Welcome
Username or Email:

Password:


Missing Code




[ ]
[ ]
Online
  • Guests: 29
  • Members: 0
  • Newest Member: omjtest
  • Most ever online: 396
    Guests: 396, Members: 0 on 12 Jan : 12:51
Members Birthdays:
No birthdays today

Next birthdays
07/09 Avi (41)
07/09 Jannick Hagen (15)
07/10 Sparcz (69)
Contact
If you need assistance, please send an email to forum at 4hv dot org. To ensure your email is not marked as spam, please include the phrase "4hv help" in the subject line. You can also find assistance via IRC, at irc.shadowworld.net, room #hvcomm.
Support 4hv.org!
Donate:
4hv.org is hosted on a dedicated server. Unfortunately, this server costs and we rely on the help of site members to keep 4hv.org running. Please consider donating. We will place your name on the thanks list and you'll be helping to keep 4hv.org alive and free for everyone. Members whose names appear in red bold have donated recently. Green bold denotes those who have recently donated to keep the server carbon neutral.


Special Thanks To:
  • Aaron Holmes
  • Aaron Wheeler
  • Adam Horden
  • Alan Scrimgeour
  • Andre
  • Andrew Haynes
  • Anonymous000
  • asabase
  • Austin Weil
  • barney
  • Barry
  • Bert Hickman
  • Bill Kukowski
  • Blitzorn
  • Brandon Paradelas
  • Bruce Bowling
  • BubeeMike
  • Byong Park
  • Cesiumsponge
  • Chris F.
  • Chris Hooper
  • Corey Worthington
  • Derek Woodroffe
  • Dalus
  • Dan Strother
  • Daniel Davis
  • Daniel Uhrenholt
  • datasheetarchive
  • Dave Billington
  • Dave Marshall
  • David F.
  • Dennis Rogers
  • drelectrix
  • Dr. John Gudenas
  • Dr. Spark
  • E.TexasTesla
  • eastvoltresearch
  • Eirik Taylor
  • Erik Dyakov
  • Erlend^SE
  • Finn Hammer
  • Firebug24k
  • GalliumMan
  • Gary Peterson
  • George Slade
  • GhostNull
  • Gordon Mcknight
  • Graham Armitage
  • Grant
  • GreySoul
  • Henry H
  • IamSmooth
  • In memory of Leo Powning
  • Jacob Cash
  • James Howells
  • James Pawson
  • Jeff Greenfield
  • Jeff Thomas
  • Jesse Frost
  • Jim Mitchell
  • jlr134
  • Joe Mastroianni
  • John Forcina
  • John Oberg
  • John Willcutt
  • Jon Newcomb
  • klugesmith
  • Leslie Wright
  • Lutz Hoffman
  • Mads Barnkob
  • Martin King
  • Mats Karlsson
  • Matt Gibson
  • Matthew Guidry
  • mbd
  • Michael D'Angelo
  • Mikkel
  • mileswaldron
  • mister_rf
  • Neil Foster
  • Nick de Smith
  • Nick Soroka
  • nicklenorp
  • Nik
  • Norman Stanley
  • Patrick Coleman
  • Paul Brodie
  • Paul Jordan
  • Paul Montgomery
  • Ped
  • Peter Krogen
  • Peter Terren
  • PhilGood
  • Richard Feldman
  • Robert Bush
  • Royce Bailey
  • Scott Fusare
  • Scott Newman
  • smiffy
  • Stella
  • Steven Busic
  • Steve Conner
  • Steve Jones
  • Steve Ward
  • Sulaiman
  • Thomas Coyle
  • Thomas A. Wallace
  • Thomas W
  • Timo
  • Torch
  • Ulf Jonsson
  • vasil
  • Vaxian
  • vladi mazzilli
  • wastehl
  • Weston
  • William Kim
  • William N.
  • William Stehl
  • Wesley Venis
The aforementioned have contributed financially to the continuing triumph of 4hv.org. They are deserving of my most heartfelt thanks.
Forums
4hv.org :: Forums :: High Voltage
« Previous topic | Next topic »   

Calculating Field Intensity at Edges of Cap Plates.

 1 2 3 4 
Move Thread LAN_403
2Spoons
Wed Jul 20 2011, 07:30AM
2Spoons Registered Member #2939 Joined: Fri Jun 25 2010, 04:25AM
Location:
Posts: 615
Ahh, yes I F***ed up a bit there. Go to 'Properties - Conductors'. pick 14k from the drop down box, click 'modify'. change 'prescribed voltage' from 0 to what you want.
I thought the result looked a little odd when I ran the sim - should have looked closer .

I'm off home now - wont be back online for about 14 hrs.
Back to top
Patrick
Wed Jul 20 2011, 07:39PM
Patrick Registered Member #2431 Joined: Tue Oct 13 2009, 09:47PM
Location: Chico, CA. USA
Posts: 5639
2Spoons wrote ...

Ahh, yes I F***ed up a bit there. Go to 'Properties - Conductors'. pick 14k from the drop down box, click 'modify'. change 'prescribed voltage' from 0 to what you want.
TY! these instructions made it easy.

done: but now i get this error

" Error: Ran out of precision at (8.68677590551, 28.8333033527).
I attempted to split a segment to a smaller size than can
be accommodated by the finite precision of floating point
arithmetic.
Try increasing the area criterion and/or reducing the minimum
allowable angle so that tiny triangles are not created."


I dont like it when my machines start replying in first person.!!!
Back to top
hboy007
Wed Jul 20 2011, 08:03PM
hboy007 Registered Member #1667 Joined: Sat Aug 30 2008, 09:57PM
Location:
Posts: 374
Are there any products out there using Hermes2d? Link2 just found it looking around for a better FEM solver. You can even have your calculations done remotely.
Back to top
2Spoons
Wed Jul 20 2011, 11:51PM
2Spoons Registered Member #2939 Joined: Fri Jun 25 2010, 04:25AM
Location:
Posts: 615
Never seen that error before! It might be related to the arcs on the end of the plates - they are made up of line segments. Try redrawing the arcs with fewer segements (arcs have a dialog box where you can spec the min segment size in degrees , default is 5 IIRC)
Back to top
Antonio
Thu Jul 21 2011, 01:44AM
Antonio Registered Member #834 Joined: Tue Jun 12 2007, 10:57PM
Location: Brazil
Posts: 644
I recommend a "sanity test" with a situation with known solution before believing in these simulations. Verify if the electric field between the plates is correct, for example (voltage difference/distance). Note the irregular boundaries caused by the triangularization, that are not real and indicate too coarse mesh. And, as already commented, sharp corners result in infinite electric field and incorrect results (but probably correct field far enough from the corners).
Back to top
jpsmith123
Thu Jul 21 2011, 04:34AM
jpsmith123 Registered Member #1321 Joined: Sat Feb 16 2008, 03:22AM
Location:
Posts: 843
I think if you just use off-the-shelf foil without any kind of edge treatment or special processing, you probably end up with various microscopic protrusions and deviations in thickness here and there, etc., that would result in unpredictable field enhancement and cause you to have to operate at drastically reduced voltage or suffer low reliability.

I think you're probably better off folding the foil over, which would cost more in terms of foil, but would give you a much less field enhancement.

Also, I think the usual construction technique for HV energy storage capacitors for example is to put several sections in series, and to limit the voltage across any one section to 10 kv, or something like that.

Back to top
Patrick
Thu Jul 21 2011, 07:43AM
Patrick Registered Member #2431 Joined: Tue Oct 13 2009, 09:47PM
Location: Chico, CA. USA
Posts: 5639
jpsmith123 wrote ...

I think if you just use off-the-shelf foil without any kind of edge treatment or special processing, you probably end up with various microscopic protrusions and deviations in thickness here and there, etc., that would result in unpredictable field enhancement and cause you to have to operate at drastically reduced voltage or suffer low reliability.

I think you're probably better off folding the foil over, which would cost more in terms of foil, but would give you a much less field enhancement.

Also, I think the usual construction technique for HV energy storage capacitors for example is to put several sections in series, and to limit the voltage across any one section to 10 kv, or something like that.


The folding edge and limiting voltage are excellent points.
Back to top
Proud Mary
Thu Jul 21 2011, 11:58PM
Proud Mary Registered Member #543 Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992
A pragmatic solution is to determine the breakdown voltage of the dielectric empirically, and then provide sufficient dielectric thickness to withstand (conservatively) triple the maximum peak voltage.
Back to top
Patrick
Fri Jul 22 2011, 12:09AM
Patrick Registered Member #2431 Joined: Tue Oct 13 2009, 09:47PM
Location: Chico, CA. USA
Posts: 5639
Proud Mary wrote ...

A pragmatic solution is to determine the breakdown voltage of the dielectric empirically, and then provide sufficient dielectric thickness to withstand (conservatively) triple the maximum peak voltage.
Yes this is what im going to attempt.
Back to top
Proud Mary
Fri Jul 22 2011, 12:23AM
Proud Mary Registered Member #543 Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992
Patrick wrote ...

Proud Mary wrote ...

A pragmatic solution is to determine the breakdown voltage of the dielectric empirically, and then provide sufficient dielectric thickness to withstand (conservatively) triple the maximum peak voltage.
Yes this is what im going to attempt.

I suppose you might want to consider if any de-rating for temperature might be needed with your chosen dielectric and particular conditions.
Back to top
 1 2 3 4 

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob

Go to:

Powered by e107 Forum System
 
Legal Information
This site is powered by e107, which is released under the GNU GPL License. All work on this site, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. By submitting any information to this site, you agree that anything submitted will be so licensed. Please read our Disclaimer and Policies page for information on your rights and responsibilities regarding this site.