Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Technology News

Electric Cars as Fast as Ferraris 739

Ubergrunt writes "A Welsh engineering company has made a motor to be used on electric cars that will make them as fast as a Ferrari. "The motor is revolutionary in that it contains no bulky permanent magnets. Instead it relies on transmitting electric pulses across up to seven rotors, arranged in different phases. These are "fired up" in turn, much like the pistons of an internal combustion engine. There are no gears - the motor provides enough torque at one revolution per minute to put a vehicle into motion - and it spins at up to 2,500rpm. "Size for size, we can provide 400% more torque than any type of motor currently available," says managing director John Bryant."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Electric Cars as Fast as Ferraris

Comments Filter:
  • Welch? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Threni ( 635302 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @08:07AM (#12703084)
    It's Welsh. Welch is when you go back on your word. Curiously, the Welsh find this word offensive, but it's a different word and not to be confused with Welsh!
  • by klang ( 27062 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @08:08AM (#12703091)
    and close down this so fast that nobody will notice
  • Riiight (Score:2, Insightful)

    by 40ozFreak ( 823002 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @08:11AM (#12703113)
    Yeah, I'd like to see that actually bear fruition. Chances are it will either be snubbed by the automotive industry, or will be so damn expensive they won't have a working version in commercial vehicles for 40 years.
  • by DigitumDei ( 578031 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @08:17AM (#12703152) Homepage Journal
    I doubt it. Battery limitations will still render this useless for your average family car for some time.

    However I'm sure this could be applied in many other areas of industry where electric motors are already being used.
  • by DerWulf ( 782458 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @08:23AM (#12703206)
    yeah, definatly going strong in the tinfoil department. You know, it's not as if an engine that generates as much torgue wouldn't be a huge competitve advantage to a car producer ...
  • by MichaelSmith ( 789609 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @08:31AM (#12703264) Homepage Journal

    How about a car which:

    • refueles itself when it is left out in the sun
    • Uses absolutely no energy when stopped in heavy traffic
    • Can be used in remote areas without expensive infrastructure for fuel
    • Is so simple it could last as long as a washing machine without significant maintenance

    Part of the problem is that the people who promote electric cars are the kind of people who couldn't market any kind of car at all. Their products tend to look like glorified electric wheelchairs, and about as usefull.

    I want to see advocates of electric power push the advantages of the technology, not reasons why we should put up with its limitations.

  • by MoralHazard ( 447833 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @08:47AM (#12703358)
    Insightful? WTF? I think we need a "-1, tinfoil hat club" modifer. Either this is an idiotic comment, or it's an attempt to be funny that kind of fell flat.

    WHY would the car industry want to shut this down? EVERY SINGLE MAJOR CAR MAKER IS BUILDING ELECTRICS as we speak, and most have something on the market at the moment. So far, hybrids that are only somewhat more fuel-efficient than pure gas engines have been a necessary concession, mostly because of performance, range, and infrastructure (fueling) issues.

    If this technology gets off the drawing board and actually works, the car makers will shit themselves to get their hands on licenses because this seems to solve the performance issues, hands down. They'll still have to cope with range and fueling problems, but those have their own solutions coming, sometime.

    And what, exactly, do you expect the oil industry to do to "close this down"? Where on earth would they get the power to do something like that, in a country like the UK?

    Look, oil producers realize that hyper-aggravated prices don't help them, in the long run. That's why OPEC is struggling right now to increase the world supply by upping production, with mixed results. Big Oil wants a stable price, and not too high, either, because it makes the market nervous and causes people to buy less oil in the long run! (It's more complicated than that, but basically that's the story with any commodity.)

    But their inability to increase the supply to meet the higher demand, thereby lowering the price of oil, shows that they CAN'T increase supplies much more. They would probably breathe a sigh of relief if production could go up (which it probably never will), so the only credible scenario to decreasing prices is to decrease demand.

    Big Oil would benefit, in the long run, from a demand for oil that slacks off a bit and then stabilizes (below its current level) for the future. They know this, and aren't going to stand in the way of anything that keeps it from happening.
  • stupid. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Eivind ( 15695 ) <eivindorama@gmail.com> on Thursday June 02, 2005 @08:58AM (#12703433) Homepage
    Stupidity poor.

    Sure, a higher power/weight electric engine capable of operation over a wide spectre of speeds is useful. It is not, however, the thing an electric car needs the most to be competitive.

    It's *already* the case that an electric motor is equally strong, or stronger, than a equally heavy internal combustion engine.

    The problem for electric motors is *energy*storage*, typically batteries. With todays tech 400kgs of batteries can store *maybe* a tenth of the energy in a tank of petrol weighing a tent of that, meaning it's 100 times less effective for storing energy.

    To add insult to injusry the 40kg petrol-tank can trivially be refilled in a minute or two, while the battery-pack weighing ten times as much and storing a tenth of the energy, needs hours at best to approach full.

  • by Kombat ( 93720 ) <kevin@swanweddingphotography.com> on Thursday June 02, 2005 @09:07AM (#12703519)
    How about a car which:

    * Uses absolutely no energy when stopped in heavy traffic


    I don't think this is a realistic requirement. Real drivers will have their headlights on (daytime running lights are pretty much standard everywhere now), not to mention the radio, the Air Conditioning, and GPS navigation system. The A/C is the real killer there, but all of those things combined will suck the life out of any battery faster than you can say "zero emission baby!"

    Also, I just want to point out that I don't think electric cars are the silver bullet panacea that they are being marketed as. It still takes x Newtons of energy to move y kilograms of mass over a distance of z kilometers. Utilising electric energy to perform the work isn't somehow "free." That electricity still has to come from somewhere. And if that source happens to be the existing power grid (i.e., you plug you car in while you're at home, or parked somewhere), then that power is still most likely coming from fossil fuels. It doesn't buy you anything.

    I'm proud to live in a jurisdiction that is actually quite forward-thinking in this respect. Ontario derives [opg.com] less than half (42%) of its electricity from fossil fuel sources. But more than a quarter of our power is nuclear, and the US is still pretty resistant to dipping their toes back into that pool. California, for example, only uses nuclear for about 13% of their power, relying on fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) for almost 62% of their power (source [ca.gov]).

    For laughs, I looked up some info on Texas. I found that Texas derives only 7% of its electricity from "green" sources (I'm including nuclear in that number), with the remaining coming from coal, natural gas, petroleum (61%), and "dual fired" (what's that? Is that "green?") (32%). Source [doe.gov].

    So until we address the root problems (most energy is still derived from fossil fuels, rampant overconsumption is a way of life in North America), all we're doing is moving the pollution from the highways to the power plants. We're not saving anything, it's not helping the environment, we shouldn't be patting ourselves on the back for buying an electric car... we should pat ourselves on the back for taking the bus, carpooling, telecommuniting, or just plain driving less.
  • by Physics Dude ( 549061 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @09:15AM (#12703594) Homepage
    No gears in the engine and having a transmission with gears is totally different.

    Nice try. Am I right in assuming that you've never worked on a car engine? Hint: They don't have any internal gearing at all. That's what the transmission is for. The article is clearly discussing a direct drive setup with enough torque to drive the wheels without any sort of transimssion.

  • by jackjumper ( 307961 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @09:46AM (#12703912)
    Yup. And when you go to the hydrogen pump, who are you going to fill up from?

    That's right - Mobil, Shell, BP, etc etc.

    They are not oil companies any more, but energy companies. They know the writing's on the wall, and they have plans to stick around.

    BTW: this [washingtonmonthly.com]is a quick interesting take on the state of oil.
  • by salec ( 791463 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @10:45AM (#12704585)
    Exactly. Everyone gets so distracted with "electricity" part so they totally miss the point of it being just an efficient and flexible power transmition method. A method for squeezing as much energy from fuel as possible.

    Now, the car concept redisign is due time: the IC motor should not be optimized for torque delivery, but for generating electric power from fuel combustion with least losses. Therefore, converting linear motion of pistons into rotary one is no longer needed (current induction in solenoids placed coaxial along cylinders may take place anyway), but OTOH perhaps smooth rotation of gas turbine is best suited for electric power generation purposses.

    Real Soon Now (or Tommorow), the generator part may get replaced with a sort of fuell cell... or some easy-replaceable form of rechargable batteries (perhaps nanobatteries, suspended in a dielectric fluid, which transports them to a "juice-squeezing" device to release stored energy. That would provide for easy handling, similar to today's gas station routine). THEN we could talk about "real" electric vehicles ...

    To conclude: cars will probably EVOLVE into intrinsicaly electric cars, eventually, part at a time, but don't hold your breath.
  • by jnik ( 1733 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @10:52AM (#12704657)
    No cool "Vroom, vroom" sound to show how big your penis is

    This is one of the greatest things I'm looking forward to as hybrids and electrics (hopefully) catch on. I *hope* they'll lead to a quieter roadway environment where maybe, just maybe, the types of Neanderthal antisocial behaviour that's tolerated today will become less acceptable. Hey, I can dream!

    Had a Prius pull up next to me at a stoplight the other day. Was quiet to start with, then I had a brief "wait, where did that car go?" moment when the gasoline engine shut off. Very cool.

  • by .killedkenny ( 589139 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @11:45AM (#12705220)
    You've nailed the HUGE advantages of electric vehicles. Look at this badazz Vectrix electric scooter coming to Europe this year in the U.S. in 2006:

    http://www.vectrixusa.com/index2.html [vectrixusa.com]

    250 parts vs 2500 for a comparable gas vehicle.

    I own a $1200 electric vehicle that is possibly the first practical electric transportation:

    http://www.egovehicles.com/ [egovehicles.com]

    It's a blast to ride and saves tons of time and money on the many short trips we all take that are too far to walk...grab a burger, drop off a video, pick up a case of beer, etc. 25 mile range on 5-10 cents worth of juice. You've got a 2-HP motor that can carry 400+ pounds up some pretty steep hills. That's pretty efficient.

    It's also a reliable commuter. You can make unbelievable time on this during rush hour. Using back streets, sidewalks, alleys, parking lots, and other cut-throughs, traffic is never a problem. And if you can recharge it at work, your total range can be quite excellent.

    IMO, the battery weight can actually be an asset. Putting the batteries low in the design deck, the Ego2 is super-maneuverable, even at 1 or 2 MPH, because of the low C-of-G.

    Also, I was loading it into my wife's nice leather-interior SUV the other day, thinking, "I could NEVER do this with a gas vehicle." No leaks, no fumes, no grease, no hot muffler.

    For a college campus, inner-city, small town, beach community, resort area, the Ego2 is hard to beat. If there was any sanity in the world, they'd be selling 3 million of these a year.

  • by hawk ( 1151 ) <hawk@eyry.org> on Thursday June 02, 2005 @11:50AM (#12705262) Journal
    Don't tell me you think both of these technologies weren't held back by the industries you mention.

    Not successfully, no.

    If Kodak embraced digital cameras out the gate don't you think we'd have had 10MP cameras 10 years ago?

    No. Kodak has used its expertise to adapt to the new circumstances. It has lost massive markets, but it's found newer, though smaller, markets.

    As the image devices are (to the best of my knowledge) fundamentally driven by integrated circuit technology, I seriosly doubt that Kodak could have made anything happen faster.

    About eight years ago, there was the Apple digital camera which could take eight 640x480 pictures at $700. Ten years ago, widespread digital cameras weren't really on *anyone's* list of likely (though there were certainly many with hopes--but the same can be said for solid state storage replacing magnetic media, nuclear fusion, electric cars . . .)

    hawk
  • by MarsLander ( 742092 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @12:04AM (#12711230)

    Couldn't you just hire a car for the long distance trips? You might find that it's more cost effective overall if you can make 95% of your usage significantly cheaper.

    Thinking outside the square can help in more every-day ways as well: For many people taking a taxi instead of owning a car actually works out cheaper in the long run. You have to factor in depreciation, maintenance, registration and insurance. That's going to add up to at least $2000 a year, before you even drive anywhere.

Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.

Working...