Do you know anything about electricity? 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.
Please do not speak to me again. Your are hereby filtered. 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 >> >> >
