ssr's as analog switches

The '4066' thread above reminded me of this question: how good are opto-mos solid-state relays as analog switches?

I recently experimented with a Claire CPC1008N, nice little part. But on the board where it was used, it turned out to be the bad-boy for DC offset, something we didn't expect. Seems like heating from the led causes thermoelectrics in the switch side, on the order of 600 nV per mA of led current. This is nasty enough that we plan to replace the ssr's with real (latching) relays next rev. We reduced the led drive as low as we dared, to about 1.5 mA (it trips around 0.5) and got the offset below 1 uV, barely acceptable here.

Any experience with stuff like this? With leakage?

I'd do some more experiments, but one would potentially have to test a lot of parts, and pcb layout (thermal symmetry issues) would seem to matter, much hassle, so we'll just bail to the relay for now.

I guess that a silicon chip, gold or aluminum wire bonds, and copper leads would make a bunch of thermocouples, tens of uV per deg C each, and the heat from the led (say, 200 k/w gross thermal resistance?) would have to be dumped *very* symmetrically to avoid some terrible offsets.

Hey, any linear IC must have similar problems, especially something like an LT1028, fairly high dissipation and low advertised offsets. In cases like that, I suppose it just settles to some constant thermoelectric offset after a few minutes (if not loaded much) so nobody notices. I sometimes use 1028's with very low-value feedback networks (to keep Johnson noise down) and add a cheap unity-gain opamp inside the loop, after the 1028, just to drive the feedback resistors without heating the main chip.

Relays are wonderful.

John

Reply to
John Larkin
Loading thread data ...

I agree, and relays with mercury wetted contacts are even wonderfuller.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
Reply to
John Fields

Silicon has a huge TC coefficient with any metal, something like 700 uV/K IIRC. Common-centroid design, very small dimensions, and the high thermal conductivity of silicon help in controlling the TC offsets in ICs.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

Reply to
Phil Hobbs

Hello John,

I don't know what you are trying to do over the iso barrier here. Any chance to do it with little transformers? Or is it all DC?

For a while. After that you have to start cracking out that bottle of cleaning fluid and thin paper at regular intervals. Then you have to open the window in the midst of winter to get rid of the stench. I am about ready to open my EMI receiver and replace all the relays in there with PIN diodes, FETs or whatever is not mechanical.

Regards, Joerg

formatting link

Reply to
Joerg

Not leakage, but I have found one analogue switches injected a very significant charge into the circuit, which was a disaster for a laser power supply. Changing the switch cured the problem.

Reply to
Dave

The bias voltage you refer to was across the two back-back mosfets in the output switch of the "off" ssr? How high was the "unbiased" voltage across them when you observed the >10uA leakage?

--
 Thanks,
    - Win
Reply to
Winfield Hill

Wow, yet another weirdness. Sounds like, maybe, the OFF photofets didn't have their gates fully discharged, and they were slowly leaking towards zero. I could imagine the floating gate driver getting confused for the last few tenths of a volt of turnoff. Or maybe getting charged by Cdg.

The photofets sound like cool parts, and are unless you're working with low-level stuff. We're converting a couple of designs back to hard relays. You can get a nice tiny sealed surface-mount DPDT latching relay for a couple of dollars, and it has specs no semiconductor can match.

Claire does have a new, interesting SSR whose switch side is current and thermal-limited; that could be useful as a current limiter alone.

John

Reply to
John Larkin

Late reply I'm afraid.

I experienced something similar about a year ago, with the I-R PVN012 PhotoMOS switches.

They were used to select precision pulldown resistors, or a 10mA constant current sink, three channels at a time.

I started to trace why the precision resistors were slightly the wrong value, but then noticed that when the (single) 10mA current source was switched onto a channel then it drifted slightly.... and the rate of drift looked suspiciously like it was thermal.

I then discovered that if the (supposedly) OFF devices were unplugged then there was no drift. So the OFF switches were leaking somehow, a few 10's of uA that took seconds to come up and settle.

Since it was definitely not thermal, the only thing I could think of with a similar time constant was that (somehow) the gate-source capacitances of the OFF switches were being charged up.

Strangely enough, putting a bias voltage across the OFF switches stopped the leakage.

Unfortunately this was only a small part of a large system being commissioned on-site. So as soon as a 'cure?' had been found I had to move on to other things.

--
Tony Williams.
Reply to
Tony Williams

"Common-mode" temperature effects can't generate voltages; you need temperature gradients to make thermoelectrics. The fets must be pretty close together (the package is tiny) so it would be hard to force much of a thermal gradient externally.

600 mV ain't a lot of voltage, considering that the silicon-wirebond-copper system must generate something in the ballpark of 50 uV/K.

The gate driver is actually an IC, with the photoelectric stack as part of the circuit. This particular relay is bidirectional, so does have two mosfets back-to-back.

The effect we measured had a longish time constant, 15 seconds or so, and the magnitude was pretty much proportional to LED drive current, so we figured it was likely thermoelectric..

John

Reply to
John Larkin

Oops, 600 nV.

John

Reply to
John Larkin

Yes, probably >5v.

Not measured, but low. A rough guess would be in the 1v region.

--
Tony Williams.
Reply to
Tony Williams

Kinda hard to see how about 1.5mW of heating effect is going to generate thermoelectric effects which are not swamped by enviromental effects like a bit of a draft or being a few inches away from a warm chip.

My understanding of these 'optoMOSFETS' is they are just an LED shining on a stack of photodiodes which can generate enough voltage to turn on a standard MOSFET (or pair of back to back MOSFETS).

In such a tiny package I would not be suprised if some of the LED light reached the MOSFET and you were seeing a photovoltaic effect.

Reply to
nospam

200 nV at 5 mA is nice... it's probably less at 2 mA, enough to operate the thing.

But it looks like we'll stick with a latching relay for now.

John

Reply to
John Larkin

formatting link

I note the pvn012 is a 100-milliohm max device, which means it's made using two probably rather-large 25-milliohm typ MOSFETs in opposed-series, such as the die used in IR's IRF7402 50-milliohm max (at Vgs = 2.7V) 20V n-channel part.

formatting link

This FET has 900pF of gate capacitance at 1V, and two wired in parallel as in the pvn012 means the relay's photodiode stack has to drive 1800pF. Its 5ms turn-on time implies several uA of photocurrent into 3V, which is reasonable, but the faster 0.5ms turn-off time implies a much higher pulldown current, when the photodiodes are basically open.

I believe this is obtained using a PNP emitter follower, somewhat like this,

. opto-isolated MOSFET relays . ,-----o . LED 4V PD stack |--' . o---, ,----+--|>|--+------+---|| _V_ | |/V | | . | | '-----| ,--|-------+-----o . o---' _V_ |\\ | | | . | | | | |--+ . '------------+---' '---||

Reply to
Winfield Hill

IR has already gone down this road and with a line of "MicroRelays" with guaranteed "Thermal Offset." The selection chart may say 0.2V but the datasheets say 0.2uV. These are specifically targeted for low thermal offset apps like switching thermocouples:

formatting link
and
formatting link
for example. They all have the same line. I notice your CPC1008N datasheet has no such characterization.

Reply to
Fred Bloggs

With what oscillation amplitude? I'm curious, why did you need to use such a low Ron massive-die-area MOSFET switch?

--
 Thanks,
    - Win
Reply to
Winfield Hill

[snip]

The circuit inside the UUT was pure dc, but it is a complex lttle box... dc-dc converters, high speed uP, RS485 comms, lots of switching activity going on inside there. We have about 2m of cabling to get into the UUT.

So I wondered whether there was a little bit of spiky crosstalk, slightly charging up the gates. Switching to pulled-up could have put both ends to low impedance places. ,-----o-----+

Reply to
Tony Williams

Just scratching around to find some gate charging mechanism...... but this discussion has just given me one of those 'oh sh*t' moments. See below.

To switch low value precision resistors onto the low sides of 3x half-bridges.

10Vref---/\\/\\---+----+----+----+----+/+---+ 1k | | | | Sw5a | \\ \\ \\ | | All 0.1% or 1k/ 680/ 330/ | | better \\ \\ \\ | | | | | | | + + + + | Sw1/ Sw2/ Sw3/ Sw4/ | + + + + | | | | | | 0Vref----------+----+----+----+ | | | 10Vref---/\\/\\---+----+----+----+----+/+---+ 2nd identical switched h-bridge Sw5b | 0Vref----------+----+----+----+ | | | 10Vref---/\\/\\---+----+----+----+----+/+---+ 3rd identical switched h-bridge Sw5c | 0Vref----------+----+----+----+ | | 0v | ______|_______________________ | | | | |precision current-sink, 0-7mA |---
Reply to
Tony Williams

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.