interesting Half bridge design in Plasma TV power supply

Gents,

My Plasma TV died on me (2 years out of warranty) and pride just wouldn't let me throw it out or call the local repair man. From the online reports I read about these plasmas it appears Panasonic has problems with their 2007 and 2008 models failing at the 3-4 year mark. :( Mine was a 58PZ800u if any of you have ever fixed one successfully.

Anyway I managed to get a copy of the service manual for my model and I noticed something interesting. There is a power supply that takes in a PFC regulated AC mains voltage (boosted to ~200VDC) and put it through a half bridge converter to make a variable 160 - 190VDC supply for the Vsus output.

The topology is slightly different than I have seen for half bridge before. One side of the transformer is tied to the typical Mosfet totem pole, but the other side just goes to a single capacitor and to ground. The value of the cap was something like .033uF.

I suppose this would work since you're essentially AC coupling the transformer but why does a "standard" half bridge topology have two capacitors in series across Vin and the transformer tied to the middle?

The disadvantage I see to this one is that the first pulse will put full Vin voltage across the primary until the cap charges up to 1/2 the supply voltage.

The advantage if the standard topology is also that the capacitor bridge also serves as an input filter even when the supply is fed by a DC source. When it is supplied by an AC source they serve double duty as bulk 120Hz filtering and the capacitive center point for the half bridge transformer.

Any of you ever ran a half bridge that way?

Reply to
mook johnson
Loading thread data ...

orts

007
0u if

a PFC

ut.

e.

e of

Vin

.
.

piccy pls

Reply to
NT

Should be in alt.binaries.schematics.electronics soon. Its a PDF format.

Reply to
mook johnson

Make that

alt.binaries.schematics.electronic (no s). The other one doesn't seem to work anymore. :(

Reply to
mook johnson

The cap to ground doesn't make any sense, startup transients as you note. If it comes up slowly while the chopper is running, it won't make much difference. I suppose it saves a cap, but a pair of 0.015's aren't any more expensive than one 0.033.

As for the small value, I'd guess it's a resonant converter (series resonant, against the transformer magnetizing / leakage inductance).

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tim Williams

Did you see the schematic on alt.binaries.schematics.electronic?

the more I look at it it doesn't look quite like a classical half bridge. There are not output inductors. It looks like this circuit just chops the PFC input voltage so the transformer can step it down. There are post regulators in there for the regulated voltages.

Its still a strange configuration unless like you said it is a resonant or current fed topology with no output inductors....hmmmm.

Reply to
mook johnson

No, didn't come through here.

At any rate, unless it's running at a very high frequency, and the transformer has very low leakage, such a small coupling capacitor won't transfer very much power. Most likely answer, it's rated for a reasonable voltage (over 400V?) so that resonance carries it through.

With sufficient transformer leakage, none would be needed.

I'm guessing the transformer is either normal, or split bobbin wound so it has relatively high leakage. Power control by frequency most likely.

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
Reply to
Tim Williams

The transformers are E core looking ferrite jobbies (or their round centerleg counterparts) at about 2.5" square. Can't tell if there is a gap in them or not but they did not add a shim to the outer legs like seen in cheaper power supplies.

Actually the build quality of the Panasonic is fairly impressive for commercial stuff. its just a weird topology that I'm interested in finding out the pros and cons of as to why they use that instead of a textbook topology.

Reply to
mook johnson

nable

ge.

it

gap

ding

then show us the circuit.

Reply to
NT

Did you see the schematic on alt.binaries.schematics.electronic? its in PDF format and too complicated for ascii art.

Reply to
mook johnson

..

in

I dont have abse

NT

Reply to
NT

I've not seen the circuit, but is it a valley fill topology?

Poor man's PFC control. Charge caps in series, discharge in parallel? Looks odd at first view.

Grant.

Reply to
omg

the PFC circuit looks pretty textbook Bridge Rectifier that goes to an inductor then a FET to ground and a diode to peak charge the output caps (300uF at 450V). Current is measured at a current sense resistor in the source of the FET. All the PWM is handled on a little daughter board.

I actually measured the voltage with the TV partially "running" and was surprised about how much ripple I saw with my multimeter. p - p was in the

40V range with an average of 390Vdc. On DC I got jumpy reading that ranged from 370 - 410V I switched it to AC and it read ~ 40V but it wasn't rock steady and wandered a bit. I'm thinking this is the 120Hz ripple but with the lightly loaded situation it was in I wouldn't expect that much ripple. The measurements were made with a decent but no-name meter so the AC measurements can be taken with a grain of salt. I calibrated the DC last year against my calibrates lab meter and it was on the money.

I measured the capacitance of the PFC and they are typical of electrolytics and on the low end of the range and still in spec. I borrowed another power supply that was pulled from a new TV with a broken screen and it measured the same so I don't think the electros are wearing out.

Hiccup mode at light load is the only thing I can think if. The load is light because I had to disconnect the screen derivers to get the TV to start and stay running long enough for me to take a measurement.

Reply to
mook johnson

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.