Doing away with electric motors (from the Economist Sept 3-9, 2011 - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Computeruser
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2011, 01:49:09 am
content: Quote from the Economist September 3 - 9, 2011:"Electroactive polymers, also known as artificial muscles, could replace electric motors in some applications."-------------------------That should make troubleshooting really interesting. ... C

author: Jimmy
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2011, 06:49:18 am
content: not in industry they won't they wouldn't even be coincided in anything other than a consumer toy.

author: Hypernova
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 08, 2011, 08:26:34 am
content: Considering that back in high school I read about similar stuff in Scientific American, they got quite a long way to go still.

author: Computeruser
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2011, 10:44:07 am
content: The original use is in artificial limbs, but the extension is possibly into autofocus lenses. They are looking as well at rotary motion.>>>> not in industry they won't they wouldn't... <-- Industry will go where there is money..... C

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2011, 01:50:20 pm
content: Electric motors are cheap, reliable, efficient, and scalable over a huge range. For the moment, artificial muscles are none of these things. They are an area of research that has been promising for some time, but they still look likely to remain niche products for the foreseeable future. In fact, they have been ceding some potential territory to other technologies. For instance, ultrasonic motors have taken over a lot of territory on the very small scale where electromagnetic motors don't scale very well.

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2011, 02:59:30 pm
content: Its still got a long way to go, and even if somehow it was practical, there are more issues to consider than just it works. Spare parts, maintenance, tools and dies for the existing technology make it cheaper to build and maintain etc., not to mention any concerns from the users themselves. Today we have brushless motors, but the brushed motors still refuse to die.Consider all the hype that went into Segway, 10 years since its not anywhere close to mainstream; it took 20 years for HDTV to catch on after it was designed and it took major government promotion and coordination to make it so; when Noyce invented the silicone IC in 1959 it took over 10 years before most engineers saw the value of it, but it really took off more years later, in the late 1970s. The nascent industry again, was supported heavily by gov't military contracts for ~ 10 years, by which time increasingly more commercial engineers saw its value.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2011, 12:47:49 am
content: Looking at the inaccuracy of predictions by the professionals the paper is named after,I wouldn't take its predictions at all seriously!VK6ZGO

author: Computeruser
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2011, 01:11:55 am
content: The technology needs time to mature - that is for sure.But if you read The Economist every week (I do) you learn that it is much above average and much more trustworthy than most rags. ... C

author: Frangible
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2011, 03:34:11 am
content: Yeah - and I'm still waiting for energy so cheap, they nobody bothers to meter it.

author: wosser
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2011, 09:36:02 am
content: I think they might be useful in things like digital cameras - where small and precise movements are needed but not with any great amount of force. Perhaps as focus or aperture adjustment actuators.

author: jakeypoo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2011, 09:54:31 pm
content: I think we all have read enough 'science' journalism to know that it's filled with hyperbole.

author: Computeruser
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2011, 10:32:02 pm
content: In all the years I have been reading The Economist, I have not found it filled with hyperbole. It has other faults, but not that. ... C

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 11, 2011, 02:22:36 am
content: Dear Computeruser:--I am afraid the naysayers and the contrarians have you dead to rights this time. Unproven cutting edge technology never amounts to anything. I think they are right; your drill is not going to have an EP muscle pulling a crank to turn the bit anytime soon. Nor is EP going to replace the motors powering the hydraulic systems that operate control surfaces in aircraft.--Next you will be saying "but possibly EP could actuate control surfaces more simply and efficiently, and could possibly replace the motor and the hydraulic system." Get real man. Look at the way birds do it. They use electric motors and hydraulic systems, uh, er...Duh.--Then you will be repeating silly electric motor denyalist ideas like EP being used instead of EM servos and hydraulic systems in robot manipulator arms. Look at the way humans do it. They use elec... uh, Duh.--But seriously folks, I think the ideas I discussed above are eminently possible. It will just take a while to plod through the nanotecnological steps. In high power applications cooling will be a problem. That is one of the things that is so brilliant about hydraulic systems; the cooling system is integral, as with biological muscle.--We know this sort of thing can be done, because the Old One did it by rolling the dice over the eons and epochs. Now we probably have much less time to complete our designs, but then again we do not have start by using dice. Gosh, I sure hope no one accuses me of being a fundamentalist knuckle dragging adherent of the Einstein Penrose heresy, praise Dawkins.--See below for the link to the Economist Article:http://www.economist.com/node/21527034--Another nascent technology which may take a bit longer is the Vacuum Balloon. A balloon with a very rigid but very light weight skin, so that vacuum can replace the helium. I thought this idea was the invention of Neal Stephenson in "The Diamond Age", but see link below about Arthur De Bausset wanting to build one in 1894. Now that guy was an optimist.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_airship--And one final piece of cutting edge technology; The magazine Field & Stream reports that fisheries biologists are developing an extremely hardy and voracious trout for use in "Catch & Release" streams, so that only one fish is needed per stream. Best RegardsClear Ether

author: Computeruser
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2011, 03:05:21 am
content: Nice response, but:>>> Unproven cutting edge technology never amounts to anythingI do not agree at all.Lots of things that naysayers said would never come 30 years ago are here now. It just takes time. But I allowed that in my first post.3D Copiers are becoming a reality and nanotechnology is already providing paper thin elecrtonics.Science appears to move quasistatically slowly, but move it does. I never suggested EP is here now, but it will come along with other innovations.Cheers, ... C

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 11, 2011, 04:53:07 am
content: Dear Computeruser:--Please read my previous post again, and this time do not use the Evelyn Woods Speedreading method. The are subtle clues strewn about, here and there to indicate my words were more "tongue in cheek" than deadly serious. And that in my own cumbersome, and hopefully, humorous way I was trying to support you.--Thanks a lot for bringing this interesting article to our attention. Best RegardsClear Ether

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2011, 06:13:08 am
content: These things are still just "pretend" muscle,without the built in advantages of biological muscle--a circulation system that offers power&cooling,helps with self repair etc.Perhaps cloned biological muscle may eventually fill some of the niches that "artificial muscle" is aimed at,so it may have a fairly short career."Naysayers" get a bad press,but many times they are right.Consider how many marvels that didn't make it,such as:-Atomically powered cars,aircraft & wristwatches,flying cars,Ovonics,Cold fusion,etc.30years ago would have been 1981.I'm fairly sure that 3D copiers were in the early development stage at that time,& were the subject of magazine articles,showing the process operating.It was extremely costly then,of course.VK6ZGO

author: Tony R
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2011, 10:51:22 pm
content: I heard about this about 10 years ago... still waiting...you just cant beat the humble motor, it just works... what more could you ask for?

author: Computeruser
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2011, 10:58:56 pm
content: >>> what more could you ask for?Think past tomorrow and the answer is clear: Something without moving parts. Motors wear out.I posted this originally to think past the end of tomorrow - not to compare it to today or to what is in production. The particular issue I pulled this from is full of stuff coming toward us. Some of it is nearer; some of it is farther away.... C

author: scrat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2011, 11:17:14 pm
content: Maybe some kind of an objective comparison among different "technologies" could be made, in some cases.For example, I studied (although I must admit I never demonstrated this by myself, as it seems rather intuitive) that electromagnetic energy conversion (electrical to mechanical) is more suitable than the electro-"static" one, as the density you can achieve is higher. If someone could find an energy conversion having a higher density, this could potentially be a good candidate...