what I would use for a low current 100Volt supply.

This is my contributions to the already going thread on a 100 volt capable DC-DC buck boost using a 555 and a zener for regulation that uses the minimum parts. I don't even have a timing cap in there.

Set R1 for the Max I you need as the load and the zener will suck up what you don't use to maintain a constant voltage.. Of course this type of boost is only good if your load constraints are not all over the place.

Replace R1 with a PNP current sink that can be reversed bias with a feed back regulator and you can have a large output unit with low stand by current, instead if using a Zener like I do with low current demands

Version 4 SHEET 1 880 680 WIRE -128 -80 -256 -80 WIRE -112 -80 -128 -80 WIRE 320 -80 -112 -80 WIRE -256 -48 -256 -80 WIRE 432 -32 0 -32 WIRE -112 32 -112 -80 WIRE 320 64 320 -80 WIRE 320 64 304 64 WIRE 336 64 320 64 WIRE 432 64 432 -32 WIRE 432 64 416 64 WIRE 464 64 432 64 WIRE 464 96 464 64 WIRE -112 128 -112 112 WIRE -112 128 -208 128 WIRE 0 128 0 -32 WIRE 80 128 0 128 WIRE -112 144 -112 128 WIRE -32 192 -48 192 WIRE 80 192 48 192 WIRE 432 192 432 64 WIRE 432 192 304 192 WIRE 464 192 464 176 WIRE 528 192 464 192 WIRE 608 192 592 192 WIRE 464 208 464 192 WIRE 608 208 608 192 WIRE -112 256 -112 240 WIRE 80 256 64 256 WIRE 400 256 384 256 WIRE -208 320 -208 128 WIRE 384 320 384 256 WIRE 384 320 -208 320 WIRE 464 320 464 304 WIRE 608 320 608 272 FLAG -256 32 0 FLAG 80 64 0 FLAG 608 320 0 FLAG -128 -80 P+ FLAG 64 256 P+ FLAG 464 320 0 FLAG -112 256 0 SYMBOL Misc\\NE555 192 160 R0 SYMATTR InstName U1 SYMBOL voltage -256 -64 R0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 2 WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 2 SYMATTR InstName V1 SYMATTR Value 10 SYMBOL res 432 48 R90 WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 2 WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 2 SYMATTR InstName R1 SYMATTR Value 250 SYMBOL ind 448 80 R0 SYMATTR InstName L1 SYMATTR Value 1mh SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=0.1 SYMBOL zener 528 208 R270 WINDOW 0 32 32 VTop 2 WINDOW 3 52 118 VBottom 2 SYMATTR InstName D1 SYMATTR Value DFLZ33 SYMATTR Description Diode SYMATTR Type diode SYMBOL cap 592 208 R0 SYMATTR InstName C1 SYMATTR Value 1µf SYMBOL npn 400 208 R0 SYMATTR InstName Q1 SYMATTR Value 2N5550 SYMBOL npn -48 144 M0 SYMATTR InstName Q2 SYMBOL res 64 176 R90 WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 2 WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 2 SYMATTR InstName R3 SYMATTR Value 1200 SYMBOL res -128 16 R0 SYMATTR InstName R4 SYMATTR Value 1200 TEXT -240 360 Left 0 !.tran 0 0.010 0 0.01 startup

Jamie

Reply to
Jamie
Loading thread data ...

That's cute. It's hysteretic on inductor current, and D1 pushes current into the cap, then steals it back again.

It will compete with my circuit for the Miss Inefficiency title.

John

Reply to
John Larkin

On a sunny day (Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:55:03 -0400) it happened Jamie wrote in :

It is nice, can it be done without the inverter transistor?

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

"Jamie" schreef in bericht news:t9Pgq.8$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe08.iad...

It's not clear to me what current you need but the voltage does not even comes close to the 100V you say you want to achieve and that's without load.

If you really want 100V with some mA you better go for an old MC34063. It's not state of the art and has some drawbacks but you'll get what you want.

petrus bitbyter

Reply to
petrus bitbyter

On a sunny day (Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:31:11 +0200) it happened "petrus bitbyter" wrote in :

Nope:

formatting link

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

In the past I've used the NE555 several times for these sort of step-up converters. Its works well and doesn't need -to quote Joerg- boutique parts. At a point one of my former employers was so short on money I had to design a step-up converter from parts that where on stock. Well... that included an NE555.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to
Nico Coesel

I know, I used a 33V zener that was sitting in LTSPICE.. The point is, with a 100V zener, it will do it just as well as it does at 33v.

If I knew more about making models in Spice I would of simply done that how ever, I do more bench testing than I do spice sims. I find that many times live experiments yields different results how ever, I do know this one happens to work on the bench and in spice the same way.

Jamie

Reply to
Jamie

I did that because it needed to be inverted, as you can see. If you were looking for a (-) output then the circuit could be altered and yes, only one transistor is needed, since then, you'd be using a PNP on the top side and the output of the timer would not need to be inverted.

Using a P-channel mosfet as an follower instead sounds attractive how ever, it'll just drop into linear mode when the output on the source gets to the point where there isn't enough gate voltage from the timer.

I've done this also with a dual comparator (8 pin package) and set up a window trigger and threshold, like the timer is. With that, you can simply alter the inputs that are used and you only need one transistor on the buck switch.

It's just with a timer, the parts count is low and it has a hefty output. :)

Something to think about I guess :)

Jamie

Reply to
Jamie

e

how

up

I couldn't find the link to the previous thread, but wouldn't a PIC10 or any other small micro be simpler. You get more features, softstart etc

If the supply is a problem, the PIC16HV runs at up to 16V (has internal series regulator)

Cheers

Klaus

Reply to
Klaus Kragelund

Cycle-by-cycle current limiting is a piece of cake with an NE555. This is one of my designs to create 55V for a few hundred uA (post regulators not shown):

formatting link

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to
Nico Coesel

On a sunny day (Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:23:20 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Klaus Kragelund wrote in :

Yes that is what my design uses. I use the PICs comparator to switch ou the PWM, and reaize cycle by cycle current control and voltage stabilisation in one. The PIC was there anyways, so why not use the PWM unit.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

On a sunny day (Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:35:37 GMT) it happened snipped-for-privacy@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote in :

Too many components.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

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.