Inverse Marx generator
in [Design]
|
Prev: New Product Idea
Next: SCHOLARLY TESTIMONIAL VIDEO : Joseph Moshe (MOSSAD Microbiologist) Swine flu vaccine 1
From: kevin93 on 7 Jul 2010 20:55 On Jul 7, 2:30 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On 7 Jul 2010 11:52:06 -0700, Winfield Hill .... > > I saw a datasheet recently, can't remember exactly where, for a chip > that sure looked like a flying-inductor switcher. > > John Some of TI's buck-boost configurations look a bit like what you describe: http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tps63020.pdf kevin
From: AM on 7 Jul 2010 21:06 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:54:26 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>Yeah, well, Larkin claims a lot of things are absolutely true which >>break down around zero and infinity. > >Cite? The length of time that you'll deny it!
From: AM on 7 Jul 2010 21:12 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:54:26 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >It helps to understand ideal circuits before you consider real >circuits. The ideals are the limiting cases. You CAN transfer charge >between equal value caps without loss of charge, and you can more >generally transfer energy between caps without loss; just use an >inductor. Why then does it not work with a full and empty battery? What is the final voltage the battery pair will be at after the same such "transfer". Also, in both cases, how do you propose to do it without inrush damage to the empty cap/battery and outflow damage to the full cap/battery? There are losses, because the cap has terminations that are not ideal in nature. There will also be damage sites along the contact face for the cap plate-to-terminal_interface interface. :-) You cannot do it with ideal caps because the charge current would jump to infinity. There MUST be resistance in the circuit to limit the charge current.
From: AM on 7 Jul 2010 21:14 On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 17:55:50 -0700 (PDT), kevin93 <kevin(a)whitedigs.com> wrote: >On Jul 7, 2:30�pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On 7 Jul 2010 11:52:06 -0700, Winfield Hill >... >> >> I saw a datasheet recently, can't remember exactly where, for a chip >> that sure looked like a flying-inductor switcher. >> >> John > >Some of TI's buck-boost configurations look a bit like what you >describe: > >http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tps63020.pdf > >kevin I wonder if they could make a MEMS "Oxford Electric Bell" and use it as a precision clock or counter even.
From: Winfield Hill on 7 Jul 2010 21:29
kevin93 wrote... > > John Larkin wrote: >> >> I saw a datasheet recently, can't remember exactly where, >> for a chip that sure looked like a flying-inductor switcher. > > Some of TI's buck-boost configurations look a bit like what > you describe: http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tps63020.pdf Yes. Other examples are TI's TPS63001 and Linear Technology's LTC3534, and several that use external mosfets. We feature the LTC3534 in our Li-Ion cell charger discussion in AoE III chapter 5x. It'd be nice to learn about other similar ICs. These all keep one of the two series mosfet switches on, so that one side of the inductor is always tied in place, and it doesn't fly. It just changes mode from buck to boost. -- Thanks, - Win |