Re: KA7500 vs TL494

On 05/04/2025 23:57, legg wrote:

On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 19:11:03 +0100, John R Walliker
<jrwalliker@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 03/04/2025 16:11, legg wrote:

this circuit schematic of an application available at DiodeGoneWild [1]:
>
     <https://danyk.cz/s_atx01h.png>

>
The circuitry around Q5 and Q6, far from being some kind
of OVP protection, is actually an undervoltage latch.
When either transistor turns off, the slow-start capacitor
is discharged fairly quickly.
>
If the missing connection to pin 4 is present, the PW is
inhibited and conversion is latched off, until the
collapsing housekeeping supply turns the chip off.
>
Combined with a current limit, this can produce a hiccoughing
response to overload or short circuit on the lower-powered
outputs.Sort of a Hail Mary approach.
>
Q5 disables output undervoltage effects while the housekeeping
supply is rising (at start-up), or has gross ripple.
>
Some of the commodity supplies of the type don't have this
added circuitry, hence their sensitivity to output
shorts and overload.
>
Single output units may monitor the one output or simply
count on current limiting to reduce PW sufficiently to
collapse the housekeeping supply.
>
RL

>
Slightly relevant to the above discussion - I recently
wanted to get an old Dell notebook PC running and found
that many of the (supposedly) genuine Dell power supplies
I had to hand did not work.  One was completely broken,
but several of the others allowed the notebook to run for
a few seconds before shutting down.  All were adequately rated.
I checked them all with a variable load resistor and
found that they would deliver significantly more current
than their rated output.  However, once they current limited
they latched off and could only be restarted by power cycling
the mains input.
The two supplies I found that would run the notebook were
very different.  One, labeled as a genuine Dell unit kept
delivering more and more current until I stopped as the
output dropped from 19.5V to 12V at about 8.5A.
The other one fold-back current limited at a sensible degree of
overload and restarted when the overload was removed.  This
was made by Lite-am.  This is the one I am now using.
The notebook PC may of course be drawing far too much current
at startup.  I will check this later.  The battery is dead.
However, I was quite surprised by these results.
John

 If they use 3 terminal barrel connectors, they will be
negotiating output voltage and power settings, similar
to USB-C 'PD' terminal traffic.
 If negotiation isn't reached, they may revert to 5V low
power. A USB-C mock load can usually convince a Dell
3-term 18-20V supply to regulate at 5,9 or 18-20V; 3 of
the 5 voltages the USB regs cover.
 Only the highest voltages produce rated power from
the supply - as a characteristic of that supply (see label).
 Dell were pretty good at squeezing maximum quality and
lowest price out of their suppliers (Dell labeled or
otherwise). Getting 10 years out of them at normal room
temperature is quite common.
 Don't be shy about getting an after-market battery
replacement (or two).
 RL

I'm certainly not shy about using an after-market power supply.
That is the one that works properly.
All these power supplies are the three-contact barrel type.  They
all deliver a fixed 19.5V, even into a resistive load.  They can
also all deliver well over their rated output currents.  The issue
seems to be that their failure mode is an inability to retry when
the current limit has been triggered.
I don't think they have any mechanism for negotiating like a USB-C
PD supply.  Instead they just have a memory accessed through a 1-wire
interface which tells the computer what their rating is.
John