• Re: AI Provides 25KW/KG, 98% efficiency Electric Motor

    From Larry Dighera@21:1/5 to All on Sat Dec 28 13:08:48 2024
    On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 14:26:20 -0800, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
    wrote:

    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:
    On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:07:48 -0800, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
    wrote:

    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

    Another advancement provided by AI:

    AI Provides 25KW/KG, 98% efficiency Electric Motor

    Electric motors reached 98% efficiency a long time ago.

    This is NOT much of an advancement.

    Agreed. It is the 98% efficiency of electric motors, compared to 20-30% for >> IC engines, that makes electric motor propulsion viable.

    And energy density of IC engine fuel makes them practical.


    This is what caught my eye:

    "25 KW per kgam which is over 10 times the power
    density of a Tesla Roadster induction motor"

    If accurate, this new technology takes electrically powered aircraft one
    step closer to viability.

    Only one, very, very small baby step. Tesla is not very concerned with
    power density so your comparison is meaningless. You still have the over
    an order of magnitude problem with sources of electricity which has not >changed significantly in all the years you have been posting breathless
    news releases on the subject.


    Are you able to provide your reasoning for this statement, "over
    an order of magnitude problem with sources of electricity?"

    Order of magnitude of what?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Pennino@21:1/5 to Larry Dighera on Sat Dec 28 15:22:37 2024
    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:



    On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 14:26:20 -0800, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:

    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:
    On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:07:48 -0800, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> >>> wrote:

    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

    Another advancement provided by AI:

    AI Provides 25KW/KG, 98% efficiency Electric Motor

    Electric motors reached 98% efficiency a long time ago.

    This is NOT much of an advancement.

    Agreed. It is the 98% efficiency of electric motors, compared to 20-30% for
    IC engines, that makes electric motor propulsion viable.

    And energy density of IC engine fuel makes them practical.


    This is what caught my eye:

    "25 KW per kgam which is over 10 times the power
    density of a Tesla Roadster induction motor"

    If accurate, this new technology takes electrically powered aircraft one >>> step closer to viability.

    Only one, very, very small baby step. Tesla is not very concerned with >>power density so your comparison is meaningless. You still have the over
    an order of magnitude problem with sources of electricity which has not >>changed significantly in all the years you have been posting breathless >>news releases on the subject.


    Are you able to provide your reasoning for this statement, "over
    an order of magnitude problem with sources of electricity?"

    Order of magnitude of what?


    Energy density by any any metric.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Larry Dighera@21:1/5 to All on Sat Dec 28 19:43:50 2024
    On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 15:22:37 -0800, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
    wrote:

    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:



    On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 14:26:20 -0800, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
    wrote:

    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:
    On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:07:48 -0800, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> >>>> wrote:

    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

    Another advancement provided by AI:

    AI Provides 25KW/KG, 98% efficiency Electric Motor

    Electric motors reached 98% efficiency a long time ago.

    This is NOT much of an advancement.

    Agreed. It is the 98% efficiency of electric motors, compared to 20-30% for
    IC engines, that makes electric motor propulsion viable.

    And energy density of IC engine fuel makes them practical.


    This is what caught my eye:

    "25 KW per kgam which is over 10 times the power
    density of a Tesla Roadster induction motor"

    If accurate, this new technology takes electrically powered aircraft one >>>> step closer to viability.

    Only one, very, very small baby step. Tesla is not very concerned with >>>power density so your comparison is meaningless. You still have the over >>>an order of magnitude problem with sources of electricity which has not >>>changed significantly in all the years you have been posting breathless >>>news releases on the subject.


    Are you able to provide your reasoning for this statement, "over
    an order of magnitude problem with sources of electricity?"

    Order of magnitude of what?


    Energy density by any any metric.


    I'd prefer to see a complete sentence, at least.

    Are you referring to the comparative energy density of petroleum and Lithium batteries?

    If so, when you factor in system efficiency, they're not so far apart.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Pennino@21:1/5 to Larry Dighera on Sat Dec 28 20:56:20 2024
    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:
    On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 15:22:37 -0800, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:

    <snip old crap>

    Energy density by any any metric.


    I'd prefer to see a complete sentence, at least.

    Are you referring to the comparative energy density of petroleum and Lithium batteries?

    If so, when you factor in system efficiency, they're not so far apart.


    Even if you factor in efficiency, the best REAL sources of electrical
    energy all have energy densities in J/kg and J/m^3 that are far less than
    an order of magnitude than that of either gasoline or jet-a.

    That has NOT changed in all the years you have been posting.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Larry Dighera@21:1/5 to Jim Pennino on Sun Dec 29 08:28:35 2024
    On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 20:56:20 -0800, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:

    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:
    On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 15:22:37 -0800, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
    wrote:

    <snip old crap>

    Energy density by any any metric.


    I'd prefer to see a complete sentence, at least.

    Are you referring to the comparative energy density of petroleum and Lithium >> batteries?

    If so, when you factor in system efficiency, they're not so far apart.


    Even if you factor in efficiency, the best REAL sources of electrical
    energy all have energy densities in J/kg and J/m^3 that are far less than
    an order of magnitude than that of either gasoline or jet-a.

    That has NOT changed in all the years you have been posting.



    Jim,

    From your response, I infer that I failed to state my view clearly enough to convey my meaning to you.

    Unlike you, I am not a credentialed engineer, and I most assuredly do not have the mathematical skills of one. So, I posed this issue to ChatGPT:

    If a vehicle requires 100 hp for operation and its engine/motor is 25% efficient for vehicle A and 98% efficient for vehicle B, solve for J/kg and J/m^3 for each A and B.
    Consider vehicle A1 to be powered by gasoline and vehicle A22 to be powered by Jet-A (kerosene). And, Consider vehicle B to be powered by LiFePo4 batteries.

    The final answer is summarized in this table (It was necessary to increase line-width and turn off word-wrap to reproduce it.):

    Vehicle Energy Source Efficiency Energy Input (J) Mass Required (kg) Volume Required (m3) Energy per Unit Mass (J/kg) Energy per Unit Volume (J/m3)
    A1 Gasoline 25% 1.07381╫10^9 18.21 0.04295 5.9╫10^7 2.5╫10^10
    A2 Jet-A (Kerosene) 25% 1.07381╫10^9 24.93 0.05966 4.3╫10^7 1.8╫10^10
    B LiFePO4 Batteries 98% 2.74194╫10^8 10.968 0.003044 2.5╫10^7 9.0╫10^10

    (You will find all supporting calculation clearly explained at this URL: https://chatgpt.com/share/67715ec1-4640-8008-baa4-5567f1fac336 )

    So, as is evident, when efficiency of power plant is considered, petroleum and batteries fall within the same order of magnitude (to use your term).

    Your opposing views over the years, have been a welcome source of insight and inspiration for deeper research. Thank you for your contributions.

    Best regards,
    Larry


    PS: The link above requires you to create/have a ChatGPT account to view.
    In an attempt to overcome your likely objection to that, I provide below an inferior ASCII text version.
    Don't miss the summary at the end.

    ======================================================================
    Vehicle Efficiency Energy Calculation
    user
    if a vehicle requires 100 hp for operation and its engine/motor is 25% efficient for vehicle A and 98% efficient for vehicle B, solve for J/kg and J/m^3 each A and B.

    ChatGPT
    **Assessing vehicle efficiencies**

    Hmm, IÆm thinking about the 100 hp power required and how vehicle efficiencies of 25% and 98% influence the energy per mass and volume. More context is needed to pinpoint exactly whatÆs being asked.

    **Interpreting energy needs**

    Curious about calculating energy per kg and volume for 100 hp, while considering energy sources and their properties. Clarification is needed to ensure accurate interpretation.

    **Analyzing energy needs**

    OK, IÆm converting 100 hp to watts, resulting in 74,570 W. The objective is to determine the specific energy and energy density required for each vehicle, considering power and efficiency.

    **Pfaff's Power**

    OK, letÆs think it through: calculating energy per unit time for two vehicle efficienciesù25% and 98%. How does this link to energy per mass and volume? Clarification still needed.

    **Figuring out optimal scenarios**

    I'm working through different approaches to calculate energy per mass and volume for vehicles, considering efficiency and power requirements. Clarity on specifics would help refine options.

    **Weighing energy metrics**

    IÆm pulling together energy per mass and volume, factoring in efficiency and power. Clarifying energy rates and mass flow details would really bring things into focus.

    **Tackling energy conversion**

    IÆm measuring energy input per second for 74,570 J/s of power. The goal is to determine energy per kilogram of fuel or battery mass, but mass details are still needed.

    **Clarifying energy requirements**

    IÆm digging into the energy needed per mass and volume for 100 hp, adjusting for efficiency and time. Clarification on specific details would help refine the solution.

    **Connecting energy to fuel rate**

    IÆm noting that energy per mass relies on mass flow rate, which is unspecified. Clarification on this and fuel energy content is needed for further analysis.

    **Piecing together**

    IÆm working through how battery energy density affects mass calculation. Without more details, J/kg and J/m^3 are tricky to pinpoint accurately. Clarification or assumptions could be key.

    **Piecing it together**

    IÆm connecting energy per mass and volume to power and efficiency, considering time period or energy source properties. Clarification or assumptions might simplify the process.

    **Assigning tasks**

    Cassandra is managing project deadlines, working on payroll, tracking job applications, and checking class attendance. She's balancing these responsibilities to ensure everything is on track.

    **Calculating fuel needs**

    IÆm working through how to determine fuel amounts for vehicle operation, factoring in power, efficiency, and specific energy content. This involves energy input calculation, then translating it to mass and volume.

    **Clarifying energy consumption**

    OK, let me see. The query is about energy per mass and volume, not power per unit mass. Now I'm mapping out conversions and nuances to align with these specifics.

    **Mapping energy needs**

    IÆm interpreting the user's intention to calculate energy per mass and volume based on power and efficiency, while considering energy source properties and time constraints. Progressing steadily with each step.

    **Determining energy needs**

    IÆm gathering info on the energy required to maintain 100 hp, converting this to J/kg and J/m^3, and factoring in power density, efficiency, and time constraints.

    **Calculating energy rates**

    I'm converting power to energy per mass and volume rates, but without specific mass and volume data, further calculations remain elusive. Clarification is essential to progress.

    **Calculating energy requirements**

    IÆm figuring out how mass and volume influence energy calculations for 100 hp vehicles, considering power density and efficiency. Progress hinges on these key factors.

    **Taking a closer look**

    IÆm digging into how specific energy densities and mass flow rates influence the calculations, but the lack of detailed data means further progress is stalled. More specifics are necessary.

    **Breaking down energy needs**

    IÆm piecing together energy requirements for continuous 100 hp operation, factoring in efficiency and time. Now, IÆm thinking about specific energy and energy density for vehicles A and B.

    **Determining energy needs**

    IÆm refining the energy calculation for vehicles A and B, using specific power and efficiency to determine energy per mass and volume, but more details are needed.

    **Tackling energy needs**

    Interestingly enough, I can't calculate energy per mass and volume without more data. However, I can determine the input power required for each vehicle, assuming specific conditions.

    **Clarifying energy needs**

    Mapping out specific energy requirements for vehicles based on power and efficiency. Note: Without more data, J/kg and J/m^3 can't be pinpointed. Progress hinges on further details.

    **Calculating energy requirements**

    Figuring out the energy input needed for vehicles A and B, factoring in power and efficiency, and translating this to specific energy and energy density. More details could refine these estimates.

    **Taking a closer look**

    I'm piecing together how to calculate energy per mass and volume for vehicles using power, efficiency, and specific energy values. Progress hinges on refining these estimates with more specific data.

    **Piecing together energy dynamics**

    IÆm ensuring the specifics of fuel requirements for maintaining power, factoring in efficiency, and deriving energy per mass and volume for precise energy calculations.

    **Calculating energy dynamics**

    I'm detailing the energy input for vehicles, covering power output, efficiency, and translating this into energy per mass and volume, with more specifics needed for exact numerics.

    **Ensuring accurate calculations**

    Interestingly enough, computing energy per mass and volume for vehicles needs more data like energy source properties, mass, and volume. Without these, precise J/kg and J/m^3 are out of reach.

    **Breaking down the calculation**

    IÆm detailing the steps to find the energy input needed for 100 hp, based on power, efficiency, and specific energy requirements. Additional data is essential for precise energy per mass and volume.

    **Charting energy insights**

    IÆm digging into the steps to determine the energy input needed for 100 hp, considering power, efficiency, and specific energy requirements. More data is crucial for precise calculations.

    **Mapping energy requirements**

    IÆm calculating the energy input for 100 hp based on power, efficiency, and specific energy needs. Additional data is crucial for precise calculations of energy per mass and volume.

    **Piecing together the puzzle**

    IÆm working through the energy input for 100 hp over 1 second, assuming a 1 kg mass and 1 m│ volume. This leads me to specific energy per mass and volume calculations.
    ChatGPT
    To determine the energy required per unit mass (J/kg) and per unit volume (J/m│) for Vehicle A and Vehicle B, given their respective engine efficiencies and a power requirement of 100 horsepower (hp), we'll follow a systematic approach. However, it's
    important to note that without specific information about the duration of operation, the mass, or the volume of the energy source (e.g., fuel or battery), we can only outline the general method rather than provide exact numerical values.

    ### **1. Convert Horsepower to Watts**

    First, convert the power requirement from horsepower to watts since the standard unit for power in the International System of Units (SI) is the watt (W).

    \[
    1\, \text{hp} \approx 745.7\, \text{W}
    \]

    \[
    100\, \text{hp} = 100 \times 745.7\, \text{W} = 74,570\, \text{W}
    \]

    ### **2. Calculate Input Power Based on Efficiency**

    The engine/motor efficiency (\(\eta\)) determines how much input power (\(P_{\text{input}}\)) is required to achieve the desired output power (\(P_{\text{output}}\)).

    \[
    \eta = \frac{P_{\text{output}}}{P_{\text{input}}} \quad \Rightarrow \quad P_{\text{input}} = \frac{P_{\text{output}}}{\eta}
    \]

    - **Vehicle A (25% Efficient):**

    \[
    P_{\text{input, A}} = \frac{74,570\, \text{W}}{0.25} = 298,280\, \text{W}
    \]

    - **Vehicle B (98% Efficient):**

    \[
    P_{\text{input, B}} = \frac{74,570\, \text{W}}{0.98} \approx 76,132\, \text{W} \]

    ### **3. Determine Energy Requirements**

    Energy (\(E\)) is power multiplied by time. To find energy per unit mass and per unit volume, we need to define a time period over which the power is consumed. For demonstration purposes, let's assume an operational time \(t\) (in seconds).

    \[
    E = P_{\text{input}} \times t
    \]

    - **Vehicle A:**

    \[
    E_{\text{A}} = 298,280\, \text{W} \times t = 298,280\, \text{J/s} \times t
    \]

    - **Vehicle B:**

    \[
    E_{\text{B}} = 76,132\, \text{W} \times t = 76,132\, \text{J/s} \times t
    \]

    ### **4. Calculate Energy per Unit Mass (J/kg) and per Unit Volume (J/m│)**

    To find energy per unit mass (\(E_{\text{mass}}\)) and energy per unit volume (\(E_{\text{volume}}\)), you'll need the mass (\(m\)) and volume (\(V\)) of the energy source.

    \[
    E_{\text{mass}} = \frac{E}{m} = \frac{P_{\text{input}} \times t}{m} \quad \text{(J/kg)}
    \]

    \[
    E_{\text{volume}} = \frac{E}{V} = \frac{P_{\text{input}} \times t}{V} \quad \text{(J/m│)}
    \]

    - **Vehicle A:**

    \[
    E_{\text{mass, A}} = \frac{298,280\, \text{J/s} \times t}{m} \quad \text{(J/kg)}
    \]

    \[
    E_{\text{volume, A}} = \frac{298,280\, \text{J/s} \times t}{V} \quad \text{(J/m│)}
    \]

    - **Vehicle B:**

    \[
    E_{\text{mass, B}} = \frac{76,132\, \text{J/s} \times t}{m} \quad \text{(J/kg)} \]

    \[
    E_{\text{volume, B}} = \frac{76,132\, \text{J/s} \times t}{V} \quad \text{(J/m│)}
    \]

    ### **Conclusion and Next Steps**

    To obtain specific numerical values for \( \text{J/kg} \) and \( \text{J/m│} \) for both vehicles, you need additional information:

    1. **Duration of Operation (\(t\))**: How long the vehicle needs to operate at 100 hp.
    2. **Mass of the Energy Source (\(m\))**: The mass of fuel, battery, or any other energy source being used.
    3. **Volume of the Energy Source (\(V\))**: The volume occupied by the energy source.

    **Example Calculation:**

    Suppose you want to determine the energy per unit mass and volume for a 1-hour operation (\(t = 3600\, \text{s}\)) and you have specific values for \(m\) and \(V\). Here's how you'd proceed:

    - **Vehicle A:**

    \[
    E_{\text{mass, A}} = \frac{298,280\, \text{W} \times 3600\, \text{s}}{m} = \frac{1.073808 \times 10^9\, \text{J}}{m}\, \text{J/kg}
    \]

    \[
    E_{\text{volume, A}} = \frac{1.073808 \times 10^9\, \text{J}}{V}\, \text{J/m│} \]

    - **Vehicle B:**

    \[
    E_{\text{mass, B}} = \frac{76,132\, \text{W} \times 3600\, \text{s}}{m} = \frac{2.7419232 \times 10^8\, \text{J}}{m}\, \text{J/kg}
    \]

    \[
    E_{\text{volume, B}} = \frac{2.7419232 \times 10^8\, \text{J}}{V}\, \text{J/m│} \]

    **Note:** Replace \(m\) and \(V\) with the actual mass and volume of your energy source to get meaningful results.

    ### **Final Remarks**

    Without specific values for the duration of operation, mass, and volume of the energy source, it's not possible to provide exact values for \( \text{J/kg} \) and \( \text{J/m│} \). If you can supply these additional details, a more precise calculation
    can be performed.



    user
    Consider vehicle A1 to be powered by gasoline and vehicle A22 to be powered by Jet-A (kerosene). And, Consider vehicle B to be powered by LiFePo4 batteries.

    ChatGPT
    **Clarifying vehicle details**

    IÆm thinking through the specifics of the vehicles: gasoline and Jet-A engines at 25% efficiency, and a LiFePO4 battery-powered motor at 98% efficiency, to calculate energy capacities.

    **Understanding energy needs**

    I'm gathering info on calculating energy density (J/kg and J/m^3) specific to horsepower output (100 hp) for gasoline, kerosene, and LiFePO4 batteries, considering efficiency and time factors.

    **Assessing energy input**

    Computing energy input per unit mass and volume for each vehicle's energy source to achieve 100 hp, factoring in efficiency, without specific time parameters.

    **Calculating input power**

    First, letÆs determine the input power for each vehicle. For A1 and A22, itÆs 400 hp, while for B, itÆs approximately 102 hp. Next, IÆll calculate energy per mass and volume.

    **Clarifying the approach**

    IÆm mapping out steps to calculate specific energy and energy density for gasoline, jet-A, and LiFePO4, factoring in time, mass, and volume, to meet 100 hp powers.

    **Calculating energy needs**

    Using a 100 hp power requirement, IÆm calculating input power, energy input over time, and energy per mass and volume for gasoline, kerosene, and LiFePO4, factoring in their specific energy and density.

    **Calculating energy needs**

    Assuming a one-hour duration, IÆll calculate the energy required (100 hp) and determine the necessary mass and volume of gasoline, kerosene, and LiFePO4 batteries, using their specific energy and density.
    ChatGPT
    Certainly! To comprehensively compare **Vehicle A1** (powered by gasoline), **Vehicle A22** (powered by Jet-A/kerosene), and **Vehicle B** (powered by LiFePO4 batteries) in terms of energy requirements per unit mass (J/kg) and per unit volume (J/m│), we'
    ll follow these steps:

    1. **Assumptions and Given Data**
    2. **Conversion of Power to Energy**
    3. **Calculation of Required Energy Input**
    4. **Determination of Energy per Unit Mass (J/kg) and per Unit Volume (J/m│)** 5. **Summary of Results**

    Let's delve into each step in detail.

    ---

    ### **1. Assumptions and Given Data**

    To perform the calculations, we'll make the following assumptions and use standard values for the energy sources:

    - **Power Requirement:** 100 horsepower (hp)
    - **Operational Duration:** 1 hour (for calculation purposes)
    - **Efficiencies:**
    - **Vehicle A1 (Gasoline):** 25%
    - **Vehicle A22 (Jet-A/Kerosene):** 25%
    - **Vehicle B (LiFePO4 Batteries):** 98%

    **Energy Source Properties:**

    | Energy Source | Specific Energy (J/kg) | Energy Density (J/m│) | Density (kg/m│) |
    |----------------------|------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------|
    | Gasoline | 5.9 ╫ 107 | 2.5 ╫ 10╣░ | 750 |
    | Jet-A (Kerosene) | 4.3 ╫ 107 | 1.8 ╫ 10╣░ | 820 |
    | LiFePO4 Batteries | 2.5 ╫ 107 | 9.0 ╫ 10╣░ | 250 |

    *Note: Specific energy and energy density values can vary based on sources, but the above are standard a
  • From Jim Pennino@21:1/5 to Larry Dighera on Sun Dec 29 09:50:26 2024
    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:
    On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 20:56:20 -0800, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:

    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:
    On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 15:22:37 -0800, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> >>> wrote:

    <snip old crap>

    Energy density by any any metric.


    I'd prefer to see a complete sentence, at least.

    Are you referring to the comparative energy density of petroleum and Lithium
    batteries?

    If so, when you factor in system efficiency, they're not so far apart.


    Even if you factor in efficiency, the best REAL sources of electrical >>energy all have energy densities in J/kg and J/m^3 that are far less than >>an order of magnitude than that of either gasoline or jet-a.

    That has NOT changed in all the years you have been posting.



    Jim,

    From your response, I infer that I failed to state my view clearly enough to convey my meaning to you.

    Unlike you, I am not a credentialed engineer, and I most assuredly do not have the mathematical skills of one. So, I posed this issue to ChatGPT:


    You are aware, are you not, that AIs are known to lie and make stuff up?

    I asked ChatGPT when the lithium battery was invented as that should
    be an easy question about a factual historical event. The AI went on
    and on about the first rechargeable lithium battery made in 1970 and
    then bloviated at length about battery development in the 1980's. The
    correct answer to the question I asked is 1912, i.e. the date when
    the first lithium battery was made.

    AI doesn't ever say WTF are you talking about and will make up answers, sometimes just wrong and sometimes out of whole cloth.


    If a vehicle requires 100 hp for operation and its engine/motor is 25% efficient for vehicle A and 98% efficient for vehicle B, solve for J/kg and J/m^3 for each A and B.

    Bzzzt, wrong question to ask.

    The energy densities of fuels and electrical sources are well known
    quanties and are a trivial lookup.

    The energy efficiencies of engines are well known quanties and are about
    30 - 35% for piston engines, 30 - 40% for turbine engines and 85 - 95%
    for electric engines.

    The horsepower for aircraft is also a trivial lookup. For example, a
    Cessna 182 ranges from 230 to 300 horsepower or 172 to 224 kilowatts.

    Note that this is the actual power produced by the engine and the energy efficiency of the engine is irrelevant to the problem because we are
    using actual engine power.

    For a 182 with a 230 HP engine and 75 gallon tanks and an altitude of
    5000 feet, the endurance is 3.4 hours at 75% power and 3.9 hours at 65%
    power with a 45 minute reserve.

    Therefore a 182 carries 520 - 535 kWh of real, actual energy on board in
    the form of 205 kg of 100LL.

    The question to ask is, for the various real sources of electricity that
    can actually be purchased, what is the weight and volume for 520 - 535
    kWh of energy?

    When I asked that question for lithium-ion batteries I got an answer of
    1962 - 2600 kg. 1962/205 = 9.6 which is basically an order of magnitude
    more weight and 207 - 275 gallons which in the best case is 2.8 times
    the volume.

    <snip huge pile based on not understanding the actual problem>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Larry Dighera@21:1/5 to All on Thu Dec 26 09:43:31 2024
    Another advancement provided by AI:

    AI Provides 25KW/KG, 98% efficiency Electric Motor

    Video: https://youtu.be/o3Sx4HdWZc8

    Sources:
    https://www.additive-drives.de/en/cus... https://www.additive-drives.de/en/hig...
    https://leap71.com/rp/

    Two key technologies have revealed next generation motors:

    First is computational models which can encode expert domain knowledge and logic, physics, such as thermal models, rules about manufacturing processes, and related data in one coherent framework for general engineering.

    The second is multi-material 3d printing. High-performance electric motors
    with power densities of over 25 kW/kg can be achieved with 3D topologies.
    How this content was made

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Pennino@21:1/5 to Larry Dighera on Thu Dec 26 10:07:48 2024
    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

    Another advancement provided by AI:

    AI Provides 25KW/KG, 98% efficiency Electric Motor

    Electric motors reached 98% efficiency a long time ago.

    This is NOT much of an advancement.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Larry Dighera@21:1/5 to All on Thu Dec 26 11:51:59 2024
    On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:07:48 -0800, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
    wrote:

    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

    Another advancement provided by AI:

    AI Provides 25KW/KG, 98% efficiency Electric Motor

    Electric motors reached 98% efficiency a long time ago.

    This is NOT much of an advancement.

    Agreed. It is the 98% efficiency of electric motors, compared to 20-30% for
    IC engines, that makes electric motor propulsion viable.

    This is what caught my eye:

    "25 KW per kgam which is over 10 times the power
    density of a Tesla Roadster induction motor"

    If accurate, this new technology takes electrically powered aircraft one
    step closer to viability.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Pennino@21:1/5 to Larry Dighera on Thu Dec 26 14:26:20 2024
    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:
    On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:07:48 -0800, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:

    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

    Another advancement provided by AI:

    AI Provides 25KW/KG, 98% efficiency Electric Motor

    Electric motors reached 98% efficiency a long time ago.

    This is NOT much of an advancement.

    Agreed. It is the 98% efficiency of electric motors, compared to 20-30% for IC engines, that makes electric motor propulsion viable.

    And energy density of IC engine fuel makes them practical.


    This is what caught my eye:

    "25 KW per kgam which is over 10 times the power
    density of a Tesla Roadster induction motor"

    If accurate, this new technology takes electrically powered aircraft one
    step closer to viability.

    Only one, very, very small baby step. Tesla is not very concerned with
    power density so your comparison is meaningless. You still have the over
    an order of magnitude problem with sources of electricity which has not
    changed significantly in all the years you have been posting breathless
    news releases on the subject.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Pennino@21:1/5 to Jim Pennino on Fri Jan 3 10:13:19 2025
    Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:
    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:
    On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 20:56:20 -0800, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:

    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:
    On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 15:22:37 -0800, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> >>>> wrote:

    <snip old crap>

    Energy density by any any metric.


    I'd prefer to see a complete sentence, at least.

    Are you referring to the comparative energy density of petroleum and Lithium
    batteries?

    If so, when you factor in system efficiency, they're not so far apart. >>>>

    Even if you factor in efficiency, the best REAL sources of electrical >>>energy all have energy densities in J/kg and J/m^3 that are far less than >>>an order of magnitude than that of either gasoline or jet-a.

    That has NOT changed in all the years you have been posting.



    Jim,

    From your response, I infer that I failed to state my view clearly enough to convey my meaning to you.

    Unlike you, I am not a credentialed engineer, and I most assuredly do not have the mathematical skills of one. So, I posed this issue to ChatGPT:


    You are aware, are you not, that AIs are known to lie and make stuff up?

    I asked ChatGPT when the lithium battery was invented as that should
    be an easy question about a factual historical event. The AI went on
    and on about the first rechargeable lithium battery made in 1970 and
    then bloviated at length about battery development in the 1980's. The
    correct answer to the question I asked is 1912, i.e. the date when
    the first lithium battery was made.

    AI doesn't ever say WTF are you talking about and will make up answers, sometimes just wrong and sometimes out of whole cloth.


    If a vehicle requires 100 hp for operation and its engine/motor is 25% efficient for vehicle A and 98% efficient for vehicle B, solve for J/kg and J/m^3 for each A and B.

    Bzzzt, wrong question to ask.

    The energy densities of fuels and electrical sources are well known
    quanties and are a trivial lookup.

    The energy efficiencies of engines are well known quanties and are about
    30 - 35% for piston engines, 30 - 40% for turbine engines and 85 - 95%
    for electric engines.

    The horsepower for aircraft is also a trivial lookup. For example, a
    Cessna 182 ranges from 230 to 300 horsepower or 172 to 224 kilowatts.

    Note that this is the actual power produced by the engine and the energy efficiency of the engine is irrelevant to the problem because we are
    using actual engine power.

    For a 182 with a 230 HP engine and 75 gallon tanks and an altitude of
    5000 feet, the endurance is 3.4 hours at 75% power and 3.9 hours at 65%
    power with a 45 minute reserve.

    Therefore a 182 carries 520 - 535 kWh of real, actual energy on board in
    the form of 205 kg of 100LL.

    The question to ask is, for the various real sources of electricity that
    can actually be purchased, what is the weight and volume for 520 - 535
    kWh of energy?

    When I asked that question for lithium-ion batteries I got an answer of
    1962 - 2600 kg. 1962/205 = 9.6 which is basically an order of magnitude
    more weight and 207 - 275 gallons which in the best case is 2.8 times
    the volume.

    <snip huge pile based on not understanding the actual problem>


    After going over the numbers, I have some corrections. I misread the
    endurance graph and forgot to account for start, taxi, takeoff and climb
    fuel.

    At 5000' and 65% power the range of a 182P is 725 nm and the endurance
    is 5.5 h and a speed of about 134 KTAS.

    The tanks hold 75 gal usefull and 1.8 gal are used for start, taxi and
    takeoff, 2.9 gal for a normal climb from S.L. to 5000' with 6.5 gal for reserve.

    Fuel used for these is thus 11.2 gal or 30.6 kg leaving 63.8 gal or
    174.2 kg.

    172 kW x 65% x 5.5 h = 614.9 kWh of real energy.

    614.9 kWh / 174.2 kg = 3.5 kWh/kg actual energy density.

    The current energy density for lithium-ion batteries is about 0.3
    kWh/kg.

    The theoretical maximum energy density for lithium-ion batteries is
    about 0.6 kWh/kg. Theoretical maximums for anything are very rarely ever achievable but irrelevant as 0.6 kWh/kg is still too low to be practical.

    The one and only hope that there ever will be a practical GA aircraft is
    the lithium-air, or more properly, the lithium-oxygen battery which has
    a theoretical energy density of 5 to 10 kWh/kg.

    There is just one little problem. Research into this battery has been
    intense for about 30 years now and to date nobody has been able to come
    up with a practical implentation of this chemistry and many doubt that
    it will ever happen.

    There is no other element on the periodic table that can exceed the
    electric generation potential of lithium.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)