Candidate rotor/stator configuration lab
Compare exploratory axial generator geometries with clear separation between model observations, hypotheses, and validation work still required.
Scientific integrity note: Explorer v2.1 is a pre-FEM exploratory screening tool. RTI and related scores are unitless ranking indicators. They are not real torque, not N·m, not efficiency, and not proof of energy gain.
Configuration
Candidate inputs
Controls update the L1 exploratory screening calculations only. FEM-linked controls are planned for a later module.
Rotor / stator
Angular alignment view
Interpretation
Research notes
What we observe
The 20-magnet candidate produces an RTI of 9.35 with 96.2% coverage score and 84.4% phase alignment in this exploratory model.
Why it may matter
20 magnets appears promising in the current exploratory model, but the reason is not yet proven. It may be related to angular coverage, pole spacing, interaction with 12 coils / 3 phases, or bias in the scoring model. FEM simulation is required before drawing engineering conclusions.
What is still unknown
The model does not resolve flux leakage, saturation, winding geometry, thermal behavior, cogging detail, manufacturing tolerance, or measured electrical output.
What must be validated with FEM/prototype
Run FEM field solutions, compare candidate geometries under the same material assumptions, then measure a prototype before treating any ranking as an engineering result.
Metrics
Exploratory values
Relative Torque Index (RTI)
The Relative Torque Index is an exploratory, unitless ranking score. It is not real torque, not N·m, not measured efficiency, and does not validate energy gain. It is only used to compare candidate configurations before FEM and prototype validation.
Validation boundary
Results here are candidate-screening signals. Engineering conclusions require FEM simulation, prototype measurement, and review against the physical build path.
Candidate data
Exploratory model only. Requires FEM and prototype validation. RTI is a unitless ranking score and is not real torque, not N·m, and not measured efficiency.
Sweep
RTI vs magnet count
Sweep
Phase alignment vs magnet count
Sweep
Coverage score vs magnet count
Comparison
Candidate table
Status is a research triage label from the exploratory model, not a validation result.
| Magnets | Coils | Pole pitch | Coverage score | Phase alignment | RTI | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | 12 | 45.0° | 41.5% | 19.4% | 4.73 | Baseline |
| 12 | 12 | 30.0° | 62.3% | 53.9% | 6.60 | Needs validation |
| 16 | 12 | 22.5° | 83.1% | 72.8% | 8.24 | Interesting |
| 20 | 12 | 18.0° | 96.2% | 84.4% | 9.35 | Promising Exploratory only |
| 24 | 12 | 15.0° | 75.4% | 72.0% | 7.89 | Interesting |
| 32 | 12 | 11.3° | 33.9% | 67.0% | 5.72 | Needs validation |