Live data from Hacker News

Launch HN: H3X (YC W21) – High power density electric aircraft motors

news.ycombinator.com

151–160 of 169 posts

Re: Launch HN: H3X (YC W21) – High power density electric aircraft motors

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’ve been launching airplanes with steam catapults for many decades, albeit in an environment where we’re willing to take more risks than to go see Grandma, but many of the catapult concerns are areas where we have decades of experience and hundreds of thousands of successful cat shots.

But the catapult isn't for saving on energy that needs to be carried on the aircraft. It's simply that you can't build engines and propulsion systems on a plane with the desired takeoff weight when you have as short a runway as you do on an aircraft carrier

Regardless of the underlying driver to implement it, we've solved some of the concerns that GP mentions for ground-assist launches, so there is a body of experience/work we can easily build upon.

Re: Launch HN: H3X (YC W21) – High power density electric aircraft motors

#153

How do you compare with Magnax? Also: We're developing high energy density battery packs (cells of 400wh/kg+, packs at 300-350wh/kg), might be interesting to team up. Hit me up on LinkedIn: Bernd Rietberg.

In general, Magnax seems to be focusing on automotive, which changes the driving factors in the design significantly (partial load efficiency becomes very important, cost is #1, etc).

In the aircraft world, Magnix has been doing some really awesome work. Their motors + inverters are about 4 kW/kg continuous. Our multiple areas of technology development should put us >12 kW/kg, which would be a 3x improvement. We are excited to build and iterate on a rapid pace to get there as soon as possible (hardware is, of course, hard :)

Re: Launch HN: H3X (YC W21) – High power density electric aircraft motors

#154
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You could even have a long cable that hangs behind the plane and keeps an electrical connection until you're a few hundred feet up. I can assure you this will never ever happen. It’s wildly impractical, improbable, and sounds extremely unsafe. Sure, it’s theoretically possible, but that’s about it. The NFPA is not going to add a code section in the NEC for hundreds of feet long live electrical conductors being pull…

Tow planes and gliders routinely fly with a disconnecting cable between two aircraft, and that seems at least as impractical and unsafe (or it would if you were proposing it as a new idea). Though maybe that's the sort of thing that's "grandfathered in" from earlier, more permissive days of experimental aviation. I think the strongest argument against using a power cable during takeoff is just that it's not worth the…

> Tow planes and gliders routinely fly with a disconnecting cable between two aircraft, and that seems at least as impractical and unsafe (or it would if you were proposing it as a new idea). Though maybe that's the sort of thing that's "grandfathered in" from earlier, more permissive days of experimental aviation.

A tow cable does not have live electrical conductors in it.

Re: Launch HN: H3X (YC W21) – High power density electric aircraft motors

#155
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that big max/cruise delta disappears as soon as you ditch the wings and go 'copter, which seem to dominate all use cases where electric is anywhere close to viable. Where motors excelling in W/g could absolutely shine is the still empty area of hybrid planes that downsize their combustive propulsion to cruise requirements and carry batteries only for those short periods of peak power demand.

Would you use a generator or a directly connected ICE?

Certainly not a generator, at least not unless there was some miracle fuel cell fuel. The "electric boost" would need to be completely idle most of the flight (which creates some interesting challenges regarding conversion of electric torque to air movement).

Re: Launch HN: H3X (YC W21) – High power density electric aircraft motors

#156
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s just a weird idea, but cant you use hollow copper winding, and run the coolant liquid trough that?

Yes, this is one variation of what is referred to as "in-slot cooling". Keep in mind that putting coolant inside the slot removes precious conductor cross-sectional area. There is a tradeoff to be analyzed, and in some situations it can make sense. However, in-slot cooling does lock you in to having a liquid cooling system, whereas the design we currently use (coolant channels integrated into shared housing) could be…

Thank you for taking the time to reply, and the confirmation that this might be a valid idea in a situation where the tradeoff makes sense.

But more importantly thank you for Your contribution to reducing air pollution by electrifying airplanes!

Re: Launch HN: H3X (YC W21) – High power density electric aircraft motors

#157

Electric passenger aircraft are not and will never be viable, but I would sure like to see super lightweight electric sustainer motors for gliders. Paired with regenerative braking and/or solar cells on the wings you could probably keep a glider in the air indefinitely.

> Electric passenger aircraft are not and will never be viable Why not? "Never" is a very significant word, but if you have sound reasons for using the word here, I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts on the matter.

Maybe not never ever, but not within our lifetimes. Not without some massive unforeseen breakthrough in battery technology or life extension. Electrifying a large long-haul commercial passenger aircraft like a 737 would require batteries with a specific energy at least two orders of magnitude better than current state of the art. For reference, actual batteries have improved less than one order of magnitude in the past century.

Really the closest thing that seems plausible would be a hybrid design using small batteries to provide peak power for takeoff and fuel cells to provide the bulk of the energy. But I'm not confident that would actually be significantly better than manufacturing synthetic fuels with renewable energy and burning them in traditional jet engines.

Re: Launch HN: H3X (YC W21) – High power density electric aircraft motors

#158

I have more questions, why are you not using silver, around 106% better conductance of electricity, but also a better conductor of heat? And cooling, lots of big electrical plant uses H2 for a cooling medium as it has about 22 times better heat transfer than air - I can see the peroblems, but you can't light up 100% H2, it's when it gets some air with it is the problem. I actually have a bucket load more, I am Elec E…

Perhaps by the time this is viable (battery limited for now) carbon nanotubes will be inexpensive enough to use for conducting both heat and current.

Re: Launch HN: H3X (YC W21) – High power density electric aircraft motors

#159
post #33

You guys should contact (some of) the F1 teams. They would certainly love to have more efficient motors in their hybrid PUs. A 5kg saving is literally worth millions in that business. Also Formula-E might be interested, but I don't know how free they are in their choice of material, so you might want to talk to the organizers.

Yeah this is definitely a market we're looking into - both KERs and Formula E drive units. Great product-market fit.

As long as people are considering radically different markets, go all the way to the extreme. E-bikes, one-wheels, e-motorcycles. Something's got to carry you over the desert of waiting for aviation certification.

Re: Launch HN: H3X (YC W21) – High power density electric aircraft motors

#160
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the range-optimal speed is where the parasitic drag is equal to the lift-induced drag Not quite true -- range-optimal speed is where the sum of those terms is minimal. With some assumptions, this is where the derivative is 0, dDrag/dv = 0, and since derivative is linear, this means: the range-optimal speed is where the (infinitesimal) increase of parasitic drag (with speed) is equal to the decrease of lift-induced…

Using the simple drag polar approach, D = A*v^2 + B/v^2 (D is total drag, first term is parasitic drag, second term is lift-induced drag) dD/dv = 0 where v = (B/A)^(1/4) Plug in v = (B/A)^(1/4) D = sqrt(AB) + sqrt(AB), aka dD/dv = 0 exactly when parasitic drag is equal to the lift-induced drag

I stand happily corrected :)
Post reply on HN