View Single Post
  #16   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-11-2007, 20:03
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: RAIV (Redundant Array of Independent Victors)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik View Post
EDIT: You won't be able to use spikes like this. Spikes are solid-state "relays" not actual physical relays. So they take a constant 12V and GND on the input side that they need all the time at that polarity to operate properly. Then they just send 12V or GND to M+ and M- as dictated by the digital inputs. If you send a Victor output that isn't full on foward to a spike you'll just make it work weird and jitter if at all, if you're sending voltage in the forward sense. In the backwards sense, you'll probably just fry the poor thing. And wiring in physical relays instead won't be legal either.
I am reasonably certain that the Spikes do use "actual" relays. Can someone verify / deny this for us?

In any case, I do agree that the Spike would make a poor choice of mux for this type of task. I think that the battery terminals also power the logic inside, which basically eliminates this possibility.

Another solution would be to simply wire the Vics in parallel, but control them independently. Keep the backup in high impedance (127), and control the other one. If the primary busts, put it at 127 and control the backup.

Again, none of this is competition legal, but I think it is a very good exercise to think through.