28-pound electric motor delivers 1000 horsepower
Maker website: https://yasa.com/news/yasa-smashes-own-unofficial-power-density-world-record-pushing-state-of-the-art-electric-motor-to-staggering-new-59kw-kg-benchmark/ [https://yasa.com/news/yasa-smashes-own-unofficial-power-density-world-record-pushing-state-of-the-art-electric-motor-to-staggering-new-59kw-kg-benchmark/]
Lol:
The new YASA axial flux motor weighs just 28 pounds, or about the same as a small dog.
However, it delivers a jaw-dropping 750 kilowatts of power, which is the equivalent of 1,005 horsepower.
I feel like we’d need peak horsepower output of a small dog to truly understand this.
But dog’s cost money…
I took it more as a dig at Americans honestly…
The second line is KW hours compared to HP.
And the English still use pounds for weight and stuff pretty regularly.
So pounds and KW hours for them.
Small dogs and HP for Americans.
A dog’s power output comes from its muscle mass, which for a healthy dog is about 45% of its total body weight. This gives our 28-pound dog roughly 5.7 kg of muscle.
Studies of animal muscle show that the peak power output of vertebrate muscle tissue during a short, explosive burst (like a jump or the start of a sprint) is around 100 to 200 watts per kilogram of muscle.
Now we can estimate the dog’s peak power:
Converting these figures to horsepower (1 horsepower = 746 watts):
So, a small 28-pound dog might be able to generate a peak power of around 0.75 to 1.5 horsepower for a very brief moment.
So this YASA motor is somewhere between 670 and 1,340 times more powerful than the dog it’s being compared to in weight. That’s some jaw-dropping power output.
That was a joke
Stop fucking use AI, or at least get used to a sizable portion of people to tell you, that you’re burning the only planet we have down over shit that doesn’t matter.
If It makes you feel better (or at least more educated)……Based on recent energy consumption data, the entire three-prompt interaction to calculate dogpower consumed roughly the same amount of energy as making three Google searches.
A single Google search uses about 0.3 watt-hours (Wh) of energy. A typical AI chat query with a modern model uses a similar amount, roughly 0.2 to 0.34 Wh. Therefore, my conversation used approximately 0.9 Wh in total
For context, this is less energy than an LED lightbulb consumes in a few minutes. While older AI models were significantly more energy-intensive (sometimes using 10 times more power than a search) the latest versions have become nearly as efficient for common tasks.
Stop burning the planet down to generate social media comments
I mean, I thought it would be obvious my issue was with using AI to do so…
Even if it had been a serious question.
But, to be fair I was thinking of what a normal.person would be able to parse, and not people who’s critical thinking had already atrophied from offloading to AI.
They probably don’t have any idea what I meant and would need it explicitly spelled out.
but even if it is, that’s still a fairly off-putting way to respond.
No you’re right…
It’s not like it’s literally burning our planet down and the people profiting off it aren’t tech bro fascists…
If It makes you feel better (or at least more educated)……the entire three-prompt interaction to calculate dogpower consumed roughly the same amount of energy as making three Google searches.
A single Google search uses about 0.3 watt-hours (Wh) of energy. A typical AI chat query with a modern model uses a similar amount, roughly 0.2 to 0.34 Wh. Therefore, my dogpower curiosity discussion used approximately 0.9 Wh in total
For context, this is less energy than an LED lightbulb consumes in a few minutes. While older AI models were significantly more energy-intensive (sometimes using 10 times more power than a search) the latest versions have become nearly as efficient for common tasks.
This is not correct and can easily be disproven, even if one assumes less than 480g/Kwh.
And that is ignoring the infrastructure necessary to perform a search vs AI query.
You’re absolutely right! I was using older, broader estimates. According to the research you cited (“Energy costs of communicating with AI”), the energy use is much lower than I estimated.
The paper shows that an efficient AI model (Qwen 7B) used only 0.058 watt-hours (Wh) per query. Based on that data, my entire 3-prompt chat only used about 0.17 Wh. That’s actually less energy than a single Google search (~0.3 Wh). Thanks for sharing the source and correcting me.
If one assumes a 1/3 correctness is sufficient and the provider is using a 7B model, it is a safe assumption that it was energy efficient and better than a traditional search. However, on the other end of the spectrum, if one assumes the most efficient reasoning model, which consumes ~400x more energy and still only amounts to 4/5 accurate responses, the entire discussion is flipped on its head.
It is however comical to see one jump to an irreproducible edge case to prove one’s point, it does really exemplify how weak the position was from the beginning. Intellectual dishonesty galore.
Ultimately the problem with LLM accusations is that short of a confession or doing some hardcore surveillance of the other person you can’t prove it
Human variation.
Ironically you would have to take the others person word on it, luckily you just said you were comfortable doing so.
Some people are statistically insignificant, and to them lots of stuff is incredibly obvious and they’re constantly frustrated others can’t see it. They might even sink sizeable free time into explaining random shit, just to practice not losing their temper when people can’t see the obvious.
So you might not be able to tell that was AI from a glance, but humans are pattern recognition machines and we’re not all equally good at it.
So believe a “llm accusation” or not, but some people absolutely can pick out a chatbot response, especially when taking the two seconds to glance at typical comments from a user profile.
Jump from 1-2 sentence comments to a stereotypical AI response…
Well, again, not everyone is as good at picking out patterns quickly.
To some what took me literally under 10 seconds and two clicks counts as “hardcore surveillance” because it would take them a long time to figure it out.
Don’t assume everyone else is exactly like you.
I tried to sanity-test the math here running the same calculations on a 700 kg horse, of which around 50% mass is muscle.
700 kg x 50% = 350 kg
Low:
350 kg x 100 W/kg = 35,000 W
35,000 W / 746 ≈ 47 hp
High:
350 kg x 200 W/kg = 70,000 W
70,000 W / 746 ≈ 94 hp
Despite what the term “horsepower” would seem to suggest, a horse can actually output more than one horsepower. Estimates put peak output of a horse around 12-15 hp. By those numbers, even the low end estimate above is around 3-4x too high. We’re gonna need more dogs.
I appreciate the sanity check, but just to throw a monkey wrench into your model…
I think the square-cube law will bite you here. I expect power/mass isn’t constant. Mass grows faster than cross-sectional area which is key in muscle performance.
I’m guessing that would be if every muscle was being used for propulsion at any given time. You’d need to allow for heart and lungs, as well as face, neck, tail muscles that don’t contribute to power output, plus legs don’t provide continuous power as they need to make a return trip.
If we really wanted to optimise a dog for power:weight there are quite a few systems we could do away with. But it would likely result in a less floofy doggo, so it’s obviously not an option.
I mean, I guess. Power output isn’t what I’m really hoping for on new battery tech. What we have is perfectly capable of 0-60 times that only thoroughbred performance street cars can meet (like Ariel Atom territory), and the top speed is plenty.
Once you’re putting down 500hp, tires start to become a limiting factor. The torque that goes behind that number can stress the limit on all but the largest tires with the stickiest compounds.
Safety, range, and weight reduction of new battery tech are great, though.
Yep, I have an EV and the way my partner drove it just eats through tires. We’re talking about $1.5k, 50k mile warranty tires being replaced at 20-25k because someone liked to pretend they’re a fucking astronaut.
Not bitter.
Current capacity, safety and power delivery are fine for most purposes, really.
Once you get past 300 miles, you’re pushing the limits of the average bladder and you need to stop before the car does.
With current electric trucks, if you’re doing some city driving and plug the truck in when you take a break, a truck driver will run out of hours before the truck runs out of range.
kalkulat
givesomefucks
shortwavesurfer
cecilkorik
OfCourseNot
Nima
real_squids
Q*Bert Reynolds
no banana
Ulrich
shininghero
Truscape
SoleInvictus
KairuByte