Збирач потоків

ROHM and Suchi Semicon have announced the establishment of a strategic semiconductor manufacturing partnership in India.

This collaboration reflects a shared commitment to strengthening semiconductor manufacturing capabilities in India while supporting the requirements of both domestic and global markets. By combining ROHM’s device technology expertise and global semiconductor leadership with Suchi Semicon’s manufacturing capabilities and operational execution, the companies aim to build a reliable and scalable manufacturing framework aligned with evolving industry needs.

This partnership supports the expansion of semiconductor manufacturing capabilities in India (aligned with the “Make in India” objective) while maintaining global standards of manufacturing excellence. The collaboration aims to enhance supply chain resilience and provide customers with trusted manufacturing solutions.

Specifically, ROHM is considering the outsourcing of back-end processes for power devices and IC products to Suchi Semicon and has begun technical evaluations toward potential mass production shipments starting in 2026. Through these efforts, ROHM aims to build, in collaboration with Suchi Semicon, an early-stage manufacturing framework in India that aligns with the expected industry ramp-up in the coming years.

Furthermore, ROHM and Suchi Semicon will share a roadmap to expand the range of locally manufactured packages, thereby broadening the scope of collaboration between the two companies.

The partnership between ROHM and Suchi Semicon will extend beyond semiconductor manufacturing. Both companies recognise the growing expectations from customers across diverse sectors for locally manufactured semiconductors for the Indian market and will jointly pursue new business development opportunities to meet this demand. In addition, the collaboration will leverage Suchi Semicon’s strong local marketing expertise to conduct joint marketing initiatives that enhance visibility and customer engagement. Importantly, the alliance is not limited to these areas alone; ROHM and Suchi Semicon are committed to exploring further avenues of cooperation, ensuring that the partnership evolves into a comprehensive and long-term alliance that supports the sustainable growth of India’s semiconductor industry over time.

The post ROHM and Suchi Semicon Establish a Strategic Semicon Manufacturing Partnership in India appeared first on ELE Times.

Batteries have quietly become the limiting factor of modern technology. They define how far an electric vehicle can go, how safely energy can be stored in a city, how fast systems can charge, and how reliably power can be delivered over years of use. In transport, grids, and electronics alike, progress is no longer constrained by motors or software—it is constrained by electrochemical trade-offs embedded deep inside the cell.

At the heart of those trade-offs sits a deceptively simple question: what are you optimising for? Every battery design balances five variables—energy density, safety, lifetime, cost, and scalability—and no chemistry can maximise all five at once. Push harder on one axis, and something else gives way. This is not a materials problem waiting for a perfect solution; it is an engineering problem that demands choice.

That choice, today, largely resolves into two dominant lithium-ion chemistries: LFP and NMC. They are not incremental variations of the same idea. They represent two fundamentally different engineering philosophies. LFP embeds stability, durability, and cost control into the chemistry itself. NMC extracts higher performance by operating closer to material limits, shifting risk and complexity to system-level design.

For companies such as Amara Raja Advanced Cell Technologies, this divergence is not theoretical. It directly shapes manufacturing strategy, product architecture, and long-term capacity planning. The future is not converging toward one universal battery. It is segmenting.

Engineering First, Chemistry Second

Every battery discussion eventually sounds like a chemistry debate—but the real argument is architectural.

Engineers do not choose LFP or NMC because of crystal diagrams; they choose them based on how each chemistry behaves across five non-negotiable constraints:

• Energy density
• Safety under abuse or fault
• Cycle life and ageing behaviour
• Cost stability and manufacturability
• Scalability across millions of cells

From a manufacturer’s standpoint, these trade-offs extend beyond lab performance. When thermal management, battery management system (BMS) complexity, and warranty risk are considered, the hidden advantages of LFP become system-level advantages.

According to Yi Seop Ahn, Associate Vice President – Centre of Excellence at Amara Raja Advanced Cell Technologies, customers today largely understand LFP’s strengths over NMC:

• Less heat generation, reducing thermal management burden
• Lower degradation at high temperatures
• Reduced BMS complexity due to smaller variation in cell ageing
• Lower warranty risk because of longer intrinsic cycle life

One often underestimated advantage, however, lies in cell sizing. Because LFP carries a lower risk of rupture or explosion compared to NMC, manufacturers can scale cell capacity significantly higher. Larger-format LFP cells reduce the proportion of inactive components within a pack, partially offsetting LFP’s lower gravimetric energy density. In other words, system-level design can compensate for chemistry-level limitations.

Structural Philosophy: Conservative vs Aggressive

At the material level, LFP and NMC reflect opposing design philosophies.

LFP: Structurally Conservative
Its iron–phosphate framework is chemically and mechanically stable. The lattice resists deformation during cycling, tolerates elevated temperatures, and does not readily release oxygen under stress. Stability is intrinsic, not engineered on top.

NMC: Structurally Aggressive
Its layered oxide structure enables higher voltage and energy density, but expands and contracts during cycling. At high states of charge or temperature, structural instability increases. The chemistry delivers more—but demands tighter control.

This difference cascades into real-world outcomes: thermal behaviour, ageing, fast-charging margins, and pack architecture.

India’s Conditions and LFP’s Rise

In India, the expansion of LFP is not accidental—it is contextual.

Yi Seop Ahn notes that most Indian vehicle usage consists of daily commuting and urban mobility rather than sustained high acceleration or long-distance highway driving. In a price-sensitive market, these usage patterns favour a chemistry optimised for durability, cost stability, and safety rather than peak energy density.

Temperature is an even stronger driver. Intrinsically, LFP performs weaker at low temperatures compared to NMC. However, India’s predominantly hot climate turns this limitation into an advantage. LFP cells exhibit lower degradation at high temperatures and require less aggressive cooling strategies. In such environments, LFP becomes a natural fit.

The result is not merely economic preference — but climatic alignment.

Energy Density, Heat, and Ageing

Energy density, thermal behaviour, and lifetime are not separate attributes. They stem from how aggressively a material system is pushed.

NMC achieves higher energy density through higher operating voltage and electrochemically active nickel content. But that gain comes with tighter stability margins and increased reliance on cooling, sensing, and control algorithms.

LFP sacrifices some voltage and gravimetric energy density but maintains wider thermal margins. Ageing remains slower and more predictable due to minimal structural strain during cycling.

From a system-design perspective, LFP reduces the engineering burden outside the cell. NMC shifts complexity upward—into pack design, software controls, and thermal infrastructure.

Innovation Pathways: Chemistry, Cell, and System

While LFP is often described as “mature,” its evolution continues across three parallel layers: chemistry, cell design, and system integration.

Chemistry
Over the past decade, LFP active materials have undergone incremental but meaningful improvements. Manufacturing costs have declined significantly, enabling price competitiveness over NMC. Compaction density has steadily increased through sintering process refinements, with further improvements expected. New chemistries such as LMFP are entering the market, targeting improved cycle life alongside electrolyte advancements.

Cell Architecture
Capacity per cell has expanded dramatically. LFP cells have moved into the 300 Ah range and are advancing toward 400–500 Ah formats. Larger cells reduce inactive material proportion and improve effective pack-level energy density.

System Integration
Innovation is accelerating at the integration layer—moving from module-based packs to cell-to-pack and cell-to-chassis architectures. As integration tightens, chemistry choice increasingly influences vehicle platform design.

All three vectors—chemistry, cell scaling, and system integration—are advancing in parallel rather than sequentially.

The NMC Equation: Performance at a Price

NMC’s performance advantages remain real and strategically important.

Despite requiring more robust and complex pack management, NMC offers:

• Better low-temperature performance
• Higher power output
• Longer-range capability
• Stronger suitability in weight- and space-constrained applications

These characteristics ensure NMC’s continued relevance in premium and performance-oriented platforms.

Moreover, innovation in electrolyte systems—including semi-solid and solid-state approaches—aims to mitigate thermal risks. Pairing high-nickel cathodes and silicon-dominant anodes with safer electrolyte systems and improved thermal insulation could extend high-energy-density solutions into domains currently dominated by LFP.

In that sense, NMC is not static. It is evolving along a different axis.

Platform Standardisation: The Inevitable Split

Looking five to seven years ahead, battery chemistries are unlikely to remain interchangeable components.

Different nominal voltages and operating profiles between LFP and NMC inherently drive platform divergence. NMC’s need for more robust management systems further reinforces chemistry-specific architectures.

While experimental “dual-pack” or “two-heart” systems exist—combining different chemistries in one vehicle—they require discrete BMS systems and add architectural complexity. The broader trend points toward OEMs standardising around chemistry-specific platforms rather than designing neutral battery bays.

This is not convergence. It is structural segmentation.

Two Futures, Not One

LFP and NMC are not competitors in a zero-sum contest. They are solutions optimised for different definitions of performance. LFP embeds safety, longevity, and cost predictability into the chemistry itself—reducing system-level burden and aligning naturally with India’s climate and usage patterns. NMC maximises energy density and performance, accepting tighter operating margins and higher management complexity.

For manufacturers such as Amara Raja Advanced Cell Technologies. 

The post Two Batteries, Two Futures: Why LFP and NMC Are Splitting the EV & Energy Landscape appeared first on ELE Times.

submitted by /u/Andres166 [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/ForeverHomeDiaries [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/SpaceRuthie [link] [comments]

For coverage of all the key business and technology developments in compound semiconductors and advanced silicon materials and devices over the last month...

submitted by /u/1Davide
[link] [comments]

submitted by /u/Green-Pie4963 [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/AutoModerator
[link] [comments]

submitted by /u/ThomasTTEe2 [link] [comments]

Designing actual schematics for the device took a while. It appears to require 56 distinct components and 101 in total (see repository - condevtion/i2c-pps-hw). Which is actually a huge project for me. A lot of useful information was there in the controller’s datasheet (obviously). But it isn’t really possible to get the design right without complimentary schematic checklist which can be found in the FAQ page. And some insides can be peeked from the evaluation board user guide. Still there are some mysteries to figure out in practice. The first picture shows the controller and power stage block. Besides what name implies it shows components which should be placed near to the controller. The evaluation board guide mentions snubber networks for MOSFETs. For now they remain DNP as their values can be figured out only for particular PCB impedance which only can be obtained from measuring actual ringing. Also I left zero resisters here in case dv/dt requires adjustments (if the whole thing works, at the end of the day). The second picture shows input and output filters and sensors. As I limited myself to 4-6V input and 5A max current (comparing to 20A the controller capability) I also relaxed requirements for the components here accordingly (while indeed 5A is still a hell of ambitions). In the other hand it’s probably better to have generally the same input and output components (obviously most capable) to have less number of distinct components to order. The next picture contains the master switch itself, and a protection circuit. The protection includes a resectable fuse, a TVS diode for overvoltage, and a Schottky diode for polarity. I’m looking forward to see how hot the latest gets at max current. The switch itself is a high side P-channel MOSFET controlled by a PNP transistor making a host device (RPI) to hold a pin high making the device in its turn work. If the host dies and drops its pin low the switch should turn off the device. The last one shows the digital I/O and programming circuits. The I/O contains its very own low power regulator to be independent on the host system. I2C lines use solder jumpers to disconnect pull-ups if they are somewhere else (when several I2C devices connected to the bus). I just thought, I’d add several more LEDs to indicate presence of input, output, and other signals and make the thing more RGB. The programming set of resistors just defines all adjustable controller parameters - switching frequency (250kHz), mode (buck-boost), and voltage/current limits. Curiously, the checklist and the evaluation board design show RC filters around IIN and IOUT resistors but don’t mention them or requirements for them anywhere. All set to finalize the BOM with market-available parts and proceed with PCB design. submitted by /u/WeekSpender [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/MountainFootball7002
[link] [comments]

Про підсумки фінансово-господарської діяльності КПІ ім. Ігоря Сікорського за 2025 рік та деякі завдання на 2026 рік Інформація КП пт, 02/27/2026 - 20:37

submitted by /u/adkio [link] [comments]

18 pair cable from a Toshiba CT scanners got cut... somehow... submitted by /u/antek_g_animations [link] [comments]

Infineon Technologies AG of Munich, Germany has expanded its CoolGaN portfolio with the CoolGaN Drive HB 600V G5 product family. The four new devices – IGI60L1111B1M, IGI60L1414B1M, IGI60L2727B1M, and IGI60L5050B1M – integrate two 600V GaN switches in a half-bridge configuration together with integrated high- and low-side gate drivers and a bootstrap diode, delivering a compact, thermally optimized power stage that further reduces design complexity. By bringing key functions into one optimized package, the family lowers external component count, eases PCB layout challenges typically associated with fast-switching GaN, and helps designers to shorten development cycles while achieving the core advantages of GaN technology: higher switching frequencies, lower switching and conduction losses, and greater power density...

University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB) electrical and computer engineering professor James Buckwalter has been inducted as a senior member of the US National Academy of Inventors (NAI) for his work advancing the high-speed and high-frequency integrated circuit technologies that underpin modern wireless communication systems, citing his “remarkable achievements as an academic inventor and a rising leader in his field”...

📰 Газета "Київський політехнік" № 7-8 за 2026 (.pdf) Інформація КП пт, 02/27/2026 - 15:15

I’ve recently been doing some detailed research and studying related to the USB Type-C connector and the associated USB Power Delivery (PD) specification. At first, both seemed like such a good idea, but now I am not so sure – especially about the USB PD part.

First, a little background. Like many people, I have a drawer full of AC/DC charger units I no longer use but can’t bear to toss, Figure 1. These units are often derisively called wall warts; many also function as power sources in addition to chargers, to be used with or without batteries in their target unit.

Figure 1 If you have used electronic devices, toys, or smartphones over the past decades, you likely have a drawer or box stuffed with chargers that are no longer needed, but you can’t bear to toss out. Source: Google

These chargers come in a wide range of voltage and current ratings, each specific to the product with which they came. They also have a wide range of frustratingly incompatible coaxial (barrel) connectors (“coaxial” in their physical structure, and unrelated to RF coaxial-cable connectors), and both polarity orientations, Figure 2.

Figure 2 Barrel connectors come in a wide range of inner and outer diameter pairings, presumably to key the connectors to their voltage and current, but actually a source of confusion and waste. Sources: Bid or Buy/South Africa; Same Sky

As a consequence, it is almost impossible to use one AC/DC unit as a replacement for a misplaced or defunct one. While I have resorted to repurposing one with the needed rating but wrong connector by swapping and soldering the correct connector from another unit, the average person can’t do this.

Now, USB-C and USB-PD

Then came smartphone charging and a drive towards more uniformity in USB-based charging, using either the Apple Lightning connector, a USB Type A connector, or others. “Hey,” I thought, “we’re making progress.”

Now, we have the USB Type-C connector, which is mandated by the European Union for all suitable products, including smartphones and, by extension, driving its adoption outside the EU, Figure 3. So it looks like barrel connectors are history, and other USB connectors are falling behind, as USB-C is the way to go. So far, so good.

Figure 3 The USB Type-C connector is poised to dominate due to its capabilities and the EU mandate to be used wherever technically feasible. Source: CNET

Then I started looking into the USB Power Delivery (PD) standard in more detail. It dramatically increases the available voltage, current, and power levels, Figure 4.

Figure 4 The progression of power-delivery capabilities offered by the various USB connectors is impressive. Source: Texas Instruments

USB-PD offers three power-delivery modes:

• Sink: a port, most often a device, that consumes power from VBUS when attached.
• Source: a port that provides power over VBUS when attached,
• Dual-role power (DRP): a port that can operate as either a sink or source, and may even alternate between these two states.

It gets messy

This makes it all sound so simple and effective, but USB PD is not like peeling an onion, where every layer you peel back reveals only one other one. Instead, it’s more like nuclear fission, where each action or state change can lead to multiple new ones.

I won’t try to describe all the ins and outs of USB PD. There are many good overviews as well as detailed dives into the standard (see References). To sum it all up: it’s very complicated, starting with a back-and-forth initialization-negotiation dialogue between the two sides of the connection to decide who can do what to whom, Figure 5. An added complication is that USB PD allows for multiple loads to be charged at the same time, each with different requirements.

Figure 5 Once the USB-C connector is connected, the two cable ends begin a sophisticated negotiation about what needs to be done and what can be done. Source: Acroname Inc.

USB PD has many cases, exceptions, state diagrams, timing diagrams, conditional rules…it’s a long list. With all this comes the need for a very smart embedded controller to implement it.

At first, I thought the entire USB-C/PD scenario was the best thing to happen. After all, what could be better than a “universal” charging setup? It promises to handle anything up to the specified maximum, with no action on the part of the user, and no incompatibilities. What’s not to like?

However, the more I looked into USB PD, the more concerned I became. In the attempt to be a solution to just about any charging situation (and let’s ignore the data-connection interface aspect), it tries to do an awful lot. Yet history shows that such overarching objectives, however laudable and well-intentioned, can become a swamp.

That’s where I started to worry. Who can actually grasp the totality and subtleties of USB PD, especially if there’s a problem? Can the controller really be tested to 100% certainty that it properly implements all the rules and cases correctly? Are there corner cases in the real world that will only show up months or years later, with frustrated users as the test subjects?

This isn’t the only example

Whatever happened to the engineering mandate to “keep it simple”? I’ll cite an automotive parallel. Volkswagen recently introduced the 2026 Tiguan SEL R-Line Turbo, which uses a list of engineering approaches to squeeze 268 horsepower and 258 lb-ft of torque out of a modest two-liter, four-cylinder engine.

To do this, they use forced induction turbocharging, where one turbine spins in the engine exhaust, with temperatures around 1,000 degrees, and its momentum is transferred to a paired turbine spinning at speeds above 150,000 rpm to pressurize the air-intake charge. It also employs variable inlet geometry that instantly and precisely meters boost, air charge, and bypass, reducing throttle latency and increasing efficiency. The super-high compression ratio of 10.5:1 relies on higher pressure in the direct fuel-injection system (from 350 to 500 bar) as well as a forged steel fuel rail to carry it.

But why stop there? In a classic example of inevitable follow-on consequences, the higher forces require thicker piston crowns, shortened connecting rods and thicker wrist pins. The need for cooling meant redesigning the combustion chamber itself, and incorporating a new air-to-water heat exchanger. The big turbo-edition comes with oil-cooled pistons and a nitrided crankshaft. Finally, the hydraulic intake cam adjuster replaces two pairs of cam pieces with double actuators and instead substitutes four separate cam pieces with eight adjusters.

 So I have to wonder: what will the reliability and maintenance of this engineered complexity and sophistication be in a mass-produced car?

In some ways, USB PD is the latest iteration of the belief that a universal solution is possible and that “this time, we’ll get it all right.” However, sometimes having just one more-tightly focused objective is a better idea long term, as there are fewer unexpected and unpleasant surprises.

Will I miss the cheap AC/DC charger that does one thing, with its proliferation of power ratings and barrel connectors? No, I won’t. Do I welcome the USB-C and PD standard and implementation? Let’s just say I am cautiously optimistic, as I recognize that it’s a complicated system and not merely an A-to-B power source. My personal jury is out on this question!

What are your thoughts on the complexity and ambitious reach of this power-delivery standard?

Bill Schweber is an EE who has written three textbooks, hundreds of technical articles, opinion columns, and product features.

Related Content

• How does a USB Power Delivery (USB-PD) design work
• Power Tips #130: Migrating from a barrel jack to USB Type-C PD
• USB Type-C protection switch improves safety
• Controllers simplify USB-C dual-role power delivery

References

• USB-C, USB PD, and Coaxial Connectors
• USB Implementers Forum, “USB Power Delivery”
• Embedded, “USB Type-C and power delivery 101 – Power delivery protocol”
• Texas Instruments. “A Primer on USB Type-C and USB Power Delivery Applications and Requirements”
• Simplexity, “Build Better Devices: USB Power Delivery Explained”
• Same Sky (formerly CUI Devices), “How to Select a DC Power Connector”

EU and USB Type-C regulation

• The Verge, “EU proposes mandatory USB-C on all devices, including iPhones”
• NPR, “The European Union Wants A Universal Charger For Cell Phones And Other Devices”
• BBC, “EU rules to force USB-C chargers for all phones”
• Forbes, “EU Proposes Universal Charger—A Blow To Apple”
• Tech Crunch, “Europe will finally legislate for a common charger for mobiles”
• CNET, “USB-C power upgrade to 240W could banish some of your proprietary chargers”
• European Union, “EU common charger rules: Power all your devices with a single charger”

The post USB-C and Power Delivery: Too much of a good thing? appeared first on EDN.