Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #468637 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-15 13:43 -0400 |
| Last post | 2017-07-15 18:14 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 119 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-15 13:43 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-07-15 18:39 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 18:31 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-15 20:09 +0100
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 19:19 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 05:44 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 15:24 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 12:17 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 17:07 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 13:42 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 18:05 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> - 2017-07-21 13:46 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 15:07 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 19:30 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 17:31 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 22:11 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 19:04 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-22 00:22 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 16:13 -0700
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 18:46 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 02:00 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 22:38 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 03:07 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2017-07-16 09:20 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-07-25 03:17 -0700
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-15 21:46 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 02:13 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 05:49 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 15:26 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 12:45 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-21 12:08 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 17:10 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 13:43 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 18:07 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 15:10 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 19:32 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 17:32 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 22:11 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-22 10:51 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 17:55 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 17:58 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-22 18:56 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-22 21:25 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 20:01 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-24 05:35 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-24 08:39 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 20:15 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2017-07-25 11:56 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 20:23 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-26 20:28 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 18:47 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-29 21:18 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-29 23:59 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-31 17:05 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 20:13 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> - 2017-07-17 22:29 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-21 04:18 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 15:29 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-07-15 12:51 -0700
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. kevin93 <kevin@whitedigs.com> - 2017-07-15 13:56 -0700
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 06:22 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-07-21 05:57 -0700
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 13:08 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-15 23:47 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 00:58 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2017-07-16 09:22 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 01:13 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 08:46 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 06:26 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 15:32 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-21 11:09 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-21 21:44 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-21 22:17 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-22 02:16 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2017-07-23 10:33 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-23 16:34 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2017-07-24 12:10 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> - 2017-07-24 05:19 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2017-07-24 12:32 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-24 08:52 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2017-07-24 16:56 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-24 12:02 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2017-07-24 23:51 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> - 2017-07-24 17:16 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2017-07-25 01:12 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> - 2017-07-24 18:25 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2017-07-25 11:54 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-24 17:19 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-24 17:10 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2017-07-24 23:33 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-24 21:02 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 13:12 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 17:25 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 13:45 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 18:08 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-21 18:53 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-22 00:23 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 06:00 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-07-21 06:05 -0700
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-07-21 08:35 -0700
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 13:17 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-07-21 09:48 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 13:30 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2017-07-21 17:30 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 13:34 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> - 2017-07-21 13:08 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-07-15 19:51 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. kevin93 <kevin@whitedigs.com> - 2017-07-15 18:16 -0700
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-07-16 00:47 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-21 06:05 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-07-21 19:36 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2017-07-22 10:39 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-22 12:47 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. edward.ming.lee@gmail.com - 2017-07-23 08:07 -0700
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-26 18:18 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-07-26 18:27 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-22 11:40 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-07-23 14:32 -0500
Question about power capacity of electrical motors. pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-07-15 18:14 -0700
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 02:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7utq3e-ic1.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #468716 |
In sci.physics.electromag krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 18:31:37 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable power >>> to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a typical gasoline >>> engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in its coils therefore >>> being able to carry more current in the same space. If so, then we should be >>> able to produce more power if we have a material that can carry more >>> current. >> >>We have such a material and it is called silver. > > That would make the chop shops happy. Barbers, salad stores or those stripping stolen cars? >>> Carbon nanotubes are such a material. In tests they can carry orders of >>> magnitude more current than ordinary conductors such as copper, aluminum, or >>> gold. The problem is they've only be able to be produced for short lengths, >>> a few centimeters at most. >>> >>> But an interesting research on nanotube-copper composites showed they can >>> carry a 100 times more current than standard copper. So for the same size >>> electric motor we could produce 100 times more power than currently: >>> >>> Posted: Aug 06, 2013 >>> Novel CNT-copper nanocomposite delivers a 100-fold increase in current >>> density >>> http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=31710.php >> >>Current density and power are two different things. >> >>The actual issue is temperature rise because of winding resistance. >> >>> For the Tesla that would not be as major a deal because of the small size of >>> the motor at only about 32 kilos for the Tesla S, a vehicle that weighs >>> thousands of kilos. >>> >>> But that would be major for large scale motors used in other scenarios. >>> These can weigh thousands of kilos, and could then be reduced to only tens >>> of kilos. It would also be especially important for proposed electric >>> aircraft that many groups are working towards. >> >>The problem with electric airplanes is the lack of a power source that is >>comparable to gasoline or jet fuel not the weight of electric motors. > > Props are rather old-school, too. But quit efficient. >>> So is it really true we can increase electric motor power levels simply by >>> using wire of higher current capacity? >> >>No, you need to reduce resistive losses and/or get rid of heat. > > And. And what in regards to electric motors? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 22:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k9klmc9hjqirfgclflgcnks33ilmr7hqv0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #468736 |
On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 02:00:07 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics.electromag krw@notreal.com wrote: >> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 18:31:37 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable power >>>> to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a typical gasoline >>>> engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in its coils therefore >>>> being able to carry more current in the same space. If so, then we should be >>>> able to produce more power if we have a material that can carry more >>>> current. >>> >>>We have such a material and it is called silver. >> >> That would make the chop shops happy. > >Barbers, salad stores or those stripping stolen cars? Guess. >>>> Carbon nanotubes are such a material. In tests they can carry orders of >>>> magnitude more current than ordinary conductors such as copper, aluminum, or >>>> gold. The problem is they've only be able to be produced for short lengths, >>>> a few centimeters at most. >>>> >>>> But an interesting research on nanotube-copper composites showed they can >>>> carry a 100 times more current than standard copper. So for the same size >>>> electric motor we could produce 100 times more power than currently: >>>> >>>> Posted: Aug 06, 2013 >>>> Novel CNT-copper nanocomposite delivers a 100-fold increase in current >>>> density >>>> http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=31710.php >>> >>>Current density and power are two different things. >>> >>>The actual issue is temperature rise because of winding resistance. >>> >>>> For the Tesla that would not be as major a deal because of the small size of >>>> the motor at only about 32 kilos for the Tesla S, a vehicle that weighs >>>> thousands of kilos. >>>> >>>> But that would be major for large scale motors used in other scenarios. >>>> These can weigh thousands of kilos, and could then be reduced to only tens >>>> of kilos. It would also be especially important for proposed electric >>>> aircraft that many groups are working towards. >>> >>>The problem with electric airplanes is the lack of a power source that is >>>comparable to gasoline or jet fuel not the weight of electric motors. >> >> Props are rather old-school, too. > >But quit efficient. Depends on your definition of "efficient". 777s are quite efficient, > >>>> So is it really true we can increase electric motor power levels simply by >>>> using wire of higher current capacity? >>> >>>No, you need to reduce resistive losses and/or get rid of heat. >> >> And. > >And what in regards to electric motors? No OR, dumbshit. *AND*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 03:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3s1r3e-gp1.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #468743 |
In sci.physics.electromag krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 02:00:07 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics.electromag krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 18:31:37 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable power >>>>> to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a typical gasoline >>>>> engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in its coils therefore >>>>> being able to carry more current in the same space. If so, then we should be >>>>> able to produce more power if we have a material that can carry more >>>>> current. >>>> >>>>We have such a material and it is called silver. >>> >>> That would make the chop shops happy. >> >>Barbers, salad stores or those stripping stolen cars? > > Guess. Decline. >>>>> Carbon nanotubes are such a material. In tests they can carry orders of >>>>> magnitude more current than ordinary conductors such as copper, aluminum, or >>>>> gold. The problem is they've only be able to be produced for short lengths, >>>>> a few centimeters at most. >>>>> >>>>> But an interesting research on nanotube-copper composites showed they can >>>>> carry a 100 times more current than standard copper. So for the same size >>>>> electric motor we could produce 100 times more power than currently: >>>>> >>>>> Posted: Aug 06, 2013 >>>>> Novel CNT-copper nanocomposite delivers a 100-fold increase in current >>>>> density >>>>> http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=31710.php >>>> >>>>Current density and power are two different things. >>>> >>>>The actual issue is temperature rise because of winding resistance. >>>> >>>>> For the Tesla that would not be as major a deal because of the small size of >>>>> the motor at only about 32 kilos for the Tesla S, a vehicle that weighs >>>>> thousands of kilos. >>>>> >>>>> But that would be major for large scale motors used in other scenarios. >>>>> These can weigh thousands of kilos, and could then be reduced to only tens >>>>> of kilos. It would also be especially important for proposed electric >>>>> aircraft that many groups are working towards. >>>> >>>>The problem with electric airplanes is the lack of a power source that is >>>>comparable to gasoline or jet fuel not the weight of electric motors. >>> >>> Props are rather old-school, too. >> >>But quit efficient. > > Depends on your definition of "efficient". 777s are quite efficient, So are roller skates. So what? >>>>> So is it really true we can increase electric motor power levels simply by >>>>> using wire of higher current capacity? >>>> >>>>No, you need to reduce resistive losses and/or get rid of heat. >>> >>> And. >> >>And what in regards to electric motors? > > No OR, dumbshit. *AND* Or what in regards to electric motors? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 09:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <596b13e0$0$703$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #468746 |
On 7/16/2017 5:07 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics.electromag krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 02:00:07 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics.electromag krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 18:31:37 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote:
...
..
>>>>>> For the Tesla that would not be as major a deal because of the small size of
>>>>>> the motor at only about 32 kilos for the Tesla S, a vehicle that weighs
>>>>>> thousands of kilos.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that would be major for large scale motors used in other scenarios.
>>>>>> These can weigh thousands of kilos, and could then be reduced to only tens
>>>>>> of kilos. It would also be especially important for proposed electric
>>>>>> aircraft that many groups are working towards.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with electric airplanes is the lack of a power source that is
>>>>> comparable to gasoline or jet fuel not the weight of electric motors.
>>>>
>>>> Props are rather old-school, too.
>>>
>>> But quit efficient.
>>
>> Depends on your definition of "efficient". 777s are quite efficient,
>
> So are roller skates.
But ice skates are even better! So we just need this cryocooler
(already present as described in the previous posts) to be able
to cool down a sufficient part of the environment and do it fast
enough before the car, I mean sleigh, arrives!
<http://weknowyourdreams.com/images/santa-claus/santa-claus-02.jpg>
...
> Or what in regards to electric motors?
Exactly.
--
Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-25 03:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f68d3f04-d534-4353-a0eb-f3447d004fab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468716 |
On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 12:46:53 AM UTC+2, k...@notreal.com wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 18:31:37 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > >In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: <snip> > >> But that would be major for large scale motors used in other scenarios. > >> These can weigh thousands of kilos, and could then be reduced to only tens > >> of kilos. It would also be especially important for proposed electric > >> aircraft that many groups are working towards. > > > >The problem with electric airplanes is the lack of a power source that is > >comparable to gasoline or jet fuel not the weight of electric motors. > > Props are rather old-school, too. Commercial jet aircraft rely on turbo-fan engines, which use shrouded fans to convert the rotational energy geenrated by the gas-turbine into thrust. These are simply shrouded propellors. Conventional propellors offer variable pitch, and are even more effective if youy aren't flying close to the speed of sound. Propellors may look old-fashioned, but for any aircraft which isn't designed to fly as fast as economically possible they are the preferred means of propulsion > >> So is it really true we can increase electric motor power levels simply by > >> using wire of higher current capacity? > > > >No, you need to reduce resistive losses and/or get rid of heat. Using wire made of lower resistance material does reduce resistive losses. If it has a higher thermal conductivity as well, it can get rid of more heat too. For many motors, the temperature dependence of the magnetic properties of the pole pieces also come into it, and limit the temperature that you can let your windings warm up to. It's sort of complicated. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 21:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <okega4$iuf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #468650 |
In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >> jimp wrote: >> >>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>> material that can carry more current. >>> >>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >> >> Gold is much better, something you don't know. > >Nope. > >Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter > >Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >Gold 2.44 X 10-8 > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity > >Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >resistance. > > I was current density I was most interested in. Bob Clark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 02:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hmuq3e-2f1.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #468735 |
In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>> jimp wrote: >>> >>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>>> material that can carry more current. >>>> >>>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >>> >>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >> >>Nope. >> >>Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >> >>Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >>Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >>Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >> >>Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>resistance. >> >> > > I was current density I was most interested in. Yes, because you are clueless about the real world and don't understand the limits of electrical motors is heat rise due to resistive losses. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 05:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oksife$kvp$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #468742 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 10:13 PM: > In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>> jimp wrote: >>>> >>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>>>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>>>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>>>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>>>> material that can carry more current. >>>>> >>>>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >>>> >>>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >>> >>> Nope. >>> >>> Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >>> >>> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >>> Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >>> Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>> >>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>> resistance. >>> >>> >> >> I was current density I was most interested in. > > Yes, because you are clueless about the real world and don't understand > the limits of electrical motors is heat rise due to resistive losses. And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to copper? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 15:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m2j94e-1on.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #469830 |
In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 10:13 PM: >> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>> jimp wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>>>>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>>>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>>>>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>>>>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>>>>> material that can carry more current. >>>>>> >>>>>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >>>>> >>>>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >>>> >>>> Nope. >>>> >>>> Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >>>> >>>> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >>>> Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >>>> Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>> >>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>> resistance. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I was current density I was most interested in. >> >> Yes, because you are clueless about the real world and don't understand >> the limits of electrical motors is heat rise due to resistive losses. > > And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to copper? All the references I have say they are higher, do you have somthing that says otherwise? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 12:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oktar5$f06$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #469860 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:26 AM: > In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 10:13 PM: >>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>> jimp wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>>>>>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>>>>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>>>>>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>>>>>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>>>>>> material that can carry more current. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >>>>>> >>>>>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >>>>> >>>>> Nope. >>>>> >>>>> Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >>>>> >>>>> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >>>>> Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >>>>> Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>> >>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>> resistance. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> I was current density I was most interested in. >>> >>> Yes, because you are clueless about the real world and don't understand >>> the limits of electrical motors is heat rise due to resistive losses. >> >> And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to copper? > > All the references I have say they are higher, do you have somthing that > says otherwise? How about the original article? Importantly, the researchers were able to achieve this high current density tolerance without sacrificing the electrical conductivity of the material, which is similar to that of pure copper. "This is the first such material, to the best of my knowledge, that can have high electrical conductivity and high current density tolerance," Subramaniam points out. Then there is this publication. https://www.ifam.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ifam/en/documents/dd/Infobl%C3%A4tter/metal-carbon_nanotube_composites_fraunhofer_ifam_dresden.pdf You understand this is a *new* material they are talking about, no? The focus of the research seems to be on uses for conductors in integrated circuits where other aspects than conductivity are limiting. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 12:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oktcf4$q1e$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #469890 |
On 7/21/2017 11:45 AM, rickman wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:26 AM: >> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 10:13 PM: >>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark : >>>>>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its >>>>>>>>> remarkable >>>>>>>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>>>>>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper >>>>>>>>> wires in >>>>>>>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the >>>>>>>>> same space. >>>>>>>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>>>>>>> material that can carry more current. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >>>>>>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope. >>>>>> >>>>>> Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >>>>>> >>>>>> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >>>>>> Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >>>>>> Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>> >>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's >>>>>> corrosion >>>>>> resistance. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I was current density I was most interested in. >>>> >>>> Yes, because you are clueless about the real world and don't understand >>>> the limits of electrical motors is heat rise due to resistive losses. >>> >>> And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to >>> copper? >> All the references I have say they are higher, do you have somthing that >> says otherwise? > > How about the original article? > > > Importantly, the researchers were able to achieve this high current > density tolerance without sacrificing the electrical conductivity of the > material, which is similar to that of pure copper. > > "This is the first such material, to the best of my knowledge, that can > have high electrical conductivity and high current density tolerance," > Subramaniam points out. > > Then there is this publication. > > https://www.ifam.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ifam/en/documents/dd/Infobl%C3%A4tter/metal-carbon_nanotube_composites_fraunhofer_ifam_dresden.pdf > > > > > You understand this is a *new* material they are talking about, no? The > focus of the research seems to be on uses for conductors in integrated > circuits where other aspects than conductivity are limiting. > article states: 3.5% CNT + 96.5% pure Cu => has compairable conductivity to all Cu. nothing new here. replace CNT with dirt, you would get the same.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 17:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p4p94e-ebo.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #469890 |
In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:26 AM: >> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 10:13 PM: >>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>>>>>>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>>>>>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>>>>>>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>>>>>>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>>>>>>> material that can carry more current. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope. >>>>>> >>>>>> Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >>>>>> >>>>>> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >>>>>> Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >>>>>> Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>> >>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>> resistance. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I was current density I was most interested in. >>>> >>>> Yes, because you are clueless about the real world and don't understand >>>> the limits of electrical motors is heat rise due to resistive losses. >>> >>> And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to copper? >> >> All the references I have say they are higher, do you have somthing that >> says otherwise? > > How about the original article? What about it? > Importantly, the researchers were able to achieve this high current density > tolerance without sacrificing the electrical conductivity of the material, > which is similar to that of pure copper. So what? > "This is the first such material, to the best of my knowledge, that can have > high electrical conductivity and high current density tolerance," > Subramaniam points out. So what? > Then there is this publication. > > https://www.ifam.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ifam/en/documents/dd/Infobl%C3%A4tter/metal-carbon_nanotube_composites_fraunhofer_ifam_dresden.pdf So what? > You understand this is a *new* material they are talking about, no? The > focus of the research seems to be on uses for conductors in integrated > circuits where other aspects than conductivity are limiting. So what? The issue is temperature rise due to resistive losses, not anything else. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 13:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <okte8q$qqu$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #469899 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 1:10 PM: > In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:26 AM: >>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 10:13 PM: >>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>>> jimp wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>>>>>>>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>>>>>>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>>>>>>>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>>>>>>>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>>>>>>>> material that can carry more current. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >>>>>>> Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >>>>>>> Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>>> resistance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I was current density I was most interested in. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, because you are clueless about the real world and don't understand >>>>> the limits of electrical motors is heat rise due to resistive losses. >>>> >>>> And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to copper? >>> >>> All the references I have say they are higher, do you have somthing that >>> says otherwise? >> >> How about the original article? > > What about it? > >> Importantly, the researchers were able to achieve this high current density >> tolerance without sacrificing the electrical conductivity of the material, >> which is similar to that of pure copper. > > So what? > >> "This is the first such material, to the best of my knowledge, that can have >> high electrical conductivity and high current density tolerance," >> Subramaniam points out. > > So what? > >> Then there is this publication. >> >> https://www.ifam.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ifam/en/documents/dd/Infobl%C3%A4tter/metal-carbon_nanotube_composites_fraunhofer_ifam_dresden.pdf > > So what? > >> You understand this is a *new* material they are talking about, no? The >> focus of the research seems to be on uses for conductors in integrated >> circuits where other aspects than conductivity are limiting. > > So what? > > The issue is temperature rise due to resistive losses, not anything else. You said the resistivity of the CU-CNT material is worse than copper. Just setting the record straight. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 18:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cgs94e-6oo.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #469913 |
In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 1:10 PM: >> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:26 AM: >>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 10:13 PM: >>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>>>> jimp wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>>>>>>>>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>>>>>>>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>>>>>>>>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>>>>>>>>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>>>>>>>>> material that can carry more current. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >>>>>>>> Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >>>>>>>> Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>>>> resistance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was current density I was most interested in. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, because you are clueless about the real world and don't understand >>>>>> the limits of electrical motors is heat rise due to resistive losses. >>>>> >>>>> And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to copper? >>>> >>>> All the references I have say they are higher, do you have somthing that >>>> says otherwise? >>> >>> How about the original article? >> >> What about it? >> >>> Importantly, the researchers were able to achieve this high current density >>> tolerance without sacrificing the electrical conductivity of the material, >>> which is similar to that of pure copper. >> >> So what? >> >>> "This is the first such material, to the best of my knowledge, that can have >>> high electrical conductivity and high current density tolerance," >>> Subramaniam points out. >> >> So what? >> >>> Then there is this publication. >>> >>> https://www.ifam.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ifam/en/documents/dd/Infobl%C3%A4tter/metal-carbon_nanotube_composites_fraunhofer_ifam_dresden.pdf >> >> So what? >> >>> You understand this is a *new* material they are talking about, no? The >>> focus of the research seems to be on uses for conductors in integrated >>> circuits where other aspects than conductivity are limiting. >> >> So what? >> >> The issue is temperature rise due to resistive losses, not anything else. > > You said the resistivity of the CU-CNT material is worse than copper. Just > setting the record straight. Where? The closest you did to that is when you stated it was "similar to that of pure copper". And since the issue is heat and getting rid of it, what is the thermal conductivity compared to copper? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 15:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oktjbb$b76$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #469931 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 2:07 PM: > In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 1:10 PM: >>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:26 AM: >>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 10:13 PM: >>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> jimp wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>>>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>>>>>>>>>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>>>>>>>>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>>>>>>>>>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>>>>>>>>>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>>>>>>>>>> material that can carry more current. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>> Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>> Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>>>>> resistance. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I was current density I was most interested in. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, because you are clueless about the real world and don't understand >>>>>>> the limits of electrical motors is heat rise due to resistive losses. >>>>>> >>>>>> And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to copper? >>>>> >>>>> All the references I have say they are higher, do you have somthing that >>>>> says otherwise? >>>> >>>> How about the original article? >>> >>> What about it? >>> >>>> Importantly, the researchers were able to achieve this high current density >>>> tolerance without sacrificing the electrical conductivity of the material, >>>> which is similar to that of pure copper. >>> >>> So what? >>> >>>> "This is the first such material, to the best of my knowledge, that can have >>>> high electrical conductivity and high current density tolerance," >>>> Subramaniam points out. >>> >>> So what? >>> >>>> Then there is this publication. >>>> >>>> https://www.ifam.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ifam/en/documents/dd/Infobl%C3%A4tter/metal-carbon_nanotube_composites_fraunhofer_ifam_dresden.pdf >>> >>> So what? >>> >>>> You understand this is a *new* material they are talking about, no? The >>>> focus of the research seems to be on uses for conductors in integrated >>>> circuits where other aspects than conductivity are limiting. >>> >>> So what? >>> >>> The issue is temperature rise due to resistive losses, not anything else. >> >> You said the resistivity of the CU-CNT material is worse than copper. Just >> setting the record straight. > > Where? See above. >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:26 AM: >>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to copper? >>>>> >>>>> All the references I have say they are higher -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 19:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uf1a4e-a8p.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #469946 |
In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 2:07 PM: >> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 1:10 PM: >>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:26 AM: >>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 10:13 PM: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> jimp wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>>>>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>>>>>>>>>>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>>>>>>>>>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>>>>>>>>>>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>>>>>>>>>>> material that can carry more current. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>> Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>> Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>>>>>> resistance. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I was current density I was most interested in. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, because you are clueless about the real world and don't understand >>>>>>>> the limits of electrical motors is heat rise due to resistive losses. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to copper? >>>>>> >>>>>> All the references I have say they are higher, do you have somthing that >>>>>> says otherwise? >>>>> >>>>> How about the original article? >>>> >>>> What about it? >>>> >>>>> Importantly, the researchers were able to achieve this high current density >>>>> tolerance without sacrificing the electrical conductivity of the material, >>>>> which is similar to that of pure copper. >>>> >>>> So what? >>>> >>>>> "This is the first such material, to the best of my knowledge, that can have >>>>> high electrical conductivity and high current density tolerance," >>>>> Subramaniam points out. >>>> >>>> So what? >>>> >>>>> Then there is this publication. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.ifam.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ifam/en/documents/dd/Infobl%C3%A4tter/metal-carbon_nanotube_composites_fraunhofer_ifam_dresden.pdf >>>> >>>> So what? >>>> >>>>> You understand this is a *new* material they are talking about, no? The >>>>> focus of the research seems to be on uses for conductors in integrated >>>>> circuits where other aspects than conductivity are limiting. >>>> >>>> So what? >>>> >>>> The issue is temperature rise due to resistive losses, not anything else. >>> >>> You said the resistivity of the CU-CNT material is worse than copper. Just >>> setting the record straight. >> >> Where? > > See above. I notice that with selective editing you have changed the entire discussion. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 17:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oktrlr$76v$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #469955 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 3:32 PM: > In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 2:07 PM: >>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 1:10 PM: >>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:26 AM: >>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 10:13 PM: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> jimp wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>>>>>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>>>>>>>>>>>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> material that can carry more current. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>> Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>> Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>>>>>>> resistance. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I was current density I was most interested in. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, because you are clueless about the real world and don't understand >>>>>>>>> the limits of electrical motors is heat rise due to resistive losses. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to copper? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All the references I have say they are higher, do you have somthing that >>>>>>> says otherwise? >>>>>> >>>>>> How about the original article? >>>>> >>>>> What about it? >>>>> >>>>>> Importantly, the researchers were able to achieve this high current density >>>>>> tolerance without sacrificing the electrical conductivity of the material, >>>>>> which is similar to that of pure copper. >>>>> >>>>> So what? >>>>> >>>>>> "This is the first such material, to the best of my knowledge, that can have >>>>>> high electrical conductivity and high current density tolerance," >>>>>> Subramaniam points out. >>>>> >>>>> So what? >>>>> >>>>>> Then there is this publication. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.ifam.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ifam/en/documents/dd/Infobl%C3%A4tter/metal-carbon_nanotube_composites_fraunhofer_ifam_dresden.pdf >>>>> >>>>> So what? >>>>> >>>>>> You understand this is a *new* material they are talking about, no? The >>>>>> focus of the research seems to be on uses for conductors in integrated >>>>>> circuits where other aspects than conductivity are limiting. >>>>> >>>>> So what? >>>>> >>>>> The issue is temperature rise due to resistive losses, not anything else. >>>> >>>> You said the resistivity of the CU-CNT material is worse than copper. Just >>>> setting the record straight. >>> >>> Where? >> >> See above. > > I notice that with selective editing you have changed the entire discussion. I think you are trying to change the topic now. Anyway, I think this conversation is exhausted. Bye. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 22:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7qaa4e-95q.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #469977 |
In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 3:32 PM: >> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 2:07 PM: >>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 1:10 PM: >>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:26 AM: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 10:13 PM: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material that can carry more current. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>>> Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>>> Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>>>>>>>> resistance. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I was current density I was most interested in. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, because you are clueless about the real world and don't understand >>>>>>>>>> the limits of electrical motors is heat rise due to resistive losses. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to copper? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All the references I have say they are higher, do you have somthing that >>>>>>>> says otherwise? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How about the original article? >>>>>> >>>>>> What about it? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Importantly, the researchers were able to achieve this high current density >>>>>>> tolerance without sacrificing the electrical conductivity of the material, >>>>>>> which is similar to that of pure copper. >>>>>> >>>>>> So what? >>>>>> >>>>>>> "This is the first such material, to the best of my knowledge, that can have >>>>>>> high electrical conductivity and high current density tolerance," >>>>>>> Subramaniam points out. >>>>>> >>>>>> So what? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Then there is this publication. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.ifam.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ifam/en/documents/dd/Infobl%C3%A4tter/metal-carbon_nanotube_composites_fraunhofer_ifam_dresden.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> So what? >>>>>> >>>>>>> You understand this is a *new* material they are talking about, no? The >>>>>>> focus of the research seems to be on uses for conductors in integrated >>>>>>> circuits where other aspects than conductivity are limiting. >>>>>> >>>>>> So what? >>>>>> >>>>>> The issue is temperature rise due to resistive losses, not anything else. >>>>> >>>>> You said the resistivity of the CU-CNT material is worse than copper. Just >>>>> setting the record straight. >>>> >>>> Where? >>> >>> See above. >> >> I notice that with selective editing you have changed the entire discussion. > > I think you are trying to change the topic now. Anyway, I think this > conversation is exhausted. Bye. Good riddence, troll. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-22 10:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <okvoit$5p7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #469890 |
>... >>> >>> And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to >>> copper? >> >> All the references I have say they are higher, do you have somthing that >> says otherwise? > >How about the original article? > >Importantly, the researchers were able to achieve this high current density >tolerance without sacrificing the electrical conductivity of the material, >which is similar to that of pure copper. > >"This is the first such material, to the best of my knowledge, that can >have high electrical conductivity and high current density tolerance," >Subramaniam points out. > >Then there is this publication. > >https://www.ifam.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ifam/en/documents/dd/Infobl%C3%A4tter/metal-carbon_nanotube_composites_fraunhofer_ifam_dresden.pdf > > >You understand this is a *new* material they are talking about, no? The >focus of the research seems to be on uses for conductors in integrated >circuits where other aspects than conductivity are limiting. > I don't know if the current density measurements will hold up. NASA Glenn was unable to reproduce them. It might be they used a different formulation then the original researchers used. The link you provided by the Fraunhofer institute is interesting however. It shows the composites have about twice the strength as regular copper. This might be useful for applications requiring high strength as well as high conductivity such as overhead high tension wires. Bob Clark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carbon nanotubes can revolutionize 21st-century technology IF they can be made arbitrarily long while maintaining their strength. Some proposals to accomplish that here: From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials. American Journal of Nanomaterials. Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016, pp 39-43. doi: 10.12691/ajn-4-2-2 | Research Article. http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajn/4/2/2/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-22 17:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <7sl7ncl5oqt4k6i10rrtpftine6soti4tf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #470071 |
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 10:51:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >... composites have about twice the strength as regular copper. This > might be useful for applications requiring high strength.... E.g. when too many teslas tear your magnet apart, something which I've seen no one on this thread mention yet. -- Goat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web