Connect with us

Multiple Input Rectifier

Discussion in 'Electronic Basics' started by S. Ethier, Apr 12, 2005.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. S. Ethier

    S. Ethier Guest

    Is there such a thing (or method) of taking multiple AC signals and
    converting them to DC (similar to what a bridge rectifier does) and
    combining those signals together in series to form one big source?

    I know its possible to do with one AC signal using a common bridge
    rectifier and then some filters and regulators to get a relatively
    stable power source. However if I try to connect two bridge rectifiers
    together then the output of one rectifier interferes with the second...
    Any ideas?

  2. [ added to followups.]

    Please, if your post truly belongs in two NGs, cross-post
    it rather than multiposting. You can and should put all the
    relevant NGs into the 'Newsgroups:' header.

    Do a web search on "voltage multiplier" Such circuits
    do something similar to what you are saying.
    If your two bridge rectifiers were powered by separate
    windings, then the bridge DC outputs could be connected
    in series. Otherwise, the connection results in some high
    current paths that do no good.
  3. Things have changed...the recommended way at least used to be the
    opposite to what you said.

  4. Multiposting: Sending the same article to different newsgroups
    with only one newsgroup in each post's 'Newsgroups:' header.
    This results in disjoint threads, redundant replies, and failure by
    newreader applications to mark the separate articles as 'read'
    when one has been read. This result is commonly dispreferred.

    Cross-posting: Sending an article to a set of newsgroups by
    placing each newsgroup's name in the single post's 'Newsgroups:'
    header. This results in a single thread which common newsreader
    applications can recognize as common across newsgroups, and
    reduces the likelihood of redundant replies. This is the preferred
    result among most people who have an opinion on such matters.

    Do you disagree with my summary of what the terms mean, the
    effects of the different posting methods, or their desirability? I
    am reasonably sure of all three, so please provide evidence of
    why you disagree, if you still do.
  5. Agree with the results, but it at least was the originally preferred
    way back when I first started posting. Things may have changed.
    Bandwidth is not such an issue these days. What does the official
    Netiquette guide say, I wonder? I did find this...

  6. John G

    John G Guest

    Both the references say not to Cross post but what they do not say is
    that Multi posting is worse and should not be considered at all.
  7. John Larkin

    John Larkin Guest

    Larry: don't be a jerk.


  8. You might consider the same advice.

    How do you suppose one should inform somebody of commonly
    accepted Usenet etiquette when they clearly are unaware of it?
    If you can suggest a better way to do that, I would like to see it.

    If your position is that nobody should undertake that task, then I
    would ask: How you can be so sure the OP would not like to
    improve his practises?
  9. Pooh Bear

    Pooh Bear Guest

    Having just answered the OP in a.b.s.e I think Larry has a point !

  10. John Smith

    John Smith Guest

    I wouldn't bother with 'Netiquette', and would prefer if the original
    question was answered instead.
  11. John Smith

    John Smith Guest

    Are you trying to increase the voltage, or increase the current capability?
  12. I did answer the original question. My request that the
    OP not multipost was essentially an aside to that reply.

    So I guess you would leave the OP in the dark about
    an improvement he may well wish to adopt?
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day