[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Single shaft motor - Ed Wingate?
- To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Single shaft motor - Ed Wingate?
- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 12:50:55 -0600
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Old-return-path: <email@example.com>
- Resent-date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 12:55:42 -0600 (MDT)
- Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <FtI6WB.A.WjG.-1epCB@poodle>
- Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Original poster: "Malcolm Watts" <m.j.watts@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Bob, Ed,
A quick search using Google suggests that there are two
different motors using the Marinov label. One is a motor using two
ball bearings and no magnets and the other has a toroidal magnet
inside a rotating slip ring. I think I'm seeing confusion between
these two types in the discussion below? Just trying to be helpful.
On 6 Jun 2005, at 20:56, Tesla list wrote:
> Original poster: Edward Wingate <ewing7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Tesla list wrote:
> >Original poster: "Bob (R.A.) Jones" <a1accounting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sorry again Terry for this off subject post.
> > > Robert,
> > >
> > > My Marinov motor runs better than 2000 RPM, which is over 33
> > > revolutions per second. Do you really think what you are
> > > describing can take place that fast in steel? Especially the
> > > cooling and shrinking part.
> > >
> > > Ed Wingate RATCB
> > >
> >Wow Ed I am impressed by the RPM.
> >As to if I really think my description can take place.
> >I assume your trying to appeal to my feelings and every day
> Never assume.
> >But since you ask. I have read no other detailed explanation. So it
> >would get my vote until I do read an other detailed explanation. As
> >to the speed of shrinking and expansion I will give it an analytical
> >go for you. Thermal time constants are determined by the thermal mass
> >and thermal resistance. I have direct experience of heating the
> >surface of a thick steel plate with a blow torch. I would estimate
> >the time constant of the hot spot to be say 10 seconds and say one
> >inch in diameter. Now consider a hot spot just 1/1000 inch in
> >diameter i.e. the contact point of a bearing. The thermal mass is
> >1000,000,000 times less. What about the thermal resistance. The
> >surface area will have decreased by 1000,000 times but the length
> >will have gone down by 1000 times. So the thermal time constant would
> >be 10ms. Compared to 33RPS this is in the correct range. This is the
> >cooling time lag. The heating time lag would be determined by the
> >thermal mass, thermal resistance and input energy. Given the small
> >mass of the contact point I would expect that to be ms too but I am
> >guessing. I better analysis would be a moving contact point were the
> >conditions are quasi static with continuous thermal flows .
> >The next step in the normal way physics is investigated would be to
> >construct a model and compare it to measurements then make
> >predictions. Perhaps the maximum speed could be determined for
> >different materials then confirmed by experiment for example. Perhaps
> >the time constant of a small spot can be directly measured too.
> > Robert (R. A.) Jones
> >A1 Accounting, Inc., Fl
> >407 649 6400
> Very elaborate explanation, but with all due respect, I still disagree
> and I already have an operating model, when are you going to start
> building yours? Then you could prove the thermal theory rather than
> simply "voting" for it.