Re: Why not 400 Hz AC?
- From: John Larkin <jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:13:26 -0700
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:51:18 -0400, John <look@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:43:48 -0700, Eric R Snow <etpm@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Reading the post about square wave AC I see that higher frequency AC
makes for noisy motors and transformers. Is this the only reason not
to use higher frequency power? It's obvious that smaller motors and
etc. could save tons of money so it seems that there must be a good
reason why everybody isn't switching to higher frequency devices.
Speaking of higher frquency, would it be economical to use inverters
to raise the frequency at the user's location so that smaller motors
could be used? I use VFDs on my machine tools but they still drive
physically large 60 Hz rated motors. I have them mounted in enclosures
so I don't hear the VFDs singing and the motors don't seem that noisy.
It is a machine shop though.
Thanks,
ERS
The optimum frequency depends on the application. Most WWII aircraft
used a 400Hz power system for the weight savings it gave -
higher frequency = less iron in generators and power transformers =
less tare weight = more payload
John
Aircraft power systems still run at, or about, 400 Hz.
John
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why not 400 Hz AC?
- From: Charlie Siegrist
- Re: Why not 400 Hz AC?
- Prev by Date: Re: How do you stop someone reverse engineering a circuit board ???
- Next by Date: Simple electret "pre-amp"
- Previous by thread: Re: 90 degree stepper or oscillator motor
- Next by thread: Re: Why not 400 Hz AC?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
