Re: cockcroft-walton question

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Ed Phillips by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" <evp-at-pacbell-dot-net>

Tesla list wrote:
 >
 > Original poster: "Dr. Resonance by way of Terry Fritz 
<teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" <resonance-at-jvlnet-dot-com>
 >
 > Most machines use equal value components all the way up.
 >
 > About 15 years ago I posed this question to Beau Meskin, Pres. and Chief EE
 > at Plastic Capacitors, Inc., in Chicago, and he told me to be sure to use
 > all equal values in each stage other wise you might form some type of
 > capacitive voltage divider and some stages would see over-voltages.
 >
 > All rectifiers have to be rated for PRV not PIV as they can see as much as
 > 2.8 x Erms.  In systems we have constructed we used 4.0 x Erms as a solid
 > safety factor and they have lasted in excess of 15 years and are still
 > running.
 >
 > Dr. Resonance
 >
 > Resonance Research Corporation
 > E11870 Shadylane Rd.
 > Baraboo   WI   53913
 >
 >  > The usual situation is to use equal valued C and PIV, to reduce ripple,
 > you
 >  > increase C at the bottom stages of the stack,
 >  > so they go, e.g.
 >  > N*C, (N-1)*C,...3*C, 2*C, 1*C
 >  >
 >  > In any case, the PIV rating of the rectifiers is the same for all 
stages..
 >  >
 >
 >  >  > Is the following a component-efficient way to implement a
 > Cockcroft-Walton
 >  >  > voltage multiplier... (all like components have equal ratings, more in
 >  >  > series as you go up through the stages) ...?

	In spite of what the Plastic Capacitors engineer said, both experience
and simulation say otherwise.  The bigger the capacitors the better, of
course.  I can see his point but think he's wrong.

Ed