Magnetic Generator Power Rating

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the design and power rating calculations for a 2.5 kW magnetic generator, focusing on the configuration of magnets and coils, the induced EMF, and the relationship between mechanical input and electrical output. Participants explore various aspects of generator theory, including the impact of coil resistance, magnetic flux, and geometry on power generation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks clarification on how to calculate the power rating based on the number of coils, magnets, and revolutions per second.
  • Another participant explains that power ratings are not simply derived from the number of coils and magnets, but depend on the EMF generated, coil construction, and resistance.
  • A participant proposes a specific example of induced EMF and resistance to calculate power rating at a given RPM.
  • Discussion includes a formula for EMF based on several variables, including the number of revolutions, magnetic poles, turns in the coil, magnetic flux density, and cross-sectional area.
  • Participants discuss the relationship between mechanical power input and electrical power output, emphasizing that mechanical power must exceed electrical output for continuous operation.
  • One participant expresses confusion about the calculations and seeks confirmation on the correct approach to determine the number of windings needed for the generator.
  • Another participant highlights the importance of accurately determining the number of magnetic poles and coil cross-section area in calculations.
  • There is a mention of the need to reduce resistance to achieve the desired power rating, with a formula provided for maximum power based on EMF and resistance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct approach to calculating power ratings and the importance of various parameters, such as the number of magnetic poles and coil geometry. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives on the calculations and design considerations.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of the calculations involved and the need for precise definitions and assumptions regarding the generator's design. There are unresolved questions about the geometry of the coils and the implications of varying resistance on power output.

  • #31
I have reviewed the discussion and it seems that we have completely neglected the question of efficiency, which has a major impact on the design, and even its feasibility.

1. Determination of the required EMF per coil. For any desired power rating ## P ## (of the entire generator), the power at the per-phase load is ##P_p = P / 3 ##. Let ## r_p ## be the resistance of one phase's internal wiring, ## R_p ## be the resistance of one phase's load, ## E_p ## the phase EMF, and ## I_p ## the phase current. Then, from Ohm's law, ## E_p = (r_p + R_p)I_p = r_pI_p + R_pI_p ##. Multiplying this with ## I_p ##, we have ## E_pI_p = r_pI_p^2 + R_pI_p^2 = r_pI_p^2 + P_p ##. The ## r_pI_p^2 = W_p ## term is the power wasted on heating the internal wiring, so we want to minimize that. Let's say we want ## W_p = wP_p ##, where ## w ## is the "waste factor": this is how much waste heat is produced for the rated power.

Since ## W_p = r_p I_p^2 = w P_p ##, we can determine the phase current from it: ## I_p = \sqrt { \frac {w P_p } {r_p} } ##, and the formula for the phase EMF then becomes: ## \displaystyle E_p = \frac {1 + w } {\sqrt {w}} \sqrt {P_p r_p} = \frac {1 + w } {\sqrt {3w}} \sqrt {P r_p}##.

Taking ## P = 2500 \ W ##, ## w = 0.03 ## (3% waste) and ## r_p = 1 \ Ω ##, we end up with ## E_p = 172 \ V ##. Since there are 6 coils per phase, the required EMF per coil ## E_c = 29 \ V ##. Not five volts as estimated originally!

2. Windings per coil. A more accurate formula for a coil's induced EMF is ## E_c = \frac {\pi N B_s S n f} {\sqrt {2}} ##, where ## N ## is the number of turns per coil, ## B_s ## is the average magnetic flux density in the air gap, ## S ## is the area of the coil's cross-section (and of the magnet at the same time), ## n ## is the number of magnets, ## f ## is the rotational frequency (Hz, revolutions per second). To find out the number of turns: ## \displaystyle N = \frac {\sqrt {2} E_c} {\pi B_s S n f} ##.

## B_s ## could be taken to be 0.5 T. Assuming 0.0025 mm2 square coils (and magnets, meaning 5 cm x 5 cm), ## N = 145 ##.

3. Wire gauge. Each coil has 145 turns, and each turn is 4*0.05 m, thus one coil has 29 m of wire, and one phase has 174 m. Thus the wire's resistance must be no greater than 1/174 = 0.0057 Ω/m = 5.7 mΩ/m. And here comes the catch: that corresponds to the 4 mm2 standard copper wire. That means the diameter of the conductor is 2.25 mm, and with insulation it is probably around 2.5 mm. If you arrange 145 turns of such wire in a single layer, you will end up with a coil over a foot long. That's clearly unacceptable. You could wind that in 7 layers, but then the thickness of the winding will be 35 mm, which is comparable to the size of the coil, which means the the formula we used to get EMF and the number of coils becomes invalid.

The reason we end up in this situation is because we set a very high standard for efficiency: just 3% losses. Let's see what we get if we make that 10%. Then ## E_p = 100 \ V, E_c = 16.7 \ V, \ N = 83 ##. This results in about 100 meters of wire per phase, thus requiring its resistance to be no greater than 10 mΩ/m, and that means the 2.5 mm2 standard copper wire. Its diameter is 1.8 mm; with insulation, 2 mm. Thus the length of a single-layer coil becomes 166 mm; a four-layer coil is then under 5 cm length, with the thickness of the winding at 16 mm, which will probably work.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Hi voko,

Thank you for the extra time you spent on this, and thanks for laying out the formulation sin such detail. I ahve been able to easily do the calculations following your instructions.

I have 2 more questions:

1. If we had to change the design to 2 magnets per coil instead of 1, so have an outer ring of magnets, then the copper wire coils, then another ring of magnets, will this mean we can reduce the number of windings in the coil, and could this help?

2. Based on the recalculations above, would my kg force to continue spinning the generator change, or is it still as calculated previously?
 
  • #33
barendfaber

what are you going to use to spin the magnets ?
you do realize that to generate 2.5kW out and even if that were possible your input power to spin the magnets is likely to well exceed 3kW ??

you don't get anything for nothing ;)

Dave
 
  • #34
If you have a sandwich rotor, then you should expect the flux density will be higher, probably much higher. So yes, you should expect smaller coils. How much smaller, however, is a complex question, I need to think more about it.

The total mechanical power required at the max rated power is ## P_m = (1 + w)P ##, where ## w ## is the waste factor introduced previously. Then ## \tau = (1 + w) \frac P \omega ##. As you can see, you need more input power and more torque when you account for the inefficiency.
 
  • #35
hi dave,

yes, absolutely aware of this. i want to build my first wind turbine, however need to figure out what my generator needs to look like in order for me to proceed.
 
  • #36
good morning voko!

Sorry for the hassle, maybe that may mean smaller magnets and smaller coils, I had this one in mind originally and changed it, should have maybe stuck with the sandwich design. Yes, I figured, input less inefficiencies = output. If I can just figure out more or less what the set up should be and what my input power is, I will be happy bunny!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
7K