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 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 06:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <okskd7$12v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #468681 |
kevin93 wrote on 7/15/2017 4:56 PM: > On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 12:51:40 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote: >> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" > ... >> Teslas accelerate in short manic bursts. The motor would fry if it ran >> steady-state at full power. > > Very true - the Tesla Model S could not complete the Nurburgring course at one time because the motor overheated. The motor is liquid cooled - even the rotor has oil passing through the center. Not correct. It completed the lap, but when the engine and batteries heated up to their limits the power output was reduced. Still, it managed to complete the 14 mile lap in 10 minutes. Not bad for a two and a half ton luxury sedan. http://insideevs.com/expected-tesla-model-s-fails-lap-nurburgring-full-power-video/ What's amazing in the video is how quiet the car is. You hear every other car on the track, but the Tesla makes very little noise. I wonder if he used auto-pilot? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 05:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f737f33f-eea1-4d22-8c02-c72119c18ed8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #469835 |
Den fredag den 21. juli 2017 kl. 12.22.20 UTC+2 skrev rickman: > kevin93 wrote on 7/15/2017 4:56 PM: > > On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 12:51:40 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" > > ... > >> Teslas accelerate in short manic bursts. The motor would fry if it ran > >> steady-state at full power. > > > > Very true - the Tesla Model S could not complete the Nurburgring course at one time because the motor overheated. The motor is liquid cooled - even the rotor has oil passing through the center. > > Not correct. It completed the lap, but when the engine and batteries heated > up to their limits the power output was reduced. Still, it managed to > complete the 14 mile lap in 10 minutes. Not bad for a two and a half ton > luxury sedan. > Not exactly impressive, Sabine Schmitz did 10:08 in a 136hp diesel Ford transit van > http://insideevs.com/expected-tesla-model-s-fails-lap-nurburgring-full-power-video/ > > What's amazing in the video is how quiet the car is. You hear every other > car on the track, but the Tesla makes very little noise. I wonder if he > used auto-pilot? he was trying to set a fast lap not go to the shop for some milk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 13:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oktc70$k44$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #469846 |
Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote on 7/21/2017 8:57 AM: > Den fredag den 21. juli 2017 kl. 12.22.20 UTC+2 skrev rickman: >> kevin93 wrote on 7/15/2017 4:56 PM: >>> On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 12:51:40 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote: >>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >>> ... >>>> Teslas accelerate in short manic bursts. The motor would fry if it ran >>>> steady-state at full power. >>> >>> Very true - the Tesla Model S could not complete the Nurburgring course at one time because the motor overheated. The motor is liquid cooled - even the rotor has oil passing through the center. >> >> Not correct. It completed the lap, but when the engine and batteries heated >> up to their limits the power output was reduced. Still, it managed to >> complete the 14 mile lap in 10 minutes. Not bad for a two and a half ton >> luxury sedan. >> > > Not exactly impressive, Sabine Schmitz did 10:08 in a 136hp diesel Ford > transit van Yes, that's why they had her drive the van, it was impressive for neither the Jaguar or the Van, right? >> http://insideevs.com/expected-tesla-model-s-fails-lap-nurburgring-full-power-video/ >> >> What's amazing in the video is how quiet the car is. You hear every other >> car on the track, but the Tesla makes very little noise. I wonder if he >> used auto-pilot? > > he was trying to set a fast lap not go to the shop for some milk Why would I care? I don't drive at Nurburgring very often. The point is that even with the drive train self-engaging a limit on power, the Tesla still runs with the fastest real world cars. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 23:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oker69$1dnq$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #468658 |
On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "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. motor design is very mature, there are other things in the chain that you can optomize
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 00:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <596af28c$0$59766$c3e8da3$460562f1@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #468749 |
On 07/16/2017 12:47 AM, Serg io wrote: > On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "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. > > > motor design is very mature, there are other things in the chain that > you can optomize > Actually early Tesla motors (and most electrical equipment of the time) were rather poorly designed and inefficient because the materials not being very good and the designs of magnetic circuits were very open and lossy. Tesla invented a gas turbine with no blades of up to 95% efficiency which is the real winner over a typical gasoline engine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 09:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <596b1468$0$703$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #468751 |
On 7/16/2017 6:58 AM, benj wrote: > On 07/16/2017 12:47 AM, Serg io wrote: >> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "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. >> >> >> motor design is very mature, there are other things in the chain that >> you can optomize >> > Actually early Tesla motors (and most electrical equipment of the time) > were rather poorly designed and inefficient because the materials not > being very good and the designs of magnetic circuits were very open and > lossy. > > Tesla invented a gas turbine with no blades of up to 95% efficiency > which is the real winner over a typical gasoline engine. So then why is their Tesla car electric?! O wait, you mean *T*esla, not Tesla.. -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 01:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <596c4792$0$18977$b1db1813$19ace300@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #468757 |
On 07/16/2017 03:22 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: > On 7/16/2017 6:58 AM, benj wrote: >> On 07/16/2017 12:47 AM, Serg io wrote: >>> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its >>>>> remarkable power >>>>> to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a typical >>>>> gasoline >>>>> engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in its coils >>>>> therefore >>>>> being able to carry more current in the same space. If so, then we >>>>> should be >>>>> able to produce more power if we have a material that can carry more >>>>> current. >>> >>> >>> motor design is very mature, there are other things in the chain that >>> you can optomize >>> >> Actually early Tesla motors (and most electrical equipment of the time) >> were rather poorly designed and inefficient because the materials not >> being very good and the designs of magnetic circuits were very open and >> lossy. >> >> Tesla invented a gas turbine with no blades of up to 95% efficiency >> which is the real winner over a typical gasoline engine. > > So then why is their Tesla car electric?! O wait, you mean > *T*esla, not Tesla.. > Bird-sex is the give-away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 08:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <okif3q$qg2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #468972 |
On 7/17/2017 12:13 AM, benj wrote: > On 07/16/2017 03:22 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >> On 7/16/2017 6:58 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 07/16/2017 12:47 AM, Serg io wrote: >>>> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "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. >>>> >>>> >>>> motor design is very mature, there are other things in the chain that >>>> you can optomize >>>> >>> Actually early Tesla motors (and most electrical equipment of the time) >>> were rather poorly designed and inefficient because the materials not >>> being very good and the designs of magnetic circuits were very open and >>> lossy. >>> >>> Tesla invented a gas turbine with no blades of up to 95% efficiency >>> which is the real winner over a typical gasoline engine. >> >> So then why is their Tesla car electric?! O wait, you mean >> *T*esla, not Tesla.. >> > Bird-sex is the give-away. RT ran a story a few days ago on dead cat sex in LA, the guy got 15 years. ANd he was not famous or a genuis. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/serial-cat-killer-sentenced-16-years-jail-article-1.3331658
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 06:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <okskld$12v$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #468749 |
Serg io wrote on 7/16/2017 12:47 AM: > On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "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. > > > motor design is very mature, there are other things in the chain that you > can optomize Why do you feel electric motors can't be improved with new materials? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 15:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8ej94e-1on.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #469836 |
In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > Serg io wrote on 7/16/2017 12:47 AM: >> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "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. >> >> >> motor design is very mature, there are other things in the chain that you >> can optomize > > Why do you feel electric motors can't be improved with new materials? The current state of the art for electric motors is over 95% efficiency, which does not leave a lot of room for any improvements of any kind. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 11:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <okt8vb$gli$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #469869 |
On 7/21/2017 10:32 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> Serg io wrote on 7/16/2017 12:47 AM: >>> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "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. >>> >>> >>> motor design is very mature, there are other things in the chain that you >>> can optomize >> >> Why do you feel electric motors can't be improved with new materials? > > The current state of the art for electric motors is over 95% efficiency, > which does not leave a lot of room for any improvements of any kind. > > very true. the Nazi's invented "Magnetic amplifiers" for use in the V2, (before transisters) the MagAmps use AC bias, and were optomized for analog computers in the USA 1950's and 1960's for aircraft. these magamp computers were neclear hardened, because of the use of magnetic amplifiers can deal with EMP. the Magamp is also 99% effecient. there are some switching power supplies based upon magamps, and they are 99% effecient.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 21:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5972adf6$0$31177$c3e8da3$a9097924@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #469876 |
On 7/21/2017 12:09 PM, Serg io wrote: > On 7/21/2017 10:32 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Serg io wrote on 7/16/2017 12:47 AM: >>>> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "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. >>>> >>>> >>>> motor design is very mature, there are other things in the chain >>>> that you >>>> can optomize >>> >>> Why do you feel electric motors can't be improved with new materials? >> The current state of the art for electric motors is over 95% efficiency, >> which does not leave a lot of room for any improvements of any kind. >> >> > > very true. > > the Nazi's invented "Magnetic amplifiers" for use in the V2, (before > transisters) > > the MagAmps use AC bias, and were optomized for analog computers in the > USA 1950's and 1960's for aircraft. > > these magamp computers were neclear hardened, because of the use of > magnetic amplifiers can deal with EMP. > > the Magamp is also 99% effecient. there are some switching power > supplies based upon magamps, and they are 99% effecient. Magamps are certainly radiation resistant and EMP hardened, but 99% efficiency? Doubtful. It takes some energy to saturate a magnetize core even of the best materials. Core losses are significant. Resistive losses are significant (you have to keep core saturated in spite of output currents). Sure switchers have lots of currents flowing that can be used but 99% seems rather high to me for a magamp control unless you are going super conducting or something.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 22:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <okug4l$14j7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #470026 |
On 7/21/2017 8:44 PM, benj wrote: > On 7/21/2017 12:09 PM, Serg io wrote: >> On 7/21/2017 10:32 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Serg io wrote on 7/16/2017 12:47 AM: >>>>> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> motor design is very mature, there are other things in the chain >>>>> that you >>>>> can optomize >>>> >>>> Why do you feel electric motors can't be improved with new materials? >>> The current state of the art for electric motors is over 95% efficiency, >>> which does not leave a lot of room for any improvements of any kind. >>> >>> >> >> very true. >> >> the Nazi's invented "Magnetic amplifiers" for use in the V2, (before >> transisters) >> >> the MagAmps use AC bias, and were optomized for analog computers in >> the USA 1950's and 1960's for aircraft. >> >> these magamp computers were neclear hardened, because of the use of >> magnetic amplifiers can deal with EMP. >> >> the Magamp is also 99% effecient. there are some switching power >> supplies based upon magamps, and they are 99% effecient. > > Magamps are certainly radiation resistant and EMP hardened, but 99% > efficiency? Doubtful. It takes some energy to saturate a magnetize core > even of the best materials. Core losses are significant. Resistive > losses are significant (you have to keep core saturated in spite of > output currents). Sure switchers have lots of currents flowing that can > be used but 99% seems rather high to me for a magamp control unless you > are going super conducting or something. > 99% is right, look at transistor switchers, they run 70 to 83% or so efficient, and they have loss due to Vbe, they cannot get to the rails. magamps do not have that limitation, (they do have some distortion for audio) I have not designed with them that much.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-22 02:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5972edd2$0$43785$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #470035 |
On 07/21/2017 11:17 PM, Serg io wrote: > On 7/21/2017 8:44 PM, benj wrote: >> On 7/21/2017 12:09 PM, Serg io wrote: >>> On 7/21/2017 10:32 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Serg io wrote on 7/16/2017 12:47 AM: >>>>>> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> motor design is very mature, there are other things in the chain >>>>>> that you >>>>>> can optomize >>>>> >>>>> Why do you feel electric motors can't be improved with new materials? >>>> The current state of the art for electric motors is over 95% >>>> efficiency, >>>> which does not leave a lot of room for any improvements of any kind. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> very true. >>> >>> the Nazi's invented "Magnetic amplifiers" for use in the V2, (before >>> transisters) >>> >>> the MagAmps use AC bias, and were optomized for analog computers in >>> the USA 1950's and 1960's for aircraft. >>> >>> these magamp computers were neclear hardened, because of the use of >>> magnetic amplifiers can deal with EMP. >>> >>> the Magamp is also 99% effecient. there are some switching power >>> supplies based upon magamps, and they are 99% effecient. >> >> Magamps are certainly radiation resistant and EMP hardened, but 99% >> efficiency? Doubtful. It takes some energy to saturate a magnetize >> core even of the best materials. Core losses are significant. >> Resistive losses are significant (you have to keep core saturated in >> spite of output currents). Sure switchers have lots of currents >> flowing that can be used but 99% seems rather high to me for a magamp >> control unless you are going super conducting or something. >> > > 99% is right, look at transistor switchers, they run 70 to 83% or so > efficient, and they have loss due to Vbe, they cannot get to the rails. Actually they do get to "rails" In switching mode they go from full "off" to low impedance "on" where losses are very small. All the loss takes place during the switching transition. The switching time is not zero plus there is a delay factor due to sweeping carriers out of junction. The actual percentage dissipation depends upon the structure of the device which is not only the type of device but the kind of structures used in fabrication. Of course above I'm especially talking about junction structures, though principles still apply to other structures. Yeah, I've measured this crap. > magamps do not have that limitation, (they do have some distortion for > audio) I have not designed with them that much. Yes, but you are still driving a core to saturation and current in coils of wire. I mean transformers (and motors) do pretty well, but 99% seems really pushing the edge to me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-23 10:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <59745f4c$0$721$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #470050 |
On 7/22/2017 8:16 AM, benj wrote:
> On 07/21/2017 11:17 PM, Serg io wrote:
>> On 7/21/2017 8:44 PM, benj wrote:
>>> On 7/21/2017 12:09 PM, Serg io wrote:
>>>> On 7/21/2017 10:32 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Serg io wrote on 7/16/2017 12:47 AM:
>>>>>>> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark"
>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote:
...
..
>>>> the Magamp is also 99% effecient. there are some switching power
>>>> supplies based upon magamps, and they are 99% effecient.
>>>
>>> Magamps are certainly radiation resistant and EMP hardened, but 99%
>>> efficiency? Doubtful. It takes some energy to saturate a magnetize
>>> core even of the best materials. Core losses are significant.
>>> Resistive losses are significant (you have to keep core saturated in
>>> spite of output currents). Sure switchers have lots of currents
>>> flowing that can be used but 99% seems rather high to me for a magamp
>>> control unless you are going super conducting or something.
>>>
>>
>> 99% is right, look at transistor switchers, they run 70 to 83% or so
>> efficient, and they have loss due to Vbe, they cannot get to the rails.
>
> Actually they do get to "rails" In switching mode they go from full
> "off" to low impedance "on" where losses are very small.
And there is no "Vbe" restricting the voltage drop, first
of all because you can use a MOSFET if you want, but even
for a BJT the driving circuit can lift the base voltage
above the rail.
> All the loss
> takes place during the switching transition.
Now you exaggerate to the other extreme! There certainly
is loss during conduction. Not Vbe, but still a finite Vce
due to the internal collector resistance.
> The switching time is not
> zero plus there is a delay factor due to sweeping carriers out of
> junction.
That *is* mainly the switching time in many cases! The other
part is (re)charging the parasitic capacitances on the different
circuit nodes.
> The actual percentage dissipation depends upon the structure
> of the device which is not only the type of device but the kind of
> structures used in fabrication.
And Sergeio is of course completely wrong to claim that it is
"70 to 83% or so" for transistors. They also can reach 99%, if
the switching is done at relatively low frequency (or even
up to a few MHz with resonant drive). A value of 70% would be
typical only if you use GHz frequencies, and nobody in his right
mind would do that purely for power conversion purposes.
> Of course above I'm especially talking
> about junction structures, though principles still apply to other
> structures. Yeah, I've measured this crap.
Actually measuring the precise losses if you are around 99%
efficiency is not so simple! For instance you'd need the small
difference between large AC input power and DC output power,
by necessity measured in not exactly the same way.. Probably
calorimetric measurement (how much heat does the converter
produce) will be the best way. Is that how you did it?
>> magamps do not have that limitation, (they do have some distortion for
>> audio) I have not designed with them that much.
>
> Yes, but you are still driving a core to saturation and current in coils
> of wire. I mean transformers (and motors) do pretty well, but 99% seems
> really pushing the edge to me.
They are said to use materials with small hysteresis losses.
Of course if the loop area in those BH curves becomes almost
zero then those losses will vanish. But the magamp will need
to drive the field into complete saturation (as opposed to
ordinary transformers, where hysteresis losses are a problem
already, so it does sound difficult! I cannot disagree with
you this time..)
--
Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-23 16:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ol34pd$svk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #470198 |
On 7/23/2017 3:33 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: > On 7/22/2017 8:16 AM, benj wrote: >> On 07/21/2017 11:17 PM, Serg io wrote: >>> On 7/21/2017 8:44 PM, benj wrote: >>>> On 7/21/2017 12:09 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>> On 7/21/2017 10:32 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Serg io wrote on 7/16/2017 12:47 AM: >>>>>>>> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: > ... > .. >>>>> the Magamp is also 99% effecient. there are some switching power >>>>> supplies based upon magamps, and they are 99% effecient. >>>> >>>> Magamps are certainly radiation resistant and EMP hardened, but 99% >>>> efficiency? Doubtful. It takes some energy to saturate a magnetize >>>> core even of the best materials. Core losses are significant. >>>> Resistive losses are significant (you have to keep core saturated in >>>> spite of output currents). Sure switchers have lots of currents >>>> flowing that can be used but 99% seems rather high to me for a magamp >>>> control unless you are going super conducting or something. >>>> >>> >>> 99% is right, look at transistor switchers, they run 70 to 83% or so >>> efficient, and they have loss due to Vbe, they cannot get to the rails. >> >> Actually they do get to "rails" In switching mode they go from full >> "off" to low impedance "on" where losses are very small. > > And there is no "Vbe" restricting the voltage drop, first > of all because you can use a MOSFET if you want, but even > for a BJT the driving circuit can lift the base voltage > above the rail. > >> All the loss >> takes place during the switching transition. > > Now you exaggerate to the other extreme! There certainly > is loss during conduction. Not Vbe, but still a finite Vce > due to the internal collector resistance. > >> The switching time is not >> zero plus there is a delay factor due to sweeping carriers out of >> junction. > > That *is* mainly the switching time in many cases! The other > part is (re)charging the parasitic capacitances on the different > circuit nodes. > >> The actual percentage dissipation depends upon the structure >> of the device which is not only the type of device but the kind of >> structures used in fabrication. > > And Sergeio is of course completely wrong to claim that it is > "70 to 83% or so" for transistors. They also can reach 99%, if > the switching is done at relatively low frequency (or even > up to a few MHz with resonant drive). A value of 70% would be > typical only if you use GHz frequencies, and nobody in his right > mind would do that purely for power conversion purposes. got a URL for your 99% effecient transistor power supply ? typical cheap transistor power supplies run 70 to 83% or so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80_Plus your turn. > >> Of course above I'm especially talking >> about junction structures, though principles still apply to other >> structures. Yeah, I've measured this crap. > > Actually measuring the precise losses if you are around 99% > efficiency is not so simple! For instance you'd need the small > difference between large AC input power and DC output power, > by necessity measured in not exactly the same way.. Probably > calorimetric measurement (how much heat does the converter > produce) will be the best way. Is that how you did it? no, output power/input power that is it. > >>> magamps do not have that limitation, (they do have some distortion for >>> audio) I have not designed with them that much. >> >> Yes, but you are still driving a core to saturation and current in coils >> of wire. I mean transformers (and motors) do pretty well, but 99% seems >> really pushing the edge to me. > > They are said to use materials with small hysteresis losses. > Of course if the loop area in those BH curves becomes almost > zero then those losses will vanish. But the magamp will need > to drive the field into complete saturation (as opposed to > ordinary transformers, where hysteresis losses are a problem > already, so it does sound difficult! I cannot disagree with > you this time..) easier to measure input I and V then measure output I and V. mag amps used at lower power are no problem. this was a well known field of engineering and technology in the 50's and 60's https://www.google.com/patents/US3122701 I found another reference that says a mag amplifier can get up to 90% effeciency.... http://www.tpub.com/neets/book8/32l.htm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 12:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5975c794$0$742$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #470287 |
On 7/23/2017 11:34 PM, Serg io wrote: > On 7/23/2017 3:33 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >> On 7/22/2017 8:16 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 07/21/2017 11:17 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>> On 7/21/2017 8:44 PM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 7/21/2017 12:09 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>>> On 7/21/2017 10:32 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Serg io wrote on 7/16/2017 12:47 AM: >>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >>>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >> ... >> .. >>>>>> the Magamp is also 99% effecient. there are some switching power >>>>>> supplies based upon magamps, and they are 99% effecient. >>>>> >>>>> Magamps are certainly radiation resistant and EMP hardened, but 99% >>>>> efficiency? Doubtful. It takes some energy to saturate a magnetize >>>>> core even of the best materials. Core losses are significant. >>>>> Resistive losses are significant (you have to keep core saturated in >>>>> spite of output currents). Sure switchers have lots of currents >>>>> flowing that can be used but 99% seems rather high to me for a magamp >>>>> control unless you are going super conducting or something. >>>>> >>>> >>>> 99% is right, look at transistor switchers, they run 70 to 83% or so >>>> efficient, and they have loss due to Vbe, they cannot get to the rails. >>> >>> Actually they do get to "rails" In switching mode they go from full >>> "off" to low impedance "on" where losses are very small. >> >> And there is no "Vbe" restricting the voltage drop, first >> of all because you can use a MOSFET if you want, but even >> for a BJT the driving circuit can lift the base voltage >> above the rail. >> >>> All the loss >>> takes place during the switching transition. >> >> Now you exaggerate to the other extreme! There certainly >> is loss during conduction. Not Vbe, but still a finite Vce >> due to the internal collector resistance. >> >>> The switching time is not >>> zero plus there is a delay factor due to sweeping carriers out of >>> junction. >> >> That *is* mainly the switching time in many cases! The other >> part is (re)charging the parasitic capacitances on the different >> circuit nodes. >> >>> The actual percentage dissipation depends upon the structure >>> of the device which is not only the type of device but the kind of >>> structures used in fabrication. >> >> And Sergeio is of course completely wrong to claim that it is >> "70 to 83% or so" for transistors. They also can reach 99%, if >> the switching is done at relatively low frequency (or even >> up to a few MHz with resonant drive). A value of 70% would be >> typical only if you use GHz frequencies, and nobody in his right >> mind would do that purely for power conversion purposes. > > got a URL for your 99% effecient transistor power supply ? Why would I need one? I know how to compute those things and how to build them. I knew it even when the web did not yet exist, and URLs likewise. -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 05:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ol4hbf$vcl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #470331 |
On 7/24/2017 5:10 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: > On 7/23/2017 11:34 PM, Serg io wrote: >> On 7/23/2017 3:33 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>> On 7/22/2017 8:16 AM, benj wrote: >>>> On 07/21/2017 11:17 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>> On 7/21/2017 8:44 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 7/21/2017 12:09 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/21/2017 10:32 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Serg io wrote on 7/16/2017 12:47 AM: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >>>>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >>> ... >>> .. >>>>>>> the Magamp is also 99% effecient. there are some switching power >>>>>>> supplies based upon magamps, and they are 99% effecient. >>>>>> >>>>>> Magamps are certainly radiation resistant and EMP hardened, but 99% >>>>>> efficiency? Doubtful. It takes some energy to saturate a magnetize >>>>>> core even of the best materials. Core losses are significant. >>>>>> Resistive losses are significant (you have to keep core saturated in >>>>>> spite of output currents). Sure switchers have lots of currents >>>>>> flowing that can be used but 99% seems rather high to me for a magamp >>>>>> control unless you are going super conducting or something. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 99% is right, look at transistor switchers, they run 70 to 83% or so >>>>> efficient, and they have loss due to Vbe, they cannot get to the >>>>> rails. >>>> >>>> Actually they do get to "rails" In switching mode they go from full >>>> "off" to low impedance "on" where losses are very small. >>> >>> And there is no "Vbe" restricting the voltage drop, first >>> of all because you can use a MOSFET if you want, but even >>> for a BJT the driving circuit can lift the base voltage >>> above the rail. >>> >>>> All the loss >>>> takes place during the switching transition. >>> >>> Now you exaggerate to the other extreme! There certainly >>> is loss during conduction. Not Vbe, but still a finite Vce >>> due to the internal collector resistance. >>> >>>> The switching time is not >>>> zero plus there is a delay factor due to sweeping carriers out of >>>> junction. >>> >>> That *is* mainly the switching time in many cases! The other >>> part is (re)charging the parasitic capacitances on the different >>> circuit nodes. >>> >>>> The actual percentage dissipation depends upon the structure >>>> of the device which is not only the type of device but the kind of >>>> structures used in fabrication. >>> >>> And Sergeio is of course completely wrong to claim that it is >>> "70 to 83% or so" for transistors. They also can reach 99%, if >>> the switching is done at relatively low frequency (or even >>> up to a few MHz with resonant drive). A value of 70% would be >>> typical only if you use GHz frequencies, and nobody in his right >>> mind would do that purely for power conversion purposes. >> >> got a URL for your 99% effecient transistor power supply ? > > Why would I need one? I know how to compute those things > and how to build them. I knew it even when the web did not > yet exist, and URLs likewise. > Mainly because your claim seems unreasonable. It would be nice to if you supported your claim with some independent report(s).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 12:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5975ccdb$0$833$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #470333 |
On 7/24/2017 12:19 PM, John S wrote: > On 7/24/2017 5:10 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >> On 7/23/2017 11:34 PM, Serg io wrote: >>> On 7/23/2017 3:33 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>> On 7/22/2017 8:16 AM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 07/21/2017 11:17 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>>> On 7/21/2017 8:44 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/21/2017 12:09 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/21/2017 10:32 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Serg io wrote on 7/16/2017 12:47 AM: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >>>>>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >>>> ... >>>> .. >>>>>>>> the Magamp is also 99% effecient. there are some switching power >>>>>>>> supplies based upon magamps, and they are 99% effecient. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Magamps are certainly radiation resistant and EMP hardened, but 99% >>>>>>> efficiency? Doubtful. It takes some energy to saturate a magnetize >>>>>>> core even of the best materials. Core losses are significant. >>>>>>> Resistive losses are significant (you have to keep core saturated in >>>>>>> spite of output currents). Sure switchers have lots of currents >>>>>>> flowing that can be used but 99% seems rather high to me for a >>>>>>> magamp >>>>>>> control unless you are going super conducting or something. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 99% is right, look at transistor switchers, they run 70 to 83% or so >>>>>> efficient, and they have loss due to Vbe, they cannot get to the >>>>>> rails. >>>>> >>>>> Actually they do get to "rails" In switching mode they go from full >>>>> "off" to low impedance "on" where losses are very small. >>>> >>>> And there is no "Vbe" restricting the voltage drop, first >>>> of all because you can use a MOSFET if you want, but even >>>> for a BJT the driving circuit can lift the base voltage >>>> above the rail. >>>> >>>>> All the loss >>>>> takes place during the switching transition. >>>> >>>> Now you exaggerate to the other extreme! There certainly >>>> is loss during conduction. Not Vbe, but still a finite Vce >>>> due to the internal collector resistance. >>>> >>>>> The switching time is not >>>>> zero plus there is a delay factor due to sweeping carriers out of >>>>> junction. >>>> >>>> That *is* mainly the switching time in many cases! The other >>>> part is (re)charging the parasitic capacitances on the different >>>> circuit nodes. >>>> >>>>> The actual percentage dissipation depends upon the structure >>>>> of the device which is not only the type of device but the kind of >>>>> structures used in fabrication. >>>> >>>> And Sergeio is of course completely wrong to claim that it is >>>> "70 to 83% or so" for transistors. They also can reach 99%, if >>>> the switching is done at relatively low frequency (or even >>>> up to a few MHz with resonant drive). A value of 70% would be >>>> typical only if you use GHz frequencies, and nobody in his right >>>> mind would do that purely for power conversion purposes. >>> >>> got a URL for your 99% effecient transistor power supply ? >> >> Why would I need one? I know how to compute those things >> and how to build them. I knew it even when the web did not >> yet exist, and URLs likewise. > > Mainly because your claim seems unreasonable. Why is it unreasonable? Working with voltages in the order of a few hundred volt (as for instance a converter for a mains-fed fluorescent lamp) and transistor saturation voltages of a few tenths of a volt, you have conduction losses in the order of 0.1%. The other switching losses scale with frequency so staying at low f (e.g. 35 kHz) keeps them low as well (and of course zero-current switching will help, like in a correctly tuned half-bridge converters). The passive-component losses are mainly in the inductors, which can have a Q-factor of e few hundred at those frequencies, so no need for more than 1% losses. So based on those facts, it is not unreasonable at all. On the contrary, your claim that the losses should be much higher is unreasonable! Can you give a mechanism that would make those high losses probable?! -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 08:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ol4u34$1m7d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #470334 |
On 7/24/2017 5:32 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: > On 7/24/2017 12:19 PM, John S wrote: >> On 7/24/2017 5:10 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>> On 7/23/2017 11:34 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>> On 7/23/2017 3:33 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>>> On 7/22/2017 8:16 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 07/21/2017 11:17 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/21/2017 8:44 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/21/2017 12:09 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2017 10:32 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Serg io wrote on 7/16/2017 12:47 AM: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >>>>>>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>> .. >>>>>>>>> the Magamp is also 99% effecient. there are some switching power >>>>>>>>> supplies based upon magamps, and they are 99% effecient. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Magamps are certainly radiation resistant and EMP hardened, but 99% >>>>>>>> efficiency? Doubtful. It takes some energy to saturate a magnetize >>>>>>>> core even of the best materials. Core losses are significant. >>>>>>>> Resistive losses are significant (you have to keep core >>>>>>>> saturated in >>>>>>>> spite of output currents). Sure switchers have lots of currents >>>>>>>> flowing that can be used but 99% seems rather high to me for a >>>>>>>> magamp >>>>>>>> control unless you are going super conducting or something. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 99% is right, look at transistor switchers, they run 70 to 83% or so >>>>>>> efficient, and they have loss due to Vbe, they cannot get to the >>>>>>> rails. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually they do get to "rails" In switching mode they go from full >>>>>> "off" to low impedance "on" where losses are very small. >>>>> >>>>> And there is no "Vbe" restricting the voltage drop, first >>>>> of all because you can use a MOSFET if you want, but even >>>>> for a BJT the driving circuit can lift the base voltage >>>>> above the rail. >>>>> >>>>>> All the loss >>>>>> takes place during the switching transition. >>>>> >>>>> Now you exaggerate to the other extreme! There certainly >>>>> is loss during conduction. Not Vbe, but still a finite Vce >>>>> due to the internal collector resistance. >>>>> >>>>>> The switching time is not >>>>>> zero plus there is a delay factor due to sweeping carriers out of >>>>>> junction. >>>>> >>>>> That *is* mainly the switching time in many cases! The other >>>>> part is (re)charging the parasitic capacitances on the different >>>>> circuit nodes. >>>>> >>>>>> The actual percentage dissipation depends upon the structure >>>>>> of the device which is not only the type of device but the kind of >>>>>> structures used in fabrication. >>>>> >>>>> And Sergeio is of course completely wrong to claim that it is >>>>> "70 to 83% or so" for transistors. They also can reach 99%, if >>>>> the switching is done at relatively low frequency (or even >>>>> up to a few MHz with resonant drive). A value of 70% would be >>>>> typical only if you use GHz frequencies, and nobody in his right >>>>> mind would do that purely for power conversion purposes. >>>> >>>> got a URL for your 99% effecient transistor power supply ? >>> >>> Why would I need one? I know how to compute those things >>> and how to build them. I knew it even when the web did not >>> yet exist, and URLs likewise. >> Mainly because your claim seems unreasonable. > > Why is it unreasonable? Working with voltages in the order of > a few hundred volt (as for instance a converter for a mains-fed > fluorescent lamp) and transistor saturation voltages of a few > tenths of a volt, you have conduction losses in the order of > 0.1%. The other switching losses scale with frequency so staying > at low f (e.g. 35 kHz) keeps them low as well (and of course > zero-current switching will help, like in a correctly tuned > half-bridge converters). The passive-component losses are mainly > in the inductors, which can have a Q-factor of e few hundred at > those frequencies, so no need for more than 1% losses. > > So based on those facts, it is not unreasonable at all. On the > contrary, your claim that the losses should be much higher is > unreasonable! Can you give a mechanism that would make those > high losses probable?! > those are design goals, not facts. if you find a URL that points to an existing 99% power supply in production, that would be fact. remember during your switching time when transistor goes from off to on, you have a power spike too, V and I cross over, so bandwidth of the transistor/mosfet must be high. http://xppower.com/pdfs/95_High_Efficiency.pdf getting above 90% effeciency with transistors/mosfets is quite difficult
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web