Observations on a UPS - follow up to a previous post

  • Thread starter Thread starter Doc
  • Start date Start date
No, it's 180' phase shift. The two legs are directly out of phase,
therefore they sum. It's not three-phase, it's what they call
single-phase (even though it's really two phases).
--scott

In common parlance it's known as "split phase", which is not technically
correct. Proper description of this is "3-wire, single-phase, mid-point
neutral system".

Sparky
 
The transformer - if that's the correct term for it - big
gray basically cylindrical unit on top of a power pole -
near my house blew once. Powerful **BOOM** and a huge
column of flame.

Been there, seen that, from a few blocks away. The boom was audible and the
fire was visible from that distance.

The old transformer in my back yard smoked for several hours, but neither
exploded nor emitted flames. The replacements were appreciably larger!
Not sure what the fuel for the flame
was, do they have oil in them?

Yes, most pole transformers are filled with some kind of insulating,
heat-transferring oily liquid. It may contain nifty stuff like PCBs, though
hopefully those have all been removed.
Also a bit disconcerting
since anyone nearby surely would have been in jeopardy
from flaming debris.

There's a reason why they don't put these things in people's houses!

In fact oil-filled transformers are commonly put in dedicated rooms in
commercial buildings, but they have appropriate design and safety features.
Needless to say, power was out for a while on that one.

We had a transformer blow in a local substation, and had rotating blackouts
for about a week. It was about the size of a small house, and the
replacement had to be trucked in from out of state.
 
FWIW, I was in that same Best Buy today and the UPS model I got for
$69 was back to its normal price of $119.


I should elaborate that roughly equivalent did not mean same
thing just spec'd less conservatively, did not mean to
include current capability and/or battery size, rather these
parameters were probably increased correspondingly.
 
But that is unit one up individual component pricing which has a lot of
overhead in it.

Quite true, practically anything electronic is this way.
Ironically even an empty project case can cost more than
some junk from China which is a complete product inside a
custom case.
 
I don't like the way LCD/flat panel monitors look. The image isn't as
sharp

I'd have to disagree on this, if there is anything that is a
clear win for LCD, it is image sharpness... it doesn't get
any sharper than having individual pixel representation.
This can be offset in perception if the particular LCD has
poor contrast but it is still just as "sharp", though not as
vibrant.

and loses brightness unless you're sitting dead-center in front
of them, even the models that supposedly have a wider viewing angle.

True but it's a computer monitor, how many positions do you
really need to be in while viewing it?
 
OK. I'm not sure that 'RMS' is the right term to attach to any value derived
from a ragged-arsed waveform, as it is a mathematical function normally
associated with symetrical waveforms, which the draw by a SMPS may very well
not be, but I see what you're saying.

It's defined as heating value. Some RMS meters were in fact calorimeters.
 
David Lesher said:
It's defined as heating value. Some RMS meters were in fact calorimeters.

Bird still makes a couple models that are. Necessary as primary standards.
--scott
 
Ah, OK. Perhaps it's non-periodicity that I'm getting confused with. As I
say, college seems a long-haired good music time ago now ...

Arfa

I agree with William Sommerwerck's more thorough analysis; the DC
problem (which I hadn't thought of) is pretty interesting too :-).

I agree about the confusion you mention - it makes sense; BTW, the way
around it is to use long sampling times, as I said in my post, although
I didn't go that one step further: to think about non-periodicity - &
understand it :-)

BTW, some true RMS meters use an entirely different approach[1]: they
measure the temperature of a resistor which is heated by the current
flowing through it when it is shunted across the line. This is (1)
potentially pretty accurate, and (2) probably very very slow to respond
to changes - i.e, an implied long sampling interval :-)

I guess we're OT here, but I admit that I'm having fun...

[1] Well, I'm not sure why I said 'different' - we haven't discussed
the method used, have we?
 
I'd have to disagree on this, if there is anything that is a
clear win for LCD, it is image sharpness... it doesn't get
any sharper than having individual pixel representation.
This can be offset in perception if the particular LCD has
poor contrast but it is still just as "sharp", though not as
vibrant.

I wonder if Doc is running his LCD at a non-native resolution...
True but it's a computer monitor, how many positions do you
really need to be in while viewing it?

:-)
 
Ah, OK. Perhaps it's non-periodicity that I'm getting confused with. As I
say, college seems a long-haired good music time ago now ...

Arfa

I agree with William Sommerwerck's more thorough analysis; the DC problem
(which I hadn't thought of) is pretty interesting too :-).

I agree about the confusion you mention - it makes sense; BTW, the way around
it is to use long sampling times, as I said in my post, although I didn't go
that one step further: to think about non-periodicity - & understand it :-)

BTW, some true RMS meters use an entirely different approach[1]: they measure
the temperature of a resistor which is heated by the current flowing through
it when it is shunted across the line. This is (1) potentially pretty
accurate, and (2) probably very very slow to respond to changes - i.e, an
implied long sampling interval :-)

I guess we're OT here, but I admit that I'm having fun...

[1] Well, I'm not sure why I said 'different' - we haven't discussed the
method used, have we?

I spoke just a bit too soon - the calorimetric method was mentioned in
some recent posts in this thread that I just saw.
 
Arny Krueger said:
Been there, seen that, from a few blocks away. The boom was audible and
the fire was visible from that distance.

The old transformer in my back yard smoked for several hours, but neither
exploded nor emitted flames. The replacements were appreciably larger!


Yes, most pole transformers are filled with some kind of insulating,
heat-transferring oily liquid. It may contain nifty stuff like PCBs,
though hopefully those have all been removed.


There's a reason why they don't put these things in people's houses!

In fact oil-filled transformers are commonly put in dedicated rooms in
commercial buildings, but they have appropriate design and safety
features.


We had a transformer blow in a local substation, and had rotating
blackouts for about a week. It was about the size of a small house, and
the replacement had to be trucked in from out of state.
Many years ago, I was hanging out of the bedroom window at 2am, watching a
spectacular thunderstorm that had been raging, and circling round my
location, for an hour or so. About 200yds up the road, where it ran out to a
dirt track, and no houses were yet built, was a pole, with a tranny on it
that I would guess to have been perhaps 3ft x 2ft x 2ft. It fed just the
farm in the field behind my house.

I was looking straight up the road, when the pole took what looked like a
direct hit. It probably actually wasn't direct, as I guess that would have
just vapourised the whole thing, but close enough anyway, that there was no
discernible delay between the stroke flash, and the bang, which was so loud
that I thought the vibration was going to bring the house down around me.
Anyway, as I continued to watch, half blinded, an orange glow like a plasma
ball started to grow around the top of the pole. It expanded out until it
looked the size of a small weather balloon, then just hung there for several
seconds. Then, without warning, the top of the pole - presumably the
transformer - just exploded with a huge bang, a sheet of flame, and a shower
of sparks. The orange ball was immediately dissipated. When I was able to
look again, the top of the pole was on fire. The whole street was without
power for 3 days.

When I went to look at the pole the next morning, there was just a charred
stump at the top. What was left of the tranny was on the ground, and of
course, the lines were down, but oddly intact, as they hung on the next pole
out across the field. The tranny was three phase 11kv to 240v I think. Three
lines plus one across the top, anyway. I don't know how much of this
pyrotechnic display was as a result of the 11kv, or of megavolts getting in
there from the lightning strike, but whichever, it was one of the most
spectacular things that I've ever seen.

I now live in a house further up the same road, and the pole and tranny were
moved from the roadside to the bottom of my neighbour's garden. A couple of
years back, the electricity company put in a new underground feed to the
farm, and came and took the overhead down. My neighbour asked them to leave
the pole, as he has a rather nice Russian Ivy growing up it, that is like a
huge bush, or tree even. Curiously, when the tranny was in place, the ivy
never grew closer than a foot or so to the platform where it was mounted.
Since it's gone, the ivy now grows right to the top, so obviously, plants
can sense the field around the high voltage components, and don't like it.
Makes you wonder whether there's anything in these claims that high voltage
overheads cause cancer in kids ...

Arfa
 
kony said:
I'd have to disagree on this, if there is anything that is a
clear win for LCD, it is image sharpness... it doesn't get
any sharper than having individual pixel representation.

<snip>

Agreed, but only if in native resolution, as others have said, and only if
what you are viewing is standing still. Even with the fastest LCD panels,
motion blur is still a problem, although probably more noticable at the
lower resolutions offered by 'standard' TV transmissions displayed on
standard LCD TV sets. Much as I like the picture on my (expensive)
widescreen HP LCD monitor, and given that I do agree with you about
sharpness, I still have to come down just on James' side in that I too think
that there is something fundamentally 'better' looking about a good fine
dot-pitch CRT monitor, but if you asked me to define "good" in this context,
I don't think that I could ...

Arfa
 
Arfa said:
Explain ?

The integral is peak voltage times current. Simple. Not 0.7 *
peak voltage. Current is also constant for resistive loads, not
proportional to voltage. RMS doesn't work.
 
Explain ?

Arfa

My interpretation: you seem to be saying that some meters produce an
RMS value by applying a simple factor to the peak value of the voltage,
and you seem to be saying that it works for any symmetrical wave form.
For a sine wave, as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, this factor
would be (root 2)/2. CBFalconer mentioned a square wave as a
counter-example. Square waves are obviously quite symmetrical, but for
them, the magic factor is 1, assuming a perfect square wave. There's no
such thing, of course, but the factor is still pretty close to 1.
 
No, it's 180' phase shift. The two legs are directly out of phase,
therefore they sum. It's not three-phase, it's what they call
single-phase (even though it's really two phases).
--scott

You are right. Somehow I read 120' there.

Arno
 
Agreed, but only if in native resolution, as others have said, and only if
what you are viewing is standing still. Even with the fastest LCD panels,
motion blur is still a problem, although probably more noticable at the
lower resolutions offered by 'standard' TV transmissions displayed on
standard LCD TV sets.

Have you seen significant motion blur on a current
generation smaller LCD? It seems everyone is upsizing which
offsets the improvements being made.
 
Isn't the 'high' voltage that you have in the US for powering washing
machines and the like, phase to phase ? Seems like it wouldn't be that
hard for the power company to put in the third phase as well ? (I might be
totally adrift on this one - I'm not a power engineer ;-) )


It's a center tapped 240V transformer that feeds houses, washing machines
are 120V, but large loads like dryers, cook stoves, central AC, etc will
wire from hot to hot with a double pole breaker to get 240V, it's still
single phase.
 
CBFalconer said:
The integral is peak voltage times current. Simple. Not 0.7 *
peak voltage. Current is also constant for resistive loads, not
proportional to voltage. RMS doesn't work.

OK. Well in that case, I don't think that I was over-simplifying, because if
you have read the whole thread, you will see that it was I who questioned
the validity of attaching an RMS value to a non-sinusoidal waveform.
However, several posters then came back to me with considerable levels of
mathematical proof, to say that RMS was a valid notion for any waveshape or
symmetry factor, the only qualifiers being DC content or variable cycle
periodicity. Although it might not be too clear, that second paragraph was
more of a musing based on that. My original contention was that a power
meter (or whatever) designed to derive and display an RMS value from a sine
wave, would not give a meaningful reading from non-sinusoidal or
non-symmetrical drawing loads, such as a SMPS may be, for instance. The
replies suggested that the waveshape was immaterial, and that the chipset
could very easily still calculate a meaningful result. I was a little
sceptical about this, as it seemed to fly in the face of what I was taught
many years ago in college, but I bowed to what seemed to be superior
knowledge in the field.

Now, you seem to be saying something quite different ? Comments ?

Arfa
 
kony said:
Have you seen significant motion blur on a current
generation smaller LCD? It seems everyone is upsizing which
offsets the improvements being made.

Well, certainly on LCD TV sets, yes. Oddly enough, I was looking at just
that in a store last night. They all had a studio-based news broadcast on
them, and it was superb as long as they were in the studio, where everything
was basically standing still, and properly lit. As soon as it cut to an OB
on the other hand, there was motion blur on them ALL. Some were worse than
others in that the blur was not just a function of panel speed, but also
drive artifacts. These were not cheap sets either. Many were from big name
houses. The larger screen sets actually seemed to fare somewhat better than
the small ones in my opinion, and the plasmas were a little better again,
but none of them produced what I would describe as a 'good' picture in this
respect, compared to a CRT set of any size or vintage - even my 10 year old
large screen Toshiba. There's a world of difference between LCD pixel
switching times in the mS bracket, and fast phosphor reponses down in the uS
range.

I actually think that at the moment, digital display technology - without
wishing to open up *that* can of worms again - lags behind CRT display
technology, by a significant amount. Next time you go to the cinema, look up
at the booth window and see if you can see film looping around the ceiling.
If you can't, then it uses one of those new-fangled DLP video projectors.
Sit back comfortably with your popcorn, and wonder what's happened to your
eyes, when the first car drives across the screen ... d;~}

Arfa
 
Back
Top