[ARC5] Vibrator Power Supplies

[D C _Mac_ Macdonald]

Transmitters used higher currents than receivers 
and that may have come into play in some cases. 
 
However, as Richard Knoppow stated, they were 
probably a whole lot more reliable for a demanding 
application.  Motor and generator theory and practice 
had been firmly developed and established for years. 
About all that could go wrong were the brushes, 
commutators, and armatures.  Look at how simple 
it would be to change out the dynamotors on the 
ARC-5 and SCR-274-N stuff!  They are also very 
compact, if not particularly light weight. 
   
* * * * * * * * * * * 
* 73 - Mac, K2GKK/5 * 
* (Since 30 Nov 53) * 
* k2gkk at hotmail.com * 
* Oklahoma City, OK * 
* USAF & FAA (Ret.) * 
* * * * * * * * * * * 
 
 
> From: 1oldlens1 at ix.netcom.com
> To: releazer at earthlink.net; arc5 at mailman.qth.net
> Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 08:17:01 -0800
> Subject: Re: [ARC5] Vibrator Power Supplies
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Robert Eleazer" <releazer at earthlink.net>
> To: <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 5:35 AM
> Subject: [ARC5] Vibrator Power Supplies
> > Two questions:
> >
> > 1. Why did they not use vibrator power supplies instead 
> > of dynamotors in WWII? They ought to be cheaper and 
> > easier to build.
> >
> > 2. I have the transformers out of an old RCA Carfone 
> > vibrator power supply. Tried to make a DC power supply 
> > out of them. They do not work all that well with 115V 
> > 60Hz on the secondary. Anyone know why?
> >
> > Wayne
> >
> I think because dynamotors may have been more reliable 
> and also put out more nearly pure DC.
> 
> 
> --
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles
> WB6KBL
> dickburk at ix.netcom.com