Poles in a Squirrel Cage Induction Motor

One at a time.

And sometimes with a hammer... [img=http://www.gsbop.co.nz/Data/DefaultShowcase/Images/New%20Images/Winding%20800HP%203.3kV%204%20Pole%20-%20Crop%201.jpg]

That'll just get a bunch of Betty Boop images.

What search engine turned those up for "flirt mode ayes"? Google, Goggle, Gargoyle, Gargle, Gaggle, Giggle, ...?

Just to play "devil's advocate" for a minute, I suspect that ayaz is just in a "cannot see the tree in a forest" type of mental block. As such he cannot properly phrase the question to get an answer that will break the block. Unfortunately this also means that I and most others here do not understand the question well enough to provide a clarifying answer. For me, the question evokes more questions than answers. Are these poles in the induction rotor or stator? Why the even integer progression of 2, 4, 6 poles?

'....Why the even integer progression of 2, 4, 6 poles?....'

.

I can't tell if that question is in earnest, or if you are trying to lead the OP somewhere via Socratic method?

.

On a related note, since this is a squirrel cage induction motor, the poles of the stator will create the poles in the rotor (when there is relative motion.

I'm trying to lead the OP back to answer some questions.

Last I heard, Socrates was a pretty good teacher. So why not follow a master.

I wasn't disparaging Socrates or any efforts to emulate his style, just wanted to make sure that was what I was seeing.

Are these poles in the induction rotor or stator? Why the even integer progression of2, 4, 6 poles?

My understanding (it's hard to tell) is that he is asking about pole pairs (N/S) on the rotor, which is a squirrel cage.

The poles on the rotor are produced by induced currents and match up with the poles on the stator (same number of pole pairs).

When a conductor moves through a magnetic field, there is a current induced in the conductor. This current generates its own magnetic field. The result is that a moving magnetic field seems to drag a conductor in its wake. This can be seen by dropping a very strong magnet through a copper pipe. The drag slows the descent of the magnet.

From the point of view of the rotor, the stator field seems to be rotating at the synchronous rpm (say 1800) minus the rotor rpm. This generates the torque on the rotor. If you could see the magnetic field, you would see the poles generated by the currents in the squirrel cage motor rotating at the synchronous speed behind the opposing poles of the stator, resulting in torque.

Maybe youtube can explain it better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWrNzUCjbk

By selecting suitable fractions and spacings of the total number of winding slots around which to coil lengths of wire. If someday you actually unwind a motor, you might receive an "aha" moment.

Find one. Take it apart. Let us know.

I guess there is a 7.3 billion to 1 chance of 'Yes' as the answer.

It depends on the desired (nominal synchronous) rotation speed. In case of 50 Hz grid frequency:

2 poles 3000 rpm

4 poles 1500 rpm

6 poles 1000 rpm, etc.

Of course you have to subtract the slip value (2 - 10 %)

In case of 60 Hz:

2 poles 3600 rpm

4 poles 1800 rpm

6 poles 1200 rpm, etc...

The motor manufacturer can. Make the call.

Aw. That's kind of mean. We at least have to opportunity to choose not to deal with a poorly fleshed out question. You may have exposed someone at their place of work to this inadequately defined/researched problem.

I should have stuck with my first inclination; to make this into a Polish joke of some sort.

"can some one tell me how poles(i.e 2,4,6) are formed in an squirrel cage induction motor?"

Poles are formed inside of female poles, usually 1 or two at a time, rarely 4, and 6 would be newsworthy. How they involve squirrel cage motors in the process is none of our business, but I'm sure there is an internet porn site devoted to it.

Lumberjack humor.

Here's a nice animation that might help...

http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?code=WBT_MOTORBLACTUT_WP

I reported this thread, not the OP's own post, but the scathing, mocking, ad hominem attacks on the OP by many of the respondents here. Only Rixter's posts and a few others' make this thread worth reading at all.

Is it for this, now-commonplace, MIS-treatment of new members that CR4 exists?

Way to go, CR4! We're a real credit to engineers everywhere!

Thank you, Tornado. Anyone else care to hide behind an OT?

Tell me Europium, does comment #27 somehow count as announcing the 'OT' rating you previously awarded to comments in this discussion, and do you beliee that technically relieves you of any guilt concerning hiding behind those 'OT's?

.

What is this requirement you seem to be calling upon when you chastise people as 'hiding behind OT' when your own comment receives such a rating?

.

Is it a requirement of convention/tradition? I certainly don't recall anything of the sort.

.

Is there perhaps some formal rule written somewhere? If so, it doesn't seem well followed.

.

Does acting confident about the existence of this rule provide an antidote or free pass for glaring acute hypocrisy? Among the questions I have asked, this is probably the one to double check first. Being indignant about people not immediately claiming an OT mark given to a comment of yours is a definitive symptom of acute hypocrisy when you have recently rated other people's comments as OT without announcing such.

.

If you feel the urge to protest on the basis that the comments you gave 'OT' were truly deserving, but your own were better than those other comments and only marked OT for other reasons; it means your case is severe and requires immediate trreatment.

.

Lighten up, before your emulation of an Arschgeige takes on more permanent characteristics.

Only two others, so far.

Perhaps you could have used the time you took reporting the evildoers to add value to the thread by searching for an answer to the OP's question.

I, at least, provided a valid answer. You will admit that the question could have been answered by a search, as so many of the repeat, elementary questions posed here can.

I'll certainly take your lead in supplying meaningful answers to the hundreds of simple, easily found answers posed here every day.

I'll wait for you.

I have never heard a good excuse for bad manners and I doubt that I'll hear one today. Backpedal as much as you like, but yours and others' behavior here on this thread is unwarranted and quite frankly, atrocious.

"Evildoers who add value?" How about adding value without all the ad hominem ballast? What a concept!

Rixter managed to pull it off quite well. If we had more Rixters and fewer Good Ol' Boys this site might again be worth joining.

"....I have never heard a good excuse for bad manners and I doubt that I'll hear one today....."

.

Perhaps you will be so generous as to enlighten us then with the excuses you use that allow you to feel justified in your own atrocious behavior of spewing vitriol and making unwarranted accusations of ad hominem attacks by a group your disparagingly refer to as 'Good Ol' Boys'.

.

('Now, don't listen to that comment, because it is something a Good Ol' Boy would say'....waddles, floats, and quacks like an ad hominem duck.....I still haven't found what you think might be an ad hominem attack in any of the other comments....care to share?)

.

.

"....If we had more Rixters and fewer Good Ol' Boys this site might again be worth joining....."

.

'Might again be worth joining'? Europium, we are only supposed to join once. The rules are one identity per person. I don't see any problem (though I am not the authority) with an exception made in your case and any similar, since you are only using this new screen name/identity.

But it does seem kind of disingenuous to suggest that CR4 need to change in order to 'again be worth joining' seeing are not only an example of someone joining recently, but you are one of the few examples of anyone 'joining again'.

That could be called, 'Look at what I write, not what I actually do.' Which kind of fits few of your other very recent comments as well.

Can you imagine some IHS exec visiting this site anonymously and getting the sort of treatment new members here get? They would shut this forum down in a heartbeat and I wouldn't blame them one bit.

This site does not make IHS one single penny and it costs money to run. IHS does not need CR4 and if this forum becomes an embarrassment to them, they're pulling the plug.

This site is far more cordial than most.

We DO help most who come here.

Quit preaching and start helping.

So there's no room for improvement? Were all professionals here?

"This site is far more cordial than the rest."

You mean like AT&T's billboard adverts which read, "We don't drop as many calls as the Other Guys?"

This is your standard of 'cordial'? We're not as *bad* as someone else?

I don't think the OP was treated badly.

.

If I had to point out the comments in this particular thread with the highest potential to motivate an IHS Exec to reevaluate whether or not CR4 should remain an ongoing concern, those comment would be yours.

.

Even though you are riding in under the pretense of protecting a fledgling member (and most recently with the additional pretense of saving CR4 from certain doom), your comments in this threat are inflammatory, derisive, packed with exaggeration, and possibly even threatening with that last comment.

.

Instead of making poorly veiled threats of possibly contacting IHS execs in a huff to have what you are painting as something just short of an abomination, and instead of continuing to complain in non-specific but grossly exaggerated terms, how about you list all the specific offending text.

.

It isn't that much work. Just copy and paste. Though it might require a little more to express exactly why you thought each comment was so offensive.

.

When the specific offending text has been noted and the specific criticism clearly stated, it will provide the opportunity for those writing or those who did not or do not agree that it is offensive to explain their view, and possibly change some old views and modify future responses with this information, or provide effective rebuttal toor new perspective about the statement and the complaint against it.

.

This may provide some opportunity for people on both sides of this disagreement to learn things.

.

So, what do you say? Want to work on making some progress here?

Neither do the other wolves, evidently.

Come on. Read the entire comment.

I am not "riding in under a pretense of being new member." I made it very clear in my second post on this forum (in a reply to lyn) that I was a member before, that I first joined in 2006.

Perhaps it is you who should be reading posts all the way through.

That isn't even a valid quote. Some of the words are the same, but the meaning is obviously different. I makes m wonder if you genuinely made that mistake, or it is just dust to the eyes, seeing as how in a previous comment to you quite recently, in this very discussion, I noted that you were someone who previously had a different screen name and had recently joined again.

.

...you do remember the '...again worthy of joining...' line in the discussion, right? Makes it pretty difficult to believe you honestly thought I was unaware that you are a long time participant.....which also makes it unlikely you misread what I wrote in the way you suggest.

.

It certainly isn't proof you are being disingenuous, and you deserve the benefit of the doubt. I doubt there will be anything similar in the near future and this will be forgotten as just a freak confluence of improbable outcomes. I just wanted to make you aware the perception it could begin to reinforce.

Maintaining the Status Quo is not 'progress.'

Are you really refusing to detail the specifics of the complaint you have so passionately championed?

.

Come on. If this is legitimate (and I don't think you are just blowing this up out of boredom, I believe you feel legitimate wrongs have been committed) then give it the attention it deserves by listing the offending statements and describing what is unacceptably offensive about each. The ensuing discussion will be enlightening and healthy.

.

It is going to be hard to continue to take this seriously if you are unable or unwilling to detail the specifics of your complaint. It will seem like you are merely displacing a reaction to something else in your life that makes you very uncomfortable right now.

I've stated my case clearly enough. Deal with it.

You haven't been specific about what constitutes the horrible treatment you keep claiming. Not once.

.

You haven't pointed out the offending text nor announced what is wrong with that text.

.

You have made broad, brash, derisive accusations, but allow no chance that either side of this conflict you have stirred might grow or learn anything. Without specific, the accused cannot realize any legitimate claims of wrong doing. Without specifics, the accused cannot provide rebuttal that mayy alloww you to see what you have misread or misunderstood.

.

....and just in case you were thinking that you never misread or misunderstand, there is a very plain example of just that within your last couple comments, wherein you misquoted from a comment of mine.

If you have real, legitimate complaints, then you should actually write those out. Your explanation thus far is far from acceptable.

I hear my mother calling.

<unsubscribe>

My earlier Socratic post was intended to lure the OP back into the discussion. Instead the wolf pack of egos descended on this thread mocking the OP away. Some tried to help by providing a valid answer that appears to me to be tangential to the OP's original obtuse question. I have no idea if the OP would have responded to my original tease for a clarification. I do not blame them for never returning to this forum again.

We reap what we sow, people.

First claims of; "....scathing, mocking, ad hominem attacks on the OP...."

.

and now a comparison to a "...wolf pack ..."

.

These characterizations are completely inaccurate. What has occurred here was a typically rational person caught a bad case of hypersensitivity, but the situation was then compounded with a harsh bout with self righteous indignation along with acute hypocrisy. Their system was so weakened, it is no surprise that an opportunistic infection of wanton hyperbole took hold. After that the highly contagious wanton hyperbole has apparently jumped to one additional CR4 member.

.

Remain vigilant. If you feel symptom such as feeling it is reasonable to accuse people of 'scathing' attacks for regular banter, of you feel justified in reporting criticism of the way a question was asked (and the lack of necessary information) as an ad hominem attack, you are probably coming down with wanton hyperbole. At that point you must confine your movements to only very literal places, and only communicate in reality based language. For at least a few days avoid all use of exaggeration in your communications.

.

.

The fact is almost every one who commented provided some worthwhile description of squirrel cage induction motors, Redfred, Rixter,Tornado, Jraef,Yusef1, Qubercci, and even me.

.

When I look through the comments, it looks like I might be the one what said the harshest thing. But if you read what is actually says, and let go of the idea you want to be angry about, you will be able to see, that it is an indictment of the posing of the question, and not the questioner.

.

Take a deep breath. Let is out. One more big breath in....and let it out

.

.

Some of my favorite people are assh0les. The fact that they do not contort what they have to say out of concern someone won't like them, or to contort their information into a widely accepted but often critically restrictive mold of manners obeisance, is reassuring in its dependability.

.

The OP asked a question that indicated they had not done even the most basic of searches and expended the necessary effort to grasp the most basic principals. This is a strong indicator that the OP would not have understood the answer in a useful way, had one been offered. Beyond that the OP made no meaningful correction of the deficiencies in the question.

.

The comments were critical, because that is the appropriate response. The responses were not scathing nor ad hominem attacks. The only ones upset at those who are overly concerned about prospect of getting other people upset, at least that is how it seems at the moment.

Rather than posting all that self-justifying verbiage above, you could have simply told the OP from the outset "Google it, then come back if you have any more questions. We'll do the best we can to answer them."

See? That wasn't hard now, was it?

You are commenting as if you missed the point. That particular comment wasn't intended for the OP. I don't however believe that this fact was really lost on you (rather that, similar to the post in which you pretend to believe I called you a new member, it is a convenient distraction). The main evidence for this is that it is you that replied....you, one of the primary intended recipients of my comment.

.

It might be worth noting that the suggestion to 'Google it' had been made early on. It is also noteworthy that this suggestion was not made by you, nor was it later made by you. (Telling other people what they should comment does not count.)

.

To review:

-The people collection of people who seem to take offense at the comments, do not seem to include the OP.

-The people most vocal about their complaints have no problem writing volumes about how awful the treatment of the OP has been, but refuse to point out the offending comments specifically and what exactly is offensive....even once.

-That same group seems happy to dictate what the proper acceptable response should be, but has not actually made such a comment.

-Yes, I can see so clearly now. Your position is not hard to understand....however it is hard to get behind.

my question was "how to make poles(2,4 or 6) during winding a stator of induction motor? "

Hello Ayaz14 re your posts 1 and 38.

The question in your mind might have been "how to make poles(2,4 or 6) during winding a stator of induction motor? "

But the question you asked was "Can some one tell me....".

See 17

Thank you for clarifying.

.

Redfred has provided an excellent response. Does that clear up what you wanted to understand?

A perfectly reasonable question.

Welcome to CR4, by the way...

http://www.icsarchive.org/tp/3225-3-1948_rewinding_and_reconnecting_induction_motors.pdf

Attached is a link to the VTU training and ICS archive documents on motor winding that should help clarify your questions.

Note carefully in the motor winding drawings that the North & South polarity of each pole is created by reversing the interconnection of each set of coils as compared to the previous connection.

The number of poles that determines motor rotation speed is determined by design of the coil span as compared to the circumference of the stator.

All of the winding information is well illustrated in the documents at each of the sites however it can be somewhat confusing.

If you will contact me via email I will attempt to answer any unswered questions you may have.

Email Removed -CR4 Admin

De gustibus non est disputandum.

.

Personally, I don't enjoy spam enough to post my email right out in the open like that.

Point taken. I do not usually do it but I figured the OP is a bit confused at this point and needs some basic help.

I will try consuming the spam by frying it and if not palatable at that point I will try it boiled or baked.

We're flogging a dead horse and have completely degraded the thread.

OP, my apologies for us all.

<unsubscribes> Really.