They work with low voltage just with lower efficiency than low voltage mosfet inverters


this efficiency is so SLIGHTLY lower that the huge gain from the price outweighs the huge advantage in the direction of cheap inverters from Outlander, Honda or note-e power.
The very inexpensive rear ...

This point alone will probably keep me away from the Leaf inverter and the openinverter control board.
The boat should have 30-40 kW available from 2 motors for short burst, but the reality is it will move the majority of time with 5-15 kW from one or two motors.
Low speed is key to have range ...

Is there also chance that efficiency of IGBT in 400V controller working at 58V will be lower than mosfets inside 72V controller?




it will work with very high efficiency. even 600 amps will be available to you for a short time. It is much more difficult to get them at high voltage from a ...

yabert wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 6:23 pm Do you think this can be done with the Leaf controller + openinverter control board?

Yes!

even if you are using the wrong order of connecting the phases and PWM channels of the drivers, then you need to go all the way through configuring the correct syncofs.
but I repeat, the correct value for your motor is 0 with an O.I. v3 board.

the problem is with your syncofs. it should be 0 for the nissan leaf motor.

So is the net effect more power in field weakening? One thing I'm still a bit worried about was that at higher speeds (I think about 8000 rpm on a Leaf motor) I was still getting occasional unwanted acceleration. Changing the syncadv seemed to help, but now anything that has to do with syncadv ...

Here is a test where syncadv is applied for forward transform and applied 2x for backward transform. I'm too afraid to test it with full 400V ;)

https://github.com/jsphuebner/stm32-sine/actions/runs/14215111311



I was able to check so far at low voltage, but even now, with syncadv = 10 and ...

it is not possible to download the .bin file

I don't have any projects with 400 volts right now.
only 130 volts are at hand, but I will definitely check!

Zieg wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 7:43 pm , ...or pmsm as well? ...

It's about pmsm (foc)

I am ashamed, but I am not familiar with Clark))
however, I am absolutely sure that if every 1 syncadv shifts the real syncofs by 100 values, then with a syncadv value of 20 we are guaranteed to permanently solve the problem of loss of control.

I just thought of the difference between a static syncofs offset and the dynamic syncadv: syncofs is applied to both forward and backward Clarke tranformation wheres syncadv is only applied to backward transformation.
Makes me wonder should I maybe apply syncadv to forward Clarke and 2*syncadv to ...

I think it's worth checking the change in the syncadv parameter in the countryside on a forest road without people and cars, under load.
but it won't be soon. The weather doesn't allow it yet.
When I check it, I will definitely give you feedback.

so. the correct syncofs was 600.
when the fwcurmax is -210, the motor does not stop (syncadv = 10), setting the syncofs to 1100 stops the motor perfectly at syncadv 10
. next, I returned the syncofs to the correct 600 units, and syncadv = 15. the motor did not stop. I increased by 5 and then by 10 ...

This is valuable information!
I'll definitely check it out.
yes, it is likely that the correct syncadv will be 15

is it equal for every 100 hz? (200 hz = offset by 2000?) or once when a given frequency is reached?

8) yes a more or less known limitation. If syncadv doesn't solve it I have no idea :(


The syncadv parameter is set for each of its units of value by how many units will the syncofs parameter change? will it change for the better or for the less?
when I increase the syncofs value by 1500 ...

it would be great if there was a drop-down menu option for changing the torque/speed control mode.
now this requires changing three parameters, and I can't imagine how this can be changed with one button by sending a can bus command.
and if such a change is a single parameter, then it can be ...

there is always a foc version.
different projects. different inverters.
Yes, I have already realized that all cars where the choice of direction is a button are devoid of the charm of cruise control or limiter.
here is one of my common parameters for an outlander's rear inverter :

it's time to collect all the inconsistencies of this firmware in the hope of correcting them in subsequent releases (in any case, this is all that I personally identified)
1) if reverse gear is turned on and you have already stopped, then with a 99% probability pressing the brake will cause the ...

Hello, guys!
I've lived to see the time when I needed BiDir mode and speed control again, not torque. And here's the trouble, the sadness, it was impossible to achieve rotation with the new foc firmware. Rollback to version 5.27 and everything works fine. So in the new firmware version (5.35 foc ...

the first screen is the operation of the inverter in boost mode. The input voltage is 54.5 volts. The input current is 57 amps.

Is it possible in future releases to increase the charging current limit to at least 250 amps instead of 50?
If you use boost mode from a 220 volt home outlet via a diode bridge, everything is fine and the 50 amp limit is sufficient.
I use a 72-cell battery and a full voltage of 304 volts.
for ...

it's probably worth noting that I solder already stitched Wi-Fi modules using a separate programmer for this.