Reference is made to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/811,946 filed Jun. 8, 2006, entitled “Multipolar Flat Magnets,” and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/811,944 filed Jun. 8, 2006, entitled “MP-T Cooling and Lubrication,” which are hereby incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
The present invention introduces MP-T II machines, an improved version of the previously invented MP-T machines (see “MP-A and MP-T Machines, Multipolar Machines for Alternating and Three-Phase Currents,” D. Kuhlmann-Wilsdorf, Patent Application PCT/US05/30186 filed 24 Aug. 2005). The improvements are (i) exchange of Halbach or other magnet configurations for “flat” magnets (see Provisional Patent Application “Multipolar Flat Magnets,” submitted Jun. 8, 2006), (ii) an improved method of cooling (see Provisional Patent Application “MP-T Cooling and Lubrication,” submitted Jun. 8, 2006 and incorporated herein), and constructing the current tube from “triple S-ribbons.” Like its predecessors, i.e. MP-T and MP-A machines, also MP-T II machines may be adapted to any desired number of phases, i.e. one phase (for AC), two phases, three phases (for three-phase current), four or more phases. Similarly, also, a single MP-T II machine may be divided into NU≧2 essentially independent sub-units that may be operated as motors and/or generators, and by a combination of at least two sub-units as transformers.
The advantages of MP-T II machines include increased power density, reduction of expensive permanent magnet material content resulting in lowered materials cost, and simpler design and therefore expected lower manufacturing costs.
“Multipolar” (MP) machines, i.e. MP motors and generators, are characterized by (i) a generally cylindrical “current tube” centered on a rotation axis, (ii) machine current flowing in “turns” along axially extended, regularly spaced paths in the current tube, which paths are penetrated by radial magnetic flux density, B, due “sources of magnetization,” typically of permanent magnets, and (iii) means to let the current execute repeated turns such as to generate machine torque of the same sense of rotation everywhere. Typically, the permanent magnets are mounted on the outer surface of an inner magnet tube that is surrounded by the current tube, and/or on the inner surface of an outer magnet tube that encloses the current tube. MP machines with rotating current tube require electric brushes. In brushless MP machines, the current tube is stationary while the “sources of magnetization” rotate about the axis.
In the previously described MP-A and MP-T machines, as well as in MP-T II machines of the present invention, there are as many mutually insulated current paths as there are phases in the current with which a motor is operated or that a generator provides. Hence there is one current path in any MP-A machine or MP-A sub-unit, three parallel current paths in a three phase MP-T machines or its sub-units, and in general n current paths if n current phases are desired.
In the cited patent application, the geometry of S-ribbons and the practical construction of current tubes as well as the needed 180° S-ribbon turns outside of the current tube was described in several figures beginning with the (re-numbered)
Possible Arrangements of the Sources of Magnetization in the Magnet Tubes
Description of New Features—1. Improved Magnet Arrangements
A not yet completed investigation of various magnet arrangements for MP machines by Prof. Eric H. Maslen, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va., using finite element analysis, has shown “flat” magnets to be superior to Halbach arrangements, and it seems likely that flat magnets can also be superior to all other arrangements shown in
In the numerical examples, 45 MGOe magnet material is assumed, instead of 35 MGOe material in the modeling of
Description of New Features—2. Simplified MP-T II Current Tube Construction
The various relevant figures in the patent application “MP-A and MP-T Machines . . . ” (PCT/US05/30186 filed Aug. 24, 2005) reveal considerable complexity of the current tube construction, including “rims” that comprise the 180° turns of the S-ribbons at both ends of the current tube shown in
By the use of Case 3A, the wall width, T=KTo=2KHmo=K0.025 m, is three times smaller than the circumferential magnet length Lm/=K Lm/o=K 0.075 m (compare Table II), and typically (as in the examples herein) MP-T II machines comprise three phases. Therefore the current path for any one phase is favorably equiaxed, of breadth and height 2Hm. Further, for suppression of eddy currents, the individual S-cables for any one phase are favorably made of lightly twisted, mutually insulated Litz cables that have been compacted into (nearly) quadratic cross section, i.e. of edge length ff2Hm, and three of these compacted Litz wire cables may be favorably fused (glued) together into a continuous “Triple S-Ribbon” (173) of 2Hm thickness and 6Hm=1 Lm/ width, as indicated in
The folding and wrapping described in
The folds illustrated in
As may be recognized from
Making the 180° turns through wrapping as clarified in
Description of New Features—3. Simplified Cooling and Lubrication
Motivation
In previous patent applications and invention disclosures on MP machines, it has been routinely assumed that coolant would circulate in the spaces between the magnets in the two magnet tubes, and the current tube. In this approach coolant could be fed through those gaps or the whole machine, perhaps with the exception of the two “rims” that, could be immersed in cooling fluid. Such methods appeared to be attractive because of (1) the anticipated efficient cooling and (2) the simultaneous incidental lubrication between the current tube wall and the magnets on both sides. However, it has been pointed out that the resulting fluid friction could significantly subtract from the machine torque, especially at high relative surface speeds. Also, by the use of bundled Litz wires the transverse heat conductivity in the current tube wall could be poor, so as to diminish the expected cooling efficiency of this method. For both of these reasons, alternative cooling methods have been sought. The herein disclosed inventions of (1) “cooling cuffs,” namely fluid cooling tubing that encircle one or both current tube rims from the outside and/or the inside and are in close thermal contact with them, and (2) “cooling channels” embedded into current tube walls, provide attractive alternatives for MP machines with stationary current tubes.
Cuff Morphology
In the case of folded 180° turns, cuffs may also be installed at the inside cylindrical surface. And both types of cuffs may be installed at both tube ends, as may be needed at any but very squat machines, i.e. at quite short current tube lengths, L.
Limits on Current Density in the Current Tube
Current Tubes at Ambient Temperature
For the following simplified analysis of cooling by means of cuffs, refer to the schematic representation of
dQ/dt=j2Aiρdx (1Q)
which shall be removed by heat conduction to a heat sink at x=L (not shown in
With dθ the temperature difference between the location of dx and the heat sink, and λ the heat conductivity, such cooling requires
dQ/dt=λAidθ/L. (2Q)
Thus from equating eqs. 1Q and 2Q, we obtain dθ/dx=j2ρ(L−x)/λ or for the temperature difference between x=0 and x=L
With an upper limit on the temperature difference between the two ends of, say, Δθmax (as in practice will always be present), the maximum allowable current density then becomes
jmax=(2λΔθmax/ρL2)1/2. (4Qa)
Numerically, for copper Litz wires bonded by an electrically insulating adhesive that occupies, say, 20% of the volume, the relevant parameters for current and heat flow in axial direction are at room temperature ρ≅2.0×10−8 Ωm and λ=320 w/° Cm, i.e.
(λ/ρ)Litz=1.6×1010[w/° C.Ωm2]=1.6×1010[A2/° C.m2] (5Qa)
and from eq. 4Qa
jmax,Litz=(2×1.6×1010Δθmax/L2)1/2=1.79×105(Δθmax/L2)1/2. (6Q)
A numerical example of potential technological application of eq. 6Q is that of pancake-shaped in-wheel motors for hybrid cars or other wheeled or tracked vehicles. The most extreme construction and use herein required jmax/Litz=2.25×107 A/m2 with L=0.055m, which current density is in fact probably outside of the limit for stable Case 3A magnet configurations. If that current density is adopted non-the-less, eq. 6Q yields
Δθmax=(2.25×107/1.79×105)20.0552[mks]=48° C. (7Q)
This value of Δθmax=48° C. would be acceptable, as it would not degrade the magnets (at about 150° C.), even with a cuff at only one end and the heat sink end at an ambient temperature as high as, say, 70° C., whereas cuffs at both ends would halve L and thus cut Δθmax to ¼ 48° C.=12° C.
At ambient temperature, cooling through cuffs is restricted to short machines. This is seen from rewriting eq. 4Qa as
Lmax=(2λΔθmax/τ)1/2/j (4Qb)
which for a desirable current density of j=1×107 A/m2 and with otherwise the same values yields
Lmax=(2λΔθmax/ρ)1/2/j=0.0179√Δθmax[mks]. (4Qc)
Since without cryogenic cooling, numerically Δθmax can hardly exceed 64° C. or √Δθmax≦˜8(° C.1/2) this means that for machines that are not cooled cryogenically, the longest distance to the nearest cuff may not exceed ˜8×0.0179=0.14 m, for a maximum zone length of Lmax≅1 ft of a machine cooled by cuffs at both ends.
The above result opens the possibility of spacing cuffs along machines at, say, 1 ft intervals. For MP-T II machines this is readily possible, namely by providing the corresponding gaps in the outer (and if desired also the inner) magnet tube as shown in
Cryogenically Cooled Current Tubes with Cuffs
Cryogenic cooling can significantly extend the length limits of machines that may be cooled by cuffs because the electrical resistivity of metals, ρ, is roughly proportional to the absolute temperature, θ, while their heat conductivity, λ, is almost temperature independent. As a result (in accordance with the Wiedemann-Franz law) λ/ρ is inversely proportional to the absolute temperature, i.e. we may write (with 300K ambient temperature)
(λ/ρ)Litz=1.6×1010(300/θ)[A2/° Cm2]=4.8×1012[A2/° Cm2] (5Qb)
and for the maximum distance to a cuff with otherwise the identical parameters,
Lmax,θ=Lmax,amb(300/θ)1/2. (4Qd)
Hence the critical machine length for cooling with cuffs on the current tube rims will be roughly doubled, quadrupled and increased tenfold, at liquid air, hydrogen and helium temperatures, respectively. In the last case, i.e. effective cooling with liquid helium, not only could most realistic machine lengths be cuff-cooled, but the ohmic machine loss will have plummeted to just a few percent of its room temperature value. Additionally to this advantage of the use of cryogenic cooling of the current tube, at low temperatures heat exchange through radiation, e.g. as that between magnets and current tube, will be reduced. On the other hand, differential thermal expansion among the machine parts, and in particular the current tube and magnet tubes, will be a problem. Certainly a more detailed analysis will be needed to decide the merits.
Requirements for Cuffs
Next, for the cases in which cuffs are feasible, it needs to be examined how long they should be and what other characteristics, if any, they should require.
To begin with, at temperature difference Δθc, heat will pass through a barrier of width tC made of material having heat conductivity λC and area AC at rate
dQ/dt=(λCAC/tC)Δθc (8Q)
For a cuff of axial length wc encircling the rim of a current tube of diameter D, it will be
AC=fcπDwC≅¾πDwC (9Q)
where the factor of fc is the fraction of rim or current tube circumference that is in good thermal contact with the cuff(s). Provisionally this is assumed to be fc≅¾ in line with
WM=(λC¾πDwC/tC)Δθc (10Qa)
which relationship determines the required value of λCwCΔθc/tC. Now, numerically (consistently in mks units) the heat conductivity of a well chosen adhesive and material for the thin barrier between the cuff and the rim, will presumably be no less than λC=1.7 w/° Cm as for ice and concrete; and the barrier thickness may be made as small as tC≅3×10−5 m, i.e. the thickness of a strong kitchen trash bag. With these values, and assuming a permissible value of Δθc=50° C., one obtains from eq. 10Qa
WM=(1.7×¾πDwC/3×10−5)×50 [mks]=6.7×106DwC[mks]. (10Qb)
As an example, return to the in-wheel MP-motors already considered. Herein the most demanding case was WM=56 kW and =9.3% for D=0.32 m. For this example, then, the required axial cuff width is found as
wC=0.093×5.6×104/{0.32×6.7×106D)=0.76 cm. (10Qc)
It follows that as far as transfer of the heat from the outermost rim layer into the cooling fluid in the cuff is concerned, a very narrow cuff will suffice. However, the example pertained to an NT=4 layered machine and one must additionally consider the heat flow resistance of the three adhesive layers in the rim. If these should offer the same heat flow resistance as the surface bond between cuff and current tube rim, the needed cuff width would be quadrupled, i.e. to about 3 cm, but only by half as much if a cuff is added also on the inside surface of the rim.
In summary, better knowledge of the input parameters, in particular λC and tC is needed before more reliable predictions may be made. At any rate, the present rough assessment indicates, firstly, that for short machines cuffs will be very effective and need not be unduly wide, and that regularly spaced cuffs, in the manner of
Lubrication and Cooling Channels in Current Tube Walls in Conjunction with Flat Magnets
According to the section “Description of New Features—1. Improved Magnet Arrangements” above, MP-T II machines will preferably employ “flat” magnets of Case 3A as indicated in
The specifics of
In line with the above considerations, a fairly snug fit between current tube and the magnets in magnet tubes 5 and 6 on both sides, as in
Closer inspection of the installation of cooling tubes 40 as outlined above reveals some difficulties. Different morphologies for incorporating cooling channels into or between triple S-ribbons are indicated in
The alternative would be to let current channel walls be exposed to one or both cylindrical current tube surfaces, as in the lower part of
Multiphase Power Other than Three-Phase (n=3) and Optimized Magnet Arrangements
The above explanations and illustrations have concentrated on three-phase power, i.e. triple S-ribbons (173) because, at this point, this is expected to be the most frequent application of MP-T II machines. However, this focus does not imply an exclusion of MP-T II machines from n phases other than n=3. In fact, the same constructions as described can be made with any arbitrary number of phases n>3 by simply dividing the S-bands into n>3 sections instead of n=3. The corresponding phases may appropriately be labeled a, b, c, d, e, f and g, for a 7-phase current, for example. However, for n<3, the S-ribbon width may be preferably reduced. Specifically, for an AC (i.e. single phase) MP-T II machine, the S-ribbon width may be reduced to (⅔)Lm/, and perhaps similarly for n=2 phase current. These are provisional statements, though, and for these cases a detailed analysis directed towards optimization would be highly advisable. Specifically, manufacture of the S-ribbon would probably be complicated by making the cables for single phases overly wide, and these may be preferably subdivides even though electrically connected in parallel. Also the overall width of the S-ribbons relative to the magnet width needs exploration to optimize cost and weight per unit of power.
The above considerations on different numbers of phases, as indeed all of the considerations herein, are critically affected by the magnet arrangements. The above concentration on Case 3A reflects the fact that right now this appears to yield the highest power densities among all cases in Table II. However, it would be a very peculiar coincidence if Case 3A happened to be the best achievable. Also still uncertain is the highest achievable current density. Efforts to expand the necessary finite elements analysis to close these gaps are in progress.
Cooling Efficiency Through Cooling Water Flow in Cooling Channels
The ohmic waste heat WM, of an MP machine of power WM and relative loss is generated by current density j passing through area πD/2T over zone length L, and thus equals
WM=d/dt=½πDLTρj2[watt]. (11Q)
Assume that this waste heat shall be removed by cooling water flowing through cooling channels of combined area ¼πDT at speed vc having specific heat c=1 cal/cc° C.=4.2 ws/cc° C. and being heated through an inflow/outflow temperature difference of ΔθC, i.e.
dQC/dt=¼πDT×vC×c×ΔθC=d/dt=½πDLTρj2 (12Q)
It follows that
vC×c×ΔθC=2Lρj2 (13Q)
or numerically, with c=4.2×106 [ws/° Cm3] and ρ≅2.0×10−8 Ωm for bundled, compacted Litz wires as before,
vC×ΔθC=2Lρj2/c=9.5×10−15Lj2[mks]. (14Q)
In order to assess the limits of this kind of cooling, i.e. with water flowing through cooling channels 40 in current tube walls 2, consider the worst likely case of L=5 m, together with a high but reasonable value of ΔθC=50° C. to find the required flow speed of
vC,5m,50o=9.5×10−16j2. (15Qa)
Moreover, if this should be limited to the conservative value of vC≦1 m/sec≅2.2 mph, the largest permissible current density becomes
jmax,5m,50o=(1/9.5×10−16)1/2[mks]=3.2×107 A/m2=3200 A/cm2. (15Qb)
This means that cooling via water flow through cooling channels 40 through current tube walls will be adequate up to 3200 A/cm2 (which in fact is well above the value at which the magnet arrangement becomes unstable), for the longest realistic zone length of L=5 m, and will at a coolant flow rate of vC=1 m/sec and arbitrary zone length L, will be adequate for
(Lj2)max,50olm/s≦5.2×1015 [A2/m3] (15Qc)
i.e. at L=1 m to j=7200 A/cm2. These greatly exaggerated figures show that cooling channels occupying 10% or less of the current tube wall width will be adequate under virtually all circumstances.
Summary
The previous invention of MP-A and MP-T machines with stationary, brushless current tubes is expanded into MP-T II machines that include
As shown in connection with point (iii) above, MP-machines, motors as well as generators, and in particular MP-T II machines, may be advantageously fitted with “flat” magnets sliding against boundary-lubricated current tubes with clearances of about 0.0006D against the magnets on the outer as well as the inner magnet tube, where D is the current tube diameter. Those clearances are needed to accommodate differential thermal expansion of the current tube versus the magnet tubes, assuming maximum temperature variations of 110° C.
Further in connection with point (iii) above, two new cooling methods are introduced.
1. Flowing cooling fluid through “cuffs” that encircle one or both of the current tube rims, where they extend outside of the magnet tubes, from the outside and/or inside, and/or periodically placed cuffs in close thermal contact with the stationary current tube. This method is very favor-able especially for short machines, with zone lengths of L≦1 ft at ambient temperature, or alternatively requires cooling cuffs at intervals of 1 ft or less along the length of the zones. However, even with regularly spaced cuffs, this method can be very simple and effective. Cryogenic cooling of machines increases the allowable spacing between cooling cuffs by a factor of ≅(300/θ) where θ is the absolute temperature of the current tube in Kelvin.
2. Providing axially extended cooling channels (40) in the current tube wall and flowing cooling fluid through these, preferably from an inflow feeding tube that encircles the current tube wall and exiting through a similar outflow draining tube at the other end of the current tube wall. If the combined area of the cooling tubes occupy ¼ of the area between the magnets on the inner and outer magnet tube, if the zone length, L, equals the length of the tubes, if water is the cooling fluid and if it flows at 1 m/sec with a 50° C. temperature difference between outflow and inflow, the maximum permissible current density in the current tube wall would be jmax=7.2×107/√L [A2/m3], i.e. greatly in excess of the current density at which the poles of magnet tubes 5 and 6 would slip past each other. More realistically, 1% occupancy of the current tube wall by cooling channels should be adequate for virtually all requirements.
Analysis of MP-T II Machines
An analysis of MP-T II machines follows that provides general equations for machine construction and performance as well as a number of numerical examples.
Approximate Parametric Relationships for Three-Phase MP-T II Machine Operation
(Assuming “flat” magnets, without gaps between magnets, provisionally of Case #A design)
AZ=(⅓)Lm/T=(⅓)K2Lm/oTo cross section of current flow per phase,
B=Effective magnetic flux normal to current,
CM=Materials Cost of machine=$40×mm+$10×(mM−mm),
D=Diameter at current path midline,
d≅8000 kg/m3=Mechanical density of machine materials (assumed the same for all),
F1=Lorentz force per turn,
Hm=KHmo=Thickness of permanent magnets,
I=Current through individual turn=JaZ,
iM=2i=Machine current (assuming two phases pass through B in a zone at any one time),
j=Current density,
K=Scaling factor for magnet assembly dimensions,
L=Length of current tube,
Lb=KLbo=Radial thickness of flux return material,
Lm/=KLm/o=Zone width, i.e. width of permanent magnets in circumferential direction,
=Relative Ohmic loss=VΩ1/V1,
MM=WM/2πν=Machine torque,
NT=Number of layers,
NU=Number of essentially independent units into which machine is divided,
NZ=πD/Lm/=Number of zones,
R1=Ohmic resistance per zone,
vr=πDν=(π/60)Dωrpm=Relative velocity between current and permanent magnets,
VM=NZV1=Machine voltage,
V1=Induced voltage per zone,
VΩ1=Ohmic voltage in current path per zone,
t.□=ωrpm/60=Rotation rate in Hertz,
ρ≅2×10−8 Ωm=Electrical resistivity in current path,
ωrpm=60ν=Rotation rate in rpm.
Key Equations for MP-T II, Three-Phase Machines
(compare Table, [mks] units throughout with watt, Amp and Volt; too many significant figures are retained to avoid accumulation of rounding errors)
Construction Parameters
(NT=Nu=1; with Case 3A, i.e. Hm=KHmo=K 0.0125 m, Lm/=6Hm, Lb=Hm, T=2Hm, B=0.58t, only two of three phases flow in field B at any one moment; d=8000 kg/m3, ρ=2×10−8 Ωm)
Current Path Area per Phase: AZ=(⅓)TLm/=4Hm2=4K2Hmo=6.25×10−4K2[m2] (1)
Current per phase: I
Current Density: j=i/AZ=i/6.25×10−6K2=1600K2I[A/m2] (2)
Effective Machine Current or of Independent Section: iM=2i=2JaZ=1.25×10−3K2j (3)
(assuming that two of three phases flow in peak magnetic flux density, B, at any one moment)
Number of zones: NZ=πD/Lm/=πD/6Hm=πD/6KHmo=41.9 D/K [mks] (4)
Lorentz Force per Zone: F1=iMBL=1.25×10−3K2BLj (5)
Total Lorentz Force F=NZF1=3.04×10−2KDLj (6)
Torque: MM=(D/2)NZF1=0.0152KD2Lj (7)
Machine Power: WM=(2πωrpm/60)MM=1.59×10−3KD2Ljωrpm (8)
Voltage per Zone V1=vrBL=(π/60)DωrpmBL=3.04×10−2NTDωrpmL (9)
Machine Voltage: VM=NZV1=1.27D2Lωrpm/K (10)
Ohmic Voltage Loss per Zone*: V1Ω=ρLj (11)
Relative Ohmic Loss: =V1Ω/V1=(ρj)/(3.04×10−2Dωrpm)=6.59×10−7j/Dωrpm (12)
Ohmic Machine Resistance: RM=NZρL/AZ=1.34×10−3DL/K3 (13)
Mass of Magnet Material: mm=2πdDLKHmo=628KDL [kg] (14)
Flux Return Material Mass: mb=2πdDLKLbo=628KDL=mm[kg] (15)
Current Path Mass: mCu≅2πdDLKTo≅628KDL=mm[kg] (16)
Cost of Magnet Material: Cm=$40×mm=$25,100KDL (17)
Machine Mass: mM=1.3(mm+mb+mCu)=1.3×3mm=3.9mm=2450KDL [kg] (18)
Machine Material Cost: CM=$40×mm+$10×(mM−m)=$10×(4+2.9)mm=1.77Cm=$44,400KDL (19)
Power Density: WM/mM=6.45×10−7Djωrpm or mM/WM=1.55×106/Djωrpm (20)
Cost per Unit of Power: CM/WM=$2.79×107/Djωrpm (21)
= V1Ω/V1 = 6.59 × 10−7j/Dωrpm
= V1Ω/V1 = 6.82 × 10−7j/Dωrpm
Comments on Current Density, Machine Loss and “Floating Loss”
As seen from the above equations and Table I, typically in conceptional and presumably actual machines, the loss plays a central role in that it is proportional to the current density, j (see eq. 12) and so are the torque, the machine power and the power density (see eqs. 7, 8 and 20). Therefore if loss is set at some predetermined level, the typical effect is to thereby indirectly set the level of cost and power density, especially at low rotation rates, unless the current density is determined independently.
In many, if not most prior types of electrical machines, the rate of heat evolution, i.e. loss , limits machine design, namely on account of cooling problems. These arise from the fact that internal machine temperature is limited, at least to the level at which permanent magnets and/or machine component materials deteriorate. In previous machines, conductors tended to be at least partly in the form of coils, i.e. wires embedded in some insulating and thus poorly heat conducting “potting” material that slowed down the rate of waste heath removal or, conversely, raised the internal machine temperature. On account of their coil-free construction and available effective cooling systems, MP-T II machines are essentially free of this impediment, and waste heat removal is rarely if ever a limitation for them. The above reason for limiting does therefore not, or only quite rarely, apply to MP-T II machines.
In MP-T II machines based on Case 3A magnet morphology, instead, the current density is limited to ˜1.2×107 A/m2=1200 A/cm2. At still higher current densities, the proportionality between current density and torque (eq. 7) increasingly breaks down and eventually the correlated magnet poles in inner and outer magnet tube will slip past each other. Finite element analysis to determine the optimum magnet morphology and the dependence of MM on j (eq. 7) at high current densities is still very incomplete. At this point, j=1.2×107 A/m2 is believed to be safe for both Case 1A and Case 3A, and in conceptual machine designs, a provisional maximum current density of jmax=1.2×107 A/m2 is adopted. It any even, careful analyses with a view of optimizing MP-T II machines are highly recommended.
Cooling channels occupy a fraction of the current-carrying, torque-producing area AZ. However, the discussed limit of jmax pertains to the total current flow between inner and outer magnet tubes (labels 5 and 6) which is not affected by making space for cooling channels, e.g. as in
Machine with K=0.25, =4%
At WM=7.5×104 watt and ωrpm=200 rev/min, the torque is MM=60×7.5×104/2π200=3580 Nm, i.e. from eq. 7
MM=0.0152KD2Lj=3850 (7a)
for
KD2Lj=2.52×105 [mks]. (23a1)
The first decision will be the choice of K, which will be made as small as possible in order to lighten the machine and save cost of permanent magnet material but without unduly complicating practicalities of machine construction. Provisionally we may choose K=0.25 to let the magnets be Hm=K 1.25 cm=0.31 cm thick and the zones be 6Hm=1.88 cm wide in circumferential direction. With this choice of K=0.25 we obtain
D2Lj=2.52×105/K=1.01×106 [mks]. (24a1)
The next choice then is of the current density j. One will wish to make this as large as possible in order to obtain a small value of D2L and thus low magnet and machine weight, but one is constrained by the fact that the loss, is proportional to j in accordance with eq. 12, i.e. with ωrpm=200 rpm, find
=V1Ω/V1=6.59×10−7j/Dωrpm=3.30×10−9j/D (25a1)
Choosing =4.0% we obtain,
=3.30×10−9j/D=0.04 (26a1)
for
j=1.21×107D. (27a)
For D=0.55 m (in order not to lower j too much nor end up with an unnecessarily large motor) we then find from 27a
j=6.67×106 [A/m2]=667 A/cm2 (28a1)
and from eq. (24a1)
L=1.01×106/D2j=0.50m. (29a)
With these dimensions, the required magnetic mass is from eq. 14
mm≅628KDL=43.2 kg (14a1)
costing Cm≅$1,730 and, following eqs. 18 and 19, the machine mass will be
mM=2450KDL=168 kg=370 lbs (18a1)
costing
CM=$44,400KDL=$3050 (19a1)
for a weight power density of
mM/WM=1.55×106/Djωrpm=3.5 lb/hp (20a1)
and specific materials cost
CM/WM=$30.5/hp. (21a1)
Following eq. 10 the voltage (disregarding ) is, with K=0.25, D=0.55 m and L=0.50 m:
VM=1.27D2Lωrpm/K≅154 V (10a1)
for a machine current of
iM≅WM/VM=490 A. (30a1)
Same Machine but Equiaxed, i.e. L=D, with “Floating Loss” and K=0.25
Torque equation (23a) yields with j=jmax=1.2×107 A/m2, K=0.25 and L=D
D2L=2.52×105/Kjmax=0.084 [m3]=D3=(0.438 m)3. (23a2)
This results in a loss of
=V1Ω/V1=6.59×10−7j/Dωrpm=9.03% (25a2)
and magnet mass
mm≅628KDL=30.1 kg (14a2)
costing Cm≅$1,205. Then, following eqs. 18 and 19, the machine mass will be
mM=2450KDL=118 kg=260 lbs (18a2)
at cost
CM=$44,400KDL=$2,130 (19a2)
for a weight power density of
mM/WM=1.55×106/Djωrpm=2.4 lb/hp (20a2)
and specific materials cost
CM/WM=$21.3/hp. (21a2)
Following eq. 10 the voltage, including =0.0903 is, with K=0.25 and D=L=0.438 m
VMcorr=(1.27D2Lωrpm/K)(1−)≅95 V (10a2)
for a machine current of
iM≅WM/VM=790 A. (30a2)
Same Machine with =4% but K=1
All of the above parameters are very reasonable. Larger K values will decrease the manufacturing costs by decreasing the number of magnet pieces to be installed but will, at same diameter, leave the materials cost unchanged and decrease the machine voltage. By way of example consider K=1, for HM=1.25 cm and Lm/=7.5 cm. In that case
D2Lj=3850/(0.0152K)=2.53×105 [mks]. (24a2)
Then with the same 4% loss, diameter of D=0.55 m and current density of 6.67×106 A/m2, find
L=2.53×105/(0.552×6.67×106 A)=0.125 m (24a3)
with the same magnet mass
mM=628KDL=43.2 kg (14a3)
but voltage VM=1.27D2Lωrpm/K≅9.6 V (10a3)
and current
iM≅WM/VM=7810 A (30a3)
a patently absurd design. Thus, primarily, choice of K is a tool for achieving a desirable voltage.
Same Machine with K=0.25 and =4% but different α
By contrast to the parameter K, the aspect ratio, α=L/D, significantly influences the machine cost. Decreasing α, reduces the magnet mass and thus the cost as seen in the following example: Beginning with eq. 27a and K=0.25 as before, choose D=0.8 m to find
j=1.21×107D=9.68×106 A/m2 (28a4)
and from (24a1) with K=0.25, D=0.8 m and j=9.68×106 A/m2 find
L=2.52×105/(D2Kj)=0.163 [m] (24a4)
for
mm=628KDL=20.4 kg (14a4)
and
mM=2450KDL=79.9 kg=175 lbs (18a4)
for
mM/WM=1.75 hp/lb or WM/mM=0.94 Kw/kg. (20a4)
while
VM=1.27D2Lωrpm/K≅106 V
with
iM≅WM/VM=708 A (30a4)
and
CM/WM=$2.79×107/Djωrpm=$14.4/hp. (21a4)
Thus a considerable cost decrease is bought at the expense of a remarkably squat machine (α=L/D=0.163/0.80=0.20) as well as a significantly lowered machine voltage.
Conclusions
As seen, the range of choices is vast. The choice of =4 is overly conservative and the “floating” loss case with yields great machine cost savings, namely by $21.3/hp/$30.5/hp i.e. almost one third. Meanwhile, the monetary effect of raising the loss from 4% to 9% is as of 96%/91%=1.055, i.e. of 5.5%, and this even at a less favorable aspect ratio, namely α=1 instead of α=0.9. Accordingly, considerable thought should be given to the level of loss so as to optimize the systems, whether it be of motors or generators.
Beyond the function of the parameter K to permit adjustments of machine voltage, choice of K impacts machine manufacture. This is so because the difficulty of handling individual magnets rises with their size, namely on account of the magnetic forces among them that are roughly proportional to K3, whereas the effort of installing magnets escalates with decreasing K-values as both the number of magnets as well as the precision with which they need to be placed rises roughly as 1/K2. The importance of these considerations rises with machine size. Therefore, in this case of a large machine and in which voltage imposes no restriction, K=0.4 is chosen as a perceived good compromise between the two named problems, i.e. of large numbers and hard to handle large magnet sizes. Experience will teach what the best options may be. Meanwhile, the possibility of subdividing machines into independent units that may be connected in-series or in-parallel, greatly simplifies adjustments of voltages to a desired level even at same K.
Machine with K=0.4, =4% and α=½
At WM=6100 hp=4.55×103 Kw and ωrpm=120 rpm, it is MM=3.62×105 Nm. We find. from eq. 7
MM=0.0152KD2Lj=3.62×105 [mks] (7b)
i.e.
KD2Lj=2.38×107 [mks]. (23b1)
With K=0.40 (based on the considerations above) we obtain
D2Lj=2.38×107/K=5.95×107 [mks]. (24b1)
Again choosing =4% (even though realizing that substantial cost and weight may be saved with a higher loss, e.g. =8% as already suggested above), we find from eq. (12) with ωrpm=120 rpm,
=6.59×10−7j/Dωrpm=5.49×10−9j/D=0.040 (25b1)
for
j=7.28×106D (27b1)
and by inserting 27b into eq. (24b1) find
D3L7.28×106=5.95×107 [mks], i.e. D3L=8.17 m4. (31b1)
At this point it is useful to explore the effect of aspect ratio α=L/D to rewrite eq. (31b1) into a D4=8.17 [m4] i.e. α1/4D=8.171/4=1.69 m yielding
D=1.69/α1/4[m] and L=α3/41.69 [m]. (31b2)
Consequently, with K=0.4 obtain
mm=628KDL=251(1.69/α1/4)(α3/41.69)=α1/2718 kg. (14b1)
Numerically, mm decreases fairly rapidly with decreasing values of α but with a gradually decreasing impact on mm, while increasingly squat machines become intuitively awkward. We therefore choose α=0.5 as a reasonable compromise. With this we obtain from (31b2)
D=2.01m and L=1.00m (31b3)
for which equation (14b1) yields
mm=628KDL=628×Kα1/21.692=508 kg (14b2)
at a cost of
Cm=$20,300 (17b1)
while
mM=3.9mM=1980 kg=4360 lbs (18b1)
at cost
CM=1.77Cm=$35,900 (19b1)
or CM/WM=$5.9/hp. (21b1)
The resulting power density is
mM/WM=0.71 lbs/hp or WM/mM=2.30 Kw/kg. (20b1)
Further, the voltage is found at
VM=1.27D2Lωrpm/K≅1,540 V (10b1)
with iM≅4550 Kw/1540 V=2950 A (30b1)
Same Machine but Equiaxed, i.e. L=D, with “Floating Loss” and K=0.4
Torque equation (7b) yields with j=jmax=1.2×107 A/m2, K=0.25 and L=D
MM=0.0152KD2Lj=3.62×105 [mks] (7b)
D2L=2.38×107/Kjmax=4.96 [m3]=D3=(1.70m)3 (23b2)
resulting in loss
=V1Ω/V1=6.59×10−7j/Dωrpm=3.9% (25b2)
and magnet mass
mm≅628KDL=726 kg (14b2)
costing Cm≅$29,000. Then, following eqs. 18 and 19, the machine mass will be
mM=2450KDL=2830 kg=6230 lbs (18b2)
at cost
CM=$44,400KDL=$51,300 (19b2)
for a weight power density of
mM/WM=1.55×106/Djωrpm=1.0 lb/hp (20a2)
and specific materials cost
CM/WM=$8.4/hp. (21a2)
Following eq. 10 the voltage, including =≅4% is, with K=0.4 and D=L=1.7m, is
VMcorr=(1.27D2Lωrpm/K)(1−)≅1950 V (10a2)
for a machine current of
iM≅WM/VM=2330 A. (30b2)
Conclusion
This example shows that there is an upper limit to that is derived from stability of the magnet arrangement and that is not necessarily large even by conservative standards.
Same Machine with K=0.4, =4% but α=1
All of above values are very reasonable, especially since, if desired, the machine can be split into, say, two in-series parts with about 750V each, or conversely into parallel parts with one half of the current, i.e. 1500 A, or in general into n parts with VM/n voltage iM current or with VM voltage and iM current. In fact, the above results are quite favorable on account of the squat design. For an equiaxed machine of same K=0.4, current density and loss the values change as follows: Eq. (31b1) yields
D=L=1.69m (31b4)
for a magnet material mass
mM=628KDL=628×K×1.692=717 kg (14b3)
machine mass
mM=3.9mM=2800 kg=6155 lbs (18b1)
and power density
mM/WM=1.01 lbs/hp or WM/mM=1.62 Kw/kg. (21b1)
The machine voltage becomes
VM=1.27D2Lωrpm/K≅1,840 V (10b2)
with current
iM≅WM/VM=2470 A. (30b2)
The specific materials cost is
CM/WM=$50,760/6100 hp=$8.3/hp. (21b2)
Elongated Machine (α=3) for Podded Ship Drive with K=0.3 & Floating Loss
From the rewritten torque equation (7) i.e.
KD2Lj=3.62×105Nm/0.0152=2.38×107 [mks] (24b2)
obtain with K=0.32 (for a not too low voltage), with L=αD=3D and jmax=1.2×107 A/m2,
D2L=αD3=2.38×107/Kjmax=6.19 [m3]=(α1/31.84 [m])3 (23b3)
i.e.
D=1.84/α2/3=0.88 m and L=1.84α1/3=2.65 m (31b4)
resulting in a loss of
=6.59×10−7jmax/Dωrpm=0.075=7.5%. (25b3)
With these values, i.e. K=0.32, D=0.88m and L=2.65m, the magnet mass becomes
mm=628KDL=469 kg (14b4)
at a cost of
Cm=$18,750 (17b3)
while
mM=3.9mm=1,830 kg=4,020 lbs (18b3)
at cost
CM=1.77Cm=$33,200 (19b3)
or
CM/WM=$5.4/hp. (21b3)
The resulting power density is
mM/WM=0.66 lbs/hp or WM/mM=2.50 Kw/kg (20b3)
and the voltage and current are
VM=1.27D2Lωrpm/K≅980 V (10b3)
iM≅WM/VM=4550 A. (30b3)
If desired, the voltage may be increased by lowering K, since this raises the machine dimensions even while at set machine dimensions, VM is inversely proportional to K. However, as already discussed, reduction of K will increase construction cost of the machine. Thus, again, careful modeling is advisable before deciding on any particular design. In any event, specific materials cost is remarkable low and power density is high, in spite of the strongly elongated design of the present example.
General Comments on Small MP-T II Motors or Generators
Since MP-T machines require electronic controls and will only coincidentally operate on 60 Hz current, it seems unlikely that large numbers of small MP-T machines will ever be used casually for mundane tasks, e.g. for operating car widows or powering vacuum cleaners and sewing machines. Even so, on account of their achievable high power densities, compact MP-T II machines, whether motors and/or generators, may have a future in high-tech applications, e.g. for drones, unmanned underwater vehicles or generators in space. At a lower size limit, D may be as small as, say, 10 cm or less and the rotation rate could be at least as high as 15,000 rpm. According to eq. 8, at current density j=×107, length of, say, L=0.3m and K=0.2, this would permit a surrealistic power above 100 Kw. Evidently, the limitation here would be cooling. Anyway, given a high-tech need, one should try to adapt MP-T machines to it.
9.6 V!!
minκμn
Now we turn to a fuller illustration of the prior art and aspects of the invention in the drawings.
Sizes are Hm=KHmo=K1.25 cm; Lb=Hm; Lm=KLmo=K2.5 cm, and Lg=KLgo=K2.5 cm
This invention may be embodied in other specific forms without departing from the spirit or essential characteristics disclosed. The foregoing embodiments are therefore to be considered in all respects illustrative rather than limiting of the invention described herein. The scope of the invention disclosed is thus indicated by the appended claims rather than by the foregoing description, and all changes which come within the meaning and range of equivalency of the claims are intended to be embraced herein. Unless clearly stated to the contrary, there is no requirement for any particular described or illustrated activity or element, any particular size, speed, dimension, material, or frequency, or any particular interrelationship of any described elements. Therefore, the descriptions and drawings are to be regarded as illustrative in nature and not restrictive. Any information in any material that has been incorporated herein by reference is only incorporated by reference to the extent that no conflict exists between such information and the statements and drawings set forth herein. In the event of such conflict, including a conflict that will render invalid any claim herein, then any such conflicting information stated to be incorporated by reference is specifically not incorporated by reference herein.
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/US2007/016035 | 7/13/2007 | WO | 00 | 9/14/2010 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2009/011673 | 1/22/2009 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4710660 | McKee et al. | Dec 1987 | A |
4900965 | Fisher | Feb 1990 | A |
5049771 | Challita et al. | Sep 1991 | A |
5331244 | Rabe | Jul 1994 | A |
5874881 | Steinbusch | Feb 1999 | A |
6043579 | Hill | Mar 2000 | A |
6727632 | Kusase | Apr 2004 | B2 |
7246428 | Fukasaku et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7545060 | Ward | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7777383 | Wilsdorf | Aug 2010 | B2 |
20040140725 | Takahashi | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20110210636 | Kuhlmann-Wilsdorf | Sep 2011 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
WO 2007024224 | Mar 2007 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Office Action issued Jun. 29, 2012 in Australian Application No. 2007356497. |
Office Action with relevant Articles and Rules of Law cited in the Office Action issued Mar. 16, 2012, in Chinese Patent Application No. 200780100253.4 (submitting English translation only). |
Office Action issued Nov. 26, 2012 in Chinese Patent Application No. 200780100253.4 (English translation only). |
Japanese Office Action issued Jul. 3, 2012, in Patent Application No. 2010-516955 (English-language translation only). |
Office Action issued Aug. 20, 2013, in Korean Patent Application No. 10-2010-7002572 with English translation. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20110210636 A1 | Sep 2011 | US |