Part Number: TIDA-00779 I am working on designing a Boost PFC based on the TIDA-00779 reference design. I have a question regarding the In-rush current protection. In the reference design a PTC B470N is used, along with a by-pass circuit is used for the…
Part Number: TIDA-00779 I'm working on a PFC based on this reference design. While I'm working on that, I found
inconsistancies and errors in schematic and BOM. Most of them are already known here in this forum.
So I think it's a good idea to…
Part Number: TIDA-00779 Hi,
the described TIDA-0079 PFC design approach fit's to our requirements.
We would like to test it together with our own circuit.
Question: For fast evaluation, is it possible to get the complete TIDA-0079 kit or at least…
Part Number: PMP8740 Other Parts Discussed in Thread: TIDA-00779 , , PMP8790 , LM5170 , UCC28950 , UCC28951 , LM5170-Q1 Hi,
Can We use TIDA-00779 (3.5-kW PFC board) to power the DC-DC converter board of PMP8740?
The switching frequency used in TIDA-00779 is…
Part Number: TIDA-00779 And R39=20k is correct.
Then I have a RC delay of 175msec ( PFC_ON to Q5 Drain <= 3V ) + 20msec switch on time of the relay itself = 195msec.
Think soft start capability should be integrated in PFC controller.
Then it's possible…
Part Number: TIDA-00779 Hello,
In the Schematic we see that resistor selected is of 300kOhm for snubber but when we search part mentioned in BOM it shows 43.2 Ohm. Please suggest what value should be used and relevant footprint.
Please see the attached…
Part Number: TIDA-00779 According to the circuit diagram of TIDA-00779, R39 is shown as 20k [Ohm]. But when you look at the BOM, it says 1k [Ohm]. What is correct? I don't use boost follower control circuit.
Part Number: TIDA-00779 Hello,
I see there are two sets of bleed resistor in the design guide. One on the input side, one on the output side. Why is that? Why can't one set of bleed resistor be sufficient? Why is the input side resistor value so small…
Part Number: TIDA-00779 Hello!
The nominal dc-bus voltage of the TIDA-00779 is chosen 390 V, which is controlled by a PFC circuit. I know that this value is considered as VDC>Vin_max*sqrt(2), as VDC>270*sqrt(2).
I, however, think this voltage value…