PowerVelocity controller review

[ElectricGod]

Since you guys have been talking about crazy big numbers passing through the mosfets, I thought why not give that a try. This controller has an extra large heat spreader in it and I have doubled the number of shunts. 2 nights ago I set my 12 fet PV like the below screenshot. To get the current settings high enough I have to use the 18 fet controller instead of the 12 fet controller. THe battery current is going to be off a good bit due to having four .005 ohm shunts instead of two. Worst case I was going to blow up a bunch of mosfets or need to buy another controller. Oh well...already killed one of these controllers from lots and lots of modding!

Last night I went for a 12 mile ride and topped out at 39mph before I chickened out and averaged 25mph on my Currie scooter. The 75 pound scooter carrying 240 pounds of lard butt accelerated similar to my Golf GTI. By the time I got home, my shoulders and lower back were sore from hanging on to a stand-up kick scooter for 12 miles. I am not currently using field weakening. This controller doesn't have the latest telemetry module in it so I can't monitor temperatures yet. I would stop every few miles to see if the controller was getting too hot. It got to about 80F on the heat spreader side while pulling a long hill at WOT. All the rest of the time it was slightly warmer than ambient which was 65F. I guess those mosfets can handle all that amperage after all! I started at 65 volts and got down to 60 volts after 12 miles. I'm running dual 10,000mah 16S LIPO packs. The watt meter displayed 55 amps several times, but I don't think it got much higher than that. That's continuous peaks at 3630 watts at the watt meter. I did several stretches at WOT where I got to 55 amps and rode there for a a mile or so. It was on the hill that the controller warmed up at all. The other times...just slightly higher than ambient was typical.

Can I put an inductive AC ammeter on a phase wire and measure the phase amps? I assume most of them are designed for 60 hz and at WOT, I'm going to see more like 1700hz. Can someone point me in the direction of an AC meter than be used like this?

 

[kiwifiat]

I've got some reading to do here. I thought I understood how the mosfets were controlled, but maybe not. I'm still unclear how a square wave creates a sinusoid in the phases. I plan to read about class D amplifiers. It's been since 1987 since I took amplifiers in college for my EE and haven't really thought about it since.

If you really want to understand how this works take a look at the lecture on Direct Digital Synthesis (DDS) by Dr Bruce Land of Cornell University as part of course ECE4760, it is available online - YouTube naturally.

Also http://interface.khm.de/index.php/lab/interfaces-advanced/arduino-dds-sinewave-generator/ is worth a look.

 

[amberwolf]

I'm still unclear how a square wave creates a sinusoid in the phases.

It's pretty much like the picture you posted, for the signal from the controller, except that it's trying to make a current rather than voltage of that shape.

Then the inductance of the motor windings changes that current waveform into a more continuous sine. (inductance resists changes in current the same way capacitance resists voltage changes)

 

[ElectricGod]

I'm still unclear how a square wave creates a sinusoid in the phases.

It's pretty much like the picture you posted, for the signal from the controller, except that it's trying to make a current rather than voltage of that shape.

Then the inductance of the motor windings changes that current waveform into a more continuous sine. (inductance resists changes in current the same way capacitance resists voltage changes)

Thanks for your feedback and help. I've learned a good bit already and now have a new subject path to go study.

 

[Alan B]

Current in an inductor cannot change instantly, it ramps up or down with an exponential curve, same as a capacitor cannot change voltage instantly.

When you apply voltage to an inductor, current rises. When you remove the voltage source, current decays. In both cases the time constant is L/R.

The inductor makes a filter that converts a properly done PWM voltage waveform into a smooth Sinusoidal current waveform. The motor uses the current, not the voltage as it makes magnetic fields.

 

[gman1971]

I was starting to look around to upgrade my stock Cyclone controller on my main C3000W e-trike when I saw one of those PV controllers, did some digging... AND... first I wanted to thank you Alan B. for pointing the fact that those are not true FOC controllers, that was indeed a huge let down.

So, it looks like these PV are just regular inexpensive Chinese canned-sinusoidal controllers with some bells and whistles, and not true FOC vector controllers... and while that probably works well for hubs, with relative low RPM operation, canned-sinusoidal giving quiet running operation at low RPM with good starting torque too, then the fact that in hubs you control your speed with the throttle. However, for a mid-drive, where throttle doesn't directly control your speed (gears usually do) these don't seem any better, if anything worse, than the inexpensive stock Cyclone 40A square wave for a true high RPM motor, due to efficiency suffering at high RPM in a non-FOC sinusoidal control loop, and then due to other issues ppl on this board have had with these too, like having to modify hall sensors, other had to add pull up resistors, etc, just to get those to work on a C3000W motor at high RPM operation... really? let me get this straight? you buy a $200+ controller, you read in this threads comments like "your halls are no good, we know better", which requires cracking the motor open to replace perfectly working halls just to get it to work? when the motor worked just fine with the stock 72V 40A controller that came with the kit? That isn't a very sound marketing strategy. That seems to me the controller isn't very good at controlling a motor.

I am certainly disappointed, specially with the confusing sinusoidal, vector control terms... etc... its misleading seeing sinusoidal being touted as FOC vector control.

So, unless there are any plans on making these true vector control (which I believe will make price go up) I think the Savboton FOC might be a better choice for those seeking high power on mid-drives.

Please, correct me if I am wrong.

G.

 

[Alan B]

I think it is important to have the correct understanding of these products and note that there is nothing wrong with Sinusoidal Controllers, they are an improvement in that they move the magnetic fields in the motor with a (fairly) smooth rotation instead of jerking it every 60 degrees as trapezoidal controllers do, and they can be implemented at a lower price point with less complexity and tuning.

Since both Sinusoidal and FOC controllers move the field smoothly (in much smaller steps than trapezoidal), the difference is in how they figure out where to place the field at any given time, and how accurate that is as compared to the optimum position. Sinusoidal controllers use simple means and straightforward calculations (such as hall sensors and lookup tables), while FOC controllers use more costly real time multiple channel synchronized phase current readings and complex high speed math to figure out where the rotor actually is and compensate for the realities of the motor characteristics.

As you point out, for different applications these differing characteristics can be important (or not).

Allowing potential customers to think a controller is FOC when it is not may lead to unmet expectations later.

I wish the manufacturers and sellers would make it clear, by not doing so they set themselves up for unhappiness later on. As a small business owner I would much rather not make a sale than to have an unhappy customer. The long term business cost of an unhappy customer is larger than the gain of that sale.

 

[gman1971]

Yeah, you nailed it... correct understanding, but also clear and transparent advertising; b/c I am aware that sinusoidal isn't necessarily FOC, or canned-sinusoidal vs true vector contro, but when you see information that leads to believe its FOC, then find it isn't that is a disappointment.

For hubs this controller seems like the way to go, cheap, sinusoidal, and bluetooth... for mid-drive, I think you need to look elsewhere.. also efficiency at optimal load-to-RPM range is where these FOCs shine, as measured by Justin, expect a good 5% increase boost in efficiency... no small feat...

Thanks again.

G.

I think it is important to have the correct understanding of these products and note that there is nothing wrong with Sinusoidal Controllers, they are an improvement in that they move the magnetic fields in the motor with a (fairly) smooth rotation instead of jerking it every 60 degrees as trapezoidal controllers do, and they can be implemented at a lower price point with less complexity and tuning.

Since both Sinusoidal and FOC controllers move the field smoothly (in much smaller steps than trapezoidal), the difference is in how they figure out where to place the field at any given time, and how accurate that is as compared to the optimum position. Sinusoidal controllers use simple means and straightforward calculations (such as hall sensors and lookup tables), while FOC controllers use more costly real time multiple channel synchronized phase current readings and complex high speed math to figure out where the rotor actually is and compensate for the realities of the motor characteristics.

As you point out, for different applications these differing characteristics can be important (or not).

Allowing potential customers to think a controller is FOC when it is not may lead to unmet expectations later.

I wish the manufacturers and sellers would make it clear, by not doing so they set themselves up for unhappiness later on. As a small business owner I would much rather not make a sale than to have an unhappy customer. The long term business cost of an unhappy customer is larger than the gain of that sale.

 

[ElectricGod]

Yeah, you nailed it... correct understanding, but also clear and transparent advertising; b/c I am aware that sinusoidal isn't necessarily FOC, or canned-sinusoidal vs true vector contro, but when you see information that leads to believe its FOC, then find it isn't that is a disappointment.

For hubs this controller seems like the way to go, cheap, sinusoidal, and bluetooth... for mid-drive, I think you need to look elsewhere.. also efficiency at optimal load-to-RPM range is where these FOCs shine, as measured by Justin, expect a good 5% increase boost in efficiency... no small feat...

Thanks again.

G.

I think it is important to have the correct understanding of these products and note that there is nothing wrong with Sinusoidal Controllers, they are an improvement in that they move the magnetic fields in the motor with a (fairly) smooth rotation instead of jerking it every 60 degrees as trapezoidal controllers do, and they can be implemented at a lower price point with less complexity and tuning.

Since both Sinusoidal and FOC controllers move the field smoothly (in much smaller steps than trapezoidal), the difference is in how they figure out where to place the field at any given time, and how accurate that is as compared to the optimum position. Sinusoidal controllers use simple means and straightforward calculations (such as hall sensors and lookup tables), while FOC controllers use more costly real time multiple channel synchronized phase current readings and complex high speed math to figure out where the rotor actually is and compensate for the realities of the motor characteristics.

As you point out, for different applications these differing characteristics can be important (or not).

Allowing potential customers to think a controller is FOC when it is not may lead to unmet expectations later.

I wish the manufacturers and sellers would make it clear, by not doing so they set themselves up for unhappiness later on. As a small business owner I would much rather not make a sale than to have an unhappy customer. The long term business cost of an unhappy customer is larger than the gain of that sale.

All I personally run is inrunners and outrunners. Did you read this thread at all? You would have seen that most of the motors I personally have tested are NOT hubs. Also, IF you had read what I wrote you would have seen that I was quite honest about where these controllers fit in the grander scheme of things. So if you don't mind, keep your uninformed bashing to yourself. Go look at these build threads. One is an inrunner and the other an outrunner build. Both are my threads and both are using PV controllers. I am 100% confident that if you don't exceed the 50,00 eRPM limit and have actual good halls in your motor that these controllers will work perfectly. They sure do for me!

E-Bike XB502 conversion project: https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=83302
Currie Kick Scooter conversion: https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=83830

Thanks so much!

Regarding halls...not all controllers are created equal and how they detect hall positions is not always the same either. "perfectly working halls" doesn't mean anything. I bought a brand new Alien Power C80100 with "perfectly working halls" as long as the motor was ran on a cheap Chinese trapezoidal controller. As soon as I tried that motor on anything sinusoidal, the halls were suddenly NOT "perfectly good". In the end I cracked open my motor and replaced the less than "perfectly good halls" with actually good halls and now that motor runs smoothly on any controller I have. Your statement is imputing issues where they probably don't apply and is ignoring the fact that quite often motors don't have very good halls in them. Just because someone can connect an LED to a hall and see it turn on and off is not proof of good halls. It's just proof that the halls work on some level, but in actual operation they may be super noisy. In that case, most controllers that need to have at least decent timing control are going to have issues. I've attempted to run multiple motors with halls that pass the multimeter or LED test and then tried to run them on Sabvoton, Kelly, PV, ASI and other controllers and have the motor run rough or glitch. I then test a set of halls, which BTW, are commonly not any good straight from Arrow or Digikey, install those freshly tested and known good halls and the motor runs perfectly after that. You are unfortunately NOT in possession of all the facts and imputing poor quality hall performance as a controller flaw is incorrect and misleading to anyone that reads this thread. 100% of the glitchy motor performance I have seen on PV controllers has been due to poor hall quality. The proof is in the fact that those motors also glitched on my Sabvoton, ASI and Kelly controllers AND after replacing the halls with tested good halls, those motors no longer glitched or ran poorly on anything.

So then, IF you had read this thread, you would have seen that I recommend good halls. In fact, I created 2 hall related threads long before I ever got involved with these controllers. One of those threads is how to test halls. I've found that the factory installed halls are commonly poor quality and replacing them despite the fact that they do detect magnetic fields can make an enormous difference. I have yet to see a glitchy motor that was not improved significantly be replacing its halls with known good and tested halls.

Again, please keep your bashing and negativity to yourself.

Here is my hall testing thread...if you care to read it. There are 3 posts in this thread from me that you should read. The first post. Later I have another one titled "reverse halls" and finally the "crazy hall" post. I would be willing to bet you $100 that 90% of everyone that has supposedly had to "fix" their controller that uses the 3232 MCU in some fashion due to "hall issues" is in fact suffering from poor quality halls. Do controllers sometimes not work correctly? Sure they do, but I'm confident based on my personal experience that most folks have hall issues that they blame on the controller.

https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=83802&hilit=hall+testing

 

[ElectricGod]

I think it is important to have the correct understanding of these products and note that there is nothing wrong with Sinusoidal Controllers, they are an improvement in that they move the magnetic fields in the motor with a (fairly) smooth rotation instead of jerking it every 60 degrees as trapezoidal controllers do, and they can be implemented at a lower price point with less complexity and tuning.

Since both Sinusoidal and FOC controllers move the field smoothly (in much smaller steps than trapezoidal), the difference is in how they figure out where to place the field at any given time, and how accurate that is as compared to the optimum position. Sinusoidal controllers use simple means and straightforward calculations (such as hall sensors and lookup tables), while FOC controllers use more costly real time multiple channel synchronized phase current readings and complex high speed math to figure out where the rotor actually is and compensate for the realities of the motor characteristics.

As you point out, for different applications these differing characteristics can be important (or not).

Allowing potential customers to think a controller is FOC when it is not may lead to unmet expectations later.

I wish the manufacturers and sellers would make it clear, by not doing so they set themselves up for unhappiness later on. As a small business owner I would much rather not make a sale than to have an unhappy customer. The long term business cost of an unhappy customer is larger than the gain of that sale.

I've very specifically stated that it is a "basic FOC controller" and NOT an advanced one. I said that before you started bashing on these controllers that the 3232 is NOT the best MCU out there. No one is lying about or misrepresenting this controller line! Go use better controllers if you want the full feature set that the best MCU's have AND pay a lot for it too! For folks that want field weakening (basic FOC) and sinusoidal control and a great app that works over bluetooth, well look no further, this controller will do all of that and run any motor I've ever tried that needs 50,000 eRPM or less.

Of course, I am neither a seller or manufacturer of these controllers and I make no money from the sales of them either. I simply helped Vadym by testing what he was producing. Personally, I have found these controllers to be adequate for most of my controller needs. I have a Sabvoton and ASI and 2 Kelly controllers and lots of no-name Chinese stuff and 5 PV controllers. For most folks, these controllers will do what they need with the level of performance they need and not cost them a fortune AND will run their inrunners and outrunners and hubs just fine.

 

[Alan B]

The PowerVelocity controller is NOT FOC OF ANY KIND. Please don't call it "basic FOC", that is not what Sinewave Commutation is. FOC should not be mentioned, it is misleading, and means something entirely different. Sinewave commutation in this case takes the hall signal as a starting point, and uses time interpolation and a sinewave lookup table to "guess" where the rotor is and make a rotating field based on that estimate. The quality of the hall signals determine the quality of the estimate used to generate the sinewave.

I agree with you that Sinewave controllers are VERY dependent on the quality of the hall signal. That's all they have to align the sinewave with the rotor. A trap controller only needs to switch six times per E rotation, so if it's a little off it doesn't matter much. But a sinewave commutation controller is switching perhaps 48 times or more per E rotation, so being off a few degrees, or jumping around from one E rotation to the next will drive the sinewave into something irregular. An FOC controller may use the halls to start with, but it soon uses precise measurements of field current to compute the rotor position accurately regardless of the halls. So the most sensitive controller to the Halls is the Sinusoidally Commutated one.

 

[gman1971]

There is no bashing here dude, take it how you want... that's fine; but those are facts: if the controller isn't vector control is no good to me for my application. End of the story.

You also tried to argue your way with Alan about vector control, but in the end, vector control is superior to the other control schemes, square, sine... etc... b/c FOC doesn't sacrifice efficiency at high RPM which is what I want, and while sinusoidal is a step up over square taper at low-mid RPM, not questioning that; at high RPM, they are about the same as the square wave since both use the encoder (halls) to lookup values.

Then you add the fact that has reported issues with the Cyclone 3000W motor, and I just happen to own three of these motors (as a matter of fact its the only motor kind I own nowadays ). I have 13000 miles combined on these three motors, all trouble free on the stock square taper controllers, one even shunt-modded to run 90A, and there is no stuttering problems under load, never had to change halls, or add pull-up resistors, etc... other P.V. users had to do all that just to get it to work; so, I am not interested in trying my luck, spend 250+ dollars to find out that I now have to crack the motor open to get something to work that should work without any modification. I am glad you got it to work in your applications, that's great, good for you!!, but what comes from other Cyclone owners is different than your result, so I am wary about it.

OTOH, the Sabvoton 150A controller (also sinewave) has been tried on the Cyclone 3000W motors with no reported issues... in addition to that, I can run any of my Cyclone motors sensorless on my RC ESCs on 12S without a hitch.. no stuttering, nothing fails, it just works; sadly though, there are no RC ESC ATM that will take 20S LiPo... so for now I have to go with those brick Infineon style motor controllers... and nothing currently out there seems to be true sensorless FOC control like my high end RC ESCs are (think Kontronik Kosmik) at the voltage I am currently running at.

Then there is the misleading thing that I mentioned in here, field weakening, which made me assume the controller was true vector control, until I read Alan's post... which is what prompted my initial reply.

So, if the PV isn't FOC as claimed, it either is FOC or it isn't there is no in between, then there is no efficiency improvement to be had, which is what I am after; I don't care about running excellent/silent partial throttle performance; in fact, I love my Formula One like whine when I punch it and get up to 65 mph; but I just wanted that extra 5% efficiency that FOC will give me during full throttle cruise, which is not in the PV controllers.

I can be disappointed, and I can share my thoughts too; especially so after reading Alan's comments on this controller, which stopped me from pressing the buy it now button on the 12kW one...

Cheers.

G.

 

[gman1971]

The PowerVelocity controller is NOT FOC OF ANY KIND. Please don't call it "basic FOC", that is not what Sinewave Commutation is. FOC should not be mentioned, it is misleading, and means something entirely different. Sinewave commutation in this case takes the hall signal as a starting point, and uses time interpolation and a sinewave lookup table to "guess" where the rotor is and make a rotating field based on that estimate. The quality of the hall signals determine the quality of the estimate used to generate the sinewave.

I agree with you that Sinewave controllers are VERY dependent on the quality of the hall signal. That's all they have to align the sinewave with the rotor. A trap controller only needs to switch six times per E rotation, so if it's a little off it doesn't matter much. But a sinewave commutation controller is switching perhaps 48 times or more per E rotation, so being off a few degrees, or jumping around from one E rotation to the next will drive the sinewave into something irregular. An FOC controller may use the halls to start with, but it soon uses precise measurements of field current to compute the rotor position accurately regardless of the halls. So the most sensitive controller to the Halls is the Sinusoidally Commutated one.

Thank you.

G.

 

[ElectricGod]

The PowerVelocity controller is NOT FOC OF ANY KIND. Please don't call it "basic FOC", that is not what Sinewave Commutation is. FOC should not be mentioned, it is misleading, and means something entirely different. Sinewave commutation in this case takes the hall signal as a starting point, and uses time interpolation and a sinewave lookup table to "guess" where the rotor is and make a rotating field based on that estimate. The quality of the hall signals determine the quality of the estimate used to generate the sinewave.

I agree with you that Sinewave controllers are VERY dependent on the quality of the hall signal. That's all they have to align the sinewave with the rotor. A trap controller only needs to switch six times per E rotation, so if it's a little off it doesn't matter much. But a sinewave commutation controller is switching perhaps 48 times or more per E rotation, so being off a few degrees, or jumping around from one E rotation to the next will drive the sinewave into something irregular. An FOC controller may use the halls to start with, but it soon uses precise measurements of field current to compute the rotor position accurately regardless of the halls. So the most sensitive controller to the Halls is the Sinusoidally Commutated one.

Thanks for suggesting I read about class D amplifiers. Good stuff! I'll keep reading on the subject, but what you were explaining to me earlier makes a lot more sense now.

What do you call field weakening of any kind? Is that not a characteristic that can only be found in FOC controllers? I'm not sure you can say that the 3232 is not a basic FOC MCU. If you have proof that it's not, then please feel free to post it, but otherwise, I'm still thinking that it is, just not one of the best ones for doing the full range of FOC functionality. If you have the actual 3232 datasheet, please post it. I have not been able to find it anywhere. As a result, I have the datasheet for an older generation MCU in the same product line. Also, the 3232 will run sensored or sensorless and maxes out at the exact same eRPM. Isn't that proof of FOC operation? Does the 3232 switch to purely sensorless mode after X RPM? I have no idea if it does or doesn't.

I think you just explained why people complain about hall issues with sinusoidal controllers. And why I'm going to ignore gman1971.

 

[ElectricGod]

There is no bashing here dude, take it how you want... that's fine; but those are facts: if the controller isn't vector control is no good to me for my application. End of the story.

You also tried to argue your way with Alan about vector control, but in the end, vector control is superior to the other control schemes, square, sine... etc... b/c FOC doesn't sacrifice efficiency at high RPM which is what I want, and while sinusoidal is a step up over square taper at low-mid RPM, not questioning that; at high RPM, they are about the same as the square wave since both use the encoder (halls) to lookup values.

Then you add the fact that has reported issues with the Cyclone 3000W motor, and I just happen to own three of these motors (as a matter of fact its the only motor kind I own nowadays ). I have 13000 miles combined on these three motors, all trouble free on the stock square taper controllers, one even shunt-modded to run 90A, and there is no stuttering problems under load, never had to change halls, or add pull-up resistors, etc... other P.V. users had to do all that just to get it to work; so, I am not interested in trying my luck, spend 250+ dollars to find out that I now have to crack the motor open to get something to work that should work without any modification. I am glad you got it to work in your applications, that's great, good for you!!, but what comes from other Cyclone owners is different than your result, so I am wary about it.

OTOH, the Sabvoton 150A controller (also sinewave) has been tried on the Cyclone 3000W motors with no reported issues... in addition to that, I can run any of my Cyclone motors sensorless on my RC ESCs on 12S without a hitch.. no stuttering, nothing fails, it just works; sadly though, there are no RC ESC ATM that will take 20S LiPo... so for now I have to go with those brick Infineon style motor controllers... and nothing currently out there seems to be true sensorless FOC control like my high end RC ESCs are (think Kontronik Kosmik) at the voltage I am currently running at.

Then there is the misleading thing that I mentioned in here, field weakening, which made me assume the controller was true vector control, until I read Alan's post... which is what prompted my initial reply.

So, if the PV isn't FOC as claimed, it either is FOC or it isn't there is no in between, then there is no efficiency improvement to be had, which is what I am after; I don't care about running excellent/silent partial throttle performance; in fact, I love my Formula One like whine when I punch it and get up to 65 mph; but I just wanted that extra 5% efficiency that FOC will give me during full throttle cruise, which is not in the PV controllers.

I can be disappointed, and I can share my thoughts too; especially so after reading Alan's comments on this controller, which stopped me from pressing the buy it now button on the 12kW one...

Cheers.

G.

great...now go away and keep your FUD to yourself. Thanks. I think just about everything I said was completely ignored. You are entitled to buy whatever controller you want, BUT until you actually try one of these controllers for yourself like I have...5 times and in multiple iterations, then your opinion is meaningless noise.

 

[gman1971]

Go away? why would I? I simply detest when ppl lie and mislead others... and if I can help other people avoid mistakes at my own expense, then so be it. My combative attitude might not be tactful to a lot of people, fair enough, I get it, but misleading others to make a sale or whatever purpose it might be isn't tactful either... This controller has issues with a particular motor, that happens to be very common, and there is nothing wrong with posting that, and until those issues are resolved, I think anyone is entitled to have have a say on that matter on your review.

Your attitude towards critique explains it all, your initial response to Alan was the same kind of used car salesman that is losing his business... clearly the controller isn't FOC, period, something that came as a shock to you too, b/c you didn't know and perhaps you hated being clued in, who knows; but there is nothing to argue in that regard and let me reiterate that is something you still somehow believe, and claimed about two posts ago when you said it was "basic FOC"... WTF is basic FOC?? and BTW, what you're now learning now is something that others have known for decades. You can ignore me all you want, that isn't going to make the problems go away.

G.

 

[ElectricGod]

Go away? why would I? I simply detest when ppl lie and mislead others... and if I can help other people avoid mistakes at my own expense, then so be it. This controller has issues with a particular motor, that happens to be very common, and there is nothing wrong with posting that, and until those issues are resolved, I think anyone is entitled to have have a say on that matter on your review.

Your attitude towards critique explains it all, your initial response to Alan was the same kind of used car salesman that is losing his business... clearly the controller isn't FOC, period, something that came as a shock to you too, b/c you didn't know and you hated being clued in; there is nothing to argue in that regard and let me reiterate that is something you still somehow believe, and claimed about two posts ago when you said it was "basic FOC"... WTF is basic FOC?? and BTW, what you're now learning now is something that others have known for decades. You can ignore me all you want, that isn't going to make the problems go away.

G.

You are going to get this thread locked down and probably whatever you post will just be removed by a moderator. You are wasting your time here. Move along and we can agree to go separate directions.

I have no ego to bruise here. Alan has been very helpful to me and I have been wrong about certain details of mosfet specs and the nature of class D amplifiers. So I'm going to say that if and when I'm wrong, I'm OK with that. It's a great opportunity to learn something I may have misread or misinterpreted, etc.

I've asked the honest question that is true to my nature. No ego or need to defend something that may be incorrect or incomplete. However I don't just accept something without proof or explanation so I'm still waiting for that on whether field weakening is in fact part of FOC or not. I've been under the impression for about a year now that it is...based on some reading I've done and I think it was Luke (Liveforphysiscs) who said something about it to me in a PM.

 

[gman1971]

ElectricGod,
You're right, although I've seen much worse on E-S being allowed to endure than the couple of opinionated/passionate people posts we've exchanged in this thread. I have no interest in getting your thread locked. I think we can both agree that the eBike building world is full of misleading terms, acronyms, and a lot of BS. My comments are solely based on the experiences other members have shared with me as fellow C3000W owners, but after hearing those experiences, my personal interest in the controller grew after hearing a couple of "good success stories" from members like you... only to find out the FOC control I hoped for wasn't really there. I was mislead, probably not on purpose by the ppl I've read the info from, but I was nonetheless, hence my response.

G.

You are going to get this thread locked down and probably whatever you post will just be removed by a moderator. You are wasting your time here. Move along and we can agree to go separate directions.

I have no ego to bruise here. Alan has been very helpful to me and I have been wrong about certain details about how mosfet specs and the nature of class D amplifiers. So I'm going to say that if and when I'm wrong, Im OK with that. It's a great opportunity to learn something I may have misread or misinterpreted, etc.

I've asked the honest question that i true to my nature. No ego or need to defend something that may be incorrect or incompete. However I don't just accept something without proof or explanation so I'm still waiting for that on whether feild weakening is in fact part of FOC or not. I've been under the impression for about a year now that it is...based on some reading I've done and I think it was Luke (Liveforphysiscs) who said something about it to me in a PM.

 

[ElectricGod]

I like your custom switch cluster on your 65mph trike build. Are you having to pedal to get to 65mph or is that purely motor power alone? I can't imagine that motor is running very cool at that wattage level.

I'm going to say that field weakening is part of FOC, but the specifics of how FOC is implemented varies widely. Some are better solutions than others and I've never said the 3232 is more than a basic FOC MCU. There are better implementations of FOC such as what ASI or Sevcon does.

ElectricGod,
You're right, although I've seen much worse on E-S being allowed to endure than the couple of opinionated/passionate people posts we've exchanged in this thread. I have no interest in getting your thread locked. I think we can both agree that the eBike building world is full of misleading terms, acronyms, and a lot of BS. My comments are solely based on the experiences other members have shared with me as fellow C3000W owners, but after hearing those experiences, my personal interest in the controller grew after hearing a couple of "good success stories" from members like you... only to find out the FOC control I hoped for wasn't really there. I was mislead, probably not on purpose by the ppl I've read the info from, but I was nonetheless, hence my response.

G.

You are going to get this thread locked down and probably whatever you post will just be removed by a moderator. You are wasting your time here. Move along and we can agree to go separate directions.

I have no ego to bruise here. Alan has been very helpful to me and I have been wrong about certain details about how mosfet specs and the nature of class D amplifiers. So I'm going to say that if and when I'm wrong, Im OK with that. It's a great opportunity to learn something I may have misread or misinterpreted, etc.

I've asked the honest question that i true to my nature. No ego or need to defend something that may be incorrect or incompete. However I don't just accept something without proof or explanation so I'm still waiting for that on whether feild weakening is in fact part of FOC or not. I've been under the impression for about a year now that it is...based on some reading I've done and I think it was Luke (Liveforphysiscs) who said something about it to me in a PM.

 

[fechter]

I think the misunderstanding here is that you CAN have field weakening without FOC. FOC inherently can do field weakening but even the crudest trapezoidal controller can do field weakening by advancing the timing. You can even do field weakening on an ancient brushed motor by mechanically moving the brushes to advance the timing.

The PowerVelocity controller uses a microcontroller marked XCKJ3232C. The closest datasheet I could find is GPM8F3132, made by Generalplus, which indicates it is designed to provide sine wave PWM and it has 3 sensorless comparators. It does not advertise FOC features. I suspect the PV chip is a custom version of this.

Datasheet:

 

[ElectricGod]

I think the misunderstanding here is that you CAN have field weakening without FOC. FOC inherently can do field weakening but even the crudest trapezoidal controller can do field weakening by advancing the timing. You can even do field weakening on an ancient brushed motor by mechanically moving the brushes to advance the timing.

The PowerVelocity controller uses a microcontroller marked XCKJ3232C. The closest datasheet I could find is GPM8F3132, made by Generalplus, which indicates it is designed to provide sine wave PWM and it has 3 sensorless comparators. It does not advertise FOC features. I suspect the PV chip is a custom version of this.

Datasheet:

You have the same datasheet that I have. Whether it is accurate or not for the 3232 is unknown.

You work for Grintech and the 12 fet sinusoidal controller you guys sell uses this same MCU. BTW...I've programmed one of your controllers with Vadyms module/APK before. It worked pretty well. Anyway, do you have any access to the controller manufacturer? Do they have a better data sheet for this MCU?

Field weakening without FOC...really? Never heard of that before. Every controller I've ever run across that did field weakening was also an FOC controller. Why would I assume differently for the 3232 MCU? I knew about mechanically advancing or retarding the halls or brushes in motors, but I didn't realize that is all that field weakening is. I thought it was a good bit more complicated than that. This article which I've read multiple times, does not read like timing advance to me.

https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/11022

 

[gman1971]

Thanks man. The cluster is now hidden b/c the body, but its still there... I did a revision to clean some of the unused switches and used a properly cut plastic sheet...

Its all motor man, I am not Superman.... I can probably pedal the trike to up 30mph with some effort, but anything beyond that is all motor. The 65 mph speed I've only sustained for a few seconds during a "race" against a 125cc scooter, things fly fast at that speed... as for temperature, I don't know, I don't run a temp gauge so I have no idea how hot the windings got. Later, upon arrival at home motor temp (laser thermometer) wasn't much warmer than any other day. That was back then, before most of the fairing went in... nowadays, the trike can sustain 50mph on 2 kW without breaking a sweat, the motor is in the nose too, so gets 50 mph cool air from a duct; Then I always run my motor at top RPMs, where the amps are low and efficiency is high, taking time through every gear to ensure I am at the highest RPM possible before shifting.

The chaos and confusing terminology used in the eBike world is IMO what stirs a lot of the arguments in this board, both people mean the same thing, but b/c the terms are so vage, or used wrong and ppl interpret them in different ways, we jump to conclusions, and you have an argument. I am the first one to be guilty of this...

G.

I like your custom switch cluster on your 65mph trike build. Are you having to pedal to get to 65mph or is that purely motor power alone? I can't imagine that motor is running very cool at that wattage level.

I'm going to say that field weakening is part of FOC, but the specifics of how FOC is implemented varies widely. Some are better solutions than others and I've never said the 3232 is more than a basic FOC MCU. There are better implementations of FOC such as what ASI or Sevcon does.

ElectricGod,
You're right, although I've seen much worse on E-S being allowed to endure than the couple of opinionated/passionate people posts we've exchanged in this thread. I have no interest in getting your thread locked. I think we can both agree that the eBike building world is full of misleading terms, acronyms, and a lot of BS. My comments are solely based on the experiences other members have shared with me as fellow C3000W owners, but after hearing those experiences, my personal interest in the controller grew after hearing a couple of "good success stories" from members like you... only to find out the FOC control I hoped for wasn't really there. I was mislead, probably not on purpose by the ppl I've read the info from, but I was nonetheless, hence my response.

G.

You are going to get this thread locked down and probably whatever you post will just be removed by a moderator. You are wasting your time here. Move along and we can agree to go separate directions.

I have no ego to bruise here. Alan has been very helpful to me and I have been wrong about certain details about how mosfet specs and the nature of class D amplifiers. So I'm going to say that if and when I'm wrong, Im OK with that. It's a great opportunity to learn something I may have misread or misinterpreted, etc.

I've asked the honest question that i true to my nature. No ego or need to defend something that may be incorrect or incompete. However I don't just accept something without proof or explanation so I'm still waiting for that on whether feild weakening is in fact part of FOC or not. I've been under the impression for about a year now that it is...based on some reading I've done and I think it was Luke (Liveforphysiscs) who said something about it to me in a PM.

 

[gman1971]

The same MCU?? Wow, that is good info ElectricGod, thanks for the info. Looks like the 12FET Grin ASI is out of the picture too...

G.

I think the misunderstanding here is that you CAN have field weakening without FOC. FOC inherently can do field weakening but even the crudest trapezoidal controller can do field weakening by advancing the timing. You can even do field weakening on an ancient brushed motor by mechanically moving the brushes to advance the timing.

The PowerVelocity controller uses a microcontroller marked XCKJ3232C. The closest datasheet I could find is GPM8F3132, made by Generalplus, which indicates it is designed to provide sine wave PWM and it has 3 sensorless comparators. It does not advertise FOC features. I suspect the PV chip is a custom version of this.

Datasheet:

You have the same datasheet that I have. Whether it is accurate or not for the 3232 is unknown.

You work for Grintech and the 12 fet sinusoidal controller you guys sell uses this same MCU. BTW...I've programmed one of your controllers with Vadyms module/APK before. It worked pretty well. Anyway, do you have any access to the controller manufacturer? Do they have a better data sheet for this MCU?

Field weakening without FOC...really? Never heard of that before. Every controller I've ever run across that did field weakening was also an FOC controller. why would a I assume differently for the 3232 MCU? I knew about mechanically advancing or retarding the halls or brushes in motors, but I didn't realize that is all that field weakening is. I thought it was a good bit more complicated than that. This article which I've read multiple times, does not read like timing advance to me.

https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/11022

 

[Alan B]

Wow, a lot has gone by while I was out doing errands.

As fechter has said, there are different ways of increasing the speed of a motor and different ways of viewing this. Field Weakening which FOC does by applying current generating a field in opposition to the permanent magnets can also be looked at as shifting the timing which has been done for many years with trap controllers and would also be used with Sinewave commutated ones. I suspect the terminology "field weakening" should apply to the FOC variants, and "timing advance" should be used with encoder driven systems (such as hall sensors). It is another area where the terms can imply something and mislead.

Which CPU is used in a controller gives some idea of the computing and I/O capability available, but the firmware in the controller can vary tremendously. For example some fairly low powered CPUs have special I/O that allows them to run FOC. Clearly they can also run Sinewave commutation, or trap as well. So the CPU alone doesn't tell us much.

Another more important clue that gives us information about the control type is the answer to the question "does the controller have real time synchronous sensing for at least two (or all three) of the motor phase currents". The Trap and sinusoidal controllers generally only have battery current sensing using a shunt which is located on the battery side of the capacitor bank, thus it is filtered and cannot give real time information relating to motor currents. FOC requires accurate and prompt motor current information (of at least two phases) to determine fields and calculate rotor position. They also need a lot more information about the motor such as resistance and inductance whereas the simpler controllers don't need that. FOC has a lot of tuning parameters for things like this as well as the multiple feedback loops that it must operate. So by looking at the parameters one can guess a lot about the control algorithm.

Thanks for keeping this thread polite and informational. We all learn more when threads are well mannered.

 

[ElectricGod]

The same MCU?? Wow, that is good info ElectricGod, thanks for the info. Looks like the 12FET Grin ASI is out of the picture too...

G.

Grintech controllers don't have a connection to it's programming port, but in fact it is identical to what is in the PV controllers. The 12 fet PV and the Grintech boards differ only a small amount. I forget the exact details, but there's like a couple of caps and a small resistor that is different between them. They are effectively the exact same board inside a different shell. Of course the PV 12 fets also have AOT290's in them instead of IRF4110's and can legitimately do 4kw at the watt meter. I know that from personal experience on my Currie while running a C80100 Alien Power outrunner at 80kv. Alien rates these motors at 7kw which I think is a little exaggerated. My phase amps are currently set to 192 amps at 66 volts and the controller gets to 80F running it hard.

I see how you get to 65mph...you are using the bikes gears to get there. Otherwise if it wasn't for gearing you would have long since been limited by the motor Kv.

ASI told me like a year ago that they are working on a 4kw (18 fet) and 8kw (24 fet) controller. I had bought one of their 12 fet controllers to see if it would meet my needs or not. Frankly the thing is bloody complicated to set up...just to get it running at all. I set it aside and moved on to other more easily configurable controllers that would suit more people more readily. IE: the PV product line. At the time I was working with LightningRods on something better than the Lyen controllers. ASI controllers are definitely lots better than a Lyen, but the setup is complex to say the least and frankly I like a speed throttle much more than I do a torque throttle...among other details I thought the ASI was lacking. To me it wasn't a good fit for someone who didn't want to get a PHD in controller programming. you can fudge the programming somewhat, but they don't support a realistic top voltage of 90 volts and no speed throttle were both show stoppers to me.