Jump to content

electric_vehicle_lover

Full Members
  • Content count

    963
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

electric_vehicle_lover last won the day on May 29 2016

electric_vehicle_lover had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

673 Excellent

5 Followers

About electric_vehicle_lover

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Portugal

Recent Profile Visitors

1,870 profile views
  1. Firmware

    Happy that we achieved the same performance as the original firmware (pretty sure the Kunteng developers also implemented that very low resolution FOC) -- here the tests the other developer did -- I have some more ideas to try improve the results :-) The new controller arrived today. I've done some measurements on the test bench with the original firmware. The effiency is worse at higher mechanical loads in comparison to the 12 FET Lishui (FOC sensorless)... With your SVM_4 (8bit) algorithm we seem to do quite the same as the original firmware
  2. Firmware

    Yes, I started with a very slow EUC and just after moved to the MicroWorks board.
  3. Firmware

    What do you expect from me now?? Don't wast your time anymore talking to me, because I will ignore you.
  4. Firmware

    I wanted to say they are dangerous (without comparing to EBikes). Wasn't obvious, I had to build, learn and ride to understand the potential issues - and over the time I read the forum messages about the faceplants on every EUC brand, it scares me. But I still like them but I don't trust to ride fast and so I see them more like a toy. The bicycle, I feel safe riding my Brompton at 30km/h and my big other electric at 45km/h - do not want to ride EUCs at such velocities.
  5. Firmware

    IMO after I realized that EUCs are more dangerous than EBikes, I started and moved to this project: https://opensourceebikefirmware.bitbucket.io/ Also the MicroWorks stopped to sell the board and told that EUC market decreased, which other sources confirm. EBikes market is huge and will keep growing!! I found that the current motor controllers are dirty cheap starting at 14€ and they potentially can be controlled by UART, using for instance an Arduino -- that is my plan, a good EBike motor controller firmware + a firmware to make the controller generic in the hope it can be adopted on the Arduino world where there is no such option, users keep using DC motors :-( Also I think an DIY EUC can be made using EBike components: direct drive motor + motor controller + Arduino + batteries.
  6. Firmware

    @KingQueenWong just did it!! The EUC1 motor controller board does FOC!! And this board is cheap and available. It misses UART bluetooth connection:
  7. Firmware

    I would say you are dreaming. I never compromised myself as also you never discussed your hardware/prototypes -- you were working alone, in your project. I will say again my motivations: I want to work on projects that will be adopted by many as possible and for that I believe the hardware needs to be very cheap and widely available. For instance, (at least until now) VESC hardware is very expensive (135€) and seems some shops have it out of stock. The EBike motor controller I am developing firmware for costs only 14€ and can be bought from many online shops, they always have them in stock. VESC is very well known on a growing market that is eskate and still costs 135€ and EUC market seems to be decreasing... EBike market is big and will keep increasing that is why I got much more interest on the firmware for the EBike motor controller, including more 2 developers, one that is actively developing the firmware, already bought a few controllers (but went to find the cheaper ones!!) and even built a test bench:
  8. Firmware

    My opinion has evolved over the time, just like development projects does when we get more and more information over the time. I already explained the reasons why I am not motivated to work with custom board and instead focus on a widely available and cheap already existing motor controllers. You are repeating the same arguments when I already did explain my motivations -- you are misleading and being unfriendly and that is the reason that I feel the need to ignore you; due to your behavior, it is now more and more clear to me that I would not want to work with you in a project.
  9. Firmware

    I resolved some bugs on the firmware and finally I have my both very different motors running with the very low resolution FOC. The EUC motor runs very well, I would say with almost equal to the OpenSource firmware on the MicroWorks 30B4 board. Video of my EUC2 motor running at 60V (yes, the S06S EBike motor controller did run at 60V and there is a version of this controller that runs at 72V): But the Q85 EBike motor runs badly and I am pretty sure it is because is a high eRPM motor!! The EUC2 motor runs at 125 eRPM, needs to draw the SVM/Sinewave with steps of 64us/using 125 points. Q85 motor runs at 480 eRPM wich is only 32 points to draw the sinewave!! I am pretty sure the issue is this, lack of resolution -- I can go now and try optimize the firmware, I have some ideas... anyway, the original firmware don't seem to run very well this motor, maybe because of this limitation... But the MicroWorks 30B4 board may have the same issue, since the PWM frequency is the same!! I think EUC motors have lower eRPM than this geared EBike motor. As for comparison, here is the MicroWorks 30B4 board running the OpenSource firmware with FOC:
  10. Firmware

    Good that finally you could understand that there are low cost hardware that does FOC ignoring motor flux and resistance -- that is what I did, after following Shane Colton documentation and firmware, for the OpenSource firmware to the MicroWorks 30B4 board. And for this Kunteng STM8 8 bits 16MHz EBike motor controller, I had to go even simplifying even more but it is still FOC, at least IMO -- anyway, the original firmware for sure does that so we had to figure it out and do it!! What I got today: No FOC, see the amount of current motor asks for the power supply: Now with very low resolution FOC, see the decreased amount of current -- the motor speed also increased But there are still some issues reading IQ current and the control results also in bad results sometimes, as seen the yellow phase B current is not a good sinewave:
  11. Firmware

    Sorry but you have no reason on this point - because the document from OnSemi that I linked and I am following "Field Oriented Control of Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motors" implements FOC and don't do any calculation of the magnetic fields, don't rely on know motor inductance and resistance values to determine magnetic properties. I am saying that I documented the theory math of "very low resolution FOC" and implemented it, following the concepts math of that OnSemi document.
  12. Firmware

    Why are you misleading?? Again: I did quote what I was talking about:
  13. Firmware

    I did quote what I was talking about: And my answer was: That is what you say but others like OnSemi and TI employees consider that is also possible not making that calculation. Seems you are not reading before answering.
  14. Firmware

    Yes, because would not be possible to do that calculation on this so limited microcontroller. But I found a simplification to read ID and IQ currents, avoiding the need to have a second phase current sensor and do clark and park calculations. I documented the simplification math here: That is what you say but others like OnSemi and TI employees consider that is also possible not making that calculation.
  15. Firmware

    See this document from OnSemi, with the implementation of FOC with only hall sensors, with tittle "Field Oriented Control of Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motors" that uses only hall sensors. I will keep calling FOC but explaining that is a "very low resolution FOC" in the case of this EBike controller that uses a 8 bits STM8 microcontroller running at 16MHz only!!, and only measures 1 phase current.
×