Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #468637 > unrolled thread

Question about power capacity of electrical motors.

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  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. 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. "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. 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. 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. 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
    Question about power capacity of electrical motors. pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-07-15 18:14 -0700

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#468743

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]

#468746

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]

#468756

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]

#468735

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]

#468742

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]

#469830

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]

#469860

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]

#469890

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]

#469895

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]

#469899

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]

#469913

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]

#469931

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]

#469946

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]

#469955

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]

#469977

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]

#469988

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]

#469128

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com writes:

>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.

It's been used instead of copper before....

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calutron#Construction>
-- 
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469826

> ...
>
>> 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.
>
>

You are correct that the resistance and heat conduction are very important 
as well. However, these factors are all closely related. For instance to 
test the current carrying capacity, increasingly larger currents are sent 
through the wire until it melts. But this measurement is dependent on 
surrounding conditions. You would get a higher measurement by blowing 
cooling air or other coolant over the wire, which also has relevance for 
their use in high power motors as they always have some cooling system 
involved.

But in any case, in regards to the copper-nanotube composites, the question 
may be moot. NASA tried to reproduce the claimed high current capacity and 
was unable to:

Highly Conductive Wire: Cu Carbon Nanotube Composite Ampacity and Metallic 
CNT Buckypaper Conductivity.
Author and Affiliation:  de Groh, Henry C.   (NASA Glenn Research Center, 
Cleveland, OH United States)
Publication Date:  Apr 17, 2017
Document ID:  20170003881 (Acquired May 12, 2017)
Subject Category:    ENGINEERING (GENERAL); METALS AND METALLIC MATERIALS; 
AIRCRAFT PROPULSION AND POWER
Report/Patent Number: NASA/TM-2017-219480, E-19350, GRC-E-DAA-TN39659
Document Type: Technical Report
[quote]Results
Ampacity
The average ampacity of the wire specimens tested is presented in Figure 3. 
The variation of the Cu
ampacity measurements was 1.6 percent, for TerraCu 2 percent, and 10 
percent for the yarn. Contrary
to other accounts (Ref. 23) and claims (Ref. 24) the CNT present in the 
TerraCu did not improve the
material’s ampacity. Likely reasons for the low ampacity in the TerraCu 
include the presence of s-CNT
and the low volume fraction CNT employed in the composite. Ampacity is not a 
material property. It is a
measurement that can be influenced by experimental factors such as levels of 
cooling. When a long wire
is placed in service and is getting warm due to current flow it must shed 
that heat out radially- not
longitudinally. In the ampacity testing of very expensive CNT composite wire 
it is common practice to
use a rather short section of wire, connected at its ends to very heavy 
connectors; it is also common to
imbed the wire in a large chunk of metal such as Pb-Sn solder. These heavy 
end connections, and
complete encasement enable longitudinal heat flow which corrupts the 
ampacity measurement. Here is
why: It is common for CNT composites to have a texture where in the CNT are 
primarily arranged
longitudinally as a result of the wire drawing process. The thermal 
conductivity of CNT is not isotropic;
the longitudinal thermal conductivity of CNT is very high, but the radial 
thermal conductivity of CNT is
extremely low. Ampacity tests that enable or enhance longitudinal heat flow 
create an advantage for CNT
wire that is not usually present in practical applications. The high 
ampacity results of others may be in
part due to the ability of CNT to longitudinally conduct heat. Very good 
electrical connections were made
in the tests presented here, however, these connections were tangential, 
thus enabled much less surface
area for the conduction of heat.[/quote]
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170003881

The extreme, high current capacity and extremely high thermal conductivity 
has been well documented for carbon nanotubes themselves, however. But they 
still are only available at up to centimeter lengths.  Then the problem 
remains how to combine them into longer lengths.

Some proposals 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/

  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]

#469861

In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
> 
> You are correct that the resistance and heat conduction are very important 
> as well. However, these factors are all closely related. For instance to 
> test the current carrying capacity, increasingly larger currents are sent 
> through the wire until it melts. But this measurement is dependent on 
> surrounding conditions. You would get a higher measurement by blowing 
> cooling air or other coolant over the wire, which also has relevance for 
> their use in high power motors as they always have some cooling system 
> involved.

You still don't understand any of the real issues.

Electric motors heat fail well before the windings melt.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#468658

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.

Teslas accelerate in short manic bursts. The motor would fry if it ran
steady-state at full power.

And the power/weight ratio drops a lot if you include the batteries.




>
>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
>
>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.
>
>So is it really true we can increase electric motor power levels simply by 
>using wire of higher current capacity?
>
>
>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/
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web