Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: L297/L298 And a "correction"

Steve Blackmore wrote:

>>>I stand by my assertion that a system build around
>>>the L298 is still cheaper than one built around
>>>the L18245. Yes, the L298 design has a higher part
>>>count, but the total parts cost is less.
>>
>>We have had the discussion elsewhere on reliability on drivers. The L298
>>is cheaper, but it does seem more prone to damage when solder splashes
>>are involved.
>
> Solder splashes??? Scraping the barrel a bit there to sustain an
> argument on something that shouldn't happen, and if does should be
> picked up before powering a circuit!

When one is supplying kits then one has to expect these things. I just
had a well built module back that looked fine. Jog worked, but when you
selected continuous it popped the L297. I popped another L297 before I
noticed a very fine whisker in the area of the protection diodes. That
is the reason that anything that reduces parts count is an advantage!

Unless it is a part that helps prevent damage ;)

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk
Model Engineers Digital Workshop -
http://home.lsces.co.uk/ModelEngineersDigitalWorkshop/
Treasurer - Firebird Foundation Inc. - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php