engine turning, jumpsuit. . .

[MauroTC]

a question from ignorant almost total on electric motors.
a motor that should be “transported” in rotation, indefinitely, does it damage somehow?
I better explain: I found an application where two engines were designed to operate a gearbox that moves the chain of a roller conveyor; a motor is reserve to the other and when one (a) should jump, it is automatically disintegrated from the system by means of an electromagnetic coupling and part of the other motor (b). the reserve motor (b) in practice always frees, through tooth belt to the main motor axis, and is then dragged natural life during. theoretically if the first one doesn't jump could stand there running empty for years.
we should replicate the application and before we invent something better, change system, put a second graft, etc. I wanted to understand if instead you can consider that a lawful operation. . .
Thank you!

 

[Stan9411]

to me from “mechanical” it seems to me a hollow already for the fact that so the motor drags every day double of its inertia to every ignition (I imagine that the two engines are identical) and there will be a part of power (though small) that goes to be blessed for all additional frictions. but in my opinion some electrical problem is created... What is a three-phase synchronous? surely there are people who know more about me here on the forum..

 

[MauroTC]

to me from “mechanical” it seems to me a hollow already for the fact that so the motor drags every day double of its inertia to every ignition (I imagine that the two engines are identical) and there will be a part of power (though small) that goes to be blessed for all additional frictions. but in my opinion some electrical problem is created... What is a three-phase synchronous? surely there are people who know more about me here on the forum..

Thank you.
Yes, asynchronous three-phase.
we say that everything must transport so many tons that the extra power to drag the second motor can be considered negligible; in more work almost perpetually, except maintenance stops (then departures from very rare stop). more than anything else, I'm afraid of the damage to the dragged motor, which if one day comes in. . Who knows?
but mine could be, as I say, "electric ignorance".

 

[Utente cancellato 70856]

the problem will arise whether it will break the first motor and whether it will last the reserve one,
if the first motor will break for a mechanical problem,guards etc., and will subdue the reserve one with attached the first broken will split, the two motors should not have the common shaft

 

[bip]

the second engine, when it comes into operation for the first time, will still have the bearings that have already turned quite a bit. .
for the rest there is no problem, obviously the engine "folle" some friction has it..
my advice is to mount the two motors aligned axially, with a sliding sleeve on a grooved shaft that when disconnecting the first motor triggers the second, just a pneumatic cylinder with two reed wheel to realize the movement and with little expense realize the whole. .

 

[meccanicamg]

the motor dragged surely consumes in the area bearings and seals. it would be good to alternate lemotorizations every 6 months or 1 year and to prevent the preventive stop to replace the "spare" engine that will be one at a time but both.
You can also leave them like this, using the second only in emergency. Of course it would be good to think of a clutch that grafts in need and a few milliseconds of pause before returning to give the bike.

 

[meccanicamg]

being a three-phase asynchronous engine is not having permanent magnets and not having powered the rotor does not work as dynamo, so you should also feed the rotor to have a flow that creates problems and network disturbances.
Surely an electric engineer could give you better answers.
surely the system will have a switch opening the upstream circuit of the dragged motor, in order to avoid strange discoveries.

 

[welcome to the machine]

do not talk about dimensioning or loads, so it is difficult to give sensible advice, but if you have no problem braking the load inertias in the stages of shutdown, you can take it very simply with free wheels.
you can also avoid the electromagnetic coupling by connecting both engines on the same axis and interposing the free wheels in the transmissions. ( stieber is an important producer). You wouldn't even have any wear problems because the unpowered engine stays still, it's not dragged.
but if you have an inertia you want to stop with a brake on the engine, questo system non va bene. Even worse if the roller should work in two directions (forward/back) : it would turn only in one way!
to operate them electrically there are switches designed to manage two engines in or with the ability to manage the transient switch time, but I don't think you need this sophisticated.
If by chance this system is suitable for your case, also follow the advice of mechanicsmg to make them work alternately- a month for one?- and you can do it automatically, with a trivial timer.

 

[MauroTC]

thanks to all for advice and ideas.
I basically wanted to understand whether the old solution (although better because already from the first impact it left me a little puzzled, as a general solution) was still valid or if this ruined somehow the reserve engine, . I think I understood not.
therefore presumably everything will remain as it is, since putting our hands would change the design of the current machines, already in advanced phase.

thanks again to all.

I would have put it from the beginning of the discussion. . . )