Stud-mount diodes (four in a bridge configuration) are protected by MOVs: one
across the AC connections, one across the DC connections.

These MOVs are antique-looking finned affairs (a la selenium rectifiers).
Both sport PN S01AAA?AAA (?=illegible) with Westinghouse trademark. The
wiring diagram symbol for these looks like a zener diode with an extra arrow
head (both arrow points touch, with the familiar "z" shaped line between
them).

The AC supply voltage to the bridge is 75 rms. The bridge diodes are
originally 100V/1A devices; I'm replacing with 400V/35A ones.

This rectifier drives a DC motor via 2 contactors: one for direction (by
reversing polarity) and the other for "GO/STOP". The MOVs are to limit the
kick from opening contacts, I presume.

Someone suggested that with such stout diodes available today that maybe the
MOVs are not required.

If you think I need to keep the MOVs, how do I select new ones?

What say y'all?

Thanks,
--
DaveC

This is an invalid return address
Please reply in the news group

DaveC wrote:
Stud-mount diodes (four in a bridge configuration) are protected by MOVs: one
across the AC connections, one across the DC connections.

These MOVs are antique-looking finned affairs (a la selenium rectifiers).
Both sport PN S01AAA?AAA (?=illegible) with Westinghouse trademark. The
wiring diagram symbol for these looks like a zener diode with an extra arrow
head (both arrow points touch, with the familiar "z" shaped line between
them).

The AC supply voltage to the bridge is 75 rms. The bridge diodes are
originally 100V/1A devices; I'm replacing with 400V/35A ones.

This rectifier drives a DC motor via 2 contactors: one for direction (by
reversing polarity) and the other for "GO/STOP". The MOVs are to limit the
kick from opening contacts, I presume.

Someone suggested that with such stout diodes available today that maybe the
MOVs are not required.

If you think I need to keep the MOVs, how do I select new ones?

What say y'all?

Thanks,

You need the MOV's. The coils in the DC motors are wonderful inductors
and can put out all kinds of HV spikes. If you have measured the input
voltage correctly than the bridge diodes will have 106 volts applied
across them even without considering mains voltage fluctuations etc.
This makes selecting a suitable MOV impossible (even for the manufacturer)

MOV's are specified with an AC operating voltage which, in your case,
should be a little higher than 75 volts and a clamping voltage which
should be much lower than the PIV of the diodes (400 volts in your new
case). You also need to calculate the amount of stored power in joules -
with a moving mass of the motor this could be very high.

I suspect that something is not right with the circuit as you have
described it.

On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 21:45:02 -0700, DaveC wrote:

Stud-mount diodes (four in a bridge configuration) are protected by MOVs: one
across the AC connections, one across the DC connections.

These MOVs are antique-looking finned affairs (a la selenium rectifiers).
Both sport PN S01AAA?AAA (?=illegible) with Westinghouse trademark. The
wiring diagram symbol for these looks like a zener diode with an extra arrow
head (both arrow points touch, with the familiar "z" shaped line between
them).

The AC supply voltage to the bridge is 75 rms. The bridge diodes are
originally 100V/1A devices; I'm replacing with 400V/35A ones.

This rectifier drives a DC motor via 2 contactors: one for direction (by
reversing polarity) and the other for "GO/STOP". The MOVs are to limit the
kick from opening contacts, I presume.

Someone suggested that with such stout diodes available today that maybe the
MOVs are not required.

If you think I need to keep the MOVs, how do I select new ones?

What say y'all?

Thanks,

I'll bet that they are not MOVs. They are what is referred to as
"Tranzorbs".

MOVs would only be able to handle a certain LOW number of transient
events before they undergo operating characteristic changes. A Tranzorb,
on the other hand, will ALWAYS kill a transient, unless you breach the
tranzorb itself. With an MOV, each event changes the device's
characteristics of operation until it finally functions as a completely
different circuit element.

Try NOT to follow the lead of other idiots, and refrain from
cross-posting your queries.

On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 21:45:02 -0700, DaveC wrote:

Stud-mount diodes (four in a bridge configuration) are protected by MOVs: one
across the AC connections, one across the DC connections.

These MOVs are antique-looking finned affairs (a la selenium rectifiers).
Both sport PN S01AAA?AAA (?=illegible) with Westinghouse trademark. The
wiring diagram symbol for these looks like a zener diode with an extra arrow
head (both arrow points touch, with the familiar "z" shaped line between
them).

The AC supply voltage to the bridge is 75 rms. The bridge diodes are
originally 100V/1A devices; I'm replacing with 400V/35A ones.

This rectifier drives a DC motor via 2 contactors: one for direction (by
reversing polarity) and the other for "GO/STOP". The MOVs are to limit the
kick from opening contacts, I presume.

Someone suggested that with such stout diodes available today that maybe the
MOVs are not required.

If you think I need to keep the MOVs, how do I select new ones?

What say y'all?

Thanks,

To apply MOVs (and other clamp devices) there needs to be a decent difference between the
semiconductor voltage rating and the actual peak circuit operating voltage. In this case
the circuit operates at 75 Vrms or 106 V peak plus a margin for supply variation, say 117
V max, and the devices were rated at 100 V. There isn't a MOV voltage that would protect
the semis and not destroy itself in normal operation.

But luckily it survived (maybe the semis could actually take a lot more than 100 V?), and
you're using 400 V diodes, so you can safely choose a MOV that starts to break down around
150-250 Vdc or 100-150 Vac. And since MOVs are so cheap now you can just go with something
rated for, say, 100-150 Joules, which should be more than adequate.

On Jul 7, 12:58*am, Tony wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 21:45:02 -0700, DaveC wrote:
Stud-mount diodes (four in a bridge configuration) are protected by MOVs: one
across the AC connections, one across the DC connections.

These MOVs are antique-looking finned affairs (a la selenium rectifiers)..
Both sport PN S01AAA?AAA (?=illegible) with Westinghouse trademark. The
wiring diagram symbol for these looks like a zener diode with an extra arrow
head (both arrow points touch, with the familiar "z" shaped line between
them).

The AC supply voltage to the bridge is 75 rms. The bridge diodes are
originally 100V/1A devices; I'm replacing with 400V/35A ones.

This rectifier drives a DC motor via 2 contactors: one for direction (by
reversing polarity) and the other for "GO/STOP". The MOVs are to limit the
kick from opening contacts, I presume.

Someone suggested that with such stout diodes available today that maybe the
MOVs are not required.

If you think I need to keep the MOVs, how do I select new ones?

What say y'all?

Thanks,

To apply MOVs (and other clamp devices) there needs to be a decent difference between the
semiconductor voltage rating and the actual peak circuit operating voltage. In this case
the circuit operates at 75 Vrms or 106 V peak plus a margin for supply variation, say 117
V max, and the devices were rated at 100 V. There isn't a MOV voltage that would protect
the semis and not destroy itself in normal operation.

But luckily it survived (maybe the semis could actually take a lot more than 100 V?), and
you're using 400 V diodes, so you can safely choose a MOV that starts to break down around
150-250 Vdc or 100-150 Vac. And since MOVs are so cheap now you can just go with something
rated for, say, 100-150 Joules, which should be more than adequate.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Check the spec on MOV's Mycelium is correct, after a number of uses
they are considered GONE.

Hard to believe anyone would design a circuit 'requiring' the presence
of MOV's to protect during 'normal' operation catching flyback
surges.

Yes, replace with tranzorbs. And try to match the characteristics of
your new diodes to the old. Higher current devices tend to be slower
and the current going the wrong way for that short time may heat
things up.

I have seen the turn off time of diodes matched to a circuit. Diodes
selected based upon allowing a slight amount of reverse current to
slowly die off during voltage reversal. With the end result the
diodes turn off 'quietly'. For example, I've seen linear power
supplies with faster diodes [the diodes made very high frequency shut
off noise] fail conducted RFI/EMI testing caused by this phenomenon.

Robert

David Eather wrote:
DaveC wrote:
Stud-mount diodes (four in a bridge configuration) are protected by
MOVs: one across the AC connections, one across the DC connections.
These MOVs are antique-looking finned affairs (a la selenium
rectifiers). Both sport PN S01AAA?AAA (?=illegible) with Westinghouse
trademark. The wiring diagram symbol for these looks like a zener
diode with an extra arrow head (both arrow points touch, with the
familiar "z" shaped line between them).
The AC supply voltage to the bridge is 75 rms. The bridge diodes are
originally 100V/1A devices; I'm replacing with 400V/35A ones.
This rectifier drives a DC motor via 2 contactors: one for direction
(by reversing polarity) and the other for "GO/STOP". The MOVs are to
limit the kick from opening contacts, I presume.
Someone suggested that with such stout diodes available today that
maybe the MOVs are not required.
If you think I need to keep the MOVs, how do I select new ones?
What say y'all?
Thanks,

You need the MOV's. The coils in the DC motors are wonderful inductors
and can put out all kinds of HV spikes. If you have measured the input
voltage correctly than the bridge diodes will have 106 volts applied
across them even without considering mains voltage fluctuations etc.
This makes selecting a suitable MOV impossible (even for the manufacturer)

MOV's are specified with an AC operating voltage which, in your case,
should be a little higher than 75 volts and a clamping voltage which
should be much lower than the PIV of the diodes (400 volts in your new
case). You also need to calculate the amount of stored power in joules -
with a moving mass of the motor this could be very high.

I suspect that something is not right with the circuit as you have
described it.


MOVs would not be used to absorb spikes from the motor, if they were,
they wouldn't last long.

You should look at Transient Voltage Supressors, aka TransZorbs. Vishay
has a nice selection of them

http://www.vishay.com/diodes/protect...sd/trans-zorb/

So do a number of other manufactures.

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 07:48:36 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy wrote:

On Jul 7, 12:58*am, Tony wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 21:45:02 -0700, DaveC wrote:
Stud-mount diodes (four in a bridge configuration) are protected by MOVs: one
across the AC connections, one across the DC connections.

These MOVs are antique-looking finned affairs (a la selenium rectifiers).
Both sport PN S01AAA?AAA (?=illegible) with Westinghouse trademark. The
wiring diagram symbol for these looks like a zener diode with an extra arrow
head (both arrow points touch, with the familiar "z" shaped line between
them).

The AC supply voltage to the bridge is 75 rms. The bridge diodes are
originally 100V/1A devices; I'm replacing with 400V/35A ones.

This rectifier drives a DC motor via 2 contactors: one for direction (by
reversing polarity) and the other for "GO/STOP". The MOVs are to limit the
kick from opening contacts, I presume.

Someone suggested that with such stout diodes available today that maybe the
MOVs are not required.

If you think I need to keep the MOVs, how do I select new ones?

What say y'all?

Thanks,

To apply MOVs (and other clamp devices) there needs to be a decent difference between the
semiconductor voltage rating and the actual peak circuit operating voltage. In this case
the circuit operates at 75 Vrms or 106 V peak plus a margin for supply variation, say 117
V max, and the devices were rated at 100 V. There isn't a MOV voltage that would protect
the semis and not destroy itself in normal operation.

But luckily it survived (maybe the semis could actually take a lot more than 100 V?), and
you're using 400 V diodes, so you can safely choose a MOV that starts to break down around
150-250 Vdc or 100-150 Vac. And since MOVs are so cheap now you can just go with something
rated for, say, 100-150 Joules, which should be more than adequate.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Check the spec on MOV's Mycelium is correct, after a number of uses
they are considered GONE.

Hard to believe anyone would design a circuit 'requiring' the presence
of MOV's to protect during 'normal' operation catching flyback
surges.

Yes, replace with tranzorbs. And try to match the characteristics of
your new diodes to the old. Higher current devices tend to be slower
and the current going the wrong way for that short time may heat
things up.

I have seen the turn off time of diodes matched to a circuit. Diodes
selected based upon allowing a slight amount of reverse current to
slowly die off during voltage reversal. With the end result the
diodes turn off 'quietly'. For example, I've seen linear power
supplies with faster diodes [the diodes made very high frequency shut
off noise] fail conducted RFI/EMI testing caused by this phenomenon.

Robert

Maybe you replied to the wrong post (I didn't see or comment on Mycelium's post)? Anyway,
usenet certainly supports both those who answer posters' questions directly and those who
point out other potential problems.

Yes MOVs eventually wear out, but they are cheap and readily available with high ratings.
In this case a few 10s of ms transient of a few 10s of Watts amounts to under a Joule. A
100+ Joule MOV as suggested would last way longer than the relays that this circuit
supplies. Transzorbs would be fine too - depends what's on hand or easy to get. If you
think about it, it's not so hard to believe that designers could do such a thing; it's
often just practical reality.

The original 100 V diodes on a 75 Vrms AC supply? well that's another matter.

I agree with you about the diode speed IF it's a SMPS. But it sounded to me like an
ordinary AC mains application, in which case the 35 A bridge is still quite an overkill,
but it's just NOT going to cause the problems you mentioned. I assumed it was a part the
OP had on hand, which would be fine.

Cheers,
Tony

On Jul 8, 1:30*am, Tony wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 07:48:36 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy wrote:
On Jul 7, 12:58*am, Tony wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 21:45:02 -0700, DaveC wrote:
Stud-mount diodes (four in a bridge configuration) are protected by MOVs: one
across the AC connections, one across the DC connections.

These MOVs are antique-looking finned affairs (a la selenium rectifiers).
Both sport PN S01AAA?AAA (?=illegible) with Westinghouse trademark. The
wiring diagram symbol for these looks like a zener diode with an extra arrow
head (both arrow points touch, with the familiar "z" shaped line between
them).

The AC supply voltage to the bridge is 75 rms. The bridge diodes are
originally 100V/1A devices; I'm replacing with 400V/35A ones.

This rectifier drives a DC motor via 2 contactors: one for direction (by
reversing polarity) and the other for "GO/STOP". The MOVs are to limit the
kick from opening contacts, I presume.

Someone suggested that with such stout diodes available today that maybe the
MOVs are not required.

If you think I need to keep the MOVs, how do I select new ones?

What say y'all?

Thanks,

To apply MOVs (and other clamp devices) there needs to be a decent difference between the
semiconductor voltage rating and the actual peak circuit operating voltage. In this case
the circuit operates at 75 Vrms or 106 V peak plus a margin for supply variation, say 117
V max, and the devices were rated at 100 V. There isn't a MOV voltage that would protect
the semis and not destroy itself in normal operation.

But luckily it survived (maybe the semis could actually take a lot more than 100 V?), and
you're using 400 V diodes, so you can safely choose a MOV that starts to break down around
150-250 Vdc or 100-150 Vac. And since MOVs are so cheap now you can just go with something
rated for, say, 100-150 Joules, which should be more than adequate.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Check the spec on MOV's *Mycelium is correct, after a number of uses
they are considered GONE.

Hard to believe anyone would design a circuit 'requiring' the presence
of MOV's to protect during 'normal' operation catching flyback
surges.

Yes, replace with tranzorbs. *And try to match the characteristics of
your new diodes to the old. *Higher current devices tend to be slower
and the current going the wrong way for that short time may heat
things up.

I have seen the turn off time of diodes matched to a circuit. Diodes
selected based upon allowing a slight amount of reverse current to
slowly die off during voltage reversal. *With the end result the
diodes turn off 'quietly'. *For example, I've seen linear power
supplies with faster diodes [the diodes made very high frequency shut
off noise] fail conducted RFI/EMI testing caused by this phenomenon.

Robert

Maybe you replied to the wrong post (I didn't see or comment on Mycelium's post)? Anyway,
usenet certainly supports both those who answer posters' questions directly and those who
point out other potential problems.

Yes MOVs eventually wear out, but they are cheap and readily available with high ratings.
In this case a few 10s of ms transient of a few 10s of Watts amounts to under a Joule. A
100+ Joule MOV as suggested would last way longer than the relays that this circuit
supplies. Transzorbs would be fine too - depends what's on hand or easy to get. If you
think about it, it's not so hard to believe that designers could do such a thing; it's
often just practical reality.

The original 100 V diodes on a 75 Vrms AC supply? well that's another matter.

I agree with you about the diode speed IF it's a SMPS. But it sounded to me like an
ordinary AC mains application, in which case the 35 A bridge is still quite an overkill,
but it's just NOT going to cause the problems you mentioned. I assumed it was a part the
OP had on hand, which would be fine.

Cheers,
Tony- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Goggle access to Usenet implies a 'string' of responses that tack on
end to end. Thus, the appearance I was replying to you.

Good comments, too

Robert

On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 07:48:36 -0700, Robert Macy wrote:

Hard to believe anyone would design a circuit 'requiring' the presence
of MOV's to protect during 'normal' operation catching flyback
surges.

Yes, replace with tranzorbs.

I concur wholeheartedly here. I once worked at a place that built
several different models of HV power supplies, to do experiments
with electron beams and stuff. They had MOVs all over the place,
and the MOVs were a royal pain in the ass.

One day, one of our engineers saw the press release on TransZorbs,
and after evaluating them, the company issued EOs to replace every
single MOV with a TransZorb. (i.e., the savings over the long-term
was worth all the extra work!)

Cheers!
Rich

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:30:57 +1000, Tony wrote:



Yes MOVs eventually wear out, but they are cheap and readily available with high ratings.

If the device you are replacing looks like a big diode, it is a
Tranzorb. If it looks like an old TV varistor, it's an MOV, which is
what it is a variant of.

If indeed it looks like a diode, you would be better off sourcing the
suitable Transzorb and doing the service only one time. With the MOVs,
you only get a hundred or so spike suppressions before they are
operationally different than when they were made.

http://search.digikey.com/scripts/Dk...ords=transzorb


Even better:

http://search.digikey.com/scripts/Dk...ords=transzorb

That is the purpose these devices were made for.

We used them all the time across our FETs and IGBTs right at the lead
frame or real close to it on the PCB. They are great for suppressing
polarity switching transients with exacting precision.

The other benefit is that you do not have to go back into the assembly
and keep repeating the process of replacing the MOVs, which would fail in
this application.

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:34:45 -0700, Mycelium
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:30:57 +1000, Tony wrote:



Yes MOVs eventually wear out, but they are cheap and readily available with high ratings.

If the device you are replacing looks like a big diode, it is a
Tranzorb. If it looks like an old TV varistor, it's an MOV, which is
what it is a variant of.

If indeed it looks like a diode, you would be better off sourcing the
suitable Transzorb and doing the service only one time. With the MOVs,
you only get a hundred or so spike suppressions before they are
operationally different than when they were made.

http://search.digikey.com/scripts/Dk...ords=transzorb

Even better:

http://search.digikey.com/scripts/Dk...ords=transzorb

That is the purpose these devices were made for.

We used them all the time across our FETs and IGBTs right at the lead
frame or real close to it on the PCB. They are great for suppressing
polarity switching transients with exacting precision.

The other benefit is that you do not have to go back into the assembly
and keep repeating the process of replacing the MOVs, which would fail in
this application.

Fair enough. But how about apples for apples? the transzorbs in your link are rated at
only 500W. Sure the common MOVs degrade when hit with their rated 100 kW or so, but if you
hit them with only 500 W (like the transzorbs) they will last virtually forever. The
physical volume of active material is simply vastly larger in a MOV than in a transzorb.
Transzorbs are great if used within their ratings, but MOVs can have vastly higher
ratings, and can also provide good lifetime when de-rated in lower energy circuits, so
they shouldn't be dismissed without proper consideration.

Cheers, Tony

Fair enough. But how about apples for apples? the transzorbs in your link are rated at
only 500W. Sure the common MOVs degrade when hit with their rated 100 kW or so, but if you
hit them with only 500 W (like the transzorbs) they will last virtually forever. The
physical volume of active material is simply vastly larger in a MOV than in a transzorb.
Transzorbs are great if used within their ratings, but MOVs can have vastly higher
ratings, and can also provide good lifetime when de-rated in lower energy circuits, so
they shouldn't be dismissed without proper consideration.

Cheers, Tony



They're really aimed at different applications. MOVs are for absorbing
very large but infrequent transients, and are normally used to protect
the input side of a power supply or other device connected to an
external power or signal source. TransZorbs are for absorbing small
frequent spikes, as you'd get from switching inductive loads.

An interesting tangent, a transzorb wired to trigger a triac is a far
more robust replacement for the SIDAC used in a lot of HID lamp igniters.

James Sweet wrote in
:



Fair enough. But how about apples for apples? the transzorbs in your
link are rated at only 500W. Sure the common MOVs degrade when hit with
their rated 100 kW or so, but if you hit them with only 500 W (like the
transzorbs) they will last virtually forever. The physical volume of
active material is simply vastly larger in a MOV than in a transzorb.
Transzorbs are great if used within their ratings, but MOVs can have
vastly higher ratings, and can also provide good lifetime when de-rated
in lower energy circuits, so they shouldn't be dismissed without proper
consideration.

Cheers, Tony



They're really aimed at different applications. MOVs are for absorbing
very large but infrequent transients, and are normally used to protect
the input side of a power supply or other device connected to an
external power or signal source. TransZorbs are for absorbing small
frequent spikes, as you'd get from switching inductive loads.

An interesting tangent, a transzorb wired to trigger a triac is a far
more robust replacement for the SIDAC used in a lot of HID lamp
igniters.


I think I read that varistors were also good for very high speed response to
ESD, adequate for laser diode protection. Robin Bowden showed me that a zener
and an RC filter could be just as good or better in most contexts of diode
drivers but I found a LOT of cheap varistors on eBay and they are impressive
when tested with gas ignitors. There's a nice page comparing the merits of
ceramic caps, zeners, transorbs and varistors, but I'm too tired to prompt
Google to hand it to me this morning. Either that or Google's SNR is
declining further.

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:54:49 +1000, Tony wrote:

Fair enough. But how about apples for apples? the transzorbs in your link are rated at
only 500W.

I saw 5kW devices. There were about five ranges I saw.

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:54:49 +1000, Tony wrote:

but MOVs can have vastly higher
ratings, and can also provide good lifetime when de-rated in lower energy circuits, so
they shouldn't be dismissed without proper consideration.

They certainly should if the originally designed in devices are
transzorbs, which every evidence says they are.

You also should examine the application. There will be a maximum
expected spike potential, and energy. The energy component of which is
pretty low. So big, monster MOVs is overkill, if you want to look at it
that way. Still points toward Transzorbs being the right choice.

Do you need to see it on a Silver Platter?

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:38:51 -0700, Mycelium
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:54:49 +1000, Tony wrote:

but MOVs can have vastly higher
ratings, and can also provide good lifetime when de-rated in lower energy circuits, so
they shouldn't be dismissed without proper consideration.

They certainly should if the originally designed in devices are
transzorbs, which every evidence says they are.

You also should examine the application. There will be a maximum
expected spike potential, and energy. The energy component of which is
pretty low. So big, monster MOVs is overkill, if you want to look at it
that way. Still points toward Transzorbs being the right choice.

Do you need to see it on a Silver Platter?

Not at all. I don't dispute that Transzorbs are a better choice for high repetition low
energy spikes - I use them like that wherever possible, and if I needed to go out buy
something, I would have used them for the OP's application as well. I only disagreed (and
still do) with the suggestions that (paraphrasing):
- the original devices were transzorbs (unlikely, given the disc / fin construction),
- MOVs wear out fast even when hit infrequently with a tiny fraction of their rating.
- using an adequate but imperfect solution is always stupid and never acceptable,
- the concept that ng posters always need to be told they're wrong, even when their
proposed (and often already implemented) solutions are quite adequate.

Cheers,
Tony

On Jul 12, 1:55*am, Tony wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:38:51 -0700, Mycelium





wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:54:49 +1000, Tony wrote:

but MOVs can have vastly higher
ratings, and can also provide good lifetime when de-rated in lower energy circuits, so
they shouldn't be dismissed without proper consideration.

They certainly should if the originally designed in devices are
transzorbs, which every evidence says they are.

You also should examine the application. There will be a maximum
expected spike potential, and energy. *The energy component of which is
pretty low. So big, monster MOVs is overkill, if you want to look at it
that way. *Still points toward Transzorbs being the right choice.

*Do you need to see it on a Silver Platter?

Not at all. I don't dispute that Transzorbs are a better choice for high repetition low
energy spikes - I use them like that wherever possible, and if I needed to go out buy
something, I would have used them for the OP's application as well. I only disagreed (and
still do) with the suggestions that (paraphrasing):
*- the original devices were transzorbs (unlikely, given the disc / fin construction),
*- MOVs wear out fast even when hit infrequently with a tiny fraction of their rating.
*- using an adequate but imperfect solution is always stupid and never acceptable,
*- the concept that ng posters always need to be told they're wrong, even when their
proposed (and often already implemented) solutions are quite adequate.

Cheers,
Tony- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The joules that kick back will usually be less than or equal to the
energy put in, so any spike must be less than or equal to the what
went into the motor. That implies that the designer 'could' have
taken into account the MOV's ability to handle lesser energy than its
full rating for a much longer number of hits.

But then again I've never seen an MOV with fins. Plus, symbol for MOV
I'm used to is a long rectangle [like a consumer] and a diagonal line
drawn across it with a line drawn parallel to the rectangle at each
end of the diagonal line. Tranzorbs I've always seen 'nose to nose'
diodes with diagonal short lines off each end of the cathode line
[very open 'z'] which sounded like the original symbol.

Robert

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 18:55:07 +1000, Tony wrote:

- the original devices were transzorbs (unlikely, given the disc / fin construction),

The schematic symbol I heard described indicated transzorbs, so I
consider it pretty likely that is what was designed into the application.