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 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 19:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uf1a4e-a8p.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #641703 |
In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 2:07 PM: >> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 1:10 PM: >>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:26 AM: >>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 10:13 PM: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> jimp wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>>>>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>>>>>>>>>>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>>>>>>>>>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>>>>>>>>>>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>>>>>>>>>>> material that can carry more current. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>> Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>> Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>>>>>> resistance. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I was current density I was most interested in. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, because you are clueless about the real world and don't understand >>>>>>>> the limits of electrical motors is heat rise due to resistive losses. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to copper? >>>>>> >>>>>> All the references I have say they are higher, do you have somthing that >>>>>> says otherwise? >>>>> >>>>> How about the original article? >>>> >>>> What about it? >>>> >>>>> Importantly, the researchers were able to achieve this high current density >>>>> tolerance without sacrificing the electrical conductivity of the material, >>>>> which is similar to that of pure copper. >>>> >>>> So what? >>>> >>>>> "This is the first such material, to the best of my knowledge, that can have >>>>> high electrical conductivity and high current density tolerance," >>>>> Subramaniam points out. >>>> >>>> So what? >>>> >>>>> Then there is this publication. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.ifam.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ifam/en/documents/dd/Infobl%C3%A4tter/metal-carbon_nanotube_composites_fraunhofer_ifam_dresden.pdf >>>> >>>> So what? >>>> >>>>> You understand this is a *new* material they are talking about, no? The >>>>> focus of the research seems to be on uses for conductors in integrated >>>>> circuits where other aspects than conductivity are limiting. >>>> >>>> So what? >>>> >>>> The issue is temperature rise due to resistive losses, not anything else. >>> >>> You said the resistivity of the CU-CNT material is worse than copper. Just >>> setting the record straight. >> >> Where? > > See above. I notice that with selective editing you have changed the entire discussion. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 17:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oktrlr$76v$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641705 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 3:32 PM: > In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 2:07 PM: >>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 1:10 PM: >>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:26 AM: >>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 10:13 PM: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> jimp wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>>>>>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>>>>>>>>>>>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> material that can carry more current. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>> Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>> Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>>>>>>> resistance. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I was current density I was most interested in. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, because you are clueless about the real world and don't understand >>>>>>>>> the limits of electrical motors is heat rise due to resistive losses. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to copper? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All the references I have say they are higher, do you have somthing that >>>>>>> says otherwise? >>>>>> >>>>>> How about the original article? >>>>> >>>>> What about it? >>>>> >>>>>> Importantly, the researchers were able to achieve this high current density >>>>>> tolerance without sacrificing the electrical conductivity of the material, >>>>>> which is similar to that of pure copper. >>>>> >>>>> So what? >>>>> >>>>>> "This is the first such material, to the best of my knowledge, that can have >>>>>> high electrical conductivity and high current density tolerance," >>>>>> Subramaniam points out. >>>>> >>>>> So what? >>>>> >>>>>> Then there is this publication. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.ifam.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ifam/en/documents/dd/Infobl%C3%A4tter/metal-carbon_nanotube_composites_fraunhofer_ifam_dresden.pdf >>>>> >>>>> So what? >>>>> >>>>>> You understand this is a *new* material they are talking about, no? The >>>>>> focus of the research seems to be on uses for conductors in integrated >>>>>> circuits where other aspects than conductivity are limiting. >>>>> >>>>> So what? >>>>> >>>>> The issue is temperature rise due to resistive losses, not anything else. >>>> >>>> You said the resistivity of the CU-CNT material is worse than copper. Just >>>> setting the record straight. >>> >>> Where? >> >> See above. > > I notice that with selective editing you have changed the entire discussion. I think you are trying to change the topic now. Anyway, I think this conversation is exhausted. Bye. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 22:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7qaa4e-95q.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #641727 |
In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 3:32 PM: >> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 2:07 PM: >>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 1:10 PM: >>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:26 AM: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 10:13 PM: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material that can carry more current. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>>> Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>>> Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>>>>>>>> resistance. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I was current density I was most interested in. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, because you are clueless about the real world and don't understand >>>>>>>>>> the limits of electrical motors is heat rise due to resistive losses. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to copper? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All the references I have say they are higher, do you have somthing that >>>>>>>> says otherwise? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How about the original article? >>>>>> >>>>>> What about it? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Importantly, the researchers were able to achieve this high current density >>>>>>> tolerance without sacrificing the electrical conductivity of the material, >>>>>>> which is similar to that of pure copper. >>>>>> >>>>>> So what? >>>>>> >>>>>>> "This is the first such material, to the best of my knowledge, that can have >>>>>>> high electrical conductivity and high current density tolerance," >>>>>>> Subramaniam points out. >>>>>> >>>>>> So what? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Then there is this publication. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.ifam.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ifam/en/documents/dd/Infobl%C3%A4tter/metal-carbon_nanotube_composites_fraunhofer_ifam_dresden.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> So what? >>>>>> >>>>>>> You understand this is a *new* material they are talking about, no? The >>>>>>> focus of the research seems to be on uses for conductors in integrated >>>>>>> circuits where other aspects than conductivity are limiting. >>>>>> >>>>>> So what? >>>>>> >>>>>> The issue is temperature rise due to resistive losses, not anything else. >>>>> >>>>> You said the resistivity of the CU-CNT material is worse than copper. Just >>>>> setting the record straight. >>>> >>>> Where? >>> >>> See above. >> >> I notice that with selective editing you have changed the entire discussion. > > I think you are trying to change the topic now. Anyway, I think this > conversation is exhausted. Bye. Good riddence, troll. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-22 10:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <okvoit$5p7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641671 |
>... >>> >>> And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to >>> copper? >> >> All the references I have say they are higher, do you have somthing that >> says otherwise? > >How about the original article? > >Importantly, the researchers were able to achieve this high current density >tolerance without sacrificing the electrical conductivity of the material, >which is similar to that of pure copper. > >"This is the first such material, to the best of my knowledge, that can >have high electrical conductivity and high current density tolerance," >Subramaniam points out. > >Then there is this publication. > >https://www.ifam.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ifam/en/documents/dd/Infobl%C3%A4tter/metal-carbon_nanotube_composites_fraunhofer_ifam_dresden.pdf > > >You understand this is a *new* material they are talking about, no? The >focus of the research seems to be on uses for conductors in integrated >circuits where other aspects than conductivity are limiting. > I don't know if the current density measurements will hold up. NASA Glenn was unable to reproduce them. It might be they used a different formulation then the original researchers used. The link you provided by the Fraunhofer institute is interesting however. It shows the composites have about twice the strength as regular copper. This might be useful for applications requiring high strength as well as high conductivity such as overhead high tension wires. Bob Clark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carbon nanotubes can revolutionize 21st-century technology IF they can be made arbitrarily long while maintaining their strength. Some proposals to accomplish that here: From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials. American Journal of Nanomaterials. Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016, pp 39-43. doi: 10.12691/ajn-4-2-2 | Research Article. http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajn/4/2/2/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-22 17:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <7sl7ncl5oqt4k6i10rrtpftine6soti4tf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #641818 |
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 10:51:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >... composites have about twice the strength as regular copper. This > might be useful for applications requiring high strength.... E.g. when too many teslas tear your magnet apart, something which I've seen no one on this thread mention yet. -- Goat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-22 17:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <33m7ncldkj12r7hqdacq6pnate2ag42jk9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #641877 |
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 17:55:19 -0500, Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> wrote: >On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 10:51:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" ><rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: > >>... composites have about twice the strength as regular copper. This >> might be useful for applications requiring high strength.... > >E.g. when too many teslas tear your magnet apart, something which I've >seen no one on this thread mention yet. Jinx! Just saw someone mention it. Good. -- Goat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-22 18:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ol0oob$rsu$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #641878 |
On 7/22/2017 5:58 PM, Lofty Goat wrote: > On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 17:55:19 -0500, Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 10:51:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >> >>> ... composites have about twice the strength as regular copper. This >>> might be useful for applications requiring high strength.... >> >> E.g. when too many teslas tear your magnet apart, something which I've >> seen no one on this thread mention yet. > > Jinx! Just saw someone mention it. Good. > high mag fields; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h89IrTvceqc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xefxQGWXyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7Xh28hNRBQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOL3RZX21Yk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4_LZ8fL-Mc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-22 21:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5973fb05$0$36509$b1db1813$7968482@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #641887 |
On 7/22/2017 7:56 PM, Serg io wrote: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4_LZ8fL-Mc Note when the rail gun fires that there is absolutely ZERO recoil to the gun proving once and for all that Banjo's theory that the Lorentz force produces no recoil is absolutely TRUE! I smell Nobel! Were it not for the Western Scoundrels who will steal all the credit for this theory from Banjo and claim it for their own! And the best news is he won't be able to do a thing against these pig thieves!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-23 20:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <hkhanctaj323huqpmptfl43eu01vdn1as9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #641887 |
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:56:44 -0500, Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> wrote: >On 7/22/2017 5:58 PM, Lofty Goat wrote: >> On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 17:55:19 -0500, Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 10:51:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> ... composites have about twice the strength as regular copper. This >>>> might be useful for applications requiring high strength.... >>> >>> E.g. when too many teslas tear your magnet apart, something which I've >>> seen no one on this thread mention yet. >> >> Jinx! Just saw someone mention it. Good. >> > > >high mag fields; >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h89IrTvceqc > >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xefxQGWXyo > >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7Xh28hNRBQ > >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOL3RZX21Yk > >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4_LZ8fL-Mc I'm guessing these are videos of magnets exploding due to internal stress. As they say, if some is good and more is better, then too much must be just right. -- Goat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 05:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ol4eph$v1p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #642064 |
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:56:44 -0500, Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 7/22/2017 5:58 PM, Lofty Goat wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 17:55:19 -0500, Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 10:51:55 -0400, "Robert Clark"
>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ... composites have about twice the strength as regular copper. This
>>>>> might be useful for applications requiring high strength....
>>>>
>>>> E.g. when too many teslas tear your magnet apart, something which I've
>>>> seen no one on this thread mention yet.
>>>
>>> Jinx! Just saw someone mention it. Good.
>>>
>>
>>
>>high mag fields;
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h89IrTvceqc
>>
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xefxQGWXyo
>>
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7Xh28hNRBQ
>>
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOL3RZX21Yk
>>
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4_LZ8fL-Mc
>
>I'm guessing these are videos of magnets exploding due to internal
>stress.
>
>As they say, if some is good and more is better, then too much must be
>just right.
>
Actually, it's videos of "railguns", electromagnetic projectile weapons.
Bob Clark
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon nanotubes can revolutionize 21st-century technology IF they can be
made arbitrarily long while maintaining their strength.
Some proposals to accomplish that here:
From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production
of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials.
American Journal of Nanomaterials.
Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016, pp 39-43. doi: 10.12691/ajn-4-2-2 | Research Article.
http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajn/4/2/2/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 08:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ol4tb8$1khn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #642114 |
On 7/24/2017 4:35 AM, Robert Clark wrote: > On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:56:44 -0500, Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 7/22/2017 5:58 PM, Lofty Goat wrote: >>>> On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 17:55:19 -0500, Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 10:51:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> ... composites have about twice the strength as regular copper. This >>>>>> might be useful for applications requiring high strength.... >>>>> >>>>> E.g. when too many teslas tear your magnet apart, something which I've >>>>> seen no one on this thread mention yet. >>>> >>>> Jinx! Just saw someone mention it. Good. >>>> >>> >>> >>> high mag fields; >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h89IrTvceqc >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xefxQGWXyo >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7Xh28hNRBQ >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOL3RZX21Yk >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4_LZ8fL-Mc >> >> I'm guessing these are videos of magnets exploding due to internal >> stress. >> >> As they say, if some is good and more is better, then too much must be >> just right. >> > > Actually, it's videos of "railguns", electromagnetic projectile weapons. > > Bob Clark > I think in one or two of the videos, they are actually showing use of sabots, and firing with powder, as there is too much smoke behind the projectile. where would so much smoke be generated in a railgun?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 20:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <6r6dnchpb62159tdkj99oph2krjtqb0nkl@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #642138 |
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:39:49 -0500, Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>>> high mag fields; >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h89IrTvceqc >>>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xefxQGWXyo >>>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7Xh28hNRBQ >>>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOL3RZX21Yk >>>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4_LZ8fL-Mc >>> >> Actually, it's videos of "railguns", electromagnetic projectile weapons. >I think in one or two of the videos, they are actually showing use of >sabots, and firing with powder, as there is too much smoke behind the >projectile. > >where would so much smoke be generated in a railgun? Wondered that myself. Saw a photo of a US Navy railgun that had just been fired, and there was smoke, but not enough for a powder charge. -- Goat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-25 11:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <597715ba$0$731$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #642266 |
On 7/25/2017 3:15 AM, Lofty Goat wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:39:49 -0500, Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> > wrote: > >>>>> high mag fields; >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h89IrTvceqc >>>>> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xefxQGWXyo >>>>> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7Xh28hNRBQ >>>>> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOL3RZX21Yk >>>>> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4_LZ8fL-Mc >>>> > >>> Actually, it's videos of "railguns", electromagnetic projectile weapons. > >> I think in one or two of the videos, they are actually showing use of >> sabots, and firing with powder, as there is too much smoke behind the >> projectile. >> >> where would so much smoke be generated in a railgun? > > Wondered that myself. Saw a photo of a US Navy railgun that had just > been fired, and there was smoke, but not enough for a powder charge. Sliding contacts wit a lot of current going through them? -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-25 20:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pmrfnc9hblqq2odn31ea0uch2kcn05avt2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #642370 |
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:56:07 +0200, Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> wrote: >On 7/25/2017 3:15 AM, Lofty Goat wrote: >> On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:39:49 -0500, Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> >> wrote: >>> where would so much smoke be generated in a railgun? >> Wondered that myself. Saw a photo of a US Navy railgun that had just >> been fired, and there was smoke, but not enough for a powder charge. >Sliding contacts wit a lot of current going through them? 'S what thought. Some sort of conductive lubricant, any kind of gunk, subject to that much heat, equals smoke.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-26 20:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <olbfkd$e6j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #642536 |
On 7/25/2017 8:23 PM, Lofty Goat wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:56:07 +0200, Jos Bergervoet > <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> On 7/25/2017 3:15 AM, Lofty Goat wrote: >>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:39:49 -0500, Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> >>> wrote: > >>>> where would so much smoke be generated in a railgun? > >>> Wondered that myself. Saw a photo of a US Navy railgun that had just >>> been fired, and there was smoke, but not enough for a powder charge. > >> Sliding contacts wit a lot of current going through them? > > 'S what thought. Some sort of conductive lubricant, any kind of gunk, > subject to that much heat, equals smoke. > apperently the conductive lubricant is the hot technical item, the critical item https://www.google.com/patents/US8322265 short pdf on it http://www.nrl.navy.mil/content_images/06Materials_Meger.pdf http://science.howstuffworks.com/rail-gun1.htm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-29 18:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9h7qnctkeu9obc4lc5pt2gaaoquqhfm8bh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #642725 |
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 20:28:37 -0500, Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> wrote: >apperently the conductive lubricant is the hot technical item, the >critical item > >https://www.google.com/patents/US8322265 > >short pdf on it >http://www.nrl.navy.mil/content_images/06Materials_Meger.pdf > >http://science.howstuffworks.com/rail-gun1.htm Had no idea. Thanks. Learn something interesting every day. (If one can do that and make a girl laugh as well, the day is a success.) -- Goat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-29 21:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <597d33db$0$43752$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #643303 |
On 7/29/2017 7:47 PM, Lofty Goat wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 20:28:37 -0500, Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> > wrote: > >> apperently the conductive lubricant is the hot technical item, the >> critical item >> >> https://www.google.com/patents/US8322265 >> >> short pdf on it >> http://www.nrl.navy.mil/content_images/06Materials_Meger.pdf >> >> http://science.howstuffworks.com/rail-gun1.htm > > Had no idea. Thanks. Learn something interesting every day. (If one > can do that and make a girl laugh as well, the day is a success.) > Of course you still have no idea. Rail guns can't work! Just look at the picture in the link above. The magnetic field ends at the projectile so there is no or very little force to accelerate it. The whole design is stupid! Obviously you want current supplied from BOTH ends of the rails so you have a magnetic field over the entire length of the sabot so it feels the maximum force! Obviously all these so-called rail guns are just military hoaxes to try to extract taxpayer research money, None of them can work!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-29 23:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oljp3g$19p3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #643314 |
On 7/29/2017 8:18 PM, benj wrote: > On 7/29/2017 7:47 PM, Lofty Goat wrote: >> On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 20:28:37 -0500, Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> >> wrote: >>> apperently the conductive lubricant is the hot technical item, the >>> critical item >>> >>> https://www.google.com/patents/US8322265 >>> >>> short pdf on it >>> http://www.nrl.navy.mil/content_images/06Materials_Meger.pdf >>> http://science.howstuffworks.com/rail-gun1.htm >> >> Had no idea. Thanks. Learn something interesting every day. (If one >> can do that and make a girl laugh as well, the day is a success.) >> > Of course you still have no idea. Rail guns can't work! Just look at the > picture in the link above. The magnetic field ends at the projectile so > there is no or very little force to accelerate it. The whole design is > stupid! Obviously you want current supplied from BOTH ends of the rails > so you have a magnetic field over the entire length of the sabot so it > feels the maximum force! Obviously all these so-called rail guns are > just military hoaxes to try to extract taxpayer research money, None of > them can work! you can find you tube vids that show you how to build your own at home using car battories. So you can slam a hole in your Moms New Car. (holyshit!!) Lubricant: must provide low friction must provide high conductivity must not cause dammage to rails after multipl shots Mercury ? w ALu ?? any Ideas ? carbon seems too high in resistance I think they are using something that generates a plazma
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-31 17:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <597f9b8d$0$22842$c3e8da3$33881b6a@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #643348 |
On 7/30/2017 12:59 AM, Serg io wrote: > On 7/29/2017 8:18 PM, benj wrote: >> On 7/29/2017 7:47 PM, Lofty Goat wrote: >>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 20:28:37 -0500, Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> >>> wrote: > >>>> apperently the conductive lubricant is the hot technical item, the >>>> critical item >>>> >>>> https://www.google.com/patents/US8322265 >>>> >>>> short pdf on it >>>> http://www.nrl.navy.mil/content_images/06Materials_Meger.pdf > >>>> http://science.howstuffworks.com/rail-gun1.htm >>> >>> Had no idea. Thanks. Learn something interesting every day. (If one >>> can do that and make a girl laugh as well, the day is a success.) >>> >> Of course you still have no idea. Rail guns can't work! Just look at >> the picture in the link above. The magnetic field ends at the >> projectile so there is no or very little force to accelerate it. The >> whole design is stupid! Obviously you want current supplied from BOTH >> ends of the rails so you have a magnetic field over the entire length >> of the sabot so it feels the maximum force! Obviously all these >> so-called rail guns are just military hoaxes to try to extract >> taxpayer research money, None of them can work! > > you can find you tube vids that show you how to build your own at home > using car battories. So you can slam a hole in your Moms New Car. > (holyshit!!) > > > Lubricant: > must provide low friction > must provide high conductivity > must not cause dammage to rails after multipl shots > > > Mercury ? w ALu ?? > > any Ideas ? > > carbon seems too high in resistance > > I think they are using something that generates a plazma Graphite flakes maybe? Agree. High resistance. Maybe lithium? Mercury probably too much inertia etc though is traditional moving contact from way back when. Now I think owning a mercury thermometer is a felony. Plasma a good candidate. Maybe carbon to form a carbon arc plasma? Don't know. Never had need to know. Currents are huge so not just any conductive stuff will do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 20:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lm6dnch8dc34fa91j71vrq888sa60pglk5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #642114 |
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 05:35:29 -0400, "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:56:44 -0500, Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> >>>high mag fields; >>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h89IrTvceqc >>> >>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xefxQGWXyo >>> >>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7Xh28hNRBQ >>> >>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOL3RZX21Yk >>> >>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4_LZ8fL-Mc >Actually, it's videos of "railguns", electromagnetic projectile weapons. Gotcha. Don't usually watch videos. Too slow. Thanks. -- Goat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web