From: "Christopher R. Carlen"
Subject: Re: 87% All that vector calculus paid off
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 09:17:41 -0800
Organization: Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM USA
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 16:16:09 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
Tony Williams wrote:
> In article ,
> Chris Carlen wrote:
>>Then there would be about 1.2A pk, since I'm running a little lower
>>frequency than I originally intended.
> Just an afterthought Chris. It has always seemed to me
> that the best way to run this type of inverter is to
> always charge the inductor up to a fixed Ipk, and alter
> the frequency to adjust Vout. This makes sense, because
> there is no point in charging the inductor beyond Ipk,
> and if you did then there is the possibility of taking
> out the MOSFET.
That's a darned good idea. I wonder if it is what "analog" is hinting
to in his response. I will have to ask him/her to elucidate.
But it seems flybacks are usually designed simply to guarantee that at
maximum load, the peak current is such that flux is within reasonable
limits. It might be easiest for me to just go with this approach, since
the point of this thing, aside from learning a whole lot, is to light up
some Nixie tubes. The real meat of the project will be designing an
aesthetically pleasing clock, and writing the software with some useful
Christopher R. Carlen
Principal Laser/Optical Technologist
Sandia National Laboratories CA USA