STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM

[Bruce_TPU]

It's been suggested to me by someone else that the gauge of wire should be able to handle twice the amount of current in the wire.  This may be a good starting point.  So the wire should be able to handle 20,000mA.

GB

Yep, we need to match magnet wire and find some .5 T magnets to match our cores.

[gravityblock]

Second, the input energy is constant at all speeds as can be seen by the constant voltage and current traces with a constant duty cycle.

The voltage and current is constant at both a low and high RPM, but at higher RPM the voltage and current will be on for a shorter period of time which relates to shorter pulse widths at higher RPM.  Shorter pulse widths is less input energy.

The duty cycle is only constant at a constant RPM.  When the RPM is changing, then the duty cycle is changing.  The duty cycle only affects the pulse widths, it doesn't affect the voltage and current being constant.

Don't listen to Lumen.  He needs to re-visit his physics books and his thinking is not right.

GB

[captainpecan]

The voltage and current is constant at both a low and high RPM, but at higher RPM the voltage and current will be on for a shorter period of time which relates to shorter pulse widths at higher RPM.  Shorter pulse widths is less input energy.

Don't listen to Lumen.  He needs to re-visit his physics books and his thinking is not right.

GB

Well actually your all kinda right, lol...  It is true, if the duty cycle stays the same, and rpms increase, you do get a shorter pulse.  That shorter pulse does use less energy, obviously.  BUT, the higher the rpms, the MORE PULSES are done in the same amount of time.  But in the case of the orbo, rpms would make a big difference.  It's the on time between start and finish on the pulse that needs cut down for a higher efficiency.  So even though over all you are pretty much putting in the same energy, it greatly will effect the ratio of output to input.

At least that is how I see it anyway.

[downunder]

The voltage and current is constant at both a low and high RPM, but at higher RPM the voltage and current will be on for a shorter period of time which relates to shorter pulse widths at higher RPM.  Shorter pulse widths is less input energy.

Don't listen to Lumen.  He needs to re-visit his physics books and his thinking is not right.

GB

I'm sorry GB, but I edited my post after you quoted me, so your quote was incomplete.

At higher frequencies, the on pulse is shorter, so there is less energy per pulse.  However, the off time is also shorter.  This means that the next on pulse comes sooner, resulting in the duty cycle and input energy being constant regardless of the frequency or RPM.

If we change the control circuitry to increase duty cycle, then input energy increases.  Or we can lower input energy by decreasing duty cycle.  However frequency or RPM alone do not change duty cycle in these pulse motors as far as I can tell.

But don't believe me or anyone else posting on here if you don't want to... and don't trust your own memory, because we all get things muddled up sometimes.  Go research duty cycle and what it means, or check out this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_cycle

[lumen]

The voltage and current is constant at both a low and high RPM, but at higher RPM the voltage and current will be on for a shorter period of time which relates to shorter pulse widths at higher RPM.  Shorter pulse widths is less input energy.

Don't listen to Lumen.  He needs to re-visit his physics books and his thinking is not right.

GB

Gawd... C-mon GB, I was just going to let it go but you keep insisting.

Think of this:
1: Turn your bedroom light on for 1 minute, then off for 1 minute, do this for 1 hour.
2: Turn your bedroom light on for 1 second then off for 1 second, do this for 1 hour.

Which one used more power?

The correct answer is ...... um..... 2
Ok, so this was a bad example.