I'd be giving the patents away...

Thanks e14 for pulling those articles.

I was able to read it when it was first posted and I had a good chuckle. While we have yet to understand all forms of energy exchange and the efficiency of most applications can be much improved on - there is no such thing as "free energy".

I believed that the Sun and Wind are "Free Energy"

Sometimes it's hard to let the other guy have the last word

But motor efficiency (in the context of the link I provided) is mechanical power out/ electrical power in.

MK

But motor efficiency (in the context of the link I provided) is mechanical power out/ electrical power in.

Funny I was thinking the same thing.

In the case of this device, it isn't converting energy from its electrical state, and I do know of DC to DC converts in the high 90's% of efficiency.

Test challenge

I still haven't heard back, and obviously there would be no cost to the testers, otherwise its not fair.

mark

DC/DC is still from electrical to electrical; although applicable in the context of the product discussed, I think packetgeek meant conversion from one domain to the other.  Anyway, he's wrong as ThinGap claims 95% efficiency: http://www.thingap.com/efficiency-and-smoothness/ and the CSIRO motors have way more efficiency than 80%.

mcb1 wrote:

... and I do know of DC to DC converts in the high 90's% of efficiency.

 

Right. That's marketing-speak. In general DCDC converters convert at "around 80%" efficiency. Then when you sweep the output current along the whole range, at one point you may measure "above 90%" efficiency. The marketing guys jump on this number and prominently place it everywhere they can. In reality, count on 80% and let yourself be surprised if possible.

The "80%" mentioned is a good ballpark figure. There are exceptions. Gas-powered central heating installations here in the Netherlands apparently achieve 107% efficiency according to the official efficiency-calculating-rules. If you WANT to go from electrical power to heat, that can easily be done with 100% efficiency.

On the other hand, going from chemical (gas) to mechanical power (moving car), you are lucky if you hit the 30%.

As another example of how "ballpark figures" work I use "0.8" as the density of "organic materials". Wood, gasonline, etc. I know there are woods that are so dense that they sink (i.e. >1.0). But as a ballpark figure this 0.8 still works quite well. (e.g. when they say an airplane had XXX kg of fuel on board).

Gas-powered central heating installations here in the Netherlands apparently achieve 107% efficiency according to the official efficiency-calculating-rules. If you WANT to go from electrical power to heat, that can easily be done with 100% efficiency.

That's because in the official rules (when efficinecy was much, much lower) they thought that the heat going through the chimney was neglectabe..... Now that that heat loss is reduced, you get more than 100% efficiency. It's more an calculation / definition error. 107% efficiency would mean you'd be generating energy more heat than is available in caloric energy in the gas...

Then when you sweep the output current along the whole range, at one point you may measure "above 90%" efficiency

Yes. And when your application permits, you can design to be in that sweet spot. So it's a marketing-overused, but not a lie.

It's not the "heat going through the chimney" that they neglected in the definition at first.

It's the energy that is contained in the water-vapour that goes up the chimney that they neglected. That can be recovered if you make sure the water condenses and you can leave the resulting water somewhere (a drain).

If you build a heat-pump, powered either by gas or by electricity, you can get even higher efficiency figures, well above 100%.

P.S; I fully agree with you to call the 107% situation a "definition error".

"I know there are woods that are so dense that they sink (i.e. >1.0). But as a ballpark figure this 0.8 still works quite well."

More common than you might think - as is well known to my poor dog. In the woods where we walk about half the sticks I throw in the river for her to fetch turn out to be sinkers. I'm trying to improve my manual density measurement skills but so far to little avail.

MK

Recommend doing the power conversion math using the cars specs

- Tim

Ouch.  Good thing the dog's density is a bit below 1.0,  Our dog would

attempt to recover the stick anyways.

Perhaps you would like to explain your rather crytpic comment a little more - I can't see how the car spec would lead me to the efficiency of one of its components but I may have misunderstood you. From the link I gave you it is possible to get to the "motor information pack" which quotes the motor spec in some detail, extract follows:

RMS phase current (A) 13.9

Copper loss (W) 43.9

Eddy current loss (W) 2.6

Windage (W) 2.1

Total loss (W) 48.6

Output power (W) 1800

Efficiency (%) 97.4

Winding, temperature, rise (K) 22

I offered this as evidence that practical devices can achieve conversion efficiencies from electrical to mechanical energy well in excess of 80%. If you doubt this source then Victor offered another one.

MK

Perhaps you would like to explain your rather crytpic comment a little more - I can't see how the car spec would lead me to the efficiency of one of its components but I may have misunderstood you. From the link I gave you it is possible to get to the "motor information pack" which quotes the motor spec in some detail, extract follows:

RMS phase current (A) 13.9

Copper loss (W) 43.9

Eddy current loss (W) 2.6

Windage (W) 2.1

Total loss (W) 48.6

Output power (W) 1800

Efficiency (%) 97.4

Winding, temperature, rise (K) 22

I offered this as evidence that practical devices can achieve conversion efficiencies from electrical to mechanical energy well in excess of 80%. If you doubt this source then Victor offered another one.

MK