Voice coil motor force control using slow decay mode

AI Thread Summary
Controlling a voice coil motor's force involves managing the current through its coil, which can be reversed using an H-bridge. The discussion highlights the use of a "chop drive" current control method, where the duty cycle regulates average current. Two decay modes are explained: slow decay, where the inductor discharges through its resistance, maintaining force in the original direction, and fast decay, where negative supply voltage accelerates current decay. The interaction of induced currents due to motor velocity and back EMF is crucial in both modes, affecting braking and generation. The key takeaway is that the coil's force is determined by the instantaneous current, factoring in both decay and induced currents.
lagfish
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I am trying to control a voice coil motor's force, which is directly proportional to the current through its coil. The direction of the force needs to be reversed, so I thought an H-bridge would be a good way to do it. I have read a lot about H-bridges but I am still confused about a few points. I am using a "chop drive" current control. Please tell me if the following makes sense:
A chop drive switches the coil voltage between supply and "off", the duty cycle of which determines the average current. However, a inductive load cannot be turned off conventionally, as the collapsing magnetic field will induce a massive potential that will destroy all switches. There are two modes of turning the coil "off": slow decay and fast decay.

During slow decay, the inductor is shorted to itself, and the inductor discharges through its own coil resistance the on resistance of the two switches. The induced magnetic field, although decaying, is still present and continues to provide a force proportional to the current and in the same direction as previous. If the motor has a velocity, the movement of the coil through the permanent magnet's field will induce a second current in the coil opposite in direction, as per Faraday and Lenz's Laws. This induced current will increase the rate of current decay. When the voltage in the inductor becomes less than the back EMF, which is equivalent to saying the decaying current becomes less than the velocity induced current, the current will switch directions and the induced magnetic field will oppose the permanent magnet's field, providing braking.

During fast decay, the inductor sees negative supply voltage, and the rate of current decay should be equal to the curreng rising rate. If the motor is in motion, the induced current will again help increase the rate of decay. Since the back EMF is the same sign as the supply, the velocity will provide generation.

In either cases, the force produced by the coil is equal to its instantaneous current, which is the decaying current minus the velocity induced current.
Am I getting this right?
Thanks in advance.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
anyone?
 
Very basic question. Consider a 3-terminal device with terminals say A,B,C. Kirchhoff Current Law (KCL) and Kirchhoff Voltage Law (KVL) establish two relationships between the 3 currents entering the terminals and the 3 terminal's voltage pairs respectively. So we have 2 equations in 6 unknowns. To proceed further we need two more (independent) equations in order to solve the circuit the 3-terminal device is connected to (basically one treats such a device as an unbalanced two-port...
suppose you have two capacitors with a 0.1 Farad value and 12 VDC rating. label these as A and B. label the terminals of each as 1 and 2. you also have a voltmeter with a 40 volt linear range for DC. you also have a 9 volt DC power supply fed by mains. you charge each capacitor to 9 volts with terminal 1 being - (negative) and terminal 2 being + (positive). you connect the voltmeter to terminal A2 and to terminal B1. does it read any voltage? can - of one capacitor discharge + of the...
Thread 'Weird near-field phenomenon I get in my EM simulation'
I recently made a basic simulation of wire antennas and I am not sure if the near field in my simulation is modeled correctly. One of the things that worry me is the fact that sometimes I see in my simulation "movements" in the near field that seems to be faster than the speed of wave propagation I defined (the speed of light in the simulation). Specifically I see "nodes" of low amplitude in the E field that are quickly "emitted" from the antenna and then slow down as they approach the far...
Back
Top