This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Thanks Atlant....
It works, Thanks , You are the man Scott 16:27:59, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the term voltage multiplier was primarly used to describe an AC-to-DC converter (constructed with capacitors and rectifiers). You can obviously transform it into DC-to-DC converter by means of an oscillator converting input DC to AC. Am I wrong? -- filu 11:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I also suggest not to merge as this is AC to DC converte when the charge pump is normally the DC to DC converter. Audriusa 19:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I have done my best to interpret the very unclear text in the "Alternative diagrams" section (now renamed as above) and convert it into understandable circuit diagrams. Please let me know if I have anything wrong here and I will amend the drawings. I know the first one is actually used because it appears in the Cockcroft-Walton generator article, but the others I have not come across so I could have made some errors here. SpinningSpark 14:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
How does one calculate the best size of capacitor for a particular circuit? Am I right that the capacitor size should be halved at each stage because the voltage is doubled? Biscuittin ( talk) 19:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe this circuit suggests the voltage is doubled by each stage but I believe this circuit simply adds the input voltage to each stage so Vout = Vin x no of stages. Not Vin x 2^(no of stages). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.53.189 ( talk) 19:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Suggest merging the contents of Voltage doubler and Voltage tripler to provode context and reduce redundancy. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 17:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Not really in favour of merging voltage doubler. Several circuits are specifically voltage doublers and cannot be extended to a general multiplier. There is also some history information that is specifically related to voltage doubler. A further objection is that voltage doubler is GA status: the target article should be brought up to the same standard before even considering a merge. Not such a strong case for voltage tripler though. Spinning Spark 18:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
In Fig. “Other circuit topologies”, what does this mean, “and upon any collapse from arcing capacitive energy can cancel”? That’s not a complete concept. Should it say something like this instead, replacing “and” with a period, “. If a capacitor breaks down, all the energy will be suddenly released in an electrical arc.” Michael McGinnis ( talk) 07:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The driving waveforms for the Dickson pump are described as "...non-overlapping so that the switching behaviour is break-before-make" (edit by Spinningspark, 25 September 2011). This analogy with a switch is misleading. While there is no advantage in overlap, there is no need for "break before make". No larger current will flow during any overlap: the circuit will simply become less effective as the overlap increases. Indeed, the waveforms shown do not comply with "break before make" if you regard "make" as "negative drive". Maximum output is achieved when the driving signals are 50% square waves in exact antiphase. I can find no reference to "break before make" in connection with Dickson multipliers (except in the numerous copies of this article). I have removed the reference to "break before make". Mike Shepherd ( talk) 09:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
1. Why should the first image say "Villard cascade voltage multiplier" if the circuit was actually invented by Greinacher/Cockcroft–Walton? Shouldn't the caption use "Greinacher/Cockcroft–Walton cascade voltage multiplier" instead? The section on the Greinacher circuit of the voltage doubler clearly states "Villard" is a misnomer ( Voltage_doubler#Greinacher_circuit).
2. I have a few questions about the images for the topologies. First image: where is the multiplication if the output is +V? Second image: why does the lower branch has only +V. Third image: text says "Stacking the two cascades provides an output of twice the voltage" so why does the image use +V and -V instead of +2V and -2V?
3. The use of VT could actually be misleading because VT is also the thermal voltage. I think VD is safer and avoids confusion.
4. It's not clear to me the purpose of having the image with caption "TV cascade (green) and flyback transformer (blue)."
ICE77 ( talk) 19:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Spinningspark, thanks for the feedback.
1. Should the image continue to use "Villard" which appears to be wrong?
2. I see the difference in potential for the third circuit. I do not see the other two circuits.
3. All the links you posted point to VT as used in fact typically for a MOSFET for threshold voltage and not for a diode for forward voltage. The use of VD for diode voltage is not at all uncommon and in my opinion it's not misleading. Wikipedia itself uses it: /info/en/?search=Diode#Shockley_diode_equation. The book entitled Microelectronic circuits by Adel Sedra in section 3.3.1 clearly shows VD in equations 3.6, 3.7 and Figure 3.10. Since VT is used twice before the image of the MOSFET implementation of the Dickson charge pump I assume it still refers to diodes.
4. If "TV cascade" is a type of voltage multiplier it would help to clearly state it in the article. I am myself not familiar with that naming.
ICE77 ( talk) 01:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
1. Just because a food is commonly and erroneously called lasagna it does not mean that we should legitimate its spelling when the proper name is lasagne. That's the way I see it and the fact the section on the Greinacher circuit of the voltage doubler clearly states "Villard" is a misnomer is the indication that even if Villard is popular, it's not proper and it should not be called like that ( Voltage_doubler#Greinacher_circuit). Maybe the article should have a note regarding this.
ICE77 ( talk) 06:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
In voltage multipliers, the diodes are always set in series, but it is possible to arrange differently the capacitors on both side (the ones crossed by AC currents and the ones charged with DC voltages),see for instance: http://www.voltagemultipliers.com/pdf/Multiplier%20Design%20Guideline.pdf The capacitors can be set in series or parallel (see Half-wave Parallel Multiplier and Full-wave Serial Multiplier in the preceding document), leading to four implementations of the same idea. Unfortunately in the present page only the serial-serial configuration is presented. The modified Dickson charge pump is a possible introduction of the parallel-parallel configuration (although presented in a different manner that prevents to see the point discussed here), but the two serial-parallel and parallel-serial implementations are totally missing. Unfortunately I have not enough time to do the cleaning job now but the idea is very easy to grasp and to implement and will lead to a well constructed page instead of a patchwork of old ideas, any volunteer ?.-- Henri BONDAR ( talk) 13:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Presently this section says, "the individual components do not need to be rated to withstand the entire voltage range. Each component only needs to be concerned with the relative voltage differences directly across its own terminals and of the components immediately adjacent to it." This is not correct: Once the circuit is fully charged, each capacitor has a potential equal to the voltage at its stage. E.g., the last capacitor in a cascade generating xV needs to be rated to xV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbooksta ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I was looking at the circuit on the right. The drain of the FETs is on the left and the source is on the right. I tried to simulate the circuit and when I do it like that I get a negative output voltage which doesn't make sense. I flipped the FETs so that source is on the left and drain is on the right. I get a positive voltage. What's the right polarity?
ICE77 ( talk) 04:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Spinningspark, thanks for the comments. I see the links you provided (Liu and Ma/Bondade) are consistent with the image in this thread. I went back to simulate and the results do not make sense. If source must be on the left, if I have Vin=2V, what should be the amplitude of the phases and the polarity of the output?
ICE77 ( talk) 07:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the caption of the picture of the Cockcroft-Walton multiplier is wrong. The caption says it's a doubler, but the circuit show in a a 4x multiplier. (the picture itself is from the separate page /info/en/?search=Cockcroft%E2%80%93Walton_generator where the caption simply calls it a multiplier, and the accompanying text clear describes the 4x operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WestfW ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay so the first image (Villard) and third image (Cockroft-Walton) are still the same circuit. Which one should be deleted? Which name is more appropriate? Hoemaco ( talk) 19:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program.
The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
19:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Thanks Atlant....
It works, Thanks , You are the man Scott 16:27:59, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the term voltage multiplier was primarly used to describe an AC-to-DC converter (constructed with capacitors and rectifiers). You can obviously transform it into DC-to-DC converter by means of an oscillator converting input DC to AC. Am I wrong? -- filu 11:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I also suggest not to merge as this is AC to DC converte when the charge pump is normally the DC to DC converter. Audriusa 19:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I have done my best to interpret the very unclear text in the "Alternative diagrams" section (now renamed as above) and convert it into understandable circuit diagrams. Please let me know if I have anything wrong here and I will amend the drawings. I know the first one is actually used because it appears in the Cockcroft-Walton generator article, but the others I have not come across so I could have made some errors here. SpinningSpark 14:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
How does one calculate the best size of capacitor for a particular circuit? Am I right that the capacitor size should be halved at each stage because the voltage is doubled? Biscuittin ( talk) 19:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe this circuit suggests the voltage is doubled by each stage but I believe this circuit simply adds the input voltage to each stage so Vout = Vin x no of stages. Not Vin x 2^(no of stages). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.53.189 ( talk) 19:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Suggest merging the contents of Voltage doubler and Voltage tripler to provode context and reduce redundancy. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 17:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Not really in favour of merging voltage doubler. Several circuits are specifically voltage doublers and cannot be extended to a general multiplier. There is also some history information that is specifically related to voltage doubler. A further objection is that voltage doubler is GA status: the target article should be brought up to the same standard before even considering a merge. Not such a strong case for voltage tripler though. Spinning Spark 18:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
In Fig. “Other circuit topologies”, what does this mean, “and upon any collapse from arcing capacitive energy can cancel”? That’s not a complete concept. Should it say something like this instead, replacing “and” with a period, “. If a capacitor breaks down, all the energy will be suddenly released in an electrical arc.” Michael McGinnis ( talk) 07:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The driving waveforms for the Dickson pump are described as "...non-overlapping so that the switching behaviour is break-before-make" (edit by Spinningspark, 25 September 2011). This analogy with a switch is misleading. While there is no advantage in overlap, there is no need for "break before make". No larger current will flow during any overlap: the circuit will simply become less effective as the overlap increases. Indeed, the waveforms shown do not comply with "break before make" if you regard "make" as "negative drive". Maximum output is achieved when the driving signals are 50% square waves in exact antiphase. I can find no reference to "break before make" in connection with Dickson multipliers (except in the numerous copies of this article). I have removed the reference to "break before make". Mike Shepherd ( talk) 09:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
1. Why should the first image say "Villard cascade voltage multiplier" if the circuit was actually invented by Greinacher/Cockcroft–Walton? Shouldn't the caption use "Greinacher/Cockcroft–Walton cascade voltage multiplier" instead? The section on the Greinacher circuit of the voltage doubler clearly states "Villard" is a misnomer ( Voltage_doubler#Greinacher_circuit).
2. I have a few questions about the images for the topologies. First image: where is the multiplication if the output is +V? Second image: why does the lower branch has only +V. Third image: text says "Stacking the two cascades provides an output of twice the voltage" so why does the image use +V and -V instead of +2V and -2V?
3. The use of VT could actually be misleading because VT is also the thermal voltage. I think VD is safer and avoids confusion.
4. It's not clear to me the purpose of having the image with caption "TV cascade (green) and flyback transformer (blue)."
ICE77 ( talk) 19:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Spinningspark, thanks for the feedback.
1. Should the image continue to use "Villard" which appears to be wrong?
2. I see the difference in potential for the third circuit. I do not see the other two circuits.
3. All the links you posted point to VT as used in fact typically for a MOSFET for threshold voltage and not for a diode for forward voltage. The use of VD for diode voltage is not at all uncommon and in my opinion it's not misleading. Wikipedia itself uses it: /info/en/?search=Diode#Shockley_diode_equation. The book entitled Microelectronic circuits by Adel Sedra in section 3.3.1 clearly shows VD in equations 3.6, 3.7 and Figure 3.10. Since VT is used twice before the image of the MOSFET implementation of the Dickson charge pump I assume it still refers to diodes.
4. If "TV cascade" is a type of voltage multiplier it would help to clearly state it in the article. I am myself not familiar with that naming.
ICE77 ( talk) 01:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
1. Just because a food is commonly and erroneously called lasagna it does not mean that we should legitimate its spelling when the proper name is lasagne. That's the way I see it and the fact the section on the Greinacher circuit of the voltage doubler clearly states "Villard" is a misnomer is the indication that even if Villard is popular, it's not proper and it should not be called like that ( Voltage_doubler#Greinacher_circuit). Maybe the article should have a note regarding this.
ICE77 ( talk) 06:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
In voltage multipliers, the diodes are always set in series, but it is possible to arrange differently the capacitors on both side (the ones crossed by AC currents and the ones charged with DC voltages),see for instance: http://www.voltagemultipliers.com/pdf/Multiplier%20Design%20Guideline.pdf The capacitors can be set in series or parallel (see Half-wave Parallel Multiplier and Full-wave Serial Multiplier in the preceding document), leading to four implementations of the same idea. Unfortunately in the present page only the serial-serial configuration is presented. The modified Dickson charge pump is a possible introduction of the parallel-parallel configuration (although presented in a different manner that prevents to see the point discussed here), but the two serial-parallel and parallel-serial implementations are totally missing. Unfortunately I have not enough time to do the cleaning job now but the idea is very easy to grasp and to implement and will lead to a well constructed page instead of a patchwork of old ideas, any volunteer ?.-- Henri BONDAR ( talk) 13:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Presently this section says, "the individual components do not need to be rated to withstand the entire voltage range. Each component only needs to be concerned with the relative voltage differences directly across its own terminals and of the components immediately adjacent to it." This is not correct: Once the circuit is fully charged, each capacitor has a potential equal to the voltage at its stage. E.g., the last capacitor in a cascade generating xV needs to be rated to xV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbooksta ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I was looking at the circuit on the right. The drain of the FETs is on the left and the source is on the right. I tried to simulate the circuit and when I do it like that I get a negative output voltage which doesn't make sense. I flipped the FETs so that source is on the left and drain is on the right. I get a positive voltage. What's the right polarity?
ICE77 ( talk) 04:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Spinningspark, thanks for the comments. I see the links you provided (Liu and Ma/Bondade) are consistent with the image in this thread. I went back to simulate and the results do not make sense. If source must be on the left, if I have Vin=2V, what should be the amplitude of the phases and the polarity of the output?
ICE77 ( talk) 07:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the caption of the picture of the Cockcroft-Walton multiplier is wrong. The caption says it's a doubler, but the circuit show in a a 4x multiplier. (the picture itself is from the separate page /info/en/?search=Cockcroft%E2%80%93Walton_generator where the caption simply calls it a multiplier, and the accompanying text clear describes the 4x operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WestfW ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay so the first image (Villard) and third image (Cockroft-Walton) are still the same circuit. Which one should be deleted? Which name is more appropriate? Hoemaco ( talk) 19:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program.
The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
19:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)