[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Magnifier Primary Capacitors - EQUIDRIVE vs. STANDARD
Original poster: Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-twfpowerelectronics-dot-com>
I can't measure R and L here in any quantity to be of help. But me and the
fabulous Elenco LCR-1801 can do capacitance......
Maybe some statical guru can come up with that standard deviation, mean,
median, and cpk stuff... But, "looks" real good to "me" ;-))
At 07:13 PM 1/13/2004, you wrote:
>I suspect that the internal caps in a series string from Maxwell or PCI are
>much more closely matched than random parts taken from the bin in a MMC.
>The standard tolerance on caps is something like 20%, but I'll bet the PP
>caps used in MMCs are more closely matched than that.
>Terry, you've analyzed those CD caps to death. How closely matched are the
>C, R, and L?
> > Original poster: Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-twfpowerelectronics-dot-com>
> > Hi D.C.,
> > It will be interesting to here what they say! Unlike MMCs, these caps
> > be damaged if residual or unbalanced charges happen to cause a breakdown
> > a cell. My guess is, the oil is so very slightly conductive.
> > Terry
> > At 02:19 PM 1/13/2004, you wrote:
> > >Terry has encountered this phenomonea with MMC caps which is quite
> > >because Maxwell and PCI caps both use a series of small caps connected in
> > >series inside the box --- I know Beau Meskin, when I visited the PCI
> > >in Chicago, showed me the interior of a 0.1 uF 30 kV cap and it has 22
> > >separate small caps all series connected. This construction would
> > >the series connected MMC technique that we are all presently using, so
> > >would there be any difference? Unless, as Dave Sharpe noted, there are
> > >different effects going on with the equi-drive system.
> > >
> > >I plan on calling my friends Bob Cooper and Randy Hartsock who are the
> > >senior design engineers at Maxwell and pose this question to them.
> > >we can get to the bottom of this mystery.