Received: from PCH.mit.edu (18.7.21.50) by mail.efplus.com (192.168.0.8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.485.1; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 15:17:55 -0800 Received: from PCH.MIT.EDU (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by PCH.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.8) with ESMTP id 01CN6UEq001353; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 18:08:47 -0500 Received: from outgoing-exchange-7.mit.edu (OUTGOING-EXCHANGE-7.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.58]) by PCH.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.8) with ESMTP id 01CN6T3M001263 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 18:06:29 -0500 Received: from w92exedge4.exchange.mit.edu (W92EXEDGE4.EXCHANGE.MIT.EDU [18.7.73.16]) by outgoing-exchange-7.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 01CN6I2i007761 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 18:06:18 -0500 Received: from oc11exhyb7.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.1.112) by w92exedge4.exchange.mit.edu (18.7.73.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1293.2; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 18:04:21 -0500 Received: from oc11exhyb1.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.1.60) by oc11exhyb7.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.1.112) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 18:06:28 -0500 Received: from NAM12-MW2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (104.47.66.46) by oc11exhyb1.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.1.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 18:06:27 -0500 Received: from MN2PR01CA0054.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:10b6:208:23f::23) by CO2PR01MB2056.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:10b6:102:10::7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2729.23; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 23:06:26 +0000 Received: from CO1NAM03FT025.eop-NAM03.prod.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:f400:7e48::208) by MN2PR01CA0054.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:208:23f::23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2707.24 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 23:06:25 +0000 Received: from mail-ot1-f42.google.com (209.85.210.42) by CO1NAM03FT025.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.80.163) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2729.22 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 23:06:24 +0000 Received: by mail-ot1-f42.google.com with SMTP id i6so3693889otr.7 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 15:06:24 -0800 (PST) From: Jason White To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. Sender: "piclist-bounces@mit.edu" Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 15:05:47 -0800 Subject: Re: [EE] TL431+NPN as rated series regulator? Circuit questions. Thread-Topic: [EE] TL431+NPN as rated series regulator? Circuit questions. Thread-Index: AdXh+qhfNrLmdQ9kRgW8sn1VwhOMaw== Message-ID: References: <3f24cf0b7e4d241b29fc2524cb13b8ba.squirrel@mai.hallikainen.org> List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , In-Reply-To: Reply-To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: TS500.efplus4.local X-MS-Has-Attach: X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SenderIdResult: Pass X-MS-Exchange-Organization-PRD: mit.edu X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: received-spf: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.210.42 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com; client-ip=209.85.210.42; helo=mail-ot1-f42.google.com; dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=EtatXbEIT1I9sIGr2QxnGT30/z1rtPLnRLgMFTp9E3Y=; b=vQEY7GoWlPqVSCcMNga36ufyrcmzzQAgnv+y5JzLZMl2oZL8Rfvqmep4vGjp5JDBvH rP3AmTPnTq8yLMPn5Lq/C/Nfh23XNTYjUQWI95guoOG1mR2cS06aU9+Eg+XJzYTe+RT+ QhpynTNndXWKMQXwythIvZ/YSaa/NgerIlAnATNsWUkySkWFFCrQBFJ3shgac+0pOdaT dKmjhth4naqQSeXUR7Szc2ztCKMroW63+fXuuMs2azR0rJPFntWSpKTw4e0nqcE/XhJu YXQ/Zq/Qy0ZCXVYivhzGHISCT0yDRv4razwxaf2cW5rdTuq4pNvTnwy4HGhXwWefGh9e sXKA== authentication-results: spf=pass (sender IP is 209.85.210.42) smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; mit.edu; dkim=pass (signature was verified) header.d=gmail.com;mit.edu; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=gmail.com;compauth=pass reason=100 errors-to: piclist-bounces@mit.edu list-id: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." list-post: x-beenthere: piclist@mit.edu x-mailman-version: 2.1.6 x-received: by 2002:a05:6830:1198:: with SMTP id u24mr10772259otq.215.1581548783379; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 15:06:23 -0800 (PST) x-topics: [EE] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 To answer the question of why: I have a device that operates from 15 to 45 volts nominally - safety and reliability are of concern with this device. A design requirement is, where possible, that the device only use "jelly-bean" parts for which there will be pin compatible replacements 30 years from now. That device has an IC that draws 1 amp at a low duty cycle. That IC is rated to withstand no more than 55 volts and needs to operate very near the applied power supply voltage. My device is subject to +/-800V/800A (1 ohm source impedance) 200us long pulses on its power input. It is also subject to 75V ("0 ohm" source impedance) 500ms pulses with a fast rising edge. That 55V rated IC would die if the pulses were allowed to reach its power pins. I am using the TL431 series regulator to create a voltage rail that follows the power supply voltage up to the set maximum of 45V. Above 45V the series regulator will limit the voltage and dissipate the extra potential has heat. The TL431 series regulator in combination with other circuit elements is part of a strategy to avoid damage from the 800V/75V pulses. I found standard regulators to be unsatisfactory with regards to voltage rating, power handing, and long term availability. I would love a surface mount LM317 type device that was rated for 300V or higher, a running current of 1 amp, and a power dissipation of 2 watts or more. If the said device has at least 5 pin compatible alternates from different manufacturers I would go for it in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, I am basically required to absorb the rising edge of the 800V pulse with a TVS/MOV type device. The voltage/current curve of said device allows the supply voltage to rise quite substantially (to about 250V) before the voltage sensitive circuitry can "disconnect" itself from the power input. On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 12:44 PM Gordon Williams wrote: > > For my own education, why would you want to use a circuit like this > rather than some typical 3 pin voltage regulator? > > Seems like TL431 has all the disadvantages, cost, part count, design and > testing time, etc. in this application. > > Gordon Williams > > > > On 2020-02-11 9:42 p.m., Harold Hallikainen wrote: > > I think C1 provides a "soft start" by pulling the input to the error > > amplifier up on power up. I've seen a similar trick used on POLA module= s. > > It's interesting that the data sheet shows this capacitor but does not > > explain it. > > > > I think the resistor from the base to emitter of the second transistor > > ensures that the second transistor does not conduct due to leakage of t= he > > first. > > > > Harold > > > > > >> Hello everyone, > >> > >> The TL431 datasheet shows the attached circuit has an example of how > >> to create a series regulator. > >> > >> I would like some help understanding the purpose of C1, RA, and RB. > >> > >> I assume RA is to prevent oscillation? > >> What is C1's purpose? Why is C1 from cathode to reference? (to prevent > >> oscillation?) > >> What is RB's purpose? (to improve turn off time?) > >> > >> -- > >> Jason White > >> -- > >> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > >> View/change your membership options at > >> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > >> > > > -- > http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist --=20 Jason White --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .