Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 28, 2012, 09:26:52 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
* Home Help Search Calendar Links Login Register
+  Machsupport Forum
|-+  Mach Discussion
| |-+  General Mach Discussion
| | |-+  Steppers are too slow
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Steppers are too slow  (Read 1400 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
RICH
Global Moderator
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,709




View Profile
« Reply #50 on: December 08, 2011, 05:24:22 PM »

Quote
Hope I haven't started a forum war here
Let not your heart be troubled....
Just a friendly discussion looking for understanding......
RICH
Logged
Sargon
Active Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 99


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: December 09, 2011, 06:10:17 AM »

Gents,

Hope I haven't started a forum war here, but I still have a bit of a problem understanding why a good quality Digital multimeter connected in line with the PS output to the drivers fails to read an accurate current flow compared to a hall effect clamp meter. When i look at the chopwave graph Ian posted at post 44, the current trace has fairly minimal peaks and troughs associated with the switch activity. I read this as the current flow through the coil and not necessarily a waveform of the driver input supply. I would have expected the circuitry within the driver would have provided some smoothing to the input current. Additionally with 4 drivers all connected together I would have expected some further smoothing of this wave form as one goes high and the other goes low.

Is my thinking correct here??

Stuart

Stuart,

Unfortunately, it isn't as simple as that. Measuring PWM power is actually a substantial problem. One major problem is the phase angle, which is not taken into account at all by a DMM, no matter how good it is. The second problem is the harmonics generated by chopping the DC signal. You can have measurable power up to the 100th harmonic in some cases, although at the power levels we're talking about here it won't be that extreme, and obviously the power going up the harmonics will drop exponentially. Nonetheless, unless these factors are taken into account you will not get an accurate reading. The best DMM on the market is therefore pretty much useless to obtain an actual measurement.

Power output from a PWM can be expressed as Power = V * I * cos(e). Without taking this phase angle into account, the only real use of a DMM would be to compare motors to motors, or drivers to drivers, but the actual value you get is quite erroneous.

In fact, an analog meter will give results closer to reality than either an averaging DMM or true-rms DMM, because it will respond to low frequency harmonics in much the same way as the motors. It will not, however, take the phase angle or higher harmonic power that is also being used/lost into account. Higher harmonic power, from what I understand, will not be converted to usable torque, but it is still being drawn nonetheless.

After a little more research into the topic, I'm starting to also question the effectiveness of a DC clamp meter for the same reasons as above. While I'm fairly certain it would be more accurate, I'm not sure it would be close enough to actually be considered accurate. A power meter, however, will take the phase angle into account and measures both voltage and current simultaneously. With this method you will be within 1% of real life power draw. This, however, doesn't really help with real time current calculations as voltage is not constant, but could still be useful with the right methods.

A digital storage oscilloscope will do a pretty good job, but you will have to know what you're doing to get useful measurements. Also USB oscilloscopes with decent software would also do a good job, and many cases better because of higher resolution sampling. Standard oscilloscopes are 8-bit, better ones are 12-bit. This is relevant to measuring the harmonics.

This is a complex topic because of, in short, the phase angle and harmonics, and is made worse by the very fast rise and fall times created by modern PWMs. In addition you may also have to contend with reflected power depending on cabling lengths and such, but not likely significant in this application. Unfortunately I'm not well versed enough to say for sure one way or the other, I just know the potential is there.

There is obviously much more to this topic, but hopefully this will be enough to provide some insight into why standard meters are so inaccurate at measuring PWM power.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2011, 06:17:59 AM by Sargon » Logged
Stuart_H
Active Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 29


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: December 09, 2011, 07:13:50 AM »

Sargon,

Thanks for your explanation. I think I need to do a bit more reading on the matter and refresh my knowledge.

Your post above makes multiple references to measuring power. I have not tried to measure the power in the circuit. It was the current I was trying to measure.

Also your formula is used for calculating the power within a circuit, and to obtain this we multiply the voltage by the current and then multiply it by the Cosine of the phase shift angle. This I understand, but if you are saying my current reading is not accurate, and we don't know the power figure, how can you use this formula? You are missing 2 parts of the equation.

I qualified as an "A" grade electrician in Australia 32 years ago (but have been out of the game for about 20 years) and recall situations where the current wave versus voltage wave were out of phase. We used to come across it if we were fitting a lot of fluorescent lights, where the inductive ballasts in the lights would cause the current wave to lag and we would correct this by fitting capacitors to every 5th light. We referred to the cos(e) part of your equation above as "Power Factor" and had a legal requirement to get this figure above 0.8. (Otherwise the power authorities power meters would not read accurately). The major difference with this situation was however, that we were working with AC circuits on the lights and the output from the PS should be a very stable DC. I was not aware that any of this phase shifting could occur in DC circuits.

Most definitely I can understand your theory if you were trying to measure the power in the motor coils but It's going to take me a bit of getting my grey haired head around the PS side of things.

Thanks again for your explanation.

Guess I'll try to find a good book on the topic and refresh a little on the theory.

Stuart

Logged
mtaylor18
Active Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: March 28, 2012, 10:50:26 AM »

Hi,

I have just set up a small china cnc router bought on Ebay from MIB instruments. I was able to get everything running, but I am having two problems. The first is that when I set the configuration for inches I only get mm readings on the DRO. I set the G80 F6.0 G20 in the initialization line, but that did not help. I re-set the system to mm and that did changed the DRO to increment in what seemed to be inches, but I don't know if this is correct. The second problem (challenge) is that when I MDI a movement of 1 or 2 inches, the axis I program says 1 or 2 on the DRO, the table slides move much more (at least twice). What am a setting wrong? The spec sheet from the manufacture (MIB) lists the parameters as: SPI = 460, Vel = 250, Accel = 20. This makes the table creep along. I played with the Vel and Accel as suggested in one of the video tutorials and that made the movement faster but still not accurate. The other thing is when I am in motor tuning the motors run nice and smooth and the tables have a nice rapid movement. When I exit out and use the Jog mode, the motors are very noisy and the tables look like they are jerking. The motors are ICAD 57 2 phase 3A 1.8 Degree step motors. Does anyone have a suggestion on what to do?
Thanks
Martyondrums
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!