engin1000: 2009 Fall:Eddy Current Brake

Why Change Designs?

The Problem: My original des ign was tes ted in the firs t prototype and produced at maximum 1.21 V. This low voltage output forced me to recons ider my calculations , which had predicted much greater voltage. I dis covered that my initial calculations had not converted Tes las (flux dens ity) to Webers (total flux). Becaus e of this error, I had us ed Faraday's Law to predict far greater power output than was actually pos s ible in my des ign. Cons idering the alternatives : Returning to bas ic electrodynamics , I realis ed that my initial des ign produced no force vectors oppos ed to the direction of the wheel's motion. I unders tood how the Lorentz force is oppos ite the direction of motion in an eddy current brake, but had dis mis s ed the des ign after the brains torming phas e. I rejected this des ign becaus e the electromagnets required too much weight and a complicated des ign. But I now realis ed that I may be able to generate an eddy current with permanent magnets ins tead, reducing complexity and weight. The concept was to place magnets on typical bicycle brake pads , thus when pulled clos e to the rim the Bfield would be perpendicular and through the aluminum bicycle wheel rim. This would induce eddy currents in the rim whos e interaction with the Bfield would s low the wheel. But firs t I had to tes t the practicality of the idea.

Second Prototype: Eddy Current Test rig.

My s econd prototype has an eddy current brake (an aluminium dis c about the s ize of three s tacked CDs ) on a s haft connected to a motor. A photodiode mounted to the rig meas ures angular s peed in revolutions per s econd (PASCO s cientific) by counting the amount of time that pas s ed between holes that let the IR beam through. A Magnet holder provides a ~.15T Bfield acros s the dis c. A top View of the Tes t rig.

A Side View. The 8 holes halfway between the axis and the rim allow IR light through to the photodiode.

A video of the Rig in Action.

Bas ed on the mas s of the dis c I calculated its moment of inertia: I=.106kg*.062m/2=1.91E-4 Having meas ured the s pin down rate, average frictional torque could be calculated: Tavg=I*/t=1.91E-4*(21-0)/(0-1.31)=0.003Nm Due to Newton's firs t law, the rubber band-drive mus t be providing about this much torque to overcome the bearing's friction and keep the dis c rotating at a cons tant s peed. The s ame calculation was preformed with the data gained when the dis c decelerated due to the introduction of a magnetic field acros s the dis c. The torque generated was T=0.012Nm. Power: P=T*2/t=0.012Nm*2*/0.357=0.211W Acting at the radius of the dis c the force exerted was calculated: T=F*r 0.012Nm=F*0.06m F=0.15N

Since the eddycurrent brake generates a Lorentz force: F is proportional to V as s uming negligible E. Thus I could

proportionally s cale my res ults to s ee if an eddy current induced in the rim of a moving bicycle could produce enough power to s ignificantly s low the wheel. The rim of the brake in my tes t rig was moving at 2.8r/s *2*=17.6 rad/s , prior to the introduction of the magnetic field. Since V=*r the s peed at the rim is V=17.6rad/s *0.06m=1.06m/s . The des ign parameter was 15MPH=6.7m/s thus the s ame s ys tem would produce F=0.15N*(6.7/1.06)=0.95N. Allowing for 5 magnet pairs , and the increas ed rim s ize of the bike wheels this s till only amounted to: T=5*(0.95N*0.29m)=1.38Nm. Power would be jus t P=1.38Nm*2*/0.225s =38.5W This es timated maximum power was s till well s hort of my des ign goal, as well as being les s than the power generated by a lightly pedaling rider. This dis piriting fact caus ed me to recons ider my des ign yet again.

Final Design
The es s ential problem was that the bicycle wheel rim moved too s lowly to produce a s ubs tantial Lorenz force at any normal riding s peed. This led to the obvious conclus ion that if only I could increas e the s peed of the eddy current brake relative to the wheel s peed I could produce a s ubs tantial braking force. This condition neces s itates a drivetrain by definition, a s ys tem that adds complexity and weight to the s ys tem, two things I had been trying to avoid. More importantly it undermined my goal of having a contactles s braking s ys tem. By s caling up my res ult from the previous tes t rig however, it appeared that s ubs tantial power could be generated. For example the bike wheel would s pin at about 3 revolutions /s econd at 15MPH, but a 1 inch diameter s haft driven off of that wheel's tire would s pin at 82r/s . Scaling proportionally the res ult from my s econd prototype, my eddy current brake's rim would be traveling at 30.9m/s and would produce 4.4N of force, 0.26Nm of torque, and dis s ipate a power of 134 W. Multiplied by a couple s ets of magnets , I would quickly be at my 500W goal. Finally I had a mathematically promis ing des ign. The Final Des ign I decided on would have a s haft connected to a brake dis c s urrounded by s everal magnet pairs , when brought into contact with the wheel this s haft would s pin at a great enough angular velocity to produce s ubs tantial braking forces in the dis c. I envis ioned this s haft being held by bearings on the end of rods that could pivot on frame-mounts , allowing the brake to be s electively applied. A s piral tors ion s pring in the frame mount would hold the s ys tem off of the bike wheel during normal riding, a Bowden cable would pivot the brake s haft down into contact with the tire

. One downs ide of this des ign is that when the s tationary s haft is brought into contact with the s pinning tire it will s lip, wearing both parts , particular at high s peed. However for my purpos e of keeping a moderate s peed down a hill this would not be s uch a problem as the brake would be applied prior to des cending the hill, when the wheel is not s pinning that fas t. Unfortunately at this point in the s emes ter there was not enough time remaining to fully des ign, cons truct, ins tall and tes t s uch a s ys tem. Ins tead I decided to build a proof of concept prototype which would be s imple enough to quickly build and tes t. I reduced the des ign to it's mos t es s ential components : a bearing, a s haft, a brake dis c and a magnet holder. This prototype would demons trate that us ing a s haft could increas e the s peed of the brake dis c and produce s izable braking power, but becaus e it would have no s elective application it would be breaking all the time and thus render the bicycle impractical.

Proof of Concept (Prototype 3)

Des pite the fact that mos t breaking occurs at the front wheel due to weight trans fer under deceleration, es pecially when riding downhill, the eas ies t mounting point on my bicycle was the rear frame jus t below the s eat, s o this is where I put the braking s ys tem in this prototype. For expedience and s implicity a s ingle bearing is us ed. A s teel s haft 5/8" in diameter was machined to interface with the brake dis c, this removed the majority of the perpendicular load on the s crew that held the dis c to the s haft. This perpendicular load had caus ed many s crews to break on prototype 2. The proof of concept prototype ins talled on the tes t bicycle can be s een below.

The s teel rectangle is the magnet holder. Below one can s ee the radial arrangment of the magnets in the holder and the brake dis c (out of focus ).

Testing
Now I had to tes t this s ys tem to as s es its efficacy. I did s o by riding the bike down a s lope of known angle and legnth, and timing the trip. The angle and legnth told me how much higher the s tart line was than the finis h line. Knowing this my potential energy could be calculated By dividing the potential energy los t over the cours e by the time of the cours e I could es timate the rate of energy convers ion, Power. The tes t was preformed on Wris ton quadrangle, and runs were repeated three times s o that the average trans it time could be taken. After the firs t tes t the magnet holder was removed, after the s econd tes t the entire eddy current braking s ys tem was removed. The cours e had a s lope of 3 and a legnth of 46.3m, thus the height h=46.3m*SIN(3)=2.42m. The tes t bicycle and mys elf together have a mas s of 82kg. U=mgh=82kg*9.81m/s 2*2.42m=1947J Tes t U (potential) Normal Bicycle 1947J 9.27s 210W w/ Shaft, Bearing and Brake Dis c (No Magnets ) 1947J 12.34s 158W 52W Full Eddy Current Braking Sys tem 1947J 14.43s 135W 23W

tavg
Power Dis s ipated Power

Thus in this tes t the braking s ys tem developed a total power of 75W, of which more than 2/3 was from the friction of the bearing and the s haft-tire interface.

Subjective test results

My firs t attempt to collect a us eful datas et failed becaus e the bicycle traveled fas ter with the full eddy current braking s ys tem than without the magnet holder. This caus e of this was the obs erved s lipping between the tire and the s haft, this had not occurred without the magnet holder ins talled becaus e in that cas e the s haft was unloaded. I readjus ted the bearing mount to force the s haft to pres s harder into the tire to try and eliminate s lippage. This adjus tment res ulted in the s ucces s ful data s et s een above, although intermittent s lipping s till did occur. This s lipping s hould be les s of a problem in my final des ign becaus e the force pus hing the s haft onto the tire can be modulated by the rider (via the bowden cable) to prevent s lipping. The proof of concept prototype was effective at dras tically reducing acceleration when riding downhill, with the s ys tem ins talled my run over the cours e was effectively at cons tant s peed, with only s light accelerations during moments of s lippage. Without the s ys tem the bicycle accelerated during almos t the entire downhill run. In this way the proof of concept prototype was effective at carrying a cons tant moderate s peed downhill.

Final Results
Analys is of my des ign goals Des ign Goal Met Why Even s caling my res ults form the proof of concept prototype linearly with s peed, at 15MPH only 140W of braking would be generated, of which only 41W are due to eddy currents

produce at leas t 500W No of braking power brake a bicycle on level ground from 15mph to 4 mph allow normal operation of the bicycle when not in us e Pres ent only the mos t minor electrocution ris k while in us e

Yes * My proof of concept prototype will decelerate a bicycle on level ground, however it does not do s o particularly quickly. * My goal s hould have s pecified a dis tance or time for this deceleration, If I had it is doubtful that my prototype would have met this goal. Yes My final des ign does not interfear with normal bicycle us e or braking.

Yes

All of the current generated is contained in the brake dis c, which is ins ide an ins ulated cas e/magnet holder, thus there is no ris k of electrocution.

The proof of concept prototype s howed that the eddy current braking s ys tem of my final des ign is effective at maintaining a s afe downhill s peed. Slipping between the s haft and tire will always be a problem with this des ign, however intelligently applied Bowden cable pres s ure can limit this problem. The larges t compromis e in my final des ign is that it wears both the braking s haft and tire when in us e, thereby creating s ervicing needs . The minimization of maintenence was one of the motivations to undertake this des ign project. Future work could implement my final des ign to tes t its real-world braking and wear.