Talk:Single-ended primary-inductor converter

C1 Symbol should be non-polar

The existing C1 symbol is |( but should be || as C1 should be a non-polar cap as voltage can be plus or minus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.179.206 (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there a mistake here?

In the description of CCM mode operation it is stated that:
"It can then be concluded, that while S1 is off, power is delivered to the load from L2 and L1. C1, however is being charged by L1 during this off cycle, and will in turn recharge L1 during the on cycle."

Doesn't C1 recharge L2 instead of L1 during the on cycle?--Zama Zalotta 09:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. This has been corrected. Thank you! CyrilB 12:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There was an assertion in the text that the average current in both L1 and L2 is the same, which is not true, even in the case of coupled windings. The ripple current will be the same for both inductors (assuming the inductances are equal), and the ripple current is shared evenly between L1 and L2 in the case of coupled inductors. Please correct me if I'm mistaken!

207.168.10.134 18:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Dwight Larson

What would happen if Cs was removed from the circuit and replaced with a dead short?

If the series capacitor Cs is replaced with a short, then L1 and L2 form a DC short circuit and the supply will not function. 70.112.175.142 16:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Dwight

The polarization of C1 in figure 1 is incorrect. The terminal of C1 connected to L1 is more positive than the terminal of C1 connected to L2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.32.2 (talk) 06:44, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker, but I think the sentence here is wrong: "... , the capacitor C1 supplies the energy to increase the magnitude of the current in IL2 and thus increase the energy stored in L2" It rather should be "the magnitude of the current in L2", because IL2 is already the current, not current in current... Lasse Bierstrom (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't this relate to ANY buck-boost converter?

"SEPICs are useful in applications in which a battery voltage can be above and below that of the regulator's intended output. For example, a single lithium ion battery typically discharges from 4.2 volts to 3 volts; if other components require 3.3 volts, then the SEPIC would be effective."

This seems like a generic statement that would apply to any buck-boost converter topology, not SEPIC in particular, and it doesn't help understanding how and where a SEPIC can be more useful than any other buck-boost converter topology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.60.1.187 (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Misleading statement about BJT operation

Paragraph 1 of heading "Circuit operation" ends with "MOSFET switching is controlled by differences in voltage rather than a current, as with BJTs". This is incorrect - BJTs are voltage-controlled devices and the current through the base-emitter junction is a consequence. It would be more concise and accurate to note that MOSFETs are advantageous for not requiring current to maintain their bias without misstating how BJTs operate, as the fundamental nature of BJT operation is irrelevant to understanding the point anyway. 2600:1700:2ECC:A000:799E:3EF8:7FE:7E37 (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)