View Single Post
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-09-2010, 16:16
Gdeaver Gdeaver is online now
Registered User
FRC #1640
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: West Chester, Pa.
Posts: 1,363
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: reverse-voltage protection

The Jag has a micro controller, bridge driver chip, CAN driver and voltage regulator that all must have good stable grounds. In addition the micro is making A to D conversions to manage current measurements. The jag is driving a large inductance motor. There are going to be large switching transience floating around. The designer has to manage these. Adding Low side reverse battery protection adds allot of problems to the design. High side is much easier from the ground perspective. Managing the voltage boost and FET power dissipation are the trade off.
The Anderson connectors are big and adding them to the jag which is all ready big would not be ideal. There are smaller connectors that could be used like the RC Dean's connectors. The problem is they could see up to 160 amps. Beyond there rating. Is it really required to have true continuous ratings for our use?
On this subject, would it be acceptable to loose thousands of dollars in electronic modules in a car because a mechanic accidentally reversed battery connections even for a fraction of a second. Can a automotive mechanic reverse polarity by plugging in a new module wrong? If one could the bean counters would be string up the engineers for the warranty claims. Now would this be acceptable in aerospace or a nuclear power plant? Why is it acceptable for our robots.