IRF820 vs IRF830 vs IRF840...

[Cursitor Doom]

Gentlemen,

There doesn\'t seem to be much difference between these devices from a
cursory read of the datasheets. They\'re all N channel MOSFETs with the
same pin-outs, same max voltages, same power handling. But there must
be a difference, surely. Qgs Qd Qds do vary but I\'m not really sure
what they related to. I\'m guessing the maximum switching speed of the
devices? If so, the lower the Q figures the better, right?
I\'ve got a switcher which uses an 820 which has blown, but all I\'ve
got in the spares bin are 830s and 840s, hence the question.

CD

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 9:11:27 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 21:15:12 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 13:10:11 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 20.28.18 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:32:53 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 17.15.55 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
Gentlemen,

There doesn\'t seem to be much difference between these devices from a
cursory read of the datasheets. They\'re all N channel MOSFETs with the
same pin-outs, same max voltages, same power handling. But there must
be a difference, surely.

the Rdson of the 840 is about half of the 830 which is about half of the 820
Yes, but that\'s a point in favour of substituting an 840 for an 820,
all other things being equal.

but all other things aren\'t equal, it is ~1/4 the Rdson but it is also ~4x the gate capacitance
a 840 is roughly equivalent to four 820s in parallel

That\'s exactly what I was alluding to. So the higher gate capacitance
will reduce the speed at which the chopper (this is a chopper FET in
this SMPS) can operate, and since that speed is fixed by other
circuitry, this FET will end up in some sort of permanent in-between
state; never fully off nor on. Is that a fair guess?

Probably not. The bigger FET won\'t switch on and off as fast as the 820 so you will have more dissipation during switching, but less dissipation when it is actually on.

You could estimate both if you knew the currents and times involved, but you won\'t. With a dim newbie we could try to get them to think about what might be going on, but you are known to be too dim to ever get it, and far too far up yourself to ever bother.

> Huge amount of spam here compared to last time I posted.

That\'s mostly a a, with some help from Flyguy (who imagines his name is a reference to his claimed expertise as a glider pilot, but it seems to have more to do with his obvious pleasure in latching onto dung and reposting it here. Like your enthusiasm for Russian Today and the Daily Mail.)

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 17:20:10 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 9:11:27 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 21:15:12 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 13:10:11 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 20.28.18 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:32:53 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 17.15.55 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
Gentlemen,

There doesn\'t seem to be much difference between these devices from a
cursory read of the datasheets. They\'re all N channel MOSFETs with the
same pin-outs, same max voltages, same power handling. But there must
be a difference, surely.

the Rdson of the 840 is about half of the 830 which is about half of the 820
Yes, but that\'s a point in favour of substituting an 840 for an 820,
all other things being equal.

but all other things aren\'t equal, it is ~1/4 the Rdson but it is also ~4x the gate capacitance
a 840 is roughly equivalent to four 820s in parallel

That\'s exactly what I was alluding to. So the higher gate capacitance
will reduce the speed at which the chopper (this is a chopper FET in
this SMPS) can operate, and since that speed is fixed by other
circuitry, this FET will end up in some sort of permanent in-between
state; never fully off nor on. Is that a fair guess?

Probably not. The bigger FET won\'t switch on and off as fast as the 820 so you will have more dissipation during switching, but less dissipation when it is actually on.

You could estimate both if you knew the currents and times involved, but you won\'t. With a dim newbie we could try to get them to think about what might be going on, but you are known to be too dim to ever get it, and far too far up yourself to ever bother.

Huge amount of spam here compared to last time I posted.

That\'s mostly a a, with some help from Flyguy (who imagines his name is a reference to his claimed expertise as a glider pilot, but it seems to have more to do with his obvious pleasure in latching onto dung and reposting it here. Like your enthusiasm for Russian Today and the Daily Mail.)

MC: \"Let\'s have a big round of applause for our guest today, Bill
Slowman, ladies and gentlemen.\"

BTW, I \'got it\' from your first sentence, Bill - assuming what you
posted is actually accurate on this occasion.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 8:34:46 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 17:20:10 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 9:11:27 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 21:15:12 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 13:10:11 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 20.28.18 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:32:53 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 17.15.55 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
Gentlemen,

There doesn\'t seem to be much difference between these devices from a
cursory read of the datasheets. They\'re all N channel MOSFETs with the
same pin-outs, same max voltages, same power handling. But there must
be a difference, surely.

the Rdson of the 840 is about half of the 830 which is about half of the 820
Yes, but that\'s a point in favour of substituting an 840 for an 820,
all other things being equal.

but all other things aren\'t equal, it is ~1/4 the Rdson but it is also ~4x the gate capacitance
a 840 is roughly equivalent to four 820s in parallel

That\'s exactly what I was alluding to. So the higher gate capacitance
will reduce the speed at which the chopper (this is a chopper FET in
this SMPS) can operate, and since that speed is fixed by other
circuitry, this FET will end up in some sort of permanent in-between
state; never fully off nor on. Is that a fair guess?

Probably not. The bigger FET won\'t switch on and off as fast as the 820 so you will have more dissipation during switching, but less dissipation when it is actually on.

You could estimate both if you knew the currents and times involved, but you won\'t. With a dim newbie we could try to get them to think about what might be going on, but you are known to be too dim to ever get it, and far too far up yourself to ever bother.

Huge amount of spam here compared to last time I posted.

That\'s mostly a a, with some help from Flyguy (who imagines his name is a reference to his claimed expertise as a glider pilot, but it seems to have more to do with his obvious pleasure in latching onto dung and reposting it here. Like your enthusiasm for Russian Today and the Daily Mail.)

MC: \"Let\'s have a big round of applause for our guest today, Bill
Sloman, ladies and gentlemen.\"

BTW, I \'got it\' from your first sentence, Bill - assuming what you posted is actually accurate on this occasion.

So what are your estimates of the switching dissipation and the \"on\" dissipation of 820 and the 840 in your application?

Claiming to \"get it\" is what Gnatguy always does, when he clearly doesn\'t. Raise your credibility by giving us some numbers - \"on\" time versus \"off\" time, switching time, switching frequency. You might even be able to work out if I am right. Since you didn\'t give us any of this information when you posted the query, I didn\'t have anything to be \"accurate\" about - I was just giving you some conceptual tools to let you give us something we could be helpful about.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 02:41:42 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 8:34:46 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 17:20:10 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 9:11:27 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 21:15:12 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 13:10:11 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 20.28.18 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:32:53 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 17.15.55 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
Gentlemen,

There doesn\'t seem to be much difference between these devices from a
cursory read of the datasheets. They\'re all N channel MOSFETs with the
same pin-outs, same max voltages, same power handling. But there must
be a difference, surely.

the Rdson of the 840 is about half of the 830 which is about half of the 820
Yes, but that\'s a point in favour of substituting an 840 for an 820,
all other things being equal.

but all other things aren\'t equal, it is ~1/4 the Rdson but it is also ~4x the gate capacitance
a 840 is roughly equivalent to four 820s in parallel

That\'s exactly what I was alluding to. So the higher gate capacitance
will reduce the speed at which the chopper (this is a chopper FET in
this SMPS) can operate, and since that speed is fixed by other
circuitry, this FET will end up in some sort of permanent in-between
state; never fully off nor on. Is that a fair guess?

Probably not. The bigger FET won\'t switch on and off as fast as the 820 so you will have more dissipation during switching, but less dissipation when it is actually on.

You could estimate both if you knew the currents and times involved, but you won\'t. With a dim newbie we could try to get them to think about what might be going on, but you are known to be too dim to ever get it, and far too far up yourself to ever bother.

Huge amount of spam here compared to last time I posted.

That\'s mostly a a, with some help from Flyguy (who imagines his name is a reference to his claimed expertise as a glider pilot, but it seems to have more to do with his obvious pleasure in latching onto dung and reposting it here. Like your enthusiasm for Russian Today and the Daily Mail.)

MC: \"Let\'s have a big round of applause for our guest today, Bill
Sloman, ladies and gentlemen.\"

BTW, I \'got it\' from your first sentence, Bill - assuming what you posted is actually accurate on this occasion.

So what are your estimates of the switching dissipation and the \"on\" dissipation of 820 and the 840 in your application?

Claiming to \"get it\" is what Gnatguy always does, when he clearly doesn\'t. Raise your credibility by giving us some numbers - \"on\" time versus \"off\" time, switching time, switching frequency. You might even be able to work out if I am right. Since you didn\'t give us any of this information when you posted the query, I didn\'t have anything to be \"accurate\" about - I was just giving you some conceptual tools to let you give us something we could be helpful about.

I think you got me wrong, Bill. I was genuinely appreciative of you
actually providing some useful information for a change. You corrected
me and gave me a very concise intuitive idea of the problem. No calcs
needed. It was just the usual barbs and insults I could have done
without, but hey, that\'s just your nature I guess and we\'re all well
used to that on this forum.
Going back to the original point, though, I was pretty much on the
right lines with my supposition because it is closely related to what
you said. Just a different aspect of the same issue: inability to
switch fast enough and spending too much time in the ohmic region as a
result (ohmic or linear region; I can never remember which is which.
Anyway, the bit between on and off).

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 11:41:10 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 02:41:42 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 8:34:46 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 17:20:10 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 9:11:27 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 21:15:12 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 13:10:11 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 20.28.18 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:32:53 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 17.15.55 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
Gentlemen,

There doesn\'t seem to be much difference between these devices from a
cursory read of the datasheets. They\'re all N channel MOSFETs with the
same pin-outs, same max voltages, same power handling. But there must
be a difference, surely.

the Rdson of the 840 is about half of the 830 which is about half of the 820
Yes, but that\'s a point in favour of substituting an 840 for an 820,
all other things being equal.

but all other things aren\'t equal, it is ~1/4 the Rdson but it is also ~4x the gate capacitance
a 840 is roughly equivalent to four 820s in parallel

That\'s exactly what I was alluding to. So the higher gate capacitance
will reduce the speed at which the chopper (this is a chopper FET in
this SMPS) can operate, and since that speed is fixed by other
circuitry, this FET will end up in some sort of permanent in-between
state; never fully off nor on. Is that a fair guess?

Probably not. The bigger FET won\'t switch on and off as fast as the 820 so you will have more dissipation during switching, but less dissipation when it is actually on.

You could estimate both if you knew the currents and times involved, but you won\'t. With a dim newbie we could try to get them to think about what might be going on, but you are known to be too dim to ever get it, and far too far up yourself to ever bother.

Huge amount of spam here compared to last time I posted.

That\'s mostly a a, with some help from Flyguy (who imagines his name is a reference to his claimed expertise as a glider pilot, but it seems to have more to do with his obvious pleasure in latching onto dung and reposting it here. Like your enthusiasm for Russian Today and the Daily Mail.)

MC: \"Let\'s have a big round of applause for our guest today, Bill Sloman, ladies and gentlemen.\"

BTW, I \'got it\' from your first sentence, Bill - assuming what you posted is actually accurate on this occasion.

So what are your estimates of the switching dissipation and the \"on\" dissipation of 820 and the 840 in your application?

Claiming to \"get it\" is what Gnatguy always does, when he clearly doesn\'t. Raise your credibility by giving us some numbers - \"on\" time versus \"off\" time, switching time, switching frequency. You might even be able to work out if I am right. Since you didn\'t give us any of this information when you posted the query, I didn\'t have anything to be \"accurate\" about - I was just giving you some conceptual tools to let you give us something we could be helpful about.

I think you got me wrong, Bill. I was genuinely appreciative of you actually providing some useful information for a change.

Choice of words didn\'t sound all that appreciative.

> You corrected me and gave me a very concise intuitive idea of the problem.

You hadn\'t spelled out your problem in enough detail for me to have posted any kind of correction.

I had to intuit what you were worried about, and spelled out a possible problem that you might have to deal with.

This isn\'t correction - at best potentially helpful speculation.

> No calcs needed.

If you want to understand what\'s going on you do need to do the calculations. They don\'t have to be all that accurate, but you do need to do it if you don\'t want to blow up a lot of transistors.

> It was just the usual barbs and insults I could have done without, but hey, that\'s just your nature I guess

More my response to your nature, which you have been telling us about here for years. A sudden burst of smarminess doesn\'t out years being a snarky prick.

> and we\'re all well used to that on this forum.

Some of the usual offenders see a lot of it. Others don\'t. I play nice with people who play nice, and deal out barbs and insults to people who earn them, mainly by being rude and insulting in their responses to me.

> Going back to the original point, though, I was pretty much on the right lines with my supposition because it is closely related to what you said.

But you couldn\'t articulate it clearly enough to work out what was probably going on. Finding the right point of view is frequently crucial to solving design problems, and people who can\'t imagine that the one they have always used isn\'t the right one for problem that has got them stumped are difficult to help.

Just a different aspect of the same issue: inability to switch fast enough and spending too much time in the ohmic region as a
result (ohmic or linear region; I can never remember which is which.

When the switch is fully on, it looks like a resistor (ohmic). When it is switching the power dissipated in the switch is the linear product of the - rapidly changing - current through the switch, and the - rapidly changing - voltage across the switch at each successive instant which you have to sum across the switching interval. That looks more like a linear amplifier, and linear audio amplifiers look like that all the time.

Integral calculus can be invoked, but numerical integration works fine, and LTSpice will do it for you if you know how to ask it to.

> Anyway, the bit between on and off).

You need to think about what\'s going on in a bit more detail. If you could you wouldn\'t need to ask us to do it for you. Junior engineers frequently run into this problem.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 05:20:38 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 11:41:10 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 02:41:42 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 8:34:46 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 17:20:10 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 9:11:27 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 21:15:12 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 13:10:11 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 20.28.18 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:32:53 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 17.15.55 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
Gentlemen,

There doesn\'t seem to be much difference between these devices from a
cursory read of the datasheets. They\'re all N channel MOSFETs with the
same pin-outs, same max voltages, same power handling. But there must
be a difference, surely.

the Rdson of the 840 is about half of the 830 which is about half of the 820
Yes, but that\'s a point in favour of substituting an 840 for an 820,
all other things being equal.

but all other things aren\'t equal, it is ~1/4 the Rdson but it is also ~4x the gate capacitance
a 840 is roughly equivalent to four 820s in parallel

That\'s exactly what I was alluding to. So the higher gate capacitance
will reduce the speed at which the chopper (this is a chopper FET in
this SMPS) can operate, and since that speed is fixed by other
circuitry, this FET will end up in some sort of permanent in-between
state; never fully off nor on. Is that a fair guess?

Probably not. The bigger FET won\'t switch on and off as fast as the 820 so you will have more dissipation during switching, but less dissipation when it is actually on.

You could estimate both if you knew the currents and times involved, but you won\'t. With a dim newbie we could try to get them to think about what might be going on, but you are known to be too dim to ever get it, and far too far up yourself to ever bother.

Huge amount of spam here compared to last time I posted.

That\'s mostly a a, with some help from Flyguy (who imagines his name is a reference to his claimed expertise as a glider pilot, but it seems to have more to do with his obvious pleasure in latching onto dung and reposting it here. Like your enthusiasm for Russian Today and the Daily Mail.)

MC: \"Let\'s have a big round of applause for our guest today, Bill Sloman, ladies and gentlemen.\"

BTW, I \'got it\' from your first sentence, Bill - assuming what you posted is actually accurate on this occasion.

So what are your estimates of the switching dissipation and the \"on\" dissipation of 820 and the 840 in your application?

Claiming to \"get it\" is what Gnatguy always does, when he clearly doesn\'t. Raise your credibility by giving us some numbers - \"on\" time versus \"off\" time, switching time, switching frequency. You might even be able to work out if I am right. Since you didn\'t give us any of this information when you posted the query, I didn\'t have anything to be \"accurate\" about - I was just giving you some conceptual tools to let you give us something we could be helpful about.

I think you got me wrong, Bill. I was genuinely appreciative of you actually providing some useful information for a change.

Choice of words didn\'t sound all that appreciative.

You corrected me and gave me a very concise intuitive idea of the problem.

You hadn\'t spelled out your problem in enough detail for me to have posted any kind of correction.

I had to intuit what you were worried about, and spelled out a possible problem that you might have to deal with.

This isn\'t correction - at best potentially helpful speculation.

No calcs needed.

If you want to understand what\'s going on you do need to do the calculations. They don\'t have to be all that accurate, but you do need to do it if you don\'t want to blow up a lot of transistors.

It was just the usual barbs and insults I could have done without, but hey, that\'s just your nature I guess

More my response to your nature, which you have been telling us about here for years. A sudden burst of smarminess doesn\'t out years being a snarky prick.

and we\'re all well used to that on this forum.

Some of the usual offenders see a lot of it. Others don\'t. I play nice with people who play nice, and deal out barbs and insults to people who earn them, mainly by being rude and insulting in their responses to me.

Going back to the original point, though, I was pretty much on the right lines with my supposition because it is closely related to what you said.

But you couldn\'t articulate it clearly enough to work out what was probably going on. Finding the right point of view is frequently crucial to solving design problems, and people who can\'t imagine that the one they have always used isn\'t the right one for problem that has got them stumped are difficult to help.

Just a different aspect of the same issue: inability to switch fast enough and spending too much time in the ohmic region as a
result (ohmic or linear region; I can never remember which is which.

When the switch is fully on, it looks like a resistor (ohmic). When it is switching the power dissipated in the switch is the linear product of the - rapidly changing - current through the switch, and the - rapidly changing - voltage across the switch at each successive instant which you have to sum across the switching interval. That looks more like a linear amplifier, and linear audio amplifiers look like that all the time.

Integral calculus can be invoked, but numerical integration works fine, and LTSpice will do it for you if you know how to ask it to.

Anyway, the bit between on and off).

You need to think about what\'s going on in a bit more detail. If you could you wouldn\'t need to ask us to do it for you. Junior engineers frequently run into this problem.

There you go, you see you *can* be helpful when you choose to be. Just
try to cut back on the insults and you\'ll be a more respected
contributor here.
Now, I know what you\'re getting at about doing the math and whatnot.
THAT is an engineer\'s job and I\'m no engineer. But I never asked for
and didn\'t expect anyone to attempt the calcs for me and I know very
well it would not be possible anyway, without data on -inter alia -
the switching frequency, dv/dt, gate drive capabilities etc. The
original question was only about what makes the IRF830 different from
the 830 and 840. No more. It was you who inferred more into the matter
than was required. Lasse provided part of the answer and you provided
the other. Congratulations! Now I know you *have* to have the final
word but please just try to keep it civil; thanks.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 12:46:08 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 05:20:38 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 11:41:10 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 02:41:42 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 8:34:46 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 17:20:10 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 9:11:27 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 21:15:12 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 13:10:11 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 20.28.18 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:32:53 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 17.15.55 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
Gentlemen,

There doesn\'t seem to be much difference between these devices from a
cursory read of the datasheets. They\'re all N channel MOSFETs with the
same pin-outs, same max voltages, same power handling. But there must
be a difference, surely.

the Rdson of the 840 is about half of the 830 which is about half of the 820
Yes, but that\'s a point in favour of substituting an 840 for an 820,
all other things being equal.

but all other things aren\'t equal, it is ~1/4 the Rdson but it is also ~4x the gate capacitance
a 840 is roughly equivalent to four 820s in parallel

That\'s exactly what I was alluding to. So the higher gate capacitance
will reduce the speed at which the chopper (this is a chopper FET in
this SMPS) can operate, and since that speed is fixed by other
circuitry, this FET will end up in some sort of permanent in-between
state; never fully off nor on. Is that a fair guess?

Probably not. The bigger FET won\'t switch on and off as fast as the 820 so you will have more dissipation during switching, but less dissipation when it is actually on.

You could estimate both if you knew the currents and times involved, but you won\'t. With a dim newbie we could try to get them to think about what might be going on, but you are known to be too dim to ever get it, and far too far up yourself to ever bother.

Huge amount of spam here compared to last time I posted.

That\'s mostly a a, with some help from Flyguy (who imagines his name is a reference to his claimed expertise as a glider pilot, but it seems to have more to do with his obvious pleasure in latching onto dung and reposting it here. Like your enthusiasm for Russian Today and the Daily Mail.)

MC: \"Let\'s have a big round of applause for our guest today, Bill Sloman, ladies and gentlemen.\"

BTW, I \'got it\' from your first sentence, Bill - assuming what you posted is actually accurate on this occasion.

So what are your estimates of the switching dissipation and the \"on\" dissipation of 820 and the 840 in your application?

Claiming to \"get it\" is what Gnatguy always does, when he clearly doesn\'t. Raise your credibility by giving us some numbers - \"on\" time versus \"off\" time, switching time, switching frequency. You might even be able to work out if I am right. Since you didn\'t give us any of this information when you posted the query, I didn\'t have anything to be \"accurate\" about - I was just giving you some conceptual tools to let you give us something we could be helpful about.

I think you got me wrong, Bill. I was genuinely appreciative of you actually providing some useful information for a change.

Choice of words didn\'t sound all that appreciative.

You corrected me and gave me a very concise intuitive idea of the problem.

You hadn\'t spelled out your problem in enough detail for me to have posted any kind of correction.

I had to intuit what you were worried about, and spelled out a possible problem that you might have to deal with.

This isn\'t correction - at best potentially helpful speculation.

No calcs needed.

If you want to understand what\'s going on you do need to do the calculations. They don\'t have to be all that accurate, but you do need to do it if you don\'t want to blow up a lot of transistors.

It was just the usual barbs and insults I could have done without, but hey, that\'s just your nature I guess

More my response to your nature, which you have been telling us about here for years. A sudden burst of smarminess doesn\'t wipe out your years being a snarky prick.

and we\'re all well used to that on this forum.

Some of the usual offenders see a lot of it. Others don\'t. I play nice with people who play nice, and deal out barbs and insults to people who earn them, mainly by being rude and insulting in their responses to me.

Going back to the original point, though, I was pretty much on the right lines with my supposition because it is closely related to what you said..

But you couldn\'t articulate it clearly enough to work out what was probably going on. Finding the right point of view is frequently crucial to solving design problems, and people who can\'t imagine that the one they have always used isn\'t the right one for problem that has got them stumped are difficult to help.

Just a different aspect of the same issue: inability to switch fast enough and spending too much time in the ohmic region as a
result (ohmic or linear region; I can never remember which is which.

When the switch is fully on, it looks like a resistor (ohmic). When it is switching the power dissipated in the switch is the linear product of the - rapidly changing - current through the switch, and the - rapidly changing - voltage across the switch at each successive instant which you have to sum across the switching interval. That looks more like a linear amplifier, and linear audio amplifiers look like that all the time.

Integral calculus can be invoked, but numerical integration works fine, and LTSpice will do it for you if you know how to ask it to.

Anyway, the bit between on and off).

You need to think about what\'s going on in a bit more detail. If you could you wouldn\'t need to ask us to do it for you. Junior engineers frequently run into this problem.

There you go, you see you *can* be helpful when you choose to be.

I frequently do choose to be helpful, when I can.

> Just try to cut back on the insults and you\'ll be a more respected contributor here.

Post less fatuous right wing nonsense, and you will get a more positive reception when you do ask questions - I don\'t know what you think you contribute here, and your opinion of who might be a \"respected contributor\" isn\'t one that is going to carry much weight.

Now, I know what you\'re getting at about doing the math and whatnot.
THAT is an engineer\'s job and I\'m no engineer.

But even if you just want to be a hobbyist engineer, as you have claimed to be, you will get better results if work out what\'s going on.

But I never asked for and didn\'t expect anyone to attempt the calcs for me and I know very well it would not be possible anyway, without data on -inter alia -
the switching frequency, dv/dt, gate drive capabilities etc.

The switching frequency is something that you can see with an oscilloscope, and the switching time is visible if you hang a scope probe on the drain of the switching transistor - since you know the tie the voltage takes to swing and the voltage it swings through, that dv/dt as well,

Getting gate drive capability needs you to look at the circuit. If you plug the bits into LTSpice you can pull quite out a lot of information out of s simulation of the bit doing the switching.

> The original question was only about what makes the IRF830 different from the 830 and 840. No more. It was you who inferred more into the matter than was required. Lasse provided part of the answer and you provided the other. Congratulations! Now I know you *have* to have the final word but please just try to keep it civil; thanks.

Glad to be of service - even to you. Most of the questions that get asked here demand a certain amount of insight into what the poster asking the question is trying to do - dumb newbies don\'t know enough to tell us what they need to know. You\'ve been posting here long enough that you should be aware of that, but you still don\'t know enough to ask a question that is easy to answer. The fact that Lasse didn\'t provide you with all the information you wanted isn\'t any criticism of Lasse who really does know what he is talking about, but was a trifle optimistic about your capacity to completely understand his answer (which looked pretty comprehensive to me).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 09:34:36 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 17:20:10 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 9:11:27 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 21:15:12 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 13:10:11 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 20.28.18 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:32:53 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 17.15.55 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
Gentlemen,

There doesn\'t seem to be much difference between these devices from a
cursory read of the datasheets. They\'re all N channel MOSFETs with the
same pin-outs, same max voltages, same power handling. But there must
be a difference, surely.

the Rdson of the 840 is about half of the 830 which is about half of the 820
Yes, but that\'s a point in favour of substituting an 840 for an 820,
all other things being equal.

but all other things aren\'t equal, it is ~1/4 the Rdson but it is also ~4x the gate capacitance
a 840 is roughly equivalent to four 820s in parallel

That\'s exactly what I was alluding to. So the higher gate capacitance
will reduce the speed at which the chopper (this is a chopper FET in
this SMPS) can operate, and since that speed is fixed by other
circuitry, this FET will end up in some sort of permanent in-between
state; never fully off nor on. Is that a fair guess?

Probably not. The bigger FET won\'t switch on and off as fast as the 820 so you will have more dissipation during switching, but less dissipation when it is actually on.

You could estimate both if you knew the currents and times involved, but you won\'t. With a dim newbie we could try to get them to think about what might be going on, but you are known to be too dim to ever get it, and far too far up yourself to ever bother.

Huge amount of spam here compared to last time I posted.

That\'s mostly a a, with some help from Flyguy (who imagines his name is a reference to his claimed expertise as a glider pilot, but it seems to have more to do with his obvious pleasure in latching onto dung and reposting it here. Like your enthusiasm for Russian Today and the Daily Mail.)

MC: \"Let\'s have a big round of applause for our guest today, Bill
Slowman, ladies and gentlemen.\"

He turns any topic into an opportunity to dredge out his ritual
insults. How boring he is.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 07:05:15 -0800, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 09:34:36 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 17:20:10 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 9:11:27 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 21:15:12 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 13:10:11 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 20.28.18 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:32:53 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 17.15.55 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
Gentlemen,

There doesn\'t seem to be much difference between these devices from a
cursory read of the datasheets. They\'re all N channel MOSFETs with the
same pin-outs, same max voltages, same power handling. But there must
be a difference, surely.

the Rdson of the 840 is about half of the 830 which is about half of the 820
Yes, but that\'s a point in favour of substituting an 840 for an 820,
all other things being equal.

but all other things aren\'t equal, it is ~1/4 the Rdson but it is also ~4x the gate capacitance
a 840 is roughly equivalent to four 820s in parallel

That\'s exactly what I was alluding to. So the higher gate capacitance
will reduce the speed at which the chopper (this is a chopper FET in
this SMPS) can operate, and since that speed is fixed by other
circuitry, this FET will end up in some sort of permanent in-between
state; never fully off nor on. Is that a fair guess?

Probably not. The bigger FET won\'t switch on and off as fast as the 820 so you will have more dissipation during switching, but less dissipation when it is actually on.

You could estimate both if you knew the currents and times involved, but you won\'t. With a dim newbie we could try to get them to think about what might be going on, but you are known to be too dim to ever get it, and far too far up yourself to ever bother.

Huge amount of spam here compared to last time I posted.

That\'s mostly a a, with some help from Flyguy (who imagines his name is a reference to his claimed expertise as a glider pilot, but it seems to have more to do with his obvious pleasure in latching onto dung and reposting it here. Like your enthusiasm for Russian Today and the Daily Mail.)

MC: \"Let\'s have a big round of applause for our guest today, Bill
Slowman, ladies and gentlemen.\"

He turns any topic into an opportunity to dredge out his ritual
insults. How boring he is.

It\'s just such a waste, because he *does* know his stuff when it comes
to electronics. But we hardly ever get to see that side of him
nowadays. As you may remember 25 years ago he was virtually exemplary
in his contributions here. No idea why he turned into such an old
sourpuss. Age I guess. I\'m the same when it comes to other matters I
feel strongly about. Like all the street excrement one finds in these
so-called \"sanctuary cities\".

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 06:22:07 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 12:46:08 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 05:20:38 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 11:41:10 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 02:41:42 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 8:34:46 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 17:20:10 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 9:11:27 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 21:15:12 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 13:10:11 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 20.28.18 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:32:53 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 17.15.55 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
Gentlemen,

There doesn\'t seem to be much difference between these devices from a
cursory read of the datasheets. They\'re all N channel MOSFETs with the
same pin-outs, same max voltages, same power handling. But there must
be a difference, surely.

the Rdson of the 840 is about half of the 830 which is about half of the 820
Yes, but that\'s a point in favour of substituting an 840 for an 820,
all other things being equal.

but all other things aren\'t equal, it is ~1/4 the Rdson but it is also ~4x the gate capacitance
a 840 is roughly equivalent to four 820s in parallel

That\'s exactly what I was alluding to. So the higher gate capacitance
will reduce the speed at which the chopper (this is a chopper FET in
this SMPS) can operate, and since that speed is fixed by other
circuitry, this FET will end up in some sort of permanent in-between
state; never fully off nor on. Is that a fair guess?

Probably not. The bigger FET won\'t switch on and off as fast as the 820 so you will have more dissipation during switching, but less dissipation when it is actually on.

You could estimate both if you knew the currents and times involved, but you won\'t. With a dim newbie we could try to get them to think about what might be going on, but you are known to be too dim to ever get it, and far too far up yourself to ever bother.

Huge amount of spam here compared to last time I posted.

That\'s mostly a a, with some help from Flyguy (who imagines his name is a reference to his claimed expertise as a glider pilot, but it seems to have more to do with his obvious pleasure in latching onto dung and reposting it here. Like your enthusiasm for Russian Today and the Daily Mail.)

MC: \"Let\'s have a big round of applause for our guest today, Bill Sloman, ladies and gentlemen.\"

BTW, I \'got it\' from your first sentence, Bill - assuming what you posted is actually accurate on this occasion.

So what are your estimates of the switching dissipation and the \"on\" dissipation of 820 and the 840 in your application?

Claiming to \"get it\" is what Gnatguy always does, when he clearly doesn\'t. Raise your credibility by giving us some numbers - \"on\" time versus \"off\" time, switching time, switching frequency. You might even be able to work out if I am right. Since you didn\'t give us any of this information when you posted the query, I didn\'t have anything to be \"accurate\" about - I was just giving you some conceptual tools to let you give us something we could be helpful about.

I think you got me wrong, Bill. I was genuinely appreciative of you actually providing some useful information for a change.

Choice of words didn\'t sound all that appreciative.

You corrected me and gave me a very concise intuitive idea of the problem.

You hadn\'t spelled out your problem in enough detail for me to have posted any kind of correction.

I had to intuit what you were worried about, and spelled out a possible problem that you might have to deal with.

This isn\'t correction - at best potentially helpful speculation.

No calcs needed.

If you want to understand what\'s going on you do need to do the calculations. They don\'t have to be all that accurate, but you do need to do it if you don\'t want to blow up a lot of transistors.

It was just the usual barbs and insults I could have done without, but hey, that\'s just your nature I guess

More my response to your nature, which you have been telling us about here for years. A sudden burst of smarminess doesn\'t wipe out your years being a snarky prick.

and we\'re all well used to that on this forum.

Some of the usual offenders see a lot of it. Others don\'t. I play nice with people who play nice, and deal out barbs and insults to people who earn them, mainly by being rude and insulting in their responses to me.

Going back to the original point, though, I was pretty much on the right lines with my supposition because it is closely related to what you said.

But you couldn\'t articulate it clearly enough to work out what was probably going on. Finding the right point of view is frequently crucial to solving design problems, and people who can\'t imagine that the one they have always used isn\'t the right one for problem that has got them stumped are difficult to help.

Just a different aspect of the same issue: inability to switch fast enough and spending too much time in the ohmic region as a
result (ohmic or linear region; I can never remember which is which.

When the switch is fully on, it looks like a resistor (ohmic). When it is switching the power dissipated in the switch is the linear product of the - rapidly changing - current through the switch, and the - rapidly changing - voltage across the switch at each successive instant which you have to sum across the switching interval. That looks more like a linear amplifier, and linear audio amplifiers look like that all the time.

Integral calculus can be invoked, but numerical integration works fine, and LTSpice will do it for you if you know how to ask it to.

Anyway, the bit between on and off).

You need to think about what\'s going on in a bit more detail. If you could you wouldn\'t need to ask us to do it for you. Junior engineers frequently run into this problem.

There you go, you see you *can* be helpful when you choose to be.

I frequently do choose to be helpful, when I can.

Well when those ocassion arise, I\'m sure you\'ll be much more highly
regarded as a result.

Just try to cut back on the insults and you\'ll be a more respected contributor here.

Post less fatuous right wing nonsense, and you will get a more positive reception when you do ask questions - I don\'t know what you think you contribute here, and your opinion of who might be a \"respected contributor\" isn\'t one that is going to carry much weight.

Now, I know what you\'re getting at about doing the math and whatnot.
THAT is an engineer\'s job and I\'m no engineer.

But even if you just want to be a hobbyist engineer, as you have claimed to be, you will get better results if work out what\'s going on.

I\'ve only ever claimed to be a hobbyist. I\'m not sure there\'s any such
thing as a \"hobbyist engineer\" as one is either an engineer and done
all the exams and whatnot, or one is just a dabbler. I freely admit to
being in the latter category.

But I never asked for and didn\'t expect anyone to attempt the calcs for me and I know very well it would not be possible anyway, without data on -inter alia -
the switching frequency, dv/dt, gate drive capabilities etc.

The switching frequency is something that you can see with an oscilloscope, and the switching time is visible if you hang a scope probe on the drain of the switching transistor - since you know the tie the voltage takes to swing and the voltage it swings through, that dv/dt as well,

Getting gate drive capability needs you to look at the circuit. If you plug the bits into LTSpice you can pull quite out a lot of information out of s simulation of the bit doing the switching.

The original question was only about what makes the IRF830 different from the 830 and 840. No more. It was you who inferred more into the matter than was required. Lasse provided part of the answer and you provided the other. Congratulations! Now I know you *have* to have the final word but please just try to keep it civil; thanks.

Glad to be of service - even to you. Most of the questions that get asked here demand a certain amount of insight into what the poster asking the question is trying to do - dumb newbies don\'t know enough to tell us what they need to know. You\'ve been posting here long enough that you should be aware of that, but you still don\'t know enough to ask a question that is easy to answer. The fact that Lasse didn\'t provide you with all the information you wanted isn\'t any criticism of Lasse who really does know what he is talking about, but was a trifle optimistic about your capacity to completely understand his answer (which looked pretty comprehensive to me).

Yes, criticism accepted. And Lasse is a credit to the group; always
has been.
Thanks again for your input.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 2:05:27 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 09:34:36 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 17:20:10 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill.....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 9:11:27 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 21:15:12 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 13:10:11 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 20.28.18 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:32:53 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 17.15.55 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:

<snip>

MC: \"Let\'s have a big round of applause for our guest today, Bill
Slowman, ladies and gentlemen.\"

He turns any topic into an opportunity to dredge out his ritual insults. How boring he is.

John Larkin expects to be flattered whenever his name is mentioned. Any poster who fails to serve up sufficiently fulsome flattery is experienced by John as serving out boring ritual insults. It must be boring to have to slog through the usual rational content and not find the flattery you were hoping for.

There\'s story about a Chinese scholar who was so mortified when he didn\'t get his usual dish of pickled turnips that he committed suicide.

John Larkin does seem to be similarly mortified by absence of the flattery that he feels that he deserves. Suicide would be an over-reaction, but one could wish that he\'d take himself off in high dudgeon rather than hanging around and complaining about being \"ritually insulted\".

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 4:38:56 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 07:05:15 -0800, John Larkin <jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 09:34:36 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 17:20:10 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill.....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 9:11:27 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 21:15:12 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 13:10:11 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 20.28.18 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:32:53 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 17.15.55 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:

That\'s mostly a a, with some help from Flyguy (who imagines his name is a reference to his claimed expertise as a glider pilot, but it seems to have more to do with his obvious pleasure in latching onto dung and reposting it here. Like your enthusiasm for Russian Today and the Daily Mail.)

MC: \"Let\'s have a big round of applause for our guest today, Bill Sloman, ladies and gentlemen.\"

He turns any topic into an opportunity to dredge out his ritual insults. How boring he is.

John Larkin imagines that people who don\'t flatter him fulsomely are engaging in a form of ritual insult. It\'s as bizarre perception, but that has to be what he is complaining about.

> It\'s just such a waste, because he *does* know his stuff when it comes to electronics. But we hardly ever get to see that side of him nowadays. As you may remember 25 years ago he was virtually exemplary in his contributions here. No idea why he turned into such an old sourpuss.

Twenty five years ago most of the contributors were interested in electronic design - John Larkin wasn\'t but he did pontificate about it as if he were interested.

There are a lot more people posting here now who post the kind of right-wing nonsense that is Cursitor Doom\'s principal preoccupation. I slagged off people like him back then, and I\'m still doing it. There are more of them now and they\'ve put off a lot of the people who were interested in electronics

> Age I guess.

Could be - but I suspect not. The environment has changed a lot in that time.

> I\'m the same when it comes to other matters I feel strongly about. Like all the street excrement one finds in these so-called \"sanctuary cities\".

As if Cursitor Doom and Gnatguy aren\'t spreading a lot of that here. Skybuck Flying is worse, but not quite so right-wing. A a is currently the chief polluter. Half the threads I see are posted by him, and hardly any of them get viewed or responded to, and those that do get responses earn them by being particularly stupid.

--
Bil Sloman, Sydney

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 17.15.55 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:

Gentlemen,

There doesn\'t seem to be much difference between these devices from a
cursory read of the datasheets. They\'re all N channel MOSFETs with the
same pin-outs, same max voltages, same power handling. But there must
be a difference, surely.

the Rdson of the 840 is about half of the 830 which is about half of the 820

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:32:53 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
<langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 17.15.55 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
Gentlemen,

There doesn\'t seem to be much difference between these devices from a
cursory read of the datasheets. They\'re all N channel MOSFETs with the
same pin-outs, same max voltages, same power handling. But there must
be a difference, surely.

the Rdson of the 840 is about half of the 830 which is about half of the 820

Yes, but that\'s a point in favour of substituting an 840 for an 820,
all other things being equal.
Just noticed I neglected to post links to the datasheets in my earlier
post.

https://www.vishay.com/docs/91059/91059.pdf

https://www.vishay.com/docs/91063/91063.pdf

https://www.vishay.com/docs/91070/91070.pdf

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 20.28.18 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:32:53 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 17.15.55 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
Gentlemen,

There doesn\'t seem to be much difference between these devices from a
cursory read of the datasheets. They\'re all N channel MOSFETs with the
same pin-outs, same max voltages, same power handling. But there must
be a difference, surely.

the Rdson of the 840 is about half of the 830 which is about half of the 820
Yes, but that\'s a point in favour of substituting an 840 for an 820,
all other things being equal.

but all other things aren\'t equal, it is ~1/4 the Rdson but it is also ~4x the gate capacitance
a 840 is roughly equivalent to four 820s in parallel

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 13:10:11 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
<langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 20.28.18 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:32:53 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 17.15.55 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
Gentlemen,

There doesn\'t seem to be much difference between these devices from a
cursory read of the datasheets. They\'re all N channel MOSFETs with the
same pin-outs, same max voltages, same power handling. But there must
be a difference, surely.

the Rdson of the 840 is about half of the 830 which is about half of the 820
Yes, but that\'s a point in favour of substituting an 840 for an 820,
all other things being equal.

but all other things aren\'t equal, it is ~1/4 the Rdson but it is also ~4x the gate capacitance
a 840 is roughly equivalent to four 820s in parallel

That\'s exactly what I was alluding to. So the higher gate capacitance
will reduce the speed at which the chopper (this is a chopper FET in
this SMPS) can operate, and since that speed is fixed by other
circuitry, this FET will end up in some sort of permanent in-between
state; never fully off nor on. Is that a fair guess?

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 21:15:12 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 13:10:11 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 20.28.18 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:32:53 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 12. november 2022 kl. 17.15.55 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
Gentlemen,

There doesn\'t seem to be much difference between these devices from a
cursory read of the datasheets. They\'re all N channel MOSFETs with the
same pin-outs, same max voltages, same power handling. But there must
be a difference, surely.

the Rdson of the 840 is about half of the 830 which is about half of the 820
Yes, but that\'s a point in favour of substituting an 840 for an 820,
all other things being equal.

but all other things aren\'t equal, it is ~1/4 the Rdson but it is also ~4x the gate capacitance
a 840 is roughly equivalent to four 820s in parallel

That\'s exactly what I was alluding to. So the higher gate capacitance
will reduce the speed at which the chopper (this is a chopper FET in
this SMPS) can operate, and since that speed is fixed by other
circuitry, this FET will end up in some sort of permanent in-between
state; never fully off nor on. Is that a fair guess?

Huge amount of spam here compared to last time I posted.