Flying capacitor design considerations for a 48-to-12 V, 35 a split-phase dickson SC converter
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Switched-capacitor converters can deliver better performance, power density, and switch utilization compared to inductor-based power converters, but they suffer from current spikes during switching due to capacitor charge redistribution. This can be solved by methods such as split-phase control, which was developed to address charge redistribution in Dickson SC converters by controlling the charging and discharging of the circuit's flying capacitors, such that the equivalent branch voltages line up when the circuit switches states. However, split-phase control is most effective at compensating for charge redistribution when all the circuit's flying capacitors are matched in capacitance value. Differences between the capacitance values of the circuit flying capacitors may result in split-phase control not being able to fully compensate for charge redistribution, due to the different charge/discharge rates of the flying capacitors. The work presented in this paper provides an in-depth analysis of the sensitivity of the split-phase Dickson converter to mismatches in flying capacitor values, as well as discussions regarding the design considerations and prototype test results of a split-phase Dickson converter for high-current loads.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it