9V 1A schematic needed

There are several examples in there, some of them boiling down to an open-loop emitter follower tethered to a zener reference. One of the designs there, the 53V version, uses feedback and I like that one as a basis for a 9V supply.

I'm not a designer, just a hobbyist, but here is how I'd proceed from that 53V design:

(1) I like the idea of using the Darlington topology, with a cheap and readily available 2N3055 for the power pass transistor. I might also like this because I still have a few laying around.

(2) The other transistor can be a 2N3904 or 2N2222. At Ic=1A for the

2N3055, I'd expect no better than beta=30, so the Ic on this other transistor would need to be about 33mA. Since Vce might be anywhere from 2.5V to perhaps 6V or so, this suggests that the transistor should be able to dissipate at least 1/4 watt, itself. I think both of those mentioned above can do this ... but not much more. So watch this.

(3) 1A is a lot of current. Radio Shack sells only two kinds of transformers (12.6V and 25.2V) and its their 12.6V ones that come in

1.2A and 3.0A versions. With the 12.6V transformers, you'll need to use a bridge rectifier and with an average current of 1A, you'd be better to select the 3A version since the peak currents will probably be in that area.

(4) At 1A average load, a 12.6V transformer is going to need a pretty seriously sized filter capacitor to get up to and hold a supply rail for the circuit. The peak voltage would be about sqrt(2) *12.6V or

17.8V, less a pair of diode drops at high current, or about 2V less to say 16V or so. There are books with charts to help you figure out exactly what size the capacitor should be for some desired ripple (you can work it out with trig) but my rough guess takes about 1/3rd of the 60Hz time (say, 5ms or so) and then takes some desired ripple voltage (let's say 1V here) and calculates C=dt*I/dV, which would be 5ms*1A/1V or 5000uF. Radio Shack sells 4,700uF at 35V. That should be okay.

(5) The feedback method shown in the 53V supply on the web page looks reasonable to me. It's basically a zener being compared to a portion of the output voltage by way of a transistor that then pulls the Darlington base lower (more current) if the voltage climbs much above the reference point. However, I'd just use a zener from 6.2V to 9.1V or so, not the 15V (of course.) Call it a 6.2V zener for now. Here again, the transistor can be a 2N3904 or 2N2222, I believe.

(6) The zener needs a current through it. I'd go with 1mA. The data sheets often spec things at 20mA (Izt) but 1mA has worked well in the past for me. You can redesign for larger Izt, if you want. This current establishes the Ic for this transistor comparator and that, together with the minimum estimated difference between Vin and the base of the Darlington pair provides the size of the collector resistor. With a ripple of about 1V, going let's say from 15V to 16V, the minimum Vin will then be 15V. The Darlington pair will require some 1.25V or so, so the base should be at 9V+1.25V or about 10.25V. The difference is then 4.75V. At 1mA, this suggests a 4.7k resistor in the collector. I'd go with even less... a 3.3k here, just to be absolutely certain that at least 1mA was available for the zener.

(7) The base of the comparator transistor needs to divide the output voltage down. And it would be nice to have some slight adjustment range, so I'd recommend a potentiometer in here, as well. With a beta of about 200 or so for the transistor, I'd estimate that a current through this divider that is about equal to the zener current should be okay... another 1mA or so. With 9V on the output, this suggests about 9k ohms total. A little less would be okay. In any case, this seems kind of convenient for a 1k potentiometer (common value) to give us some variable range for adjustment. The base voltage should be

0.7V above the zener voltage, so about 6.2+.7 or about 6.9V. Actually, because of the light base current, it will probably be a little less than this. This suggests that we want the grounded side resistor to be 6900 ohms (assuming 9k total) and the high side to be the remainder, or 2100 ohms. However, with a 1k pot in the middle, and set to the midpoint, we'd take about 500 ohms off both sides, so we'd like 6400 and 1600, perhaps. Using 5% resistor values, I'd select 6200 ohms and 1500 ohms and put the 1k pot in the middle of the two.

(8) As shown in the 52V supply on that web page, a small cap would also be nice across the zener.

(9) On the output, we should have another filter capacitor. I'd use a large value, perhaps 100uF or so.

All this arrives at a design looking like:

,------, ,-----| |-------+----------+-------------+------------, | | |(+) | | | | | | | --- 4700uF \ | |

12.6V | AC | --- 35V / 3300 | | AC | | | \ |/c NPN | | |bridge|(-) | +-----------| 2N3904 | '-----| rect |--, --- | |\e | '------' | /// |/c NPN | |/c NPN | ,-| 2N3904 '----------| 2N3055 --- | |\e |\e /// Vout | --+-----, | | | | | | | | /---/ | +---- Vout \ | / \ --- 10uF | 1500 / | --- --- --- 100uF \ | |6.2V | --- | | | | | | | --- --- --- \ | /// /// /// 1000 /
Reply to
Jonathan Kirwan
Loading thread data ...

I've had accounts closed for inactivity, but I don't remember the amount left - not much if any, maybe zero. Thanks for the tip.

--
Best Regards,
Mike
Reply to
Active8

Yes. $30. They sent the next guy that came through the drive-thru (they knew we were on the same job) to the hotel to get me to bring it back :( The american bank we had in Germany used to nickle and dime us to death and could make their adding machines show they were right.

--
Best Regards,
Mike
Reply to
Active8

Ok

--
Best Regards,
Mike
Reply to
Active8

Fortune teller said she could guess the state I was born in and how many birthdays I've had for $1 ... something like that. I let her try.

"You were born in the state of ignorance and you've only had one birthday, the rest were anniversaries."

Sorry.

--
Best Regards,
Mike
Reply to
Active8

"Fred Bloggs" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@nospam.com...

.....

Let's see if he can solve the new puzzle. It's easier than the first. No, don't waste your time, it isn't worth it ;)

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'q' and 'invalid' when replying by email)
Reply to
Frank Bemelman

"J-vibe" schreef in bericht news:369%d.341$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Yeah. I have a puzzle for you. After all, the 'AMATUER COMEDY NIGHT' show needs a few more 'AMATUERS'.

Our mysterious processor spits out:

369%d.341$H06.77, 423D6513.4080304,

What is the next sequence? I guarantee there is a next sequence and you will be able to check it.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'q' and 'invalid' when replying by email)
Reply to
Frank Bemelman

"Frank Bemelman" schreef in bericht news:423ded1c$0$144$ snipped-for-privacy@news.xsall.nl...

And I expect an answer in less than an hour of course ;)

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'q' and 'invalid' when replying by email)
Reply to
Frank Bemelman

algebraically related.

That so-called "constraint" makes the one variable *dependant* on the other. Iac is a function of the other circuit parameters as well as Im too in some complicated way.

Well let's see if they're not independent of the original signal then that means that are dependent on the original signal and therefore dependent on each other mathematically known as implicitly.

one independent variable that defines Irms through

It is understood that we are talking about a rectified ac- with a sinusoidal variation with time.

Reply to
Fred Bloggs

It's a real worry when Phil starts getting international fame!

--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jenal Communications
Manufacturers and Suppliers of HF Selcall
P O Box 1108, Morley, WA, 6943
Tel: +61 8 9370 5533 Fax +61 8 9467 6146
Web Site: http://www.jenal.com 
Contact: http://www.jenal.com/?p=1
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Reply to
Alan

formatting link

[snip]

I could not read the whole thread. It got too tedious and personal for me.

I am noticing, however, that threads you actively participate in sometimes get very long and eventually degenerate into accusations and counter-accusations. Something to think about!

--Mac

Reply to
Mac

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about the average value of anything, except insofar as 'm' in 'rms' stands for 'mean.' And in the context, I don't think I am incorrect, technically or otherwise.

I said, in effect, that the area under the 'I' curve for 'I' going into the capacitor and regulator from the bridge is constant and equal to the area of the curve for 'I' going out of the regulator into the load. And if we shorten the duration where the integral is non-zero but keep the area constant, we will never produce a lower RMS.

If you can come up with a counterexample *consistent with the context*, I would like to see it so I can understand my mistake. You can't postulate some wild waveform. This is just a bridge charging up a cap.

Then why not just leave it at that? ;-)

[snip]

--Mac

Reply to
Mac

Oh! A rogue processor on a spitting rampage!!!!

Let's see.....

1st: (3.69) x 833D06.77 = 307401.9813 2nd: 4236513.4080304 (you didn't spec D as a $H, so I'll ignore it) 3rd: 8165624.8347608 or 7C98F8$H 4th: 12094736.2614912 or B88D10 etc....

Do I get a pair of tickets to the show?

Reply to
J-vibe

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote (in )

same

(For

bridge

the

Why should the range of filter values be restricted for negligible ripple? Or you mean they'd be excessively high.

High ripple circuits due to their advantages are realistic. For power maximisation and increase of dc current I've see many converters connected directly to the ac mains purposely to increase the conduction angle with rectifying capacitors below 1uF. At the output of these though the large ripple removing capacitor(s) is placed.

Reply to
lemonjuice

are, the

mode

low

heating.

period

period.

linear

when

John is right. You and Larry are missing the fact that by changing the conduction angle you are actually changing the exact instance in time when the capacitor starts conducting and thats going to change the values of your charge and integration intervals in your equation above.

Reply to
lemonjuice

the

mode

low

heating.

This is

in

"simulation"

simulation

light on

Its normal the that Irms goes up with increase in capacitance value. Higher capacitance means less ripple which means higher average current (Idc). As Idc is directly proportional to Irms and hence is DEPENDENT (and not independent as someone claims) on Irms... Irms also increases.

Higher capacitance though means you're dissipating more power in the there so your efficiency goes down.

Reply to
lemonjuice

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields wrote (in ) about '9V 1A schematic needed', on Sun, 20 Mar 2005:

It isn't the mains supply that matters, it's the waveforms of the current through the diodes. If there is only resistance in the supply voltage circuit, this waveform is nearly sinusoidal pulses, but of duration corresponding to a higher frequency than the mains supply, which is just another way of saying that the conduction angle is less than 180 degrees (usually a lot less). However, the peak of this pulse is not at the same time as the peak of the supply voltage waveform; the effect of this is rather small but does exist.

If there is inductance in series with the rectifier, then current waveform is no longer approximately sinusoidal, and algebraic analysis is very difficult. It is necessary to use simulation.

The most-often cited modern papers on low-power single-phase rectifiers appear to be:

Lieders A, Single-phase rectifiers with CR filters, Part 1 - Theory, Electronic Components and Applications, Vol 1 No.3 pp. 153-163 (May

1979) ISSN 0141-6219

Lieders A, Single-phase rectifiers with CR filters, Part 2 - Design procedure, Electronic Components and Applications, Vol 1 No.4 pp.

216-230 (August 1979) ISSN 0141-6219
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. 
There are two sides to every question, except 
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
Reply to
John Woodgate

....

That is true, in the strictest sense. But people who have studied this issue or observed real instances of the circuit for that effect know that the Irms value approaches a definite limit as the capacitance value approaches infinity.

Huh? If you hold everything else constant, (including the DC current taken from the cap by the regulator/load), then Idc stays constant and so does the amount of charge transferred per line cycle.

Whatever makes you think Idc = K * Irms where K is a constant? Anybody who analyzes this correctly can see that, if Idc is held constant, Irms increases as the conduction angle decreases. This is all very fundamental.

As for "(and not independent as someone claims)", you have (apparently) misunderstood and misconstrued my remarks. Since they make sense in their original context, I won't explain that here. You need to learn that there is a real difference between RMS and mean. If you knew the difference, you would have a much better chance of understanding the independence concept.

Yes, but how could that happen when Idc is constant and Irms is "directly proportional to" Irms, holding Irms constant? You are writing riddles here. Please try to get those sorted out before adding new ones.

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.
Reply to
Larry Brasfield

Indeed, $400 was about my week's pay in those days.

I notified the bank monthly, each time I received a statement... in person, at the desk of the branch manager.

If there's a thief in the world, it's Frank. He's stolen an identity that claims to have a brain ;-)

Yep. The bank always had possession. I never drew into those funds until I closed the account. I eventually just concluded it was a stupidity fee ;-)

...Jim Thompson

--
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
|  Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
|  Phoenix, Arizona            Voice:(480)460-2350  |             |
|  E-mail Address at Website     Fax:(480)460-2142  |  Brass Rat  |
|       http://www.analog-innovations.com           |    1962     |
             
I love to cook with wine.      Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Reply to
Jim Thompson

I got a check for over $500 from an insurance company. It was meant for someone else. They sent me a promisory note to pay it back which I never signed. That was like a free premium payment.

--
Best Regards,
Mike
Reply to
Active8

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.