Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Testing Mosfets in Parallel

R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hmmm... 200 amps times 12 volts is, well, 24,000 watts.

John

Huh?

200
x 12
-----
400
200
-----
2400

Did we slip a decimal? ;-)

Thanks,
Rich
 
J

John Larkin

Jan 1, 1970
0
Huh?

200
x 12
-----
400
200
-----
2400

Did we slip a decimal? ;-)

Thanks,
Rich

I suppose so. I don't check stuff I don't get paid for.

John
 
W

Winfield Hill

Jan 1, 1970
0
John Larkin wrote...
Rich said:
John said:
kell wrote:
EdV wrote:
Functionally testing the board requires a 200 amp 12 V supply and
a 24kW load which still doesn't really tell you if there is a FET
missing or stuffed with something else that is not conducting.

Regarding the "deserve" thing. My performance is rated on how
much warranty return I prevent and prettty much nothing else.

I hope that 24 KW was a typo.

Hmmm... 200 amps times 12 volts is, well, 24,000 watts.

John

Huh? [snip] Did we slip a decimal? ;-)

I suppose so. I don't check stuff I don't get paid for.

Not even when the hint is, "I hope that was a typo?" I know how
easy it is to miss a factor of 10, or 60 (like I did a few days
ago) when doing a quick calculation in your head. But we have
to practice and guard strongly against it. We need to trust our
back-of-the-envelope calculations, otherwise they can rear up and
bite us hard where it hurts really bad. For example in ruling out
a superior approach when making a quick scratch-pad evaluation.
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
I suppose so. I don't check stuff I don't get paid for.

Oh, but just ask any of our favorite trolls (you know who you are ;-) ),
and they'll agree: Being Right is, itself, sufficient payoff! ;-P ;-P ;-P

Cheers!
Rich
 
J

John Larkin

Jan 1, 1970
0
John Larkin wrote...
Rich said:
John Larkin wrote:
kell wrote:
EdV wrote:
Functionally testing the board requires a 200 amp 12 V supply and
a 24kW load which still doesn't really tell you if there is a FET
missing or stuffed with something else that is not conducting.

Regarding the "deserve" thing. My performance is rated on how
much warranty return I prevent and prettty much nothing else.

I hope that 24 KW was a typo.

Hmmm... 200 amps times 12 volts is, well, 24,000 watts.

John

Huh? [snip] Did we slip a decimal? ;-)

I suppose so. I don't check stuff I don't get paid for.

Not even when the hint is, "I hope that was a typo?" I know how
easy it is to miss a factor of 10, or 60 (like I did a few days
ago) when doing a quick calculation in your head. But we have
to practice and guard strongly against it. We need to trust our
back-of-the-envelope calculations, otherwise they can rear up and
bite us hard where it hurts really bad. For example in ruling out
a superior approach when making a quick scratch-pad evaluation.

Geez, Win, it's only a newsgroup. It doesn't matter.

John
 
J

John Larkin

Jan 1, 1970
0
Oh, but just ask any of our favorite trolls (you know who you are ;-) ),
and they'll agree: Being Right is, itself, sufficient payoff! ;-P ;-P ;-P

Turns out I have my ego and my priorities invested elsewhere. And, as
I said, I check my work when it matters.

I did make a modestly expensive *real* mistake recently: came up with
a nifty (but fatally flawed) idea on how to do open-thermocouple
detection without introducing temperature errors [1]. But I had help
from another engineer and an impressively cryptic ADI datasheet. We'll
have to spin the board.

John

[1] Most people just squirt some fraction of a uA of DC into the loop,
and look for the input to rail if the t/c goes open. Around 200 nA
seems to be common. But t/c wire is very resistive, an ohm or more per
foot typically, so a 100' run makes a 20 uV error (did I get that one
right?) which is a lot here. What I invented was a wigwag current, a
square wave every adc half-cycle, along with algorithms to cleanly
separate the resistance and the t/c signal. Fatally flawed, one reason
being that the ADI delta-sigma, undocumented, always gives you the
value averaged over last two sample intervals... bye bye square wave!
 
J

Joseph2k

Jan 1, 1970
0
EdV said:
Functionally testing the board requires a 200 amp 12 V supply and a 24
KW load which still doesn't really tell you if there is a FET missing
or stuffed with something else that is not conducting.

Regarding the "deserve" thing. My performance is rated on how much
warranty return I prevent and prettty much nothing else.
Aha, some good news. For the supply use a largish car/truck battery. When
i had to run 30A to 300A fast pulses < 1 mS to < 1 uS through some parts it
was the only "source" stiff enough. If you can test using pulses you can
easily use some constantan wire or ribbon to build the load resistors. If
you need full time power dissipation you could build the load from ribbon
and add a blower to keep the thermal rise down. Then you could use the
measurement means of choice.
 
T

Tony Williams

Jan 1, 1970
0
My group has been tasked with designing a test for a board that
has ten mosfets in parallel. No jumpering allowed. The
designers say that adding jumpers and bus bars make the circuit
oscillate.
The first thing I want to test is that all of the parts are
actually stuffed with the correct part(this sort of stuff happens
to us). Perhaps driving the mosfets into the linear region with a
modest load and then measuring their individual temperatures with
an array of thermistors.

They may have directly paralleled all drains and
sources, but at least they should have driven each
gate via separate gate resistors. If so that is
your possible entry point for testing.

Think about dropping the pcb onto a bed of nails,
two nails per device, where you can selectively
short the gate-source of 9 devices, leaving just
one device active for measurement.

Have a 0-12V ADC into a linear gate-driver with
several amps capability, (in order to drive those
9 shorted gate resistors). To avoid dissipation
problems in those resistors, each active gate-
-driving test must only last a few milliseconds.

An 8-bit ADC, clocked at 10KHz, will ramp from
0-12V in 26mS, with 50mV steps. Have a safety
circuit that toggles the drive OFF if the gate
drive is ON for too long (ADC stalled).

Use a 5V/10A dc supply, through a 0.5 ohm
resistor to the commoned drains. May be useful
to have a few selectable values of resistor.

Dual-beam scope needed, probing Vgs and Vds.
An IEEE scope will enable data to be snatched
off quickly.

Do three broad tests.

1) All devices OFF. Check that Vds = Vsupply.
You may change the 0.5 ohm for a higher value
for this test. This is the leakage current test.

2) Pulse 12V Vgs to one device, measure Vds at 10A.
This is the ON resistance test.

3) Ramp the Vgs of one device 0-12V, plot Vds at the
same time. This characterises Id versus Vgs, or
gets Vgs(threshold).

It all hangs on whether they used separate gate
resistors and what value.............
 
W

Winfield Hill

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tony Williams wrote...
They may have directly paralleled all drains and
sources, but at least they should have driven each
gate via separate gate resistors. If so that is
your possible entry point for testing.

Think about dropping the pcb onto a bed of nails,
two nails per device, where you can selectively
short the gate-source of 9 devices, leaving just
one device active for measurement.

Have a 0-12V DAC into a linear gate-driver with
several amps capability, (in order to drive those
9 shorted gate resistors). To avoid dissipation
problems in those resistors, each active gate-
-driving test must only last a few milliseconds.

An 8-bit DAC, clocked at 10KHz, will ramp from
0-12V in 26mS, with 50mV steps. Have a safety
circuit that toggles the drive OFF if the gate
drive is ON for too long (ADC stalled).

Use a 5V/10A dc supply, through a 0.5 ohm
resistor to the commoned drains. May be useful
to have a few selectable values of resistor.

Dual-beam scope needed, probing Vgs and Vds.
An IEEE scope will enable data to be snatched
off quickly.

Do three broad tests.

1) All devices OFF. Check that Vds = Vsupply.
You may change the 0.5 ohm for a higher value
for this test. This is the leakage current test.

2) Pulse 12V Vgs to one device, measure Vds at 10A.
This is the ON resistance test.

3) Ramp the Vgs of one device 0-12V, plot Vds at the
same time. This characterises Id versus Vgs, or
gets Vgs(threshold).

It all hangs on whether they used separate gate
resistors and what value.............

Tony, I'm impressed, great solution, your brain has been
working overtime. I hope it didn't become overheated!

As for performing this test when the resistors are low
values, that simply means shorter-time pulse testing,
higher drive currents in the test device, etc. The
entire story and complexity shows the silliness of not
re-visiting the PCB to add test features to the design.
 
T

Tony Williams

Jan 1, 1970
0
Winfield Hill said:
Tony, I'm impressed, great solution, your brain has been
working overtime. I hope it didn't become overheated!

It's my trade..... the sort of relatively routine belt
and braces solution you have to devise for what looks
like an 'impossible' test problem in ATE.... it is a
lo-tech solution, easy to put together and get going.
As for performing this test when the resistors are low
values, that simply means shorter-time pulse testing,
higher drive currents in the test device, etc. The
entire story and complexity shows the silliness of not
re-visiting the PCB to add test features to the design.

Those burnt fingers, and bitemarks on your bum Win.
 
R

Riscy

Jan 1, 1970
0
It took me 5 day begging with my manager until he decided to authorised
the purchase of Flir thermal imaging camera. I use it to measure
temperature profile of the circuit at 150degC and make improvement. The
time saved justified the cost but manager seem not to pay attention on
achievement...pity.
Riscy
 
H

Harry Dellamano

Jan 1, 1970
0
Riscy said:
It took me 5 day begging with my manager until he decided to authorised
the purchase of Flir thermal imaging camera. I use it to measure
temperature profile of the circuit at 150degC and make improvement. The
time saved justified the cost but manager seem not to pay attention on
achievement...pity.
Riscy
Riscy,
Tell us more of your Flir thermal imaging camera. Type, cost and results.
Thanks,
Harry
 
W

Winfield Hill

Jan 1, 1970
0
John Larkin wrote...
Geez, Win, it's only a newsgroup. It doesn't matter.

Awwwh, now you've gone and hurt our feelings!
Of course we matter!
 
S

Spehro Pefhany

Jan 1, 1970
0
John Larkin wrote...

Awwwh, now you've gone and hurt our feelings!
Of course we matter!

I can't think of one time that I've messed things up on a phone call
and said "It's only a telephone. It doesn't matter".

;-)


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
 
J

John Larkin

Jan 1, 1970
0
John Larkin wrote...

Awwwh, now you've gone and hurt our feelings!
Of course we matter!

I only know, for sure, that six members of this newsgroup, including
myself, actually exist.

John
 
T

Terry Given

Jan 1, 1970
0
John said:
I only know, for sure, that six members of this newsgroup, including
myself, actually exist.

John

which 6?

Cheers
Terry
 
Top