2 ms·
When I wrote the point of contention, i was thinking how it is possible to produce stronger magnetic fields electrically than ~materially, and what that should
by strainer 9y ago
When I wrote the point of contention, i was thinking how it is possible to produce stronger magnetic fields electrically than ~materially, and what that should mean to ultimate motor performance. But I can see your correction is likely sound, that in practice PM options keep a performance edge -at least until the age of high temp superconductors arrive or other magic :)
- hwillis 9y agoSuch things exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_electric_machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_electric_machi... A purely (doubly fed) superconductive motor would probably resemble a PM motor more than an inductive motor, but I'm not 100% sure. It would be for the same reduction in hysteresis losses. An air-core motor would also be possible, but that would result in 30 Tesla fields swinging around wildly, which would be a Bad thing. You could probably get good gains with metal glass laminations, if you were gonna make a hilariously expensive motor. It's got very low core loss and extremely high permeability, which lets you shrink the motor and have a higher ratio of copper/iron, lowering winding resistance. Still, electrical machines are so efficient it's kind of just not worth it. The friction in the bearings and the viscosity of air are significant factors in a motor's efficiency.