Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

New controller algorithm claims 99% efficiency (true?)

Status
Not open for further replies.

stevenphuang

Mechanical
May 16, 2007
3
0
0
US
Hi all. I recently came across a business plan that claimed to have developed a new controller algorithm, which manages multiple electric motors, each one optimized to operate within a specific RPM range, and claims to deliver 99% efficiency. Please see the below text from the business plan.

My question is: are the below claims (e.g. increased efficiency through controller algorithm) possible?

"From the very earliest days controllers were shoebox sized simple devices with step-up step-down controls for achieving various vehicle speeds. These controllers were rarely operating at maximum efficiency where all of the energy being drawn from the battery pack was delivered to the driving wheels. Everyone used a single electric motor that was chosen to fulfill a maximum load potential even though max-load was present only on acceleration or steep slope ascension or when extremely heavy loads were thrown at the vehicle. Most field tests proved that 82% to 91% of the time the vehicle operated in some mode other than maximum load potential. The unused electric power drawn from the battery pack was dissipated as heat, vibration and noise. Most of the time the wasted energy far exceeded the employed energy in these setups.

By using multiple electric motors each with a different maximum efficiency operating rate it was possible for the first time for a controller to serve a much higher function than simply transferring electrical energy from the battery. With the proper algorithm it was possible for the controller to sense the demand being put on the operating vehicle and intelligently select a motor or motors and a speed of operation (RPM) which achieves maximum energy efficiency. As you might suspect this was no simple, easy achievement or it would have been done long ago. With recent massive improvements in chip complexity it was possible, just in the last 3 years, to accomplish this feat. Because of the speed of electronics it was possible to make virtually instantaneous changes in output power to match the demand being placed on the vehicle. Technically these changes could be made hundreds of times per second. Consider the situation when you are driving an electric vehicle in hilly country--sometimes steeply ascending and sometimes coasting down hill with dozens of intermediate load variables. With an intelligent controller it is possible to reduce waste to less than one percent. In this condition there is little or no heat buildup and noise is reduced to an absolute minimum. Vibration disappears and 99% of the power drawn from the battery pack is efficiently delivered to the driving wheels."
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Whenever I see something that says 99% efficient then my first instinct, as Keith so eloquently puts it, is crap! To me they might as well say "it's really really good" and then I switch off.
 
Some very large electric industrial motors approach 99% efficiency. But efficiency can be misleading. If I have to make the car bigger and heavier to fit that big motor or multiple motors and wind resistance and required acceleration power increase dramatically, I can be spending more energy to power the vehicle even though it is more efficient in converting electrical energy to mechanical power (because I have to spend more mechanical power to transport the extra weight).

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
 
stevenphuang,

Interesting - to say the least.

Do you have a reference (URL or similar) or are you just pulling our legs?

My impression is that someone just put together some buzz words that she/he thought sounded good. Probably hoping to get some recognition from Eng-Tippers. I do not think she/he will get that.

Gunnar Englund
--------------------------------------
100 % recycled posting: Electrons, ideas, finger-tips have been used over and over again...
 
steven:

Thanks for my morning amusement!

While the controller can have significant impact on motor efficiency, these guys have not identified those impacts.

First of all, I can't imagine that it would be economical, or even feasible, to have multiple motors, with the controller selecting which one to use at any given time -- effectively switching motors to change gears. And to be able to switch "hundreds of times per second", there is no way you are going to uncouple the unused motor rotors, so you will always be dragging around the inertia of the unused rotors.

To expand on what others above have noted, inherent copper, iron, and silicon losses are still well over 1%, and no controller technology could overcome that. By the way, even if you could improve efficiency from, say, 95% to 99%, it's not that big a deal from the viewpoint of "mileage" concerns -- nice, but not a big deal.

Most of the big improvements in efficiency have already been made using field-oriented-control and field-weakening techniques to replace older, less sophisticated techniques. While further improvements are of course possible, they are small beer now, given the high efficiencies modern techniques can provide over wide operating ranges.

Curt Wilson
Delta Tau Data Systems
 
This may be it, but they are apparently referring to multiple COILS in a single motor, not multiple motors. That may have some merit.


US2003021025_09122004_pf_fp.x4-b.jpg


Looks like a manufacturing nightmare to me however. Way too many parts in this design anyway. The MTBF would be likely around 3 weeks. Still, probably better than a lot of other junk you can buy at Wal-Mart...

However it also looks as though maybe their real goal was to milk us taxpayers for funds.

$1,999,447.00 sounds like soooo much less money and more palatable than $2 million doesn't it? The removal of $553 smacks of trying a bit too hard to squeeze under some kind of automatic audit trigger.

Google is my only remaining friend...
 
Jeff
The $1,999,447.00 compared to $2M highlights my point why I never feel comfortable with the "99%" scenario. $1,999,447.00 sounds like somebody has worked it out whereas $2M sounds like a guess. "98.93%" would sound better as my perception thinks "hey, that sounds interesting..." but as we know, 32.75% of all statistics are made up!
Coming back to the post, I would have thought that the control method that LandRover use in their Range Rover traction control comes close to what is being discussed here. Agreed, it is not driving an electric vehicle but the point is that torque measurement is needed at each wheel and then fed back to some sort of algorithm to determine the necessary power to be applied at each wheel. I might be talking out of my a__ here but whether it is a petrol engine or electric motor the signals coming in and then going out would be similar. The description provided by stevenphuang doesn't describe the motor type but the controller.
 
Most field tests proved that 82% to 91% of the time the vehicle operated in some mode other than maximum load potential. The unused electric power drawn from the battery pack was dissipated as heat, vibration and noise. Most of the time the wasted energy far exceeded the employed energy in these setups.
Whenever I see something like this my first thought is:
Do I want to waste the time and emotional energy to try to educate this person about motor efficiency and basic characteristics.
Another warning is the use of rare earth magnets, although there are many legitimate uses for them.
Solving a problem that doesn't exist based on a misconception.
Most of the time the wasted energy far exceeded the employed energy in these setups
Throw out that piece of junk and redo the tests with a good motor.
respectfully
 
Everyone, thanks for your input to my original question. Earlier today, I actually talked with the engineer that developed the controller algorithm.

cswilson is absolutely correct - as opposed to using a single electric motor and no gearbox transmission (i.e. direct drive), the proposed system effectively switches motors to change gears.

According to the design engineer:
(*) the prototype system has four motors: two 600w motors and two 300w motors
(*) depending on the load conditions, the controller algorithm engages one or more motors to the clutch system, thereby permitting the system to deliver over 1,800w ((2 x 600w) + (2 x 300x)) at maximum load.
(*) the 99% efficiency is measured based on total electric power output from the battery and the system torque.

On the last point, I questioned the engineer's claim of 99% efficiency. He insisted that after five-hours of continuous operation (the maximum duration at design conditions), the electric motor is no warmer than at start-up (i.e. negligible heat loss in the motors, even during five hours of continuous operation).

Really seems unbelievable, huh?
 
He insisted that after five-hours of continuous operation (the maximum duration at design conditions), the electric motor is no warmer than at start-up (i.e. negligible heat loss in the motors, even during five hours of continuous operation).
How was the motor temperature measured? How was the energy dissipated into the cooling air measured? All I gather from that is that the motor(s) had a decent cooling fan.
 
LOL,
So it doesn't sound as though this was the one I found, but still...

At 1800W we are not talking about a very big vehicle! It sounds to me as though this person is not really an engineer, or he is a "bit head" who knows algorithms but not power delivery and utilization. It also sounds like he tested this on a workbench, not a moving vehicle. I cannot for the life of me believe that the combined extra weight of having 4 motors, 4 power transmission systems, 4 separate power output devices, the extra friction in all those bearings and even the extra wire to feed everything is not going to have an effect on overall efficiency compared to 1 1800W motor. It's possible that if he had to have 4 wheel drive, he could eliminate having a transmission at all by doing direct drive on the 4 motors, but in his scheme that does not really provide 4 wheel drive because the motors are mis-matched. Add to that the issues brought up by itsmoked and davidbeach and I smell a potential con job.
 
I still have to meet one single drive/motor combination that, working at peak efficiency, has better than 97 % efficiency. So, the real question is: how does he get 99 % efficiency in one single motor? Then, switching between several such optimized motors seems to be a trivial task.

No, fellow engineers. This is not worth discussing.

Gunnar Englund
--------------------------------------
100 % recycled posting: Electrons, ideas, finger-tips have been used over and over again...
 
I worked on an electric motor that has an efficiency greater than 98%, and we used motor controllers that were over 99% efficient.

Solar car racers are very anal when it comes to electrical efficiency!



Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top