The tripler looks like the first three diodes worth of the circuit in post #55, with the common being the same as shown, and the output being at the top of D3. I will need to check my reference books for the tripler, never used one yet. The voltage rating of the capacitors varies with their position in the circuit.
Note that an actual tripler must have at least three capacitors and at least three diodes.

There are losses to account for in the CW circuit, that is why my simulation has four(4) stages. The DC output at 31.9V is a bit more than 3 times the peak output from the transformer secondary. Although not absolutely necessary to the operation of the circuit, The transformer would provide isolation if the voltages were higher. Also I did not bother putting a load resistor on the output because I already know what would happen. This circuit is not likely to be suitable for the stated purpose of the TS.

A boost ratio of 3:1 is reasonable for an unregulated SMPS circuit, with the same restriction that the power out will be less than the power in.

 

I kind of understood the point about the parts count, I'm just looking for a tripler that maintains the ground at the output so I can create the plus and minus voltages. Good for opamps don't you know.

There is nothing wrong or irregular with "the ground at the output". Why do you think there is? All the voltage nodes in the circuit are measured with respect to the same common ground. WTF do you not understand?

 

Some losses are inevitable, which is why I used Shotky diodes.

 

This schematics you keep showing me do not show the output tied to the the ground, I dislike making assumptions. And prefer not to. WTF, why is that so hard to understand?

 

I don't know what you mean by "tied to ground". I'm asking you to tell my why you think the net name "+31.9V" is anything other than a net with respect to ground which is the triangle symbol connected to the transformer secondary.

EDIT: Would you be happy if I included a very large resistor to ground from the net "+31.9V"? Seriously you need "training wheels" to correctly understand a circuit.

 

OK, the circuit does not show the input or output tied to "ground" because there is no reason to tie them to it. BUT following the line from the input low side it is simple to trace it to the output low side. So what you have IS OUTPUT RETURN COMMON WITH INPUT RETURN. And as that equates to what was asked for, it should be good. A connection to ground does do much for you at all. But the low side can be tied to "ground", or the power source common.

 

The voltage multiplier in my reference book is the same C.W. multiplier but it looks very different when it is drawn functionally, which is with two strings of capacitors and the diodes all at angles, all in series.
Drawing the circuit with all of those ground symbols confuses the issue and is incorrect, besides. And the 100G resistor between two grounds is a waste of resources.

 

So, would this be a voltage tripler?

​

again I know it would be less than three times whatever the supply voltage would be, but it would give me something to start with.

 

So, would this be a voltage tripler?

View attachment 271587​

again I know it would be less than three times whatever the supply voltage would be, but it would give me something to start with.

NO, it would not. There are no Vcc connections in any of the voltage multipliers that I am familiar with.

 

The voltage multiplier in my reference book is the same C.W. multiplier but it looks very different when it is drawn functionally, which is with two strings of capacitors and the diodes all at angles, all in series.
Drawing the circuit with all of those ground symbols confuses the issue and is incorrect, besides. And the 100G resistor between two grounds is a waste of resources.

The large resistor is not really a "resource" per se, it is a simulation representation of a large impedance between primary ground and secondary ground.

 

OK, I found some other, different, tripler and quadrupler circuits. They are published in the older "Radio Amateur's Handbook", in the power supply chapters, towards the end of the section. Both in the 1966 handbook and in the 1976 handbook. Could not find them in the newer issues of the handbook. And the circuits do have the input and output negatives common to each other.

 

OK, so how about this?

​

 

OK, so how about this?

View attachment 271610​

That won't work.
See "DC Voltage Tripler Circuit" here:
https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/blog/voltage-multiplier-circuit.html

 

The voltage across the second capacitor will be DC and as a result the second half wave doubler will not function.

 

That won't work.
See "DC Voltage Tripler Circuit" here:
https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/blog/voltage-multiplier-circuit.html

Is that or is it not the same circuit as in post #55?

 

Is that or is it not the same circuit as in post #55?

Same basic idea but just a tripler and with more explanation.

 

Is that or is it not the same circuit as in post #55?

No, the coupling to the second stage should come from the junction of the two diodes, where the is an AC signal

 

Same basic idea but just a tripler and with more explanation.

Training wheels -- again.

 

I would make a voltage tripler (minus the diode losses) like this:

 

The brain fog and lack of notebook is really eating my lunch, the second figure is my attempt to redraw the first:

​

would someone please proof the schematics please?