View Single Post
Old 01-17-14 | 11:13 AM
  #94  
Road Fan's Avatar
Road Fan
Senior Member
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 17,196
Likes: 761
From: Ann Arbor, MI

Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8

Originally Posted by wphamilton
Because a bottle generator will have bearing friction, the magnets or coil spinning on an axis. It will also have some loss in the rolling surface interfacing with the tire. In this kickstarter generator it's the magnetic eddies that are moving, the flux lines cutting across fixed coils, so there is no mechanical friction. When I visualize this, all of the drag is directly related to the power generated, so I expect it to be more efficient in that sense than bottle generators. A hub generator, maybe not much difference but depending on the engineering.

We already know that the drag is greater than the ultimate power consumed by the light and we've got some pretty good data, here and there, on drag from various dynamos so that side doesn't really need any proving. The actual drag from this tech, yes I agree that we need some measurements to put the question to rest. That may be a little tricky for DIY tests though, since a coast-down doesn't get precise enough for that small amount of rolling drag and simply spinning the wheel unloaded doesn't actually translate to the drag on a loaded wheel. So we may have to wait for someone with more sophisticated equipment and a little time on their hands.
Excellent point, that the lack of mechanical friction sources should have a pretty big effect on efficiency, comparing to dynes in tests like the one Heine printed relatively recently. If the drag on a loaded wheel is about the same magnitude as the air drag of the spokes (and I'm not saying that I think it is or it isn't), it will be hard to see the effect of the Magnic in a spin-down test.

I can easily agree with Zacster that the drag is imperceptible.
Road Fan is offline  
Reply