Here we go again Newtons and Watts

[stewartcs]

Consider this, and it may illustrate the point. Consider a souped up Mazarati and a used 4-cylinder economy car, each climbing the same mountain hill, which is very long and very steep (and constant grade). The Mazarati climbs the hill at 60 mph while the economy car climbs the hill at 20 mph. Assuming both cars have equal mass, and ignoring air resistance and tire friction, both engines are producing the same force on the respective car. The mazarati's force is the same as the economy car's force. But the Mazarati uses more horsepower, so it gets up the hill faster.

Consider that same Mazarati sitting on that same hill. Now consider it sitting still with no motion and using the clutch and engine to maintain its position (not moving up or down the hill). Is energy still being used? Yes. If there wasn't we wouldn't need fuel for our cars.

Is there work being done on the Mazarati? No, because it is not moving.

CS

 

[rcgldr]

If we use a magical electric motor that uses magical conductors and magically has no other losses the motor would be about 100% efficient while operating. This means the armature resistance would be zero. If we take that very same magical electric motor and lock the shaft it will become 0% efficient.

A "magical motor" with a locked shaft could act similarly to a capacitor, where the effective resistance would increase as the voltage related to the charge on the capacitor like motor increased. After the initial charge build up, there would be no more current.

 

[collinsmark]

A "magical motor" with a locked shaft could act similarly to a capacitor, where the effective resistance would increase as the voltage related to the charge on the capacitor like motor increased. After the initial charge build up, there would be no more current.

Yes, as a matter of fact there are several types of motors in existence today that not only act like capacitors, but essentially are a mechanical-capacitor type of motor. These are called electrostatic motors. They are becoming commonplace in micro mechanical devises. Electrostatic motors essentially use the electric (coulomb) force to cause mechanical motion.

Unlike motors that rely on magnetic forces, electrostatic motors can, and sometimes are, designed such that their current draw is zero (or at least approximately 0) when there is no motion, while continuing to hold their force/torque. As applied to the specific application of compressing a spring and holding it in a compressed state for an extended period, the performance a properly chosen electrostatic motor can approach that of an ideal motor.

 

[stewartcs]

A "magical motor" with a locked shaft could act similarly to a capacitor, where the effective resistance would increase as the voltage related to the charge on the capacitor like motor increased. After the initial charge build up, there would be no more current.

I fail to see how a loop of wire acts as a capacitor. A loop of wire with no resistance is an ideal inductor.

One of the simplest DC machines is a loop of wire connected to a battery positioned between two permanent magnets. This is what I was referring to. As the resistance of the loop goes to zero the current would approach infinity which makes the problem indeterminate.

However, if we look at the limit as the resistance goes to zero...we'll see that the current becomes really large for a given applied voltage. Since we have voltage and a large current, power is being consumed even though the shaft (loop in this case) isn't moving. The power must be dissipated as heat (some power is absorbed and stored by the magnetic field as well).

CS

 

[stewartcs]

Yes, as a matter of fact there are several types of motors in existence today that not only act like capacitors, but essentially are a mechanical-capacitor type of motor. These are called electrostatic motors. They are becoming commonplace in micro mechanical devises. Electrostatic motors essentially use the electric (coulomb) force to cause mechanical motion.

Unlike motors that rely on magnetic forces, electrostatic motors can, and sometimes are, designed such that their current draw is zero (or at least approximately 0) when there is no motion, while continuing to hold their force/torque. As applied to the specific application of compressing a spring and holding it in a compressed state for an extended period, the performance a properly chosen electrostatic motor can approach that of an ideal motor.

Perhaps so for an electrostatic motor, but my discussion was pertaining to a simple DC machine as previously described. There are lots of devices that can provide force without using power continually (such as the clamp we discussed earlier). However, not all machines can.

I guess at the end of the day all we can say is that if power is being used by an electric machine that it will be converted to some other form. That form (e.g. mechanical power, heat) will depend on the device.

CS

 

[rcgldr]

A "magical motor" with a locked shaft could act similarly to a capacitor, where the effective resistance would increase as the voltage related to the charge on the capacitor like motor increased. After the initial charge build up, there would be no more current.

I fail to see how a loop of wire acts as a capacitor. A loop of wire with no resistance is an ideal inductor.

You seemed to have missed the part about "magical motor", in this case, it's one that doesn't use windings of wire.

 

[Leafhill]

If any of you happen to have a spare 100% efficient motor lying around, let me know. I'm willing to pay for it :-)

Anyway, I think I've gotten a bit closer to my original question conserning the relationship between Watts and Newtons. As many of you have allready explained quite detailed, there is no direct corelation between the two, BUT it seams that Amps have a very direct relation to Newtons.

As mentioned several times allready:
Watts = Nm/s

Is the following correct?
Since Watts = Volts*Amps
And Nm/s could be written as Force * speed:

Volts = Speed
Amps = Force

The notion about Amps representing force (converted to torque in a motor) and Volts representing speed is new to me, and I've had some difficulties wrapping my head around it. Amps is ok, I know lots of Amps give high torque, but how could volts represent speed? I mean as you can derive from Newtons first law, if no energy is added or subracted, the speed should remain constant.

And this is probably where I'm wrong, but this says to me that Volts (speed) is irrelevant as long as you have the amps to do the work.

I'm afraid there is no real world purpose for my inquiry, but rather a need to clean up a messy corner of my mind :-) There is however several examples where I could try to put this new info to good use. Going back to the propeller (Helicopter, plane or other) I can accept that the prop will need Amps (Torque) to push it around against the air, and Volts to keep the prop speed up.

Am I getting closer to home, or still hopelessly lost?

 

[cepheid]

As mentioned several times allready:
Watts = Nm/s

Is the following correct?
Since Watts = Volts*Amps
And Nm/s could be written as Force * speed:

Volts = Speed
Amps = Force

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Equating two physical quantities that don't have the same units is meaningless. What you are doing is no different from saying that time = distance (i.e. both statements are equally nonsensical).

Here is one flaw in your reasoning. Multiplication is commutative, meaning that the order in which two things are multiplied doesn't matter. So, although you have written that power = voltage*current, you could just have easily have written that power = current*voltage, which would have led you to conclude something entirely different using your "matching" procedure.

But, more fundamentally, just because two pairs of multiplied quantities both happen to have dimensions of power doesn't mean that those two pairs of quantities are the same!

I didn't slog through this whole thread, but just to be sure, you do realize that it possible for a motor to use up (i.e. to waste) electrical energy without doing any useful work, right?

 

[rcgldr]

Since Watts = Volts*Amps
And Nm/s could be written as Force * speed:

Volts = Speed
Amps = Force

Voltage = difference in electrical potential between two points.

electrical potential energy between two points is the negative of the work done by an electrical field from point₀ to point₁.

electrical intensity is the electrical force per unit charge of some target object, considering the source object as the generator of an electrical field.

voltage = the difference between electrical potential energy per unit charge between two points, one of which can be a "reference" point.

current = the rate of charge flow across some point or between two points.

power = force x speed doesn't directly translate well into power = volts x current.

Analogy using an infinitely large disk with a finite negative charge or finite amount of gravity per unit area, and "h" as distance from that disk:

Intensity= -E (Newtons / coulomb) => gravitational intensity = -g (Newtons / kilogram)
Force = -Eq => -gm
volt = joule / coulomb
potential = V (volts) = Eh => gh = V (joule / kilogram)
potential energy = U (joules) = Eqh => gmh = U (joules)

Power for a moving fixed amount of charge or mass:
power = |-Eq (dh/dt)| = |-q (dV/dt)| => |-gm (dh/dt)| = |-m (dV/dt)|

Power for a constant flow of charge or mass bewteen two points in space:
I = dq/dt
ṁ = dm/dt
power = E (dq/dt) (dh/dt) = (dq/dt) (dV/dt) = I (dV/dt) => g (dm/dt) (dh/dt) = (dm/dt) (dV/dt) = ṁ (dV/dt)
let V = dV/dt = amount of change in potential per unit time.
power = I V = current x voltage_change => ṁ V = mass_flow x gravitaional_potential_change
let q = dq/dt = amount of charge that flows betwen two points per unit time.
let m = dq/tm = amount of mass that flows between two points per unit time.
power = Eq (dh/dt) => gm (dh/dt) => force x speed.