1441 replies to this topic

[Tom Thumb Hobbies]

Looking at an engineering sheet for magnet wire shows a range of .0113 to .0128 depending on thickness of coating. Bare copper shows a nominal .0099 to .0101. Belden shows a nominal .302mm for wire which is .011889. And I would think the one pole with two less turns would be a problem more than a performance boost.

[John Miller]

Hello Cheater,

 

I burned the epoxy off with a micro oxy/accety torch and carefully removed the blackened epoxy by wiping it with a paper towel. I just re-measured an epoxy free (shiny copper) section of wire and found it to be larger than .010. I think that you guys should take a look and ensure that the wire is of the proper specification. I don't have a high-end micrometer and that is what it will take.

 

Attached is the MWS wire chart.

 

[Cheater]

John,

 

Just for curiosity's sake, have you checked the diameters of the wire used on the other motors on the IRRA™ approved motor list?

[John Miller]

John, are aware that the BoD dewound a JK Retro Hawk motor before the R4 and found it in compliance in regards to turns and coil resistance?

See this LINK.

 

Also, regarding your wire diameter measurement... what method was utilized to remove the wire's insulation before measuring the diameter?

 

Cheater, have you personally burned, dewound, counted turns, and measured the wire? If not, how many of the BoD have?

[John Miller]

Just for curiosity's sake, have you checked the diameters of the wire used on the other motors on the IRRA™ approved motor list?

 
Yes, if you recall, I discovered that the Chinese Puppy Dog was not in compliance. No one believed me at first then either...

[Cheater]

I am not the motor chair so I have not. Not having a single Retro Hawk motor in my possession makes it a little tough to do as well.

 

I will have to let the other BoD members answer for themselves.

[Tim Neja]

Yeah, Tim, if it is posted on the interent it has to be true, right?

And that has to do with Chinese quality control how??

[Cheater]

It has nothing to do with Chinese quality control, it has to do with your blanket statement based on a single post by a single person after inspecting a single motor. I know John well enough to know he's honest, but his report does not support your claim.

"Interesting that the new motor does NOT meet the specifications for which it was intended for."

[John Miller]

Cheater,

 

You guys need to look at the diameter too.  Mine is at .511 and the specification is at .513.

 

Also, the stack length on mine is at .375 and the specification is at .390.  Mine does not have hysol after being burned, but I would assume the stack length specification is the length of lamination's prior to hysol.

 

I'm being objective and letting you know what I find.  Nothing more, nothing less.

[Tim Neja]

It's not a claim---it's a simple statement based on what John found---and about chinese quality control. This motor doesn't meet the specs it was intended for.  Yet you seem to have your panties in a bunch? 

Why??  Relax---apparently John's going to get to check some more.  Then you'll get to see if chinese quality is any better then I suspect.  Take the WHOLE statement into account---not just part.

[Cheater]

Tim,

One occurance does not merit a blanket statement implying that all motors are out of specs.

As the saying goes, you are welcome to your own opinions but not to your own facts.

And beside, why is this a concern of yours? Do you also attend county commissioners meetings for counties other than where you reside to interject your views? Or churches of which you aren't a member to comment on their dogma?

[John Miller]

Cheater, keep in mind that my measurements on stack length and diameter are without coating/hysol. (the torch burns it away)

 

Before I burn the next ones I will perform measurements before and after for objectivity.

[Tim Neja]

Read it AGAIN!! It's says NEW MOTOR!! SINGULAR!!!!  NOT a blanket statement that ALL MOTORS are out of spec!! And the quality control about chinese has to do with that as well!!! SOME of the motors may very well be IN SPEC!!! Apparently ---not ALL!!

[MSwiss]

I checked the overall resistance on the prototype and 3 from 2 different batches and they measured  a bit more and the same as the  Falcon 7 and TSR D3 that I checked at the same  time(s).

[John Miller]

Is the specification a resistance test or the amount of turns?

[MSwiss]

Hello Cheater,

 

 and found it to be larger than .010.

 

mwswirechart.PNG

30 AWG  was the spec supplied to us on the Falcon 7 from our ex-motor chair.

 

It, the TSR D3 and the Retro Hawk being a Chinese made arm, of course it probably is a size that doesn't match the 30 AWG exactly.

 

The bottom line is the resistance of the Retro Hawk is the same as the previously approved FK motors.

[Steve Deiters]

John Miller:

 

Practical question based on your experience working for a winder of slot racing motors for many years.  Can the difference in thickness that you measured (.0511) vs. the spec (.0513) be attributed to stretching during the winding process?  Just curious.

[MSwiss]

Is the specification a resistance test or the amount of turns?

All arms I've checked have had at least 65 turns.

 

On 1 arm, one pole had 66 turns.

 

Checking the resistance was to confirm the wire size wasn't any larger than the previously approved F7 and TSR D3.

[John Miller]

@ Steve.  No, it breaks before it stretches that much.

[Cheater]

Tim,

Your phrase "the new motor" does not imply a singluar instance.

[John Miller]

I think that there are to many variables to rely on the resistance test as the indicator.  Lamination material, shape, diameter will greatly effect the performance far beyond the test of resistance.  If the rule is the amount of turns, that's the test to see if it's in specification. Unless, of course, the BoD decides to change the rule/specification to a resistance test.

[Cap Henry]

Sorry, But an arm with 66 turns is out of spec. Spec is 65 turns. Not 65 minimum.

John, thank you for your volunteer work.

[Tim Neja]

Tim,

Your phrase "the new motor" does not imply a singluar instance.

I guess that the fact I'm commenting on John's motor and the chinese quality is of no matter to you Greg!  Take it as whatever you want! Fact is--chinese make JUNK--- but that's what we choose to live with in our little slot motors!! We can't get anyone in america interested in making them!! Too bad!! 

[MSwiss]

Sorry, But an arm with 66 turns is out of spec. Spec is 65 turns. Not 65 minimum.

John, thank you for your volunteer work.

I guess we will have to add "nominal" to the # of turns, just like we had to add "nominal" to the timing, in the description, in all the approved motors.

 

If you're expecting identical timing, stack length,wire length, and resistance from any of the approved motors, you're in the wrong hobby.

 

If these motors were all identical specs, guys wouldn't own 61 Puppy Dog motors or have to buy more than 1 handout.

[Pappy]

Looks like we are going to have to tear down and unwind all the motors (Puppy Dogs too) after every race to make sure they are all in compliance. 

 

I thought the idea of approved motors was to try and get motors that are of simular overall performance and not so much the same number of turns or wire size.

 

When I check a piece of brass or piano wire I very seldom get the "exact" same dimension as the brass or piano is suppose to be. Seems to me this wire is pretty damn close.