New Discrete Fibonacci Charge Pump Design, Evaluation and Measurement

Open access


This paper focuses on the practical aspects of the realisation of Dickson and Fibonacci charge pumps. Standard Dickson charge pump circuit solution and new Fibonacci charge pump implementation are compared. Both charge pumps were designed and then evaluated by LTspice XVII simulations and realised in a discrete form on printed circuit board (PCB). Finally, the key parameters as the output voltage, efficiency, rise time, variable power supply and clock frequency effects were measured.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] Dickson J.F. (1976). On-chip high-voltage generation in NMOS integrated circuits using an improved voltage multiplier technique. IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits 11 (3) 374-378.

  • [2] Pan F. Samaddar T. (2006). Charge Pump Circuit Design. McGraw-Hill Education.

  • [3] Seeman M.D. Sanders S.R. (2008). Analysis and optimization of switched-capacitor DC–DC converters. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics 23 (2) 841-851.

  • [4] Ueno F. Inoue T. Oota I. Harada I. (1991). Emergency power supply for small computer systems. In IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems 11-14 June 1991. IEEE 1065-1068.

  • [5] Tanzawa T. (2016). Innovation of switched-capacitor voltage multiplier: Part 1: A brief history. IEEE Solid-State Circuits Magazine 8 (1) 51-59.

  • [6] Allasasmeh Y. Gregori S. (2009). A performance comparison of dickson and fibonacci charge pumps. In European Conference on Circuit Theory and Design 23-27 August 2009. IEEE 599-602.

  • [7] Matousek D. Hospodka J. Subrt O. (2016). Efficiency of innovative charge pump versus clock frequency and MOSFETs sizes. Measurement Science Review 16 (5) 260-265.

  • [8] Mayergoyz I. Lawson W. (2012). Basic Electric Circuit Theory 2nd Edition. Academic Press.

  • [9] Tumanski S. (2006). Principles of Electrical Measurement. CRC Press.

Journal information
Impact Factor

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.122
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.157

CiteScore 2018: 1.39

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.325
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.881

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 303 160 3
PDF Downloads 108 81 3