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

Groups > sci.physics.electromag > #19982 > unrolled thread

Question about power capacity of electrical motors.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.electromag

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. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-22 00:22 +0000
      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. "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. 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. 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. "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. "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

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

#20079

On 7/22/2017 7:56 PM, Serg io wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4_LZ8fL-Mc

Note when the rail gun fires that there is absolutely ZERO recoil to the 
gun proving once and for all that Banjo's theory that the Lorentz force 
produces no recoil is absolutely TRUE!

I smell Nobel! Were it not for the Western Scoundrels who will steal all 
the credit for this theory from Banjo and claim it for their own!

And the best news is he won't be able to do a thing against these pig 
thieves!

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

#20090

On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:56:44 -0500, Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com>
wrote:

>On 7/22/2017 5:58 PM, Lofty Goat wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 17:55:19 -0500, Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 10:51:55 -0400, "Robert Clark"
>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... composites have about twice the strength as regular copper.  This
>>>> might be useful for applications requiring high strength....
>>>
>>> E.g. when too many teslas tear your magnet apart, something which I've
>>> seen no one on this thread mention yet.
>> 
>> Jinx!  Just saw someone mention it.  Good.
>> 
>
>
>high mag fields;
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h89IrTvceqc
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xefxQGWXyo
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7Xh28hNRBQ
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOL3RZX21Yk
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4_LZ8fL-Mc

I'm guessing these are videos of magnets exploding due to internal
stress.

As they say, if some is good and more is better, then too much must be
just right.

-- 
Goat

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

#20091

On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:56:44 -0500, Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 7/22/2017 5:58 PM, Lofty Goat wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 17:55:19 -0500, Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 10:51:55 -0400, "Robert Clark"
>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ... composites have about twice the strength as regular copper.  This
>>>>> might be useful for applications requiring high strength....
>>>>
>>>> E.g. when too many teslas tear your magnet apart, something which I've
>>>> seen no one on this thread mention yet.
>>>
>>> Jinx!  Just saw someone mention it.  Good.
>>>
>>
>>
>>high mag fields;
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h89IrTvceqc
>>
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xefxQGWXyo
>>
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7Xh28hNRBQ
>>
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOL3RZX21Yk
>>
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4_LZ8fL-Mc
>
>I'm guessing these are videos of magnets exploding due to internal
>stress.
>
>As they say, if some is good and more is better, then too much must be
>just right.
>

Actually, it's videos of "railguns", electromagnetic projectile weapons.

    Bob Clark

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon nanotubes can revolutionize 21st-century technology IF they can be 
made arbitrarily long while maintaining their strength.

Some proposals to accomplish that here:

From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production
of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials.
American Journal of Nanomaterials.
Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016, pp 39-43. doi: 10.12691/ajn-4-2-2 | Research Article.
http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajn/4/2/2/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

#20095

On 7/24/2017 4:35 AM, Robert Clark wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:56:44 -0500, Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/22/2017 5:58 PM, Lofty Goat wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 17:55:19 -0500, Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 10:51:55 -0400, "Robert Clark"
>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ... composites have about twice the strength as regular copper.  This
>>>>>> might be useful for applications requiring high strength....
>>>>>
>>>>> E.g. when too many teslas tear your magnet apart, something which I've
>>>>> seen no one on this thread mention yet.
>>>>
>>>> Jinx!  Just saw someone mention it.  Good.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> high mag fields;
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h89IrTvceqc
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xefxQGWXyo
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7Xh28hNRBQ
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOL3RZX21Yk
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4_LZ8fL-Mc
>>
>> I'm guessing these are videos of magnets exploding due to internal
>> stress.
>>
>> As they say, if some is good and more is better, then too much must be
>> just right.
>>
> 
> Actually, it's videos of "railguns", electromagnetic projectile weapons.
> 
>     Bob Clark
> 

I think in one or two of the videos, they are actually showing use of 
sabots, and firing with powder, as there is too much smoke behind the 
projectile.

where would so much smoke be generated in a railgun?

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

#20108

On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:39:49 -0500, Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com>
wrote:

>>>> high mag fields;
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h89IrTvceqc
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xefxQGWXyo
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7Xh28hNRBQ
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOL3RZX21Yk
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4_LZ8fL-Mc
>>>

>> Actually, it's videos of "railguns", electromagnetic projectile weapons.

>I think in one or two of the videos, they are actually showing use of 
>sabots, and firing with powder, as there is too much smoke behind the 
>projectile.
>
>where would so much smoke be generated in a railgun?

Wondered that myself.  Saw a photo of a US Navy railgun that had just
been fired, and there was smoke, but not enough for a powder charge.

-- 
Goat

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

#20110

On 7/25/2017 3:15 AM, Lofty Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:39:49 -0500, Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> high mag fields;
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h89IrTvceqc
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xefxQGWXyo
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7Xh28hNRBQ
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOL3RZX21Yk
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4_LZ8fL-Mc
>>>>
>
>>> Actually, it's videos of "railguns", electromagnetic projectile weapons.
>
>> I think in one or two of the videos, they are actually showing use of
>> sabots, and firing with powder, as there is too much smoke behind the
>> projectile.
>>
>> where would so much smoke be generated in a railgun?
>
> Wondered that myself.  Saw a photo of a US Navy railgun that had just
> been fired, and there was smoke, but not enough for a powder charge.

Sliding contacts wit a lot of current going through them?

-- 
Jos

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

#20111

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:56:07 +0200, Jos Bergervoet
<jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>On 7/25/2017 3:15 AM, Lofty Goat wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:39:49 -0500, Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com>
>> wrote:

>>> where would so much smoke be generated in a railgun?

>> Wondered that myself.  Saw a photo of a US Navy railgun that had just
>> been fired, and there was smoke, but not enough for a powder charge.

>Sliding contacts wit a lot of current going through them?

'S what thought.  Some sort of conductive lubricant, any kind of gunk,
subject to that much heat, equals smoke.

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

#20114

On 7/25/2017 8:23 PM, Lofty Goat wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:56:07 +0200, Jos Bergervoet
> <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> 
>> On 7/25/2017 3:15 AM, Lofty Goat wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:39:49 -0500, Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com>
>>> wrote:
> 
>>>> where would so much smoke be generated in a railgun?
> 
>>> Wondered that myself.  Saw a photo of a US Navy railgun that had just
>>> been fired, and there was smoke, but not enough for a powder charge.
> 
>> Sliding contacts wit a lot of current going through them?
> 
> 'S what thought.  Some sort of conductive lubricant, any kind of gunk,
> subject to that much heat, equals smoke.
> 


apperently the conductive lubricant is the hot technical item, the 
critical item

https://www.google.com/patents/US8322265

short pdf on it
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/content_images/06Materials_Meger.pdf

http://science.howstuffworks.com/rail-gun1.htm

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

#20116

On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 20:28:37 -0500, Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com>
wrote:

>apperently the conductive lubricant is the hot technical item, the 
>critical item
>
>https://www.google.com/patents/US8322265
>
>short pdf on it
>http://www.nrl.navy.mil/content_images/06Materials_Meger.pdf
>
>http://science.howstuffworks.com/rail-gun1.htm

Had no idea.  Thanks.  Learn something interesting every day.  (If one
can do that and make a girl laugh as well, the day is a success.)

-- 
Goat

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

#20117

On 7/29/2017 7:47 PM, Lofty Goat wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 20:28:37 -0500, Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> apperently the conductive lubricant is the hot technical item, the
>> critical item
>>
>> https://www.google.com/patents/US8322265
>>
>> short pdf on it
>> http://www.nrl.navy.mil/content_images/06Materials_Meger.pdf
>>
>> http://science.howstuffworks.com/rail-gun1.htm
> 
> Had no idea.  Thanks.  Learn something interesting every day.  (If one
> can do that and make a girl laugh as well, the day is a success.)
> 
Of course you still have no idea. Rail guns can't work! Just look at the 
picture in the link above. The magnetic field ends at the projectile so 
there is no or very little force to accelerate it. The whole design is 
stupid! Obviously you want current supplied from BOTH ends of the rails 
so you have a magnetic field over the entire length of the sabot so it 
feels the maximum force! Obviously all these so-called rail guns are 
just military hoaxes to try to extract taxpayer research money, None of 
them can work!

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

#20118

On 7/29/2017 8:18 PM, benj wrote:
> On 7/29/2017 7:47 PM, Lofty Goat wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 20:28:37 -0500, Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com>
>> wrote:

>>> apperently the conductive lubricant is the hot technical item, the
>>> critical item
>>>
>>> https://www.google.com/patents/US8322265
>>>
>>> short pdf on it
>>> http://www.nrl.navy.mil/content_images/06Materials_Meger.pdf

>>> http://science.howstuffworks.com/rail-gun1.htm
>>
>> Had no idea.  Thanks.  Learn something interesting every day.  (If one
>> can do that and make a girl laugh as well, the day is a success.)
>>
> Of course you still have no idea. Rail guns can't work! Just look at the 
> picture in the link above. The magnetic field ends at the projectile so 
> there is no or very little force to accelerate it. The whole design is 
> stupid! Obviously you want current supplied from BOTH ends of the rails 
> so you have a magnetic field over the entire length of the sabot so it 
> feels the maximum force! Obviously all these so-called rail guns are 
> just military hoaxes to try to extract taxpayer research money, None of 
> them can work!

you can find you tube vids that show you how to build your own at home 
using car battories.   So you can slam a hole in your Moms New Car. 
(holyshit!!)


Lubricant:
must provide low friction
must provide high conductivity
must not cause dammage to rails after multipl shots


Mercury ?     w ALu ??

any Ideas ?

carbon seems too high in resistance

I think they are using something that generates a plazma

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

#20119

On 7/30/2017 12:59 AM, Serg io wrote:
> On 7/29/2017 8:18 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 7/29/2017 7:47 PM, Lofty Goat wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 20:28:37 -0500, Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com>
>>> wrote:
> 
>>>> apperently the conductive lubricant is the hot technical item, the
>>>> critical item
>>>>
>>>> https://www.google.com/patents/US8322265
>>>>
>>>> short pdf on it
>>>> http://www.nrl.navy.mil/content_images/06Materials_Meger.pdf
> 
>>>> http://science.howstuffworks.com/rail-gun1.htm
>>>
>>> Had no idea.  Thanks.  Learn something interesting every day.  (If one
>>> can do that and make a girl laugh as well, the day is a success.)
>>>
>> Of course you still have no idea. Rail guns can't work! Just look at 
>> the picture in the link above. The magnetic field ends at the 
>> projectile so there is no or very little force to accelerate it. The 
>> whole design is stupid! Obviously you want current supplied from BOTH 
>> ends of the rails so you have a magnetic field over the entire length 
>> of the sabot so it feels the maximum force! Obviously all these 
>> so-called rail guns are just military hoaxes to try to extract 
>> taxpayer research money, None of them can work!
> 
> you can find you tube vids that show you how to build your own at home 
> using car battories.   So you can slam a hole in your Moms New Car. 
> (holyshit!!)
> 
> 
> Lubricant:
> must provide low friction
> must provide high conductivity
> must not cause dammage to rails after multipl shots
> 
> 
> Mercury ?     w ALu ??
> 
> any Ideas ?
> 
> carbon seems too high in resistance
> 
> I think they are using something that generates a plazma

Graphite flakes maybe? Agree. High resistance. Maybe lithium?
Mercury probably too much inertia etc though is traditional moving 
contact from way back when. Now I think owning a mercury thermometer is 
a felony.

Plasma a good candidate. Maybe carbon to form a carbon arc plasma?
Don't know. Never had need to know. Currents are huge so not just any 
conductive stuff will do.

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

#20107

On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 05:35:29 -0400, "Robert Clark"
<rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:56:44 -0500, Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com>

>>>high mag fields;
>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h89IrTvceqc
>>>
>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xefxQGWXyo
>>>
>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7Xh28hNRBQ
>>>
>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOL3RZX21Yk
>>>
>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4_LZ8fL-Mc

>Actually, it's videos of "railguns", electromagnetic projectile weapons.

Gotcha.  Don't usually watch videos.  Too slow.  Thanks.

-- 
Goat

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

#20014

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]

#20021

> ...
>
>> 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]

#20034

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]

#19987

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]

#19996

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]

#19997

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]

#20002

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]

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.electromag

csiph-web