Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #640637 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-15 13:43 -0400 |
| Last post | 2017-07-30 21:22 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 259 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
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. 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. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 16:35 -0700
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. Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 11:48 -0700
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 00:54 -0400
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. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 10:20 -0700
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. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 11:30 -0700
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. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 20:03 -0700
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. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-19 18:03 -0500
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. Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 11:38 -0700
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 00:51 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 09:59 -0700
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. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 12:04 -0700
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. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 16:34 -0700
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. Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 11:46 -0700
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. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 10:11 -0700
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. 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. 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. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 10:13 -0700
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
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 10:03 -0700
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 09:33 -0700
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-07-30 21:19 -0700
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 09:33 -0700
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-07-30 21:22 -0700
Page 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 12:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5975ccdb$0$833$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #642118 |
On 7/24/2017 12:19 PM, John S wrote: > On 7/24/2017 5:10 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >> On 7/23/2017 11:34 PM, Serg io wrote: >>> On 7/23/2017 3:33 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>> On 7/22/2017 8:16 AM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 07/21/2017 11:17 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>>> On 7/21/2017 8:44 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/21/2017 12:09 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/21/2017 10:32 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Serg io wrote on 7/16/2017 12:47 AM: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >>>>>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >>>> ... >>>> .. >>>>>>>> the Magamp is also 99% effecient. there are some switching power >>>>>>>> supplies based upon magamps, and they are 99% effecient. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Magamps are certainly radiation resistant and EMP hardened, but 99% >>>>>>> efficiency? Doubtful. It takes some energy to saturate a magnetize >>>>>>> core even of the best materials. Core losses are significant. >>>>>>> Resistive losses are significant (you have to keep core saturated in >>>>>>> spite of output currents). Sure switchers have lots of currents >>>>>>> flowing that can be used but 99% seems rather high to me for a >>>>>>> magamp >>>>>>> control unless you are going super conducting or something. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 99% is right, look at transistor switchers, they run 70 to 83% or so >>>>>> efficient, and they have loss due to Vbe, they cannot get to the >>>>>> rails. >>>>> >>>>> Actually they do get to "rails" In switching mode they go from full >>>>> "off" to low impedance "on" where losses are very small. >>>> >>>> And there is no "Vbe" restricting the voltage drop, first >>>> of all because you can use a MOSFET if you want, but even >>>> for a BJT the driving circuit can lift the base voltage >>>> above the rail. >>>> >>>>> All the loss >>>>> takes place during the switching transition. >>>> >>>> Now you exaggerate to the other extreme! There certainly >>>> is loss during conduction. Not Vbe, but still a finite Vce >>>> due to the internal collector resistance. >>>> >>>>> The switching time is not >>>>> zero plus there is a delay factor due to sweeping carriers out of >>>>> junction. >>>> >>>> That *is* mainly the switching time in many cases! The other >>>> part is (re)charging the parasitic capacitances on the different >>>> circuit nodes. >>>> >>>>> The actual percentage dissipation depends upon the structure >>>>> of the device which is not only the type of device but the kind of >>>>> structures used in fabrication. >>>> >>>> And Sergeio is of course completely wrong to claim that it is >>>> "70 to 83% or so" for transistors. They also can reach 99%, if >>>> the switching is done at relatively low frequency (or even >>>> up to a few MHz with resonant drive). A value of 70% would be >>>> typical only if you use GHz frequencies, and nobody in his right >>>> mind would do that purely for power conversion purposes. >>> >>> got a URL for your 99% effecient transistor power supply ? >> >> Why would I need one? I know how to compute those things >> and how to build them. I knew it even when the web did not >> yet exist, and URLs likewise. > > Mainly because your claim seems unreasonable. Why is it unreasonable? Working with voltages in the order of a few hundred volt (as for instance a converter for a mains-fed fluorescent lamp) and transistor saturation voltages of a few tenths of a volt, you have conduction losses in the order of 0.1%. The other switching losses scale with frequency so staying at low f (e.g. 35 kHz) keeps them low as well (and of course zero-current switching will help, like in a correctly tuned half-bridge converters). The passive-component losses are mainly in the inductors, which can have a Q-factor of e few hundred at those frequencies, so no need for more than 1% losses. So based on those facts, it is not unreasonable at all. On the contrary, your claim that the losses should be much higher is unreasonable! Can you give a mechanism that would make those high losses probable?! -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 08:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ol4u34$1m7d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #642119 |
On 7/24/2017 5:32 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: > On 7/24/2017 12:19 PM, John S wrote: >> On 7/24/2017 5:10 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>> On 7/23/2017 11:34 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>> On 7/23/2017 3:33 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>>> On 7/22/2017 8:16 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 07/21/2017 11:17 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/21/2017 8:44 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/21/2017 12:09 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2017 10:32 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Serg io wrote on 7/16/2017 12:47 AM: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >>>>>>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>> .. >>>>>>>>> the Magamp is also 99% effecient. there are some switching power >>>>>>>>> supplies based upon magamps, and they are 99% effecient. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Magamps are certainly radiation resistant and EMP hardened, but 99% >>>>>>>> efficiency? Doubtful. It takes some energy to saturate a magnetize >>>>>>>> core even of the best materials. Core losses are significant. >>>>>>>> Resistive losses are significant (you have to keep core >>>>>>>> saturated in >>>>>>>> spite of output currents). Sure switchers have lots of currents >>>>>>>> flowing that can be used but 99% seems rather high to me for a >>>>>>>> magamp >>>>>>>> control unless you are going super conducting or something. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 99% is right, look at transistor switchers, they run 70 to 83% or so >>>>>>> efficient, and they have loss due to Vbe, they cannot get to the >>>>>>> rails. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually they do get to "rails" In switching mode they go from full >>>>>> "off" to low impedance "on" where losses are very small. >>>>> >>>>> And there is no "Vbe" restricting the voltage drop, first >>>>> of all because you can use a MOSFET if you want, but even >>>>> for a BJT the driving circuit can lift the base voltage >>>>> above the rail. >>>>> >>>>>> All the loss >>>>>> takes place during the switching transition. >>>>> >>>>> Now you exaggerate to the other extreme! There certainly >>>>> is loss during conduction. Not Vbe, but still a finite Vce >>>>> due to the internal collector resistance. >>>>> >>>>>> The switching time is not >>>>>> zero plus there is a delay factor due to sweeping carriers out of >>>>>> junction. >>>>> >>>>> That *is* mainly the switching time in many cases! The other >>>>> part is (re)charging the parasitic capacitances on the different >>>>> circuit nodes. >>>>> >>>>>> The actual percentage dissipation depends upon the structure >>>>>> of the device which is not only the type of device but the kind of >>>>>> structures used in fabrication. >>>>> >>>>> And Sergeio is of course completely wrong to claim that it is >>>>> "70 to 83% or so" for transistors. They also can reach 99%, if >>>>> the switching is done at relatively low frequency (or even >>>>> up to a few MHz with resonant drive). A value of 70% would be >>>>> typical only if you use GHz frequencies, and nobody in his right >>>>> mind would do that purely for power conversion purposes. >>>> >>>> got a URL for your 99% effecient transistor power supply ? >>> >>> Why would I need one? I know how to compute those things >>> and how to build them. I knew it even when the web did not >>> yet exist, and URLs likewise. >> Mainly because your claim seems unreasonable. > > Why is it unreasonable? Working with voltages in the order of > a few hundred volt (as for instance a converter for a mains-fed > fluorescent lamp) and transistor saturation voltages of a few > tenths of a volt, you have conduction losses in the order of > 0.1%. The other switching losses scale with frequency so staying > at low f (e.g. 35 kHz) keeps them low as well (and of course > zero-current switching will help, like in a correctly tuned > half-bridge converters). The passive-component losses are mainly > in the inductors, which can have a Q-factor of e few hundred at > those frequencies, so no need for more than 1% losses. > > So based on those facts, it is not unreasonable at all. On the > contrary, your claim that the losses should be much higher is > unreasonable! Can you give a mechanism that would make those > high losses probable?! > those are design goals, not facts. if you find a URL that points to an existing 99% power supply in production, that would be fact. remember during your switching time when transistor goes from off to on, you have a power spike too, V and I cross over, so bandwidth of the transistor/mosfet must be high. http://xppower.com/pdfs/95_High_Efficiency.pdf getting above 90% effeciency with transistors/mosfets is quite difficult
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 16:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <59760a9e$0$759$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #642140 |
On 7/24/2017 3:52 PM, Serg io wrote: > On 7/24/2017 5:32 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >> On 7/24/2017 12:19 PM, John S wrote: >>> On 7/24/2017 5:10 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>> On 7/23/2017 11:34 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>> On 7/23/2017 3:33 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>>>> On 7/22/2017 8:16 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>> On 07/21/2017 11:17 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/21/2017 8:44 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2017 12:09 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2017 10:32 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Serg io wrote on 7/16/2017 12:47 AM: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >>>>>> ... >>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>> the Magamp is also 99% effecient. there are some switching power >>>>>>>>>> supplies based upon magamps, and they are 99% effecient. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Magamps are certainly radiation resistant and EMP hardened, but >>>>>>>>> 99% >>>>>>>>> efficiency? Doubtful. It takes some energy to saturate a magnetize >>>>>>>>> core even of the best materials. Core losses are significant. >>>>>>>>> Resistive losses are significant (you have to keep core >>>>>>>>> saturated in >>>>>>>>> spite of output currents). Sure switchers have lots of currents >>>>>>>>> flowing that can be used but 99% seems rather high to me for a >>>>>>>>> magamp >>>>>>>>> control unless you are going super conducting or something. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 99% is right, look at transistor switchers, they run 70 to 83% >>>>>>>> or so >>>>>>>> efficient, and they have loss due to Vbe, they cannot get to the >>>>>>>> rails. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually they do get to "rails" In switching mode they go from full >>>>>>> "off" to low impedance "on" where losses are very small. >>>>>> >>>>>> And there is no "Vbe" restricting the voltage drop, first >>>>>> of all because you can use a MOSFET if you want, but even >>>>>> for a BJT the driving circuit can lift the base voltage >>>>>> above the rail. >>>>>> >>>>>>> All the loss >>>>>>> takes place during the switching transition. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now you exaggerate to the other extreme! There certainly >>>>>> is loss during conduction. Not Vbe, but still a finite Vce >>>>>> due to the internal collector resistance. >>>>>> >>>>>>> The switching time is not >>>>>>> zero plus there is a delay factor due to sweeping carriers out of >>>>>>> junction. >>>>>> >>>>>> That *is* mainly the switching time in many cases! The other >>>>>> part is (re)charging the parasitic capacitances on the different >>>>>> circuit nodes. >>>>>> >>>>>>> The actual percentage dissipation depends upon the structure >>>>>>> of the device which is not only the type of device but the kind of >>>>>>> structures used in fabrication. >>>>>> >>>>>> And Sergeio is of course completely wrong to claim that it is >>>>>> "70 to 83% or so" for transistors. They also can reach 99%, if >>>>>> the switching is done at relatively low frequency (or even >>>>>> up to a few MHz with resonant drive). A value of 70% would be >>>>>> typical only if you use GHz frequencies, and nobody in his right >>>>>> mind would do that purely for power conversion purposes. >>>>> >>>>> got a URL for your 99% effecient transistor power supply ? >>>> >>>> Why would I need one? I know how to compute those things >>>> and how to build them. I knew it even when the web did not >>>> yet exist, and URLs likewise. > >>> Mainly because your claim seems unreasonable. >> >> Why is it unreasonable? Working with voltages in the order of >> a few hundred volt (as for instance a converter for a mains-fed >> fluorescent lamp) and transistor saturation voltages of a few >> tenths of a volt, you have conduction losses in the order of >> 0.1%. The other switching losses scale with frequency so staying >> at low f (e.g. 35 kHz) keeps them low as well (and of course >> zero-current switching will help, like in a correctly tuned >> half-bridge converters). The passive-component losses are mainly >> in the inductors, which can have a Q-factor of e few hundred at >> those frequencies, so no need for more than 1% losses. >> >> So based on those facts, it is not unreasonable at all. On the >> contrary, your claim that the losses should be much higher is >> unreasonable! Can you give a mechanism that would make those >> high losses probable?! >> > > those are design goals, not facts. The question was why they are *unreasonable!* And they are based on clear enough reasoning for you to understand, so it would be *your* burden of proof to convince us that they are "unreasonable". > .. if you find a URL that points to an > existing 99% power supply in production, that would be fact. Lots of URLs point there: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=99%25+efficiency+half-bridge Do your own work if you want to sort them out! -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 12:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ol597v$c3c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #642147 |
On 7/24/2017 9:56 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: > On 7/24/2017 3:52 PM, Serg io wrote: >> On 7/24/2017 5:32 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>> On 7/24/2017 12:19 PM, John S wrote: >>>> On 7/24/2017 5:10 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>>> On 7/23/2017 11:34 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>>> On 7/23/2017 3:33 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/22/2017 8:16 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> On 07/21/2017 11:17 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2017 8:44 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2017 12:09 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2017 10:32 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Serg io wrote on 7/16/2017 12:47 AM: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>> the Magamp is also 99% effecient. there are some switching >>>>>>>>>>> power >>>>>>>>>>> supplies based upon magamps, and they are 99% effecient. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Magamps are certainly radiation resistant and EMP hardened, but >>>>>>>>>> 99% >>>>>>>>>> efficiency? Doubtful. It takes some energy to saturate a >>>>>>>>>> magnetize >>>>>>>>>> core even of the best materials. Core losses are significant. >>>>>>>>>> Resistive losses are significant (you have to keep core >>>>>>>>>> saturated in >>>>>>>>>> spite of output currents). Sure switchers have lots of currents >>>>>>>>>> flowing that can be used but 99% seems rather high to me for a >>>>>>>>>> magamp >>>>>>>>>> control unless you are going super conducting or something. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 99% is right, look at transistor switchers, they run 70 to 83% >>>>>>>>> or so >>>>>>>>> efficient, and they have loss due to Vbe, they cannot get to the >>>>>>>>> rails. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Actually they do get to "rails" In switching mode they go from full >>>>>>>> "off" to low impedance "on" where losses are very small. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And there is no "Vbe" restricting the voltage drop, first >>>>>>> of all because you can use a MOSFET if you want, but even >>>>>>> for a BJT the driving circuit can lift the base voltage >>>>>>> above the rail. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All the loss >>>>>>>> takes place during the switching transition. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now you exaggerate to the other extreme! There certainly >>>>>>> is loss during conduction. Not Vbe, but still a finite Vce >>>>>>> due to the internal collector resistance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The switching time is not >>>>>>>> zero plus there is a delay factor due to sweeping carriers out of >>>>>>>> junction. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That *is* mainly the switching time in many cases! The other >>>>>>> part is (re)charging the parasitic capacitances on the different >>>>>>> circuit nodes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The actual percentage dissipation depends upon the structure >>>>>>>> of the device which is not only the type of device but the kind of >>>>>>>> structures used in fabrication. >>>>>>> And Sergeio is of course completely wrong to claim that it is >>>>>>> "70 to 83% or so" for transistors. They also can reach 99%, if >>>>>>> the switching is done at relatively low frequency (or even >>>>>>> up to a few MHz with resonant drive). A value of 70% would be >>>>>>> typical only if you use GHz frequencies, and nobody in his right >>>>>>> mind would do that purely for power conversion purposes. >>>>>> >>>>>> got a URL for your 99% effecient transistor power supply ? >>>>> >>>>> Why would I need one? I know how to compute those things >>>>> and how to build them. I knew it even when the web did not >>>>> yet exist, and URLs likewise. >>>> Mainly because your claim seems unreasonable. >>> >>> Why is it unreasonable? Working with voltages in the order of >>> a few hundred volt (as for instance a converter for a mains-fed >>> fluorescent lamp) and transistor saturation voltages of a few >>> tenths of a volt, you have conduction losses in the order of >>> 0.1%. The other switching losses scale with frequency so staying >>> at low f (e.g. 35 kHz) keeps them low as well (and of course >>> zero-current switching will help, like in a correctly tuned >>> half-bridge converters). The passive-component losses are mainly >>> in the inductors, which can have a Q-factor of e few hundred at >>> those frequencies, so no need for more than 1% losses. >>> >>> So based on those facts, it is not unreasonable at all. On the >>> contrary, your claim that the losses should be much higher is >>> unreasonable! Can you give a mechanism that would make those >>> high losses probable?! >> those are design goals, not facts. > > The question was why they are *unreasonable!* And they > are based on clear enough reasoning for you to understand, > so it would be *your* burden of proof to convince us that > they are "unreasonable". bullshit. your working design demonstrating it meets 99% effeciency is the proof. OR, if you got a URL to an in production unit. > >> .. if you find a URL that points to an >> existing 99% power supply in production, that would be fact. > > Lots of URLs point there: > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=99%25+efficiency+half-bridge > > Do your own work if you want to sort them out! > that is only a half rectifying bridge. not an entire power supply. and the bridge is made of SiC so... the 99% limitation is the front end rectifiers, from ac to dc-ish, the diode drop. one has to go to SiC and you can buy 90% eff supplies, LRS-150-24 etc. Cant buy 95% that much
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 23:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <59766bf3$0$738$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #642170 |
On 7/24/2017 7:02 PM, Serg io wrote: > On 7/24/2017 9:56 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >> On 7/24/2017 3:52 PM, Serg io wrote: >>> On 7/24/2017 5:32 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>> On 7/24/2017 12:19 PM, John S wrote: >>>>> On 7/24/2017 5:10 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>>>> On 7/23/2017 11:34 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/23/2017 3:33 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: ... .. >>>>>>>> And Sergeio is of course completely wrong to claim that it is >>>>>>>> "70 to 83% or so" for transistors. They also can reach 99%, if >>>>>>>> the switching is done at relatively low frequency (or even >>>>>>>> up to a few MHz with resonant drive). A value of 70% would be >>>>>>>> typical only if you use GHz frequencies, and nobody in his right >>>>>>>> mind would do that purely for power conversion purposes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> got a URL for your 99% effecient transistor power supply ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Why would I need one? I know how to compute those things >>>>>> and how to build them. I knew it even when the web did not >>>>>> yet exist, and URLs likewise. >>>>> >>>>> Mainly because your claim seems unreasonable. >>>> >>>> Why is it unreasonable? Working with voltages in the order of >>>> a few hundred volt (as for instance a converter for a mains-fed >>>> fluorescent lamp) and transistor saturation voltages of a few >>>> tenths of a volt, you have conduction losses in the order of >>>> 0.1%. The other switching losses scale with frequency so staying >>>> at low f (e.g. 35 kHz) keeps them low as well (and of course >>>> zero-current switching will help, like in a correctly tuned >>>> half-bridge converters). The passive-component losses are mainly >>>> in the inductors, which can have a Q-factor of e few hundred at >>>> those frequencies, so no need for more than 1% losses. >>>> >>>> So based on those facts, it is not unreasonable at all. On the >>>> contrary, your claim that the losses should be much higher is >>>> unreasonable! Can you give a mechanism that would make those >>>> high losses probable?! >>> >>> those are design goals, not facts. >> >> The question was why they are *unreasonable!* And they >> are based on clear enough reasoning for you to understand, >> so it would be *your* burden of proof to convince us that >> they are "unreasonable". > > bullshit. your working design demonstrating it meets 99% effeciency is > the proof. OR, if you got a URL to an in production unit. > >>> .. if you find a URL that points to an >>> existing 99% power supply in production, that would be fact. >> >> Lots of URLs point there: >> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=99%25+efficiency+half-bridge >> >> Do your own work if you want to sort them out! > > that is only a half rectifying bridge. not an entire power supply. Why should it be? The Magamp examples that were claimed here to be 99% efficient were also not an entire power supply. In fact it was completely unspecified what exactly they converted into what! Fact is, for a half-bridge converting DC into some AC frequency the efficiency can 99% plus. > and > the bridge is made of SiC Irrelevant. Si can do the same. You need SiC to make the paper accepted. (The 99% is no big deal, it's "novel" because of SiC!) > so... the 99% limitation is the front end rectifiers, from ac to > dc-ish, the diode drop. There you might have a full diode bridge, with say 2*0.8V drop for a 300V DC output voltage (for 240V mains), so that's 99.5% efficient as an additional step. Not really spoiling it! You might even use a synchronous rectifier with MOS switches where you can make the drop as low as you want by using very big ones (50/60Hz AC really will not give you large capacitive losses!) But of course no-one will do that since it is not cost-effective to get rid of just this 0.5% loss. So really, you should stop nit-picking. The claim "70 to 83% or so" may be true for cheap small battery loaders, but for large power conversion units (like the solid state units in power distribution) it may even be closer to 99.9% than 99%. There they have to compete with copper-iron transformers, which definitely (as opposed, or perhaps not, to Magamps) can beat 99%. -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 17:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ol5rbk$vef$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #642224 |
On 7/24/2017 4:51 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: > On 7/24/2017 7:02 PM, Serg io wrote: >> On 7/24/2017 9:56 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>> On 7/24/2017 3:52 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>> On 7/24/2017 5:32 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>>> On 7/24/2017 12:19 PM, John S wrote: >>>>>> On 7/24/2017 5:10 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/23/2017 11:34 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/23/2017 3:33 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: > ... > .. >>>>>>>>> And Sergeio is of course completely wrong to claim that it is >>>>>>>>> "70 to 83% or so" for transistors. They also can reach 99%, if >>>>>>>>> the switching is done at relatively low frequency (or even >>>>>>>>> up to a few MHz with resonant drive). A value of 70% would be >>>>>>>>> typical only if you use GHz frequencies, and nobody in his right >>>>>>>>> mind would do that purely for power conversion purposes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> got a URL for your 99% effecient transistor power supply ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why would I need one? I know how to compute those things >>>>>>> and how to build them. I knew it even when the web did not >>>>>>> yet exist, and URLs likewise. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mainly because your claim seems unreasonable. >>>>> >>>>> Why is it unreasonable? Working with voltages in the order of >>>>> a few hundred volt (as for instance a converter for a mains-fed >>>>> fluorescent lamp) and transistor saturation voltages of a few >>>>> tenths of a volt, you have conduction losses in the order of >>>>> 0.1%. The other switching losses scale with frequency so staying >>>>> at low f (e.g. 35 kHz) keeps them low as well (and of course >>>>> zero-current switching will help, like in a correctly tuned >>>>> half-bridge converters). The passive-component losses are mainly >>>>> in the inductors, which can have a Q-factor of e few hundred at >>>>> those frequencies, so no need for more than 1% losses. >>>>> >>>>> So based on those facts, it is not unreasonable at all. On the >>>>> contrary, your claim that the losses should be much higher is >>>>> unreasonable! Can you give a mechanism that would make those >>>>> high losses probable?! >>>> >>>> those are design goals, not facts. >>> >>> The question was why they are *unreasonable!* And they >>> are based on clear enough reasoning for you to understand, >>> so it would be *your* burden of proof to convince us that >>> they are "unreasonable". >> >> bullshit. your working design demonstrating it meets 99% effeciency is >> the proof. OR, if you got a URL to an in production unit. >> >>>> .. if you find a URL that points to an >>>> existing 99% power supply in production, that would be fact. >>> >>> Lots of URLs point there: >>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=99%25+efficiency+half-bridge >>> >>> Do your own work if you want to sort them out! >> >> that is only a half rectifying bridge. not an entire power supply. > > Why should it be? The Magamp examples that were claimed here > to be 99% efficient were also not an entire power supply. In > fact it was completely unspecified what exactly they converted > into what! Fact is, for a half-bridge converting DC into some > AC frequency the efficiency can 99% plus. > >> and >> the bridge is made of SiC > > Irrelevant. Si can do the same. You need SiC to make the paper > accepted. (The 99% is no big deal, it's "novel" because of SiC!) > >> so... the 99% limitation is the front end rectifiers, from ac to >> dc-ish, the diode drop. > > There you might have a full diode bridge, with say 2*0.8V drop > for a 300V DC output voltage (for 240V mains), so that's 99.5% > efficient as an additional step. Not really spoiling it! > > You might even use a synchronous rectifier with MOS switches > where you can make the drop as low as you want by using very > big ones (50/60Hz AC really will not give you large capacitive > losses!) But of course no-one will do that since it is not > cost-effective to get rid of just this 0.5% loss. > > So really, you should stop nit-picking. The claim "70 to 83% > or so" may be true for cheap small battery loaders, but for > large power conversion units (like the solid state units in > power distribution) it may even be closer to 99.9% than 99%. > There they have to compete with copper-iron transformers, > which definitely (as opposed, or perhaps not, to Magamps) > can beat 99%. > Please provide a link to these "large power conversion units (like the solid state units in power distribution)". I would like to look at the specifications.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-25 01:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <59767ed4$0$731$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #642227 |
On 7/25/2017 12:16 AM, John S wrote: > On 7/24/2017 4:51 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >> On 7/24/2017 7:02 PM, Serg io wrote: >>> On 7/24/2017 9:56 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>> On 7/24/2017 3:52 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>> On 7/24/2017 5:32 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>>>> On 7/24/2017 12:19 PM, John S wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/24/2017 5:10 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/23/2017 11:34 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2017 3:33 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >> ... >> .. >>>>>>>>>> And Sergeio is of course completely wrong to claim that it is >>>>>>>>>> "70 to 83% or so" for transistors. They also can reach 99%, if >>>>>>>>>> the switching is done at relatively low frequency (or even >>>>>>>>>> up to a few MHz with resonant drive). A value of 70% would be >>>>>>>>>> typical only if you use GHz frequencies, and nobody in his right >>>>>>>>>> mind would do that purely for power conversion purposes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> got a URL for your 99% effecient transistor power supply ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why would I need one? I know how to compute those things >>>>>>>> and how to build them. I knew it even when the web did not >>>>>>>> yet exist, and URLs likewise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mainly because your claim seems unreasonable. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why is it unreasonable? Working with voltages in the order of >>>>>> a few hundred volt (as for instance a converter for a mains-fed >>>>>> fluorescent lamp) and transistor saturation voltages of a few >>>>>> tenths of a volt, you have conduction losses in the order of >>>>>> 0.1%. The other switching losses scale with frequency so staying >>>>>> at low f (e.g. 35 kHz) keeps them low as well (and of course >>>>>> zero-current switching will help, like in a correctly tuned >>>>>> half-bridge converters). The passive-component losses are mainly >>>>>> in the inductors, which can have a Q-factor of e few hundred at >>>>>> those frequencies, so no need for more than 1% losses. >>>>>> >>>>>> So based on those facts, it is not unreasonable at all. On the >>>>>> contrary, your claim that the losses should be much higher is >>>>>> unreasonable! Can you give a mechanism that would make those >>>>>> high losses probable?! >>>>> >>>>> those are design goals, not facts. >>>> >>>> The question was why they are *unreasonable!* And they >>>> are based on clear enough reasoning for you to understand, >>>> so it would be *your* burden of proof to convince us that >>>> they are "unreasonable". >>> >>> bullshit. your working design demonstrating it meets 99% effeciency is >>> the proof. OR, if you got a URL to an in production unit. >>> >>>>> .. if you find a URL that points to an >>>>> existing 99% power supply in production, that would be fact. >>>> >>>> Lots of URLs point there: >>>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=99%25+efficiency+half-bridge >>>> >>>> Do your own work if you want to sort them out! >>> >>> that is only a half rectifying bridge. not an entire power supply. >> >> Why should it be? The Magamp examples that were claimed here >> to be 99% efficient were also not an entire power supply. In >> fact it was completely unspecified what exactly they converted >> into what! Fact is, for a half-bridge converting DC into some >> AC frequency the efficiency can 99% plus. >> >>> and >>> the bridge is made of SiC >> >> Irrelevant. Si can do the same. You need SiC to make the paper >> accepted. (The 99% is no big deal, it's "novel" because of SiC!) >> >>> so... the 99% limitation is the front end rectifiers, from ac to >>> dc-ish, the diode drop. >> >> There you might have a full diode bridge, with say 2*0.8V drop >> for a 300V DC output voltage (for 240V mains), so that's 99.5% >> efficient as an additional step. Not really spoiling it! >> >> You might even use a synchronous rectifier with MOS switches >> where you can make the drop as low as you want by using very >> big ones (50/60Hz AC really will not give you large capacitive >> losses!) But of course no-one will do that since it is not >> cost-effective to get rid of just this 0.5% loss. >> >> So really, you should stop nit-picking. The claim "70 to 83% >> or so" may be true for cheap small battery loaders, but for >> large power conversion units (like the solid state units in >> power distribution) it may even be closer to 99.9% than 99%. >> There they have to compete with copper-iron transformers, >> which definitely (as opposed, or perhaps not, to Magamps) >> can beat 99%. > > Please provide a link to these "large power conversion units (like the > solid state units in power distribution)". May I suggest you use a "search engine"? Look for: "SST solid state transformer" or similar terms. -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 18:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ol5vbn$vef$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #642239 |
On 7/24/2017 6:12 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: > On 7/25/2017 12:16 AM, John S wrote: >> On 7/24/2017 4:51 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>> On 7/24/2017 7:02 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>> On 7/24/2017 9:56 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>>> On 7/24/2017 3:52 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>>> On 7/24/2017 5:32 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/24/2017 12:19 PM, John S wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/24/2017 5:10 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2017 11:34 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2017 3:33 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>> ... >>> .. >>>>>>>>>>> And Sergeio is of course completely wrong to claim that it is >>>>>>>>>>> "70 to 83% or so" for transistors. They also can reach 99%, if >>>>>>>>>>> the switching is done at relatively low frequency (or even >>>>>>>>>>> up to a few MHz with resonant drive). A value of 70% would be >>>>>>>>>>> typical only if you use GHz frequencies, and nobody in his right >>>>>>>>>>> mind would do that purely for power conversion purposes. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> got a URL for your 99% effecient transistor power supply ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why would I need one? I know how to compute those things >>>>>>>>> and how to build them. I knew it even when the web did not >>>>>>>>> yet exist, and URLs likewise. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mainly because your claim seems unreasonable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why is it unreasonable? Working with voltages in the order of >>>>>>> a few hundred volt (as for instance a converter for a mains-fed >>>>>>> fluorescent lamp) and transistor saturation voltages of a few >>>>>>> tenths of a volt, you have conduction losses in the order of >>>>>>> 0.1%. The other switching losses scale with frequency so staying >>>>>>> at low f (e.g. 35 kHz) keeps them low as well (and of course >>>>>>> zero-current switching will help, like in a correctly tuned >>>>>>> half-bridge converters). The passive-component losses are mainly >>>>>>> in the inductors, which can have a Q-factor of e few hundred at >>>>>>> those frequencies, so no need for more than 1% losses. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So based on those facts, it is not unreasonable at all. On the >>>>>>> contrary, your claim that the losses should be much higher is >>>>>>> unreasonable! Can you give a mechanism that would make those >>>>>>> high losses probable?! >>>>>> >>>>>> those are design goals, not facts. >>>>> >>>>> The question was why they are *unreasonable!* And they >>>>> are based on clear enough reasoning for you to understand, >>>>> so it would be *your* burden of proof to convince us that >>>>> they are "unreasonable". >>>> >>>> bullshit. your working design demonstrating it meets 99% effeciency is >>>> the proof. OR, if you got a URL to an in production unit. >>>> >>>>>> .. if you find a URL that points to an >>>>>> existing 99% power supply in production, that would be fact. >>>>> >>>>> Lots of URLs point there: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=99%25+efficiency+half-bridge >>>>> >>>>> Do your own work if you want to sort them out! >>>> >>>> that is only a half rectifying bridge. not an entire power supply. >>> >>> Why should it be? The Magamp examples that were claimed here >>> to be 99% efficient were also not an entire power supply. In >>> fact it was completely unspecified what exactly they converted >>> into what! Fact is, for a half-bridge converting DC into some >>> AC frequency the efficiency can 99% plus. >>> >>>> and >>>> the bridge is made of SiC >>> >>> Irrelevant. Si can do the same. You need SiC to make the paper >>> accepted. (The 99% is no big deal, it's "novel" because of SiC!) >>> >>>> so... the 99% limitation is the front end rectifiers, from ac to >>>> dc-ish, the diode drop. >>> >>> There you might have a full diode bridge, with say 2*0.8V drop >>> for a 300V DC output voltage (for 240V mains), so that's 99.5% >>> efficient as an additional step. Not really spoiling it! >>> >>> You might even use a synchronous rectifier with MOS switches >>> where you can make the drop as low as you want by using very >>> big ones (50/60Hz AC really will not give you large capacitive >>> losses!) But of course no-one will do that since it is not >>> cost-effective to get rid of just this 0.5% loss. >>> >>> So really, you should stop nit-picking. The claim "70 to 83% >>> or so" may be true for cheap small battery loaders, but for >>> large power conversion units (like the solid state units in >>> power distribution) it may even be closer to 99.9% than 99%. >>> There they have to compete with copper-iron transformers, >>> which definitely (as opposed, or perhaps not, to Magamps) >>> can beat 99%. >> >> Please provide a link to these "large power conversion units (like the >> solid state units in power distribution)". > > May I suggest you use a "search engine"? Look for: > "SST solid state transformer" > or similar terms. > May I suggest you stop being a troll? Look for "troll" on a search engine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-25 11:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <59771540$0$731$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #642245 |
On 7/25/2017 1:25 AM, John S wrote: > On 7/24/2017 6:12 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >> On 7/25/2017 12:16 AM, John S wrote: >>> On 7/24/2017 4:51 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>> On 7/24/2017 7:02 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>> On 7/24/2017 9:56 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>>>> On 7/24/2017 3:52 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/24/2017 5:32 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/24/2017 12:19 PM, John S wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/24/2017 5:10 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2017 11:34 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2017 3:33 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>> ... >>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>>> And Sergeio is of course completely wrong to claim that it is >>>>>>>>>>>> "70 to 83% or so" for transistors. They also can reach 99%, if >>>>>>>>>>>> the switching is done at relatively low frequency (or even >>>>>>>>>>>> up to a few MHz with resonant drive). A value of 70% would be >>>>>>>>>>>> typical only if you use GHz frequencies, and nobody in his >>>>>>>>>>>> right >>>>>>>>>>>> mind would do that purely for power conversion purposes. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> got a URL for your 99% effecient transistor power supply ? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why would I need one? I know how to compute those things >>>>>>>>>> and how to build them. I knew it even when the web did not >>>>>>>>>> yet exist, and URLs likewise. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Mainly because your claim seems unreasonable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why is it unreasonable? Working with voltages in the order of >>>>>>>> a few hundred volt (as for instance a converter for a mains-fed >>>>>>>> fluorescent lamp) and transistor saturation voltages of a few >>>>>>>> tenths of a volt, you have conduction losses in the order of >>>>>>>> 0.1%. The other switching losses scale with frequency so staying >>>>>>>> at low f (e.g. 35 kHz) keeps them low as well (and of course >>>>>>>> zero-current switching will help, like in a correctly tuned >>>>>>>> half-bridge converters). The passive-component losses are mainly >>>>>>>> in the inductors, which can have a Q-factor of e few hundred at >>>>>>>> those frequencies, so no need for more than 1% losses. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So based on those facts, it is not unreasonable at all. On the >>>>>>>> contrary, your claim that the losses should be much higher is >>>>>>>> unreasonable! Can you give a mechanism that would make those >>>>>>>> high losses probable?! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> those are design goals, not facts. >>>>>> >>>>>> The question was why they are *unreasonable!* And they >>>>>> are based on clear enough reasoning for you to understand, >>>>>> so it would be *your* burden of proof to convince us that >>>>>> they are "unreasonable". >>>>> >>>>> bullshit. your working design demonstrating it meets 99% >>>>> effeciency is >>>>> the proof. OR, if you got a URL to an in production unit. >>>>> >>>>>>> .. if you find a URL that points to an >>>>>>> existing 99% power supply in production, that would be fact. >>>>>> >>>>>> Lots of URLs point there: >>>>>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=99%25+efficiency+half-bridge >>>>>> >>>>>> Do your own work if you want to sort them out! >>>>> >>>>> that is only a half rectifying bridge. not an entire power supply. >>>> >>>> Why should it be? The Magamp examples that were claimed here >>>> to be 99% efficient were also not an entire power supply. In >>>> fact it was completely unspecified what exactly they converted >>>> into what! Fact is, for a half-bridge converting DC into some >>>> AC frequency the efficiency can 99% plus. >>>> >>>>> and >>>>> the bridge is made of SiC >>>> >>>> Irrelevant. Si can do the same. You need SiC to make the paper >>>> accepted. (The 99% is no big deal, it's "novel" because of SiC!) >>>> >>>>> so... the 99% limitation is the front end rectifiers, from ac to >>>>> dc-ish, the diode drop. >>>> >>>> There you might have a full diode bridge, with say 2*0.8V drop >>>> for a 300V DC output voltage (for 240V mains), so that's 99.5% >>>> efficient as an additional step. Not really spoiling it! >>>> >>>> You might even use a synchronous rectifier with MOS switches >>>> where you can make the drop as low as you want by using very >>>> big ones (50/60Hz AC really will not give you large capacitive >>>> losses!) But of course no-one will do that since it is not >>>> cost-effective to get rid of just this 0.5% loss. >>>> >>>> So really, you should stop nit-picking. The claim "70 to 83% >>>> or so" may be true for cheap small battery loaders, but for >>>> large power conversion units (like the solid state units in >>>> power distribution) it may even be closer to 99.9% than 99%. >>>> There they have to compete with copper-iron transformers, >>>> which definitely (as opposed, or perhaps not, to Magamps) >>>> can beat 99%. >>> >>> Please provide a link to these "large power conversion units (like the >>> solid state units in power distribution)". >> >> May I suggest you use a "search engine"? Look for: >> "SST solid state transformer" >> or similar terms. > > May I suggest you stop being a troll? So you can't win a scientific discussion and now you resort to name calling? Your kind of typical construction engineers only can reproduce what is presented to them in a "link" or a "URL". You will soon be replaced by computers. -- Jos -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 17:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5976645e$0$17471$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #642009 |
On 7/23/2017 5:34 PM, Serg io wrote: > On 7/23/2017 3:33 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >> On 7/22/2017 8:16 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 07/21/2017 11:17 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>> On 7/21/2017 8:44 PM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 7/21/2017 12:09 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>>> On 7/21/2017 10:32 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Serg io wrote on 7/16/2017 12:47 AM: >>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >>>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >> ... >> .. >>>>>> the Magamp is also 99% effecient. there are some switching power >>>>>> supplies based upon magamps, and they are 99% effecient. >>>>> >>>>> Magamps are certainly radiation resistant and EMP hardened, but 99% >>>>> efficiency? Doubtful. It takes some energy to saturate a magnetize >>>>> core even of the best materials. Core losses are significant. >>>>> Resistive losses are significant (you have to keep core saturated in >>>>> spite of output currents). Sure switchers have lots of currents >>>>> flowing that can be used but 99% seems rather high to me for a magamp >>>>> control unless you are going super conducting or something. >>>>> >>>> >>>> 99% is right, look at transistor switchers, they run 70 to 83% or so >>>> efficient, and they have loss due to Vbe, they cannot get to the rails. >>> >>> Actually they do get to "rails" In switching mode they go from full >>> "off" to low impedance "on" where losses are very small. >> >> And there is no "Vbe" restricting the voltage drop, first >> of all because you can use a MOSFET if you want, but even >> for a BJT the driving circuit can lift the base voltage >> above the rail. >> >>> All the loss >>> takes place during the switching transition. >> >> Now you exaggerate to the other extreme! There certainly >> is loss during conduction. Not Vbe, but still a finite Vce >> due to the internal collector resistance. >> >>> The switching time is not >>> zero plus there is a delay factor due to sweeping carriers out of >>> junction. >> >> That *is* mainly the switching time in many cases! The other >> part is (re)charging the parasitic capacitances on the different >> circuit nodes. >> >>> The actual percentage dissipation depends upon the structure >>> of the device which is not only the type of device but the kind of >>> structures used in fabrication. >> >> And Sergeio is of course completely wrong to claim that it is >> "70 to 83% or so" for transistors. They also can reach 99%, if >> the switching is done at relatively low frequency (or even >> up to a few MHz with resonant drive). A value of 70% would be >> typical only if you use GHz frequencies, and nobody in his right >> mind would do that purely for power conversion purposes. > > got a URL for your 99% effecient transistor power supply ? > > typical cheap transistor power supplies run 70 to 83% or so. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80_Plus > > your turn. Hey, Sergio, I spot 96% in that table! Hmmm. 96% seems close enough to 99% for Jos' imagination to take over and fill in the missing part. >> >>> Of course above I'm especially talking >>> about junction structures, though principles still apply to other >>> structures. Yeah, I've measured this crap. >> >> Actually measuring the precise losses if you are around 99% >> efficiency is not so simple! For instance you'd need the small >> difference between large AC input power and DC output power, >> by necessity measured in not exactly the same way.. Probably >> calorimetric measurement (how much heat does the converter >> produce) will be the best way. Is that how you did it? > > no, output power/input power that is it. > >> >>>> magamps do not have that limitation, (they do have some distortion for >>>> audio) I have not designed with them that much. >>> >>> Yes, but you are still driving a core to saturation and current in coils >>> of wire. I mean transformers (and motors) do pretty well, but 99% seems >>> really pushing the edge to me. >> >> They are said to use materials with small hysteresis losses. >> Of course if the loop area in those BH curves becomes almost >> zero then those losses will vanish. But the magamp will need >> to drive the field into complete saturation (as opposed to >> ordinary transformers, where hysteresis losses are a problem >> already, so it does sound difficult! I cannot disagree with >> you this time..) > > easier to measure input I and V then measure output I and V. > > mag amps used at lower power are no problem. > > this was a well known field of engineering and technology in the 50's > and 60's > > https://www.google.com/patents/US3122701 > > I found another reference that says a mag amplifier can get up to 90% > effeciency.... > > http://www.tpub.com/neets/book8/32l.htm Well yeah, but that's not using Jos'"zero hysteresis" fantasy magnetic materials.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 17:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59766231$0$1363$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #641933 |
On 7/23/2017 4:33 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: > On 7/22/2017 8:16 AM, benj wrote: >> On 07/21/2017 11:17 PM, Serg io wrote: >>> On 7/21/2017 8:44 PM, benj wrote: >>>> On 7/21/2017 12:09 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>> On 7/21/2017 10:32 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Serg io wrote on 7/16/2017 12:47 AM: >>>>>>>> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: > ... > .. >>>>> the Magamp is also 99% effecient. there are some switching power >>>>> supplies based upon magamps, and they are 99% effecient. >>>> >>>> Magamps are certainly radiation resistant and EMP hardened, but 99% >>>> efficiency? Doubtful. It takes some energy to saturate a magnetize >>>> core even of the best materials. Core losses are significant. >>>> Resistive losses are significant (you have to keep core saturated in >>>> spite of output currents). Sure switchers have lots of currents >>>> flowing that can be used but 99% seems rather high to me for a magamp >>>> control unless you are going super conducting or something. >>>> >>> >>> 99% is right, look at transistor switchers, they run 70 to 83% or so >>> efficient, and they have loss due to Vbe, they cannot get to the rails. >> >> Actually they do get to "rails" In switching mode they go from full >> "off" to low impedance "on" where losses are very small. > > And there is no "Vbe" restricting the voltage drop, first > of all because you can use a MOSFET if you want, but even > for a BJT the driving circuit can lift the base voltage > above the rail. > >> All the loss >> takes place during the switching transition. > > Now you exaggerate to the other extreme! There certainly > is loss during conduction. Not Vbe, but still a finite Vce > due to the internal collector resistance. No exaggeration. But obviously "it depends" because while Vce is finite, and losses therefore low, it's all a matter how long you are "on". If you are switching on and off at fast rates I assure you majority of loss is during transition. No exaggeration. >> The switching time is not >> zero plus there is a delay factor due to sweeping carriers out of >> junction. > > That *is* mainly the switching time in many cases! The other > part is (re)charging the parasitic capacitances on the different > circuit nodes. > >> The actual percentage dissipation depends upon the structure >> of the device which is not only the type of device but the kind of >> structures used in fabrication. > > And Sergeio is of course completely wrong to claim that it is > "70 to 83% or so" for transistors. They also can reach 99%, if > the switching is done at relatively low frequency (or even > up to a few MHz with resonant drive). A value of 70% would be > typical only if you use GHz frequencies, and nobody in his right > mind would do that purely for power conversion purposes. I already noted that switching rate matters. >> Of course above I'm especially talking >> about junction structures, though principles still apply to other >> structures. Yeah, I've measured this crap. > > Actually measuring the precise losses if you are around 99% > efficiency is not so simple! For instance you'd need the small > difference between large AC input power and DC output power, > by necessity measured in not exactly the same way.. Probably > calorimetric measurement (how much heat does the converter > produce) will be the best way. Is that how you did it? No. Actually was done with high speed high accuracy multipliers. Looked at the product of current through the device and voltage across it. You get a large (and very interesting) power spike as the device switches. >>> magamps do not have that limitation, (they do have some distortion for >>> audio) I have not designed with them that much. >> >> Yes, but you are still driving a core to saturation and current in coils >> of wire. I mean transformers (and motors) do pretty well, but 99% seems >> really pushing the edge to me. > > They are said to use materials with small hysteresis losses. > Of course if the loop area in those BH curves becomes almost > zero then those losses will vanish. But the magamp will need > to drive the field into complete saturation (as opposed to > ordinary transformers, where hysteresis losses are a problem > already, so it does sound difficult! I cannot disagree with > you this time..) Cannot Disagree? Jos? Jos, is that really you or some sock puppet pretending to be you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 23:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <59766794$0$774$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #642209 |
On 7/24/2017 11:10 PM, benj wrote: > On 7/23/2017 4:33 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >> On 7/22/2017 8:16 AM, benj wrote: ... >>> All the loss >>> takes place during the switching transition. >> >> Now you exaggerate to the other extreme! There certainly >> is loss during conduction. Not Vbe, but still a finite Vce >> due to the internal collector resistance. > > No exaggeration. But obviously "it depends" because while Vce is finite, > and losses therefore low, it's all a matter how long you are "on". If > you are switching on and off at fast rates I assure you majority of loss > is during transition. That is true but the "majority of loss" should not be replaced by "all the loss" (as you did). That is an exaggeration. > No exaggeration. Yes it is! It is! ... >>> Of course above I'm especially talking >>> about junction structures, though principles still apply to other >>> structures. Yeah, I've measured this crap. >> >> Actually measuring the precise losses if you are around 99% >> efficiency is not so simple! For instance you'd need the small >> difference between large AC input power and DC output power, >> by necessity measured in not exactly the same way.. Probably >> calorimetric measurement (how much heat does the converter >> produce) will be the best way. Is that how you did it? > > No. Actually was done with high speed high accuracy multipliers. Looked > at the product of current through the device and voltage across it. OK, the multipliers might be high-accuracy but the current sensors and the voltage probes should then be completely phase error free, and with perfectly matching delay too. > You > get a large (and very interesting) power spike as the device switches. But it's size is very sensitive to probe errors.. >>>> magamps do not have that limitation, (they do have some distortion for >>>> audio) I have not designed with them that much. >>> >>> Yes, but you are still driving a core to saturation and current in coils >>> of wire. I mean transformers (and motors) do pretty well, but 99% seems >>> really pushing the edge to me. >> >> They are said to use materials with small hysteresis losses. >> Of course if the loop area in those BH curves becomes almost >> zero then those losses will vanish. But the magamp will need >> to drive the field into complete saturation (as opposed to >> ordinary transformers, where hysteresis losses are a problem >> already, so it does sound difficult! I cannot disagree with >> you this time..) > > Cannot Disagree? Jos? Jos, is that really you or some sock puppet > pretending to be you? Your current post is already a lot better! -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 21:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <597698ba$0$1241$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #642215 |
On 7/24/2017 5:33 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: > On 7/24/2017 11:10 PM, benj wrote: >> On 7/23/2017 4:33 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>> On 7/22/2017 8:16 AM, benj wrote: > ... >>>> All the loss >>>> takes place during the switching transition. >>> >>> Now you exaggerate to the other extreme! There certainly >>> is loss during conduction. Not Vbe, but still a finite Vce >>> due to the internal collector resistance. >> >> No exaggeration. But obviously "it depends" because while Vce is finite, >> and losses therefore low, it's all a matter how long you are "on". If >> you are switching on and off at fast rates I assure you majority of loss >> is during transition. > > That is true but the "majority of loss" should not be replaced > by "all the loss" (as you did). That is an exaggeration. > >> No exaggeration. > > Yes it is! It is! No it's not! It's not! Recess over yet? > ... >>>> Of course above I'm especially talking >>>> about junction structures, though principles still apply to other >>>> structures. Yeah, I've measured this crap. >>> >>> Actually measuring the precise losses if you are around 99% >>> efficiency is not so simple! For instance you'd need the small >>> difference between large AC input power and DC output power, >>> by necessity measured in not exactly the same way.. Probably >>> calorimetric measurement (how much heat does the converter >>> produce) will be the best way. Is that how you did it? >> >> No. Actually was done with high speed high accuracy multipliers. Looked >> at the product of current through the device and voltage across it. > > OK, the multipliers might be high-accuracy but the current > sensors and the voltage probes should then be completely > phase error free, and with perfectly matching delay too. Well duh. >> You >> get a large (and very interesting) power spike as the device switches. > > But it's size is very sensitive to probe errors.. Well duh. >>>>> magamps do not have that limitation, (they do have some distortion for >>>>> audio) I have not designed with them that much. >>>> >>>> Yes, but you are still driving a core to saturation and current in >>>> coils >>>> of wire. I mean transformers (and motors) do pretty well, but 99% seems >>>> really pushing the edge to me. >>> >>> They are said to use materials with small hysteresis losses. >>> Of course if the loop area in those BH curves becomes almost >>> zero then those losses will vanish. But the magamp will need >>> to drive the field into complete saturation (as opposed to >>> ordinary transformers, where hysteresis losses are a problem >>> already, so it does sound difficult! I cannot disagree with >>> you this time..) >> >> Cannot Disagree? Jos? Jos, is that really you or some sock puppet >> pretending to be you? > > Your current post is already a lot better! I know. I didn't even mention Jefimenko once!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 13:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oktcdo$k44$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641665 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:32 AM: > In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> Serg io wrote on 7/16/2017 12:47 AM: >>> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable power >>>>> to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a typical gasoline >>>>> engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in its coils therefore >>>>> being able to carry more current in the same space. If so, then we should be >>>>> able to produce more power if we have a material that can carry more >>>>> current. >>> >>> >>> motor design is very mature, there are other things in the chain that you >>> can optomize >> >> Why do you feel electric motors can't be improved with new materials? > > The current state of the art for electric motors is over 95% efficiency, > which does not leave a lot of room for any improvements of any kind. You really can't stay on topic can you? We were discussing size and weight reduction vs. power output, not efficiency. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 17:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m1q94e-8ho.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #641675 |
In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:32 AM: >> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Serg io wrote on 7/16/2017 12:47 AM: >>>> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable power >>>>>> to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a typical gasoline >>>>>> engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in its coils therefore >>>>>> being able to carry more current in the same space. If so, then we should be >>>>>> able to produce more power if we have a material that can carry more >>>>>> current. >>>> >>>> >>>> motor design is very mature, there are other things in the chain that you >>>> can optomize >>> >>> Why do you feel electric motors can't be improved with new materials? >> >> The current state of the art for electric motors is over 95% efficiency, >> which does not leave a lot of room for any improvements of any kind. > > You really can't stay on topic can you? We were discussing size and weight > reduction vs. power output, not efficiency. Blow it out your ass, stalker. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 13:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oktec7$qqu$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641680 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 1:25 PM: > In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:32 AM: >>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Serg io wrote on 7/16/2017 12:47 AM: >>>>> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable power >>>>>>> to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a typical gasoline >>>>>>> engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in its coils therefore >>>>>>> being able to carry more current in the same space. If so, then we should be >>>>>>> able to produce more power if we have a material that can carry more >>>>>>> current. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> motor design is very mature, there are other things in the chain that you >>>>> can optomize >>>> >>>> Why do you feel electric motors can't be improved with new materials? >>> >>> The current state of the art for electric motors is over 95% efficiency, >>> which does not leave a lot of room for any improvements of any kind. >> >> You really can't stay on topic can you? We were discussing size and weight >> reduction vs. power output, not efficiency. > > Blow it out your ass, stalker. I didn't remember you for sure as I haven't seen you post lately. Now I recognize your signature, profanity and anger. I thought I had you killfiled... Later. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 18:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6is94e-6oo.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #641686 |
In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 1:25 PM: >> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:32 AM: >>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Serg io wrote on 7/16/2017 12:47 AM: >>>>>> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable power >>>>>>>> to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a typical gasoline >>>>>>>> engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in its coils therefore >>>>>>>> being able to carry more current in the same space. If so, then we should be >>>>>>>> able to produce more power if we have a material that can carry more >>>>>>>> current. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> motor design is very mature, there are other things in the chain that you >>>>>> can optomize >>>>> >>>>> Why do you feel electric motors can't be improved with new materials? >>>> >>>> The current state of the art for electric motors is over 95% efficiency, >>>> which does not leave a lot of room for any improvements of any kind. >>> >>> You really can't stay on topic can you? We were discussing size and weight >>> reduction vs. power output, not efficiency. >> >> Blow it out your ass, stalker. > > I didn't remember you for sure as I haven't seen you post lately. Now I > recognize your signature, profanity and anger. I thought I had you > killfiled... Later. Yeah, I don't well tolerate puerile stalkers. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 18:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59728602$0$10732$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #641680 |
On 7/21/2017 1:25 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:32 AM: >>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Serg io wrote on 7/16/2017 12:47 AM: >>>>> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable power >>>>>>> to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a typical gasoline >>>>>>> engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in its coils therefore >>>>>>> being able to carry more current in the same space. If so, then we should be >>>>>>> able to produce more power if we have a material that can carry more >>>>>>> current. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> motor design is very mature, there are other things in the chain that you >>>>> can optomize >>>> >>>> Why do you feel electric motors can't be improved with new materials? >>> >>> The current state of the art for electric motors is over 95% efficiency, >>> which does not leave a lot of room for any improvements of any kind. >> >> You really can't stay on topic can you? We were discussing size and weight >> reduction vs. power output, not efficiency. > > Blow it out your ass, stalker. > This is a demonstration of Chimp's level of scientific understanding.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-22 00:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <agia4e-luq.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #641741 |
In sci.physics.electromag benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 7/21/2017 1:25 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:32 AM: >>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Serg io wrote on 7/16/2017 12:47 AM: >>>>>> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable power >>>>>>>> to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a typical gasoline >>>>>>>> engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in its coils therefore >>>>>>>> being able to carry more current in the same space. If so, then we should be >>>>>>>> able to produce more power if we have a material that can carry more >>>>>>>> current. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> motor design is very mature, there are other things in the chain that you >>>>>> can optomize >>>>> >>>>> Why do you feel electric motors can't be improved with new materials? >>>> >>>> The current state of the art for electric motors is over 95% efficiency, >>>> which does not leave a lot of room for any improvements of any kind. >>> >>> You really can't stay on topic can you? We were discussing size and weight >>> reduction vs. power output, not efficiency. >> >> Blow it out your ass, stalker. >> > This is a demonstration of Chimp's <snip troll drool> At least this troll admits to being a lier and troll. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 06:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oksj41$p08$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640662 |
John Larkin wrote on 7/15/2017 3:51 PM: > 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. Of course, you only need to accelerate for short periods, like a few seconds. After that you are running illegal speeds anywhere in the US. Why design it to run full power beyond all use cases? Your Audi will melt down if you hold the pedal to the metal all day long too. > And the power/weight ratio drops a lot if you include the batteries. That's a pointless number. The car runs 300+ miles on a charge and recharges while you have a cup of coffee. Who cares about pointless numbers? You just like to whine. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web