----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry Blanton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 2:07 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sprain Magmo
> Do you know anything about electricity? Only a few things. > The output duty cycle is 100%. The input duty cycle is somewhat less. > If it is too challenging for you, simply divide the instantaneous > power out by the instantaneous power in and divide by the input duty > cycle. This is correct, but your computation of the duty cycle is wrong, it should be: Ton / RotationPeriod = Ton * RotationFrequency = 4*28*10^-3 * 1.45 = 0.16 rather than Ton / RotationFrequency as you did. Again, 1.45 is the cycles per sec, not the sec per cycle. > Please do not speak to me again. Your are hereby filtered. I'll post this all the same, for the record. Sorry if it's inconvenient. Michel > > Terry > > On 5/19/07, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Terry Blanton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 11:20 PM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sprain Magmo >> >> >> > Michel, ma belle, >> > >> > His input power is 23.52 W/pulse x duty cycle. Duty cycle is 4 pulses >> > per cycle x 0.028 sec/cycle over 1.5 sec/cycle or 1.76 W. COP = 2.38 >> >> Terry my lovely, >> >> It's not 1.5 sec/cycle but 1.46 cycle/sec (87.6 rpm), so your computation >> overestimates the COP by a factor 1.5*1.46. Paul got it right in the >> caption, with those data the input power comes out as 3.84 W. >> >> > These were not the figures he had when we had it optimized. Poor girl >> > has degraded significantly. Plus, Paul changed the bulb (I told him >> > to use a resistor) which changed the load. Since bulbs are poor >> > linear resistors and generators are poor linear sources the numbers >> > changed. >> > >> > Here is the analysis done Oct. 26, 2006: >> > >> > "Your data indicates that E.M.I.L.I.E. is driving a load via a >> > permanent magnet generator with 10.48 V at 0.805 A or 8.44 W (RMS). >> > >> > The data also indicates that EMILIE is consuming 4 pulses per cycle at >> > an average voltage of 19.06 V at 1.78 A or 33.93 W for the duration of >> > each pulse. The pulse duration is indicated to be 25.39 ms. The >> > rotation rate is 87 RPM or 1.45 RPS. Thus the RMS power consumed is: >> > >> > 33.93 W x (.02539/1.45) = 0.594 W per pulse x 4 pulses per cycle or 2.38 >> > W." >> >> Which would indeed make a COP of 8.44/2.38=3.55 (>3 as you claimed) but this >> is wrong too and for the same reason. Paul should of course have multiplied >> the energy per rotation by the RPS (1.45) to get the input power, instead he >> divided by 1.45, overestimating the COP by 1.45^2 this time. >> >> Michel >> >> > I prefer to work in MKS energy, Paul wanted the calcs done in power. So >> > be it. >> > >> > All data is from the storage scope in CSV format . . . not the setup >> > shown in the vid. I have said data; but, I would need permission to >> > share it. >> > >> > The old girl has been mothballed before she fell apart totally. >> > There's a new girl in town. :-) >> > >> > Terry >> >> > >> > On 5/18/07, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Dear Terry, >> >> >> >> You are suggesting the electric power out of the generator is more than 3 >> >> times the electric power consumed by the motor. If so, there would indeed >> >> remain no serious obstacle to self-powering (which you had already >> >> announced as imminent 1 year ago), since converting the output voltage to >> >> the input voltage can be done with at least 80% efficiency, which would >> >> make the overall loop gain largely overunity: 3*0.8=2.4. >> >> >> >> Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the case, Paul Sprain says in the >> >> caption: >> >> "The input power is 3.84 watts and the output from the generator >> >> underload is 7.81 volts @ .536 mA or 4.18 watts." >> >> This would make the overall COP closer to 1.1 (4.18/3.84), which >> >> obviously would still be a remarkable achievement if confirmed, but might >> >> not be enough for self-powering. >> >> >> >> A detail: in the caption he has made the same confusion between joules >> >> and watts I had pointed out last year: >> >> "The electro magnet uses 19.6 volts @ 1.2 amps for 28 ms or .658 watts >> >> per pulse." (should be joules) >> >> >> >> More to the point, I see the EM voltage is the same as last year (about >> >> 20V), the pulse duration hasn't changed either (28 ms), how come the >> >> current has gone down from 2A (which as you will remember I had estimated >> >> underestimated by a factor of 5 to 10 for two independent reasons) to >> >> 1.2A? >> >> >> >> Michel >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "Terry Blanton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> To: <[email protected]> >> >> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 2:46 PM >> >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sprain Magmo >> >> >> >> >> >> > ...Based on power measurements >> >> > this configuration had a COP of over 3.0, INCLUDING THE GENERATOR >> >> > INEFFICIENCY. >> >> > >> >> > Terry >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
