Live data from Hacker News

Electric motor design claims remarkable improvements

newatlas.com

81–90 of 144 posts

Re: Electric motor design claims remarkable improvements

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Golf mk i did 50 mpg with ease. It weighted next to nothing and was 60hp.

“Reminds me of claims...”, and you want to talk about cars that were made well after the time period specified. That...kinda wasn’t the point.

The “time period specified” on your GP was circa 1970. The car mentioned came out in 1974.

“Well after the time period specified” seems like a stretch.

Re: Electric motor design claims remarkable improvements

#82
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Electric motors on the other hand produce relatively constant power. Generally speaking, no. P = 2 pi M*n, while the common types of motor used in electric drives (synchronous and asynchronous three phase machines) will produce nominal torque at (almost) any speed from 0 (not for asynchronous machines) to nominal speed; therefore output power is pretty much proportional to speed. The only type of motor that comes t…

What you're describing[1] is only true for fixed-voltage controllers. With a real driver, all motors will behave as I described, even induction motors[2]. The only caveat is that due to saturation and hysteresis there are obvious nonlinear regions where speed or torque can't be increased. Between those two regions, all motors are capable of constant power output. Air-core motors are in theory more ideal, but good luc…

You seem to misunderstand. Let's talk about an 15 kW asynchronous machine with two poles hooked up to a VFD. At nominal voltage (say 400 V) and nominal frequency (say 50 Hz) it will produce approx 50 Nm of torque to reach its nominal power (n ~ 2900 min^-1). Input current will be somewhere around 30 A. Let's say we want it to run at approx 300 min^-1, thus frequency is reduced to ~5 Hz and voltage to ~40 V. Output torque will still reach approx 50 Nm at the same current as it did at 50 Hz. However, output power is now approximately 1.5 kW. You can boost low-end torque a little bit, but not by much (every VFD offers some parameters for this), because this requires increasing the current.

If we were to run this motor "constant power" at 300 min^-1 it would provide about 500 N*m of torque and run at a hypothetical current of 300 A -- it's quite clear that that isn't going to go well.

Re: Electric motor design claims remarkable improvements

#83
post #53

Don't get me wrong, I saw the title and was excited. I want this to be real. I want to believe. But way too many keyword drops. Disruptive is what red flagged me the most. Way too many promises. Only lab results and "experts" commenting that it should work in theory. But no prototype? Even though it's a different motor they don't "believe" it's going to cost more to make than traditional motors? Only 3d renders? I th…

Electric motors are already well over 90% efficient. I don't see what they could do to improve this. Maybe weight/power ratio? Even then, Tesla pretty much nailed it with his three phase "squirrel cage" motor. That's why even today that is what a Tesla car uses and it's what quadricopters use.

In the Fully Charged episode[1] linked in a recent thread here about some guy in Amsterdam making electric cars and boats, the guy mentions that the motors have brushes. I was mildly surprised as I just assumed they'd be brushless DC motors.

Are they just efficient enough that the cost/simplicity outweighs going brusless? Or are there other advantages to using brushed motors for electric vehicles?

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zz3H0pSQ4Q

Re: Electric motor design claims remarkable improvements

#84
post #7
post #2

This article might not be well written. What they describe I'm pretty sure I read about something very similar to this in the 90s, and as far as I can tell, never took off; either I am right, and I indeed read about this before, or the article is describing it badly. PR statement via CNET as the source isn't helping, either.

> I'm pretty sure I read about something very similar to this in the 90s, Can you give more information please? I too highly doubt what they're selling here, would be interested to know what the previous efforts were.

They might be referring to something like Chorus Motors[0].

I don't know anything about electric motors, but Chorus has been around since the 90s and make similar sounding claims.

I'll quote their technology summary[0]

"The Chorus Star concept utilizes concentrated, high phase order windings which allows the beneficial use of harmonics (temporal, spatial, and overload). Consequently, a Chorus machine can achieve much higher torque densities than a traditional 3 phase motor, but with no cost penalty. Chorus Star machines are superior to three-phase machines as well as permanent-magnet machines".

They make (or are trying to make) a nose-gear mounted assembly for airplanes so you can drive a 737 around with just the APU running - not using the main engines[1]. Also they let pilots pull back from the gate without waiting for a tug on the ground. The claim is that their motor allows them to fit enough torque into the nose wheel to do the job, whereas a conventional motor couldn't do it.

[0] http://www.chorusmotors.com/technology/exec_summary.php

[2] http://www.wheeltug.com/

Re: Electric motor design claims remarkable improvements

#85
post #53

Don't get me wrong, I saw the title and was excited. I want this to be real. I want to believe. But way too many keyword drops. Disruptive is what red flagged me the most. Way too many promises. Only lab results and "experts" commenting that it should work in theory. But no prototype? Even though it's a different motor they don't "believe" it's going to cost more to make than traditional motors? Only 3d renders? I th…

On nearly any kind of coverage of an "amazing new innovation", the simplest sanity check you can do is check if they've filed a patent. If they haven't bothered, you'll be dead and buried before their work has any impact on your life.

Re: Electric motor design claims remarkable improvements

#86
post #53

Don't get me wrong, I saw the title and was excited. I want this to be real. I want to believe. But way too many keyword drops. Disruptive is what red flagged me the most. Way too many promises. Only lab results and "experts" commenting that it should work in theory. But no prototype? Even though it's a different motor they don't "believe" it's going to cost more to make than traditional motors? Only 3d renders? I th…

Electric motors are remarkably good already. Even if it doubled the power for half the weight you still need lug along all those batteries.

Right, look at the size of the motor versus the size of the batteries in an electric car. Efficiency is already well over 90%, too.

If you managed to create an idealized electric motor that was 100% efficient, had no limits on power, torque, or RPM, weighed nothing, took up no space, and cost nothing, it would be a nice improvement but I don't think even this would revolutionize electric cars. Batteries are the key.

Re: Electric motor design claims remarkable improvements

#87
post #53

Don't get me wrong, I saw the title and was excited. I want this to be real. I want to believe. But way too many keyword drops. Disruptive is what red flagged me the most. Way too many promises. Only lab results and "experts" commenting that it should work in theory. But no prototype? Even though it's a different motor they don't "believe" it's going to cost more to make than traditional motors? Only 3d renders? I th…

Electric motors are already well over 90% efficient. I don't see what they could do to improve this. Maybe weight/power ratio? Even then, Tesla pretty much nailed it with his three phase "squirrel cage" motor. That's why even today that is what a Tesla car uses and it's what quadricopters use.

If you go distillate the actual claims from the fluff, the article is saying it has a larger torque to weight, smoother operation at low speeds, and larger efficiency at very high speeds.

And well, three is much to improve on the last two, so I'm willing to believe they got something for those, while I do expect the first claim to get completely lost once they actually produce the motor.

Re: Electric motor design claims remarkable improvements

#88
post #24
post #3

How cooling of rotor being achieved ? Energy, power and torque density of other motor designs are limited by their cooling capacity. Reluctance motor being externally cooled, has this as a prime selling point. I think for claimed improvement, it will need external cooling which is not mentioned in article.

Just curious, if heat is such a limiting factor, why does electric vehicles typically not make use of a regular air intake in the front grill? I imagined that cooling wasn't that much of an issue since they don't seem to prioritize it a lot. (I get that there are other factors, but regardless they feel they have the luxury to do without it)

Model 3 video on cooling the pack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU-u-tUjsXo

Re: Electric motor design claims remarkable improvements

#89
post #53

Don't get me wrong, I saw the title and was excited. I want this to be real. I want to believe. But way too many keyword drops. Disruptive is what red flagged me the most. Way too many promises. Only lab results and "experts" commenting that it should work in theory. But no prototype? Even though it's a different motor they don't "believe" it's going to cost more to make than traditional motors? Only 3d renders? I th…

[deleted]

Re: Electric motor design claims remarkable improvements

#90
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electric motors are remarkably good already. Even if it doubled the power for half the weight you still need lug along all those batteries.

Right, look at the size of the motor versus the size of the batteries in an electric car. Efficiency is already well over 90%, too. If you managed to create an idealized electric motor that was 100% efficient, had no limits on power, torque, or RPM, weighed nothing, took up no space, and cost nothing, it would be a nice improvement but I don't think even this would revolutionize electric cars. Batteries are the key.

According to people on the TMC forums (so take with a grain of salt) Tesla's motors only cost $350-400. If that's true, they're basically perfect already. It's the batteries which drive cost and weight.
Post reply on HN