Flywheel Spin-down work measurements

February 24, 2008 – 3:01 pm

One way to measure the friction on a rotating machine such as an engine or motor is to spin it up and record the appropriate data while it slows down without power. By measuring the time elapsed between two RPM measurements and knowing the moment of inertia, you can compute the lost energy from the flywheel and the frictional work. I am applying this method to a Stirling engine I’m developing.

Currently the Stirling-cycle engine is producing about one inch-pound of net work per revolution. My Excel-based simulation showed a gross output of 4 to 12 inch-lbs of work per revolution depending on the temperature differential and RPM. The rest of the work is either being lost to friction or my simulation is overly optimistic. I’m using the flywheel spin-down method to measure the engine’s frictional losses and track down the distribution among the various parts of the engine.

An outline of the technique:

  1. If possible use a flywheel with plenty of inertia so it will spin down slowly.
  2. Compute the total flywheel moment of inertia
  3. Set up the configuration to test. I’ll start with only the flywheel and crankshaft, then add various components—piston without compression, displacer, etc.
  4. With a tachometer (such as the low-cost tachometer) and stopwatch ready, spin up the flywheel to a suitable RPM, note RPM1, start the stopwatch, let the flywheel spin down to a lower RPM, stop the stopwatch and record RPM2.
  5. Make a series of runs over RPM values appropriate for your setup.
  6. Use a spreadsheet to compute the energy lost based on the change from RPM1 to RPM2 and the flywheel inertia. Compute the energy lost per unit time (work) versus average RPM.

Flywheel Moment of Inertia

My flywheel is built from 3 components as you can see in the photo. The basic flywheel is an 11.9 inch diameter by 3/16 inch thick aluminum disk. Because I needed more inertia, I added a plywood club to the flywheel. The club supports two ¾ inch bolts with 8 washers each to add mass on an 18 inch diameter.

You can compute the total moment of inertia of your flywheel by adding up the component parts. Here are the equations that are appropriate for a typical flywheel:

Solid disk with constant thickness

Idisk=mR2/2  moment of inertia. For a conventional flywheel the center hub might be modeled as disk.

m= mass, Weight-lb/g

g = acceleration of gravity, 32.2 ft/sec2. Note that the pounds you measure on a scale are weight; you need to divide by g to get mass (in the unattractive unit of “slugs”.)

R= radius of disk, ft

Flywheel rim or concentrated mass

Irim=m(Rave)2

Rave= average Radius of a concentrated mass. The concentrated mass could be the two bolts shown in the photo of my flywheel, or it could be the rim on a conventional flywheel. Rave is measured in ft.

m = mass, Weight-lb/g. This is the total mass of the rim, or in my case, the total mass of the two bolts and washers.

Spokes

Ispoke= m(ro2 – ri2)/3

ro = Outer radius of the spoke, ft

ri = Inner radius of the spoke, ft

m = Total mass of all the spokes, Weight-lbs/g

In this case I can treat the club as a spoke with an inner radius of zero. The total weight of the club takes care of the two sides of the club. This equation assumes the spoke has a uniform mass distribution along its length.

Itotal = Idisk + Irim + Ispoke

Kinetic Energy

The total kinetic energy of a rotating mass is:

KE = Itotalω2/2

ω = rotational speed in radians/sec

Converting to RPM:

KE = Itotal(.1047 * RPM)2/2

What we really want is the difference in kinetic energy between two different RPMs:

ΔKE = .0055 * Itotal(RPM12 – RPM22)

If you’ve used the units I’ve suggested the result of ΔKE will be in ft-lbs of work. I usually multiply this by 12 to work in in-lbs for my engine.

The remaining computations:

RPMave = (RPM1 + RPM2)/2

Energy lost from flywheel per unit time (ft-lbs/sec):

Work = ΔKE/ (spin-down time)

Set up the test configuration

For a first test configuration I used just the flywheel and crankshaft. This should give you the minimum amount of friction and the plenty of time to measure the RPM and spin-down.

For RPM measurements the bicycle speedometer  gives accurate measurements, especially if you can use four equally-spaced magnets to give you direct RPM readout. It’s important that the magnets be equally spaced or you’ll have varying RPM measurements. The bicycle speedometer I used updates at exactly one second intervals so I use the stopwatch to count out the seconds, starting and stopping the stopwatch when the speedometer reading changes. I don’t use the actual stopwatch reading but the closest second reading—because that’s when the speedometer made the measurement. So 18.13 seconds I record as 18 seconds.

Even with accurately spaced magnets the RPM measurements may vary if the rotating mass isn’t near perfectly balanced (does your flywheel always seek the same rest position)? This is one of the sources of variation in the measurements and why you’ll want to take a series of measurements.

The Results

When you get done you should end up with data you can plot that may look something like this:

This plot is for my flywheel and crankshaft with nothing else attached. So at 60 rpm the total friction from bearings and air friction is about .15 in-lbs/sec.

A series of configurations combined on one chart tells the whole story:

The data is relatively clean for the flywheel configuration but gets fairly noise for the more complete configurations. Running the data through a least-squares curve fit provides equations that are useful for analytical work. The generated curves are shown with the data.

The engine open configuration with no compression includes all the frictional sources except compression and a small amount of air friction on the displacer moving back and forth. At 60 rpm the work lost is about 2.6 in-lbs/sec. The engine has to generate approximately that much power just to turn unloaded at 60 rpm.  

These plots give me a very good idea of the frictional losses in the engine. I still need to account for some missing work. One possibility is compression leakage around the piston and around the displacer shaft seal. I’ll look into those in the future.

I have provided a spreadsheet you can use that will perform the moment of inertia computations from your flywheel measurements. It also provides a table for entering your RPM and timing measurements to generate the energy lost table and plot the results.  

If you don’t have Excel here is a version for Google’s free spreadsheet that you can use for your computations and plotting. You’ll need to save this spreadsheet as your own before you can use it.

Copyright 2008 Doug Conner

Low-Cost Tachometer

February 12, 2008 – 7:19 pm

If you need to measure RPM in experimental setups but don’t want to invest a lot of money, consider using a bicycle speedometer. You can get reasonably accurate measurements digitally displayed using an inexpensive ($15) bicycle speedometer.

All you need to do is attach a magnet to the rotating part of the device, position the magnetic sensor reasonably close (6mm or .25”), and program the “wheel factor” correctly.

All the bicycle speedometers I’ve used program the wheel circumference in mm as the “wheel factor” whether you set them to read in mph or km/hr. The settings are in the table below.  I’ll provide the derivation at the end for those wanting more details. It’s important that you set the correct “wheel circumference” depending on whether you are going to display the RPM using MPH or km/hr.

Display Scale Wheel Circumference Programmed Indicated RPM
km/hr 4167mm 1km/hr = 4 RPM
km/hr 1667mm 1km/hr = 10 RPM
mph 5364mm 1mph = 5 RPM
mph 2682mm 1mph = 10 RPM

Ideally you’d like the readout to be 1 mph = 1 RPM or 1 km/hr = 1 RPM. The speedometers I’ve used don’t accept a wheel circumference that large so you have to compromise on something smaller. For RPM greater than about 100 you can program the speedometer for the 1 mph = 10 RPM setting and just multiply the result by 10. Because these speedometers typically read to 0.1 resolution you’ll still have 1 RPM resolution. Maximum reading is 199.9 so you’ll be covered to 1999 RPM. Make sure your magnet will stay attached with the centrifugal force if you’ll be using it at high RPM.

If you’ll be measuring low RPM the 1 km/hr = 4 RPM will be more useful. The minimum indicated speed for a stable reading will depend on how fast the speedometer updates values. You’ll get accurate readings interspersed with a zero readings. I’ve seen around 4 to 8 mph minimums. I especially like to use two or four magnets on this scale. Not only will you be able to measure lower RPM, but the math also gets easier. With two magnets (equally spaced of course) you’ll multiply the indicated value by 2. With four magnets you’ll get the desirable 1mph = 1RPM and be able to accommodate up to 199 RPM.

The Derivation

To have 1 mph = 1RPM means the “wheel” would travel one mile in one hour and would turn 60 times (once per minute). So the circumference would be 5280 ft/60 = 88 ft. Converting 88 ft = 88 ft x 12 in/ft x 25.4 mm/in = 26822mm. This number is too large but 26822mm/10 = 2682mm will fit (my speedometer has a maximum wheel circumference of 5999mm). 26822mm/4 = 6706 won’t fit on the mph scale. Once you have the circumference for 1mph = 1 RPM you can divide the circumference for any value you like provided the speedometer can accommodate the wheel circumference. So if you want 1mph = 5 RPM then use 26822/5 = 5364 mm for a wheel circumference.

Similarly for metric units 1km/hr = 1RPM so 1000m/60 = 16.667m or 16667mm. 16667mm/4 = 4167mm will fit. You could also program 16667mm/3 = 5556mm, but you’ll need to multiply the km/hr reading by 3 to get RPM.

UPDATE:

I bought the cheapest bicycle speedometer I could find at Kmart. I see Amazon has the same model. Amazon also has a Schwinn model for $10 that should work–but I haven’t tested it.

 

Tachometer Part 2 –I’ve tested the Schwinn Speedometer and some updates on the Bell Speedometer.

 

 

Copyright 2008 Doug Conner

Engine model 3d is up and running!

February 8, 2008 – 6:32 pm

Engine model 3d has actually been running for over a week now, but I finally am taking time to start getting this website up-to-date. You can see more photos in the photo pages.

I’m in the process of performance testing the engine to see how closely its power output agree with my simulation. There are many sinks for losing power including: bearing friction on the rotating shaft, sliding friction on the piston and displacer shaft, compression leakage around the piston and displacer shaft seal, air friction on the air moving around the displacer, and air friction on the spinning flywheel.

My basic and inexpensive instrumentation for this operation includes a stopwatch and a bicycle speedometer used as a tachometer. Using engineering computations and these two instruments I can derive the friction based on how long it takes the unpowered engine to spin down. Here’s how it works.

A flywheel stores energy proportional to the square of its speed (RPM). You can compute the actual energy stored in the flywheel at any RPM. Selecting two RPMs, a high and a low value, you compute the energy difference between the two RPMs. You spin the engine up unpowered to just above the high RPM and start your stopwatch when the RPM drops to the high RPM. The unpowered engine spins down and you stop the time when it reaches the low RPM. You already know the flywheel work difference between the two RPMs (ft-lb, joules, or whatever energy units you want). Dividing by the time you measured on the stop watch gives you the power (ft-lbs/sec, joules/sec, etc.) or rate at which flywheel work is being used up in friction.

A massive flywheel helps you make the measurements accurately and more easily because the flywheel will slow down more gradually. That’s the reason you see the club with massive bolts swinging on the flywheel above. This setup is for under 100 RPM use (don’t use it for high speeds or it could disintegrate with potential for bodily injury). You probably want the spin-down time to be at least 5 seconds and preferably 10 or more to minimize the timing measurement error. You’ll want to make enough spin down measurements so that you can see what the variation is due to timing and RPM measurement accuracy. You can also average the results to get a more accurate results.

The flywheel spin down test can be used with engine components starting with the flywheel and the main bearings it rides on. You add components one at a time, repeating tests to see the power loss due to each component. Using this method you can measure say the piston sliding friction instead of just knowing the friction of the entire engine.

I’ll be adding material for those without the technical background to make the flywheel computations. I’ll also post the method for using a bicycle speedometer as a tachometer. It’s inexpensive and really simple. I use it to measure the RPM on my variable-speed lathe too.

Solar Heat

February 7, 2008 – 12:02 am

Solar Power—Radiation from the sun received on Earth

Here is some basic information for those interested in converting solar radiation into power. At the average earth-sun distance of 92.9 million miles the solar radiation intensity is:

435 BTU/(ft2-hr) or 1370 watts/meter2 

After going through the atmosphere and reaching the ground the values drop to:

340 BTU/(ft2-hr) or 1070 W/m2. 

The above value is what you have to work with at noon on a clear day at the equator. As you depart from those conditions the values decrease. A good ballpark value to use for 40 degrees North latitude appears to be around:

300 BTU/(ft2-hr) or 944 W/m2. 

Just so you know there is more to learn about solar radiation, there is the total radiation which is the sum of direct normal radiation (sunlight), diffuse or sky radiation (when you stand in the shade it isn’t dark and your solar calculator still works), and reflected solar radiation (you probably noticed it’s warmer in the sun by the south side of a building).

The above numbers will get you started if you know what to do with them. I’ll talk about heating things up with solar power on a future post so you can figure how much heat you need to change the temperature of things like air, water, or a piece of metal.  

By the way, typical solar cells have about 10% conversion efficiency so you get roughly 94 W/m2 out of them. State-of-the-art solar cells are approaching 15-20% efficiency.

How much heat to raise the temperature?

February 5, 2008 – 10:50 pm

Everyone knows it takes heat to raise the temperature of something, whether it’s the air in your house or a kettle on the stove. If you want to design heat engines or use solar power to elevate the temperature of something, it helps if you can determine how much heat you need.

 

To begin with I’ll skip phase changes and just look at heating things that stay in the same phase—solid, liquid, or gas.

The basic equation is:

 

Q=mc(deltaT)

 where:

Q = heat (units: cal, kcal, Joules, ft-lb, Btu, or kWhr)

m= mass (units: kg or lb)

c= specific heat for the particular material and temperature (units:kJoules/(kg-degC) or Btu/(lb-degF)

deltaT = change in temperature (units: degC, or degF)

 

To use the above equation correctly you need to make sure you use consistent units.

 

Below is a table that contains specific heats for various materials at 20 deg C. If you need other materials you can probably find them on the web or in handbooks for engineering, physics, or chemistry. Note that the values change with temperature and may change greatly when the substance goes through a phase change. These values are also for constant pressure. If you heat or cool at constant volume there are other numbers to use and I’ll discuss that at a later date.

 

Material

Specific heat at one atmosphere, kJ/(kg-degC)

Specific heat at one atmosphere, Btu/(lb-degF)

Air

1.02

0.24

Water

4.18

1.00

Steam (110 deg C)

2

0.48

Aluminum

0.9

0.22

Iron, Steel

0.45

0.11

Wood (pine)

2.8

0.67

Copper

0.39

0.09

Glass

0.84

0.20

Lead

0.13

0.03

 

I’ll give a few examples:

You want to raise the temperature of 1.5 pounds of aluminum by 50 degF then you’ll need:

Q=1.5lb x 0.22 Btu/(lb-degF) x 50 degF = 16.5 Btu of heat

 

You want to raise the temperature of 0.1kg of air by 100 degC

Q=0.1kg x 1.02kJ/(kg-degC) x 100degC = 10.2kJ

 

A few useful conversions:

1kw-hr = 3412 Btu

1 kw-hr = 3600 kJ,

1Btu=1.055kJ

Sources:

Marks’ Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, tenth edition

General Physics, 1984, Giancoli, Douglas