Assertion–Reason on inverter commutation and operating modes Assertion (A): The McMurray–Bedford half-bridge inverter uses complementary commutation. Reason (R): A three-phase inverter can have two modes of operation.
-
ABoth A and R are correct and R is correct explanation of A
-
BBoth A and R correct but R is not correct explanation of A
-
CA is correct but R is wrong
-
DA is wrong but R is correct
-
EBoth A and R are wrong
Answer
Correct Answer: Both A and R correct but R is not correct explanation of A
Explanation
Introduction / Context:Assertion–Reason questions test conceptual links. The McMurray–Bedford inverter family uses auxiliary components for forced commutation, and three-phase inverters can operate in different conduction modes (e.g., 120° and 180°). We must judge correctness and explanatory linkage.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- McMurray–Bedford half-bridge: a classic forced-commutated thyristor inverter.
- Three-phase inverter modes: 120° (two devices on) and 180° (three devices on).
Concept / Approach:
Assertion: True. The McMurray–Bedford topology employs complementary (auxiliary) commutation where charged capacitors and coupling inductors transfer current and reverse-bias a conducting SCR to turn it off. Reason: True. Three-phase inverters indeed have different conduction schemes (operating modes). However, the reason does not logically explain why the McMurray–Bedford inverter uses complementary commutation; they are separate facts.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Confirm A (complementary commutation) → correct.Confirm R (two common conduction modes) → correct.Check causality: R does not explain A → choose “Both true, but R not the explanation.”Verification / Alternative check:
Topology descriptions and timing diagrams show auxiliary commutation pairs in McMurray–Bedford and separate discussion for 120° vs 180° conduction in bridge inverters.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options claiming wrong statements or causal linkage are inconsistent with standard inverter theory.
Common Pitfalls:
Assuming any true statement about inverters automatically explains another; causality must be explicit.
Final Answer:
Both A and R correct but R is not correct explanation of A