EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
Electronics => Projects, Designs, and Technical Stuff => Topic started by: Chris Wilson on December 02, 2018, 01:53:17 pm
-
Can anyone suggest a currently available equivalent of the obsolete IXDD414PI H Bridge driver IC chip please? Thanks. Whilst 8 pin DIP format is the preferred other formats could be pressed into use. Spec of the IXDD414PI is at:
http://ixapps.ixys.com/datasheet/99061.pdf (http://ixapps.ixys.com/datasheet/99061.pdf)
-
IXDD614 is still alive and well. Hmm, it was half a decade ago I designed in one of those, can't be too bad.
Tim
-
There are tons of gate driver ICs in the wild. https://eu.mouser.com/Semiconductors/Integrated-Circuits-ICs/Power-Management-ICs/Gate-Drivers/_/N-6j773?P=1z0jzfz&Ns=Pricing%7c0 (https://eu.mouser.com/Semiconductors/Integrated-Circuits-ICs/Power-Management-ICs/Gate-Drivers/_/N-6j773?P=1z0jzfz&Ns=Pricing%7c0)
Look through catalog and see what suits your requirements.
-
There's a lot of gate drivers, but at 35V/14A max, not that many... so that would really depend on your requirements. Do you really need those specs?
Ixys has been bought by Littelfuse and their current references are there: http://www.ixysic.com/Products/IGBT-MOSFETDvr.htm (http://www.ixysic.com/Products/IGBT-MOSFETDvr.htm)
Edit: after reading your post again, you're mentioning " H Bridge driver IC " whereas the IC you mention is a low-side gate driver only, so I'm now thinking that what you need may not be what we think. Were you actually using this IC as a gate driver or directly as an half-H bridge (I guess it could be used that way, although it would probably be less than ideal as I didn't see any handling of dead-time)?
-
Thanks for the replies. It seems there's a 614 version that may be suitably equivalent. It's a
IXDD614PI
I am merely thinking of building a directly rectified 240V AC mains powered low frequency (136kHz) RF amplifier from a schematic devised by someone who appears to successfully use the design himself. I am far from technically astute enough to critique it or change it I am afraid!
Here's the circuit in question, in another thread on this forum it has come in for some criticism, but as I say, I am not qualified to comment constructively nor make changes... :(
-
I don't see a website for DK7FC. Where did this come from? Were there any comments with it?
-- As you have well discovered -- taking schematics or designs from HAMs is just as unreliable as any other otherwise-unqualified amateur content on the internet.
From what I've seen (not being a part of the subculture myself), HAMs are about as technically inclined as any other moderately-techy subculture, which is to say, not very much. Most of them buy ready-made radios and antennas -- that market is relatively large! Some of them attempt kits or existing designs; few of them design from scratch.
The 90-10 rule applies as it does across any other set of people: 90% are casual users, 10% are technically adept; 10% of those are expert, and 10% of those experts are leaders in their part of the field. (And so on!)
For every ten antenna designs you see, maybe one of them has actually been tested. Maybe two or three have SWR measurements, that's something, but I mean actually measured radiation pattern and gain, as well as SWR or impedance over a wide frequency range. Without such critical analysis, how do you even know what you're getting into?
The consequence of this is a ready supply of, for example, antennas with horribly unbalanced ground currents, that blow up transmitters, or light up shacks. This is basic stuff in this field, but so many can get away with it because so many others don't ask about it, or even know about it!
So, my advice is to locate sources that are particularly well informed and researched, that analyze to great depth, and that make broad use of the tools, standards and knowledge available to them.
On that subject: besides the number of things I've already noted on this schematic -- there are many other things that your desired device should have (I would dare say, must). First of all, offline operation demands isolation. (There's a transformer there, so that's a start -- but it also needs to be a certain type of insulation to be safe, and that is not documented. It's not clear if just any end user of this schematic will know what this is -- again, consider the demographics above!) A fuse is of course needed, too. Second -- given that this is just a small section of a circuit -- its isolated presentation, to me implies open loop operation, a complete lack of protective features, and probably not much control in general. These are not hard problems to solve -- there are SMPS ICs that solve them with few support components, though they are probably not suitable for this exact application -- but one must be aware of them in the first place, and know that they are tractable problems to solve, in order to attempt their solution.
So, what are you to do? Well, in a sense, it's always down to money... whether literal money, or time-is-money that you need to spend to figure things out.
To fully understand a circuit and implement necessary features, requires many years of committed work. Or taking classes (which take both time AND money..). You could ask someone to review or fix or implement the circuit for you, but if you don't have much money to spare for a pro to do it, you're stuck searching around for someone to do it for free (which will definitely take time). You can ask here on the forum -- you'll get answers -- but likely not very good ones (which, I'll likely criticize as often as actually supplying alternatives... *cough*...).
Or you can forge ahead with a mediocre (or outright dangerous) design, and spend the time and/or money to muddle along, repairing it as frequently as is needed, and mitigating the hazards as well as you can (e.g., grounded metal box, fused mains, isolated control signals, transformer coupling..).
Such is the tradeoff in any subject. Taking a high level look back, like this, it may well prove more effective to, say, take on a better job -- reducing your free time, say -- but in exchange, allowing you to spend money to make your free time that much more productive, towards whatever your ultimate interest is.
Well... that's probably easier said than done, too. (I know, apply the advice recursively!..... :-DD )
Tim
-
Wow, a hugely comprehensive reply Tim, I thank you very much indeed for this. I understand exactly where you are coming from and what you are saying, but as a newcomer to electronics it's hard to appraise every circuit from a balanced and critical point of view. I see this as a race car engineer where people attempt builds and modifications without the real knowledge to see the pitfalls of their work. Should I deter them? Well, no, unless i see or foresee them doing something potentially unsafe to themselves or others i encourage them, but as you probably feel, it's hard to just watch someone make a needless mistake. I then get called a perfectionist or busybody ;)
So I am in a similar situation to some of my customers where i blindly do something an expert like yourself could have prevented. it costs me time and some money, but hopefully, if I don't electrocute myself or set the house on fire, I learn 9the hard way). Thankfully you and many others on here and elsewhere are willing to share hard earned knowledge, so I will try and adhere to it where i am able. I am more a builder and tinkerer than an operator, and ofy=ten once I have something working fairly satisfactorily I lose interest and start on something else ;)
Your input, and particular your above post is received gratefully and I take much from you taking the time to explain in such depth, thank you again, awesome post! I am getting on a bit to learn new tricks especially the maths side of electronics, but I do try, this LF stuff I have immersed myself in is not hugely popular so schematics dedicated to it are nothing like as commonplace or as critiqued as for HF and VHF stuff, it's easy to find something that appears to be well tried only to later find the designer has not actually built it, or if he did, it had issues that were not actually mentioned ;)
All the best for Christmas, your contributions here are legendary.