Hello everyone,

Today I purchased an old milkshake maker(??) from an antique store. I think it's a beautiful piece and perfect for my first restoration project.

However, the plate with the power specifications contains information that I don't quite understand. Please see the picture below:

1. It says "HP 1/95" and is estimated to be about 7W, but isn't that too low? There may be a dot between the '9' and '5' making it 1/9.5 which would be 77W, but this way of presenting the information seems a bit strange.
2. What does the marking "CY" mean? It reads '0-60'
3. The plate says "amps 32" or possibly ".32" - 32 amps would be way too much, and 0.32 amps wouldn't make 77W when multiplied by 115V.

Does anyone know what's going on?

The company name is Signal Electric - Menominee from Michigan. I did some research and this piece is estimated to be between 70 to 100 years old!

Thanks for your help!

 

1/95 of a HP is about 7W.

 

1. 
   
2. What does the marking "CY" mean? It reads '0-60'

I would guess 0-60Hz (Cycles) ? Variable RPM?

 

I would guess 0-60Hz (Cycles) ? Variable RPM?

60Hz makes sense.. It may be that

 

Does it still work?

 

What does the marking "CY" mean? It reads '0-60'

CY means "torque in star",
CΔ means "torque in delta"
-----------------------------
https://static2.weg.net/medias/down...tric-motors-50039409-brochure-english-web.pdf
Page 22.

 

CY means "torque in star",
CΔ means "torque in delta"
-----------------------------
https://static2.weg.net/medias/down...tric-motors-50039409-brochure-english-web.pdf
Page 22.

Surely that would indicate a 3ph motor?
Which I doubt this motor is.
(also 2 wire cord)

 

What I was unable to read off of the data plate was the volts. It might have said 115. What will reveal a lot is the power connector. If it is a standard parallel blade type then it will probably work on our current power supply voltage.
I can see an "RPM" tag but can not read the number. So now the questions:does it turn freely?? Is the power cord in good condition with no damaged areas? DEPENDING ON THE STATED rpm WE CAN GUESS WHICH VARIETY OF MOTOR IT HAS, AND IF THAT MOTOR MAY NEED COMMUTATOR CLEANING OR NOT, and if it might require new brushes.

 

115 V at 0.32 A would be ~36 W. I don't know what the conventions were a century ago. Perhaps that is the max current that it will draw under stall conditions? More likely is that it is the electrical power input at full rated output and the 7 W is the mechanical output power indicating an efficiency of only ~20%. That seems low, but motor efficiency tends to be worse for small motors -- and this was a century ago. So maybe that's about right.

It looks like its rated to turn at 4000 RPM. I don't know if the 0-60 in the CYC means that it can run on anything between DC and 60 Hz. There were numerous places in the U.S. that still used DC power back then, so that's possible that it used a universal motor (and I think these were commonly used for kitchen appliances, among other things).

 

OK And seeing 4000 RPM plus the 0 to 60 Hz, this seems like a (brush and commutator) type UNIVERSAL motor. It may have run with a variable resistor speed control in a separate box, or it may just have been a high speed mixer. Probably an internal clean up will be helpful. They may have listed the maximum load amps, no telling with that.

 

If 4Krpm, then undoubtedly Universal motor.
Also I am assuming back then there were not the rules governing earth grounding of metallic cased appliances,
Note: 2 Wire power cord!
I recall seeing somewhere that N.A. was similar to UK in older installations, where grounded outlets did not exist?

 

The requirement for grounding pin outlets did happen about 1960, although I think that grounded electrical boxes predated that by many years.
Then the requirement for grounding the individual devices independently of the grounded box came along some time later. That requirement does make some sense with plastic, non-conductive, boxes but does not make a lot of sense with grounded metallic boxes.

 

Then the requirement for grounding the individual devices independently of the grounded box came along some time later. That requirement does make some sense with plastic, non-conductive, boxes but does not make a lot of sense with grounded metallic boxes.

OK I'll bite. How does a grounded outlet box protect the user of a corded appliance with no ground wire/plug?

 

OK I'll bite. How does a grounded outlet box protect the user of a corded appliance with no ground wire/plug?

At the time that was not the concern. And at the time I had no part in making the rules, either. And still I have no part in making the rules.So I have no idea as to what the rule makers at the time were thinking. That was quite a while back.
Presently most outlets must have three conductor grounding outlets, tied to a separate green-wire ground, independent of the neutral connection. The intention is that this system should reduce the shock hazard from faulty appliances.
It was so very effective that now we are required to use GFCI (Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter) to disconnect the power when ever a leakage current is detected. That is, any difference in the current between the line feed and the neutral return conductors. This seems to be working as intended, I am not aware of it preventing many electrocutions, though. Maybe somebody is aware of the statistic about that.

 

I am not aware of it preventing many electrocutions, though. Maybe somebody is aware of the statistic about that.

There are many that may go unreported, for e.g, mandatory use in bathrooms where 2 wire portable appliances are used and the possibility of dropping them in a full sink/batch of water.

 

This seems to be working as intended, I am not aware of it preventing many electrocutions, though. Maybe somebody is aware of the statistic about that.

Depends on what "many" is defined as.

While virtually no one is going to file a report with some government agency every time a CGFI in their home trips as a result of them doing something that could have killed them had it not been for the CGFI -- and there's no way of knowing if it actually would have killed them, we can infer a pretty good estimate based on the change, if any, in the annual number of electrocutions from before the change to after the change, though there's always the possibility that the change was, at least in part, due to some other factor or factors that came into play at about the same time. So there's some caveats here.

As best I can find quickly, home electrocutions dropped by about 90% from around 1000 per year to about 100 per year (in the U.S.) after they became required in just a few places, like bathrooms and swimming pools. Given that something like 8,000 people die in the U.S. every day, reducing that number by about 3 is a drop in the bucket. But that's still tens of thousands of lives saved since the first mandates were put into place.

Was it worth it? There is, after all, a cost associated with it and money spent on that isn't available to be spent on something else that might have saved many more lives than that. Don't ask me what, but I'd be willing to bet there are actually a number possible things on that list.

That is even a more relevant question as the requirements for GFCIs has continued to expand to many other locations in the home, such as kitchens, outside receptacles, basements, and crawlspaces. These all add more cost but the potential lives saved is markedly smaller. Even if they managed to prevent 100% off all of the remaining home electrocutions, that's about 100 lives a year, or roughly ten times the cost per life saved. Now it becomes much more likely that that same money, spent elsewhere, could save significantly more lives.

Plus there's the possibility that, by increasing the cost of new construction or renovations that have many other safer features that some people on the margin opt to remain in (or move to) older, less safe residences and some number of these people get killed by something (may have had nothing to due with electricity) that they would have avoided had they been able to afford to move to a more updated home. I have no idea what that number is, but I can pretty safely bet that it is not zero.

 

Hello everyone,

First, thanks all for the responses. From the information I'm receiving, there seems to be nothing to consider while doing the restoration itself. I'm starting to think it's not gonna perform so good.. but I'm gonna find that out at the end anyway.

To give some answers, the cord was a 2 plated ordinary cord. The motor is brushed, and the graphite looks really good, it's like this thing had not been used much.

The cord was really bad, so I cut it out and throw it away. I haven't connected it to power, but the motor turns really easy. I tested the button, and it works just fine!

If 4Krpm, then undoubtedly Universal motor.

The plate says it's a 4k RPM, and from the history of the company I remember reading it used to produce 'small motors' for different application. But what does 'universal' means in this context?

If anyone is interesed, the history of the company is, in part, here:
http://k8ir.com/signal/history.htm
So the motor is probably from 1919

I attached some pictures of the motor. It does look good right? Or I'm missing something?

Thanks again for all the responses

 

universal means it can run on both AC and DC. you can see the windings both on stator and rotor. looks remarkably good, specially brushes and commutator which tend to be first to go...

 

Very interesting indeed!! This should be a useful kitchen item when it is restored, and with a 3-wire cord and the body being grounded it should be quite safe to use. Probably the construction and materials are better than what one could purchase now. My wife has gone through several of those in the past few years is why I mention the quality.
So I wish you success with the restoration.
Possibly post a photo of the completed work. I think that there is a way to post success stories in this site, but I have no idea how it works.

 

That (age) motor undoubtedly had mica separators between the com bars that upon wear would normally need to be undercut, but that com appears to have had very little use.
Now they are wearable separators and do not need this procedure.