Re: Hey do you know your car's alternator only outputs 7-10% while it'srunning?

[bw]

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

3600 rpm was the model T years, you ditz.

Wrong.
Model T was 1800 max.
http://www.barefootsworld.net/ford-t-specs.html

In the USA "high speed" engines of the pre-WW2 era were 3600 RPM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight-eight_engine
The flathead ford v8 was the exception at 3200 RPM

After WW2 most engines stayed at 3600 rating, but the "redline" went to 4000
RPM

RPM and compression generally increased in the 20th century as balance and
metal technology advanced.
Europe generally pushed the RPM higher before the USA

 

[News]

Wrong.
Model T was 1800 max.
http://www.barefootsworld.net/ford-t-specs.html

In the USA "high speed" engines of the pre-WW2 era were 3600 RPM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight-eight_engine
The flathead ford v8 was the exception at 3200 RPM

After WW2 most engines stayed at 3600 rating, but the "redline" went to
4000 RPM

RPM and compression generally increased in the 20th century as balance and
metal technology advanced.
Europe generally pushed the RPM higher before the USA

It may reverse back to lower revving engines. The Chevy Volt runs by
electric motor propulsion. It was designed to have a constant speed engine
design run at the most efficient speed, turning a genny which provides power
to the electric motor. As the motor demands more power, it puts an
increased magnetic field on the genny. This drags the engine's speed down,
but the engine injects more fuel to maintain the constant speed and keep the
genny turning.

I believe GM may make the engine variable speed, and lower efficiency, as
the customers may be disconcerted at experiencing a constant speed revving
engine. Sounds garbage to me. Who cares about the speed of the engine?

 

[daestrom]

No, it is not. Generators were specifically less efficient at lower
engine speeds, and it had NOTHING to do with pulley ratios, you fucking
dipshit. The pulley ratio was only slightly lower, and that was due to
the larger mass that the rotor of the typical generator of the time had.

Guess you've never seen a DC generator that was oversped then. Spin a
DC generator as fast as a modern alternator and the rotor
self-destructs. The wedging won't hold the copper in, and the banding
won't hold the commutator together.

If all you are going to do is make shit up, you should stay out of a
discussion where you tout yourself as knowing about it.

Back at ya. Go look at the pulley ratio on an old engine (say '40s or
'50s) with a DC generator, then go look at a modern auto. Until you've
done that, just shut up and blow away...

daestrom

 

[daestrom]

That is NOT what he stated. He stated that they were run at 1:1 of the
engine speed, and that is what I refuted. You need to learn how to read.

No, you can't read. Find a quote of mine where I mentioned *any*
specific ratio. Now you're just making shit up (as usual).

I only said that the old DC generators couldn't stand more than about 4k
rpm.

You keep claiming the only reason to switch to alternators was because
of efficiency. Others and myself have explained repeatedly that it had
more to do with being able to get a usable voltage output at idle
(thanks to being able to spin them at a higher speed without them
blowing apart).

Anyone that's ever driven an old car with a DC generator can tell you
how the ammeter on the dashboard would go to zero or even slightly
negative (discharge) at idle and would swing over to 'charge' when you
rev up the engine slightly.

Anyone that's ever had a dead battery in one of those old cars will tell
you that after you jump it to get it started, you have to hold the
engine at a fast idle in order for the DC generator to recharge the
battery at all.

Another clue for you (the clueless) is that the headlights on those old
cars would be dimmer at idle than when driving. This is because the
voltage would drop to just the battery voltage when the DC generator was
spinning so slowly and would rise up to the regulator set-point once you
sped up the engine.

You don't have a clue, you can't be taught, so <PLONK>

daestrom

 

[daestrom]

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

And that's why, you illiterate chump, I said what I did. I did *not*
*ever* say they actually were driven by a variable ratio drive.

What I said was the ratio was kept low so as to *not* require such a
drive. Too high a ratio and the generator would self-destruct.

A typical loser tactic, claim that I said something ridiculous and then
argue that I'm clearly wrong. But the text is there for you to read
(and re-read and re-read until you have some comprehension).

daestrom

 

[daestrom]

Again power is not measured in AMP, but in WATT you stupid jerks, Give
it up now suckers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


If you know it all answer me this. Why are tools like electric drills
and even shop vacuums listed as having 6.0 AMP etc. motors?

http://www.blackanddecker.com/ProductGuide/CategoryOverview.aspx?cPath=1496.2050

Because it makes better advertising copy than 0.48 horsepower??

daestrom

 

[Rich Grise]

I believe GM may make the engine variable speed, and lower efficiency, as
the customers may be disconcerted at experiencing a constant speed revving
engine. Sounds garbage to me. Who cares about the speed of the engine?

The driver. It could be disconcerting, especially to Aunt Tillie, when
the sound of the motor doesn't change through acceleration, braking, etc.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

Back at ya. Go look at the pulley ratio on an old engine (say '40s or
'50s) with a DC generator, then go look at a modern auto. Until you've
done that, just shut up and blow away...

The only way to get rid of trolls like that is to filter them.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

Wrong.
Model T was 1800 max.
http://www.barefootsworld.net/ford-t-specs.html

In the USA "high speed" engines of the pre-WW2 era were 3600 RPM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight-eight_engine
The flathead ford v8 was the exception at 3200 RPM

After WW2 most engines stayed at 3600 rating, but the "redline" went to 4000
RPM

RPM and compression generally increased in the 20th century as balance and
metal technology advanced.
Europe generally pushed the RPM higher before the USA

WWII was a long way back from the 50s and 60s, which were the decades I
mentioned, and in THOSE decades, the redline was higher, as was the
"normal" operating window. Far higher than the 3600 that some retarded
dope stated.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

Guess you've never seen a DC generator that was oversped then.

What part of "larger mass" do you not understand, idiot?

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

Back at ya. Go look at the pulley ratio on an old engine (say '40s or
'50s) with a DC generator, then go look at a modern auto. Until you've
done that, just shut up and blow away...

You obviously have not been reading the thread.

I ALREADY stated that I built 60's era V-8s, and that I know what size
the drive pulley on the harmonic balancer is, and I know what the
generators I had back then had for pulleys, and I know that you are full
of shit. I already mentioned those FACTS, you pissy little bitch.

Until you learn to read a fucking thread, **** off and die.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

No, you can't read. Find a quote of mine where I mentioned *any*
specific ratio. Now you're just making shit up (as usual).

You said "right near the engine speed". Because SINCE you do NOT know a
fucking thing about it, you decided to tickle out what you think might be
a fact. It wasn't, and I called you on it, fuckhead.

So, the mention of "near engine speed" equates to 1:1 to me, you
retarded little pussy. Don't jack off at the mouth about specifics if
you are too pussified to declare any.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

You keep claiming the only reason to switch to alternators was because
of efficiency.

No. I NEVER made any such claim. What I stated was that they switched
because of LOW engine speed efficiency, you retarded ****, 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 ****, and that is all
you will have coming.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

Others and myself have explained repeatedly that it had
more to do with being able to get a usable voltage output at idle

No, you fucking retard. I stated that it was for low speed efficiency.

You nor anyone else repeatedly did a goddamned thing. Maybe you should
go back and find the poster you think you are talking to, you stupid
****.

 

[George Orr]

Another clue for you (the clueless) is that the headlights on those old
cars would be dimmer at idle than when driving. This is because the
voltage would drop to just the battery voltage when the DC generator was
spinning so slowly and would rise up to the regulator set-point once you
sped up the engine.

You don't have a clue, you can't be taught, so <PLONK>

daestrom

You're a goddamned retard, and I OWNED generators and I knew at ten
years old why they were changed out to alternators by the industry
because I worked on cars back then. I knew what Chilton's was before your
little pussy ass was even born, boy.

Delco factories were right up the road, and Detroit was a little
farther.

You couldn't teach a fucking dog a pavlovian response. That is truly
sad.

Plonk? It takes a true retard to announce his filter edit sessions.
You are one such retard.

 

[George Orr]

And that's why, you illiterate chump, I said what I did. I did *not*
*ever* say they actually were driven by a variable ratio drive.

What I said was the ratio was kept low so as to *not* require such a
drive. Too high a ratio and the generator would self-destruct.

A typical loser tactic, claim that I said something ridiculous and then
argue that I'm clearly wrong. But the text is there for you to read
(and re-read and re-read until you have some comprehension).

daestrom

You're an idiot.

 

[News]

The driver. It could be disconcerting, especially to Aunt Tillie, when
the sound of the motor doesn't change through acceleration, braking, etc.

Cheers!
Rich

Since when has a woman ever taken any notice of noises coming from the
engine?

 

[George Orr]

The driver. It could be disconcerting, especially to Aunt Tillie, when
the sound of the motor doesn't change through acceleration, braking, etc.

Cheers!
Rich

Aunt tillie doesn't need to be driving a new techno car or any car if
she has issues rationalizing what the causes of sounds are.

 

[OutsideObserver]

The only way to get rid of trolls like that is to filter them.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

There hasn't been a single person in Usenet in the last ten years (well
a couple actually)that even knows what a troll really is.

Including you.

You are all just like the pissy little 11 year olds on all the games
servers every time a new game comes out that the adults like.

Any negative remarks gets a cry baby pussy child response, and the
person that made the remark is suddenly "spamming" or "trolling".

You are all about as retarded as any one group of people can be. You
are all so fucking full of yourselves that you cannot even see the shit
smear you decorate your faces with each night when you step into the cess
pool that is Usenet.

There are exceptions. John Fields still remembers what makes up a real
man. There are others. I do not claim to be at that level, but that
knowledge and admission alone places me way above many of you bat's
turds.

I have an excuse though. With all the shit I have been through in the
last two decades, the really stupid fucks here are lucky that I was never
one of those guys that went off on someone. You are lucky that I AM a
nice guy, despite what you fuckheads spew from day to day.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Well... It is too fucking late for that in Usenet. Everybody lied and
threw in a stone, and then couldn't figure out why there were being
popped in the head by a stone.

 

[[email protected]]

=> snicker <=

Probable, but it makes the statement that "power is never measured in
ampere units" quite wrong.

The 6 amp motor means it draws 6 amps from the mains. It does not mean
ANYTHING as far as how much power it produces, other than that it
cannot produce more than 690 watts at 115 volts