Re: Open source low cost servomotor controller
One of the issues I see with machine design and conversions is motor selection and power,
Agree.
The brushed DC servos on my machine are rated at about about 300 W with a 3:1 GT2 reduction onto a ~5 mm ball screw. I can't stall them.
The spindle motor is an industrial brushed DC motor RATED at about 500 W, and i have never stalled that either. Mind you, industrial DC motors are kinda rugged - I went 'oops' one time when I found it was taking ~1.5 kW for drilling titanium.
Merry Xmas
Roger
Re: Open source low cost servomotor controller
So the RC motors being discussed are about 1kW, but at 7000 rpm, so at 3500 rpm they are going to be 500W. Simple math tells us this. If you want to de-rate them to 500W at 3500 rpm there is nothing to say you can't. It would be easier on the motors. They are also very compact, so I would consider them a good choice.
What is the talk about belt reduction drives not being a good choice and causing lost precision, belt stretch, etc? Timing belt reductions have been used on these kind of applications for a long time and they have proven reliability and positioning precision is not an issue in a proper belt reduction system. With a 3600 rpm max at the motor, with 3mm pitch GT3 belts you could use a 15mm wide belt and it would handle about 600W of power. 15mm wide, not 55mm, and not HTD. At higher RPM you can still use the 15mm wide GT3, you just are a little limited on the small pulley diameter. GT3 belts handle more power and have a profile that is essentially zero backlash and much quieter than an HTD tooth profile. Nobody ever said anything about plastic timing belt pulleys either. Aluminum timing pulley are the norm and are readily available. The whole notion of belt stretch affecting precision to any degree is a bunch of hogwash.
Re: Open source low cost servomotor controller
Quote:
Originally Posted by
websrvr
So, have you given any thought to adding the MAX3097ECSE for direct connect and encoder input flexibility and also to take advantage of encoder signal error detection?
Yeah I thought about it. I haven't really seen any low cost encoders that have differential signalling (without adding a differential tx yourself ofc). If more people request it, I can put it on, but I am very conscious about keeping the part count to the minimum for cost reasons. If your application requires interfacing to differential encoder signals, you can make a small breakout for that chip and add it right before the single ended inputs to the ODrive.
1 Attachment(s)
Re: Open source low cost servomotor controller
So the RC motors being discussed are about 1kW
They might be 1 kW - for 10 seconds. But when you are machining for 3 hours straight, I can't help feeling that those tiny-very-low-thermal-mass RC motors might melt down. The 500 W industrial DC motor I am talking about probably weighs about 10 kg! Heating that up takes a long time.
And I agree 100% about the GT2/3 belts.
Attachment 344300
(On Z axis. Baldor DC spindle motor in background.)
Cheers
Roger
Re: Open source low cost servomotor controller
Quote:
Originally Posted by
macdowswe
Yeah they are open. I was thinking of making a shroud that houses a motor/encoder assembly, and that has an air inlet with an intake filter, and a fan for forced air cooling. This can probably increase the performance at low speeds fairly significantly since the motors own air cooling doesn't work unless they are spinning at high speed.
So about the cooling and thermal management of the motor, the above is the plan. Actually, just to enumerate some of the possible ways to prevent overheating:
1. Use reduction gearing to reduce torque required from motor
2. Oversize the motor
3. Use forced air cooling
4. Active thermal management/control, with motor temperature feedback (using a thermistor or similar)
5. Most importantly: lots of testing.
I think in the end there is a large range of motor sizes available, and the power to cost ratio of these motors is really good. So getting the right motor shouldn't be a big problem. After I get back to a proper workstation after the holidays, I will make a spreadsheet to help people pick motors for their application, and include some motors I recommend (and of course have it so people can add their own motors).
Re: Open source low cost servomotor controller
By the way guys, check this out! ODrive v3.1 being manufactured ;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVpCxpZ14NE
Re: Open source low cost servomotor controller
Quote:
Originally Posted by
109jb
So the RC motors being discussed are about 1kW, but at 7000 rpm, so at 3500 rpm they are going to be 500W. Simple math tells us this. If you want to de-rate them to 500W at 3500 rpm there is nothing to say you can't. It would be easier on the motors. They are also very compact, so I would consider them a good choice.
What is the talk about belt reduction drives not being a good choice and causing lost precision, belt stretch, etc? Timing belt reductions have been used on these kind of applications for a long time and they have proven reliability and positioning precision is not an issue in a proper belt reduction system. With a 3600 rpm max at the motor, with 3mm pitch GT3 belts you could use a 15mm wide belt and it would handle about 600W of power. 15mm wide, not 55mm, and not HTD. At higher RPM you can still use the 15mm wide GT3, you just are a little limited on the small pulley diameter. GT3 belts handle more power and have a profile that is essentially zero backlash and much quieter than an HTD tooth profile. Nobody ever said anything about plastic timing belt pulleys either. Aluminum timing pulley are the norm and are readily available. The whole notion of belt stretch affecting precision to any degree is a bunch of hogwash.
I think you need to re-examine your statement about stretch and precision unless you are moving a table with almost no weight or moving it so slowly that it's weight doesn't interfere.
You can be damn sure that many DIY builders have employed glass reinforced nylon pulleys due to cost so to state emphatically that all machines have aluminum or steel pulleys and is the norm is nothing shy of unsubstantiated, advised and recommended I can believe but reality has shown me differently.
I do diamond cutter-tip scribing at 150-200 IPM on a rack and pinion router throwing a 176lb gantry around, you want me to believe that a GT2 or GT3 belt wont snap like a rubber band, good luck with that logic.
So you also don't think slinging a 60lb or more table at >200IPM then abruptly stopping it wont bounce/stretch a GT2 or GT3 belt?
I've checked some of my tables, my small 16.535in x 9.055in x 1.9685in (420mm x 230mm x 50mm) mill table weighs 68lbs, my rapids are 590IPM, when the machine was not bolted to a pedestal it would slide across the floor during rapids and the machine weighs over 600lbs, using a GT2/GT3 belt would be an exercise in stupidity, but, if you think it wont stretch or bounce knock yourself out and let us know how that works for you moving something that has any weight.
I have some larger tables upwards of 135lbs (24in x 16in x 2.5in) with 590IPM rapids and 100% table travel, there is no way I would put anything less than HTD8 as a drive belt or anything less than 1.5KW servo motor to move it.
Now ignoring the issues with inertia alone, if you don't program your mach3 or linuxcnc to have a fairly mild acceleration/deceleration curve you're asking for trouble because if it's aggressive you can kiss that belt good-bye quickly.
The motor in the link sees a lot more than 7,000RPM but at 6,000RPM (2:1 pulley reduction = 3000RPM) the inertia of a 60lb table would still cause belt bounce/stretch and affect precision with GT2/3 x 15mm, now you want to reduce the speed from well over 15KRPM to 3.5KRPM and expect decent bang for your buck, that would be very unlikely, it's no longer cost effective unless you have the motors in hand, access to a mill and lathe to redesign the motor body, add forced air cooling and a cheap encoder and it's still going to be expensive.
Maybe it's just me but I expect a machine to operate just like it's bigger brothers so mechanical limitations by design need to be minimized as much as possible and not be a restriction, milling off dovetails and installing linear rails is an inexpensive hardware modification but the cost of rail can be cheap to expensive depending on your taste but they will heavily impact motion due to reduced drag so anyone thinking that a GT2/GT3 belt wont stretch or that precision wont be affected has no clue about acceleration, deceleration and inertia or only plays with toys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
macdowswe
Yeah I thought about it. I haven't really seen any low cost encoders that have differential signalling (without adding a differential tx yourself ofc). If more people request it, I can put it on, but I am very conscious about keeping the part count to the minimum for cost reasons. If your application requires interfacing to differential encoder signals, you can make a small breakout for that chip and add it right before the single ended inputs to the ODrive.
I haven't seen any low cost encoders worth a dam in a servo application where high RPM is a basic fundamental operating principal and your electrical design will still utilizes single ended encoder lines to the MCU but with buffering, protection and error detection giving greater flexibility to the type of encoder that is supported.
The cost is minimal for adding this IC and the few components but if you're concern is chip count over functionality, please recommend that all users use the motor and encoder you specify to ensure they have no compatibility or connection issues and provide the plans to convert the motor as needed.
Because not everyone will be using the motor and encoder you use, if you're not interested in the flexibility it offers, don't worry about it, I'll wait for you to finish the design and then I'll pay someone to generate eagle files for me and have the chip added for my own use, the thought of using expensive motors with cheap crappy encoders isn't very appealing since I can make BLDC servo motors with industry standard encoders for less or buy a small quantity of them when my friend does a run than the cost of buying those 6364 or 6374 out-runners not including the cost of converting and encoder.
The flexibility of encoder connection just by employing the chip makes logical sense and this isn't taking into account the encoder error detection as an added bonus just by adding the chip.
Re: Open source low cost servomotor controller
Quote:
I think you need to re-examine your statement about stretch and precision unless you are moving a table with almost no weight or moving it so slowly that it's weight doesn't interfere.
No I don't think I need to reconsider anything. There are many many machines built that have used belts for reduction drives on their axes, and have done so successfully with precision that is more than adequate for the intended applications. To say otherwise totally ignores those successful applications. As a matter of fact there are machines using narrow XL belt profiles on RF-45 size machines running at +200 IPM speeds and doing so successfully, but the GT2/3 is a better choice in my opinion.
Quote:
You can be damn sure that many DIY builders have employed glass reinforced nylon pulleys due to cost so to state emphatically that all machines have aluminum or steel pulleys and is the norm is nothing shy of unsubstantiated, advised and recommended I can believe but reality has shown me differently.
You can be damn sure thatnobody stated "emphatically" that all machines use aluminum or steel pulleys? Show me where that was said. It wasn't and any claim that it was is just BS. What was said was that aluminum was the norm and I stand by that. Sure some have used non-metal sprockets. However, by and large, the build threads on this forum show that the most commonly used are the aluminum pulleys. You can argue that all you want and you would be wrong. While speaking of non-metal pulleys, you are apparently claiming that they are so rubbery or so prone to exploding that they are not appropriate for using in a precision application. This has no basis in reality. When used appropriately they can be every bit as precise, accurate and reliable as metal. To say otherwise is wrong and totally unsubstantiated.
Quote:
I do diamond cutter-tip scribing at 150-200 IPM on a rack and pinion router throwing a 176lb gantry around, you want me to believe that a GT2 or GT3 belt wont snap like a rubber band, good luck with that logic.
You either mi-interpreted my post, or you are intentionally twisting it to fit your argument. Either way, your argument has nothing to do with what I was referring to. I was referring to a belt reduction drive, not an entire belt drive axis. This was clearly stated and you have clearly ignored it.
Quote:
So you also don't think slinging a 60lb or more table at >200IPM then abruptly stopping it wont bounce/stretch a GT2 or GT3 belt?
No I don't. When talking about the kind of belt drive I was referring to, which is a GT2/3 driving a ball screw or any other screw drive axis it won’t stretch or bounce enough to have any appreciable effect on precision. Once again, if it does then you have mis-designed the system. I have seen belt drives such as this doing way more than that. Some of the mentioned RF-45 builds sling a head around vertically that weighs about 150 pounds at those kind of speeds while employing a belt drive on the screw. You can state otherwise but the fact that those machines exist and perform well is an irrefutable fact.
Quote:
I've checked some of my tables, my small 16.535in x 9.055in x 1.9685in (420mm x 230mm x 50mm) mill table weighs 68lbs, my rapids are 590IPM, when the machine was not bolted to a pedestal it would slide across the floor during rapids and the machine weighs over 600lbs, using a GT2/GT3 belt would be an exercise in stupidity, but, if you think it wont stretch or bounce knock yourself out and let us know how that works for you moving something that has any weight.
I have some larger tables upwards of 135lbs (24in x 16in x 2.5in) with 590IPM rapids and 100% table travel, there is no way I would put anything less than HTD8 as a drive belt or anything less than 1.5KW servo motor to move it.
Now ignoring the issues with inertia alone, if you don't program your mach3 or linuxcnc to have a fairly mild acceleration/deceleration curve you're asking for trouble because if it's aggressive you can kiss that belt good-bye quickly.
So since it won't work in your specific application then it is apparently no good for anybody else's application. The way belts snap is if their capacities are exceeded. Nobody said to exceed the capabilities of the belt and design criteria was mentioned that would prevent exceeding the capabilities. If the manufacturers design criteria shows that the belt pulley combination can take the maximum torque that the motor can apply then the belt will not snap. It can't because if the maximum torque of the motor is exceeded then the motor will slip and the belt will not break.
Quote:
The motor in the link sees a lot more than 7,000RPM but at 6,000RPM (2:1 pulley reduction = 3000RPM) the inertia of a 60lb table would still cause belt bounce/stretch and affect precision with GT2/3 x 15mm, now you want to reduce the speed from well over 15KRPM to 3.5KRPM and expect decent bang for your buck, that would be very unlikely, it's no longer cost effective unless you have the motors in hand, access to a mill and lathe to redesign the motor body, add forced air cooling and a cheap encoder and it's still going to be expensive.
I don’t know what motor you are looking at, but the motor in the link is 350Kv, so at 24V it is 8400 rpm max. Used as a hobby motor the recommended battery is 5S max or 18.5V, yielding a 6475 maximum rpm. Not sure where you are getting the 15,000 rpms from but it isn't from the motor specs for the linked motor. In any case, lowering the max rpm is a trade-off that is at the user’s discretion and the maximum speed of the motor is not what is listed on the motor specifications but is what the system limits it to. Yes, reducing the rpm will reduce the power available, which was mentioned, but this kind of trade-off is made every day in industrial applications. As for as bang for the buck, if you don't think that the motor delivers enough to satisfy you them don't use it, but don’t try to dictate how others will value the motor. I for one see it as a low cost motor that has readily available brand new replacements I can buy at a click of a button. That alone has some value to me.
Quote:
Maybe it's just me but I expect a machine to operate just like it's bigger brothers so mechanical limitations by design need to be minimized as much as possible and not be a restriction, milling off dovetails and installing linear rails is an inexpensive hardware modification but the cost of rail can be cheap to expensive depending on your taste but they will heavily impact motion due to reduced drag so anyone thinking that a GT2/GT3 belt wont stretch or that precision wont be affected has no clue about acceleration, deceleration and inertia or only plays with toys.
Maybe it’s just me but what you want from your machine may not be what others want and you are applying your criteria to everyone. You stating the reasons why a motor or belt drive won't work for you and your specific application doesn't mean that they won't work just fine for someone else. Stating your reasons as if they are set in stone is pure crap. What you have no clue about is how others want to use their machines and applying your criteria in this kind of broad brush fashion to someone else's machine is unjustified.
Re: Open source low cost servomotor controller
Websrv,
If I had the choice, I would use differential encoder outputs but those encoders do cost more. Plenty of us digital, avago, HP/Agilent single ended encoders are being used today just perfectly fine. Just as servo drivers that are only single ended encoder input such as Geckodrive and leadshine. I have about a dozen Gecko320's that's been running for years. Those companies sell thousands of them.
You don't need expensive encoders either. amt/cui encoders work well and under $25. AMS magnetic encoders are even cheaper.
You can always add external differential encoder line drivers if you require them.
The idea here is to get brushless driver/motor technology on a hobbyist budget. A single new tamagawa encoder that you propose cost more than the driver itself. Doesn't matter if you can get Tamagawa encoders and brushless servo motors for cheap. If we can't easily buy them at the same price, what's the point of even mentioning them.
Re: Open source low cost servomotor controller
From a technical, electronics-engineering PoV, a single-ended line driver is just as good as a differential line driver up to a point. If the distance is under a few metres, there is some screening around the cable, a 'hard' line-driver is used and the frequency is under (say) 500 kHz, then going differential brings little extra value. Many computer busses run at tens of MegaHertz like this - albeit slightly shorter. If you need to run at 100 MHz over 10 metres, then you go differential - like a twisted pair Ethernet cable.
The commercial market is a good guide for this. Huge numbers of single-ended encoders are available, and most servo-drivers can take single-ended encoder inputs. All of which means that commercial system builders around the world are happy to run single-ended.
I looked at converting my system to differential when I was rebuilding it. The cost would have been negligible for me, but it was not worth the bother. Instead I put in some optical isolation at the receiver end, and focused on getting that to run at MHz speed.
As for the belts business - we have had that argument here many times before. The older X and L types of belts may have given some problems, especially if mounted wrongly, but the modern GT2/3 belts (and variants) pump kWatts of power at high speed with no visible backlash. To be sure, if you have not used them, it might seem a big claim, but again, check the commercial marketplace for acceptance. Sales are ... huge.
Cheers
Roger
Re: Open source low cost servomotor controller
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jfong
Websrv,
If I had the choice, I would use differential encoder outputs but those encoders do cost more. Plenty of us digital, avago, HP/Agilent single ended encoders are being used today just perfectly fine. Just as servo drivers that are only single ended encoder input such as Geckodrive and leadshine. I have about a dozen Gecko320's that's been running for years. Those companies sell thousands of them.
You don't need expensive encoders either. amt/cui encoders work well and under $25. AMS magnetic encoders are even cheaper.
You can always add external differential encoder line drivers if you require them.
The idea here is to get brushless driver/motor technology on a hobbyist budget. A single new tamagawa encoder that you propose cost more than the driver itself. Doesn't matter if you can get Tamagawa encoders and brushless servo motors for cheap. If we can't easily buy them at the same price, what's the point of even mentioning them.
A china factory is now cloning the Tamagwa 16,000RPM 2500PPR quadrature encoder for one of my works customers at a cost of $26.50/ea but come in a box of 24 so a cheap source is available if you need to make a couple dozen motors and I have the advantage of buying them in quantities of 3 or 4 on occasion so making a set of motors for a machine I'm building after the project is finished and I have the design modified or building 48 motors to sell could be something to consider if a supporting driver existed and I had the money to waste on stocking a product for sale.
Measuring cable length on my BT20 machine, the length from the X-axis motor to X-axis driver is 12M but Y-axis cable length is only 3.5M and Z-axis cable length is 6M so using differential encoders is prefered
Yes you can suggest that people could just build a board to support differential encoders and skip the encoder error detection to use with ODrive but to me that's a solution for an incorrectly designed product so I'll go that extra mile when it's done and pay to have it added it to get the flexibility in encoder support so I don't have to make a separate board which doesn't take advantage of the available encoder error detection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
109jb
No I don't think I need to reconsider anything. There are many many machines built that have used belts for reduction drives on their axes, and have done so successfully with precision that is more than adequate for the intended applications. To say otherwise totally ignores those successful applications. As a matter of fact there are machines using narrow XL belt profiles on RF-45 size machines running at +200 IPM speeds and doing so successfully, but the GT2/3 is a better choice in my opinion.
You can be damn sure thatnobody stated "emphatically" that all machines use aluminum or steel pulleys? Show me where that was said. It wasn't and any claim that it was is just BS. What was said was that aluminum was the norm and I stand by that. Sure some have used non-metal sprockets. However, by and large, the build threads on this forum show that the most commonly used are the aluminum pulleys. You can argue that all you want and you would be wrong. While speaking of non-metal pulleys, you are apparently claiming that they are so rubbery or so prone to exploding that they are not appropriate for using in a precision application. This has no basis in reality. When used appropriately they can be every bit as precise, accurate and reliable as metal. To say otherwise is wrong and totally unsubstantiated.
I have personally exploded a GT3-127T-12 GRN pulley spinning at 12,000RPM and stopping it and switched to the bullet-proof KRP pulley because I was concerned the size and weight of the aluminum pulley might distort it's shape permanently.
I'm not denying that the GT2/GT3 is a better profile over the XL and definitely quieter at low RPM over the HTD and seem suitable for spindle driving up to 2.2KW where low mass/inertia are present but it's high mass/inertia that are belt killers.
In post #98 you state that aluminum pulleys are the norm and now you state that the posts here commonly use aluminum pulleys and this may be so but it doens't make it the industry norm, just the norm here, if you really want to split hairs, this is 100% incorrect as the majority of the machines I see on a daily basis are employing composite (GRN - glass reinforced nylon or KRP - kevlar reinforced polypropylene) pulleys but in reality, direct drive is the norm and I have yet to see a composite pulley fail before it's aluminum twin when used with 4,000RPM MAX servo motors.
One of the links in his (macdowswe) post to hobby-king is for an SK3 6374-149kv, with a max voltage of 70VDC and the SK3 4250-350kv you point to has a max voltage of 19VDC, of course people overdrive these motors without thought or really understanding it's intended electrical design but I wouldn't advise or recommend it, I'd find a 24V BLDC motor and operate it at 24V.
Also, ODrive wont handle this current requirement as some other real time tests are reporting the motor is a gutless wonder if the current is restricted or limited and that it doesn't start to generate any power when the current is below 15A and this 1007W (not 1190W as advertised) is input power, since the motor is only 66% efficient output power is only 671W, 19V@53A and you think 24V@6A using ODrive to power it is going to fly?
My china clone 6364-250kv hits 6,100RPM at 24V and draws 6A (noload) and peaks at 19A and gives 310W of output, this is almost suitable if it weren't for the peak current, the required forced-air cooling and the > $80.00 price tag.
Out runner as a spindle motors is another example, I wont go into how wrong it is for the general hobbyist to make a AIO spindle from an out-runner motor without decent plans to follow or some serious knowledge in spindle loading forces and design criteria but they do it just the same.
I get a kick out of those that make a body, drop in a couple of cheap multi-purpose deep groove bearings and an ER16 or ER20 collet head and think they've got a MAC-DADDY spindle, only the smart guys will use a dual row angular contact bearing in the nose of the spindle for bi-directional thrust forces because they expect the thing to stand up to the abusive forces of cutting without eating the bearings or living more than 3 months.
I've not applied my criteria to anyone else, I simply state if you have weight to move, small skinny belts are unwise to employ and you refuse to acknowledge this making claims that the belt wont stretch or break and this is unrealistic and hilarious.
Because some yahoo has BT2-15 belts on his RF45 doesn't mean much if his acceleration/deceleration curves are so mild that the ramp-up/ramp-down speed prevent the motion from achieving >100IPM for a movement of less than 4in or ever moving faster than 200IPM.
The table travel is small, it's a dovetail machine and with the gibs tightened down it probably helps control runaway inertia by restricting movement and the table only weighs 47lbs but I couldn't call it a good quality machine that's prime for a CNC conversion without doing some serious reworking and dumping the dovetails for some unrestricted linear motion capabilities which very few do.
I've never seen an RF45 or even an RF45N2F (it has a larger table) move at more than 200IPM rapids and never cutting (a serious cut like 0.250in with a 1/2in, not a .025in pass with a 1/4in end mill) above 50IPM without noticing head deflection so it's not in my opinion a reasonable example of a real machine, it's a large toy.
Oh, again my mistake, when I say REAL machine, I am referring to a smaller version of a REAL larger machine such as a CadetMate 6030 or CadetMate 7040 where the only different is the physical size of the machine.
So despite all your bickering, your choice of a new (click to buy) BLDC motor, aluminum to make a new body, new bearings from VXB, 4150 steel for a new shaft, a new encoder from a source with an endless supply for others to buy them, a new fan, connectors and terminals of appropriate size and current rating, hardware to assemble it will cost more than I can produce a 48V or 60V 500W servo motor with a 2500PPR quadrature encoder that wont have any heat issues or require any external cooling.
Oh, I've got a novel idea, why don't you create a kit and sell it to the users here, I'm sure they would be happy to buy your parts and buy the hobbyking motor and assemble it themselves as a cheap solution.
I've ordered your 4250-350kv motor from hobbyking, when it arrives I'll connect it to my dyno and can then better comment on it but I doubt it's going to provide any eye opening results.
Now if you want to talk about spindles, your 4250-350kv wont cut it as a spindle motor if you need some serious power with RPM, with the help of a friend I've made my own 0-12,000RPM 220V 3-PH asynchronous servo spindle motor with an output rating of 3HP in a really small size (90mm x 90mm x 260mm) belt driving a BT20 ATC spindle and while cheaper than purchasing a commercial product, if you don't have access to precision lathes and mills and balancing equipment to do the work I wouldn't recommend it (you can have it balanced at a electric motor repair shop if you can do everything else) and I have yet to see a BLDC solution that can come close for the same or less money and nothing in a small size that doesn't have heat issues.
Because someone does a CNC conversion on a machine such as an RF45, it doesn't mean a whole lot when in the conversion process they plan to create limitation in movement speed to save a buck, you only see people posting about their builds if they're either doing it right or doing it cheap.
You can't have it both ways if you expect it to be duplicated by another person (because you have motors doesn't make it cheap for the next guy who doesn't) and people tend to follow the most successful build they can afford to follow, replacing the leadscrews and dovetails with linear rails and precision ground ballscrews on an RF45 is the correct way to do it but it sure isn't the cheap way to do it.
Now ODrive is being created to support single ended encoder signals and there is a difference between transistor and transmitter outputs and even with transistor outputs there are two types, NPN (most common) and PNP and they respond differently, personally I prefer a quadrature differential line transmission type but as long as a dependable source for the specified encoder (new) is provided I have no issues using it but encoder flexibility is currently limited to single ended transistor output encoders so making a decent servo motor available at a cheap price with such an encoder isn't a consideration I'd be willing to make.
Now you want to talk about flexibility and how everyone is different and can decide how they want to build things and this is false, this option is nonexistant with respect to encoders and ODrive, people are buying the board, and they can't just connect any encoder because line receivers are not employed and the device is set up and tested with the OP's encoder on hand so flexibility is limited to the type currently employed and tested so now people have no choice in the encoder they can use if they can't make or buy a board that gives them the connections for the encoder in the motors they bought or made.
You must tell them they can use any encoder they want as long as it's a single ended transistor output type.
Re: Open source low cost servomotor controller
I have personally exploded a GT3-127T-12 GRN pulley spinning at 12,000RPM and stopping it
You wouldn't have a photo of the remians by any chance. I would LOVE to see that.
the length from the X-axis motor to X-axis driver is 12M but Y-axis cable length is only 3.5M and Z-axis cable length is 6M so using differential encoders is prefered
12 m? Have to agree there. Some nice RS422 driver chips such as 26LV31E maybe? That's what I have used in the past.
Cheers
Roger