Talk:Voltage multiplier

message: Thanks Atlant....
:You're welcome. As the Wiki FAQ says, be bold, because there's always someone who can help out!
:By the way, you can easily "sign" your talk posts by ending them with four tildes (~~~~). When you press (Save page), these will be replaced by your username (or IP address) in a handy Wikilinked format. This will also contain a timestamp for your posting.
:Atlant 12:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the term voltage multiplier was primarly used to describe an AC-to-DC converter (constructed with capacitors and rectifiers). You can obviously transform it into DC-to-DC converter by means of an oscillator converting input DC to AC. Am I wrong? --filu 11:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you are absolutely right. Does need changing Scott 11:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: See my comment here. -- Femmina 21:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An error? 

message: I have done my best to interpret the very unclear text in the "Alternative diagrams" section (now renamed as above) and convert it into understandable circuit diagrams.  Please let me know if I have anything wrong here and I will amend the drawings.  I know the first one is actually used because it appears in the Cockcroft-Walton generator article, but the others I have not come across so I could have made some errors here. SpinningSpark 14:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other circuit topologies 

message: How does one calculate the best size of capacitor for a particular circuit? Am I right that the capacitor size should be halved at each stage because the voltage is doubled? Biscuittin (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the capacitor values should remain constant throughout the circuit. In series with many stages, capacitors lower on the cascade may have slightly higher values to reduce reactance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.131.135 (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capacitor size 

message: I believe this circuit suggests the voltage is doubled by each stage but I believe this circuit simply adds the input voltage to each stage so Vout = Vin x no of stages.  Not Vin x 2^(no of stages).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.53.189 (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such error in the article as far as I can see.  If you can see one then fix it yourself. SpinningSpark 07:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Error? 

message: Suggest merging the contents of Voltage doubler and Voltage tripler to provode context and reduce redundancy. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggest merge

message: In Fig. “Other circuit topologies”, what does this mean, “and upon any collapse from arcing capacitive energy can cancel”? That’s not a complete concept. Should it say something like this instead, replacing “and” with a period, “. If a capacitor breaks down, all the energy will be suddenly released in an electrical arc.”Michael McGinnis (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Caption of Figure "Other circuit topologies"

message: The driving waveforms for the Dickson pump are described as "...non-overlapping so that the switching behaviour is break-before-make" (edit by Spinningspark, 25 September 2011‎).  This analogy with a switch is misleading.  While there is no advantage in overlap, there is no need for "break before make".  No larger current will flow during any overlap: the circuit will simply become less effective as the overlap increases.  Indeed, the waveforms shown do not comply with "break before make" if you regard "make" as "negative drive".  Maximum output is achieved when the driving signals are 50% square waves in exact antiphase.  I can find no reference to "break before make" in connection with Dickson multipliers (except in the numerous copies of this article).  I have removed the reference to "break before make".Mike Shepherd (talk) 09:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Dickson charge pump - "break before make"

message: Presently this section says, "the individual components do not need to be rated to withstand the entire voltage range. Each component only needs to be concerned with the relative voltage differences directly across its own terminals and of the components immediately adjacent to it."  This is not correct: Once the circuit is fully charged, each capacitor has a potential equal to the voltage at its stage.  E.g., the last capacitor in a cascade generating xV needs to be rated to xV.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbooksta (talk • contribs) 13:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the capacitors are essentially in series in a ladder circuit, it cannot possibly be true that they all carry the full voltage.  However, what you say may be true of a charge pump design. SpinningSpark 14:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breakdown voltage error 

message: I think the caption of the picture of the Cockcroft-Walton multiplier is wrong.
The caption says it's a doubler, but the circuit show in a a 4x multiplier. (the picture itself is from the separate page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockcroft%E2%80%93Walton_generator where the caption simply calls it a multiplier, and the accompanying text clear describes the 4x operation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WestfW (talk • contribs) 23:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The caption also (correctly) states that this is twice the pk-pk voltage of the supply.  But peak voltage is the conventional reference, not pk-pk. SpinningSpark 11:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I corrected the caption.  Addition: It's totally the SAME circuit as the first image (Villard multiplier). Just drawn slightly differently. So do we need the same circuit twice? Also, in the first image "Us" is not widely understood I think - we usually indicate RMS voltage next to AC sources, while here the output is 4x the peak (if unloaded). It could also be mentioned that not only the output ripple but output peak depends strongly on Rload and C values. Hoemaco (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay so I don't understand Spinningspark - you said peak is the conventional reference, not pk-to-pk, yet you reversed my edit in the image caption, which said 4x peak (which is of course same as 2x peak to peak). Also, you reverted to the misleading name of voltage doubler  - it doubles the peak to peak, but as mentioned, most people use peak only and as such it is a quadrupler circuit. And there's still the problem I said that the first circuit in the article is totally the same, but with a different name and with an output formula written as 4 Us. Which in itself contradicts this other image. Hoemaco (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  My mistake, I thought I was reverting something else.  I've self reverted. SpinningSpark 10:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Why do you want to delete either of them?  The lead needs an image, and it doesn't really matter if that is the same/similar circuit shown later in the article.  SpinningSpark 14:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

text: By the way, I am not at all sure that it is correct to label this circuit a Villard circuit.  Villard's orginal paper gives only a single diode device (see Voltage doubler#Villard circuit) without a smoothing stage.  This book shows two different topologies for multiple stage Cockcroft-Walton and Villard multipliers, although I am pretty sure the diagram annotation has "c" and "d" the wrong way round since "d" (as marked) is definitely the Cockroft-Walton. SpinningSpark 14:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect caption of Cockcroft-Walton multiplier