View Single Post
  #339   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-01-2012, 16:51
EricVanWyk EricVanWyk is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,597
EricVanWyk has a reputation beyond reputeEricVanWyk has a reputation beyond reputeEricVanWyk has a reputation beyond reputeEricVanWyk has a reputation beyond reputeEricVanWyk has a reputation beyond reputeEricVanWyk has a reputation beyond reputeEricVanWyk has a reputation beyond reputeEricVanWyk has a reputation beyond reputeEricVanWyk has a reputation beyond reputeEricVanWyk has a reputation beyond reputeEricVanWyk has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to EricVanWyk
Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ether View Post
I don't see how a motor case short can cause an increase in current in the cRIO negative power lead if the cRIO chassis is electrically isolated from the robot frame.
This isn't the appropriate thread for this, and I'd appreciate if this side bar could be split off.

In a double fault scenario, additional current can flow from the motor, through the chassis, into the cRIO frame, through the cRIO's fuse, out the connector, through the return wire, into the PD, through the PD's self-resetting fuse, to the negative return of the battery.

The question is a matter of timing: Which protection cuts out first? The four in play here are the cRIO fuse, the cRIO power supply undervoltage lock out (UVLO), the PD's self resetting fuse (PTC), and the return wire experiencing a rapid gaseous state transition.

My claim is that the PTC is doing what I designed that circuitry to do, and that it is cutting out first. It heals when the fault clears, and then the cRIO begins to reboot, as my fellow NI engineers designed it to.