Electric Motors and Drives

Fundamentals Types and Applications

5th Edition Austin Hughes Bill Drury
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/electric-motors-and-drives-fundamentals-types-and-a
pplications-5th-edition-austin-hughes-bill-drury/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Fundamentals of electric drives Second Edition Mohamed

A. El-Sharkawi

https://textbookfull.com/product/fundamentals-of-electric-drives-
second-edition-mohamed-a-el-sharkawi/

Electric Motors and Control Systems, Second Edition

Frank D. Petruzella

https://textbookfull.com/product/electric-motors-and-control-
systems-second-edition-frank-d-petruzella/

Fundamentals of Electric Circuits 5th Edition Alexander

Charles Sadiku Matthew

https://textbookfull.com/product/fundamentals-of-electric-
circuits-5th-edition-alexander-charles-sadiku-matthew/

Fundamentals of Electric Circuits 6th Edition Charles

Alexander

https://textbookfull.com/product/fundamentals-of-electric-
circuits-6th-edition-charles-alexander/
Thermal Imaging Types Advancements and Applications 1st
Edition Angel M. Desmarais

https://textbookfull.com/product/thermal-imaging-types-
advancements-and-applications-1st-edition-angel-m-desmarais/

Power Electronics, Drives, and Advanced Applications

1st Edition Vinod Kumar (Author)

https://textbookfull.com/product/power-electronics-drives-and-
advanced-applications-1st-edition-vinod-kumar-author/

Fundamentals of electric circuits Sixth Edition

Alexander Charles K

https://textbookfull.com/product/fundamentals-of-electric-
circuits-sixth-edition-alexander-charles-k/

Hughes Electrical and Electronic Technology 12th

Edition Edward Hughes

https://textbookfull.com/product/hughes-electrical-and-
electronic-technology-12th-edition-edward-hughes/

Managed Care Practice and Progress 1st Edition Michael

Drury

https://textbookfull.com/product/managed-care-practice-and-
progress-1st-edition-michael-drury/
Electric Motors and Drives
Fundamentals, Types and Applications
Electric Motors and
Drives
Fundamentals, Types and Applications

Fifth Edition

Austin Hughes
Bill Drury
Newnes is an imprint of Elsevier
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek
permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements
with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can
be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.
This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the
Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in
evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein.
In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of
others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors,
assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products
liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products,
instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-0-08-102615-1

For information on all Newnes publications

visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Joe Hayton

Acquisition Editor: Lisa Reading
Editorial Project Manager: Thomas Van Der Ploeg
Production Project Manager: Kamesh Ramajogi
Cover Designer: Matthew Limbert
Typeset by SPi Global, India
Preface

The fifth edition, like its predecessors, is intended primarily for non-specialist
users or students of electric motors and drives, but we are pleased to have
learned that many researchers and specialist industrialists have also acknowl-
edged the value of the book in providing a clear understanding of the fundamen-
tals of the subject.
Our aim is to bridge the gap between specialist textbooks (which are pitched
at a level which is too academic/analytical for the average user) and the more
prosaic handbooks which are full of detailed information but provide little
opportunity for the development of any real insight. We intend to continue what
has been a successful formula by providing the reader with an understanding of
how each motor and drive system works, in the belief that it is only by knowing
what should happen (and why) that informed judgements and sound compari-
sons can be made.
Given that the book is aimed at readers from a range of disciplines, sections
of the book are of necessity devoted to introductory material. The first and sec-
ond chapters therefore provide a gentle introduction to electromagnetic energy
conversion and power electronics respectively. Many of the basic ideas intro-
duced here crop up frequently throughout the book (and indeed are deliberately
repeated to emphasise their importance), so unless the reader is already well-
versed in the fundamentals it would be wise to absorb the first two chapters
before tackling the later material. At various points later in the book we include
more tutorial material, e.g. in Chapter 8 where we unravel the mysteries of field-
oriented control.
The book covers all of the most important types of motor and drive, includ-
ing conventional and brushless d.c., induction motors, synchronous motors of
all types (including synchronous reluctance motors and salient Permanent Mag-
net motors), switched reluctance, and stepping motors. Induction motors, syn-
chronous motors and their drives are given most attention, reflecting their
dominant market position in terms of numbers. Conventional d.c. machines
and drives are deliberately introduced early on, despite their much-reduced
importance: this is partly because understanding is relatively easy, but primarily
because the fundamental principles that emerge carry forward to the other types.
Experience shows that readers who manage to grasp the principles of the d.c.
drive will find this know-how invaluable in dealing with other more
challenging types.

xiii
xiv Preface

The fifth edition has been completely revised, updated and expanded. Mod-
est changes to Chapter 2 now allow all of the most important converter topol-
ogies to be brought together, and the treatment of inverters now includes more
detail of the PWM switching waveforms. The middle chapters dealing with the
fundamentals of d.c. and induction motors and their drives have required only a
few minor additions, whereas major changes and additions have been made to
Chapters 8 and 9.
The new Chapter 8 is devoted exclusively to the treatment of Field Oriented
control, reflecting its increasing importance for both induction and synchronous
motor drives. The principles of control are explained in a unique physically-
based way that builds on the understanding of motor behaviour developed ear-
lier in the book: we believe that the largely non-mathematical treatment will
dispel much of the mystique surrounding what is often regarded as a
difficult topic.
The discussion of synchronous, permanent magnet and reluctance motors
and drives has been greatly expanded in the new Chapter 9. There has been sig-
nificant innovation in this area since the fourth edition, particularly in the auto-
motive, aircraft and industrial sectors, with novel motor topologies emerging,
including hybrid designs that combine permanent magnet and reluctance
effects. We now include a physical basis for understanding and quantifying tor-
que production in these machines, and this leads to simple pictures that illumi-
nate the control conditions required to optimise torque.
We have responded to requests by providing Review Questions at the end of
each chapter, together with fully-worked solutions intended to guide the reader
through a logical approach to the question, thereby reinforcing knowledge and
understanding.
Younger readers may be unaware of the radical changes that have taken
place over the past 60 years, so a couple of paragraphs are appropriate to put
the current scene into perspective. For more than a century, many different types
of motor were developed, and each became closely associated with a particular
application. Traction, for example, was seen as the exclusive preserve of the
series d.c. motor, whereas the shunt d.c. motor, though outwardly indistinguish-
able, was seen as being quite unsuited to traction applications. The cage induc-
tion motor was (and still is) the most numerous type but was judged as being
suited only to applications which called for constant speed. The reason for
the plethora of motor types was that there was no easy way of varying the supply
voltage and/or frequency to obtain speed control, and designers were therefore
forced to seek ways of providing for control of speed within the motor itself. All
sorts of ingenious arrangements and interconnections of motor windings were
invented, but even the best motors had a limited operating range, and they all
required bulky electromechanical control gear.
All this changed from the early 1960s, when power electronics began to
make an impact. The first major breakthrough came with the thyristor, which
provided a relatively cheap, compact, and easily controlled variable-speed drive
 Preface xv

using the d.c. motor. In the 1970s the second major breakthrough resulted from
the development of power electronic inverters, providing a three-phase
variable-frequency supply for the cage induction motor and thereby enabling
its speed to be controlled. These major developments resulted in the demise
of many of the special motors, leaving the majority of applications in the hands
of comparatively few types. The switch from analogue to digital control also
represented significant progress, but it was the availability of cheap digital pro-
cessors that sparked the most recent leap forward. Real time modelling and sim-
ulation are now incorporated as standard into induction and synchronous motor
drives, thereby allowing them to achieve levels of dynamic performance that
had long been considered impossible.
The informal style of the book reflects our belief that the difficulty of com-
ing to grips with new ideas should not be disguised. The level at which to pitch
the material was based on feedback from previous editions which supported our
view that a mainly descriptive approach with physical explanations would be
most appropriate, with mathematics kept to a minimum to assist digestion.
The most important concepts (such as the inherent e.m.f. feedback in motors,
the need for a switching strategy in converters, and the importance of stored
energy) are deliberately reiterated to reinforce understanding, but should not
prove too tiresome for readers who have already ‘got the message’. We have
deliberately not included any computed magnetic field plots, nor any results
from the excellent motor simulation packages that are now available because
experience suggests that simplified diagrams are actually better as learning
vehicles.
At the time of writing, the $150 Bn Electric Motors and Drives market is
seeing tremendous innovation and growth driven by the electrification of auto-
motives, aeroplanes and the fourth industrial revolution ‘Industry 4.0’, all of
which are enabled by motors and drives. At such an exciting time it is important
to understand the fundamental, underpinning technology—that is the mission of
this book.
Finally, we welcome feedback, either via the publisher, or using the email
addresses below.

Bill Drury (w.drury@btinternet.com)

Austin Hughes (a.hughes@leeds.ac.uk)
Chapter 1

Electric motors—The basics

1.1 Introduction
Electric motors are so much a part of everyday life that we seldom give them a
second thought. When we switch on an ancient electric drill, for example, we
confidently expect it to run rapidly up to the correct speed, and we don’t ques-
tion how it knows what speed to run at, nor how it is that once enough energy has
been drawn from the supply to bring it up to speed, the power drawn falls to a
very low level. When we put the drill to work it draws more power, and when we
finish the power drawn from the supply reduces automatically, without inter-
vention on our part.
The humble motor, consisting of nothing more than an arrangement of cop-
per coils and steel laminations, is clearly rather a clever energy converter, which
warrants serious consideration. By gaining a basic understanding of how the
motor works, we will be able to appreciate its potential and its limitations,
and (in later chapters) see how its already remarkable performance is dramat-
ically enhanced by the addition of external electronic controls.
The great majority of electric motors have a shaft which rotates, but linear
electric motors have niche applications, and whilst they appear very different
from their rotating sister, their principle of operation is the same.
This chapter deals with the basic mechanisms of motor operation, so readers
who are already familiar with such matters as magnetic flux, magnetic and elec-
tric circuits, torque, and motional e.m.f. (electromotive force) can probably
afford to skim over much of it. In the course of the discussion, however, several
very important general principles and guidelines emerge. These apply to all
types of motor and are summarised in Section 1.9. Experience shows that any-
one who has a good grasp of these basic principles will be well equipped to
weigh the pros and cons of the different types of motor, so all readers are urged
to absorb them before tackling other parts of the book.

1.2 Producing rotation

Nearly all motors exploit the force which is exerted on a current-carrying con-
ductor placed in a magnetic field. The force can be demonstrated by placing a

Electric Motors and Drives. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102615-1.00001-5

© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1
2 Electric motors and drives

FIG. 1.1 Mechanical force produced on a current-carrying wire in a magnetic field.

bar magnet near a wire carrying current (Fig. 1.1), but anyone trying the exper-
iment will probably be disappointed to discover how feeble the force is, and will
doubtless be left wondering how such an unpromising effect can be used to
make effective motors.
We will see that in order to make the most of the mechanism, we need to
arrange for there to be a very strong magnetic field, and for it to interact with
many conductors, each carrying as much current as possible. We will also see
later that although the magnetic field (or ‘excitation’) is essential to the working
of the motor, it acts only as a catalyst, and all of the mechanical output power
comes from the electrical supply to the conductors on which the force is
developed.
It will emerge later that in some motors the parts of the machine responsible
for the excitation and for the energy converting functions are distinct and self-
evident. In the d.c. motor, for example, the excitation is provided either by per-
manent magnets or by field coils wrapped around clearly-defined projecting
field poles on the stationary part, while the conductors on which force is devel-
oped are on the rotor and supplied with current via sliding contacts known as
brushes. In many motors, however, there is no such clear-cut physical distinc-
tion between the ‘excitation’ and the ‘energy-converting’ parts of the machine,
and a single stationary winding serves both purposes. Nevertheless, we will find
that identifying and separating the excitation and energy-converting functions is
always helpful to understanding both how motors of all types operate, and their
performance characteristics.
Returning to the matter of force on a single conductor, we will look first at
what determines the magnitude and direction of the force, before turning to
ways in which the mechanism is exploited to produce rotation. The concept
of the magnetic circuit will have to be explored, since this is central to under-
standing why motors have the shapes they do. Before that a brief introduction to
the magnetic field and magnetic flux and flux density is included for those who
are not already familiar with the ideas involved.
 Electric motors—The basics Chapter 1 3

1.2.1 Magnetic field and magnetic flux

When a current-carrying conductor is placed in a magnetic field, it experiences
a force. Experiment shows that the magnitude of the force depends directly on
the current in the wire, and the strength of the magnetic field, and that the force
is greatest when the magnetic field is perpendicular to the conductor.
In the set-up shown in Fig. 1.1, the source of the magnetic field is a bar mag-
net, which produces a magnetic field as shown in Fig. 1.2.
The notion of a ‘magnetic field’ surrounding a magnet is an abstract idea that
helps us to come to grips with the mysterious phenomenon of magnetism: it not
only provides us with a convenient pictorial way of picturing the directional
effects, but it also allows us to quantify the ‘strength’ of the magnetism and
hence permits us to predict the various effects produced by it.
The dotted lines in Fig. 1.2 are referred to as magnetic flux lines, or simply
flux lines. They indicate the direction along which iron filings (or small steel
pins) would align themselves when placed in the field of the bar magnet. Steel
pins have no initial magnetic field of their own, so there is no reason why one
end or the other of the pins should point to a particular pole of the bar magnet.
However, when we put a compass needle (which is itself a permanent mag-
net) in the field we find that it aligns itself as shown in Fig. 1.2. In the upper half
of the figure, the S end of the diamond-shaped compass settles closest to the N
pole of the magnet, while in the lower half of the figure, the N end of the com-
pass seeks the S of the magnet. This immediately suggests that there is a direc-
tion associated with the lines of flux, as shown by the arrows on the flux lines,
which conventionally are taken as positively directed from the N to the S pole of
the bar magnet.
The sketch in Fig. 1.2 might suggest that there is a ‘source’ near the top of
the bar magnet, from which flux lines emanate before making their way to a
corresponding ‘sink’ at the bottom. However, if we were to look at the flux lines

FIG. 1.2 Magnetic flux lines produced by a permanent magnet.

4 Electric motors and drives

inside the magnet, we would find that they were continuous, with no ‘start’ or
‘finish’. (In Fig. 1.2 the internal flux lines have been omitted for the sake of
clarity, but a very similar field pattern is produced by a circular coil of wire car-
rying a direct current—see Fig. 1.7 where the continuity of the flux lines is
clear.) Magnetic flux lines always form closed paths, as we will see when
we look at the ‘magnetic circuit’, and draw a parallel with the electric circuit,
in which the current is also a continuous quantity. (There must be a ‘cause’ of
the magnetic flux, of course, and in a permanent magnet this is usually pictured
in terms of atomic-level circulating currents within the magnet material. Fortu-
nately, discussion at this physical level is not necessary for our purposes.)

1.2.2 Magnetic flux density

As well as showing direction, the flux plots also convey information about the
intensity of the magnetic field. To achieve this, we introduce the idea that
between every pair of flux lines (and for a given depth into the paper) there
is the same ‘quantity’ of magnetic flux. Some people have no difficulty with
such a concept, while others find that the notion of quantifying something so
abstract represents a serious intellectual challenge. But whether the approach
seems obvious or not, there is no denying the practical utility of quantifying
the mysterious stuff we call magnetic flux, and it leads us next to the very
important idea of magnetic flux density (B).
When the flux lines are close together, the ‘tube’ of flux is squashed into a
smaller space, whereas when the lines are further apart the same tube of flux has
more breathing space. The flux density (B) is simply the flux in the ‘tube’ (Φ)
divided by the cross-sectional area (A) of the tube, i.e.
Φ
B¼ (1.1)
A
The flux density is a vector quantity, and is therefore often written in bold
type: its magnitude is given by Eq. (1.1), and its direction is that of the prevail-
ing flux lines at each point. Near the top of the magnet in Fig. 1.2, for example,
the flux density will be large (because the flux is squashed into a small area), and
pointing upwards, whereas on the equator and far out from the body of the mag-
net the flux density will be small and directed downwards.
We will see later that in order to create high flux densities in motors, the flux
spends most of its life inside well-defined ‘magnetic circuits’ made of iron or
steel, within which the flux lines spread out uniformly to take full advantage of
the available area. In the case shown in Fig. 1.3, for example, the cross-sectional
area of the iron at bb’ is twice that at aa’, but the flux is constant so the flux
density at bb’ is half that at aa’.
It remains to specify units for quantity of flux, and flux density. In the SI
system, the unit of magnetic flux is the Weber (Wb). If one Weber of flux is
distributed uniformly across an area of one square metre perpendicular to the
 Electric motors—The basics Chapter 1 5

FIG. 1.3 Magnetic flux lines inside part of an iron magnetic circuit.

flux, the flux density is clearly one Weber per square metre (Wb/m2). This was
the unit of B until about 60 years ago, when it was decided that one Weber per
square metre would henceforth be known as one Tesla (T), in honour of Nikola
Tesla whose is generally credited with inventing the induction motor. The wide-
spread use of B (measured in Tesla) in the design stage of all types of electro-
magnetic apparatus means that we are constantly reminded of the importance of
Tesla; but at the same time one has to acknowledge that the outdated unit did
have the advantage of conveying directly what flux density is, i.e. flux divided
by area.
The flux in a 1 kW motor will be perhaps a few tens of milliwebers, and a
small bar magnet would probably only produce a few microwebers. On the other
hand, values of flux density are typically around 1 Tesla in most motors (regard-
less of type and rating), which is a reflection of the fact that although the quan-
tity of flux in the 1 kW motor is small, it is also spread over a small area.

1.2.3 Force on a conductor

We now return to the production of force on a current-carrying wire placed in a
magnetic field, as revealed by the set-up shown in Fig. 1.1.
The force is shown in Fig. 1.1: it is at right angles to both the current and the
magnetic flux density, and its direction can be found using Fleming’s left hand
rule. If we picture the thumb, first and middle fingers held mutually perpendic-
ular, then the first finger represents the field or flux density (B), the middle fin-
ger represents the current (I), and the thumb then indicates the direction of
motion, as shown in Fig. 1.4.
Clearly, if either the field or the current is reversed, the force acts down-
wards, and if both are reversed, the direction of the force remains the same.
We find by experiment that if we double either the current or the flux den-
sity, we double the force, while doubling both causes the force to increase by a
factor of four. But how about quantifying the force? We need to express the
force in terms of the product of the current and the magnetic flux density,
and this turns out to be very straightforward when we work in SI units.
6 Electric motors and drives

FIG. 1.4 Fleming’s Left Hand rule for finding direction of force.

The force F on a wire of length l, carrying a current I and exposed to a uni-

form magnetic flux density B throughout its length is given by the simple
expression
F¼BIl (1.2)
In Eq. (1.2), F is in Newtons when B is in Tesla, I in Amps, and l in metres.
This is a delightfully simple formula, and it may come as a surprise to some
readers that there are no constants of proportionality involved in Eq. (1.2). The
simplicity is not a coincidence, but stems from the fact that the unit of current
(the Ampere) is actually defined in terms of force.
Eq. (1.2) only applies when the current is perpendicular to the field. If this
condition is not met, the force on the conductor will be less; and in the extreme
case where the current was in the same direction as the field, the force would fall
to zero. However, every sensible motor designer knows that to get the best out of
the magnetic field it has to be perpendicular to the conductors, and so it is safe to
assume in the subsequent discussion that B and I are always perpendicular. In
the remainder of this book, it will be assumed that the flux density and current
are mutually perpendicular, and this is why, although B is a vector quantity (and
would usually be denoted by bold type), we can drop the bold notation because
the direction is implicit and we are only interested in the magnitude.
The reason for the very low force detected in the experiment with the bar
magnet is revealed by Eq. (1.2). To obtain a high force, we must have a high
flux density, and a lot of current. The flux density at the ends of a bar magnet
is low, perhaps 0.1 Tesla, so a wire carrying 1 Amp will experience a force of
only 0.1 N (approximately 10 g wt) per metre. Since the flux density will be con-
fined to perhaps 1 cm across the end face of the magnet, the total force on the
wire will be only 0.1 g wt. This would be barely detectable, and is too low to be
of any use in a decent motor. So how is more force obtained?
The first step is to obtain the highest possible flux density. This is achieved
by designing a ‘good’ magnetic circuit, and is discussed next. Secondly, as
many conductors as possible must be packed in the space where the magnetic
 Electric motors—The basics Chapter 1 7

field exists, and each conductor must carry as much current as it can without
heating up to a dangerous temperature. In this way, impressive forces can be
obtained from modestly sized devices, as anyone who has tried to stop an elec-
tric drill by grasping the chuck will testify.

1.3 Magnetic circuits

So far we have assumed that the source of the magnetic field is a permanent
magnet. This is a convenient starting point as all of us are familiar with magnets.
But in the majority of motors, the magnetic field is produced by coils of wire
carrying current, so it is appropriate that we look at how we arrange the coils and
their associated ‘magnetic circuit’ so as to produce high magnetic fields which
then interact with other current-carrying conductors to produce force, and hence
rotation.
First, we look at the simplest possible case of the magnetic field surrounding
an isolated long straight wire carrying a steady current (Fig. 1.5). (In the figure,
the + sign indicates that current is flowing into the paper, while a dot is used to
signify current out of the paper: these symbols can perhaps be remembered by
picturing an arrow or dart, with the cross being the rear view of the fletch, and
the dot being the approaching point.) The flux lines form circles concentric with
the wire, the field strength being greatest close to the wire. As might be
expected, the field strength at any point is directly proportional to the current.
The convention for determining the direction of the field is that the positive
direction is taken to be the direction that a right-handed corkscrew must be
rotated to move in the direction of the current.
Fig. 1.5 is somewhat artificial as current can only flow in a complete circuit,
so there must always be a return path. If we imagine a parallel ‘go’ and ‘return’
circuit, for example, the field can be obtained by superimposing the field pro-
duced by the positive current in the go side with the field produced by the neg-
ative current in the return side, as shown in Fig. 1.6.
We note how the field is increased in the region between the conductors, and
reduced in the regions outside. Although Fig. 1.6 strictly only applies to an infi-
nitely long pair of straight conductors, it will probably not come as a surprise to
learn that the field produced by a single turn of wire of rectangular, square or
round form is very much the same as that shown in Fig. 1.6. This enables us to

FIG. 1.5 Magnetic flux lines produced by a straight, current-carrying wire.

8 Electric motors and drives

FIG. 1.6 Magnetic flux lines produced by current in a parallel go and return circuit.

build up a picture of the field that would be produced—in air—by the sort of
coils used in motors, which typically have many turns, as shown for example
in Fig. 1.7.
The coil itself is shown on the left in Fig. 1.7 while the flux pattern produced
is shown on the right. Each turn in the coil produces a field pattern, and when all
the individual field components are superimposed we see that the field inside
the coil is substantially increased and that the closed flux paths closely resemble
those of the bar magnet that we looked at earlier. The air surrounding the
sources of the field offers a homogeneous path for the flux, so once the tubes
of flux escape from the concentrating influence of the source, they are free to
spread out into the whole of the surrounding space. Recalling that between each
pair of flux lines there is an equal amount of flux, we see that because the flux
lines spread out as they leave the confines of the coil, the flux density is much
lower outside than inside: for example, if the distance ‘b’ is say four times ‘a’
the flux density Bb is a quarter of Ba.

FIG. 1.7 Multi-turn cylindrical coil and pattern of magnetic flux produced by current in the coil.
(For the sake of clarity, only the outline of the coil is shown on the right.)
 Electric motors—The basics Chapter 1 9

Although the flux density inside the coil is higher than outside, we would
find that the flux densities which we could achieve are still too low to be of
use in a motor. What is needed is firstly a way of increasing the flux density,
and secondly a means for concentrating the flux and preventing it from spread-
ing out into the surrounding space.

1.3.1 Magnetomotive force (m.m.f.)

One obvious way to increase the flux density is to increase the current in the
coil, or to add more turns. We find that if we double the current, or the number
of turns, we double the total flux, thereby doubling the flux density everywhere.
We quantify the ability of the coil to produce flux in terms of its Magneto-
motive Force (m.m.f.). The m.m.f. of the coil is simply the product of the num-
ber of turns (N) and the current (I), and is thus expressed in Ampere-turns. A
given m.m.f. can be obtained with a large number of turns of thin wire carrying
a low current, or a few turns of thick wire carrying a high current: as long as the
product NI is constant, the m.m.f. is the same.

1.3.2 Electric circuit analogy

We have seen that the magnetic flux which is set up is proportional to the m.m.f.
driving it. This points to a parallel with the electric circuit, where the current
(Amps) which flows is proportional to the electromotive force (e.m.f., in Volts)
driving it.
In the electric circuit, current and e.m.f. are related by Ohm’s Law, which is
e:m:f: V
Current ¼ , i:e: I ¼ (1.3)
Resistance R
For a given source e.m.f. (Volts), the current depends inversely on the resis-
tance of the circuit, so to obtain more current, the resistance of the circuit has to
be reduced.
We can make use of an equivalent ‘magnetic Ohm’s law’ by introducing the
idea of Reluctance (R). The reluctance gives a measure of how difficult it is for
the magnetic flux to complete its circuit, in the same way that resistance indi-
cates how much opposition the current encounters in the electric circuit.
The magnetic Ohm’s law is then
m:m:f: NI
Flux ¼ , i:e: Φ ¼ (1.4)
Reluctance R
We see from Eq. (1.4) that to increase the flux for a given m.m.f. we need to
reduce the reluctance of the magnetic circuit. In the case of the example
(Fig. 1.7), this means we must replace as much as possible of the air path (which
is a ‘poor’ magnetic material, and therefore constitutes a high reluctance) with a
10 Electric motors and drives

FIG. 1.8 Flux lines inside low-reluctance magnetic circuit with air-gap.

‘good’ magnetic material, thereby reducing the reluctance and resulting in a

higher flux for a given m.m.f.
The material which we usually choose is good quality magnetic steel, which
for historical reasons is often referred to as ‘iron’. This brings several very dra-
matic and desirable benefits, as shown in Fig. 1.8.
Firstly, the reluctance of the iron paths is very much less than the air paths
which they have replaced, so the total flux produced for a given m.m.f. is very
much greater. (Strictly speaking therefore, if the m.m.f.’s and cross-sections of
the coils in Figs. 1.7 and 1.8 are the same, many more flux lines should be shown
in Fig. 1.8 than in Fig. 1.7, but for the sake of clarity a similar number are indi-
cated.) Secondly, almost all the flux is confined within the iron, rather than
spreading out into the surrounding air. We can therefore shape the iron parts
of the magnetic circuit as shown in Fig. 1.8 in order to guide the flux to wherever
it is needed. And finally, we see that inside the iron, the flux density remains
constant over the whole uniform cross-section, there being so little reluctance
that there is no noticeable tendency for the flux to crowd to one side or another.
Before moving on to the matter of the air-gap, a question which is often
asked is whether it is important for the coils to be wound tightly onto the mag-
netic circuit, and whether, if there is a multi-layer winding, the outer turns are as
effective as the inner ones. The answer, happily, is that the total m.m.f. is deter-
mined solely by the number of turns and the current, and therefore every com-
plete turn makes the same contribution to the total m.m.f., regardless of whether
it happens to be tightly or loosely wound. Of course it does make sense for the
coils to be wound as tightly as is practicable, since this not only minimises the
resistance of the coil (and thereby reduces the heat loss) but also makes it easier
for the heat generated to be conducted away to the frame of the machine.

1.3.3 The air-gap

In motors, we intend to use the high flux density to develop force on current-
carrying conductors, which must then move to produce useful work. We have
now seen how to create a high flux density in a magnetic circuit, but, of course,
it is not possible to put current-carrying conductors inside the iron. We therefore
 Electric motors—The basics Chapter 1 11

arrange for an air-gap in the magnetic circuit, as shown in Fig. 1.8. We will see
shortly (see for example Fig. 1.12) that the conductors on which the force is to
be produced will be placed in this air-gap region. So although we will find that
the reluctance of the air-gap is unwelcome from the magnetic circuit viewpoint,
it is obviously necessary for there to be mechanical clearance to allow the rotor
to rotate.
If the air-gap is relatively small, as in motors, we find that the flux jumps
across the air-gap as shown in Fig. 1.8, with very little tendency to balloon
out into the surrounding air. With most of the flux lines going straight across
the air-gap, the flux density in the gap region has the same high value as it does
inside the iron.
In the majority of magnetic circuits with one or more air-gaps, the reluctance
of the iron parts is very much less than the reluctance of the gaps. At first sight
this can seem surprising, since the distance across the gap is so much less than
the rest of the path through the iron. The fact that the air-gap dominates the
reluctance is simply a reflection of how poor air is as a magnetic medium, com-
pared with iron. To put the comparison in perspective, if we calculate the reluc-
tances of two paths of equal length and cross-sectional area, one being in iron
and the other in air, the reluctance of the air path will typically be 1000 times
greater than the reluctance of the iron path.
Returning to the analogy with the electric circuit, the role of the iron parts of
the magnetic circuit can be likened to that of the copper wires in the electric
circuit. Both offer little opposition to flow (so that a negligible fraction of
the driving force (m.m.f. or e.m.f.) is wasted in conveying the flow to where
it is usefully exploited) and both can be shaped to guide the flow to its destina-
tion. There is one important difference, however. In the electric circuit, no cur-
rent will flow until the circuit is completed, after which all the current is
confined inside the wires. With an iron magnetic circuit, some flux can flow
(in the surrounding air) even before the iron is installed. And although most
of the flux will subsequently take the easy route through the iron, some will still
leak into the air, as shown in Fig. 1.8. We will not pursue leakage flux here,
though it is sometimes important, as will be seen later.

1.3.4 Reluctance and air-gap flux densities

If we neglect the reluctance of the iron parts of a magnetic circuit, it is easy
to estimate the flux density in the air-gap. Since the iron parts are then in
effect ‘perfect conductors’ of flux, none of the source m.m.f. (NI) is used in
driving the flux through the iron parts, and all of it is available to push the flux
across the air-gap. The situation depicted in Fig. 1.8 therefore reduces to that
shown in Fig. 1.9, where an m.m.f. of NI is applied directly across an air-gap
of length g.
To determine how much flux will cross the gap, we need to know its reluc-
tance. As might be expected the reluctance of any part of the magnetic circuit
 Electric motors—The basics Chapter 1 23

power we can choose between a large (and therefore expensive) low-speed

motor or a small (and generally cheaper) high-speed one. The latter choice is
preferred for most applications, even if some form of speed reduction (using
belts or gears, for example) is needed, because the smaller motor is cheaper.
Familiar examples include portable electric tools, where rotor speeds of
12,000 rev/min or more allow powers of hundreds of Watts to be obtained,
and electric traction: in both the high motor speed is geared down for the final
drive. In these examples, where volume and weight are at a premium, a direct
drive would be out of the question.

1.5.4 Power density (specific output power)

By dividing Eq. (1.13) by the rotor volume, we obtain an expression for the spe-
cific power output (power per unit rotor volume), Q, given by
Q ¼ 2B A ω (1.14)
The importance of this simple equation cannot be overemphasised. It is the
fundamental design equation that governs the output of any ‘BIl’ machine, and
thus applies to almost all motors.
To obtain the highest possible power from a given volume for given values
of the specific magnetic and electric loadings, we must clearly operate the motor
at the highest practicable speed. The one obvious disadvantage of a small high-
speed motor and gearbox is that the acoustic noise (both from the motor itself
and the from the power transmission) is higher than it would be from a larger
direct drive motor. When noise must be minimised (for example in ceiling fans),
a direct drive motor is therefore preferred, despite its larger size.
In this section, we began by exploring and quantifying the mechanism of
torque production, so not surprisingly it was tacitly assumed that the rotor
was at rest, with no work being done. We then moved on to assume that the
torque was maintained when the speed was constant and useful power was
delivered, i.e. that electrical energy was being converted into mechanical
energy. The aim was to establish what factors determine the output of a rotor
of given dimensions, and this was possible without reference to any particular
type of motor.
In complete contrast, the approach in the next section focuses on a generic
‘primitive’ motor, and we begin to look in detail at what we have to do at the
terminals in order to control the speed and torque.

1.6 Energy conversion—Motional e.m.f

We now examine the behaviour of a primitive linear machine which, despite its
obvious simplicity, encapsulates all the key electromagnetic energy conversion
processes that take place in electric motors. We will see how the process of con-
version of energy from electrical to mechanical form is elegantly represented in
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Only a week earlier, because the First Article did grant
enumerated powers to interfere with individual rights, the Convention
had known that the seven articles must go to the people directly to
say their “Yes” or “No” to those grants of the First Article. For that
reason the Convention (considering limited legislative ability to make
federal Articles and omnipotent ability of the “people” to make all
Articles) had decided that it must propose the mode of ratification by
the “people,” the “conventions” of the Seventh and the Fifth Articles.
As Marshall later authoritatively stated in the Supreme Court, the
legal necessity of deriving national powers from the people
themselves, the “conventions,” was then known and acknowledged
by all.
It was natural, therefore, up to that September 10, that a
convention, concentrated entirely upon grants of that kind, when
wording its Article with a mode of procedure for making future
changes, should have forgotten any changes except of the kind on
which its own mind was concentrated and should have mentioned in
its amending Article, up to September 10, no maker of future
changes except the people themselves, “conventions” of the
Seventh and the Fifth Articles.
And, at this point, we average Americans note, again with intent
never to forget, that if the one competent maker of such Articles, the
“conventions,” had remained the only maker of Articles mentioned in
the Fifth Article, even the great “constitutional” lawyers of 1920
would never have made the monumental error of assuming that the
Fifth Article was a grant of power (to those who made it and all the
original Constitution) to make future Articles. Even they would have
noticed and applied to their reading of the Fifth Article the well known
legal fact that grantors never can and never do grant to themselves
what they already have or a part of it.
Therefore, noting and remembering these significant facts, we turn
with interest to the short story of how those able Americans at
Philadelphia, their minds no longer exclusively concentrated on their
own enumerated grants, remembered that there was another maker
of Articles with existing but limited ability to make federal or
declaratory Articles. And, with interest, we shall learn how this last
week thought caused the Convention to change the Fifth Article by
adding a mention of that existing limited ability and prescribing the
mode of its future constitutional exercise.
That we average Americans may never be misled by inaccurate
statements of the short story of how the mention of that limited ability
was added to the mention of the unlimited ability of the “people” or
“conventions” of the Fifth Article, it is fitting that the full record of the
story be given verbatim. It adds not a little to our amusement that the
story is copied from the brief of the leading “constitutional” lawyer of
1920 who championed the validity of the Eighteenth Amendment on
the remarkable assumption and error, common to all his associates
and his opponents, that the new mention changed the Fifth Article
into a grant of ability to those legislatures instead of what its author,
Madison, knew and stated that Article to be, a “mode of procedure”
for the future constitutional exercise either of that existing limited
ability or the other existing unlimited ability of the “people” or
“conventions” of the Seventh and Fifth Articles. This is the record of
that September 10, as copied from that brief, beginning immediately
after Hamilton had voiced his opinion that there could be no danger
in letting Congress propose an Amendment “as the people would
finally decide in the case.”
“Mr. Madison remarked on the vagueness of the terms, ‘call a
Convention for the purpose’ as sufficient reason for reconsidering
the Article. How was a Convention to be formed? by what rule
decide? what the force of its acts?
“On the motion of Mr. Gerry to reconsider
“N. H. div. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. ay.
N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. (Ayes—9; noes—1; divided—1.)
“Mr. Sherman moved to add to the article ‘or the Legislature may
propose amendments to the several States for their approbation, but
no amendments shall be binding until consented to by the several
States.’
“Mr. Gerry 2ded. the motion.
 “Mr. Wilson moved to insert ‘two thirds of’ before the words
‘several States’—on which amendment to the motion of Mr. Sherman
“N. H. ay. Mas. (no). Ct. no. N. J. (no). Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va.
ay. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no. (Ayes—5; noes—6).
“Mr. Wilson then moved to insert ‘three fourths of’ before ‘the
several Sts.’ which was agreed to nem: con:
“Mr. Madison moved to postpone the consideration of the
amended proposition in order to take up the following,
“‘The Legislature of the U.S. whenever two thirds of both Houses
shall deem necessary, or on the application of two thirds of the
Legislatures of the several States, shall propose amendments to this
Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as parts
thereof, when the same shall have been ratified by three fourths at
least of the Legislatures of the several States, or by Conventions in
three fourths thereof, as one or the other mode of ratification may be
proposed by the Legislature of the U.S.’
“Mr. Hamilton 2ded. the motion.
“Mr. Rutlidge said he never could agree to give a power by which
the articles relating to slaves might be altered by the States not
interested in that property and prejudiced against it. In order to
obviate this objection, these words were added to the proposition:
‘provided that no amendments which may be made prior to the year
1808, shall in any manner affect the 4 & 5 sections of the VII article.’
The postponement being agreed to,
“On the question On the proposition of Mr. Madison & Mr. Hamilton
as amended
“N.H. divd. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N.J. ay. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. ay.
N.C. ay. S.C. ay. Geo. ay. (Ayes—9; noes—1; divided—1.)”
II Farrand, 558, 559.
No American citizen, now living or in the generations to come, if he
values at all the human liberty which the entire Constitution was
established to secure, can spend too much time in reading and
understanding that short record. It is the record left by Madison
himself, even though it be copied from the brief of the leading
“constitutional” lawyer of 1920 who maintained his whole argument
for the Eighteenth Amendment on the ground that we have been
“subjects” of an omnipotent government, his clients, since the day,
June 21, 1788, when that Fifth Article was enacted by the American
people to secure “the Blessings of Liberty for themselves and their
posterity.”
As we shall later find herein, it is the claim of all who believe the
new Amendment to be in our Constitution, although they have
hitherto not understood their own claim, that the words of the Article,
which appear in that short record, are the words which changed the
American individuals, free men from July 4, 1776, into subjects of an
omnipotent government, composed of the legislative governments of
a fractional part of the states. Moreover, as we shall also later learn
herein, this absurd and amazing claim is based wholly on the
monumental error of assuming, without the faintest suggestion or
proffer of support for such an assumption, that the new wording of
the Fifth Article, as proposed by Madison on September 10, changed
the amending Article into a grant of ability to make every kind of
Article. The monumental error fails to see that Madison merely
added to the previous mention of the unlimited ability of the people
or “conventions” a similar mention of the existing limited ability of the
state legislative governments to make federal Articles or Articles
which neither exercise nor grant power to interfere with human
freedom. Moreover, as we shall also learn later herein, the
extraordinary and unfounded assumption (that the amending Article
was changed on September 10 into a grant of ability to make Articles
instead of a recognition and mention of two existing different abilities,
one of which had always been mentioned therein) has been hitherto
concurred in by every one who has challenged the validity of the
Eighteenth Amendment. They have only differed from the supporters
of the new Amendment in contending that the impossible grant,
absurdly imagined to have been made by the grantors to themselves
as well as to state legislatures, was a grant of limited ability but did
not include the ability to make an amendment such as the
Eighteenth.
 When we do come later herein to the briefs and arguments of the
opponents and supporters of the supposed Eighteenth Amendment,
we shall look in vain to find therein the faintest suggestion of a claim
that there is anything in the record of September 10, 1787, to justify
their extraordinary and unfounded assumption that the Fifth Article,
on that day, was changed so as to make it a grant of power from the
“conventions” of the people to the “conventions” of the whole
American people and to the state legislatures. On the contrary, we
shall find every opponent of the supposed new Amendment making
easy the way of its supporters by joining in the common assumption
of all and predicating every argument against the new Amendment
on the same extraordinary assumption that the Fifth Article is a grant
of power to the grantors and to the state governments. Not once, in
any brief or argument of the most renowned lawyers in America,
shall we find even the faintest knowledge of two facts which must be
so if the Fifth Article is a grant of power to the two supposed
grantees. That each of the two facts is a patent absurdity will not
alter the logic that they must be facts, if the Fifth Article is a grant to
those two grantees. The first patently absurd fact is that, if the Fifth
Article is a grant, the “conventions” of 1788 granted to themselves,
the supposed grantors, exactly the same omnipotent power to make
all Articles, which the grantors (a supposed grantee) were exercising
at the very moment when they made the Fifth Article. The second
patently absurd fact, if the Fifth Article is a grant, is that the whole
people of America, assembled in their “conventions,” after eleven
years as free men, voluntarily relinquished that status to become, as
the whole people of America, “subjects” of the same legislative
governments who are one of the supposed donees of the absurd
and imaginary grant. This remarkable fact follows as the logical
conclusion of the concept that the “conventions” granted to the
“conventions” and to the state governments, with Congress to
determine which shall exercise it, the very omnipotent power which
the people themselves (the supposed grantors) were then exercising
in their “conventions” and which eleven years before they had denied
to the British Parliament. When we later realize that none of our
modern leaders saw either absurd fact to be the certain result of the
concept that the Fifth Article is a grant, we average Americans ought
certainly to be convinced that, if we wish to keep our individual rights
in any matter, it is going to be necessary for us to understand for
ourselves how our Constitution secures those rights to us.
Forewarned of such necessity, we return with renewed interest to
the examination of the record of the day on which it is assumed that
Madison suggested that the Fifth Article should be changed into a
“grant” and then proposed to the American people, so that they
might voluntarily relinquish their status as free men and become
“subjects” of a government with omnipotent ability to legislate in
restraint of their individual freedom “in all matters whatsoever.” It
ought not to detract from our amusement that this remarkable
proposal of such a “grant” (as our modern leaders see it) was to go
to the American people in each state and there be approved by that
people with the knowledge that the people in that particular state, on
the occasion of a future proposal, might not elect a single member of
the legislative governments who would exercise that omnipotent
power over their every individual right.
Our amusement is not lessened when we find that the supposed
“grant” was suggested by Madison and seconded by Hamilton. The
Philadelphia Convention was being held in the America which had
just emerged from an eight year Revolution to establish the doctrine
that no government could be omnipotent in its ability to interfere with
individual freedom. The Convention itself had devoted three months
and ten days, before the day in question, to bitter dispute about
giving even enumerated powers of that kind to the American
government mentioned in the First Article. It is therefore, with great
amusement but with serious intent never to forget, that we note that
not a single voice was raised in the Convention either to uphold or to
protest this supposed and absurd “grant” of omnipotence to an
entirely different government. On the contrary, as we note with intent
never to forget, the newly worded Article was treated by the
Convention as if every important matter in it had been settled before
the state governments were even mentioned in it as makers of the
kind of Articles which they already had the power to make, federal
Articles. As soon as the newly worded Article had been suggested
by Madison and Hamilton, the Article which Madison himself
describes as a constitutional mode for the exercise of existing
abilities to make Articles, only one change (utterly unimportant now)
was suggested in the new wording. This was the suggestion that the
Article should not provide a constitutional mode in which existing
ability to interfere with slavery could be constitutionally exercised
prior to the year 1808. This change was immediately made by the
Convention. Then, without the slightest objection to any other part of
the supposed absurd “grant,” the Convention approved the newly
worded Article.
From the absence of one word of protest we quite clearly realize
that no man in that Convention so misconstrued the simple
statement of Madison’s Fifth Article as to read into it an imaginary
“grant” of any ability whatever to the state legislative governments.
We realize that these men, who were accurate thinkers, knew that
the “conventions” named in this Madison Article were exactly the
same “conventions” which Philadelphia had already named in what
we know now as the Seventh Article. We realize that they knew at
once, when Madison proposed his Article, that the “conventions”
named in it, like the same “conventions” named in the Seventh, were
“We, the people” of America, named in the Preamble. And, from a
moment’s reflection, we are aware that the delegates at Philadelphia
immediately knew that Madison was not making the absurd
suggestion that the American people, the “conventions” of the
Seventh and Madison’s new Article, should grant, in the very
“conventions” of the Seventh, to themselves, anything whatever of
power, either all or part of the power which they would be then
exercising in those “conventions.” From which it follows, as the night
the day, that the delegates also knew that if Madison’s Article was
not a grant by the “conventions” to the “conventions,” it was not a
grant to the “legislatures.” For which reason we will not dwell at all
upon the obvious fact that there is not the slightest suggestion of a
word of grant in the Fifth Article.
Before emphasizing the absurdity of the thought that the
Americans at Philadelphia ever intended the plain statement of the
Fifth Article to be a “grant” of power of any kind, it seems proper that
we should grasp at once what it clearly was understood by them to
be. Their understanding and knowledge of its meaning become very
clear to us, when we read it, as they heard it from Madison, fresh
from their great debate as to the grant of enumerated powers in their
First Article and their proposal of a ratification by “conventions” as
the only valid mode of ratification for an Article which grants power to
interfere with human freedom. We recall now that, when Madison
suggested his Fifth Article to them, on September 10, the echoes
were still ringing of the sound statements of Madison and others that
Philadelphia must propose a mode of ratification by the people or
“conventions” because legislatures never could be competent, in
America, to make Articles which did constitute government by
granting power to interfere with human freedom. When we read
Madison’s Fifth Article, with the same statements still fresh in our
minds, we realize at once how the delegates at Philadelphia
recognized, in the Madison Article, the meaning of every reference to
the duties imposed upon, not the powers granted therein, to
Congress. The delegates had met at Philadelphia with purpose and
intent to draft and propose constitutional Articles in their judgment
best designed to secure human liberty to Americans, and then, after
they had drafted their Articles and knew the nature of such Articles,
whether national or federal, to propose a mode of ratification in
which their proposed Articles would be made by those competent to
make them.
When September 10 had come they had finished their work of
drafting their Article, which constituted government, the First Article.
For the purpose of reaching their decision as to the valid mode of
ratification for an Article of that kind, they had considered and
discussed the existing unlimited ability of the “people” or
“conventions” to make all Articles, and the existing limited ability of
the state legislatures to make some. The unerring decision which
they had made was that their Articles would not be validly made,
because the First Article constituted national government of men,
unless they proposed a mode of ratification by the “conventions” of
the American people.
We note, with intent to remember, that they were well aware that
drafting and proposing an Article did not make it valid or part of a
Constitution and that proposing a mode of ratification did not make it
a valid mode, unless the ratifiers were competent to make the
proposed Article. We recall that Wilson, who appears in the brief
record of September 10, later made clear the knowledge of those at
Philadelphia that their proposal of Articles and their proposal of a
mode of ratification could not make either valid, that the making of a
proposal is not the exercise of any power.
In the Pennsylvania convention he said: “I come now to consider
the last set of objections that are offered against this Constitution. It
is urged that this is not such a system as was within the powers of
the Convention; they assumed the power of proposing.... I never
heard, before, that to make a proposal was an exercise of power....
The fact is, they have exercised no power at all; and, in point of
validity, this Constitution, proposed by them for the government of
the United States, claims no more than a production of the same
nature would claim, flowing from a private pen.” (2 Ell. Deb. 469-
470.)
Now, if Wilson and the other delegates at Philadelphia, on
September 10, knew that to make a proposal was no exercise of
power, they clearly understood that Madison’s Fifth Article, when it
stated that Congress might propose an Amendment and Congress
might propose a mode of ratification, was an Article which purported
to grant no power to Congress. If we recall the truth, which Madison
so often expressed, that it is the privilege of any citizen or body of
citizens to propose that existing power be exercised, we realize that,
if the Fifth Article had not mentioned Congress as the maker of either
proposal, Congress would still have had full ability to make either or
both proposals at any time. As the delegates at Philadelphia knew
this as well as we now know it, as we have been helped to our
appreciation of it by them and their statements, it is apparent how
instantly they knew that the mention of Congress, as the proposer of
an Amendment and as the proposer of its mode of ratification, meant
that Congress alone was to be left with—not given—the duty which
they had assumed themselves to perform at Philadelphia. That duty,
as they knew and we now know, was to draft a proposed Article and,
after it had been worded, to examine it and its nature and (with the
validity of their ultimate proposal absolutely determined by that
nature) then to propose the Article and a mode of ratification for it
which would mean ratification by those competent to ratify an Article
of its particular kind. In other words, they knew that, whenever
Congress performed the duty they had just performed themselves,
after an Article had been drafted, it would be legally necessary for
Congress, as it had been for them at Philadelphia, to consider the
existing and different abilities of the “people” or “conventions” and
the state legislatures to make Articles, and from that consideration to
ascertain a competent ratifier for the particular Article they had
drafted and, the validity of the ratification to depend entirely on the
accuracy of their ascertainment and not on their own proposal of
ratification, to propose a mode of ratification in which that Article
would be made by those competent to make it. With the meaning
and effect of a “proposal” so clearly known to them all, with their own
immediate recent experience in the performance of the very duty
which Madison’s Fifth Article left the duty of Congress in the future, it
was a simple matter for these delegates at Philadelphia to know
exactly what was the only possible meaning of Madison’s words,
when the same “shall have been ratified by three fourths at least of
the legislatures of the several states, or by conventions in three
fourths thereof, as one or the other mode of ratification may be
proposed by the legislature of the U. S.”
How accurately Madison himself knew all this, how accurately he
knew that the Philadelphia proposal would validate neither proposed
Articles nor proposed mode of ratification, and that Congress
proposal in the future would never validate either proposed Article or
proposed mode of ratification, he has not left to speculation.
It was the charge of the opponents of the proposed Constitution
that the Philadelphia Convention had exceeded its powers in
proposing those Articles. Madison defended himself and his
Philadelphia associates in The Federalist, Number 40, published in
the New York Packet on Friday, January 18, 1788. With his logical
mind, he echoed the knowledge of Wilson and his other colleagues,
who had drafted and proposed the Articles and proposed their
ratification by the “people” or “conventions” of the Seventh and the
Fifth Articles. It was his knowledge, as it was their knowledge, that
the Philadelphia proposals were, as the future Congress proposals
would be, no exercise of power and that the validity of any Article,
proposed at Philadelphia or proposed by Congress, must always
depend, not merely upon its being ratified in the mode proposed
respectively by Philadelphia or by Congress, but also—and
immeasurably the most important test of valid ratification—upon its
being ratified by ratifiers competent to make the particular Article.
It was his knowledge, as it was their knowledge, as it is now our
knowledge, that if a proposed Article directly interfere with or grant
power to interfere with human freedom, as the First Article, or the
Eighteenth Amendment, it can never be validly made by government
but only by the “people” of the Tenth Amendment; the “conventions”
of the “Seventh” and “Fifth” Articles.
Among other things, in his defense of himself and his Philadelphia
associates, this is what Madison said of them: “They must have
reflected, that in all great changes of established governments,
forms ought to give way to substance; that a rigid adherence in such
cases to the former would render nominal and nugatory the
transcendent and precious right of the people to ‘abolish or alter their
governments as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety
and happiness,’ since it is impossible for the people spontaneously
and universally to move in concert towards their object; and it is
therefore essential that such changes be instituted by some informal
and unauthorized propositions made by some patriotic and
respectable citizen or number of citizens. They must have
recollected that it was by this irregular and assumed privilege of
proposing to the people plans for their safety and happiness that the
states were first united against the danger with which they were
threatened by their ancient government; that committees and
congresses were formed for concentrating their efforts and
defending their rights; and that conventions were elected in the
several states for establishing the constitutions under which they are
now governed;... They must have borne in mind that as the plan to
be framed and proposed was to be submitted to the people
themselves, the disapprobation of the supreme authority would
destroy it forever; its approbation blot out antecedent errors and
irregularities.”
And so we come from that September 10, 1787, with the accurate
knowledge that Madison then proposed and Hamilton seconded and
all the delegates adopted the first amending Article which ever
mentioned the state governments as makers of any future
Amendments. And we know that they did so with the unmistakable
intent and understanding that it changed not at all the existing
inability of any governments in America to create, for themselves or
for other governments, any national power to interfere with the
citizens of America in the exercise of their human freedom. And we
also come from that record with the certain knowledge that the
Madison Fifth Article of September 10 merely provided that, when
future Articles were suggested, the Congress should play the part
which the Philadelphia Convention was playing, which part involved
no exercise of power of any kind, and that such part of Congress
should consist in merely proposing an Article and proposing its mode
of ratification. And we also come from that day with the equally
certain knowledge, which we do not intend to forget, that Madison
himself knew clearly that the valid ratification of future Articles would
depend, as he knew the valid ratification of the Philadelphia Articles
did depend, not on the fact that ratification was in the mode
proposed but on the fact that the proposer of a mode of ratification
should propose a mode in which the proposed Article could be made
by those competent to make an Article of its particular kind.
For these reasons, if the supporters of the Eighteenth Amendment
expect us, now educated with those earlier Americans up to and
including the record of September 10, 1787, to believe that the
Madison Fifth Article, first worded on that day, purported to grant or
was understood and intended by Madison and his colleagues to
grant any power to the state legislative governments in America over
ourselves, the citizens of America, we shall hereafter listen, with
naught but amusement, to these amateur “constitutional” thinkers
and their effort to change legal fact into fiction by assumption.
Confirmed by our education with Madison and the others who had all
to do with the wording and the making of that Fifth Article of
September 10, 1787, we recognize, even if these “constitutional”
thinkers do not recognize, that we ourselves are the “conventions” of
the Fifth Article in which sit the American people to exercise their
exclusive ability to grant to government any power to interfere with
their individual freedom. We have now, even if these “constitutional”
thinkers never have had, the knowledge of the legal necessity that
power of that kind must be derived from ourselves, the “people” of
the Tenth Amendment and the “conventions” of the Seventh and the
Fifth Articles—the necessity in 1787 “felt and acknowledged by all.”
We know, as Marshall knew in one of those “conventions” of 1788
and as he knew and stated on the Bench of the Supreme Court, that
there is but one way in which we, the citizens of America, can act
safely or effectively or wisely on the subject of new interference with
our individual freedom, by assembling in our “conventions,” the
“conventions” of the Fifth as well as the Seventh Article.
And so, with our knowledge and certainty that the Madison Fifth
Article of September 10 never could change the status of the free
American into that of the subject of an omnipotent government, we
come to the last business day of the Philadelphia Convention,
September 15, the only other day on which the Madison Fifth Article,
with its mention of legislative ability to make federal Articles but not
national Articles, was ever considered at Philadelphia.
On that day the Committee of Style reported the seven Articles
which we now know as our Constitution. The Madison amending
Article, except that “the legislature of the U. S.” was called “the
Congress,” was identical with that of September 10. As it is important
that we Americans shall never be told anything about the record of
September 10 or September 15, in relation to this Madison Fifth
Article, which is not something that is in the record, that we may be
given no distorted version of what happened in that Convention
about the only Article which ever mentioned state “legislatures” as
makers of some future Articles, we shall have again the pleasure of
reading the entire record of September 15. Again we read it from the
brief of the great “constitutional” lawyer of 1920 who argued on the
assumption that this Article, worded by Madison, was intended to
make us and did make us, the citizens of America, the subjects of an
omnipotent government, composed mostly of the client governments
whom he represented in the Court Room of 1920. This is his record
of the full story of September 15 in relation to the Fifth Article of
Madison, from which record this “constitutional” lawyer and his
associates hope to derive—how we know not—some support for this
belief and this argument.
“Mr. Sherman expressed his fears that three fourths of the States
might be brought to do things fatal to particular States, as abolishing
them altogether or depriving them of their equality in the Senate. He
thought it reasonable that the proviso in favor of the States importing
slaves should be extended so as to provide that no State should be
affected in its internal police, or deprived of its equality in the Senate.
“Col. Mason thought the plan of amending the Constitution
exceptionable and dangerous. As the proposing of amendments is in
both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, and in the
second, ultimately, on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind
would ever be obtained by the people, if the government should
become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.
“Mr. Govr. Morris & Mr. Gerry moved to amend the article so as to
require a Convention on application of two thirds of the Sts.
“Mr. Madison did not see why Congress would not be as much
bound to propose amendments applied for by two thirds of the
States as to call a Convention on the like application. He saw no
objection however against providing for a Convention for the purpose
of amendments, except only that difficulties might arise as to the
form, the quorum etc. which in Constitutional regulations ought to be
as much as possible avoided.
“The motion of Mr. Govr. Morris and Mr. Gerry was agreed to nem:
con (see: the first part of the article as finally past)
“Mr. Sherman moved to strike out of art. V. after ‘legislatures’ the
words ‘of three fourths’ and so after the word ‘Conventions’ leaving
future Conventions to act in this matter, like the present Conventions
according to circumstances.
“On this motion
 “N.H. divd. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N.J. ay. Pa. no. Del. no. Md. no. Va.
no. N.C. no. S.C. no. Geo. no. (Ayes—3; noes—7; divided—1.)
“Mr. Gerry moved to strike out the words ‘or by Conventions in
three fourths thereof’
“On this motion
“N.H. no. Mas. no. Ct. ay. N.J. no. Pa. no. Del. no. Md. no. Va. no.
N.C. no. S.C. no. Geo. no. (Ayes—1; noes—10.)
“Mr. Sherman moved according to his idea above expressed to
annex to the end of the article a further proviso ‘that no State shall
without its consent be affected in its internal police, or deprived of its
equal suffrage in the Senate’
“Mr. Madison Begin with these special provisos, and every State
will insist on them, for their boundaries, exports, etc.
“On the motion of Mr. Sherman
“N.H. no. Mas. no. Ct. ay. N.J. ay. Pa. no. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. no.
N.C. no. S.C. no. Geo. no. (Ayes—3; noes—8.)
“Mr. Sherman then moved to strike out art. V. altogether
“Mr. Brearley 2ded the motion, on which
“N.H. no. Mas. no. Ct. ay. N.J. ay. Pa. no. Del. divd. Md. no. Va.
no. N.C. no. S.C. no. Geo. no. (Ayes—2; noes—8; divided—1.)
“Mr. Govr. Morris moved to annex a further proviso—‘that no State,
without its consent shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the
Senate’
“This motion being dictated by the circulating murmurs of the small
States was agreed to without debate, no one opposing it, or on the
question, saying no.”
11 Farrand 629-631.
At once we notice with interest that these men, renowned as the
marvelous leaders of a people better acquainted with the science of
government than any other people in the world, men who have spent
three entire months and fifteen days in their wonderful effort to frame
a constitution which will secure “the Blessings of Liberty” to all
American individuals and their posterity, still have no knowledge
whatever, the weird and marvelous knowledge of 1917 and 1920,
that this Madison Fifth Article gives to the state governments the
very omnipotence which the American people, by a successful
Revolution, had just wrested from the British Parliament. We note
with interest Mason’s objection to the Madison “mode of procedure”
in which may thereafter be exercised the limited ability of these very
state governments to make federal Articles and the unlimited ability
of the people or conventions to make national Articles. Mason’s
objection, having direct reference to the grant of national powers in
the First Article and his fear (the continued and expressed fear for
the next two years in the “conventions” of the Seventh and the Fifth
Articles) that the people may find these enumerated powers
oppressive, is that, if the people do find them oppressive, Congress,
which has these powers, will never propose an Amendment to take
any of these powers away from Congress. For which reason Morris
and Gerry moved to amend the Article so that, if Congress does not
propose an Amendment for which there seems to be a demand, the
legislatures of two thirds of the states may insist that Congress call a
convention and that such convention may propose an Amendment.
This suggestion was carried.
We next find Sherman moving to strike out the words “three
fourths” after the word “legislatures” and after the word
“conventions.” This motion was defeated. We next find, and we fix
firmly in our mind with intent never to forget, that Gerry moved to
strike out of Madison’s Article all reference to the “people” of the
Preamble and the Tenth Amendment, the “conventions” of the
Seventh and the Fifth Article, as the makers of any future Articles or
changes in the Constitution. His motion was “to strike out the words
‘or by conventions in three fourths thereof.’”
As almost every one, during the last five years, including the
sponsor of the Eighteenth Amendment in the House of
Representatives, seems to have had an edition of our Constitution,
in which the Fifth Article does not contain these words, and as
everyone, during the same five years, has argued and acted as if
these words were not in the Fifth Article or have no meaning
whatever of the slightest importance, we intend to note and never
forget that Gerry’s motion to strike these words out was beaten by a
vote of ten to one.
As we know, the “people” of America themselves are identified by
the word “conventions” in this Fifth Article, just as they are identified
by the same word in the Seventh Article. As we know, we ourselves
—the posterity of the “people” of the Preamble—are identified by this
word “conventions” in the Fifth Article, just as we are identified in the
Tenth Amendment as the most important reservee thereof by the
word “people.” Wherefore our interest in this motion of Gerry and its
overwhelming defeat is only exceeded by our absolute amazement,
for the last five years, at the universal ignorance of the fact that it
was defeated and of the fact that we are mentioned in the Fifth
Article as the only competent makers of any new Articles which
either directly interfere or grant power to interfere with our individual
freedom.
We do not know, and to an extent we do not care, what was the
purpose of Gerry. Gerry was always an opponent of a Constitution
which vested national power in a general government. He was an
advocate of the continued complete independence of each state and
its government and of a mere federal union of states with a purely
federal constitution. He was also always a consistent Tory in his
mental attitude as to the relation of human being to government. If
he had been successful in striking out any mention of ourselves, the
“people” or “conventions,” leaving only the mention of the state
legislatures, with their existing ability to make federal Articles, it
would have been impossible that any further national power (beyond
the grants of the First Article) be vested in the general government or
taken from each state government, as only we ourselves could make
national Articles like the First. We surmise that a mixture of his Tory
mental attitude and his opposition to a general national government
(which minimized the importance and diminished the independent
sovereignty of each state government) prompted his motion. That his
motion was overwhelmingly defeated is the only important fact for us
American citizens. We shall not forget it even if our leaders and our
“constitutional” thinkers forget it and ignore it.
We have no further interest in the short record of that September
15. No other change was made in the Madison Fifth Article except to
take out of it any constitutional mode of procedure for the exercise of
the existing ability of ourselves, the “people” or “conventions,” to
deprive any state of an equal representation in the Senate with every
other state. We still can do that, but we have no constitutional mode
of procedure under the Fifth Article by which we can exercise our
ability to do it. This change was not, however, as so many have
absurdly thought, an exception to an imaginary power which we
ourselves, the “conventions” of the Seventh Article and the “people”
of the Preamble and the Tenth Amendment, in those very
“conventions,” “granted” to ourselves, the same “people” and
“conventions” mentioned in the Fifth Article. It was a recognition of
our existing ability, about to be exercised in those “conventions,” the
ability of the supreme will in America to deprive any state of its equal
representation in the Senate; and it was our own exclusion of that
ability from any constitutional exercise. The reflecting mind will
remember that, in the heated arguments at Philadelphia, there was
strong sentiment in favor of asking us, the people of America, the
“conventions” of the Seventh Article, to exercise our exclusive ability
in that very respect and make the Senate a body composed of
members elected from larger proportions of the people than the
members of the House of Representatives. It was the recollection of
that effort which prompted the request that our exclusive ability to do
that very thing should not be provided with a constitutional mode of
future exercise.
We average Americans may now leave, in our present education,
the entire story of that wonderful Convention at Philadelphia. We
leave it with a knowledge of our Constitution we never had until we
had lived with those Americans through the actual record of those
three months and seventeen days from the end of May to September
17, 1787. We bring from it a knowledge that brooks no contradiction.
We are certain that nothing in any of the Articles proposed at
Philadelphia purported to give the state legislatures any power of
any kind whatever, in the Fifth Article or anywhere else, either to
interfere with the individual freedom of the American citizen or to
grant the power of such interference to themselves or to our only
government, the Congress. We bring from that Convention the
knowledge that, unless something in the conventions of the
American people, the “conventions” of the Seventh Article and the
Fifth Article, changed the free men of America, the citizens of
America, into subjects of an omnipotent legislative government, we
ourselves in 1923 are still the citizens of America and possessors of
the supreme will in America and are subjects of no government or
governments in the world.
 CHAPTER XI
CONVENTIONS CREATE GOVERNMENT OF MEN

The Constitution is a written instrument. As such its

meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted it
means now. Being a grant of powers to a government its
language is general.... While the powers granted do not
change, they apply from generation to generation to all things
to which they are in their nature applicable. This in no manner
abridges the fact of its changeless nature and meaning.
Those things which are within its grant of power, as those
grants were understood when made, are still within them, and
those things not within them remain still excluded. (Justice
Brewer, in the Supreme Court, South Carolina v. United
States, 199 U. S. 437, at p. 448.)
It is not only the same in words, but the same in meaning,
and delegates the same powers to the government, and
reserves and secures the same rights and privileges to the
citizen; and as long as it continues to exist in its present form,
it speaks not only in the same words; but with the same
meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the
hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted by the
people of the United States. (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393,
p. 426.)
From which common sense statements of what always has been
both reason and law, we know that whatever the Fifth Article meant
to those who made it, in the conventions named in it as well as in the
Seventh Article, it means today. There is no better way in which we
can grasp its meaning to the American people assembled in those
conventions, than by sitting with them and reading it as they read it,
with their fresh knowledge of all the wonderful things in which they
had participated from the Statute of ’76 to the proposal from