!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Design and Implementation of a Two Pole - Three Phase
Brushless DC Electric Motor

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Simran Arora, Jessica Fry, and Shea Ketsdever
ASR - Dr. Dann
October 8, 2014

Table of Contents
I. Abstract 3
II. Motivation and History 4
A. First Electric Motor 4
B. Electromagnets in Motors .. 5
C. DC Brush Motors .... 5
D. DC Brushless Motors . 6
E. Our Motor .... 7
III. Theory of operation .. 8
A. Basic Physics .. 8
B. Electronics .. 9
C. Electromagnets 10
D. Full Rotation Explanation .. 12
IV. Design .. 14
V. Results ..20
A. Specs Table .. 20
B. Average RPM .. 20
C. Peak RPM .... 20
D. Running Torque ....... 21
E. Static Torque ........ 21
F. Power ... 22
G. Efficiency..... 22
H. Graph I: Voltage vs RPM .....23
I. Graph II: Efficiency vs RPM . ..... 24
J. Graph III: Power vs RPM......25
K. Graph IV: Standing Torque vs Voltage .... 26
VI. Conclusion ... 27
VII. Bibliography ..... 31
A. Appendix ....... 32
i. Period Measurements for Average RPM Calculation .. 32
ii. Voltage vs Time Graphs for Torque Calculation .. 34
iii. Period Measurements for Power Calculation .. 36
iv. Measurement Images 37

!
!2

I. Abstract
The overarching goal of this project was to learn about and implement fundamental physics
concepts and engineering processes involved in constructing a DC electric motor. Specifically,
we became more familiar with the practical applications of magnetism, manipulating electronics
and circuit components, and executing the mechanical aspects of a design. We used these skills
to create an original design for a 3-phase, 2-pole brushless DC motor. Our motor achieved an
average speed of 2190 rpm and reached a top speed of 4690 rpm when running at 28.0 V. The
average running torque was 1.0372 10-4 Nm and the average efficiency was 0.0822%.

!3

II. Motivation and History

The purpose of an electric motor is to convert electric energy into mechanical energy for
applications such as powering fans, cars, toys, refrigerators and clocks. Motors can vary in
rotation speed, torque, efficiency, and size in order to serve each of these different functions.
A. First Electric Motor
Michael Faraday is cited for developing the first electric motor. In 1821, he created a motor by
extending a permanent magnet from a volume of mercury. A metal wire was suspended in the
mercury, and moved current through the wire thus inducing a magnetic field that repelled the
permanent magnets magnetic field. In Faradays set up, one cup of mercury (left) consisted of a
stationary metal wire and a free-moving permanent magnet. The other cup of mercury (right)
consisted of a stationary permanent magnet and a free moving metal wire. In each case, the
repelling magnetic fields forced the free moving object to rotate around the stationary object. [1]
Diagram I: Faradays Electric Motor [2]

!
!
!4

B. Electromagnets in Motors
In 1825, William Sturgeon proposed the use of an electromagnet rather than Faradays metal
wire. By using multiple coils instead of a singular wire in his design, Sturgeon was able to
significantly strengthen the induced magnetic field. The electromagnet was comprised of a wire
coiled several times around an iron core [3].
Diagram II: Sturgeons Electric Motor with Electromagnets [4]

C. DC Brush Motors
The brush DC motor was invented in 1856 by German inventor and industrialist Ernst Werner
von Siemens. In a brushed motor, the permanent magnet(s) are usually on the stator
surrounding the spinning rotor that contains the electromagnet(s). When current runs through
the electromagnet(s), a magnetic field is created that attracts and/or repels the permanent
magnet(s) in the stator. As the motor rotates, it comes into contact with commuters, which are
brushes that reverse the direction of the current through the electromagnet and thus flip the
direction of the magnetic field. This ensures that the torque on the rotor is consistently in the
same direction. However, brushed DC motors have many disadvantages because they
mechanically flip the direction of the magnetic field in the electromagnet(s). The brushes wear
out and must be replaced, and they also cause friction that limits the speed of the motor and
decreases the efficiency [5].
!5

Diagram III: Ernst Werner von Siemens DC Motor [6]

D. DC Brushless Motors
In a brushless DC motor, the problematic brushes are eliminated entirely, therefore eliminating
the mechanical aspect to increase efficiency. Moreover, electronics such as hall chips and relays
are used to sense the permanent magnets, which then turn on transistors or reed switches that
direct the current through the electromagnets [7].
The first brushless DC motor was invented by T.G. Wilson and P.H. Trickey in 1962. They called
it a DC machine with solid state commutation. The brushless motor was initially developed as
a high torque motor used for tape and disk drives in computers, robotics, and aircrafts where
brush motors could not be used [8]. These first brushless DC motors only had 5 horse power and
therefore were not as useful as their more powerful brush counterparts. But when neodymium
magnets, an alloy of neodymium, iron, and boron (Nd2Fe14B) were developed in 1982 by
General Motors [9], DC brushless motors were able to generate as much power as the previous
model of brush DC motors. In the late 1980s, the first large brushless DC motors with more than
50 hp was designed by Robert E. Lordo at POWERTEC Industrial Corporation [10].

!6

Diagram IV: T.G. Wilson and P.H. Trickeys Brushless DC Motor [11]

E. Our Motor
Today, many different types of electric motors are used. Examples of DC brush motors include
shunt motors, series motors, permanent magnet motors, and compounded motors. AC motors
come as induction motors and synchronous motors. For our project, we chose to build a
brushless DC motor. As discussed above, the brushless DC motor has mechanical advantages,
higher efficiency, and requires less maintenance when compared with the brushed DC motor.
While Robert E. Lordos motor had more poles and was inverted (with the permanent magnets
on the outside and the electromagnetic coils rotating), our design is similar to his in the use of
magnetic field sensing technology to induce an electric field in the electromagnets.

!7

III. Theory of Operation

A. Basic Physics
Electric motors turn electrical energy into mechanical energy through fundamental physical laws
such as magnetism. The premise is that moving electrical charge, or current, creates a magnetic
field directed perpendicular to the direction of its movement. This concept is utilized in the
electromagnets of electric motors, which are comprised of numerous coils of wire wound tightly
together around a core. A battery or other power source is connected to a circuit containing the
electromagnet, and the voltage difference across this power supply causes current to flow
through the circuit and the electromagnet, thus creating a relatively consistent and uniformly
directed magnetic field in the coils of wire. The magnitude of this magnetic field can be
determined by the equation:
0 N a2 I .
2 (a2 + z2)3/2
0 = 4 107 is the vacuum permeability
N = number of turns of coil
I = current in the wire (A)
a = radius of the coil (m)
z = axial distance from the center of the coil (m)
B=

When the temporary magnetic field of the electromagnet interact with the permanent magnetic
field produced by the permanent magnet, they exert forces on one another. This force is
determined by the equation:
F = Blvsin()
B = strength of the magnetic field (T)
l = length of the conductor (m)
v = velocity with which the conductor travels through a field (m/s)
= the angle between the field and the normal to the plane of the loop (degrees)
In many brushless DC motors, including ours, the electromagnets are secured in place and dont
move, while the permanent magnets are free to rotate around. So while the net force due to the
interaction of the magnetic fields is equal and opposite, this force is translated into torque that
causes the permanent magnets (rather than electromagnets which are secured in place) to spin
around and rotate the motor.
!8

B. Electronics
Our motor uses unipolar hall chips to sense the permanent magnets and turn the npn transistors
on and off accordingly. We chose to use hall chips because they are sensitive, quick, and have
excellent angular resolution. We chose unipolar hall chips in particular because they sense when
either pole of a magnet is nearby. As mentioned later, the same poles of the magnets face
outwards towards the electromagnets and hall chips in our motor, so we wanted the
electromagnets to respond the same to both magnets and push them away in the direction of
rotation. We chose to use a transistors instead of a relay because it can switch current very
quickly (1 million switches per second) since transistors are not mechanical. Also, with
transistors we have total control of the amount of current passing through.
When the magnet is not sensed, the current flows from input to output through the hall chip and
does not reach the transistor. When the permanent magnets are in a close vicinity to the hall chip,
the magnetic field that these permanent magnets produce separates the positive and negative
charges in the hall material, creating a voltage difference that allows current to flow through the
hall chip from input to ground. Therefore, the ground prong of the hall chip is connected to the
base prong of the transistor so that when the permanent magnet is sensed, current flows
through the transistor. The transistor acts as a faucet; when the current flows from the ground of
the hall chip to the base of the transistor, it creates a voltage difference that sucks out the
positive charges in the middle of the transistor and allows current to flow from the higher voltage
at the collector (provided by a separate power supply) to the lower voltage at the emitter. Our
electromagnets are located between this higher-voltage power supply and the collector of the
transistor so when the transistor is activated and current begins to flow through from collector
to emitter, the current passes through the electromagnet. This moving charge through the coils of
the electromagnet creates a temporary magnetic field that can interact with the permanent
magnetic field from the permanent magnets on the rotor, and exert a force that is translated into
torque and rotates the motor.

!
!9

C. Electromagnets
Our motor has two poles and three phases. The permanent magnets on the axle are oriented
across from one another, separated by 180 degrees, with the same poles facing outward towards
the surrounding electromagnets. The three electromagnets are positioned at the midpoints of the
three sides of an equilateral triangle. We attached one hall chip directly after each electromagnet
to control the flow of current through the coils of the electromagnet. As it senses the permanent
magnet, the hall chip allows a current to flow through the electromagnet (as discussed earlier),
creating an electromagnetic field that interferes with the magnetic field from the permanent
magnet. The two magnetic fields repel one another, so the permanent magnet gets pushed away
from the electromagnet; this repulsion is translated into torque that rotates the motor around. We
tested each electromagnet separately by activating the corresponding hall chip with a permanent
magnet and using a magnetic field sensor to detect the strength and direction of the magnetic
field when the magnet was present and when it was not. These readings indicated that the
magnetic field produced by the electromagnet because increasingly positive when the hall chip
sensed the permanent magnet, meaning that when the electromagnets are turned on, they create a
magnetic field that exerts a force pushing the permanent magnets away (as desired).
We put the hall chip corresponding to each electromagnet directly after the electromagnet for two
reasons. Firstly, we could not put the hall chip right on the electromagnet because the magnetic
field produced by the electromagnet would interfered with the hall chip, and prevented it from
sensing the field produced by the permanent magnet. Secondly, since the hall chip senses a
magnetic field within a certain range, if we put the hall chip directly on the electromagnet, as the
permanent magnet is approaching the electromagnet, the hall chip would sense the permanent
magnet and turn on the electromagnet, pushing the permanent magnet away before it arrived
directly in front of the electromagnet. Pushing the permanent magnet away from the
electromagnet when it is approaching is counter productive because we want the electromagnets
to propel the permanent magnets and turn the rotor forwards in the same consistent direction.
Thus, by putting the hall chip slightly after the corresponding electromagnet, as the permanent
magnet approaches the electromagnet, the hall chip does not sense the permanent magnets and
!10

the electromagnet remains turned off. Then when the permanent magnet is directly in front of the
electromagnet, the permanent magnet is within the hall chips range, thus making the
electromagnet push the permanent magnet away. This set up and the corresponding circuitry is
constant across all three of the hall chip/electromagnet pairs, thus tripling the force that the rotor
feels from the electromagnets.
For electromagnets, as the number of coils increases, the strength of the induced magnetic field
also increases, thus the force exerted on the permanent magnets increases, as reflected by the
magnetic field equation in the Basic Physics section. So, when coiling our electromagnets, we
made sure that the wire was a taut as possible so we could optimize the number of coils and
increase the strength of the magnetic fields produced by the electromagnets. Our electromagnets
have a relatively small diameter because we wanted to the maintain specificity of their magnetic
fields during the rotation of our motor. In order to assess the optimal gauge for the wire, we
tested various electromagnets that used wires of different thickness while keeping other variables
(approximate number of coils, diameter of electromagnet, width of electromagnet) constant.
Using a magnetic field detector placed at the same distance from each electromagnet, we
determined that electromagnets made with thicker wire produced a stronger magnetic field and
those made with thinner wire produced a weaker magnetic field. However, thicker wire drew
more current per unit of voltage and thinner wire drew less current per unit of voltage. This
observation is consistent with the equation V = IR because the thinner wire has less resistance,
and thus better efficiency. Our goal was to find a happy medium between these two extremes and
achieve a relatively strong magnetic field without compromising too much efficiency. We
determined, based on our thorough testing, that the 26 gauge wire provided the largest magnetic
field for relatively more efficiency.
When testing electromagnets, we also discovered that the pancake-looking electromagnets that
were thinner and has a much larger radius produced a stronger magnetic field; that is, we could
sense the field relatively far away from the immediate center of the electromagnet. This is
consistent with the equation for the strength of an induced magnetic field (mentioned previously
in Basic Physics), which says that the magnetic field strength is inversely proportional to the
!11

radius of the electromagnet. For this reason, we decided to make electromagnets thinner (about
2.54 cm in radius) so the magnetic field they produced would be concentrated in a much more
specific area, and would not interfere with the magnetic fields produced by the other
electromagnets in our motor. Another important observation we had while testing electromagnets
was that changing the distance from the electromagnet to the magnetic field sensor had a
significant impact on the detected strength of the magnetic field. Specifically, as we moved the
magnetic field sensor closer to the electromagnet, the strength of the magnetic field was detected
to be much stronger. So, we decided to make our electromagnets relatively short (about 2.5cm in
length) because it appeared that extra coils towards the back of the electromagnet would not
contribute greatly to the overall strength of the magnetic field produced, since they would be
significantly further away from the permanent magnet and add plenty of unwanted resistance to
the circuit.
D. Full Rotation Explanation
The following diagrams detail which electromagnets are on at various (60 degree) intervals
throughout the rotation. Each diagram depicts the situation at the moment when one of the three
hall chips is activated by the magnet. This hall chip allows current to flow to the corresponding
electromagnet and turn it on. That electromagnet begins to push the nearest permanent magnet
away and continues to rotate the motor, while the other two electromagnets are off because the
corresponding hall chips do not detect any permanent magnets. Because the permanent magnets
are located on opposite sides of the rotor and interact identically with the electromagnets, the
diagrams for the other half of the rotation (180 degrees to 360 degrees) are identical. The motor
is rotating counter-clockwise in the diagrams. A force due to gravity is present throughout the
entire rotation because we oriented our motor vertically.

!
!
!
!12

Position 1

Electromagnet 2

Electromagnet 1
b
aa

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!
Position 2
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!Position 3
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

Starts

Electromagnet 3 to Push

Electromagnet 2

Electromagnet 1

Starts
to Push

Electromagnet 3

Electromagnet 1

Electromagnet 2

Starts
to Push

Electromagnet 3

*Hall chips are denoted by black squares and are placed directly after the corresponding
electromagnet

!13

IV. Design Drawings and Images

We built a brushless DC electric motor with two poles and three phases. Specifically, we
designed our motor to have a high rotation speed (RPM). To achieve this goal, we wanted to
make our rotors radius as small and light as possible to decrease the moment of inertia, thus
making the rotor spin faster. So we placed our permanent magnets on the axle; our permanent
magnets are 3/8 inches in diameter and 1/4 inches in height, which makes them much lighter and
smaller than the electromagnets. They are made of neodymium; neodymium magnets are the
strongest type of permanent magnet that is commercially available. Our electromagnets are much
larger and heavier than the permanent magnets, so we stationed them around the axle.
Specifically, we wanted the electromagnets to be spaced evenly with 120 degrees between each
electromagnet. In order to do this we made the frame a triangle so that the electromagnets could
drill in perpendicular to the wood, thus making adjusting the length of the electromagnet easier
and the specific angles more precise. Another advantage to the triangular wooden frame is that
while the frame is large therefore increasing the stability of the motor, so there are less moving
parts to cut down efficiency, the electromagnets are still close to the axle because of the right
triangles created with the electromagnets and the frame. The close proximity of the
electromagnets and the permanent magnets is critical as the strength of the magnetic field
decreases significantly as the distance between the two increase.
Design Diagram I: Full View of Motor

!14

Design Diagram II: Front View

Design Diagram III: Front View with Measurements (mm)

!15

Design Diagram IV: Side View

Design Diagram IV: Side View with Measurements (mm)

!16

Design Diagram V: Axle, Electromagnets, and Hall Chips (mm)

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!17

Image I: Full View of Motor

Image II: Close Up View of Rotor, Electromagnet, and Hall Chip Configuration

!18

Design Diagram V: Circuit Diagram

*For a full description of this circuit, see Electronic section in Theory of Operation

!19

V. Results
A. Specs Table
Average RPM

2190 rpm

Peak RPM

4690 rpm

Running Torque

1.0372 10

Static Torque

0.0799 Nm

Output Power

0.0570 Watts

Efficiency

0.0822%

B. Average RPM
The average RPM is a measurement of how many full rotations the motor makes on average in
one minute. We measured average RPM using a photogate. In the photogate, an infrared beam of
light at a given voltage passes between a diode (light source) and photocell (light detector). We
attached a small piece of electric tape perpendicularly to one end of our axle so when the motor
rotated, the piece of tape interrupted the stream of light in the photogate, opening the gate and
causing a voltage drop (see appendix iv for image of this set up). The internal timer in the
machine then measured the time from when the tape on our axle motor initially blocked the light,
until our motor rotated out of the way and the tape stopped blocking the detector. To convert
from period (given in milliseconds per full rotation) to RPM (rotations per minute), we first took
the inverse and then multiplied by 60,000 because there are 60,000 milliseconds in one minute.
To measure the average RPM of our motor, we made 12 measurements and then took an average
to achieve a more precise estimate of our motors speed (see appendix i for visual proof of period
measurements).
C. Peak RPM
We determined the peak RPM by taking the trial with the highest RPM and reporting that value.

!
!20

D. Running Torque
In order to determine the running torque of the motor, we connected a mass to a string and
attached it to the one end of the rotor. We suspended the string over a pulley that we attached to
the edge of the base of our motor (see appendix iv for image of this set up). When we turned on
the motor, it exerted a force that created tension in the string and lifted the mass. This linear force
translated into angular torque that rotated the motor. We repeated this process 8 times and took
the average of the resulting torque values to achieve a precise estimate of our motors running
torque.
We determined the acceleration of the mass as it was lifted up by the motor by using a motion
detector to create a graph of the velocity of the mass over time. We took the slope of this graph to
get the acceleration of the mass (see appendix ii for velocity vs time graphs for each trial); the
average acceleration of our motor was 0.082375 m/s2. We then determined the mass of the object
using a scale, and used the equation derived below to calculate the tension in the string that the
mass was suspended from.
Net Force = mass acceleration
Tension mass gravity = mass acceleration
Tension = mass gravity + mass acceleration
Finally, we used the equation Torque = force distance to calculate the torque exerted due to
this tension force; the distance variable in the equation is the radius of the axle that we tied the
string to. We used calipers to measure the diameter of the axle, and then divided this value in half
to determine the radius of the axle. The diameter of the axle was 0.185 inches, so we calculated
the radius of the axle to be 0.925 inches, or 0.0235 meters.
E. Static Torque
Static torque is determined by the amount of force over a certain amount of distance that is
required to overcome the inertia of a standstill. The equation for static torque is Tstatic = F * r.
Because the static torque is measured when the motor is standing, the distance the between the
center of rotation and the part being rotated is the radius of the axle, which we measured to be
0.0235 meters (see above explanation). In order to measure the force, we attached string from
!21

our axle to a dual range force sensor. The duel range force sensor was exactly across from the
axle (i.e. not at an angle) so that the force was not broken up into components (see appendix iv
for an image of this set up). When we ran the motor, the force spiked and the motor remained
stalled. We measured the force detected by the force sensor at this spiking moment 7 times to
get an average force of 3.400 N. We then multiplied this by the radius to get our static torque.
F. Power
To measure the output power of the motor, we also had to determine the RPM of the motor while
it was lifting the mass. We accomplished this by using a photogate and implementing the same
method we used to measure the RPM of the motor when it didnt have a mass attached (see
appendix iii for visual proof of period measurements). Then, after obtaining values for torque
and the RPM of the motor while lifting the mass, we used the equation Power = Torque RPM
to determine the output power of the motor.
G. Efficiency
To calculate the efficiency of our motor, we used the equation Efficiency = Poweroutput/
Powerinput. Power is directly proportional to current and voltage (as indicated by the equation P
= IV), so the input voltage is the voltage provided by the battery. Connecting an ammeter in eries
of the beginning of the circuit allowed us to detect the amount of input current. We then plugged
in these measured values into the aforementioned equation (P = IV) and calculated the input
power to be 69.324 Watts. After calculating the output power (see previous section), we
determined the efficiency of the motor by dividing the average output power by the average input
power, as using our average measured values for input and output power in the equation
Efficiency = Poweroutput/Powerinput .

!22

H. Graph 1: Voltage vs RPM

Above is a graph of voltage versus RPM for our motor. The best fit line is y = 0.0026x + 18.41.
The average RPM from these data points is 2190 rotations/minute. The data suggest that voltage
and RPM are directly proportional; as voltage increases, RPM tends to increase.

!
!
!23

I.

Graph 2: Efficiency vs RPM

Above is a graph of efficiency versus RPM for our motor. The best fit line is y = -0.0002x +
0.208. The data suggest that efficiency and RPM are inversely proportional; as RPM increases,
efficiency tends to decrease. The average efficiency for our motor was 0.0822 %.

!
!
!24

J. Graph 3: Power vs RPM

Above is a graph of power output versus RPM for our motor. The best fit line is y = 0.0001x 0.0005. The data suggest that power output and RPM are directly proportional; as RPM
increases, power output tends to increase. The average power output for our motor was 0.057
watts.

!25

K. Graph 4: Static Torque vs Voltage

Above is a graph of start-up torque versus voltage for our motor. The best fit line is y = 0.0002x
+ 0.0044. The data suggest that start-up torque and voltage are directly proportional; as voltage
increases, start-up torque tends to increase.

!
!26

VI. Conclusion
Overall, our motor was successful in achieving our initial goal of a high peak RPM (4,690 rot/
min at 28.0 Volts). Although our motor spun very fast, it was highly inefficient (0.0822%
efficient) and had a relatively small torque (1.0372 10-4 Nm running torque). However,
efficiency and torque were areas we were not aiming to optimize and this is evident in our data.
Overall, our motor was relatively sturdy because of its triangular frame. Triangles are the
building blocks of many modern structures because of their stable angles. Additionally, the
electromagnets, hall chips, and permanent magnets were placed in close proximity within our
motor, allowing for accurate sensing and close interaction of the magnetic forces.
While we ended up constructing a motor that was relatively consistent with our initial plan for a
brushless DC motor (with permanent magnets on the rotor and electromagnets on the outside,
a.k.a. stator), the final design differed significantly from our original plan. Initially, we
intended to construct a 3-pole, 2-phase brushless DC motor with electronics that enabled the
electromagnets to both push and pull the permanent magnets by reversing the direction of
the current when the permanent magnets were sensed by the hall chips. But when we examined
the interaction of the magnetic fields in our original design, we couldnt figure it out. This
change was beneficial to our final design, because removing one of the permanent magnets from
the axle made the axle lighter, enabling it to spin faster so we could achieve a higher RPM. We
also altered our original electronics plans and so the current just turned off and on in the
electromagnets (push and off instead of push and pull). We made this change for several
reasons, one of which being that we didnt want to complicate the forces being exerted on the
electromagnets since even a small error in sensing or timing could significantly affect the
rotation of the permanent magnets and even stop the motor from spinning. So, due to the small
but nonetheless existent margin of error from the hall chip sensing and the close proximity of the
electromagnets, we felt like a simpler electronics scheme would ensure accurate rotation of the
rotor.

!27

Beyond these larger alterations, we also encountered numerous opportunities to tweak and
optimize our design. Electronically, one change that had a big impact on the motors
performance was moving the hall chips from directly in front of the electromagnets to slightly
past them in the direction of the motors rotation. As we discussed in the theory of operation, this
resulted in better timing of when the electromagnets were turned on, and reduced interference
from the magnetic field induced in electromagnet (this messed with the hall chip sensing).
Structurally, we kept the same plan for a triangular base with smaller rectangular supports
holding the rotor in place. However, we added several new features that improved the stability
and ultimately the performance of the motor. Instead of just taping the hall chips onto the
electromagnets (or, later, in our improved design, onto the wooden frame), we drilled holes into
the triangular base and attached the hall chips to the ends of light wooden sticks that we inserted
in these holes. This kept the hall chips from swaying around unnecessarily and secured them in
the appropriate positions. We could still manipulate the positions slightly, but had a much more
limited range of motion which made for less error. Furthermore, we secured the electromagnets
and hall chip sticks securely in their holes in the base using glue and tape; this was not an initial
aspect of our design, but helped us increase the stability of our motor. A final issue that we
addressed was that when the electromagnets were not glued in, they swayed slightly due to the
repelling magnetic forces. So, we placed the electromagnets close to the rotor to improve our
RPM.
Despite our motors success, especially in terms of RPM, there is still much room for
improvement. A huge mechanical issue we ran into was securing the various parts such as the
rotor, hall chip sticks, and electromagnets in place. We used epoxy glue for the hall chip sticks
and rotor, and various kinds of tape (electrical tape, duct tape, masking tape) to secure the
electromagnets. Luckily, the hall chip sticks were very light and we could not detect any
unnecessary movement. However, the wire for the electromagnets was coiled around a metal rod,
and the rod and permanent magnets were attracted to one another; at the motors peak
performance, the electromagnets would occasionally slip from their positions because the metal
rod was attracted to the permanent magnets, and they would get stuck on the motor and stop it
from spinning. This issue mainly pertained to the two electromagnets that were secured to the
!28

parts of the triangular base that stuck up vertically. The electromagnet on the bottom did not
suffer as much from this attraction issue, as gravity kept it from getting pulled towards and stuck
to the rotor. However, this bottom electromagnet was the most unstable because it kept wobbling
around and the nut that was screwed on to keep it in place would not sit flat. We attempted to
solve this issue with epoxy glue and tape, which minimized vibrations and excessive movement
but did not eliminate them entirely. Beyond securing the electromagnets more successfully,
another important improvement would involve securing the rotor. As discussed, the rotor is
suspended by two wooden supports; we drilled a hole into each support and inserted a bearing to
hold the rod of the rotor. We used epoxy glue twice in this process, both to secure the bearings in
the holes in the wooden supports, and to glue the rotor into the bearings. However, the rod came
loose from the bearings twice during our various testing processes; it was spinning so fast that
the epoxy couldnt keep it in place. We had to re-glue both times, which was time-intensive and
created small discrepancies in the permanent magnet positions in relation to the electromagnets
and hall chips, so we had to spend a significant amount of time re-adjusting these positions. In
short, one major change that would make vast improvements to our motor, specifically RPM,
would be finding a better method of securing the various rods and supports in place.
While making measurements, there were several opportunities for error. The electromagnets
were not completely secured, therefore every time we ran the motor we had to slightly adjust the
positioning of the hall chips and electromagnets. For this reason there is slight error between
trials that is not accounted for. Specifically, when testing torque, our motor was not strong
enough to pull up a mass suspended from a taught string. Because of this we had to attach a
longer string and give the motor slack at the beginning of each trial so that the motor would have
enough momentum to continue lifting the mass. When we released the string, the string would
occasionally fall off the track of the pulley, thus creating unnecessary friction and making our
velocity vs time graph not as smooth as it could have been. In addition, our electromagnets got
progressively hotter as we continued to run the motor for prolonged periods of time. Therefore,
there was a discrepancy between earlier trials and later trials; this also helps to explains our low
efficiency because we lost a significant amount of energy due to heat.

!29

The development of motors with faster RPM is an important pursuit and can contribute to
significant advances in many fields. An important application for these faster motors is the
rapidly evolving field of medicine, especially biotechnology; medical devices such as surgical
power tools and dental drills require high-speed motors that will not be too powerful and cause
damage to the patient.

!
Acknowledgements
Dr. Dann: For patiently answering our never-ending stream of questions and saying the magic
words that finally made our motor spin for the first time.
Mr. Ward: For countless tips on building how to build our frame without injuring ourselves
Dr. Spence: For helping us cut those tricky 60 degree angles.
Everyone who lent us measuring equipment and helped us problem solve: Youre the best!

!30

VII. Bibliography
[1] Jenkins, John. "The Development of the Electric Motor." SparkMuseum. Accessed October 7,
2014. http://www.sparkmuseum.com/MOTORS.HTM.

[2] Faraday, Michael. "On some New Electro-Magnetical Motions, and on the Theory of
Magnetism." Quarterly Journal of Science, Literature and the Arts XII (1822): 74.

[3] Doppelbauer, Martin. "The invention of the electric motor 1800-1854." Karlsruhe Institute of
Technology. Last modified September 25, 2014. Accessed October 7, 2014. http://
www.eti.kit.edu/english/1376.php.

[4] Transactions of the Society for the Encouragement of the Arts, Manufacturers and
Commerce, 1824, vol. 43, pl. 3

[5] "Brushless DC Motor Guide." Anaheim Automation. Last modified 2011. Accessed October
7, 2014. http://www.anaheimautomation.com/manuals/forms/brushless-dc-motorguide.php#sthash.vXjFkdFt.0KMe9slE.dpbs.

[6] Gilmore, Jason. "Ernst Werner von Siemens (1816-1892)." History of Science (blog). Entry
posted February 13, 2011. Accessed October 7, 2014. http://
historyofscience2011v1.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html.

[7] Williams, John, Dr. "Types of Electric Motors." The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Last modified 2010. Accessed October 7, 2014. http://www.ece.uah.edu/courses/material/EE410Wms2/Electric%20motors.pdf.

!
[8] Lee, Edward C. Application of Brushless DC Motors in Blow Molding.
!

[9] "Neodymium: Super Strength Magnets." The Human Touch of Chemistry. Accessed October

7, 2014. http://humantouchofchemistry.com/neodymium-super-strength-magnets.htm.

[10] Lordo, Robert E. Permanent magnet DC motor with magnets recessed into motor frame. US

Patent 4,453,097, filed Sept. 1, 1982, and issued June 5, 1984.

[11] "History of Brushless DC Motors." Minebea. Accessed October 7, 2014. http://

www.nmbtc.com/brushless-dc-motors/brushless-dc-motors/.

!31

A. Appendix
Appendix i: Period Measurements for Average RPM Calculation
a. 72.8 milliseconds at 15.3 V

b.

66.4 milliseconds at 18.3 V

c. 60.8 milliseconds at 19.7 V

d. 56.8 milliseconds at 22.7 V

!32

i. 20.8 milliseconds at 28.5 V

j. 19.2 milliseconds at 26.5 V

k. 17.6 milliseconds at 26.5 V

l. 12.8 milliseconds at 28.0 V (Peak RPM)

!33

Appendix ii: Voltage vs Time Graphs for Torque Calculation: The Slope is Acceleration
a. 13.0 V

b. 14.9 V

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

c. 16.1 V

d. 16.5 V

!34

e. 18.4 V

!
!

f. 21.1 V

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

g. 24.2 V

h. 26.4 V

!35

Appendix iii: Period Measurements for Power Calculation

a. 170 milliseconds at 13.0 V

b. 136 milliseconds at 14.9 V

c. 124 milliseconds at 16.1 V

d. 112 milliseconds at 16.5 V

!36

Appendix iv: Measurement Images

a. RPM: Photogate Configuration

b. Running Torque: Motion Detector Configuration

!37

c. Static Torque: Dual Range Force Sensor Configuration

!38