Re: [uCsimm] HV capacitors on the LAN transformer

From: John J. Cruz (casacruz@bellatlantic.net)
Date: Fri Aug 17 2001 - 14:19:44 EDT


It depends. If the LAN cabling is expose to factory or outside climate conditions
(as an under ground cable susceptible to lightning, etc.) your design warrants the
added cost. However, in a normal office (white collar environment) the simple shunt
capacitors would suffice. My $0.02.

jjc

Tom Walsh wrote:

> Daniel Haensse wrote:
> >
> > Am Mit, 15 Aug 2001 schrieben Sie:
> > > Folks, who can answer this...
> > >
> > > There is a LAN transformer on the ucsimm (VALOR- PULSE
> > > ENGINEERING part PT4153S). On most Ethernet designs,
> > > there are 2 1kV 0.01 capacitors connected to this
> > > transformer on the ethernet side. On the ucsimm these
> > > transformer pins are left unconnected. Question: what
> > > these capacitors normally for, why they are missing
> > > and is there any penalty for not having them?
> > Those capacitors will discharge to gnd if the voltage is above 1kV.
> > So if the LAN transformer can't stand the voltage anymore, on the uCSimm
> > it will discharge to the uCSimm and may blow the ethernet controller or
> > anything else that the high voltage enjoys to destroy.
>
> While it is true that a sustained potential above 1KV will *eventually*
> cause the capacitor to fail.. The EMF pulse will have destroyed the
> electronics on the other side of the magnetic long before the cap will
> have failed. No, the cap voltage rating is so that it will withstand
> the voltages placed across the wiring by standards organizations such as
> the U.S. Underwriters Laboratory. I had a circuit that had to comply
> with a U/L spec. that required a sustained application of 600volts
> potential without catching on fire. The standard was for industrial
> wiring installations where it was possible that the wiring could be near
> 440volt three phase supply lines and may be shorted against that wiring
> (due to accident / incompetance).
>
> There are far more effective ways of achieving the protection of EMP
> (lightning) and electrostatic discharges that burning a cap out! These
> range in effectiveness from: spark gaps, MOV, and transil + transorb
> arrangements. You have to keep in mind that the EMF potential of a
> pulse is very high and of short duration (in most cases) and would need
> a very high speed clamping circuit to absorb the pulse. The clamping
> circuit response time is usually in the sub-nanosecond range (as in the
> case of a Transil). A garbage-variety capacitor offers no such
> protection.
>
> One of the most effective EMP clamping circuits that I have designed
> with is a Transil, resistor, and Transorb:
>
> Device >---------------\/\/\/\/\/\---------------> Line
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> transil transorb
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> ------- -------
> / / / / / /
>
> The Transil is a low voltage device, typically withing the ABSOLUTE MAX
> ratings of the device to be protected. The resistor is a 10 ohm device,
> and the Transorb (gas tube, similar to neon), has a firing voltage
> rating of 70 volts. The circuit works as: when a pulse arrives, the
> transil clamps the overshoot to ground causing a voltage drop across the
> resistor, the transorb will fire at the 70 volt level and continue to
> fire (conduct) as long as current is present. The worst case is that
> you will blow the resistor off the board! The transorb is capable of
> withstanding 1500Watts/second.
>
> Nope, the cap is not for overvoltage protection...
>
> Regards,
>
> TomW
>
>
> --
> Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant
> http://openhardware.net, http://cyberiansoftware.com
> "Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..."
> ----------------------------------------------------
> This message resent by the ucsimm@uclinux.com list server http://www.uClinux.com/



This message resent by the ucsimm@uclinux.com list server http://www.uClinux.com/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Apr 07 2002 - 00:01:43 EST