Is that 120J per capacitor?
Can you measure the voltage across the caps when fully charged? That way you don't have to assume 350 volts. Of course be careful of a shock, and use a meter that can handle that voltage and doesn't load the circuit.
why bother? whatever the exact voltage is, it's obviously nowhere near the over 700v it would need to be.
The voltage could be much less than the assumed 350, and that could point to a circuit problem. Also, 500 volts would give the 240 W.S, not >700. The caps could be under-sized regarding supply voltage (like close to 400 V), and that would be good to know.why bother? whatever the exact voltage is, it's obviously nowhere near the over 700v it would need to be.
The calculated value is obviously the input to the tube, but is it possible the "rating" looks at light output which could be possibly enhanced by the reflector
The voltage could be much less than the assumed 350, and that could point to a circuit problem. Also, 500 volts would give the 240 W.S, not >700. The caps could be under-sized regarding supply voltage (like close to 400 V), and that would be good to know.
Ah. That's a bit of very critical information you left out.
Did you actually measure the voltage over the caps, or just the trigger voltage? Did you trace the schematic (no, because you missed the fact the caps are parallel-series connected...)?
Two caps of 480uF in series is 480uF, but with the voltage rating of both added up provided the voltage balances out, which is generally done with a couple of resistors. Two of those arrays in parallel makes 960uF. 960uF at 700V is about 240J.
I should have been clearer, but did not think the supply voltage was 500, given the cap rating of 400, but was referring to a statement that the voltage would have to be 700 for a 240 W.S output (post #7). I agree that having 400 volt caps in a 500-volt circuit would be a very poor design, and probably would fail right away. There are cases where even reputable manufacturers have used caps that were over-stressed by voltages near, but still below, the cap rating (most commonly with tantalums).That reminds me of how computer speaker sets used to be marketed in the 1990s. You could buy a 250Watt set of speakers only to find a tiny 8W voice coil and a 5W amplifier inside. They'd call it "PMPO" output power ("Peak Momentary/Music Power Output") and then get very creative with the maths to arrive at a ridiculously high number.
Theoretically, maybe. But realistically, nobody, not even a cheapskate engineer or penny-pinching production manager with the ethics of a war criminal, is going to put 400V caps in a 500V circuit. And if the voltage turns out to be much less than 350V, well, it's even much less than a 120Ws flash...the question then would be: is it by design, or is it because of a defect? 99.9% it would be a design choice, because a flash unit doesn't magically settle on a significantly lower voltage and otherwise continues functioning perfectly. That's just not how these circuits work.
My bad! I got it right now. The caps are rated at 500V not 400V as I said. The step up transformer secondary is about 350VAC RMS with 120VAC input from the outlet. This voltage is rectified and charge 1 or 2 banks of 2 caps. It would charge 1 cap for half of the cycle and charging the other cap the other half of the cycle. It's a voltage doubler circuit. The fully charge caps has the voltage of 487VDC (this because the peak of the AC cycle is 1.414 times the RMS value). These 2 caps are connected in series and thus gives the total voltage of 975VDC. There is a choice of 120ws or 240ws. If the choice is 120ws then only 1 bank of caps is charged. So the 2 480uF caps in series makes them 240uF. Parallel that to the other bank makes it 480uF again but the voltage rating is now 1000V instead of 500V.
So at 975VDC and 480uF the energy is 228J which is close to the rating of 240ws.
If you want to measure near 1000VDC, find an old CRT HV checker probe. Fluke sold them for years and the work with any 10Mohm DVM.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?