![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() http://www.gizmag.com/siemens-world-record-electric-motor-aircraft/37048/ Siemens' world-record electric aircraft motor punches above its weight COLIN JEFFREY APRIL 20, 2015 7 PICTURES Researchers working at Siemens say that they have produced an electric aircraft engine with a claimed ... Researchers working at Siemens say that they have produced an electric aircraft engine with a claimed weight-to-performance ratio of 5 kW per kilogram (Photo: Siemens) Image Gallery (7 images) Researchers at Siemens have created a new prototype electric motor specifically designed for aircraft that weighs in at just 50 kg (110 lb) and is claimed to produce about 260 kW (348 hp) at just 2,500 RPM. With a quoted power five times greater than any comparable powerplant, the new motor promises enough grunt to get aircraft with take-off weights of up to 1,800 kg (2 ton) off the ground. The motor was developed with the support of the German Aviation Research Program LuFo as a ... Siemens hopes to see further evolutionary increases to the power output of their new electric motor ... Researchers also utilized a range of computer simulation methods to model the motor prior to construction .... Weighing in at just 50 kilograms (110 lb), a new prototype electric motor specifically designed for ... Researchers say they produced such a light but powerful motor by analyzing all of the components of previous electric aircraft motors and incorporating optimized improvements to these in their new prototype. Added to this, the researchers also utilized a range of computer simulation methods to model the motor prior to construction, before then applying the findings to produce the lightest and strongest set of components possible. As a result, the new aircraft electric drive system achieves a claimed weight-to-performance ratio of 5 kW per kilogram. This ratio is an exceptional figure – especially if compared to similarly powerful industrial electric motors used in heavy machinery that produce less than 1 kW per kilogram, or even to more efficient electric motors for vehicles that generate around 2 kW per kilogram. The four electric motors in the Solar Impulse 2, by comparison, produce just 7.5 kW (10 hp) each. The new Siemens electric motor is also direct drive and does not require a transmission, spinning a propeller up to speeds of around 2,500 RPM. "This innovation will make it possible to build series hybrid-electric aircraft with four or more seats," said Frank Anton, Head of eAircraft at Siemens Corporate Technology, the company's central research unit. "We're convinced that the use of hybrid-electric drives in regional airliners with 50 to 100 passengers is a real medium-term possibility." Siemens has been involved in a range of electric motor driven vehicles, including a collaboration with Volvo on a fast-charging motor vehicle and with shipping company Norland for an electrically-driven passenger ferry. This electric motor innovation, however, may be just the ticket for the company's joint venture with the Diamond aircraft company, who they supply with electric fan motors for their DA36 E-Star 2 motor glider. The last one generated just 60 kW. The motor, which was developed with the support of the German Aviation Research Program LuFo as a project of Grob Aircraft and Siemens, is planned to start in-flight-testing before the end of 2015. Siemens also hopes to see further evolutionary increases to the power output in the not-too-distant future. Source: Siemens |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 4:38:18 PM UTC-5, Larry Dighera wrote:
http://www.gizmag.com/siemens-world-record-electric-motor-aircraft/37048/ Siemens' world-record electric aircraft motor punches above its weight COLIN JEFFREY APRIL 20, 2015 7 PICTURES Researchers working at Siemens say that they have produced an electric aircraft engine with a claimed ... Researchers working at Siemens say that they have produced an electric aircraft engine with a claimed weight-to-performance ratio of 5 kW per kilogram (Photo: Siemens) Image Gallery (7 images) Researchers at Siemens have created a new prototype electric motor specifically designed for aircraft that weighs in at just 50 kg (110 lb) and is claimed to produce about 260 kW (348 hp) at just 2,500 RPM. With a quoted power five times greater than any comparable powerplant, the new motor promises enough grunt to get aircraft with take-off weights of up to 1,800 kg (2 ton) off the ground. The motor was developed with the support of the German Aviation Research Program LuFo as a ... Siemens hopes to see further evolutionary increases to the power output of their new electric motor ... Researchers also utilized a range of computer simulation methods to model the motor prior to construction ... Weighing in at just 50 kilograms (110 lb), a new prototype electric motor specifically designed for ... Researchers say they produced such a light but powerful motor by analyzing all of the components of previous electric aircraft motors and incorporating optimized improvements to these in their new prototype. Added to this, the researchers also utilized a range of computer simulation methods to model the motor prior to construction, before then applying the findings to produce the lightest and strongest set of components possible. As a result, the new aircraft electric drive system achieves a claimed weight-to-performance ratio of 5 kW per kilogram. This ratio is an exceptional figure - especially if compared to similarly powerful industrial electric motors used in heavy machinery that produce less than 1 kW per kilogram, or even to more efficient electric motors for vehicles that generate around 2 kW per kilogram. The four electric motors in the Solar Impulse 2, by comparison, produce just 7.5 kW (10 hp) each. The new Siemens electric motor is also direct drive and does not require a transmission, spinning a propeller up to speeds of around 2,500 RPM. "This innovation will make it possible to build series hybrid-electric aircraft with four or more seats," said Frank Anton, Head of eAircraft at Siemens Corporate Technology, the company's central research unit. "We're convinced that the use of hybrid-electric drives in regional airliners with 50 to 100 passengers is a real medium-term possibility." Siemens has been involved in a range of electric motor driven vehicles, including a collaboration with Volvo on a fast-charging motor vehicle and with shipping company Norland for an electrically-driven passenger ferry. This electric motor innovation, however, may be just the ticket for the company's joint venture with the Diamond aircraft company, who they supply with electric fan motors for their DA36 E-Star 2 motor glider. The last one generated just 60 kW. The motor, which was developed with the support of the German Aviation Research Program LuFo as a project of Grob Aircraft and Siemens, is planned to start in-flight-testing before the end of 2015. Siemens also hopes to see further evolutionary increases to the power output in the not-too-distant future. Source: Siemens Electric Airplanes: More torque More BHP Altitude unaffected Quieter No plugs No carburetor Sustainable Lighter weight No messy fluids As researchers continue to work on creating better batteries, the logical solution all along was always the Auxiliary Power Unit for charging. In an ideal world, there would be a RTG such as NASA and Russian lighthouses have used for decades. The Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators can put out whopping power from a container the size of a coffee thermos. Fairly benign from a gamma ray exposure standpoint, you could keep an electric airplane up for weeks at a time. Thanks for the post. I had it in my electric plane database. Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owPUOI6Urg8 --- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:51:57 PM UTC-5, Vaughn Simon wrote:
On 11/14/2015 5:14 PM, wrote: As researchers continue to work on creating better batteries, the logical solution all along was always the Auxiliary Power Unit for charging. Well yes that will work (assuming an electric drive train with a battery) , ...as long as that APU produces significantly MORE power than the average that you will need at the prop hub. The reason why you would need MORE power is to make up for the losses inherent in the generator, motor, battery, and controller. In an ideal world, there would be a RTG such as NASA and Russian lighthouses have used for decades. The Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators can put out whopping power from a container the size of a coffee thermos. Fairly benign from a gamma ray exposure standpoint, you could keep an electric airplane up for weeks at a time. Sorry, that is just complete nonsense! Forgetting for a moment the problems with carrying highly radioactive materials in an aircraft, Yes, I said "in a perfect world" (not the current one). While it's legal to obtain a permit to work with radioactive material, few can do it, and the FAA wouldn't even consider such. But then, who says you have to do it in a modern country. and forgetting that those materials are so rare and expensive They can be obtained for a few planes, but no, you couldn't mass produce this system. I think you may be surprised at how easy it is to obtain an isotope on the world market. that even few spacecraft use them these days, They are still used in every deep space mission. RTGs are very inefficient devices. They are highly efficient. It's just a thermocouple system. Most produce, at most, a few hundred watts of electrical power, a tiny fraction of what a full-sized aircraft would need. Well yes. I wasn't suggesting attaching the motor itself to the RTG. I'm saying- if you have a battery bank that may last say 2 hours stand alone, then having the storage system permanently connected to this battery charger, depending on your draw, would be a tremendous extender. It's like having your battery bank plugged into a wall socket at all times to an electrical source much stronger than a trickle charger. Your watt/amp gauge would tell you when to conserve. And yes, 400 watts would be about max. Really the question is, "how much electricity can I replace with the charger, as opposed to what the motor is pulling out of the battery bank". If you are soaring, you're using no power but it's still charging. --- |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 10:02:07 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:51:57 PM UTC-5, Vaughn Simon wrote: On 11/14/2015 5:14 PM, wrote: As researchers continue to work on creating better batteries, the logical solution all along was always the Auxiliary Power Unit for charging. Well yes that will work (assuming an electric drive train with a battery) , ...as long as that APU produces significantly MORE power than the average that you will need at the prop hub. The reason why you would need MORE power is to make up for the losses inherent in the generator, motor, battery, and controller. In an ideal world, there would be a RTG such as NASA and Russian lighthouses have used for decades. The Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators can put out whopping power from a container the size of a coffee thermos. Fairly benign from a gamma ray exposure standpoint, you could keep an electric airplane up for weeks at a time. Sorry, that is just complete nonsense! Forgetting for a moment the problems with carrying highly radioactive materials in an aircraft, Yes, I said "in a perfect world" (not the current one). While it's legal to obtain a permit to work with radioactive material, few can do it, and the FAA wouldn't even consider such. But then, who says you have to do it in a modern country. and forgetting that those materials are so rare and expensive They can be obtained for a few planes, but no, you couldn't mass produce this system. I think you may be surprised at how easy it is to obtain an isotope on the world market. that even few spacecraft use them these days, They are still used in every deep space mission. RTGs are very inefficient devices. They are highly efficient. It's just a thermocouple system. Most produce, at most, a few hundred watts of electrical power, a tiny fraction of what a full-sized aircraft would need. Well yes. I wasn't suggesting attaching the motor itself to the RTG. I'm saying- if you have a battery bank that may last say 2 hours stand alone, then having the storage system permanently connected to this battery charger, depending on your draw, would be a tremendous extender. It's like having your battery bank plugged into a wall socket at all times to an electrical source much stronger than a trickle charger. Your watt/amp gauge would tell you when to conserve. And yes, 400 watts would be about max. Really the question is, "how much electricity can I replace with the charger, as opposed to what the motor is pulling out of the battery bank". If you are soaring, you're using no power but it's still charging. --- I believe an automobile, due to weight and tire friction, requires more power than a plane. This is just a guess. "According to the company, their technology would allow you to charge the battery of a Nissan Leaf in 12 minutes instead of four hours. Because that battery has a capacity of 24 kWh, a back-of-the-envelope extrapolation would give us a charging time of 42 minutes for the 85 kWh battery of a top of the line Tesla Model S." http://www.gizmag.com/dual-carbon-fa...battery/32121/ --- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:51:57 PM UTC-5, Vaughn Simon wrote:
On 11/14/2015 5:14 PM, wrote: As researchers continue to work on creating better batteries, the logical solution all along was always the Auxiliary Power Unit for charging. Well yes that will work (assuming an electric drive train with a battery) , ...as long as that APU produces significantly MORE power than the average that you will need at the prop hub. The reason why you would need MORE power is to make up for the losses inherent in the generator, motor, battery, and controller. Also, I forgot to mention that I'm a professional designer and illustrator, formerly with Lockheed- Martin. Within this electric airplane concept which would sustain these very long ranges with an RTG, is a series of conforming "mini-tanks" which encapsulate major electrical components. Holding no more than 5 gallons total, you top them off with liquid nitrogen. This cryogenic sealed system effectively turns your electrical system into a zero-resistance super conductor. Control surfaces are best facilitated with servos and fly by wire software. This may sound a little exotic, but other people have verified the plausibility and science behind it. A home-build isn't out of the question. With generator, super conduction, and fast charge NON-lithium batteries, the range may really be how long you can sit in a seat. --- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:20:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:51:57 PM UTC-5, Vaughn Simon wrote: On 11/14/2015 5:14 PM, wrote: As researchers continue to work on creating better batteries, the logical solution all along was always the Auxiliary Power Unit for charging. Well yes that will work (assuming an electric drive train with a battery) , ...as long as that APU produces significantly MORE power than the average that you will need at the prop hub. The reason why you would need MORE power is to make up for the losses inherent in the generator, motor, battery, and controller. Also, I forgot to mention that I'm a professional designer and illustrator, formerly with Lockheed- Martin. Within this electric airplane concept which would sustain these very long ranges with an RTG, is a series of conforming "mini-tanks" which encapsulate major electrical components. Holding no more than 5 gallons total, you top them off with liquid nitrogen. This cryogenic sealed system effectively turns your electrical system into a zero-resistance super conductor. Control surfaces are best facilitated with servos and fly by wire software. This may sound a little exotic, but other people have verified the plausibility and science behind it. A home-build isn't out of the question. With generator, super conduction, and fast charge NON-lithium batteries, the range may really be how long you can sit in a seat. --- Here's some other guys design of the same idea, but EDFs (electric ducted fans)are less efficient than propellers. ....superconducting machines have already achieved power densities comparable to turbine engines. To fully enable electric flight however, power densities need to improve even further, which is only possible with all-superconducting machines. We developed design concepts for revolutionary aircraft using superconducting machines for propulsion and showed that with further development in superconducting and cryocooling technologies, all within reach, superconductivity- enabled flight could be a reality... http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Scienc...p?NewsNum=2712 --- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Just for clarification here, while it would be nice to
have an RTG (especially since it takes 100 years to run out of charge) obviously for the ordinary man and pilot this would be difficult. Also, adherence to rules is of course, foremost. It is however a do-able concept that doesn't violate the law of energy conservation. That being said, simply replace that component with a hydrogen fuel cell. A little different, but people are doing it and it works for an APU charger. Combined with quick charge batteries, you'll be fine. Lastly I want to give an illustration. If you take a dc light bulb, a 9 volt battery, and say... 50 feet or more of wire and make the connection, you will either see no light, or a faint orange glow. Then if you take that same coil of wire and drop it into a bucket of liquid nitrogen with the 2 ends hanging out, then connect the bulb and battery, it will burn as bright white as the battery touching the bulb itself. This is due to zero resistance and super conductivity. Now, being realistic think of an airplane today with a long wiring harness of several wires. It will be zip tied to the frame and run through grommets at points to prevent sheathing penetration. What if we take that harness and run it through an insulated metal tubing, with leak-proof ends. Imagine an insertion point wherein you can inject liquid nitrogen. You have now just done the same thing as in the above illustration. This is just one example of my design that could be installed in your cryogenic system to achieve super conductivity. Should the liquid nitrogen warm over an extended period... it will harmlessly vaporize, and you'll recharge it as needed. --- |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:20:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:51:57 PM UTC-5, Vaughn Simon wrote: On 11/14/2015 5:14 PM, wrote: As researchers continue to work on creating better batteries, the logical solution all along was always the Auxiliary Power Unit for charging. Well yes that will work (assuming an electric drive train with a battery) , ...as long as that APU produces significantly MORE power than the average that you will need at the prop hub. The reason why you would need MORE power is to make up for the losses inherent in the generator, motor, battery, and controller. Also, I forgot to mention that I'm a professional designer and illustrator, formerly with Lockheed- Martin. Within this electric airplane concept which would sustain these very long ranges with an RTG, is a series of conforming "mini-tanks" which encapsulate major electrical components. Holding no more than 5 gallons total, you top them off with liquid nitrogen. This cryogenic sealed system effectively turns your electrical system into a zero-resistance super conductor. Control surfaces are best facilitated with servos and fly by wire software. This may sound a little exotic, but other people have verified the plausibility and science behind it. A home-build isn't out of the question. With generator, super conduction, and fast charge NON-lithium batteries, the range may really be how long you can sit in a seat. --- Anyway... Basic Aircraft Electrical Systems Some very simple single engine aircraft do not have an electrical system installed. The piston engine is equiped with a Magneto ignition system, which is self powering, and the fuel tank is situated so it will gravity feed the engine. The aircraft is started by means of a flywheel and crank arrangement or by "hand-proping" the engine. If an electric starter, lights, electric flight instruments, navigation aids or radios are desired, an electrical system becomes a necessity. In most cases, the system will be DC powered using a single distribution bus, a single battery and a single engine driven generator or alternator. Provisions, in the form of an on/off switch, will be incorporated to allow the battery to be isolated from the bus and for the generator/alternator to be isolated from the bus. An ammeter, loadmeter or warning light will also be incorporated to provide an indication of charging system failure. Electrical components will be wired to the bus-bar incorporating either circuit breakers or fuses for circuit protection. Provisions may be provided to allow an external power source such as an extra battery or a Ground Power Unit to be connected to assist with the engine start or to provide power whilst the engine is not running. Advanced Aircraft Electrical Systems More sophisticated electrical systems are usually multiple voltage systems using a combination of AC and DC buses to power various aircraft components.. Primary power generation is normally AC with one or more Transformer Rectifier Unit (TRU) providing conversion to DC voltage to power the DC busses. Secondary AC generation from an APU is usually provided for use on the ground when engines are not running and for airborne use in the event of component failure. Tertiary generation in the form of a hydraulic motor or a RAT may also be incorporated into the system to provide redundancy in the event of multiple failures. Essential AC and DC components are wired to specific busses and special provisions are made to provide power to these busses under almost all failure situations. In the event that all AC power generation is lost, a static Inverter is included in the system so the Essential AC bus can be powered from the aircraft batteries. Robust system monitoring and failure warning provisions are incorporated into the electrical system and these are presented to the pilots when appropriate. Warnings may include, but are not limited to, generator malfuntion/failure, TRU failure, battery failure, bus fault/failure and circuit breaker monitoring. The manufacturer will also provide detailed electrical system isolation procedures to be utilized in the event of an electrical fire. In compliance with applicable regulations, components such as Standby Flight Instruments and Emergency Floor Lighting have their own backup power supplies and will function even in the event of a complete electrical system failure. Provisions are virtually always provided for connecting the aircraft electrical system to a fixed or mobile Ground Power Unit. http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/A...trical_Systems --- |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 6:15:13 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:20:42 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:51:57 PM UTC-5, Vaughn Simon wrote: On 11/14/2015 5:14 PM, wrote: As researchers continue to work on creating better batteries, the logical solution all along was always the Auxiliary Power Unit for charging. Well yes that will work (assuming an electric drive train with a battery) , ...as long as that APU produces significantly MORE power than the average that you will need at the prop hub. The reason why you would need MORE power is to make up for the losses inherent in the generator, motor, battery, and controller. Also, I forgot to mention that I'm a professional designer and illustrator, formerly with Lockheed- Martin. Within this electric airplane concept which would sustain these very long ranges with an RTG, is a series of conforming "mini-tanks" which encapsulate major electrical components. Holding no more than 5 gallons total, you top them off with liquid nitrogen. This cryogenic sealed system effectively turns your electrical system into a zero-resistance super conductor. Control surfaces are best facilitated with servos and fly by wire software. This may sound a little exotic, but other people have verified the plausibility and science behind it. A home-build isn't out of the question. With generator, super conduction, and fast charge NON-lithium batteries, the range may really be how long you can sit in a seat. --- Anyway... Basic Aircraft Electrical Systems Some very simple single engine aircraft do not have an electrical system installed. The piston engine is equiped with a Magneto ignition system, which is self powering, and the fuel tank is situated so it will gravity feed the engine. The aircraft is started by means of a flywheel and crank arrangement or by "hand-proping" the engine. If an electric starter, lights, electric flight instruments, navigation aids or radios are desired, an electrical system becomes a necessity. In most cases, the system will be DC powered using a single distribution bus, a single battery and a single engine driven generator or alternator. Provisions, in the form of an on/off switch, will be incorporated to allow the battery to be isolated from the bus and for the generator/alternator to be isolated from the bus. An ammeter, loadmeter or warning light will also be incorporated to provide an indication of charging system failure. Electrical components will be wired to the bus-bar incorporating either circuit breakers or fuses for circuit protection. Provisions may be provided to allow an external power source such as an extra battery or a Ground Power Unit to be connected to assist with the engine start or to provide power whilst the engine is not running. Advanced Aircraft Electrical Systems More sophisticated electrical systems are usually multiple voltage systems using a combination of AC and DC buses to power various aircraft components. Primary power generation is normally AC with one or more Transformer Rectifier Unit (TRU) providing conversion to DC voltage to power the DC busses. Secondary AC generation from an APU is usually provided for use on the ground when engines are not running and for airborne use in the event of component failure. Tertiary generation in the form of a hydraulic motor or a RAT may also be incorporated into the system to provide redundancy in the event of multiple failures. Essential AC and DC components are wired to specific busses and special provisions are made to provide power to these busses under almost all failure situations. In the event that all AC power generation is lost, a static Inverter is included in the system so the Essential AC bus can be powered from the aircraft batteries. Robust system monitoring and failure warning provisions are incorporated into the electrical system and these are presented to the pilots when appropriate. Warnings may include, but are not limited to, generator malfuntion/failure, TRU failure, battery failure, bus fault/failure and circuit breaker monitoring. The manufacturer will also provide detailed electrical system isolation procedures to be utilized in the event of an electrical fire. In compliance with applicable regulations, components such as Standby Flight Instruments and Emergency Floor Lighting have their own backup power supplies and will function even in the event of a complete electrical system failure. Provisions are virtually always provided for connecting the aircraft electrical system to a fixed or mobile Ground Power Unit. http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/A...trical_Systems --- Conductors lose all of their electrical resistance when cooled to super-low temperatures (near absolute zero, about -273o Celsius). It must be understood that superconductivity is not merely an extrapolation of most conductors' tendency to gradually lose resistance with decreasing temperature; rather, it is a sudden, quantum leap in resistivity from finite to nothing. A superconducting material has absolutely zero electrical resistance, not just some small amount. Superconductivity promises extraordinary capabilities for electric circuits.. If conductor resistance could be eliminated entirely, there would be no power losses or inefficiencies in electric power systems due to stray resistances. Electric motors could be made almost perfectly (100%) efficient. Components such as capacitors and inductors, whose ideal characteristics are normally spoiled by inherent wire resistances, could be made ideal in a practical sense. Already, some practical superconducting conductors, motors, and capacitors have been developed, but their use at this present time is limited due to the practical problems intrinsic to maintaining super-cold temperatures. http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/text...rconductivity/ --- |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Looking for info on world record jet aircraft | Ted Parvo | Home Built | 25 | July 17th 12 01:23 PM |
Electric motor for hang glider | Legend Length | Home Built | 11 | August 27th 09 02:14 AM |
electric motor? | solarsell | Home Built | 13 | January 12th 07 12:03 AM |
Boeing's Electric Taxi Motor | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 43 | December 7th 05 05:41 AM |
Electric motor assisted super- or turbocharger? | Max Kallio | Rotorcraft | 13 | May 9th 05 09:09 PM |