circuit as a voltage doubler.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I keep probably a dozen standard works on power supply design. I've
>>>>>> dug out 'Switchmode Power Supply Handbook' by Keith Billings, which
>>>>>> is the premier authority on the subject. The relevant section is
>>>>>> sect. 6.2 on page 1.55: "Typical dual-voltage capacitor input
>>>>>> filter circuit" which is described several times as a VOLTAGE
>>>>>> DOUBLER. As I stated about 20 posts ago. If tabbypurr is such an
>>>>>> expert as he professes to be, I assume he'll have this handbook or
>>>>>> something similar to educate himself with. Ignorance is one thing,
>>>>>> rudeness AND ignorance that takes up my valuable time just makes me
>>>>>> angry. GGGGRRRR!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> that some describe it as a doubler doesn't mean it does. Same as
>>>>> constant current more often means current limit. It ain't too hard
>>>>> to see that what it does is just sample & hold.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> NT
>>>>
>>>> Surley the circuit is only two half wave rectifiers - one using the
>>>> negative peak and the positive peak. It is only " doubling" the
>>>> voltage because the output is taken across the two capacitors rather
>>>> than from the common "neutral" rail. It wouldn't normally be called
>>>> sample and hold.
>>>>
>>> the problem is that there is no defined 'standard' for what most
>>> electronics is 'called'
>>>
>>>
>> Agreed. But the name/terminology used implies a certain mode of
>> operation.
>
> So, what does 'cascode' imply to you?
>
> Or 'Darlington'..?
>
> Or 'Buck regulator'?

You seem to having difficulties again. I'll cross post this to a more
appropriate group; hopefully someone there will have the fortitude to
assist you with these definitions.

[The Natural Philosopher]

y do you knowitall trolls always change the subject when someone is
about to prove you wrong?

I know perfectly well what they are. The point is that what they are is
absolutely NOT '*implies a certain mode of operation*'.

--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.