View Full Version : high freq ac current
what do you think the easyest way to convert ya regular 50-60Hz wall socket AC a VERY HIGH frequency ac current would be???
Gotterdammerung
05-08-05, 00:12
unless you want to risk the possibility of electrocution and/or burning down the house you live in you should get an authorized electrician. If you are talking about the special kind of high volume a/c/ i think you are then I am pretty sure it would need it's own dedicated circuit anyway. The present wiring may not be rated for the application you are talking about
unless you want to risk the possibility of electrocution and/or burning down the house you live in you should get an authorized electrician. If you are talking about the special kind of high volume a/c/ i think you are then I am pretty sure it would need it's own dedicated circuit anyway. The present wiring may not be rated for the application you are talking about
What is he talking about? Od bondage practices I bet.
what do you think the easyest way to convert ya regular 50-60Hz wall socket AC a VERY HIGH frequency ac current would be???
Switched mode power supply?
unfortunatly there are no apliences that come to mind that requier one, i mearly need such a current to create a large charged enviroment, theoreticaly well my theory anyway, is with a high enough current and frequency i should under the right conditions beable to make normal particles emmit photons. meaning heat free light would be produced amonks many other usefull properties
there are a few methods to make teh current but all are as crude as the ones before them, and i was wondering if anybody knows of a device specificaly designed to produce it for me rather than jerririggin my own device
Famous last words, I think... :lol:
what do you think the easyest way to convert ya regular 50-60Hz wall socket AC a VERY HIGH frequency ac current would be???
I read about some guys using a special capacitor salvaged somewhere to make a railgun.
[edit] ah here (http://www.powerlabs.org) it is
Heavyporker
14-09-05, 09:05
Ah.. Powerlabs, I love thee. Anyways...
Zovos... what you're saying, about high frequency AC, reminds me about Nikolai Tesla's work... and in fact, that's how florescent lamps work... AND I distinctly remember reading about how you can keep using "burned-out" florescent bulbs through that means.
Keep me posted on your progess, could you, Zovos? I find this sort of thing pretty neat.
unfortunatly there are no apliences that come to mind that requier one, i mearly need such a current to create a large charged enviroment, theoreticaly well my theory anyway, is with a high enough current and frequency i should under the right conditions beable to make normal particles emmit photons. meaning heat free light would be produced amonks many other usefull properties what?
what?
A brave attempt to convert energy into light without byproducts like heat.
Heavyporker
14-09-05, 12:14
Well, John.nl - Zovos is incorrect that you can have the ability to produce 100% of electrical/chemical energy into light... BUT... you can make that process highly efficient.
Luminol for the glowsticks is proof-positive of this - practically no heat produced by the chemical energy into light process.
And florescent light (which, incidentially, was invented BEFORE edison came out with his tungsten-wire incandescent light blubs) is much more efficient at converting electricity into light.
AND now we have L.E.Ds which are stupendously efficient at converting electricity to light - the heat loss is practically nil.
A brave attempt to convert energy into light without byproducts like heat. I'm sure we would all do it if it was easy. RIP zovos
Well, John.nl - Zovos is incorrect that you can have the ability to produce 100% of electrical/chemical energy into light... BUT... you can make that process highly efficient.
Luminol for the glowsticks is proof-positive of this - practically no heat produced by the chemical energy into light process.
Interesting. Any idea how little "practically no heat" is? 1%? 0.1%? 0.01% 0,001% or even less?
And florescent light (which, incidentially, was invented BEFORE edison came out with his tungsten-wire incandescent light blubs) is much more efficient at converting electricity into light.
Again, what should I quantify for "much more efficient"?
AND now we have L.E.Ds which are stupendously efficient at converting electricity to light - the heat loss is practically nil.
I'm sorry. I fail to relate "practically nil" to nil. Gimme a ballpark figure in comparisson to the loss Zovos is aiming at. Let me state that I do not mock on Zovos attempt but admire his effort in finding an improvement. I wish him all the luck that the laws of physics can spare.
Peace.
Dribble Joy
14-09-05, 16:13
You will never create heat free lighting, the mere fact that light is being emitted will cause any substance to warm up, because nothing is 100% transparent.
Flourenscent lighting is actually VERY efficient, just that not all the energy emmitted by the gas (which is beyond the visual spectrum) is converted to visible light by the flourenscent coating on the inside of the glass. The heat produced is minimal, a decent flourescent tube isn't even warm to the touch.
As for the question at the beginning, it's tricky, altering frequency is a bit of a fiddle, and in it's self, not very efficient. Reducing frequency is easier than ramping it up.
You would have to split the current, kick it out of phase and remerge it.
On a side note, rail guns are piss easy to make, I was building one in my bedroom a while ago untill I moved house.
RogerRamjet
14-09-05, 20:07
Vin Diesel could do it.
its not the only reason. u can also iluminate any surface removing the need for lightbulbls what so ever. or theorticaly u can, n i just looked up tesla after the mention earlyer in the thread and he did indeed do experiments into this and aparently he was able to create a ball of light in his lab that he could hold and pass around to people, kind of like frozen protons, which is remarkably interesting, as it happens the electromagnetic feild produced by highvoltage and frequency currents also goes beond heat free enegy transfer and enables things such masive electrostatic forces being controleable wich could oneday lead to antigravity technology, =]
who knows droners one day u may have one irl
anyway ill just jerry rig sumthing together. it will be fine im sure
and to dj, thats when u assume lights being emmitted from the core of a object. if the photons are emmitted from the outer layer of a object then the photons relese would cool the object down... much like in a pulse laser when energy lvls get to high a pulse is relesed
it will be fine im sureCan I have your toys? Or at least your NC account? :angel:
Can I have your toys? Or at least your NC account? :angel:
i here by leave my pc to the person who scrapes my electrocuted ashhen body into a urn to give my parents n girlfriend :D
mmm 69 gig of pr0n :P ( actualy its a fresh format :( )
Heavyporker
15-09-05, 13:00
PowerLabs has this kickass railgun. They even are building several different types of electro-guns. It's pretty damn neat.
url is here: http://www.powerlabs.org/
Have you guyz shot the plot?? Rail guns, balls of light!
Hell my evenings consist of the odd bit of exercise, Neocron, Beer, more Neocron, Beer, More Neocron......maybe some sleep but only occasionally...yadda .. yadda..
NOT....Create power supply.....Ramp it up...Build Rail gun....incorporate into Millenium Falcon I been working on for some time......Travel into outer space....get home in time for some cornflakes and work.
Zovos Don't Fry :D
james_finn
15-09-05, 14:19
on a side note, I completed my rail gun project for my second year project at uni :) Id post a pic, but I have no web space :)
And also back to the original quiery Zovos, yes in theory everything could be made to emit a photon, but in essence you would need to find the correct frequency for that individual substance to make excitation, otherwise it wont get to the point where it is changing in quantum states.
In simple terms to emit a photon the particle must move up a few energy states (Quantum levels):
----- Q3 -------
----- Q2 -------
------ Q1 -------
----- Base state -----
When it moves up a quantum state, there is an increase in energy in the atom, but an atom will always, naturally, move towards the lowest quantum level (Base state). The actual emmittance of the photon comes from the movement down the quantum postitions. Now to increase the energy of the atom you have to excite it with an exact frequency (Im blowed if i can remember the formula for it lol [edit: E=f+KEmax]) when this frequency is applied the atom will emit a photon.
Delphi
Dribble Joy
15-09-05, 15:47
Atoms that are exited will emmit photons whether they are subject to a cirtain frequency or not (IR radiation from hot things for example). The distance the electron 'drops' equates to the electrical potential energy, which is then the energy of the emmited photon. Energy will slowly gather in an electron band, until there is enough to bump an electron to the next band up, this is an unstable position, so the electron drops back, emmitting it's gained energy as a photon.
Resonating is a different matter, but this mostly applies to the exitation of bonding electrons. When light of the same energy as the bond energy strikes the bonding electrons the molecure/bond will resonate, flinging the photon right back out. Basic principle behind IR scanners, the joys of A-level chemistry.
As for Tesla, remember that though he indeed did produce a lot of valid work, was an utter crackpot.
Heavyporker
15-09-05, 15:52
utter crackpot? 0_o
Careful using that term, dude.
Tesla? Many theory's of his work and life.
Tesla (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread4401/pg1)
Dribble Joy
15-09-05, 17:01
utter crackpot? 0_o
Careful using that term, dude.
Why?
Unless it means summat completely different over in yankland....
on a side note, I completed my rail gun project for my second year project at uni :) Id post a pic, but I have no web space :) [...]
You do know you can attach a pic at a forum posting don't you? Bring it on, or else!1
Dribble Joy
15-09-05, 17:58
You can make a railgun with A-level or less knowledge of physics. What degree course did you do?
james_finn
15-09-05, 18:29
dribble do you wanna put me down any more? I am doing a MPhys in Physics and Space Technology, so it actually has a real reason as to why I am doing an EM launcher, a method of ferrying supplies off the moon (minerals) and leaving them in a LEO to be collected when they are needed, or by another ship.
and how do you post a picture without needing to have it on a webhosting, if ya explain it, ill post a couple of pics :D
Delphi
dribble do you wanna put me down any more? I am doing a MPhys in Physics and Space Technology, so it actually has a real reason as to why I am doing an EM launcher, a method of ferrying supplies off the moon (minerals) and leaving them in a LEO to be collected when they are needed, or by another ship.
and how do you post a picture without needing to have it on a webhosting, if ya explain it, ill post a couple of pics :D
DelphiHit reply, look where it says "Additional Options" and click on manage attachments. Upload your pic and when it's done close that window. If you want to add text then put it where you would normaly type.
Dribble Joy
15-09-05, 22:38
dribble do you wanna put me down any more? I am doing a MPhys in Physics and Space Technology, so it actually has a real reason as to why I am doing an EM launcher, a method of ferrying supplies off the moon (minerals) and leaving them in a LEO to be collected when they are needed, or by another ship.
and how do you post a picture without needing to have it on a webhosting, if ya explain it, ill post a couple of pics :D
Delphi
No offence meant in the slightest.
I was just a bit suprised that someone would make something like that for a degree level course. Clearly it's not just a rail gun.
What kind of size is it? Scaled down version of a real launch capable unit?
Is it coil or rail based?
:D i would just like to say
imageshack.us for all ur image hosting needs :D
hope they pay me for advertising for em :P
woudlnt a rail gun be better constructedwith niether coils or rails but rather a rotating rail so that the projectile reaches the specific turning speed that alowes objects to travel through the air the smoothest, one sec ill see if i can find the number of turns
grrrr >_< cant find it, all i remember is years ago a man made his bullets hexagon shaped and drilled his barrels in teh same shapes but rotating so that the bullet would leave the chamber rotating the exact ammount of rotations per meter to achive optimum flight and accuracy... so if the rails on a rail gun were to form a doubble helix then the railgun would be more efficient
Dribble Joy
16-09-05, 02:09
Yes, helical rails would cause rifling. As for an optimum angular frequency, though my fluid mechanics is a bit iffy, I doubt there would be need for one.
Coil guns can't really cause rifling, and frankly, I dunoo why people btoher with them (though they can produce higher/ore efficient use of magnetic fields, they require a boat load of electronics).
oh and tesla wasnt a crackpot he was mearly a man ahead of his tiems and in some case's still ahead of ours.
Dribble Joy
16-09-05, 02:20
Doesn't mean he was right about everything he said. Same is true about most if not all 'geniuses'. Newton believed in alchemy and Einstein refused to believe in the uncirtainty principle and random events, despite the fact that his pioneering work and birthing of quantum mechanics was what produced it.
Einstein refused to believe in the uncirtainty principle and random events, despite the fact that his pioneering work and birthing of quantum mechanics was what produced it.
and he was rite to belive it =] nothing is random it just isnt posible, for sumthing to be random is just a humans lack of ability to see all posible influences. forinstance whos to say quantum leaps are random, how do we know they dont follow a paturn of energy fluctuations on such a small scale that its imposible for humans to measure. for instance take gravity
we knew how it worked
we knew all the laws that would help explain it
but we had no idea what it was until enstine hypothesised.
the same is said for quantum mechanics, just because we understand the rules we dont udnerstand the reason for the rules, inorder to unife theorys to create the ultimate unification of the universe we have to asume that thinks cant be random. everything happens for a reason wether we can understand it or not. alas nothing can be proved until we split the sub atomic particle, which i fear will never be done in my life time or 100's generations of my children
james_finn
16-09-05, 04:29
Okay heres a picture of the electromagnetic launcher made for second year project at uni :)
@ Dribble, it was a 6 week project to teach us the importance of teamwork (as a team based exercise), also of keeping notes of the project, and also a first taste of making a project. We completed ours as it actually fired on three coils unlike the other projects that didnt fire at all!
Behold :
Dribble Joy
16-09-05, 04:38
Ah, I thought you meant like a project that one did yourself for like... most of the years work. And I see it's a coil gun. What trigger method? light gate? Magnetic sensor?
Dribble Joy
16-09-05, 05:00
inorder to unife theorys to create the ultimate unification of the universe we have to asume that thinks cant be random.
Why?
everything happens for a reason wether we can understand it or not.
Why? Why should it. Regardless, even if that's true it doesn't rule out the random event.
People seem to abhor randomality for some reason, maybe it's something to do with not being in control.
Oh, and don't confuse random with chaotic, two very different things indeed.
alas nothing can be proved until we split the sub atomic particle, which i fear will never be done in my life time or 100's generations of my children
Dude, we've been splitting protons, neutrons and quarks for decades, and going by current findings there is no base particle(s), there will allways be layer upon layer stretching into the infinite.
It may be that there simply is no unified thoery at all of course.
when i mean split the subatomic lvl i mean find out the base stuf... primal ooooooze that makes everyhitng, the one thing that is everything is whatever it is.
and i cant realy explain why everything has a reason. why tick follows tock, it just did, does and always will. i know this will sound highly unscientific but its more of a fealing, logicaly everything has to fall into boundries, the rules of the normal world only dont apply to the quanum world because we dont understand all the factors, im verry much with einstine on this one things just dont happen by chance wether u call it random or caotic theres just variables we havent the capabliity to measure.
and there has to be a unified theory, how could everything exist without one. i supose we will start to brance of into philosiphy before long so ill try n steer the convo back to a more scientific basis
*****************
on ur picture i dont see anything that could tell each coil when to magnatise?
Heavyporker
16-09-05, 13:00
Coil gun? 0_o
Don't you mean gauss gun or what?
And I thought gauss guns had the problem that you can't switch off the magnetic fields fast enough to prevent the other poles to the fields pulling the projectiles back.
Dribble Joy
16-09-05, 13:43
And I thought gauss guns had the problem that you can't switch off the magnetic fields fast enough to prevent the other poles to the fields pulling the projectiles back.
That's why the coils are separated (I imagine, if there is any problem with the residual currents in the coils after the projectile has passed at all).
The other advantage of coil guns is that there's no surface contact with the slug, unlike a rail gun.
james_finn
16-09-05, 16:14
the circuitary had a timer circuit built into it, so we were fine tuning that (in fact I wanted to interface into a computer with a velocity sensor, so that it could run an algorithm to find the best time to fire each coil off at.). At HP the coil gun works, because there is a shunting system incorporated into the coils, as it is fired the coil turns on, and then as the next coil is timed turned on, then the shunt system works to remove the excess energy in the coil. The timer system wasnt the best system to use, like I said i would have liked to have interfaced it all, and maybe even have had a ligthgate between all the coils!
the circuitary had a timer circuit built into it, so we were fine tuning that (in fact I wanted to interface into a computer with a velocity sensor, so that it could run an algorithm to find the best time to fire each coil off at.). At HP the coil gun works, because there is a shunting system incorporated into the coils, as it is fired the coil turns on, and then as the next coil is timed turned on, then the shunt system works to remove the excess energy in the coil. The timer system wasnt the best system to use, like I said i would have liked to have interfaced it all, and maybe even have had a ligthgate between all the coils!
times suck tbh =P there should be a sensor telling each coil when to fire otherwise it causes all sorts of complications
Dribble Joy
16-09-05, 22:46
Depends, the delay of a sensor may be to great for it to fire the coils at the right time.
yes but id never rely on somthing wich requiers human ajustment, forinstance if u ran a higher current you would create a stronger feild and have to recalculate all over again, i prefer things to be automated.
james_finn
17-09-05, 01:56
yeah but Zovos, the way I wanted to make it was to have each timing circuit integrated into the pc, so that it could run an algorithm each time, to calculate the best timings, to reach maximum velocity (using 555 timer chips and programming in pascal (i know it sucks dont need to tell me that)). The way I envisaged it doing that would be to have it alternate each timing by +0.01v each run, and go through each possible timing variant (on the first one keeping the second two constant) and then keep the first one constant and vary the second two etc. This would then find the optimum velocity of the projectile, and would be relatively automated.
Alas I ran out of time to program it, and my team didnt vote to have it interfaced (instead we used screwdrivers :S). Lol.
n what happened if ur projectile was hotter colder wetter dryer slightly different shape slightly different matirial compostion
Dribble Joy
17-09-05, 03:10
Standardised conditions?
There is allways engineered room for error as well, the key to any theory - practice realisation.
i will always seek perfection =] if ya not gona do sumin rite dont even bother
james_finn
17-09-05, 19:07
lol, well it did fire :P The projectile was a certain shape, this was given too all the groups who decided to do the EM Launcher (as there was a prize for the fastest team). @ Zovos there was always a margin of error included, especially with the diameter of the tube, and the diameter of the projectile, plus as it was designed for use on the moon, it would be cold there, so it would have to take into account that (but we didnt have time to test it like that). Only a 6 week project remember (and 3 of those weeks were waiting for components lol).
Dribble Joy
18-09-05, 00:23
i will always seek perfection =] if ya not gona do sumin rite dont even bother
You would make a terrible engineer. :p
i know, i make a terrable anything apart form barman, all these brains n no useful outlet :rolleyes: :D ima geneticaly engenier my kids to be perfect :D then they can handel the shit i cant :p
Heavyporker
21-09-05, 21:40
Forgot about this thread.
Anyways, about my previous comment, I meant that these coils depend on magnetic fields to attract the projectile, and since they're surrounding the track, that means the projectile has to pass THROUGH the coils, and that means they'd be pulled back (or lose significant velocity) by the coils' magnetic fields. How do you get around this problem? Separating the coils doesn't do it, Dribble Joy.
Dribble Joy
23-09-05, 13:09
The coils are not simply turned on, they are fired in sequence from a bank of capacitors when the projectile reaches the right point.
james_finn
23-09-05, 23:43
hence the timer circuits, to turn them on on and off. Otherwise you would end up having a negative effect on the projectile like you suggested Heavy (BTW its delphi here! :))
do they actually use those rail guns to shoot people? pwned!!!11
Dribble Joy
24-09-05, 01:47
It's all about energy, Ie. putting as much kenetic energy into a projectile.
Unfortunately, the neergy density in current capacitors, even in theory means that the weight of the weapon is excessive for combat, not to mention that capacitor recharge time gives rise to a low rate of fire. Then you have to think of a power supply. Thus, man portable weapons of equivalent power as that of standard rifles are too heavy, and cannot put out enough rounds in a given time period. Even vehicle mounted ones are too cumbersome. The energy density of high explosives and their rate of delivery of said energy is much better than rail weapons.
Where they have been considered is ship mounted, as either anti ship, satalite or plane.
Smaller scale ones that fire a hail of flechettes have been considered as anti missile defence, but again, only really on ships.
The other problem is cost, an SA80 cost about £150 afaik (the sight is £450, but it's a good sight). A rail weapon, especially one that has rifling, would be far more.
Heavyporker
24-09-05, 20:02
actually, a fletchette-thrower rail-gun would be easy to mount on a large vehicle, like, say, a semi or a tank. Hell, could put one on one of these large-bed F150s.
Retro-fit these things with extra fuel-tanks, and their engines can charge the capacitors fairly well, I'd think.
Dribble Joy
25-09-05, 05:59
rate of fire is the paramount issue, landrover/hummer or even tank fitting of sufficient power is not enough. On eround per 5 mins is completely different from one every 5 secs (have to consider that a vehicle may be moving, not sitting still with the engine revved up).
Heavyporker
25-09-05, 19:08
Well, yeah, but rate of fire is one consideration to take in account.
Frankly, even a 0.20/min RoF vehicle-mounted mobile rail-gun that can take down missles is better than not having one at all. With the velocity of a fletchette, I'd bet that'd be better than a vec-mounted anti-missle rocket system. With the fletchettes' highly aerodynamic shape and velocity, you'd have a quite respectable range.
Less cumbersome, the ammo's lighter, much quicker to gas up the system to move on, *plus* the extra range the additional fuel tanks give you, would make for a considerable advantage for railgun/fletchette system over the latter.
Oh, and of course, a fixed railgun system on the ground is gonna be able to be so much bigger and powerful than a ship-mounted system.
Still, when one gets into the arguement of railgun launch system versus a space elevator, I don't know what to think.
Dribble Joy
26-09-05, 14:00
The ammo weight isn't the problem, it's the bulk of the rest of the weapon.
Anti missile rail weapons would have to be line of sight, meaning that the range they are used for is much lower than a missile based one, and also they cannot be guided. The Royal navy currently use a chaingun as missile defence (the GoalKeeper), which has a daft RoF.
As for fixed placement turrents, they are increasingly unsuited for modern warfare, since they are not mobile, not only does this make them easier to locate (incoming missiles and artillery can be located by radar going on their projectiles trajectory, as placements they are easier to spot via recon or sat photos as well), but cannot be redeployed if discovered or when out of range.
Missile systems provide better out of sight capability (longer range, accuracy, delivery capacity (size of warhead), faster projectile than standard guns) with the advantage of manouverability.
Anyway...
The best use of a rail gun might be ultra long range bombardment, artillery style. Mounted on a railway, with the projectile consisting only of the warhead (making it much much cheaper and simpler than missiles) I can see plenty of use in such a thing. Cruise missiles and precision bombing would be better for taking out installations, but a fragmentation warhead would be very effective against troops and vehicles. In fact, it could be devastating.
Obsidian X
26-09-05, 18:05
Not read the whole thread, but I was just wondering, how far is technology from developing a feasible rail-gun? I heard that the problem is upon firing; the rails are damaged to the point that current prototypes are one-shot only.
Dribble Joy
26-09-05, 20:59
Depends on the contact materials. As you hinted at, the high current at the point of contact means the rails are often melted along their length, and depending on the size of the slug, that will melt.
Using graphite projectiles will help to reduce this, as will conducting gels on the rails, but the rails will often have to be made of high melting point substances like tungsten, though that's expensive.
Some rail weapons are being tested that vapourise the slug with the high current into a plasma, that then will readily conduct, though the viability of plasma as an offensive weapon is debatable (ignore what doom and films tell you).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.