Originally Posted by
gigaplex
The majority of older motors (before everyone jumped on the short stack bandwagon) were track tested to find an optimal setting, then measured on an analyser to check the current draw. In general they drew in the ballpark of 6A. It was a pretty good rule of thumb back then, but with the shorter stack motors it's not always (but sometimes is) a good starting point. I think the Team Scream motors from a year or 2 ago were particularly sensitive, I've seen reports of them performing far better at the 3-4A range.
this makes sense as to how it came about.
how much torque does it take to keep a motor spinning at a constant speed with no load?
I know you arent an advocate for the 6 amp method and neither am I. 6 amps at 8 volts and a resistance of x =allot of watts. if the torque required to maintain a speed is lower than the demand then where is something like 48 watts going? is there a significant amount of this 48 watts being converted to mechanical power? is this procedure is used (6 amp method) and it happens to coincide with peak efficiency of the motor how will it affect using it on track? what if it lands on peak power or lands on a terrible efficiency zone?
6 amps below 10k is almost all heat. there isnt a significant connection between the 48 watts being consumed and the power coming out because there is no torque. 6 amps works because it is directly tied to heat and has nothing to do with adjusting the power out. This wasnt an attempt to make it appear you believe in the 6 amp method. You can continue to disagree and claim you know better but can you debunk my explanation about heat? My point isnt that you can only have a max of 6 amps waste heat but since the number was generated on track over time its waste heat plus the waste of a motor running through efficiency curves on track.