It's patent number 6343021
Or see:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=wvQKAAAAEBAJ&dq=6343021
I found this patent a nice read. Not too 'patentese'.

I still consider myself a newbie at smps design but doesn't this look
like a 'neat' looking topology?

Claims:
Neat unity power factor.
Simpler circuitry
Substantially lower cost
Higher efficiency
Longer operation life
Truly integrated magnetics
Highest energy density
Isolated output
Steps or steps down
No RHP zero
No DC through magnetics (If I read right)
No large electrolytics on input or output
Minimizes EMI through use of sinusoidal waveforms
+ other features

Gee...it's like the dream supply.. :P

Driving the mosfet in the bridge looks like a pita.
I believe that's going to need a floating power supply.

I'm all dazzled by this design.
I want to pop this sucker into LTspice and take it for a test drive.

Comments on this design..??

Or any bad jokes...

Yup... I grew up with the Beatles..
.
.
.
.
.
.
....and the cockroaches, ants and termites... It was a bug infested
house. :P


D from BC
British Columbia
Canada

"D from BC" <myrealaddress@comic.com> wrote in message
news:a1hn14l19knmjn0jmcgrtngff63bp59a69@4ax.com...

It's patent number 6343021
Or see:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=wvQKAAAAEBAJ&dq=6343021
I found this patent a nice read. Not too 'patentese'.

I still consider myself a newbie at smps design but doesn't this look
like a 'neat' looking topology?

Claims:
Neat unity power factor.
Simpler circuitry
Substantially lower cost
Higher efficiency
Longer operation life
Truly integrated magnetics
Highest energy density
Isolated output
Steps or steps down
No RHP zero
No DC through magnetics (If I read right)
No large electrolytics on input or output
Minimizes EMI through use of sinusoidal waveforms
+ other features

Gee...it's like the dream supply.. :P

Driving the mosfet in the bridge looks like a pita.
I believe that's going to need a floating power supply.

I'm all dazzled by this design.
I want to pop this sucker into LTspice and take it for a test drive.

Comments on this design..??

Or any bad jokes...

Yup... I grew up with the Beatles..
.
.
.
.
.
.
....and the cockroaches, ants and termites... It was a bug infested
house. :P


D from BC
British Columbia
Canada


It's a resonant converter These have been around for some time but his
transformer configuration seems unique. I'm not sure if this design brings
much to the table or not. I'd have to see a specific design example, look
into the transformer specifics, circulating currents, capacitor specs,
regulation, etc. and compare it with a more traditional design in price and
performance.

By way of comparison he has included a Cuk converter in the prior art
section. If you read their patents and papers, the Cuk is the best thing
since sex, yet they were never popular. The peculiar, hard to make magnetics
and other engineering nastys make them production nightmares. The patent
circuits have some of the same look to them. So, who knows?

"D from BC" <myrealaddress@comic.com> wrote in message
news:a1hn14l19knmjn0jmcgrtngff63bp59a69@4ax.com...
It's patent number 6343021
Or see:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=wvQKAAAAEBAJ&dq=6343021
I found this patent a nice read. Not too 'patentese'.

I still consider myself a newbie at smps design but doesn't this look
like a 'neat' looking topology?

Claims:
Neat unity power factor.
Simpler circuitry
Substantially lower cost
Higher efficiency
Longer operation life
Truly integrated magnetics
Highest energy density
Isolated output
Steps or steps down
No RHP zero
No DC through magnetics (If I read right)
No large electrolytics on input or output
Minimizes EMI through use of sinusoidal waveforms
+ other features

Gee...it's like the dream supply.. :P

Driving the mosfet in the bridge looks like a pita.
I believe that's going to need a floating power supply.

I'm all dazzled by this design.
I want to pop this sucker into LTspice and take it for a test drive.

Comments on this design..??

Or any bad jokes...

Yup... I grew up with the Beatles..
.
.
.
.
.
.
....and the cockroaches, ants and termites... It was a bug infested
house. :P


D from BC
British Columbia
Canada

It's a resonant converter These have been around for some time but his
transformer configuration seems unique. I'm not sure if this design brings
much to the table or not. I'd have to see a specific design example, look
into the transformer specifics, circulating currents, capacitor specs,
regulation, etc. and compare it with a more traditional design in price and
performance.

By way of comparison he has included a Cuk converter in the prior art
section. If you read their patents and papers, the Cuk is the best thing
since sex, yet they were never popular. The peculiar, hard to make magnetics
and other engineering nastys make them production nightmares. The patent
circuits have some of the same look to them. So, who knows?

On Mon, 5 May 2008 07:00:51 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET <kensm... at (no spam) rahul.net
wrote:

On May 2, 7:25 pm, D from BC <myrealaddr... at (no spam) comic.com> wrote:
It's patent number 6343021
Or see:http://www.google.com/patents?id=wvQKAAAAEBAJ&dq=6343021

It is a Cuk converter topology. The capacitors are going to be an
interesting issue in the real design.

Although the primary switch and coupling are arranged like a Cuk and
have the same phase relationship in isolation transformer and coupling
inductor (regardless of which serves what function), it can't perform
the same conversion cycles: C3 is not in series with the rectifier and
load; it can only be sized for a resonant or quasiresonant function
without actually inhibiting power transfer.

On May 2, 7:25 pm, D from BC <myrealaddr... at (no spam) comic.com> wrote:
It's patent number 6343021
Or see:http://www.google.com/patents?id=wvQKAAAAEBAJ&dq=6343021

It is a Cuk converter topology. The capacitors are going to be an
interesting issue in the real design.

You can drive the MOSFETs through gate drive transformers. If it is a
narrow range supply just hooking the tranformer to the gate is good
enough.

For wide range:

D1
---->!---- Q2
A ! ! !!------
-----+-- -+---!!
!!( s! ! !d !!--+---
!!( ------- !
!!( Q1 ------- !
!!( B ! !
-----------+------------


Q2 is the big N MOSFET or IGBT

Q1 is a small N MOSFET. When B goes positive WRT to A, it turns on
and discharges the gate of Q2

D1 is a schottky. It prevents current in the substrate diode of Q1 so
you don't have recovery time issues with it.

On Mon, 5 May 2008 07:00:51 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET <kensmith at (no spam) rahul.net
wrote:

On May 2, 7:25 pm, D from BC <myrealaddr... at (no spam) comic.com> wrote:
It's patent number 6343021
Or see:http://www.google.com/patents?id=wvQKAAAAEBAJ&dq=6343021

It is a Cuk converter topology. The capacitors are going to be an
interesting issue in the real design.

Although the primary switch and coupling are arranged like a Cuk and
have the same phase relationship in isolation transformer and coupling
inductor (regardless of which serves what function), it can't perform
the same conversion cycles: C3 is not in series with the rectifier and
load; it can only be sized for a resonant or quasiresonant function
without actually inhibiting power transfer.

In the Cuk, the high-frequency voltage across the coupling capacitors
is not intended to reverse, while passing full load current. In fact
it maintains an average value equal to the sourc/output voltage
respectively (or their difference, in the non-isolated case).

Converters that impress the fw bridge rectification function on the
actual HF switch, in such a crude manner, surrender the basic
efficiency provided by low frequency rectifiers or SCRs (and in this
case the Cuk single rectifier output efficiency also), and impose low
frequency filtering requirements on the low voltage load filter.

You can do a lot of silly things at low power levels, but there's no
reason for them to pay, unless part REDUCTION results, or part stress
is signifigantly reduced.

RL