Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
A Megawatt Electric Motor Created By MIT Engineers for commercial air-flight
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 06. 2023
- A Megawatt Electric Motor Created By MIT Engineers for commercial air-flight
👇👇 The Electric Viking store/merchandise 👇👇
shop.theelectr...
Size guide and other help for the store 👇
theelectricvik...
🔔 Subscribe and hit the notification bell! ► www.youtube.co...
Join me on Patreon ► / theelectricviking
Join as a member in The Electric Viking CZcams►
/ @electricviking
Members-only videos (see videos before anyone else)►
• Members-only videos
👇👇 Please donate here for Shanna (Viking's wife) if you can 👇👇
gofund.me/ef66...
See what happened to Shanna:
• Stage 4 can go to hell...
The Electric Viking on other platforms:
Rumble ► rumble.com/c/T...
Facebook page ► / theelectricvikingfb
Facebook group ► / theevfbgroup
Twitter ► / theevking
Instagram ► / theelectricvking
Pinterest ► / theelectricviking
Telegram ► t.me/theelectr...
TikTok ► / theelectricviking
My Stake referral link ► tinyurl.com/he...
👇 See more about me 👇
• You've been asking; he...
👇 My Bali trip 👇
• I went to Indonesia an...
👇 Video about My Skateboard 👇
• EASIEST & cheapest way...
👇 Subscribe to my kids channel 👇
tinyurl.com/su...
See more videos:
Kia says California isn't ready for the widespread electric car adoption
• Kia says California is...
France wants Elon Musk to build GigaFactory - threatens to shut down Twitter
• France wants Elon Musk...
Why Toyota decided to change entire production process to use Tesla's 'Gigacasting'
• Why Toyota decided to ...
Tesla Raises Model Y Prices as High Demand and Increases Wait Times
• Tesla Raises Model Y P...
San Francisco Sets New U.S. EV Sales Record as 4 Cities Near 50% Milestone
• San Francisco Sets New...
GM Dealers Sound Alarm: Growing Inventories, Shrinking Profits
• GM Dealers Sound Alarm...
Billionaire Forrest calls Musk a ‘muppet’ over hydrogen - then his company said this...
• Billionaire Forrest ca...
From Rejection to SpaceX: The Inspiring Journey of a 14-Year-Old Genius
• From Rejection to Spac...
Breakthrough technology produces cheap blue hydrogen, capturing 99% of CO2
• Breakthrough technolog...
Japan sends a concerned MESSAGE to Toyota on electric car production
• Japan sends a concerne...
Morgan Stanley says Tesla is about to do what General Motors did in 1919
• Morgan Stanley says Te...
Elon Musk says production Cybertruck in camo is 'practically invisible...'
• Elon Musk says product...
US experts shocked by Coals sudden death spiral in the United States
• US experts shocked by ...
NIO's affordable EV with new LFP/Ion hybrid battery might just save them
• NIO's affordable EV wi...
Report says GM will have billions in car capacity left idled in China
• Report says GM will ha...
NEW Tesla Model 3 tail lights revealed -bizarre correlation to renderings
• NEW Tesla Model 3 tail...
2024 Honda's General Motors built Acura ZDX electric car revealed
• 2024 Honda's General M...
Tesla announces 4680 battery news at Giga Texas
• Tesla announces 4680 b...
Some Chevy Bolt EV owners will no longer get replacement batteries
• Some Chevy Bolt EV own...
A Megawatt Electric Motor Created By MIT Engineers for commercial air-flight
• A Megawatt Electric Mo...
#MegawattElectricMotor #MITEngineers
👇 👇Reference to the news/charts & videos used in this video:
cleantechnica....
aeroastro.mit....
tec.ieee.org/c...
www.mhi.com/
aerospace.illi...
This channel may use some copyrighted materials without specific authorization of the owner; but content used here falls under the “Fair Use” Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976.
Allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Contact us for any copyright issues. If you want a credit of any footage we are using, please let us know.
Website: theelectricvik...
Email: contact@theelectricviking.com
@Sam -- Even electric powered flight will still make noise as fan blades accelerate the airflow that propels the aircraft. Electric flight will definitely be quieter than the noisy turboprop or turbofan engines used in current airliners, but there will be more sound than just wind noise.
- ha ha ha, indeed, the muppets think e-means silent - like a vacuum cleaner - hearing protection may be necessary at "full song". The whistling and whining of all jet endines are "blades chopping air" - the roar, that is hot power.
I looked through the comments to see if anyone would point this out. I've been on Saab 340Bs more than once. Most of the noise comes from the propellers. Most of the time, I can't even hear the turbines.
I am a student pilot, and the aviation industry is very conservative due to them being very safety conscious, to the point where they have not banned TEL from avgas, a chemical banned from gasoline for cars decades ago. The batteries will have to be as energy dense as avgas and able to work in cold conditions, as well as reliability tell how much energy is in the battery
750w/kg
@@bernardcharlesworth9860 so that is the energy density a battery would need to rival gasoline?
@@AleksandrPodyachev yes into production 2025
@@AleksandrPodyachev There are two densities to be considered: (1) gravimetric (weight) and (2) volumetric.
Gasoline:
(1): 46.4 MJ/kg
(2): 34.2 MJ/liter
Jet Fuel:
(1) 43 MJ/kg
(2) 35 MJ/liter
Lithium Batteries:
(1) ~1 MJ/kg
(2) ~3 MJ/liter
Other things to consider is that onboard electric power efficiency is in the 85% efficiency range. While internal combustion gasoline engines are around 20% and jet engines around 35%.
Well said, also another big thing to consider is the weight of the battery is still there when its almost empty where the weight of fuel reduces as it is used
Happy Father’s Day Sam. My prayers are with you and your family.
(of course wishes are always wonderful) - funny thing, in Australia we do Father's Day in September - Mother's Day in May - spreads the celebrations out a bit...
One can wish a great day on any occasion, we all like some gratitude and congratulations. cheers.
One very important factor on savings with electric flight is taxiing, a gas turbine needs even in idle about 60% of fuel flow, that means while on the ground airliners burn A LOT of fuel, electric taxiing would use a tiny fraction of that energy. So even if you have a hybrid plane where a gas turbine powers a generator, this would be magnitudes more efficient, as the gas turbine would only run during effective time from takeoff to landing, so we would have tremendous savings here. An airliner burns many tons of fuel while still on the ground, we are talking about a reduction in energy needed for taxiing in the range of probably above 90%.
And the runway could use under surface induction charging to help power the speeding up to the speed of the lift-off.
- electric taxying using a wheel motor is the real innovation needed to occur - everyone knows this in industry, but packaging gets in the way...
In terms of total energy used, I would expect taxiing to be < 1%.
@@22airjordan1 : yep, on the upside, once that fuel is burnt the conventional Aircraft is lighter - whereas a hybrid system doesn't change weight appreciably... I have also pondered a glider-tug type arrangement to get conventional airliners and freighters aloft using BE tugs.... (the energy balance and economics is interesting)
@@22airjordan1 off course does a large airliner burn many tons fuel while taxiing and queuing up for takeoff on a busy airport, a gas turbine at idle consumes roughly 60 percent of fuel from it's nominal performance.
A 747 taxiing or waiting with idle power on a taxiway even with only two engines running consumes almost 3 tons per hour
The energy density of the battery seems a much greater impediment to electric aircraft than the power density of the engine.
Which is why hybrid is the way to go at the moment. This can be implemented very quickly. It could mean the end to massive aircraft noise under flight paths.
@@yggdrasil9039 Hybrid's are a waste in weight, complexity and efficiency of the aerial propulsion.
@@stephanmariahitzel6102 For vehicles yes, but not for flight. Hybrids are perfect at this stage.
@@yggdrasil9039
Why and how?
Hybrid aircraft would carry two propulsion systems - a fosil type gas-turbine and an electric motor.
This doubles installation, space and corresponding systems to interconnect and control these two systems, adding weight and size, both enemies of efficient flying.
Furthermore the gasturbine converts fuel directly via combustion into thrust to propel the aircraft. This is the highest efficiency one can expect.
All the transformation of high gas-temperatures into electric propulsion would add to the corresponding losses in the conversion reducing efficiency.
Apart from that classic fuel leaves the aircraft during flight. This reduces weight and increases efficiency, range etc. An important aspect is the aircraft structure and its landing-gear which would have to carry additional load of installations and even more so the accumulators weight which remains on board from take-off to touch down.
@@yggdrasil9039hybrids are ridiculous for aircraft. The complexity adds lots of weight - eats away at any weight saved by having less batteries. And most of the localized noise is during takeoff - when all of the power is needed. Batteries will be empty before it leaves runway. And of course that weight means less cargo or people to pay for the flight
Having worked on Experimental Electrical motors, 11:46 it is fantastic that MIT has created their version ! Know that the version created by the people I worked with is soon going into production! Awesome!
a single B737 engine produces from 40 to 80 thousand HP. A megawatt motor translates to about 1400 HP, so what is even talking about ?
I am quite confident that the rest of the process (props, jets (of air)) will still make plenty of noise.
Don’t gotta…….. magnetism to save th day
I am amazed by the quantity of timely, informative, and well-produced content that you generate.
Mega-watt motors already exist for a long. They are in a reservoir dam to regenerate surplus electric power back to another power reserve, in this case , water height. But they are built suit to their work condition which is slow rotating speed on huge torque. Of course it is a huge and heavy structure. In the case of such a motor on airplane , I think It might come to a reality on the condition of success in near ambient tempt superconductor.
They're everywhere, but MW ultra-compact electric motors are a new innovation.
Brushless 3 phase motors have forca long time had huge power to weight advantages over equivalent combustion engines..BUT battery density is light years away from having enough energy for electric aircraft.
Light years or 5 years with a breakthrough. There's no laws of physics that say battery density can't be increased 3-10 fold.
@@ohger1 - yes there are.... really - chemistry has limits, untill you create a new paradigm.
Think of the most energetic reaction you can... And imagine how to harness the electrons flowing from that... (now put all that in a battery with thousands of useful cycles - sure it may only be a mind game, but without thermoelectric nuclear, there are limits to reactions, we may not be able to readily surpass a Lithium/oxygen reaction for battery energy density (Element Number 3 reacting with number 8) , and that is one shot and done (up to 11 kWh/kg - (5 kWh/kg on the realistic side), - Petrol-Air is 12.5 kWh/kg - we can put that through a fuel cell with higher energy recovery than any ICE ~46% efficient with heat recovery ~63% in stationary applications)... Both of these reactions are using their ingredients as a fuel, not a rechargeable battery - and for a real density comparison the Li-Ox needs to discharge its waste en route
@@kadmow See about re: element 115.
@@bigrobsydney oh yes, Moscovium - element 115, NAT0 is heading that way soon (or at least have a go).
Otherwise please elaborate - If you are referring to nuclear batteries (not sure anyone has posited powering a plane with one ) - there are many issues before we are going down that route.. But loving the concept - I am not a stranger to the Nuclear Isotope industry ( was a while ago).
@@kadmow Elaborate - 115 is "apparently" the fuel in recovered alien craft. Used in matter / anti-matter reactions for interstellar travel. If ET can use it to get here from Zeta Reticuli, then I think it's okay for us mere mortals and our relatively minor travails...
A single jet engine on a large plane like a Boeing 777 produces anywhere from 30000 to 50000 hp. It would take 25 of these electric motors to make 33000 hp so it will still be heavy.
Didn’t you hear him say ? These motors are more power dense than ICE. Just give them a few more years , we’re just getting started
Get a certified replacement for the Honeywell TPE-331-14. If that is even possible the addressable market is in the tens for thousands. A replacement for the Pratt PT6A is about four times that in terms of addressable market. A lot of these are utility and private flight. Shaft horsepower is 300 to 1000. A hydrogen and kerosene powered experimental ATR-72 already exists so I’m not sure but this is old news
This would be a big step. Although, it might be prudent to take one step at a time. Try a hybrid power plane first to increase efficiency. for an example, the Ford 3.5 hybrid motor could be modified to have several generator units, since it would not be pushing a truck down the road, to create more than enough power for a megawatt electric motor. eliminating the need for all of those batteries. Like I said, a stepping stone.
The problem it's not the motors, IT IS THE BATTERIES...!!!
Ah yes...the lone rational voice among the true believers in the cult of green energy.
Not that startling, a MW is just 1207 HP at 90% efficiency. Tesla or Lucid could probably build a motor of that size without trying too hard...
Battery weight is the problem, not size of motor.These new motor will help though.
Sorry to disappoint you concerning silent flight, but props make their own noise even if the motors are perfectly quiet. Let's hope toroidal propellers will reduce that problem in the future.
Its just a hybrid, they are trying to do that same thing as the car industry and drive the prop from the combustion engine. Its far more efficient to fix the output of a combustion generator and take it away from the variable load and use motors with redundant systems to drive the prop, using the battery take away to load variation. Taking the combustion motors away from the prop makes the aircraft design more flexible, and you only need a small sustaining engine instead of a take off engine.
Beating the air with triple redundancy, so short hop flights are most likely for a while, but these motors are cool. Hydrocarbons are king when you are trying to defy gravity and drag. Best way of reducing CO2 is by not flying as much as we currently do. Transport CO2 is big, but passenger vehicles only make up 10% of CO2 in Oz as I understand it. So why did we start with passenger vehicles in the first place when flying is also big? Because its tough to find alternative solutions for flying. All the best for there endeavours though and more strength to their arm.
We need to INCREASE CO2 not decrease. The planet would be much healthier with, at a bare minimum , twice the current low level of 475ppm. There's a reason greenhouse operators employ CO2 generators...to keep their plants from starving.
@@markanthony3275Yeah, and we kill all the life in the ocean. What genius crack head put that into your brain?
Look up dexoxygenation of the ocean. Some places were already effected by this in 2023. You'd starve most of the ocean of oxyogen.
Not all plants grow well in green houses either. Green houses can get hot, and kill them. Not all animals do well in the heat, because they can't regulate their body tempatures.
I can't even.
On safety: hydrogen or kerosene to power a given journey will make the same sized bang in an accident - they have to contain the same energy. In fact hydrogen will be cause a slightly smaller bang as, being lighter, there will be less of it.
Rushed in here to make a similar comment but you beat me to it 😊😊.
Hydrogen combusts so violently, that if it were to ignite it would blow the plane apart. You'd have to vent that stuff instantly if there was a chance of fire. A kerosene fire is obviously really bad, but it's a fire and that allows for fire suppression systems and for people to evacuate in an accident.
It's interesting to think how battery fires could be dealt with in aircraft. We've seen the consequences of fires in cars and how hard they are to extinguish.
It's true that hydrogen is light, roughly one-seventh that of air. However the potential energy of hydrogen combustion far exceeds that of kerosene or gasoline.
In short the vehicle, regardless of the fuel, must carry some form of energy. Each type of energy has different characteristics, but fuel, by definition, IS potential energy.
Batteries carry a type of potential energy that is nearly 100% efficient. Nearly every BTU of energy is converted to work.
Kerosene, gasoline, or hydrogen are much less efficient types of energy, so the vehicle must carry more BTUs of these types of energy
- lol, indeed, however in volumes - kerosene for a win - bright spark to come up with the kerosene/bio-oil fuelcell - with capacity and cycle life acceptable for commercial aviation, that may be the dreamed for game changer- the Electric propulsion is done.
Sorry if I'm stepping on thunderf00t's toes here. By "megawatt", what exactly do you or they mean here? Megawatt per what, exactly? Megawatt converted to useful work in what context? I can pretty much guarantee "megawatt" electric motors already exist, though huge in size. Maybe this is some kind of industry / scientific shorthand that doesn't mean much to outsiders and should be explained better. Also, the air at those altitudes is also very, very thin, meaning many, many fewer of those molecules to draw heat out of a motor working much, much harder to generate thrust than a combustion turbine to generate the same thrust. Some other cooling solution may be needed for high altitude flight. ANNND, propellers and shrouded fans still generate a lot of noise that can be mitigated, but that will never be eliminated at these thrust levels. Passenger jets are already pretty well shielded and fairly quiet inside except for takeoff. But putting them behind the passenger compartment would be ideal. Epic fail, dude. Thumbs down. LOL
Excellent vision of the transition from fully conventional engines to fully electrical future concepts I would hope that fuel cells could be cheaper 👍🏾
Thank you all, this stuff interests me, but did you know you can pulse electrify a motor, either normal or brush-less. I'm doing simulator experiments, for Electric Air, and Space craft utilizing PEDF's, Pulsed Electric Ducted Fans. As you may know, electrons plus resistance, slow a current but increase temperature, which slows a current even more, causing more heat, a thermal runaway scenario. So for a 4 motor plane, you can pulse the motors at say 5Hz, when a motor is sparked, it will begin to rotate, generating just a little heat, the attached fan will cool the heat, plus it's inertia will make it continue to rotate for a while, cooling or propelling even more, (thrust) exponentially. I only used 5Hz at the beginning, a spark for each motor plus 1 for the accessories, at 50% duty cycle, per second. Multiply by 1000 = 5KHz, there is barely a performance loss but the motors run much cooler, efficient, and with less wear, or breakage, and still leave a little power for accessories. It's an ongoing experiment I'm working on for mostly Cars, SUVs, Airplanes, Spacecraft, Helicopters, but also any computer cooling fan, or system might apply. Air or compressor liquid coolers as well? In my systems, the electric generator runs continuous, charging, but not the load, cycling, or redistributing saving, power, and, you know, cool-ness? Amen?
battery weight is the issue not the motors
Noooooooo ru serious
Working on Experimental motor would be very amazing. Brilliant video
Former Boeing Everett where giant aircraft are born. If EV wants to match existing power output technology for commercial aircraft, they would require use of a very long extension cord plugged into sufficient power source. EV Aircraft have huge hurdles to overcome just to match the power and range of Boeing 777 with GE9x Engines, they will need 132 of those 1 megawatt electric motors.
(1) GE9x High Bypass Turbofan Engine with the fan removed and power used for e.g. ship propulsion or a power plant, the engine core can deliver about 66 MW or 90,000 horsepower continuously. The B-777 has 2 of these powerful engines with total power of 132 megawatts. Any EV solution would require 132 of these 1 megawatt electric motors.
In addition they will need huge batteries to store enough power to match range of B-777 which is 5,120 nautical miles (9,480 km) to 9,290 nautical miles (17,205 km). B-777 can stay in the air for up to 15 hours.
When aircraft use fuel, the plane becomes lighter as more fuel is used. Weight of batteries used to store power remains constant. If they weighed 25 tons at takeoff they would would weigh 25 tons when landing.
I love how fast the progression in decarbonizing small commuter to more regional sized ones has come in just a few years from a theoretical idea to ACTUAL commercial flights, albeit short ones.... However it's the short and medium haul regional flights that need to be decarbonized or grounded first since per passenger mile/km they do the most damage. Meanwhile flying international aboard an A350 and B787 has never been cleaner so the solution there seems to be SAF swapped in for fossil fuels if we want to go that one step more...
they could make the Battery pack so that they are swapable upon landing - AND if a battery fire did happen they could scuttle the pac over a chosen area - pacs would be sectioned into 4 so a fire would only be in 1.drop 1 keep 3 to get you down ..............nice safety backup and your welcome, you can use my idea.
what would happen if the battery pack caught fire while flying over a city? then you would have a fireball that weighs multiple tons smashing into people and buildings.
- so revolutionary. lol..
Of course "early" endurance electric RC planes have played with jettisoning spent LiPo packs, attach a drogue chute and it gently impacts "mother" somewhere nice.
Dropping a 50 - 100 tonne pack however may cause some "weight and balance" problems, needs to be well considered (what if the tail pack had a fire, oops, there goes the ballast...) - the size of a pack for a proper commercial air transport is scarcely being considered - that is like a whole other aircraft up there flying tandem...
The electricity bomber would also solve the landing impact problem because you could reduce landing gear weight. Imagine all the accs on final approach.
100 tons? On the battery pack alone?
Are you claiming a cruise ship can fly? You drop 100 tons (that’s 200,000 lbs) of mass out of an airplane it won’t be flying, it will be flipping, due to changes in center of gravity.
@@warbuzzard7167 : (figure how to respond to the relevant comment) : Check out super jumbo fuel capacity and weights - yes a lot... more than you must realise... (batteries to do the same task have to be heavier - chemistry.)
Sam, you do very good work, and I like your graphics. Good reporting and very much appreciated. All good wishes for 2024.
Many thanks!
Sustainable Aviation Fuels are based on molecules synthesized from some kind of renewable source.
One of the pathways is through synthetic biology. It's already technologically proven, but business cases to scale up depend on the whole scenario.
This can solve the CO2 lifecycle problem only. At a high cost compared to "simple" refining of fossil oil.
On the other end of the equation the upper surface of all Electric Aircraft could be laminated with solar cell films to capture solar energy to boost available energy at a reasonable cost. Newer developments in Solar cells and lightweight energy storage will no doubt be part of the solution to Electric only Aviation ….
It is hard to beat most common A320 because in one day made 4-5 flies. They fuel up airplane in 15 minutes and goes forward, next flight.
Usually 8 flights a day!
They will do it with Pixie dust and a magic wand!
Megawatt electric motors would need gigawatt batteries for significant range. A gas turbine generator would eliminate the GHG reduction and make it pointless.
1300 horse power is ONE Mega Watt, so what. Lithium is still 40 times denser that fuel. Aviation fuel still has superior density compared to Lithium.
I would think multiple 596kw Koenigsedd Darkmatter raxial flux motors would be ideal for prop liners since they are so lightweight.
Crackpot Idea: Use an electronic catapult, as used with aircraft carriers, to accelerate commercial electric airplanes during takeoff. The G forces would be lower than in a fighter jet if the tarmac is longer allowing a longer acceleration. The highest power demand is for takeoff, so this would offload the heaviest demand of the motors.
- no this is not a crackpot idea (that would be electric airliners with what we know of REDOX) - more on the line of a ground based glider tow (a 3000m airstrip is long enough for probably 50000 ft altitude - needs a short launch and a quick climb, one cold even use a short range electric tug aircraft to launch to 20000 ft - (that duty cycle may be possible - with a glide recovery)
Launch em froma Tesla roadster!!!
@@sparkysho-ze7nm the Big T (class 8 short-range prime mover) may be more suited... Those piddly car shafts may not take the strain...
Good thing I no longer have to fly anywhere! If people are being warned not to park their vehicles anywhere near E.V.'s because they have been known to catch fire and burn all the vehicles around them...just imagine what a battery fire on a plane would be like!
Nice and clean 🧼
I actually have a idea for cheaper flights. Two large balloons tethered to the ground with the cable at each airport. A glider rides up the cable using minimum power once it reaches the top just release and glide all the way to the other airport where there's another balloon to launch from so it can go back and forth with minimal energy. The higher the launching balloon the further it can fly and it doesn't need any onboard energy source so the changes of failure is also minimized.
The air at 10000 meters is fresher than sea level is true statement, like you said... The problem arrives on your aproach, when you try to keep the flight level at that altitude, with such low air density. You have to increase rpm to get a sustainable air flow due the lack of matter there(...). Increasing the rpm will increase temperature, if im not wrong. So? And you have another phenomena. Running an "empty" electric motor, can increase substantially the RPM, but does not mean you are having a direct gain on the plane performance. Just a few thoughts.
Much of the fuel used on short haul passenger jets is simply to get up to operational height and speed. Part of the reason for that is to reduce noise impact on people below. A quiet electric plane with best current technology batteries would be an interesting option for the 100 to 400 mile routes. If batteries improve it should be relatively easy to then introduce medium range versions.
I can’t think of anything better than an aircraft making use of structural batteries 😊😊
Aviation gets battered but makes up around 3% of global co2. Jet engines are crazy efficient and still get 20% efficiency gains every 5-6 years. They don’t spew masses amount, per passenger use far less fuel going anywhere than a car. A couple of hours flight time maybe 20kg per passenger at 8/10ths the speed of sound. Whilst new tech should be researched we don’t need to put the square peg in the round hole, electric propulsion doesn’t fit Aviation yet. This couldn’t be swapped out with any existing aircraft and would need to create a whole new aircraft from the ground up. The size is around the business jet market. Which is a tiny tiny market. Compared to airliners that never sleep. Most likely electric motors will power propellers so it’s going to be slower than jet engines and much more noisey.
Also cooling is not easier at high altitude or simpler than an EV the pressure from the engines is what produces the pressurisation that allows everyone to breath. It would require a whole new system design to electrically powered.
Attach a proper size propeller. Break one blade of the propeller while the motor is running at full speed. Check if the motor survives and does not fly from it's foundations and can be stopped safely. That should be the first test for approval.
RocketLab already uses a 60hp electric motor the size of a coke can. Probably Supercooled.
Rolls Royce has already created a lightweight 2 mw motor, for their E-FanX hybrid aircraft. But the project was an abject failure, as they could not power it.
A hybrid aircraft can NEVER work. Think about it - it takes the same amount of energy to get from A to B, but a hybrid has just trebled the weight of the power unit.
Hybrids are a nonsense for aircraft, because there are NO GAINS. Batteries are too heavy. And hydrogen is too volumous.
Face facts - airliners will remain Jet-A1 powered for some considerable time.
Ralph
You might not get as much cooling as you expect at 28,000 feet. Although it is a lot cooler, the air is only about 16% as dense at that height and I think will only cool down motors at about 16% of the level it would do at at sea level, although the reduced temperature will increase the amount of cooling at height.
Kinda commented in circles there
Se sustenta asas, por que não resfriaria?
High performance batteries are dramatically higher risk than compressed hydrogen tanks. Liquid hydrogen must be either kept at temperature or used as it phase changes back to a gas as temperature increases. The majority of incidents with liquid hydrogen are handling failures .Compressed hydrogen tanks can be left filled indefinitely as any other gas. Electric motors rairly improved density verses internal combustion(nissan leaf powerpack verses Nissan inline four with transmission if you would like a visual reference). Because the substantial transformers control electronics & power cables are 80% of a electric power train with the motor only being 20%(excluding batteries). Electric is a option with extreme challenges in energy storage, mass, & raw material production. Advanced nuclear, hydrogen internal combustion hybrids, & electric for public transport/short range EV. Would be a viable option before 2030 for negative CO2. Negative will be required as China, South America & Africa will not be cutting coal or hydrocarbon fuels before 2050.
Since aviation already has specialized fueling infrastructure, they are the primary industry that could potentially make use of hydrogen engines (not fuel cells, but hydrogen jets). If they don't, you are looking at slower cruising speeds from these prop driven electric motors. And it won't be as quiet as you think. The tips of the propellors generate lots of noise. I wouldn't be concerned about a hydrogen explosion any more than a jp4 explosion, or an NCM battery explosion. I just don't want the flight to take 30 to 50 percent longer. Short commuter flights can get away with props and batteries, but transoceanic flights will want maximum speed. And if supersonic commercial travel is ever to return (and many are trying to bring it back), something has to burn. I'd rather have it be hydrogen. Save the lithium for my next car :)
Hydrogen can’t just get pumped into the wings would need to be in a pressure vessel to cope with insane amounts of pressure so usually round or oblong which is a terrible form factor for an aircraft, would need to be probably 1000bar of pressure minimum to store any usable amount of fuel. Which would take a very long time to fuel. I’m defo not convinced hydrogen will ever be used for commercial jets
Hi, thank you Sir, as I previously stated, I'm working on new innovative ideas and solutions for Air, Space, Road Vehicles and components. Weigh is and has always been a concern, but so is fire, heat, combustion, in any applicable substance. An Aircraft, say a 737, can shed 300K Lbs just by not carrying fuel, for starters, reduce it's potential to of course not, run of gas, and crash, but not to explode, in any case. In the case of the SR-71, mostly declassified, you don't have to carry components such as fuel lines, pumps, coolers, and heat exchangers, any more either. Which leaves the air-frame, and Hyper-Sonic above, temperature, and strength. My mind goes to, or would enjoy experimenting with the problem Carbon. C is light, strong, almost un-melt able, loves the elements(lol), and workable, abundant. Has anyone ever tried to turn say a 200ft X 200ft X 30ft Carbon block into an Airliner, or monocoque space-frame, chassis, or something, yet? Problem is I don't know of a way to melt, or liquify it, so it can only be cut, drilled, honed, scraped, had worked, I'm thinking. However it could solve our problems there, the other is still Carbon or graphene, for electrical, and radiation, shielding reasons, I'm wondering, anybody know? Yay Yay or Nay Nay
Man that’ll take a long extension cord!
and a team of mules to drag around (Seriously, it would need to be like 100pounds per foot just to avoid melting)
Wow, good video 👍
I’m cool on batteries discharging over the ocean
Preliminary step should be "liquidpiston" form factor electricity generation
That is really exciting. I have a novel aircraft configuration that will take full advantage of this motor type. One thing you didn’t but should have mentioned is the fundamental feature of the compact motor is that it is an Axial Flux motor. This is a motor where the magnetic flux operates for and aft rather than, radial, which inside to outside. Unfortunately you mixed up the motor types uniformally through the video so it is totally unclear which typ this new motor is. I am guessing that it is an Axial Flux. The advantage is that these motors have a greater moment (diameter from the shaft) of effort so can develop more torque at slower speed (do not need gearing), and can have a large hole through the motor for a secondary power shaft where the electric motor is disengaged with a clutch.
Another type of motor that was being explored early in the electric aviation development were “Ironless Motors”, and I have lost track of where that technology got to. The axial flux motors also called print motors and pancake motors are very near to ironless motors in advantage.
yes Axial Flux BLDC motor are the most power dens in production but not the best, new compound BLDC motor mix 2 types of motors in one housing Axial Flux & radial flux motor . I have designed Axial Flux & out runner BLDC motor. Ironless Motors will never be as powerful as a motor with iron .
@@BadManPromotionsbldc? Me engana que eu gosto. É motor trifásico de corrente alternada.
sustainable aviation fuel is a thing, just not a BIG thing. The kerosene is grown in tanks by special algae. They turn CO2 and sunlight into fuel that can be refined via centrifuge.
I love this. Would people please stop flying as much as they can until the aircraft industry can deliver something to cut the insane carbon footprint of air travel? That should provide a bit of an economic imperative to them. Regulation would also help but I'm not holding my breath for that.
Tesla's plaid motor weighs 99 lbs and produces 750 kw so this does not seem like much of a stretch.
Hydrogen has the problem of power to volume not power to weight. Batteries are improving so rapidly that the airplane could be designed now betting on the battery density improving by enough to be viable before the vehicle will be ready for flight.
I found a way to make a electric motor about 11% more efficient , I spent years delving into motors , I remain skeptical that anything revolutionary is happening here , hollow conductor cooling can increase power density a lot , I think that is what this is and that is far from a "breakthrough".
While it mgiht be possible to make a small jet; the battery to power it becomes the crtical matter. Similar to Tesla Semi when you have a heavy battery; it limits distance under load. If this jet is 1 Megawatt - then with current tech you'd need the large semi size battery to power the jet for just 1 hour. With current battery tech; this would be a max of 500 miles range; such jets are smaller so current tech would not do well even for short flights, as you'd have to cut into passengers and cargo carried. IF some new battery tech came along that was say 2x or 4x as dense as lithium then maybe - but it has to be very safe; your in a plane. you can't have a fire.
Number of fires in a hydrogen car- 0
Number of fires in an EV- 10,000 plus
How about CNG cars
Want a real change, make a electric fan engine in the format of a current jet engine so it could be plugged in and batteries in the 'belly' and some in the wings where fuel tanks are currently could be wonderful. High voltage and something like 400Hz would work nicely.
Very good Amazing ❤❤❤
Not in our lifetimes. Next generation batteries better have the power density of fuel, otherwise it's a no-go. Then you have to consider the 'carbon footprint' of the manufacturing of the batteries, which nullifies the perceived footprint. I won't hold my breath.
Sam, your fear of hydrogen is misplaced the The Air Force in the 50s late 50s and 1960s did a study of feeling jets with liquid, hydrogen and liquid oxygen and found them to be safe . hydrogen escapes at 47 miles an hour has no carbon Contant so it has very little radiative heat. I have two Toyota Mirai fuel cell cars that were burned bought at salvage. I could not find any hydrogen or electrical source of the fire. I think they were torched with hydrocarbon liquid fuels on for insurance purposes.
Hydrogen is dead.
Good development, and we can expect more over the next decade or so, because engineers have only just started giving some serious attention to motors for aircraft (ie, ultra low-weight)
The major constraint is still the weight of the batteries, but I expect that this will also improve dramatically over the next decade.
Energy density factor in between fosil fuels and accumulators (even the most recent ones and the ones to be imaginable) is about 40 - 45. This will break any true electric aircraft's neck
@@stephanmariahitzel6102 True that the EDF is about 40 now, only about 25% of the energy in AvTur gets to actually turn the propellor, so the real factor is 10 and dropping as batteries improve.
Despite that, I don't see any replacements for jet engines for long distance flight, greater than about 1000km. Propellor tip velocity is the limiting factor for propellor-driven aircraft, whether they be turbo- or electric-driven. This limits operational speed to about 600 km/hr, and would nearly double the time taken for long-distance travel.
So I see the turboprop regional airliner being replaced by an electric version fairly soon, but international travellers will still burn fossil fuel or a synthetic version thereof.
@@davidinkster1296
The annual AIAA-Aviation Conferences also deals with electric propulsion for air-vehicles.
Here, recent estimations push a factor of 10 close to mission impossible because of the stand- and re-load cycles of eventual accumulators.
Also the progress is fairly slow to get beyond the 40, let alone to come close to 10, which still would be a desaster.
Thus an average of 8-12 times reloading such higher density storage kills itself by in-efficiency and the frequent renewal of such accumulators.
The short-range aviation business runs into the same issues -
considering the air-taxi stuff we are touching the realm of madness in safety and economic reason and numbers.
Превосходное направление авиации !☝😃🌈
Lunatic(s) produce lunacy! Here are some nuts.
Propellers, especially those generating high thrust, are noisy from cavitation and tip votices.
The motors turning them can be totally silent, but the propeller sound can still be deafening.
I once heard a WW2 P51 start up at Van Nuys Airport in L.A. County, and the whole airport
stopped to see what was generating all that racket. Quiet props are an engineering challenge.
Yes BIIIG Giant huge battery packs with lots and lots of lithium. (drool drool) cha ching cha ching.
How's that Tesla battery semi truck coming along for ya?
Petroleum powered aircraft will be with us for the foreseeable future.
We’ve worked out issues with fires and fire suppression- as well as fuel balancing/ weight.
It’ll be a LONG TIME before you have commercial aircraft EV.
Not that I don’t want to see it.
An EV a380, EV 747, EV 787, or EV a350 would solve the world’s transportation problems.
But you will NEVER get Governments to sign off on EV engine cross-continental ETOPS.
The skys the limit they say!! Way to go MIT!!
There is no gas turbine engine in those concept videos. Only an electric engine and its ECU or ESC. The animation is misleading.
Silent? Props, turbines and superfast air, is not silent.
Siemens has had powerful pancake motors for aviation for 10 years -
They served the pancake with cream and fruit - never on aircraft
The clock is ticking,it’s only a matter of time, imagine an airline that doesn’t get held back by the costs of fossil fuel 😮😊
I believe it's only going to get better!
Let the dead things die
The motor doesn't impress me any, it's the fuel that needs to have huge advances, ie the batteries. Take the best most energy dense batteries out there and compare to jet fuel. How much energy does one gallon of jet fuel have? How much energy does an equivalent weight or volume of those batteries have? Not even close. We're moving in the right direction but we're still nowhere near close.
Fuel + jet engines make up about 70% total weight of most aircraft. Eaircraft is the ticket for short to medium range commercial aircraft.
MIT's Megawatt Electric Motor. Is it going to be? Definitely, cooled by cryogenics? The science. You know what, students truly need the funding and actually functional future technologies to prosper in science, and even more in the imaginary realities created around them thus far, and those technologies shouldn't be glorified and made repulsive by people who force their way into the spotlight. Anyhow; What do I know? It's how the world works.
Redundancy in a hybrid design seems to be an advantage 🤔
It will also permit take off and landing 24/7.
I still like the airliners from the Flintstones, now that was fossil fuel free before they became fossil fuel today.
the noise of aircraft are the impellers more than the combustion. I don't think we'll see a big decrease in sound volume
It depends. The battery-powered Cessna Caravan converted with a MagniX motor made less noise on the ground than the camera Caravan filming it during a demo, even though the combustion-powered plane flew at twice the altitude.
You can use all the magical mystery motors and batteries you like and you still cant recharge the things in any reasonable turn around time. Even a business jet would require a charge cable so big it would need a small crane just to plug it in.(set aside the airport logistics of outlets and safety issues will multithousand volt supplies needed even with a crane)
Battery tech is evolving and using new chemistry we could see rapid charging very soon. Also, removable battery packs could be a solution.
@@bobafet6064 I have worked with electric vehicles that had swappable batteries (very old established tech, no one suggesting it as a workaround is clever.) My first degree and job was in electric power distribution.
I've also done all the basic engineerinmg calculations for electric aircraft and I currently operate aircraft daily. I am very familiar with the real world capabilities and requirements.
The only people pushing electric aircraft are just looking for an angle on academic grant money for tangential purposes. eg these new motor designs, which could be used for non-aviation tasks and to satisfy academic curiosity and understanding of new motor concepts. (There are also investment scammers but they cover all fields.)
100 tons of batteries is no joke to swap out. Electric cells are a chemistry technology and constrained by their relation to physical work. Chemistry advances linearly, unlike the illusion of exponential growth created by integrated circuits which [until recently] only needed to shrink to give the appearance of advancement, because they deal in information not physical work. (Really the less work they do per unit information they better they are.)
It is well known that turboprop aircraft are more efficient than pure jet. However passengers don’t like spinning propellers anymore and so most commuter carriers have switched to small regional jets despite their lower efficiency. It is ironic that we would switch back to propeller driven aircraft. Perhaps they could design a ducted fan electric engine that looks like a high bypass jet engine to fool passengers they are still in a jet. Again, the propeller would have been more efficient…
Turboprops only more Efficient on very small hops. Jets are way more efficient at optimum cruise anything over 2 hours is pure gains.
Wao amazing
R Batteries likely to be the best solution to aviation or hydrogen?
A bit off topic, but... given all the "net-zero" programs now underway, does anyone know what the target atmospheric CO2 concentration is for those efforts? In other words, what's the goal?
The goal is societal and political change transitioning the world to a totalitarian global socialist gov't...CO2 is irrelevant.
Great show ! Your graphics are excellent !
Thank you very much!
You have to turn the battery pack into a wing.
EMF emissions are a consideration
What is the weight of 1 MWH hour of battery?
Your looking mighty bushy there mr. wolfman😮😮😮😮😮😮
Some crazy names
but silent flights mean you can hear peoples farts and snoring
Good👍♥️
there looking into electric takeoff and landing and normal turbine for cruise to satisfy noise regulations
Wasn't it so that plane engine noise came more from the rotors than the motor?
Those spinning props are noisy even on electric planes but in decent, it would be nice and peaceful. I wonder if they will have folding props when no power is required or use the props for regen in decent.