F3 PS Options using PD boards

Pathmark · 6th January 2009, 06:18 PM

Hi all,

Just hoping someone could confirm if both options were correct using Peter Daniels F3 psu boards and I guess more importantly advantages of each option, excluding monetary.

thanks in advance.
pathmark

woodturner-fran · 6th January 2009, 10:30 PM

I think both are ok, but the major advantage of option 1 is that you can use 35V rated caps - in 15000uF or greater these are pretty widely available..... but to use option 2 you would need caps rated at probably 63V and these are much dearer.

someone else check this though.....

Fran

h_a · 7th January 2009, 09:34 AM

The pic is correct

The advantage...you see twice the parts in option1, you get twice the magic. Twice capacitance gives half output ripple. Of course it's also correct that you can use 30V caps in option one (as every cap sees only half the voltage compared to option2 where you need about 60V caps) which allows you to use even larger caps (for a given diameter).

Wether you need that is entirely up to you.

Have fun, Hannes

steenoe · 7th January 2009, 10:43 AM

Looks like the caps in option 1 are in series, electrically. If the caps are 15.000uF and connected in series, then:
C equiv= 15.000:2= 7500uF. Looks like pretty wastefull to me.
Option 2 looks mucho better.

Pathmark · 7th January 2009, 12:58 PM

thanks for replies, i realize the question may be trivial but a little support is always appreciated.

I believe setup is CRC and therefore capacitors are not series. thanks again.

pathmark

h_a · 7th January 2009, 01:26 PM

Shame on me, I completely missed that option1 is not intended as split-power supply

If somebody wants to use that (opt2) for a single rail and ground, steenoe is of course correct. Capacitance is halfed, not very funny.

Have fun, Hannes

Pathmark · 7th January 2009, 03:36 PM

oops...i just got it! As wired in option 1 the capacitors from the two boards are in series, even though each board individually is not.

Ok looks like option 2 with higher value caps!

pathmark

Babowana · 8th January 2009, 11:38 AM

. . . ???

No, never.
Kindly understand that my writing is not to do back-firing anyone

I have also interested in the different effect between Option 1 and Option 2. I have focused my bloodshot eyes to the drawing long time till I have finally made a burnt hole on the drawing. The main purpose of the CRC filters is to make the ripple voltage as flat as possible. If I see the two options on the same boundary condition, I see the same ripple reduction effect between the two options. I conclude that any option is equally okay with respect to the ripple voltage reduction effect. The difference might be in the building cost tho . . .

Cheers,

>>

<<

Pathmark · 8th January 2009, 02:14 PM

babo...

if i understand steenoe post, option 1 causes capacitors to be series, reducing the total effective capcitance.

In option 1, using 15000uf would yield 7500uf-R-7500uf.

While in option 2, the result would be 15000uf-R-15000uf.

Is this correct? If yes, then ripple would be less in option 2.

pathmark

Babowana · 8th January 2009, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pathmark

In option 1, using 15000uf would yield 7500uf-R-7500uf.

Steen's comment on the capacitance is right.
And, I inperprete Option 1 as 7500uF-(R+R)-7500uF.

Cheers,

7th January 2009, 09:34 AM	#3
h_a diyAudio Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Graz, Austria	The pic is correct The advantage...you see twice the parts in option1, you get twice the magic. Twice capacitance gives half output ripple. Of course it's also correct that you can use 30V caps in option one (as every cap sees only half the voltage compared to option2 where you need about 60V caps) which allows you to use even larger caps (for a given diameter). Wether you need that is entirely up to you. Have fun, Hannes __________________ fresh matched IRFP240/IRFP9240 fets \|\| AlephJ/JX-kits F5 transistor kits \|\| Burning Amp BA-1/2/3 transistor kits

7th January 2009, 01:26 PM	#6
h_a diyAudio Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Graz, Austria	Shame on me, I completely missed that option1 is not intended as split-power supply If somebody wants to use that (opt2) for a single rail and ground, steenoe is of course correct. Capacitance is halfed, not very funny. Have fun, Hannes __________________ fresh matched IRFP240/IRFP9240 fets \|\| AlephJ/JX-kits F5 transistor kits \|\| Burning Amp BA-1/2/3 transistor kits

8th January 2009, 11:38 AM	#8
Babowana Formerly "jh6you". R.I.P. Join Date: Jul 2006	. . . ??? No, never. Kindly understand that my writing is not to do back-firing anyone I have also interested in the different effect between Option 1 and Option 2. I have focused my bloodshot eyes to the drawing long time till I have finally made a burnt hole on the drawing. The main purpose of the CRC filters is to make the ripple voltage as flat as possible. If I see the two options on the same boundary condition, I see the same ripple reduction effect between the two options. I conclude that any option is equally okay with respect to the ripple voltage reduction effect. The difference might be in the building cost tho . . . Cheers, >><<

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
L/R Boards and Matched IRFP240 Boards for Aleph/ A-X	lgreen	Swap Meet	7	25th August 2009 04:56 AM
FS: Conrad Heatsinks;.... 'PASS' B1 boards w/JFETS;...... F4 AMP & PSU boards	cowboy99	Swap Meet	5	25th August 2009 02:39 AM
Pass Aleph 1.7 boards, Zhaolu 2.5A, P700 VRDS, UGS PS boards, dac chips	analog_sa	Swap Meet	4	14th March 2009 05:29 PM
FT: Pass boards for P101 boards	bjefferys	Swap Meet	1	26th March 2006 07:39 PM
Any Bi-Amp options?	chris ma	Everything Else	3	10th May 2002 10:02 PM


	Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you. Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving

6th January 2009, 10:30 PM	#2
woodturner-fran diyAudio Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Ireland	I think both are ok, but the major advantage of option 1 is that you can use 35V rated caps - in 15000uF or greater these are pretty widely available..... but to use option 2 you would need caps rated at probably 63V and these are much dearer. someone else check this though..... Fran

7th January 2009, 10:43 AM	#4
steenoe diyAudio Member Join Date: Mar 2004	Looks like the caps in option 1 are in series, electrically. If the caps are 15.000uF and connected in series, then: C equiv= 15.000:2= 7500uF. Looks like pretty wastefull to me. Option 2 looks mucho better.

7th January 2009, 12:58 PM	#5
Pathmark diyAudio Member Join Date: Jan 2007	thanks for replies, i realize the question may be trivial but a little support is always appreciated. I believe setup is CRC and therefore capacitors are not series. thanks again. pathmark

7th January 2009, 03:36 PM	#7
Pathmark diyAudio Member Join Date: Jan 2007	oops...i just got it! As wired in option 1 the capacitors from the two boards are in series, even though each board individually is not. Ok looks like option 2 with higher value caps! pathmark

8th January 2009, 02:14 PM	#9
Pathmark diyAudio Member Join Date: Jan 2007	babo... if i understand steenoe post, option 1 causes capacitors to be series, reducing the total effective capcitance. In option 1, using 15000uf would yield 7500uf-R-7500uf. While in option 2, the result would be 15000uf-R-15000uf. Is this correct? If yes, then ripple would be less in option 2. pathmark

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read