3 ms·

Actually the gear shifting would also be done by logic, so nothing gained by that.

Mithaldu 9y ago
Not quite. In order to lower the torque on a stepper motor you need to have the logic controlling the motor control the torque for every single step the motor takes and that can switch from low to high between two steps. You can ward against this either with continuously checking logic or the torque limiters Animats mentioned: https://www.mayr.com/en/products/torque-limiters https://www.mayr.com/en/products/torque-limiters If the inception drive is set to low torque a second motor needs to actively set it to a higher torque, which you can guard against by cutting power to the second one while in low torque mode, and having mechanical interlocks that cut power entirely if the shape of the drive changes to a high torque configuration while it's supposed to be low torque. Neither of these require continuous logic.
- kodfodrasz 9y ago
  How cannot you have a continous checking logic in the driver logic of a gearless drive? Let me help: you can, and I have taken part in developing one.
  - Mithaldu 9y ago
    Link to patent?
    - kodfodrasz 9y ago
      Lol? Electric servos for steering wheels use safety critical code, with lot of safety checks, and use direct drive. No need for silly patent for common sense out of the United States.
      - Mithaldu 9y ago
        What's the difference between continous checking logic and safety critical code with lot of safety checks? I'm not a mech engineer, i do code. I'm asking to learn and if you can prove me wrong by teaching something, yay.
        kodfodrasz 9y ago
        Those safety checks need to be run continously, actually, or the software will not get the certifications necessary to be released on the roads. There are passive means: practices and coding guidelines, static checks, but also active measures: defensive coding, redundancy, continously active safety check logics. So my original point was: it doesn't matter if you use direct drive or a transmission, as both will be controlled by software, and ultimately the safety of that software will determine whether the System is safe overall. The same design principles and safeguards will need to be implemented in both cases to provide the needed integrity. But I doubt there are any patents on this. I guess it would be illogical to demand vendors to use patents by someone. But there are lots safety regulations on the topic.
        Mithaldu 9y ago
        Fair enough, and it makes sense. Thanks for explaining. :)

Not quite. In order to lower the torque on a stepper motor you need to have the logic controlling the motor control the torque for every single step the motor takes and that can switch from low to high between two steps. You can ward against this either with continuously checking logic or the torque limiters Animats mentioned: https://www.mayr.com/en/products/torque-limiters https://www.mayr.com/en/products/torque-limiters If the inception drive is set to low torque a second motor needs to actively set it to a higher torque, which you can guard against by cutting power to the second one while in low torque mode, and having mechanical interlocks that cut power entirely if the shape of the drive changes to a high torque configuration while it's supposed to be low torque. Neither of these require continuous logic.

kodfodrasz 9y ago
How cannot you have a continous checking logic in the driver logic of a gearless drive? Let me help: you can, and I have taken part in developing one.
- Mithaldu 9y ago
  Link to patent?
  - kodfodrasz 9y ago
    Lol? Electric servos for steering wheels use safety critical code, with lot of safety checks, and use direct drive. No need for silly patent for common sense out of the United States.
    - Mithaldu 9y ago
      What's the difference between continous checking logic and safety critical code with lot of safety checks? I'm not a mech engineer, i do code. I'm asking to learn and if you can prove me wrong by teaching something, yay.
      - kodfodrasz 9y ago
        Those safety checks need to be run continously, actually, or the software will not get the certifications necessary to be released on the roads. There are passive means: practices and coding guidelines, static checks, but also active measures: defensive coding, redundancy, continously active safety check logics. So my original point was: it doesn't matter if you use direct drive or a transmission, as both will be controlled by software, and ultimately the safety of that software will determine whether the System is safe overall. The same design principles and safeguards will need to be implemented in both cases to provide the needed integrity. But I doubt there are any patents on this. I guess it would be illogical to demand vendors to use patents by someone. But there are lots safety regulations on the topic.
        Mithaldu 9y ago
        Fair enough, and it makes sense. Thanks for explaining. :)