View Single Post
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-04-2009, 09:04
Gdeaver Gdeaver is offline
Registered User
FRC #1640
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: West Chester, Pa.
Posts: 1,370
Gdeaver has a reputation beyond reputeGdeaver has a reputation beyond reputeGdeaver has a reputation beyond reputeGdeaver has a reputation beyond reputeGdeaver has a reputation beyond reputeGdeaver has a reputation beyond reputeGdeaver has a reputation beyond reputeGdeaver has a reputation beyond reputeGdeaver has a reputation beyond reputeGdeaver has a reputation beyond reputeGdeaver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: What do you think of the jaguars?

The higher frequency PWM drive of the Jags means they also will have higher switching losses. This means more heat to dispose of compared to a victor. The victors used IFR or Infineon FETS. Could the IFR FETS have better avalanche carrying ability? I Know that Luminary Micros has aligned with Fairchild but, could the IFR FETS be a better device for this application. Our robots are 12 volt devices cars are 12 volt nominal devices. Why not use automotive qualified and avalanche rated FETS ? Automotive motor controllers all seam to use 40 volt devices and our controllers are using 30 volt FETS. Does the jag have clamping diodes to take the Back EMF stress off of the FET intrinsic diode? Most hard switched motor controllers do. With the current loads we give the JAGS cooling is critical. Could the air flow not be evenly distributed across all the Fets? With the higher frequency PWM drive, there is more of a problem with ringing in the gate drive circuitry. Could this be causing the Fet and drive chip failure? The Jag is a step forward with capabilities we haven't even tapped yet, however there does SEAM to be an increased failure rate that needs to be addressed. Every year there will be a number of reverse polarity failures no matter which controller we use. This is just a given unless reverse battery protection is implemented.