Re: (ET) E12 lost power

["RJ Kanary" <rjkanary nauticom net>]

       Cost ?  Thoughts that the centrifugal inhibiting of full armature
voltage would prevent a Chernobyl event ?
       This is where having a chronology of the product line development
would be a plus.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Zach" <czach computer org>
To: "RJ Kanary" <rjkanary nauticom net>
Cc: "Richard Zachary" <Zach njcfsa org>; "Elec-trak list"
<elec-trak cosmos phy tufts edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: (ET) E12 lost power


> Really? Hm. That is interesting. Though it's true my knowledge of the
> E12 series is kinda limited. Still, I thought the idea of the series
> field was to help increase motor power under heavy load and keep the
> armature from Etemping; why would they leave it out?
>
> Chris
>
>
> RJ Kanary wrote:
>
> > You know this because the Elec-trak motors are not really 100% shunt
> > motors. They have a small series field in series with the armature. It
> > is this field that causes an E20 to have slightly less power in 
> > reverse,
> > go a bit faster in reverse, and the big reason why you *NEVER* do field
> > weakening in Reverse (the field is already slightly weaker due to the
> > series field opposing the main field because reverse on an E20 reverses
> > the armature and not the field like an E15)
> >
> > ALMOST...................................
> >
> > E 12 Models  'CA'  through  'HA'  do not possess this arrangement. 
> > Check
the
> > schematic.
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Chris Zach" <czach computer org>
> > To: "Richard Zachary" <Zach njcfsa org>
> > Cc: "Elec-trak list" <elec-trak cosmos phy tufts edu>
> > Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 1:26 PM
> > Subject: Re: (ET) E12 lost power
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>