Electric Motors Are About to Get a Major Upgrade - Thanks to Benjamin Franklin (msn.com)
- Reference: 0175287487
- News link: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/24/10/20/0047204/electric-motors-are-about-to-get-a-major-upgrade---thanks-to-benjamin-franklin
- Source link: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/electric-motors-are-about-to-get-a-major-upgrade-thanks-to-benjamin-franklin/ar-AA1sx6EQ
> A handful of scientists and engineers — armed with materials and techniques unimaginable in the 1700s — are creating modern versions of Franklin's "electrostatic motor," that are on the cusp of commercialization... Franklin's "electrostatic motor" uses alternating positive and negative charges — the same kind that make your socks stick together after they come out of the dryer — to spin an axle, and doesn't rely on a flow of current like conventional electric motors. Every few years, an eager Ph.D. student or engineer rediscovers this historical curiosity. But other than applications in tiny pumps and actuators etched on microchips, where this technology has been in use for decades, their work hasn't made it out of the lab.
>
> Electrostatic motors have several potentially huge advantages over regular motors. They are up to 80% more efficient than conventional motors after all the dependencies of regular electric motors are added in. They could also allow new kinds of control and precision in robots, where they could function more like our muscles. And they don't use rare-earth elements because they don't have permanent magnets, and require as little as 5% as much copper as a conventional motor. Both materials have become increasingly scarce and expensive over the past decade, and supply chains for them are dominated by China.
"It's reminiscent of the early 1990s, when Sony began to produce and sell the first rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, a breakthrough that's now ubiquitous..." according to the article. "These motors could lead to more efficient air-conditioning systems, factories, logistics hubs and data centers, and — since they can double as generators — better ways of generating renewable energy. They might even show up in tiny surveillance drones."
And the article points out that C-Motive Technologies, a 16-person startup in Wisconsin, is already "reaching out to companies, hoping to get their motors out into the real world." ("So far, FedEx and Rockwell Automation, the century-old supplier of automation to factories, are among those testing their motors.")
> C-Motive's founders discovered that a number of technologies had matured enough that, when combined, could yield electrostatic motors competitive with conventional ones. These enabling technologies include super fast-switching power electronics — like those in modern electric vehicles — that can toggle elements of the motor between states of positive and negative charge very quickly... Dogged exploration of combinations of various readily available industrial organic fluids led to a proprietary mix that can both multiply the strength of the electric field and insulate the motor's spinning parts from each other — all without adding too much friction — says C-Motive Chief Executive Matt Maroon.
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/electric-motors-are-about-to-get-a-major-upgrade-thanks-to-benjamin-franklin/ar-AA1sx6EQ
cool (Score:1)
> "It's reminiscent of the early 1990s, when Sony began to produce and sell the first rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, a breakthrough that's now ubiquitous..."
Cool technology, but the hype here is a little ridiculous.
dont tell me, let me guess (Score:1)
they are going to tie a string with a kite and a key to an electric motor
Did I misunderstand the article? (Score:3)
> "These motors could lead to more efficient air-conditioning systems, factories, logistics hubs and data centers, and — since they can double as generators — better ways of generating renewable energy. They might even show up in tiny surveillance drones."
But that's valid for any electric motor. It's not a specialty of electrostatic motors as suggested here.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the key is that "They are up to 80% more efficient than conventional motors". And thus making more efficient air-conditioning etc.
Re:Did I misunderstand the article? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure exactly how that works. Existing properly designed electric motors are about 98% efficient anyway. What's 80% more efficient than that? Obviously they're not more than 100% efficient, because that would be dark magic. So I can only assume they mean up to 99.6% efficient. Either that, or they are simply comparing against a specific motor or class of motors that have much lower efficiency around 50%, allowing them to claim that their, let's say, 90% efficient motor is more efficient. If that's the case, it may be a type of motor for a very specific purpose, like some sort of timing motor, where high-efficiency isn't the point in the first place.
Of course, if that's the case, that would not be air conditioning motors... Overall, I would say that it's likely that the author of the breathless summary has no idea what they're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the 80% is an oblique reference to the energy savings of not avoiding expensive/exotic metals:
> Traditional electromagnetic motors on the market today are reliant on electrical steel, permanent magnets, and copper. These materials have experienced cost increases and are subject to limited supply sources. C-Motiveâ(TM)s technology has a regional and diverse supply chain built-in to keep things simple.
[1]https://www.c-motive.com/ [c-motive.com]
Obviously any 80%-type calculation would depend entirely on how long
[1] https://www.c-motive.com/
Re: (Score:2)
Even 1-2% efficiency is nothing to sneeze at, especially for a motor that runs most of the time.
It's the same principle as a vehicle that gets 1 more MPG than another - it doesn't SEEM like much, but for every 10 gallons of fuel that vehicle has gone 10 miles further. Once you start getting up to using 10, 20 , 30 tanks of fuel the cost savings start to add up significantly. Even more so when you take into account 1,000, 2,000, or a million vehicles getting "only" 1 MPG more than the rest. It becomes an abs
Re: (Score:2)
> Existing properly designed electric motors are about 98% efficient anyway.
Can be up to 98% efficient, "be up to" being the important phrase. Depending on load and design they can also be quite a bit lower. I'm not a motor expert but [1]this article seemed to have some decent data. The authors were focused on robotics, not vehicles. In EVs, I assume you'd put a lot of effort into getting the motors to run closer to 98% efficient. [tytorobotics.com]
That said, it does seem a gross generalization to say 'motors can be 80% more efficient." I have no idea what that might actually mean.
[1] https://www.tytorobotics.com/blogs/articles/what-is-the-average-efficiency-of-an-electric-motor?srsltid=AfmBOooEg6m0lfq4ISY-2CLVLIaLyC1kHJSMBuh-DuNU_GsAR1pZZvK4
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't read it as they were suggesting it was a special property of eletrostatic motors, just that dynamos are another area where their increased efficiency could be beneficial.
Buried lede (Score:2)
> Electrostatic tech isnâ(TM)t suitable for fast-spinning motors like those in the powertrains of electric vehicles and conventional drones, says C-Motiveâ(TM)s Maroon. But if they prove compelling in industrial applications, itâ(TM)s possible that some systems that are currently designed for conventional motors could be redesigned to use electrostatic ones, such as home heating and cooling systems.
Okay then.
I mean the induction motors commonly used in those applications are already dead simple
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I've replaced several motors in my AC's. One induction fan motor because the cap went, which was a 120 dollar fix for the motor, 20 for the cap. One was a variable speed brushless. The brushless failed due to the electronics pack on the back going poof. I looked it was around 700 I think for me to replace it. I'm sure a service guy would have charged me a grand. But I found a genteq single speed for around 180 that I put in instead, but still more than the 140 I paid for a larger induction on the o
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that induction motors use no rare earths at all. Nor do synchronous motors.
A very small subset of small permanent magnet motors use rare earths. Canned rotor pumps often do have magnets. Will this new pump be able to run at least 1800 rpm for efficient pumping? Sure you can pump at lower rpm, but the pump will have to be a larger diameter to get the impeller's circumferential speed to the needed level.
Torque (Score:5, Interesting)
If I recall correctly, some company in Japan was actually looking into further developing this specifically because it does not rely on rare-earth elements as it has no permanent magnets. The biggest issue with this type of motor seems to be that it is low torque, far too low to be used for motor vehicle propulsion. That said, there are applications where torque isn't an issue.
The article confirms this as well:
> Electrostatic tech isn’t suitable for fast-spinning motors like those in the powertrains of electric vehicles and conventional drones, says C-Motive’s Maroon. But if they prove compelling in industrial applications, it’s possible that some systems that are currently designed for conventional motors could be redesigned to use electrostatic ones, such as home heating and cooling systems.
If they can improve the efficiency of refrigeration compressors then this could be a real winner.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that was my question. I guess the torque is low enough that you need a transmission, which will eliminate any additional electrical efficiencies.
Re: (Score:2)
...but add mass.
Re: (Score:2)
ICE's (particularly turbines) don't have great torque at 1:1 ratio either. The solution was a transmission.
IIRC, electric motors are heavy due to the high density materials they use (incl copper). I don't know if the savings in copper / rare earth would make up for the addition of a transmission, but transmissions are probably easier to incorporate in a design than removing rare earths that have few source companies.
More efficiency is welcome but (Score:5, Insightful)
The efficiency is not the big deal here as electric motors are already really, really efficient. Like, 95%+ in EVs, even when acting as a generator.
Making them 80% more efficient will take them from 95% to 99%. So you're going to see 4% more EV range, right?
Except, a) EV range is very much a matter of both efficiency and regenerative braking and b) TFA says the technology isn't suitable for fast-moving motors and explicitly calls out EVs, and it doesn't at all address efficiency when being used as a generator.
It then goes on to say that in applications like "home heating and cooling systems" the systems would have to be redesigned to take advantage of these motors, and that "Electrostatic motors also require much higher voltages than traditional motors [...] potentially adding to the cost of the total system". Those home heating and cooling systems have very small margins because there is substantial competition in that market. They are not going to make the system more expensive in order to try to sell you on saving a few dollars per year on your energy bill.
And none of this is even the best objection to the technology, which is that it requires a non-air working fluid . TFA states that this is the actual key to the technology, and that's what's going to torpedo it. (Ironically, not being suited to high speeds means it won't work for torpedoes either.) One of the best things about electric motors, especially the modern brushless ones whose control technology is said in TFA to have made these electrostatic motors possible, is their longevity. Even brushed motors can last a very long time without any maintenance, and brushless ones can go much longer. Introducing a heavier-than-air fluid into the motor not only has its own negative effects on efficiency (which besides the issue of time to achieve field saturation is probably a reason why the tech doesn't apply to high-speed motors) it also makes other kinds of problems much more likely. Besides leakage of the fluid, there is also the chance of contamination or corrosion.
In TFA one of the suggestions is drones, but they'd better be nearly as light as air, because the heavier than air ones depend on high motor speeds (and TFA explicitly says they're not suited for "conventional drones".)
It seems like most of the potential applications are industrial and stationary, where a few more percentage points of efficiency would add up to a significant amount — and where fluid maintenance is not a major drawback, both because access is convenient and because there is already a maintenance schedule. And of course where the savings in copper is significant, although these stationary applications could already be using aluminum since more bulk is not as much of a drawback.
Re: (Score:2)
While your point is valid, the claimed efficiency of electric motors might be overstated. Based on research, the actual efficiency is more like 70-85%.
[1]https://photos.app.goo.gl/v9dm... [app.goo.gl]
[1] https://photos.app.goo.gl/v9dmoLBViMDaZ7tD8
Very niche (Score:2)
Low torque *and* low speed? Seems rather challenging.
Well, it's like a typical advertorial (Score:2)
They completely ignore the severe problems of electrostatic motors, like that they need highly problematic voltages.
Reading through it, it's unclear where they might get their "efficiency" from, but they talk about currents that need to go through conductors. There is in fact one situation where the efficiency of many types of electric motors is low, and that's when they are standing still. Without superconductors you will still need to have some current flowing through the coils in order to have some torqu
The newsboy ripped the corner off (Score:2)
When I saw Benjamin Franklin is being revived to build more efficient electric motors, l was alarmed. But then I figured it made sense, being so close to Halloween. So I went online, skeptic as I was.
Could (Score:2)
How many technologies (to do with electricity, in particular) have been mentioned here over the years that made it beyond "could"?
Re: (Score:2)
AI.
For years, it was prophetized that It could free humanity from toil, solve the world's problems and cure disease. Now it's a thing, and it's concretely used for everything but that.
Might be interesting as a stepper motor (Score:2)
The only real advantage I see is efficient holding torque at standstill, could be interesting for steppers.
a better article (Score:2)
Here's a more informative article;
[1]https://spectrum.ieee.org/elec... [ieee.org]
" one of the team’s greatest challenges was producing a dielectric fluid that has a much higher permittivity and breakdown field strength than air, and that was also environmentally friendly and nontoxic. "
"Another challenge was supplying the 2,000 volts their machine needs to operate. High voltages are necessary to create the intense electric fields between the rotors and stators."
[1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/electrostatic-motor
An electrifying event. (Score:1)
So, Tesla is going to implement..a Franklin invention?
I’m gonna need to get my electric popcorn maker out for this marketing spin.
Re: (Score:2)
The Founding Fathers were clear in their opposition to electric vehicles. This is more than spin - it's revisionist history, and socialism.