A Colorado Firm Claims It Can Triple the Power of Electric Engines (interestingengineering.com) 84
An anonymous reader quotes a report from InterestingEngineering: Energy densities of lithium-ion batteries haven't reached the potential where long-range flights can be undertaken. So, a Colorado-based startup, H3X, looked to the electric motor for ways to improve its power capacity. The team started from scratch, looking at the various components of the electric motor. Comprised of a gearbox, a power delivery system, and a main motor, these components are usually housed separately to allow sufficient cooling space, without which could result in engine failure. However, using advances in material science and electronics, coupled with the ability to 3D-print structures such as copper, the team managed to put all components together into a single housing that weighs just 33 pounds (15 kg) without impacting their cooling needs. Their motor, called the HPDM-250, is much smaller than their contemporaries and has a lesser mass as well.
The company claims that, according to the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) guidelines, a propulsion system of a commercial aircraft such as Boeing 737 must deliver a continuous power density of 12 kW/kg. However, conventional electric motors can only generate a maximum of up to 4kW/kg. Thanks to its reduced weight, the HPDM-250's power density clocks up to an impressive 13kW/kg. According to H3X, this is sufficient to power any mass-sensitive or high-performance application such as electric boats and has urban air mobility applications. Among the other targets for the company that remain in the distance are short-haul, large commercial flights in the sub-1000 mile range.
Max Liben, Chief Technology Office at H3X, told TechCrunch that using advanced technologies made the manufacturing of their electric motor less laborious and yet not very expensive. Even when putting the components together, the team was conscious of maintenance needs and has ensured that servicing their motors is hassle-free as well. Whether powered by electric batteries or hydrogen fuel, these advanced electric motors are likely to play a role in enabling electric air mobility, even over longer distances.
The company claims that, according to the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) guidelines, a propulsion system of a commercial aircraft such as Boeing 737 must deliver a continuous power density of 12 kW/kg. However, conventional electric motors can only generate a maximum of up to 4kW/kg. Thanks to its reduced weight, the HPDM-250's power density clocks up to an impressive 13kW/kg. According to H3X, this is sufficient to power any mass-sensitive or high-performance application such as electric boats and has urban air mobility applications. Among the other targets for the company that remain in the distance are short-haul, large commercial flights in the sub-1000 mile range.
Max Liben, Chief Technology Office at H3X, told TechCrunch that using advanced technologies made the manufacturing of their electric motor less laborious and yet not very expensive. Even when putting the components together, the team was conscious of maintenance needs and has ensured that servicing their motors is hassle-free as well. Whether powered by electric batteries or hydrogen fuel, these advanced electric motors are likely to play a role in enabling electric air mobility, even over longer distances.
Engine weight isn't the main problem (Score:5, Insightful)
So, they've improved the "power-to-weight" ratio of the electric motor. Is that actually important? The primary limiting factor for pretty much any mode of electrical vehicle, be it a car, truck, boat, or aircraft, is the battery weight, not motor weight. Maybe you can shave 50 pounds of motor weight off a Tesla car. The 1,200 lbs battery makes that savings somewhat moot. You might also save 50 lbs of weight in an electric vehicle by going on a diet, that's how little of a difference it would make.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. They're not claiming any improvement to the energy efficient of the motor itself. Just a customised build to save some weight. Their competitors will be in a similar ballpark.
Re: (Score:2)
Has applications for aircraft (where do you shave weight? Everywhere), but maybe less for automotive or industrial use (unless it is a 1,500 hp motor and you've cut the weight down to half).
More interested in it's smoothness and durability. Either Tesla or Chevy (I forget which) has a gearbox housed with the motor (less complexity, easier cooling), so I'm not certain what new they are bringing to the table design wise.
Re:Engine weight isn't the main problem (Score:5, Informative)
This would be useful for robotics - especially the end linkages in a typical 6 DOF robot.
The more mass you can reduce on the linkages at the end of the chain, the more lightweight you can make the supporting links and motors, leading to a much lighter weight and more power efficient robot overall.
Re: (Score:1)
In our (shitbox) race car we've got about 230hp at the crank with an engine and transmission weight of about 350lbs. If batteries weighed no more than a full fuel cell and recharged as quickly as we can refill, I'd throw our gas motor in the trash tomorrow. Maybe next decade.
Re:Engine weight isn't the main problem (Score:5, Informative)
Hydrogen is a bad bet because fuel cells struggle to deliver sufficient current so you will need a battery or super capacitor to provide short bursts of power. As for the power of these motors, theyâ(TM)re OK but the combined output of the two motors in the Tesla Model 3 performance is 500bhp compared with the similar weight Toyota Mirai HFCEV which sports 182bhp and does indeed include a lithium ion battery to allow this. The next generation batteries are getting lighter and denser so fuel cells really have nowhere to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen is a bad bet because fuel cells struggle to deliver sufficient current so you will need a battery or super capacitor to provide short bursts of power.
From my experience of flying on airliners, they do not need short bursts of power, unlike cars, that need to deliver maximum power for a few seconds while accelerating. An aircraft needs to deliver maximum power for several minutes, during takeoff, until at cruising height., then it needs continuous power, with no short bursts. No overtaking required.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...aircraft need to be able to have power bursts for things like an aborted landing where they need to "go around." although that's not a common case, you have the have the capacity to do so.
That sounds like a job for a conventional rechargeable battery, to provide short-term power delivery. It would probably not need to be too big and heavy. I admit I have never experienced a passenger aircraft having to rapidly increase thrust, but I can see that any electric aircraft would have to be at least as responsive as a conventionally-powered aircraft, or it would never get safety certification.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An aircraft needs to deliver maximum power for several minutes
That's a fairly short burst of power for a battery. For example, "several minutes" is what the Rocket Lab's Electron launch vehicle needs for propellant pumping. Previously people thought this application of electrical motors would be infeasible, but it turned out that a few minutes at very high power was enough. If that's good enough for a rocket, it should be good enough for an airplane, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuel cell has a different meaning in racing.
Re: (Score:2)
It does, but in the context of this whole thread H2 is being seen as a way to deliver the energy for these powerful new motors but the fact is the power does not come from nowhere and an H2FC cannot deliver the current needed to generate the levels of power that are required and you needs batteries. Any vehicle where weight is a factor is going to have to choose, H2FC for quick refuelling or batteries for high power. In racing, I think we are seeing with Formula E that batteries are the best choice and they
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting because when I read fuel cell in the context of a race car and gasoline engine I do not think it means hydrogen fuel cell at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Compressed hydrogen storage doesn't belong anywhere near race cars. That shit is dangerous if they fail, especially in a crash.
Re: (Score:2)
Even though batteries are the most bang for the buck, it doesn't hurt that another relatively heavy part of the drivetrain is made lighter. Mass savings is mass savings, and if it saves 50 pounds, that can greatly help in some small aircraft.
I'm hoping this engine becomes commonplace. There are a lot of places where a smaller, lighter engine can go. Heck, if the motor can be scaled down, it would significantly reduce the size of refrigerator and A/C compressors, which on a scale of thousands+ of those, t
Re: (Score:2)
For any mobile stuff I agree. But stationary refrigerators and A/C compressors? There weight does not matter as much, you have to lug the stuff around once and then it sits in place.
I expect that cost will continue to dominate motor choices for these. I have even wondered if it would not make sense to replace the copper coils with aluminum ones. Copper is expensive. You might have to increase the size of the motor to compensate for the lower conductivity of aluminum, which means more heat for the same curre
Re: (Score:2)
For any mobile stuff I agree. But stationary refrigerators and A/C compressors? There weight does not matter as much, you have to lug the stuff around once and then it sits in place.
Unless you are Tony Hawks (see 'Round Ireland with a Fridge'). It would make surfing with a fridge much easier were they a bit lighter.
Re: (Score:1)
Even the battery is not a big issue in short haul work.
With Urban Air Mobility® the real issue is something you should hear for yourself (turn the volume up loud to get the real effect.. kinda) [youtu.be]...
Re: (Score:2)
Urban air mobility is an impossible fantasy. The regulatory and safety hurdles are insurmountable.
Re: (Score:1)
The regulatory and safety hurdles are insurmountable.
On the contrary, money will solve the first, airbags will do the second... Noise is the only real insurmountable problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you that this is not what the clickbait title claims. This is essentially a highly integrated motor package saving a nice chunk of weight; the 3x power claim can't be realized in any real application.
I can, however, foresee at least one application that may benefit from this is a big way; several 'flying car' designs that have appeared recently are essentially big quadcopters with typically 4 or 5 separate motor assemblies. Applying this weight savings to these machines will have a 4/5x mul
Re: Engine weight isn't the main problem (Score:2)
These multicopter designs usually rely on outrunner motors without reduction, as they use constant speed props with a relatively small range of load/rpm.
A reduction gear in aircraft motors is needed for larger props with a lower rpm than where the highest efficiency of the electric motor lies. So, you basically keep the speed if the motor the same but change the prop pitch, depending on the load you want to put on the prop.
Re: (Score:2)
You might also save 50 lbs of weight in an electric vehicle by going on a diet, that's how little of a difference it would make.
Ever wonder why jockeys are all small? 50lbs would make a huge difference in a the high performance car space. Also just because something else is heavier and it's a problem that you personally can't fix but other people are looking into doesn't mean you should just sit around with your thumb up your arse.
There's nothing at all wrong with attempting to optimise many components in parallel, even if Slashdot user Guspaz doesn't have a usecase for it.
Re: (Score:3)
You might also save 50 lbs of weight in an electric vehicle by going on a diet, that's how little of a difference it would make.
Ever wonder why jockeys are all small? 50lbs would make a huge difference in a the high performance car space. Also just because something else is heavier and it's a problem that you personally can't fix but other people are looking into doesn't mean you should just sit around with your thumb up your arse.
There's nothing at all wrong with attempting to optimise many components in parallel, even if Slashdot user Guspaz doesn't have a usecase for it.
Jockeys are small to to reduce drag and reduce the stress on the horse's muscles all to increase speed over short distances. It has more to do with the wear and tear on the physical capabilities of the horses because of how finely tuned the breeding is. It's a really poor analogy.
Ever wonder why F1 hasn't gone to all-electric? It's because the energy to weight ratio of batteries is way lower than a fuel powered engine. So low, in fact, that 50lbs is a drop in the bucket. To get the energy density that
Re:Engine weight isn't the main problem (Score:5, Funny)
Ever wonder why jockeys are all small?
Because they are driving a vehicle with only 1 HP?
Re: (Score:2)
Because they are driving a vehicle with only 1 HP?
Why would a horse only have 1 hitpoint, are you playing on Insane difficulty? Jokes aside and useless pub trivia for your day: a Thoroughbred produces around 15hp (and horsepower is lowercase).
Re: (Score:1)
Horses have more than 1 horsepower.
How much more? Depends on breed? age? short or long work? etc.
A quick internet search suggests horses may deliver 15 horsepower for a short period of time. I am sure others has other opinions.
Re: (Score:1)
Horses have more than 1 horsepower
1 HP is the ability to lift 550 Lbs 1 foot in 1 second (or 33,000 ft/lbs in 1 minute). Not for just 1 second, they have to do that for as long as you need it. So say 60 seconds. That's one strong horse. Most horses can't do that.
So based on the 550 ft/lbs do you think any horse could do 15 HP, even for a short time? Don't confuse the ability to pull say 8200 Lbs with HP. Pulling something is a lot easier than lifting dead weight. 8200 Lbs is more than the horse weighs. Most horses are around 2000 Lbs.
Re: (Score:1)
I am not an expert on horses. On that topic I defer to anyone with some authority. I
But please! Use international measurements as Newton, kg, meter etc. Your wablygoo old measurements is used by only about 4.5 of Earths population and you're on internet now ;)
Re: (Score:1)
I am not an expert on horses. On that topic I defer to anyone with some authority. I
But please! Use international measurements as Newton, kg, meter etc. Your wablygoo old measurements is used by only about 4.5 of Earths population and you're on internet now ;)
LOL, on the internet "now"? LOL That's funny. Who do you think invented it? It was no one in Europe or Asia. It's an entirely American invention. You joined us, update your measurements to the better, correct American Standard. Just kidding. The units doesn't matter a whole lot. It's just as impossible with metric as with SAE. Come to think of it, that is odd that in college they put it in terms of Lbs instead of metric. I think everything else they had was in metric. Maybe they hadn't revised that yet. I
More than 60 pounds for each engine in savings (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It makes frankly zero practical difference for most applications.
There are not many cases where I have wished an electric motor were smaller or lighter. There ARE a few, for example even my compact brushless power tools could be even more compact. But it's important to recognize that a substantial portion of these tools is gearbox, so doing that won't save as much volume as some people might think it will.
However, it would help with motor-on-axle designs, which are handy for retrofit into vehicles with live
To cheat in bicycle races (Score:2)
Make it easier to conceal electric motors in the frame or the rim of race bikes.
Re: (Score:2)
A pound is a pound no matter where you save it, and in engineering there's a world of difference between not quite enough and just enough.
Now a Tesla car is a bad example here, because power and energy to weight are more than enough to make a pretty good car. They could probably save about as much weight by re-engineering the battery and trading off against something else, but it doesn't make sense. The system as a whole is as good as they can make it so saving 50 pounds, while nice, isn't a huge deal.
That
Re: (Score:2)
Engine weight actually matters far less in electric aircraft, because they are far more constrained by batteries than electric cars are. Flight times are in the order of 15-30 minutes not including reserves, with the aircraft essentially filled up to their weight limit with batteries. The existing electric motors weigh far less than the gasoline engines they're replacing. Yes, saving every bit helps, but getting your flight time from 30 minutes to 31 minutes because you shaved some weight off the motor isn'
The Carnot cycle theory says otherwise (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, ultimately the guy with the Tesla is able to charge it because there is a really hot pile of uranium 30 miles down the road. But what does this have to do with the Carnot cycle?
Re:The Carnot cycle theory says otherwise (Score:4, Insightful)
Power by mass, not total power. IE a 1 hp motor is still a 1 hp motor, but rather than weighing, say, 13 pounds, it now weighs 4 pounds.
This is helpful, but I think it depends upon what metric they're using for power. Back in the day, I looked up industrial motors for stuff, and they're like crazy heavy compared to Tesla's.
IE a 365 hp motor - 70 pounds for Tesla's. [reddit.com]
For a 350 HP, 3 phase? 5176 pounds. [electricmo...orless.com]
Sure, knocking down Tesla's motor from 70 pounds down to ~22 would be quite the feat, and useful, but isn't going to improve mileage substantially. And that's assuming that Tesla hasn't reached that 70 pounds by shaving off weight the same way these people did.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's assuming that Tesla hasn't reached that 70 pounds by shaving off weight the same way these people did.
They didn't, because they're not 3d printing the windings.
But that weight is negligible compared to the battery, and would make a substantial cost difference, so there's no real reason for them to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of reasons they might want to do this. Current Teslas use two motors. There have been many electric car prototypes that use four motors which eliminates the need for things like differentials.
They're not using more motors because differentials are cheaper than motors. And if you increase the number of motors you don't get a free lunch. You need to add conductors, motor controllers, mounts etc etc. And the conductors and controllers have to be able to provide the full current to either motor on an axle, so you literally have to double up on them.
Electric motors (Score:2)
Okay, some complex stuff here.
1. Batteries are not actually all that "easy" to just spread around without balance issues. You use the batteries to deliberately balance the vehicle instead.
2. Motors don't actually have to go in one place. You can orient them almost however you want, put them on the wheels, put them in the center, off-set them, push them further forward or back, etc... You just need to adjust the linkages(Driveshafts) to match.
I read that the reason why Tesla cars have 2 motors is that t
Re: (Score:2)
Weight savings (Score:2)
The stuff the people in the article did included, but wasn't limited to, 3D printing. When I said "way", I considered "techniques" instead, but went with "way" as being a touch more generic.
Basically, I was trying to say that Tesla might be doing similar things to achieve higher power density, which means that applying these technics wouldn't give them a 3-fold improvement in power density, because they already have a 2-fold improvement from similar or incompatible things.
And yes, it's negligible compared
Re: (Score:2)
If true, we are approaching perpetual motion machines. (or I misread triple the power)
Yes you misread.
A perpetual motion machine, is a machine from which you can extract more energy, than you put in, to keep it in motion.
Power != energy.
However the headline seems wrong. They reduced the weight of the engine, and did not improve its power. As electric engines are at the 99% efficiency edge: you hardly have any chance to improve their power. Or energy usage.
Carnot Cycle Not Applicable (Score:2)
If you did look at the whole electrical generation+motor as a complete Carnot Cycle you would find that in order to triple the motor power you would need to triple the generation power too so there is no issue with perpetua
the future of aviation is clear (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, various groups are making those claims for their designs. Proof is somewhat lacking, and others claim they aren't demonstrably safer than the older models. I don't choose to believe either set of claims. It would be nice if the claims for the advanced nuclear engines turn out to be true, but that doesn't make them true.
Re: (Score:2)
You joke, but scientists did do some research in how to do this [youtube.com]. (You also forgot another big problem: weight.)
Re: (Score:1)
^^^did not read the summary^^^
They aren't actually lying (Score:2)
They didn't triple the efficiency, they aren't claiming to have done that. What they're claiming is that they've successfully made electric motors lighter for the same power.
IE using their techniques, you can make a 13 pound motor weigh 4 pounds while doing the same job(theoretically).
It still takes the same amount of power to do the same amount of work though.
Think like taking a car from the '60s, nearly 100% steel. Then "optimize" the frame by making it out of carbon fiber, swapping the foam seats for m
Re: (Score:1)
Apparently the innovation here is a motor that turns proportionally more electricity into rotational energy, in a smaller and lighter package than typical designs.
A similar example using tech you’ve likely already seen are the brushless motors on DJI’s consumer photography drones. They’re much smaller than the motors in a typical PC case fan, but they can turn a lot more power into a lot more airflow, and importantly, without burning out.
Also, just like in the drone example, powering the
Re: (Score:2)
> in a smaller and lighter package than typical designs.
This is what they're saying, and it's important for aeroplanes. It's about power density, more than efficiency.
> Apparently the innovation here is a motor that turns proportionally more electricity into rotational energy,
Electric motors are typically around 90-95% efficient, so improving on that figure has diminishing returns, and only really reduces your cooling system footprint, it doesn't give you any significant gains in efficiency. So that'
Marketing hype headline (Score:2)
They increased power to weight ratio of the electric motor (not the whole car, truck or boat), not tripled the overall power. Considering a motor in a Tesla Model S for example weigh 90lb or less, while the battery weighs 1,200lb, and the whole car weighs 2,500lb+, shaving off 60lb does not revolutionize the EV world, car, boat or truck.
Re: (Score:2)
The headline is very misleading. It implies that the new electric motors are three times more efficient than existing motors, which is absurd, because conventional electric motors are generally over 90% efficient already, and have been for well over a century.
Re: (Score:2)
because conventional electric motors are generally over 90% efficient already, and have been for well over a century.
only within the middle of the power band: *another* misleading thing that proponents of all-electric vehicles fail to acknowledge / take on-board / forget to tell you. sigh. within stall torque (below 250 RPM) they're a whopping EIGHTY FIVE percent INefficient, and at high load and high RPM the efficiency also tails off due to fighting of back-EMF. this was why the Volvo XL-1 (which i am delighted to learn actually went to production) had *three* clutches and an 8-speed gearbox, and, thanks to extremely c
Re: (Score:2)
...within stall torque (below 250 RPM) they're a whopping EIGHTY FIVE percent INefficient,
Any DC motor will lose efficiency if you overload it like that. It will also burn out within minutes, as the power is dumped into the winding resistance. The situation is similar to power transformers. For example, the output voltage of a 100VA transformer would typically drop about 10% from no load to full load. Obviously it would drop more voltage at higher than rated current, but then you would be overloading it.
The example of a specially designed HEV rather complicates the discussion of electric motor
Re: (Score:2)
Can we just stop and marvel at the fact that Tesla can get 300kW or whatever it is out of a 90 pound motor?
Re: Marketing hype headline (Score:2)
Why they didn't make that engine? If you want to marvel then praise the engine manufacturer.
Re: Marketing hype headline (Score:2)
Right. So it has little to no effect on cars and other battery heavy machines, but means we can make lighter cable powered machines and perhaps have impact on machines with only minutes of runtime (battle bots?)
This is your captain speaking (Score:2)
Could all passengers please plug their usb powerbanks in, so that we have enough power to reach the airport.
HEY EDITORS! (Score:4, Insightful)
kW/Kg is not a unit of power. This is News for Nerds, not Medium.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I think here, kW/kg is simply referring to how much power can be provided per weight of motor.
You not knowing the word "power density" does not make the use of the term "power" correct. If you don't know what "power density" is then by all means write out a long explanation the way you did.
Power is energy in a given time. If you want to divide that by anything then you need to add more words or call it something else. Your comparison to the compound unit of miles per hour isn't remotely relevant as it hasn't actually changed any component of the unit. In all of your examples it remains a measurement
Re: (Score:1)
Hopefully just a typo.
LRK-Torque-Max design (Score:5, Informative)
this has been around for a long time: https://www.aerodesign.de/pete... [aerodesign.de]
it's not very well-known. by a beautiful trick of engineering, having for example 14 poles and 12 stators, there is a built-in gearing that is down to the electro-magnetic field, not a mechanical gearbox. the GIF on the above page is the clearest illustration. the result is that (for the 14/12 arrangement) when you have a 3-phase field rotating at 42,000 RPM, the propeller rotates at 42,000/7 = 6,000 RPM - all with no gearbox. that results in a 7x torque multiplier (without mechanical losses) which is extremely important in aircraft when driving propellers, both from a weight perspective as well as a mechanical maintenance perspective. oh, and it's an Open design.
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.aerodesign.de/pete... [aerodesign.de]
at the top end of this table, a 120 gram TORQUEMAX LRK 320/12-17 design with an 8x5 propeller was able to achieve 943 watts.
Propeller Power in watts
8 x 5 943
9,5 x 5 672
this article was published in 2001, and it's an entirely Open self-build design with, as the article points out, plenty of room for improvement (drilling extra holes, drilling out the propeller shaft, etc)
i'm not quite sure what Colorado startup H3X is doing claiming that "all motors
Re: (Score:1)
Specific power drops with increasing total power (Score:1)
Peak efficiency of 95.7% (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is another critical point to the efficiency that they gain from. In particular, it is (100%-efficiency) that controls how small you can make things in many cases. A 100% efficient motor dissipates no heat, so cooling isn't a problem no matter how compact you make it. Thus, in theory, a 95% efficient motor can, for cooling purposes at least, be half as big as a 90% efficient motor.
Thus, although you don't gain much extra range going from a 90% motor to a 95% efficient motor, it helps a lot in power
Gearbox? (Score:1)
THIS is why I come to Slashdot. THIS makes me hapy (Score:2)
More Nuclear.
Power-weight-efficiency (Score:1)