Is it interesting in what way?
The startup and shutdown spikes are an issue and I'm still working on figuring out a way to mitigate them based on suggestions I've gotten but haven't had much time for it lately so I'm not quite there yet. I've tried asking about this here but the only real response I got was that the design was shit and I should just buy off the shelf. Works fairly well for my needs, and other than the spikes, does what it was designed to do.
Oddly enough we recently had a discussion over on Tektronix list about a circuit that may have been included in their TM500 series PS-503 power supplies by a thoughtful designer to prevent output glitches during start up and shut down. Take a look at Q15 and Q115 on the PS-503 schematic.I'm assuming this (http://www.ko4bb.com/Manuals/Tektronix/Tektronix_-_TM-500_Series/Tektronix_-_PS-503A/tek-ps503a.pdf) is the manual you're referring to, or at least similar enough in the schematic to use as a basis for study? I immediately spotted Q15-Q115 in the schematic but the quote is from the "Power Line Regulation" section 5-2 starting on page 27 at the bottom. The way it's worded makes it sounds like it's a feature for when the supply is in dual tracking mode. Either way, it's a solution that bears looking into, much appreciated.
From the theory section in the PS-503 manual:
Q15 and associated components make up a shut-down equalizer circuit. When the TM-500 series power module power switch is turned off, or power fails, the shut-down equalizer circuit will cause the supply (+ or -) that has the lightest load to reduce its output voltage to prevent spiking of the lightly loaded supply as the filter capacitor is discharged.
That looks like the design that Quasar electronics (http://www.quasarelectronics.co.uk/) sell as a kit. I built one many years ago (probably 15 years) and it seemed to work ok though I don't think I ever looked at the output transients at the time!Yep, I just looked it up (http://www.quasarelectronics.co.uk/Item/smart-kit-1138-stabilised-power-supply-with-current-control-0-30vdc-3a) and the schematic in this (http://www.quasarelectronics.co.uk/kit-files/smart-kit/1138.pdf) manual is identical to the original project (http://www.electronics-lab.com/projects/power/001/index.html) that was reworked to solve a lot of the issues the first builders had with underrated components.
I'm assuming this (http://www.ko4bb.com/Manuals/Tektronix/Tektronix_-_TM-500_Series/Tektronix_-_PS-503A/tek-ps503a.pdf) is the manual you're referring to, or at least similar enough in the schematic to use as a basis for study? I immediately spotted Q15-Q115 in the schematic but the quote is from the "Power Line Regulation" section 5-2 starting on page 27 at the bottom. The way it's worded makes it sounds like it's a feature for when the supply is in dual tracking mode. Either way, it's a solution that bears looking into, much appreciated.
I thought it might have something to do with being in dual tracking mode because Q15 is a 2N2222A and Q115 is a 2N2907A and their tied together in an odd way (at least to me) between the positive and negative supplies. I'm having a hard time seeing where this could tie into the above posted circuit. U45 is in the voltage loop and U55 is in the current loop but their configuration seems to differ a bit from the above schematic. Given that U45 outputs to Q85 irrespective of U55 which seems to correspond to Q2 I'd assume a test could be done by tying a variation of this into pin 6 of U2 out to ground.I'm assuming this (http://www.ko4bb.com/Manuals/Tektronix/Tektronix_-_TM-500_Series/Tektronix_-_PS-503A/tek-ps503a.pdf) is the manual you're referring to, or at least similar enough in the schematic to use as a basis for study? I immediately spotted Q15-Q115 in the schematic but the quote is from the "Power Line Regulation" section 5-2 starting on page 27 at the bottom. The way it's worded makes it sounds like it's a feature for when the supply is in dual tracking mode. Either way, it's a solution that bears looking into, much appreciated.
That is the one. Their PS-501 power supply is similar but only has one side and lacks the Q15/Q115 circuit or I would have suggested it instead.
The designs for the PS-503 and the one you asked about use similar voltage and current control loops or-ed together with diodes. The PS-503 clamp circuit works on that same point to pull the output down preventing glitches which is why I mentioned it.
There is no relationship to dual tracking mode. The positive and negative supplies share a common ground and may be operated independently or with tracking. The Q15/Q115 clamp circuit operates on both no matter how they are configured.
I thought it might have something to do with being in dual tracking mode because Q15 is a 2N2222A and Q115 is a 2N2907A and their tied together in an odd way (at least to me) between the positive and negative supplies. I'm having a hard time seeing where this could tie into the above posted circuit. U45 is in the voltage loop and U55 is in the current loop but their configuration seems to differ a bit from the above schematic. Given that U45 outputs to Q85 irrespective of U55 which seems to correspond to Q2 I'd assume a test could be done by tying a variation of this into pin 6 of U2 out to ground.
I just realized that Q1 in the original schematic serves this very function. Now I'm wondering why it was ever removed.
I wonder why ther'es no minum load on the output ?,R12 is to big and doesnt count. usually emitter follower type Vregs benefit alot or even require a minumum current to maintain a decent regulation performace when sourcing low output currents <10mA . Thinking about it this is what a bench supply probably spends most of it's life doing with todays low power electronics devices. Would be interesting to see how it's performing at low output load currents .Do you have a sim available .?
The original op amps used were TL081's, the new version uses TLE2141's. I have a third supply sitting here that I was testing out for another member from the other forum and I think I'll hack Q1 back in and see how it performs. I really appreciate you pointing me to the PS-503, that made the light bulb go off when I started looking at it. If it works, I'll probably re-design the circuit once more and put things to rights.
Like most bench supplies, the minimum load requirement for this design only matters if collector leakage of the pass transistors is high which is possible but usually not a problem.
Like most bench supplies, the minimum load requirement for this design only matters if collector leakage of the pass transistors is high which is possible but usually not a problem.
Hi there David .
For me it's more of a problem of output impedance increasing at such low output currents and causing the load pole to move down in frequency .You can see it clearly in loop gain /phase plots of followers under light load ,but then when you do a transient response performance test you still get really good performance , even though now the loop phase margin has reduce to only a couple of degrees. Its good proof that source/emitter followers make such good inherant V regulators that even with a crappy loop at a 3 deg phase margin you still get great transient load/line performance . (if I get time over the weekend I will post a few plots showing exactly what I mean).Here In this slow static type supply it doesnt seem to be a big prob . but i bet would cause you trouble though if you ever wanted a dynamic V supply ,or in some other senario I havent yet thought about .:)
Just had another quick look at this schematic shows another more serious prob with the way the current sense amp U3 is controlling the pass transitor via U2 .This is not going to be stable since these two amps alone without any other poles will cause a close to a 180 phase shift (each contributing nearly 90 each in the way they are configured).
I tried simulating a similar setup and it was totally unstable in cc mode most of the time spice wouldnt even sim it .if your CC stays stable under most load then i'm a monkeys uncle. :)
The way to do it would be to let U3 control Q2 directly .(so the anode of D9 goes to the base of Q2 .And you put a 3K ish resistor on the output of U2 ,enabling U3 to directly pull Q2 base drive down.
Alternative would be to make U3 very low fixed gain( flat response so no phase shift)
but I prefer the former way.
If I feel like it this week ,I will post the quick spice analysis sometime .
Regards
p.s Correction ,when I said both opamps contribute 90 deg ,I was mistaken, the second opamp U2 only behaves like a follower to U3's input so contributes no gain or phase shift .I was to sloppy with my quick generic sim ,,but that still looks iffy loop . It's got no phase margin and it's teetering right on the brink and starts oscillating under slight changes .
Perhaps I or someone will do a more thourough sim this weekend.
We've solved it. The new 2141's don't suffer from this, you are correct. Audioguru over at e-lab was working with me on this so pin 4 stays at the revised ground point with R10 ...
I was getting 7.6V until he suggested I may have the collector and emitter reversed. Apparently the datasheet I referred to for the pinouts was different than the 2222A I was using. Radio Shack parts, go figure. I don't think I've been this happy to have figured something out in my life. I've also learned that I hate working with surface mount components.
Just wait until you reverse the collect and emitter of a bipolar transistor and the circuit works better.I can't even begin to imagine a scenario where this would be apparent to me in any way.
That is right. I did not examine the offset voltage correction circuit carefully because it is not needed; I would have left it out. On the TLE2141, it is suppose to connect to the negative supply.
Dont forget D10 and that R15 (or some scheme) for your Q2 Veb(max)protection liquid .The guy that did the revision seemed to think that these parts really didn't add anything to the circuit.
R15 was removed because it didn't do anything useful and it wasted valuable output drive voltage. D10 also never did anything and still doesn't do anything.I've posted over there about it but I can't imagine that it was in the original circuit for no reason, someone thought it important enough to include.
Heres a little experiment for you .Dont forget D10 and that R15 (or some scheme) for your Q2 Veb(max)protection liquid .The guy that did the revision seemed to think that these parts really didn't add anything to the circuit.
Go get a known good bjt comparable to Q2 and measure it's HFE then pass a ~10ma reverse current through the Veb junction for a just a few seconds then remeasure it's gain afterwards .(Vbe breakdown at ~ 7V- so in your supply you would get about ~ 7mA through 1k R16 and Q2 junction if you connect a ~13.8V battery to your supply output and turn your V setting down ) .
I think the gain stops reducing when it reduces to a certain point but how low it goes is probably variable between devices and depends on reverse current.
A little extra math shows that once more than 7mA is flowing through R16(1k) and Q2 then you will have enough drop between the emitters and bases of Q5 and Q4 for them to also start breaking down (so a voltage of >~ 15V applied to the output will be enough to damage all you pass bjt's ).
Just wait until you reverse the collect and emitter of a bipolar transistor and the circuit works better.I can't even begin to imagine a scenario where this would be apparent to me in any way.
Pin 3 Pin 6
30V 36.75 36.6
25V 33.06 32
20V 29 28
15V 23.56 23
10V 16.23 16.69
5V 7.95 8.56
3.3V 5.49 5.6
2V 3.6 3.9
1.5V 3.2 3.4
1.2V 3 2.8
1V 2.7 2.6
.8V 2.2 2.2
.5V 1.6 1.5
.2V .9 .3
.1V .36 .3
0V Too small and quick to see (39.2mV == 0)
I don't understand op amps enough to know what phase reversal really is. Q1 definitely has had an effect on the transient spikes which is what we're trying to mitigate along with some ringing that was observed. I'm just beginning to understand some of this and, most assuredly, don't understand all of it.
At this point I kind of wish that I'd just bought a supply. I could have gotten something decent to use and done this one later.
Thanks for the explaination. The reason for not pulling pin 3 below ground through Q1 though. That actually makes more sense now. I'm going to find reading material now.I don't understand op amps enough to know what phase reversal really is. Q1 definitely has had an effect on the transient spikes which is what we're trying to mitigate along with some ringing that was observed. I'm just beginning to understand some of this and, most assuredly, don't understand all of it.
Phase reversal means that when the input voltage range is exceeded, the output reverses. In extreme cases, this can cause the operational amplifier to latch up and even fail. In modern operational amplifiers which suffer this problem, it usually comes about when either the inverting or non-inverting input is pulled too close to ground or below ground causing the output to shift to the positive rail.
Page 11 of the LT1055 datasheet has a pretty good explanation:
http://www.linear.com/docs/2885 (http://www.linear.com/docs/2885)
The ubiquitous LM324, LM358, and the TL071 and TL081 series all suffer from this problem.
I have begun to see patterns in circuits even when they're arranged differently so I guess that's a good thing. I just wish my math were better.QuoteAt this point I kind of wish that I'd just bought a supply. I could have gotten something decent to use and done this one later.
You would not have learned as much though. Maybe we need a simplified modern lab power supply design that has been thoroughly vetted for problems.
Thanks for the explaination. The reason for not pulling pin 3 below ground through Q1 though. That actually makes more sense now. I'm going to find reading material now.
Maybe we need a simplified modern lab power supply design that has been thoroughly vetted for problems.While I am trying to learn, these guys are light years ahead of me on this subject so I'll defer to them.
I can add that I did add Q1 with the voltage divider across the base into one of my supplies and that it is working very well except that I'd recommend not having anything sensitive hooked up to it on power on. There is still a P1 voltage dependent spike happening when the power is switched on.
There is some question as to RV1 even being needed as well. I can state that on my version it does nothing measurable even though it's supposed to zero the voltage and I'll probably remove it going forward based on the testing this (http://diyfan.blogspot.com/2012/02/adjustable-lab-power-supply.html) guy did with his version which also has Q1 I might add.
I can tell you this does work, I have two of them in one case and use them. I never turn them on hooked up to a circuit unless I'm absolutely sure the components are rated above what the spike produces. At 30V, you'll get a 36-37V spike. At 12V, you'll get a 19-20V spike. At 3.3V, you'll get a 5-6V spike. If you can live with this, build yourself one. The nice part is that the components are reusable if you decide to go with something else. The transformer, pots, and pass transistors doubly so.
Value Qty Part Number Each Total
0.47 16W =1 (A102127-ND) $3.06 $3.06
2.2K 2W =1 (RSMF2JT2K20CT-ND) $0.43 $0.43
82 2W =1 (RSMF2JT82R0CT-ND) $0.43 $0.43
0.33 2W =2 (RSF2JTR330CT-ND) $0.56 $1.12
1.5K 1W =1 (RSF1JT1K50CT-ND) $0.35 $0.10
220 1/2W =1 (CF12JT220RCT-ND) $0.14 $0.14
68 1/4W =1 (CF14JT68R0CT-ND) $0.10 $0.10
150 1/4W =1 (RNF14FTD150RCT-ND) $0.15 $0.15
1K 1/4W =3 (CF14JT1K00CT-ND) $0.10 $0.30
2.2K 1/4W =2 (CF14JT2K20CT-ND) $0.10 $0.20
10K 1/4W =5 (CF14JT10K0CT-ND) $0.10 $0.50
27K 1/4W =2 (CF14JT27K0CT-ND) $0.10 $0.20
33K 1/4W =1 (CF14JT33K0CT-ND) $0.10 $0.10
56K 1/4W =1 (CF14JT56K0CT-ND) $0.10 $0.10
Total = $7.18
5K trimmer =1 (3296W-502LF-ND) $2.41 $2.41
20K trimmer =1 (3296W-203LF-ND) $2.41 $2.41
100K trimmer =1 (3296W-104LF-ND) $2.41 $2.41
10K 10 turn pot =2 (987-1523-ND) $11.99 $23.98
Total = $31.21
15000uF 63V =1 (399-5658-ND) $16.04 $16.04
47uF 50V =2 (ESW476M100AH2AA) $0.48 $0.96
10uF 50V Film =1 (399-5999-ND) $2.70 $2.70
220nF film =1 (399-6037-ND) $0.30 $0.30
100nF film =2 (399-5861-ND) $0.22 $0.44
330pF ceramic =1 (399-4173-ND) $0.40 $0.40
100pF ceramic =2 (399-9707-ND) $0.44 $0.88
Total = $21.72
6-10A 50V =1 (GBPC15005FS-ND) $2.86 $2.86
1N4148 =6 (1N4148TACT-ND) $0.10 $0.60
1N4001 =1 (1N4001FSCT-ND) $0.18 $0.18
BZX79C5V6 =1 (BZX79C5V6-ND) $0.13 $0.13
BZX85C10 =1 (BZX85C10-ND) $0.22 $0.22
LED =1 (365-1189-ND) $0.14 $0.14
Total = $4.13
2N4401 =1 (2N4401-ND) $0.22 $0.22
BC557 =1 (BC557BGOS-ND) $0.38 $0.38
BD139 =1 (BD13910S-ND) $0.46 $0.46
2N3055 =2 (2N3055GOS-ND) $2.34 $4.68
TLE2141 =3 (296-10456-5-ND) $1.81 $5.43
Total = $11.17
28V 4.6A 130VA =1 (237-1281-ND) $27.34 $27.34
Grand Total = $102.75
$102.75, HOLY CRAP!!!That's the thing I'm trying to fix.I can add that I did add Q1 with the voltage divider across the base into one of my supplies and that it is working very well except that I'd recommend not having anything sensitive hooked up to it on power on. There is still a P1 voltage dependent spike happening when the power is switched on.
If the voltage spike is above the set voltage, then something is wrong. I would find such behavior in a power supply unacceptable.
It's around 35 millivolts actually, not that it ever bothered me. RV1, according to audioguru over there, was supposed to be able to take the output to true zero. It doesn't.QuoteThere is some question as to RV1 even being needed as well. I can state that on my version it does nothing measurable even though it's supposed to zero the voltage and I'll probably remove it going forward based on the testing this (http://diyfan.blogspot.com/2012/02/adjustable-lab-power-supply.html) guy did with his version which also has Q1 I might add.
RV1 works through the operational amplifiers offset adjustment pins. In most power supplies, the effect from the error amplifier's offset voltage is insignificant. Further, if the offset voltage adjustment is used to remove other sources of offset, it will likely degrade the error amplifier's offset voltage drift although again, in most power supplies that will be an insignificant effect.
Who cares if the 0 to 30 volt power supply can only go down to 15 millivolts instead of 0 millivolts?
I agree, it's unacceptable as it stands. I'm attempting to learn enough to fix it though. To be honest, I'm not even sure where it's coming from. I have a hunch that it's got something to do with the transformer inrush but I always thought that the filter caps helped there. I could be way off though, I'm a newbie. What I don't get is that people have been talking about this design since 2003 and no one has noticed this enough to fix it. They've blown up plenty of TL081's though, which is why it was redesigned with the 2141's from what I understand.QuoteI can tell you this does work, I have two of them in one case and use them. I never turn them on hooked up to a circuit unless I'm absolutely sure the components are rated above what the spike produces. At 30V, you'll get a 36-37V spike. At 12V, you'll get a 19-20V spike. At 3.3V, you'll get a 5-6V spike. If you can live with this, build yourself one. The nice part is that the components are reusable if you decide to go with something else. The transformer, pots, and pass transistors doubly so.
That is outrageous. I would consider the design broken if it produced a start-up or shut-down output spike like that.
RV1 works through the operational amplifiers offset adjustment pins. In most power supplies, the effect from the error amplifier's offset voltage is insignificant. Further, if the offset voltage adjustment is used to remove other sources of offset, it will likely degrade the error amplifier's offset voltage drift although again, in most power supplies that will be an insignificant effect.It's around 35 millivolts actually, not that it ever bothered me. RV1, according to audioguru over there, was supposed to be able to take the output to true zero. It doesn't.
Who cares if the 0 to 30 volt power supply can only go down to 15 millivolts instead of 0 millivolts?
I agree, it's unacceptable as it stands. I'm attempting to learn enough to fix it though. To be honest, I'm not even sure where it's coming from. I have a hunch that it's got something to do with the transformer inrush but I always thought that the filter caps helped there. I could be way off though, I'm a newbie. What I don't get is that people have been talking about this design since 2003 and no one has noticed this enough to fix it. They've blown up plenty of TL081's though, which is why it was redesigned with the 2141's from what I understand.QuoteI can tell you this does work, I have two of them in one case and use them. I never turn them on hooked up to a circuit unless I'm absolutely sure the components are rated above what the spike produces. At 30V, you'll get a 36-37V spike. At 12V, you'll get a 19-20V spike. At 3.3V, you'll get a 5-6V spike. If you can live with this, build yourself one. The nice part is that the components are reusable if you decide to go with something else. The transformer, pots, and pass transistors doubly so.
That is outrageous. I would consider the design broken if it produced a start-up or shut-down output spike like that.
I'd like to sim the circut but I suck at spice because I get absolutely lost. That and I could never find a model for the 2141.
One thing I would try which is part of the PS-503 design is to add a low current preload from the output to the low voltage negative bias supply. A 6.8k resistor would be about right.You just lost me here. I've tried several times to formulate the right question but you really lost me at output. My mind wants to think of output as pin 6 on one of the op amps but I can also think of it as output of the power supply. Honestly, my mind also wants to think "low voltage negative bias supply" means U3 and I think that corresponds to U55 but I'm not seeing the equivalent pre-load in the service manual. I think if I just start hooking a 6.8K resistor to various outputs and different pins of U3 I'm going to blow something up or at least damage it past the point of working right and make tracking down the problem even worse.
One thing I would try which is part of the PS-503 design is to add a low current preload from the output to the low voltage negative bias supply. A 6.8k resistor would be about right.You just lost me here. I've tried several times to formulate the right question but you really lost me at output. My mind wants to think of output as pin 6 on one of the op amps but I can also think of it as output of the power supply. Honestly, my mind also wants to think "low voltage negative bias supply" means U3 and I think that corresponds to U55 but I'm not seeing the equivalent pre-load in the service manual. I think if I just start hooking a 6.8K resistor to various outputs and different pins of U3 I'm going to blow something up or at least damage it past the point of working right and make tracking down the problem even worse.
I mean the PS-503 has a preload on the output of the power supply although you have to look hard to find it. The preload resistors are R85 and R192 and attached directly to the emitters and collectors of the output transistors and go to the opposite bias supply.I thought those might be it but wasn't sure.
On yours, the resistor would connect directly from the output of the power supply to the -5 volt bias supply which powers the operational amplifiers.Still not doing anything to mitigate the spikes. I've also tried with a 1K to load it more because I'm measuring -1.5V and not -5V but still not making a dent in my readings. I've been testing at 10V to make seeing things and the mental math easier, both between what my meter is seeing and what my scope is seeing. I'm getting a consistent 7V spike at that 10V. I'm starting to think that this circuit is just plain failure and not a whole lot can be done about it. It's a shame really because other than the transient on power up, the rest of it works rather well.
I've been testing at 10V to make seeing things and the mental math easier, both between what my meter is seeing and what my scope is seeing. I'm getting a consistent 7V spike at that 10V. I'm starting to think that this circuit is just plain failure and not a whole lot can be done about it. It's a shame really because other than the transient on power up, the rest of it works rather well.
What does the output of U2 do at startup?With the output set at 10 volts, pin 3 sits at 3.74 volts. When I measure during power on at pin 3 the voltage rises to 6.3 volts before falling back to 3.74 volts. The same thing happens at the inverting input.
What does the non-inverting input of U2 do at startup?
With the output set to 10 volts, I get a spike up to 17 volts before falling back to 10 volts as it stabilizes. Since I don't have a DSO, I can only eye it but it looks like this happens over about a half of a second. It's hard to eye it but I have the scope set at 50mS and it looks like it spans between 5 and 7 cm before it settles. Keep in mind that this scope is an old Conar 255 that I haven't calibrated but it does seem to agree with my meter more or less.QuoteI've been testing at 10V to make seeing things and the mental math easier, both between what my meter is seeing and what my scope is seeing. I'm getting a consistent 7V spike at that 10V. I'm starting to think that this circuit is just plain failure and not a whole lot can be done about it. It's a shame really because other than the transient on power up, the rest of it works rather well.
I am confused about this. With the output set to 10 volts you get a 17 volt spike or it spikes at 7 volts before rising to 10 volts?
What does the output of U2 do at startup?With the output set at 10 volts, pin 3 sits at 3.74 volts. When I measure during power on at pin 3 the voltage rises to 6.3 volts before falling back to 3.74 volts. The same thing happens at the inverting input.
What does the non-inverting input of U2 do at startup?
Pin 6 outputs 10.65 volts. On power on I get 17.65 volts.
That answers that then. The output from U1 is actually the problem.I've added a 0.1uF ceramic across D8 but I'm still getting about 16.7 volts on startup before it settles back to 10 volts. I have a jar of many values of ceramics from 1pF to 100nF that I got off Ebay (http://www.ebay.com/itm/360902329248?_trksid=p2059210.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT) for doing just this kind of thing.
The inverting input should follow the non-inverting input if the operational amplifier is acting as an operational amplifier.
My WAG (wild ass guess) is that U1 operating open loop during startup before D8 conducts results in overshoot caused by windup of its internal compensation capacitor. If U1 had a negative offset voltage, then I think it could latch off but we need not worry about that since it is not happening at the moment. In a production design I would want to test for that.
Try adding a capacitor across D8. I am not sure what the value should be but a .1 microfarad ceramic or film would be a good place to start. This will force U1 to operate closed loop during startup and lower noise from the reference as a side effect.
You could try a larger capacitor across D8.I tried several from around 0.1uF up to 2.2uF with no luck. Removed C4 but nothing changed.
Try removing C4.
You could try a larger capacitor across D8.I tried several from around 0.1uF up to 2.2uF with no luck. Removed C4 but nothing changed.
Try removing C4.
I've tried measuring across C1 to see if something is going on from there and I get 61 volts initially settling to 43 volts. Could this be what's causing this? Would there be a way to limit this initial inrush to 44 volts tops by using a TVS or something?
What kinds of bad effects do keeping op amps towards their upper supply limit cause?
I was told that everything was within tolerance and not to worry. Something still kept bugging me about it but since many people had built these and they supposedly worked, I built mine. I guess not many people have really tested the design until now.
What if I were to use an op amp that had a bit higher limits, say ±48 volt such as this (http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/opa604.pdf) one or this (http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/opa445.pdf) one? The characteristics are similar and it would put me a few more volts above my input voltage giving a tad more headroom if I can contain the initial surge from the transformer. Pinout is identical. The first one has closer specs I believe but the latter has a higher supply voltage range. I'd really like to solve this but I'm not entirely sure it can be done without a significant redesign.
I have a feeling that I'm going to be looking for something different to build soon. I wanted to build this so that I could get the ±15 volts to start learning more about op amps and I find it ironic that I don't have a supply that can to help solve this issue. Can you recommend something to be on the lookout for on Ebay, dual tracking perhaps or at least cheap enough to get two and use in series?
I did notice that even though it's rated at a 44 or ±22 volt max, datasheets often suggest much lower. I couldn't find anything in this one about that and had assumed with the assurances that things would be ok even towards the upper limitWhat kinds of bad effects do keeping op amps towards their upper supply limit cause?
They become generally unreliable and more likely to fail. Often they immediately fail if you exceed the maximum rating by just a couple volts.
That's what has me so worried about suggesting this supply to anyone to build and use. Theory differs from reality most days that I'm aware of.QuoteI was told that everything was within tolerance and not to worry. Something still kept bugging me about it but since many people had built these and they supposedly worked, I built mine. I guess not many people have really tested the design until now.
The design assumes that the unregulated supply is not spiking above 44 (or 36) volts when power is applied.
Noted. I didn't think about the single supply feature on the 2141.QuoteWhat if I were to use an op amp that had a bit higher limits, say ±48 volt such as this (http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/opa604.pdf) one or this (http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/opa445.pdf) one? The characteristics are similar and it would put me a few more volts above my input voltage giving a tad more headroom if I can contain the initial surge from the transformer. Pinout is identical. The first one has closer specs I believe but the latter has a higher supply voltage range. I'd really like to solve this but I'm not entirely sure it can be done without a significant redesign.
Neither of those are single supply amplifiers so they will require about a -5 volt supply to operate correctly in this circuit. The opa445 is fast and would probably require frequency compensation.
In your opinion, what sort of wattage should I be looking out for? D13 is rated at 1W but I'm thinking I'd need 3W or better but I could be wrong.QuoteI have a feeling that I'm going to be looking for something different to build soon. I wanted to build this so that I could get the ±15 volts to start learning more about op amps and I find it ironic that I don't have a supply that can to help solve this issue. Can you recommend something to be on the lookout for on Ebay, dual tracking perhaps or at least cheap enough to get two and use in series?
The input voltage surge problem would be easy enough to fix with a 33 or 36 volt zener shunt regulator on the positive supply to the operational amplifiers. This would be similar to the shunt regulator used to generate the negative supply.
Old Power Designs, HP, and Tektronix power supplies are pretty good. Full documentation makes them relatively easy to repair and maintain.I had looked for some Power Designs stuff but Ebay got eevblog'ed and everything went through the roof when folks here started buying them. I'll set up a few watches and see if I can come up with a deal or two.
I did notice that even though it's rated at a 44 or ±22 volt max, datasheets often suggest much lower. I couldn't find anything in this one about that and had assumed with the assurances that things would be ok even towards the upper limit.What kinds of bad effects do keeping op amps towards their upper supply limit cause?
They become generally unreliable and more likely to fail. Often they immediately fail if you exceed the maximum rating by just a couple volts.
QuoteNeither of those are single supply amplifiers so they will require about a -5 volt supply to operate correctly in this circuit. The opa445 is fast and would probably require frequency compensation.Noted. I didn't think about the single supply feature on the 2141.
The input voltage surge problem would be easy enough to fix with a 33 or 36 volt zener shunt regulator on the positive supply to the operational amplifiers. This would be similar to the shunt regulator used to generate the negative supply.
Single supply operation is not necessary if a negative bias supply is used. As a general rule, single supply operational amplifiers compromise other characteristics so it is better to use dual supply operational amplifiers if feasible.I think they went with the 2141 as a better fit with the redesign considering it's supposed to do 0-30V @ 0-3A. One of the things that I've heard is that a 30V supply isn't really necessary but I went with this one to have some overhead. After struggling with this and having learned a few things, I'm going to get some reading material and try to design my own and see how it works out. I figure 15V should be enough and the two you mentioned above should be a good starting point.
Nothing in a general purpose power supply requires anything better than a 301 or 741 type of operational amplifier. I like using OP-27/LT1007 style amplifiers in precision low noise power supplies.
I would use a 5 watt 36 volt 1N5365 and a 1 watt 180 ohm series resistor.I was actually looking at the 1N5365 @ Digikey earlier but wasn't sure of the wattage rating so I didn't add it to a cart. One thing I don't understand, what would the resistor be for? D13 doesn't seem to need one and it doesn't even get warm.
I think they went with the 2141 as a better fit with the redesign considering it's supposed to do 0-30V @ 0-3A. One of the things that I've heard is that a 30V supply isn't really necessary but I went with this one to have some overhead. After struggling with this and having learned a few things, I'm going to get some reading material and try to design my own and see how it works out. I figure 15V should be enough and the two you mentioned above should be a good starting point.
I would use a 5 watt 36 volt 1N5365 and a 1 watt 180 ohm series resistor.
I was actually looking at the 1N5365 @ Digikey earlier but wasn't sure of the wattage rating so I didn't add it to a cart. One thing I don't understand, what would the resistor be for? D13 doesn't seem to need one and it doesn't even get warm.
I am not sure why they included D13 but it is only dropping the voltage by 10 volts and is not regulating the supply to U3.The way it was explained to me is that since the positive rail is sitting so close to the limit of the op amp and that because they pull the negative rail 1.3V below ground that a voltage drop was required to keep from overloading the op amp.
The zener shunt regulator would be configured the way R3 and D7 are with the series resistor dropping the voltage. 44 volts - 36 volts = 8 volts across the resistor. 8 volts / 180 ohms = 44.5 milliamps. 8 volts * 44.5 milliamps = 356 milliwatts in the resistor and 36 volts * 44.5 milliamps = 1.6 watts in the zener diode.Makes sense. I've got a few other things I'm putting together for another order so I'll add those to the cart. I'm ordering some OP-27's too, I'd like to try my hand at a dual supply from scratch. I've got a question about that by the way. When you build two separate supplies and hook them together in series to get positive/negative, do you have to rate the components in the design higher than if you just used it as a single supply? If so, is there a general rule such as 2x or 2.5x. For instance I build a supply that uses 50V caps, would I have to use 100V caps or even higher? I know there are instances where diodes across the output in a certain configuration is required.
A 3 watt 36 volt 1N5938 could be used as well.
The current in the zener diode is actually lower than 44.5 milliamps by any current that U1 and U2 are drawing.
The zener shunt regulator would be configured the way R3 and D7 are with the series resistor dropping the voltage. 44 volts - 36 volts = 8 volts across the resistor. 8 volts / 180 ohms = 44.5 milliamps. 8 volts * 44.5 milliamps = 356 milliwatts in the resistor and 36 volts * 44.5 milliamps = 1.6 watts in the zener diode.
A 3 watt 36 volt 1N5938 could be used as well.
The current in the zener diode is actually lower than 44.5 milliamps by any current that U1 and U2 are drawing.
Makes sense. I've got a few other things I'm putting together for another order so I'll add those to the cart. I'm ordering some OP-27's too, I'd like to try my hand at a dual supply from scratch.
I've got a question about that by the way. When you build two separate supplies and hook them together in series to get positive/negative, do you have to rate the components in the design higher than if you just used it as a single supply? If so, is there a general rule such as 2x or 2.5x. For instance I build a supply that uses 50V caps, would I have to use 100V caps or even higher? I know there are instances where diodes across the output in a certain configuration is required.
There is nothing wrong with TL081s (The TL071 is or used to be a TL081 graded for low noise.), 741s, and 301As. The lowest cost precision amplifier is probably the OP-07. OP-27s are more expensive and their extra speed may require a more complex design so I would get something working with a cheaper amplifier first. Their added performance is not going to make a difference in a general purpose power supply.I get lost looking at the damned things and the datasheets don't help. I did compare the pricing though and for 10 OP-27's you can get 10 each of the others. I did that instead. I already have a few LM358's that I got from somewhere as well.
This just depends on the implementation. All of the dual output designs I am familiar with are either separate supplies or a pair of supplies that share a common ground. In both cases each supply or side just sees its own voltage.What I was looking to do when I started this project was play around with op amp circuits and wanted a positive/negative supply to use. When I built these, I used quality components and made sure I didn't skimp on anything just in case. I was worried about the caps so I upped the recommended voltage from 50 to 63 on all of them for margin.
my question is probably quite naive, but I'm wondering if numerical simulations can help of course I've no experience in electonics ? ... (in mechanical engineering I commonly use specific sovers)Don't forget LTspice IV (http://www.linear.com/designtools/software/) and TINA-TI (http://www.ti.com/tool/tina-ti).
I found some free ones :
- Qucs which has a GUI : http://qucs.sourceforge.net (http://qucs.sourceforge.net) ...
- SPICE http://bwrcs.eecs.berkeley.edu/Classes/IcBook/SPICE/ (http://bwrcs.eecs.berkeley.edu/Classes/IcBook/SPICE/)
- CircuitLab https://www.circuitlab.com (https://www.circuitlab.com)
- and probably many others ....
Paul
Simulating startup of an operational amplifier strikes me as pretty difficult to do. Some operational amplifier models will definitely not handle it correctly if only because they do not always model common mode input range violations.
If I wire the resistor and zener between the rectifier and filter caps that would put it before the 10V zener as well. There's 33.5 volts into pin 7 on U3 right now with 35.1 volts across pin 7 and pin 4 which would be reduced to around 26 volts and 27.6 volts respectively. Should I cut the trace to that and run a wire to before the 36V zener or would the voltage drop matter all that much being that it's the current limiting part of the circuit?
I plan to eventually redo the boards because I've learned a few things since I did these, they were my first attempt at designing one and they are a pain in the ass to get in and out.
my question is probably quite naive, but I'm wondering if numerical simulations can help of course I've no experience in electonics ? ... (in mechanical engineering I commonly use specific sovers)
Just to clarify because I was thinking in terms of the 10V zener configuration as in circuit A in the picture I did. You mean for me to do it like circuit B right? If so, I was thinking B1 but then you said that B2 is a possiblility if I remove the 10V zener.QuoteIf I wire the resistor and zener between the rectifier and filter caps that would put it before the 10V zener as well. There's 33.5 volts into pin 7 on U3 right now with 35.1 volts across pin 7 and pin 4 which would be reduced to around 26 volts and 27.6 volts respectively. Should I cut the trace to that and run a wire to before the 36V zener or would the voltage drop matter all that much being that it's the current limiting part of the circuit?Cut the trace and use the resistor and zener as a shunt regulator for at least U1 and U2. I would alter the design to use it for U3 as well and get rid of D13. The bottom of the zener can go to the negative supply so the voltage across the operational amplifiers is restricted to 36 volts total assuming that the negative supply can handle the current.
There are better ways to do all of this but adding the 36 volt zener is the most simple.
Note that some operational amplifiers will run at 36 volts with a 44 volt absolute maximum voltage and some will run at 30 volts with a 36 volt absolute maximum voltage. Do not use the ones with a 36 volt absolute maximum voltage at 36 volts!I always follow the datasheet which is why I questioned the 44 volt level on the other board. I thought that it was too close to the limits of the op amps and given any untoward occurance, failure would be inevitable. I ordered several of each of the ones you had mentioned and the first thing I did was save the datasheet to my op amp datasheet folder. I also went and got some AN's and other reading material on the subject.
I have a better idea of the constraints of the case and plan on using a different scheme for the terminal blocks. I haven't decided the best way to do it yet but I'll come up with something.QuoteI plan to eventually redo the boards because I've learned a few things since I did these, they were my first attempt at designing one and they are a pain in the ass to get in and out.
I have done that before.
Just to clarify because I was thinking in terms of the 10V zener configuration as in circuit A in the picture I did. You mean for me to do it like circuit B right? If so, I was thinking B1 but then you said that B2 is a possiblility if I remove the 10V zener.QuoteIf I wire the resistor and zener between the rectifier and filter caps that would put it before the 10V zener as well. There's 33.5 volts into pin 7 on U3 right now with 35.1 volts across pin 7 and pin 4 which would be reduced to around 26 volts and 27.6 volts respectively. Should I cut the trace to that and run a wire to before the 36V zener or would the voltage drop matter all that much being that it's the current limiting part of the circuit?Cut the trace and use the resistor and zener as a shunt regulator for at least U1 and U2. I would alter the design to use it for U3 as well and get rid of D13. The bottom of the zener can go to the negative supply so the voltage across the operational amplifiers is restricted to 36 volts total assuming that the negative supply can handle the current.
There are better ways to do all of this but adding the 36 volt zener is the most simple.
B2 may be better in general but if you use the zener regulated 36 volt supply to power U3 (and maybe the Q3 circuit) as well, then the 10 volt zener circuit will not be needed. They are separate issues.I'd have to do too much with the boards as they are to change the negative supply so I'm going to go with desoldering the cathode of D13 and running a wire from it to before the 180R resistor. The rest of it is just a matter of soldering the zener across the bottom of R1 and soldering the 180R to the positive side of the filter cap where it comes into the terminal block. C1 and the bridge rectifier are off board, R1 is on the board.
I would use the B2 connection and increase the negative supply to -2.5 to -5.0 volts but if you use 44 volt operational amplifiers instead of 36 volt ones, then you can do this and use the B1 connection instead so the maximum output voltage will be a little higher.
What would be clever is to change the Q3 circuit by using the 10 volt zener to level shift the output of U3 so it can drive Q3 even with Q3 supplied by the higher voltage. Then the current limit LED will light during current limiting or high input voltages. Or that could just be confusing. /shrugI looked up what you were talking about and didn't even know that was a thing or at least what is going on is what it's called. I'm not seeing how to do it as it applies to U3 and Q3, so your last statement applies for the moment.
The good news is that 61 volt spike is gone. The bad news is that I'm still getting a fairly decent spike around 36 volts with the PS recalibrated at 30V 3A which is tp be expected given a 36V zener I suppose.
At this point I don't know if this is inherent to linear supplies and inrush or if the circuit just needs some rework to catch this and shunt this based on P1's setting somehow. I'm too new to this to know off the top of my head what needs done but I have a feeling that a solution might be in the PS-503 service manual schematic. I might have to build one of these just to probe around in it. Some of the parts are unknown such as some the transistors and all of the op amps. The manual doesn't say much about these other than their part designation so I looked up the part number and get back C741C so I'm assuming some sort of oldish 741 op amp.
Either way, it's working much better than it was and even though it's still spiking, at least it's not as bad as it was. One of these days I'll manage enough money to get a real scope and perhaps help tame this thing if I haven't already. I have another meter in mind and I think that I probably need to get an analog or two just for when things like this are going on. I do appreciate your help with all of this. I'll keep updating for posterity if I figure anything out.
The output should never rise above the set point when power is applied or removed. I am inclined to believe that there is more than one problem but the lack of any regulation or protection on the supply to the operational amplifiers I consider a design flaw.That's kind of what I was thinking. The design has never really worked from what I can tell. Reading the lengthy thread(s) on the design gives people that have had success building the thing but I don't think anyone has really tested it until very recently. One of the members over there just recently got a DSO and tried to solve the transient issue with the addition of the voltage regulator but I think he only tested within a certain range and reported it solved. It wasn't. I'm about ready to give up on this one for awhile and see if I can get something better going with a bit more research.
The PS-503 design is pretty dense and unconventional in some respects even if you ignore the complexity added by being a dual output design with tracking. There are changes I would make like having the output amplifiers operate with a fixed gain and varying the output from the reference because it would make the frequency response more predictable.Yeah, looking at it kind of intimidates me a little. I'm sure everything they did had a purpose at the time and I'm sure there are modern designs that run circles around it but I think simple would be better for me until I learn more. What I really want to learn is the analog side of things. When I was a kid and used to take things apart, the electronics always intrigued me but I never really did anything with it. Up until a few years ago I even had a few of those big assed aluminum variable capacitors. Digital wasn't here yet and I'd like to start with much less than a microcontroller.
The PS-503 operational amplifiers are just 36 volt 741 types and not critical. Besides qualifying their sources, Tektronix graded incoming 741s and the ones with high bias current, high offset current, high offset voltage, and high offset voltage drift are the -00 ones used in non-critical designs. They actually graded them for 40 volt operation as well instead of buying the 741/A/M version.
One of my PS-503s has a pair of 301A operational amplifiers for U55 and U155 but they and one of the 741s are in sockets so I think someone who knew what they were doing repaired it in the past. They added the compensation capacitors needed by the 301As to the back of the printed circuit board.
Some multimeters have a pretty fast peak detect mode.The scope I have is ancient even by ancient standards. Behold, the Conar 255 (http://bama.edebris.com/download/conar/255/255.pdf). I've been keeping an eye out on Ebay but things go fast there and the resellers are a big problem. I figure if I'm going to spend over $200 I might as well wait and keep saving to get a DS1074Z. Every now and then I check craigslist but there never seems to be anything there which is either odd or not considering I live fairly close to Boston.
Any storage oscilloscope is handy in cases like these. DSOs are particularly useful for diagnosing startup problems and even an old and low performance unit can handle something like this. I very rarely need to use anything better than a Tektronix 2230 which is the oldest DSO that I can honestly recommend.
I would never recommend a USB DSO unless it had a unique and useful feature like the ones from CircuitGear which support low frequency vector network analysis. That is particularly useful for designing high performance power supplies.
The output should never rise above the set point when power is applied or removed. I am inclined to believe that there is more than one problem but the lack of any regulation or protection on the supply to the operational amplifiers I consider a design flaw.
That's kind of what I was thinking. The design has never really worked from what I can tell. Reading the lengthy thread(s) on the design gives people that have had success building the thing but I don't think anyone has really tested it until very recently. One of the members over there just recently got a DSO and tried to solve the transient issue with the addition of the voltage regulator but I think he only tested within a certain range and reported it solved. It wasn't. I'm about ready to give up on this one for awhile and see if I can get something better going with a bit more research.
Any word on a vetted design that would be relatively simple that I could perhaps use the two 28V 4.3A transformers with? I was shooting for 30V @ 3A but I also just got, in addition to the 301A's, OP07's and TL071's, a single primary, dual secondary transformer that can do 36V @ 1A series, 18V @ 2A parallel or 2X18V @ 1A independently. I was thinking 0-18V @ 1A positive and negative until I can figure out this other issue, I just need a proven design that won't set me back too much.
The PS-503 design is pretty dense and unconventional in some respects even if you ignore the complexity added by being a dual output design with tracking. There are changes I would make like having the output amplifiers operate with a fixed gain and varying the output from the reference because it would make the frequency response more predictable.
...
Yeah, looking at it kind of intimidates me a little. I'm sure everything they did had a purpose at the time and I'm sure there are modern designs that run circles around it but I think simple would be better for me until I learn more.
What I really want to learn is the analog side of things. When I was a kid and used to take things apart, the electronics always intrigued me but I never really did anything with it. Up until a few years ago I even had a few of those big assed aluminum variable capacitors. Digital wasn't here yet and I'd like to start with much less than a microcontroller.
Some multimeters have a pretty fast peak detect mode.
Any storage oscilloscope is handy in cases like these. DSOs are particularly useful for diagnosing startup problems and even an old and low performance unit can handle something like this. I very rarely need to use anything better than a Tektronix 2230 which is the oldest DSO that I can honestly recommend.
I would never recommend a USB DSO unless it had a unique and useful feature like the ones from CircuitGear which support low frequency vector network analysis. That is particularly useful for designing high performance power supplies.
The scope I have is ancient even by ancient standards. Behold, the Conar 255 (http://bama.edebris.com/download/conar/255/255.pdf).
I've been keeping an eye out on Ebay but things go fast there and the resellers are a big problem. I figure if I'm going to spend over $200 I might as well wait and keep saving to get a DS1074Z.
Every now and then I check craigslist but there never seems to be anything there which is either odd or not considering I live fairly close to Boston.
I think I've found a solution that may help. I've seen the circuit in action on a video and it works but I simplified it a bit for my needs.
Usually these problems are caused by improper startup and shutdown sequencing but linear power supplies are generally simple enough not to require complex solutions.What's kicking my butt about it is that the transformers are only 180VA and the caps are 15000uF. I've read that inrush is an issue with toroids or transformers around 500VA. I would think that the circuit could hold the voltage and current based on the pot settings.
The only kit power supply I have is 723 based and 20+ years old. Since then I have usually designed and built my own as needed.I was impressed enough with the service manual on the 6236B that I printed it out and went looking on Ebay. I think I may be able to live with what I have until I get a better scope and then try and pick up a servicable (by me at least) design or two.
I did a quick search online and did not find an designs or kits I would recommend. Variable constant voltage constant current designs tend to be as complex as the comparable Tektronix or HP implementations.
The Tektronix and HP/Harrison designers certainly knew what they were doing and were thorough. HP bought Harrison Laboratory Company in 1962.
Any performance limitations are more from application limits then an old design. Modern designs intended for the same applications are not going to perform any better at least in a practical sense.
The PS-503 has simple zener shunt and series regulators to protect the control circuits from high voltages. It has other design features which look like they were intended to prevent startup and shutdown glitches but the manual only discusses one of them.
The similar HP/Harrison 6236 which is a more straightforward design has its own protection circuits. From its manual:
4-11 The turn-on/turn-off control circuit prevents output
transients when the supply is turned on or off. It does this by
delaying the application of certain bias and reference voltages
at turn-on and removing them shortly after turn-off.
Even complex power supplies are simple enough that they are a great place to start learning electronics.
That is very old. Even the lowest end of the inexpensive used analog oscilloscopes from Tektronix and others would be better but you need some type of storage to see glitches easily.I've heard good and bad things about Rigol but I don't really know enough to make an informed decision. I think the least expensive I'd go for is the DS1074Z too, at least from what I've read. As far as Tek scopes go, from what I understand, you can get quite a bit of unobtainium down that road.
The 2230 that I have I picked up on Ebay for about $100 but I would not recommend one for a beginner unless you have the option to return it; they are somewhat tricky to repair and maintain and are getting old. The 2232 is a lot better but tends to go for $300.
I have not used one but the CircuitGear USB DSOs I mentioned are interesting given their low cost. They are not particularly fast but they are certainly fast enough for power supply design and look like they were intended for a student environment.
The least expensive Rigol I would consider is the DS1074Z. I would absolutely avoid at least their B, CA, D, and E series oscilloscopes because they lack peak detection as I understand the term according to Rigol. The documentation for their Z and 2000A series oscilloscopes is not clear on the matter either and naturally nobody who has reviewed them has tested for what exactly they do support so I am dubious about them as well which just leads me to conclude that Rigol makes junk.
How can they design a modern DSO which supports peak detection or envelope detection but not both and then screw up the documentation repeatedly by confusing the two? I complained about this to them years ago trying to get answers; at first they did not understand the difference and then they lied about it.
I am near St. Louis and see good analog and digital storage oscilloscopes show up on Craigslist about once or twice a year. I picked up a Tektronix 547 that way but missed a Tektronix 2232. I saw something like a Hitachi VC-6145 once and a Leader analog/digital CRT DSO but I prefer more common instruments with good service documentation.The MIT swap meet is coming up on the 21st. I just talked with the wife and she's even going to let me go by myself. For what I have I don't mind too much. I can at least see something which is more than I've had in the past. Maybe I'll be able to find a few things there that would make life a lot easier. What kinds of things would you recommend I be on the lookout for scope and power supply wise? These are the two things on my wants list but I doubt I'll have more than $100 total. I won't count on it but I'm going to go and see what I can score.
Boston should have a larger market then St. Louis for used test equipment because of the technical industries in the area. You might want to check out the MIT swap meet.
That just looks like a soft start circuit. Power supplies generally lack soft start circuits except for their current limit and small output capacitor.It was my understanding that this would allow the filter caps to charge at a slower rate and therefore take the spike out of the equation, or enough of it to make a huge difference before full power is applied to the power supplies. I'm also assuming that these are rather prevalent in audio amps of a certain power. I actually have two 10 ohm 100W aluminum resistors that I was going to use and then adjust the time before the circuit kicks the relay to right at the point where the spike disappears.
Usually these problems are caused by improper startup and shutdown sequencing but linear power supplies are generally simple enough not to require complex solutions.What's kicking my butt about it is that the transformers are only 180VA and the caps are 15000uF. I've read that inrush is an issue with toroids or transformers around 500VA. I would think that the circuit could hold the voltage and current based on the pot settings.
As far as Tek scopes go, from what I understand, you can get quite a bit of unobtainium down that road.
What kinds of things would you recommend I be on the lookout for scope and power supply wise? These are the two things on my wants list but I doubt I'll have more than $100 total. I won't count on it but I'm going to go and see what I can score.
That just looks like a soft start circuit. Power supplies generally lack soft start circuits except for their current limit and small output capacitor.It was my understanding that this would allow the filter caps to charge at a slower rate and therefore take the spike out of the equation, or enough of it to make a huge difference before full power is applied to the power supplies. I'm also assuming that these are rather prevalent in audio amps of a certain power. I actually have two 10 ohm 100W aluminum resistors that I was going to use and then adjust the time before the circuit kicks the relay to right at the point where the spike disappears.
Before we consider going that far, I some questions. Where is the input bridge rectifier and input capacitor C1 in that photo? What value did you use for C1? Did you calculate it?I've got the rectifier (http://www.fairchildsemi.com/datasheets/GB/GBPC12005.pdf) and filter cap (http://www.kemet.com/Lists/ProductCatalog/Attachments/387/KEM_A4020_ALC10.pdf) off board with the transformer (http://system.netsuite.com/core/media/media.nl?id=6066&c=ACCT126831&h=7ac554695c0a23f6a71c&_xt=.pdf). I also went a little unusual with the BD139 (http://www.fairchildsemi.com/datasheets/BD/BD135.pdf)'s being off board with the 2N3055 (http://www.onsemi.com/pub_link/Collateral/2N3055-D.PDF)'s. Links are the datasheets if you need to look at them. See the pic for the arrangement of everything. It's messy as far as the wiring goes but I've been slowly cleaning it up and organizing a bit better as I've gotten things where they're going to end up eventually. For instance, the BD139's are not upside down anymore though they are still on the beefy heatsinks you see in the image.
One thing which can cause a voltage surge across the input capacitor is if it is too small although I have never run across that problem myself.
The layout makes me wonder if leaking magnetic flux from the transformers is getting into the wiring going to the output transistors or something else. Leaking magnetic flux could go along with the surge at turn on across the input capacitor but at 12,000 or 15,000 microfarads, it should be large enough to prevent that problem.I don't think it could actually be either issue. I've got a separate board being powered from the second transformer with an on board rectifier, the filter caps and the pass transistor sitting right next to it about three feet away from the transformer and I'm getting the exact same results. I think I need to start probing around the circuit to see if I can find anything odd going on, I'm just not sure what to be looking for. Like I said, the wife's letting me go to that MIT thing so maybe I'll come back with a better scope.
But this would not explain the surge problem reported from others with this design so if there is an issue, it is in addition to a problem with the circuit.
Having long wiring runs to the pass transistors may cause problems. Low value resistors, like 4.7 to 47 ohms depending on the base current, in series with the bases at the transistor sockets could help. This could especially be a problem with the BD139 because they are pretty fast.
Could the measurement of the surge voltage across the input capacitor and the output at turn-on be in error? An input surge that large does not make any sense unless the input capacitance is low.At the cap bank, the stabilized output is 43.7 volts and at the power supply output 30 volts (calibrated). If I allow the caps to drain to a low value, say <5 volts, at turn on I get a consistent 61.2 volts surge at the caps and 37 volts at output (output drained to under 200 millivolts). So we have a 17.5 volt spike at the caps and a 7 volt spike at the output. I also tested the output of the transformers independently with four 1N4007 diodes in a full bridge configuration and two 2200uF caps in parallel and I get a 63 volt spike, so this phenomenon is evident outside the actual power supply circuit. The caps must be drained to see this however.
Boston should have a larger market then St. Louis for used test equipment because of the technical industries in the area. You might want to check out the MIT swap meet.
The Tektronix 465B and that whole series are really nice oscilloscopes. The somewhat related 464, 466, and 468 have storage in one form or another which would help in tracking down a voltage surge problem but the 465B is more reliable and certainly better than what you were using previously.There was a 7000 series there with a full set of plugins but I didn't have the $300-400 to negotiate on price with (looked very much like this (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tektronix-7854-Oscilloscope-with-5-Modules-Tested-and-Working-/381003659456?pt=BI_Oscilloscopes&hash=item58b59678c0)). There were also others and in each case I asked about price and the $300-400 range seemed to be ubiquitous. I was limited to about $160 and think I really lucked out considering. The guy that was selling it had it on the ground kind of hidden away from his table but I knew what kind of things I was after and spotted it almost immediately. I asked him if it worked and he said it shows a nice bright trace. I asked him how much and he said $65 and I said sold. I knew if it showed a trace but was uber cheap I might have to fix something so I jumped at it. I got it home and hooked it up and there was absolutely nothing wrong with it. As a matter of fact, it's already come in handy due to the dual channels and better features than what I had. The power supply that I had boards made for is smoother than the one with the voltage regulator which is showing a distinct oscillation at the output. Either way, I feel like a kid a Christmas.
HiIf anything, I would think a toroidal transformer might make things a tad worse due to the nature of the way they work. Inrush (http://sound.westhost.com/articles/inrush.htm#s1) is happening with the filter caps charging and is always going to be an issue with this supply but there are things we can do about it. The concern that I have is that the power supply circuit itself seems to lose all control over the voltage at these conditions and the designer(s) probably haven't addressed these situations in the design from the start. I don't know enough yet to say one way or the other what the eventual solution will be but I am working on it. Money is not something I have a lot of so it may take more time than if someone that does this for a living was working on it. I think that in that case though the design would have been scrapped in favor of something else. Have no fear though, I'm fully vested and refuse to give up and I feel that if a solution exists I'll figure it out.
My following remark may not be relevant, but can we imagine than the initial spikes come from the transformer ?
Would a toroidal transformer (instead of a classical one) fix the problem ? (I'm thinking about it after some readings)
Paul
There was a 7000 series there with a full set of plugins but I didn't have the $300-400 to negotiate on price with (looked very much like this (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tektronix-7854-Oscilloscope-with-5-Modules-Tested-and-Working-/381003659456?pt=BI_Oscilloscopes&hash=item58b59678c0)). There were also others and in each case I asked about price and the $300-400 range seemed to be ubiquitous.
There are the usual scuff marks from use but no dents. All of the knobs are there and unbent or cracked or broken or missing pieces and act like they're new. The feet on the back where the cord wraps around are all broken but that's literally the only fault I can find. I tried a cursory search and couldn't find any for sale using the Tek part number so I'll have to keep my eyes open for replacements. I'll be saving my lunch money over time and probably get a 1074Z eventually so I have something that can do storage.
My following remark may not be relevant, but can we imagine than the initial spikes come from the transformer ?
Would a toroidal transformer (instead of a classical one) fix the problem ? (I'm thinking about it after some readings)
The 7000 series are generally older and more difficult to maintain so it is probably just as well. The only significant advantage they would provide over a 465B is 4 channel support and the ability to use specialized vertical inputs.I'm very happy to have stumbled across what I did, the quality of the signal is so much better. I have no doubt that even if I had a DSO, I'd probably be using this for day to day use. It came with two 10X probes but I also have a set I got on Ebay that have the 1X - 10X switch. I've compensated both sets of probes so I now know how to do that. All I can say is what a marvellous invention.
It would not be my first choice but the 7854 like you linked can operate as a digital storage oscilloscope but not in the way most people would expect because it is not real time capable. With the right timebase plugin, a 7B87, it can capture single shot events and has pretrigger capability which is exactly what you need to look at what is going on to cause the surge voltage when power is applied. It can only capture one channel at a time though which would be a significant disadvantage in this case.
Water with a little bit if dish soap and a rag is a good surface cleaner. The front panel controls are easy enough to remove so you can get under them.The case was a bit dirty but I did clean it with 401 countertop cleaner and it brightened up nicely. I'm going to hold off on the front panel because, to be honest, it's fairly clean. I'll wait to do that part until I get a chance to open it up and assess the innards.
The feet are a known issue with these oscilloscopes. I know at least one person has used a 3D printer to produce very workable replacements and was selling them as sets.
There was an idea by redwire over at the other forum that the circuit in the attached image might help. I don't have the TIP141 to test this out with and I have to wait to place another order at Digikey until the 3rd of next month. I've got a relay sitting there too, just in case.My following remark may not be relevant, but can we imagine than the initial spikes come from the transformer ?
Would a toroidal transformer (instead of a classical one) fix the problem ? (I'm thinking about it after some readings)
The voltage surge at the input is one problem but that by itself should not cause the regulator to behave the way it is so there are at least two problems.
The 7000 series are generally older and more difficult to maintain so it is probably just as well. The only significant advantage they would provide over a 465B is 4 channel support and the ability to use specialized vertical inputs.
I'm very happy to have stumbled across what I did, the quality of the signal is so much better.
I have no doubt that even if I had a DSO, I'd probably be using this for day to day use. It came with two 10X probes but I also have a set I got on Ebay that have the 1X - 10X switch. I've compensated both sets of probes so I now know how to do that. All I can say is what a marvellous invention.
I've been doing a bit of reading and I think I may be able to use Ch.1 out to capture the event on my computer. I'll need to get a connector and cable made up for it and it's not ideal but is better than nothing.
Water with a little bit if dish soap and a rag is a good surface cleaner. The front panel controls are easy enough to remove so you can get under them.
The feet are a known issue with these oscilloscopes. I know at least one person has used a 3D printer to produce very workable replacements and was selling them as sets.
The case was a bit dirty but I did clean it with 401 countertop cleaner and it brightened up nicely. I'm going to hold off on the front panel because, to be honest, it's fairly clean. I'll wait to do that part until I get a chance to open it up and assess the innards.
There was an idea by redwire over at the other forum that the circuit in the attached image might help. I don't have the TIP141 to test this out with and I have to wait to place another order at Digikey until the 3rd of next month. I've got a relay sitting there too, just in case.