Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tim Wescott wrote:
John Popelish wrote: Just for efficiency reasons, I think you would want ot have enough capacitance across the regulator input that the cell resistance drops voltage only with respect ot the average output current, not the switcher peak value. This can be a pretty big factor in the overall efficiency. Using a switcher that has little ripple current on its input (two phase boost, for instance) makes this much easier. That's not the point. Because a switcher tends to draw a constant power from a load it's input impedance has a negative resistive component. If you match this with a source that has a too-high impedance it'll be _unstable_; a big capacitor would just slow it down in this case. Presumably what you need is a controller that detects when the supply voltage gets down to some threshold, then regulates the supply-side current rather than the load-side voltage. Come to think of it that'd be a fun thing to design... Very few switchers draw an instantaneously constant power from the unregulated source. Almost all can draw an average constant power (over the switching period). The difference means a lot when you consider what the variations do to the total losses in the solar cells. You missed my point, completely. -- John Popelish |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline(tm) Report 1420 - October 29, 2004 | Dx | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline(tm) Report 1420 - October 29, 2004 | Dx | |||
Cell Phone Hardline | Antenna | |||
SOLAR constant voltage Xmfr question? | Equipment | |||
SOLAR constant voltage Xmfr question? | Equipment |