A true efficient motor?

[chessmanskeptic]

One of my friends at school, Collin, has told me he has been working on a way to combine a Tesla Turbine and a regular motor with some modifications. He believes it could produce a completely efficien motor that runs at 95%-99.999...% efficiency. He has shown me some of his physics models. I think he might be on to something, yet, I am not certain. I will post here later some of the models he has shown me so far. My question to the physicists on this board is. Do you think it could really work?

[arcticpenguin]

No. Ask him if he has done calculations on the back EMF.

[jimlintott]

What is a regular motor?

Internal combustion? Two cycle, four cycle, diesel, adiabatic, electric, steam? Wound up rubber bands?

[kedo1981]

Isn’t a run of the mill electric motor over 85% and a high efficient one over 90%?
Unless you come up with some super conducting wire you sure will not get 99.9%

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
One of my friends at school, Collin, has told me he has been working on a way to combine a Tesla Turbine and a regular motor with some modifications. He believes it could produce a completely efficien motor that runs at 95%-99.999...% efficiency. He has shown me some of his physics models. I think he might be on to something, yet, I am not certain. I will post here later some of the models he has shown me so far. My question to the physicists on this board is. Do you think it could really work?

Tell him to build it and become a trillionaire. If he doesn't, then he is full of crap.

Hint: He's full of crap.

[garys_2k]

He's not asking for startup money for his new motor, is he? If so, run. If not, wish him well. 99% will be VERY difficult to achieve, likely unattainable just due to bearing and air drag losses.

[Soapy Sam]

If he's serious, he could do worse than stick his ideas on this site. So long as he comes on with a genuinely inquiring attitude I'm sure there are lots of folk would be willing to make fair and helpful comment. You know the fellow. Does it seem likely he would have a design overlooked by every engineer since Edison, or do you think he might benefit from external input?

Generally, the folk who walk into a firestorm here do so as a result of perceived arrogance coupled with genuine ignorance in their presentation. Of course if it looks like working, we promise not to steal the patent.

[The Don]

One of the problems that systems have is the total efficency end to end.

In the case of a coal-fired power station, the efficiency of converting the heat contained in the superheated steam is relatively good (and even better if it can be integrated into a combined heat and power system where the low grade waste heat can be put to some more productive use). The issue is that combustion is inefficient and so the overall efficiency of the plant is typically in the 32-38% range when run a base-loed (i.e. flat out).

Gas powered power stations are more efficient because combustion is more effective - potentially 70% efficient in total.

This all brings me to matey-boy here. For the solution to be genuinely useful, the solution needs to be efficient as a total system. If it's just a means of turning inefficiently generated electrical power into machanical movement thn we're not much further forward.

Only if superconductive wire is used. In that case, very high efficiency IS possible, although I don't know if 99.999% is achievable, but very high. Even with superconductive wire, there are still reactance losses. Without supercondictive wire it is impossible to get more than about 99%, since resistance heating will guarantee significant losses. VERY LARGE non-superconductive motors and generators approach 99% efficiency, but that last 1% is impossible to get.

David F Mayer

[Jon_in_london]

Whats needed is an alternative to combustion. Fuels cells do this but then where do you get hydrogen from. Difficult problem indeed.

[chessmanskeptic]

Originally posted by jimlintott
What is a regular motor?

Internal combustion? Two cycle, four cycle, diesel, adiabatic, electric, steam? Wound up rubber bands?

He told me it is going to be an Internal Combustion Engine. From what I have seen so far in his data, it looks that 95% efficiency may be the highest it will ever achieve. I will post some of the physics equations in my next post in this thread, tomorrow.

[JANman]

there has been some very interesting atempts on improving IC engines efficiency,
in '83 pop science tested Smokey Yunicks adiabatic 2cyl,that worked on a principle of preheating air fuel mixture,it put out 150 hp and got 60mpg in a 4 seater Kcar,why no car company ever used it is a good question.
another promising engine is www.coatesengine.com,
or rather its spherical rotary valve heads; CRSV,which have way improved air flow(even more than four valve heads),less friction,higher compresion for more power,simpler design,(no cams,valves,springs,rocker arms)and most interesting; no need to change engine oil(see the news videos).
I doubt any piston engine can get 99% eficient ever,too much friction,imo.
electric motor maybe,but then you need to make power to turn it,

[patnray]

As kedo1981 pointed out, electric motors are remarkably efficient devices over a wide range of speeds. Cheap ones can run at 85% efficiency, 95% is not too difficult to achieve, and they can operate efficiently as generators, too. Which is why electric vehicles hold such promise. But producing and/or storing the electricity is a far less efficient process. Which is why electric vehicles are not in wide spread use.