Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
Voltage Regulator Whine on QuickStart Rev B — Parallax Forums

Voltage Regulator Whine on QuickStart Rev B

TintinTintin Posts: 37
edited 2015-01-04 08:42 in Propeller 1
I recently got a QuickStart board, and when power is applied to it, it makes this annoying high pitched sound. I've worked with other QuickStart boards, but never with a squealing unit. The sound is emitted no matter how I power the board, either via USB or Vin. I've also noticed that the sound changes frequency as the current draw changes, such as when turning on the blue onboard leds. Interestingly, the culprit seems to be the (3.3V) voltage regulator: I've found that putting a 4.7uf electrolytic capacitor between Vdd and ground gets rid of the sound.

Perhaps some of you can shed some light on this: Is my board less reliable because it makes this sound? Is my solution with the capacitor viable long term?

Comments

  • kwinnkwinn Posts: 8,697
    edited 2015-01-01 06:46
    I've had capacitors make a high pitched whine occasionally, but not a regulator chip. Didn't seem to affect the reliability though. Personally I would put the 4.7uF in permanently and use the board myself, but never put it out at a customer site.
  • GenetixGenetix Posts: 1,754
    edited 2015-01-01 15:57
    That board has some kind of an issue so give Parallax Tech Support a call and they will replace it for you. One of the great things about Parallax is their excellent support so take advantage of it. Most of the time Parallax products work fine but every know and then people will get a defective unit.
  • Tracy AllenTracy Allen Posts: 6,664
    edited 2015-01-01 16:38
    This has come up before. The sound usually comes from a ceramic capacitor at the output of the regulator. The capacitor is piezoelectric and vibrates along with an oscillation of the voltage across it. The voltage regulator is involved because it is not quite stable with that particular capacitor; there is a feedback loop that is making an oscillation that you could probably see with an oscilloscope. Changes in load change the situation, and addition of the electrolytic capacitor renders the loop unconditionally stable.
  • TintinTintin Posts: 37
    edited 2015-01-02 05:21
    Many thanks for all your comments; I understand better what is going on now. I will contact Parallax.
  • jmgjmg Posts: 15,173
    edited 2015-01-02 08:09
    ... The voltage regulator is involved because it is not quite stable with that particular capacitor; there is a feedback loop that is making an oscillation that you could probably see with an oscilloscope. Changes in load change the situation, and addition of the electrolytic capacitor renders the loop unconditionally stable.
    If the CAP is not quite correct for the regulator = oscillation, the board should go back to Parallax so they can measure the Cap, and check the data, as it seems a design fault of insufficient margin.
  • LoopyBytelooseLoopyByteloose Posts: 12,537
    edited 2015-01-03 05:17
    Capacitors are famous for having a wide variation of values in actual production. And ceramic capacitors are known to be 'microphonic'. They seem to sometimes pick up audio signals, and at other times generate them.

    It is common practice to accept the wide range of values in capacitors and to adjust your specification so you get the desire performance.

    In large production runs, it is just a lottery as to who will get an occasional outlier. Providing capacitors with tighter specifications just makes everyone pay more for the end product.

    If you desire an exchange, contact Parallax. If not, adding your own capacitor eliminated the 'sweet spot'. I suspect the board would work fine, but be a perpetual annoyance.
  • Chris SavageChris Savage Parallax Engineering Posts: 14,406
    edited 2015-01-03 09:40
    Tracy has the most likely explanation. There could be an issue with the capacitor and if so the regulator may oscillate. You don't want to use the board if this is happening as the output voltage is not stable when this happens. I received an e-mail at support and will help you via that. Thanks everyone.
  • jmgjmg Posts: 15,173
    edited 2015-01-04 01:04
    It is common practice to accept the wide range of values in capacitors and to adjust your specification so you get the desire performance.

    In large production runs, it is just a lottery as to who will get an occasional outlier. Providing capacitors with tighter specifications just makes everyone pay more for the end product.

    I guess it depends on your costing methodology.
    Most serious designers I know, design to include the margins, and will happily pay another 0.5c to get a much more stable Cap.
    They also avoid any design that even hints at the word 'lottery' to the user.
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    edited 2015-01-04 01:35
    Loopy is right. It's a lottery.

    jmg is right. It's a carefully controlled lottery.

    When you are making anything, say a capacitor, there will be variations in the resulting capacitance value from device to device, from batch to batch. There will be variations in the secondary parameters like inductance, series resistance, and so on. It's impossible to be 100% accurate.

    The values you actually make will be spread out around the value you are trying to make. There is a distribution of values. As first approximation we might assume this is the "normal distribution" or bell curve (google it).

    That distribution could be wide, values +/-10 or 20 percent. Or it might be narrow +/-0.1 percent.

    When a designer puts such a component in his circuit he has two choices, design the circuit to be tolerant of wildly different values of component, or specify a very tight tolerance for the component.

    Either way there is a chance that a particular instance of his design will get that capacitor, or whatever, that is out of working range.

    You can spec tolerances, and allow variation as much as you like but there will always be units that fail, could be 10 percent off the production line, could be 1%, could be 0.1% could be a lot less than that now a days.

    The question then is how much do you want to spend in reducing the failure rate, or the return rate from customers?

    A serious designer of items made in huge quantities will not just happily pay another 0.5c to get a more stable cap. Over a run of a million units that's 50,000 dollars off the potential profit. Such a decision requires balancing the cost of that cap vs any potential improvement in reducing failure rate. If an engineer assesses that the cheaper cap is good enough then he has saved his whole years salary in a few hours!

    A serious designer of one off and low volume products may well just throw in the the 5 cents. It's not worth his time to even think about. Just play it safe and move on.
  • kwinnkwinn Posts: 8,697
    edited 2015-01-04 08:42
    In addition to the problems outlined in previous posts there is also the problem of multiple component tolerances accumulating in a circuit. For instance in an RC filter or oscillator the capacitance and resistance could be to the low side of the nominal values, causing a large enough change that the circuit would be out of spec or worse, intermittently failing in the field.
Sign In or Register to comment.