Philips UCD application note

[Pafi]

Based on calculations 220 ns is believable, but is it real? Have anybody measure it?

 

[IVX]

Based on calculations 220 ns is believable, but is it real? Have anybody measure it?

Why need to measure, if is believable already? 🙂

 

[fokker]

Have anybody measure it?

how can anyone measure it if setting it to g=1 will blow the comparator transistors as suggested earlier?

 

[classd4sure]

Based on calculations 220 ns is believable, but is it real? Have anybody measure it?

I might do that once I get some probes.

Ivan, I looked around for Bruno's old post where he said what the delays were.... no luck in finding it. What software do you use for simulating?

 

[IVX]

I might do that once I get some probes.

Ivan, I looked around for Bruno's old post where he said what the delays were.... no luck in finding it. What software do you use for simulating?

In the Bruno's patent 200nS too. Micro-Cap simulator, free demo version is available.

 

[Pafi]

IVX!

Why need to measure, if is believable already?

1.: Just because! 🙂
2.: Delay spec. of IR2113 is believable too, even though I measured it much worse then spec.

 

[IVX]

IVX!



1.: Just because! 🙂
2.: Delay spec. of IR2113 is believable too, even though I measured it much worse then spec.

I can say that my ir2110s (0443) gave /150ns&\112ns through 10ohm to 3500nF, it seems in the claimed tolerance.

 

[blmn]

Philips released its UCD application note.

http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/acrobat/usermanuals/UM10155_1.pdf

The UcD concept was patented by Philips. However, the use of the IP is granted (without a license fee) to third parties that use the enabling semiconductor components from Philips Semiconductors in their application.

Hi Steven,

I couldn´t find the file in the Philips site. Can you make it available here or send me a copy?

Regards

 

[RX5]

hmmm link got lost, how come?

maybe another version to come.....

 

[blmn]

HI RX5,

Your email provider returns account disable. Is it possible for you to attach the file on the forum?

Regards,

 

[Ouroboros]

Philips semi are now NXP.

Try www.nxp.com/acrobat_download/usermanuals/UM10155_1.pdf

 

[RX5]

blmn,

link to that file is OK again 😀

thanks to
Ouroboros


Regards,
Raff

 

[blmn]

Tks all!!!

I will show you my first UcD, soon...

Best Regards,

 

[lumanauw]

If BF820/21, BC847/57 and all small transistors are not using SMD type, but using ordinary TO-92type, for example 300V rating using MPSA42/92, the 60V using MPSA06/56, for bigger ones using BD139/140, will this design still self-oscilating at 400-500khz, or to achieve this frequency it is only possible with SMD sized transistor?

 

[RX5]

If BF820/21, BC847/57 and all small transistors are not using SMD type, but using ordinary TO-92type, for example 300V rating using MPSA42/92, the 60V using MPSA06/56, for bigger ones using BD139/140, will this design still self-oscilating at 400-500khz, or to achieve this frequency it is only possible with SMD sized transistor?

thats possible...

 

[fokker]

this whole discussion of driver current output capabilities and large gate capacitance is interesting, particularly in comparison to those little transistors used by Phillips in that application note. If a 0.5ma or 3a gate driver current output isn't enough, how could those little transistors possibly do their job?

Some times we are so technical we don't see the forest.

 

[lumanauw]

But the small (SMD) transistor has small die area, making the Cob is relatively small following the size. TO-92 like MPSA42 has about 6pf, twice the SMD part.

 

[RX5]

But the small (SMD) transistor has small die area, making the Cob is relatively small following the size. TO-92 like MPSA42 has about 6pf, twice the SMD part.

as you can see in your UCD400, there is 1 MPSA92 there(daughterboard)... 🙂

 

[zilog]

I have a running UcD prototype using 2n5551, 2n5401, 2n3906, 2n3904 and BC640 etc. They are all non-optimal to-92:s, but still perform quite decently. Now I am trying to minimize my design and am thus moving to SMD for all parts that I can, but the bulkier design still works quite well. The only real change compared to the old design will be improved gate drivers (faster turn-off, same speed turn-on), the rest will only be about reducing PCB and high current loop area.

 

[RX5]

I have a running UcD prototype using 2n5551, 2n5401, 2n3906, 2n3904 and BC640 etc. They are all non-optimal to-92:s, but still perform quite decently. Now I am trying to minimize my design and am thus moving to SMD for all parts that I can, but the bulkier design still works quite well. The only real change compared to the old design will be improved gate drivers (faster turn-off, same speed turn-on), the rest will only be about reducing PCB and high current loop area.

thats cool... does your UCD proto include op-amp buffer? or just the modulator/mosfet drivers??


I assume u used 3906/3904 in place of 2222A and 2907?? 🙂

care to share some photos?