From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting


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
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

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.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

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.


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

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.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting




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?

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

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.


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

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.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

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.


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

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>

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2