[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [TCML] PFC Question (again)

Hi Deano,
No good. It all has to do with the need of PFC. In some cases it might be ok, but in other cases it won't help. How does one define when it works and when it doesn't? I think the proper thing to do is to remove it. If a users wants to include PFC's into their "case", then fine. But they can do the equations on paper just as easy. 

Take care,
Bart

David Dean wrote:

Hi again Bart

On Monday 26 May 2008 03:15:43 pm bartb wrote:

Yes it is. I'll likely remove PFC output on the next update.


Maybe change lines 404, 405 in JTC_calcs.js to something like:

		x_pfcap = ((Vin/x_epi)/(2*PI*Hz)); // ballast inductance approximation
		form.x_pfc.value = format( x_pfcap, 10000);

And call it "required ballast inductance" units in Henrys, or

 		x_pfcap = ((Vin/x_epi)/(2*PI*Hz)*1000); // ballast inductance approximation
		form.x_pfc.value = format( x_pfcap, 10000);

And call it "required ballast inductance" units in miliHenrys.

Just a thought.
deano
_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla


_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla