Welcome
Username or Email:

Password:


Missing Code




[ ]
[ ]
Online
  • Guests: 30
  • Members: 0
  • Newest Member: omjtest
  • Most ever online: 396
    Guests: 396, Members: 0 on 12 Jan : 12:51
Members Birthdays:
No birthdays today

Next birthdays
04/28 Steve Conner (46)
04/29 GODSFUSION (37)
04/29 Zajcek (37)
Contact
If you need assistance, please send an email to forum at 4hv dot org. To ensure your email is not marked as spam, please include the phrase "4hv help" in the subject line. You can also find assistance via IRC, at irc.shadowworld.net, room #hvcomm.
Support 4hv.org!
Donate:
4hv.org is hosted on a dedicated server. Unfortunately, this server costs and we rely on the help of site members to keep 4hv.org running. Please consider donating. We will place your name on the thanks list and you'll be helping to keep 4hv.org alive and free for everyone. Members whose names appear in red bold have donated recently. Green bold denotes those who have recently donated to keep the server carbon neutral.


Special Thanks To:
  • Aaron Holmes
  • Aaron Wheeler
  • Adam Horden
  • Alan Scrimgeour
  • Andre
  • Andrew Haynes
  • Anonymous000
  • asabase
  • Austin Weil
  • barney
  • Barry
  • Bert Hickman
  • Bill Kukowski
  • Blitzorn
  • Brandon Paradelas
  • Bruce Bowling
  • BubeeMike
  • Byong Park
  • Cesiumsponge
  • Chris F.
  • Chris Hooper
  • Corey Worthington
  • Derek Woodroffe
  • Dalus
  • Dan Strother
  • Daniel Davis
  • Daniel Uhrenholt
  • datasheetarchive
  • Dave Billington
  • Dave Marshall
  • David F.
  • Dennis Rogers
  • drelectrix
  • Dr. John Gudenas
  • Dr. Spark
  • E.TexasTesla
  • eastvoltresearch
  • Eirik Taylor
  • Erik Dyakov
  • Erlend^SE
  • Finn Hammer
  • Firebug24k
  • GalliumMan
  • Gary Peterson
  • George Slade
  • GhostNull
  • Gordon Mcknight
  • Graham Armitage
  • Grant
  • GreySoul
  • Henry H
  • IamSmooth
  • In memory of Leo Powning
  • Jacob Cash
  • James Howells
  • James Pawson
  • Jeff Greenfield
  • Jeff Thomas
  • Jesse Frost
  • Jim Mitchell
  • jlr134
  • Joe Mastroianni
  • John Forcina
  • John Oberg
  • John Willcutt
  • Jon Newcomb
  • klugesmith
  • Leslie Wright
  • Lutz Hoffman
  • Mads Barnkob
  • Martin King
  • Mats Karlsson
  • Matt Gibson
  • Matthew Guidry
  • mbd
  • Michael D'Angelo
  • Mikkel
  • mileswaldron
  • mister_rf
  • Neil Foster
  • Nick de Smith
  • Nick Soroka
  • nicklenorp
  • Nik
  • Norman Stanley
  • Patrick Coleman
  • Paul Brodie
  • Paul Jordan
  • Paul Montgomery
  • Ped
  • Peter Krogen
  • Peter Terren
  • PhilGood
  • Richard Feldman
  • Robert Bush
  • Royce Bailey
  • Scott Fusare
  • Scott Newman
  • smiffy
  • Stella
  • Steven Busic
  • Steve Conner
  • Steve Jones
  • Steve Ward
  • Sulaiman
  • Thomas Coyle
  • Thomas A. Wallace
  • Thomas W
  • Timo
  • Torch
  • Ulf Jonsson
  • vasil
  • Vaxian
  • vladi mazzilli
  • wastehl
  • Weston
  • William Kim
  • William N.
  • William Stehl
  • Wesley Venis
The aforementioned have contributed financially to the continuing triumph of 4hv.org. They are deserving of my most heartfelt thanks.
Forums
4hv.org :: Forums :: General Science and Electronics
« Previous topic   

switching characteristics of MOSFETs, IGBTs, BJTs

Move Thread LAN_403
Dr. Shark
Thu Feb 09 2006, 11:19AM Print
Dr. Shark Registered Member #75 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 09:30AM
Location: Montana, USA
Posts: 711
I guess the difference between IGBTs and FETs boils down to this: FETs use only electrons to carry a current, and because electrons are mean little critters, this leads to an on-state resistance dominating the losses. However, electrons are also swift, so once the gate is turned off, the whole thing is off, for all practical purposes.
With IGBTs, there are both electrons and holes flowing through the junction, so there is a lot more stuff around to carry a current (should be only twice as much, really, anyone know the details on this?), so there is basically no resistance but just a diode drop courtesy of the additional junction. But once the gate is off, holes like to stay around, so there is this huge tail current which makes fast stwitching a pain.

So far so good. Now comes my question. Since a BJT works by the same priciple as an IGBT, it should also suffer from a slow switch-off tail. But there are lots of BJTs around which are good for 100s of MHz, so apparently they dont. Why is this, does the base current somehow fill up the holes quickly or something like that?
And, most importantly, is there any switching device that would be good for a few 100A at 3MHz, e.g. as the active device for that handheld DRSSTC I am dreaming about every night?
Back to top
ragnar
Thu Feb 09 2006, 12:56PM
ragnar Registered Member #63 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 06:18AM
Location:
Posts: 1425
Well, I guess there is such a thing, Joe. It's called an array of big-arsed low capacitance MOSFETs in a class-E setup. Does that count? hehe

Link2

=)
Back to top
HV Enthusiast
Thu Feb 09 2006, 01:12PM
HV Enthusiast Registered Member #15 Joined: Thu Feb 02 2006, 01:11PM
Location:
Posts: 3068
Joe,

A quick search on GOOGLE led to the following article which goes into a lot of detail of the differences between MOSFETs and IGBTs and BJTs and why affects turn-off time etc...

Link2

Back to top
Steve Conner
Thu Feb 09 2006, 01:13PM
Steve Conner Registered Member #30 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 10:52AM
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 6706
The difference between IGBTs and MOSFETs is "Conductivity modulation". As far as I know, in a MOSFET, the amount of electrons available to carry current is limited to a modest amount put in at the factory by doping. The designer can't just add more, or they would overwhelm the controlling effect of the gate electrode and the MOSFET would refuse to turn off.

In an IGBT, there are huge amounts of spare electrons that are normally stored out of the way and released as needed. If you like the analogy of an IGBT as a MOSFET paired with a BJT, then the "Base" current of the BJT represents the hordes of extra electrons getting pulled into action. There can be far more than "twice" as many active charge carriers than in a MOSFET.

By the same analogy, the current tail is caused by all those extra electrons taking a finite time to stop leaping around and go back to their hiding places. The current tail can be minimized by clever design, but the more you try, the more the IGBT becomes like a MOSFET in its current-carrying capabilities.
Back to top
Dr. Shark
Thu Feb 09 2006, 02:04PM
Dr. Shark Registered Member #75 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 09:30AM
Location: Montana, USA
Posts: 711
OK, that makes more sense now. I was reading a couple of App notes on IGBT vs. FET that came up on google, but I guess I just didn't read the right ones smile The one EVR links is much better, how the heck did did you ask google to have that turn up as the first hit?

Class E, definitely, I am actually playing with some class E stuff at the moment. But keeping up the class E conditions for a whole array sounds even more difficult! Anyway I think I might get away with a single MOSFET for my tiny coil, since the total duty cycle will have to be rather low anyway. Time will tell...
Back to top

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob

Go to:

Powered by e107 Forum System
 
Legal Information
This site is powered by e107, which is released under the GNU GPL License. All work on this site, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. By submitting any information to this site, you agree that anything submitted will be so licensed. Please read our Disclaimer and Policies page for information on your rights and responsibilities regarding this site.