PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-27, 22:37:49
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Author Topic: Where i'm at 1+1=3  (Read 34689 times)

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
By the math:

V = battery terminal voltage

V_oc = open circuit battery voltage

R_int = internal resistance of the battery

I = battery current

Accepted battery model equation
V = V_oc - (I * R_int)

At short circuit, by definition, V = 0

Then V_oc -(I * R_int) = 0
or
V_oc = I * R_int
or
I = V_oc / R_int = I_sc = short circuit current

2 batteries in series, total voltage = 2 * V where V is the voltage of one battery. I is battery current which is same for both batteries. Equation is

V_total = 2 * V = 2 * (V_oc - (I * R_int))
Set V_total = 0 for short circuit, then

0 = 2 * (V_oc - (I * R_int))
0 = V_oc - (I * R_int)
or
V_oc = I * R_int
so
I = V_oc / R_int = I_sc

or you could multiply the terms on the right side of V_total equation by 2 giving

V_total = 2 * V_oc - (I *(2 * R_int))
Where V_oc & R_int are values for a single battery and I is found by setting V_total to zero. Then

2 * V_oc - (I *(2 * R_int)) = 0
or
2 * V_oc = I *(2 * R_int)
or
V_oc = I * R_int
or
I = V_oc / R_int = I_sc

So the short circuit battery current is equal to the open circuit battery voltage divided by the battery internal resistance. This is true for one battery, or two batteries in series, or any number of batteries in series.

Example:

Car battery. V_oc = 12.8 volts and R_int = 0.01 ohms

I_sc = 12.6v / 0.01ohms = 1260amps

2 batteries in series V_oc = 25.6volts and R_int = 0.02ohms
Then I_sc = 25.6v / 0.02ohms = 1260amps.

Elements in series add. Voltage adds. Resistance adds. So the division, V / R remains the same.

I = V / R = 2V / 2R = 3V / 3R and so on. Adding batteries in series doesn't change the short circuit current value.
bi

And yet fails basic ohms law.

In the circuits pictured below, i have allowed 0.1V across the short, so as easy calculations can be made.

I remember way back in one of the TPU threads, it was mentioned that a series of 9 volt batteries could have powered the lightbulbs.
Another very well versed member hear determined that the series resistance of all those cells in series could not even come close to providing enough current to power a 100 watt bulb.

And some where on this forum, there is a thread where i built a very large magnetizer.
I had 24 x 2V, 1300 amp batteries powering this device, and although each single battery could deliver the 1300 amps individually, the max current i could get out of the 24 in series was around 300 amps, and the loss was not in the cables. Once again, another well versed member said the loss was due to the now series connected internal resistance of each battery.

Some times things look great on paper, in ideal conditions, but in reality, it just doesn't work out that way.

But we can agree to disagree  O0


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
So the current through the left circuit is the same as the current through the right circuit (assuming all 3 battery voltages are equal). I think we can all agree on that.

What is it that we aren't agreeing on?


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 143
So the current through the left circuit is the same as the current through the right circuit (assuming all 3 battery voltages are equal). I think we can all agree on that.

What is it that we aren't agreeing on?

I agree, currents are the same.

But what is the circle enclosing v=0.1 shown on right side circuit?
bi
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
I am assuming that is a voltmeter with an indicated measured voltage.


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 143
I am assuming that is a voltmeter with an indicated measured voltage.

OK. I think I see. So Brad says short circuit voltage is 0.1 volts instead of 0.0 as I had used. Look how that alters my example.

Example:

Car battery. V_oc = 12.6 volts and R_int = 0.01 ohms

I_sc = 12.6v / 0.01ohms = 1260amps [with V_sc = 0.0v]
I_sc = (12.6v - 0.1v) / 0.01ohms = 1250amps [with V_sc = 0.1v]

2 batteries in series V_oc = 25.2volts and R_int = 0.02ohms

Then I_sc = 25.2v / 0.02ohms = 1260amps [with V_sc = 0.0v]
          I_sc = (25.2v - 0.1v) / 0.02ohms = 1255amps [with V_sc = 0.1v]

So 1250A short circuit current for one battery
and
1255A short circuit current for two batteries in series
using a 0.1 volt drop across the short.
bi
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
So the current through the left circuit is the same as the current through the right circuit (assuming all 3 battery voltages are equal). I think we can all agree on that.

What is it that we aren't agreeing on?

No , we did not all agree on that, but we do now.

I was incorrect in saying that the two batteries in series would result in a lower short circuit current, due to the now 2 internal resistances adding up.
But after physically testing new batteries yesterday, the short circuit current of one battery is exactly the same as the short circuit current of two batteries in series.
BiStander was correct, along with yourself Poynt, and i was wrong, even after all these years of messing around with batteries.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Hi Brad,

Would you mind telling what RPM the motor runs at when the shaft is unloaded (i.e. the friction of the gear system is the load) ?

Thanks
Gyula

The eddy currents produced in the gate core from the rotors magnets seems to regulate the speed at about 1800 rpm.
But it could also be the vibrations and noise of the plastic gears that are limiting the speed as well.

With better engineering, and a laminated gate, i think it will reach far higher rpm's
Machined aluminum gears is what is needed, and as the magnets rotate with the gears, there shouldn't be an eddy current issue there.

Sorry for the late reply, but not sure how i missed your question.

Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
As this is going to be open source soon, i can share a few things now, so as you guys can start to get the jist of things, and maybe even find a better way to make it work.

Can we post stl files here ?
I will give it a shot.

Gears x 2
Gear adjustable shaft holder x 1
The adjustable shaft holder is designed for 8mm thread bar, with 22mm x 8mm x 7mm thick bearings for the rotors.
It allows you to mesh the gears correctly.
The gears have been offset by 3*, so as the magnets align correctly.
The 2 gears are printed in one hit.

Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
You dont have to use battery analogy to see why "1+1" can be "3" when it comes to magnetic forces.

Current loops apply forces using the inverse square law. When you "stack" a magnet you are essentially stacking up these current loops. If you thickness is much smaller then your radius than your force will go up as if you have only increased the current. Since the force is (simplified) F= B*I*l. And B (due to the other magnet) is also dependent on its "current". In other words your force has a current squared relationship. So actually 1+1 can be nearly 4 if the radius is much bigger than the thickness of the magnets.

People are smart enough to figure out how something works, so I am eagerly awaiting the proposed idea.
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 782
Believing in something false doesn't make it true.
Thanks Brad,

Got them downloaded.  Do we need to adjust the holes in the gears for the magnets we might already have or do we need to wait and only get the magnets you recommend?

Carroll


---------------------------
Just because it is on YouTube does not make it real.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
You dont have to use battery analogy to see why "1+1" can be "3" when it comes to magnetic forces.

Current loops apply forces using the inverse square law. When you "stack" a magnet you are essentially stacking up these current loops. If you thickness is much smaller then your radius than your force will go up as if you have only increased the current. Since the force is (simplified) F= B*I*l. And B (due to the other magnet) is also dependent on its "current". In other words your force has a current squared relationship. So actually 1+1 can be nearly 4 if the radius is much bigger than the thickness of the magnets.

People are smart enough to figure out how something works, so I am eagerly awaiting the proposed idea.

Maybe you better go read the original 1+1=3 thread, so as you know what is being talked about.
In short, when two like poles are faced together, you don't double the field strength/pull force, you can get up to 5 times the field strength/pull force.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Thanks Brad,

Got them downloaded.  Do we need to adjust the holes in the gears for the magnets we might already have or do we need to wait and only get the magnets you recommend?

Carroll

The hole size is 10.2mm for 10mm round x 10mm long magnets.
As long as your printer is accurate, that is what will fit the holes.
But adjust them as you need  O0

Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 782
Believing in something false doesn't make it true.


Thanks!! Got it.   O0



---------------------------
Just because it is on YouTube does not make it real.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Attention

Please hold off on printing the gears, as one of the holes for the magnets is not the correct depth.

I will amend the depth tonight, and repost the updated files.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 80
I am like 12 hours in, would it be possible to separate them into 2 STL's and label the one that was redone, so we can just reprint one?  I can see the one with the short hole.

Thanks!
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Rectified gear set
« Last Edit: 2024-03-23, 14:52:21 by TinMan »


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 782
Believing in something false doesn't make it true.
Hi Brad,

I have gotten some magnets ordered.  I already have several of the right bearings.  I have a question.  Are both of the gears identical?  I have access to a second printer and was going to let each one print a gear.  They both look the same in the files.  That would save some time. 

Carroll


---------------------------
Just because it is on YouTube does not make it real.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Hi Brad,

I have gotten some magnets ordered.  I already have several of the right bearings.  I have a question.  Are both of the gears identical?  I have access to a second printer and was going to let each one print a gear.  They both look the same in the files.  That would save some time. 

Carroll

Use the latest stl in my last post, and print together.
The gears are different, in that the magnet holes are offset in relation to the teeth, so as they line up.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 782
Believing in something false doesn't make it true.


Got it! Thanks.   O0 O0



---------------------------
Just because it is on YouTube does not make it real.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Just to let you all know, while i do appreciate the messages and enthusiasm, i am sticking to my plan as stated at the start of this thread.

I am happy to share the stl files for the rotors and adjustable base, but if you wish to peruse this at a faster rate than I have planned, then you will have to go about it yourself.
Making the rest is easy, tuning it to run takes a lot of patients. A precise balance must be found, and the first time is the hardest.

Anyway, if you wish to go it alone, it is just the below motor, where you remove the coil, and replace it with a magnetic gate--that is where the fine balancing act comes into play.
As you can see by the total power being used to run the motor, you only need a very slight field offset to make it work.
That power consumption includes the power being generated to run the LED, the transistor, the power dissipated by the CVR, and the noise being produced, as well as spinning the two rotors that have quite a bit of windage. The inverted voltage after transistor switch off, is also not being collected and used.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ps9AUKzsKfg

Brad



---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
Thanks, Brad.
Quick note - I am traveling this week with family (Easter week).
Will return around 1 April.
Wishing you all the best !!!
Steve
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 123
  Video answered my question so thanks. See the dir to go. Gears done, platform printing. So as a PM, this can run off a 1.5v batt at 3.5mw.  Noise of the teeth is a real issue to be fixed. PLA is not the answer.
thay
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 18
Noise of the teeth is a real issue to be fixed.
thay

A reasonably easy option for quieter durable gears is to make them from glued timing belts. You will have to play with the sizing to get the mag timing where you need it.

https://youtu.be/lXWO-Q2jh3A Robert Murray-Smith video

tak
   

Jr. Member
**

Posts: 62


Buy me some coffee
A reasonably easy option for quieter durable gears is to make them from glued timing belts. You will have to play with the sizing to get the mag timing where you need it.

https://youtu.be/lXWO-Q2jh3A Robert Murray-Smith video

tak

Very clever and very quiet, I love his video's - thanks for sharing.
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 48
Noise of the teeth is a real issue to be fixed. PLA is not the answer.
thay

Helical gears are the answer when it comes to noise reduction and durability, even when using PLA.

It is even better to use nylon or even dispense with gears that mesh directly with each other and use V-belts instead. There are now even manufacturers who offer made-to-measure V-belts for the private sector.

Kind regards
   
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-27, 22:37:49