BJT or MOSFET for Current Source Circuit

Also possible I read you wrong...

MOSFETs are heavily interdigitated too, of course; but having positive tempco Rds(on), this doesn't matter in saturation.

I think with IGBTs in saturation, as long as the Vce(sat)s match up close enough, and the thermal resistance between points is good enough, they're plenty stable. In other words, the tempco and incremental resistance aren't so bad. On die, those obviously are easily met -- now, discrete devices in parallel, especially if the thermal design is crap (e.g., separate heatsinks?), is where you can get problems.

Assuming saturated operation, that is. So it's going to be worse if it's linear.

10A at IGBT levels (Vce(sat) ~ 2V) would certainly be of some thermal concern, and could be much worse if it's linear.

On the upside, if the voltage is low (say, 24V or less), the peak power will never be ridiculously high, easily managed by a few BJTs (I won't say

2N3055, but MJ15010 and such are quite fine) without much concern over 2nd breakdown. BJTs being the more traditional linear power amplification device. I guess MOSFETs are supposed to be more expensive than BJTs, which might be true watt for watt, but the difference probably isn't much anymore these days. You'll spend more on the heatsinks and hardware either way.

Yeah. IRF740 for instance used to claim a DC SOA curve (back in the IR days, ca. 1992 or so I think). Today's Vishay (IR or Siliconix) datasheet doesn't give this.

On the upside, I tested one the other day at almost double the power rating it should've failed at. And this at high voltage. So that's pretty cool. The die inside is also surprisingly beefy. I doubt you can buy so much finished, functional silicon so cheaply in any other family of devices.

Newer transistors I've tested and blown almost exactly at ratings, which is kind of comforting to know, I guess.

Wow, that's yeechy!

I've seen audiophools using them in amplifiers, which probably doesn't create too big of a problem at low voltages (under 100V, say).

Yeah, even the worst I've seen (among those which still provided DC SOA) are still doing a sort of useful amount, say 10-100W. Out of a 500W device, not very useful, but... you'd only be using that particular device in this way if it was the last one in your parts box. :)

Usually true of BJTs as well, though I've had some cases where, for instance, I needed a PNP to source only a few mA in the 100s of volts, and even a 450Vceo device just wouldn't do it.

Reminds me, I should invest in some of those depletion mode FETs -- good for current limiting, active pullup/down, amplification and switching (for those odd jobs where you simply need a tube instead of a FET, but can't afford the heater power :) ), etc.

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs 
Electrical Engineering Consultation 
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com
Reply to
Tim Williams
Loading thread data ...

It would be more like turning the heater fully on and fully off fast enough that it doesn't have time to change its temperature significantly during the on- or off-time.

Since thermal processes are usually sloooooooooow, that's pretty easy to do.

--
Tim Wescott 
Control system and signal processing consulting 
www.wescottdesign.com
Reply to
Tim Wescott

The use of a FET would give a much higher equivalent resistance, as a BJT has the Early effect going against it. But,feedback does compensate for a lot..best to use as much advantage from selected parts as possible,and THEN use the feedback.

Reply to
Robert Baer

10A, I'm thinking about putting a transistor at the output of an Op-Amp and using the transistor to pull the 10A through my load.

(darlington or maybe even IGBT) it really just has to sit there and handle 10A... does this point towards which transistor has a better SOA profile?

Without looking at any other replies; My first answer is for the required current a discrete Darlington configuration. For this case i think it is more robust.

Current FETs usually do not seem to handle active region dissipation well. Way too many are (overly) optimized as switches. (Real SOA stinks)

YMMV

?-)

Reply to
josephkk

current!

that popped into my head, but if PWM is better, I'm all for it. Would the PWM people are suggesting be like setting up a buck converter where I can control the PWM to adjust the voltage across my heater?

I would expect the feedback to be temperature from some sensor. Read rather slow loop as well.

YMMV

?-)

Reply to
josephkk

Ever hear of channel-length modulation? It's the PhD buzzword equivalent in MOSFets to BJT's Early effect.

BJT, OR MOSFet, sensing under the emitter/source in the feedback raises the output impedance. ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    | 
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142   Skype: Contacts Only  |             | 
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  | 
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     | 
              
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Reply to
Jim Thompson

Well, I think the power semi makers have been working on this short-circuit fault tolerance, and have made some progress in that area to make IGBTs tolerate severe current pulses better than the first generation.

But, of course, going to the switch mode is the best way to beat these problems, if you can.

Jon

Reply to
Jon Elson

Yes, I AM talking about as single device. As it was described, the IGBT is a parallel assembly of thousands of small transistors, and when in the linear region, they pretty much guarantee a negative tempco of the CE drop, so the hottest area takes the greater current. Since these are meant as switching devices, they worked hard to get a positive tempco in saturation, to avoid this current hogging -- but ONLY in saturation.

Well, the IR app engineer cautioned me severely about letting the IGBT be in the linear region even for sub-us intervals, and suggested using the beefiest gate driver with no series resistance to get it on and off as fast as possible. This is all old news, and may not apply to current transistors as much as the first generation, but I think it is still generally true.

ANYWAY, the only advantage of an IGBT is in low on losses at high voltages. So, unless you are using transistors above about 250 V, and in saturation, the IGBT offers no advantage. At large currents, high voltage MOSFETs can't compete with the low on voltage of an IGBT in saturation. In the linear region, that advantage won't exist. You can get really low Rds in lower-voltage FETs, however, which is why they are used in synchronous rectifiers in a lot of power supplies.

Jon

Reply to
Jon Elson

About that "easy to drive" - be careful the capacitive loading from the gate capacitance, combined with the open-loop output impedance of the op-amp can add enough phase shift to make the loop unstable. The gate capacitance looks even worse if there is any Miller (or Blumlein?) effect - so you need to test with a variety of loads.

When I was in high school I built a current sink like this, using LM324 op-amps and some big NMOS FETs to drive controlled currents into a stepper motor's windings. It oscillated like crazy because of the above-mentioned reason. I never got it stable.

A gm-stage (transconductance amplifier) driving the MOSFET gate, and compensated using the MOSFET's gate capacitance plus maybe a bit more capacitance connected to the gate, as a dominant pole, would be a nice, very stable current sink. This arrangement is commonly used on chips, however the gm-stage (transconductance amplifiers) are not widely sold as stand-alone chips (except for a couple of rare, expensive, probably soon to be discontinued ones, some of which need split supply rails and have poor specs in other respects). Whilst chip designers regularly design and use these things inside chips, I think at least in the last few decades, the marketing departments at chip companies have never identified customer demand for these things (because you can hardly buy them) so they have no idea that these should be offered as a product.

Chris

Reply to
Chris Jones

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.