Multiple Input Rectifier

[S. Ethier]

Is there such a thing (or method) of taking multiple AC signals and
converting them to DC (similar to what a bridge rectifier does) and
combining those signals together in series to form one big source?

I know its possible to do with one AC signal using a common bridge
rectifier and then some filters and regulators to get a relatively
stable power source. However if I try to connect two bridge rectifiers
together then the output of one rectifier interferes with the second...
Any ideas?

Steph

 

[Larry Brasfield]

[sci.electronics.design added to followups.]

Please, if your post truly belongs in two NGs, cross-post
it rather than multiposting. You can and should put all the
relevant NGs into the 'Newsgroups:' header.

Is there such a thing (or method) of taking multiple AC signals and converting them to DC (similar to what a bridge rectifier
does) and combining those signals together in series to form one big source?

Do a web search on "voltage multiplier" Such circuits
do something similar to what you are saying.

I know its possible to do with one AC signal using a common bridge rectifier and then some filters and regulators to get a
relatively stable power source. However if I try to connect two bridge rectifiers together then the output of one rectifier
interferes with the second... Any ideas?

If your two bridge rectifiers were powered by separate
windings, then the bridge DC outputs could be connected
in series. Otherwise, the connection results in some high
current paths that do no good.

 

[Tom MacIntyre]

[sci.electronics.design added to followups.]

Please, if your post truly belongs in two NGs, cross-post
it rather than multiposting. You can and should put all the
relevant NGs into the 'Newsgroups:' header.

Things have changed...the recommended way at least used to be the
opposite to what you said.

Tom

 

[Larry Brasfield]

[sci.electronics.design added to followups.]

Please, if your post truly belongs in two NGs, cross-post
it rather than multiposting. You can and should put all the
relevant NGs into the 'Newsgroups:' header.

Things have changed...the recommended way at least used to be the
opposite to what you said.

Multiposting: Sending the same article to different newsgroups
with only one newsgroup in each post's 'Newsgroups:' header.
This results in disjoint threads, redundant replies, and failure by
newreader applications to mark the separate articles as 'read'
when one has been read. This result is commonly dispreferred.

Cross-posting: Sending an article to a set of newsgroups by
placing each newsgroup's name in the single post's 'Newsgroups:'
header. This results in a single thread which common newsreader
applications can recognize as common across newsgroups, and
reduces the likelihood of redundant replies. This is the preferred
result among most people who have an opinion on such matters.

Do you disagree with my summary of what the terms mean, the
effects of the different posting methods, or their desirability? I
am reasonably sure of all three, so please provide evidence of
why you disagree, if you still do.

 

[Tom MacIntyre]

[sci.electronics.design added to followups.]

Please, if your post truly belongs in two NGs, cross-post
it rather than multiposting. You can and should put all the
relevant NGs into the 'Newsgroups:' header.

Things have changed...the recommended way at least used to be the
opposite to what you said.

Multiposting: Sending the same article to different newsgroups
with only one newsgroup in each post's 'Newsgroups:' header.
This results in disjoint threads, redundant replies, and failure by
newreader applications to mark the separate articles as 'read'
when one has been read. This result is commonly dispreferred.

Agree with the results, but it at least was the originally preferred
way back when I first started posting. Things may have changed.
Bandwidth is not such an issue these days. What does the official
Netiquette guide say, I wonder? I did find this...

http://www.hwg.org/lists/netiquette.html#5
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/movies/newsgroups-faq/section-7.html

Tom

 

[John G]

Agree with the results, but it at least was the originally preferred
way back when I first started posting. Things may have changed.
Bandwidth is not such an issue these days. What does the official
Netiquette guide say, I wonder? I did find this...

http://www.hwg.org/lists/netiquette.html#5
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/movies/newsgroups-faq/section-7.html

Tom

Both the references say not to Cross post but what they do not say is
that Multi posting is worse and should not be considered at all.

 

[John Larkin]

[sci.electronics.design added to followups.]

Please, if your post truly belongs in two NGs, cross-post
it rather than multiposting. You can and should put all the
relevant NGs into the 'Newsgroups:' header.

Larry: don't be a jerk.

John

 

[Larry Brasfield]

[sci.electronics.design added to followups.]

Please, if your post truly belongs in two NGs, cross-post
it rather than multiposting. You can and should put all the
relevant NGs into the 'Newsgroups:' header.

Larry: don't be a jerk.

You might consider the same advice.

How do you suppose one should inform somebody of commonly
accepted Usenet etiquette when they clearly are unaware of it?
If you can suggest a better way to do that, I would like to see it.

If your position is that nobody should undertake that task, then I
would ask: How you can be so sure the OP would not like to
improve his practises?

 

[Pooh Bear]

[sci.electronics.design added to followups.]

Please, if your post truly belongs in two NGs, cross-post
it rather than multiposting. You can and should put all the
relevant NGs into the 'Newsgroups:' header.

Larry: don't be a jerk.

Having just answered the OP in a.b.s.e I think Larry has a point !


Graham

 

[John Smith]

[sci.electronics.design added to followups.]

Please, if your post truly belongs in two NGs, cross-post
it rather than multiposting. You can and should put all the
relevant NGs into the 'Newsgroups:' header.

Larry: don't be a jerk.

You might consider the same advice.

How do you suppose one should inform somebody of commonly
accepted Usenet etiquette when they clearly are unaware of it?
If you can suggest a better way to do that, I would like to see it.

If your position is that nobody should undertake that task, then I
would ask: How you can be so sure the OP would not like to
improve his practises?

I wouldn't bother with 'Netiquette', and would prefer if the original
question was answered instead.

 

[John Smith]

Is there such a thing (or method) of taking multiple AC signals and
converting them to DC (similar to what a bridge rectifier does) and
combining those signals together in series to form one big source?

I know its possible to do with one AC signal using a common bridge
rectifier and then some filters and regulators to get a relatively
stable power source. However if I try to connect two bridge rectifiers
together then the output of one rectifier interferes with the second...
Any ideas?

Steph

Are you trying to increase the voltage, or increase the current capability?

 

[Larry Brasfield]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:45:40 -0700, "Larry Brasfield"
Please, if your post truly belongs in two NGs, cross-post
it rather than multiposting. You can and should put all the
relevant NGs into the 'Newsgroups:' header.

[vague criticism cut]
How do you suppose one should inform somebody of commonly
accepted Usenet etiquette when they clearly are unaware of it?
If you can suggest a better way to do that, I would like to see it.

If your position is that nobody should undertake that task, then I
would ask: How you can be so sure the OP would not like to
improve his practises?

I wouldn't bother with 'Netiquette', and would prefer if the original
question was answered instead.

I did answer the original question. My request that the
OP not multipost was essentially an aside to that reply.

So I guess you would leave the OP in the dark about
an improvement he may well wish to adopt?