Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.components > #5892 > unrolled thread

Condensateurs

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.components

Contents

  Condensateurs Look165 <look165@numericable.fr> - 2016-01-04 12:59 +0100
    Re: Condensateurs Look165 <look165@numericable.fr> - 2016-01-04 13:00 +0100
    Re: Condensateurs Tilmann Reh <usenet2007nospam@autometer.de> - 2016-01-04 21:34 +0100
      Re: Condensateurs Look165 <look165@numericable.fr> - 2016-01-04 21:57 +0100
        Re: Condensateurs Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> - 2016-01-05 01:27 +0100
    Re: Condensateurs Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> - 2016-01-05 01:15 +0100
      Re: Condensateurs Look165 <look165@numericable.fr> - 2016-01-05 11:00 +0100
        Re: Condensateurs Johann Klammer <klammerj@NOSPAM.a1.net> - 2016-01-05 13:01 +0100
          Re: Condensateurs Look165 <look165@numericable.fr> - 2016-01-05 13:19 +0100
            Re: Condensateurs legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> - 2016-01-07 09:49 -0500

#5892 — Condensateurs

Je sais que la question est limite "components".

Voilà mon problème :

Si je mets 2 condensateurs chimiques de tension et valeur différentes en 
parallèle, est-ce que ça pose un problème , sachant que c'est la plus 
basse qui prévaut ?

Merci

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#5893

la plus basse tension, je voulais dire.

Look165 a écrit :
> Je sais que la question est limite "components".
>
> Voilà mon problème :
>
> Si je mets 2 condensateurs chimiques de tension et valeur différentes en
> parallèle, est-ce que ça pose un problème , sachant que c'est la plus
> basse qui prévaut ?
>
> Merci

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5894

Look165 schrieb:

> Je sais que la question est limite "components".
> 
> Voilà mon problème :
> 
> Si je mets 2 condensateurs chimiques de tension et valeur différentes en 
> parallèle, est-ce que ça pose un problème , sachant que c'est la plus 
> basse qui prévaut ?

I assume you'd get more answers here when asking in english...

However, if I understood your question correctly...:
Of course you may connect two different capacitors in parallel as long
as both are operated within their voltage range, i.e. the voltage must
not exceed the lowest voltage rating of these capacitors.

As an example: Connect two electrolytics of 100 µF / 50 V and 470 µF /
16 V in parallel, and you'll get a 570 µF / 16 V capacitor.

Tilmann

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5895

Of course !

But what about the relibility ? and what about the repartition of the 
currents since the ESR of each would be slightly different ?

Sorry for the writing, I'm French.

Tilmann Reh a écrit :
> Look165 schrieb:
>
>> Je sais que la question est limite "components".
>>
>> Voilà mon problème :
>>
>> Si je mets 2 condensateurs chimiques de tension et valeur différentes en
>> parallèle, est-ce que ça pose un problème , sachant que c'est la plus
>> basse qui prévaut ?
>
> I assume you'd get more answers here when asking in english...
>
> However, if I understood your question correctly...:
> Of course you may connect two different capacitors in parallel as long
> as both are operated within their voltage range, i.e. the voltage must
> not exceed the lowest voltage rating of these capacitors.
>
> As an example: Connect two electrolytics of 100 µF / 50 V and 470 µF /
> 16 V in parallel, and you'll get a 570 µF / 16 V capacitor.
>
> Tilmann
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5897

Look165 schrieb:

> But what about the relibility ? and what about the repartition of the 
> currents since the ESR of each would be slightly different ?

Les courants individuéls ne dépendent d'autres éléments *en parallèl*.

> Sorry for the writing, I'm French.

Sorry2, je suis Allemand.

DoDi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5896

Look165 schrieb:

> Si je mets 2 condensateurs chimiques de tension et valeur différentes en 
> parallèle, est-ce que ça pose un problème , sachant que c'est la plus 
> basse qui prévaut ?

La plus basse tension, oui.

DoDi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5898

Merci de la réponse, mais c'est côté ESR que je suis inquiet

Hans-Peter Diettrich a écrit :
> Look165 schrieb:
>
>> Si je mets 2 condensateurs chimiques de tension et valeur différentes
>> en parallèle, est-ce que ça pose un problème , sachant que c'est la
>> plus basse qui prévaut ?
>
> La plus basse tension, oui.
>
> DoDi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5899

On 01/05/2016 11:00 AM, Look165 wrote:
> Merci de la réponse, mais c'est côté ESR que je suis inquiet
> 
> Hans-Peter Diettrich a écrit :
>> Look165 schrieb:
>>
>>> Si je mets 2 condensateurs chimiques de tension et valeur différentes
>>> en parallèle, est-ce que ça pose un problème , sachant que c'est la
>>> plus basse qui prévaut ?
>>
>> La plus basse tension, oui.
>>
>> DoDi
> 
It's quite common to use 'lytics and a small ceramic in parallel, as the 
ceramic one will gobble up narrow spikes better because of it's lower 
resistance. Impulse currents will be a bit higher there, I guess. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5900

I know and I have used that ( 100uF // with 10nF ceram).

But here the goal is to match a value of capa with my "onboard" components !

I repeat that the problem I could face is with the resulting ESR.

My actual problem is to make 1200uF with 1000//220 of the same 
manufacturer and of the same series (I know that 1200//220 don't really 
make 1220 but a little less).

But the ESR will also be somehow in // , what will result ?
And if you want to combine this with the parasistic // resistor of the 
capas...

Johann Klammer a écrit :
> On 01/05/2016 11:00 AM, Look165 wrote:
>> Merci de la réponse, mais c'est côté ESR que je suis inquiet
>>
>> Hans-Peter Diettrich a écrit :
>>> Look165 schrieb:
>>>
>>>> Si je mets 2 condensateurs chimiques de tension et valeur différentes
>>>> en parallèle, est-ce que ça pose un problème , sachant que c'est la
>>>> plus basse qui prévaut ?
>>>
>>> La plus basse tension, oui.
>>>
>>> DoDi
>>
> It's quite common to use 'lytics and a small ceramic in parallel, as the
> ceramic one will gobble up narrow spikes better because of it's lower
> resistance. Impulse currents will be a bit higher there, I guess.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5901

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 13:19:52 +0100, Look165 <look165@numericable.fr>
wrote:

>I know and I have used that ( 100uF // with 10nF ceram).
>
>But here the goal is to match a value of capa with my "onboard" components !
>
>I repeat that the problem I could face is with the resulting ESR.
>
>My actual problem is to make 1200uF with 1000//220 of the same 
>manufacturer and of the same series (I know that 1200//220 don't really 
>make 1220 but a little less).
>
>But the ESR will also be somehow in // , what will result ?
>And if you want to combine this with the parasistic // resistor of the 
>capas...
>
You are aware that the tolerance of these parts is in the 20% range?

Providing that the circuit's ripple/dropout performance is not
objectionable, adding the 220uF part will be non-critical, if the esr
of the 1000uF replacement is similar to the original 1200uF part, and
their case sizes have similar surface area.

Failure mode of these parts, below 63V, is increasing ESR, evident by
increasing ripple and temperature. The 1000uF part will dominate.
Electrolytics of the same mfr series and voltage will normally share
current proportionally, if not influenced by layout or external heat
sources.

Given development in the cap industry, it is usually possible to
provide similar or superior substitution at the time of replacement.
If this is a new design, you should review the design requirements to
identify the dominant parameters. At 50/60hz, esr is seldom dominant.

RL

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.components

csiph-web