×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Constant Torque 1000:1 vs. 2000:1

Constant Torque 1000:1 vs. 2000:1

Constant Torque 1000:1 vs. 2000:1

(OP)
I am selecting a vector motor for an application, and one motor has a 1000:1 constant torque and the other is 2000:1.  What does that ratio represent, and which one is better?

  

RE: Constant Torque 1000:1 vs. 2000:1

The ratio is the speed turn down ratio within which you can expect the motor to operate without running into problems with temperature. So if you have a 4 pole 1750RPM motor rated for 1000:1 CT, it means that you can turn the speed down to 1.75RPM and expect it to still perform to spec. with full torque and without overheating (provided adequate cooling is provided) when using a vector drive. The one rated for 2000:1 would then be able to be run at .857RPM.

The difference represents the accuracy with which the motor is constructed, especially the laminations, air gap and bearings, plus the heat dissipation capability. By having better designs, there are less iron losses (eddy currents) and so the motor runs cooler to begin with. They they also design the heat transfer capabilities to not rely upon fans, because at those speeds you have no fans anyway. The difference between those two motors is, however, kind of like spitting hairs IMHO.


"If I had eight hours to chop down a tree, I'd spend six sharpening my axe." -- Abraham Lincoln  
For the best use of Eng-Tips, please click here -> FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies  

RE: Constant Torque 1000:1 vs. 2000:1

moosetracks555
What does your application need? If your application only needs 3:1 constant torque then both motors may be overkill and overly expensive for your needs.
 

RE: Constant Torque 1000:1 vs. 2000:1

As jraef mentions, whether the motor is spec'ed at 1000/1 or 2000/1 is probably meaningless.  You can expect either of these motors to operate successfully at full rated torque down to essentially zero speed without overheating.

RE: Constant Torque 1000:1 vs. 2000:1

Yes, meant to say that too, thanks Oz. I just helped someone with a project where the Engineer specified 100:1 rated motors on pumps. But when you look at the pump performance curves, the VFDs will never turn down below 50%. So the extra expense of 100:1 rated motors vs 10:1 or even 3:1 rated motors is a waste.


"If I had eight hours to chop down a tree, I'd spend six sharpening my axe." -- Abraham Lincoln  
For the best use of Eng-Tips, please click here -> FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies  

RE: Constant Torque 1000:1 vs. 2000:1

(OP)
This is a lifting application, and I need the vector motor to stop the load from back driving the gearbox.  I have tried a standard motor with no luck.  I have a 1000:1 vector motor that works great, but the 2000:1 is cheaper, and I have 10 more to purchase.  Thanks for explaining what the ratio means.

RE: Constant Torque 1000:1 vs. 2000:1

Don't forget that cheaper is not always necessarily better. There is no free lunch, so unless the first motor supplier is trying to bite off a disproportionately higher profit margin, I would be at least initially suspicious of a motor claiming to be rated higher yet costing less. Sometimes manufacturers do what I call "Targeted Specsmanship" where they target specific specs that they know customers look for or are industry buzzwords, but make cutbacks on other important yet unfamiliar design considerations in order to sell for predatory prices. Major motor manufacturing costs are primarily in materials and workmanship, and material costs are essentially based on commodities.


"If I had eight hours to chop down a tree, I'd spend six sharpening my axe." -- Abraham Lincoln  
For the best use of Eng-Tips, please click here -> FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies  

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources