To: | [email protected] |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: LF: FET RDS |
From: | Stefan Schäfer <[email protected]> |
Date: | Thu, 13 Jan 2011 23:04:19 +0100 |
In-reply-to: | <1294948612.1430.60.camel@gerhard-desktop> |
References: | <003801cbb33e$8b59e620$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <4929CA3383DD45FCBC44A80A2733B139@PcMinto> <004801cbb34a$5b8ab580$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <1294948612.1430.60.camel@gerhard-desktop> |
Reply-to: | [email protected] |
Sender: | [email protected] |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100711 Thunderbird/3.0.6 |
Hi Gerhard,I know many people using a 1 Ohm to 4.7 Ohm resistor in series when paralleling the FETs. This is to prevent e.g. "oscillations" and is used in SMPS applications, switching at some 10 kHz. In my PAs i never used a gate resistor (they just increase the switching time in my opinion) and never lost a FET by that. I would rather say its important to make the coupling impedance between the driver output and the different gate legs as low-impedant as possible. In my 160m PA is was necessary to use a copper plate the connects the driver and all the 4 gates. But on 137 kHz this is not that problem. A IRFP260N can handle at least 1 kW in a class E PA at 137 kHz, so what do you plan? :-) 73, Stefan Am 13.01.2011 20:56, schrieb Gerhard Hickl: Hello Mal and group! ....."a few in parallel".... My PA is using a single IRFP260N and if I want to put another one "in parallel" is it necessary to "decouple" the gates by two resistors (a few Ohms each) or can the gates be paralleled directly? I would prefer the decoupling with separate gate resistors but is it essential? 73 es tnx OE3GHB Gerhard Am Donnerstag, den 13.01.2011, 17:50 +0000 schrieb mal hamilton:Minto One approach is to use a few in parallel like they do in plasma tv's but there must then be other considerations to hinder the application. mal/g3kev ----- Original Message ----- From: "Minto Witteveen"<[email protected]> To:<[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 5:42 PM Subject: Re: LF: FET RDSYup that is correct. High(er) voltage fets usually have the higher RDS-on values... Tradeoff based on physics... I started my 500-600 Watts 500 KHz transverter with two IRFP360's in parallel. Later I switched to IXFH26N50 (cheaper at EUR 1 a piece and slightlybetterthan the IRFP360). The IXFH26N50 has a VDSS of 500 Volts, and a RDS-on of 0.23 Ohms and an Id of 25A. With two of these in parallel the efficiency is> 90%. DC supply is (max)54Volts. Peak voltage on the drains is somewhere around max 250 Volts. So I might search for Fets with a somewhat lower RDSon and a lower max voltage, but these fets are indestructible in my setup, they survive open and short-circuited antennas without a problem for several minutes until heat becomes a problem. For more info wrt my setup see www.pa3bca.nl Regards, Minto pa3bca (500 KHz in PA idle at the moment, alas...) From: mal hamilton Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 17:25 To: rsgb Subject: LF: FET RDS LF/MF It seems to me if you are working with low V high current FETS the RDSseemsreasonable 0.02 for example but when a High V low current device is needtheRDS of these devices seem to be around 0.4 considerably higher. therefore the efficiency of the amplifier will never reach the 90% plusthatsome claim. I stripped a plasma tv recently and found banks of FETS (6 per bank) and wondered why the application neederd so many and have come to theconclusionthat because of the high RDS lots were required in parallel to reduce the losses. Maybe there are low RDS fets about that will handle several hundred voltsatmodest currents ie 10A at 1000 volts Room for thought de mal/g3kev |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: LF: FET RDS, Stefan Schäfer |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: LF: FET RDS, Minto Witteveen |
Previous by Thread: | Re: LF: FET RDS, Gerhard Hickl |
Next by Thread: | LF: XR4TN WSPR updates, Andy - KU4XR |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |