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 | 19 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 13 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13]
| From | Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 09:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <OtOdnejwu4m7m-_EnZ2dnUU7-Y2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #641649 |
On 07/21/2017 06:00 AM, rickman wrote: > John Larkin wrote on 7/15/2017 3:51 PM: >> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >> >>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its >>> remarkable power >>> to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a typical >>> gasoline >>> engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in its coils therefore >>> being able to carry more current in the same space. If so, then we >>> should be >>> able to produce more power if we have a material that can carry more >>> current. >> >> Teslas accelerate in short manic bursts. The motor would fry if it ran >> steady-state at full power. > > Of course, you only need to accelerate for short periods, like a few > seconds. After that you are running illegal speeds anywhere in the US. > Why design it to run full power beyond all use cases? Your Audi will > melt down if you hold the pedal to the metal all day long too. Towing a boat up a mountain takes a lot longer than a few seconds. Gas engines do that just fine. > > >> And the power/weight ratio drops a lot if you include the batteries. > > That's a pointless number. The car runs 300+ miles on a charge and > recharges while you have a cup of coffee. Who cares about pointless > numbers? You just like to whine. Power to weight ratio is important if you care about acceleration. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 13:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oktdgc$o0l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641658 |
Phil Hobbs wrote on 7/21/2017 9:48 AM: > On 07/21/2017 06:00 AM, rickman wrote: >> John Larkin wrote on 7/15/2017 3:51 PM: >>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its >>>> remarkable power >>>> to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a typical >>>> gasoline >>>> engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in its coils therefore >>>> being able to carry more current in the same space. If so, then we >>>> should be >>>> able to produce more power if we have a material that can carry more >>>> current. >>> >>> Teslas accelerate in short manic bursts. The motor would fry if it ran >>> steady-state at full power. >> >> Of course, you only need to accelerate for short periods, like a few >> seconds. After that you are running illegal speeds anywhere in the US. >> Why design it to run full power beyond all use cases? Your Audi will >> melt down if you hold the pedal to the metal all day long too. > > Towing a boat up a mountain takes a lot longer than a few seconds. Gas > engines do that just fine. Are you saying the Tesla won't pull a boat? The car didn't melt down or implode. It continued to pull a very respectable time. Actually I don't think the model S will pull a boat as it has no trailer hitch. The model X has a trailer hitch option for 5,000 pounds. Do you think it dies when you actually connect a trailer? >>> And the power/weight ratio drops a lot if you include the batteries. >> >> That's a pointless number. The car runs 300+ miles on a charge and >> recharges while you have a cup of coffee. Who cares about pointless >> numbers? You just like to whine. > > Power to weight ratio is important if you care about acceleration. So is the Tesla lacking in acceleration? Check it out. The model S has the fastest 0 to 60 time in the world according to Road and Track, 2.3 seconds. All those heavy batteries really slow it down! Too bad the car sucks so bad in all other regards. Oh, wait, it's really a great car in other regards! I guess you like to join JL in whining. BTW, power to weight doesn't determine acceleration. Torque vs. weight does, and *THAT* is why the Tesla model S is the fastest production 0 to 60 car in the world. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 17:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <59721e0b$0$827$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #641649 |
On 7/21/2017 12:00 PM, rickman wrote: > John Larkin wrote on 7/15/2017 3:51 PM: >> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >> >>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its >>> remarkable power >>> to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a typical >>> gasoline >>> engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in its coils therefore >>> being able to carry more current in the same space. If so, then we >>> should be >>> able to produce more power if we have a material that can carry more >>> current. >> >> Teslas accelerate in short manic bursts. The motor would fry if it ran >> steady-state at full power. > > Of course, you only need to accelerate for short periods, like a few > seconds. After that you are running illegal speeds No, not if you're going up-hill. (Gasoline engines are of course much more suitable in that case.) > Why design it to run full power beyond all use cases? Your Audi will > melt down if you hold the pedal to the metal all day long too. No, not unless you block the airflow through the radiator. >> And the power/weight ratio drops a lot if you include the batteries. > > That's a pointless number. Why did anyone bring it up, then? > The car runs 300+ miles on a charge and > recharges while you have a cup of coffee. But what if you don't want to have coffee but just want to proceed without waiting one hour? > Who cares about pointless > numbers? If they are truly pointless nobody cares. If anyone does care, I think you shouldn't be so sure that they are pointless numbers.. (But then again, people care about astrological predictions as well.) -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 13:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oktdmt$o0l$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641661 |
Jos Bergervoet wrote on 7/21/2017 11:30 AM: > On 7/21/2017 12:00 PM, rickman wrote: >> John Larkin wrote on 7/15/2017 3:51 PM: >>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its >>>> remarkable power >>>> to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a typical >>>> gasoline >>>> engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in its coils therefore >>>> being able to carry more current in the same space. If so, then we >>>> should be >>>> able to produce more power if we have a material that can carry more >>>> current. >>> >>> Teslas accelerate in short manic bursts. The motor would fry if it ran >>> steady-state at full power. >> >> Of course, you only need to accelerate for short periods, like a few >> seconds. After that you are running illegal speeds > > No, not if you're going up-hill. (Gasoline engines are of > course much more suitable in that case.) > >> Why design it to run full power beyond all use cases? Your Audi will >> melt down if you hold the pedal to the metal all day long too. > > No, not unless you block the airflow through the radiator. > >>> And the power/weight ratio drops a lot if you include the batteries. >> >> That's a pointless number. > > Why did anyone bring it up, then? Because they don't understand basic Newtonian mechanics, rather they listen to everyone else who spouts nonsense. >> The car runs 300+ miles on a charge and >> recharges while you have a cup of coffee. > > But what if you don't want to have coffee but just want to > proceed without waiting one hour? You mean 20 minutes and you don't need to empty your bladder after driving for four hours? I guess you pee into Gatorade bottles while you drive? I never developed that skill. >> Who cares about pointless >> numbers? > > If they are truly pointless nobody cares. If anyone does care, I > think you shouldn't be so sure that they are pointless numbers.. > (But then again, people care about astrological predictions as > well.) I don't duplicate my other post about acceleration and 0 to 60 times. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 13:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oktfmj$vhf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641682 |
On 7/21/2017 12:34 PM, rickman wrote: > Jos Bergervoet wrote on 7/21/2017 11:30 AM: >> On 7/21/2017 12:00 PM, rickman wrote: >>> John Larkin wrote on 7/15/2017 3:51 PM: >>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, "Robert Clark" >>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its >>>>> remarkable power >>>>> to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a typical >>>>> gasoline >>>>> engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in its coils >>>>> therefore >>>>> being able to carry more current in the same space. If so, then we >>>>> should be >>>>> able to produce more power if we have a material that can carry more >>>>> current. >>>> >>>> Teslas accelerate in short manic bursts. The motor would fry if it ran >>>> steady-state at full power. >>> >>> Of course, you only need to accelerate for short periods, like a few >>> seconds. After that you are running illegal speeds >> >> No, not if you're going up-hill. (Gasoline engines are of >> course much more suitable in that case.) >> >>> Why design it to run full power beyond all use cases? Your Audi will >>> melt down if you hold the pedal to the metal all day long too. >> >> No, not unless you block the airflow through the radiator. >> >>>> And the power/weight ratio drops a lot if you include the batteries. >>> >>> That's a pointless number. >> >> Why did anyone bring it up, then? > > Because they don't understand basic Newtonian mechanics, rather they > listen to everyone else who spouts nonsense. > > >>> The car runs 300+ miles on a charge and >>> recharges while you have a cup of coffee. >> >> But what if you don't want to have coffee but just want to >> proceed without waiting one hour? > > You mean 20 minutes and you don't need to empty your bladder after > driving for four hours? I guess you pee into Gatorade bottles while you > drive? I never developed that skill. > > >>> Who cares about pointless >>> numbers? >> >> If they are truly pointless nobody cares. If anyone does care, I >> think you shouldn't be so sure that they are pointless numbers.. >> (But then again, people care about astrological predictions as >> well.) > > I don't duplicate my other post about acceleration and 0 to 60 times. > Ya know, rickman, you really are a pimple on the ass of mankind. Try to find a different group to hassle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 19:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oked4c$dj9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640637 |
You can build one with superconductors, but you have to be careful of three things: 1. Type 2 superconductors have AC losses. Preferably, this would be done with type 1, at LHe temperatures. 2. You can't use magnetic materials very well. Well, you could -- but you'd only be gaining a paltry ~tesla before saturation, when you have several tesla available with the superconductor. They'd also be lossy, putting out heat that you don't need. 3. The cryocooler is going to set you back more, in space and power, than doing it with copper in the first place, not to mention the expense (and making slip rings, and low resistance connections, and..). Although one neat thing is, you can avoid slip rings by using a superconducting loop for the rotor (thus you get a superconducting BLDC machine). Much stronger than NdFeB, and as long as the cryocooler never shuts down, it never demagnetizes. Tim -- Seven Transistor Labs, LLC Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote in message news:okdk1a$426$1@dont-email.me... >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. > > 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/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 06:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oksjee$qt5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640705 |
>You can build one with superconductors, but you have to be careful of three >things: >1. Type 2 superconductors have AC losses. Preferably, this would be done >with type 1, at LHe temperatures. >2. You can't use magnetic materials very well. Well, you could -- but >you'd only be gaining a paltry ~tesla before saturation, when you have >several tesla available with the superconductor. They'd also be lossy, >putting out heat that you don't need. >3. The cryocooler is going to set you back more, in space and power, than >doing it with copper in the first place, not to mention the expense (and >making slip rings, and low resistance connections, and..). > >Although one neat thing is, you can avoid slip rings by using a >superconducting loop for the rotor (thus you get a superconducting BLDC >machine). Much stronger than NdFeB, and as long as the cryocooler never >shuts down, it never demagnetizes. > >Tim > Thanks for that info that even with high current you run into the problem of magnetic saturation, where the magnetic field produced levels off: Saturation(magnetic). https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Magnetization_curves.svg/418px-Magnetization_curves.svg.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturation_(magnetic) According to this wiki article the best you can get is with iron alloys at 2.2 T (Tesla). However, I've heard of cases of high intensity magnetic fields where you can get continuous, sustained fields significantly higher than this: Orders of magnitude (magnetic field). 11.7 T 117 kG Field strength of a 500 MHz NMR spectrometer 16 T 160 kG Strength used to levitate a frog[14] 23.5 T 235 kG Field strength of a 1 GHz NMR spectrometer[15] 36.2 T 362 kG Strongest continuous magnetic field produced by non-superconductive resistive magnet.[16] 45 T 450 kG Strongest continuous magnetic field yet produced in a laboratory (Florida State University's National High Magnetic Field Laboratory in Tallahassee, USA).[17] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(magnetic_field) I imagine then these are using superconductors? Bob Clark --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 19:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oku6ej$6ip$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641650 |
"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote in message news:oksjee$qt5$1@dont-email.me... > However, I've heard of cases of high intensity magnetic fields where you > can get continuous, sustained fields significantly higher than this: > > Orders of magnitude (magnetic field). > 11.7 T 117 kG Field strength of a 500 MHz NMR spectrometer > 16 T 160 kG Strength used to levitate a frog[14] About at this point, even the best superconductors, at LHe temperature, can't sustain operation. These two cases, and many at lower intensities (including thousands of MRI machines in the 1-5T range), are all superconducting. Superconductors are a big win, because the field isn't so high that it's impossible, and because most of these require tons of total energy (it's intense /over a large volume of space/, too). It's impractical to try and charge one of these things every time you need to use it, let alone run steady-state, while burning a tremendous amount of power in a resistive material. You'd have problems with mechanical expansion, thermal gradients, circulating fluids (I mean, you need LHe and LN2 otherwise, but not at the pressure and flow rate that you need for the cooling fluid to run a copper magnet this big) and so on. > 23.5 T 235 kG Field strength of a 1 GHz NMR spectrometer[15] > 36.2 T 362 kG Strongest continuous magnetic field produced by > non-superconductive resistive magnet.[16] > 45 T 450 kG Strongest continuous magnetic field yet produced in a > laboratory (Florida State University's National High Magnetic Field > Laboratory in Tallahassee, USA).[17] > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(magnetic_field) > > I imagine then these are using superconductors? ...These ones, however, may not be superconducting! Or at least not wholly, AFAIK. My familiarity with critical field is probably lacking as well; I just remember it's somewhere in that range. You'd have to ask the designers of that particular NMR. It might be feasible: after all, magnets can be stacked in a particular way so that their vectors add up (Halbach array and such). They might be using a similar trick to optimize the use of superconductors. The strongest are either fully resistive, or hybrid. The ref shows how this one is built: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_High_Magnetic_Field_Laboratory#/media/File:National_High_Magnetic_Field_Lab00.png A metric shitton of current, and water, is supplied to a perforated copper sheet, wound into a helix. Around that, superconductors supply as much field as they can (evidently, around 20T), which superimposes with the resistive magnet's field. It has to be done this way, and not the other way around (superconductor inside), because superconduction is not linear at this level. And note that boosting a 20.0T superconducting magnet, up to 21T as a hybrid magnet, takes exactly as much additional effort as making a 1T air core magnet does (not easy!). So, to achieve another 20-some T extra from that resistive magnet is no small feat! Tim -- Seven Transistor Labs, LLC Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-22 10:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <59730f26$0$792$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #641754 |
On 7/22/2017 2:36 AM, Tim Williams wrote: > "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote in message > news:oksjee$qt5$1@dont-email.me... >> However, I've heard of cases of high intensity magnetic fields where >> you can get continuous, sustained fields significantly higher than this: >> >> Orders of magnitude (magnetic field). >> 11.7 T 117 kG Field strength of a 500 MHz NMR spectrometer >> 16 T 160 kG Strength used to levitate a frog[14] > > About at this point, even the best superconductors, at LHe temperature, > can't sustain operation. These two cases, and many at lower intensities > (including thousands of MRI machines in the 1-5T range), are all > superconducting. > > Superconductors are a big win, because the field isn't so high that it's > impossible, and because most of these require tons of total energy (it's > intense /over a large volume of space/, too). > > It's impractical to try and charge one of these things every time you > need to use it, let alone run steady-state, while burning a tremendous > amount of power in a resistive material. You'd have problems with > mechanical expansion, thermal gradients, circulating fluids (I mean, you > need LHe and LN2 otherwise, but not at the pressure and flow rate that > you need for the cooling fluid to run a copper magnet this big) and so on. > > >> 23.5 T 235 kG Field strength of a 1 GHz NMR spectrometer[15] >> 36.2 T 362 kG Strongest continuous magnetic field produced by >> non-superconductive resistive magnet.[16] >> 45 T 450 kG Strongest continuous magnetic field yet produced in a >> laboratory (Florida State University's National High Magnetic Field >> Laboratory in Tallahassee, USA).[17] >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(magnetic_field) >> >> I imagine then these are using superconductors? > > ...These ones, however, may not be superconducting! Or at least not > wholly, AFAIK. > > My familiarity with critical field is probably lacking as well; I just > remember it's somewhere in that range. > > You'd have to ask the designers of that particular NMR. It might be > feasible: after all, magnets can be stacked in a particular way so that > their vectors add up (Halbach array and such). They might be using a > similar trick to optimize the use of superconductors. > > The strongest are either fully resistive, or hybrid. The ref shows how > this one is built: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_High_Magnetic_Field_Laboratory#/media/File:National_High_Magnetic_Field_Lab00.png > > A metric shitton of current, and water, is supplied to a perforated > copper sheet, wound into a helix. Around that, superconductors supply > as much field as they can (evidently, around 20T), which superimposes > with the resistive magnet's field. It has to be done this way, and not > the other way around (superconductor inside), because superconduction is > not linear at this level. > > And note that boosting a 20.0T superconducting magnet, up to 21T as a > hybrid magnet, takes exactly as much additional effort as making a 1T > air core magnet does (not easy!). So, to achieve another 20-some T > extra from that resistive magnet is no small feat! Purely resistive, with 38T continuous field strength, has been achieved: (that's at my alma mater!) <http://www.ru.nl/english/@936560/hfml38teslaen/> ). And they are now also building a hybrid for 45T, the same value as in your reference, but one would expect that if 38T is possible resistively, a hybrid could ultimately reach close to 60T. (Pulsed magnets can of course get even higher.) -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-22 12:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <okvvbi$qns$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641802 |
On 7/22/2017 2:36 AM, Tim Williams wrote: >> "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote in message >> news:oksjee$qt5$1@dont-email.me... >>> However, I've heard of cases of high intensity magnetic fields where >>> you can get continuous, sustained fields significantly higher than this: >>> >>> Orders of magnitude (magnetic field). >>> 11.7 T 117 kG Field strength of a 500 MHz NMR spectrometer >>> 16 T 160 kG Strength used to levitate a frog[14] >> >> About at this point, even the best superconductors, at LHe temperature, >> can't sustain operation. These two cases, and many at lower intensities >> (including thousands of MRI machines in the 1-5T range), are all >> superconducting. >> >> Superconductors are a big win, because the field isn't so high that it's >> impossible, and because most of these require tons of total energy (it's >> intense /over a large volume of space/, too). >> >> It's impractical to try and charge one of these things every time you >> need to use it, let alone run steady-state, while burning a tremendous >> amount of power in a resistive material. You'd have problems with >> mechanical expansion, thermal gradients, circulating fluids (I mean, you >> need LHe and LN2 otherwise, but not at the pressure and flow rate that >> you need for the cooling fluid to run a copper magnet this big) and so >> on. >> >> >>> 23.5 T 235 kG Field strength of a 1 GHz NMR spectrometer[15] >>> 36.2 T 362 kG Strongest continuous magnetic field produced by >>> non-superconductive resistive magnet.[16] >>> 45 T 450 kG Strongest continuous magnetic field yet produced in a >>> laboratory (Florida State University's National High Magnetic Field >>> Laboratory in Tallahassee, USA).[17] >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(magnetic_field) >>> >>> I imagine then these are using superconductors? >> >> ...These ones, however, may not be superconducting! Or at least not >> wholly, AFAIK. >> >> My familiarity with critical field is probably lacking as well; I just >> remember it's somewhere in that range. >> >> You'd have to ask the designers of that particular NMR. It might be >> feasible: after all, magnets can be stacked in a particular way so that >> their vectors add up (Halbach array and such). They might be using a >> similar trick to optimize the use of superconductors. >> >> The strongest are either fully resistive, or hybrid. The ref shows how >> this one is built: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_High_Magnetic_Field_Laboratory#/media/File:National_High_Magnetic_Field_Lab00.png >> >> A metric shitton of current, and water, is supplied to a perforated >> copper sheet, wound into a helix. Around that, superconductors supply >> as much field as they can (evidently, around 20T), which superimposes >> with the resistive magnet's field. It has to be done this way, and not >> the other way around (superconductor inside), because superconduction is >> not linear at this level. >> >> And note that boosting a 20.0T superconducting magnet, up to 21T as a >> hybrid magnet, takes exactly as much additional effort as making a 1T >> air core magnet does (not easy!). So, to achieve another 20-some T >> extra from that resistive magnet is no small feat! > >Purely resistive, with 38T continuous field strength, has been >achieved: (that's at my alma mater!) ><http://www.ru.nl/english/@936560/hfml38teslaen/> ). >And they are now also building a hybrid for 45T, the same value as >in your reference, but one would expect that if 38T is possible >resistively, a hybrid could ultimately reach close to 60T. (Pulsed >magnets can of course get even higher.) > Thanks for that link. It has this interesting passage: "Large scale and precise 38 tesla magnetWith this new design, HFML also challenged a number of Dutch suppliers and manufacturers. For example, the coils had to be made of another material. Wijnen: 'Many of the HFML magnet coils are made of copper, which is not strong enough for this new magnet. That is why we switched to a compound of copper and silver. Brandsma Metaalveredeling (Brandsma metal processing) managed to silver-plate this complex material and MCi punched the cooling holes. " Interestingly the copper-nanotube composites I discussed in the first post of this thread have twice the strength of regular copper with comparable conductivity. So they could improve the magnetic field strength. The Holy Grail though remains using carbon nanotubes themselves for the purpose. They have 1,000 times greater current capacity and 1,000 times greater strength than copper, so should result in a marked increase in the magnetic field strength. Perhaps their usefulness for the purpose could be demonstrated at the small lengths available now to create small scale, i.e., in volume, but intense magnetic fields. 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 | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-26 18:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <olb481$9mo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641827 |
On 7/22/2017 2:36 AM, Tim Williams wrote: >>> "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote in message >>> news:oksjee$qt5$1@dont-email.me... >>>> However, I've heard of cases of high intensity magnetic fields where >>>> you can get continuous, sustained fields significantly higher than >>>> this: >>>> >>>> Orders of magnitude (magnetic field). >>>> 11.7 T 117 kG Field strength of a 500 MHz NMR spectrometer >>>> 16 T 160 kG Strength used to levitate a frog[14] >>> >>> About at this point, even the best superconductors, at LHe temperature, >>> can't sustain operation. These two cases, and many at lower intensities >>> (including thousands of MRI machines in the 1-5T range), are all >>> superconducting. The question in regards to magnetic field strength in electric motors is whether increasing the power by increasing the current is limited by magnetic saturation of the core material. This magnetic saturation is at ca. 2.2 T ( tesla) for ferrite cores. But do large electric motors commonly approach this value anyway? This is higher for example than the highest magnetic field for permanent commercial magnets made of neodymium, at ca. 1.3 T: https://www.first4magnets.com/tech-centre-i61/information-and-articles-i70/how-is-the-strength-of-a-magnet-measured-i81 But these magnetic fields of neodymium permanent magnets are so strong they could crush your hand if you placed it between two neodymium magnets you could fit in your palm. So I'm inclined to think the magnetic field strengths generated by electric motors are not that strong. Anyone know what are the strengths of the magnetic fields commonly generated by large electric motors. 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 | "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-26 18:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <olb8af$juf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #642673 |
"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote in message news:olb481$9mo$1@dont-email.me... > The question in regards to magnetic field strength in electric motors is > whether increasing the power by increasing the current is limited by > magnetic saturation of the core material. Ah, I get it -- to a certain extent, no. But for practical purposes, yes, I think. The reason is the same as why transformers can deliver far more current than the magnetizing current required to saturate their cores. This applies to induction motors, which are little more than transformers where the secondary is a shorted turn, allowed to spin. Flux density in the rotor is proportional to slip. Um, it probably applies to series wound / universal motors as well, but I can't quite intuit whether that should be the case or not. It also depends on load, because RPM/EMF and current are interdependent. A PM motor is limited by the coercive force of the magnets, and whether that [magnetomotive] force can be transmitted by the laminated core. (For laminated iron and NdFeB, it might not be possible, dunno.) Transmitted force (mechanical and MMF kinds) is limited by air gap, so you have that to fight. Whether that means you can destroy an NdFeB based motor, or demagnetize it, by thrashing the winding current and/or rotor velocity, I'm not sure. Under pulse conditions, even if you saturate the core around the winding, you can always deliver more and more flux density, and eventually the motor looks more like an air core one (these exist, for low inertia applications, like old timey computer tape drives that had to reverse on a dime; and probably similar with some aerospace synchro or LVDT applications, too), and yeah, the force will continue to rise, but not as quickly as it did before saturation, because the effective air gap is now vastly higher. So, no, the force isn't limited, but yeah, it's only going to go so far. Whereas an ideal diode looks like a limited voltage (with current rising exponentially), a real diode has series resistance; same with saturation, where it gets much harder to put in that extra flux, but you're fighting an increasing amount of air gap in the process. Tim -- Seven Transistor Labs, LLC Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-22 11:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <okvreq$egr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641754 |
> >> 23.5 T 235 kG Field strength of a 1 GHz NMR spectrometer[15] >> 36.2 T 362 kG Strongest continuous magnetic field produced by >> non-superconductive resistive magnet.[16] >> 45 T 450 kG Strongest continuous magnetic field yet produced in a >> laboratory (Florida State University's National High Magnetic Field >> Laboratory in Tallahassee, USA).[17] >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(magnetic_field) >> >> I imagine then these are using superconductors? > >...These ones, however, may not be superconducting! Or at least not >wholly, AFAIK. > >My familiarity with critical field is probably lacking as well; I just >remember it's somewhere in that range. > >You'd have to ask the designers of that particular NMR. It might be >feasible: after all, magnets can be stacked in a particular way so that >their vectors add up (Halbach array and such). They might be using a >similar trick to optimize the use of superconductors. > >The strongest are either fully resistive, or hybrid. The ref shows how >this one is built: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_High_Magnetic_Field_Laboratory#/media/File:National_High_Magnetic_Field_Lab00.png >A metric shitton of current, and water, is supplied to a perforated copper >sheet, wound into a helix. Around that, superconductors supply as much >field as they can (evidently, around 20T), which superimposes with the >resistive magnet's field. It has to be done this way, and not the other >way around (superconductor inside), because superconduction is not linear >at this level. > >And note that boosting a 20.0T superconducting magnet, up to 21T as a >hybrid magnet, takes exactly as much additional effort as making a 1T air >core magnet does (not easy!). So, to achieve another 20-some T extra from >that resistive magnet is no small feat! > >Tim > Thanks for the informative response. So at least one of these high magnetic field labs does it without superconductors. If they do this by being additive of the magnetic fields that raises the possibility it would also work with electric motors. BTW, what is the relation between the magnetic field strength, the current, and the power output? That is to say, even if the magnetic field is limited, can we increase the power output by increasing the current nevertheless. 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 | "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-23 14:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ol2tdf$1hb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641821 |
"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote in message news:okvreq$egr$1@dont-email.me... > Thanks for the informative response. So at least one of these high > magnetic field labs does it without superconductors. If they do this by > being additive of the magnetic fields that raises the possibility it would > also work with electric motors. Yeah, but going over 2T is obviously an economic and thermal challenge. Room temp superconductors, even if they have to be cooled a bit below room temp to be useful, would open up a lot of interesting possibilities, though. You could dump the iron, and shrink things quite a bit, even if the Bmax isn't any higher. > BTW, what is the relation between the magnetic field strength, the > current, and the power output? That is to say, even if the magnetic field > is limited, can we increase the power output by increasing the current > nevertheless. Incomplete: voltage and current, or velocity and torque, is power. Some motors overlap responsibilities, for example the series wound machine has load current in the field winding, so B depends on current, which is torque. But torque depends on B, which is current, so torque actually goes quadratically with current. Similarly, EMF and RPM vary with current, so the RPM is highly variable, too. (Which is the observation: series wound and universal motors have very high torque at low RPM, and very high RPM at low torque.) But, broadly speaking, B goes as I, and P goes as B^2. The force applied to the motor is due to a difference in flux densities; flux density gives a pressure, the Maxwell strain, p = B^2 / (2*mu). (Pressure is also energy density, so this gives the energy density of an inductor, for instance.) Tim -- Seven Transistor Labs, LLC Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 10:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0ef3de33-7184-4a9d-aa42-af7820431211@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #640637 |
On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 10:43:54 AM UTC-7, Robert Clark 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. Interesting. And there is also superconducters. > > 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: IDK, but that is very interesting. > > 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. I agree. If this technology can be developed, there is a bright future in aviation. Especially considering the possibility of VTOL. > > So is it really true we can increase electric motor power levels simply by > using wire of higher current capacity? IDK, but what you are saying makes a lot of sense. > > > 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 | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-30 09:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <933e79b4-97c5-4e3c-8285-80b6c2bf0b41@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #640637 |
On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 10:43:54 AM UTC-7, Robert Clark 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. > > 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/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- E Motor draws energy as needed.Trebert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-30 21:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <olmb68$s4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #643391 |
Glazier, you are a spineless, phony, hatemongering Face Shitter who badmouthes anything & everybody, except for yourself. SwineBert you haven't accepted <http://tinyurl.com/Herbert-Glazier-s-Reprieve> since you prefer to remain a filthy fecal Jewish Pig & <http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal>. "Go figure. It's a Pity. Get the Picture", but you don't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-30 09:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <346e90f7-b7c3-47be-9286-e7c61dcfa88c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #640637 |
On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 10:43:54 AM UTC-7, Robert Clark 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. > > 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/ > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-30 21:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <olmb6e$s4$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #643392 |
<http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal> Glazier is too spiteful & too sanctimonious to accept <http://tinyurl.com/Herbert-Glazier-s-Reprieve>, but he needs all these DAILY REMINDERS without which SwineBert will never "get the picture"... LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web