What other Forums or Newsgroups are on the net for engineers who specalize
in...

- Electronic Circuit Design - System Design
- Antenna Design

Thanks for any info.

- Electronic Circuit Design - System Design

Thanks for any info.

- Electronic Circuit Design - System Design

Thanks for any info.

----- Original Message -----

Newsgroups: alt.engineering.electrical Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 11:15 AM Subject: Re: Motor torque and back emf

remove the urine to answer

Newsgroups: alt.engineering.electrical Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 11:15 AM Subject: Re: Motor torque and back emf

remove the urine to answer

------ shipping ---------

Bill W wrote:

Don Kelly wrote:

How did you arrive at 14.46 degrees here? TIA

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

Don Kelly wrote:

Bill W. wrote:

Don Kelly wrote:

Don Kelly followed up re the above:

Taking your equation VbZm =Fm = 1.664 @14.46 N , ammended by you as "Vb should have been V", gives

V Zm =Fm = 1.664 @14.46 N,

but

V Xmec = 1.664, not V Zmec

V Xmec = V wm-k/w = 0.0493*33.75 = 1.664

So here is where I have a problem. Your Fm equation which you define as "Fm is the actual mechanical force" is just the Lorentz force of

BLI = 7.17*.232 = 1.66344 (using your I of 0.232)

Matching your Fm of 1.664 within 0.03%. Not likely to be coincidence, but regardless I ran the figures on all 12 drivers equating

V Xmec = BLI V Xmec matches BLI on the 12 drivers within an average of 2.4%. Not bad, as many consider 3% matching to be excellent due to measurement tolerances.

Now your equation as equated to BLI is correct at resonance where current I and voltage E are in phase, but I do not think it should be applied at 227.4 Hz, since I is not in phase with E at 227.4 Hz.

Regardless, your equation would give zero actual or net force at resonance, and again we have no power Captain..

At resonance V Xmec = V wm-k/w = 0.157

Bill W.

remove the urine to answer

From this Pmec =2.23(0.0492)^2 =1.664***0.0492*** (Pf) =5.4mW where
Pf=2.23/33.75=cos 86.22 =0.066
Halliday's expression is fine- (it is a standard expression) provided you
use the actual Zm.and actual mechanical force. It accounts for the phase.

You still don't acknowledge that 0.0054 is not the total net mechanical power???

This is not correct as I have shown. Again, do all the math you like, but here's the bottom line. Net mechanical power is just velocity squared times system

Pmec = v^2 * Rmec = v^2 * (Rme + Rms) = 0.0493^2 * (8.89 + 2.23) = 0.027 Perhaps this will help: Generally power is noted as force times velocity, if force and velocity are in phase, otherwise

Pmec = F v PF = 1.75

Sorry, but there is no point in my addressing your following comments below until this is settled, as to who is correct on the magnitude of net mechanical power.

Others are welcome to comment on this.

Bill W.

degrees OK

The results are consistent and do satisfy the original basic equations Note I is not 1.75/7.17 =0.244 magnitude (which is E/Re independent of frequency and mechanical load) - -------------------------------

The results are consistent and do satisfy the original basic equations Note I is not 1.75/7.17 =0.244 magnitude (which is E/Re independent of frequency and mechanical load) - -------------------------------

Thank you, however the above still is not explicit at all without your derivations and individual magnitudes. For example, I would have done the notation for velocity so:

i.e. I need the derivation and all magnitudes. Now if you did this earlier as we went along, I should have noted such, and sincerely apologize. Therefore would you please fill in the derivation and individual magnitudes for

Note, that I have generally provided such detail in each ongoing equation of mine.

Thank you, however the above still is not explicit at all without your derivations and individual magnitudes. For example, I would have done the notation for velocity so:

i.e. I need the derivation and all magnitudes. Now if you did this earlier as we went along, I should have noted such, and sincerely apologize. Therefore would you please fill in the derivation and individual magnitudes for

Note, that I have generally provided such detail in each ongoing equation of mine.

Thank you, however the above still is not explicit at all without your derivations and individual magnitudes. For example, I would have done the notation for velocity so:

i.e. I need the derivation and all magnitudes. Now if you did this earlier as we went along, I should have noted such, and sincerely apologize. Therefore would you please fill in the derivation and individual magnitudes for

Note, that I have generally provided such detail in each ongoing equation of mine.

### Contant Voltage level

- - next thread in ⏚ Electrical Engineering

### Is it more efficient to leave flourescent tubes switched on?

- - previous thread in ⏚ Electrical Engineering

### DROP . . .BOX [an inexact cross-post from sci.math]

- - newest thread in ⏚ Electrical Engineering

### Filter success

- - the site's newest thread. Posted in ⚙ Model Engineering in the UK