Opposite of MOV for BEMF Spike Protection?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jdo300
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the design of a pulse circuit output stage that utilizes back electromotive force (BEMF) to generate high voltage spikes. The main focus is on finding a passive device that increases resistance in response to high voltage spikes, as a means to protect MOSFETs from damage due to these spikes. Participants explore various protective strategies and devices, including traditional methods and alternative approaches.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Jason O proposes the need for a passive device that increases resistance when high voltage pulses are applied, to protect the MOSFET from BEMF spikes.
  • Some participants suggest traditional methods such as using a capacitor across the switch, a diode on the inductor, or dissipating stored energy on the output side of the inductor.
  • One participant mentions the use of a diode from the drain to +V as a conventional way to manage transients.
  • Jason O acknowledges the use of diodes and capacitors but clarifies that he wants to prevent the spike voltage from solely affecting the MOSFET.
  • Jason O discusses the idea of using a voltage-controlled MOSFET resistor but expresses concerns about the response time to voltage changes.
  • Another proposed solution involves using two MOSFETs in series to share the voltage, raising concerns about ensuring simultaneous turn-off.
  • One participant notes that a capacitor can function as a boost, with the main output pulse derived from the charge on the capacitor.
  • Questions are raised regarding the voltage levels and transformer turns ratio, suggesting that different topologies might be considered based on these parameters.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best approach to protect the MOSFET from BEMF spikes. Multiple competing views and methods are presented, with ongoing exploration of various solutions.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of proposed solutions, particularly concerning the response times of active devices and the reliability of simultaneous switching in series MOSFET configurations.

Jdo300
Messages
548
Reaction score
5
Hello All,

I am designing a pulse circuit output stage which uses BEMF to produce high voltage spikes (see attached circuit).

I understand that MOVs work by loosing their resistance when HV transients are applied to them. But I am wondering if there is anything out there which does exactly the opposite. So when a high voltage pulse is applied, the resistance increases?

The reason I am asking is because I want to come up with a simple way to protect my MOSFET from the BEMF spike produced in the inductor. I want to be able to produce BEMF spikes that are higher in voltage than the MOSFET's breakdown voltage; so I reasoned that if I could have some type of passive device which has negligible resistance while the switch is on, but increases in resistance after turn-off as the BEMF voltage rises, that all the voltage would be dropped across the device, thus saving the MOSFET from destruction. Does anyone know of such a thing?

Thanks,
Jason O
 

Attachments

  • Circuit.GIF
    Circuit.GIF
    1.9 KB · Views: 475
Engineering news on Phys.org
I never heard of anything like that.

The usual ways of dealing with this are
Capacitor across the switch.
Diode on the inductor.
Dissipating the stored energy on the output side of the inductor.

You might want to look into automotive ignition circuits.
That sounds similar to what you want to do.
 
Yeah, just put a diode from the drain up to +V. That's the traditional way to catch the transient on the primary side.
 
Hi Guys,

Thanks for the suggestions. I have heard of using a diode across the coil, or using a cap across the FET (I think you are referring to a snubber circuit?). But I don't actually want to suppress the spike itself, I simply want to stop all of the voltage in the spike from dropping across the MOSFET alone.

So far, I have only found one or two possible solutions, both of which are questionable. I found this site here which talks about using a second MOSFET as a type of 'voltage controlled resistor':

http://www.google.com/patents?id=i04fAAAAEBAJ&dq=5264785

and also:

http://graffiti.virgin.net/ljmayes.mal/comp/vcr.htm

However, these are both active devices and I was hoping to find a passive device that could accomplish this.

The Voltage-controlled MOSFET resistor would be cool if I could rig it up to automatically turn off during the transient voltage. However, my concern there would be how fast it could actually respond to the quick voltage change. But then again, if I want to go that route, It may be better to just go with my second idea below.

My other thought was simply to have two MOSFETs in series that could switch on and off together at the same time, so the voltage could at least divide across both of them together. But my concern then is how to ensure that both FETs will turn off at the same time even with the same drive signal going into both? I also know that MOSFETs are notoriously known for having fast turn on times but slow turn off times, (even when using a driver) so I'm trying to think of how to combat that issue as well.

- Jason O
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What voltage is V+? What is your transformer turns ratio, and how many volts do you wish to produce acroos the secondary?
 
Phrak said:
What voltage is V+? What is your transformer turns ratio, and how many volts do you wish to produce acroos the secondary?

I ask, because there might be you could use a different topology or perhaps you don't have th problem you think you do.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
15K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
55
Views
8K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K