Sujet : Re: discharging caps
De : bill.sloman (at) *nospam* ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
Groupes : sci.electronics.designDate : 11. Sep 2026, 16:59:18
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <11818h6$31htb$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 12/09/2026 12:45 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2026 16:23:29 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 8/09/2026 4:52 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 7 Sep 2026 19:33:35 +0100, chrisq <syseng@gfsys.co.uk> wrote:
>
On 9/7/26 16:18, john larkin wrote:
Suppose we have a box with some big caps inside, for example 0.2
farads that run at about 200 volts. When AC power is off, we want to
discharge them for several reasons.
>
Putting, say, a 1K resistor across them dissipates 40 watts and has a
200 second time constant. It will take many tau before the voltage
gets low enough for people to poke around inside.
>
The ideal discharger would be a constant-current or even better a
constant-power load, all the way down to zero volts. It would be dumb,
not switched by some decision circuit or anything fancy like that.
>
And of course we need several LEDs as warnings that the thing is hot.
>
>
What sort of design needs 0.2 Farad cap, at 200 volts ?. If you are
working at that level, put in a cheap relay and a rated heatsink
wirewound resistor to dump the energy, when the power goes off.
Cheap, and lossless as well. Motor drive inverters often have
big resistors to brake the motor.
>
>
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
>
It's a 1500 amp laser driver.
>
So it's a bunch of modules which you have glommed together.
>
The 0.2F of capacitance is a lot of smaller capacitors in parallel.
Six, 30mF 200v each, in parallel. The caps are bigger than beer cans.
>
You are trying to design in safety as an after-thought.
It's not my design, but I thought I should try to keep people from
being killed.
Always a good idea. You are still trying to design in safety as an after thought, but at least it is somebody else's fault
If you put a discharge circuit into each module and broadcast a
"discharge" signal to all the modules, the problem would be a lot easier
to solve.
There are no "modules", and complex safety schemes can fail and kill
people.
So can simple ones. The idea is to keep as simple as is practical, but excessively simple schemes have their own risks.
Putting a discharger on each capacitor might not be a bad idea. At least it keeps each discharge current loop as compact as possible,and if one of six fails, at least the other five won't be a menace.
The input to our box is DC, from an external power supply.
>
I do want a circuit that's foolproof, that always discharges the caps
but doen't often go up in flames.
It shouldn't ever go up in flames. There were liquid filled capacitors when I started in the business, but if the liquid was a halo-carbon they didn't burn - they put out fires. Some of the chloro-carbon fluids were pretty nasty but the fluoro-carbons weren't as bad.
A resistor makes an exponential decay which could be a very long time
to get down to safe levels.
And a series inductor could let you make the discharge path critically damped, which does offer faster decay.
Even one inductor per 30mF capacitor is going to need big inductors, but one big inductor per beer can - a toroid that was dropped over each capacitor - might allow neat packaging, if probably not the packaging that was originally intended,
I thought the group might like a circuit design problem once in a
while, a break from politics.
A good thought. Pity you took so long to make it clear what the problem was.
This looks more like a dumb newbie afterthought question, with the usual
dumb newbie fault of insufficient background information, released
incidentally half-way down the thread.
It's a discussion group, not a lecture platform.
But the more detail you put in up-front, the better the discussion
You might introduce an interesting topic some day too. In full detail.
I'm applying for a provisional patent on a neater way of making a non-progressively wound toroidal inductor. Obviously I can't talk about that until the provisional patent has been registered.
I've certainly posted the occasional detailed question here in the past, but I'm retired - whether I like it or not - and that does means that I don't get introduced to other peoples interesting problems all that often.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Haut de la page
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.
NewsPortal