Definitive Tests on the Heating and Cooling of Hub Motors

Cowardlyduck said:
The surprising thing for me was that when I went to clean it up (with wet wipes), the red varnish wiped off also, but only on the steel surfaces. It did not wipe off the copper windings. Interesting!
I can't recall weather I used type A or B (Synthetic or Ester based) on this motor as I had one of each and used them both on different motors....I may have made mention of it earlier in this thread if that matters to anyone. I think, from memory I used about 5-6ml...maybe that wasn't enough?


Perhaps apply a bit of the red paint to a couple bits of scrap metal, then set each into a little dish touching each type of FF, leave for a few months, and then test how the paint is impacted by each type. If we knew what glue the motor's magnets are bonded with, it would be awesome to test for long-term FF/glue softening (which is unlikely, but still would be worth testing for).
 
It would also be nice to take a small amount of FF, weigh it on a lab scale, then weigh it like a month later to see how much evavorates. My motor is nearly sealed so I would expect less evaporation.
 
Hey Sketch,
I am looking at the visual gradient up the length of the fins of your FEA picture. Do you reckon about the top third of fin length could come off the design if there is a revision in future?

Fechter - I still have several hundred mls of Ferrotec APG1110 I would be happy to do a evaporation loss test on. Anyone want to propose a standard test we could all do remotely?
I also have some of the cheap Ferrotec grade with 70c flashpoint that the schools use. I'd never put it in a hub but would gladly test that if people see the value in it.
 
liveforphysics said:
Perhaps apply a bit of the red paint to a couple bits of scrap metal, then set each into a little dish touching each type of FF, leave for a few months, and then test how the paint is impacted by each type. If we knew what glue the motor's magnets are bonded with, it would be awesome to test for long-term FF/glue softening (which is unlikely, but still would be worth testing for).
Yeah, I'm not really setup to do that kind of test unfortunately, but I do think it's a good idea. If anyone's in a good position to test this I think it should be Justin, but we all know how busy he is.

For testing FF evaporation, would it be viable to leave some sitting in an oven at say 70C for an extended period to represent the peaks/troughs of a hub motor's temps during use?

I reckon 120 hours (5days) at 70C (158f) would be a good representation.
That would equal about 6000km (3728 miles) of use at 50kph (31mph) which would take most people around here a good 6 months of daily usage.

Cheers
 
fechter said:
My motor is nearly sealed so I would expect less evaporation.
That would depend on the absorption rate and amount of the vapors in the other materials inside the motor (or chemical reactions with them, if any). If the vapors are not left in the air inside the motor, then there is "room" for more vapor from the ferrofluid. Plus it also depends on the capacity of the air to hold the vapor in the first place, and the amount of air in there.

I have no idea how much any of those things affects the evaporation rate. :/
 
Samd said:
Fechter - I still have several hundred mls of Ferrotec APG1110 I would be happy to do a evaporation loss test on. Anyone want to propose a standard test we could all do remotely?
I also have some of the cheap Ferrotec grade with 70c flashpoint that the schools use. I'd never put it in a hub but would gladly test that if people see the value in it.

I would just take a small cup and put in enough to cover the bottom and weigh it with a sensitive scale.
Then just let it sit uncovered someplace for a month or so, then re-weigh. It would be good to know the empty weight of the cup also.
I guess you don't want dust settling on it during the test, so perhaps inside a cabinet or box would minimize that.
 
Fetcher are you sure about the way you propose to test? Vapor may increase at heat rises. To get test results that are more in line with real world hub motor usage I think it would be of importance to at least do test at hub motors temp levels, using various temp points might also be good.
 
I was thinking of accelerating the test by running my 3d printers heated bed rolling for a few days.

Although I have enough ferrotec to frankly keep topping the hub up a few ml every few months. I know managed to see a small drag effect on the dyno but I am thinking tyre choice, pressure or that extra hamburger would effect my 7kw 34kg bike more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
macribs said:
Fetcher are you sure about the way you propose to test? Vapor may increase at heat rises. To get test results that are more in line with real world hub motor usage I think it would be of importance to at least do test at hub motors temp levels, using various temp points might also be good.

True, elevated temps will be a bit more realistic, but most of the time the motor is cool.

I added about 8ml of Justin's stuff to my A2B motor (spilled the rest, very messy stuff). I took no-load, full speed amp measurements before and after and did not see any measurable change. I'd like to keep adding until I see a slight increase in drag.

If the 'oil stuff' that suspends the particles evaporates, it seems like you could just add more oil and re-suspend the existing particles.
 
Samd said:
I was thinking of accelerating the test by running my 3d printers heated bed rolling for a few days.

Although I have enough ferrotec to frankly keep topping the hub up a few ml every few months. I know managed to see a small drag effect on the dyno but I am thinking tyre choice, pressure or that extra hamburger would effect my 7kw 34kg bike more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great samd, would love to see some dyno charts to try to grasp to what effect the drag is really a problem.

Time after time I've seen people talk about the drag effect. Both with oil filled hubs and FF hubs. I have yet to see anyone being able to quantify the drag effect. If you fill your hub with 25 ml FF rather then 5 ml, what will the losses in performance be due to the added drag?

Or how about a hub filled half way up with ATF? Compared to a 5ml FF filled hub?

Are the drag effect high enough to really play a big part in real life performance? I am thinking if adding extra oil or FF to a hub gives you better thermal dissipation or last longer before hub needs to be topped up, how big are the losses? And are the losses due to drag bigger then the benefits of less internal resistance we get from lower temperature and thereby higher efficiency?
 
macribs said:
Samd said:
I was thinking of accelerating the test by running my 3d printers heated bed rolling for a few days.

Although I have enough ferrotec to frankly keep topping the hub up a few ml every few months. I know managed to see a small drag effect on the dyno but I am thinking tyre choice, pressure or that extra hamburger would effect my 7kw 34kg bike more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Time after time I've seen people talk about the drag effect. Both with oil filled hubs and FF hubs. I have yet to see anyone being able to quantify the drag effect. If you fill your hub with 25 ml FF rather then 5 ml, what will the losses in performance be due to the added drag?

Or how about a hub filled half way up with ATF? Compared to a 5ml FF filled hub?

Are the drag effect high enough to really play a big part in real life performance? I am thinking if adding extra oil or FF to a hub gives you better thermal dissipation or last longer before hub needs to be topped up, how big are the losses? And are the losses due to drag bigger then the benefits of less internal resistance we get from lower temperature and thereby higher efficiency?

I am thinking the motor has more drag from Eddy resistance than it would get from FF or ATF or 0w motor oil
 
I did think we had quantified data in this thread for drag but now not sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
See 6th image down, "Rolling drag vs mL".

Evaporation should not be a problem with high grade FF. Exposure to oxygen and other contaminants seems to be the main source of degradation.

Yeah I am not so sure.
Maybe I misread the chart but for me it seems the drag is negotiable at best.

Exposure to oxygen will be a hard nut to crack. Sure you could fill the hub with nitro but I really don't think the nitro will stay in place inside the motor. As things get hot, metal expands there will be a pressure increase in the motor, cooling down might cause internal vacuum inside the motor and that will cause air to flow back in - and air is what about 1/5th of oxygen? Pretty soon the nitro will so diluted that it becomes moot.

file.php
 
Cowardlyduck said:
GmagNeato said:
I remember reading with excitement about CowardlyDucks early ventures with his cooling mods and heatsinks on the hub magnet ring a while back.
Hey, thanks for the acknowledgement. :D
My epoxied heat-sinks still work well btw. Obviously not as well as the purpose built heat-sink ring will, but still makes a considerable difference.
DSC_3285.jpg


GmagNeato said:
What about thermally conductive epoxy? And heat sinks that have, or can be given, enough curvature to match the round of the hub, so that there is more natural contact area between the hub surface and actual heatsink backing? And coating the inside of the hub with the right kind of thermal paint should help counter the issue of grit contamination. All of these combined - magnet ring heatsinks, FF, scooped vent holes, and thermal coating inside- would yield great results I would think. Not sure if the thermal coating would somehow interfere with the FF though..
I would not recommend air flow through the hub with FF. I tried it and the FF seems to disappear. I would also suggest being careful with any coatings used with FF. The stator varnish (standard red stuff) I used wiped right off the magnet ring when I removed the FF from my hub.
DSC_3258.jpg

DSC_3260.jpg


See here for the full details.

Cheers



I had the same thing happen to me too.
I cured the red con-formal coating for 80 plus hours in a 110 degree garage.
The statorade ferro fluid dissolved the coating in about eight hours.
The statorade package contained two servings of the compound.
I am trying again.
 
Which base of fluid dissolved your glue?
 
liveforphysics said:
Which base of fluid dissolved your glue?
Not the glue just the red coating dissolved . I believe it was type B statorade. I hope the statorade does not dissolve the epoxy holding my brand new mxus 3000 motor magnets.
I now feel like a Windo$e user, beta testing using some fantasy stuff.


https://www.amazon.com/CRC-Urethane-Viscous-Coating-Temperature/dp/B00BXSMNWG/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1471468600&sr=8-6&keywords=conformal+coating
 
Yeah, I can't recall which FF I used sorry...shoulda taken note... :oops:

I had another thought...I wonder if the reason my FF reduced in volume was partly due to it dissolving the varnish coating? Surely that kind of reaction would consume one of the compounds if not both.
If that's the case, then running FF with venting may still be possible :?:

Cheers
 
It would most certainly consume the base oil as it dissolves the coasting. That's excellent to hear vented motors may still last fine with FF.
 
liveforphysics said:
That's excellent to hear vented motors may still last fine with FF.
It'd have to be creatively vented to keep it in though...
At the previously mentioned race a few weeks back I used FF in my motor but in my haste to get it on the track in time I forgot to seal up the 3mm hole I drilled to squirt it in. In the afternoon I noticed dust clinging to oily residue leaving the hole and later that evening after the motor had let out the magic smoke and I pulled it apart to inspect and the FF was all but gone. So yeah, even with one tiny access hole alot of it flung out after only ~15km/10mi

Re: evaporation tests - I have a lab, calibrated lab scales that have 0.01g increments, cheap ferrofluid and a quiet corner I can devote to this for weeks or even months. Sam is also sending me some of his so I'll test a little of that too so we can compare evaporation rates between the 2.
I don't have anything immediately on hand but can get creative with ways to heat it

Any particular requirements ?
I'm thinking an open jar with a squirt of each, and maybe one with a magnet half way up on the outside pulling a blob to the wall and seeing what happens if there IS any evaporation (presumably it'd eventually leave behind the magnetic powder?)
 
Hyena said:
Re: evaporation tests - I have a lab, calibrated lab scales that have 0.01g increments, cheap ferrofluid and a quiet corner I can devote to this for weeks or even months. Sam is also sending me some of his so I'll test a little of that too so we can compare evaporation rates between the 2.
I don't have anything immediately on hand but can get creative with ways to heat it

Any particular requirements ?
I'm thinking an open jar with a squirt of each, and maybe one with a magnet half way up on the outside pulling a blob to the wall and seeing what happens if there IS any evaporation (presumably it'd eventually leave behind the magnetic powder?)

That sounds great. I'm sure you can find a nice warm spot somewhere. There seems to be a wide variety of ferrofluid base oils. Generally speaking, the runnier the oil, the higher the vapor pressure. But we want low viscosity for less drag (I think).
 
As far as FF volume goes i generally find 10ml has been the magic number for me with a wider 45/50mm stator and haven't experienced any appreciable real-world drag or increase in freewheel current.


Exciting update on the Hubsinks, they're currently in transit to aus ready to send out to beta testers!

Final CnC drilling mounting holes is complete

DhUuGBY.jpg



Ready for Anodising
CZ3lT6X.jpg


Anodising complete, matte black to improve emissivity from 0.09 to around 0.88-0.89 (9.1w to 274w static radiation @ 95c )

7g2cfdI.jpg


Calculated Thermal Impedance*1 - 0.07 - 0.08 °C/W ~1100W @ 95°c 18kph
Heat transfer emissivity*2 - 0.88 - 0.89 ε ~ 274w @ 95°c static


Approximate total heat dissipation: 1375w @ 18kph on a 20ºC day



*1 The thermal impedance of a heat sink is measured in ºC/W, which is the temperature rise of the heat source for each Watt of power dissipated. (these should increase 0.8°C per Watt of heat dissipated at 18kph ~ 1100W )

*2 Emissivity represents a conversion of thermal energy into electromagnetic energy on a scale of 0(no emissivity) to 1(perfect emissivity)
(These have a value of 0.88 - 0.89 due to the matte black anodising allowing them to shed an additional ~274W at 95c)


Back of the napkin workings, in theory if a hub like the MXUS is overheating after a 15 min ride because its being hammered on and off at 13Kw peaks and producing 2600W of heat under throttle, on paper it looks like we can dissipate more than half of that excess to potentially let it be ridden in the exact same manner indefinitely with ff and hubsinks.

But its hard to say how much more power the hubs will be able to handle due to the drop in efficiency and rise in thermal output as input power levels increase, ill leave that up to the beta testers.

In practice we've done that with the prototypes in the TT1500 race and the D'aguilar hill climbs at 18Kw on a QS205, but i'm super excited to get it out to beta testers who are interested in posting some real world results.
 
Amazing job. Dude that heat sink works like a charm, pretty impressive heat dissipation.
Kudos for seeing this trough, making prototypes and making the use of the heat sink simple by dividing it into 6 parts so one can easily fit the heat sink without removing spokes and there is no need for heat sink to be mounted pre lacing.

I am certain you will get many satisfied customers.
 
Excited to help you test!
 
Back
Top