[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Looking for run caps, urgent
Original poster: "Mike Wood by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <mike.wood-at-opennw-dot-com>
Hiya
>I'm at the office so I can't quote the original formula I used but it was
>from the pupman archives doing a search on PFC.
I found the same problem - searching pupman for pfc stuff gave me a hit on
math.txt, which includes the following:
=======================================================================
EQUATION 10: POWER FACTOR CORRECTION FOR NEON SIGN TRANSFORMERS
Neons typically have an efficiency of about 50%, in that they
draw twice as much power as they put out. This problem can be
resolved with the use of power factor correction (pfc) capaci-
tance across the line. The pfc capacitors used are the same as
for capacitor starting motors. The voltage rating should be at
least twice the line current used, and I like a 4x voltage margin
for long life. The formula used to determine ballpark pfc is as
follows:
9
10^
C = Corrected kVA ------ 2
2(pi)fe^
This should read C = Corrected kVA times (10 to the ninth power)
over, (2 pi times f times e squared)
C = required capacitance in microfarads
f = frequency of applied voltage
e = applied voltage
CORRECTED KVA is determined by dividing the volt*amps (watts)
output of the neon sign xfrmr by 1000
Equation courtesy of Richard Quick
=======================================================================
and which gave me suggested pfc results so far away from the "known ok"
system specifications that everyone's kind enough to post that I went
looking for why. It turns out the chunk above is just an extract from an
earlier posting to the list, but which has lost an important something in
the translation. The last bit originally read:
CORRECTED KVA is determined by dividing the corrected power factor
output of the neon sign xfrmr (below) by 1000
Corrected Power Factor
Secondary Rating Volt-Amps
kV,mA
15,120 900
15,60 450
15,30 250
12,120 775
12,60 400
12,30 200
9,120 600
9,60 300
9,30 150
7.5,120 500
7.5,60 250
7.5,30 125
6,60 200
6,30 100
Equation courtesy of Richard Quick
=======================================================================
which makes a big difference.
>I think there is some serious discrepency for the PFC calculation.
apologies for lengthy post, but yes, I think so too!
Cheers anyway
Mike
Wellington, NZ