Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #447047 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-09 13:16 -0600 |
| Last post | 2017-02-15 10:41 -0800 |
| Articles | 7 on this page of 67 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-09 13:16 -0600
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-09 11:34 -0800
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-09 16:47 -0600
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-09 15:40 -0800
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-10 10:47 -0500
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-10 08:30 -0800
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-10 07:25 -0800
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 11:37 -0600
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-10 11:19 -0800
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-10 12:48 -0700
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-10 12:24 -0800
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-10 12:22 -0800
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-09 13:21 -0700
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-09 16:46 -0600
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-02-09 17:01 -0600
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-09 18:59 -0700
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-02-10 13:17 -0600
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-02-10 14:29 -0800
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-10 17:58 -0500
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-10 16:40 -0700
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection M Philbrook <jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> - 2017-02-10 18:23 -0500
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-09 14:55 -0800
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-09 17:31 -0800
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-10 08:50 -0700
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 11:18 -0600
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-10 12:41 -0700
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 16:28 -0600
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-10 16:44 -0700
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 20:49 -0600
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-10 20:10 -0700
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-11 11:38 -0600
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-11 11:07 -0700
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 18:46 -0500
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-11 11:15 -0700
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-11 18:31 -0600
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 19:50 -0500
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-12 12:44 +1100
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-11 23:26 -0600
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-12 18:19 +1100
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-12 08:18 -0800
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 01:52 -0500
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-11 18:04 -0700
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-11 23:14 -0600
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-12 08:18 -0700
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-12 08:29 -0800
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 13:54 -0800
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-10 08:53 -0700
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection M Philbrook <jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> - 2017-02-10 18:08 -0500
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-10 15:15 -0800
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection M Philbrook <jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> - 2017-02-10 18:34 -0500
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-11 12:47 -0700
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-14 06:13 +0000
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 00:52 -0800
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-14 22:26 -0600
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-14 22:16 -0600
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-14 21:42 -0800
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-15 00:21 -0600
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-15 11:44 +0000
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-15 08:15 -0600
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection makolber@yahoo.com - 2017-02-15 09:30 -0800
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-15 11:50 -0600
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection makolber@yahoo.com - 2017-02-15 10:07 -0800
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-02-15 21:19 -0600
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-15 11:30 -0800
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection makolber@yahoo.com - 2017-02-15 11:52 -0800
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-15 12:00 -0800
Re: PNP for soft switch and reverse battery protection John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-15 10:41 -0800
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 11:50 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <20170215-175018.222.0@Peabody.ssl.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #447754 |
makolber@yahoo.com says... >one more question.... > >for the reverse polarity protection function, why is 100uA leakage a >problem? > >Reverse polarity protection is just to keep the magic smoke in if someone >momentary connects the battery backwards... ...no? > > >100uA is not going to blow anything... >Mark I don't know if it's a problem. But among other things, I have a microcontroller that's used to +3.3V, and I don't know how much -9V current it takes to do harm. I just don't know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | makolber@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 10:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dc467a44-32c8-44aa-a278-dd052fdc6f8f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447759 |
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 12:50:23 PM UTC-5, Peabody wrote: > makolber@yahoo.com says... > >one more question.... > > > >for the reverse polarity protection function, why is 100uA leakage a > >problem? > > > >Reverse polarity protection is just to keep the magic smoke in if someone > >momentary connects the battery backwards... ...no? > > > > > >100uA is not going to blow anything... > >Mark > > I don't know if it's a problem. But among other things, I have a > microcontroller that's used to +3.3V, and I don't know how much -9V current > it takes to do harm. I just don't know. put a reverse diode on the inside of the protection to short any small leakage so if the battery is connected backwards, 100uA will flow through the diode to ground Mark
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 21:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o835k9$v24$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #447759 |
"Peabody" <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:20170215-175018.222.0@Peabody.ssl.astraweb.com... > I don't know if it's a problem. But among other things, I have a > microcontroller that's used to +3.3V, and I don't know how much -9V > current > it takes to do harm. I just don't know. I would be shocked if any logic device is unable to survive at least as much reverse current as the ESD protection diodes (i.e., the input current limit on a CMOS input logic pin), if not the Vdd/Vss pin current limit (which is carried by transistors not diodes, but the diodes are at least as big as the transistors, see--). So, 10 to 100mA, not ~uA. I can't conceive of a reason how or why a CMOS IC should fail from that. It's just substrate forward bias! And, for that matter, I would be very concerned if I discovered a chip that does die so easily! Assuming I have any choice in its selection, of course... In any case, you can prevent such exposure by shunting Vss to Vdd with another small schottky, which will keep it well below a PN junction Vf. Tim -- Seven Transistor Labs, LLC Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 11:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <05dbb870-baa6-4f6d-bfb9-5ec4f41ffa7f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447754 |
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 12:30:48 PM UTC-5, mako...@yahoo.com wrote: > one more question.... > > for the reverse polarity protection function, why is 100uA leakage a problem? > > Reverse polarity protection is just to keep the magic smoke in if someone momentary connects the battery backwards... ...no? > > > 100uA is not going to blow anything... > Mark Do Schottky diodes leak that much? That seems like a lot. (un-measurable on my DMM uA scale... leakage less than 50 nA.) (Well that's a small diode.. 1N5711) George h.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | makolber@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 11:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d12c94c9-7798-4ce6-b0e3-06f9b2989d0d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447775 |
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 2:30:23 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote: > On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 12:30:48 PM UTC-5, mako...@yahoo.com wrote: > > one more question.... > > > > for the reverse polarity protection function, why is 100uA leakage a problem? > > > > Reverse polarity protection is just to keep the magic smoke in if someone momentary connects the battery backwards... ...no? > > > > > > 100uA is not going to blow anything... > > Mark > > Do Schottky diodes leak that much? That seems like a lot. > (un-measurable on my DMM uA scale... leakage less than 50 nA.) > (Well that's a small diode.. 1N5711) > > George h. it's not diode leakage I'm taking about the 100 ua leakage is from the PNP circuit when the battery is connected backwards. The OP is concerned this 100 uA leakage will damage his load. A SHUNT diode will forward conduct the 100uA leakage to ground and almost no reverse voltage will appear across the load. m
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 12:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cb9abf43-5017-42b6-b35d-836929512cee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447777 |
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 2:52:41 PM UTC-5, mako...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 2:30:23 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 12:30:48 PM UTC-5, mako...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > one more question.... > > > > > > for the reverse polarity protection function, why is 100uA leakage a problem? > > > > > > Reverse polarity protection is just to keep the magic smoke in if someone momentary connects the battery backwards... ...no? > > > > > > > > > 100uA is not going to blow anything... > > > Mark > > > > Do Schottky diodes leak that much? That seems like a lot. > > (un-measurable on my DMM uA scale... leakage less than 50 nA.) > > (Well that's a small diode.. 1N5711) > > > > George h. > > it's not diode leakage I'm taking about > > the 100 ua leakage is from the PNP circuit when the battery is connected backwards. > > The OP is concerned this 100 uA leakage will damage his load. > > A SHUNT diode will forward conduct the 100uA leakage to ground and almost no reverse voltage will appear across the load. > > m Oh sorry my mistake. GH.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 10:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0289act8d4ods7nesgtsh2svhlt6e1945c@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #447717 |
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:21:09 -0600, Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote: >John Larkin says... > > > Why not use a series schottky diode, instead of > > complicated circuits? > >I just wanted to avoid even that voltage drop. Any drop >just means the battery has to be replaced sooner. Batteries usually discharge at nearly constant voltage, and drop off rapidly at end of life. So a series diode won't affect lifetime much. You might give up 300 mv to a schottky diode. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web