Jump to content

Callipygous

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    1767
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Neutral

About Callipygous

  • Rank
    Organism
  • Birthday 02/05/1987

Profile Information

  • Location
    Livermore CA
  • Interests
    wakeboarding, snowboarding, video games.
  • College Major/Degree
    none at the moment
  • Favorite Area of Science
    physics
  • Occupation
    Construction/craftmanship

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I find that depends. If I extend my arm all the way up my shoulder socket pokes out, effectively changing my armpit from concave to convex. Just another complication for the experiment.
  2. My understanding is that yes, it would work with wood, but not as well. Something about the magnetic inductance or capacitance or some such of the material? I am not sure what you are offering with "a derivation of it" but yes please, whatever explanation you can offer of any concepts I'm missing.
  3. I am going to attempt to put this in laymen's terms to the best of my understanding, and probably butcher it in the process. I look forward to your corrections. We have a few carefully arranged coils of wire known as the stator. We are going to apply a voltage to it, which is going to cause current to flow. Current flowing through a conductor generates a magnetic field. Because of the nature of three phase AC power, and how we've arranged our coils, our magnetic field is rotating in a circle at 3600 RPM (dependent on who's electrical standard you are using and how you've set up your coils) around the rotor. A magnetic field moving relative to a conductor generates current (or maybe voltage would be more correct?) , so now we have current flowing through our rotor coils. Rotor coils with current flowing means they are generating their own magnetic field, which is stationary because the rotor is stationary. The rotating magnetic field moving past the stationary one exerts force between the two, our stator is bolted down and our rotor isn't, so the rotor begins to spin. Now the rotor has a rotating magnetic field, which is moving relative to the stationary stator coils, so it begins to generate a current in them. This current is in the opposite direction of the one produced by the mains, and at some point the forces of magnetism and friction balance out at some RPM, I'm guessing for a motor with no load, somewhere slightly below 3600 rpm. How'd I do?
  4. I have met them, but as I mentioned earlier, it has been a very long time since I have had to do anything with them. That part is throwing me off. My (limited) understanding of circuits includes a rule that in a circuit with no branches, voltage can vary from point to point, but current is the same throughout. If they are wired in series, how can they have different currents? My understanding of slip is when there is enough load on the rotor that the force exerted by the magnetic field is not strong enough to spin the rotor at the same rotational speed as the magnetic field. So while our two fields would ideally keep up with each other, with the N's and S'es always pulling in the right direction, the rotor will fall behind some percentage of the time and either not get pushed by part of the cycle or get pulled the wrong direction. I assume learning about the different currents you referred to will illuminate how that relates to a change in current draw on the mains.
  5. Thanks for the replies. I would be interested to hear more about the relationship between impedance and and slip. It seems like this is basically the same thing as in rush current, which I understand as far as what it does, but not so much the nuts and bolts of why and how. John, your comments on back emf were helpful, just knowing some better keywords to search yields better results than I was getting before. But I was wondering, if the lower RPM is the result of lower line voltage, then it seems like the lower emf produced wouldn't be that much of a difference. Both line voltage and back emf went down, so wouldn't that leave them mostly in line with each other? I guess that assumes that a drop in line voltage produces an equal drop in back emf. I think that's what I mean? I would say yes, I mean the line voltage, but I'm not sure what other voltage there is. As for my math, I got good grades with minimal effort up through intermediate calculus. Since then I have spent about 10-12 years in jobs where the hardest math I had to do were angle and side length calculations with sine, cosine and tangent. I think I can wrap my mind around some complicated stuff, but it might take me a while and my definition of complicated is probably different from yours.
  6. I have come to accept that when an induction motor receives lower voltage than it was designed for it will pull higher current. This doesn't make any sense to me, but I have seen it stated enough times that I'm willing to believe it. Everywhere I look provides total nonsense explanations. They say things like "the motor will draw more current in an attempt to maintain its torque" as though the motor has agency and chooses how much current it draws, or "in order to provide the same power" as though the motor cares how much power it provides. The version that would make sense to me is you have a resistance, both in the actual windings, and in magnetic impedance(?), and if you apply a lower voltage Ohm's law means that it draws a lower current. If that results in a lower power output... what does the physics of the situation care about that? It seems like it should just spin slower, or not be able to move as heavy of a load. I always thought of wattage as a rated upper limit for a motor, not a target it actively tries to hit. Can someone help me out with a proper explanation of what force is at play here that causes the amperage to increase?
  7. Migl, that is easily countered. Just ask the person posing such a question to provide a definition of "biological traits of a man/woman" that works in all cases.
  8. 1. Expose them to the fact that someone disagrees with them. People with those kinds of beliefs have often spent most of their lives surrounded by people who unquestioningly think the same. 2. Abandon all hope that you can actually alter their belief, because that's what it is: a belief, not a hypothesis. 3. Focus on exposing people who are not yet entrenched to a variety of perspectives. This guy probably wont be convinced, he may gradually find himself in a less aggressive stance, or may not. Hope for his children remains.
  9. Yeah, I can see the benefits of that approach. Maybe im wrong, but I feel like my circumstances have some additional hurdles. The organized group effort sounds good for a city park, but im dealing with more of a wooded area out in the hills. I feel like one (particularly me) would have a hard time coordinating a group to go out there, trek through poison oak, and gather trash in hard to reach, off-trail locations. Especially without trampling a lot of flora. The supervisor I report to knows that I've been hauling tires out with a backpack for the better part of 2 years and has yet to say "hey man, why dont you just get em to the trail and we'll come get em with the 4 wheeler?" Or any similar offer. He said cars are just a no go, and I shouldn't touch buried items. He also said hes had permits in to deal with similar items for about 5 years... My confidence is low. I am also interested in learning about it anyway, even if most of it should be left to the pros.
  10. My favorite local park is unfortunately place below a road, which has turned it into a dumping ground. I have spent a considerable amount of time, money, and effort removing as much of the trash as I can, but the process raises some questions about which items are worth the effort. Some items seem like they have a pretty low impact other than being an eyesore, like glass. other items require a disproportionate effort due to size, weight, and location. The park service has told me that some of them are not worth removing because the impact of digging them out, and erosion in hauling them out of the park outweighs the environmental impact of leaving it there, like car chassis. I have tried for a while to find a resource to help me understand the impacts of various materials so I can better gauge the pros and cons, but I haven't found anything. Examples of the kinds of questions im trying to answer: Does glass actually have any impact? What about aluminum cans? I know tires are toxic. Is there a point where the process of removal (disturbing the creekbed) out weighs their impact? If a car battery has long since rusted out, and has been sitting in a creek for years, is it still a hazard, or have the dangerous chemicals probably all washed out? Information, or tips on where I could read up would be very appreciated.
  11. It sure is. I believe that should be an H. Thanks! You were able to decode it with just the first one?
  12. Making a cryptogram as part of an extended puzzle/treasure hunt. I know what it says, and the only other friend I have that I think likes cryptograms is who I'm making it for. Anyone care to see if there is enough info to reasonably solve it? WMX GELCF YP D VXPP DHF Y RIPW HXXF WE... LICX YW. -FL. MELLYNCX and if that proves insufficient, add on: YW'P HEW XHEIBM WE NDPM YH MXDFP, QEI'SX BEW WE NDPM YH VYHFP. -KDZWDYN MDVVXL
  13. I make a bit of a habit of posting silly-ass ideas like this on various forums. Fairly often people who seem more informed than me tell me that its not going to work the way I want it to and "heres what you would really need to make that happen". I usually do my best to respect the fact that they seem to know what they are talking about, and adjust my plans closer to what they say. But if im being honest, the fact that you are both the dude selling the flashlights, and the dude saying the flashlights are the solution, has damaged my trust a bit, and my reading elsewhere is leading me to believe it shouldnt take that much tech or that many lumens. So I'm going to try to direct this back towards the physics of the question. If I build a box, sphere, whatever shape enclosure from whatever seems appropriate down at the ol' hardware store (read:dirt cheap) and pick up a pile of whatever solar powered landscape lights I can find (read:dirt cheap) and plug them all into said enclosure somehow... I figure I now have a somewhat respectable light source. However, its all bouncing around at weird angles, and most of it is going to end up absorbed by the enclosure rather than directed down my aperture toward the target. I realize with passive optics its not really going to be possible to direct all those weird angles where I want them, but are there means to significantly improve the amount that ends up going the right direction? Via a properly shaped reflector and/or lens setup, could I increase the output through the aperture 3, 4, 10 fold?
  14. I dont know what many of those words mean, but it sounds good. To give me a feel for scale... 3.5 amps, if I want the light to stay on all night, lets say 10-12 hours to account for winter, that means I need 35-42 amp hours. Seems like a fairly substantial battery pack, isnt it? What sort of voltage? Looks like minimum daylight in my area is actually about 9.5 hours. Suppose we could set the sights lower and assume they wont be out looking for it past 2am.
  15. Honestly, on the scale of this project, if the radius went up to like 200 feet it wouldnt be tragic. Were talking about caches that are several miles apart, and you wont know to look for the light until you read the clue at the previous cache anyway. I dont want you to be able to follow the light all the way to it, and I want to minimize how much it disturbs other park users and wildlife, so I would like it as restricted as is reasonable.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.