There is another option. You can put your inductors after the transformer but before the bridge. You will get a good reduction in ripple. Also the inductor is a/c charged and will not saturate. Now you have a cap input and can figuar the transfomer voltage much easier. Your still not getting all the benefits of a true LC with a large choke. But, your only interested in ripple reduction. It's at least as good a putting an undersized 2 mH coil in a traditional LC.
Of course your still going to have some voltage loss due to the DCR in the coil, bridge and draw on the transformer as you would in either situation.
In terms of not losing a lot of voltage in a traditional LC. I have found that if the transfomer secondaries are paralleled you only lose a couple of volts after the LC. But, when you do this the transformer voltage is halfed. So you need double the voltage on your transformer you are getting. But, on the up side is if your transformer is large enough you only lose a few volts and this makes it much easier to predict.
I know you want formulas to plug in and get the numbers. But, simulations sometimes can get you close or can give an idea of what is going to happen. But, simulations are not real. Some trial and error and mostly experience comes into play.
Of course your still going to have some voltage loss due to the DCR in the coil, bridge and draw on the transformer as you would in either situation.
In terms of not losing a lot of voltage in a traditional LC. I have found that if the transfomer secondaries are paralleled you only lose a couple of volts after the LC. But, when you do this the transformer voltage is halfed. So you need double the voltage on your transformer you are getting. But, on the up side is if your transformer is large enough you only lose a few volts and this makes it much easier to predict.
I know you want formulas to plug in and get the numbers. But, simulations sometimes can get you close or can give an idea of what is going to happen. But, simulations are not real. Some trial and error and mostly experience comes into play.
Compatibility PSUD2 and XP
Hi Blues,
If the installation itself runs OK under XP and the program executable doesn't run, just right-clicking it and setting it for NT compatibility mode using the "Properties / Compatibility" tab could be an option?
(Use "Help" and search for "Compatibility" for more details)
Hi Blues,
If the installation itself runs OK under XP and the program executable doesn't run, just right-clicking it and setting it for NT compatibility mode using the "Properties / Compatibility" tab could be an option?
(Use "Help" and search for "Compatibility" for more details)
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.