Comments for Project Mechatronics

Comment on Mechatronics and Ignorance by PGPfeiffer

PGPfeiffer — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:44:45 +0000

‘Mechatronics’ and ignorance?

The reason no one knows what you are talking about is that the term is meaningless. Outside of some possible agenda for adding marketing sizzle to excite people who actually are ignorant.

Nothing more than an abuse of the English language which has adequate terminology to describe what you are doing without resorting to manufactured catch phrases and techno-bable. ( now there’s an example of a word that actually has some use!)

Here’s another word for you … Gobbledygook.

Comment on Energy Equivalence or Not by Steve Meyer

Steve Meyer — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:49:05 +0000

Your premise is correct in one sense, we still produce electricity by a mix of coal, natural gas and oil. A small percentage of power is generated by burning municipal waste (garbage that is screened to burn as fuel for boilers). We don’t use nuclear enough, and with pebble bed reactors and breeders to convert the waste, it can be a very safe solution. Fuel cells can run on electrolysis of water to generate hydrogen but there is not a cost effective anode and cathode structure that will give the density needed in a vehicle (there is a demo van but the whole van is taken up with the hydrogen generator).

However, it can also be argued that charging an electric vehicle is cleaner than burning gasoline and still nets out lower emission and much lower operating cost per mile. If the power is generated at night, it’s positive revenue for the powerplant and doesn’t really add any pollutants to the atmosphere. If the charging is done with solar panels, well, that’s pretty clean.

So electric cars are a good answer to our fuel consumption problem. Electric cars eliminate combustion which is always a good thing. And they decrease the amount of fuel we use.

Drilling on the coast of the US and Alaska would lower the price of fuel since we are paying for imported oil with progressively devalued currency.

Comment on Electric Vehicles and Electric Motors by Steve Meyer

Steve Meyer — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:40:26 +0000

Thanks for your post. I agree about the planetary solution. It makes even more sense when we know that a decent planetary can be produced very cheaply with sintered powder metal. I am not sure if a 2 or 4 wheel solution was the most common in the early 1900’s. Either would work better than a differential gearbox. We have electronic differential algorithms in common use on powered mobility devices like wheelchairs, so there is very little new development required.

Comment on Electric Vehicles and Electric Motors by Steve Meyer

Steve Meyer — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:36:28 +0000

It runs quietly and is very responsive. I think he likes it a lot, and of course, it makes an important statement that he wants to make.

Comment on Energy Equivalence or Not by H W P

H W P — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:46:25 +0000

electric cars are not a good answer to our fuel problem. Primarily they still use
the same fuels that we presently use and additionally compound(increase) the
use of fuel due to having additional efficiencies between the fuel and the
rubber meeting the road. What we need is a new fuel. Nuclear?; water?

Comment on Electric Vehicles and Electric Motors by Frank Montegari

Frank Montegari — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:29:45 +0000

It seems that people have forgotten or have not yet learned what was known 100 years ago. Each of the four wheels should be driven by its own electric motor. A pancake motor inside each wheel with planetary gears would be good but we don’t want to add weight to the wheels so the motors should be mounted inboard; each one having a planetary gearhead driving an axel. The front axels will have universal joints for steering. Four motors will provide 4 wheel drive without energy wasting differentials and planetary gearing will handle heavy loads efficiently.

Comment on Electric Vehicles and Electric Motors by Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:16:35 +0000

So… How did the Tesla Perform and does your friend love it?

Comment on Mechatronics and Ignorance by Brandon

Brandon — Fri, 29 May 2009 01:16:13 +0000

What you typed in this article is something I have been wondering about since I discovered the mechatronics field. It seems with our current technology trend, mechatronics would be a hugely prospering field by now. Maybe the lack of imagination is what is holding people back. In order to REALLY apply all the things you learn in mechatronics you would almost have to be crazy. I’ve never understood the lack of “tying all technologies together” in order to create something far superior. So many possibilities are out there. Perhaps I am too young still (I am 20) to understand the politics of it but I do not think that is the case. People really do seem to be “INSANELY” ignorant or blind to the idea of working together for a greater cause. It saddens me to think I will never see so many ideas finished because of this. I have always wanted to know where we could go in 10 years if only we could adapt the mentality we had in the industrial era. Open the mind to different ideas and work together. Why does everything have to be so personal now….

Comment on Robotic Kits for “Do-It-Yourself” Packaging System Design by september rose

september rose — Fri, 08 May 2009 19:48:16 +0000

great web site

Comment on Super Size my Motor? by Atef T Massou

Atef T Massou — Mon, 04 May 2009 13:26:30 +0000

I saw from my experience over the years in a lot of industrial applications the motors and the drives are oversized. I think every motor and drive should be optimally sized to save operation cost and also save
1) the amount of energy and material in manufacturing the motors and drives
2) the cost of the machines
Most of the cases I saw the motors and drives were oversized to accomplish the acceleration/deceleration rates required.

So if a particular motor for example allows reaching 150% of the rated torque,
the load requires 50% at max run speed of the machine, and the required acceleration torque is more than 150%. Most of the time engineers will size a larger motor so it meets the acceleration requirement but during max run speed it will be much less utilized.

The solution for this type of over sizing:
if the motor can deliver high torque for short time (for example more than 150% in this example), then it can meet the acceleration/deceleration requirements and at max run speeds of the machine would be optimally used. Another solution, if the acceleration/deceleration requirement can be modified to allow the selection of a smaller motor and drive, the motor and drive would be optimally used at max run speeds of the machine.

Thank you
Atef