(B, H) curves connecting the magnetizing force required with different flux-densities for these materials are given under Electromagnetism. On the other hand there is a Materials of magnets.marked inferiority in the case of “cast iron,” which for a flux-density of B＝8000 C.G.S. lines per sq. cm. requires practically the same number of ampere-turns per centimetre length as steel requires for B＝16,000. Whatever the material, if the flux-density be pressed to a high value the ampere-turns are very largely increased owing to its approaching saturation, and this implies either a large amount of copper in the field coils or an undue expenditure of electrical energy in their excitation. Hence there is a limit imposed by practical considerations to the density at which the magnet should be worked, and this limit may be placed at about B＝16,000 for wrought iron or steel, and at half this value for cast iron. For a given flux, therefore, the cast iron magnet must have twice the sectional area and be twice as heavy, although this disadvantage is partly compensated by its greater cheapness. If, however, cast iron be used for the portion of the magnetic circuit which is covered with the exciting coils, the further disadvantage must be added that the weight of copper on the field-magnet is much increased, so that it is usual to employ forgings or cast steel for the magnet cores on which the coils are wound. If weight is not a disadvantage, a cast iron yoke may be combined with the wrought iron or cast steel magnet cores. An absence of joints in the magnetic circuit is only desirable from the point of view of economy of expense in machining the component parts during manufacture; when the surfaces which abut against each other are drawn firmly together by screws, the want of homogeneity at the joint, which virtually amounts to the presence of a very thin film of air, produces little or no effect on the total reluctance by comparison with the very much longer air-gaps surrounding the armature. In order to reduce the eddy-currents in the pole-pieces, due to the use of toothed armatures with relatively wide slots, the poles themselves must be laminated, or must have fixed to them laminated pole-shoes, built up of thin strips of mild steel riveted together (as shown in fig. 29).
 |
| Fig. 28. |
However it be built up, the mechanical strength of the magnet system must be carefully considered. Any two surfaces between which there exists a field of density Bg experience a force tending to draw them together proportional to the square of the density, and having a value of Bg2 / (1·735 × 106) ℔ per sq. in. of surface, over which the density may be regarded as having the uniform value Bg. Hence, quite apart from the torque with which the stationary part of the dynamo tends to turn with the rotating part as soon as current is taken out of the armature, there exists a force tending to make the pole-pieces close on the armature as soon as the field is excited. Since both armature and magnet must be capable of resisting this force, they require to be rigidly held; although the one or the other must be capable of rotation, there should otherwise be no possibility of one part of the magnetic circuit shifting relatively to any other part. An important conclusion may be drawn from this circumstance. If the armature be placed exactly concentric within the bore of the poles, and the two or more magnetic fields be symmetrical about a line joining their centres, there is no tendency for the armature core to be drawn in one direction more than in another; but if there is any difference between the densities of the several fields, it will cause an unbalanced stress on the armature and its shaft, under which it will bend, and as this bending is continually reversed relatively to the fibres of the shaft, they will eventually become weakened and give way. Especially is this likely to take place in dynamos with short air-gaps, wherein any difference in the lengths of the air-gaps produces a much greater percentage difference in the flux-density than in dynamos with long air-gaps. In toothed armatures with short air-gaps the shaft must on this account be sufficiently strong to withstand the stress without appreciable bending.
Reference has already been made to the importance in dynamo design of the predetermination of the flux due to a given number of ampere-turns wound on the field-magnet, or, conversely, of the number of ampere-turns which must be furnished by the exciting coils in order that a certain flux corresponding to one field The magnetic circuit.may flow through the armature core from each pole. An equally important problem is the correct proportioning of the field-magnet, so that the useful flux Za may be obtained with the greatest economy in materials and exciting energy. The key to the two problems is to be found in the concept of a magnetic circuit as originated by H. A. Rowland and R. H. M. Bosanquet;[1] and the full solution of both may be especially connected with the name of Dr J. Hopkinson, from his practical application of the concept in his design of the Edison-Hopkinson machine, and in his paper on “Dynamo-Electric Machinery.”[2] The publication of this paper in 1886 begins the second era in the history of the dynamo; it at once raised its design from the level of empirical rules-of-thumb to a science, and is thus worthy to be ranked as the necessary supplement of the original discoveries of Faraday. The process of predetermining the necessary ampere-turns is described in a simple case under Electromagnetism. In its extension to the complete dynamo, it consists merely in the division of the magnetic circuit into such portions as have the same sectional area and permeability and carry approximately the same total flux; the difference of magnetic potential that must exist between the ends of each section of the magnet in order that the flux may pass through it is then calculated seriatim for the several portions into which the magnetic circuit is divided, and the separate items are summed up into one magnetomotive force that must be furnished by the exciting coils.
|
| Fig. 29. |
The chief sections of the magnetic circuit are (1) the air-gaps, (2) the armature core, and (3) the iron magnet.
The air-gap of a dynamo with smooth-core armature is partly filled with copper and partly with the cotton, mica, or other materials used to insulate the core and wires; all these substances are, however, sensibly non-magnetic, so that the whole interferric gap between the iron of the pole-pieces and the iron of the armature may be treated as an air-space, of which the permeability is constant for all values of the flux density, and in the C.G.S. system is unity. Hence if lg and Ag be the length and area of the single air-gap in cm. and sq. cm., the reluctance of the double air-gap is 2lg / Ag, and the difference of magnetic potential required to pass Za lines over this reluctance is Za·2lg / Ag＝Bg·2lg; or, since one ampere-turn gives 1·257 C.G.S. units of magnetomotive force, the exciting power in ampere-turns required over the two air-gaps is Xg＝Bg·2lg / 1·257＝0·8Bg·2lg. In the determination of the area Ag small allowance must be made for the fringe of lines which extend beyond the actual polar face. In the toothed armature with open slots, the lines are no longer uniformly distributed over the air-gap area, but are graduated into alternate bands of dense and weak induction corresponding to the teeth and slots. Further, the lines curve round into the sides of the teeth, so that their average length of path in the air and the air-gap reluctance is not so easily calculated. Allowance must be made for this by taking an increased length of air-gap＝mlg, where m is the ratio maximum density/mean density, of which the value is chiefly determined by the ratios of the width of tooth to width of slot and of the width of slot to the air-gap between pole-face and surface of the armature core.
- ↑ And extended by G. Kapp, “On Modern Continuous-Current Dynamo-Electric Machines,” Proc. Inst. C.E. vol. lxxxiii. p. 136.
- ↑ Drs J. and E. Hopkinson, “Dynamo-Electric Machinery,” Phil. Trans., May 6, 1886; this was further expanded in a second paper on “Dynamo-Electric Machinery,” Proc. Roy. Soc., Feb. 15, 1892, and both are reprinted in Original Papers on Dynamo-Machinery and Allied Subjects.
