DimaKilani
Member level 1
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2014
- Messages
- 39
- Helped
- 0
- Reputation
- 0
- Reaction score
- 0
- Trophy points
- 1,286
- Activity points
- 1,648
You are asking about the efficiency measurement, not for opinions about the circuit design. In so far, yes the measurement is right. Because Vin is constant, Pin calculation can be further simplified to Vin*avg(Iin). For an exact efficiency determination, you may want to include the clock driver supply current.So, in order to calculate the input power efficiency, I used the 1/T*integral (V*I). if we think about the integral, it means the area under the curve. this means that some negative values of the input power will cancel the positive values. and that will affect the power efficiency. Am afraid about this point.
Your schematic is a little fuzzy so it's hard to read, but I suspect that any negative current spikes are due to capacitive coupling from the drive signals. What is the magnitude and duration of the negative spikes?
Absolute value and it's average have no physical meaning in this case. You are looking for average current which corresponds to the average input power.what about if I took the absolute value of the input current? I took the abs(Iin), that actually will increase the input power and decrease the power efficiency.
You shouldn't worry about it. I assume there will be negative current spikes in the real circuit, but also a bypass capacitor that filters current spikes.In other words, can I have negative current when testing the SC converter as IC ? or it just appears in the simulation only ?
* When I get inexplicable current flows in a simulation, it is often cured by reducing the time step.
* There is a chance the simulator may (mistakenly) overlap clock transitions on capacitors. They can discharge slightly during that iteration.
* The simulator may not care about tiny currents in the nA range, and will say 'we did enough iterations, the circuit has converged, let's call the frame done.'
* Is there any load attached? The slightest load will keep the supply providing positive current.
In looking at that circuit, it seems that with ideal no-loss switches, the efficiency would approach 100% for loads approaching zero Amps. It looks like it is designed to produce a voltage that is exactly 2/3 of the battery voltage. The lower two capacitors will both charge up to 1/3 of Vbatt and the upper capacitor will charge to 2/3 of Vbatt during phase 1. Then during phase 2, the lower two capacitors will be connected in series to produce 2/3 Vbatt and this combination will be placed in parallel with the upper capacitor, which also is at 2/3 of Vbatt. Everything is so well balanced that no current needs to flow when there is no load.here it is
View attachment 101742
- - - Updated - - -
gate are re[laced by NMOS and PMOS transistor
- - - Updated - - -
sorry, I mean the switches are replaced by PMOS and NMOS transistor
The term gate "leakage" involves an average current through the gate. Do you actually see a leakage current? As far as I remember your previously posted circuit and related measurements, you have been reporting pulsating currents but not specifically leakage currents.
In looking at that circuit, it seems that with ideal no-loss switches, the efficiency would approach 100% for loads approaching zero Amps. It looks like it is designed to produce a voltage that is exactly 2/3 of the battery voltage. The lower two capacitors will both charge up to 1/3 of Vbatt and the upper capacitor will charge to 2/3 of Vbatt during phase 1. Then during phase 2, the lower two capacitors will be connected in series to produce 2/3 Vbatt and this combination will be placed in parallel with the upper capacitor, which also is at 2/3 of Vbatt. Everything is so well balanced that no current needs to flow when there is no load.
Notice also that this circuit, all by itself, does not produce a DC voltage. It still needs some filter caps. Since you have not shown any way for power to be wasted (other than imperfect switching), I don't see how you expect to find any meaningfull calculation of efficiency with a simulation.
The term gate "leakage" involves an average current through the gate. Do you actually see a leakage current? As far as I remember your previously posted circuit and related measurements, you have been reporting pulsating currents but not specifically leakage currents.
Are you driving the gates so that they are sometimes forward biased? If so, that is your problem. The gate of an enhancement mode FET must always be driven to either the same voltage as the source pin, or else in the direction of enhancement with respect to the souce pin. If you can't ensure that, the gate will take current, and it is not considered "leakage". It is considered forward biased, and it is improper design.Does choosing the type of transistor affect the leakage ? I mean I used PMOS and NMOS and replaced randomly instead of the ideal switches ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?