Hubmotor Ventilation John's new (now old) approach

Wouldn't more smaller holes choke the exhaust a bit and cause turbulence?

Is it just as good to just have intake and exhaust vents on the same side as it is to have exhaust on one and intake on the other? You're right, leaving out 4/8 of the freewheel bolts would be very doable... On the cromotor, their only job is to take some lateral force... They don't have to be snug because a boss keeps the freewheel assembly in concentricity with the covers:

7617913616_878c3896e2_z.jpg


Do you think 4 of the m5 or m6 holes for intake would really be enough, though?

here's another thought:

7616724238_44fa74ff7d_z.jpg

7616765138_eddf52f62c_z.jpg
 
That's why I'm asking you guys. I'm throwing up examples.. get it? My understanding it as far out near the windings.. smaller to avoid large dibris. Gensem, can you be more specific.. I'm not just drilling a bunch of holes by hand and chamfering them by rubbing the bit around. Let's talk about actually modeling these holes.. but before I get all detailed with the model I need to know the right approach on the size of hole, the spacing, etc.

ARe circular vents more aerodynamic in this application? Is that why the above blue motor has circular holes, or is it just a matter of easing the manufacturing process of the cover by using an indexer for a company with lower capabilities just during the prototype stage.. This is why I'm asking for opinions

I did read the suggestion to only have the exhaust on one side and the intake on the other to maximize air flow through 50mm stator/magnet gap :p
 
I was not talking about the turbulence inside... but it is very clear that you are going to get a very small flow inside the motor perimeter having holes aside it. Imagine a mixer whatever you add in will go the perimeter as soon as you start spinning.
In a hub you need to take the winding and magnet heat away... guess why the outtake holes are made just in one side?

btw I have not finish my motor mods, but the bike is looking pretty sharp!!! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
 
I don't know if we're on the same page. none of the above is finalized... and the depictions are probably misleading. None of these covers are one side over the other.. I just was sketching the perimeter holes first. I haven't really explored the intake holes yet. I think I know why you misunderstood. Sorry.

gensem said:
but it is very clear that you are going to get a very small flow inside the motor perimeter having holes aside it.

I'm not sure what is different about the numerous holes in the model above to your motor.. except that they're a bit bigger and oval shaped. The holes near freewheel are just for reference in the even tI make that side the intake side (in which the other features would be absent). NEVERMIND, yes I see what you mean, but the above cover designs are focusing on a single side.. just multiple designs. perimeter only.
7617913616_878c3896e2.jpg
 
HOV,

Don't think "near" the windings. Think "past" the windings. eg if the exhaust vent is AT the windings then the air will flow out of the exhaust instead of over the windings to cool them first. Like with ANY centrifugal fan the exhaust is AT THE PERIMETER. The shape of what we have to start with makes getting it at the perimeter difficult, so we settle for as close to the perimeter as possible for all portions of the holes.

Since you like to analyze things to death, and you have access to a machine that can cut almost any shape holes anywhere on the piece of metal, you should start at the beginning. You have 3 things so far. First, because the covers also support the full weight of the bike we have to leave enough material between both the intake holes and the exhaust holes to support the bike. Second, exhaust needs to be at the extreme perimeter without ruining the lip inside the cover that lock the cover in the magnet retaining ring. Third, the bigger these openings, the larger the debris that could potentially get in.

Another reason the exhaust needs to be at the extreme perimeter is that the magnetic gap is at the perimeter. For air to flow well through the gap, it needs to be able to eaily flow out.

The shape of the holes is also important. The air inside the motor is spinning, and centrifugal force pushes it toward the perimeter. We don't want to disturb the resulting flow, and if possible we want to enhance it, so to optimize the system we have to consider how it moves relative to the outside environment. Think about how the valve stem on your bike tire moves relative to the outside world. When it's at it's closest point to the road, for that instant it is stationary relative to the road and the outside world. As the tire rolls forward, the valve stem accelerates upward and forward in an arc to it's fastest at the point furthest from the road before moving back down and decelerating back to zero. The holes in our covers move the same way.

If I had a machine that could cut anything I wanted, then I would have it cut slots that are shaped in a manner that the remaining material at the perimeter of the cover was shaped like backward curved centrifugal fan blades. Actually, because they are exposed to the outside environment, I would shape each like an air foil in an attempt use the influence of the air in the outside environment to stimulate the natural centrifugal flow by creating a low pressure region behind the trailing edge of each "blade" as it moves through the environment without adding turbulence or causing a scooping effect, which would stuff up the flow. This shape will also help deflect debris and water from going into the motor.

I've actually cut angles slots as exhaust vents in a set of side covers, but it was expensive in the form of using many dremel disks and it was very time consuming, so I never recommend it. The end result looked quite nice though.

You'll find the resulting shape to be angled slots with sharp edges (the leading edge on the inside and trailing edge on the outside). Be careful in the programming, because angle in the cuts for these slots depends on whether the cover is for the left side or right side, and if you get it work flow will suffer drastically, because they will try to scoop air in at the same time centrifugal force is pushing it out.

For the intake, instead of slots parallel to the axle like for the exhaust, I would cut even narrower slots (to keep debris out which can obviously flow in the intake easier than into the exhaust and whatever grit and sand does get in can flow right out of the exhaust). The goal of intake is to allow free flow of air into the motor. That means as much cross sectional area as possible, and to the extent the holes can be shaped like blades that "scoop" air into the motor it is a good shape. Again, the angle is important, because it is opposite on the left and right sides. I would cut many slots running radially from the axle, and stagger the roots of the slots to make room for more of them.

John
 
hillzofvalp said:
Wouldn't more smaller holes choke the exhaust a bit and cause turbulence?

Is it just as good to just have intake and exhaust vents on the same side as it is to have exhaust on one and intake on the other? You're right, leaving out 4/8 of the freewheel bolts would be very doable... On the cromotor, their only job is to take some lateral force... They don't have to be snug because a boss keeps the freewheel assembly in concentricity with the covers:
Do you think 4 of the m5 or m6 holes for intake would really be enough, though?
hillzofvalp said:
Inlet /exhaust on opposite covers is the preferred tech afaik
the reason i posted the pic of the other motor was to show the extreme exhaust perimeter, of course the question of the shape of these slots is a very prudent question, and i also want to get it right first time.
On the freewheel side bolts ill be leaving 4 modding four holes to start with, the other thing would be to find the industry that uses the closest design motor to ours and research there current established cooling methods.
 
Here's two similar patterns on each cover. Which would be the best candidate for the exhaust vents? the curved cover or the chamfered cover? (cromotor from zombie doesn't have symmetrical covers).

Also, I shaped the holes assuming the cover is going on the disc brake, non drive side of the motor. If the exhaust was on the drive side (curved), I would flip the vent direction.

Better? I have trouble making fillets for the sharp edges of the pockets with catia.. still learning.. might not even be possible on this feature of the part..

7627082222_ab8f60c466_z.jpg

7627081978_2a92208cac_z.jpg
 
John in CR said:
Actually, because they are exposed to the outside environment, I would shape each like an air foil in an attempt use the influence of the air in the outside environment to stimulate the natural centrifugal flow by creating a low pressure region behind the trailing edge of each "blade" as it moves through the environment without adding turbulence or causing a scooping effect, which would stuff up the flow. This shape will also help deflect debris and water from going into the motor.
What you would probably really want is a NACA duct shape, I would guess. Those are designed specifically to cause air to be pulled thru them by airflow across them. I dont' know how effective they would be in this situation, but that's what I'd try if I could have them machined.
 
I've done vents on both cover shapes. I liked the rounded better like on my 9C, because the more perpendicular root of the curve at the flange results in thicker material due to the angle of my vents, which is at near 45° relative to the flange along with the rearward angle.

Regarding the vent shape, from what I've read NACA ducts are only for intake and don't work properly in reverse.

What is the smallest width the machine can cut? I ask because I would go with closely spaced short slots as parallel to the axle as possible. That would leave the remaining material between each slot shaped most like the blades of a centrifugal fan. Once painted it would look nearly invisible as being open. ie you have look at the same angle as the cut to see inside the motor. That gives a great ability to deflect debris coming off of the front tire.
 
about .126".. but painful. more easily is about .19". I'm trying to understand what you mean.. could you draw it? do you mean numerous concentric slots like on a microphone?

so you think I should put the exhaust on the curved side of my motor?
 
I think it has already been pointed out that the correct way to cool with air ventilation is not by blowing cold air at high speed over the stator (although this gets used a lot it is not efficient), but by pushing air at low speeds but higher pressures. I think when John in CR talks about turbulence near key ingredients he is reflecting this, because the turbulence represents pressurized, slow moving air. So, to achieve this pressurized air where it is needed we can control intake, diversion of air within the motor, and exhaust. Although it may be tempting to ramp up intake to achieve pressure via ram intake scooping, this is not without problems because drag will be increased (higher air speed leading to inefficiency), and noise. Directing air within the compartment seems like an easy and important thing (where space provides), and creating an exhaust system which just doesn't screw it all up by creating back pressure, or being too open and lossy leaking pressure.

Oh, and having an intake in one side and exhaust in the other will prevent too easy of laminar flow and the risk of dead spaces precisely where they are not needed.

Am I reflecting thinking?
 
Just think of any squirrel cage fan....as much like that as possible.

I always put intake on the left and exhaust on the right with the thinking that gunk coming off the chain and into the intake is worse than a bit of brake pad dust. You asked which cover I liked better, and since I've done both I told you my preference and why, though I doubt it makes much difference.

Here are my very first vented covers done with many dremel cutting disks. What I don't like about them now that I've learned a lot since then is that the slots are too long, allowing air to escape before the perimeter, and I would cut into the retaining lip slightly as well. Since you'd have a machine cut them, yours can be shorter, thinner, and much more numerous. If those were done on the curved cover starting right at the root and say 1-1.5cm long, then the overall shape of the remaining aluminum would be very much like a so common squirrel cage fan.

I thought I had a pic of the full cover to show how nice they look with the slots, but all I had was closeups to show the slot shape.
View attachment 2
Slotted covers b.JPG
Vented motor air flow.JPG

Note that in the drawing, if it was possible to put a bump in the material on the outside right at the trailing edge before the slot, it would do a greater job of forcing a low pressure region at the hole to "suck" more flow out than just what centrifugal force creates. Way back when I did most of the research I did run across some info that a foil shaped blade was the ideal, but is rarely used for cost reasons. That's why I spent a lot of time with the dremel creating somewhat of a foil shape rather than simple slots. If I had 3-4 times the number of slots, the remaining material between them would be quite foil shaped.
 
John in CR said:
Regarding the vent shape, from what I've read NACA ducts are only for intake and don't work properly in reverse.
You're right; I am thinking of something else..now if I can only remember what that is. :? There is a specific duct shape intended to use the slipstream to suck air out of something, but I can't remember it's name or shape. :(
 
John in CR said:
Way back when I did most of the research I did run across some info that a foil shaped blade was the ideal, but is rarely used for cost reasons. That's why I spent a lot of time with the dremel creating somewhat of a foil shape rather than simple slots. If I had 3-4 times the number of slots, the remaining material between them would be quite foil shaped.

im thinking having intake one side near the id and exhaust on opposite cover close to the OD in my mind will allows greater distance for the spiraling flow to stabilize [depending on specific motor of course]
I once worked in a curing room and the best/efficient way of getting rid of the epoxy fumes was extraction , so the idea of having something to induce extraction along the lines of
external foil or internal near the exhaust vents seems a good direction.
 
For those with X4 and X5 as well as the X6, all with the splayed stator lams, the resulting angled stator slots is an added issue, since the angle of the slot dictates which side should be intake and which exhaust. That's because the spinning flow will naturally cause a flow through the magnetic gap due to the slots acting as flow channels. If you fight against the direction of the natural flow I think it would be counter productive by reducing flow through the gap and less fresh air reaching the end windings on the intake side.

I don't know if it's standard, but on my 4 series motor the flow would be exhaust out of the left, wire side. I don't think those motors run optimally in reverse, so be careful about that.

Regarding the intake hole location, I've always thought nearer the axle is better, so the ridges of the side covers can get the air spinning up to full rpm before it reaches the windings for maximum centrifugal force and maximum air speed for best cooling where it's needed most. I'm pretty sure we don't want the flow to behave exactly like a squirrel cage fan where the air doesn't jump to full velocity until it hits the blades at the perimeter. I remember seeing a smoke demonstration with one, and the smoke moved fairly slowly coming into the big side opening up until it got very close to the blades where it immediately vanished.

If the flow is kind of lazy regardless of intake hole placement, then I think my interior blades become an even more significant aspect of the good results I've had.
 
Well my motor [cromotor] doesnt have the angled stator slots

Hard to see/angle but the motor i posted looks like intake holes are near the center

If the flow is kind of lazy regardless of intake hole placement, then I think my interior blades become an even more significant aspect of the good results I've had.
Thats were i think the smoke + a small key hole camera would be interesting, i may try this when i have some time and no projects if there is such a moment. :roll:
 
Yeah, having the time and no projects to work on so I can try things that are interesting is a luxury I wish I had. If you have a hot motor, then making a change needs to go to the top of the list, and the speeds and type of riding you do will determine if just improving passive ventilation will be enough, or going active with some blowers is warranted.

John
 
Today found out just how important the interior blades are to all of motors I've air cooled. I spun my MiniMonster with no blades at all, and even going all the way up to 1300rpm very little air flowed out of the exhaust. I'll report back as soon as I have blades installed, which I expect will make a drastic improvement. Sure the outside shell helps the air spin, but the stationary stator has a great influence in retarding the spinning action.

In HOV's drawings above with holes alone, I have no doubt at all now that the one with much more numerous narrow holes would flow much more air simply because each of those trailing edges would be a fan blade. With no interior fan blades in the motor, it might even be best if those narrow slotted holes had little or no taper, to make them better "fling" air away from the motor.

John
 
So you basically mean rectangular with very small radius corners. Hmm. I might talk to a guy this week about this?

I don't think that the blades need to be rotating. I think the Same effect can be made with blades mounted off th stator. Far safer that way too I feel like
 
I'll try my hand at inputting some ideas here. Bernoulli's principle as a reference. You could create a difference of pressure from one side of the hub plate vs. the other using "bumps" prior to the exhaust holes to create a lift, similar to aircraft wings. It would allow one side to have airflow into the motor (the smooth side) and enough difference of pressure to let flow escape on the opposite plate (the "bumped" side). Only mentioning it, because from pictures it looks like your not using the surface of the plates to create bigger pressure gradients :idea: :?:
 
hillzofvalp said:
So you basically mean rectangular with very small radius corners. Hmm. I might talk to a guy this week about this?

I don't think that the blades need to be rotating. I think the Same effect can be made with blades mounted off th stator. Far safer that way too I feel like

Of course blades need to rotate. The whole purpose is to increase the velocity and turbulence right at the end windings, and to ensure the air is spinning well so there is more centrifugal force creating a bigger pressure differential for more flow....more flow and faster more turbulent flow at the windings. That stator doesn't move, so anything mounted to it would be counterproductive.

On my Mini, I have thin angled slots with tapped threaded holes next to them. That way I can mount my blades from the outside, and get them extremely close to touching the stator. Once I like the size and angle of and prove the improved flow, then I use some epoxy on the blades and bolts and I'm golden. I won't be the prettiest solution, but I can get the blades exactly how I want them, good and close with no rubbing the stator.

Hubmonster has much thicker material than the cover in your drawing, so thin angled slots for the exhaust is the way to go, and your CNC can make lots of them.

John
 
melodious said:
I'll try my hand at inputting some ideas here. Bernoulli's principle as a reference. You could create a difference of pressure from one side of the hub plate vs. the other using "bumps" prior to the exhaust holes to create a lift, similar to aircraft wings. It would allow one side to have airflow into the motor (the smooth side) and enough difference of pressure to let flow escape on the opposite plate (the "bumped" side). Only mentioning it, because from pictures it looks like your not using the surface of the plates to create bigger pressure gradients :idea: :?:

I've always stayed away from protrustions on the outside due mainly to noise, but yes some exterior blades will definitely increase flow. Again that is increasing only total flow. With my interior blades I have always gotten sufficient cooling, and while flow isn't tremendous, the blades make better use of the flow available by increasing its velocity and turbulence right at the end windings.

edit- my position has changed since I added blades to HubMonster HE in July 2013. Exterior blades are the way to go. Update to come with new thread.
 
hillzofvalp said:
yeah but cncing the slots would be most practically done in the axial direction.. 2.5D. They would be straight through. no relief unless you flipped it and went crazy with a tiny ball mill

this is 2.5D:

7617913616_878c3896e2_z.jpg

If it can't angle them then you're going to have to get a small angle grinder out and do some real man work. Look at what I did on the MiniMonster. That's the kind of thickeness of material and shape of the housing that you'll be dealing with on HubmonsterHE.
 
Back
Top