From: "Gooijen, Henk" <henk.gooijen at
oce.com>
Van: cctalk-bounces at
classiccmp.org namens
dwight elvey
Verzonden: zo 10-06-2007 07:23
Aan: cctalk at
classiccmp.org
Onderwerp: RE: LM309K regulator
>From: Brent Hilpert <hilpert at cs.ubc.ca>
>
>While conversing with another list member about some old components, I
>was reminded of hearing somewhere that there was a nasty failure mode of
>the LM309K 5V regulator (it being the (or one of the) first integrated
5V
regs)
which might make it somewhat undesirable for current use.
I don't want to declare that there is such a problem - it's a vague
second-hand rumour to me - so can anyone confirm or elaborate on this?
I've never personally run across problems with them..
A 76 Moto databook indicates it has those nice things like short-circuit
protection and thermal-overload protection.. ..another device perhaps?
Hi
Many regulators could not handle significant back voltage. The problem
would often occur if the input had a small capacitor relative to the
output and there was a bleader or other load on the input source.
This was common problem with many CMOS circuits.
Another problem was input over voltage. Often if ther was a transformer
without an input filter capacitor, when the power was turned off, the
inductive spike would wipe out the regulator. It seems like negative
rail regulators were most suseptible to this.
Dwight
I would like to hear more about this! I am about to build myself a small
power supply for -16V. using an LM337T. I know that if the output capacitor
is larger than the input filter cap you better put a diode connected
between
the output and input pin, and that for HF you should put small caps (say
10 to 100 nF) with short leads from input to Gnd and output to Gnd.
Never heard about that switch-off spike from the transformer.
Since that -16V. is the power supply for my RACAL RA.366 panoramic adapter
I'd hate to see that unit get damaged ... would a VDR across the secundary
of the transformer help?
thanks,
- Henk, PA8PDP
Hi Henk
Usually the filter cap on the rectifier is enough to safely absorb the
energy
of the transformer. Still, it is something that you need to check and
actually
verify. If the range of line voltages that the unit is to run on put the
input
voltage near the maximum of the rating, it needs to be checked.
Where I personally saw this effect was in a unit that had 5 of the modular
power supplies ( linear w/ transformers ) all wired in parallel. When the
switch was turn on and off, the stored energy in the cores needs to
go sumplace, just like the coil in an ignition system.
What makes it worse is something like a zero cross switch which would be
worse
as that is when the maximum energy is in the cores magnetic field.
We were not able to get the manufacture of the modular power supplies
to solve the problem fast enough so we shipped the machine but put
those varistors on the inputs to clamp the voltage swing. We learned
later that sufficient sized input caps would also work. For these, one
had to make sure that it wasn't too small as this would actually enhance
the spike, as the capacitor does in an ignition system does, buy reducing
the arcing of the switch contacts.
The diode, as you mentions, was the typical way to solve the back
voltage problem. It is a good idea in most any case.
Dwight
_________________________________________________________________
Don?t miss your chance to WIN $10,000 and other great prizes from Microsoft
Office Live