wayne
Society Members
Posts: 138
|
Post by wayne on Oct 12, 2021 7:17:42 GMT 12
Yes that's what I got when I tested it Thank you for your help and advice Regards Wayne
|
|
|
Post by elorens on Oct 13, 2021 8:35:49 GMT 12
Wayne, the point of failure on those old caps is their ability to withstand high voltage more than their value changing - they can read their value fine on a modern cap tester or multimeter with capacitance mode. These modern devices will only test them with a few volts - but in the radio, under hundreds of volts, they will fail. The EZ40 in that set will take a maximum reservoir cap (first one after the rectifier) of 50uF so that should be fine, and 32uF will also be fine. The difference between 8uF and 50uF might raise the HT a little bit but I don't foresee any issues. Cheers, Steve Hi Steve, what is your view on replacing electrolytics with much bigger values than the original design values? Maximum reservoir values are quoted presumably with the switch-on surge in mind. My instinct is to keep clear of that limit, in order to prolong rectifier life as much as possible. If 8 uF was the design value, then I am likely to use something close to that, say 10, rather than something several times this. Are there good reasons for pushing close to the limit? Cheers, Lawrence
|
|
wayne
Society Members
Posts: 138
|
Post by wayne on Oct 13, 2021 9:35:13 GMT 12
Hi all the schematic says 8 UF for both of them but when I got the radio they had been replaced in a tidy job with a 50 and 32 Regards Wayne
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Oct 16, 2021 14:17:37 GMT 12
Hi all the schematic says 8 UF for both of them but when I got the radio they had been replaced in a tidy job with a 50 and 32 Regards Wayne according to the EZ40 Data, 50uF Maximum for the first Filter cap so in theory you should be Ok. If you look at this circuit, Philips use 2 x 50uF Filter caps in the power supply with an EZ40. www.vintageradio.co.nz/model/philips/210a
|
|