why three phase system is not preferred in aircrafts power circuits....

why three phase system is not preferred in aircrafts power circuits....

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't know, Why?
In general, DC power distribution transfers the most power with the least amount of weight both in copper and in insulation than an AC system. Could that be the reason?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They use 400 HZ systems to power inertial guidance units that I used to work on. As I recall at one time the older analog units used small motors to do the calculations and the higher frequency allowed more accuracy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They use 400 HZ systems to power inertial guidance units that I used to work on. As I recall at one time the older analog units used small motors to do the calculations and the higher frequency allowed more accuracy.
Yes, 400Hz was very common in aircraft especially during WWII and later. It was done because transformers, motors and so on are very much lighter than with lower frequencies like 60Hz. DC could not be easily be transformed with the technology then.
However, modern electronics allows DC to be converted (transformed) with very small magnetics operating at 100kHz or higher. This stuff trumps 400Hz. What do they do in modern aircraft?
I was basically referring to the power transmission and distribution. DC is more efficient and uses less material, insulation, with less loss than does poly phase AC. That's why ultra high power transmission lines like the pacific inter-tie are often DC these days.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This certainly cannot be the whole answer. I would expect that it would be fairly difficult to interrupt dc arcs if source voltage were much greater than 30V. Going to ac would allow better arc interruption at altitude. Higher ac voltage can reduce the amount of copper required for a given amount of power.
I am not really up to date on radar power supplies. I would expect that high power radar power supplies would be more advance than using dc and conversion. The same solid state technology that makes dc to dc conversion easy can also be used to rectify ac for feeding into dc to dc converters. After all, a three phase bridge rectifier is easily implemented and starts with relatively low ripple.
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yep!
400Hz power was used in some US Navy Ships for "electronics." The main reason was that it reduced the weight of the iron needed in transformers and reduced the size of the filters in the power supplies. This would especially be inportant in an aircraft.
My understanding is that 60Hz is "standard" on ships today simply because much of the electronics is just re-packaged commercial stuff. Switching power supplies reduce the DC filtering needed.
Another advantage of 400 Hz or 60 Hz is that the minimum speed of a 2 pole/phase alternator is 3600 rpm with 60Hz but 24,000 rpm at 400Hz. 3600 rpm is a little on the slow side.
OTOH, direct current generators don't like high speeds as the comutators tend to fly apart.

Yep! At higher frequencies I don't thing it's important to have 3 phases available. Phase shifting caps, if needed, are a franction of the size needed at 60hz.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| Another advantage of 400 Hz or 60 Hz is that the minimum speed of a 2 | pole/phase alternator is 3600 rpm with 60Hz but 24,000 rpm at 400Hz. 3600 | rpm is a little on the slow side.
Did you mean "or" in "400 Hz or 60 Hz" or did you mean "over"?
Why is that minimum speed relevant, given that a multi-pole/phase alternator could be used instead?
However, 3600 rpm for 60 Hz and 24000 rpm for 400 Hz do represent maximum speeds for syncronous motors, or near those speeds for induction motors. So 400 Hz has an advantage. It can be made for up to 24000 rpm or any lesser speed in multi-pole versions. There I do see an advantage of 400 Hz.
I'm curious how hard it might be to make a computer PSU that would run on any frequency from 50 Hz to 400 Hz (or maybe wider), compared to just the 50 Hz to 60 Hz range.
|> I am not really up to date on radar power supplies. I would expect that |> high power radar power supplies would be more advance than using dc and |> conversion. The same solid state technology that makes dc to dc |> conversion easy can also be used to rectify ac for feeding into dc to dc |> converters. After all, a three phase bridge rectifier is easily |> implemented and starts with relatively low ripple. | | Yep! At higher frequencies I don't thing it's important to have 3 phases | available. Phase shifting caps, if needed, are a franction of the size | needed at 60hz.
And in other cases a motor controller can be used (brushless DC motor).
So if they don't have a need for three phase, but do have a need for 60 Hz power on board (ship or aircraft, but consider each might have a different answer to this), what voltage(s) would be available? I would consider that at least for military purposes, they would want to have the ability to run anything they might get their hands on during "missions", and so they might want to be sure they have all common world voltages, or close to them, if not also frequencies. 120, 208, 240, 277, 416, 480?
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Most of them made in the last 25 years or so already will. The first thing they do is rectify it to DC so the frequency is irrelevant within reason.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:

Most ATX power supplies use a simple rectifier first stage, fed directly from the power line. This is switched to a "doubler" when the 120/240V switch is set to 120V. This charges a capacitor, which supplies DC to the switching circuits. The newer ones work from 90-270V input and rely on the switching stage(s) to accommodate the varying DC developed.
There is nothing inherently related to the input frequency, unless it's the PF correction in some newer supplies.
--
Virg Wall, P.E.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: | |> I'm curious how hard it might be to make a computer PSU that would run on |> any frequency from 50 Hz to 400 Hz (or maybe wider), compared to just the |> 50 Hz to 60 Hz range. | | Most ATX power supplies use a simple rectifier first stage, fed directly | from the power line. This is switched to a "doubler" when the 120/240V | switch is set to 120V. This charges a capacitor, which supplies DC to | the switching circuits. The newer ones work from 90-270V input and rely | on the switching stage(s) to accommodate the varying DC developed. | | There is nothing inherently related to the input frequency, unless it's | the PF correction in some newer supplies.
So I can run them from 0.25 Hz power, then?
FYI, most of my PSUs do not have that "115/230" switch. They are labeled "100-240V 50/60Hz". So it's safe to run it on 400Hz in an airplane?
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:

If you had large enough filter capacitors in the input circuit then yes, you could run it at 0.25 Hz, but where are you going to find that? A standard switchmode PSU will work fine on any realistic frequency, I don't think anywhere is less than 50Hz anymore, or greater than 400Hz.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:
|> | |> |> I'm curious how hard it might be to make a computer PSU that would run on |> |> any frequency from 50 Hz to 400 Hz (or maybe wider), compared to just the |> |> 50 Hz to 60 Hz range. |> | |> | Most ATX power supplies use a simple rectifier first stage, fed directly |> | from the power line. This is switched to a "doubler" when the 120/240V |> | switch is set to 120V. This charges a capacitor, which supplies DC to |> | the switching circuits. The newer ones work from 90-270V input and rely |> | on the switching stage(s) to accommodate the varying DC developed. |> | |> | There is nothing inherently related to the input frequency, unless it's |> | the PF correction in some newer supplies. |> |> So I can run them from 0.25 Hz power, then? |> |> FYI, most of my PSUs do not have that "115/230" switch. They are labeled |> "100-240V 50/60Hz". So it's safe to run it on 400Hz in an airplane? |> | | | If you had large enough filter capacitors in the input circuit then yes, | you could run it at 0.25 Hz, but where are you going to find that? A | standard switchmode PSU will work fine on any realistic frequency, I | don't think anywhere is less than 50Hz anymore, or greater than 400Hz.
So _any_ 50/60 Hz switchmode PSU _will_ work fine on 400 Hz across the full range of voltage it is designed for (when switched properly for the case of those that have a "115/230" switch) ?
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:

It's dangerous to say *any* because I'm sure there are *some* that have issues, but I would not be afraid to try one.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There's 25 Hz available between NYC and Washington DC, and 16 2/3 Hz in parts of Europe, but in both cases they are railroad traction power, and there's probably no such thing as a wall outlet supplied with either frequency.
I'm pretty sure the seatside outlets of the Northeast Corridor Amtrak lose power when the train hits a "dead" segment of catenary, but I'd be very surprised if the power doesn't go to a 60 Hz converter first (when it's running on a 25 Hz segment)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Moroney wrote:

I have an electric shaver that has a "tuned" armature oscillating between two "stators" supplied with line power. It works on 50Hz in Europe, (It even has a 120/240V switch), but it does not work as well when using a frequency it's not tuned to.
I haven't had a chance to try it on 25HZ. I don't think it would work at all on 0.25Hz!
--
Virg Wall

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 21:11:21 +0000 (UTC) Michael Moroney
| |>If you had large enough filter capacitors in the input circuit then yes, |>you could run it at 0.25 Hz, but where are you going to find that? A |>standard switchmode PSU will work fine on any realistic frequency, I |>don't think anywhere is less than 50Hz anymore, or greater than 400Hz. | | There's 25 Hz available between NYC and Washington DC, and 16 2/3 Hz | in parts of Europe, but in both cases they are railroad traction power, | and there's probably no such thing as a wall outlet supplied with either | frequency.
What kind of power is provided to electrical equipment aboard these trains?
| I'm pretty sure the seatside outlets of the Northeast Corridor Amtrak lose | power when the train hits a "dead" segment of catenary, but I'd be very | surprised if the power doesn't go to a 60 Hz converter first (when it's | running on a 25 Hz segment)
If this were a motor converter with a heavy flywheel, it might ride through the dead segment.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net writes:

I don't know, but whatever it is for the Northeast Corridor Amtrak, it has to be able to operate off of 3 different suppplies: 12kV 25 Hz, 12kV 60 Hz, 25kV 60 Hz. The 12kV may be 11kV, you can see warning signs about 11,000 volts on some of the older equipment from the trains. They may have boosted the overall voltage from 11kV to 12kV, perhaps at the same times nominal home voltage went from 110V to 120V.
I see "Danger 480V" on access panels on the side of railcars so apparently 480V is used as an intermediate voltage.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In some countries there is still electrical railway systems operating at 16.7 Hz electrical power. Many other countries run their electrical transis with 25 kV 50 Hz power.
http://www.3phasepower.org/3phasefrequency.htm "The countries Germany, Austria, and Switzerland use a traction power network for railways, distributing single-phase AC at 16.7 Hz. A frequency of 25 Hz was used for the German railway Mariazeller Bahn and some railway systems in New York and Pennsylvania (Amtrak) in the USA."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_frequency#Railways "Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway use traction power networks for railways, distributing single-phase AC at 16. Hz. "
Then there are those special applications where DC power is used and ditributed. DC is commonly found in many low-voltage applications, especially where these are powered by batteries. Telephone exchange communication equipment, such as DSLAM, uses standard -48V DC power supply. Positive 12V, 24V, 48V, 110V and 220V voltage power supplies (battery backed up) are used in by control systems used by electrical utilities and some industrial automation applications. An electrified third rail carrying a DC is used to power both underground (subway) and overground trains (for example use 600V-1200V DC http://www.nycsubway.org/tech/power/rotary.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail ).
--
Tomi Engdahl (http://www.iki.fi/then /)
Take a look at my electronics web links and documents at
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 20 Jul 2008 15:26:46 +0300, Tomi Holger Engdahl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_systems_for_electric_rail_traction
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Gilmer wrote:

Actually, it's a bit more involved than that.
You see, back in WW II and through the 1950's and 1960's, shipboard fire-control systems (the stuff used to aim guns, torpedoes and the like, not the stuff to put out fires) were all synchro servo systems. We used all sorts of analog computers to take the inputs from bearing readings on the enemy. These would be combined with inputs from the ship's log ('speedometer'), heading and even pitch and roll to electro-hydraulicly control the gun turrets. Or the to 'set' the gyro in torpedoes and the like.
All these analog computers used 400 hz because the servos and syncrhos could be made smaller running at 400 hz. My friend's dad worked for Sperry-Rand for years designing all this stuff.
But today's fire control is all digital computers that run on DC. So, as you said, switching power supplies for this stuff can be designed for 60 Hz input just as easily as 400 Hz.

It is very rare that such speeds are needed for anything. Pumps, fans, and other mechanical equipment certainly don't need such speeds. For the few specialized needs, servo motors or other DC machines work fine.

The speed of the generator is pretty much irrelevent.
daestrom
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.