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.
Registered Member #54278
Joined: Sat Jan 17 2015, 04:42AM
Location: Amite, La.
Posts: 367
I have connected four identical photo-flash capacitors (2x2) , each rated: 800uF @ 360Vdc, to get a total rating of 800uF @ 720v. (please forgive the lack of graphics.) Let's call them C1, C2, C3, and C4. The two series connection sets go like this: C1- to C2+ AND C3- to C4+. To put these two series-connected sets in parallel, I connect C1+ to C3+ (+out) AND C2- to C4- (-out). Also, I have 200k@2W resistors across each cap for balancing/bleeding.
THE QUESTION: what is the difference between this configuration and one with an added connection to C1-,C2+ AND C3-,C4+ ?
Registered Member #2099
Joined: Wed Apr 29 2009, 12:22AM
Location: Los Altos, California
Posts: 1716
Some benefits of the added connection: 1. Need only two instead of four balancing/bleeding resistors. 2. The added connection adds flexibility if you want to match the _measured_ values of C's in series, so the smaller one doesn't get voltage reversed when a rapid discharge happens.
There might be some disadvantages of the added connection when configuring 2S2P batteries. Electric-powered model enthusiasts might know about them. Maybe they apply to your electrolytic capacitor project.
Registered Member #162
Joined: Mon Feb 13 2006, 10:25AM
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3140
Adding the link may give slightly better voltage balancing, but under fault conditions (a short-circuit capacitor) individual strings of capacitors in series, connected in parallel, may give slightly less explosiveness. Even if you connect capacitors in parallel, the overall current (hence heat) distribution is better in multiple resistors rather than one single resistor, that could fail open circuit. So, no need to change your arrangement, but no harm if you do.
Registered Member #54278
Joined: Sat Jan 17 2015, 04:42AM
Location: Amite, La.
Posts: 367
I am trying to recall this from memory, but a while back I had a similar capacitor data/app book as Albi referred to. There was one page concerning the connection of capacitors in straight parallel. Foe example, suppose there are five capacitors, C1-C5, all lined in single file (C1,C2,...C5) and connected in parallel with two straight conductors. IIRC, the diagram indicated a "Right" and "Wrong" way to connect to this bank. The "Right" way to connect to this parallel bank was to make one connection at C1 and the other polarity at C5.
Apparently, there was some 'disadvantage' in taking the connections at a single capacitor at the end. I don't recall the reason.
Registered Member #2939
Joined: Fri Jun 25 2010, 04:25AM
Location:
Posts: 615
Its quite simple. Draw the 5 capacitors but include the impedance of every connection. You will see that a connection at c1 and c5 yields equal total impedance to each capacitor. But if you were to connect only at C1, then C1 has the lowest total impedance, C2 is a bit higher, all the way up to C5 being the highest - which means current will not be shared equally among the capacitors.
Registered Member #54278
Joined: Sat Jan 17 2015, 04:42AM
Location: Amite, La.
Posts: 367
Many thanks, This leads to another similar situation: Years ago when the first LED string arrays came out, I remember having one with MANY LED's (each light 'unit' was composed of an LED in series with a resistor set for 12vdc operation). The 'units' were all connected in PARALLEL, and additional LED strings could be plugged into the the end of the previous one for longer arrays. The 12v source (which supplied enough current for all LEDs) was only connected at ONE end of the parallel array. The brightness was NOT uniform--could this possibly be solved by making the 12v power connections at opposite ends? Much like the proper capacitor array connection in the discussion.
Registered Member #54278
Joined: Sat Jan 17 2015, 04:42AM
Location: Amite, La.
Posts: 367
OK, one more thing involving connecting capacitors that seems to somewhat fit here...and I have wondered about this one since pre-internet times. When I looked for solutions on youtube, I am finding that many other people, attempting to work this problem 'on paper', get the obvious answer--WHICH IS WRONG--and accept it as true and just keep on going. The paradox: You have two identical capacitors. One is charged and the other discharged, the two capacitors are connected in parallel (I see sparking when I try it, which I think is key to the wrong answer obtained by the obvious method). It turns out they all come up with the same conclusion, that is, that the initial charge is EQUALLY shared among the two capacitors. For an example, see This is WRONG! It actually appears that 1/2 of the energy seems to "radiate away" when this experiment is done. Does anyone know of any way to keep more than 1/2 of the total energy at steady state--and an explanation of the energy loss? would this process 'always' be 50% energy efficient?
Registered Member #162
Joined: Mon Feb 13 2006, 10:25AM
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3140
From memory; There is always some resistance which looses energy there is inductance, so if you connect two capacitors with different open circuit voltages together, you get a damped resonance with a very high oscillating current loop - an rf transmitter. If the circuit resistance is significant then up to half of the energy will be lost to heat with very little rfi.
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.