The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Bill Allison)
Subject: Re: Help - Power mosfets - difficult load
Date: 27 Oct 2002 01:14:03 -0700
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <3DB81206.E28CA99F@rica.net> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Oct 2002 08:14:04 GMT
Thanks for your considered reply. Comments below...
firstname.lastname@example.org (Winfield Hill email@example.com) wrote in message news:<firstname.lastname@example.org>...
> email@example.com (Bill Allison) wrote ...
> > Winfield
> > Thanks for that really lucid explanation and for your time and
> > trouble. And I got your post by E-mail first - this reply is the later
> > and slightly fuller.
> > One or three comments…
> > 1) Considering fet temperature rise, I have in my favour the fact that
> > the motor will be powered up for around 10 seconds at most, every 5
> > minutes or so at worst.
> 10 seconds is in your favor, but thermally 5 minutes is forever. :-)
> > 2) Your calculations are based on the motor's winding resistance i.e.
> > on the current that would flow into a stalled motor, but the average
> > current will surely be less when the motor is rotating? The motor's
> > spec says 380A stalled, 70 to 80A with rated load. And stall current
> > will only flow for the briefest of moments at start-up (the motor will
> > always be started with no load other than brush and bearing friction).
> We experienced engineers hate to see one of our design fail and have
> to fall back on an excuse (the motor was jammed, cable caught, etc.)
> so our habit is to try to make the design invincible. It's true this
> often leads so serious overdesign. In your case the high current may
> normally only last 0.1 to 0.25 second or so. However if you look at
> the FET's Transient Thermal Impedance curves you'll see the short-term
> thermal-mass advantage is gone by the time 100ms has passed, and you're
> in the long-term thermal resistance.
> Perhaps an answer is to employ a say 50 to 75A circuit breaker, which
> should not kick out during the short starting transient, nor during a
> short time at or just above rated current.
Would I find a circuit breaker with sufficiently low resistance /
inductance?Maybe instead I could sense current from average battery
voltage drop and use that to switch off the drive?
> > 3) Your calculations are also based on switching the fet as fast as it
> > is capable of. Is there a possibility that I might need to use slower
> > rise and fall times to prevent the amplitude of transients (due to
> > load and stray inductances) exceeding drain to source limits? That
> > would be at the expense of switching losses and might make switching
> > frequency a consideration? The idea is from IRF app note AN-936
> I did the calculation with a modest 1.5A gate drive for a very slow
> 75ns switching speed just to allow you relaxed wiring rules. Even at
> this low speed and 20kHz switching the switching losses were only 2W
> (I wrote 1W, but had forgotten there are two transitions per cycle).
> The point I intended was that with a decent level of gate drive, don't
> worry about switching losses, unless you're running above say 100kHz.
Fair enough. Before starting this thread my (inexperienced) concern
was with the trade-off between keeping voltage transients within
ratings by turning the fets on (and off) relatively slowly, and
keeping switching losses within bounds by turning on relatively
quickly. But from you and others I now know that that trade-off is not
so marginal. Obviously it is still a consideration - I chanced upon
the following on IRF's site today...
"The fastest single high side gate driver ICs from IR, the IR2117 &
IR2118, have Ton = 125ns and Toff = 105ns. In the volume power
circuits for which these are designed, these switching speeds are more
than adequate. If faster speeds were introduced this would lead to
potentially damaging voltage spikes being generated, bearing in mind
the inductive nature of many power circuits."
> If you decide to run at 50Hz and to use very low gate drive, such as
> 50mA out of a 555, shared 25mA each among two FETs, then at turnoff
> the FETs will experience a high transient power, but they're rugged
> devices and may be able to handle such mistreatment. We can predict
> a 5us turnoff time for 25mA drive, and 3.5mJ of heating in the 5us,
> which isn't too bad. But I suggest more aggressive gate drive.
I suspect that was a bit tongue in cheek, but...
If heating-wise you really do mean I would almost get away with
switching as slow as 5uS and if transients-wise IRF really mean
switching at 125nS or more is ok with inductive loads, then I guess I
really can have some confidence that the trade-off is not marginal.
> - Win
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup