I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Is it just a matter the transformers still being too big, too heavy, or too inefficient? What kind of requirements do you have?I agree with both .However , even a tapewound C Core falls insufficient and size grows .I tried getting an army /navy scrap transformer BUT the epoxy embodiment damages the airgap and bobbin to prevent reuse .
Are you sure you don't need the isolation? If not then you don't need the transformer on the inverter output, and that doesn't really change anything else. Besides having isolation, the transformer doesn't really change the design (unless you need to step up or step down the AC output).Best bet is going for transformerless design with Mosfet bridge modulator using a 350VDC supply .
Can honourable experts suggest a simple design for assembly?
I guess you mean an increased number of turns relative to frequency respectively reduced flux. Reducing the flux to 40% of a standard 50/60 Hz transformer should result in about similar core losses and a core size of a 60 VA 60 Hz transformer. Not really big.Core losses can be higher than with 60Hz, so you'll have to increase the number of turns to balance things out.
Could you clarify this? I'm only saying that in a high frequency core you want the flux swing to be lower than in a lower frequency core, thus requiring a lower number of turns as opposed to a transformer design which is saturation limited (most 50/60Hz transformers are saturation limited, not core loss limited).I guess you mean an increased number of turns relative to frequency respectively reduced flux. Reducing the flux to 40% of a standard 50/60 Hz transformer should result in about similar core losses and a core size of a 60 VA 60 Hz transformer. Not really big.
Yes, this is certainly an option. I was under the impression that most inverters made nowadays used this design.When the transformer is replaced by a mosfet brigdge ,, the isolation is no doubt lost .
However , this can be done by having small ETD34 ferrite for the generation of the 350VDC from 24VDC battery..The same can be pushpull mode osc. using 3842 PWM ,,or better TL494 in which the oscillator drive can be PWM modulated with the pure sine to achieve a better duty cycle and efficiency....help me/guide if I am incorrect ....
Uh, I'm not seeing any criteria anywhere.Thanks .However ,I had written about core losses and selection/rejection criteria
I think, it has been sufficiently clarified in the core size example: A reasonably designed 400 Hz transformer will have considerably reduced number of turns and core size compared to a 50/60 Hz transformer, even with reduced flux.Could you clarify this?
When I referred to adding more turns to a 400Hz transformer, I wasn't comparing to a 50/60Hz transformer of the same size, but rather to a 400Hz transformer with the same flux swing as a 50/60Hz (saturation limited) transformer. It's harder to compare to an actual 50/60Hz transformer of the same size (such a comparison is kind of moot since the goal is to shrink the transformer size). I imagine that a small optimized 400Hz transformer with reduced flux swing might have more primary turns than a larger 50/60Hz one. Hard to really say without some solid numbers to go on.I think, it has been sufficiently clarified in the core size example: A reasonably designed 400 Hz transformer will have considerably reduced number of turns and core size compared to a 50/60 Hz transformer, even with reduced flux.
3600 Gauss? Where are you seeing that number? Electrical steel should have a Bmax/Bsat near 1.7T, just like normal steel and iron.Dear FvM & Alertlinks ,Thanks
I had thought of using CRGO /CRD /sheet silicon versions for my application but these are available with N67 core which gives 3600 as Bmax.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?