I'm designing a switching power supply module and could reduce EMI by
going spread-spectrum on the switching frequency. The simple one below >reduces things by 20 dB. Probe the SS node and FFT.
The ss inside switching reg chips is no doubt more sophisticated. In
an FPGA, we could do some sort of pseudo-random thing.
On a multi-channel power supply, there may be some small advantage to
have a separate spread per channel. That would be easy.
Version 4
SHEET 1 880 680
WIRE 144 80 80 80
WIRE 240 80 144 80
WIRE 80 112 80 80
WIRE 432 112 384 112
WIRE 464 112 432 112
WIRE 80 224 80 192
FLAG 80 224 0
FLAG 144 80 MOD
FLAG 432 112 SS
SYMBOL voltage 80 96 R0
WINDOW 0 43 80 Left 2
WINDOW 3 12 111 Left 2
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName V1
SYMATTR Value PULSE(0 1 0 1m 1u 1u 1m)
SYMBOL SpecialFunctions\\modulate 240 80 R0
WINDOW 0 48 -48 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName A1
SYMATTR SpiceLine mark=220K space=280K
TEXT 462 54 Left 2 !.tran 2m
TEXT 400 144 Left 2 ;Basic spread-spectrum
TEXT 408 176 Left 2 ;for P943 8-ch supply
TEXT 432 208 Left 2 ;JL Apr 18 2024
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 08:26:56 -0700, John Larkin ><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
I'm designing a switching power supply module and could reduce EMI by
going spread-spectrum on the switching frequency. The simple one below >>reduces things by 20 dB. Probe the SS node and FFT.
The ss inside switching reg chips is no doubt more sophisticated. In
an FPGA, we could do some sort of pseudo-random thing.
On a multi-channel power supply, there may be some small advantage to
have a separate spread per channel. That would be easy.
I'd check for cross-correlation as well, so no ganging up in systems
using multiple channels in some signal path.
Depending on details, the problem could manifest itself as peaks or
ripples in the time domain, your beloved homeland.
Joe Gwinn
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 13:16:04 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 08:26:56 -0700, John Larkin >><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
I'm designing a switching power supply module and could reduce EMI by >>>going spread-spectrum on the switching frequency. The simple one below >>>reduces things by 20 dB. Probe the SS node and FFT.
The ss inside switching reg chips is no doubt more sophisticated. In
an FPGA, we could do some sort of pseudo-random thing.
On a multi-channel power supply, there may be some small advantage to >>>have a separate spread per channel. That would be easy.
I'd check for cross-correlation as well, so no ganging up in systems
using multiple channels in some signal path.
When my engineers get too fussy about stuff like that, I remind them
"it's just a power supply."
Depending on details, the problem could manifest itself as peaks or
ripples in the time domain, your beloved homeland.
Joe Gwinn
TI has a couple of interesting appnotes
<https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/slyt809>
<https://www.ti.com/lit/SLVAF18>
Their little TPS54302 type parts have radical looking PWM, but the
final DC is super clean. Nice trick.
<https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8rytjiwp4hmt2ypgk9bk4/DSC06826.JPG?rlkey=4qipduct0ptrhei07ijdxpsca&raw=1>
<https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kf2kxbxih6xjbx8uv2o0d/TPS54302_spectrum.JPG?rlkey=rd3diu5nvhasfn7228m8yk665&raw=1>
We may get some EMI from switching rise/fall ringing too, in the
hundred-MHz ballpark. It would help to de-phase that too.
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 12:14:04 -0700, John Larkin ><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 13:16:04 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 08:26:56 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
I'm designing a switching power supply module and could reduce EMI by >>>>going spread-spectrum on the switching frequency. The simple one below >>>>reduces things by 20 dB. Probe the SS node and FFT.
The ss inside switching reg chips is no doubt more sophisticated. In
an FPGA, we could do some sort of pseudo-random thing.
On a multi-channel power supply, there may be some small advantage to >>>>have a separate spread per channel. That would be easy.
I'd check for cross-correlation as well, so no ganging up in systems >>>using multiple channels in some signal path.
When my engineers get too fussy about stuff like that, I remind them
"it's just a power supply."
In my world, we have multiple parallel components (like array
sections) in the signal path powered by independent power supplies
that are required to have independent noise, to prevent correlated
gain when these parallel paths are summed, say in a radar beamformer.
Telling the power-supply folk that it's just a power supply is a good
way to get buried in details.
Depending on details, the problem could manifest itself as peaks or >>>ripples in the time domain, your beloved homeland.
Joe Gwinn
TI has a couple of interesting appnotes
<https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/slyt809>
<https://www.ti.com/lit/SLVAF18>
Their little TPS54302 type parts have radical looking PWM, but the
final DC is super clean. Nice trick.
<https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8rytjiwp4hmt2ypgk9bk4/DSC06826.JPG?rlkey=4qipduct0ptrhei07ijdxpsca&raw=1>
<https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kf2kxbxih6xjbx8uv2o0d/TPS54302_spectrum.JPG?rlkey=rd3diu5nvhasfn7228m8yk665&raw=1>
We may get some EMI from switching rise/fall ringing too, in the >>hundred-MHz ballpark. It would help to de-phase that too.
TI stuff is widely used in radar, but in the most capable radars the >dithering is provided by bespoke radar firmware, and not left to the >converter chip. But those chips do work well.
Joe Gwinn
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 10:30:45 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 12:14:04 -0700, John Larkin >><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 13:16:04 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 08:26:56 -0700, John Larkin >>>><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
I'm designing a switching power supply module and could reduce EMI by >>>>>going spread-spectrum on the switching frequency. The simple one below >>>>>reduces things by 20 dB. Probe the SS node and FFT.
The ss inside switching reg chips is no doubt more sophisticated. In >>>>>an FPGA, we could do some sort of pseudo-random thing.
On a multi-channel power supply, there may be some small advantage to >>>>>have a separate spread per channel. That would be easy.
I'd check for cross-correlation as well, so no ganging up in systems >>>>using multiple channels in some signal path.
When my engineers get too fussy about stuff like that, I remind them >>>"it's just a power supply."
In my world, we have multiple parallel components (like array
sections) in the signal path powered by independent power supplies
that are required to have independent noise, to prevent correlated
gain when these parallel paths are summed, say in a radar beamformer.
Telling the power-supply folk that it's just a power supply is a good
way to get buried in details.
My intent was to keep it simple and get it done.
Depending on details, the problem could manifest itself as peaks or >>>>ripples in the time domain, your beloved homeland.
Joe Gwinn
TI has a couple of interesting appnotes
<https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/slyt809>
<https://www.ti.com/lit/SLVAF18>
Their little TPS54302 type parts have radical looking PWM, but the
final DC is super clean. Nice trick.
<https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8rytjiwp4hmt2ypgk9bk4/DSC06826.JPG?rlkey=4qipduct0ptrhei07ijdxpsca&raw=1>
<https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kf2kxbxih6xjbx8uv2o0d/TPS54302_spectrum.JPG?rlkey=rd3diu5nvhasfn7228m8yk665&raw=1>
We may get some EMI from switching rise/fall ringing too, in the >>>hundred-MHz ballpark. It would help to de-phase that too.
TI stuff is widely used in radar, but in the most capable radars the >>dithering is provided by bespoke radar firmware, and not left to the >>converter chip. But those chips do work well.
Joe Gwinn
We've decided to use home-made half bridges in the 8-channel
programmable power module. The TI and ADI switching regs are just too
smart. We'll use the reg chips when we just want a fixed power supply.
I was thinking that we could use a DDS architecture to generate the
PWM into the switching half-bridges. We could wobble the frequency
setting to spread the spectrum.
Maybe replace some of the LSBs of the frequency-set register with a >pseudorandom pattern, a different one for each power supply channel.
Change those LSBs at some rate, 20 KHz or something, to fool an
EMI-test spectrum analyzer.
A pseudorandom pattern will average to 0.5, which affects the average >switcher frequency, but we can deal with that.
I suppose I could draw a diagram.
We'd like the fine-grain spectra to not overlap, across all 8
channels. Fun.
Given eight unipolar half-bridges, we'll allow users to use a pair as
a full bridge to drive one bipolar load, or three to drive a 3-phase
load like a torque motor. In those cases, I think we can still allow
each phase to have its own independent spread-spectrum thing. The
motors won't care.
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 08:22:44 -0700, John Larkin ><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 10:30:45 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 12:14:04 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 13:16:04 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 08:26:56 -0700, John Larkin >>>>><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
I'm designing a switching power supply module and could reduce EMI by >>>>>>going spread-spectrum on the switching frequency. The simple one below >>>>>>reduces things by 20 dB. Probe the SS node and FFT.
The ss inside switching reg chips is no doubt more sophisticated. In >>>>>>an FPGA, we could do some sort of pseudo-random thing.
On a multi-channel power supply, there may be some small advantage to >>>>>>have a separate spread per channel. That would be easy.
I'd check for cross-correlation as well, so no ganging up in systems >>>>>using multiple channels in some signal path.
When my engineers get too fussy about stuff like that, I remind them >>>>"it's just a power supply."
In my world, we have multiple parallel components (like array
sections) in the signal path powered by independent power supplies
that are required to have independent noise, to prevent correlated
gain when these parallel paths are summed, say in a radar beamformer.
Telling the power-supply folk that it's just a power supply is a good
way to get buried in details.
My intent was to keep it simple and get it done.
Depending on details, the problem could manifest itself as peaks or >>>>>ripples in the time domain, your beloved homeland.
Joe Gwinn
TI has a couple of interesting appnotes
<https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/slyt809>
<https://www.ti.com/lit/SLVAF18>
Their little TPS54302 type parts have radical looking PWM, but the >>>>final DC is super clean. Nice trick.
<https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8rytjiwp4hmt2ypgk9bk4/DSC06826.JPG?rlkey=4qipduct0ptrhei07ijdxpsca&raw=1>
<https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kf2kxbxih6xjbx8uv2o0d/TPS54302_spectrum.JPG?rlkey=rd3diu5nvhasfn7228m8yk665&raw=1>
We may get some EMI from switching rise/fall ringing too, in the >>>>hundred-MHz ballpark. It would help to de-phase that too.
TI stuff is widely used in radar, but in the most capable radars the >>>dithering is provided by bespoke radar firmware, and not left to the >>>converter chip. But those chips do work well.
Joe Gwinn
We've decided to use home-made half bridges in the 8-channel
programmable power module. The TI and ADI switching regs are just too >>smart. We'll use the reg chips when we just want a fixed power supply.
I was thinking that we could use a DDS architecture to generate the
PWM into the switching half-bridges. We could wobble the frequency
setting to spread the spectrum.
Maybe replace some of the LSBs of the frequency-set register with a >>pseudorandom pattern, a different one for each power supply channel.
Change those LSBs at some rate, 20 KHz or something, to fool an
EMI-test spectrum analyzer.
A pseudorandom pattern will average to 0.5, which affects the average >>switcher frequency, but we can deal with that.
I suppose I could draw a diagram.
We'd like the fine-grain spectra to not overlap, across all 8
channels. Fun.
Given eight unipolar half-bridges, we'll allow users to use a pair as
a full bridge to drive one bipolar load, or three to drive a 3-phase
load like a torque motor. In those cases, I think we can still allow
each phase to have its own independent spread-spectrum thing. The
motors won't care.
The STM32F4 that I use in my inverter/charger has a SS clock option.
I have not enabled that yet but intend to eventually for lower peaks
from the PWM outputs driving all the power circuitry.
boB
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 11:08:36 -0700, boB <boB@K7IQ.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 08:22:44 -0700, John Larkin >><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 10:30:45 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 12:14:04 -0700, John Larkin >>>><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 13:16:04 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>>wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 08:26:56 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
I'm designing a switching power supply module and could reduce EMI by >>>>>>>going spread-spectrum on the switching frequency. The simple one below >>>>>>>reduces things by 20 dB. Probe the SS node and FFT.
The ss inside switching reg chips is no doubt more sophisticated. In >>>>>>>an FPGA, we could do some sort of pseudo-random thing.
On a multi-channel power supply, there may be some small advantage to >>>>>>>have a separate spread per channel. That would be easy.
I'd check for cross-correlation as well, so no ganging up in systems >>>>>>using multiple channels in some signal path.
When my engineers get too fussy about stuff like that, I remind them >>>>>"it's just a power supply."
In my world, we have multiple parallel components (like array
sections) in the signal path powered by independent power supplies
that are required to have independent noise, to prevent correlated
gain when these parallel paths are summed, say in a radar beamformer.
Telling the power-supply folk that it's just a power supply is a good >>>>way to get buried in details.
My intent was to keep it simple and get it done.
Depending on details, the problem could manifest itself as peaks or >>>>>>ripples in the time domain, your beloved homeland.
Joe Gwinn
TI has a couple of interesting appnotes
<https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/slyt809>
<https://www.ti.com/lit/SLVAF18>
Their little TPS54302 type parts have radical looking PWM, but the >>>>>final DC is super clean. Nice trick.
<https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8rytjiwp4hmt2ypgk9bk4/DSC06826.JPG?rlkey=4qipduct0ptrhei07ijdxpsca&raw=1>
<https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kf2kxbxih6xjbx8uv2o0d/TPS54302_spectrum.JPG?rlkey=rd3diu5nvhasfn7228m8yk665&raw=1>
We may get some EMI from switching rise/fall ringing too, in the >>>>>hundred-MHz ballpark. It would help to de-phase that too.
TI stuff is widely used in radar, but in the most capable radars the >>>>dithering is provided by bespoke radar firmware, and not left to the >>>>converter chip. But those chips do work well.
Joe Gwinn
We've decided to use home-made half bridges in the 8-channel
programmable power module. The TI and ADI switching regs are just too >>>smart. We'll use the reg chips when we just want a fixed power supply.
I was thinking that we could use a DDS architecture to generate the
PWM into the switching half-bridges. We could wobble the frequency >>>setting to spread the spectrum.
Maybe replace some of the LSBs of the frequency-set register with a >>>pseudorandom pattern, a different one for each power supply channel. >>>Change those LSBs at some rate, 20 KHz or something, to fool an
EMI-test spectrum analyzer.
A pseudorandom pattern will average to 0.5, which affects the average >>>switcher frequency, but we can deal with that.
I suppose I could draw a diagram.
We'd like the fine-grain spectra to not overlap, across all 8
channels. Fun.
Given eight unipolar half-bridges, we'll allow users to use a pair as
a full bridge to drive one bipolar load, or three to drive a 3-phase
load like a torque motor. In those cases, I think we can still allow
each phase to have its own independent spread-spectrum thing. The
motors won't care.
The STM32F4 that I use in my inverter/charger has a SS clock option.
I have not enabled that yet but intend to eventually for lower peaks
from the PWM outputs driving all the power circuitry.
boB
That's cool. I'm designing a bunch of plugin modules that would all
get a 50 MHz clock from the backplane. Since my PWM frequencies will
be fairly low, we should be able to fuzz up the spectra in the FPGA on
each board.
We could code a generic ss PWM block and use it everywhere.
<https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2ypg6qhnalmixv6kx44if/Spread_Spectrum_Apr_19.jpg?rlkey=d3hiwl4mj57erk82629fyouse&raw=1>
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 10:30:45 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 12:14:04 -0700, John Larkin >><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 13:16:04 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 08:26:56 -0700, John Larkin >>>><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
I'm designing a switching power supply module and could reduce EMI by >>>>>going spread-spectrum on the switching frequency. The simple one below >>>>>reduces things by 20 dB. Probe the SS node and FFT.
The ss inside switching reg chips is no doubt more sophisticated. In >>>>>an FPGA, we could do some sort of pseudo-random thing.
On a multi-channel power supply, there may be some small advantage to >>>>>have a separate spread per channel. That would be easy.
I'd check for cross-correlation as well, so no ganging up in systems >>>>using multiple channels in some signal path.
When my engineers get too fussy about stuff like that, I remind them >>>"it's just a power supply."
In my world, we have multiple parallel components (like array
sections) in the signal path powered by independent power supplies
that are required to have independent noise, to prevent correlated
gain when these parallel paths are summed, say in a radar beamformer.
Telling the power-supply folk that it's just a power supply is a good
way to get buried in details.
My intent was to keep it simple and get it done.
Depending on details, the problem could manifest itself as peaks or >>>>ripples in the time domain, your beloved homeland.
Joe Gwinn
TI has a couple of interesting appnotes
<https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/slyt809>
<https://www.ti.com/lit/SLVAF18>
Their little TPS54302 type parts have radical looking PWM, but the
final DC is super clean. Nice trick.
<https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8rytjiwp4hmt2ypgk9bk4/DSC06826.JPG?rlkey=4qipduct0ptrhei07ijdxpsca&raw=1>
<https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kf2kxbxih6xjbx8uv2o0d/TPS54302_spectrum.JPG?rlkey=rd3diu5nvhasfn7228m8yk665&raw=1>
We may get some EMI from switching rise/fall ringing too, in the >>>hundred-MHz ballpark. It would help to de-phase that too.
TI stuff is widely used in radar, but in the most capable radars the >>dithering is provided by bespoke radar firmware, and not left to the >>converter chip. But those chips do work well.
Joe Gwinn
We've decided to use home-made half bridges in the 8-channel
programmable power module. The TI and ADI switching regs are just too
smart. We'll use the reg chips when we just want a fixed power supply.
I was thinking that we could use a DDS architecture to generate the
PWM into the switching half-bridges. We could wobble the frequency
setting to spread the spectrum.
Maybe replace some of the LSBs of the frequency-set register with a >pseudorandom pattern, a different one for each power supply channel.
Change those LSBs at some rate, 20 KHz or something, to fool an
EMI-test spectrum analyzer.
A pseudorandom pattern will average to 0.5, which affects the average >switcher frequency, but we can deal with that.
I suppose I could draw a diagram.
We'd like the fine-grain spectra to not overlap, across all 8
channels. Fun.
Given eight unipolar half-bridges, we'll allow users to use a pair as
a full bridge to drive one bipolar load, or three to drive a 3-phase
load like a torque motor. In those cases, I think we can still allow
each phase to have its own independent spread-spectrum thing. The
motors won't care.
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 13:16:04 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 08:26:56 -0700, John Larkin >><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
I'm designing a switching power supply module and could reduce EMI by >>>going spread-spectrum on the switching frequency. The simple one below >>>reduces things by 20 dB. Probe the SS node and FFT.
The ss inside switching reg chips is no doubt more sophisticated. In
an FPGA, we could do some sort of pseudo-random thing.
On a multi-channel power supply, there may be some small advantage to >>>have a separate spread per channel. That would be easy.
I'd check for cross-correlation as well, so no ganging up in systems
using multiple channels in some signal path.
When my engineers get too fussy about stuff like that, I remind them
"it's just a power supply."
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 12:14:04 -0700, John Larkin ><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 13:16:04 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 08:26:56 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
I'm designing a switching power supply module and could reduce EMI by >>>>going spread-spectrum on the switching frequency. The simple one below >>>>reduces things by 20 dB. Probe the SS node and FFT.
The ss inside switching reg chips is no doubt more sophisticated. In
an FPGA, we could do some sort of pseudo-random thing.
On a multi-channel power supply, there may be some small advantage to >>>>have a separate spread per channel. That would be easy.
I'd check for cross-correlation as well, so no ganging up in systems >>>using multiple channels in some signal path.
When my engineers get too fussy about stuff like that, I remind them
"it's just a power supply."
Noise at the local level is best correlated, as it is more
predictable - you avoid low-frequency beat frequencies in the
local regulators - which can and will show up in a detector's
BW and in the regulators' outputs.
A master clock, phase shifted for various local users, can be dithered
for the system (box), which is the actual, final radiator.
Your engineers can get REAL fussy, if the system's non-compliant
way past the development's due date.
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 10:34:46 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 12:14:04 -0700, John Larkin >><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 13:16:04 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 08:26:56 -0700, John Larkin >>>><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
I'm designing a switching power supply module and could reduce EMI by >>>>>going spread-spectrum on the switching frequency. The simple one below >>>>>reduces things by 20 dB. Probe the SS node and FFT.
The ss inside switching reg chips is no doubt more sophisticated. In >>>>>an FPGA, we could do some sort of pseudo-random thing.
On a multi-channel power supply, there may be some small advantage to >>>>>have a separate spread per channel. That would be easy.
I'd check for cross-correlation as well, so no ganging up in systems >>>>using multiple channels in some signal path.
When my engineers get too fussy about stuff like that, I remind them >>>"it's just a power supply."
Noise at the local level is best correlated, as it is more
predictable - you avoid low-frequency beat frequencies in the
local regulators - which can and will show up in a detector's
BW and in the regulators' outputs.
But...but... it's just a power supply!
Presumably uncorrelated spread-spectrum will make wideband noise at an >output, not a beat.
A master clock, phase shifted for various local users, can be dithered
for the system (box), which is the actual, final radiator.
Our box has a 50 MHz clock that is bussed to all the plugin modules,
and it can be locked to other boxes or to a 10 MHz reference, so we
can't usefully dither that. I guess each module could have its own
VCO, but that would mess up synchronizing modules, and complicate
things. Spread-spectrum sounds easier.
Your engineers can get REAL fussy, if the system's non-compliant
way past the development's due date.
Eventually, some giant customer may want CE stickers, so we'll do the
easier things now, to improve our chances of passing an EMI test. A
bit of VHDL in the FPGAs would be easy.
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 10:57:17 -0700, John Larkin ><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 10:34:46 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 12:14:04 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 13:16:04 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 08:26:56 -0700, John Larkin >>>>><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
I'm designing a switching power supply module and could reduce EMI by >>>>>>going spread-spectrum on the switching frequency. The simple one below >>>>>>reduces things by 20 dB. Probe the SS node and FFT.
The ss inside switching reg chips is no doubt more sophisticated. In >>>>>>an FPGA, we could do some sort of pseudo-random thing.
On a multi-channel power supply, there may be some small advantage to >>>>>>have a separate spread per channel. That would be easy.
I'd check for cross-correlation as well, so no ganging up in systems >>>>>using multiple channels in some signal path.
When my engineers get too fussy about stuff like that, I remind them >>>>"it's just a power supply."
Noise at the local level is best correlated, as it is more
predictable - you avoid low-frequency beat frequencies in the
local regulators - which can and will show up in a detector's
BW and in the regulators' outputs.
But...but... it's just a power supply!
Presumably uncorrelated spread-spectrum will make wideband noise at an >>output, not a beat.
A master clock, phase shifted for various local users, can be dithered >>>for the system (box), which is the actual, final radiator.
Our box has a 50 MHz clock that is bussed to all the plugin modules,
and it can be locked to other boxes or to a 10 MHz reference, so we
can't usefully dither that. I guess each module could have its own
VCO, but that would mess up synchronizing modules, and complicate
things. Spread-spectrum sounds easier.
Your engineers can get REAL fussy, if the system's non-compliant
way past the development's due date.
Eventually, some giant customer may want CE stickers, so we'll do the >>easier things now, to improve our chances of passing an EMI test. A
bit of VHDL in the FPGAs would be easy.
Unsynchronized power supplies on the same board can
influence each other, unpredictably with load, to produce
audible harmonics.
Ignore the effects at your peril.
RL
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 10:57:17 -0700, John Larkin ><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 10:34:46 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 12:14:04 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 13:16:04 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 08:26:56 -0700, John Larkin >>>>><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
I'm designing a switching power supply module and could reduce EMI by >>>>>>going spread-spectrum on the switching frequency. The simple one below >>>>>>reduces things by 20 dB. Probe the SS node and FFT.
The ss inside switching reg chips is no doubt more sophisticated. In >>>>>>an FPGA, we could do some sort of pseudo-random thing.
On a multi-channel power supply, there may be some small advantage to >>>>>>have a separate spread per channel. That would be easy.
I'd check for cross-correlation as well, so no ganging up in systems >>>>>using multiple channels in some signal path.
When my engineers get too fussy about stuff like that, I remind them >>>>"it's just a power supply."
Noise at the local level is best correlated, as it is more
predictable - you avoid low-frequency beat frequencies in the
local regulators - which can and will show up in a detector's
BW and in the regulators' outputs.
But...but... it's just a power supply!
Presumably uncorrelated spread-spectrum will make wideband noise at an >>output, not a beat.
A master clock, phase shifted for various local users, can be dithered >>>for the system (box), which is the actual, final radiator.
Our box has a 50 MHz clock that is bussed to all the plugin modules,
and it can be locked to other boxes or to a 10 MHz reference, so we
can't usefully dither that. I guess each module could have its own
VCO, but that would mess up synchronizing modules, and complicate
things. Spread-spectrum sounds easier.
Your engineers can get REAL fussy, if the system's non-compliant
way past the development's due date.
Eventually, some giant customer may want CE stickers, so we'll do the >>easier things now, to improve our chances of passing an EMI test. A
bit of VHDL in the FPGAs would be easy.
Unsynchronized power supplies on the same board can
influence each other, unpredictably with load, to produce
audible harmonics.
Ignore the effects at your peril.
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 13:43:59 -0700, John Larkin ><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 11:08:36 -0700, boB <boB@K7IQ.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 08:22:44 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 10:30:45 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 12:14:04 -0700, John Larkin >>>>><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 13:16:04 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>>>wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 08:26:56 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
I'm designing a switching power supply module and could reduce EMI by >>>>>>>>going spread-spectrum on the switching frequency. The simple one below >>>>>>>>reduces things by 20 dB. Probe the SS node and FFT.
The ss inside switching reg chips is no doubt more sophisticated. In >>>>>>>>an FPGA, we could do some sort of pseudo-random thing.
On a multi-channel power supply, there may be some small advantage to >>>>>>>>have a separate spread per channel. That would be easy.
I'd check for cross-correlation as well, so no ganging up in systems >>>>>>>using multiple channels in some signal path.
When my engineers get too fussy about stuff like that, I remind them >>>>>>"it's just a power supply."
In my world, we have multiple parallel components (like array >>>>>sections) in the signal path powered by independent power supplies >>>>>that are required to have independent noise, to prevent correlated >>>>>gain when these parallel paths are summed, say in a radar beamformer. >>>>>
Telling the power-supply folk that it's just a power supply is a good >>>>>way to get buried in details.
My intent was to keep it simple and get it done.
Depending on details, the problem could manifest itself as peaks or >>>>>>>ripples in the time domain, your beloved homeland.
Joe Gwinn
TI has a couple of interesting appnotes
<https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/slyt809>
<https://www.ti.com/lit/SLVAF18>
Their little TPS54302 type parts have radical looking PWM, but the >>>>>>final DC is super clean. Nice trick.
<https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8rytjiwp4hmt2ypgk9bk4/DSC06826.JPG?rlkey=4qipduct0ptrhei07ijdxpsca&raw=1>
<https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kf2kxbxih6xjbx8uv2o0d/TPS54302_spectrum.JPG?rlkey=rd3diu5nvhasfn7228m8yk665&raw=1>
We may get some EMI from switching rise/fall ringing too, in the >>>>>>hundred-MHz ballpark. It would help to de-phase that too.
TI stuff is widely used in radar, but in the most capable radars the >>>>>dithering is provided by bespoke radar firmware, and not left to the >>>>>converter chip. But those chips do work well.
Joe Gwinn
We've decided to use home-made half bridges in the 8-channel >>>>programmable power module. The TI and ADI switching regs are just too >>>>smart. We'll use the reg chips when we just want a fixed power supply.
I was thinking that we could use a DDS architecture to generate the
PWM into the switching half-bridges. We could wobble the frequency >>>>setting to spread the spectrum.
Maybe replace some of the LSBs of the frequency-set register with a >>>>pseudorandom pattern, a different one for each power supply channel. >>>>Change those LSBs at some rate, 20 KHz or something, to fool an >>>>EMI-test spectrum analyzer.
A pseudorandom pattern will average to 0.5, which affects the average >>>>switcher frequency, but we can deal with that.
I suppose I could draw a diagram.
We'd like the fine-grain spectra to not overlap, across all 8
channels. Fun.
Given eight unipolar half-bridges, we'll allow users to use a pair as
a full bridge to drive one bipolar load, or three to drive a 3-phase >>>>load like a torque motor. In those cases, I think we can still allow >>>>each phase to have its own independent spread-spectrum thing. The >>>>motors won't care.
The STM32F4 that I use in my inverter/charger has a SS clock option.
I have not enabled that yet but intend to eventually for lower peaks
from the PWM outputs driving all the power circuitry.
boB
That's cool. I'm designing a bunch of plugin modules that would all
get a 50 MHz clock from the backplane. Since my PWM frequencies will
be fairly low, we should be able to fuzz up the spectra in the FPGA on
each board.
We could code a generic ss PWM block and use it everywhere.
<https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2ypg6qhnalmixv6kx44if/Spread_Spectrum_Apr_19.jpg?rlkey=d3hiwl4mj57erk82629fyouse&raw=1>
This dithers the frequency, which is a valid approach. But dithering
the phase before going to the DAC core to generate the waveform is
also widely used. And one can do both at the same time, particularly
with different sequences, so the peaks are spread out in 2D.
Joe Gwinn
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 17:33:48 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 13:43:59 -0700, John Larkin >><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 11:08:36 -0700, boB <boB@K7IQ.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 08:22:44 -0700, John Larkin >>>><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 10:30:45 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>>wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 12:14:04 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 13:16:04 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 08:26:56 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
I'm designing a switching power supply module and could reduce EMI by >>>>>>>>>going spread-spectrum on the switching frequency. The simple one below >>>>>>>>>reduces things by 20 dB. Probe the SS node and FFT.
The ss inside switching reg chips is no doubt more sophisticated. In >>>>>>>>>an FPGA, we could do some sort of pseudo-random thing.
On a multi-channel power supply, there may be some small advantage to >>>>>>>>>have a separate spread per channel. That would be easy.
I'd check for cross-correlation as well, so no ganging up in systems >>>>>>>>using multiple channels in some signal path.
When my engineers get too fussy about stuff like that, I remind them >>>>>>>"it's just a power supply."
In my world, we have multiple parallel components (like array >>>>>>sections) in the signal path powered by independent power supplies >>>>>>that are required to have independent noise, to prevent correlated >>>>>>gain when these parallel paths are summed, say in a radar beamformer. >>>>>>
Telling the power-supply folk that it's just a power supply is a good >>>>>>way to get buried in details.
My intent was to keep it simple and get it done.
Depending on details, the problem could manifest itself as peaks or >>>>>>>>ripples in the time domain, your beloved homeland.
Joe Gwinn
TI has a couple of interesting appnotes
<https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/slyt809>
<https://www.ti.com/lit/SLVAF18>
Their little TPS54302 type parts have radical looking PWM, but the >>>>>>>final DC is super clean. Nice trick.
<https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8rytjiwp4hmt2ypgk9bk4/DSC06826.JPG?rlkey=4qipduct0ptrhei07ijdxpsca&raw=1>
<https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kf2kxbxih6xjbx8uv2o0d/TPS54302_spectrum.JPG?rlkey=rd3diu5nvhasfn7228m8yk665&raw=1>
We may get some EMI from switching rise/fall ringing too, in the >>>>>>>hundred-MHz ballpark. It would help to de-phase that too.
TI stuff is widely used in radar, but in the most capable radars the >>>>>>dithering is provided by bespoke radar firmware, and not left to the >>>>>>converter chip. But those chips do work well.
Joe Gwinn
We've decided to use home-made half bridges in the 8-channel >>>>>programmable power module. The TI and ADI switching regs are just too >>>>>smart. We'll use the reg chips when we just want a fixed power supply. >>>>>
I was thinking that we could use a DDS architecture to generate the >>>>>PWM into the switching half-bridges. We could wobble the frequency >>>>>setting to spread the spectrum.
Maybe replace some of the LSBs of the frequency-set register with a >>>>>pseudorandom pattern, a different one for each power supply channel. >>>>>Change those LSBs at some rate, 20 KHz or something, to fool an >>>>>EMI-test spectrum analyzer.
A pseudorandom pattern will average to 0.5, which affects the average >>>>>switcher frequency, but we can deal with that.
I suppose I could draw a diagram.
We'd like the fine-grain spectra to not overlap, across all 8 >>>>>channels. Fun.
Given eight unipolar half-bridges, we'll allow users to use a pair as >>>>>a full bridge to drive one bipolar load, or three to drive a 3-phase >>>>>load like a torque motor. In those cases, I think we can still allow >>>>>each phase to have its own independent spread-spectrum thing. The >>>>>motors won't care.
The STM32F4 that I use in my inverter/charger has a SS clock option. >>>>I have not enabled that yet but intend to eventually for lower peaks >>>>from the PWM outputs driving all the power circuitry.
boB
That's cool. I'm designing a bunch of plugin modules that would all
get a 50 MHz clock from the backplane. Since my PWM frequencies will
be fairly low, we should be able to fuzz up the spectra in the FPGA on >>>each board.
We could code a generic ss PWM block and use it everywhere.
<https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2ypg6qhnalmixv6kx44if/Spread_Spectrum_Apr_19.jpg?rlkey=d3hiwl4mj57erk82629fyouse&raw=1>
This dithers the frequency, which is a valid approach. But dithering
the phase before going to the DAC core to generate the waveform is
also widely used. And one can do both at the same time, particularly
with different sequences, so the peaks are spread out in 2D.
Joe Gwinn
Pseudo-random frequency is probably best as long as the average
frequency is the specified and wanted center frequency. So the PRN
source may need to be massaged to do that ?
What I see most often in processors and an old SMPS chip I seem to
remember all use triangle wave modulation to the clock frequency.
This way, it averages to the center frequency.
I remember hearing about a 12V switchmode power supply for ham radio
where you could adjust the switching frequency up or down slightly so
that the EMI could be tuned away from the operator's radio frequency
he was operating on so it would not interfere. I guess if you can't
make the EMI go away by design, that might be the next best thing.
I have yet to find a 12V SMPS supply that I could not hear on my HF
radios so I just use a linear PS for that at home.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 86:09:38 |
| Calls: | 6,717 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,248 |
| Messages: | 5,358,388 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
