Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #425054 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-15 18:57 +0000 |
| Last post | 2017-07-22 17:58 -0500 |
| Articles | 8 on this page of 148 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-15 18:57 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 19:36 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-15 19:52 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 20:11 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 00:49 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:25 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-17 22:34 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 14:53 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 10:49 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 16:05 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-16 12:24 +1000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-16 11:14 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-16 11:18 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-16 12:35 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 10:07 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:09 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 13:24 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:36 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 19:22 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 18:47 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 00:48 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 14:56 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 10:50 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-17 22:37 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:08 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 13:26 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:36 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 16:55 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 01:09 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 14:59 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 10:51 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 16:01 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 11:59 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-17 16:52 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 14:33 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-17 20:05 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-17 18:10 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-17 23:59 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-17 22:33 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 04:03 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-17 18:23 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 00:00 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-17 22:33 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 04:04 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-19 20:03 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-20 01:14 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-18 17:08 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-18 12:38 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-18 17:44 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-18 12:47 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-18 17:54 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-19 20:25 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-19 21:19 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-19 20:22 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-20 16:55 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 17:36 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-18 17:55 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-18 15:36 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-18 21:36 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-19 20:21 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-19 20:32 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-20 16:52 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 14:58 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 10:52 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:40 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:49 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 19:13 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:03 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 10:53 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:53 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 16:56 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 00:57 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:11 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 10:55 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-16 20:35 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:40 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-16 21:19 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 19:30 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 16:59 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:14 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 10:56 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-17 02:02 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 02:02 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:21 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 10:59 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:17 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-17 15:55 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 11:01 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 16:09 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 11:58 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 01:01 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:22 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 01:45 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:33 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 11:04 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 19:25 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 20:11 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 17:01 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 22:19 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 01:10 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 08:41 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:34 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 11:05 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 16:07 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 11:56 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-17 22:06 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 18:01 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-17 22:27 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-17 16:58 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:26 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:47 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 17:01 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 00:46 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 08:43 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:35 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 11:06 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-17 16:59 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-17 18:15 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 00:02 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-17 22:35 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 04:05 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-19 20:04 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-20 01:15 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-19 21:43 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-19 21:23 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-20 03:42 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 11:29 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-20 17:27 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-20 19:17 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 00:15 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-20 21:20 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 01:41 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-21 09:55 -0500
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. 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
Page 8 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 18:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cgs94e-6oo.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #425762 |
In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 1:10 PM: >> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:26 AM: >>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 10:13 PM: >>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>>>> jimp wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>>>>>>>>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>>>>>>>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>>>>>>>>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>>>>>>>>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>>>>>>>>> material that can carry more current. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >>>>>>>> Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >>>>>>>> Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>>>> resistance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was current density I was most interested in. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, because you are clueless about the real world and don't understand >>>>>> the limits of electrical motors is heat rise due to resistive losses. >>>>> >>>>> And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to copper? >>>> >>>> All the references I have say they are higher, do you have somthing that >>>> says otherwise? >>> >>> How about the original article? >> >> What about it? >> >>> Importantly, the researchers were able to achieve this high current density >>> tolerance without sacrificing the electrical conductivity of the material, >>> which is similar to that of pure copper. >> >> So what? >> >>> "This is the first such material, to the best of my knowledge, that can have >>> high electrical conductivity and high current density tolerance," >>> Subramaniam points out. >> >> So what? >> >>> Then there is this publication. >>> >>> https://www.ifam.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ifam/en/documents/dd/Infobl%C3%A4tter/metal-carbon_nanotube_composites_fraunhofer_ifam_dresden.pdf >> >> So what? >> >>> You understand this is a *new* material they are talking about, no? The >>> focus of the research seems to be on uses for conductors in integrated >>> circuits where other aspects than conductivity are limiting. >> >> So what? >> >> The issue is temperature rise due to resistive losses, not anything else. > > You said the resistivity of the CU-CNT material is worse than copper. Just > setting the record straight. Where? The closest you did to that is when you stated it was "similar to that of pure copper". And since the issue is heat and getting rid of it, what is the thermal conductivity compared to copper? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 15:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oktjbb$b76$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #425770 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 2:07 PM: > In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 1:10 PM: >>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:26 AM: >>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 10:13 PM: >>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> jimp wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>>>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>>>>>>>>>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>>>>>>>>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>>>>>>>>>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>>>>>>>>>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>>>>>>>>>> material that can carry more current. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>> Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>> Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>>>>> resistance. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I was current density I was most interested in. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, because you are clueless about the real world and don't understand >>>>>>> the limits of electrical motors is heat rise due to resistive losses. >>>>>> >>>>>> And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to copper? >>>>> >>>>> All the references I have say they are higher, do you have somthing that >>>>> says otherwise? >>>> >>>> How about the original article? >>> >>> What about it? >>> >>>> Importantly, the researchers were able to achieve this high current density >>>> tolerance without sacrificing the electrical conductivity of the material, >>>> which is similar to that of pure copper. >>> >>> So what? >>> >>>> "This is the first such material, to the best of my knowledge, that can have >>>> high electrical conductivity and high current density tolerance," >>>> Subramaniam points out. >>> >>> So what? >>> >>>> Then there is this publication. >>>> >>>> https://www.ifam.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ifam/en/documents/dd/Infobl%C3%A4tter/metal-carbon_nanotube_composites_fraunhofer_ifam_dresden.pdf >>> >>> So what? >>> >>>> You understand this is a *new* material they are talking about, no? The >>>> focus of the research seems to be on uses for conductors in integrated >>>> circuits where other aspects than conductivity are limiting. >>> >>> So what? >>> >>> The issue is temperature rise due to resistive losses, not anything else. >> >> You said the resistivity of the CU-CNT material is worse than copper. Just >> setting the record straight. > > Where? See above. >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:26 AM: >>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to copper? >>>>> >>>>> All the references I have say they are higher -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 19:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uf1a4e-a8p.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #425776 |
In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 2:07 PM: >> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 1:10 PM: >>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:26 AM: >>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 10:13 PM: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> jimp wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>>>>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>>>>>>>>>>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>>>>>>>>>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>>>>>>>>>>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>>>>>>>>>>> material that can carry more current. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>> Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>> Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>>>>>> resistance. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I was current density I was most interested in. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, because you are clueless about the real world and don't understand >>>>>>>> the limits of electrical motors is heat rise due to resistive losses. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to copper? >>>>>> >>>>>> All the references I have say they are higher, do you have somthing that >>>>>> says otherwise? >>>>> >>>>> How about the original article? >>>> >>>> What about it? >>>> >>>>> Importantly, the researchers were able to achieve this high current density >>>>> tolerance without sacrificing the electrical conductivity of the material, >>>>> which is similar to that of pure copper. >>>> >>>> So what? >>>> >>>>> "This is the first such material, to the best of my knowledge, that can have >>>>> high electrical conductivity and high current density tolerance," >>>>> Subramaniam points out. >>>> >>>> So what? >>>> >>>>> Then there is this publication. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.ifam.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ifam/en/documents/dd/Infobl%C3%A4tter/metal-carbon_nanotube_composites_fraunhofer_ifam_dresden.pdf >>>> >>>> So what? >>>> >>>>> You understand this is a *new* material they are talking about, no? The >>>>> focus of the research seems to be on uses for conductors in integrated >>>>> circuits where other aspects than conductivity are limiting. >>>> >>>> So what? >>>> >>>> The issue is temperature rise due to resistive losses, not anything else. >>> >>> You said the resistivity of the CU-CNT material is worse than copper. Just >>> setting the record straight. >> >> Where? > > See above. I notice that with selective editing you have changed the entire discussion. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 17:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oktrlr$76v$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #425779 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 3:32 PM: > In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 2:07 PM: >>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 1:10 PM: >>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:26 AM: >>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 10:13 PM: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> jimp wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>>>>>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>>>>>>>>>>>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> material that can carry more current. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>> Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>> Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>>>>>>> resistance. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I was current density I was most interested in. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, because you are clueless about the real world and don't understand >>>>>>>>> the limits of electrical motors is heat rise due to resistive losses. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to copper? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All the references I have say they are higher, do you have somthing that >>>>>>> says otherwise? >>>>>> >>>>>> How about the original article? >>>>> >>>>> What about it? >>>>> >>>>>> Importantly, the researchers were able to achieve this high current density >>>>>> tolerance without sacrificing the electrical conductivity of the material, >>>>>> which is similar to that of pure copper. >>>>> >>>>> So what? >>>>> >>>>>> "This is the first such material, to the best of my knowledge, that can have >>>>>> high electrical conductivity and high current density tolerance," >>>>>> Subramaniam points out. >>>>> >>>>> So what? >>>>> >>>>>> Then there is this publication. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.ifam.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ifam/en/documents/dd/Infobl%C3%A4tter/metal-carbon_nanotube_composites_fraunhofer_ifam_dresden.pdf >>>>> >>>>> So what? >>>>> >>>>>> You understand this is a *new* material they are talking about, no? The >>>>>> focus of the research seems to be on uses for conductors in integrated >>>>>> circuits where other aspects than conductivity are limiting. >>>>> >>>>> So what? >>>>> >>>>> The issue is temperature rise due to resistive losses, not anything else. >>>> >>>> You said the resistivity of the CU-CNT material is worse than copper. Just >>>> setting the record straight. >>> >>> Where? >> >> See above. > > I notice that with selective editing you have changed the entire discussion. I think you are trying to change the topic now. Anyway, I think this conversation is exhausted. Bye. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 22:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7qaa4e-95q.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #425783 |
In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 3:32 PM: >> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 2:07 PM: >>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 1:10 PM: >>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:26 AM: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 10:13 PM: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material that can carry more current. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>>> Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>>> Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>>>>>>>> resistance. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I was current density I was most interested in. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, because you are clueless about the real world and don't understand >>>>>>>>>> the limits of electrical motors is heat rise due to resistive losses. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to copper? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All the references I have say they are higher, do you have somthing that >>>>>>>> says otherwise? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How about the original article? >>>>>> >>>>>> What about it? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Importantly, the researchers were able to achieve this high current density >>>>>>> tolerance without sacrificing the electrical conductivity of the material, >>>>>>> which is similar to that of pure copper. >>>>>> >>>>>> So what? >>>>>> >>>>>>> "This is the first such material, to the best of my knowledge, that can have >>>>>>> high electrical conductivity and high current density tolerance," >>>>>>> Subramaniam points out. >>>>>> >>>>>> So what? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Then there is this publication. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.ifam.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ifam/en/documents/dd/Infobl%C3%A4tter/metal-carbon_nanotube_composites_fraunhofer_ifam_dresden.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> So what? >>>>>> >>>>>>> You understand this is a *new* material they are talking about, no? The >>>>>>> focus of the research seems to be on uses for conductors in integrated >>>>>>> circuits where other aspects than conductivity are limiting. >>>>>> >>>>>> So what? >>>>>> >>>>>> The issue is temperature rise due to resistive losses, not anything else. >>>>> >>>>> You said the resistivity of the CU-CNT material is worse than copper. Just >>>>> setting the record straight. >>>> >>>> Where? >>> >>> See above. >> >> I notice that with selective editing you have changed the entire discussion. > > I think you are trying to change the topic now. Anyway, I think this > conversation is exhausted. Bye. Good riddence, troll. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-22 10:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <okvoit$5p7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #425758 |
>... >>> >>> And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to >>> copper? >> >> All the references I have say they are higher, do you have somthing that >> says otherwise? > >How about the original article? > >Importantly, the researchers were able to achieve this high current density >tolerance without sacrificing the electrical conductivity of the material, >which is similar to that of pure copper. > >"This is the first such material, to the best of my knowledge, that can >have high electrical conductivity and high current density tolerance," >Subramaniam points out. > >Then there is this publication. > >https://www.ifam.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ifam/en/documents/dd/Infobl%C3%A4tter/metal-carbon_nanotube_composites_fraunhofer_ifam_dresden.pdf > > >You understand this is a *new* material they are talking about, no? The >focus of the research seems to be on uses for conductors in integrated >circuits where other aspects than conductivity are limiting. > I don't know if the current density measurements will hold up. NASA Glenn was unable to reproduce them. It might be they used a different formulation then the original researchers used. The link you provided by the Fraunhofer institute is interesting however. It shows the composites have about twice the strength as regular copper. This might be useful for applications requiring high strength as well as high conductivity such as overhead high tension wires. Bob Clark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carbon nanotubes can revolutionize 21st-century technology IF they can be made arbitrarily long while maintaining their strength. Some proposals to accomplish that here: From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials. American Journal of Nanomaterials. Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016, pp 39-43. doi: 10.12691/ajn-4-2-2 | Research Article. http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajn/4/2/2/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-22 17:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <7sl7ncl5oqt4k6i10rrtpftine6soti4tf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #425836 |
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 10:51:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >... composites have about twice the strength as regular copper. This > might be useful for applications requiring high strength.... E.g. when too many teslas tear your magnet apart, something which I've seen no one on this thread mention yet. -- Goat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-22 17:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <33m7ncldkj12r7hqdacq6pnate2ag42jk9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #425870 |
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. -- Goat
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web