Talk:Snubber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Re-editing[edit]

I believe this article needs slightly more information. Some typical examples of subber diagrams might seem appropriate, and possibly even some basic design criteria of snubbers. Another suggestion is perhaps organizing the different types of articles by first stating their main functions. Any suggestions?

I also have some images that are copyrighted by the author, but I can take the time to make some of my own that are similar that might help to explain the point further. Any comments from the original author? I don't want to completely rewrite the article, so any suggestions before I start tweaking would be appreciated.

Best regards,

DDawg 20:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Any comments from the original author?
I guess that would be me, but I always encourage people to be bold and improve the page in any way they can. Pictures of snubbers would be a good addition as would any math that supports the design of snubbers.
Atlant 14:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll get on that. Just didn't wanna step my bounds, being a new wikipedian and all.
DDawg 20:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
This page could do with improvements. Chendy (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Other contexts[edit]

Another new wikipedian here. The term "snubber is also used in fluid piping systems, with a similar purpose to that described for electrical circuits, either in-line (to suppress shock-loading of a delicate gauge for example) or external/structural (to suppress piping vibrations due to pressure transients, for example water hammer).

I hope this helps --Graham Proud 02:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. The entire article is written from the narrow viewpoint of electrical systems. Sections should be added to describe mechanical and fluidic snubbers. Accordingly, I've changed the definition of the term in the first sentence to encourage contributions in these areas. —QuicksilverT @ 00:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Not True?[edit]

"Just one Zener diode connected to ground will only protect against positive transients."

Surely this isn't true, a Zener diode will conduct in both directions, but not with the same voltage across it. A Zener with its anode connected to ground and its cathode to the terminal to be protected will conduct both when the Zener voltage is exceeded in the positive direction and when its forward voltage is exceeded in the negative direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.81.49 (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Careless tagging[edit]

Just because I never heard of it is no reason I should put a "cn" tag into the article. Maybe I should spend 30 seconds with Google Books and see the hundreds of books that mention "mechanical snubber" before I tag the article. Maybe I should acknowledge that Wikipedia editors have widely varying areas and depths of expertise and someone who put it into the article just *might* have known what she was talking about. My favorite Wikipedia edits are the ones where I come away thinking "I didn't know that". --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

RCD snubber varieties[edit]

This article is rather basic. It would be nice to expand the RCD section. I have seen RCD snubbers that have an RC parallel combination in series with a diode but I have also seen a capacitor in series with an RD parallel combinations. The diode has either anode or diode grounded. I wonder if the RD parallel combination is used as well. I think it would help to add more images and explain the reason for the RC or RD parallel combination and the orientation of the diode.

ICE77 (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Ott does not have the first configuration; only the second (and in a DC (not AC) switching environment). In neither configuration is the diode's terminal "grounded". A capacitor will do a reasonable job of blocking DC currents, but a diode may not (especially if it fails as a short). When the switch has been open for a long time, the capacitor has charged to the supply voltage. When the switch is closed, you don't want to dump all the capacitor's energy instantly into the diode. That could destroy the diode. (Furthermore, the discharge path is through the switch contacts, so there could be an arc discharge as the contacts close. That's another thing that's wrong with the RC parallel combination in series with the diode. Ott page 189 describes this as a problem with the C protection network.) Instead, with the RCD network, the diode is reversed biased and a small current discharges C through the resistor and the switch contacts. At the instant of opening the load, the diode conducts, the current is the same as the inductive load, and the rule of thumb is all the inductive energy is transferred to the capacitor (which then starts discharging through the resistor to the supply voltage). Glrx (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Glrx, I assume by first configuration you mean R||C+D and for second configuration you refer to R||D+C. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't have the book by Ott but my understanding from what you say is that R||C+D is bad because the energy will flow through the diode as soon as the voltage on the top of R||C is removed. Since the diode should not have any of its terminals grounded, then the only possible RCD configuration is D||C+R with D pointing down in parallel with C on top of R. Is that what you are saying?

ICE77 (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)