Is it high reliability, high power density, flexibility with regard to possible topologies, high operation frequency, use of wide bandgap power semiconductors ...
I would appreciate your comments!
This is my order of preference... Very High Efficiency, high power density, moderately high frequency operation
Of course it should be reliable..
As power semiconductors lag the microprocessor line-width development process by a few generations power density can improve. However, the issue then is that cooling and cooling costs become a problem so there must be a practical trade-off between the two.
I have not followed developments in recent years but I have not seen too many improvements over the IGBT in terms of trying to achieve the ideal switch. That higher power topologies are using multilevel PWM is akin to using multiple cores in microprocessors as there is a practical ceiling which has been reached.
Thanks colleagues for your comments.
As far as I am aware it is as you stated it, Gregory: There was constant improvement but its level was and is by far not comparable to the paradigm of Moore's law. As in the microprocessor field, also in the field of power electronics and power electronics modules, people try to beat physics. Within the last years, R&D focus shifted from Si to wide bandgap materials. More and more professionals become believers in the higher performance those devices can deliver - and so do I. However, using new materials and rather new concepts for power devices as HEMT and JFET, it is obvious that there is much more to do than just replace Si by SiC or GaN. It is a question of system change and adoption. However, Si will stay in broad market areas as in the mentioned multi-level concepts.
Shouldn't there be the move to smarter, i.e. more intelligent modules?
Michael intelligent modules make sense as much of the cost is in the packaging so laying out on a single substrate makes sense. I am aware of some who have put power modules, drivers,and DSP with PWM and current speed, position into a single package. However these are mostly for custom applications.
I believe if Electric Vehicles become widely used then we will require such Intelligent Modules and to be low cost so as to be able to simply replace like the current automotive market. I foresee that future power electronics will have Ethernet comms, web servers, fault and diagnostic logging and OPC output for monitoring and control purposes.
So yes I agree that there will be a move to smarter and easier to use and debug systems. The focus today is on system integration costs, up time and continuous and robust operation with fairly low level technical support so it appears matters are headed that way.
Tomorrows technician / engineer or support company will get an sms on their Phone or Samsung gadget reporting the fault and diagnostics much like the automotive and Formula 1. Some drive automation systems already have this so it is not unrealistic to speculate.
Gragory,
thanks for your comments and ideas. Sure, it would bring a lot of additional value to systems if maintenance and repair could be facilitated by easy diagnostics using common interface structures. Regarding ethernet, I am doubtful since in automotive, CAN is the bus that is much more in common. However, there are still some points to think of on the topology and packaging level:
One is redundancy - would't it be fairly convenient if future electric devices would show some level of redundancy in all crittical parts of the power train - battery, inverter and motor(s), for instance. In best case, such redundancy would not show up as those in normal operation but would offer restricted traction power and range (30% & 15 km would be suitagble, I think) to reach the next workshop for repair.
Another point is interoperability and platform based design. With that, I mean defined interfaces, power connectors, voltage levels, battery form factors and many more ... .
As sure as todays vehicles have four wheels, they will be equipped with batteries and electric motors of restricted variety in order to benefit from the economy of scale.
What do you think?
Michael,
As you say redundancy and interoperability make good engineering sense but somehow I feel that in terms of interoperability marketing and legal might see matters differently. Who would assume legal responsibility when things go wrong if one uses parts from different suppliers even if they all meet ISO and safety standards when manufactured and assembled. Getting manufacturers to agree on a battery level, form factor and motor voltage might, be argued or perceived as being too restrictive in terms ones "right to choose" or its impact on post sales support partners.
In terms of redundancy I do not see why it is not possible to have the equivalent of the skinny spare wheel where one might have, say a smaller inverter in parallel to do as you suggest.
As the vehicle market is brand and post sales service driven the need for a 'differentiator" will be hard to change. I feel human matters will have to change.
Gregory,
sure there are the folks believing in a special brand and perhaps we all are somehow bound in our abilities to make free decisions. As you stated, human mind needs to change somehow, otherwise we won't enjoy life on this planet any further. I am sure that this shift in mindset will come and we will see practical automotive products with practical capabilities driven by electric energy soon. All what's needed are dynamic mid-sized companies that fill in the gap left by the global players. In that respect, we can learn from Tesla - although their products support the "need for speed" mindset, they might set standards: At this years Hannovermesse in Germany I saw a vehicle from Tesla that could accommodate 4 passengers and offered TWO luggage storages - one in the front and one in the rear of the car. That made me think ....
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Materials Science
- Materials
- Inorganic Materials
- Ceramics