Re: Comparing Rubber Batches

From: ewmonda <ewmonda_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:36:18 -0000

I was afraid winding technique would soon enter this discussion!

I've tried to wind the motors as closely as possible to the method
described in Stan Chilton's article on the indoor duration website.
Does anyone else have tips they're willing to offer for packing in
more turns?

Most of the time I tested motors on the second winding. If I had
broken them in further by winding a few more times before performing
the "official" test, would I expect to see higher energy densities?

Eric Monda


--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "Fred or Judy Rash"
<frash_at_...> wrote:
>
> It has been repeatedly established that Fred Tellier and many
others can outwind Fred Rash.
> <grin>
>
> Fred Rash
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ewmonda
> To: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 1:50 PM
> Subject: [Indoor_Construction] Re: Comparing Rubber Batches
>
>
> Mark,
> When I get home tonight, I'll have to check the 7/02 batch
again. I
> didn't quite wind that batch to breaking since I have very
little of
> it, but the torque was certainly getting near vertical.
>
> In a somewhat related topic, any guesses on the relatively large
> discrepancy between the 3/02 energy density on Fred Tellier's
website
> and Fred Rash's program posted online on this website? 3850 vs.
> 5000 seems pretty significant. When specs for a similar rubber
band
> (9.5", 0.6g) are entered in Rash's program, the max number of
turns
> is comparable to Tellier's spreadsheet, but the max torque and
> torque at a given number of turns through the cruise are much
lower
> (~20%). Can so much variation exist within one batch?
>
> Eric Monda
>
> --- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "Sandy Schaefer"
> <SandySchaefer708_at_> wrote:
> >
> > Eric,
> >
> > The 7/02 is only batch I can comment on. It is considered a
good
> Tan II known for extra turns with fair total energy and less
torque
> per turn. Comparing it to 3/02 on Fred's spreadsheet it should
> follow those
> > statements in first sentence. Your results of "3450 ft-lbs/lb"
> appear low it should have another 1,000 plus. Check number of
turns
> your getting into motor compared to 3/02, it should be more.
> >
> >
> > MS
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Received on Fri Apr 27 2007 - 11:37:56 CEST