Re: propeller gap help (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:59:08 +0000
From: David Rieben <drieben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: drieben@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: propeller gap help (fwd)

Hi,

This is a pretty nice conductivity table, but I find it rather strange
that they don't give any rating for aluminum or copper.? 

--
David Rieben

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx> 

> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- 
> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:57:50 -0400 
> From: Jason Johnson 
> To: Tesla list 
> Subject: Re: propeller gap help (fwd) 
> 
> Scott, 
> 
> Good call on the conductivity. They are close though, at 28 and ~30 percent 
> IACS (International Annealed Copper Standard). I ran across a useful table 
> for conductivities here: 
> 
> http://www.ndt-ed.org/GeneralResources/MaterialProperties/ET/ET_matlprop_Misc_Ma 
> tls.htm 
> 
> Jason 
> 
> On 7/21/07, Tesla list wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- 
> > Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:45:18 -0400 
> > From: Scott Bogard 
> > To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx 
> > Subject: Re: propeller gap help (fwd) 
> > 
> > Jason, 
> > Brass does not conduct better than tungsten (sorry). I thought it 
> > did 
> > as well, but it does not, look it up. You are correct that the threads 
> > will 
> > give better cooling though. I you wanted super cooling, you might thread 
> > a 
> > few washers spaced with nuts to act as fins, but this may increase the 
> > weight and drag, making it impractical on all but a stronger motor. 
> > Tungsten will indeed last longer, But I never used it until I started 
> > using 
> > high current MOTs (I used steel before, which is not at all ideal, but it 
> > worked). Good luck Shaun. 
> > Scott Bogard. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>