Mosfet reliability in Class D amplifiers - Page 17 - 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 10th June 2005, 07:05 AM   #161
diyAudio Member
 
John Hope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: nr Oxford UK
Bonjour Pierre
Thinking all MOSfets with the same number are the same is like thinking all women called Michelle are the same. Take a look at the datasheets of the IRF640 from several different manufacturers. The specs - particularly dynamic performance specs, capacitance and charge values - are not all the same. Many times the different makers use different measurement setups and parameters so that direct comparison of the specs is not possible

In a conventional switchmode PSU there's usually plenty of dead time and the fs is relatively low. In addition many of the topologies such as two transistor diagonal forward converter do not have commutation between two driven devices, like the half bridge and the full bridge do, so designers can usually use a broad variety of MOSfets.

But Class D amps require very fast switching and ultra low dead times, and frankly, you pick a MOSfet from a specific manufacturer as wisely as you can, and then stay with it (Another analogy with women springs to mind...) And snubbers have to be designed around specific MOSfets, because of the variation in device capacitances from one manufacturer to the next changes ringing frequency. Snubbers are designed around a specific ringing frequency.

Measure your ringing frequency with the new MOSfets and then with the old ones. If the new frequency is lower than the old, then the new FETs have more Cds capacitance (probably other C's as well) and will be slower switchers.

Regards

John
__________________
At Spes Infracta
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th June 2005, 07:32 AM   #162
diyAudio Member
 
John Hope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: nr Oxford UK
Default Error in my previous post

Whoops!

In my previous post on snubber design I said that when the addition of the external Cext produced half the original ringing frequency, C = Cext (approximately). This is wrong. (But strangely it seems to work ever so well in practice?)
From three different references I looked up, came two different answers. So we do it the hard way:

if
f = 1/(2*pi*sqrt(L*C)) ; the ringing circuit on its own
and
(f/2) = 1/(2*pi*sqrt(L*(C+Cext))); with the added Cext
then arrange the first eqn i.t.o. C and the 2nd eqn i.t.o C+Cext and divide the two:

C/(C+Cext) = 1/4.

and C = Cext/3

What's the bet when I try this correct formula in practice it won't work as well as the wrong one did!
__________________
At Spes Infracta
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th June 2005, 10:15 PM   #163
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Send a message via AIM to classd4sure Send a message via MSN to classd4sure
Hi John,

Nice contributions.

I'm sure you'll agree that while you must choose all devices wisely, when it comes to mosfets, it's really critical. If you happen to find several of them however which meet your criteria, possibly even with similar characteristics, you'd want to sample them all and find the best one for the job, there'll be obvious temperature variations, coolest one seems wisest to me, then you can tweak it for thd and sound.

While you're optimizing you're sticking with the same mosfet, and the hunt for better ones will pay off for awhile to come yet, for later designs.

Quote:
What's the bet when I try this correct formula in practice it won't work as well as the wrong one did!
No bet here.

Regards,
Chris
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th June 2005, 08:37 AM   #164
diyAudio Member
 
John Hope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: nr Oxford UK
Default Snubbers again

Chris

I've since tried the revised formula for finding C on my proto OPS and whadday'know, it works really well!

Cheers

John
__________________
At Spes Infracta
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2011, 09:41 AM   #165
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Adding more info on the issue, LCAudio ZAP Pulse 2.0 modules seemed to use IRF640N from IR, right?

They have a higher Rds(on), about 150mohms, but have very low gate charge, etc, _AND_ are avalanche rated and have a 5V/ns dv/dt. They are rated at 200V instead of 150V.
From the reliability point of view, I think they are a good choice, although the Rds is a bit high.

However, perhaps the newer modules have other mosfet, could anyone tell what are they using?

Thanks!
They have IRFB38N20D. My Zappulse 2.2se blew up and i opened it up. The symptome is a humming noise turning on and off. I am trying to repair it. The centre one have a different reading.
  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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Car Amplifiers Class D anselhu Car Audio 2 9th May 2009 03:59 PM
Mosfet monoblock amplifiers DocLorren Swap Meet 2 10th September 2007 03:53 PM
Class A reliability greg788 Solid State 8 30th June 2007 02:34 AM
Class D amplifiers and ESL's jmateus Planars & Exotics 19 22nd January 2006 07:51 PM
protecting high-powered mosfet amplifiers.. carelforum Solid State 11 5th January 2005 02:09 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:41 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