1 Reply Latest reply on Sep 21, 2017 10:59 AM by e.pratt_1639216

    I am curious why Buck and Boost technologies are used which are constrained by their inductive energy storage topology, when more modern topologies of the last decade are superior and more cost effective?

    user_502702041

      Sorry for long title: I am curious why Buck and Boost technologies are used which are constrained by their inductive energy storage topology, when more modern topologies of the last decade are superior and more cost effective? A exciting new world of Power Electronics Topologies is rapidly emerging.

       

      For example:

       

      http://www.powerelectronics.com/power-management/step-down-dc-dc-converter-eliminates-ferrite-cores-50khz-enabling-power…

       

      Significant improvement in efficiency and reduced cost is realized, not to mention also reduced size and increased power density.

       

      I strongly recommend joining a growing group centered on Power Electronics Topologies, that is already bringing forward topologies that will replace the Buck and Boost technologies.

       

      Has anyone at Cypress engineering considered the half dozen or so new topologies of the last 8 years which will ultimately replace the Buck and Boost technologies? The above link is one good example of this. The latest Cuk patents are leading the charge to the next level in Power Electronics design.

       

      Combining PSoC chips with more flexible power modules could allow for user programmability of control subsystems, but more importantly allow for instrumenting the power management subsystem.

       

      Regards

      Clifford Emeric

        • 1. Re: I am curious why Buck and Boost technologies are used which are constrained by their inductive energy storage topology, when more modern topologies of the last decade are superior and more cost effective?
          e.pratt_1639216

          If the layouts/manufacturing are still being finalized or put into practice, then it isn't really practical to switch to the newer technologies due to cost constraints. Besides which, newer technologies have their own problems that eventually come out; Just not visible at the onset. Researching and examining alternate possibilities is (I would say) a requirement of succeeding at development and innovation. However, investing too many resources into a technology before it has matured becomes a risky investment due to it's propensity for failure.

          The reason most people use buck/boost topologies is due to:

          Knowledge (not knowing of other solutions that would work)

          Application (based on requirements, there may be considerations for why certain topologies are chosen)

          History (They have been around for so long, there is very little difficulty in implementation)

          Patent (often times the inventor of new technology imposes licensing/costs)

           

          It is pretty easy to say: "Here are new technologies that will replace the buck/boost converters!" But actually going about replacing them is where the issues arise.

          Although, I applaud your encouragement to Cypress to pursue the newer technologies and to constantly push the boundaries

           

          Epratt