4 ms·
> the useful energy consumed was in the kinetic energy transferred by the motor into the bit. This doesn't solve the problem, because the final machined part i
by p1mrx 3y ago
> the useful energy consumed was in the kinetic energy transferred by the motor into the bit.
This doesn't solve the problem, because the final machined part is not moving, and thus has no kinetic energy.
In order to get an efficiency number, we would have to know what 100% means. Maybe it's possible to calculate the minimum energy required to break the chemical bonds spanning a given cross sectional area of solid aluminum?
I imagine that you could (very theoretically) recover this energy by cold welding the aluminum back together a vacuum.
- fnordpiglet 3y agoRight but it’s not a maximizing theoretical loss function, it’s picking a specific expenditure of energy as the goal - kinetic energy of the bit. Particularly you don’t know the goal of the bits motion, and the work the energy does could translate into the machined parts final configuration or something else. The goal isn’t specially to account for energy in some full final system but to give an optimization function for the tool itself to maximize. You’re looking at it from a physics point of view rather than an engineering point of view, the engineering view is practical - how much energy is expended to get a certain amount of work done by the bit and not doing other stuff like heating the environment, making noises, inducing vibration. The metric is a practical one, and it’s never meant to capture the entire energy transfer dynamic in a physics sense.