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 11 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 Next page →
| From | David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 22:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okjdnu$58b$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #640645 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com writes: >In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable power >> to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a typical gasoline >> engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in its coils therefore >> being able to carry more current in the same space. If so, then we should be >> able to produce more power if we have a material that can carry more >> current. >We have such a material and it is called silver. It's been used instead of copper before.... <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calutron#Construction> -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close.......................... Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 04:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oksd4u$7jf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640645 |
> ... > >> So is it really true we can increase electric motor power levels simply >> by >> using wire of higher current capacity? > >No, you need to reduce resistive losses and/or get rid of heat. > > You are correct that the resistance and heat conduction are very important as well. However, these factors are all closely related. For instance to test the current carrying capacity, increasingly larger currents are sent through the wire until it melts. But this measurement is dependent on surrounding conditions. You would get a higher measurement by blowing cooling air or other coolant over the wire, which also has relevance for their use in high power motors as they always have some cooling system involved. But in any case, in regards to the copper-nanotube composites, the question may be moot. NASA tried to reproduce the claimed high current capacity and was unable to: Highly Conductive Wire: Cu Carbon Nanotube Composite Ampacity and Metallic CNT Buckypaper Conductivity. Author and Affiliation: de Groh, Henry C. (NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH United States) Publication Date: Apr 17, 2017 Document ID: 20170003881 (Acquired May 12, 2017) Subject Category: ENGINEERING (GENERAL); METALS AND METALLIC MATERIALS; AIRCRAFT PROPULSION AND POWER Report/Patent Number: NASA/TM-2017-219480, E-19350, GRC-E-DAA-TN39659 Document Type: Technical Report [quote]Results Ampacity The average ampacity of the wire specimens tested is presented in Figure 3. The variation of the Cu ampacity measurements was 1.6 percent, for TerraCu 2 percent, and 10 percent for the yarn. Contrary to other accounts (Ref. 23) and claims (Ref. 24) the CNT present in the TerraCu did not improve the material’s ampacity. Likely reasons for the low ampacity in the TerraCu include the presence of s-CNT and the low volume fraction CNT employed in the composite. Ampacity is not a material property. It is a measurement that can be influenced by experimental factors such as levels of cooling. When a long wire is placed in service and is getting warm due to current flow it must shed that heat out radially- not longitudinally. In the ampacity testing of very expensive CNT composite wire it is common practice to use a rather short section of wire, connected at its ends to very heavy connectors; it is also common to imbed the wire in a large chunk of metal such as Pb-Sn solder. These heavy end connections, and complete encasement enable longitudinal heat flow which corrupts the ampacity measurement. Here is why: It is common for CNT composites to have a texture where in the CNT are primarily arranged longitudinally as a result of the wire drawing process. The thermal conductivity of CNT is not isotropic; the longitudinal thermal conductivity of CNT is very high, but the radial thermal conductivity of CNT is extremely low. Ampacity tests that enable or enhance longitudinal heat flow create an advantage for CNT wire that is not usually present in practical applications. The high ampacity results of others may be in part due to the ability of CNT to longitudinally conduct heat. Very good electrical connections were made in the tests presented here, however, these connections were tangential, thus enabled much less surface area for the conduction of heat.[/quote] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170003881 The extreme, high current capacity and extremely high thermal conductivity has been well documented for carbon nanotubes themselves, however. But they still are only available at up to centimeter lengths. Then the problem remains how to combine them into longer lengths. Some proposals here: From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials. American Journal of Nanomaterials. Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016, pp 39-43. doi: 10.12691/ajn-4-2-2 | Research Article. http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajn/4/2/2/ Bob Clark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 15:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t6j94e-1on.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #641644 |
In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >> ... >> >>> So is it really true we can increase electric motor power levels simply >>> by >>> using wire of higher current capacity? >> >>No, you need to reduce resistive losses and/or get rid of heat. >> >> > > You are correct that the resistance and heat conduction are very important > as well. However, these factors are all closely related. For instance to > test the current carrying capacity, increasingly larger currents are sent > through the wire until it melts. But this measurement is dependent on > surrounding conditions. You would get a higher measurement by blowing > cooling air or other coolant over the wire, which also has relevance for > their use in high power motors as they always have some cooling system > involved. You still don't understand any of the real issues. Electric motors heat fail well before the windings melt. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 12:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hdskmcpl7b76n26cp1drn4dlumpitk3t89@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #640637 |
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable power >to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a typical gasoline >engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in its coils therefore >being able to carry more current in the same space. If so, then we should be >able to produce more power if we have a material that can carry more >current. Teslas accelerate in short manic bursts. The motor would fry if it ran steady-state at full power. And the power/weight ratio drops a lot if you include the batteries. > >Carbon nanotubes are such a material. In tests they can carry orders of >magnitude more current than ordinary conductors such as copper, aluminum, or >gold. The problem is they've only be able to be produced for short lengths, >a few centimeters at most. > >But an interesting research on nanotube-copper composites showed they can >carry a 100 times more current than standard copper. So for the same size >electric motor we could produce 100 times more power than currently: > >Posted: Aug 06, 2013 >Novel CNT-copper nanocomposite delivers a 100-fold increase in current >density >http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=31710.php > >For the Tesla that would not be as major a deal because of the small size of >the motor at only about 32 kilos for the Tesla S, a vehicle that weighs >thousands of kilos. > >But that would be major for large scale motors used in other scenarios. >These can weigh thousands of kilos, and could then be reduced to only tens >of kilos. It would also be especially important for proposed electric >aircraft that many groups are working towards. > >So is it really true we can increase electric motor power levels simply by >using wire of higher current capacity? > > >Bob Clark > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize >21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital >launchers, to 'flying cars'. >This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: > >Nanotech: from air to space. >https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 23:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oker69$1dnq$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #640662 |
On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" > <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: > >> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable power >> to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a typical gasoline >> engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in its coils therefore >> being able to carry more current in the same space. If so, then we should be >> able to produce more power if we have a material that can carry more >> current. motor design is very mature, there are other things in the chain that you can optomize
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 00:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <596af28c$0$59766$c3e8da3$460562f1@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #640735 |
On 07/16/2017 12:47 AM, Serg io wrote: > On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >> >>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its >>> remarkable power >>> to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a typical >>> gasoline >>> engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in its coils therefore >>> being able to carry more current in the same space. If so, then we >>> should be >>> able to produce more power if we have a material that can carry more >>> current. > > > motor design is very mature, there are other things in the chain that > you can optomize > Actually early Tesla motors (and most electrical equipment of the time) were rather poorly designed and inefficient because the materials not being very good and the designs of magnetic circuits were very open and lossy. Tesla invented a gas turbine with no blades of up to 95% efficiency which is the real winner over a typical gasoline engine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 09:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <596b1468$0$703$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #640738 |
On 7/16/2017 6:58 AM, benj wrote: > On 07/16/2017 12:47 AM, Serg io wrote: >> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its >>>> remarkable power >>>> to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a typical >>>> gasoline >>>> engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in its coils >>>> therefore >>>> being able to carry more current in the same space. If so, then we >>>> should be >>>> able to produce more power if we have a material that can carry more >>>> current. >> >> >> motor design is very mature, there are other things in the chain that >> you can optomize >> > Actually early Tesla motors (and most electrical equipment of the time) > were rather poorly designed and inefficient because the materials not > being very good and the designs of magnetic circuits were very open and > lossy. > > Tesla invented a gas turbine with no blades of up to 95% efficiency > which is the real winner over a typical gasoline engine. So then why is their Tesla car electric?! O wait, you mean *T*esla, not Tesla.. -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 01:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <596c4792$0$18977$b1db1813$19ace300@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #640750 |
On 07/16/2017 03:22 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: > On 7/16/2017 6:58 AM, benj wrote: >> On 07/16/2017 12:47 AM, Serg io wrote: >>> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its >>>>> remarkable power >>>>> to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a typical >>>>> gasoline >>>>> engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in its coils >>>>> therefore >>>>> being able to carry more current in the same space. If so, then we >>>>> should be >>>>> able to produce more power if we have a material that can carry more >>>>> current. >>> >>> >>> motor design is very mature, there are other things in the chain that >>> you can optomize >>> >> Actually early Tesla motors (and most electrical equipment of the time) >> were rather poorly designed and inefficient because the materials not >> being very good and the designs of magnetic circuits were very open and >> lossy. >> >> Tesla invented a gas turbine with no blades of up to 95% efficiency >> which is the real winner over a typical gasoline engine. > > So then why is their Tesla car electric?! O wait, you mean > *T*esla, not Tesla.. > Bird-sex is the give-away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 08:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <okif3q$qg2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #640985 |
On 7/17/2017 12:13 AM, benj wrote: > On 07/16/2017 03:22 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >> On 7/16/2017 6:58 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 07/16/2017 12:47 AM, Serg io wrote: >>>> On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its >>>>>> remarkable power >>>>>> to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a typical >>>>>> gasoline >>>>>> engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in its coils >>>>>> therefore >>>>>> being able to carry more current in the same space. If so, then we >>>>>> should be >>>>>> able to produce more power if we have a material that can carry more >>>>>> current. >>>> >>>> >>>> motor design is very mature, there are other things in the chain that >>>> you can optomize >>>> >>> Actually early Tesla motors (and most electrical equipment of the time) >>> were rather poorly designed and inefficient because the materials not >>> being very good and the designs of magnetic circuits were very open and >>> lossy. >>> >>> Tesla invented a gas turbine with no blades of up to 95% efficiency >>> which is the real winner over a typical gasoline engine. >> >> So then why is their Tesla car electric?! O wait, you mean >> *T*esla, not Tesla.. >> > Bird-sex is the give-away. RT ran a story a few days ago on dead cat sex in LA, the guy got 15 years. ANd he was not famous or a genuis. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/serial-cat-killer-sentenced-16-years-jail-article-1.3331658
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 10:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2f73ad30-4529-4a02-aee6-7291b8c3e456@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #640735 |
On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 9:48:14 PM UTC-7, Serg io wrote: > On 7/15/2017 2:51 PM, John Larkin wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" > > <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: > > > >> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable power > >> to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a typical gasoline > >> engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in its coils therefore > >> being able to carry more current in the same space. If so, then we should be > >> able to produce more power if we have a material that can carry more > >> current. > > > motor design is very mature, there are other things in the chain that > you can optomize Like a troll like you has a fucking clue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 06:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <okskld$12v$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640735 |
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? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 15:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8ej94e-1on.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #641652 |
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. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 11:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <okt8vb$gli$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #641665 |
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: >>>>> 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. > > very true. the Nazi's invented "Magnetic amplifiers" for use in the V2, (before transisters) the MagAmps use AC bias, and were optomized for analog computers in the USA 1950's and 1960's for aircraft. these magamp computers were neclear hardened, because of the use of magnetic amplifiers can deal with EMP. the Magamp is also 99% effecient. there are some switching power supplies based upon magamps, and they are 99% effecient.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 21:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5972adf6$0$31177$c3e8da3$a9097924@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #641668 |
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: > >>>>>> 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. >> >> > > very true. > > the Nazi's invented "Magnetic amplifiers" for use in the V2, (before > transisters) > > the MagAmps use AC bias, and were optomized for analog computers in the > USA 1950's and 1960's for aircraft. > > these magamp computers were neclear hardened, because of the use of > magnetic amplifiers can deal with EMP. > > 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 22:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <okug4l$14j7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #641773 |
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: >> >>>>>>> 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. >>> >>> >> >> very true. >> >> the Nazi's invented "Magnetic amplifiers" for use in the V2, (before >> transisters) >> >> the MagAmps use AC bias, and were optomized for analog computers in >> the USA 1950's and 1960's for aircraft. >> >> these magamp computers were neclear hardened, because of the use of >> magnetic amplifiers can deal with EMP. >> >> 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. magamps do not have that limitation, (they do have some distortion for audio) I have not designed with them that much.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-22 02:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5972edd2$0$43785$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #641780 |
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: >>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> very true. >>> >>> the Nazi's invented "Magnetic amplifiers" for use in the V2, (before >>> transisters) >>> >>> the MagAmps use AC bias, and were optomized for analog computers in >>> the USA 1950's and 1960's for aircraft. >>> >>> these magamp computers were neclear hardened, because of the use of >>> magnetic amplifiers can deal with EMP. >>> >>> 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. All the loss takes place during the switching transition. The switching time is not zero plus there is a delay factor due to sweeping carriers out of junction. 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. Of course above I'm especially talking about junction structures, though principles still apply to other structures. Yeah, I've measured this crap. > 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-23 10:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <59745f4c$0$721$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #641792 |
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.
> 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?
>> 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..)
--
Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-23 16:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ol34pd$svk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #641933 |
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. > >> 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 12:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5975c794$0$742$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #642009 |
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. -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 05:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ol4hbf$vcl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #642117 |
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. It would be nice to if you supported your claim with some independent report(s).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web