Flying capacitor design considerations for a 48-to-12 V, 35 a split-phase dickson SC converter
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".