Using the HYPNOTIZE as a general shunt reg PCB

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Jump to Latest
W

woodturner-fran

Member
Joined 2006
OK so to start off a substitute list:

9240/240
9140/140
9540/540
9510/510- lower amperage handling 5.8A max
9530/530- lower amperage handling 12A max
9520/520- lower amperage handling 6.8A max


Please copy the list and add more if you know/reckon they would work. When we reach the end, we can copy the post over to the shunt thread proper.


Fran
 
Last edited:
Salas

Salas

diyAudio Chief Moderator
Joined 2002
Paid Member
Keep the shunt Mosfet at 9240-9540 Ygfs territory. The CCS Mosfet can be ''faster'' giving safer PSRR up high, say types 9610-9520, but the shunt element will shorten the loop phase margin and up Zo substantially if the same. 9610/9610 in both positions for instance was not even stable in an older experiment. Produced harmonic noise due to 150mV pk-pk circa 10MHz oscillation.
 
Salas

Salas

diyAudio Chief Moderator
Joined 2002
Paid Member
9520/9540 & 520/540 have been tested. Also 9610/9240 or 9140 combinations have been tested. First for CCS, second for shunt. 9540/540 has too much Crss for the CCS position, avoid. Thickens HF tone. There are possibilities for other IRF numbers or some Fairchild mosfets also, but I don't recommend types that I haven't seen working flawlessly in my tests or have had positive feedback from members in the threads. Still TO-220s are cheap and you can test some in builds and create a checked list. Mind you its not just technical, there will be subjective differences, altering tone enough. Been there. Also some BJTs can be used with different base resistors, its a very resilient reg, but I always prefered the Mosfets in the HF.
 
Salas

Salas

diyAudio Chief Moderator
Joined 2002
Paid Member
The original ones have the stability, tone, and sturdy mounting-durability qualities you know in the original reg. TO-247 is TO-247. Those go to BOM. TO-220 9610,9620,9520/9540 for CCS/shunt positions have been tested and passed also in builds I have witnessed. Those are alternatives and their legs will be bended, will need isolated mounting screws too, beyond back pads.
 
A

AndrewT

R.I.P.
Joined 2004
No.
the two caps smooth the +ve and -ve supplies.
This is a simple capacitor input filter fed from a centre tapped secondary through a single bridge rectifier.

The Blue Hyp has double the capacitors. This could be modified to rCRC supply for both halves of the dual supply. Better maybe, to experiment with rCLC using a pair of air cored hand wound Inductors between the respective caps.
 
B

blue lander

Member
Joined 2009
I put 10R resistors there and I'm measuring a 2 volt drop, which I guess comes to 200ma. I'm using the board to regulate the power off of an SMPS that's rated for 400ma, but when I turn it on, the power LED on the SMPS switches on and off. I'm wondering if it's having problems charging those capacitors. Do I even need the caps since I'm using DC input rather than AC?
 
B

blue lander

Member
Joined 2009
I removed the caps and now the smps seem happy...

Is my math right here?

49v input
2.35v across the 10 ohm resistor
1.4v across the 220ohm
output is 5.97v

current = 235 ma

Base voltage is 5.97 - 1.4 = 4.57

Target voltage is 30v, so 30v - 4.57v = 25.43v

25.43v/235ma = 108ohm

I tried a 110ohm resistor in place of the 220 and I'm getting only 5.3v output

I put a 5.1k resistor in and I get 37v, so I'm guessing I moved a decimal place somewhere...
 
Last edited:
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Top Bottom