Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-di01.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 4861138000093; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 11:44:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1UPagr-0001Tj-Ii for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 09 Apr 2013 16:42:33 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1UPagr-0001Ta-43 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 09 Apr 2013 16:42:33 +0100 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de ([129.206.100.212]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1UPagp-0004DH-1J for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 09 Apr 2013 16:42:32 +0100 Received: from freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.29.204]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id r39Fg9tD020634 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:42:09 +0200 Received: from [129.206.22.206] (pc206.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.22.206]) by freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.11.20060308/8.11.2) with ESMTP id r39Fg9mV002475 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:42:09 +0200 Message-ID: <516436CC.1090606@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 17:42:04 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Stefan_Sch=E4fer?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <5164092A.3090803@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -3.1 (---) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi Warren, What is the value of the shunt resistor? 73, Stefan [...] Content analysis details: (-3.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [129.206.100.212 listed in list.dnswl.org] -2.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: f3d1da032404cd5ad9531631c09e3b44 Subject: Re: LF: Re: Hall Effect for Over-current shutdown? Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070101000906040507070507" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false x-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1da6055164374a0a29 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070101000906040507070507 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by relay.uni-heidelberg.de id r39Fg9tD020634 Hi Warren, What is the value of the shunt resistor? 73, Stefan Am 09.04.2013 17:00, schrieb Warren Ziegler: > Hi Stefan, > > I think you are advocating higher voltage and lower current to=20 > decrease loss in the FET due to the on resistance which is a good idea. > > But what I am looking for is for over-current protection which would=20 > be valuable in any class-D design regardless of the choice of FETs. As=20 > Alan has pointed out the wrong output impedance can cause the amp to=20 > draw large currents. I am now using a current sense resistor but I was=20 > thinking that Hall Effect might be more efficient. > > 73 Warren > > > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Stefan Sch=E4fer=20 > > wrote: > > Hi Warren, > > Instead of spending to much effort to the current sensing my > advice is to use other FETs. A 500 V FET at 30 V supply voltage is > a heavy waste of power in the on resistance. For 30 V and a class > D, try e.g. a IRFP3710 > > or IRFP150N > > . That should work much better. > > 73, Stefan/DK7FC > --------------070101000906040507070507 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Warren,

What is the value of the shunt resistor?

73, Stefan

Am 09.04.2013 17:00, schrieb Warren Ziegler:
Hi Stefan,

     I think you are advocating higher voltage and lower current to decrease loss in the FET due to the on resistance which is a good idea.

But  what I am looking for is for  over-current protection which would be valuable in any class-D design regardless of the choice of FETs. As Alan has pointed out the wrong output impedance can cause the amp to draw large currents. I am now using a current sense resistor but I was thinking that Hall Effect might be more efficient.

73 Warren



On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Stefan Schäfer <Stefan.Schaefer@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
Hi Warren,

Instead of spending to much effort to the current sensing my advice is to use other FETs. A 500 V FET at 30 V supply voltage is a heavy waste of power in the on resistance. For 30 V and a class D, try e.g. a IRFP3710 or IRFP150N . That should work much better.

73, Stefan/DK7FC
--------------070101000906040507070507--