A Colorado Firm Claims It Can Triple the Power of Electric Engines

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

John.Roo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
1,904
Location
Letohrad / Czech Republic
Mildly OT, but:


Now, I'm a bit partial to MIT, but still - the words pretty much mean the same thing. Distinction without a difference. Ask any "motorhead" what he's working on in his backyard under the tree - it's not going to be an electric one.

Back to our regularly scheduled beatdown of any electric propulsion in airplanes.
thanks!
I am not "English native speaking" so this is a very interesting info for me 👍
I try to use word "engine" only with internal combustion engines and word "motor" when I speak about electric motors. However seems that according to Oxford English Dictionary are both words nearly the same....
"The Oxford English Dictionary defines “motor” as a machine that supplies motive power for a vehicle or other device with moving parts. Similarly, it tells us that an engine is a machine with moving parts that converts power into motion."

According to this thread theme...
I have some experience with electric propulsion systems is aviation. For me is most important "continuous power". Max. power of electric motor (info typically used during product advertising) says practically nothing about practical use. Sounds nice if you have for example 50 kW of "max. power" for TakeOff, but if you reach max. temp in few minutes and than you have to reduce power to 50-60% (25-30 kW) than is practical use or that motor limited. Super light motors need VERY good efficiency and VERY good cooling systems.
For example... 90% efficiency = 10% of power converted to heat. From 50 kW is 5 kW of heat you need to get out from +-15 kg "metal cylinder". 95% efficiency = still 2,5 kW of heat you need to cool down etc.....
It means... max. power or power to weight ratio are nice number, but just a numbers. What you really need to know is what is max. continuous power you can use till you batteries are empty ;)

And.... yes, weight of motor and controller are not that important in compare with weight of actually available battery cells. Therefore I recommend to focuse on safety = keep all temperatures as low as possible ;)
 

John.Roo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
1,904
Location
Letohrad / Czech Republic
The weight is in the batteries, the motor is almost irrelevant as a percent of the total sum of weight.
You are right - in case of electric propulsion system is majority of weight in batteries.
However this doesn´t mean that development of controllers and motors should not continue.
It will be long term run till lighter (and safe) cells are tested, available and cheap enough ;)
So it is not a bad idea to try to safe few % of battery capacity. For example... why to convert electric power into a "waste" heat? In case you have available energy equivalent of few liters of fuel every % counts ;)
So aerodynamic improvements, propulsion system efficiency, use of only necessary electrocnic equipment on board.... all is part of electric propulsion "puzzle".
 

cblink.007

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
988
Location
K2W6, Maryland, USA
However this doesn´t mean that development of controllers and motors should not continue
Doing the development work on my project with a scale model, which uses brushless electric power; having zero experience with brushless or li-po batteries, I am still blown away at how there is little to no heat output from the motor or battery despite the punishment I routinely give it...only the controller. I was very used to brushed 540-size motors and Ni-Cd batteries from my old RC car days; everything was hot after a 4-minute run!
 

blane.c

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Messages
6,227
Location
capital district NY
Perhaps the poles will shift again soon, if when they shift it places the Pyramids back in geo-magnetic alignment we will all have abundant free and natural power. Then it is just a matter of tapping into it without getting electrocuted. A small matter to overcome so one can go fly with the Unicorns and view all the rainbows.
 

blane.c

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Messages
6,227
Location
capital district NY
On a more serious note Lithium is the third lightest element and as it is currently used it is just to heavy for energy storage in aircraft for any significant range, Hydrogen is the lightest element and has plenty of energy but the storage tanks ... they are so heavy as to keep the Hydrogen from immediately dispersing back into the atmosphere as to make a two place airplane the size of an Otter if you want significant range.

There has been input infinitum on this in this forum but no solutions except build small aircraft with power for about an hour of powered flight or a monster sized airplane to carry one or two people and a gargantuan amount of stored energy (other than a petroleum product) for more significant range.

Someone could possibly make a lightweight dense material that can store hydrogen without significant losses and be strong enough to handle the pressure without bursting ... they could be rich ... I think.
 
Last edited:

henryk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
7,412
Location
krakow,poland
why to convert electric power into a "waste" heat?

-yes,it is better to have power motor (heavy),but working in low temperature regime
=much lower battery weight...

-in case of DC motor typical puls controller can be eliminated in max power regime.
 

trimtab

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
356
Location
rocky mountains, rocky, usa
The issue of hydrogen tanks isn't to store it onboard for any longer than it takes to use it for a flight. The H2 also doesn't need to be stored at pressure...just as a liquid. If the consumption of hydrogen for flight is at or above the heat flux into the tanks, then no hydrogen need be lost. At that point, the engineering problems are those of heat transfer, CTE, material compatibility, etc....not with pressure containment for longer term storage. It is a very different engineering corner, and pretty straightforward to address.

The less tractable issues associated with H2 use typically focus on storage to make H2 similar in character to petroleum fuels. Yet things like buses and long haul trucks do not have the need to hold fuel in a hot parking lot while not running while their drivers work for 9 hours in the office.

H2 is not efficient for many or most applications we commonly want to find energy solutions for. It is perfect for others. Aviation could very well be one of those places.

A fuel cell for providing power for an electric motor is heavy. The size of aircraft at which a hydrogen fuel source combined with a fuel cell generator makes sense is, at the moment, likely either nonexistent or very large. But who knows where fuel cell tech could go in 20 years.
 

blane.c

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Messages
6,227
Location
capital district NY
The thing is that on the one hand it doesn't matter how large the aircraft is, if it is actually energy efficient once built. Another words if the energy is actually carbon free and weights a couple of tons no biggie just build a plane big enough to haul around the batteries or whatever. Of course the problems are many like expense, and the energy isn't carbon free etc.
 

Island_flyer

Active Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2021
Messages
37
An electric motor is not a engine. I suppose you have to increase the battery out put more then worry about the motor.
Thank you. Although people often conflate word pairs that are not synonyms, sometimes for fun or effect, it's more pleasant and aids communication when the words are used correctly for specific meanings (though that can vary between regions and countries). In most cases engines burn fuel to produce power, whereas a motor might use pneumatics, hydraulics, or electricity in order to do its work. In hybrid electric vehicles or aircraft it's very helpful to distinguish engine from motor, so people know which device is being referred to, as those vehicles have at least one of each.
The words chief and chef both entered English from the same French word (chef), but more than a century apart, and since the second adoption they've had separate meanings in English. When word pairs are used incorrectly, that can cause some confusion. I've often heard people say infer when they mean imply. Not hard to figure out, but it's more refined to keep the meanings separate. Similarly, venom and poison, nerve and neuron, insure and ensure really aren't interchangeable, and it helps in communication to keep them separate. Of course, word meanings and pronunciations change over time. In English/American, dictionaries are generally descriptive, reflecting common usage. In French they are prescriptive, telling people how to pronounce a word and what it should mean. But I'm keeping the words separate. Today, a growing number of motorcycles are being powered by motors instead of engines. 😁
 

blane.c

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Messages
6,227
Location
capital district NY
Apparently the correct frequency for a given item with enough power behind it will cause the item to repel gravity instead of attract gravity. It seems the trick with building such a device is to have as many politicians and lawyers standing on it as possible when it fires up.
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,469
Mildly OT, but:


Now, I'm a bit partial to MIT, but still - the words pretty much mean the same thing. Distinction without a difference. Ask any "motorhead" what he's working on in his backyard under the tree - it's not going to be an electric one.

Back to our regularly scheduled beatdown of any electric propulsion in airplanes.
Long ago, in high school power mechanics, we were taught that a motor was fed energy to make it run. An engine was fed some chemicals that it then had to convert to energy to make it run. The motor has no conversion process other than electricity to magnetism. The engine has that extra stage of conversion, from chemical to heat to work. And that's why the engine is so much less efficient: a lot of the generated heat is lost in several ways.

The motor is efficient, but the power sources, and their delivery systems, to drive it are often not so efficient.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
11,367
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
I love it when someone chastises me when I substitute "motor" for "engine" in a conversation. I tell them I am about to drive either my General Engines or Bavarian Engine Works brand vehicle down to the Department of Engine Vehicles, to make sure I am in compliance with the Engine Vehicle Code, so that I can be a happy "engine-ist" driving down the road :)
 

mcrae0104

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
4,283
Location
CO
Long ago, in high school power mechanics, we were taught that a motor was fed energy to make it run. An engine was fed some chemicals that it then had to convert to energy to make it run
I like that distinction--similar to the term "heat engine." But I still will call a motor mount a motor mount, even if it has an engine hanging on the front. We have a muddled language--oh well.
 
Top