Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

Hey do you know your car's alternator only outputs 7-10% while it's running? - Page 12

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Archimedes' Lever on August 11, 2009, 1:17 am
 
wrote:


 No. I NEVER made any such claim.  What I stated was that they switched
because of LOW engine speed efficiency, you retarded fuck, not overall
efficiency, and I only "claimed" it once.  AND it was NOT a claim, it was
an iteration of fact of what the industry did and why they did it, you
retard.

  IF you could actually READ, and you could actually REMEMBER what you
read, you MIGHT be able to put up an argument.

  So "You claimed once that...   yada yada yada..."

  Is not "You keep claiming..."

  So, you keep mouthing off like a little retarded fuck, and that is all
you will have coming.

Posted by Fred Abse on August 9, 2009, 3:12 pm
 
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 08:22:52 -0700, Archimedes' Lever wrote:


Really, to function at all. Even so, at idling speed, output was
effectively zero, since the voltage at maximum excitation was lower than
system voltage, and the cutout operated. Imagine that in today's
stop-start city driving conditions.

A DC generator is limited by how fast it can be run without the armature
disintegrating. Automotive alternators' rotors are wound coaxially to the
shaft with shaped "wrap around" pole pieces and can inherently be run
faster.

DC generators were usually run at not much more than engine RPM (if even
that), alternators much faster, witnessed by the respective ratios of
pulley diameters, alternators having much smaller driven pulleys.



One of the selling points was their still giving useful output at idling
speed.

In fact, alternators are run much faster than 2000RPM. A 6" pulley on the
crankshaft and a 2" pulley on the alternator with an engine that redlines
at over 6000 RPM says it all. He should take a look under the hood (if he
can find it ;-)).



I plonked him ages ago. Patience exhausted.

--
"Electricity is of two kinds, positive and negative. The difference
is, I presume, that one comes a little more expensive, but is more
durable; the other is a cheaper thing, but the moths get into it."
                                             (Stephen Leacock)

Posted by Archimedes' Lever on August 9, 2009, 5:32 pm
 wrote:


 There are no cars that incorporate variable ratio belt drives in
America.  It is too expensive, and there is no need.

 The belt drive on generators was NOT 1:1 or anywhere near it.

  Cars topped out at 5500 rpm back then from the factory. It was not
until the muscle car era that rpms crept up, and that was still not for
offline production.  The drive hub on the harmonic balancer and the hub
on the generator were about 2:1 up.  I was building engines at the time,
and I also used a generator as a motor on one of my go-carts, so I
remember the hub sizes.

Posted by clare on August 10, 2009, 2:56 am
 On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 10:32:49 -0700, Archimedes' Lever


But virtually NEVER over 2:1 Alternator drives are routinely 3:1 or
better.

And many engines back in the generator years redlined at about 3600.

Ever convert a generator to a REALLY GOOD gocart motor? Put GM starter
feild coils into a generator - and hook them up in series with the
alternator.


Posted by Archimedes' Lever on August 10, 2009, 11:13 am
 On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:56:56 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:


 You're an idiot.  The engines of the 50s and 60s redlined above 5000
rpm.

  3600 rpm was the model T years, you ditz.

This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread