Go to Otherpower.com Home Page Go to Forcefield Shopping Cart Go to Wondermagnet.com Home Page
Front Page - [Homebrewed Electricity-- (wind) (solar) (hydro) (steam) (controls) (storage) (mechanical)] - Classifieds - Site News
Everything - Newbies - [Remote Living-- (housing) (heat) (light) (water)] - Rants & Opinion - Diaries - Our Products
burn up | 12 comments (12 topical, editorial)
Re: burn up (3.00 / 0) (#6)
by Flux on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 at 03:30:28 PM MST
(User Info)

Not sure why one phase should be significantly worse, current should always be through 2 phases at any instant. Two burnt and one not would suggest single phasing.  Maybe one phase had a few more turns.

Yes you could use less turns of the same wire but it is not the best way to go. You need to increase the wire cross section in proportion to the reduction in turns for best results.

Not sure how tight your coils were or how big your air gap was. Keeping the gap the same I would drop to 60 turns max ( I don't know the original cut in speed but dropping to 55 turns max or even down to 50 may give better overall result).

If you could manage the 50 turns of two in hand 1.6 mm I would go for it. It may be too tight to get it in. Two in hand 1.4mm would be sensible but if you have lots of the 1.6 I would give it a go with as many turns of 2 in hand 1.6 as you can squeeze in. You could squeeze the hole on the inner radius below magnet width ( even down to almost triangular). If necessary you could increase coil thickness a little bit.

The alternative would be to keep the 70 turns of 1.6  ( or a few more if you can squeeze them in) and use delta or Jerry connection.

I hate delta, the only virtue is that it would let you keep three leads down the tower and in a good wind area you may not be so worried about the inevitable loss from harmonic currents. Jerry connection would need 6 leads or rectifiers up the tower and that makes brake switches awkward.

This winding will be a lot more responsive in higher winds and furling will be different. All the options should let you run up to 40A fairly continuously.

Flux

[ Parent ]



Re: burn up (3.00 / 0) (#7)
by windspeed on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 at 04:01:28 PM MST
(User Info)


"Not sure why one phase should be significantly worse, current should always be through 2 phases at any instant. Two burnt and one not would suggest single phasing.  Maybe one phase had a few more turns."

I will check this again.

 "Not sure how tight your coils were or how big your air gap was. Keeping the gap the same I would drop to 60 turns max ( I don't know the original cut in speed but dropping to 55 turns max or even down to 50 may give better overall result)."

would this raise cut-in speed also?

"If you could manage the 50 turns of two in hand 1.6 mm I would go for it. It may be too tight to get it in. Two in hand 1.4mm would be sensible but if you have lots of the 1.6 I would give it a go with as many turns of 2 in hand 1.6 as you can squeeze in. You could squeeze the hole on the inner radius below magnet width ( even down to almost triangular). If necessary you could increase coil thickness a little bit."

I might go for the two in hand of 1.6 changing the shape of the coil

Can I ask if anyone has changed their coils in this way

off to bed now

Windspeed

[ Parent ]



Re: burn up (3.00 / 0) (#10)
by Flux on Mon Aug 18th, 2008 at 01:28:53 AM MST
(User Info)

Just a few more comments. Firstly you said the resistance has increased, this shouldn't have happened and may have been the reason for failure. Any burnt or shorted coils should have dropped in resistance.

I would look very carefully at any soldered joints as this is the only real place for resistance to increase.

Now perhaps a few comments about changing the winding as it is not the normal approach.

In very low wind areas people go for the slowest cut in so that they can get something when the winds are very light ( 6 - 7 mph). This approach is excellent for low wind areas as long as you don't go too low in the cut in speed. If you attempt to cut in below 7mph you will reach stall near 12 mph and the power you get in the more useful 10 - 15 mph will be significantly reduced. By the time you get to 20 mph this approach will be having significant effect on the performance, the blades will be significantly stalled and the alternator efficiency will be dropping to below 50%. half the power will be heating the stator.

If the normal winds are not generally much over 20 mph then this is likely to be a good compromise. Beyond much over 20mph you will have to furl and if you can do this reliably in such a way as to keep the stator temperature within safe limits then fine, your batteries will probably be charged in these sort of wind anyway.

A better and safer compromise is to keep the cut in as high as reasonable for the wind area then use a very efficient alternator, which will stall badly from about 12 mph upwards. You can add the inefficiency required for blade matching in the line as extra resistance and not have the heat in the stator. This does require significantly more magnet and copper and results in a costly machine. Not justified for very low wind sites but safer on windier sites.

For the type of machine you are looking at, there is not really enough magnet or copper to use this approach for a very windy area, the machine efficiency is already too low to benefit from much added line resistance. You could raise the cut in speed and change the blades for 8ft and use this approach. It would be safer in high winds for the same power out but you will raise the windspeed band upwards for the same power out.

To stay at 10 ft you could keep the same winding and make absolutely sure that it furls to keep the maximum current below 25A under all conditions. Should be possible but much of the information I see here suggests that it doesn't happen with the present set up.

The next approach is to do something about the efficiency of the alternator and that leaves you little option but to reduce turns and use thicker wire. Just playing with it doesn't have much effect, you need to be drastic enough to be able to significantly increase wire size. Reducing turns from 70 to 50 would let you increase the copper section by 50% or more and that would let you raise the maximum current in high winds to something more manageable.

Yes it does increase cut in speed and that will probably kill all chance of output below 8 mph wind speed. It will make the output in the 10 mph region a bit choppy but the peaks will be higher and the average will not be significantly worse. Beyond 10 mph you will gain all the way, you will not get near stall and the higher alternator efficiency will help the output. It will start to load very rapidly beyond 15 mph and will track the steeper part of the prop curve much better. Although you start with higher speeds the speed in the 20 mph region may be no greater because of the better loading ( depends how well the original winding could hold it in stall).

The one serious problem here is line resistance. You have lowered the alternator resistance significantly and the line resistance is going to have a big effect. To use this approach to best effect you will need to keep the line resistance very low or you will not be able to use the extra loading capability in the higher winds and speed rise will be excessive.

What it eventually comes down to is whether the loss of a few watts on the days when winds are below 10 mph are more than compensated by a better performance on days with winds above 10 mph. My guess is that on the west coast of Ireland you will win hands down with the higher cut in speed.

My experience in poor wind area is that there is not a lot of power available on the low wind days, we only get a few hours and the total Ah is small. In other low wind areas with long periods of steady low wind things would be different.

I have a 10 ft machine ( very different construction) that cuts in on the main winding at 220 rpm, it uses a boost converter below 220 rpm. Even without the converter it works well enough from 10 mph upwards and is producing something like 1500W by about 25 mph. I have the best of both worlds and if I had to compromise with no converter I certainly wouldn't take the cut in below 200 rpm for the sort of thing we get in low winds. ( If you live in the trade wind belt or something it could be different with many hours of steady low winds).

I must stress that you shouldn't do this if you can't keep the line resistance very low ( ideally below .1 ohm for 24v).

Flux

[ Parent ]



Re: burn up (3.00 / 0) (#11)
by windspeed on Mon Aug 18th, 2008 at 07:16:08 AM MST
(User Info)

Hi Flux
You said
"The next approach is to do something about the efficiency of the alternator and that leaves you little option but to reduce turns and use thicker wire. Just playing with it doesn't have much effect, you need to be drastic enough to be able to significantly increase wire size. Reducing turns from 70 to 50 would let you increase the copper section by 50% or more and that would let you raise the maximum current in high winds to something more manageable."

 would that be 50 turns of 2 in hand wired in star ?

If I make the coil into a wedge shape do I have to keep a minimum space between the 2 legs of the coil opposite the inside width of the magnets ?

I will try this

Thanks a mil

Windspeed


[ Parent ]



Re: burn up (3.00 / 0) (#12)
by Flux on Mon Aug 18th, 2008 at 07:59:35 AM MST
(User Info)

Yes the direct equivalent would be 50 turns 2 in hand 1.3 or 1.4mm diameter.

In theory as things stand you can only manage 35 turns of 2 in hand 1.6mm and that is raising the cut in too much and will knock things in the 12 mph region. For you to be able to use the 1.6 wire you need to get some more turns in without loosing too badly. it will no doubt be a struggle to get the equivalent of the 1.4mm wire.

If you increase coil thickness a lot you drop the flux density and it becomes a chicken and egg situation. Also reducing the coil hole size will partially offset the increase in turns.

On balance I would keep the coil hole magnet size on the outside but squeeze it at the centre where you need to gain the space. if you can't get the number of turns with triangular coils you will be forced to increase thickness, if you are very careful and get things true you may be able to run the thicker coils in the same air gap. Increasing air gap 1/10" will not drastically drop the flux.

It's a gamble but worth trying if you have plenty of the 1.6 wire.

Flux

[ Parent ]



burn up | 12 comments (12 topical, 0 editorial)

Menu
· create account
· How to use the board
· FAQs
· search the board
· Google search the board
· Old Otherpower Board

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:

Powered by Scoop
You must be a registered user to post here. It's easy and free, and the link is on the upper right side of your page.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Postings are owned by the poster, but may be deleted or moved at the ADMIN's sole discretion. The Rest © 2003 Forcefield.
You can Email the board ADMIN here. PLEASE include the username you signed up with!