[Lordwacky]

This is probably stupid, but I'm going to weight in here. First let me say I haven't read this whole thread because its really long so if someone else has said these things already I'm sorry.

Horsepower = 1/C (Torque * RPM) where C is a constant. Horsepower is a function of torque. You cannot have horsepower without torque. Without getting into the physics of it. To say that torque is irrelevant is kinda absurd because you need torque to have horsepower.

for example in the fifties Chrysler built turbine powered cars. Even though they had ~200hp people didn't like them because they had poor acceleration. They had poor acceleration because turbines while high in horse power are low in torque, meaning they run at high RPMs to get comparable power to a conventional piston engines, meaning there was "turbine" lag, this is basically the same thing as a "turbo" lag you all know about already.

Another example is the good ol' transmission. We all know it is easy to get going in 1st gear then when you are in 4th. This is because the transmission applies a mechanical advantage to the drive train, in other words, it increases the torque on the drive train. In a way you can view an transmission as a horsepower to torque converter. If you have infinite torque you wouldn't need a transmission at all. Electric motors have a lot of torque hence all the direct drive conversions out there even though they have lower horse power rating then comparable piston engines that could never perform in a direct drive configuration.

I hope this makes sense.

[Duncan]

IamIan

I don't know what you have been smoking but at human scales Newtons laws still work fine you have to be very small large or fast to detect the difference between Einsteinian mechanics and Newtonian

To your superconducting motor
While it is held at zero speed it will do zero work and consume zero power
As soon as you let it go it will do "mechanical work"and consume electrical power
If there is no power source the current in the coils will drop as work is done
No Magic!

The advantage of superconducting motors is that they should be able to be made much smaller
(Useful for a ship)

For my car I want mechanical power!

Other types of power will not move metal!

You can use the other types of power (Spiritual?) for your car if you want

[major]

Originally Posted by IamIan

What I stated is correct, current and resistance are the drivers of electrical heat ... Voltage doesn't matter.

Hi IamIan,

So what you're saying is that voltage is irrelevant

Just as I disagreed with Drew when he said that torque was irrelevant, I disagree with you that voltage is irrelevant. But maybe I should start another thread.

Ever notice the similarities between the expressions for electrical and mechanical power?

Pe = V * I or (Watts = Volts * Amps)

Pm = T * S or (Watts = Torque * Angular Velocity)

In the mechanical case, Drew chooses to use Power and Angular Velocity. Then says Torque is irrelevant. But when he defines the Power and Angular Velocity, he has defined Torque.

And you have done the same with your logic. Looking at "electrical heat", it is power. So when you say all you need is the current and resistance to determine power (electrical heat), you are correct, however by defining resistance and current, you have defined the voltage. You could have just as easily figured the electrical power (heat) by using voltage and current (making resistance irrelevant?) or by using voltage and resistance (making current irrelevant?).

My whole point here is that because you can have torque without power, it certainly cannot be considered irrelevant. And, as a sidebar, in your electrical heat example, you can have voltage without power, so it would be wrong to consider voltage irrelevant.

Regards,

major

[IamIan]

Ok, Lesson learned... keep academic points ( like the nature of power ) to myself

If it makes you happy ... say , write, and beleive anything you like.

I don't see a benefit to continue lengthy posts back and forth.

Ignore any type of power you like ... assume nothing has been learned sense Newton and Ohm... I am not a teacher and am not motivated to become one... or continue to point out mistakes, omissions, etc.

Count this as a personal win if you like ...

My original point still stands 100% correct:

There is power at 0 RPMs... weather you like it or not... weather you like the type it is or not... weather major ever admits his claim was wrong or not.

[ZX-E]

Originally Posted by IamIan

Ok, Lesson learned... keep academic points ( like the nature of power ) to myself

If it makes you happy ... say , write, and beleive anything you like.

I don't see a benefit to continue lengthy posts back and forth.

Ignore any type of power you like ... assume nothing has been learned sense Newton and Ohm... I am not a teacher and am not motivated to become one... or continue to point out mistakes, omissions, etc.

Count this as a personal win if you like ...

My original point still stands 100% correct:

There is power at 0 RPMs... weather you like it or not... weather you like the type it is or not... weather major ever admits his claim was wrong or not.

IamIan. Please go back and read what major wrote. He said there is no mechanical power at 0 rpm...

If you were a little clearer, I think major wouldn't even disagree with you. As far as power goes at 0 rpm. It depends on the situation, and what kind of power you're talking about. Major was clearly talking about mechanical power.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by ZX-E

IamIan. Please go back and read what major wrote. He said there is no mechanical power at 0 rpm...

If you were a little clearer, I think major wouldn't even disagree with you. As far as power goes at 0 rpm. It depends on the situation, and what kind of power you're talking about. Major was clearly talking about mechanical power.

I will agree I am far from perfect and do not always word things perfectly.

Given the responses ( not just from major ) , I doubt it would have mattered how it was phrased... as I said from the beginning it was an academic point... and I shouldn't have even brought it up... In the future I'll try and bite my virtual tongue instead.

but ... as I also said from the beginning ... it doesn't matter.

Do I now move on to the other incorrect statements, and misinterpretations .... no ... it does not look to be worth the hassle... each time I've tried to explain one thing it has lead to other misinterpretations .... and it only looks to be building momentum and branching out to more and more things... that just isn't appealing to me... maybe some other time in a different format... But I am just not feeling that argumentative right now.

[ZX-E]

Originally Posted by IamIan

I will agree I am far from perfect and do not always word things perfectly.

Given the responses ( not just from major ) , I doubt it would have mattered how it was phrased... as I said from the beginning it was an academic point... and I shouldn't have even brought it up... In the future I'll try and bite my virtual tongue instead.

but ... as I also said from the beginning ... it doesn't matter.

Do I now move on to the other incorrect statements, and misinterpretations .... no ... it does not look to be worth the hassle... each time I've tried to explain one thing it has lead to other misinterpretations .... and it only looks to be building momentum and branching out to more and more things... that just isn't appealing to me... maybe some other time in a different format... But I am just not feeling that argumentative right now.

Well I'm sorry you feel that way. Please don't bite your virtual tongue.

To be honest I really do think it would have mattered how it was phrased. You were saying that even if the motor's shaft isn't turning there can be power dissipated by the motor in the form of thermal energy. Right? Everyone can agree on that I think .

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by ZX-E

To be honest I really do think it would have mattered how it was phrased. You were saying that even if the motor's shaft isn't turning there can be power dissipated by the motor in the form of thermal energy. Right? Everyone can agree on that I think .

Although I had hoped others would have seen it without been spoon feed.

But, yes that one should be obvious... but it isn't just thermal power from the flow of and conversion to and from thermal energy... there are many many type of power and many many types of energy ... many many of which are still present at an electric motor at 0 RPMs... but not in a stationary spring.

Additionally ... it is often over looked that kinetic power is not the same as mechanical power .... kinetic power could be power from any type of movement.... mechanical power ignores any movement that is perpendicular to the applied force.

A crude example... yes it is flawed but I don't know off hand a better analogy...

A bolt and a nut ... you apply a force to turn the bolt ... the movement of the bolt in the direction of that applied force of rotation counts toward that mechanical power ... but the motion of the bolt toward or away from the nut does not count for that mechanical power because it is a motion that is perpendicular to the applied force.... Yes I can hear the masses screaming already... but its true... if you don't think so go look up mechanical power... Now the best you could do is that you could do with mechanical power is change your frame of reference ... the force and movement toward or away from the bolt is induced and in that frame of reference the rotational force and movement are ignored because they are now perpendicular.

In short... invoking mechanical power ignores allot of things ... to many for my tastes... and still does not change the presence of power at 0 RPMs.

Originally Posted by ZX-E

Well I'm sorry you feel that way. Please don't bite your virtual tongue.

but it has treed out so much...

If this one rather simple concept was such a fight where am I for

Duncan and his post with by my count... 4 points I disagree with.
Major and his most recent post by my count ... 5 points I disagree with.

or any of the older multitudes of points I disagree with.

I just see an steep uphill battle ... with very very little to be gained by the effort... and a very good chance they will never see it no matter what.

[major]

Originally Posted by IamIan

A bolt and a nut ... you apply a force to turn the bolt ... the movement of the bolt in the direction of that applied force of rotation counts toward that mechanical power ... but the motion of the bolt toward or away from the nut does not count for that mechanical power because it is a motion that is perpendicular to the applied force.... Yes I can hear the masses screaming already... but its true... if you don't think so go look up mechanical power... Now the best you could do is that you could do with mechanical power is change your frame of reference ... the force and movement toward or away from the bolt is induced and in that frame of reference the rotational force and movement are ignored because they are now perpendicular.

Hi Iam,

Me again. Yeah, a bolt and nut. Good example. We all use those. And some of us use a torque wrench. When tightening a bolt and nut, what are you doing? Drawing the nut to the bolt head squeezing the material between the two. So there is a force parallel to the axis of rotation of the bolt and torque wrench. This force is translated into torque by the bolt thread radius and the thread pitch. So the force squeezing the material between the nut and bolt head (and the work done to move the nut or bolt, and the power associated with that work) is translated to the torque on the wrench (and the work done and associated power on the wrench).

This is much the same as the rotation to translational mechanical power transformation which occurs in the EV via the wheel. Torque is applied to the axle and translated to linear force via the wheel radius.

We all know this. The linear motion, force, work, and power is considered and accounted for in the rotational coordinate system, namely the motor output torque.

What is your point? No force, power or energy is ignored, unless it is so insignificant it cannot be measured by reasonable means, meaning 10^-12%.

Regards,

major

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by major

What is your point? No force, power or energy is ignored, unless it is so insignificant it cannot be measured by reasonable means, meaning 10^-12%.

....
Although I am 90% certain this effort I am about to make will still not be understood if it wasn't already... for the hell of it I'll give it a try.
....

In regards to my point on invoking mechanical power.

By invoking mechanical power you ignore all motion perpendicular to the applied force... that is just how mechanical power works and is calculated ... look it up... look at the Formulas and think about it.

I am not saying there isn't movement... I am not saying there isn't power... I am not saying the power was not converted from rotation force... I am not saying there is not a corresponding counter force or drag on the applied force that relates to the induced perpendicular force... I am not suggesting magic... I am not suggesting the perpendicular force comes from no where... I am not suggesting the perpendicular force does not originate from the applied force... I am not saying the perpendicular power can't be accounted for.

I'm sure I missed several other things I am also not saying.

I'm sure someone will focus on something I'm not saying either by one I missed in the list or by ignoring what I am saying.

Also I will repeat what I said from the beginning... I think this is at least 90% academic... if not 99%.

--------------------

There are two frames of reference.

The rotational frame of reference :
Apply a force in a rotational direction ... if that force causes movement in the rotational direction + or - movement mechanical power is present and + or - work is done in that frame of reference.

The perpendicular frame of reference:
Any motion that occurs perpendicular to the applied force... it is no accident that there is no term for this in RPM & torque power Formulas ... mechanical power ignores any motion perpendicular to the applied force.

We can go back to what I am not saying if you like... or just page up.

If a motion occurred perpendicular to the axis of rotation the force of that motion still comes from the energy applied to the system... this motion might be experienced as a vibration, or sound, etc...

A motor with energy flow has power ( several different kinds ) even while held stationary... If it is only stationary in the rotational frame of reference but is not stationary in the perpendicular frame of reference ... there is still no rotational frame of reference mechanical power no matter how much it moves in the perpendicular frame of reference... There is mechanical power in the perpendicular frame of reference while it moves in that direction but it is ignored in the rotational frame of reference ... If the motor is allowed to rotate any rotational movement is ignored and does not count as mechanical power in the perpendicular frame of reference.

In addition to all the other forms of power that are ignored when mechanical power is invoked ... you also ignore several types of physical movement as well depending on your chosen frame of reference that mechanical power conventions require you to pick one frame of reference.

-----------------

The several other points from older posts I will not even attempt to go into in this post... which is already long enough even after condensing it.