Thread

1. jakedata · 1790586198 · focus · HN ↗

   I read about Solid State Transformers <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.powermag.com&#x2F;the-solid-state-shift-reinventing-the-transformer-for-modern-grids&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.powermag.com&#x2F;the-solid-state-shift-reinventing-t... with some interest. However they have some weird failure modes. At least large chunks of metal twisted around large chunks of a different metal are predictable and don&#x27;t need firmware updates.

   <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu&#x2F;II_16.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu&#x2F;II_16.html

   1. ahartmetz · 1790586892 · focus · HN ↗

      Solid state transformers are a misnomer: Traditional transformers are already solid state - no moving parts. And SSTs do the actual voltage &#x2F; current transformation using a smaller, higher frequency traditional transformer. A more appropriate name for SSTs would be high frequency transformers or IF (intermediate frequency) transformers or something.

      1. jakedata · 1790589228 · focus · HN ↗

         A traditional transformer doesn&#x27;t use semiconductors for power conversion and chunks of metal are not &quot;solid state&quot; despite being solid. Call it a hybrid transformer if you want, but the name seems pretty settled. The more relevant part of my comment is that introducing semiconductors and software control into a device formerly only able to operate in a few very predictable ways will lead to both greater flexibility and also new and exciting failure modes.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.