Loading / Rapid de-loading of DC motor

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
74 replies · 7K views
Instead of buying more magnets why not try and simplify the experiment so it's easier to figure out what is going on? You can be very sure any effect is not primarily due to the magnets. Magnets alone are well understood and are very unlikely to account for any apparent breech of conservation of angular momentum.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
chazemz said:
does magnetic saturation have any part to play
no, for air doesn't saturate
CWatters said:
You can be very sure any effect is not primarily due to the magnets.

chazemz said:
rate of acceleration from the no load point of view change with a change in condition ie mass of rotors etc or change in value of excess torque?.
Excess torque? Raaazzzzz- undefined term.

Until you begin writing some equations to describe this thing you will continue just flailing.

Force between two magnets at known positions is calculable in fact for just a math model you could consider them springs

your original question was about the characteristic of a motor of unknown type, probably it's one of these PM gear motors
http://www.elvi.it/en/dc-gear-motors
whose torque you could approximate as T = m X (ω0-w) ,
m being just a proportionality constant easily measured
ω0 its no load speed
and ω is its actual speed
observe it becomes a regenerative brake when oversped as real DC motors do

you can weigh your parts and estimate their moments of inertia, and effect of magnet position on that of rotating vanes
then sum torques as you did in sophomore dynamics class

That's tedious work, to be done at a desk and drawing board not a keyboard

my intuitive feel is you'll find your answer is close to post #13
 
chazemz said:
To propose using such an unconventional way of solving the problem must have encountered a lot of initial resistance , would you not agree?.
No. It has been abandoned many times since the 1930s, pretty much as long as helicopters have been killing people.
 
CWatters said:
Instead of buying more magnets why not try and simplify the experiment so it's easier to figure out what is going on? You can be very sure any effect is not primarily due to the magnets. Magnets alone are well understood and are very unlikely to account for any apparent breech of conservation of angular momentum.
I take on board your comments on the magnets but feel it is prudent to leave all options open at the present time. With regard to your comment on the experiment what do you suggest?.
 
jim hardy said:
no, for air doesn't saturate
Excess torque? Raaazzzzz- undefined term.

Until you begin writing some equations to describe this thing you will continue just flailing.

Force between two magnets at known positions is calculable in fact for just a math model you could consider them springs

your original question was about the characteristic of a motor of unknown type, probably it's one of these PM gear motors
http://www.elvi.it/en/dc-gear-motors
whose torque you could approximate as T = m X (ω0-w) ,
m being just a proportionality constant easily measured
ω0 its no load speed
and ω is its actual speed
observe it becomes a regenerative brake when oversped as real DC motors do

you can weigh your parts and estimate their moments of inertia, and effect of magnet position on that of rotating vanes
then sum torques as you did in sophomore dynamics class

That's tedious work, to be done at a desk and drawing board not a keyboard

my intuitive feel is you'll find your answer is close to post #13
My mistake I left off the available. I was referring to your comments in post 8 where you said leaving excess torque available to accelerate the rotor. My question is does the rate of acceleration change due to certain conditions?. I am on a learning path here and I will make mistakes. I have viewed the elvi site but I feel my motor is pretty old. With respect to moment of inertia I would have thought that from the motors point of view the rotor arms moment of inertia increases when the magnets are forced together and drop when de loading occurs. Since it could be said the repelling magnetic fields provide support ,then you can say the rotor arms weight fluctuates due to position. Weight on string remains constant. I can only ask you to be the patient and appreciate your comments.
 
chazemz said:
the rotor arms moment of inertia increases when the magnets are forced together and drop when de loading occurs.
moment of inertia is a property of a shape, set by where on that shape its mass is located. That's what changes when your magnets shuttle back and forth inside the tubes.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mi.html

upload_2017-3-1_14-20-52.png


Keep on plugging away at it

old jim
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dlgoff
I'm not entirely convinced there is anything unusual going on.

chazemz said:
What I am observing is that as the rotor arms accelerate and decelerate every quarter turn there is no counter rotation of the body.

I'm not sure I would expect the rotor accelerate and decelerate if the rotor magnets are free to move. Nor would I necessarily expect the body to counter rotate.

chazemz said:
Since the body is not moving in the opposite direction you can turn the motor off as the rotor arms begin to accelerate and the following rotor arm magnet will collide with the body magnet imparting its momentum onto the body causing the body to move in the direction of the rotor arms.

That would also happen if there was friction in the motor/bearings.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jim hardy
Is the rotor is rotating fast enough for the magnets to slide outwards on their own? If so how are you observing or measuring the acceleration/deceleration of the rotor?
 
chazemz said:
I take on board your comments on the magnets but feel it is prudent to leave all options open at the present time. With regard to your comment on the experiment what do you suggest?.

Run it with no magnets. The body should counter rotate due to the air resistance on the rotor. If it doesn't then something is stopping it.
 
I think the best thing to do is put this on youtube. I will put it on the weekend and put the link on here. I will now tell you in advance what will happen. The gap between the rotor magnets and the body magnet will be small so I will have to push the magnets in the closest rotor tube inward to enable the rotor arm to get past the body magnet in the first instance ( these are strong magnets ). The device will be in its rest position so the string and the wires from the power supply will apply a restoring force to the device either way if it moves from the rest position. I will turn the power on and the rotor arms will begin to rotate. Since there will be no initial magnetic interaction the body will counter rotate perhaps a quarter turn. ( this will show the body is free to move ) Once the magnetic interactions begin and the rotor arms begin to accelerate and decelerate the body will stop counter rotating and due to the restoring force will begin to swing backward and forward for a few moments. The body will then return to its rest position and remain there while the rotor arms continue to accelerate and decelerate. You will be able to observe the lack of counter rotation ie no oscillation . When the body is in its rest position I will turn the power off and the body will move in the direction of the rotor arms against the restoring force for around half a turn.I am sure you are aware that the restoring force builds the further the body is moved from its rest position. At no time will I touch the device. All I ask is for you to keep an open mind and will await any comments you may wish to post after you have seen the device in operation. No comments about battery etc please the wires work against the end result in this instance. Happy viewing.
PS the device body is made of wood to negate any notions of eddy currents.
Regards Roger
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: CWatters and jim hardy
Video on youtube, title the same as here: Loading / Rapid de loading of DC motor. Any feedback welcome.
Regards, Roger.
 
EDIT youtube URL removed, read on...i see a structure suspended from a string that has a really low torsional natural frequency , looks to me like ~14 second period

and that structure clearly wobbling at the ~4 hz vane frequency, attenuated as one expects of a low pass system excited almost two decades above its ω0
suggesting the torque due to magnets pushing against one another isn't quite canceled by the motor torque

that's my take.

An ammeter on that DC motor would be interesting,
old jimEDIT now it's gone ? see my signature...
 
Last edited:
Since there is a small amount of friction in the wire and string, there may well be a tiny amount of counter rotational force produced which is unable to overcome the friction.
What are your thoughts on the force pairing when the power is switched off.
Regards Roger
 
chazemz said:
What are your thoughts on the force pairing when the power is switched off.
It unwraps the string torsion, appears to overshoot
but video ends before it completes a cycle so can't tell if it's centered about equilibrium

there's three inertias returning to zero
motor internals, vanes , and rest of structure
we don't know how the sum is apportioned between them at instant of switchoff.
 
Hi, Jim have you done anything as the video has been removed and I am blocked out of my account for the moment with the message there is unusual activity on the account?
Regards Roger
 
It rotated CW viewed from above at swichoff

i don't remember - is that opposite vanes?

Motor inertial might be surprisingly high if it's geared (which it almost certainly is). And in either direction...
 
chazemz said:
Hi, Jim have you done anything as the video has been removed and I am blocked out of my account for the moment with the message there is unusual activity on the account?
Regards Roger

I copied the URL and included it in my reply, as I've done with countless youtube videos.

Will go back and edit it out now.

EDIT so done.

I've been haranguing google of late over spam, maybe they're mad at me
but i can still log into youtube
 
Hopefully It's just a glitch. I will try to upload again later on. Better to have the video to relate to.
Roger
 
Just had to give more personal information so should be ok now. So just to go through your comments.
There is no unwrapping of string torsion, the body is in fact in front of rest position so acting against slight restoring force when power is switched off.
Three inertias returning to zero -separate motor and vanes momentum,( ie moving when body is not ), zero after collision - Body momentum after transfer collision as seen. zero only after transfer of energy to exterior interactions.
Body moves almost one rotation after power is switched off, in the direction of rotor arms and body is not counter rotating at that time.
Correct me if I am wrong, but to comply with force pairing, as the rotor arms accelerate and so acquire momentum. The body should acquire the same amount of momentum. So when the motor is switched off, these should cancel each other out. This clearly does not happen?
Regards Roger
 
chazemz said:
There is no unwrapping of string torsion, the body is in fact in front of rest position so acting against slight restoring force when power is switched off.

Yep, i can see that now.
When it's switched off it makes one whole turn in direction of vane rotation.

chazemz said:
as the rotor arms accelerate and so acquire momentum. The body should acquire the same amount of momentum.
At switch-on time it makes a half rotation then oscillates about rest position.
At switch-off time it makes a full rotation.

Playback at 1/4 speed shows vanes rebound at switchoff time , i think that reversal explains the difference in switch-on and switch-off motion.
 
Hi Jim, the bounce back effect that you are noting is exactly what should happen and has no effect on the end result. It would be easier to look at this in terms of time and value.If the device were to be placed in deep space ( ie very low friction ) and a battery placed on the body we can conclude the following ( using simplistic values of one unit equals one revolution per second ). At turn on the torque is high so we will give the body counter rotation a value of 8, lasting for one second before the magnetic interactions take effect. We have agreed that there will be a small amount of counter rotation during the acceleration and deceleration process and we will give this a value of 1. We will mirror the time value in the video so 61 seconds. So at the switch off the body will have completed 69 revolutions counter to the direction of the rotor arms. Transfer of momentum takes place ( with bounce back) and we know from the observation that the value is far higher than the value of 1. We can afford to be conservative so give this a value of 4. The body structure will now rotate in the direction of the rotor arms through a very low friction environment. I am sure you will agree that at 10 to the minus 22 kgs per cubic metre the device would continue to rotate for a very long time. so passing the original start position with ease.
Quick question - when de loading occurs would there be any inductive kickback and if so what effect would it have?
Regards Roger
 
In space
first thought experiment- remove the magnets
at turn on the vanes would commence rotation in one direction and the body in the other
angular momentum remaining zero
the whole thing being a free body that's how it would remain,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_wheel
A reaction wheel (RW) is a type of flywheel used primarily by spacecraft for attitude control without using fuel for rockets or other reaction devices. They are particularly useful when the spacecraft must be rotated by very small amounts, such as keeping a telescope pointed at a star. They may also reduce the mass fraction needed for fuel. This is accomplished by equipping the spacecraft with an electric motor attached to a flywheel which, when its rotation speed is changed, causes the spacecraft to begin to counter-rotate proportionately through conservation of angular momentum.

Putting the magnets just makes it wobble as angular momentum re-apportions itself between rotating vane and platform.

Adding friction between vanes and air will make the thing approach condition of vanes stopped body counter-rotating
Adding a support to suspend it against gravity adds a restoring force that'll equilibriate against platform displacement from starting position

i still believe it's a simple summation of angular momentums of the parts plus summation of torques from air friction and support strings. Well, the algebra is not so simple else i'd have figured out how to write the equations. I have other projects occupying my alleged brain today.

there is nothing magic about turning off an electric motor by opening its supply circuit. Its inductance gives an electrical voltage transient. Torque drops smartly to zero.
If instead its supply circuit is not opened but the motor is allowed to act as a generator expending its rotational kinetic energy as volts X amps in that circuit, say by short circuiting its terminals, then there may well be a violent reversal of torque.
Time for some algebra .
 
The device works as described on a thrust bearing, so there is friction but no restoring force. Will think about other comments in your reply and comment tomorrow.
Regards Roger
 
This is a conservation of angular momentum experiment. That will be more obvious if you hang it from a tape, then increase the mass inertia of the rotor and reduce the mass inertia of the body, so as to make them similar.
As usual, the sliding magnets are only there to add je ne sais quois and some complexity magic to confuse the situation and so disguise the prestidigitation.
 
One more thing to check.

I've seen more than one experimenter fooled by his test equipment.

You don't actually switch off the motor, you switch off some sort of big gray power supply looking thing .

What is it ?
What is its output characteristic when powered off?
Is it capable of absorbing current from the motor, which would let it act as a generator , effectively regenerative braking? Sure looks that way from the video.

Put a switch between the supply and the motor so you know that you're "switching it off ."That motor being designed for garage doors may be equipped with a mechanical brake . Got a datasheet for it ?
 
jim hardy said:
In space
first thought experiment- remove the magnets
at turn on the vanes would commence rotation in one direction and the body in the other
angular momentum remaining zero
the whole thing being a free body that's how it would remain,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_wheel Putting the magnets just makes it wobble as angular momentum re-apportions itself between rotating vane and platform.

Adding friction between vanes and air will make the thing approach condition of vanes stopped body counter-rotating
Adding a support to suspend it against gravity adds a restoring force that'll equilibriate against platform displacement from starting position

i still believe it's a simple summation of angular momentums of the parts plus summation of torques from air friction and support strings. Well, the algebra is not so simple else i'd have figured out how to write the equations. I have other projects occupying my alleged brain today.

there is nothing magic about turning off an electric motor by opening its supply circuit. Its inductance gives an electrical voltage transient. Torque drops smartly to zero.
If instead its supply circuit is not opened but the motor is allowed to act as a generator expending its rotational kinetic energy as volts X amps in that circuit, say by short circuiting its terminals, then there may well be a violent reversal of torque.
Time for some algebra .

Without the magnets there would be no loading and de loading of the motor?

Do you mean spin and wobble or just wobble?

I would have thought that without the magnets, adding friction to the vanes would increase the counter rotation of the body?

I think my question may have been misread, I did not say turn off the motor, but what would happen in the de loading? I thought that some inductive kickback would take place even though the power is still switched on. I am probably wrong on this and will go back and look at it again.
Regards Roger
 
Baluncore said:
This is a conservation of angular momentum experiment. That will be more obvious if you hang it from a tape, then increase the mass inertia of the rotor and reduce the mass inertia of the body, so as to make them similar.
As usual, the sliding magnets are only there to add je ne sais quois and some complexity magic to confuse the situation and so disguise the prestidigitation.

Thank you for your kind words.The sliding magnets are there for a reason. The clue is in the title of this thread.
 
jim hardy said:
One more thing to check.

I've seen more than one experimenter fooled by his test equipment.

You don't actually switch off the motor, you switch off some sort of big gray power supply looking thing .

What is it ?
What is its output characteristic when powered off?
Is it capable of absorbing current from the motor, which would let it act as a generator , effectively regenerative braking? Sure looks that way from the video.

Put a switch between the supply and the motor so you know that you're "switching it off ."That motor being designed for garage doors may be equipped with a mechanical brake . Got a datasheet for it ?

The big grey power supply thing is a big grey power supply.

What is its output characteristic when powered off? _ Please explain?

The motor is switched off after the rotor arms accelerate. If the power is switched off before the rotor arms have chance to accelerate they will not get any extra push. Since you have noted the magnetic bounce back, we know momentum is transferred in that way. I will fit the switch as I have not tried it before. I will inform you of the result.

Regards Roger