I may have misunderstood, but I thought you were saying that there could not have been an change in impedance via the mechanism described for an impedance protected motor because you had not observed a change in current.
My apologies - I can only assume I allowed myself to be misled by the 9 posts you made concerning current prior to that one of Bernard's.Many possibilities have been discussed in this thread, but my most recent comments were in response to bernard's suggestion about "a solid state self resetting fuse that disconnects one of the windings".
That sounds credible - although I would be surprised that it could generate appreciable torque if there were only a 'minimal' counter-emf.My guess ... The motor is designed such that the back-emf when running is minimal - fairly weak field and rotor interaction - since the motor is expressly designed to stall. Thus explaining why there's naff all change when it does stall.
That might make sense, were it based on a correct premise, but ... the motor draws about 4 times less current than would be the case if the DC resistance were the only load. At first sight, that suggests that the majority of the impedance is reactive, but that explanation goes rather wrong when one notes the near-unity PF!As to why it draws more current than the measured resistance indicates - don't forget that there's a shorted turn (shaded pole) which will dissipate power when AC is applied, but not show up with a DC measurement.
If anybody's still interested, there's a forum CR4 I get on, with an electrical section, so I posted the question there. ....
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local