Talk:Ćuk converter

Proper spelling

It is "Slobodan Cuk" on a dozen pages on the Caltech website, and "Slobodan Ćuk" on none of them. Google exact phrase search. Of the 40 pages on the Caltech website that you get by searching for "Ćuk", none of them are spelled that way, but rather all 40 of them are "Cuk". [1]

It is almost always "Cuk converter" rather than "Ćuk converter" in anything not connected to Wikipedia.

So why the screwy spelling here in the article and in the article's name? Gene Nygaard 04:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Because "Ćuk" is correct and "Cuk" is wrong. C and Ć are two different letters in Serbian, the mother tongue of Slobodan Ćuk. The reason Caltech spells "Cuk" is that, very simply put, Ć is not in US keyboards and English has a deplorable tradition of dropping accents from foreign words; until some years ago, it was even impossible to write it correctly as it was outside the Latin-1 codepage. Note, however, that Ć is no more a variation of C than G is. The accent is not optional. As far as we know, "Cuk" may be an insult in Serbian.

The same way, you usually read Hammarskjoeld or Schroeder instead of Hammarskjöld and Schröder, Niccolo Machiavelli instead of Niccolò, Aarhus instead of Århus and the list could go on forever. Gorbachev, Potemkin and Zhivago may be painfully tolerated as the original language was not in the Latin script and transcription is somewhat arbitrary (even if Gorbačëv, Potëmkin and Živago are better), but Serbian has both a Cyrillic and Latin script.

...And by the way your surname is spelt "Nygård" in current Norwegian :-)

I notice now that you have a record of vandalizing articles by imposing incorrect spellings. Please stop. If mainstream media get it wrong, at least an encyclopedia with a world-wide scope should get it right) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.241.85.36 (talk 17:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

The name found in many course on power electronics is Cúk Converter (read.pudn.com/downloads168/ebook/772798/7336_PDF_C02.pdf) Strutzz (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Whoever replied to Gene deserves a monument (please sign yourself). Having said this, I totally agree with the unknown person who commented and totally disagree with Gene and Strutzz. People, particularly speakers of the English language who have no clue about diacritical signs, publications and journalists, just to name a few, have time after time butchered the spelling of many languages, particularly Slavic languages, Spanish or Portuguese (not only when it comes to spelling but even phonetically). Since I am a language purist and I like languages for what they are and they should be, I totally agree that Ć and C are not the same letter just like Å is not like A and stuff like an elegant and beautiful ö is just commonly butchered as oe. Cúk is plain wrong and Ćuk is the right spelling. If you don't believe me then make a friend in Serbia on InterPals Penpals and ask him or her (otherwise go directly to Serbia).

ICE77 (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is this still not fixed in 2020? And it still has that insulting nonsense claiming that it is incorrect to use symbols included in the English language in English.71.63.160.210 (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe because it's not broken. There's a WP:RM process for anyone who thinks it should be titled differently. Dicklyon (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems the argument is being made that the correct spelling for the converter is "Ćuk" because the correct spelling of the surname is "Ćuk." In the absence of any other available information, that is plausible enough, but consider that the spelling used for the converter by Ćuk's own website and books is "Cuk." See the link for an example of this usage. https://teslaco.com/product/power-electronics-topologiescuk-convertersmagneticscontrolstate-space-averaging-power-electronics-special-edition-volume-1-and-volume-4-1st-edition/ 1N914 (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, Ćuk has stated that the correct spelling is "Ćuk," which makes the spelling used by the books and such rather odd but probably unconvincing. 1N914 (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Schematic not very clear

Could somebody check the schematic shown in figure 1. It looks like in both ON state and OFF state the switch is open. It might work if the switch is moved to the diode's place.

Well spotted! I've uploaded a corrected version of the file. CyrilB 22:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Themain failure of all schematics is that the phase dots are missing. A phase dot indicates which way the inductor is wound, when you couple inductors (such as in a transformer) and you switch the phase dots, the polarity also reverses. The polarity of the inductors is pretty unknown at this time, as I try to simulate the isolated converter. It only works under specific circumstances and the advertised low output current ripple is instead at its maximum. These schematics and explanation need some boundary conditions defined, I think... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.143.131.98 (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Equations and calculations

FROM WHERE THE EQUATIONS ARE CALCULATED??

Shouldn't have been a Waveform diagram to be derived from??

First, there is no need to capitalize letters like you are screaming or capitalize waveform because it's not the name of a city. Second, your question does not make sense. Third, you could also sign yourself.

ICE77 (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Coincidentally there is such a thing as Waveform Town. http://www.waveformtown.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.143.131.98 (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments on the article

This article is quite basic. I think it should have more information. I made some minor changes and I also want to comment a few things.

1. If 1976 was the year the Ćuk converter was presented, it would be nice to add the date. The link at the bottom of the page seems to show this is the case.

2. The images with the states should be clearly stating the states. Either the states are part of the photo or they are not. As of now, the words are clipped. My preference would be to replace the fairly ugly figures 2 and 3, especially 3, with the equivalent versions of figures 2 and 3 that you can see in the SEPIC.

3. The "Single-ended primary-inductance converter (SEPIC)" section is practically useless. If it really needs to be there it can say some like "The SEPIC is aderivative of the Ćuk converter. The circuits are essentially the same but some components are placed in different locations and the output, unlike the Ćuk converter, has the same polarity of the input which makes the circuit more popular".

4. It would be nice to add a section on reliability and efficiency and disadvantages just like for the SEPIC.

5. In the "Refences" section DC-DC Converter Basics by G. Ledwich 1998 is not working.

ICE77 (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

6. Next to Inductor coupling, there are two diagrams that appear to be identical. The legend is not at all clear. chami 15:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ck.mitra (talk • contribs)

Added 7. Cuk and SEPIC are the same thing, basically: at the capacitor lead, you have the diode and inductor connected in the SAME polarity, only their ends are connected differently. One has the diode grounded and inductor forms the useful output, the other has the inductor grounded and diode forms the useful output. From the transformer standpoint it is almost the same. I've seen "negative output voltage SEPIC" many times, without any mention of the name Cuk. (Linear Technology literature.) 178.143.131.98 (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Added 8. "the output voltage of non-isolated Ćuk is typically of the same polarity of the input" is somewhat confusing, as the first two figures show inverting topologies. Are there any references on the web for this? A quick survey of manufacturer's parts shows the inverting topology dominates.

Added 9. "Coupled inductor isolated Ćuk converter" figure and "Integrated magnetics Ćuk converter" are the same drawing.

Added 10. "Coupled inductor isolated Ćuk converter" figure is not isolated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.33.66.122 (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

New Slobodan Ćuk article

NOTICE - I created the Slobodan Ćuk article, after someone previously deleted it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Capacitor labels are not consistent

There is some confusion in the schematics and text over the symbols used for the capacitors. One capacitor is labelled both C and C₁, the other is labelled both C₀ and C₂. Hanjaf1 (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

yep, because different people likely created the drawings independently of the article. This is a common problem in electronics articles on Wikipedia. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)