Solar inverters...

[Martin Rid]

boB <boB@K7IQ.com> Wrote in message:r
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 22:11:33 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett VE3BTI<spamme@not.com> wrote:>Martin Rid <martin_riddle@verison.net> wrote:>>> I think the patent may have been for the transformer setup they>> used. To get that quasi sinewave.>>That sounds tricky. I thought most AC converters use PWM to generate sine >waves.Nowadays PWM is the way and has been, even before the Trace SW series.The Dynamote inverter/charger was a HF PWM inverter that pre-dated theSW4024 etc. from the 1980s. It had high idle power which wasn\'tgood for people going off grid.The SW with its 3 transformers in series was good because it had LOTSof surge and was very rugged and has low idle power which was a bigthing back around 1992 or so.I didn\'t think that patent ever got issued because there was priorart. There was a chapter in a book from around 1960 titled \"Improvingthe Inverter Waveform\" that had that same kind of method exceptinstead of power MOSFETs, they used a system with thyristors.boB

Interesting stuff, even the fact that Exxon has a patent on mppt.
Whether is was is en forceable , I dont know.

Cheers
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

 

[Ricky]

On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 4:05:39 PM UTC-4, Martin Rid wrote:

boB <b...@K7IQ.com> Wrote in message:r
On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 22:11:33 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett VE3BTI<spa...@not..com> wrote:>Martin Rid <martin...@verison.net> wrote:>>> I think the patent may have been for the transformer setup they>> used. To get that quasi sinewave.>>That sounds tricky. I thought most AC converters use PWM to generate sine >waves.Nowadays PWM is the way and has been, even before the Trace SW series.The Dynamote inverter/charger was a HF PWM inverter that pre-dated theSW4024 etc. from the 1980s. It had high idle power which wasn\'tgood for people going off grid.The SW with its 3 transformers in series was good because it had LOTSof surge and was very rugged and has low idle power which was a bigthing back around 1992 or so.I didn\'t think that patent ever got issued because there was priorart. There was a chapter in a book from around 1960 titled \"Improvingthe Inverter Waveform\" that had that same kind of method exceptinstead of power MOSFETs, they used a system with thyristors.boB

Interesting stuff, even the fact that Exxon has a patent on mppt.
Whether is was is en forceable , I dont know.

Patents expire. It\'s hard to imagine the patent would be so broad as to cover all implementations. Also, it\'s hard to imagine it was filed recently unless it is tied to some particular implementation technique.

I know that there were patented design features in minicomputers, which became patentable again in microcomputers, not because they expired, but because it was a new application/implementation.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Don Y]

On 10/11/2022 4:54 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Monday, October 10, 2022 at 6:58:07 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
On 10/10/2022 7:23 AM, TTman wrote:
Can anyone explain how solar power gets injected back into the incoming mains
supply ?In the UK, the normal \'simple\' inverter has an output power limited to
~3.6KW @220v/240v (16A) without the need for heavy paperwork approval. The
Isn\'t that a \"standard circuit\" (for you)? I.e., the \"extra paperwork\"
may not relate to a \"maximum injected power per household\" but, rather,
a limit on a single inverter.

Could you, for example, have *two* (independent) inverters feeding back
into the mains (a house around the corner has just such an arrangement)?

Portable parallelable inverter generators do that. They\'re their own microgrid.

As do PV installations at adjoining neighbors -- sharing a single conductor
back to the utility. Or, two installations at a single residence (as I
cited in the neighbor\'s case).

The point was NOT whether it was \"technically possible\" but whether or not the
OP\'s regulators were constraining the implementation based on something related
to *other* factors in their local \"Code\".

E.g., here, (residential) solar must be installed on rooftops otherwise
there\'s a \"need for heavy paperwork approval\" (because the structure
supporting the panels would have to be permitted, inspected, etc.).

 

[Mike Monett VE3BTI]

Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

So you know a motor is never used and instead it is an inverter.

Then why did you not say so?

I was under the expression it was implicit

False. You claimed it was a motor.

You are not trying to explain. You are simply using bafflegab to confuse and
make it seem you know much more than you actually do. You are a waste of
time.

You are now PLONKED.



--
MRM

 

[boB]

On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 16:05:29 -0400 (EDT), Martin Rid
<martin_riddle@verison.net> wrote:

boB <boB@K7IQ.com> Wrote in message:r
On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 22:11:33 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett VE3BTI<spamme@not.com> wrote:>Martin Rid <martin_riddle@verison.net> wrote:>>> I think the patent may have been for the transformer setup they>> used. To get that quasi sinewave.>>That sounds tricky. I thought most AC converters use PWM to generate sine >waves.Nowadays PWM is the way and has been, even before the Trace SW series.The Dynamote inverter/charger was a HF PWM inverter that pre-dated theSW4024 etc. from the 1980s. It had high idle power which wasn\'tgood for people going off grid.The SW with its 3 transformers in series was good because it had LOTSof surge and was very rugged and has low idle power which was a bigthing back around 1992 or so.I didn\'t think that patent ever got issued because there was priorart. There was a chapter in a book from around 1960 titled \"Improvingthe Inverter Waveform\" that had that same kind of method exceptinstead of power MOSFETs, they used a system with thyristors.boB

Interesting stuff, even the fact that Exxon has a patent on mppt.
Whether is was is en forceable , I dont know.

Cheers

Well, if they had one, there have been commercial products out there
since at least the 1980s that I am aware of. And I bet NASA would
have use it in satellites before the 80s. Prior art BUT I see plenty
of patents granted that should not have been. We have more than once
had to fight patent trolls away from their useless patents to sue.
So far, so good but there are still some out there that need their
asses kicked ! Good for patent litigating lawyers I gues.

boB

 

[boB]

On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 13:30:42 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 4:05:39 PM UTC-4, Martin Rid wrote:
boB <b...@K7IQ.com> Wrote in message:r
On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 22:11:33 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett VE3BTI<spa...@not.com> wrote:>Martin Rid <martin...@verison.net> wrote:>>> I think the patent may have been for the transformer setup they>> used. To get that quasi sinewave.>>That sounds tricky. I thought most AC converters use PWM to generate sine >waves.Nowadays PWM is the way and has been, even before the Trace SW series.The Dynamote inverter/charger was a HF PWM inverter that pre-dated theSW4024 etc. from the 1980s. It had high idle power which wasn\'tgood for people going off grid.The SW with its 3 transformers in series was good because it had LOTSof surge and was very rugged and has low idle power which was a bigthing back around 1992 or so.I didn\'t think that patent ever got issued because there was priorart. There was a chapter in a book from around 1960 titled \"Improvingthe Inverter Waveform\" that had that same kind of method exceptinstead of power MOSFETs, they used a system with thyristors.boB

Interesting stuff, even the fact that Exxon has a patent on mppt.
Whether is was is en forceable , I dont know.

Patents expire. It\'s hard to imagine the patent would be so broad as to cover all implementations. Also, it\'s hard to imagine it was filed recently unless it is tied to some particular implementation technique.

One thing I have found is the the patent examiners only tend to look
at patents for prior art. Not real prior art that was never patented
in the first place. A lot of this stuff is just \"obvious to one
killed in the art\" IMHO, but not always.
Takes time and money to convince a judge or jury one way or the other.
They all seem to demand jury trials too from what I have seen.

boB

I know that there were patented design features in minicomputers, which became patentable again in microcomputers, not because they expired, but because it was a new application/implementation.

 

[Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund]

On 12-10-2022 00:13, Mike Monett VE3BTI wrote:

Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

So you know a motor is never used and instead it is an inverter.

Then why did you not say so?

I was under the expression it was implicit

False. You claimed it was a motor.

I wrote:

\"
It\'s more or less the reverse from an induction motor\"

I think it is pretty clear that I did not say it was a motor, but the
theory is the same

You are not trying to explain. You are simply using bafflegab to confuse and
make it seem you know much more than you actually do. You are a waste of
time.

You are now PLONKED.

Please do