NEW QS 165 MOTOR

One of the options for the quick conversion of the QS165 motor to hall sensors.
I needed 14 5x3 mm magnets and three Honeywell SS41 sensors
The false rotor uses the same number of magnets as in the main rotor, the poles of the magnets alternate.
The angle for installing hall sensors depends on the number of pairs of poles. For 14 magnets we have 7 pairs of poles. We can choose 120° / 7p = 17.15° for this value. This is too close a distance for sensors, you can add 120°/7p + 360°/7p = 68.57°
We place the sensors above the magnets in a convenient place and prepare the files for printing
For a smart controller such as the Nucular, it will not be difficult to correct the angle of the sensors, but simple controllers will not be able to do this. I am waiting for the delivery of the oscilloscope to match the sensors to the phase. If everything goes well, I will make the rotor out of aluminum and the board out of textolite

falserotor.STL
board.STL
[img=https://illegalbike.ru/uploads/for_web/QS165_falsrotor_cheme.jpg][/img]
[img=https://illegalbike.ru/uploads/for_web/QS165_printed_falsrotor.jpeg][/img]

[youtube]CQHeNdzZCVw[/youtube]
 
Hey, very nice!
Iam currently trying to understand your calculation on hall sensor angle. Why did you choose 120° in the first place?
And why add exactly 360°?

Maybe you can point me in the right direction so I can look it up :)
 
c.wagner said:
Hey, very nice!
Iam currently trying to understand your calculation on hall sensor angle. Why did you choose 120° in the first place?
And why add exactly 360°?

Maybe you can point me in the right direction so I can look it up :)
Click to expand...

The circle is 360° and I want to place 3 sensors evenly on it. So there will be 120° between the sensors

We need the sensors to see all the poles at the rotor. If the rotor has only two magnets (one pair of poles), it is enough to fix the sensors through 120 ° and at every moment at least one sensor will clearly see the pole.

[img=https://illegalbike.ru/uploads/for_web/1p120g.gif][/img]

But if, for example, the rotor has 6 magnets, then it will be three pairs of poles and at the same time each sensor will see a pole. So we will not understand the position of the rotor.

[img=https://illegalbike.ru/uploads/for_web/3p120g.gif][/img]

Need to move the sensor in multiples of the number of pairs of poles, for example 120° / 3 pairs of poles, we get 40° for a rotor with 6 magnets.

[img=https://illegalbike.ru/uploads/for_web/3p40g.gif][/img]

In my case, the rotor has 14 magnets, which means there are 7 pairs of poles in it. I just divide 120° by 7 pairs of poles and get an angle of about 17.14° between the sensors

But it's too close for a small rotor and the sensors won't fit

[img=https://illegalbike.ru/uploads/for_web/falsrotornogood.png ][/img]

Since physical phenomena are repeated on the entire circle, we can add a step of 360° / 7 pairs of poles to this angle. That is, every 51.43° everything repeats, just add it to our angle of 17.14° and get 68.57°

It's convenient for me


[img=https://illegalbike.ru/uploads/for_web/falsrotorgood.png ][/img]

PS: if desired, you can add a step of 51.43° again and get 120°. For 7 pairs of poles, the physical 120° can be used if it is convenient
 
in order for any simple controller to work with homemade board
for hall sensors, you need to coordinate them with the back EMF of the motor
I tried to revive an ancient oscilloscope from the USSR, but it seems time killed it.

[img=https://illegalbike.ru/uploads/for_web/oldoscil.JPG][/img]

A new oscilloscope was delivered today, I'm holding it in my hands for the first time, it seems nothing complicated

[img=https://illegalbike.ru/uploads/for_web/testoscil.JPG][/img]
 
illegalbike said:
But if, for example, the rotor has 6 magnets, then it will be three pairs of poles and at the same time each sensor will see a pole. So we will not understand the position of the rotor.
Click to expand...

I’ve seen some calculations of the hall sensor angles before, from my mind the 120 deg position of the halls works for all the magnet counts except the variations of 6 magnets you show here. I think it’s easier for most people to just use this instead of a split angle like 17.14
 
larsb said:
I’ve seen some calculations of the hall sensor angles before, from my mind the 120 deg position of the halls works for all the magnet counts except the variations of 6 magnets you show here.
Click to expand...

the same problem if the number of poles is a multiple of three
3, 6, 9, 12...

larsb said:
I think it’s easier for most people to just use this instead of a split angle like 17.14
Click to expand...

I think that knowledge of physics gives an advantage.
rarely will it be convenient to place sensors from different sides of the motor at 120°, a compact solution looks better, right?
 

Attachments

  • HALL.jpg
    HALL.jpg
    186.5 KB · Views: 2,100
illegalbike said:
c.wagner said:
Hey, very nice!
Iam currently trying to understand your calculation on hall sensor angle. Why did you choose 120° in the first place?
And why add exactly 360°?

Maybe you can point me in the right direction so I can look it up :)
Click to expand...

The circle is 360° and I want to place 3 sensors evenly on it. So there will be 120° between the sensors

We need the sensors to see all the poles at the rotor. If the rotor has only two magnets (one pair of poles), it is enough to fix the sensors through 120 ° and at every moment at least one sensor will clearly see the pole.

[img=https://illegalbike.ru/uploads/for_web/1p120g.gif][/img]

But if, for example, the rotor has 6 magnets, then it will be three pairs of poles and at the same time each sensor will see a pole. So we will not understand the position of the rotor.

[img=https://illegalbike.ru/uploads/for_web/3p120g.gif][/img]

Need to move the sensor in multiples of the number of pairs of poles, for example 120° / 3 pairs of poles, we get 40° for a rotor with 6 magnets.

[img=https://illegalbike.ru/uploads/for_web/3p40g.gif][/img]

In my case, the rotor has 14 magnets, which means there are 7 pairs of poles in it. I just divide 120° by 7 pairs of poles and get an angle of about 17.14° between the sensors

But it's too close for a small rotor and the sensors won't fit

[img=https://illegalbike.ru/uploads/for_web/falsrotornogood.png ][/img]

Since physical phenomena are repeated on the entire circle, we can add a step of 360° / 7 pairs of poles to this angle. That is, every 51.43° everything repeats, just add it to our angle of 17.14° and get 68.57°

It's convenient for me


[img=https://illegalbike.ru/uploads/for_web/falsrotorgood.png ][/img]

PS: if desired, you can add a step of 51.43° again and get 120°. For 7 pairs of poles, the physical 120° can be used if it is convenient
Click to expand...

That was a perfect explanation :bigthumb:
 
illegalbike said:
larsb said:
I’ve seen some calculations of the hall sensor angles before, from my mind the 120 deg position of the halls works for all the magnet counts except the variations of 6 magnets you show here.
Click to expand...

the same problem if the number of poles is a multiple of three
3, 6, 9, 12...

larsb said:
I think it’s easier for most people to just use this instead of a split angle like 17.14
Click to expand...

I think that knowledge of physics gives an advantage.
rarely will it be convenient to place sensors from different sides of the motor at 120°, a compact solution looks better, right?
Click to expand...

Poles will always be pairs so there’s never a 3 or a 9,
12 can be divided by 6, no 15, 18 divides by 6 etc. I agree that 120deg takes more space but it has the advantage of being (almost) foolproof.
 
bymannan said:
What adventure does the encoder has over hall sensor?
Click to expand...

Encoders are far more accurate than hall sensors

Halls update position only every 60 electrical degrees
(Electric degrees = Physical degrees * pole pairs)
 
Ok, understood.
It’s a common source of confusion; ”magnet poles” really means the number of poles, north and south whereas ”pole pairs” are the number of north and south pairs so it’s better to say pole pairs when meaning just that.
 
larsb said:
Encoders are far more accurate than hall sensors
Click to expand...

This is probably known by all concerned but I believe illegalbike's interest in going with halls is that they are compatible with his controller.

I still wonder if there might be a "simple" solution to translating the output of the encoder to a signal that would be compatible with a controller that uses hall signals with a microcontroller. The microcontroller would also make it possible to handle the angle correction that Illegal mention here. Of course this is a bit more theoretical rather than practical -- it would take some comparison/performance testing that would be much easier with a motor that had both halls and encoders. :)

This is a thread [link] where someone has done this.
 
owhite said:
This is probably known by all concerned but I believe illegalbike's interest in going with halls is that they are compatible with his controller.
Click to expand...

Yes :)

owhite said:
I still wonder if there might be a "simple" solution to translating the output of the encoder to a signal that would be compatible with a controller that uses hall signals with a microcontroller.
Click to expand...

Roman (@YTW200) from Russia made boards converting data from a standard central magnet for the encoder into signals simulating hall sensors. I'll test them when they arrive

[img=https://illegalbike.ru/uploads/for_web/encoder-to-hall.jpg][/img]
 
Does anyone have a CAD model of this motor?

Illegalbike, any chance you modeled up the output side faceplate? I would like to model up a replacement faceplate with a built in reduction like the 138 V3.
 
owhite said:
rider119 said:
Does anyone have a CAD model of this motor?
Click to expand...

I have one that I created from the drawings -- and mine has arrived so I can confirm if it is accurate. What file format would you like?
Click to expand...

sldprt or step would be great! Thanks
 
rider119 said:
sldprt or step would be great! Thanks
Click to expand...

Here is a step file for the QS165: see this link

Items to note: This was generated with a combination of using the diagram supplied by QS link and taking measurements from the motor itself. I did not focus on accuracy of details like fins. The focus was mostly on what was needed to mount the motor, width of housing, placement of M8 bolt holes, pulley diameter and width should be within +/- 1mm.

It would be helpful if someone can confirm they can download and view in their CAD.

O6ZRdf3.png
 
owhite said:
It would be helpful if someone can confirm they can download and view in their CAD.
Click to expand...

it works. I used to make a quick comparison with the QS 138 model.

QS claims torque specs very close between the two (47Nm vs 55Nm peak) even though they have 35H vs 75H magnets heights. A bit concerned the capacity of the QS 165 to deliver such torque without overheating (as the Surron motor does).

They do not advertise the continous torque spec for the QS 165.



 
I've obtain the spec for this motor from QS, it looks like the rotor from your video illegalbike does not look like what they show in the specs... a bit strange.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2022-05-21 at 9.59.56 pm.png
    Screen Shot 2022-05-21 at 9.59.56 pm.png
    2.1 MB · Views: 1,749
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

QSMOTOR
QSMOTOR,0.5-12kW Electric Hub Motor & Mid Drive Motor Manufacture China
63 64 65 66 67
Replies
1,668
Views
429,934
QSMOTOR
QSMOTOR
D
New Break-in & Conditioning Rules for Ur New LiPo Packs
Replies
11
Views
8,837
stoney
S
fechter
Glossary of EV terminology
Replies
0
Views
9,912
fechter
fechter
Back
Top