What is Digg?80 Comments
- PeterBassett, on 06/13/2008, -1/+12Only 10% more efficient than normal motors? Seems copper is a pretty good conductor already.
- inactive, on 06/13/2008, -0/+8Nice experimental concept, but until you can get more than 10% increased efficiency out of the thing, I'm pretty sure the cost of the superconducting materials, motor and cooling system is going to be markedly more than a conventional electric.
A step in the right direction, though. - thcobbs, on 06/13/2008, -1/+7You got a few million to buy that.... go ahead.
- blatantninja, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5It's an engine, not an energy source.
- thentro, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5Things to do today:
- take out the trash
- pay the bills
- change the liquid nitrogen on the car - Fordi, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5Fortunately, electricity can also come from nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, a variety of gaseous and liquid fuels and biofuels, etc.
It all comes down to solar, though, as all but nuclear are ultimately derived from sunlight. - inactive, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4JarJar420 has a point. Liquid nitrogen is pretty cold and would freeze your flesh and bones on contact. Not sure what trial lawyers would do with that, but my guess is you'd be sued for having an unusually hazardous vehicle. (That woman won her suit that MacDonald's coffee was too hot, remember.)
How much energy is required to keep the nitrogen refrigerated? Since the motor must be bathed in the liquid nitrogen, then the engine's heat generation would be a problem as it would go directly into the nitrogen and require even more cooling. If the refrigeration failed, the nitrogen would boil and generate nitrogen steam, if the container failed you would have a steam explosion. That is so dangerous I would think the container must be heavily con$tructed to be durable. How would a mechanic work on this? If you break down in the desert do you have to have it towed to the next dealer for repairs? Sounds expensive.
What is ten percent improvement? 10% of what? Large electric motors are 95% efficient. So you can't say 10% of 95 is 9.5 so it is 104.5% efficient. I think they mean 5% inefficiency is reduced by 10%, which is .5% for 95.5% efficient. The statement would be more meaningful if they just gave you the real numbers. - ricree, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4The article didn't say efficiency, it said distance traveled on a given battery charge.
- aussieNickuss, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4They have all these concept cars and faux announcements, but it's really just a ploy to delay the inevitable. The big auto companies don't wanna change, but they know they have to......they'll just try to delay it as long as they can.
The good thing is though.....while the big autos drag their ass, the little ones like Tesla get a chance to catch-up. - TrevorPace, on 06/13/2008, -1/+5It's an interesting prototype. But until some physicist gets the Nobel for discovering room temperature Superconductors this just won't be practical.
- thewump, on 06/13/2008, -1/+5In reality, creating 100% electric cars is SIMPLE, and people do it all the time, but it doesn't get much press. You take a light car with manual transmission and use an adapter plate to bolt an electric motor to the transmission. Add batteries.
All in, it costs about $8-12k, and here in Colorado, you get a tax credit for 75% of the cost of conversion. I'm considering doing it on an old bug. The result is a car that can cruise at 75mph or more, and have a daily range of between 50 and 100 miles. Some say that's not enough, but in my 2 car driving household that is enough for at least one of us every day.
If I can do it for 10k in my driveway, why can't GM? The technology is there. Why can't these car manufacturers take a current or old model and put out a plugin? Geo metro electric would sell even though it's an old car and people hated it in it's gas version ( even though it's 3 cylender engine got about 50 mpg ). Ford Fiesta plugin. Lots of possibilities. - TheStrongForce, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4Not really, look at golf carts. Great example. The technology is there, its just they don't want to change because they're already losing money and dont want to lose more. They'll eventually get with it.
- thcobbs, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3Now, if you used silver wires, you'd get approx the same increase wouldn't you?
- rrc7cz, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3This isn't alternative energy anyway... it's a consumer of energy, not a producer
- cyburdine, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4"Sumitomo Electric has developed what is being called the world’s first automobile powered by a superconducting motor."
They've also succeeded in developing what is being called the world's ugliest concept automobile powered by anything! - Elshar, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3Which still isn't really anything special. It'd mean you can go 66 miles instead of 60 on a single charge. Why not just add another (relatively) inexpensive battery?
I think that this is a step in the right direction, though. This can only lead to good things. :) - oINS1GHT, on 06/13/2008, -2/+5Liquid Nitrogen cooled motors seem unnecessary, and to unstable for mass production. We should work on the tech rather than just pour Liquid Nitrogen onto a electric motor. And 10% is not much better then what we have.
- TheKackler, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4Wow 10% improvement... be still my heart!
- Fordi, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3"Liquid nitrogen is easy to cool."
It's 'easy', but very energy intensive. - JarJar420, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3Just make sure not to get into an accident, or yousa will end up frozen solid just like what happened in Terminator 2.
- wertach, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3I wouldn't consider it a lot. If you got 100 miles per charge on a much cheaper system, would 110 miles be worth the extra cost and chances of problems?
- Fordi, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4Seeing as conventional brushless motors get around 90% real efficiency, I'd say that a 10% increase is about all you can get.
- snapcase, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4Yep just go down to your local gas station to refill the liquid nitrogen on this bad boy. I can't imagine that it'd cost much more than gasoline or anything...
- inactive, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3hell no.
they'll still find a way to put some 22 inch rims on this thing in order to trick it out. - wertach, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2I should have said normal "electric" motor.
- wertach, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Couldn't you just pee in the tank?
- dhughes, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3 Watt?! That's shocking, you'll certainly get some resistance from your statement, digg is biased, you better rectify your view.
- Leathersoup, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2But is it actually more efficient? I mean if you take into account all the energy used to get the superconductor to actually function, does it save any energy over all?
- growler1, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3I would point out that the article said 10% more efficient than other electric motors using the *same* battery. My hope is that as electric motor tech capacity grows, battery efficiency and capacity (and biodegradability) increase as well.
But still, we have the conservation of energy issue--electricity has to come from somewhere, and it can't be coal if we want to avoid the "finite resource" angle. - BigManOnCampus, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2you mean
- refill the liquid nitrogen that evaporated yesterday from the car. Start the super-loud liquid N2 compressor in the garage again. - asus2000, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2When does it miraculously float away?
- PeterBassett, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2That is true. But *if* that is the case, the article is poorly written. They should have said.
"The new motor is 99% efficient" or something to that effect. - TheStrongForce, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2A super conductor is just a material that allows the formation of pair electrons, or Cooper Pairs, at a low enough temperature, which means it has zero total electrical resistance. It is not just associated with trains, but rather an assortment of physics related devices ranging from particle accelerators to strong magnets.
- terajoule, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Great! Where's my flux capacitor?
- TrevorPace, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Liquid Nitrogen is easy to cool. But it takes energy. And then containing the Liquid Nitrogen is also a problem...and it loses it's heat eventually.
Superconductors will be best for well everything. I have often wondered that if they are even possible at room temperature. But until it has been proven otherwise you might as well try. - eengineer, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Ill be shot, shatter into pieces and reassemble? Sweet.
- TheStrongForce, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Just becuase you're angry that you can't make an electric car doesn't mean you have to throw around the doucheword.
- TheStrongForce, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Liquid nitrogen is relatively safe, dispite what the movies say. You can put it in your mouth (don't swallow it or let it touch your teeth) or dip your fingers in it. How? Because it evaporates so quickly from your body heat that it never touches you. If the Nitrogen was actually flung from the car with any violence, it would vaporize instantly, sort of like throwing a boiling pot of water up in the air on a freezing day. Some of it might get on you, but then it would evaporate too. I would think that it would be relatively safe.
- sinembarg0, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2@skag
an engine is a type of motor. All engines are motors, but not all motors are engines. Here are some examples that most likely won't change your mind:
Motorcycle (uses engine)
Motorboat (uses engine)
Engineer (unrelated to discussion) - BigManOnCampus, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Don't digg Fordi down. He's essentially correct. Adding a superconductor to an electric motor doesn't buy you much, and can't buy you much more than what is currently possible with copper.
- encumbent, on 06/14/2008, -0/+110% ain't much but 365kW?? That's impressive and on par with conventional engine power meaning people wont be as turned off by electric motors - combined with the phenomenal torque electric motors produce and you have a fun ride..
- BigManOnCampus, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Who dugg this down. Liquid nitrogen is cheaper than bottled water. Ask anyone.
- Fordi, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1Sorry, but no. I can't justify buying anything from a company that won't list their prices publicly. It implies dishonest business practices. If they're cheap and prebuilt, they should be proud of that, and display their prices prominently.
As it stands, it appears to be a badly written website (which gives the impression of lack of attention to detail) without a lot of substance (which implies they don't really give a damn about their own products). - d1donly, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1Are they completely insane?
Mother of bad ideas... first car wreck will freeze you just quickly enough to let you shatter on impact.
- BigManOnCampus, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1If the dewar it's contained in is as good as I fill every week at work for our EDS, it'll be need to be topped off 3 times a week.
- Fordi, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1@wertach:
Pump motors use fluid to cool themselves because it's convenient. Most vehicle motors do fine with air cooling. In the case of a motor cooled below 200 C, I don't think heat dissipation is going to be a problem - but insulation might.
The bearings, as well as the rest of the moving parts in a superconducting motor, should be as cold as possible - it's unlikely that they'd be able to maintain superconducting temperatures without enough bleed-off to chill the bearings.
As for what type they're using, most likely ceramic-metal hybrid roller bearings (mold a cylindrical low density ceramic, dip in molten steel or titanium, grind to a polish). They're in common use for very low temperature compressors, so they're the likely candidate. - wertach, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1"Most vehicle motors do fine with air cooling."
True, but wouldn't cooling them more than just with air improve the efficiency? I'm not saying cool with liquid nitrogen, maybe a water jacket? Something cheap and easy?
I work for a sewer company and we have a lot more motor failures during the summer. The power bill also goes up during the summer, same equipment running, and not because of AC, the offices are on a separate meter. - scabbers, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Dug for saying it like Jar Jar.
- ricree, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1I agree. I was mostly just responding to the people talking about the ambiguity of efficiency, and pointing out that the article actually gave a fairly solid unambiguous measure. As an actual product, I agree that 10% probably isn't enough, but it seems like an interesting start.
There seem to be a couple avenues I can see that they might use to improve this further. For one thing, motor designs that might have been impractical due to this resistance might now become more attractive and worth looking into. Also, the cooling system is going to introduce its own set of inefficiencies that offset the gains that come from this, so hopefully better cooling systems or superconductive materials will improve on this in the future. - jguy584, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1It's because battery technology sucks.
It won't be until they hold more charge, charge up in under 5 minutes, allow for near limitless recharges, weigh a lot less, and are much more environmentally friendly that electric cars will be viable.
Just give it 5-10 years -
Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is