Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Gecko 320 VS. 340
Posted by
Jon Elson
on 2002-05-01 22:14:18 UTC
mariss92705 wrote:
you seem to have a proven record of accomplishing more with less!
Jon
> Hi,Ah, sine wave drive, or trapezoidal. Definitely more complicated, but
>
> The G420 is a 3-phase brushless DC servodrive. In all other specs it
> is the same as a G320.
>
> I have got a few dozen hours of running time in on the prototype.
> Right now it functions just like the G320 except there is a noticable
> discontinuity or "tick" on every Hall sensor edge (every 60 degrees).
> This is something I would like to attenuate or eliminate altogether.
>
> One promising idea that has ocurred to me is to phase lock a ramp
> function off of the hall sensor edges. This ramp then would be used
> as an attenuation function for the "off" winding. Rather than
> abruptly switching a winding "off" or "on", the current would be
> gradually applied or removed, eliminating the discontinuity. The
> behavior should then approach what one would expect from a
> sinusoidally commutated motor.
>
you seem to have a proven record of accomplishing more with less!
Jon
Discussion Thread
kdoney_63021
2002-05-01 13:21:21 UTC
Gecko 320 VS. 340
mariss92705
2002-05-01 14:19:55 UTC
Re: Gecko 320 VS. 340
wayne_j_hill
2002-05-01 21:17:21 UTC
Re: Gecko 320 VS. 340
William Scalione
2002-05-01 21:42:49 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Gecko 320 VS. 340
Jon Elson
2002-05-01 22:14:18 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Gecko 320 VS. 340
Nicolas Benezan
2002-05-02 07:33:06 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Gecko 320 VS. 340
mariss92705
2002-05-02 09:52:21 UTC
Re: Gecko 320 VS. 340