Yes,it does look great! I like the shorter board, leaves room for transformer.
Rush
Nice article. I don't see the small value bipass capacitors in nelson's design though. Wouldn't be too hard to add those, could easily be soldered nthe bottom of the board, directly to the large capacitors pins.
OK Power Supply done (again).
Starting to look quite complex now with the bypass caps on.
Unless there is a glaring ommision (is there?) I'll consider these as final.
Starting to look quite complex now with the bypass caps on.
Unless there is a glaring ommision (is there?) I'll consider these as final.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Here's hoping for the best!
I don't want any PSU boards, BTW. Like Jack I prefer hardwiring the PSU in place. Keeps me careful about my soldering, too 😀
I thought one bypass cap per rail was good enough. I've never seen so many laid out like that before. But that's only my observation.
Thanks for all the good work!
If you move the C4 to R1-7 track to the top of the resistors, that leaves a clear path to from the bottom of R1-7 to C10.
Another minor change I would make is to sum all the 0V tracks at the output connection.
Tea-Bag
Looks like I miss-read the article by Scott Faller.
Now one bypass cap per rail on the output (150nF) and one per rail on the input (100nF).
Board back to 166mm long.
Looks like I miss-read the article by Scott Faller.
Now one bypass cap per rail on the output (150nF) and one per rail on the input (100nF).
Board back to 166mm long.
I made twin pairs F5 without the diodes. 120mF were needed.
With diodes and higher current i think 160mf not too much.
Is that enough when 4 pairs are used? I don't think so.
With diodes and higher current i think 160mf not too much.
Is that enough when 4 pairs are used? I don't think so.
Jacco,
Obviously there are 'many ways to skin a cat'.
More experienced builders like yourself will most likely utilise there own interpretation of the PSU and probably even lay out the boards yourselves.
What I've attempted to do is try and keep as true to Papa's schematics but allow for some additional options that have been requested.
Regards
Andy
Obviously there are 'many ways to skin a cat'.
More experienced builders like yourself will most likely utilise there own interpretation of the PSU and probably even lay out the boards yourselves.
What I've attempted to do is try and keep as true to Papa's schematics but allow for some additional options that have been requested.
Regards
Andy
Agree toecutter,
Those who want to roll their own can do so , I 'm sure there are those who find 16 too much and want to use less but bigger caps ( myself included) great to have a choice if not .....
Those who want to roll their own can do so , I 'm sure there are those who find 16 too much and want to use less but bigger caps ( myself included) great to have a choice if not .....
Me still have my own cerebellum.
A +40in2 power supply board is expensive.
Pap's example is interesting only for the 25mm diameter x 50mm high Panasonic TS-UP 10,000uF/50V.
If the idea is to make the board more general, more efficient would be to go for 8 electrolytics and 35 to 40mm footprint.
Example :
P-A's power supply board, can hold 448,000uF total (8 x 56,000uF) , both in TS-HA (35V) or T-UP (50V).
Few inches longer than your board, but has more gadgets, e.g. dual rectifier bridges (good thing me have huge number of stinkin diodes
)Same story as with the 7 Panasonic 0R47, cost $1.75 per batch (if bought 50 minimum)
A single chassis-mount Bourns PWR221T or Vishay LTO-30 costs a buck more, the 3in2 saved on a board does more than $1.
Attachments
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.