Re: G201-IP

I'm not too bad at tinkering and am not afraid to solder or surface
mount, but I would not considder 'fixing' my damaged dives.

Also, I would be more than a little peeved if I bought a system with
home repaired units. much more so that if the guy made his own.

It seems that all electronics that I have been involved with damage
the weakest links and stress the hell out of a lot more parts.

Better to trash it or have the factory repair it.

just my 2 cents.

Dave


--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@y..., "Thomas E. Jones" <tejones777@a...>
wrote:

> It sounds like an "affirmative" that $15 to protect the $114.00
> investment is reasonable to most people.
>
> There is still the "low-price" hobby market, for which $114.00
> was already too high. For them, the 2.5 amp xylotex drive
> ($99 for all 3 axis) and other products exist.
>
> Here's another possible option to dead G201's. Maybe you could
> publish a "technical report" which outlines the usual damaged
> components by common overloads, explain how to verify what is
> blown, and tell how to replace these components, by a good
> technician. This may prevent people from having to mail the
> drives back to you, and may save us time. Any company which
> has 6 or so drives, likely has a technician who could keep a
> few MOSFETS on hand for repairs. Of course, this assumes just
> 1 or two components fail. I don't know if the entire circuit
> fries.
>
> - tj.
>
>
> --- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@y..., "mariss92705" <mariss92705@y...> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have breadboarded a protection circuit for the G201. It

protects

> > against:
> >
> > 1) Shorting any or all motor wires to ground.
> > 2) Shorting any motor phase to phase.
> > 3) Miss-phased motors (series or parallel).
> > 4) Miss-connected motors.
> > 5) Internal motor winding shorts (serial-killer motors).
> > 6) Motor connects/disconnects while under power.
> > 7) Motor winding short to motor case.
> > 8) Unused 6-wire motor leads touching/shorting anywhere.
> >
> > These are the most common drive failure problems (>95%) that we

see

> > for return/repair.
> >
> > The circuit works internally on the "DISABLE" input (term. #7) of
> the
> > drive. Any of these faults would latch it low (disable). It would
> > then require a recycling of the power supply to clear the fault.
> > The "Fault" indication would be a "0" on the "DISABLE" terminal.
> >
> > The "IP" in G201-IP stands for "current protect", or as a cruel
> > individual here pointed out, it can also read "Idiot Protect".
> >
> > This circuit (about 20 additional components to the existing 136)
> > would require a major revision (REV-8). Of course it would be

100%

> > compatible, pinout, function and form, with all previous drives.
> >
> > What I am throwing out to the group here is:
> >
> > (1) Is it worth the effort to do this?
> > (2) Is it worth a $15 premium to do have this protection? That is
> the
> > all-up cost of the additional parts.
> >
> > We will continue to produce the G201 regardless if there is or is
> not
> > a G201-IP. It will not in any way supplant it.
> >
> > The G201-IP might be useful for those that are using the drive

for

> > the first time and want a little extra margin against Mr. Murphy
> and
> > his Law. Later, after everything has settled out, stock G201s

would

> > serve as well. Others that are a little more tense/prudent may

wish

> > to have it as protection against Mr. Murphy should he call
> uninvited
> > at a later time.
> >
> > If I'm going to do this, my schedule has it for the end of the
> first
> > quarter. What I'm looking for is feedback if this is

wanted/needed.

> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Mariss