Baby, You Can Drive My BLDC

With a tip o' the hat to Paul McCartney and John Lennon, here's some good info on driving brushless DC (BLDC) motors. I'm constantly looking at manufacturers' sites and culling out interesting data sheets and apps notes. This one qualifies as a good one to read if you're doing (or planning on doing) any designs based around a BLDC.

A BLDC is a permanent magnet motor with the magnets as part of the rotor. Since there are no connections needed to the rotor (no electromagnets) the motor is brushless. There are electromagnets as part of the stator. The field they produce must rotate, of course, or you'd have a non-rotating rotor.

You'd like an easy way to make the magnetic field rotate. Since these brushless motors are usually 3-phase devices, a 3-phase H-bridge is the way to go:

As you can see, that allows you to apply power as needed. You can force current into any one phase and draw it out of any other one. The H-bridge allows this current sourcing and sinking.

Next, you need to control the three phases' low-side and high-side power FETs. Those are the lines labeled A through C, L (low) and H (high). Since these are PWM (pulse-width modulated) rather than linearly controlled, and since there can be an overlapping of the current sourcing or sinking, carefully controlled timing of the drive signals is needed. Add to that the need for monitoring the phase voltages and current monitoring, and you'll have your hands full designing this system.

Or perhaps not. If you look at a recent app-note from Silicon Labs, “C8051F850 BLDC Reference Design Kit,” you find pretty much all you need to know. The App Note provides good background info, some basic motor theory, and then goes into the particular product. Silicon Labs would like you to use its devices, but even without going down that path, the app-note will quickly educate you.

The app-note goes into a detailed description of how the Reference Design Kit (RDK) works and what it allows you to do. As noted above, you can monitor the phase voltages to the motor and the overall current draw. You can also monitor back-EMF and detect the proper commutation point — the point where you should switch power to the next phase of the motor. And you can detect an overload or locked rotor condition.

While the app-note does not directly speak to the issue of dynamic braking, it looks as if it might be possible to do that with the RDK. We'll leave that as an exercise for the student. Here's a block diagram of the RDK:

Have you worked with BLDCs before? What problems did you encounter? What work-arounds did you implement?

— Brad Albing, Editor-in-Chief, Planet Analog and Integration Nation Circle me on Google+

Related posts:

22 comments on “Baby, You Can Drive My BLDC

  1. RedDerek
    January 14, 2014

    Nice document find Brad. Adding this to my library of pdfs.

  2. samicksha
    January 15, 2014

     BLDC gets boost due to its dramatic reduction in power required to operate them, but with same its rotor sensor still face challenges in initiating motion because no back-EMF.

  3. Davidled
    January 15, 2014

    This scheme could be used for robotic controller. I wonder whether four MCU are required or one MCU controls 4 BLDC. There is a limited Pin configuration for MCU.  So, the number of components would be effected by EMC/EMI.

  4. JeffL_#2
    January 23, 2014

    There must be more than one type of BLDC “mechanics” and I'm thinking it has to do with pole shapes or whatever. I bought a Nidec BLDC motor surplus and figured out how to run it, the model I have has an integrated controller chip which I've reverse-engineered far enough to establish that it's probably a Rohm BD6922FV, an interesting choice because the motor WILL NOT run unless you supply the chip with a single PWM signal on a TTL-compatible input, the duty cycle can be pretty high if you want but I guess it uses the clock so you can't just tie it high. On the other hand there are widely circulated BLDC motor applications circuits that use “space vector” drive methods where you either have to have separate PWMs available to drive each phase or you have to allow the ability to switch one to each phase (if you don't need speed control at all). In other words some BLDCs need PWMs JUST to commutate the phases, whereas others only really use a single PWM to control the overall speed if needed. What I'm wondering is, is there a generally-accepted nomenclature within the industry to distinguish the two types? I mean if I'm looking to buy a “hardware-only” motor is there a different name for the two types of motors so I would know what kind of drive it needs just from the motor description? (I'm sorry if I made the question too complicated, I'm not too concerned though because the readers of these posts are sharp enough to figure this out!)

  5. Work to Ride comma Ride to Work
    January 23, 2014

    Jeff, I believe you are making reference to the differences between BLDC motors which are designed to be driven with trapezoidal waveforms and the nearly identical cousin the Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor (PMSM) which is designed to be driven with PWM derived sinusoidal waveforms. Both these types of motors are 'brushless' but they are operated by differing power schemes. The smaller brushless motors used in model airplanes and cars are almost all BLDC's. I'm not a motor designer so I can't give you the particulars on the motor design but my limited understanding is the pole shape is what determines what type of waveform is used.

  6. JeffL_#2
    January 23, 2014

    OK, you've described two of them but I don't think the Rohm chip in the example I gave generates EITHER type of “commutating PWM” signal internally, which means we're now talking about THREE different schemes, namely trapezoidal commutation, sinusoidal commutation and “unassisted” commutation. Let me try and be a little more precise about this, are these really three different mechanical arrangements, or is one or more of these just a way to lower torque ripple and/or improve motor efficiency? I get a general sense that the smaller motors you referenced use more primitive schemes to reduce cost/complexity and in such cases efficiency may not be such a “holy grail”. (Notice I really DON'T want to get into a discussion of the sensor regime used, I don't think field-sensing versus Hall effect really has a bearing on how the coils are driven which is the item I'm trying to “pin down” the nomenclature for here.) I mean this market segment appears to be fairly mature, I understand that vendors frequently want to sell the motor as an “integrated motion control system” then nickel-and-dime you for every control dimension you need from them (and of course my pet peeve is when their catalog of products doesn't offer position-type control AT ALL but they still think you're doing this to try and cut your costs), but I would think if you prefer to purchase “frame, magnets, coils and leads” to actually meet YOUR (or your customer's) requirements, they OUGHT to have standardized names to tell you what they're selling so you'll unambiguously know how to drive it, shouldn't they?

  7. Work to Ride comma Ride to Work
    January 23, 2014

    I've never worked with any of the Rohm parts before. After looking at their website, I get the sense they are marketing towards the consumer, electonics and white goods, and light industrial market. Are you making reference to sensored motors and unsensored motors as the “unassisted” types? The motors I have familiarity with have resolvers for sensors but they give you the same basic position information that the hall sensors do. The smaller motors definitely are very primitive and torque ripple is not at all a concern. I'm not sure of your application but we have used Kollmorgen PMSM motors in our systems for many years now. I've looked at TI's Instaspin FOC controllers for a potential future product in which the customer wants sensorsless control and can tolerate the jogging and imprecise speed control at lower RPM's that typically goes along with sensorless control. I'm not familiar with a “third” scheme outside of the trapezoidal or PWM sinusoid. The nomenclatures can definitely be confusing because the nomenclature is not necessarily exactly the same from one manufacturer to the next. We typically procure the motors and controllers as a package to meet certain specs so we have 'thrown that over the wall' so to speak.

  8. JeffL_#2
    January 23, 2014

    No I SPECIFICALLY said I DON'T CARE about the sensor method, how much clearer can I possibly make it???? I want to know the connection between how the coils need to be driven and what the motor HW assembly is designated as. Very simply if I find a “naked” (no electronics) BLDC, either as a datasheet or in some surplus “gray market”, how does the vendor communicate to me how that particular design is “supposed” to be driven (other than to provide some “recommended application circuit” which may or may not suit my needs)? Surely there's some “standardized terminology” that applies. With reference to your comment about “sensorless” assemblies there are a wealth of applications where a high-resolution index method may be necessary anyway, and SO LONG AS THAT SENSOR REPRESENTS “ABSOLUTE” POSITION INFO TO A SUFFICIENT RESOLUTION the designer of the motion system might readily elect to forgo the inherently “low-res” Hall effect sensors as an unnecessary expense. Once again I'm NOT talking about a SPECIFIC application, I'm talking about the general case in which one evaluates the basic components towards a total system design. Naturally if one needs to provide sinusoidal PWM waveforms for commutation it would need a bit more CPU “load” than a straight trapezoidal approach, particularly as there are some PWM subsystems that can be programmed to auto-increment the percentage of conduction at regular intervals without any CPU intervention at all (of course that only works at constant speed etc.).

  9. Work to Ride comma Ride to Work
    January 23, 2014


  10. JeffL_#2
    January 23, 2014

    OK does anyone have an answer about this that is neither irrelevant NOR profane??

  11. Victor Lorenzo
    January 24, 2014

    @Jeff, “I mean if I'm looking to buy a “hardware-only” motor is there a different name for the two types of motors so I would know what kind of drive it needs just from the motor description?

    There are many classifications, most of them for people with deep understanding on the subject. For profanes:

    1) Brushless DC Motor without controller <- The one I suppose you're looking for.

    2) Brushless DC Motor with controller <- for newbies or low end projects.

    You will find motors of type (1) with and without hall sensors, with and without gear boxes, with and without encoders, and so on. It is up to you to make a choice according to your needs, mounting, etc. and selection sheet parameters. The following are just two simple examples.

    Example 1: Micromotor without sensors: Short datasheet:

    Example 2: Flat motor with sensors: Short datasheet:

    If you don't want to spend a lot of time designing you'r own controller it will be a good idea to go and search for a ready made “Brushless DC Motor Controller”. Most motor manufacturers make recommendations about suitable controllers for their motors.

    After preselecting the motor, and before buying it, the rule of thumb mentioned earlier is also valid: RTFM.

  12. Vishal Prajapati
    January 24, 2014

    @Brad, the article is very informative. It has very good basic information need to get started. 


    @DaeJ, I don't understand why we need 4 MCU to drive a single motor? It needs minimum 3 PWMs to run and speed control the BLDC as far as I can understand.

  13. JeffL_#2
    January 24, 2014

    For crying out loud, RTFQ!

    Let me ask this a different way, maybe there's still hope. Let's say I run into a whole pile of these BD6922FV chips cheap and I want to use them with motors. It would be a bad idea to try and use them with motors that need multiple PWMs because they don't support that option easily. Does anyone know if there an intelligent way to find motors that have the appropriate arrangement of poles etc. that is at a higher level than saying “I need a BLDC motor that will run with a Rohm BD6922FV chip” which is something practically nobody will say in their data sheet because that term is ridiculously specific and nobody ever heard of the damn part? Am I looking for a PMSM with this kind of poles or a BLDC with that kind?

    It seems as soon as I ask anything about “how do I drive an X type of motor” for some idiotic reason all anyone wants to do is tell me “look at the data sheet for motor X and use their recommended circuit”. That's not the level I'm approaching the problem from. For these purposes I'm a system engineer, I want to know how the industry categorizes these motors, type X wants sinusoidal commutation, type Y is designed for trapezoidal commutation, type Z doesn't need PWM commutation at all. If I have these categories and there's “motor geometry” names for them then if I have an application and my vendor for type X motors goes out of business then I just look for another vendor of type X motors (and oh yeah, I specify max run voltage, max RPM, winding inductance, all that other stuff too). The way everyone who's responded on this if my vendor fails me and I need a new vendor, I have to start over and design a whole new subsystem because “the specific datasheet changed”. That's just no way to do system engineering! Do you REALLY mean if a motor vendor comes out with a new motor the silicon vendor has to design a whole new chip for JUST THAT motor “because the data sheet changed”? I don't think so!

  14. D Feucht
    January 25, 2014


    I don't know if I can resolve your dilemma, but when I first entered the motor world, I found much of it confusing too. Part of it is the terminology. GE uses the best expression for these kinds of motors: permanent magnet synchronous motors (PMS motors). BLDC is popular but it is better to obsolete the expressions ac and dc because they are ambiguous and sometimes even incoherent. (Is a dc voltage a current or a voltage?) And a homopolar motor is also brushless but is not a PMS motor.  An abhorrent term still used is “back EMF”. This quantity is better called the “induced voltage” in the stator winding. It is not a force but a voltage. Paul Krause put the finishing touches on motor theory and wisely chose good language for this quantity: induced voltage.

    What a motor is and how it is driven are independent considerations. A PMS motor can be driven to behave as a step motor and a step motor can be used as a PMS motor. The motor-drive designer can choose how to drive the motor based on its properties. The induced voltage waveform will lead the drive designer to choose a set of drive waveofmrs that optimize desired criteria – usually maximum power transfer with minimum torque ripple as a function of rotor angle. This is achieved when the drive waveform is the same waveshape as the induced voltage. These waveforms are generated efficiently by using switching amplifiers, and there are various alternative ways of designing switch sequencing (or “commutation”), as you have discovered.

    The design of a motor drive involves basically two considerations: torque magnitude control and phase control. The 2 or 3 phase-windings of the motor can be transformed into two dimensions, as a vector with magnitude and phase which rotates with the rotor. The goal of the stator drive is like the carrot and donkey: to keep the phase of the stator drive vector ahead of the rotor magnetic vector, ideally by 90 degrees. This maximizes torque and if the phase difference is held constant, the torque is constant (no ripple => no vibration).

    The number of pole-pairs of a motor affect the slope of its torque-speed curve. When designing a motor-drive, you will need to know what the mechanical output requirement is, and this affects choice of motor which is another way of saying that it affects what the torque-speed curve is.

    Motion control is a world of its own and has many details. I recommend that you obtain a copy of the book Electromachanical Motion Devices by Paul Krause and Oleg Wasynczuk (McGraw-Hill, 1989) and start reading. This is not a subject that can be mastered with a weekend of study.

  15. JeffL_#2
    January 26, 2014

    D Feucht,

    “This is not a subject that can be mastered with a weekend of study.”

    Funny, I don't remember anything being said that the ground rules here were that unless I post my entire CV for your perusal ahead of time, that entitles you to assume that I'm a complete moron. To what do you attribute your infinite superiority to me, sir, are you a member of that elite group known as academics? I recall from my own education that it's primarily people in that profession who are most susceptible to the exhibition of rampant uncontrollable narcissism. (I apologize if I accidentally elevated you to a standing you're not readily entitled to, it's clear from context that you're not inclined to extend the same to me, but it's not as if I care or anything, given the aforementioned situation what on earth was I expecting?)

    “GE uses the best expression for these kinds of motors: permanent magnet synchronous motors (PMS motors).”

    Well no, AC synchronous motors were in widespread use for decades before GE started making them available, and they were truly “sensorless” because they had no controller at all to make sensors available to!

    “What a motor is and how it is driven are independent considerations.” 

    Unless if course the manufacturer of said device should actually want to sell large quantities of said devices, in which case he might want to place his design in whichever light makes that device look the most desirable. In pursuit of such representation that vendor might want to specify what method of electrical drive configuration tends to minimize the torque ripple under specified conditions, which is presumably that method which the motor was originally designed to operate with. It's not at all clear that if cost isn't the primary driver, that the OEM purchasing these devices wouldn't seek to recommend driving such a motor in the way that would in fact minimize such torque ripple, as NOT doing so frequently results in introducing spurious mechanical vibrations and other “forcing functions” into the subsystem. All I was asking about was, since the industry by most criteria is a fairly mature one, whether the manufacturers of motors designed to be driven similarly had in fact chosen a nomenclature that helps the potential purchaser identify the correct “style” of BLDC that would best suit his drive scheme. I guess by asking such a question I must have inadvertantly put my entire professional reputation at stake, but I can't for the life of me figure out why.

    In a previous career we designed servo systems in which performance was key and energy consumption was fairly unimportant. In such a scenario we had a strong preference to drive any kind of motor coil from a transimpedance power amplifier with lots of available compliance voltage. In such a configuration the current can be made to change in a very short time interval, and the effect of the specific coil inductance can be almost completely removed. Whether or not such a system is practical for other purposes is a bit irrelevant, it's actually the very flexibility of a system like that which frustrates me about the current BLDC industry. I suppose the vast majority of these motors are used in applications that run ONLY at constant velocity, occasionally you'll see one where the velocity can be “tweaked” (frequently with a pot NOT a control voltage) but not over a very wide range. If one indeed DID contemplate a true “dual-mode” (velocity/position) servo application using a BLDC, in most torque ranges there are either no choices at all or the cost is highly prohibitive, and just as frequently the vendor WON'T just bring out the coil leads and let you “roll your own”, I can't understand why customers would want to put up with this kind of tyranny. The other advantage of such a system is you can design it to use TRUE velocity profiling, rather than elect to pursue a severe compromise like “microstepping” as would be the likely case if one elected to use a PMS as a stepper motor in order to use this type of motor in a position mode servo the way you suggest.

    “This is achieved when the drive waveform is the same waveshape as the induced voltage.” 

    Again, funny that I don't recall EVER seeing an induced voltage waveform coming out of a motor coil made exclusively out of width-modulated pulses like the arrangement you are proposing, but if you say it exists, then I suppose it does, after all YOU'RE THE EXPERT…

  16. D Feucht
    January 27, 2014


    My purpose in responding to your post was to provide a little information that might be of help in guiding you toward answers to the questions you posed. These questions are of a fairly basic nature to me and thus I recommended a motor book and offered some quick aphorisms about motors and drives. I am not, nor have I ever been in the employ of academia, though I have given talks on power electronics at Carnegie-Mellon U., Cleveland State U., and Portland State U.  

    You write in response: “Well no, AC synchronous motors were in widespread use for decades before GE started making them available, and they were truly “sensorless” because they had no controller at all to make sensors available to!”

    What does this have to do with the nomenclature of PMS motors?

    If you survey the history of the development of motor theory you will find that GE has been the source of it in the USA. Steinmetz worked for GE. So did Gabriel Kron. The final refinement of motor theory was made by Paul Krause of Purdue who also came from GE. So did Alan Plunkett who contributed to motor drives.

    “whether the manufacturers of motors designed to be driven similarly had in fact chosen a nomenclature that helps the potential purchaser identify the correct “style” of BLDC that would best suit his drive scheme.”

    What I was trying to say is that motor manufacturers do not always recommend the best ways to drive their motors. It depends on your motion control problem definition.

    Example: On one project, Jim Bausch (formerly of HP) and I had the goal of maximizing the motion performance (max torque and acceleration, accurate positioning and holding without jitter) of size 34 step motors. The step-motor makers had various stepping schemes, but none of them would have even come close to max performance. We drove the motors with a field-oriented control scheme to achieve it. None of this kind of control is found in step-motor literature; you have to go to GE-style vector control literature to find it – the kind of control usually applied to induction motors. Yet it was optimal for driving these hybrid step-motors, which are essentially PMS motors with about a 5 % variable-reluctance torque component.

    “…  it's actually the very flexibility of a system like that which frustrates me about the current BLDC industry.”

    Well, keep in mind that the motor-drive industry advances at about a third the speed of the semiconductor industry. You're thinking ahead of where most of them are!

    ” I can't understand why customers would want to put up with this kind of tyranny.”

    Non-motor-drive people want a simple solution to their motion problem. The tradeoff is that they have to settle for somebody else's idea of the right or best solution, even though the designer does not know what the customer of the package deal is going to need. In this business, unless the motion system is designed for a particular application with narrow parameters, it is best to “roll your own” solution.

    ” I don't recall EVER seeing an induced voltage waveform coming out of a motor coil made exclusively out of width-modulated pulses …”

    The PWM waveform average is what is essentially the waveform that drives the motor, and for max torque, it will conform to the induced-voltage waveform. (This is fairly basic theory. I'll elaborate if you want.)

  17. JeffL_#2
    January 27, 2014

    Sorry, now I can tell that your abrasiveness was unintentional, I hope you'll accept my apology. But you're coming out on the other side of the argument from where the industry is today, when I look to procure a “BLDC” all I'm able to purchase in reasonably small quantities is a motor totally integrated in its case with an internal susbsystem which is (usually) wholly inadequate for my needs. I don't think I've ever seen offered for sale a “PMS” (probably because from a marketing standpoint those initials are too likely to suggest a female complaint), but I suppose this is fairly similar to the hytbrid stepmotors available in the US from various subsidiaries of Danaher and others (although to be realistic this market was almost totally ceded to a variety of Japanese vendors many years ago), and yes admittedly accurate application information nowadays is very difficult to come by, maybe someone will get inspired to get this information republished for the motors available today, I don't see the current crop of vendors doing very much research about this any more. At least you're not FORCED (yet anyway!) like in the “BLDC” to feebly submit commands to a chip mounted internal to the motor and put up with what it gives you!

    I suppose I was fortunate to have had the experience of working with reasonably high-performance servos fairly early in my career. The company I worked for made high-performance tape and disk drives, I worked mostly on disk but occasionally was “loaned out” when they needed help on the other side. Now our company made ANSI-compatible 7 and 9 track tape drives at many performance levels up to vacuum column. At the high end of the latter range there were drives that could move tape at rates up to 200 inches per second, and (as I recall) the capstan that controlled this motion was a little over an inch in diameter. In order to meet the standards that required that the inter-record gap on the tape had to be no more than .3 inches, that capstan had to accelerate to the specified linear speed within .13 inches of rotation, and be stable enough to be used to start writing data blocks immediately – now THAT'S what I call a high-performance servo, even the resonance of the 3/8 inch shaft that drove the capstan created MAJOR problems with stabilizing the loop at those speeds – we were doing similarly advanced work on the disk side (albeit in absolute terms somewhat more slowly due to the higher masses present in a disk head carriage, which in our designs used a linear “voice-coil” motor). If I could get motors to perform within half an order of magnitude nowadays of what we had then (and remember we did this without $.50 MCUs – or ANY for that matter, I left there in '80!) I could be happy but I guess it's not really “in the cards”.

  18. Victor Lorenzo
    January 28, 2014


    I found very interesting and useful several comments in your responses.

    Thanks for the book reference, although there's plenty of literature about motors on internet I'll try to get a copy of that book.

  19. D Feucht
    January 28, 2014


    I hear your dilemma. It's not just about motors anymore either. Try to get magnetics parts for power converters in the US. Sadly enough, the US is shutting down and Asia is taking over.

    As for servo (PMS) motors, except  for the few suppliers left (who usually sell into price-insensitive markets) or high-volume application-specific motors (in cars, for instance) what is left are step motors. They are really the same kind of motor (PMS) except that they usually have two instead of three phase-windings. And to achieve the high performance of computer-peripheral kinds of applications, I can see no other way than to select a motor that has the basic performance and then design a drive for it. Package solutions are a blindfolded dart game.

    Indeed (as you previously noted) the drive will need to optimally interface to the motor and this affects drive design, but if the torque-speed curve of the motor is adequate (and with the right winding for supply voltage), then a drive can be designed to achieve maximum possible performance. Bausch and I were achieving from a step motor about 99 % of its theoretical maximum torque using vector (field-oriented) control.The ultimate limitation is motor temperature.

    I am overcoming the urge to go on and on about various factors that have to be taken into account (such as armature reaction or the winding series impedance that makes the drive voltage waveform be shifted in phase from the internal winding induced-voltage source.) I once did a three-day course on motor and motor-drive design (both!) for NASA and have the hand-out notebook material in MS Word. If you are interested in a (free) copy, if I could somehow get your email address, I'll try to send a copy. It has all kinds of considerations that affect the design of motor drives (and PMS motors). You would have enough experience to appreciate some of the finer points in it.

  20. D Feucht
    January 28, 2014


    You would think that for a device (the motor) that is over a century old and with so many of them around that everyone who teaches about them would have a refined understanding of them by now. Not so. Let me tell you a story about this.

    I was blessed to start my motor-drive involvement under a guy who came from GE. What I learned from him (and from Donald Novotny at U of WI, Madison, one of the top motor schools with former GE people such as Novotny and Tom Lipo) was that most schools teach the old steady-state motor theory worked out by Steinmetz and found in textbooks today based on phasors, which are steady-state constructs. What Paul Krause in his book is teaching is the total theory based on vectors. Novotny told me that for undergrad motor courses, they teach (at UWM) the steady-state theory because it is complicated enough for undergrads. However, Krause bites the bullet and does a total theory introduction in the book I cited. At first, it is a bit intensive mathematically (but no vector calculus!) but it includes total motor behavior.

    Krause has an older book which is available from Purdue as a reprint and is out of print with McGraw-Hill, called Analysis of Electric Machinery. I consider this the top motor book around. However, it is not the best book for beginners or even intermediate people which is why Krause wrote the second (thinner) book.

    If you find Krause and Wasynczuk's book to not be right for you, I recommend retreating to one of the many steady-state motor theory books. The one I like best is by G.R. Slemon and A. Straughen, Electric Machines, Addison-Wesley, 1980.

    Historically, steady-state motor theory was adequate because motors were run at a constant speed as a power source for machinery. But the times have changed and they are used (as in Jeff's computer peripheral examples) for “motion control” which can have anything but constant speeds and accelerations. An intermediate motion category is that of “variable-speed drives”. These operate at a constant speed but the speed can be changed (quasistatically) and dynamics are not an issue in them. Most motor courses in engineering schools teach the steady-state theory, so be aware that there is a more complete (vector) theory that corresponds to what is called field-oriented or vector control, implemented in motor drives. And invariably, the people who teach it trace back to GE technical ancestors.

  21. Victor Lorenzo
    January 28, 2014

    Once again, thanks a lot Dennis for your comments and guidance. I'm also interested on your handouts, Steve and Brad both have my e-mail.

  22. Davidled
    February 1, 2014

    My comments indicates that system would like to control four BLDC, not one BLDC. Depending MCU pin configuration and control scheme, one MCU or four MCU could be used. Or, one master and three slave architectures might be used.  

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.