Norman T300

I've just bought a Norman T300 generator thing. I've not collected it yet, so my information is limited, but I thought I might as well start researching.
There's a plate on it saying: "Lyon Norman  TE  2720" " Arthur Lyon & Co London"

I'm told that it runs, but the flange where the air intake attaches is broken. I don't know how much fun that will be to repair.
The generator has some kind of big brass four way plug on it, marked AY+, YZ+, A- and N. Don't know what that's about. I'd guess at some kind of three phase, except it looks like a DC dynamo rather than an AC alternator.

Looks a nice Mk1 set. Hopefully a resident Norman expert will be along at some point. (Bluecat)

It will be DC with a feed for the field windings and I expect the plug is a military style plug.

StuartTurnerSteve wrote:It will be DC with a feed for the field windings and I expect the plug is a military style plug.

That would tie in with the theory it is from the D-Day air drop order mentioned in this article. It certainly looks the same as the one in the picture, though taken out of the frame.

TE2720 will date to 1941 or 1942. Looks like a standard 35volt DC charging set for charging 24 volt batteries.

This date is much earlier than D-Day (June 1944), so probably not an air-drop set. These sets were made throughout WW2 as a standard battery charging set.

Well I have finally made it down to collect the engine.
Managed to start it, despite the air intake being broken off, meaning there is no choke.
Seems to run nicely, and surprisingly quiet, given that the exhaust is missing.
Next problem is to work out the wiring for the generator, and see if it will make electrikery...
There's four terminals, presumably two for the field winding and two for the rotor, but which is which and how to connect them up?

Yes, two terminals for the field winding, and two terminals for the armature is correct, DC dynamo.

One of the field winding terminals will be connected to the armature.

The other field winding terminal will be connected to a regulator (a large variable resistance). and then back to the other armature terminal.

This enables control of the voltage/current in the field winding, and hence control of the power generated through the armature. However, you need to get the polarity right for this to work.

Unfortunately, I have never found a wiring diagram for the DC dynamo used on the Norman sets, so you will have to figure out how this all works in practice on your particular unit.

Maybe there are some electrically minded members on here who can help with this.

blue cat wrote:However, you need to get the polarity right for this to work.

Well the terminals are labelled "A-", "YZ+" and "N", "AY+". Apart from "+" and "-", I have no idea what they're supposed to denote.



My guess is the armature is the pair with the lower resistance, and for the polarity connect the two "+" terminals at one end, and the other two at the other.
One end or the other needs to be regulated somehow, but I'm not sure if it matters which.

I've been trying to think what is the worst that can happen if my guess is wrong and I wire the polarity the wrong way...
I think it simply won't work and I can't imagine how it might cause catastrophic failure, but it's dark and wet, so it's waiting for tomorrow in any case.

First you need to work out where these terminals go to in the dynamo.

blue cat wrote:First you need to work out where these terminals go to in the dynamo.

I think we've established that two go to the field windings and two go to the armature.
More current will flow through the armature, so that'll be the one with the lower resistance.

Well that worked.
It was a bit strange, it sat there producing only a couple of volts for a bit. After a bit of fiddling about it started giving a fairly steady 5-6 volts, whereupon I decided to see if it would light a bulb, which it did, but only dimly, and dropped the volts to 2.
Then it suddenly beeped like a horn, the bulb glowed bright and the meter went off the scale.
After which it started giving the kind of voltage we might expect.

So I suppose the next jobs are to make up some kind of exhaust and work out a way to fix the air inlet: the bolt-holes are broken off.
I'll try to get a picture tomorrow...

So this is the hardest problem: nothing to bolt the inlet manifold to.



One thought is that if epoxy putty is good enough to fix the reactor in a nuclear submarine, then it's probably good enough for this, but somehow I don't find that entirely convincing...

I was thinking of this for the various damaged parts on my T300 but haven't tried yet so can't vouch for it.

https://www.aluminiumrepair.co.uk/

Woodsman wrote:I was thinking of this for the various damaged parts on my T300 but haven't tried yet so can't vouch for it.

https://www.aluminiumrepair.co.uk/

I've tried something similar with limited success... Was it "Lumweld"? Something like that.
This one claims to be "Next generation", so maybe they have improved things.
It's one of those tricky problems where it clearly wants a bit of practice before trying on something critical, but the rods are dear enough that you don't want to waste too many by practising...

Hairyloon wrote:So this is the hardest problem: nothing to bolt the inlet manifold to.


.

And unfortunately it's a very hard part to find ......

I always wondered if it would be possible to insert a tube into both parts to join them together ????

blue cat wrote:And unfortunately it's a very hard part to find ......

I expect that it is. Probably the answer is to build up new metal, as Woodman suggests, it's just a matter of balancing the bravery with the skill...

I always wondered if it would be possible to insert a tube into both parts to join them together ????

I can't picture what you mean by that, could you do a sketch?

Just a thought.
Using the inlet flange as a template, could you make a matching piece from some sheet aluminium and then just use the HTS 2000 to 'braze' it to the broken carb' flange?

Woodsman wrote:Just a thought.
Using the inlet flange as a template, could you make a matching piece from some sheet aluminium and then just use the HTS 2000 to 'braze' it to the broken carb' flange?

We were having a similar thought, except we were thinking to tap some holes into the carb and bolt it on with countersunk bolts.
OTOH, we are in Cornwall: could take the traditional route and tie it on with bailer twine...

https://www.frost.co.uk/lumiweld-kit-10-rods/

This even mentions 'broken carb flanges'. The sleeving/new flange ideas might still be good as 'belt and braces' approach.

mattblack wrote:https://www.frost.co.uk/lumiweld-kit-10-rods/

This even mentions 'broken carb flanges'. The sleeving/new flange ideas might still be good as 'belt and braces' approach.

It would be good to see a head to head test of this vs the HTS2000: they're clearly much the same thing.
HTS2000 claims to be "Second generation", where Lumiweld has been around for decades...

ETA: I see that Frost sell both... HTS2000 are twice the price, but:

Frost wrote:This second-generation rod gives a stronger join and is simpler to use. It also easily penetrates past impurities that lay below the metal’s surface, which may be impossible to penetrate with previous rods.

Also unlike the first generation rods it does not require steel or special cleaning brushes.

Hairyloon wrote:

blue cat wrote: I always wondered if it would be possible to insert a tube into both parts to join them together ????

I can't picture what you mean by that, could you do a sketch?

Simply a short internal tube of the right diameter to fit both parts, and then glue/screw together. Might be slightly better (or not) than baler twine

blue cat wrote:

Hairyloon wrote:

blue cat wrote: I always wondered if it would be possible to insert a tube into both parts to join them together ????

I can't picture what you mean by that, could you do a sketch?

Simply a short internal tube of the right diameter to fit both parts, and then glue/screw together.

Ah, that makes sense.

Might be slightly better (or not) than baler twine

Clearly you're not Cornish. Nothing is better than bailer twine.

Meanwhile, I've dismantled the rig. Mainly because I've got to move it and it's just too damned heavy, but partly because I'd come to the opinion that the trolley it is on is not original and it was adding a lot of weight...
I got that wrong: it's quite lightweight, and if it isn't original, it's a remarkably good fit: both the engine and generator sit on plinths cast into the platform. Not as I first thought.

At least I can get the engine on the bench now, and have some chance of fixing that broken flange.

bailer twine... I think it's known as 'farm band' up here in the frozen north.

Hairyloon wrote:Meanwhile, I've dismantled the rig. Mainly because I've got to move it and it's just too damned heavy, but partly because I'd come to the opinion that the trolley it is on is not original and it was adding a lot of weight...
I got that wrong: it's quite lightweight, and if it isn't original, it's a remarkably good fit: both the engine and generator sit on plinths cast into the platform. Not as I first thought.

At least I can get the engine on the bench now, and have some chance of fixing that broken flange.

The flat plate your engine is on is original. There would have been a dynamo at the other end.
The wheels are not original, it never had any, meant to be carried by four strong men using poles through the frame (see your other pic of a complete set).

blue cat wrote:The flat plate your engine is on is original. There would have been a dynamo at the other end.

There is a dynamo at the other end. I called it a generator. If we want to be pedantic, in my book "Generator" covers both dynamos and alternators.
But by gum, this one is heavy: I think it weighs more on its own than the complete Villiers generator set.
I hope they found something lighter for the parachute drop version?

The wheels are not original, it never had any, meant to be carried by four strong men using poles through the frame (see your other pic of a complete set).

Ah, I see it now. That makes sense, thank you.