Stators and rotors

[winnie]

Agreed, reference frame matters, but if we don't understand what is actually going on we can't appreciate the beauty of the machine
if we look at it from the stator the rotor field has a freq
from the rotor it has none

Are you saying that in the rotor frame of reference the induced current in the rotor is DC?

In other words, if I were sitting spinning along with the rotor, and I put a current probe on one of the cage bars, the measured current would be constant?

Your reference is post 14 disputes this.

As you say, the frequency of the rotor current (and thus rotor magnetic field) is slip * stator frequency.

The rotor is spinning at (1-slip) * stator frequency, but the rotor magnetic field is spinning at the stator frequency.

-Jon

 

[Ingenieur]

Are you saying that in the rotor frame of reference the induced current in the rotor is DC?

In other words, if I were sitting spinning along with the rotor, and I put a current probe on one of the cage bars, the measured current would be constant?

Your reference is post 14 disputes this.

As you say, the frequency of the rotor current (and thus rotor magnetic field) is slip * stator frequency.

The rotor is spinning at (1-slip) * stator frequency, but the rotor magnetic field is spinning at the stator frequency.

-Jon

You selectively edited the post
the first part stipulated a synchronous machine with externally excited dc field
obviously if an induction machine the i rotor ~ slip

 

[Sahib]

Are you saying in an induction motor, operating with 2.5% slip, that the electrical (vs mechanical) speed of the rotor and stator are the same?

Already said so in post18 also.

 

[George Stolz]

Yes, please don't feed the trolls.

Done.