Dual receivers for the win perhaps?
2 Likes
Yeah, what’s the point of going with split ppm when you can use two receivers?
You see any downsides except you need the extra 1"x0,5" room for the second receiver?
4 Likes
That severely limits what remote you can use.
1 Like
in other words those remotes aren’t correctly designed 
3 Likes
LOL, so the only correctly designed remote is the mini?
You are not invited @b264, we all know your opinion 
.
3 Likes
GT2B
10damon
Would it be an idea to start thinking about some kind of redundancy incase of a failure on the master VESC?
Would it be possible have a single receiver and a PCB with gubbin’s between the controllers to just send the PPM signal without the GRN issue that I dont understand?
I highly recommend dual receivers over split PWM (“PPM”).
3 Likes
How do you set that up?
1 Like
Thats the video i used when i built my 1st board almost 3 yrs ago. Great learning video.
1 Like
I mean he’s saying that’s what he did…
No?
But he speaks as though the Trampa VESC 6 is the only VESC in the world. He gives advice in the VESC 6 like that advice applies to all VESCs, when in fact it is one of the least used VESCs for esk8.
3 Likes
I mean I feel like that’s more your interpretation than anything else.
The entire exchange was started with
Which is objectively true. It does cause a ground loop and it CAN depending on the ESC kill voltage regulators.
While it’s not a problem for most ESC’s, I’d agree on that
You proceeded to respond with
Which is false, the information he gave is 100% correct, it seems you missed the qualifying words “depending on the ESC”
You responded with an inflammatory comment (while I’m sure that wasn’t your intention, that’s how it came across)
And the thread devolved from there Trampa’s stance simply seems to be hey there’s many different hardware variations we don’t recommend doing this for x y and z reason.
Just because people have been doing something for years doesn’t make it a good idea.
There was no mention of trampa specific VESC’s until you brought them up.
I disagree with this statement, it seems you have a bias that leaves you unable to effectively communicate with him.
You are seeing what you want to see here.
Frank isn’t free of fault here either, he definitely knows how to push your buttons.
But advising against split ppm!=Marketing
It feels like you have more of an agenda here then frank.
1 Like
Think of it like that: You habe a basin with a water level of x mm . A pump is installed to allways keep that water level. The system works just fine and the level is kept at the required level. Now install a second pump and that is calibrated a bit different (x +2mm). That pump will try to raise the water level a bit. The first pump will now start to work against that and the second pump will react to the first pump trying to lower the level again. Pretty soon both pumps will run full power to try their best to regulate to their water level x. This can make the pumps run hot and one of the two pumps will loose the battle. Depending on the system, your pumps will make it for a longer or shorter period. FAKT is: the two pumps are under constant strain.
Voltage regulators are always a tiny bit off.
Two identical regulators would output two slightly different voltages. As soon as you couple them, the fight starts. In consequence you always try to avoid that scenario.
If we are talking about reliability of a system, the last thing you want to do is make it less reliable by putting components under constant strain.
So the only way to resolve that matter if you want to run twin PPM is usage of two receivers.
I’m not gonna debate your feeling with you. It is a FACT that dozens of people have used split PPM successfully to resolve multiple design flaws in the VESC. Go read a bit and you will see.
Correct, and I never said it did. I does however provide a provable example that “dont use split PPM, it will kill your voltage regulators” is an incorrect statement.
You can disagree, you don’t even have to say “I disagree”, that’s an obvious conclusion since your arguing against it. That’s what we do here, hash out stuff until the facts present themselves.
quote=“stratoglide, post:74, topic:2479”]
it seems you have a bias that leaves you unable to effectively communicate with him.
[/quote]
This statement is petty and unreasonable, I DO take offense to it as it paints me as an unreasonable person, and I am not. I have proven my stance, you have proven nothing other than you have feeling and you disagree, both of which have no value in this discussion.
I’m gonna ignore the rest of your Trampa fanboy arguments as logically they have a null value.
Also, I would like to add…all of the opinions you have stated are based on what you read in one message. This disagreement between me and Frank has been going on for years and there are many messages that are a part of it. Maybe in the future you could do a bit of research before you expound on the behaviour of someone that has built 40 plus boards over a 3 year period, has donated thousands of dollars worth of hardware to other users, donated many designs and design elements to the community and has spent hundreds of hours in assisting other users.
This analogy is faulty on too many levels too take them all separately, suffice it to say you and your boy shouldn’t have designed a junk basin so people NEED 2 pumps occasionally.
You talking in theory. I am saying specifically there are VESC’s that have underperforming and faulty design CAN bus circuitry, the practice of split PPM resolves that issue…for some people. When you throw out blanket advice that only applies to a small portion of the VESC’s in use you are spreading misinformation not doing the community a service.
1 Like
Maybe clones… VESCs don’t have faulty designed CAN cirquitry. They are all 60V tolerant.
Calling a pre 1.7 FocBox a clone of the VESC6 is just silly on multiple levels. They are dissimilar hardware and there is prolly 10 FocBox’s in use for every VESC 6. I’m not gonna debate the TM thing with you again. I will call a VESC a VESC, and will continue too. Feel free to sue me over it.
I’m basing this off of years of posts so it is unfair to paint that kind of picture. I’m not basing it off one thread although I can see why you might think that
Just another random third party observing what I see, And i do not own any Trampa products although I did somewhat reluctantly order a wand. So calling me a fanboy is a fucking stretch to say the least lol.
What have you proven? That split PPM work fine? I’d say most people already knew that… I’d also say most people weren’t aware that they where creating a ground loop when running split PPM, even if it isn’t an issue for most hardware variations it is beneficial knowledge to have, No?
I am aware of the advantages and disadvantages of split PPM vs canbus. No need to be an ass.
And there you have it this is not what Trampa said. That is what you read.
YOU chose to ignore the “depending on the ESC” disclaimer and that changes the entire message of what trampa is trying to say.
The correct and measured response would be “Yes depending on the ESC that could be and issue but the vast majority of ESC’s in use in the community don’t have that issue”.
Bang shut the argument down there, give the information that is required and there’s no ability for Trampa to try and market his stuff as better or whatever.
Both of you are correct in this situation and if you can’t see that I will question your bias.
Maybe you should check peoples read history before jumping to conclusions. This is not attack at you but it sure as fuck feel’s like your trying to make yourself look better than me, sure I haven’t given nearly as much to the community as you but really dude, you gotta hold that over my head like I’m some piece of shit trampa fanboy.
You don’t know me and the assumptions you make about me tells me a lot more about the kinda person you are. And not gonna lie a little bit or respect has been lost.
I know what you’ve all done, and am very grateful for it doesn’t mean you need to hold it over our heads.
And I’m basing this on discussions you’ve had over the last 3 years, and honestly every time I’ve thought you where in the right, but here we are.
And if you don’t think you have a bias look at your last sentence to trampa,
There was no Blanket advice in here, IMO that was evidently clear.
But you also missed the Depending on the ESC disclaimer so… idk dude. It seems pretty facetious to me to claim you have no bias vs trampa when you clearly miss things like that and with the amount of spats the 2 of you get into over little shit.
Also treating lesser known member of the community the way you just did is not very welcoming.
Again nothing personal just a peaceful Canadian who get incredibly triggered at people having arguments over nothing and completely missing eachother’s points.
Then what exactly are you arguing that I did wrong? Are you prosly being unclear?
Don’t be a goose, I won’t be a gander.
Incorrect. I did not ignore it, I feel its unimportant as it is vague and non-specific.
He said split PPM “WILL” kill your voltage regulators. It will not in most cases. I in fact have a board that uses split PPM and the voltage regulators are fine. It has thousands of miles on it and uses a 12s battery pack. That fact alone means I don’t care if you question my bias, I am arguing the facts. You politicking, I have no interest in that.
You and I are unimportant to the topic, I have taken the stance that you are incorrect. Your taking that personally.
I’m not holding anything over your head. You made a factually incorrect statement, I corrected it. Then you insulted me, I explained why your insult was unfounded, unprofitable for everyone and just shitty.
Your arguing against assumptions in the same sentence that you make assumptions about me. I’m sorry you feel that way. Regardless, my position is still the same. The statement made by Franks is incorrect and the advice is damaging to users researching their builds.
Friend, you are the one that began the insults. I simply countered, explained why your insult was unfounded and then went on to further explain why.
It is personal when you accuse me of an emotional bias, it’s insulting, degrading and NOT peaceful.
The statement “Split ppm will cause ground loops. Depending in the ESC, that will kill your voltage regulators” Is incorrect. It may cause ground loops, but it is not a given that it WILL kill your voltage regulators and it is a usable method of PPM/PWM usage on most VESC variants.
It is also a fact that on older VESC variants if 2 units are connected through can and only one unit was powered the second unpowered unit would ground itself through the bus and blow all the can ICs. There are a number of reasons why this could happen. Using split-PPM is at a minimum safer for new users who are not going fast enough or taking turns at a high enough rate to make use of traction control.
I’m sorry if I insulted you, Im sorry of you feel like I was “holding” something over your head. That was not my intention. My intention was to explain to people who can make use of split-PPM productively and profitably that they can in fact do so and disregard Franks marketing techniques as they are irrelevant to the actual process of building an esk8.
With the act of making your post you backed that intention up, made it less useful for people, and then you insulted me on top it. Maybe you should take some responsibility for your hurt feelings.