The word 'Inverter'

[DetlefSchmitz]

From an IEEE Publication Advert:

"David Prince probably coined the term inverter. It is unlikely that any living person can now establish with certainty that Prince (or anyone else) was the originator of this commonly used engineering term. However in 1925 Prince did publish an article in the GE Review (vol.28, no.10, p.676-81) cited "The Inverter". His article contains nearly all important elements required by modern inverters and is the earliest such publication to use that term in the open literature. Prince explained that an inverter is used to convert direct current into single or polyphase alternating current. The article explains how: "the author took the rectifier circuit and inverted it, turning in direct current at one end and drawing out alternating current at the other".

 

[JohnW2]

Thanks. I suppose that also makes sense - an DC-AC 'inverter' doing the inverse of what a rectifier did.

However, as I implied, at least in the past the word inverter was still used when one put a voltage-changing transformer and rectifier on the end of an 'inverter proper', hence producing a voltage-changing DC-DC conversion (i.e. an electronic equivalent of an electromagnetic 'rotary converter'). These pics are of a surviving example of several such 'inverters' I built in the mid/late-60s, which converted 12V DC to 250-300V DC to enable valve-based electronic equipment to be used 'in the field' from 12V batteries without going through the stage of a 240V AC-input PSU. I'm not sure whether oor not that would still be called an 'inverter' these days. [I also built similar ones that produced 240V (pretty sinusoidal) AC output]. ....

(without taking it apart, I can't remember what the pot and coax soxket are for)

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

an inverter is used to convert direct current into single or polyphase alternating current

It's a converter, then.

the author took the rectifier circuit and inverted it

...but, did he?

 

[JohnW2]

...but, did he?

His reason appears to have been that he inverted the functionality of a rectifier - i.e. to convert DC to AC, rather than the converse. It's as likely an explanation as the one I had seen (and mentioned above).

In mathematics one has, say, a 'sine function' and an 'inverse sine function', each of which has the inverse (or 'inverted') functionality of the other.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Thanks. I suppose that also makes sense - an DC-AC 'inverter' doing the inverse of what a rectifier did.

It should therefore be an 'inverser' or 'reverser', shouldn't it?

 

[JohnW2]

It should therefore be an 'inverser' or 'reverser', shouldn't it?

You need an English scholar to give the correct answer to that - I don't know which would be 'correct' in terms of whatever relevant linguistic rules exist.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Not really.

It's still not correct. A process that the inventor carried out to make it is not what the device does.

He could have called it an inverse rectifier - but, then, what does it rectify?


We have to accept that all these terms are just accepted words which bear little reationship to the operation of the devices.

 

[JohnW2]

It's still not correct. A process that the inventor carried out to make it is not what the device does.

The inventor didn't subject a rectifier to some process to create what he called an inverter, did he?

He could have called it an inverse rectifier ...

He could have done, and that might have been better.

- but, then, what does it rectify?

It doesn't really have to. Certainly if one thinks of the use of the word 'inverse' in mathematics, "inverse X' (where X is some function) does not meant that it 'does X' to something - it means that it does 'the opposite' of X.

In any event, why should 'rectify' and 'rectifier' themselves (in the electrical sense) be regarded as 'correct'? Before there was an awareness of AC electricity, 'rectify' meant 'to put right/correct', or 'to purify (e.g. alcohol) by repeated distillation'!

We have to accept that all these terms are just accepted words which bear little reationship to the operation of the devices.

If I may say so, I think that's probably one of the most pertinent and sensible things you have said/admitted in these discussions about the (current) use of words.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

The inventor didn't subject a rectifier to some process to create what he called an inverter, did he?

Yes.
"the author took the rectifier circuit and inverted it"
Once constructed that is not what the inverter does.

It doesn't really have to. Certainly if one thinks of the use of the word 'inverse' in mathematics, "inverse X' (where X is some function) does not meant that it 'does X' to something - it means that it does 'the opposite' of X.

Except that - it is not called an inverser.

In any event, why should 'rectify' and 'rectifier' themselves (in the electrical sense) be regarded as 'correct'? Before there was an awareness of AC electricity, 'rectify' meant 'to put right/correct', or 'to purify (e.g. alcohol) by repeated distillation'!

Except that - rectifiers do not do that.

If I may say so, I think that's probably one of the most pertinent and sensible things you have said/admitted in these discussions about the (current) use of words.

You may and it might be but, it is not I who has a problem with them (apart from their inappropriateness).

If I may say, you are missing the point as usual by veering from the original purpose of a discussion,
which was an attempt to get Bernard and Winston to realise that these words are not specific to a certain device based on the device's origin or method of operation.

 

[JohnW2]

"the author took the rectifier circuit and inverted it" ... Once constructed that is not what the inverter does.

I think you are probably taking the words far too literally. Once cannot really (and he did not) 'invert a rectifier circuit' and get anything useful (and certainly not what he invented). What was surely meant was that he 'inverted the functional concept of a rectifier', wasn't it?

Except that - it is not called an inverser.

Seemingly not, and that is down to the rules and conventions regarding formation of words in English, which I know little about. One inverts something to create the inverse, and the thing or person doing so is/can be called an inverter. I don't know what, if any, form of word 'inverser' would be.

Except that - rectifiers do not do that.

I don't know whether it was ever the case (or whether it appears in dictionaries) but, in terms of what seem to be standard 'rules' of English, I think that a person whose job/role is to 'put thjings right' or to 'purify alcohol by repeated distillation' could, I would think, reasonably be called 'a rectifier'.

If I may say, you are missing the point as usual by veering from the original purpose of a discussion,

With all respect, and as often seems to be the case when you make such accusations of me, it was you, and no-one but you, who brought the etymology of "inverter" into this discussion about drivers - I merely 'followed' you.

.... which was an attempt to get Bernard and Winston to realise that these words are not specific to a certain device based on the device's origin or method of operation.

When you same 'these words', you presumably don't mean the word ('inverter') you introduced but, rather, the word "driver"? If so, I don't think many (other than the two you mentioned) would disagree with you.

I think these discussions so often get unnecessarily muddied (I'm sure to the confusion of many/most readers) by arguments about right/wrong or correct/incorrect terminology. The fact is that, because of the ways in which the word is used, "driver" (or even "LED driver") without qualification is inadequate by virtue of potential ambiguity. Whether it be 'correct' or 'incorrect', and whether one likes it or not, there are things out there called/labelled "LED drivers" that are constant-voltage, as well as some (rarely encountered by DIYers) that actually are constant-current, as the two you mention feel they should be.

In my opinion, what the less-technically minded out there need is not a lecture about 'correct'/'incorrect' technical terminology but, rather, the knowledge that they have to make sure that what they get is the right one out of constant-voltage and constant-current (which will be indicated somewhere on the labelling/spec) - and, of course, it will nearly always be 'constant voltage' that they need.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It's quite clear what he did, and he is the person who Bernard and Winston should kill at birth when they find a working time machine.

To rectify means to put right, and the opposite of that would be to make wrong.

So this guy made the opposite of a rectifier - he made something which made things wrong.

He started the rot.

 

[winston1]

It's quite clear what he did, and he is the person who Bernard and Winston should kill at birth when they find a working time machine.

If I find a time machine, and was a murderous type, I would be targeting BAS first!

 

[AdrianUK]

A basic mechanism to transferring DC power onto a (stiff) AC system is the line commutated converter. This controls the gates of the thyristors with firing angles >90 deg, thus they are operating in the 'inverted' region.

I believe this is why a generic device for converting DC to AC became known as an inverter. Obviously devices which stand alone must be somewhat different in architecture to the line commutated device (which, for example doesn't have a clock) but I guess they still perform the same function, sort of!

 

[JohnW2]

A basic mechanism to transferring DC power onto a (stiff) AC system is the line commutated converter. This controls the gates of the thyristors with firing angles >90 deg, thus they are operating in the 'inverted' region. ... I believe this is why a generic device for converting DC to AC became known as an inverter.

I haven't tried to look into the history, but I would imagine that, given that the concept of AC and AC generators) must already have existed at the time, the most obvious way to achieve DC->AC conversion would have been with a 'rotary converter' (i.e. a DC motor turning an AC generator), If the earliest ones were something like that, I'm not sure that the above suggestion regarding the derivation of the word 'inverter' would be applicable, would it?

I suspect we're probably trying to be too clever (or trying to attribute too much cleverness to the person who coined the term) - in that the person who coined the term 'inverter' for the sort of device we're talking about probably just thought that "it sounded like a good idea", without excessive technical thought!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Doesn't that kind of "thinking" risk the end of civilisation as we know it?