Збирач потоків

Нові можливості для майбутніх інженерів-теплоенергетиків Інформація КП вт, 04/14/2026 - 20:00

The Wireless Broadband Alliance (WBA) has released guidelines to strengthen security, privacy, and trust across Wi-Fi networks. These guidelines help organizations reduce exposure to common Wi-Fi threats, improve user trust, and simplify interoperability across networks and partners.

The guidelines also address the growing need for carrier-grade security that aligns with user expectations.

1. Prevent connections to rogue and fake networks

Wi-Fi devices must validate network certificates before sharing credentials by using 802.1X and Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP). That ensures users connect only to legitimate networks, significantly reducing the risk of evil-twin and rogue access point (AP) attacks.

2. Protect data over the air

Data traffic confidentiality and integrity can be ensured by enforcing WPA2/WPA3-Enterprise with Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) and Protected Management Frames (PMF). That prevents passive sniffing, de-authentication attacks, and many man-in-the-middle techniques, bringing Wi-Fi security closer to cellular-grade protection.

3. Preserve user identity privacy without breaking compliance

Balance privacy and traceability by using anonymous identities, encrypted inner identities, pseudonyms, and chargeable-user-identity (CUI). That protects personally identifiable information during authentication while still enabling lawful intercept, billing, and incident handling when required.

4. Secure credentials end-to-end

Credentials are protected throughout their lifecycle, from device to network to backend systems. Secure OS key stores on devices and hardened credential storage in identity provider systems. So, tamper-resistant SIMs and USIMs for mobile credentials reduce the risk of large-scale credential theft.

5. Harden the entire access network

Security extends beyond the radio link. Physical security of access points and controllers, encrypted AP-to-controller links, secure backhaul design, and local breakout architectures ensure that data traffic remains protected across the full network path.

6. Secure AAA and roaming signaling

This guideline recognizes that the control plane is often overlooked; so, it strongly recommends RADIUS over TLS or DTLS for all AAA and roaming exchanges. That protects authentication and accounting traffic from interception or manipulation, aligning with OpenRoaming and WRIX requirements.

7. Add layer-2 protections against lateral attacks

Layer-2 traffic inspection, client isolation, proxy ARP, and multicast and broadcast controls are employed to limit damage even if a malicious device connects and thus reduce client-to-client attacks such as ARP spoofing and broadcast abuse.

8. Enforce security through federation and governance

Security is reinforced not only technically but operationally through OpenRoaming and the WRIX legal framework. As a result, security requirements, responsibilities, and privacy obligations can be consistently enforced across operators, identity providers, and hubs.

Related Content

• Securing a wireless network–The basics
• How to achieve better IoT security in Wi-Fi modules
• How to make 802.11 systems combine security with affordability
• 10 things to consider when securing an embedded 802.11 Wi-Fi device

The post 8 Wi-Fi security guidelines issued by Wireless Broadband Alliance appeared first on EDN.

The UK Semiconductor Centre (UKSC) has launched a new HQ at the Institute of Physics (IOP) in King’s Cross, London, marking a significant step in its mission to ensure that the UK capitalizes on rapid expansion in the global semiconductor industry...

Efficient Power Conversion Corp (EPC) of El Segundo, CA, USA — which makes enhancement-mode gallium nitride on silicon (eGaN) power field-effect transistors (FETs) and integrated circuits for power management applications — has introduced the EPC9186HC2 and EPC9186HC3 evaluation boards, two high-performance 3-phase BLDC motor drive inverter platforms designed for applications including robotics, industrial automation, light electric vehicles (EVs), electric scooters, forklifts, agricultural machinery, battery-powered mobility systems, and high-power drones. Supporting motor drive systems up to 5kW, the boards enable engineers to evaluate compact, high-efficiency inverter architectures based on 100V EPC2361 eGaN FET technology...

Tracking down rodentia (or otherwise)-caused cable cuts, and differentiating them from normal open circuits, is critical. Evolving the circuit design for expanded functionality makes it even more valuable.

It’s just part of the job.  Every design engineer learns early (if not so happily) about the inevitable necessity of detecting, confronting, and swatting “bugs” in circuitry.

Wow the engineering world with your unique design: Design Ideas Submission Guide

In a recent Design Idea, frequent contributor Jayapal Ramalingam extends this art of circuit defect detection and deletion from dealing with mere insects to coping with something much more formidable: rats!

With so many rodents and creatures around the plant, a cable cut can happen at any time

The cables being subjected to those toothy threats transport signals from field contacts monitoring pressure, temperature, valve position, limit switches, manual operator inputs, etc., to process control systems. The possible consequences of mistaking an undetected cable break for an open contact range from the merely inconvenient to the catastrophic. An example of the latter might be a critical valve that’s actually open but erroneously read as closed—viz., Three Mile Island?

Mr. Ramalingam’s clever solution to the problem of undetected cable cuts is a current transmitter design that adds a third current level to the two that are inherent to an ON/OFF contact.  Thusly.

20mA = contact closed, cable intact
4mA = contact open, cable intact
0mA = cable cut, contact state unknown

It therefore explicitly verifies cable continuity, preventing the mistaking of an open circuit for an open contact. See his article for details.

Mr. Ramalingam’s circuit works, is proven, and has nothing significantly wrong with it.  Its utility, however, is limited to that single function.  It might be significantly more convenient and thrifty if its role could be combined with another in a multipurpose design, provided, of course, that said design would be of no greater cost or complexity than the single-purpose transmitter.  Figure 1 and Figure 2 show such a circuit adapted from an earlier article.

Figure 1  0/20mA to 4/20mA current loop converter.

Figure 2 Field contact OFF/ON to 4/20mA current loop converter.

Note that the circuits are identical, so that only one design needs to be fabricated, documented, and stocked.

Calibration in this new role is quick and simple and completed in a single pass:

1. Open contact.
2. Tweak 4mA adj for 4mA output.
3. Close contact.
4. Tweak 20mA adj for 20mA output.

Stephen Woodward‘s relationship with EDN’s DI column goes back quite a long way. Over 200 submissions have been accepted since his first contribution back in 1974.  They have included best Design Idea of the year in 1974 and 2001.

Related Content 

• Is your PLC/DCS reading the field contacts reliably?
• Silly simple precision 0/20mA to 4/20mA converter

The post Double-duty current loop transmitter appeared first on EDN.

Photonic integration firm Photon Bridge of Eindhoven, The Netherlands and PhiX B.V. of Enschede, The Netherlands have partnered to advance Photon Bridge’s high-performance DWDM external laser source transmit optical sub-assembly (TOSA), targeting co-packaged optics (CPO) and high-density optical interconnects for AI data-center infrastructure...

Gallium nitride (GaN) power IC and silicon carbide (SiC) technology firm Navitas Semiconductor Corp of Torrance, CA, USA has appointed semiconductor veteran Gregory M. Fischer to its board, serving on the Compensation and Executive Steering committees. He will stand for reelection in 2027 as a Class III director...

Громнадська Марина. Біотехнологи КПІ задля реалізації цілей сталого розвитку Інформація КП вт, 04/14/2026 - 11:30

Володимиру Володимировичу Пілінському – 85! Інформація КП вт, 04/14/2026 - 11:20

Flagship consumer electronic device launches are among the most operationally complex events in modern engineering. They require years of coordination across hardware, silicon, RF, software, operations, supply chain, and manufacturing. Yet, despite mature processes and experienced teams, flagship programs remain vulnerable to schedule volatility.

The root cause is rarely inadequate engineering talent. More often, it’s structural. Manufacturing realities are integrated too late into architectural decision-making. System-level validation, when deployed early and continuously, functions not as a downstream quality checkpoint, but as an organizational mechanism for compressing schedule risk before capital and timeline commitments are locked.

Financial exposure at flagship scale

At flagship scale, schedule slip is not simply an engineering inconvenience. It’s a material financial event.

Apple’s fiscal year 2025 results reported approximately $416 billion in annual revenue, with iPhone revenue representing roughly half of total sales. Samsung’s Mobile Experience division reported approximately $26 billion in quarterly revenue during. For programs operating at this scale, a one-month delay during a peak launch cycle can defer revenue comparable to the annual revenue of many mid-sized technology firms.

Even outside tier-one OEMs, launch timing directly impacts channel readiness, carrier alignment, ecosystem momentum, and competitive positioning. In high-volume hardware, schedule is strategy.

The challenge is that many launch delays are not caused by unforeseen global disruptions, but by late-stage design changes triggered during production ramp. Industry analyses consistently show that a significant portion of late engineering change orders originate from integration and manufacturability issues that were technically detectable earlier in the development cycle.

When these issues surface during ramp, optionality has already collapsed. Tooling is frozen, suppliers are capacity-allocated, and marketing calendars are committed. At that stage, validation confirms risk rather than preventing it.

Why component-level validation fails at scale

Traditional validation strategies are optimized for component correctness. Subsystems are tested against modular specifications, and readiness decisions are based on aggregated subsystem pass rates. This approach ensures that parts function independently; however, it does not guarantee that the system functions reliably under real-world, high-volume conditions.

Many failure modes emerge only during full-system interaction. Digital signal interference, RF coexistence conflicts, thermal coupling between tightly integrated subsystems, and parasitic effects often cannot be fully replicated in isolated bench testing.

For example, a high-speed display flex cable may pass standalone signal integrity validation. During system-level engineering verification testing (EVT) under real RF load, that same cable can radiate broadband noise that desensitizes the primary cellular receiver. The result is a coexistence failure that frequently forces late-stage shielding changes or mechanical redesign.

Similarly, assembly processes introduce stress, tolerance stack-up, and handling variability that are absent in early prototypes. Component-level validation ensures parts are defect-free. It does not predict how those parts behave when integrated and manufactured at scale. The consequence is predictable: issues emerge when yield sensitivity tightens during ramp.

A defect observed in 1 out of 100 early validation units translates into 10,000 defective devices at a one-million-unit scale. At millions of units, small deltas compound rapidly.

The design–manufacturing impedance mismatch

A recurring root cause of late-stage validation failures is misalignment between design optimization and manufacturing constraints. Design teams optimize for performance, power efficiency, compact form factor, and cost targets. Manufacturing teams optimize for yield stability, throughput, repeatability, and process capability. Both are correct within their domains.

Failure occurs when manufacturing sensitivity is not structurally integrated into architectural trade-off decisions. In cross-functional reviews, performance metrics are often presented without quantified yield sensitivity analysis. Design freeze decisions may proceed based on functional validation, while manufacturing risk remains probabilistic rather than modeled. Schedule pressure can incentivize accepting integration risk with the assumption that ramp will resolve residual issues.

System-level validation acts as the translation layer between these domains. When embedded early, it exposes divergence between design intent and production feasibility while design changes remain affordable. The cost-of-change curve, widely cited in engineering economics literature, demonstrates that defects discovered during mass production can cost orders of magnitude more to correct than those identified during early design phases. Whether the multiplier is 10x or 100x depends on context, but the direction is consistent: late discovery amplifies cost and schedule exposure.

System-level validation as risk compression

Reframing system-level validation as a schedule-risk compression mechanism changes how engineering organizations deploy it. Risk compression means reducing the variance between projected and actual ramp performance before high-volume commitments are made. It means narrowing the gap between modeled yield and early ramp yield while architectural flexibility still exists.

Consider a ten-million-unit program targeting 97% yield but only achieving 94% during early ramp. A 3% delta produces 300,000 additional defective units. At a $500 bill-of-materials cost, that equates to $150 million in direct exposure: before accounting for logistics, containment actions, rework, warranty impact, and brand degradation.

When system-level validation is embedded earlier in the development cycle, integration uncertainty is resolved before tooling freeze and capacity allocation. Manufacturing sensitivity becomes an architectural input, not a downstream constraint. Validation shifts from reactive confirmation to proactive risk reduction.

Governance implications for senior managers

For senior engineering and manufacturing managers, the implication is structural. System-level validation must be positioned upstream of design freeze, not solely before ramp. In practice, this requires:

• Upstream integration: Embedding manufacturing engineering into early architecture discussions.
• Quantified sensitivity: Requiring quantified yield sensitivity data before design freeze.
• Strategic alignment: Aligning validation milestones with major financial commitments.
• Holistic ownership: Elevating system-level risk ownership to program leadership rather than distributing it across siloed subsystem teams.

Organizations that treat system-level validation as a downstream quality function implicitly accept schedule volatility as a cost of doing business. Organizations that embed it as a bridge between design architecture and manufacturing execution create structural advantage. They stabilize flagship launch timelines, reduce ramp inefficiency, and preserve optionality when trade-offs are still affordable.

Ayokunle Oni is a system engineering program manager at Apple, where he helps coordinate the iPhone hardware design and engineering process across cross-functional teams. He specializes in system integration and validation and has led complex engineering programs from concept through production, working closely with global manufacturing and vendor partners.

Related Content

• Basics of Bench Silicon Validation – PCB Passives
• Early verification and validation using model-based design
• Design Constraint Verification and Validation: A New Paradigm
• Design-Stage Analysis, Verification, and Optimization for Every Designer
• Hardware Verification: What AI Gets Right When It Generates Your Testbench — and What It Misses

The post How system-level validation compresses schedule risk in device design appeared first on EDN.

To deliver solutions for next-generation artificial intelligence (AI) systems, a strategic collaboration has been announced that will leverage the RISC-V design expertise of smart digital system specialist CEA-List and the silicon photonics expertise of micro/nanotechnology R&D center CEA-Leti of Grenoble, France to introduce high-bandwidth communication and high-efficiency computing technologies into the established 3D stacking and interposer platforms of Taiwanese foundry Powerchip Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp (PSMC)...

About Chua's citcut: https://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2009/EECS-2009-20.pdf My implementation: CHUA custom PCB board (thank you, JLCPCB!), TL082 op amps signal conditioner board (from +/-6V to 0 - 2V, from +/-1V to 0-2V) X/Y simple scope - Teensy4.0+ ILI9341 SPI display. Video: https://imgur.com/a/R0H5TSl submitted by /u/AdWest6565 [link] [comments]

Photonic simulation CAD software developer Photon Design Ltd of Oxford, UK has partnered with Cardiff University to deliver a two-day laser design course as part of its physics curriculum...

Specialty semiconductor and performance materials producer 5N Plus Inc (5N+) of Montréal, Québec, Canada has appointed Alban Fournier as chief financial officer (CFO), effective 27 April...

BluGlass Ltd of Silverwater, Australia — which develops and manufactures gallium nitride (GaN) visible laser diodes based on its proprietary low-temperature, low-hydrogen remote-plasma chemical vapor deposition (RPCVD) technology — has received commitments from investors to raise about AUS$8m (before costs) at an issue price of AUS$0.24 per share. The upsized placement includes one free attaching option for every share subscribed for under the placement, exercisable at AUS$0.38 and expiring on 31 May 2028...

Just some quick soldering in my free time. Wanted to see if its possible to bodge a 50 Ohms dummy load. Its not perfect since it picks up a lot of noise without any EMF shield and the impedance is not exactly 50 Ohms with these resistors. submitted by /u/arjobmukherjee [link] [comments]

So the design is ready and working in LTSpice. The red graph shows the voltage of the L3L4 transformer, that can be seen in the middle of the circuit. The voltage oscillates roughly between +10 and -10 kV. The blue graph shows the voltage difference between the upper and lower CW circuits output. submitted by /u/CountCrapula88 [link] [comments]

Was tinkering this rainy weekend, initially just playing around with assessing noise performance of a couple of amps, which quickly reminded me about input offset at higher gain. Using a pack of 8x fresh AA cells for most of these measurements, in an inverting amp with gain of 101 (5% error possible). The low-voltage amps were tested with 3x fresh AA cells, just under 5V. The homebrew op amp is made from non-sorted 2N3904/2N3906, circuit from Figure 2 of https://sound-au.com/project07.htm The vintage part numbers were generally vintage mid-1970s to late-1980s. Only a single amplifier was measured in every case. Nothing too rigorous but amusing to see how well they general conformed to datasheet typical. Pleasantly surprised how good the modern ST variant of the LM324A is. Just sharing in case anyone else finds it interesting. Part Vio (mV) Typ, Max (+/- mV) LM308 2.23 2, 7.5 CA3160A 3.35 2, 5 TL081C 7.09 NA, 15 LM741C -2.11 2, 6 XR-084 2.58 3,6 LM324A (ST) -0.85 2, 3 MCP6004 1.54 NA, 4.5 4.5v TLV2464 -0.35 0.5, 2 4.5v LM4562 -0.12 0.1, 0.7 homebrew 5.47 NA submitted by /u/DiscountDog [link] [comments]

I found it cheaper to buy lower amperage power supplies and having them in parallel instead of one with the same specs. I have made a passive balancer using 0.05 ohm resistors and one fuse so that one power supply doesn't works more than the rest. I am going to add ideal diodes to make it diode OR'ing to even further make the balancing better. Using this to drive a flyback transformer. The power supplies are 24V 6A so all four gives me 24V 24A. submitted by /u/Whyjustwhydothat [link] [comments]

Electric motors are everywhere—from the cars we drive to the appliances in our homes—but most rely on rare earth magnets that come with high costs and environmental challenges. A new wave of innovation is changing that story. Magnet-free electric motors are proving that smart engineering can deliver powerful performance without depending on scarce materials.

By removing rare earths from the equation, these designs promise cleaner supply chains, more sustainable production, and fresh opportunities for industries ranging from electric vehicles to renewable energy. It’s a shift that could redefine how we think about powering the future.

Why rare earths matter

Rare earth magnets, especially neodymium and dysprosium, have been the secret ingredient behind the compact, high-torque motors that power everything from electric vehicles to wind turbines. Their ability to deliver strong magnetic fields in small packages has made them indispensable in modern motor design.

But there is a catch: mining and processing rare earths is energy-intensive, environmentally challenging, and geographically concentrated in just a few regions of the world. This creates supply chain risks, price volatility, and sustainability concerns that ripple across industries.

By understanding why rare earths became so central to electric motors, we can better appreciate the significance of moving beyond them—and why magnet-free designs are more than just an engineering curiosity. They represent a strategic shift toward resilience, affordability, and cleaner technology.

How do you pull without a magnet

So how do you build a motor without magnets? The answer lies in clever engineering that takes advantage of the natural properties of materials and the geometry of the motor itself. Instead of relying on powerful magnets to create motion, magnet-free designs use principles like reluctance torque—where the rotor naturally aligns with the path of least magnetic resistance—or induction, where currents in the rotor generate the force needed to spin.

These approaches may sound technical, but the idea is simple: by rethinking the fundamentals, engineers can coax motors into delivering the same performance we expect, without the rare earth magnets. The result is a motor that can be lighter, more affordable, and easier to manufacture at scale. And because these designs lean on widely available materials, they sidestep the supply chain bottlenecks that have long plagued magnet-based motors.

Why it matters

Magnet-free motors are not just an engineering breakthrough; they are a practical step toward cleaner, more resilient technology. By removing rare earths, manufacturers can cut costs, ease supply chain pressures, and reduce environmental impact.

The benefits ripple across industries: in electric vehicles, they promise more affordable and sustainable mobility; in renewable energy, they support wind turbines and other systems without relying on scarce materials; and in industrial machinery, they offer reliable performance with simpler, more scalable production.

In short, magnet-free motors matter because they combine innovation with real-world impact, helping power a future that is smarter, greener, and less dependent on limited resources.

Figure 1 Today’s magnet-free electric motors deliver high efficiencies for heavy-duty and commercial vehicle applications. Source: Advanced Electric Machines

Working principles of magnet-free motors

For learners, makers, and anyone with a curious engineering mind, the real excitement lies in how magnet-free motors actually work. Instead of relying on rare earth magnets to generate motion, these designs tap into fundamental physics—using reluctance torque, induction, or clever rotor geometry to produce rotation.

Think of it as guiding the motor to “want” to align itself with paths of least resistance, or harnessing currents induced in the rotor to drive movement. The beauty is that these principles are elegant, scalable, and rooted in concepts every engineer encounters early in their studies. By revisiting the basics with fresh eyes, magnet-free motors show how fundamental science can be reimagined to solve modern challenges.

At their core, magnet-free motors rely on clever ways to generate motion without permanent magnets, using principles that every curious engineer can appreciate.

That is, reluctance motors exploit the tendency of a rotor to align with the path of least magnetic resistance, producing torque through geometry rather than magnets. Induction motors create rotation by inducing currents in the rotor with alternating fields, a design that is simple yet powerful. Synchronous reluctance motors combine aspects of both, offering efficiency and control that rival traditional designs.

Each approach shows how fundamental physics—magnetic fields, current flow, and mechanical alignment—can be harnessed in different ways to achieve the same goal: reliable rotation. For learners, makers, and innovators, these principles are a reminder that rethinking the basics can unlock new possibilities for sustainable engineering.

Figure 2 A synchronous reluctance motor demonstrates magnet‑free operation with smooth torque characteristics. Source: ABB

It’s important to note that not all reluctance motors are the same. A synchronous reluctance motor (SynRM) runs in step with the supply frequency, using flux barriers in the rotor to align with the path of least magnetic resistance, delivering smooth torque and efficiency. A switched reluctance motor (SRM), by contrast, relies on sequentially energizing stator phases to pull a simple steel rotor around; it’s rugged and powerful but tends to be noisier with more torque ripple.

Sitting between these designs is the permanent magnet assisted SynRM (PMA‑SynRM), which adds small magnets to stabilize the field and boost efficiency while still using far fewer rare earths than traditional permanent magnet motors. Together, these variations show the spectrum of approaches engineers use to balance performance, simplicity, and sustainability.

Unlocking SynRM performance with VFDs

While SynRMs deliver smooth torque and efficiency, they typically need a variable frequency drive (VFD) to start and stay synchronized with the stator’s rotating field. The VFD supplies control frequency and voltage, making these motors flexible but dependent on modern power electronics.

By contrast, older induction motors could start “across the line”—plugged directly into the grid—though at the cost of high inrush currents and less precise control. This reliance on VFDs underscores how magnet-free motor innovation is inseparable from advances in drive technology, reminding designers that motor and electronics progress go hand in hand.

As a worthy side note, VFD is the electronic brain that makes modern motors flexible. By adjusting the frequency and voltage, it lets a motor start gently, avoid the punishing inrush currents of direct grid connection, and run at variable speeds with precision. For SynRMs, the VFD is essential—it keeps the rotor locked in sync with the stator’s rotating field. Older induction motors could start “across the line” without such electronics, but that simplicity came at the cost of efficiency and control.

Figure 3 A compact VFD module suitable for driving 3-phase SynRM motors supports efficient control in both industrial and household applications. Source: Mean Well

From a design standpoint, the dependence on VFDs is both enabling and constraining. On the enabling side, drives unlock efficiency gains, smoother torque, and precise speed control that make SynRMs competitive with permanent-magnet machines.

On the constraining side, they add cost, require integration expertise, and shift part of the reliability burden from the motor to the electronics. For engineers, it means evaluating magnet-free motors is not just about rotor geometry; it’s about the total system, where sustainability benefits must be balanced against drive complexity and lifecycle economics.

Note that modern control strategies such as field-oriented control (FOC) and sensorless vector control extend the capabilities of these VFDs. FOC regulates stator currents to deliver precise torque and flux, while sensorless vector methods estimate rotor position without mechanical sensors, reducing cost and improving reliability. Together, they allow SynRMs—and other magnet-free designs—to match the responsiveness and efficiency of permanent-magnet machines.

Quick FOC take: Field‑oriented control does not have to be daunting. For makers eager to experiment, compact FOC shields/modules provide a straightforward, low‑power entry point. The Arduino SimpleFOC Shield is a practical example, lowering barriers and making hand-on exploration accessible.

Figure 4 SimpleFOC Shield empowers accessible FOC experimentation for Arduino users. Source: Author

Next, getting into design significance, the combination of magnet-free motor design, advanced VFDs, and intelligent control strategies has broad implications. Engineers gain access to motors that are lighter, more affordable, and easier to manufacture at scale, while sidestepping rare-earth supply chain constraints.

In the long run, magnet-free motors not only reduce dependence on scarce materials but also align with global sustainability goals, positioning them as a cornerstone of next-generation electrification across industries spanning from manufacturing to consumer appliances.

Closing thoughts

Magnet-free motors are steadily moving from concept to reality, driven by both maker ingenuity and industry ambition. With BMW and Mahle advancing externally excited synchronous motors to reduce rare-earth dependence, and Tesla having already demonstrated the scalability of induction motors, the message is clear: sustainable propulsion can deliver performance without compromise.

For makers and engineers alike, this is an invitation to experiment boldly and rethink motor design fundamentals, because the next leap in innovation may emerge as much from a personal workbench as from an automotive R&D lab.

T. K. Hareendran is a self-taught electronics enthusiast with a strong passion for innovative circuit design and hands-on technology. He develops both experimental and practical electronic projects, documenting and sharing his work to support fellow tinkerers and learners. Beyond the workbench, he dedicates time to technical writing and hardware evaluations to contribute meaningfully to the maker community.

Related Content

• Designer’s guide: Motor control and drivers
• Driving higher levels of efficiency in motor designs
• Motor driver IC for BLDC, stepper motor deployments
• Motor control design: an introduction to motors and controllers
• Designer’s Guide to High-Performance Motor Control for Robotics

The post Magnet-free electric motors: Driving innovation beyond rare earths appeared first on EDN.