Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Investor Engineering Discussions

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Ranga Dias, a physicist at the University of Rochester, has recently made multiple claims about room-temperature superconductors. But retractions and allegations of scientific misconduct have marred the credibility of those findings.

All of this means that strong skepticism is the default for new reports of room-temperature superconductivity—especially ones that are as yet largely unvetted by peer review.

It is right to be sceptical, but IMO new teams should not be overly tarnished by the false claims made by earlier teams.

New teams should be judged on merit, with no assumptions, but with a requirement for definite proof.

Sometimes the new team is simply wrong rather than engaging in misconduct, so judge their work, but don't make assumptions about their motivation.

Very interested to see how this plays out. I'm keeping an open mind, but leaning towards being sceptical, but also assuming that the research team had good intentions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navguy12
awesome! So we should expect to see chinese maglev trains by 2026?
Maglev is still going to be way too expensive.. (and the Shanghai train was made by the Germans technically).. I’ve ridden it and the original prototype trains a few times in the past 25 years. The Chinese WERE able to do the large scale physical construction for less $$ than the Germans did the prototype, but I doubt that could be replicated today.

While it could possibly be built for much less than the ~ 30M per MILE, I doubt superconducting technology would bring it down to the 5M per mile that would be required, if at all.

It’s a fun ride though for sure.
 
Sarcasm, or didn't you know?

I actually didn't know.

From my knowledge, the difficulty with maglev's is the immense energy consumption from magnetizing the train and tracks (or the coolant needed to keep the superconductors functioning). Room temp superconductors were supposed to solve that energy consumption issue. I've seen test tracks developed, but not an actual commercially viable one. I now stand corrected.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: unk45
I actually didn't know.

From my knowledge, the difficulty with maglev's is the immense energy consumption from magnetizing the train and tracks (or the coolant needed to keep the superconductors functioning). Room temp superconductors were supposed to solve that energy consumption issue. I've seen test tracks developed, but not an actual commercially viable one. I now stand corrected.
The Kw energy required has always been an operational issue, but there are many proposed advancements in the past 25 years (yes, it has really been late long) that WOULD take the operational power requirements down by 75-80%, but still nobody is interested or willing to bite.. not even for more proof of concept projects like Barstow to Vegas, Tampa to Orlando, or something like that. It’s just overall too costly for MANY reasons, and any legislator is worried that there will be a white elephant hanging over their re-election campaign.

CCP was trying to boost their global awareness, visibility and respect as a technology leader or at least fast follower, and for the 1.4B they spent (cheap and I’m SURE subsidized by the Germans to some extent) they got their monies worth.
 
...

CCP was trying to boost their global awareness, visibility and respect as a technology leader or at least fast follower, and for the 1.4B they spent (cheap and I’m SURE subsidized by the Germans to some extent) they got their monies worth.
The technology advance by installing a working, dependable commercial train seems to have no parallel anywhere else. For the Chinese sponsors and builders, as well as the German developers the learning has been vary valuable.

From a practical daily perspective there is obvious value side many people, including me, have travelled there specifically to visit the operating train. That obviously does not given overt cost/benefit justification but:

China now has a national network of fast trains that surpasses any other part of the world. Investing money in any potentially precedence-breaking technology is part of the current Chinese psyche. Similarly their major airports are nearly all state-of-the-art. Denigrating spending resources on new technology experimentation is strange, especially coming from aficionados of Tesla and SpaceX, as nearly all of us are.
China welcomed Tesla because of technology transfer, as everyone knew (or should have known). Elon Musk knew that and also knew Tesla could benefit from the reverse also, as is transparently obvious from excellent relationship with CATL and, apparently, BYD too, not to mention the many Chinese suppliers.

There is room for disagreement on the net benefits to Tesla from all this, although the ones we hear the most are political objections. Still, where else in the world could the German Maglev developers hope to have a commercial operating test? Where else could Tesla have built and operated a giant factory so quickly and efficiently?
 
  • Like
Reactions: navguy12
Sandy Munro talks to RJ Scaringe mainly about their new drive unit:


Interesting that RJ says that having a rear motor disconnect increases efficiency by about 5%. I don't know how much the disconnect costs, but it seems like Tesla should look at adding that if it could add ~5% more range on the dual motor vehicles. (We know they think it is worth doing it on the Semi.) Or they could keep range the same and reduce the number of cells used. (I would go with adding range vs. reducing cell count.)
I haven't kept up on variants lately.
Who is using AC induction on the idle motors and who is using PM? (Key factor in off-motor load)
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: Olle and MP3Mike
I forgot about that, I think most dual motor Teslas do use a PM/induction combination. (Other than the Plaid.) So, I wonder what kind of efficiency could be gained by switching to all PM with a disconnect?
I'm thinking the disconnect adds more mass, friction, and complexity than the induction motor adds drag.
If it was a dual motor drive unit, maybe?
Packaging is a pain...
 
I forgot about that, I think most dual motor Teslas do use a PM/induction combination. (Other than the Plaid.) So, I wonder what kind of efficiency could be gained by switching to all PM with a disconnect?
All present day Teslas, including Plaid, use PM/induction combination, PMSM Edit: IPMSynRM for short. The last Tesla to use anything else was Raven, which had an induction rear motor.

Edit: not Model 3/Y, they use induction front motors. Thanks @MP3Mike!
 
Last edited:
  • Disagree
Reactions: MP3Mike
All present day Teslas, including Plaid, use PM/induction combination, PMSM for short. The last Tesla to use anything else was Raven, which had an induction rear motor.
Nope. Directly from the Model S manual:

1690999281335.png


And the Model 3, and Model Y, still use regular old induction motors in the front:

1690999571725.png


A PMSM motor isn't induction, at least from my understanding. (And can't be freewheeled like induction can.)

It has been speculated that having all PM motors on the S&X are what causes the slight vibration at some speeds that some people complain about, as they aren't perfectly synced and "cog" a little. (Especially on the Plaid.)
 
Last edited:
Nope. Directly from the Model S manual:

View attachment 961733

And the Model 3, and Model Y, still use regular old induction motors in the front:

View attachment 961735

A PMSM motor isn't induction, at least from my understanding. (And can't be freewheeled like induction can.)

It has been speculated that having all PM motors on the S&X are what causes the slight vibration at some speeds that some people complain about, as they aren't perfectly synced and "cog" a little. (Especially on the Plaid.)
You are right, I forgot that the 3/Y use induction front motor.

With combination of PM and induction, I meant that these are not traditional PMSM but they are also reluctance motors. Pure PMSM are hard to run over a wide RPM band due to back EMF, but a reluctance field can cancel it out.
Even though the owner's manual says (correctly, depending on what you read into it) PMSM for 3Y rear and SX all, in Munro's teardown, you will see that they are specifically reluctance motors with embedded permanent magnets, so called IPM Syn RM motors.
this video explains it well
 
Last edited: