0.049 reed motor efficiency

ticomareado wrote:What happens to shagged out LiPo batteries in the environment?

Quote "Lithium batteries are generally considered not an environmental hazard except when containing toxic (heavy) metals and disposed of in large quantities".

What happens to unburned nitro and methanol and spewed oil to the environment, your answer can't be good? (again "poor life")

I thought this was a forum of COX engine lovers   ..we eat pork and beef with cholesterol in it and wash it down with beer and wine no matter the unhealthy alcohol and sugar in it...carpe diem.

The environmental impact of these small critters is way less than the plastic or even recycled paper bags we carry our food home in from the supermarkets no matter how healthy vegetables you carry home in them, let alone the emissions from gasoline burnt in large ICE powered cars we drive  then park in the doorway of our sometimes still insufficiently heat insulated single-pane-windowed houses after arriving home from the supermarket or wherever, and we do not seem to constantly blame ourselves about it..at least I do not feel guilty every moment because I live ( BTW in a well insulated house and driving a car that I just measured yesterday on a 700km trip  consumes 6 l diesel (oh what a poisonous fuel!!!) each 100 km at a speed of 150km/h) a civilized life and necessarily leave a tiny stain on Earth here and there like every one of us does even Greenpeace members ...I live reasonably environment consciously, but will not put bitumen on my  skin then spin myself in feathers just because of the COX hobby I have..c'mon...

(I offer an excuse, though..I hate air-conditioning, and the environmental benefit of energy thus saved offsets multiple times the damage I cause with my COX engines... )

Just guessing, but I suspect that total emissions from every model nitro/Diesel engine used in the world ever would be less than one A380 flight from London to New York, and how many tons of kerosene are burnt in airliners around the world every day?

Methanol is manufactured (not mined like Lithium) as is Nitromethane.  Castor oil is organic!! so that's gotta help the earth, right?

Maybe we should all go back to rubber powered models. Rubber and balsa are natural/organic.

Maybe we should just douse ourselves in certified organic fair trade hot beeswax, roll in some free range, no hormones chicken feathers and jump off of a cliff.

Harump.....silly AirBus 370...

use this app...find your area, see the traffic....zoom out

upper left has totals of aircraft in flight

https://www.flightradar24.com/30.48,-96.56/7

All good points! I like the feather idea! Thinking group flight, lol.

When electric efficiency was questioned, I challenged, and not much of a reply. So is electric still about 5 times more efficient than a 2 stroke cox motor?

Being a Cox engine site for those who love using them to fly and surface run them don't care how efficient
they are compared to electric motors. Folks enjoy running them regardless of power losses / fuel waste.

 

I would agree that the electrickery route is more efficient but, nevertheless, for quite a few aeromodellers it can be a tad impractical and often requires substantial upfront investment.

A simple example is the 225 minute run by the little Cox engine on a US quart of fuel. Now, I buy Imperial gallons of glow fuel for £20 and that, if my maths is correct, is £4.16p. (Please fell free to substitute $ for £).for a US quart

Now the typical (i have several variations) 1/2A (US 1/2A) set up that i use employs a 3S 1300mah battery Sport 25C battery. This costs £16,98p and from fully charged to 20% will run for 7.7 minutes,

Why 1300mah battery? Any bigger would be too heavy, any smaller woukldn't run for long enough and too small a battery will fry as it can't deliver enough current,

So, for 225 minutes flying in a day you would need 30 batteries for the princely sum of £509.40. A battery recharge at 1 amp would also probable take an hour. Even for the RC guys, typical flight times are under 10 minutes, which is why quite a few still prefer fuel.

Now most control liners aim for a 6 minute or so flight and that means a battery per flight. While three hours 45 minutes is a lot of flying, an
hour of practise flights or 10 batteries isn't.(£169.80). I battery is 1 US gallon of fuel.

Different setups need different batteries, the larger the model - the more power - either volts or amps. A ringmaster with a 25 setup and 9x6 prop will need a 3300 3S battery (£34).

My 1/2A KK Radian because of the restriction on space for the battery uses 900mah 2S batteries bu because the battery needs to deliver 25amps, it is quite expensive and only gives me a two minute flights time.

Now the batteries can be recharged many times and even recharging the 30 batteries would only cost 6p (excluding charger!) .

As mentioned, a range of sizes of models requires different batteries wheres a bottle of fuel will feed many different engines.

Now for the bad - in a perfect world the batteries should last a very but prang the plane and the battery will be damaged and unsafe to reuse. Likewise, if you use a cheap controller and stall the propeller (tip over on take off) - something will fry. Set the timer wrong and flatten the battery completely ............ put a battery that needs charging in the plane and set it to run for 6 minutes that it hasn't got. Electrickery gets expensive,

There is nothing like the sound and smell of the good old combustion engine!

@ ian, Some good points and some not so good.  

You brought up the electric EFF, and I am totally good with a discussion about it, if others are not, please move on, this is a pleaseful discussion, there is plenty more threads for commenting if this is not your cup of tea. I did not start this thread for elec vs 2 stroke comparison. Your electric EFF link was an eyeopener, thanks for that, I shared with many of my EE friends already!

I bought 12 batteries (4s-1300, in late 2016) for a cost of $11 each shipped on sale ($132 total). I have 1800+ cycles on all of them, and a few are now over 2100 cycles. In 2017 I did 10,400 flights on them, thats 250 hours air-time (flying) and to be clear, they were 90 seconds flights, why, because my old quad has only 9:1 thrust to weight at 430g AUW (the new stuff is up to 15:1), it pulls a peak of 120A and 1800W (input power). 90 seconds of extreme preformance/maneuvers is fine for me (I am not a floater or lapper). I could fly 2 minutes taking the battery down to ~20% (or boring hover for 5 minutes), but I leave ~40% charge left in the battery because it tremendously increases life cycles. The 250 hours of flight was only in one year, I did ~70% of that in 2018 and 30% of that in early 2019, so at least 500 hours of flight on them 12 batteries all for $132. I have retired them batteries from "quad" use, now I use them in my planes, yep, they still going fine only pushing one motor, a single motor has no problem on older batteries for 3d planes.

Using the 3.7 hours on 32oz of fuel (endurance test) would be ~15 hours on a gallon (much worse with TD/etc motor).

500 hours with a 049 is roughly 33 gallons of fuel.
My local hobby shop (robshobbies in hunting beach, ca) charges $40 a gal for 20% nitro and $47 a gal for 30% (out the door, including tax).
That would be $43(a gal @25% nitro) x 33 = ~$1400, or 10x the price of the batteries (not including charging cost).

Currently, I use $10~13 motors, about 10~30 times less than what a new 049 cost new these days.
http://www.myrcmart.com/rcx-nk2207-2400kv-fpv-racing-motor-japan-ezo-bearing-n52sh-arc-magnet-p-11838.html

A single recharge of my 4s-1300 pack from ~40% charge is 700~800mAH battery accepted, so 800mAH x 14.8v is 12WH.
With my power supply +90% EFF and charger +90% = 81% EFF
So I pay ~26 cents a KW (delivered, much less with solar, but that's another subject), it takes 14.8WH to charge my battery (81% EFF and 12WH into battery).
So roughly 20,800 pack charges (500 hours of flight) would cost 20,800 x 14.8w = 308KW, at 26cents a KW = $80 in charging costs (including P/S and charger EFF)

Summery:
Electric,,,
$132 for 12 batteries (that are still going)
$80 charging cost for 500 hours of very high preformance flight
Total of $212, both batteries and motors are still going

Nitro,,,,
500 hours with a 049 is roughly 33 gallons (if it lasts that long) and ~$1400 in fuel

Or ~7 times more cost (my batteries are still going, where nitro fuel is done) and 5+ times less EFF

Of course your nitro or electricity may vary from where I live.
Zero maintenance on my BLDC motors, killer top of the line EZO bearings.

Crashes cost money, lol, with my ~$13 motors that takes a massive beating (80mph in to asphalt dirt w/o damage and with only breaking a 37cent prop (or 4 of them, or $1.50 for a bad crash, lol). 049 do seem to take a beating too, with my combat experience with over overwatered soft park grass, the 049 is not nearly as reliable in a beating, but to many factors to really quantify anything, lets call that a wash, but glow plus, how many $5 a pop glow plugs do you go though in 500 hours of flight? My quad motors have well over 400 crashes without and any damage to them ($52 for a set of 4 of them), that's pretty awesome imo.

There is nothing like the smell of 2 stroke burning in the morning, I totally agree, but where I fly, they are starting to complain about electric noise, so 2 strokes ain't happening. I do enjoy the sunny southern california weather (highs in the high 80's, lows in the high 40s, fly all year around)

My battery hangs off the bottom of my quad, and rarely does it get destroyed, I don't use "crappy" esc, I use low cost 30A ESC (rs30a v2 for $10 or rs80a v2 ro $16) that takes a beating, 5S no problem, shorts into the stator no problem, overheating no problem, it hase temp control, even a lost model beacon that has saved my azz many times. BLHeli_S kicks azz in ESC preformance, smooth, low noise (high PWM freq), low stable rpm, very fast response (yep, plane guys laughing, their fing is slow like molasses, many adjustable features with Tx or $2 arduino nano controller.

Thanks for the friendly discussion. Happy flying

There is a few errors in my last post,,,But all in favor of electric, but the CEF crowd is pretty tough against electric, so no one is stepping up to the plate to defend electric vs fuel (electrickery, haha great name! for someone that dont appreciate or understand the electronics age), Mega LOL This reminds me of the old stubborn carburetor mechanics, they hated fuel injection and called it "fuel infection" because they were behind the curve and threatened (because there old school tech was behind the times)

Anyone want to point out my flaws in that post, or? lol

Here is one:


"Currently, I use $10~13 motors, about 10~30 times less than what a new 049 cost new these days."

A NIB TeeDee049 is yours from ebay at typically 75USD...I bought all my TD049-s around that number..you guys in the US pay another 5 bucks or so for shipping..I pay around 20 -unless it goes into customs and costs me about 30% of the above shipped price more in Value Added Tax - but who cares shipping cost if a crispy new TD adds to your stable?
So your 049-to-electric price factor is an average 8 and not 10-30 for you US folks, and a bit more for us globeCOX-ers.

Not that I want to find errors but you encouraged me...here is another one:
"So I pay ~26 cents a KW (delivered)"...

We pay electricity bills charged in kWh which is energy and not in kW which is power...of course you also know that but it is often said incorrectly that way.

But otherwise I really appreciate the arguments you delivered pro electric...as an engineer I must accept most of them...as a COX addict I just shrug my shoulders and go to the field later today to burn some more nitro in one of my COX powered RC planes and enjoy the smell and unmistakable COX noise...

balogh wrote:Here is one: A NIB TeeDee049 is yours from ebay at 75USD...

Here is a few:
Most TD's are around $300, but ok, let's go with your $75, it puts out less thrust than a $13 motor, BTW that's not a flaw, paying ~6 times the price of  motor and then for nitro and getting 5% efficiency is pretty funny in my book.

My single motor produces 1.6Kg of trust on the bench (times 4 motors), all in an instant (idle (zero trust) to 90% thrust (1.6Kg thrust per motor) in ~100ms), yea, most cant comprehend these specs. My two year old quad (with a heavy battery) produces 9:1 thrust to weight (real measured with the flight controller accelerometer), new quads are hitting 15:1 thrust to weight. What you got,,,nevermind, i know the answer)
Slow thro response, low power, ~6x the cost per motor, low efficiency and a shower is needed after a single flight, and you asked for it, thanks.  

Sorry, ELECTRO-TRICKERY is here, they have made cares more efficient and all the other stuff.

In my previous post, I was calculating my quad (only data I had) vs the little 049 (endurance test, again, only data I had), but, I missed a important fact,,,,I will report back with time permitting

Sorry, but I don't even understand why we need to have this discussion. This forum is for those who appreciate, collect and use Cox products, particularly engines. Why do we do it? Because we like Cox products, not because we're looking for the most efficient and up-to-date source of motive power. By all means, use electric products if you want to. I've tried. Doesn't suit me. I tried R/C as well. Doesn't suit me. But please don't try to tell other people what they should or shouldn't enjoy. If we want to talk dollars, none of our hobbies make any sense, so the $ argument is irrelevant. For small time users like me, the equipment and fuel cost is insignificant. I could go out and buy a classic car and spend, say, $20,000. Then I spend another $6,000 for a respray, plus another $3,000 for an engine and trans overhaul. Oh, plus another $2,000 for upholstery. Well, we're over $30,000 and I still have an old and inefficient car. Could have bought a new one for that with all the latest technology and safety features to make it efficient and safe. But I don't want that. I want my old car, just like I want my noisey, oily, inefficient Cox (and other) I/C engines. I enjoy them. I'm not out to make money out of them. I just want to play, and who counts precise $$ when we play?

No problem OZ  I guess we all hear you and appreciate your mathematics but it is our sinful COX addiction of this crowd here that you fight your uphill battle against...why don't we just indulge in our side of the hobby and not try to defeat the other side??

I guess we all know how quick and powerful the modern LiPo-brushless systems are, but trying to prove them ”better” at the Cox Engine Forum is sort of like going to a Vintage Harley forum and starting to rave about the inexpensiveness, power and speed of Japanese crotch-rockets. Off the topic, and every Harley guy knows that a $1500 Japanese 600cc is faster than just about any vintage Harley. For them the speed is so not the point. To each his own, see.

Please don’t get me wrong, as far as I am concerned, any Civil discussion is welcome, but trying to convince the crowd here to turn to electrickery (aka the dark side) is a bit pointless. Those of us who like that sort of thing, already have some (I do), those who have tried and maybe not liked them have gone back to nitro.

Peace

This is what "reddies" were for!! Bring back the red - button!!!

In other words we're just a bunch of knuckle draggin' Luddites hell bent on spoiling the planet and making Greta Thunberg cry.

--Oz-- wrote:There is a few errors in my last post,,,But all in favor of electric, but the CEF crowd is pretty tough against electric, so no one is stepping up to the plate to defend electric vs fuel (electrickery, haha great name! for someone that dont appreciate or understand the electronics garbage.

Anyone want to point out my flaws in that post, or? lol

I will Second Old Engine Rods response.  This is the Cox Engine Forum, that is your flaw. If I wanted to talk electronics I’d go to a forum based on that specific flavor.  I like Tesla’s, someday maybe will drive a hybrid electric car, but Cox engines and 1/2a Nitro will still be my hobby. Don’t need to defend my choice to enjoy talking about, playing with, buying, fixing or running Nitro 1/2a Engines.  The CEF does have a wide berth of subject matter that goes Off Topic on Non-Cox products and when presented I don’t mind learning about Diesels, Russian, Japanese, Hungarian engines or other Manufacturers. I will probably learn more about Electronics as time marches on, and your information could be useful at some point, but it’s not gonna “convert” me now, or in the future.

--Oz-- wrote:All good points! I like the feather idea! Thinking group flight, lol.

When electric efficiency was questioned, I challenged, and not much of a reply. So is electric still about 5 times more efficient than a 2 stroke cox motor?

Like you said “ Thanks for the friendly discussion.    Happy flying“. Nothing wrong with that...  

A quick summary:
1. It was a technical challenge for me to attempt to figure out the EFF of a reedy cox motor. I only posted it to see if my calc's were right.
2. I never meant this to be a fuel versus electric comparison (someone else brought it up, and I am glad, as I learned from it)
3. I hope I haven't come across as "I am trying to convert" anyone to electrics, if yes, I am sorry.
4. I have learned some new words, knuckle dragging, electro-trickery, and a few others, all worth a good chuckle!
5. when someone pokes me, I tend to poke back, sorry.
6. Below is my flaw in my EFF of electric versus fuel.

My flaw was using the only data I had (endurance 049 and my quad) and the difference in their output.

My motors on bench produce 1.6Kg each or 6.4Kg for 4 motors total. But I dont like bench numbers (because I dont fly on the bench), so I know my quad can pull a little over 9:1 thrust to weight measured with onboard accelerometer, my quad is 430g all up weight. So that would make ~4Kg thrust in air. The problem is my quad makes ~20 times the thrust verse 0.22Kg thrust for the 049. Of course I am not full throttle the whole run (I can do that, but it would last less than a minute at 1800W 120A). So I need to adjust the average thrust on my quad downwards. Let's go with ~25%, or ~1Kg average thrust, verse 0.22Kg, or roughly 5 times more thrust on average on the quad. This would drop my battery/motor/charging costs way down relativity.

Factoring in I am producing ~5 times the thrust and 5 times the EFF, the total EFF is somewhere north of 10 times the EFF for electric and at least the same on cost or more. After a while, the batteries are paid for and only charging costs need be considered per flight.

A few of my friends planes kept getting bigger, so they say around 50~70 inch wingspan and above, gas motors really start to shine, specially since large batteries are pricey and gas (not nitro) is $4 a gallon.

Have fun guys.

Oz- please poke away!  It was my bad for not reading the entire post from the beginning, before posting.
We do some serious kidding about the “dark side” electrickery ect, but it is all in good fun. The mathematics you present are fun to look at but totally over my head. As long as you and others understand them and find them useful, keep at it. Someday maybe I’ll get it. ......but as long as I have access to 25%Nitro w/ 20%Oil/castor..I’m good to go, have fun!  

I've noticed that they sell these 21" cut lipo battery powered push lawn mowers for about $200.00 in Lowes and Home Depot. The deck, handle and wheels are pretty much like any other MTD stamped metal deck mower with a 5 HP Briggs engine. The thing feels considerably lighter than a gas engine version. So I'm wondering what the potential is to hack one of those mowers for a giant scale plane, four for a quad and maybe three or four for a powered hang glider. The main fly in the ointment may be to replace the stock bearings with thrust bearings.

Hi,
Unless you use solar or hydro-electric power, the electricity you use to charge your batteries still come from burning fossil fuels. Don't know the efficiencies of Power Plants but my guess would be around 14 percent, as all of the energy is converted to heat and light. The light (fire in the boilers) is part of the wasted energy. The other losses come from heat that cannot be recovered and from electricity needed to run the plant. Not an engineer or scientist but you can't create energy, you can only convert it. So that highly efficient battery/motor combination could have gotten its energy from a gallon of bunker fuel.