rCRC is better than C.
Better in this case means more attenuation of the unwanted mains and it's harmonics and all the HF garbage that comes in with the mains.
If I use thick short cable that results in 2mill-ohms of flow and return total circuit resistance for one connection pair and instead I use a slightly longer twisted pair of thin guage and have maybe 15milli-ohms of circiut resistance than I have gained a free 13milli-ohms and I have gained again with low loop area.
Now repeat that before the rectifier, after the rectifier, before the amplifier. I could get an additional 30milli-ohms of "free" resistance to make up that r of the rCRC filtering.
Every time a little capacitance follows an r or R we have a filter. All those filters add up to massive attenuation of the HF arriving at the amplifier power rails.
BTW, I posted transformer test results showing secondary resistance of 90milli-ohms in the reservoir size Thread. an extra 30 is significant.
Roender's 300 is even more effective.
Better in this case means more attenuation of the unwanted mains and it's harmonics and all the HF garbage that comes in with the mains.
If I use thick short cable that results in 2mill-ohms of flow and return total circuit resistance for one connection pair and instead I use a slightly longer twisted pair of thin guage and have maybe 15milli-ohms of circiut resistance than I have gained a free 13milli-ohms and I have gained again with low loop area.
Now repeat that before the rectifier, after the rectifier, before the amplifier. I could get an additional 30milli-ohms of "free" resistance to make up that r of the rCRC filtering.
Every time a little capacitance follows an r or R we have a filter. All those filters add up to massive attenuation of the HF arriving at the amplifier power rails.
BTW, I posted transformer test results showing secondary resistance of 90milli-ohms in the reservoir size Thread. an extra 30 is significant.
Roender's 300 is even more effective.
Last edited:
Why the use of double diodes in the bridge?
On the PCB design there is position for MUR120 diodes or MUR8x0 diodes. Use one or the other, depends on designed load current.
Well, If your shunt is designed for 3.3A then yes, the resistor should have 0.3ohm. The voltage dropped over this resistor should be around 1V
It's valid for all Salas shunt regulators?
My attempt at a PCB for 5v Reflektor. Thanks for the help SALAS.
I should add that I inserted C1 as additional smoothing post rectification. If used, I'll obviously have to connect the + terminal.
Also, will be adding heatsinks for the mosfets.
Any comments?
I should add that I inserted C1 as additional smoothing post rectification. If used, I'll obviously have to connect the + terminal.
Also, will be adding heatsinks for the mosfets.
Any comments?
Attachments
Last edited:
I assume you mean for the IRF9610 gate. Its the resistor I've labelled 150R2?
That on is near, talking the IRF940 one. You named it 150R3.
Quick question. I've built the shunt reg pictured in the first schematic in the picture below using one of dvb-projekts PCBs. C3 and C5 are listed as being 220uF. Would it be OK to use 330uF caps for those positions instead? I have a pair of 330uF/35v Rubycon ZLHs I found in the parts box here. If not suitable I'll order some 220uF types instead.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
- Home
- Amplifiers
- Power Supplies
- The simplistic Salas low voltage shunt regulator