[ARC5] Vibrator Power Supplies

[WA5CAB at cs.com]

The original post specified a WW-II time frame.  No SMPSU's in the supply 
chain then.

Plus, on average, dynamotor supplies are more reliable than vibrator 
supplies, and especially so at any power level greater than enough to operate a 
moderately simple receiver.  Reliability usually trumps efficiency in life and 
death situations.  For exceptions, check out the PE-237 and compare it to 
the DY-88, which could have easily been built in 1943 instead of the PE-237.

Robert D.

In a message dated 12/07/2012 16:59:44 PM Central Standard Time, 
brianclarke01 at optusnet.com.au writes: 
> Dynamotors typically have a conversion efficiency of no more than 50%. A 
> vibrator supply can reach 70% easily, and often more, if designed properly. 
> The modern day development of the vibrator is the switched-mode power 
> supply, which often reaches in excess of 95% efficiency.
> 
> I suppose when fuel was plentiful and cheap, what did it matter if you 
> consumed a gallon to do a job that a quart could do?
> 
> Then you need to consider the downstream effects - the filtering 
> components for a dynamotor are much smaller and lighter than for a vibrator, because 
> of the frequency. But with SMPSUs, operating at 1 MHz or so, the filtering 
> components are very much smaller than for a dynamotor.
> 
> 73 de Brian, VK2GCE.
> 
> 
> 
> >D C _Mac_ Macdonald <k2gkk at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >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 
> 

Robert & Susan Downs - Houston
wa5cab dot com (Web Store)
MVPA 9480