REGISTER | LOGIN
Home    Bloggers    Blogs    Article Archives    Messages    About Us   
Tw  |  Fb  |  In  |  Rss
Brad Albing

Since When Are Diodes Active Electronic Components?

Brad Albing
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Brad Albing
Brad Albing
3/28/2013 10:25:17 AM
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Both schemes are insufficient
I think I see where our misunderstanding is coming from. The FET is only turned on as needed. Specifically, when the FET's body diode starts conducting (meaning the "dark cell or cells" condition has occurred), that produces the 0.7V drop (approx.) in the diode's forward direction. That small voltage is enought to start the charge pump circuitry working. That produces enough voltage to turn on the gate (enhance channel conduction) for a while until the capacitor in the charge pump circuitry bleeds down. Then the FET turns off and the process repeats. I should have pointed to that explanation in TI's data sheet.

50%
50%
Gregst
Gregst
3/27/2013 5:22:00 PM
User Rank
Newbie
Re: Both schemes are insufficient
Dear Brad, there was no argument about a regular PN diode. You are making a definition trick labeling a power mosfet with the control circuits as an "active diode", implying that it has the I-V characteristics of an ordinary diode and stopping there. Could you please explain how would a power n-mosfet prevent the effective short-circuiting of the solar cell ? Yes, Nmos would conduct much better in one direction than in another direction. Yet its directionality is not equivalent to that of a PN diode. For example, there are no pmos transistors working at high currents (~30A), therefore nmos transistors are routinely used in the high-current regulated power supplies (say, those for inductive heating) for conduction in both directions.

It is mosfet, not bipolar. Drain could function as source, and source as drain. The electron channel is there, albeit with the pinch-off that might be a wrong side. Why that channel would not shunt the solar cells and allow the current to flow through the shunted solar cell loop ?

Again, I'm not claiming that it is bound not to work, but that if it works, it is due to the physical principle that the light energy is either converted in heat or in electricity. Hence, it might be possible to safely short-circuit a photoelectric cell. I've never tried though.

50%
50%
Brad Albing
Brad Albing
3/27/2013 4:15:12 PM
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Both schemes are insufficient
>Brad, dear, if you ever done a classic DC net analysis, you surely know that current is not always flowing in the same direction, and on a same wire shared by 2 closed circuits you could have 2 currents flowing in the opposit directions. Use Kirchhoff's current and voltage laws.

Greg, dear, just to keep this discussion easier to follow, let's consider a long string of PV cells connected in series and let's go back to using the old-fashioned real PN diode connected across cells. Let's take the extreme case and put a diode across each PV cell with its cathode on the positive terminal of each PV cell. As the output of any one cell drops sufficiently low and it starts to appear more and more resistive, current caused by the other cells' EMF will start flowing thru the diode rather than thru the low output cell. With the active diode IC, the result is the same, except that the forward drop is a lot lower.

>As an experiment, take a battery and connect it to an LED. Next, take another battery, and connect both electrodes of it to one of the wires hooked to the LED. You can position your battery in any direction + closer to LED, or + farther from LED. Let's see  if your new circuit is going to affect glowing of LED, and what would it do to your second battery. Just stay away far enough, it might exlode. There would be 2 currents flowing in the same wire: one, to LED, second, from the short-circuited second battery.

An interesting experiment, which might show some interesting insights if you modeled it properly by introducing some resistance in different legs so as to mimic real world conditions. Then you could write the loop equations for the different portions. Absent those resistances, all curents would be infinite. A nice Electricity 101 problem. But not the one under discussion. Per my paragraph above, the current flow is very easy to follow.

>It appears that your MOSFET  (almost) short-circuits a number of solar cells. I'm saying "almost" because the current would be limited by the MOSFET resistance, and interlal resistance of the solar cells. Nevertheless, all light falling on the shunted cell would be used for their heating.

The MOSFET short circuits the PV cell in the same way that a diode short-circuits a cell - i.e., not at all. Sketch out a series circuit with any number of cells with a shunt diode across each cell. Assume the cell is a voltage source whose output varies with the incident light. Add a series resistor to each cell. Assume that the resistor varies inversely with the incident light. Should be pretty clear where the current flow (or flow of electrons, if you prefer) is going and why.

50%
50%
Gregst
Gregst
3/27/2013 2:49:06 PM
User Rank
Newbie
Re: Both schemes are insufficient
Brad, dear, if you ever done a classic DC net analysis, you surely know that current is not always flowing in the same direction, and on a same wire shared by 2 closed circuits you could have 2 currents flowing in the opposit directions. Use Kirchhoff's current and voltage laws. As an experiment, take a battery and connect it to an LED. Next, take another battery, and connect both electrodes of it to one of the wires hooked to the LED. You can position your battery in any direction + closer to LED, or + farther from LED. Let's see  if your new circuit is going to affect glowing of LED, and what would it do to your second battery. Just stay away far enough, it might exlode. There would be 2 currents flowing in the same wire: one, to LED, second, from the short-circuited second battery.

It appears that your MOSFET  (almost) short-circuits a number of solar cells. I'm saying "almost" because the current would be limited by the MOSFET resistance, and interlal resistance of the solar cells. Nevertheless, all light falling on the shunted cell would be used for their heating.

The interesting question is: does the solar battery itself increase the absorption of light ? I.e., get a solar battery not connected to anything and radiate light on it from a powerful source. A part of that light would be reflected, a part of it absorbed by the cell and converted into the thermal energy. Now, short-circuit the cell. Would it cause an increase in the cell's temperature ? If yes, then why ? It is presumed that only a part of the absorbed light energy would be converted into electricity. So, if the cell is not connected to anything, all the absorbed energy is converted into heat. If it is short-circuited, then a part of energy is converted into heat, another part is converted into electricity, and then into heat, so the net should be the same. I wonder, if it is indeed.

50%
50%
Brad Albing
Brad Albing
3/27/2013 2:45:25 PM
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Both schemes are insufficient
And yes - output of the PVA goes to a voltage stabilizer, a.k.a. a switching power supply; buck, boost, or buck-boost as the sytem needs dictate.

50%
50%
Brad Albing
Brad Albing
3/27/2013 2:33:30 PM
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Both schemes are insufficient
Oh - current always flows in the same direction, so that while the MOSFET could allow curent flow in the reverse direction, that consideration is moot.

50%
50%
Brad Albing
Brad Albing
3/27/2013 2:31:58 PM
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Both schemes are insufficient
The assumption here is that there is current flow from the remaining panel sections that are still brightly illuminated, so the current flow (as far as the "diode" is concerned) is in what we will call the "forward" direction (observeing the network as if the diodes were regular PN junction diodes; conventional current flow). So the dark panels are producing low potential and appear to be rather high-resistance, so the current flow favors the diode path.

50%
50%
Gregst
Gregst
3/27/2013 1:32:52 PM
User Rank
Newbie
Both schemes are insufficient
The upper scheme, with the diodes, would cause a great variability of the output voltage, from the full voltage to 1/3 of it, as shown. Hence, it needs to be followed by some voltage stabilizer. You can imagine how much energy would be wasted in such a stabilizer.

Now, the TI part does not provide much of unidirectionality that characterizes the diodes. The current could flow from source to drain and from drain to source. Yes, as it is N-mos, it would conduct better in one direction, yet the net effect is that it effectively shunts the solar cells, allowing both forward and reverse currents. Thus, any light falling on the shunted cells would be used to heat these cells. Not only it is wasteful, it might even destroy the cell, or diminish its lifetime.

If I'm mistaken in anything, please correct.

50%
50%
Brad Albing
Brad Albing
3/26/2013 11:17:13 AM
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Good Solution ! LOW COST ! VERY BETTER
It's simply a function of the number of sections in the panel. The companies that make the PVAs have already set them up in sections (probably vertical sections with the same number of cells per section or column).

50%
50%
Maciel
Maciel
3/25/2013 10:40:48 PM
User Rank
Newbie
Good Solution ! LOW COST ! VERY BETTER
Brad,

We have here a solution with cost less than $ 5!

How many diodes would be required for the final application?

50%
50%
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
More Blogs from Brad Albing
Controlling power to a 3-phase brushless DC motor requires care and finesse. Here's a design kit (eval board) that makes it easy.
Jobs and where they are is always something we wonder and worry about as engineers.
Researchers at imec are working on new fabrication methods to add germanium and tin layers to a silicon substrate to get a very high speed p-channel FET.
As an analog design engineer, you're used to designing sensor interface circuitry. But sometimes it's easier just to buy sensors as a complete assembly.
Highly integrated analog ICs are perfect for some applications and can be real money-savers. But sometimes, it works out better to pursue your design in a non-integrated manner.
flash poll
educational resources
 
follow Planet Analog on Twitter
Planet Analog Twitter Feed
like us on facebook
our partners
Planet Analog
About Us     Contact Us     Help     Register     Twitter     Facebook     RSS