Somebody had an idea for a lossless flyback snubber

On 5/24/2016 8:46 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
...
> there was 300V P-P there...

106v RMS couldn't have hurt that much

On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 18:31:21 UTC+2, Tim Wescott  wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2016 16:41:44 -0700, klaus.kragelund wrote:
> 
> > Hey
> > 
> > Been trying to find the post with the lossless snubber, with AFAIR a
> > capacitor from the drain node to a regenerative point.
> > 
> > I am working on a 2 switch flyback and some other schemes, but would
> > like to try that novel idea out....
> > 
> > Anyone knows a pointer to the thread?
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> > Klaus
> 
> I'll have to go look at whatever clever idea I had.  The circuit ended up 
> not working but not, I think, because of my inadequate snubbing.
> 
> A circuit that I did not work on directly, but which I know worked well, 
> was a fairly high-power flyback that just had a diode-capacitor snubber, 
> but which then had a switcher from the snubber cap's voltage back to the 
> primary DC rail.  I can't remember whether it was called an active 
> snubber or a regenerative snubber, but the circuit worked.
> 
Yes, that's also a nice idea. Will have to try that sometime :-)

Some patents are lurking on that implementation, so will have to be careful not to breach one of those

Cheers

Klaus

On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 16:33:00 UTC+2, legg  wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2016 16:41:44 -0700 (PDT), klaus.kragelund@gmail.com
> wrote:
> 
> >Hey
> >
> >Been trying to find the post with the lossless snubber, with AFAIR a capacitor from the drain node to a regenerative point.
> >
> >I am working on a 2 switch flyback and some other schemes, but would like to try that novel idea out....
> >
> >Anyone knows a pointer to the thread?
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >Klaus
> 
> The loss-free snubbers depicted in the ON app and other locations,
> employing L, C, and D in varying quantities and orientation tend all
> to suffer from the same phenomenon, when using diodes that have a
> definable reverse recovery. As the reverse recovered charge is
> directly proportional to peak forward current and inversely
> proportional to rectifier area (ie size or current rating), the
> attempt to use rectifiers with sensible average current ratings in the
> snubber results in charge multiplication. 
> More reverse recovery charge (and peak reverse current) develops in
> the snubber than is anticipated. If this peak current is passing
> through the primary winding, then leakage energy in the winding at
> snap-off will still require somwhere to go - typically to the negative
> supply through the parasitic body diode of the main fet switch. 
> This diode is usually much slower than parts normally selected for
> switching. If the peak reverse recovery current in the snubber is
> preserved to pass into the parasitic diode, it will be returned to the
> primary for a third time....and so on.
> The behavior described may tend to defeat the purpose of the snubber,
> without intentional damping loss, or oversizing of snubber silicon. If
> the reverse peak current is less than the forward peak current, in
> each case, then the snubbing will eventually tail off.
> Effects may look logical on paper. Circuitry may even demonstrate a
> degree of functionality over a short-term and narrow line/load range -
> something that has no doubt spawned a host of learned technical
> articles to be written. I've got a host of them. Only testing over the
> full line/load and environmental range can reveal whether the
> components selected can always function practically, as intended.
> 
> This may sound like bullshit to many, but until you've actually scoped
> the current and voltage waveforms, I would at least advise caution.
> 
> The actively switched snubber, that returns energy to the flyback load
> (and can facilitate ZVS in both main and snubber switches), is
> promising, but requires a variable frequency and timing control that
> is not simple. Primary switch turn-on current may be negative, a
> behavior that causes many control methods to react adversely/
> chaotically.
> This doesn't prevent it's use in some practical circuits, with varying
> effective advantage. In many cases, it is only required to function
> over a well-defined range of operating conditions, including the
> transient or temporary sub-optimal.
> 
> If energy is collected somewhere, it can always be re-converted by a
> separate circuit, synchronously or otherwise, if the cost of the
> aditional complexity is justified.
> 
That's valuable information indeed. The circuits looks simple enough, the devil is in the details, as it often is the case

Regards

Klaus

On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:02:03 -0700, klaus.kragelund wrote:

> On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 18:31:21 UTC+2, Tim Wescott  wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 May 2016 16:41:44 -0700, klaus.kragelund wrote:
>> 
>> > Hey
>> > 
>> > Been trying to find the post with the lossless snubber, with AFAIR a
>> > capacitor from the drain node to a regenerative point.
>> > 
>> > I am working on a 2 switch flyback and some other schemes, but would
>> > like to try that novel idea out....
>> > 
>> > Anyone knows a pointer to the thread?
>> > 
>> > Regards
>> > 
>> > Klaus
>> 
>> I'll have to go look at whatever clever idea I had.  The circuit ended
>> up not working but not, I think, because of my inadequate snubbing.
>> 
>> A circuit that I did not work on directly, but which I know worked
>> well, was a fairly high-power flyback that just had a diode-capacitor
>> snubber, but which then had a switcher from the snubber cap's voltage
>> back to the primary DC rail.  I can't remember whether it was called an
>> active snubber or a regenerative snubber, but the circuit worked.
>> 
> Yes, that's also a nice idea. Will have to try that sometime :-)
> 
> Some patents are lurking on that implementation, so will have to be
> careful not to breach one of those

I think that the other way I did it was to drive the coil primary with a 
half-bridge.  The top FET would get power from the leakage inductance and 
give it back in the same cycle.

I'm not sure if it's really a practical thing in practice, though -- it 
never got beyond simulation.

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

I'm looking for work -- see my website!

On Wed, 25 May 2016 16:56:18 -0400, Bob Engelhardt
<BobEngelhardt@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 5/24/2016 8:46 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>...
>> there was 300V P-P there...
>
>106v RMS couldn't have hurt that much

At 100KHz, you don't even have to make contact to burn skin.

RK

"Tim Wescott" <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote in message 
news:_J6dnTH6654GstvKnZ2dnUU7-dOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> I think that the other way I did it was to drive the coil primary with a
> half-bridge.  The top FET would get power from the leakage inductance and
> give it back in the same cycle.
>
> I'm not sure if it's really a practical thing in practice, though -- it
> never got beyond simulation.

It's practical when LL is large and kinda-sorta-intractible.  Like with high 
output voltage converters, where the cost savings (for a simple, sloppy 
transformer winding) outweighs the parts cost (a bootstrap gate driver and 
second transistor).

Such is used in forward and flyback converters, of the "two switch" (half 
wave) type.  The transistors are operated in sync, and the excess flyback 
(including LL) or reset energy simply dumps back into the supply.

It can also be done push-pull, using a diode on the "far" side of the 
primary.  Usually, the primary is bifilar, or the reset winding is made with 
smaller wire.  This only addresses P-S leakage of course, not P1-P2 leakage, 
which remains.  I've only ever seen a few of these; I expect they're all but 
historical relics nowadays.

Tim

-- 
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com 

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 2:35:55 AM UTC+10, Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2016 11:31:17 -0500, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, 24 May 2016 16:41:44 -0700, klaus.kragelund wrote:
> 
> >> Been trying to find the post with the lossless snubber, with AFAIR a
> >> capacitor from the drain node to a regenerative point.
> >> 
> >> I am working on a 2 switch flyback and some other schemes, but would
> >> like to try that novel idea out....
> >> 
> >> Anyone knows a pointer to the thread?
> >
> >I'll have to go look at whatever clever idea I had.  The circuit ended up 
> >not working but not, I think, because of my inadequate snubbing.
> >
> >A circuit that I did not work on directly, but which I know worked well, 
> >was a fairly high-power flyback that just had a diode-capacitor snubber, 
> >but which then had a switcher from the snubber cap's voltage back to the 
> >primary DC rail.  I can't remember whether it was called an active 
> >snubber or a regenerative snubber, but the circuit worked.
> >
> >(The company went down the tubes -- it was a startup trying to make a 
> >super-efficient solar panel inverter that did not use electrolytics 
> >anywhere, and would, thus, "last forever".  It was run by someone with a 
> >PhD in engineering, and I'm pretty sure it died due to lack of a sales 
> >and marketing network.)
> 
> "It was run by someone with a _PhD_ in engineering" _is_ probably why
> it failed >:-}

Probably the best electronic engineer I know has a Ph.D. in Engineering - on a design study for an electric motor for oil tankers using super-conducting windings.

His nick-name around the lab was "Puker" - which can be translated as somebody who makes other people throw up - because of his habit of coming up with simple, horrible solutions (many of them one-transistor) for other peoples circuit problems.

EMI took out some 25 patents naming him as the inventor, or one of the inventors, which do commemorate rather more complicated innovations.

Nobody would have wasted his time getting him to run a business - you can hire people for that.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 9:05:03 AM UTC+10, Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:02:03 -0700, klaus.kragelund wrote:
> 
> > On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 18:31:21 UTC+2, Tim Wescott  wrote:
> >> On Tue, 24 May 2016 16:41:44 -0700, klaus.kragelund wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Hey
> >> > 
> >> > Been trying to find the post with the lossless snubber, with AFAIR a
> >> > capacitor from the drain node to a regenerative point.
> >> > 
> >> > I am working on a 2 switch flyback and some other schemes, but would
> >> > like to try that novel idea out....
> >> > 
> >> > Anyone knows a pointer to the thread?
> >> > 
> >> > Regards
> >> > 
> >> > Klaus
> >> 
> >> I'll have to go look at whatever clever idea I had.  The circuit ended
> >> up not working but not, I think, because of my inadequate snubbing.
> >> 
> >> A circuit that I did not work on directly, but which I know worked
> >> well, was a fairly high-power flyback that just had a diode-capacitor
> >> snubber, but which then had a switcher from the snubber cap's voltage
> >> back to the primary DC rail.  I can't remember whether it was called an
> >> active snubber or a regenerative snubber, but the circuit worked.
> >> 
> > Yes, that's also a nice idea. Will have to try that sometime :-)
> > 
> > Some patents are lurking on that implementation, so will have to be
> > careful not to breach one of those
> 
> I think that the other way I did it was to drive the coil primary with a 
> half-bridge.  The top FET would get power from the leakage inductance and 
> give it back in the same cycle.
> 
> I'm not sure if it's really a practical thing in practice, though -- it 
> never got beyond simulation.

Sounds like the series version of the Baxandall Class-D oscillator, as opposed to the parallel version popularised by Jim Williams.

http://sophia-elektronica.com/0344_001_Baxandal.pdf

at figure 8. Baxandall didn't have MOSFETs to play with.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 5:13:06 AM UTC+2, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 9:05:03 AM UTC+10, Tim Wescott wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:02:03 -0700, klaus.kragelund wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 18:31:21 UTC+2, Tim Wescott  wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 24 May 2016 16:41:44 -0700, klaus.kragelund wrote:
> > >> 
> > >> > Hey
> > >> > 
> > >> > Been trying to find the post with the lossless snubber, with AFAIR a
> > >> > capacitor from the drain node to a regenerative point.
> > >> > 
> > >> > I am working on a 2 switch flyback and some other schemes, but would
> > >> > like to try that novel idea out....
> > >> > 
> > >> > Anyone knows a pointer to the thread?
> > >> > 
> > >> > Regards
> > >> > 
> > >> > Klaus
> > >> 
> > >> I'll have to go look at whatever clever idea I had.  The circuit ended
> > >> up not working but not, I think, because of my inadequate snubbing.
> > >> 
> > >> A circuit that I did not work on directly, but which I know worked
> > >> well, was a fairly high-power flyback that just had a diode-capacitor
> > >> snubber, but which then had a switcher from the snubber cap's voltage
> > >> back to the primary DC rail.  I can't remember whether it was called an
> > >> active snubber or a regenerative snubber, but the circuit worked.
> > >> 
> > > Yes, that's also a nice idea. Will have to try that sometime :-)
> > > 
> > > Some patents are lurking on that implementation, so will have to be
> > > careful not to breach one of those
> > 
> > I think that the other way I did it was to drive the coil primary with a 
> > half-bridge.  The top FET would get power from the leakage inductance and 
> > give it back in the same cycle.
> > 
> > I'm not sure if it's really a practical thing in practice, though -- it 
> > never got beyond simulation.
> 
> Sounds like the series version of the Baxandall Class-D oscillator, as opposed to the parallel version popularised by Jim Williams.
> 
> http://sophia-elektronica.com/0344_001_Baxandal.pdf
> 
> at figure 8. Baxandall didn't have MOSFETs to play with.
> 

No, that's the 2 switch flyback. It allows for lower rated voltage MOSFETs and complete recirculation of the leakage energy with the penalty of having to make a high side driving circuit:

http://www.ti.com/lit/an/snva716/snva716.pdf

https://www.google.dk/search?q=2+switch+flyback+converter&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=955&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiX-fLCwPfMAhUGFCwKHcAFBzAQsAQIKA&dpr=1


Cheers

Klaus

On 05/25/2016 03:26 PM, John S wrote:
> On 5/25/2016 11:35 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2016 11:31:17 -0500, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 24 May 2016 16:41:44 -0700, klaus.kragelund wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey
>>>>
>>>> Been trying to find the post with the lossless snubber, with AFAIR a
>>>> capacitor from the drain node to a regenerative point.
>>>>
>>>> I am working on a 2 switch flyback and some other schemes, but would
>>>> like to try that novel idea out....
>>>>
>>>> Anyone knows a pointer to the thread?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Klaus
>>>
>>> I'll have to go look at whatever clever idea I had.  The circuit
>>> ended up
>>> not working but not, I think, because of my inadequate snubbing.
>>>
>>> A circuit that I did not work on directly, but which I know worked well,
>>> was a fairly high-power flyback that just had a diode-capacitor snubber,
>>> but which then had a switcher from the snubber cap's voltage back to the
>>> primary DC rail.  I can't remember whether it was called an active
>>> snubber or a regenerative snubber, but the circuit worked.
>>>
>>> (The company went down the tubes -- it was a startup trying to make a
>>> super-efficient solar panel inverter that did not use electrolytics
>>> anywhere, and would, thus, "last forever".  It was run by someone with a
>>> PhD in engineering, and I'm pretty sure it died due to lack of a sales
>>> and marketing network.)
>>
>> "It was run by someone with a _PhD_ in engineering" _is_ probably why
>> it failed >:-}
>>        
>>                                         ...Jim Thompson
> 
> Why do you have to be so hateful? You're no jewel, yourself.

Jim's just being Jim.  Button pushing is what he does when he's bored,
like so many other denizens of SED.  If he had a Ph.D., he'd be saying
the same about "undereducated engineers" or people who think that a MSEE
makes you a "master" like him. ;)

He used to rag on me like that, until we collaborated on a project. ;)

As far as competence goes, the worst engineer I've ever encountered had
a Ph.D. in "Industrial Engineering", a very nebulous field that (as I
belatedly discovered, to my cost) seems to be a dumping ground for
people who couldn't hack real engineering grad school.

This guy was lead designer for a company that was hired to productize an
instrument proto of mine, one that worked very well but didn't look very
pretty. (*) Among other exploits, he coded up a digital lock-in--in
LabView--using *least squares curve fitting* to pull a sinusoid out of
noisy sampled data, instead of multiply-and-accumulate with N whole
cycles of the sine and cosine of the (known) frequency like a normal
person.  (Turned out he knew zero signals-and-systems.)  To make it
worse, he had a DC restore function that masked the problem to some degree.

Like most crappy detectors, it kinda sorta worked at high SNR, but fell
completely apart at noise levels that a real lock-in wouldn't even have
noticed.  The client (an angel-funded start-up) called me back in at the
11th hour to iron it out, but there were so many onion layers of
crappiness in that project, and the crapmeisters had gone so far over
budget, that they ran out of money before I could find them all.  A
pity--it's still a great gizmo.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

(*) It also used an RC airplane servo to rotate a diffraction grating,
which was fine as long as it had a preload spring.  You do _not_ show
the FDA an instrument made with toy parts. ;)

-- 
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
"master" like him.
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net