London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
For the weak minded and those without a science education:
Free energy machines that seem like they should work are always the product of wishful thinking and sloppy science. If you build a machine and underestimate the amount of mass-energy you have to put into the machine to get it going, and overestimate the amount of mass-energy it will output once going, then your calculations predict that mass-energy has been created out of nothing. But this end result came from poor estimations, and not from ground-breaking science. Most people who "feel" like a certain free energy machine should work simply don't grasp how much mass-energy it takes to get the machine going. For instance, magnetic free energy machines are essentially spinning electromagnetic motors. The machine is plugged into an electrical source, which gets the motor's wheel spinning. The machine is then unplugged and the wheel keeps spinning under its own inertia. Then electrical energy is extracted from the spinning wheel. This energy was not created out of nothing. It was put in the wheel by the original electrical power inputted to the motor. The electric power extracted from the wheel in the end will always be less than the electrical power put into the wheel in the first place. Energy is simply converted from electrical to kinetic (the spinning motion of the wheel is a form of energy), and then back to electrical, while some of the energy is converted to waste heat due to friction. When the inventor of a "free energy" or "over unity" machine claims that his invention really creates energy out of nothing, he is either deluding himself or is outright lying to take advantage of others. The self-delusion usually happens because the inventor does not realize the large amount of external energy he has put into his machine to turn it on, which is more than he could ever get out. A straight-forward measurement of all the energy being inputted to his machine and all the energy being outputted would quickly reveal no actual free energy. But doing real science is hard, so countless "inventors" tinker in their garage and think that "pretty spinning wheel" = "free energy" without doing any actual measurements. For those who do take actual measurements, they think they are always just one step behind from reaching over-unity performance; believing that adding just one more complicated gadget to their machine will put them over the top, when in fact they never actually reach a free-energy result.
Dumbo ~ You have unmasked yourself, I might have found a video of you.
I encourage you to keep it up, almost had me rolling around the floor in stitches :)
Please show us what happens when you grab +ve and -ve terminals in both hands.
Neither of you understand induction motors, i take it.
Nice one China! I am curious to read his definition of free energy, and the formula used for calculating free energy. From an electrical perspective, energy equals power x time, units in Joules. So what is the unit of measurement for free energy?
I must admit that I was always sceptical when folks say posters have planted to talk the share price down to allow their masters to buy cheap. With the announcement of the large USA fund buying up PRE shares, I am now thinking there is some truth to that statement after all. Once again, I am excited by the thought of possible USA exposure. Looking forward to the promised news flow.
Good one Dumbo, RE = Free Energy !, you obviously have no idea,
I have said it before, If you are going to make Statements, provide the facts, otherwise you are just digging a deeper hole for yourself.
Permanent magnets equals free energy, replace it with an electrical field costs efficiency and money. There will be a balance between the cost of magnets v. the free energy in them. Car manufacturers can either replace them and increase the lithium battery size or secure their supply chain. This is probably only feasible at the state level, as government actions seem to confirm. China is a good example and their car manufacturers will have an inherent advantage.
So there will be a balance point of maximum NdPr price but complete substitution will never be possible.
Rare Earths: BMW’s fifth-generation REE-free electric drivetrain Posted 4th January 2019 in ?Industry news.
BMW remains focussed on gradually lowering the proportion of critical raw materials that are used in its electric vehicle (EV) models. Besides reducing the use of cobalt in the battery cells, BMW has set a target to launch its fifth-generation electric drive trains in 2021, free of rare earth elements (REEs).
Hybrid EVs and pure battery EVs use between 1kg and 3kg of neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) magnets in standard drivetrain motors. The formulation of rare earth NdFeB magnets includes varying amounts of other rare earths praseodymium, dysprosium and cerium in place of neodymium depending on the specification and application of the magnets.
Electric vehicle drivetrains require high-quality and high power-to-weight ratio magnet formulations to increase the efficiency in converting electrical energy stored in batteries into mechanical energy. Rare earth permanent magnets are the strongest known permanent magnet formulations on the commercial market and allow vehicle manufacturers to optimise the performance, range and cost of EVs and their battery pack.
Roskill’s rare earth and automotive datasets highlight that, in 2018, over 90% of all EV drivetrain motors use rare earth permanent magnets. Currently, the low base of automotive electrification has drivetrain motors accounting for less than 10% of NdFeB demand. Roskill forecasts that the electrification of the automotive industry will increase the share of drivetrain motors to over 20% by 2021, when BMW is set to release its fifth-generation drivetrain technology.
As of 2017, neodymium supply tightened, and Roskill estimates the neodymium supply-demand balance to remain tight throughout the next decade, requiring the ramp up in REE production to keep up with demand over the longer-term. Non-rare-earth drivetrain technologies may help to mitigate short-term supply deficits; however, NdFeB magnets remain part of this generation of EVs. As a result, Roskill expects NdFeB magnets to remain the leading growth market for rare earths over the next decade.
Hitch, BMW have simply innovated their way out of the problem. Others appear to be on similar trajectories, see the articles I linked in previous posts. These substitute platforms do not appear to be inferior to those based on PMs.
If alternative PM supply were suddenly to appear, would they just drop their existing technology base and start all over again? I suspect not.
BREAKING NEWS: VW CONFIRMED THAT ALL ID CAR BASED VEHICLES WILL HAVE A PERMANENT MAGNET MOTOR
Autoweek has a few new details about the ID cars based on its conversation with Ulbrich. The cars will all have three computers on board. All that computing power will be available to manage self-driving features that emerge in the future. The cars will be capable of over-the-air updates — no visit to dealers required. They will be rear-wheel drive, giving them near perfect 50–50 front-to-rear weight distribution. The standard motor will be a permanent magnet unit with about 160 horsepower. All-wheel-drive variants will add a synchronous motor to the front with another 50 to 60 horsepower.
The rubber wiper and blades in a Mercedes are worth more to buy then the cost of the NdPr in an electric motor so if could explain why you think the change wouldn’t be made back once supply is resolved? It would make no sense for any company to continually spend on new technology when a perfectly good and exceptionally efficient solution is already available. I guess except in the instance that you’re a persistent downramper of said company therefore making constant and unfounded statements about how many companies are moving to other solutions… appreciate any opinion on both sides when actual fact is involved but honestly you are a just a pest
The all-new Volvo C40 Recharge 2022, which is the first Volvo available only as an all-electric car, has received its official EPA range and efficiency numbers.
Volvo XC40: Specifications
Engine Type Description Dual electric permanent magnet synchron front and rear motors
Drivetrain All wheel drive
Little substantive evidence as yet. Analysts of actual numbers concluding Ne PM embeded tech is here to stay. This from Oct 21
With China's current dominance of rare-earth supply, they are likely to continue to use permanent magnet motors in a big way. In the EU, we are seeing some differentiation in motor designs in order to avoid rare-earths but in general, they are further converging on permanent magnet designs for their superior efficiency and power density. However, efforts are being made to decrease the utilization of magnetic materials and especially heavy rare-earths. Even with these decreases, IDTechEx expects the neodymium volume demand from battery-electric vehicles in 2032 to be 11 times the demand experienced in 2021."
See how it goes.
GK, good morning. I certainly agree with your point that supply risk is a greater concern than cost.
However, I’m doubtful that autocos will easily switch back to PMs once they’re started down a path to eliminate them, as seems to be the case for at least some of the manufacturers.
>>The thought of Pensana share price up on the day affecting your sleep pattern?
I wish i could be distured by the share price at 9:30 while I'm asleep at 6am.
Asdie from that, so what..
I would say these efforts at diversifying away from PM motors is more about perceived future supply risk rather than present or future magnet price. The average EV has around 0.5 to 1kg of Nd used for its magnets. Even at $300/kg that is a very small cost input compared to EV compeating target sales prices of ~$30k per unit. Nd magnets have not been beaten for the savings they offer for a given power/range on the size of Li batteries required - the other and far larger critocal metal input cost.
Solve the Nd supply risk in the West and OEMs will keep with the present 90%+ adoption of Nd PM motors.
Actual take up of EVs is far exceeding even the highest predictions.
The new EQE: electric drive
The electric motors on the front and rear axles are permanently excited synchronous motors (PSM). With the PSM, the rotor of the AC motor is fitted with permanent magnets and therefore does not need to be supplied with power. The magnets – and thus the rotor – follow the rotating alternating current field in the stator windings. In the EQE, Mercedes-Benz uses what is known as a pull-in winding for a particularly strong magnetic field. The engine is referred to as synchronous because the rotor turns at the same rate as the magnetic field of the stator. The frequency is adjusted in the power electronics converters to the speed requirements of the driver. The advantages of this design include high power density, high efficiency and high power constancy. The motor on the rear axle is particularly powerful due to its six-phase design: it has two windings with three phases each.
Permanent magnet motors are more efficient than induction motor or motors with field windings for certain high-efficiency applications such as electric vehicles. Tesla's chief motor designer was quoted discussing these advantages, saying:
It's well known that permanent magnet machines have the benefit of pre-excitation from the magnets, and therefore you have some efficiency benefit for that. Induction machines have perfect flux regulation and therefore you can optimize your efficiency. Both make sense for variable-speed drive single-gear transmission as the drive units of the cars. So, as you know, our Model 3 has a permanent magnet machine now. This is because for the specification of the performance and efficiency, the permanent magnet machine better solved our cost minimization function, and it was optimal for the range and performance target. Quantitatively, the difference is what drives the future of the machine, and it's a trade-off between motor cost, range and battery cost that is determining which technology will be used in the future
The macro demand risks to PRE and other rare earth miners are product substitution and alternative sourcing methods
Perhaps in wind turbines the risk of substitution is lower, however it seems much more likely to occur in autos, where manufacturers are already developing non-rare-earth alternatives. It may be cheaper and more feasible for autos to side-step rare earth PMs altogether than replicate the entire Chinese supply chain in the west. This option would also presumably allow autocos to retain in-house control of a greater proportion of total production value.
BMW: [i4 review] “For these new models and all EVs henceforth, BMW is steering clear of permanent magnets and the rare-earth metals contained therein… Other carmakers say that induction motors don’t make enough torque… With the i4 and the iX, BMW says “nonsense.””
Mercedes: “plans to eliminate them [rare earths] in the medium term.”
AEM (development with Bentley, owned by VW): “AEM is able to offer… higher levels of performance than the market leading permanent magnet motors...”
AEM might not be an eventual winner, the point is that step-change innovation is entirely possible, and an apparent focus for the autocos, as evidenced by BMW in particular.
Alternative sourcing methods
Sourcing innovation could render all primary mining to be prohibitively expensive. This could be in the form of LCM’s mineral sands suggestion, although perhaps not; a more likely candidate is Rainbow’s production of oxide from by-products as referenced in an article earlier this week. The RBW PEA will be an interesting read.
“It's worth viewing the sector not as who will be able to mine or extract successfully as that's a rather large field. Rather, which few of that many are going to be the lowest cost producer? There being no certainty at all that it's going to be anyone using the currently standard techniques”
Morning DumbPunter. A nice 5:52am post from you this morning. The thought of Pensana share price up on the day affecting your sleep pattern?
Where is DP? He post 10+ times a day on our forum but has gone missing. Hope all ok
The 'Dark Horse' is interesting but if viable then after 3 years and ferrite magnets so cheap why no commercial interest?
Bit of an LCM??
"So how do you remove hundreds of tons from the mass of a machine made of magnets, gears, iron cores, and kilometers of copper winding? Exchange the magnets and maybe even the copper winding for coils of superconductors.
Simple, right? Actually, no. Years-long multinational research efforts have recently concluded that, while feasible, building such a turbine would be a monumental tech challenge. And the case for doing so is weakening as permanent magnets get better and cheaper. In fact, a dark-horse competitor whose technology is based on permanent magnets is on track to nudge superconductors aside in the 10-MW realm. And unless either the economics or the attributes of superconductors greatly improve—"
Lower cost = bigger = offshore = very low maintenance design. So excludes induction, gearboxes, cryogenics for superconductors. Many efforts made NeFeB magnets have no substitute.
Yes DP... I’m interested also! What are your predictions of demand??
RareEarther - My thoughts precisely! Come on Dumbo, spill the beans - what are your predictions for demand in the next decade?