6440-001-K-N stepper driver power supply

Description

6440-001-K-N stepper driver power supply

6440-001-K-N stepper driver power supply

Introduction

The 6440 Microstepping Indexer/Drive provides economical microstepping control with a simple mnemonic programming interface. Operation is programmed via the serial communications port. A combination of dedicated and user-programmable I/O provides motor control, status indication and sensor feedback. Simple, single-letter mnemonics are used to specify a wide variety of motion commands. A terminal or PC with terminal software can be used to familiarize oneself with 6440 operation.

Various motion parameters can be modified and motion executed immediately from the command line or from on-board non-volatile memory. Many applications can take advantage of the simplicity of developing programs for on-board execution. If more versatility is required, the user can write a custom program running on a host computer issuing immediate motion commands to the 6440.

The output current of the 6440 is dip switch selectable from 0.625A rms (0.88A peak in microstep mode) to 5A rms (7.1 A peak in microstep mode). The Pacific Scientific 6440 can be powered from 120 or 240 Vac (60/50 Hz). This input is switch selectable for either 120 or 240 Vac. An internal PWM switching power supply provides up to 300 W ± 10% of power to the stepper drive.

The 6440 can communicate with RS-232, RS-422 or RS-485 serial protocols. Discrete I/O lines provide external start/stop and motor enable control, home and limit switch testing, motor jogging, slave drive interface and eight programmable bi-directional discrete I/O lines. The eight programmable bi-directional discrete I/O lines are individually jumper configurable for input or output. Immediate command line instructions can read back and write all eight bits.

The above comparison of design, investment, and use focuses on purely technical aspects, and the following comparison is intended to incorporate economic factors. The prerequisite for comparison is to compare the DCS system with a typical and ideal FCS system. Why make such assumptions. As a DCS system, the technical requirements proposed in the early stages of development have been met and improved to this day. The current situation is further improved, so there is no typical or ideal statement. As an FCS system, it has just entered practicality in the 1990s. As a technical requirement in the early development stage, it is compatible and open, bidirectional digital communication, digital intelligent field devices, high-speed buses, etc., which are currently not ideal and need to be improved. This state cannot be said to be unrelated to the formulation of international standards for fieldbus. In the past decade or so, various bus organizations have been busy formulating standards, developing products, and occupying more markets, with the aim of squeezing into international standards and legally occupying a larger market. The battle over international standards has come to an end, and major companies and organizations have realized that in order to truly capture the market, they need to improve their systems and related products. We can make a prediction that in the near future, a complete fieldbus system and related products must become the mainstream of fieldbus technology in the world.

Specific comparison:
(1) The DCS system is a large system, and its controller has strong functions and plays a very important role in the system. The data highway is the key to the system, so the overall investment must be made in one step, and subsequent expansion is difficult. However, the decentralization of FCS functions is relatively thorough, information processing is on-site, and the widespread adoption of digital intelligent on-site devices weakens the function and importance of the controller. Therefore, the investment starting point of the FCS system is low, and it can be used, expanded, and put into operation simultaneously.
(2) The DCS system is a closed system, and the products of various companies are basically incompatible. The FCS system is an open system, where users can choose various devices from different manufacturers and brands to connect to the fieldbus, achieving the best system integration.
(3) The information of the DCS system is all formed by binary or analog signals, and there must be D/A and A/D conversion. The FCS system is fully digital, eliminating the need for D/A and A/D transformations, with high integration and performance, enabling accuracy to increase from ± 0.5% to ± 0.1%. （
4) The FCS system can incorporate PID closed-loop control functions into transmitters or actuators, shortening the control cycle. Currently, it can increase from 2-5 times per second in DCS to 10-20 times per second in FCS, thereby improving regulation performance.
(5) DCS can control and monitor the entire process of the process, diagnose, maintain, and configure itself. However, due to its own fatal weakness, its I/O signals use traditional analog signals, making it impossible to remotely diagnose, maintain, and configure on-site instruments (including transmitters, actuators, etc.) on the DCS engineer station. FCS adopts fully digital technology, and digital intelligent field devices send multivariate information, not only single variable information, but also have the function of detecting information errors. FCS adopts a bidirectional digital communication fieldbus signaling system. Therefore, it can remotely diagnose, maintain, and configure on-site devices (including transmitters, actuators, etc.). The superiority of FCS is incomparable to DCS.
(6) Due to the fieldization of information processing, FCS can save a considerable number of isolators, terminal cabinets, I/O terminals, I/O cards, I/O files, and I/O cabinets compared to DCS. At the same time, it also saves space and floor space for I/O devices and device rooms. Some experts believe that 60% can be saved.
(7) For the same reason as (6), FCS can reduce a large number of cables and cable trays used for cable laying, while also saving design, installation, and maintenance costs. Some experts believe that it can save 66%. For points (6) and (7), it should be noted that the effectiveness of using FCS systems in saving investment is beyond doubt, but is it possible that it can reach 60-66%, as some experts suggest. These numbers have appeared in multiple articles, and the editor believes that they are the result of mutual transfer. The original source of these numbers has not yet been found, so readers should be cautious when quoting these numbers.
(8) Compared to DCS, FCS has a simple configuration and is easy to install, operate, and maintain due to standardized structure and performance.
(9) Key points of FCS design and development for process control.

Recommended model:
3HAA1001-691
3HAA1001-695
3HAA1001-700
3HAA1001-701
3HAA1001-71
3HAA1001-716
3HAA1001-718
3HAA1001-719
3HAA1001-721
3HAA1001-727
3HAA1001-73
3HAA1001-74
3HAA1001-75
3HAA1001-76
3HAA1001-77
3HAA1001-78
3HAA1001-79
3HAA1001-81
3HAA1001-82
3HAA1001-83
3HAA1001-86
3HAA1001-88
3HAA1001-89
3HAA1001-90
3HAA1001-97