Final Document - Word

Team P-Squared
Formal Report
E-45: Personal Electric Generator
May 1, 2009
Kevin Jordan Garrett Brigman
Michael Denk Sean Hennessy
Brian Dolder Josh Matson

1. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................................1
2. PROJECT OBJECTIVE STATEMENT................................................................................................................1
3. PROBLEM DEFINITION.......................................................................................................................................1
3.1. PROJECT SCOPE.......................................................................................................................................................1
3.2. MAJOR RISKS..........................................................................................................................................................2
4. CUSTOMER NEEDS...............................................................................................................................................4
5. PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS..............................................................................................................................6
5.1. MODIFIED LOW-COST SPECIFICATIONS........................................................................................................................6
5.2. MODIFIED HIGH-PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS...........................................................................................................7
6. DESIGN PLAN FROM FALL SEMESTER..........................................................................................................7
6.1. LOW-COST MODEL DESIGN PLAN..............................................................................................................................8
6.2. HIGH-PERFORMANCE MODEL DESIGN PLAN................................................................................................................8
6.3. WEBSITE PLAN........................................................................................................................................................9
7. PROTOTYPING EFFORTS ...................................................................................................................................9
7.1. LOW-COST MODEL PROTOTYPE.................................................................................................................................9
7.2. HIGH-PERFORMANCE MODEL PROTOTYPE..................................................................................................................12
8. MANUFACTURING DOCUMENTATION.........................................................................................................15
8.1. LOW-COST MODEL MANUFACTURING DOCUMENTATION..............................................................................................15
8.2. HIGH-PERFORMANCE MODEL MANUFACTURING DOCUMENTATION.................................................................................26
9. PROJECT WEBSITE.............................................................................................................................................28
10. PROTOTYPE TESTING.....................................................................................................................................28

10.1. THEORY..............................................................................................................................................................29
10.2. EXPERIMENT 1.....................................................................................................................................................29
10.3. EXPERIMENT 2.....................................................................................................................................................30
10.4. EXPERIMENT 3.....................................................................................................................................................30
10.5. EXPERIMENT 4.....................................................................................................................................................31
10.6. EXPERIMENT 5.....................................................................................................................................................31
10.7. EXPERIMENT 6.....................................................................................................................................................32
10.8. EXPERIMENT 7.....................................................................................................................................................32
10.9. EXPERIMENT 8.....................................................................................................................................................33
10.10. EQUIPMENT USED..............................................................................................................................................33
10.11. TEST PROCEDURE ..............................................................................................................................................35
10.12. EXPERIMENT REPEATABILITY ...............................................................................................................................35
11. TEST RESULTS....................................................................................................................................................37
12. TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION.........................................................................................................................41

12.1. LOW-COST MODEL JUSTIFICATION.........................................................................................................................41
12.2. HIGH-PERFORMANCE MODEL JUSTIFICATION............................................................................................................42
Formal Report Page i of 79

Project: E45 – Personal Power Supply Revision 1.0
12.3. WATER WHEEL CALCULATIONS..............................................................................................................................42
12.4. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS....................................................................................................................................47
12.5. ENERGY COST SAVINGS........................................................................................................................................48
13. REVIEW OF SPECIFICATIONS & NEEDS....................................................................................................49
13.1. LOW-COST MODEL PERFORMANCE.........................................................................................................................49
13.2. HIGH-PERFORMANCE MODEL.................................................................................................................................51
13.3. ORIGINAL PROBLEM.............................................................................................................................................52
14. COSTS & ECONOMIC ANALYSIS...................................................................................................................52
14.1. PROJECT COST.....................................................................................................................................................52
14.2. PRODUCT COST....................................................................................................................................................52
14.3. LABOR REQUIREMENT SUMMARY...........................................................................................................................52
14.4. SALES FORECAST.................................................................................................................................................53
15. STANDARDS, COMPLIANCE & CONCERNS...............................................................................................53
15.1. SAFETY EVALUATION............................................................................................................................................53
15.2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT......................................................................................................................54
15.3. APPLICABLE STANDARDS.......................................................................................................................................55
15.4. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE....................................................................................................................................55
15.5. LEGAL ISSUES......................................................................................................................................................55
16. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................56
17. REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................................58
18. APPENDIX A: EXPERIMENT DATA...............................................................................................................59

18.1. EXPERIMENT 1.....................................................................................................................................................59
18.2. EXPERIMENT 2.....................................................................................................................................................60
18.3. EXPERIMENT 3.....................................................................................................................................................61
18.4. EXPERIMENT 4.....................................................................................................................................................62
18.5. EXPERIMENT 5.....................................................................................................................................................63
18.6. EXPERIMENT 6.....................................................................................................................................................64
18.7. EXPERIMENT 7.....................................................................................................................................................65
18.8. EXPERIMENT 8.....................................................................................................................................................66
18.9. REPEATABILITY DATA............................................................................................................................................67
19. APPENDIX B: SAMPLE CALCULATIONS.....................................................................................................68
20. APPENDIX C: ADDITIONAL MACHINING & ASSEMBLY INSTRUCTIONS.........................................72
21. APPENDIX D: MATLAB CODE FOR WATER WHEEL CALCULATIONS...............................................75
Formal Report Page ii of 79

1. Introduction
With the validation testing complete, the final step of the project is to fully document the project
details, and submit key deliverables. This Formal Report contains all the information required to
understand and reproduce the design team’s work over the last two semesters.
The first few sections of the report are a review of the project definition. This contains a
definition of the problem and scope, a list of identified customer needs, product specifications, and the
design plan from the first semester. The next sections describe the prototyping process, with full
manufacturing documentation and test results. These results are compared with the specifications in order
to demonstrate that the original problem was solved. The document contains an economic analysis and
some notes about standards and compliance, and ends with final conclusions and recommendations.
2. Project Objective Statement

The team will develop a low-cost model and a high-performance model of a personal power
supply for heating and lighting, using natural energy sources and salvaged auto parts for components by
May 2009 with a budget of $900.
3. Problem Definition
Billions of people in developing countries are without a reliable source of electricity. While there
are many relief efforts going on in these countries, very few have the knowledge needed to construct
alternative power supplies for the homes of these people.
3.1. Project Scope

In the Fall Semester, the design team decided to limit the scope of the project to include only the
mechanical gearing and electrical conversion. The team assumes that the customer has access to a low-
speed, high-torque rotational input (such as a water wheel), and electrical load devices. The box diagram
and project scope may be seen in Figure 1.
Formal Report Page 1 of 79

Natural Power Source:
Wind, water, etc.
Input Shaft
Natural Power Source Rotational Step Up:
Manipulator: Gearbox, pulleys, etc.
Windmill, waterwheel, etc.
Output Shaft
Power Generation Unit:
Alternator, Generator, etc.
Power Consumption:
Low watt light and heat Power Storage:
Cell, Battery of Cells
Scope of this Project
Figure 1: Project box diagram with scope
3.2. Major Risks

The following risks were identified in the Fall Semester:
• Turning an alternator at high speeds may be difficult using natural energy sources.
o The natural energy sources the team is considering for this design will likely turn
a shaft at a low speed (under 100 rpm). However, automobile alternators may be
inefficient or inoperable at these speeds.
o Possible solutions:
 Use an automobile differential and/or appropriately sized pulleys and belts to
increase the speed on the alternator shaft.
 Select an energy source that will turn a wheel at high speeds.
 Modify or select an alternator to operate at low speeds.
• The intended user may not have the necessary tools or technical knowledge to construct and
maintain the personal power supply.
o An optimal design would likely require custom-machined parts to ensure reliability,
efficiency, and sustainability. Producing these parts in an underdeveloped nation could
be difficult. Also, a working personal power supply might require regular maintenance
from an experienced technician.
 Develop solution using few or no custom-machined parts.
 Manufacture generic parts domestically that will work for most designs.
 Train the user in maintenance procedures.
• Creating a generic design plan to accept automobile parts from all car models will be
difficult.
o Car manufacturers select and design alternators, differentials, and other parts to
meet the specific demands of each car. As a result, a generic design would have
to allow for varying power input/output, mounting hole configurations, shaft
diameters, and other specifications. Verifying parts from every car model would
be impossible.
 Develop multiple prototypes; evaluate benefits and pitfalls of common
components. Make recommendations for part selection.
 Create a specific plan using parts from a single, common car model.
• Power losses on transmission lines may be too high for practical use.
o Typical car alternators generate power at approximately 12V to match the voltage of the
car battery. Because the voltage is low, current (I) must be high (50 Amperes or more) to
transmit significant power. Transmission line losses (P) are calculated using the equation
P=I2R, where R is the line resistance. Resistance increases with the length and gauge of
the transmission line.
 Use low-gauge wires (large diameter) for transmission lines.
 Keep electrical loads near the energy source.
 Remove alternator rectifier components and use a transformer to obtain high
voltage and low current.
 Carry batteries from generation site to place of need.
• If alternator output voltage are low (12V), common light bulbs and heating coils that
typically operate at 120V (or higher) will not work effectively.
o Light and heat output of electrical loads (with resistance R) will be proportional to the
power (P) dissipated. The power dissipated may be found using P=V2/R, where V is the
operating voltage. By reducing the voltage from 120V to 12V, for example, a given load
will dissipate only 1% of the power – and therefore give off only 1% of the light or heat it
normally would.
 Use low-resistance electrical loads, like car headlights, that are meant for low-
voltage operation.
 Obtain higher voltage output (as described above) to use typical light bulbs and
heating coils.

4. Customer Needs
In order to fully understand the needs of potential customers, the design team completed several
interviews. The interviewees were individuals who are familiar with the abilities, needs, advantages,
disadvantages, and customs of people in foreign countries. In order to obtain a comprehensive view of
customer needs across the world, the team surveyed people with knowledge of several different areas of
the world. The result of these surveys may be seen in Table 1 on the following page.
From this list, the most important and relevant needs were formed into metrics. The team then
developed product specifications in order to meet the customer needs as completely as possible.

Question
Questions/Prompt Customer Statement Customer Needs Need No.
No.
Hot weather, Hurricanes, Very Windy,
3 Describe the weather Weather Resistant (wind/water/cold) 1
Very Rain, Flooding, Snow
How much money is available for Reliable 2
10 Hardly any, 50%of initial cost
maintenance ? Low Cost of Operation 3
Pictorial of Components 4
Pictorial Wiring Diagram 5
What language(s) are the citizens most English,Spanish,Mayan,
2a Instructions in Local Languages 6
familiar with? Xhosa,Portugese
Instructions in multiple languages 7
Lights for studying at night and
Lights 8
general practicality
Heater for warmth, for boiling water,
Heat 9
What's most needed as far as for cooking
5
electricity? Refrigeration? Lights? Heat?
Heat for boiling water and showering Water Heater 10
Refrigeration to keep food longer Refrigeration 11

Television for watching soccer Television 12
Charger for cell phones Cell Phone Charger 13
Radio to follow politics Radio 14
What types of devices do they wish to
8 Power cereal grinder Cereal Grinder 15
power?
Power for pumping well water Water Pump 16
Power for church speakers Sound System 17
Cooking stoves Electrical Stoves 18
How much money could be spent for a People have minimal extra money,
9 Low Cost 19
personal generator? People only earn $1-2 a day
Shops are for industrial use only,
What is the availability of machine
12 Shops are in town away from the Minimal Tooling 20
shops?
rural areas
Cement is readily available, Concrete
13 Is cement readily available? Able to mount in Cement 21
is cheap from local hardware store
Not available at all, Available only to
How available is computer and internet
14a students, Internet café in town but Pamphlet/Manual 22
access?
not in rural areas
Do most people have access to Not very common, there are
17 Local Car Parts/Automotive parts 23
junkyards/car salvage yards? junkyards in nearby towns
What are some common
17a car/motorcycle models sold in this Motorcycles are not very common Minimal Motorcycle Parts 24
country?
Many Villages built on rivers, there is
Run on Water 25
lots of flowing water
There are open plains where its very
Run on Wind 26
Are there accessible rivers/streams or windy.
18
large areas of open plains?
During rainy season and down-pours
all the villages have roofs which could Run on Rain Power 27
be used to generate power
It has to be easily incorporated into
Practical (Quiet/Small/Out of the Way) 28
Do you have any other ideas or their lifestyle
20
thoughts? Citizens would like to be involved in
Citizen Involved Building 29
construction
What is the technical aptitude of the
15 None to very little Require Simple Tools 30
people?
Table 1: Customer needs identified from surveys

5. Product Specifications
During the designing and building process of the personal power supply, the original product
specifications (Table 2) for our project changed to ensure that the power supply would be functional.
Originally, we created only one set of specifications, but to match our design plan, we divided it into two
sets of specifications, one for each configuration.
Specifications
Metric No. Need Nos. Specifications Imp. Nominal Ideal Units
1 1,4 Protect it from elements 1 Yes Yes Binary
2 6,7 Multiple translations of instructions 2 3 7 Integer
3 29 Able to be built on site 1 Yes Yes Binary
4 8-18 Power Output 3 0.5 1.9 kW
5 8-18 Electrical Output 3 12 14 Volts DC
6 8-18 Output Frequency 4 15 0 Hertz
7 19 Cost of Parts 2 250 100 USD
8 2,3 Cost of Operation 3 5 0 USD per Month
9 20,30 Parts needing Tooling 2 3 0 integer
10 21 Cement Foundation Used 3 Yes Yes binary
11 4,5,22 Pictorial Instruction Pamphlet 2 Yes Yes binary
12 23 Distance to Car parts 4 50 10 km
13 24 Number of Motorcycle Parts needed 5 3 0 Integer
14 25-27 Torque input required 1 4.77 6.05 N-m
15 25-27 Speed input required 1 1000 3000 rpm
16 28 Obstructs daily life 4 Yes Yes binary
Table 2: Original specifications
5.1. Modified Low-Cost Specifications

Some of the original specifications have been removed entirely from both revised sets, for various
reasons. For instance, we removed “Multiple translations of instructions” because we will be unable to
provide these translations. However, since many translation websites currently exist on the Internet, our
instructions must merely appear online in English. Since the goal is to charge a 12V battery, “Output
Frequency” makes little sense. The output will be DC electrical power. Also, the “Distance to Car parts”
is not something we can either specify or test. It is merely a qualification for any potential customers.
Finally, in order to clarify, “Able to be built on site” has been changed to “Able to be assembled on site”.
The low-cost prototype is designed specifically for people in developing countries. From
discussions with our project advisor, we have decided to make some specification changes. Since the
output only needs to be enough to charge a battery, some requirements have been relaxed. These revised
specifications may be seen in Table 3.

Table 3: Revised specifications for Low-Cost model
5.2. Modified High-Performance Specifications

The high-performance prototype has similar changes to the specifications. However, higher
expectations may be set for this prototype. The nominal and ideal speed inputs were changed to 500 rpm
and 1000 rpm respectively. The reason for this was because the Wind Blue alternator does not require as
high of an input speed as the car alternator to generate power. The expected power output is greater than
the low-cost model as well. The revised specifications may be seen in Table 4.
Table 4: Revised specifications for High-Performance model
6. Design Plan from Fall Semester

The design team generated several concepts for consideration during the Fall Semester. These
concepts were all rated for cost, performance, and required labor. From these concepts, two final
concepts emerged.

6.1. Low-Cost Model Design Plan
The Low-Cost model of the Personal Power Supply was designed to have components that could
all be salvaged from used cars or other machines. The concept image may be seen in Figure 2.
Car alternator
10:1 gearing through
transmission and pulleys
Waterwheel Car battery

input shaft
Wood mounting
Bracket anchored
in cement base
Figure 2: Low-Cost model mockup
6.2. High-Performance Model Design Plan

The idea for the High-Performance model was to loosen the restrictions of the Low-Cost model,
allowing the team to use more ideal components in the system – rather than salvaged components. In this
model, a permanent magnet alternator is used instead of a car alternator. The PM alternator generates
more power at lower speeds. This allows a simpler (and therefore more reliable) gearing system. The
concept image may be seen in Figure 3.

Figure 3: High-Performance mockup
6.3. Website Plan

Rather than forming a plan to sell the products to consumers, the team decided to share the group
efforts with the world. The group decided that the best way to share this information was through a
website that would follow our project. At the end, the team hoped to have all of the project deliverables
available for viewing.
7. Prototyping Efforts
From the beginning of the Spring Semester, the design team had the goal of constructing two
versions of the Personal Power Supply. Since the team was only able to acquire one water wheel
simulator, it was important to make the prototypes easily configurable. The result of the team’s efforts
may be seen in this section.
7.1. Low-Cost Model Prototype

The Low-Cost design (see Figure 4) utilized two stages of gearing, totaling a gear ratio of 97:1.
This was a necessary component of this design because we used a lower cost, higher amperage alternator.
The alternator needed around 1200 rpm to begin outputting current. This is much higher speed than the
High Performance design and therefore required much more gearing to make a realistic speed at the water
wheel. With this gearing we were able to charge a battery at about 13 rpm input at the water wheel. This
is not only a very achievable speed, but one that was easily tested with our equipment.

Figure 4: Low-Cost block diagram
One limiting factor in our equipment was the torque. Along with speed increasing throughout our
system, torque decreased. Because of this the low cost design requires a much higher torque requirement
at the water wheel than the High Performance design. The motor in our testing, simulating a water wheel,
was the limiting factor and only allowed us an input speed of just under 16 rpm before it maxed out on
torque. At this point we were able to achieve 350 Watts output at 13.5V. A photo of the Low-Cost
prototype may be seen in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Prototype of Low-Cost model

The Bill of Materials for the Low-Cost model may be seen in Table 5. This table includes the required quantities of each part, along with
cost information for each part. The ‘Salvaged Cost’ is an estimate of the cost of each part if found in working condition in a salvage yard in the
United States. Note that it would be impossible to predict the costs of parts found in every country of the world. However, every part in the Low-
Cost model could either be salvaged or replaced with an equivalent part found in a salvage yard.
Item No. Description Quantity Our Cost Salvaged Cost

1 Waterwheel 1 N/A N/A
2 Sprocket, 9 Teeth, for #60 Chain, 3/4" Pitch, 1" Bore, Hardened Steel Teeth 1 21.01 7.00
3 Sprocket, 60 Teeth, for #60 Chain, 3/4" Pitch, 1" Bore, Hardened Steel Teeth 1 27.62 9.21
4 Intermediate Shaft, 1" Diameter, 13" Long 1 3.85 2.96
5 Flywheel, Dodge Dakota, and Hub 1 54.95 27.48
6 Pinion Gear, Dodge Dakota 1 10.27 3.42
7 Alternator Intermediate Shaft/Coupling 1 2.50 1.92
8 Pillow Block Bearing, 1", Self-aligning 3 25.44 25.44
9 Delco-Remy Alternator, Chevy Suburban 1 42.24 42.24
10 Mounting Plate, A36 1/2” Plate Steel 1 18.60 14.31
11 Supporting Columns, ASTM A36 2” Square Tube Stock 1 10.60 8.15
12 Base, ASTM A36 12”x3” Channel Iron 1 20.59 15.84
13 Angle Iron, ASTM A36 2”x2”x1/4” 2 10.12 7.78
14 Alternator Bracket, Delco-Remy, ASTM A36 1/2" Plate Steel 1 15.00 11.54
15 # 60 Chain, 3/4" Pitch, 5 ft 1 41.15 20.58
16 Car Battery, 12 Volt 1 143.00 35.75
Total Cost $446.94 $233.62
Table 5: Bill of Materials for the Low-Cost model

7.2. High-Performance Model Prototype
Our High Performance design (see Figure 6) utilized only one stage of gearing, along with a
permanent magnet alternator to create a higher performing generator at lower input torque requirements.
Along with this lower torque requirement came a higher cost for the permanent magnet alternator. We
also implemented a charge controller with our design. This allowed us to setup a more permanent
charging solution which could be implemented as part of either a grid-tied or off-grid system. The charge
controller is able to be set through a computer interface to charge and discharge at different voltage
ratings. This will prevent over-charging of the battery bank and allow charging of different voltages of
banks.
Figure 6: High-Performance block diagram
The gearing in this design is simple as a more complicated design is unnecessary for this low of
speed requirements in the alternator. The gearing consists of a simple 14.5:1 gear ratio achieved with a
flywheel and pinion from a starter out of a 1999 Dodge Dakota engine. A photo of the High-Performance
prototype may be seen in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Prototype of High-Performance model

The Bill of Materials for the High-Performance model may be seen in Table 6. This table includes the required quantities of each part,
along with cost information for each part. The ‘Salvaged Cost’ is an estimate of the cost of each part if found in working condition in a salvage
yard in the United States. Some items, including the Charge Controller and WindBlue Alternator, may not be available in any salvage yard. The
costs of these parts are simply copied into ‘Salvaged Cost’, even though the parts would need to be purchased new.
Item No. Description Quantity Cost Salvaged Cost

1 Waterwheel 1 N/A N/A
2 Flywheel, Dodge Dakota 1 54.95 27.48
3 Pinion Gear, Dodge Dakota 1 10.27 3.42
4 Alternator Intermediate Shaft/Coupling 1 2.50 1.92
5 Pillow Block Bearing, 1", Self-aligning 1 8.48 8.48
6 Wind Blue Permenant Magnet Alternator 1 249.00 249.00
7 Angle Iron, ASTM A36 2”x2”x1/4” 2 10.12 7.78
8 Alternator Bracket, Wind Blue, ASTM A36 1/2" Plate Steel 1 15.00 11.54
9 Base, ASTM A36 12”x3” Channel Iron 1 20.59 15.84
10 Car Battery, 12 Volt 1 143.00 35.75
11 Charge Controller 1 140.54 140.54
Total Cost $654.45 $501.75
Table 6: Bill of Materials for High-Performance model

8. Manufacturing Documentation
This section contains the required documentation for manufacturing each model of the Personal
Power Supply. Each component has a thorough description of the part, including materials, required
tools, construction time, and an image of the part. Assembly drawings show how each component fits
into the final product. See Appendix C: Additional Machining & Assembly Instructions for special notes
on creating the more complicated components.
8.1. Low-Cost Model Manufacturing Documentation

The following gives a description of each major component needed to be manufactured for the
low cost model. A detail drawing for each piece is also provided. At the end of the section, an overall
assembly drawing is shown which includes items that were both manufactured and purchased by the
team.
1.) Alternator Mounting Bracket and Base: The alternator mounting bracket and base is designed to
hold either the Delco-Remy or Wind Blue alternator. It contains the following items from the BOM: 12,
13 and 14
A. BOM Item 13 - 2”x2”x1/4” Angle Iron (x2)

 Tools Required: Vertical axis mill and small hand drill
 Material: AISI/SAE 1018 hot roll steel 2”x2”x1/4” Angle Iron
 Estimated Construction Time: 30 minutes each
 Detail Drawing: Figure 8
Figure 8: Angle Iron
B. BOM Item 14 – Delco-Remy Car Alternator Bracket

 Tools Required: Vertical axis mill and small hand drill
 Material: AISI/SAE 1045 hot roll 1/2" plate steel
 Estimated Construction Time: 30 minutes
Figure 9: Alternator Bracket
C. BOM Item 12 – Base

 Tools Required: Vertical axis mill
 Material: AISI/SAE 1045 13”x3” channel iron

Figure 10: Base
D. Alternator Mounting Bracket and Base Assembly

 Tools Required: MIG Welder and Wrench
 Estimated Assembly Time: 20 minutes
 Total Construction Time: 2.6 hours
 Assembly Model: Figure 11 (Alternator and pinion gear also shown)

7/16”Bolt,
Nut, and
Washer
Fillet Weld
7/16”Bolt,
Nut, and
Washer
Figure 11: Alternator mounting bracket and brace
2.) Intermediate Shaft and Mount: This is a mounting scheme that allows for an additional gearing
stage through an intermediate shaft. The intermediate shaft will transmit power delivered from the chain
and sprocket to the pinion and flywheel system. The intermediate shaft is supported by two 1” pillow
block bearings (BOM item 15) which are fastened to this mount. This mount contains the following items
from the BOM: 4, 8, 10, 11, and 12.
A. BOM Item 4 – Intermediate Shaft

 Tools Required: Lathe
 Material: AISI/SAE 1045 hot roll steel 1” bar stock

Figure 12: Intermediate shaft
B. BOM Item 10 – Mounting Plate

 Tools Required: Hand drill
 Material: AISI/SAE 1045 hot rolled 1/2” plate steel

Figure 13: Mounting plate
C. BOM Item 11 – Supporting Columns (x2)

 Tools Required: Steel saw
 Material: AISI/SAE 1045 hot rolled steel 2” square tube stock
 Estimated Construction Time: 10 minutes each

Figure 14: Supporting columns
D. BOM Item 12 – Base – see section 1
E. BOM Item 8 – 1” Self Aligning Pillow Block Bearing (x2)

 Tools Required: Allen wrench
 Material: Purchase
 Estimated Construction Time: Purchase
Figure 15: Pillow block bearing

F. BOM Item 5 – Fly wheel and Hub
 Tools Required: Lathe, mill, steel saw, hand drill, and wrench
 Material: AISI/SAE 1045 hot rolled steel
 Estimated Construction Time: 2 hours
 *See Appendix C: Additional Machining & Assembly Instructions for detailed instruction
regarding this piece*
Figure 16: Hub
G. Intermediate Shaft and Mount Assembly

 Tools Required: MIG welder and wrench
 Total Construction time: 2.33 hours
 Assembly Model: Figure 17 (Fly wheel and small sprocket are also shown)

7/16”Bolts,
Nuts, and
Washers
Fillet Weld
Figure 17: Intermediate shaft and mount assembly
3.) Alternator Connecting Shaft/Coupling: This piece allows for the connection between the car
pinion gear and the Delco-Remy alternator. This could have been a purchased component, but the team
elected to manufacture it ourselves.
A. BOM Item 7 – Alternator Connecting Shaft/Coupling
 Tools Required: Lathe, hand drill, and Allen wrench
 Material: AISI/SAE 1045 hot rolled steel 1” bar stock
 Estimated Construction Time: 1 hour

Figure 18: Alternator coupling
4.) Purchased and Assembled Components: The following details the tools required and assembly
times for the low cost model’s purchased components.
A. Chain and Sprockets Assembly (BOM Items 2, 3, and 15)

 Tools Required: Chain tensioner, Allen wrench, and screw driver
B. Flywheel, Pinion, and Alternator Assembly (BOM Items 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9)
 Tools Required: MIG welder, wrench, and Allen wrench
 Estimated Assembly Time: 2 hours
5.) Overall System Assembly: Figure 19 shows an exploded assembly drawing for the low cost model.
The overall manufacturing and assembly time follows.

1 4
14
3 5 7
15
6
8
10 13
12
11
2
Figure 19: System assembly of the Low-Cost model
Overall Manufacturing and Assembly Time: 10.75 hours
6.) Electrical Wiring: See Figure 20 for wiring diagram. All connections must be secure, and wires
must be insulated from other wires. Where marked, wires must be 12 AWG or larger. Other wires must
be 22 AWG or larger.
Figure 20: Wiring Diagram for the Low-Cost model

8.2. High-Performance Model Manufacturing Documentation
The following gives a description of each major component needed to be manufactured for the
high performance model. The specific manufacturing details are identical to those presented in the
low cost model section, so they are not shown again here. At the end of the section, an overall
assembly drawing is shown which includes items that were both manufactured and purchased by the
team.
1.) Alternator Mounting Bracket and Base: The alternator mounting bracket and base is designed to
hold either the Delco-Remy or WindBlue alternator. It contains the following items from the BOM: 7, 8
and 9.
2.) Alternator Connecting Shaft/Coupling: This piece allows for the connection between the car
pinion gear and the WindBlue alternator. This could have been a purchased component, but the team
elected to manufacture it ourselves. It is BOM item 4.
3.) Purchased and Assembled Components: The following details the tools required and assembly
times for the low cost model’s purchased components.
A. Charge Controller Wiring Connections (BOM Item 10 and 11)
 Tools Required: Screwdriver and wire cutters
 Estimated Assembly Time: 1.5 hours
C. Flywheel, Pinion, and Alternator Assembly (BOM Items 2, 3, 4, and 6)
 Tools Required: MIG welder, wrench, and Allen wrench
 Estimated Assembly Time: 2 hours
 *See Appendix C: Additional Machining & Assembly Instructions for detailed instruction
regarding the flywheel coupling and hub*
4.) Overall System Assembly: Figure 21 shows an exploded assembly drawing for the high
performance model. The overall manufacturing and assembly time follows.

7
Figure 21: System assembly of the High-Performance model
Overall Manufacturing and Assembly Time: 9.1 hours
5.) Electrical Wiring: See Figure 22 for wiring diagram. All connections must be secure, and wires
must be insulated from other wires. Where marked, wires must be 12 AWG or larger. Other wires must
be 22 AWG or larger.
Figure 22: Wiring Diagram for the High-Performance model

9. Project Website
The team created a website (www.muelectric.org) using the Google Blogger interface. We chose
this method of information sharing for two reasons. First, this interface is very intuitive to implement and
would allow all members of the community, even those who are less “web savvy”, to post and comment
on our project. Second, Google will continue hosting our website even after we have completed our term
at Marquette. This will allow future generations to view our work. A screen shot of the website may be
seen in Figure 23.
Figure 23: Screen shot of the project website
The project website contains photos, videos, instructions, and other relevant information needed
for constructing a Personal Power Supply. For international users, Internet translators will allow
individuals to view the information in their native language.
10. Prototype Testing

The purpose of these experiments was to test each prototype and compare the results to the
product specifications. In particular, the power outputs, electrical outputs and speed inputs were the main
focus of the experiments. With the results, adjustments have been made to the prototypes to meet the
product specifications.
10.1.Theory
The best way to obtain the most information about a rotating power system would be to test the
system at various speeds and varying the electrical load. This should give the team enough information to
verify our specifications, or make recommendations for changes. Our simulated water wheel (the gear
motor) has a frequency input that generally corresponds to input speed. This correspondence will remain
true, unless the motor is being overloaded. Since the motor controller varies the voltage linearly with the
frequency, the system inputs are motor frequency, motor voltage, and DC electrical load.
The electrical loads used in the experiments are an open circuit (no load) and an automotive
battery. Charging the battery will result in a drop in rotational speeds, and a drop in the DC output
voltage. The output current will be non-zero, and power will transfer to the battery. The speed will
decrease simply because the electrical load on the alternator creates a mechanical load on the gearing.
This increased mechanical load will be in the form of increased torque, which will slow the generator.
Increasing the motor frequency and motor voltage should increase the torque and speed of the
entire system. Since the torque and speed increases, the power transfer to the load should increase as
well. With a battery as a load, this could simply result in higher current. With no load, this will result in a
higher voltage, and greater thermal losses.
In the event of an overloaded gear motor, increasing the frequency would increase the torque and
speed only slightly, while greatly decreasing the motor efficiency. For this reason, the team took caution
not to make sharp increases in input frequency.
10.2.Experiment 1
The first experiment (Figure 24) was created using two sets of gearing and a WindBlue alternator.
The first set of gearing consisted of a set of sprockets and chains with a 6.67:1 ratio. The second set of
gearing included a flywheel and pinion with a 14.5:1 gear ratio. This experiment was conducted without
an electrical load.

Figure 24: Configuration for Experiment 1
10.3.Experiment 2
The second experiment (Figure 25) was conducted with the same setup as the first experiment
except that a charge controller and 12V battery were used as an electrical load.
10.4.Experiment 3
The third experiment (Figure 26) was performed using a single set of gearing and a Wind Blue
alternator. The set of gearing consisted of a flywheel and pinion with a 14.5:1 gear ratio. This experiment
was conducted without an electrical load.

10.5.Experiment 4
The fourth experiment (Figure 27) was conducted with the same setup as the third experiment
except that a charge controller and 12V battery were used as an electrical load. This is the preferred
configuration for our High-Performance model.
10.6.Experiment 5
The fifth experiment (Figure 28) was performed using both stages of gearing and the Delco-
Remy car alternator. The first set of gearing consisted of a set of sprockets and chains with a 6.67:1 ratio.

The second set of gearing included a flywheel and pinion with a 14.5:1 gear ratio. This experiment was
conducted without an electrical load.
10.7.Experiment 6
The sixth experiment (Figure 29) was conducted with the same setup as the fifth experiment
except that a 12V battery was used as an electrical load. This is the preferred configuration of our Low-
Cost model. Despite having a greater number of parts, each component in this setup could feasibly be
salvaged in a developing country.
10.8.Experiment 7
The seventh experiment used the same configuration as Experiment 5, except with a larger gear
motor. The new water wheel simulator includes a motor controller and a 2.0hp, 1750 rpm motor with a
40:1 gear reducer.

10.9.Experiment 8
The eighth experiment used the same configuration as Experiment 6, except with a larger gear
motor. The new water wheel simulator includes a motor controller and a 2.0hp, 1750 rpm motor with a
40:1 gear reducer. With the increased power of the new motor, the team was able to more fully test the
capabilities of the Low-Cost model.
10.10.Equipment Used
To record data in our experiments, we used a variety of measurement equipment. The input
variables, including motor frequency, line-to-line voltage, and line current were recorded from the display
on the Magnetek GPD 515 motor controller we used to drive the motor. This controller, seen in Figure
30, has sensors that measure these values accurately.
Figure 30: Motor controller (left) and kill switch (right)
In order to simulate a water wheel, we used a Nord Flexbloc gear reducer for Experiments 1
through 6, shown in Figure 31. This reducer is driven by a 1.0hp motor, with an output speed between
zero and 58 rpm. This low-speed, high-torque input is similar to what one may expect from an actual
water wheel. Experiments 7 and 8 used a 2.0hp Flexbloc reducer to further test the system capabilities.

Figure 31: Gear motor used as a simulated water wheel
For speed measurements, the team used an optical tachometer. We placed reflective tape on the
flywheel, 60-tooth sprocket, and the alternator shaft for the tachometer to read. Every time the
tachometer ‘sees’ the reflective tape, it calculates the time between revolutions, and displays the speed in
revolutions per minute (rpm).
Electrical measurements, including voltage and current, were measured primarily with Fluke
multimeters (see Figure 32). Current measurements were taken by wiring the meters in series, while
voltages were measured in parallel. All of the alternator voltage and current measurements were
measured in this fashion. For Experiment 4, battery voltage and current measurements were taken from
the charge controller sensors. These values were sent via serial connection to a laptop, where the data
was read.

Figure 32: Multimeters used for voltage and current measurements
10.11.Test Procedure
Each test point for the six experiments was conducted in a similar fashion. An input motor
frequency was entered into the motor controller. The motor frequency typically relates to both the motor
voltage and operating speed. After transient conditions fade away, the motor voltage and current
measurements were taken. Speed measurements were also taken on each rotating shaft. Finally, output
voltage and current measurements were taken.
In Experiments 2, 4, and 6, we found that the input motor struggled to maintain a safe operating
speed. As the motor became overloaded, it failed to increase speed, and the system began to vibrate. For
this reason, some of the data points were impossible to take. This was no longer a problem for
Experiments 7 and 8, which used the larger gear motor.
10.12.Experiment Repeatability
The intent of this section is to provide the reader with a measure of the repeatability of the
measurements performed in this experiment. To do this, a motor operating speed was chosen (19 Hz) and
measurements of motor current, motor voltage, input speed, output current, and output voltage were
taken. The system was then restarted and the measurements repeated. The results in generator power
output and efficiency are shown below in Figure 33 and Figure 34. The spread in the calculated values is
shown in each figure.

Figure 33: Repeatability of Generator Power
Figure 34: Repeatability of Generator Efficiency
The spread in the calculated values is clearly minimal (Power: 1.6%, Efficiency 1.9%). The
largest concern is the variability in input speed (0.65 rpm or 4.9%), although even this amount of
variability still provides the team with adequate confidence that the measurements taken are reliable.
From this point on, it will be assumed that one measurement point is sufficient to characterize the
system’s performance (i.e. only one measurement is taken at each operating speed).
11. Test Results
The following plots were obtained directly through the measurement procedure outlined in the
previous section for the experiments. The relevant data shown here includes the following: open circuit
voltage, generator power output, and generator efficiency. In each case, the relevant parameter is shown
as a function of the input speed.
Additionally, a comment regarding the uncertainty of each measured and calculated value is
necessary. The uncertainty of all calculated values was determined using what is termed the root-sum-
squares method (RSS – See Reference 9). Furthermore, in each of the proceeding plots error bars are
included. However, in almost every case the magnitude of the uncertainty is on the order of the data point
size, so it is not visible. To still provide the reader with an estimate of the uncertainty, the maximum
uncertainty is shown in each figure caption. Refer to the Appendix B for an example calculation of each
uncertainty.
The open circuit voltage was measured for three cases: WindBlue at 100:1 gear ratio, WindBlue at
14.5:1 gear ratio, and Delco-Remy at 100:1 gear ratio. These values are the result of experiments 1, 3,
and 5, respectively, and are shown in Figure 35 and Figure 36. They are on two separate plots due to
scaling issues.
80.00
70.00
100:1 - No Load
60.00
14.5:1 - No Load
50.00
40.00
30.00
gV
oB
lu
dW
in
20.00
ta
()e
10.00
0.00
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00
Input Speed (rpm)
Figure 35: Open Circuit Voltage for WindBlue Alternator using 100:1 and 14.5:1 Gear Ratios (Experiments 1
& 3) – Maximum Uncertainty: ±0.01 V, ±0.012 rpm

0.350
0.300
0.250
0.200
0.150
g
(s
)e V
o
lta
0.100
0.050
0.000
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00
Input Speed (rpm)
Figure 36: Open Circuit Voltage for Delco-Remy Alternator Using 100:1 Gear Ratio (Experiment 5) –
Maximum Uncertainty: ±0.002 V, ±0.007 rpm
Figure 35 and Figure 36 show linear relationships between alternator voltage and input speed
under no applied electrical load. While these trends will be altered when a load is applied, the output
should still maintain a linear form. It should be noted that the entire voltage versus speed curve over the
alternator’s entire operating range is not linear. However, in the region in which it is being operated, the
alternator does display highly linear behavior. It is not until much higher voltages that significant
deviation from this trend is observed. Note that the Delco-Remy alternator must be energized (where by
energized we mean provided with field current) by a battery before it can generate a significant voltage.
This is why the open circuit voltages in Figure 36 are very low.

The results from Experiment 2 are more bountiful (again, the reason for this will be discussed in
the analysis), and are shown in Figure 37. Using the 14.5:1 gearing ratio, an appropriate charging voltage
for the battery was achieved at approximately 40 rpm. From that speed on, a significant increase in
output power was observed as the speed increased. The difference between the square data points and the
triangular data points, for a given speed, is an estimate of the power lost within the generation system.
700
Motor Power In
600
Generator Power In
Generator Power Out

500
400
300
r(W
) w
P
o
e
200
100
0
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00
Input Speed (rpm)
Figure 37: Power versus Speed for the WindBlue Alternator Using 14.5:1 Gear Ratio (Experiment 4) –
Maximum Uncertainty: ±5.97 W, ±0.012 rpm

The results for Experiment 6 are shown in Figure 38. Due to the higher gearing ratio, an
appropriate charging voltage was easily obtained. A maximum observed generator power output was
approximately 350 W at an input speed of 15.6 rpm. The low cost model performed extremely well when
using the 2 hp Nord gear motor and achieved a nontrivial power output. A larger range of speed inputs
would have been explored if the motor had been capable of operating at greater than 60 Hz input
frequency.
1800
1600 Generator Power In
Motor Power In
1400
Generator Power Out
1200
1000
800
r(W
) w
P
o
e
600
400
200
0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00
Input Speed (rpm)
Figure 38: Power versus Speed for the Delco-Remy Alternator Using 100:1 Gear Ratio (Experiment 6) –
Maximum Uncertainty: ±3.02 W, ±0.003 rpm

Figure 39 shows a summary of each generator’s efficiency as a function of input speed for
Experiments 4, and 6. As the input speed is increased, the generator’s efficiency should reach a
maximum point and then begin to drop again as frictional effects and heat loss begin to become dominant
phenomena. If more data was able to be obtained (we were limited by maximum motor speed), this trend
should exist. However, it is clear that there is a maximum efficiency of roughly 50% and 30% for the low
cost and high performance models, respectively.
0.60
0.50
14.5:1 - Wind Blue
100:1 - Delco
0.40
0.30
n
y
e E
fic
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00
Input Speed (rpm)
Figure 39: Summary of Efficiencies for the WindBlue and Delco-Remy Generation Systems – Maximum
Uncertainty: ±0.002, ±0.012 rpm
12. Technical Justification

The purpose of this section is to detail why the team made certain design related decisions. Key
decisions for both the low cost and high performance models will be outlined here. Additionally, the
capabilities of a waterwheel will be estimated and applied to our experimental results.
12.1.Low-Cost Model Justification

The most important design decision regarding this model pertained to what gearing ratio was
required to provide adequate speed input to the Delco-Remy car alternator. The rating information for
this alternator stated that little to no electrical current will be generated until the alternator is spinning at a
speed of 1000 rpm or greater. In order to estimate the required gearing ratio, the team needed to have
some understanding of what the waterwheel input speed to the system would be. To do this, the team
collected numerous waterwheel videos and timed the rotations of the wheel, both while under load and
free spinning. An appropriate speed range obtained from this approximate analysis was 5 – 30 rpm.
Therefore, the team chose an intermediate number of 15 rpm and a gearing ratio of approximately 100:1
to achieve an alternator speed of 1500 rpm. The team then selected a chain and sprocket – car flywheel
and pinion combination to provide this ratio.
12.2.High-Performance Model Justification

Similar to the low cost model, the selection of appropriate gearing was the most critical decision
for this design. However, the WindBlue permanent magnet alternator requires only a fraction of the speed
input that the Delco-Remy requires, so a smaller gearing ratio should be used. Through the use of
predicted performance curves provided by the manufacturer, it was estimated that the WindBlue
permanent magnet alternator will produce 12 volts at approximately 250 rpm. This is sufficient for the
team since we desire to power car components (car battery, headlights, fan, etc.) which all require about a
12 volt circuit. Therefore, using the estimated input speed of 15 rpm, a gearing ratio of approximately
16.7:1 is desired. However, to make our prototyping more modular, the team elected to use one portion of
the low cost model’s gearing (car flywheel and pinion) to provide this ratio (14.5:1). While this does not
quite meet the initial estimate, it provides the team with significant cost advantages and ease of assembly
that will more than likely outweigh the disadvantages of a slight drop in speed.
12.3.Water Wheel Calculations

To determine the performance characteristics of a given waterwheel, the team would have liked to
use an actual wheel and river, as this would have delivered the most reliable results. However, the design,
acquisition, and testing of a waterwheel are not within the scope of this project. Instead, a suitable model
to give a first order approximation of a waterwheel was used. The model chosen is called a Pelton Wheel,
and all of the relating equations are from White’s Fluid Mechanics [Reference 2]. A simple schematic of
a Pelton wheel is shown in Figure 40.

Figure 40: Pelton water wheel [Reference 2]
The main assumptions associated with this model are:
• Constant river flow rate – In reality, the flow rate of a river will vary with season and time of day,
but this assumption will allow at least for peak flow rate power output.
• River flow behaves as a focused jet – The Pelton Wheel falls under the category of jet-impulse
turbomachinery, and assumes a focused input. While a river will not actually provide this, it is
believed that this model will still likely give adequate power estimates.
• Beta = 110 degrees – This assumption was made to more adequately correlate the Pelton Wheel
model to a simple waterwheel that will not likely have as large of paddle wheel curvature.
• The governing equations describing the operating characteristics of the Pelton wheel are
described here. The power output of the wheel is given by:
Where is the water density, Q is the volumetric flow rate, is the river velocity, u is the peripheral
speed of the wheel, and is the paddle wheel curvature angle. The torque on the wheel can then be
calculated based on a basic power-speed relationship, namely:

And lastly the efficiency can be calculated using the two relationships:
Where is a dimensionless discharge coefficient (assumed to be 0.9) and is the peripheral velocity
factor.
In order to produce the expected performance curves for a Pelton Wheel, a river flow rate and
wheel size must be assumed. Therefore a flow rate of 18 ft/s was used to generate plots for wheel
diameters of: 3.3 ft, 9.8 ft, and 14.9 ft. The power, torque, and efficiency curves are shown in Figure 41,
Figure 42, and Figure 43, respectively.
Figure 41: Power curves of Pelton water wheels

Figure 42: Torque curves of Pelton water wheels on a logarithmic scale
Figure 43: Efficiency curves of Pelton water wheels

From the above graphs, it is clear that typical trends for waterwheel are the following. For a
given river flow rate:
• Power increases with an increase in wheel diameter
• Torque increases with an increase in wheel diameter
• Speed decreases with an increase in wheel diameter
This means that if smaller gearing ratios are desired, then smaller wheels should be used. However, the
trade off will be that there will be a lower power input to the system.
Through correlations to our experimental data, it was determined that the wheel that would best
fit our results was the 3.3 ft (1 meter) wheel. This was because the smaller wheel provided higher input
speeds, which are required for our alternators. To determine an appropriate operating point, the torque
versus speed curve for the Pelton Wheel was plotted along with the load torque versus speed curve based
on our experimental results. The result for the low cost model is shown in Figure 44.
Figure 44: Operating point of Low-Cost model with Pelton water wheel
For the high performance model, the results of the Pelton Wheel did not correlate in the manner
that the team would have desired. Essentially, the Pelton wheel seems to be under predicting the speed
that a waterwheel will spin at while under load. The team feels that this is the case based on the
numerous examples of waterwheels in use that we have observed through video documentation that spin
faster than the speed suggested by the Pelton Wheel model. Therefore, it is important to note that the
Pelton Wheel model is simply a first order approximation of how a waterwheel might perform. It should
be expected that actual results deviate by 30% or more from the model’s predictions.
The results of this analysis point out a critical point that must be taken into consideration during
the implementation of a high performance Personal Power Supply: alternator speed and torque input are
extremely critical, so the system’s gearing must be chosen appropriately. If it is believed that the
waterwheel will not produce speeds upwards of 15 rpm or higher, then a larger gearing ratio must be used
(larger than 14.5:1). This means either using a larger flywheel to pinion ratio, or adding another stage of
gearing, as was done in the low cost model. Based on the results shown here, it is recommended to err on
the side of caution and use a gearing ratio of 20:1 or higher for the high performance model.
12.4.General Considerations
Since waterwheel driven systems are typically very low speed, they usually very high torque.
This means that consideration should be given as to the appropriate shaft size to use. For the system
described above, the following design equations were used to ensure an appropriately sized shaft. It
should be noted that the results shown here are a function of the power input and gearing used, so the
result cannot be generalized to all situations. For each particular configuration, this calculation should be
made to ensure a safe design.
For a circular shaft under torsional loading, the torsional shear stress experienced by the shaft is
given by:
In general, the maximum shear stress that a material can experience before failure is given as half the
yield:
Additionally, to obtain the minimum required diameter a failure theory must be used. Since the loading
of the shaft is mostly torsional, the maximum shear stress failure theory will be used. This theory can be
expressed in the following manner:
where F.S. is termed the factor of safety. For shaft design, a F.S. of equal to 2 should be sufficient.
Combining the above shear stress relationships yields the following expression the minimum shaft
diameter:
For AISI 1045 carbon steel and a 1hp input power, the required minimum diameter is . A
diameter of 1in was used. See the appendix for a sample calculation of this value.

12.5.Energy Cost Savings
In order to prove that the Personal Power Supply (PPS) can reduce the energy costs of a user, this
simple study has been completed, comparing the energy cost of the Low-Cost Personal Power Supply
with the energy cost from a utility. In Table 7, the Energy Cost is the average price of each kWh, both
from the PPS (running at 350W) and from Wisconsin Utilities [10]. The WI Energy Cost per month is the
price of energy with a continuous 350W consumption (the same as the PPS).
Personal Power Supply (PPS)

Initial Investment $ 250.00 USD
Output Power 0.350 kW
Number of Hours per month* 720 h/month
Energy Generated each month 252 kWh/month
Maintenance Cost $ 5.00 USD/month
Energy Cost $ 0.0198 USD/kWh
Wisconsin Utilities
Wisconsin Energy Cost [10] $ 0.1235 USD/kWh
WI Energy Cost per month $ 31.12 USD
*At 30 days/month
Table 7: Energy cost calculations
From this information, it is possible to determine the user’s return on investment. In Figure 45,
the energy cost from a utility is compared to the energy cost from the PPS. Since the PPS cost includes
the initial investment, the graph shows that the PPS will save money for the user after 10 months.

Figure 45: Energy cost comparison graph
13. Review of Specifications & Needs

This section contains a review of the Product Specifications for each model, with arguments that
demonstrate that these specifications have been met. By meeting these Product Specifications, the team
may claim that the Customer Needs have also been met.
13.1.Low-Cost Model Performance

In order to demonstrate that the specifications have been (or may easily be) met for the Low-Cost
Model, the specifications have been repeated in Table 8. Each specification is addressed in the order
given by the table.

Table 8: Low-Cost specifications
The Low-Cost prototype has been constructed such that a simple covering over the gearing stages
and electrical components would protect the model from corrosion due to rain.
The prototype was assembled without the use of heavy machinery and tooling. The specification
was met when the personal power supply was constructed with basic hand tools such as wrenches and
screw drivers, in a reasonable time span.
During testing (Experiment 8), the team measured an electrical power output of 349.97W. This
power output is sufficient for charging a battery quickly and safely.
While charging the battery, the output voltage was regulated by the alternator to safely charge the
battery without any unsafe over-voltage.
The only maintenance required of the Low-Cost model is to lubricate the gearing systems
regularly. In the United States, a quart of gear lubricant may be purchased for $4.79 [7]. One quart of
this lubricant would be sufficient several months, which means that this specification has been met. In
foreign countries, it would be difficult to know the prices or availability of lubrication.
Although the team used machine tools to create more than five parts, the some of these parts may
be replaced with parts that require no tooling. The team designed the prototype to be modular, in the
interest of testing several configurations. A user attempting to construct one Personal Power Supply
could more easily do so with five or less machined parts.
The Website instructions contain information that is important when building the personal power
supply including a high-level bill of materials, cost estimates, labor time, pictures and videos.
At the data point where we measured the greatest output power, the alternator torque was
calculated to be 3.53 ft-lb, or 4.78 N-m. This alternator torque is within our specified range.
Finally, at the same data point referenced (maximum power output) the alternator speed was
measured to be 1408 rpm. This speed is within our specified range.
Thus, all of the specifications for the Low-Cost model have been met.

13.2.High-Performance Model
In order to demonstrate that the specifications have been (or may easily be) met for the High-
Performance Model, the specifications have been repeated in Table 9. Each specification is addressed in
the order given by the table.
Table 9: High-Performance specifications
The High-Performance prototype has been constructed such that a simple covering over the
gearing stages and electrical components would protect the model from corrosion due to rain.
The prototype was assembled without the use of heavy machinery and tooling. The specification
was met when the personal power supply was constructed with basic hand tools such as wrenches and
screw drivers, in a reasonable time span.
During testing (Experiment 4), the team measured an electrical power output of 100.90W. This
power output is sufficient for charging a battery quickly and safely.
While charging the battery, the output voltage was regulated by the charge controller to safely
charge the battery without any unsafe over-voltage.
The only maintenance required of the High-Performance model is to lubricate the gearing system
regularly. In the United States, a quart of gear lubricant may be purchased for $4.79 [7]. One quart of
this lubricant would be sufficient several months, which means that this specification has been met. In
foreign countries, it would be difficult to know the prices or availability of lubrication.
On the High-Performance model, the user must machine a base for the alternator, a coupling for
the pinion, and a coupling for the flywheel. Since these are the only parts requiring tooling, this
specification has been met.
The Website instructions contain information that is important when building the personal power
supply including a high-level bill of materials, cost estimates, labor time, pictures and videos.
At the data point where we measured the greatest output power, the alternator torque was
calculated to be 3.03 ft-lb, or 4.11 N-m. This alternator torque is within our specified range.
Finally, at the same data point referenced (maximum power output) the alternator speed was
measured to be 802.8 rpm. This speed is within our specified range.
In Table 6, the team estimates the cost of the High-Performance model to be $501.75.
Unfortunately, this is higher than the specification of $450. However, electrical components such as a
charge controller or frequency inverter are expensive options that are not required to simply charge a
battery. Without the charge controller, the cost is reduced to $360.21, which is within the specifications.
Thus, all of the specifications for the High-Performance model have been met.
13.3.Original Problem
As previously discussed, the Product Specifications were developed as a measureable way to
meet the identified Customer Needs. Since the Customer Needs are requirements for solving the Original
Problem, and since the Product Specifications have been met, the team may claim that the two Personal
Power Supply designs may be used to solve the Original Problem.
14. Costs & Economic Analysis

This section contains a summary of all the cost, labor, and sales information relevant to this
project. Detailed information on the product cost and labor requirements may be found in other sections
of this report.
14.1.Project Cost
The design team was promised a $900 budget for completing the Personal Power Supply project.
This budget was used for purchasing components for the prototypes. The $900 proposed was
conservative, since the team assumed most parts would have to be purchased. Thanks to several generous
donations from the team’s sponsors, the project was completed under budget.
14.2.Product Cost
The Bill of Materials for the two models (Table 5 and Table 6) includes the estimated product
cost for each model. The product cost for each Personal Power Supply is as follows: $233.62 for the
Low-Cost model, $501.75 for the High-Performance model. These costs depend greatly on the country in
which the parts are purchased, as well as the condition of the parts.
14.3.Labor Requirement Summary

As discussed in the Manufacturing Documentation, the labor requirements for constructing the
Personal Power Supplies are as follows: 10.75 hours for the Low-Cost model, 9.1 hours for the High-
Performance model. These time estimates assume a skilled machinist is performing each task. This
means that other users may require more time for each task. Details about the labor requirements may be
found in the Manufacturing Documentation.

14.4.Sales Forecast
The original goal of this project is not to sell Personal Power Supplies. Rather, the goal is to
share the team’s experiences with the world, in the hopes that anyone with some mechanical skills and
motivation might be able to use our plans to assemble a Personal Power Supply successfully. For this
reason, a sales forecast for this project would not be appropriate.
15. Standards, Compliance & Concerns

Before concluding the Formal Report, it is necessary to include notes about practical concerns
that have not previously been discussed. The most important concerns regard the safety aspects of
constructing and operating the Personal Power Supply. The next concern is the environmental effect of
the product. Other concerns addressed include applicable standards, regulatory compliance, and legal
issues.
15.1.Safety Evaluation
To fully consider safety, both mechanical and electrical aspects of the project have to be
considered in order to appropriately assess all potential hazard locations. The alternator, battery, charge
controller, wiring and electrical loads utilized on our control board are all areas of potential shock hazard.
All the electricity generated by the product is direct current (DC). The alternators are not fused, which
creates an additional hazard in the event of a short circuit. This is why we recommend adding fuses to
limit the risk of shock. The user must avoid touching the wiring of the generator circuit while the
generator is spinning to avoid electric shock. Switching wires or adding wires when either model is in
operation can be a potential shock hazard, as the alternator is producing a voltage and, potentially, a
current if the battery or additional loads are hooked up. The safest way to work on the electrical system is
by removing and securing the mechanical portions of the generator.
In the mechanical system, the main safety concern for this project is rotating parts. The gearing
stages on each respective product have potential pitch points where bodily harm or even death can occur
if extreme caution and proper preparation protocol is not followed. Like any piece of machinery, there
are locations that could cause bodily harm. Often, maintenance or modifications are attempted while the
machine is operating, but this very dangerous to the user. In industry, proper procedures must be
followed to ensure all power supplies to a respective piece of machinery are disabled. Guarding is the
most simple and effective solution to these issues. Simply using a shelter to cover the entire system or
using expanded metal and fasteners to cover the individual pinch points will effectively remove these
potentially hazardous areas.
The following procedure is recommended before performing any service or repairs to the
Personal Power Supply:
1) Disable all potential motion by: (if necessary and if possible)
a) Disengage main water wheel shaft from flow force.
b) Use mechanical braking unit to counteract torque.

c) Block all areas of motion with appropriate restricting devices.
i) Possible Devices:
(1) Ratcheting come-along
(2) Wood blocks
(3) Ropes
(4) Straps
(a) These devices can be removed once servicing is complete.
(i) Use caution when inserting and removing all devices.
d) If motion cannot be stopped:
i) Proceed to electrical device removal steps.
ii) Motion may be difficult to stop if water is at peak flow rate.
(1) Possibly due to flooding etc.
2) Disable electrical systems:
a) Remove wiring for all components beyond the alternator.
i) Remove battery, charge controller and main lines for all loads drawn off alternator.
(1) Energy created now stopped at the wiring coming from alternator.
(2) Be sure to avoid crossing alternator wires, as there is still energy at these points and could
cause damage to the alternator by creating a short circuit between the two leads of the
alternator.
(3) Put wire nuts or electrical tape at the end of these wires and use cable ties to keep them
out of the way of all other service that may need to be done to external electrical and
mechanical hardware.
b) Store battery in dry area.
i) Prevent corrosion that could cause potential danger to the operator.
15.2.Environmental Impact Statement

Although this product was designed as a source for clean power, there are still minor
environmental impacts caused by our personal electric generation system. One potential risk is the
contamination of the river with grease used to lubricate the gears, chain, and bearings. This is only
considered a small risk because of the viscosity of grease. Unlike oil, grease is thick and sticky which

enables it to adhere to the gears and chain. To make sure that the river will not be contaminated, the
Personal Power Supply should be enclosed to protect it from corrosion, and keep any contaminates from
reaching the environment.
The positive effects of this system greatly outweigh any of the negative impacts. In fact, the
power output of the Low-Cost model (at 300W) running for one year would take 2.6 megawatt-hours off
of the electrical grid. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the average annual energy
consumption of American house-holds in 2001 was 10.7 megawatt-hours [6]. The Personal Power Supply
could potentially supply a quarter of this energy requirement for a single home. If used on a larger scale,
this could greatly reduce the need for coal-fired power plants that pollute the environment.
15.3.Applicable Standards
The Personal Power Supply will not be sold or distributed to anyone. The purpose of the project
is simply to provide instructions on how a user could build a personal power supply using a waterwheel.
Therefore, any applicable standards that would apply to waterwheels and their locations in rivers would
fall under the responsibility of the builder. In the case of the personal power supply, this design does not
need to follow industry standards because each power supply will be uniquely constructed by the users,
according to his or her needs.
The builder of either of these personal power supplies should take care to follow the drawings
and specifications detailed for each prototype. Appropriate engineering calculations have been completed
in order to ensure proper sizing for all the given mechanical and electrical applications that exist within
each model. It becomes the responsibility of the builder to perform and check calculations, should he/she
choose to change any of the specifications of either model. Failure to do this could result in injury or
death.
15.4.Regulatory Compliance
Since this generally means to comply with laws and regulations, replication of either of the
personal power supplies will require adherence to all codes, laws and regulations in the particular country
of application. Team P-Squared will not be held liable for any violation of these codes, laws and
regulations as these models are product to be marketed for sale in the United States or other countries.
15.5.Legal Issues
For this project, legal issues such as patents will not be applicable to our design because the
personal power supply will not be sold. The idea of using an alternator to transform mechanical energy
from a waterwheel into electrical energy is not novel, and should not conflict with any patent restrictions.
Each customer may use our instructions to construct personal power supply, but the user has the
responsibility of ensuring that the assembly and use of their personal power supply complies with local
laws and codes for all mechanical and electrical apparatus for both personal power supply designs.

16. Conclusions & Recommendations
Since August 2008, Team P-Squared has been working rigorously to develop these models to
become what they are today. The first phase entailed the developing ideas on paper and establishing a
firm foundation for what our project and models were to become. The second phase took these ideas and
concepts and brought them to life by developing our calculations and computer aided models into two
physical prototypes. With the physical prototypes, design oversights were realized, as with any project,
and then remedied with modifications and redesigns both before and during our testing process. With the
design thoroughly solidified, the data gathered also came to this level. Proper testing equipment directly
correlated with the success and validity of the recorded data.
The final two designs met and exceed the customer requirements set forth at the outset of our
project. During our interviews of customers we established very solid guidelines by which we were to
design. The most significant of these, the customers felt, was the price point. In the market that we
targeted for our low cost design there was little to no reliable power sources, along with little to no extra
income to spend on a large power source. This included developing areas where any electricity would be
welcome. We set forth the goal for our low cost design of 300 Watts of continuous power output at a cost
of under $250. We estimated the scrap cost of our actual design to be $233, while supplying 350 Watts
continuous power, both meeting our specifications. The high performance design came in just over our
goal cost of $450, at scrap cost of $500. Additionally, we met our goal of 100 Watts continuous power
output at a realistic input of under 60 rpm.
Further changes could be made to our design in future iterations to help lower cost of both
designs, and to improve overall performance. Although the low cost design already utilizes auto parts for
all major stages, mounting could be made from scrap to lower the cost. Additionally, by utilizing used or
salvaged bearings in combination with a lower current output alternator, the low cost design could save
nearly 20% of total costs. The overall performance of the low cost design would not be compromised by
these concessions because our alternator was already only achieving 17.8% of its maximum current.
The high performance design has room for performance improvement in the electrical output.
Right now our design is only able to output 18.75% of maximum current. This would be improved at a
near linear rate with increased rotational speed. To achieve this additional gearing would be necessary,
such as what was implemented in the low cost design. Due to the large torque requirements also required,
a 100:1 gear ratio would be unrealistic and unnecessary. For instance, by doubling the gear ratio by
increasing the size of flywheel, or by adding another gearing stage, the expected current output would
also double. This simple change could bring the continuous power output to over 200 Watts without
sacrificing mechanical performance or durability of our system. Costs could be reduced in this design by
utilizing more salvaged auto parts. The charge controller was a large part of these costs and could also
utilize a more simple design that would achieve the safety required, while not adding computer
interfacing capability.
Both designs would benefit in performance and cost with simple design changes. These changes
could be implemented with minimal effort by anyone utilizing our website to create their own generator.
Our website was created to achieve our goal of sharing our documents and designs with other
groups and individuals who could benefit from our design. Throughout the semester we have

documented our design process and results at muelectric.org. Through this website we were able to
achieve our final goal of sharing this information with other people. We used Google software to provide
our information in multiple languages in a place where it will live on long after we have completed our
college careers.

17. References
[1] United States of America. U.S. Department of Energy. DETERMINING ELECTRIC MOTOR LOAD
AND EFFICIENCY.
[2] White, Frank M. Fluid mechanics. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2008.
[3] McMaster-Carr. 23 Apr. 2009 <http://www.mcmaster.com>.
[4] "Shop for Flywheel at 1A Auto." 1A Auto: Aftermarket Auto Parts, Car Parts, Replacement Auto Body
Parts, Truck Parts. 23 Apr. 2009 <http://www.1aauto.com/1A/flywheel>.
[5] Speedy Metals. 23 Apr. 2009 <http://www.speedymetals.com>.
[6] "U.S. Household Electricity Data: A/C, Heating, Appliances." Energy Information Administration -
EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government. 25 Apr. 2009
<http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/enduse/er01_us_tab1.html>.
[7] "Kendall NS-MP Hypoid Gear Lubricant, 1 Qt SAE 80W-90 # 1043927 by Conoco Phillips."
Aubuchon Hardware. 25 Apr. 2009 <http://automotive.hardwarestore.com/89-544-gear-oils/coastal-gear-
oil-80w-90-
206474.aspx?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=206474&utm_campaign=googlebase>.
[8] "MatWeb - The Online Materials Information Resource." Online Materials Information Resource -
MatWeb. 25 Apr. 2009
<http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=3a9cc570fbb24d119f08db22a53e2421&ckc
k=1>.
[9] Figliola, Richard S., and Donald E. Beasley. Theory and Design for Mechanical Measurements. New
York: Wiley, 2005.
[10] "Electric Power Monthly - Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use
Sector, by State." Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S.
Government. 28 Apr. 2009 <http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html>.

18. Appendix A: Experiment Data
18.1.Experiment 1

18.2.Experiment 2

18.3.Experiment 3

18.4.Experiment 4

18.5.Experiment 5

18.6.Experiment 6

18.7.Experiment 7

18.8.Experiment 8

18.9.Repeatability Data
Note: NL means ‘no load’.

19. Appendix B: Sample Calculations
Three phase electrical input power:
Percent of Rated Motor Load:
Estimation of Motor Efficiency (curve fit from U.S. Dept. of Energy graph [1]):
= .37
Figure 46: Graph used to estimate input motor efficiency [1]
Mechanical Input Power:
Electrical Output Power:

Motor Torque:
System Efficiency:
Uncertainty Calculations:
Uncertainty for Power In:
Uncertainty for Power Out

Uncertainty for Power In After Motor
Uncertainty for Efficiency of Generator
Waterwheel Calculations:

20. Appendix C: Additional Machining & Assembly Instructions
Special Concerns for Flywheel Hub and Coupling
Due to the fact the flywheel hub and coupling required a significant amount of attention from the
team, special, detailed instructions on how to implement them are given here. It should be noted that
while these instructions are very specific, the general procedure can be applied to any car flywheel chosen
for the system.
Flywheel Hub
Since the flywheel comes from an automobile, it requires some custom machining, fabrication
and assembly work in order to ensure a precision end product. First, a piece of 6” diameter , ½” thick
piece of AISI/SAE 1045 hot roll steel must be cut on steel saw. To cut a piece this thin, be sure to place
jacks inside the saw chuck in order to prevent saw blade from being shattered. Without the jacks, too
much vibration will occur at the cut area cause the blade to cut into areas not within the cut zone.
Next a boss ring must be welded to the approximate center of the hub piece just cut. A boss ring
is used as dummy that will be removed in the future after the necessary work on the lathe is complete.
Indicate the outer diameter (O.D.) of the actual hub piece, NOT the boss ring. Get the indicator to within
0.001” per side. Setup proper tooling and take a face cut on the hub to clean up the face and ensure
minimal grinding. Also, take a cut on the O.D. to clean up the perimeter of the hub. Attempt to clean up
the back face of the hub if possible. This will create for less work on the grinder.
Remove the piece from the lathe and cut the boss ring off with an abrasive wheel. Take the piece
to the grinder and take off up to 0.002” at a time. Repeat this action on both sides of the hub until the face
have 90% clean up value.
Nominally, the center of mass occurs at the actual center of the flywheel. In order to keep the
center of mass at this location, the inside of the flywheel should be covered with layout fluid so that a
circular perimeter can be scribed on the flywheel at a size proportional to the hub diameter. Once the
perimeter line has been scribed, place the hub within this perimeter to verify the size and location is
accurate.
After placement verified and approved, the flywheel and hub piece must have a light preheat prior to
welding. This preheat ensures proper temperature for welding, especially the since the hub is made of
1045 steel, which requires a medium length preheat for all welding. Without this preheat, the integrity of
the welds can become compromised due to the chemical makeup of the steel not receiving proper
preparation, especially at the location of the welding fusion line. Take care NOT to overheat the flywheel,
as it made of light gauge steel that is more susceptible to warping when heated since it is so thin.
First, tack the hub to the diameter at four locations. Make sure proper welding settings are chosen
and Stargon inert gas is utilized for shielding. Always place tack welds 180 degrees to each other to
guarantee a symmetrical part within all geometric axes of consideration. After tacking, check that the hub
has not shifted and then proceed to stitch weld the hub along the entire perimeter of the hub. Stitch welds
are 1” to 1-1/2” long and there should be the same amount of non-welded area between each weld.
Allow the piece to cool and then the flywheel must be taken to the milling machine to have the
mounting hole put into the hub. The flywheel MUST be trammed and indicated to ensure the exact hole
center is located. The mass center of gravity has been achieved as best as possible, but the geometric
center of flywheel and hub assembly must be located accurately in order to ensure the flywheel does not
spin out of round.
Properly fixture the flywheel in the milling machine and use a precision indicator in the machine
head collett. Adjust along the x and y-axis until the best possible center can be found. Our flywheel was
indicated to within ±0.002” on each and in each direction.
Setup the readout on the milling machine for a six hole pattern, equal spacing (i.e. all at 60
degrees to each other). First drill with a pilot hole, using a drill bit size around 1/8”. The change out to the
finish size drill bit of ½”. Recall that drill bits drill 0.005” oversize, so if a precision fit is desired then a
smaller drill bit should be used and then the hole should be reamed to the appropriate size. For this
application, a drill bit finish is not an issue.
Flywheel Coupling
The previously described flywheel hub is bolted onto this flywheel coupling, both of these parts
are used on the high performance and low cost models. This piece has an O.D. of 6” at the flange and 1-
5/8” at the hub. There is a 1” bore run through the entire length of the piece. To be economical, to pieces
are made separately and then welded together in order to save on time and material costs. First, a 2-3/8”
long piece of AISI/SAE 1045 cold finished round stock is cut on the saw. Recall, that actual length of the
piece is 2-1/4”, but the extra 1/8” is provided for machining stock. Chuck this piece up and create piece as
per drawing requirements. Make sure to machine 1/16” step on last ¼” of hub so its shoulder can be used
as a positive stop for the flange to be pushed up against. Get finish sizes within 0.001” to ensure proper fit
and line up for welding.
Next a boss ring must be welded to the approximate center of the hub piece just cut. A boss ring
is used as dummy that will be removed in the future after the necessary work on the lathe is complete.
Indicate the O.D. of the actual hub piece, NOT the boss ring. Get the indicator to within 0.001” per side.
Setup proper tooling and take a face cut on the hub to clean up the face and ensure minimal grinding.
Also, take a cut on the O.D. to clean up the perimeter of the hub. Attempt to clean up the back face of the
hub if possible. This will create for less work on the grinder.
Next a boss ring must be welded to the approximate center of the hub piece just cut. A boss ring is used
as dummy that will be removed in the future after the necessary work on the lathe is complete. Indicate
the outer diameter (O.D.) of the actual hub piece, NOT the boss ring. Get the indicator to within 0.001”
per side. Setup proper tooling and take a face cut on the hub to clean up the face and ensure minimal
grinding. Also, take a cut on the O.D. to clean up the perimeter of the hub. Attempt to clean up the back
face of the hub if possible. This will create for less work on the grinder. Place diameter 1-9/16” hole in the
center of the hub as the final step.
Remove the piece from the lathe and cut the boss ring off with an abrasive wheel. Take the piece
to the grinder and take off up to 0.002” at a time. Repeat this action on both sides of the hub until the face
have as close to as 100% clean up value as possible.

After placement verified and approved, the flywheel and hub piece must have a medium preheat prior to
welding. This preheat ensures proper temperature for welding, especially the since both the hub and
flange pieces are made of 1045 steel, which requires a medium length preheat for all welding. Without
this preheat, the integrity of the welds can become compromised due to the chemical makeup of the steel
not receiving proper preparation, especially at the location of the welding fusion line. Take care NOT to
overheat the flywheel, as it made of light gauge steel that is more susceptible to warping when heated
since it is so thin.
First, tack the hub to the diameter at four locations. Make sure proper welding settings are chosen
and Stargon inert gas is utilized for shielding. Always place tack welds 180 degrees to each other to
guarantee a symmetrical part within all geometric axes of consideration. After tacking, check that the hub
has not shifted and then proceed to weld complete around the ENTIRE perimeter of the hub.
After cooling, take assembled piece to milling machine and place six diameter ½” holes. Setup
the readout on the milling machine for a six hole pattern, equal spacing (i.e. all at 60 degrees to each
other). First drill with a pilot hole, using a drill bit size around 1/8”. The change out to the finish size drill
bit of ½”. Recall that drill bits drill 0.005” oversize, so if a precision fit is desired then a smaller drill bit
should be used and then the hole should be reamed to the appropriate size. For this application, a drill bit
finish is not an issue.

21. Appendix D: MATLAB Code for Water Wheel Calculations
clear all
clc
%General Pelton design parameters

Beta=110*(pi/180);
ro=1000;
Cv=0.9;
%1.5 m/s jet velocity

Vj1=1.5;
Vj1=Cv*Vj1;
%1.5 meter wheel
D1=1.5;
L1=0.25;
W1=0.25;
Aj1=L1*W1;
n1_1=[0:0.001:Vj1/(2*pi*D1/2)];
u1_1=2*pi*(D1/2).*n1_1;
P1_1=ro*Aj1*Vj1*u1_1.*(Vj1-u1_1)*(1-cos(Beta))*0.00134102209;
n1_1=(60/(2*pi))*n1_1;
T1_1=5252.*P1_1./n1_1;
phi1_1=u1_1./(Vj1/Cv);
eta1_1=2*(1-cos(Beta))*phi1_1.*(Cv-phi1_1);
%3 meter wheel
D2=3;
L2=0.5;
W2=0.5;
Aj2=L2*W2;
n2_1=[0:0.001:Vj1/(2*pi*D2/2)];
u2_1=2*pi*(D2/2).*n2_1;
n2_1=(60/(2*pi))*n2_1;
T2_1=5252.*P2_1./n2_1;
phi2_1=u2_1./(Vj1/Cv);
%4.5 meter wheel
D3=4.5;
L3=0.75;
W3=0.75;
Aj3=L3*W3;
n3_1=[0:0.001:Vj1/(2*pi*D3/2)];
u3_1=2*pi*(D3/2).*n3_1;
n3_1=(60/(2*pi))*n3_1;
T3_1=5252.*P3_1./n3_1;
phi3_1=u3_1./(Vj1/Cv);

Vj2=2.5;
Vj2=Cv*Vj2;
%1.5 meter wheel
n1_2=[0:0.001:Vj2/(2*pi*D1/2)];
u1_2=2*pi*(D1/2).*n1_2;
n1_2=(60/(2*pi))*n1_2;
T1_2=5252.*P1_2./n1_2;
phi1_2=u1_2./(Vj2/Cv);
%3 meter wheel
n2_2=[0:0.001:Vj2/(2*pi*D2/2)];
u2_2=2*pi*(D2/2).*n2_2;
n2_2=(60/(2*pi))*n2_2;
T2_2=5252.*P2_2./n2_2;
phi2_2=u2_2./(Vj2/Cv);
%4.5 meter wheel
n3_2=[0:0.001:Vj2/(2*pi*D3/2)];
u3_2=2*pi*(D3/2).*n3_2;
n3_2=(60/(2*pi))*n3_2;
T3_2=5252.*P3_2./n3_2;
phi3_2=u3_2./(Vj2/Cv);

Vj3=3.5;
Vj3=Cv*Vj3;
%1.5 meter wheel
n1_3=[0:0.001:Vj3/(2*pi*D1/2)];
u1_3=2*pi*(D1/2).*n1_3;
n1_3=(60/(2*pi))*n1_3;
T1_3=5252.*P1_3./n1_3;
phi1_3=u1_3./(Vj3/Cv);
%3 meter wheel
n2_3=[0:0.001:Vj3/(2*pi*D2/2)];
u2_3=2*pi*(D2/2).*n2_3;
n2_3=(60/(2*pi))*n2_3;
T2_3=5252.*P2_3./n2_3;
phi2_3=u2_3./(Vj3/Cv);
%4.5 meter wheel
n3_3=[0:0.001:Vj3/(2*pi*D3/2)];
u3_3=2*pi*(D3/2).*n3_3;
n3_3=(60/(2*pi))*n3_3;
T3_3=5252.*P3_3./n3_3;
phi3_3=u3_3./(Vj3/Cv);

Vj4=4.5;
Vj4=Cv*Vj4;
%1.5 meter wheel
n1_4=[0:0.001:Vj4/(2*pi*D1/2)];

u1_4=2*pi*(D1/2).*n1_4;
n1_4=(60/(2*pi))*n1_4;
T1_4=5252.*P1_4./n1_4;
phi1_4=u1_4./(Vj4/Cv);
%3 meter wheel
n2_4=[0:0.001:Vj4/(2*pi*D2/2)];
u2_4=2*pi*(D2/2).*n2_4;
n2_4=(60/(2*pi))*n2_4;
T2_4=5252.*P2_4./n2_4;
phi2_4=u2_4./(Vj4/Cv);
%4.5 meter wheel
n3_4=[0:0.001:Vj4/(2*pi*D3/2)];
u3_4=2*pi*(D3/2).*n3_4;
n3_4=(60/(2*pi))*n3_4;
T3_4=5252.*P3_4./n3_4;
phi3_4=u3_4./(Vj4/Cv);

Vj5=5.5;
Vj5=Cv*Vj5;
%1.5 meter wheel
n1_5=[0:0.001:Vj5/(2*pi*D1/2)];
u1_5=2*pi*(D1/2).*n1_5;
n1_5=(60/(2*pi))*n1_5;
T1_5=5252.*P1_5./n1_5;
phi1_5=u1_5./(Vj5/Cv);
%3 meter wheel
n2_5=[0:0.001:Vj5/(2*pi*D2/2)];
u2_5=2*pi*(D2/2).*n2_5;
n2_5=(60/(2*pi))*n2_5;
T2_5=5252.*P2_5./n2_5;
phi2_5=u2_5./(Vj5/Cv);
%4.5 meter wheel
n3_5=[0:0.001:Vj5/(2*pi*D3/2)];
u3_5=2*pi*(D3/2).*n3_5;
n3_5=(60/(2*pi))*n3_5;
T3_5=5252.*P3_5./n3_5;
phi3_5=u3_5./(Vj5/Cv);
%Plots for 1.5 m/s flow rate

%Power
figure(1)
clf

plot(n1_1,P1_1,'g-',n2_1,P2_1,'b-',n3_1,P3_1,'r-')
title('Power of Pelton Wheel as a Function of Rotational Speed for River
Speed of 4.9 ft/s')
xlabel('Wheel Rotational Speed (rpm)')
ylabel('Power Output (hp)')
legend('4.9 ft Diameter Wheel','9.8 ft Diameter Wheel','14.8 ft Diamter
Wheel')
%Torque
figure(2)
clf
semilogy(n1_1,T1_1,'g-',n2_1,T2_1,'b-',n3_1,T3_1,'r-')
title('Torque Provided by Pelton Wheel as a Function of Rotational Speed for
River Speed of 4.9 ft/s')
ylabel('Torque (ft-lbs)')
Wheel')
%Efficiency
figure(3)
clf
plot(n1_1,eta1_1,'g-',n2_1,eta2_1,'b-',n3_1,eta3_1,'r-')
title('Efficiency of Pelton Wheel as a Function of Rotational Speed for River
Speed of 4.9 ft/s')
ylabel('Efficiency (-)')
Wheel')

%Power
figure(4)
clf
plot(n1_2,P1_2,'g-',n2_2,P2_2,'b-',n3_2,P3_2,'r-')
Speed of 8.2 ft/s')
Wheel')
%Torque
figure(5)
clf
Wheel')
%Efficiency
figure(6)
clf
Speed of 8.2 ft/s')

Wheel')

%Power
figure(7)
clf
plot(n1_3,P1_3,'g-',n2_3,P2_3,'b-',n3_3,P3_3,'r-')
Speed of 11.5 ft/s')
Wheel')
%Torque
figure(8)
clf
Wheel')
%Efficiency
figure(9)
clf
Wheel')

%Power
figure(10)
clf
plot(n1_4,P1_4,'g-',n2_4,P2_4,'b-',n3_4,P3_4,'r-')
Wheel')
%Torque
figure(11)
clf

Wheel')
%Efficiency
figure(12)
clf
Wheel')

%Power
figure(13)
clf
plot(n1_5,P1_5,'g-',n2_5,P2_5,'b-',n3_5,P3_5,'r-')
Wheel')
%Torque
figure(14)
clf
Wheel')
%Efficiency
figure(15)
clf
Wheel')


Final Document - Word

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Document - Word

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Team P-Squared

Kevin Jordan Garrett Brigman

Michael Denk Sean Hennessy

Brian Dolder Josh Matson

2. PROJECT OBJECTIVE STATEMENT................................................................................................................1

10. PROTOTYPE TESTING.....................................................................................................................................28

12. TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION.........................................................................................................................41

Formal Report Page i of 79

18. APPENDIX A: EXPERIMENT DATA...............................................................................................................59

20. APPENDIX C: ADDITIONAL MACHINING & ASSEMBLY INSTRUCTIONS.........................................72

21. APPENDIX D: MATLAB CODE FOR WATER WHEEL CALCULATIONS...............................................75

Formal Report Page ii of 79

2. Project Objective Statement

3.1. Project Scope

Formal Report Page 1 of 79

Wind, water, etc.

Natural Power Source Rotational Step Up:

Manipulator: Gearbox, pulleys, etc.

Windmill, waterwheel, etc.

Power Generation Unit:

Alternator, Generator, etc.

Low watt light and heat Power Storage:

Cell, Battery of Cells

Scope of this Project

Figure 1: Project box diagram with scope

3.2. Major Risks

Formal Report Page 3 of 79

Formal Report Page 4 of 79

Refrigeration to keep food longer Refrigeration 11

Table 1: Customer needs identified from surveys

Formal Report Page 5 of 79

Table 2: Original specifications

5.1. Modified Low-Cost Specifications

Formal Report Page 6 of 79

5.2. Modified High-Performance Specifications

Table 4: Revised specifications for High-Performance model

6. Design Plan from Fall Semester

Formal Report Page 7 of 79

Waterwheel Car battery

Figure 2: Low-Cost model mockup

6.2. High-Performance Model Design Plan

Formal Report Page 8 of 79

6.3. Website Plan

7.1. Low-Cost Model Prototype

Formal Report Page 9 of 79

Figure 5: Prototype of Low-Cost model

Formal Report Page 10 of 79

Item No. Description Quantity Our Cost Salvaged Cost

Table 5: Bill of Materials for the Low-Cost model

Formal Report Page 11 of 79

Figure 6: High-Performance block diagram

Formal Report Page 12 of 79

Formal Report Page 13 of 79

Item No. Description Quantity Cost Salvaged Cost

Table 6: Bill of Materials for High-Performance model

Formal Report Page 14 of 79

8.1. Low-Cost Model Manufacturing Documentation

A. BOM Item 13 - 2”x2”x1/4” Angle Iron (x2)

Figure 8: Angle Iron

B. BOM Item 14 – Delco-Remy Car Alternator Bracket

Figure 9: Alternator Bracket

C. BOM Item 12 – Base

Formal Report Page 16 of 79

D. Alternator Mounting Bracket and Base Assembly