Development of a "reference" class D starting point - Page 51 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Amplifiers > Class D

Class D Switching Power Amplifiers and Power D/A conversion

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 13th January 2005, 03:20 PM   #501
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Send a message via AIM to classd4sure Send a message via MSN to classd4sure
http://www.alltronics.com/download/1373.pdf

Have a look on page 1.

The diagram shows a charge pump and a bootstrap, they only show a "boot" cap the rest is internal.

Typically on driver IC's that have both, the bootstrap does the grunt work and the charge pump is only there to maintain the bootstrap's charge so that it can be used for very large duty ratio's/low frequency or whatever.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th January 2005, 03:28 PM   #502
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Switzerland
Me again with the reverse recovery issue.
There are circuit topologies that don't know reverse recovery at all since they avoid the diodes going into reverse conduction.

One solution has been proposed by Brian Attwood and it was used in the Peavey DECA series amps.

Regards

Charles
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th January 2005, 03:56 PM   #503
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Send a message via AIM to classd4sure Send a message via MSN to classd4sure
Hi,

You mean DirectFet?

There have been others which claimed to cure this too and they didn't.

It would be a shame to have to restrict topology just to avoid that. BCA might be one but it has other issues.

A strong driver is required.

Tripath's patents are usually vague, do they go into any detail about that?

US5408150 is worth a read.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th January 2005, 04:52 PM   #504
subwo1 is offline subwo1  United States
diyAudio Member
 
subwo1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: North American Continent
Some designers place a Schottky diode in series with each MOSFET to prevent body diode forward biasing. I have not done much simulation and even less physical experimentation concerning that technique.

Charles,

Yesterday it finally occurred to me how to delay a pulse wave, phase shift it, without shortening the on-time. It is for my SMPS design, so I think it would not work as well for class D since the resistor, for variable delay, would be replaced with something like an H11Fx bidirectional FET output optoisolator due to the fact that the resistor sees dual polarity. It is possible to insert a transistor inside a bridge rectifier where the resistor goes, but the results suffer.
Attached Images
File Type: gif cd40106b-ph-shifter.gif (4.0 KB, 613 views)
__________________
USMPS
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/switchmode/
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th January 2005, 09:40 PM   #505
subwo1 is offline subwo1  United States
diyAudio Member
 
subwo1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: North American Continent
Oops, the phase shifter above works on the simulator because the input gates do not include the over-voltage protection shunt diodes. In real life, those diodes dissipate some of the charge on the capacitor, decreasing the on-time and ruining the duty cycle preservation. The result is that the greater the resistor and attempted phase shift, the worse the problem.
__________________
USMPS
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/switchmode/
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th January 2005, 01:55 AM   #506
Kenshin is offline Kenshin  China
diyAudio Member
 
Kenshin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: China
Quote:
Originally posted by subwo1


Indeed, reverse breakdown can cause internal hot spots and then failure.

I didn't mean by diode failure--I mean GATE failure.

Note: I didn't connect the bootstrap cap -- some diagram has it unconnected,and I didn't know what is it for.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th January 2005, 06:26 AM   #507
subwo1 is offline subwo1  United States
diyAudio Member
 
subwo1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: North American Continent
aahhh
__________________
USMPS
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/switchmode/
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th January 2005, 08:01 AM   #508
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Send a message via AIM to classd4sure Send a message via MSN to classd4sure
Nice tweak for the upper driver is put a cap on it with a diode over it, it'll pump the gate below zero and provide about a volt of negative bias.

Sadly, it only works on the upper driver
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th January 2005, 10:51 AM   #509
Kenshin is offline Kenshin  China
diyAudio Member
 
Kenshin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: China
N+P bridge is more simpler,but the P-channel FET has an Ron more larger...unsymmetric and low current capability.

use a full bridge can get back the symmetry and have higher power output.

is it worthy to use a N+P design,with a transistor gate driver instead of chip,and use the saved cost to build a full bridge?

full bridge could also simplify the PSU,and use a smaller filter cap.

which design have less overall cost?
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th January 2005, 11:20 AM   #510
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Send a message via AIM to classd4sure Send a message via MSN to classd4sure
Quote:
Originally posted by Kenshin
N+P bridge is more simpler,but the P-channel FET has an Ron more larger...unsymmetric and low current capability.

use a full bridge can get back the symmetry and have higher power output.

is it worthy to use a N+P design,with a transistor gate driver instead of chip,and use the saved cost to build a full bridge?

full bridge could also simplify the PSU,and use a smaller filter cap.

which design have less overall cost?

I think it would be very difficult to properly do a reliable full bridge with an ordinary discrete bjt driver. It is difficult enough to get one working with a half bridge and symetric N channel switches, and as you say, P channels will be slower to respond.

High power P channels are also still alot more rare than N channels and are more expensive than N channels, so I don't really see where you're saving in cost. I think the usual practice is to oversize the P channel with respect to the N channel as well, as an attempt to try and match Ron. Therefore you'd need an even more expensive mosfet.

I'll confirm this in a few minutes, but I think it takes transistors to drive a high side N channel as well!

I think all you save with a P channel is the bootstrap circuit, which isn't substantial by any means.

It seems it is best to use dual LC filters in full bridge as well (better rejection of common mode signals), so you dont' get away with a smaller cap, but require another identical one.

Less overall cost? With the circuit I worked on before (full bridge) it only doubles the output stage (drivers, boostrap/supply, mosfets and filter).

So that's not alot of added cost! Also, you can design a full bridge to handle 4X the power of a a similar half bridge.

In that respect the PSU isn't really simplified, but you can use smaller and far cheaper parts for it than a similar half bridge design would require (to achieve the same power level that is). Since things like PSU toroidal transformers and large can electrolytics of high quality are big ticket expensive items, this would be a substantial savings!

So with that in mind, my opinion, for any given power level, a full bridge would pay for itself, and is well worth doing.

However a robust/precise driver is likely even more important.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2