[CO] More flexibilty for Machine / Lamination combinaison

[BonneelP]

Hello all,

We would like to simulate a MachineIPMSM with a LamSlotMulti (+ winding) on the stator. The issue is that for now the Machine class definition is strict: MachineIPMSM needs a LamSlotWind as a stator. So the question would be how should we add more flexibility to this ? For now I see two options:

• Change the stator type to Lamination, add "has_slot", "has_winding" as Lamination daughters methods, and check that the lamination fits the machine needs in MachineIPMSM.check. Anyway the GUI will always provide the correct lamination types.
• Update the class generator to allow several kind of object as type for instance (LamSlotWind, LamSlotMultiWind) after all the type check is a class generator constraint not a python one.

On a side note, we should maybe take the opportunity to consider that we may want to alter the "normal" behaviour of the machine to check some effect on simpler structure. Yes I'm thinking about Slotless_CEFC.json (used in Tests/Validation/Magnetics/test_FEMM_slotless.py) which should have a Lamination object as a stator but we use a stator with Zs=0 and a winding without conductor to "convert LamSlotWind to Lamination" which is not really clean. Then solution one would be better in this case.

We can also consider that LamSlotMag was reorganized in #283 from list of magnet to a single magnet and that the list version will be added back one day (I realize that we could have LamSlotMagMulti and LamSlotMultiMag as two different kind of Lamination).

I'm sure that we already talk about this topic but I can't find the corresponding issue / discussion :/ Any feedback or insight on which solution to choose (or maybe a third solution) would be welcomed :)

Best regards, Pierre

[BonneelP]

mostly solved in #399 I close the issue for now but some aspect of this issue may need further investigation later on.