In the automotive sector, I can see this working for small motors, such as those used to power windows and seats. It may also be useful in high-speed motors, e.g. for a water pump or electric supercharger. Adding a set of reduction gears increases cost again, so you might as well go with a conventional construction.

High-torque applications like starter motors need a lot of mechanical strength in the rotor, that a thermoplastic matrix may not be able to provide.

Does 'double the output' mean that an electric motor using this technology in a car would use less electricity or does it mean that the motor would use the same electricity, but be smaller in size?

Anonimous "double output".
Iron powder in a plastic matrix implies very high resistivity and low loses in the core due to Foucault currents, so you can use higher induction in the same size or reduce size with the same power, however these gains could been restricted by the size of the coils.
The amount of energy involved in motors operation depends mainly of the load.
I think tht the great improvement is in cost reduction.

Another example of what I have been saying, as an Engineer, for a long time. There is no intrinsic engineering reason why an electrified drive train should be inherently more costly than a conventional drive train.

While low volumes and patents royalties will add temporary costs, over time, the electrified drive train is just inherently cheaper as well as significantly more efficient.

Unlike many who think the world is going to hell in a hand basket, this is yet another example that the premise is simply totally false.
Technological progress, so derided by the "intelligentsia" that is too stupid to contribute to it, is made every day and most of it is incremental.

This is a cost reduction potentially making construction cheaper to manufacture, for many electric motor applications.

Harvey: By high-performance he means accurate rotational positioning and other such properties, not sheer power or efficiency. A fan, pump or electric car-drive motor needs grunt-power, a servo like an actuator needs to have sufficient power, but mostly needs to have a known response to the electrical inputs.

Halving the cost would be great , doubling the output would be very hard since 92 % efficiency is already achieved unless they mean doubling the output in the same size motor , and that would also be fantastic can you imagine saving weigth , space and becasue of this energy.

The SMCs (Soft Magnetic Composites) mentioned as a resources, would they work Linear Variable Differential Transformers?

bluegreen,

A "Quantum Physicist" sits around all day thinking...the Engineer takes those thoughts and puts them into action.

No rigorous proof or understanding? Just stop with the vitriol now, it is getting you nowhere.

The research paper is quite good. I think this will improve existing "in wheel" motors dramatically, and the reduction in weight is needed as it is unsprung.

I can see possibly halving the cost, since permanent magnet motor is expensive due to the rare transitional metals used.
But, I don't see how it can double the output, being encapsulated in a thermoplastic material that is not that strong to put up with the extremely high centrifugal force at a typical operating rpm for an electric motor, nor can we expect the "thermoplastic" to retain its strenght when subjected to motor's heat as a metal magnet?

"NO2 levels in the atmosphere are stabilized, and not rising." - Stan Peterson
"Who knew that nitrogen dioxide was a (major) greenhouse gas?" - Jack

[note how I specifically called NO2 it's correct name - now watch Stanley's reply]

"The IPCC knows that NO2 is a GHG. They discuss is at length in all their interim IPCC Reports. Try reading the TAR III or the current AR4. But then you wouldn't know that. The Elmer Gantry flunkout, showed you a movie and you converted." - Stan Peterson

That's quite a "typographical error" there, Stanley. You said NO2, I laughed at the fact that you said nitrogen dioxide is a GHG, then you doubled down and said that the UN knows that NO2 is a GHG and babbled on with a half dozen more acronyms and your standard pablum about Elmer Gantry.

Face it, Stanley - you're full of crap and everyone here knows it. Please stop making a fool of yourself by posting here. It's downright sad.

Enough with the pachyderms Jack. I am almost expecting your next post to say something about those who meddle with elephants deserving a punch up the trunk.
T2

Richard: by now you've probably missed the majority of the readers of this thread. You'll want to wait until another thread comes up.

jack: the NO2 thing's getting old.