Regulated Negative Power Supply

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Here are an updated version of the circuit including both positive and negative sides any inputs are welcome. :)
 

Attachments

  • power supply.JPG
    power supply.JPG
    222.3 KB · Views: 125
Fine‼. Only a couple of criticisms,

1.- Don't let the pot to have all the value to modify the final voltage value, because a small variance in the cursor let give a high variation in the output. Pre adjust with a fixed resistor, and get the pot to have +-10% of the OV. Such a way, the adjust is more accurate.

2.- I dislike C4 and C5. I would remove them.
 
Last edited:
1.- Don't let the pot to have all the value to modify the final voltage value, because a small variance in the cursor let give a high variation in the output. Pre adjust with a fixed resistor, and get the pot to have +-10% of the OV. Such a way, the adjust is more accurate.

I almost always use a multi-turn fully enclosed trimmers so i guess that's not a problem.

2.- I dislike C4 and C5. I would remove them.

C4/R8 (and C5/R6) forms an input filter to the regulator to improve its output performance (i.e reduce high frequency components).

Thanks a lot for really looking for improvements. :)
 
Can destroy series pass element.

I guess only at start up Osvaldo. There would be no threat if a soft start circuit is implemented or high current pass transistors are used.



IMO if you don't implement a high capacitor value after the regulator, this (the reg) will be handling the amplifier load at signal frequency level, meaning that there might be sonic worsening if the regulator stage can not cope with transients, and certainly won't. Check out the regulator freq. response to demand transients.
A high value capacitor (bank) after the regulator will both handle the load transients and smooth out the demand to the regulator stage.

So I have to agree with palstanturhin regarding big capacitor banks (before and after the regulator stage).
 
With a soft start board and 22000uf/rail after the pass transistor I measured a max of 2.5 amps with the rails set at 65V in my equipment. That's way below the 15A max current rating of the pass transistors I chose.
I guess it boils down to choosing correct pass devices with enough current headroom.
In the picture below you can see that Texas even recommend some (big) input/output capacitance in order to reduce the 337 output impedance (my previous post). The real value needed will be determined by the power output required.



An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.




Each regulator has a minimum stated output current to run stable. If the chipamp at idle is not draining enough as to reach this value additional means have to be implemented to ensure this minimum current requirement is fulfilled.

Regardidng the LM337 that would be used here I could not find the minimum output current requirement in the spec sheet, so might be no special one, but I assume wise to implement some current draw per rail in the order of 50mA, again, if the chipamp does not already have a significant drain at idle (which I don't know).
 
Last edited:
I guess only at start up Osvaldo. There would be no threat if a soft start circuit is implemented or high current pass transistors are used.

I agree 100 %. :)

IMO if you don't implement a high capacitor value after the regulator, this (the reg) will be handling the amplifier load at signal frequency level, meaning that there might be sonic worsening if the regulator stage can not cope with transients, and certainly won't. Check out the regulator freq. response to demand transients.
A high value capacitor (bank) after the regulator will both handle the load transients and smooth out the demand to the regulator stage.

So I have to agree with palstanturhin regarding big capacitor banks (before and after the regulator stage).

Capacitor bank before the regulator is a must as you mentioned and per the datasheet recommendation but the capacitance after the regulator is usually implemented on the amp board closest to the chip supply pins did i get that right?
 
Each regulator has a minimum stated output current to run stable. If the chipamp at idle is not draining enough as to reach this value additional means have to be implemented to ensure this minimum current requirement is fulfilled.

Regarding the LM337 that would be used here I could not find the minimum output current requirement in the spec sheet, so might be no special one, but I assume wise to implement some current draw per rail in the order of 50mA, again, if the chip amp does not already have a significant drain at idle (which I don't know).

The idle regulator output current draw is already there in the schematic above (the resistor at the output) but thank you very much for your input. :)
 
I agree 100 %. :)



Capacitor bank before the regulator is a must as you mentioned and per the datasheet recommendation but the capacitance after the regulator is usually implemented on the amp board closest to the chip supply pins did i get that right?

My suggestion is you add something in the order of 10000uf/rail after the regulator, on the board, or closest as posible to it will be OK.
The logic behind this is that the amplifier will feed from this capacitor bank instead of doing it straight from the regulator's output. This will efectively lower its output impedance quite a lot as you don't need to rely solely in the regulator/pass transistor freq. response lowering this requirement, thus improving the power supply transient available power. The sound will be amaizing.
If you notice any ill effect by implementing this capacitance value after the regulator please report back.
 
The idle regulator output current draw is already there in the schematic above (the resistor at the output) but thank you very much for your input. :)

If you don't drain enough current through R1/R2 then add another resistor from Vout to gnd for a total 50ma drain to prevent any unstable behaviour.
You may install this resistor/s at the amplifier rail/s input to gnd
 
hi guys,
i am thinking of using two lm317 regulators instead of the lm317/lm337 combination something like "Carlosfm regulated power supply", now if the input from the transformer is 48 VAC after the bridge it'll be 48*1.41-1.41= 66 VDC, can the regulator handle that amount? i know that input/output differential is 40v but if that so what is the recommended value of R2 (the variable resistor at the adjust pin)? and is it possible to use this one "Bourns 3296" or is it too small regarding wattage?

Also do you think a fixed resistor in series (or parallel) with the variable resistor is better?

Thanks for your help. :)
 
If you may or may not use a bourns 3296 will depend on the value you choose for R1. Given you select a value that prevents R2 overloading then you shouldn't have any trouble using it.

R1 is 120 Ohm 1/2 Watt resistor. :)

something to add to the miss :)...Where does a zener diode comes into play? before the regulator to step down the input voltage a little or as reference to the regulator itself?
 
You don't need to implement a zener but you need to keep the input/output difference below 40V.
If you can't do this you may want to switch to another regulator like the 723 and make it float.
I guess you may float the 317 as well but there are already positive and negative floating circuits for the 723 from TI that will make your life easier.

Check out the LM317 application hints. That will help a lot.

http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lm117.pdf

LM723

http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lm723.pdf
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.