From: Joerg on
Peter wrote:
> Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote
>
>> It was an optics measurement setup where the slightest vibration
>> modulated the optical path and showed up in the signal. The Allegro chip
>> was sort of self-polluting. I didn't get very far with the support guys
>> but assume that the internal oscillator became modulated by the power
>> paths on the chip. I am not a fan of chips where the power path is
>> integrated, I rather use external FETs.
>>
>> IOW the whole EMI dog fight seemed to have gone on inside the chip and
>> there was nothing we could do on the outside, other than roll our own
>> solution.
>
> I think I will design the PCB with some LC pi-type filtering in the
> supply rails, to keep conducted muck from getting out.
>
>> Yes, your case almost screams for a stepper. 15-20 years ago that was
>> different because the prices were outrageous but that has changed.
>
> Have you seen the price of that stepper? :) $500 plus...
>

Steppers can either come with cut-throat pricing when used in disk
drives, cars or the like. Or they come with super-fat profit margins if
you pick a boutique size. Shopping around pays big time if your
quantities are high.


> Of course it is much cheaper if purchased in Germany where they make
> it...


Order it there and have them send some Niederegger Marzipan along with
it. Good stuff but not recommended by the surgeon general :-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
From: JosephKK on
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:02:49 +0000, Peter <nospam(a)nospam9876.com> wrote:

>
>Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote
>
>>Peter, just got an email from ST and in there was an announcement about
>>this chip, in case you are still considering a stepper solution:
>>
>>http://www.st.com/stonline/products/literature/ds/16737.pdf
>>
>>Can supposedly do 128 microsteps, and maybe this could eliminate you
>>gear box? Digikey doesn't carry it yet and if suitable you'd have to
>>call ST about status and samples.
>>
>>Just thought it might be interesting for you.
>
>That's a very impressive chip Joerg - thank you. Unfortunately it
>needs a processor, which adds a whole dimension to the work involved.
>
>Currently I am working with the Allegro 3987
>http://www.allegromicro.com/en/Products/Part_Numbers/3987/3987.pdf
>
>and to my suprise Allegro are really supporting it, with replies to
>emails!! I have never seen that kind of support before. But then I am
>used to Hitachi H8/300 etc ;) ;) ;)
>
>I don't think microstepping is quite what some people (incl myself)
>expect[ed]. You do get smooth rotation IF the motor is actually
>rotating continuously, so it cuts out the normal stepper motor noise.
>But you don't get the angular precision which the microstep size might
>imply - because the motor has no actual detent in between steps. You
>get some kind of a fraction of the microstep precision, and there is
>also less than the normal torque available between the full steps.
>
>At my speeds (200rpm max, maybe 10rpm min) x16 microstepping should
>produce smooth rotation but I don't need the angular precision. In a
>nutshell I am using a stepper rather than a brushless (which was the
>original idea) because a brushless would need a tachometer and
>feedback, to deliver any speed stability. A tacho is not hard to do
>(most brushless controllers provide a pulse output which can be
>lowpass filtered to give a voltage proportional to RPM) but the
>control loop for the motor rpm obviously involves the usual control
>loop parameters which will need to be developed with the appropriate
>margins to ensure stability under all speed, load, temperature and
>transient conditions. Whereas a stepper gives you implicitly accurate
>rpm.

There is one thing to remember about steppers, you need to ramp the
stepping speed at the controller input. Even a little inertia can
surprise you.