Quote:
Originally Posted by MPaulHolmes
Hey! We can just try the FOC code with pole pairs = 1 and pole pairs = 2 and see what works. haha. My guess is it won't work with the wrong number of pole pairs, or it will work horribly worse. That's now a programmable variable. I'll send a new hex file a little later.
|
If the new hex file gets here, I'll use the new one. If not, I can test out run-rotor-test with the version I have now. I would guess 4 poles (2 pr) to start with anyway.
Quote:
|
By the way: sensorless coming soon... The actual formulas for it are pretty simple.
|
Great news! Sensorless opens up a BUNCH more opportunities. Encoder signals have noise issues. Much MORE issue if the encoder cables and the motor leads run in parallel ... like from the front of the car to the back ... No surprise there! We are really looking for torque control, not fine speed control.
Quote:
|
But I don't know how it will behave at low RPM.
|
The industrial controllers we deal with, even when they *SAY* it's sensorless vector ... still use boost settings and volts/Hz for the first 2 - 6 Hz. It depends on when their algorithmn can measure speed and rotor position from Back EMF.
Quote:
|
TI has theirs work down to 1Hz. Maybe a tiny bit of jitter at near zero rpm would be hidden by a 3000 pound car?
|
1 Hz sounds like a new feature or algorithmn. I agree that the car will 'smooth out' the jitter