Upgrade underway of Princeton Field Reversed Configuration-2

Image

The Princeton Field Reversed Configuration-2 (PFRC-2) upgrade in field and frequency is underway. We are currently installing new coils around the experiment to increase the magnetic fields and new capacitors to help lower the RF operating frequency – all to reach our target milestones of measuring ion heating! This is an essential next step in our development of Direct Fusion Drive.

The power supplies are stacked in their rack, ready to supply power to the belt coils. The supplies must be programmed to energize for each pulse as they are not cooled and the coils would otherwise overheat. The belt coil holder component on the right was 3D printed at PPPL.

The new 2 nF capacitors, shown above (left image), must be enclosed in a custom copper box that will be part of the tank circuit of PFRC-2. Each component must be carefully designed, including the lengths of the connecting cables, for us to get the right frequency without exceeding voltage limits of the materials.

The above image is of the cable that will connect the tank circuit and the PFRC-2. These cables are very robust, and stiff so that the layout must be carefully planned. We will continue to post updates as we work towards that 2 MHz frequency milestone!

PFRC-2 has been funded by ARPA-E OPEN 2018, NASA NIAC and DOE Fusion Energy Sciences grants.

DOE Awards Princeton Fusion Systems Three INFUSE 2022a Grants

The Department of Energy announced the First Round of the FY 2022 Public-Private Partnership Awards to Advance Fusion Energy. The awards list contains 18 awardees. Princeton Fusion Systems, a doing-business-as name for Princeton Satellite Systems, received three awards:

Electron density profiles on PFRC with USPR: Ultrashort Pulse Reflectometry (USPR) is a plasma diagnostic technique that would be used on the Princeton Field-Reversed Configuration (PFRC) to measure electron density profiles. Such profile measurements provide insight into the structure of PFRC plasma and can improve our estimates of confinement time. Our University partner is University of California, Davis, PI Dr. Neville Luhmann.

Evaluating RF antenna designs for PFRC plasma heating and sustainment: We intend to analyze RF antenna performance parameters critical to the validity of robust PFRC-type fusion reactor designs. Team member University of Rochester will support TriForce simulations and contractor Plasma Theory and Computation, Inc. will support RMF code simulations. Our national lab partner is Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, PI Dr. Sam Cohen.

Stabilizing PFRC plasmas against macroscopic low‐frequency instabilities: This award will use the TriForce code to simulate several plasma stabilization techniques for the PFRC-2 experiment. Our lab partner is PPPL and the team again includes the University of Rochester.

These awards will help us advance PFRC technology. Contact us for more information!

TriForce model of the PFRC-1 experiment

Ford Mach-E

Princeton Satellite Systems has been marketing SunStation electric vehicle charging stations for some time. We are also EV enthusiasts. One employee owns a Tesla Model 3. I now own a Ford Mach-E. It replaces a Nissan Leaf that was purchased in 2012.

Before we purchased the Mach-E we looked at the Hyundai Ioniq 5, the Volkswagen ID 4 and the Kia EV 6. They are all nice cars. It was a close decision between the Mach-E and the Ioniq 5. The good thing is that there are many EVs from which to choose. Even within models, there are many options so that you can pick the car that meets your needs. EV-specific requirements are range, charging network, and charging speed. Otherwise shopping for an EV isn’t much different than shopping for any other car. EVs are available in almost every form factor, including pickup trucks like the Ford F-150 Lightning.

The Mach-E is a 2021 model rear-wheel drive Premium Model with an extended range battery.

This gives a range of 335 miles, 10% more than the EPA value.

Fully charged!

The Level 2 charger is in the background. This is more than sufficient to reach all of the places we visit without charging along the route. The FordPass app will find a route for your trip and tell you when and where to charge. For our planned trips, it is showing that no en-route charging is needed, as long as we start near full charge. Tesla has an extensive Supercharger network that makes intercity driving really easy. All other EVs rely on networks such as ChargePoint and EVGo. There are many apps, besides FordPass, that will plan your trip including required charging stops.

We have a Level 2 charger at home that we bought for the Leaf. We also own a Prius Prime Plugin. The Prime is a plugin hybrid with about 30 miles range using the battery. The charging pattern during the week, when the Mach-E is used for commuting and shopping, is much like a gas car. We typically only charge the Mach-E once a week using the Level 2 charger at home. It takes about 10 hours to fully charge the battery. The Prius charges in 4 hours using a Level 1 charger. That is done daily.

If you owned a Mach-E and didn’t have a charger at home, it would mean you would only have to charge at a DC fast charger once a week if your driving patterns were like mine. If only Level 2 chargers were available, you’d need to find a Level 2 charger where you could park for 10 hours. In my town that would be hard because there only 6 Level-2 chargers!

Most recently we drove from Princeton to the Berkshires, then to Boston and then back to Princeton. The trips were made without any charging on the way. We used Level 2 chargers at our destinations. The Williams Inn, in Williamstown, had ChargePoint chargers, as did the Cambridge Marriott in Kendall Square in Cambridge, MA.

A great resource for those interested in EVs can be found at

Electric Vehicles 101: Everything You Need to Know

Our cars are charged mostly by our solar power system. This is supplemented by PSE&G’s network which gets a large portion of its power from a nuclear fission plant. We are working on compact nuclear fusion power plants. Perhaps, in the not too distant future one of our PFRC reactors will be the source of power for EVs.

New Fusion Reactor Design Function

The Fusion Energy Toolbox for MATLAB is a toolbox for designing fusion reactors and for studying plasma physics. It includes a wide variety of physics and engineering tools. The latest addition to this toolbox is a new function for designing tokamaks, based on the paper in reference [1]. Tokamaks have been the leading magnetic confinement devices investigated in the pursuit of fusion net energy gain. Well-known tokamaks that either have ongoing experiments or are under development include JET, ITER, DIII-D, KSTAR, EAST, and Commonwealth Fusion Systems’ SPARC. The new capability of our toolboxes to conduct trade studies on tokamaks allows our customers to take part in this exciting field of fusion reactor design and development.

The Fusion Reactor Design function checks that the reactor satisfies key operational constraints for tokamaks. These operational constraints result from the plasma physics of the fusion reactor, where there are requirements for the plasma to remain stable (e.g., not crash into the walls) and to maintain enough electric current to help sustain itself. The tunable parameters include: the plasma minor radius ‘a’ (see figure below), the H-mode enhancement factor ‘H’, the maximum magnetic field at the coils ‘B_max’, the electric power output of the reactor ‘P_E’, and the neutron wall loading ‘P_W’, which are all essential variables to tokamak design and operation. H-mode is the high confinement mode used in many machines.

Illustration of the toroidal plasma of a tokamak. R is the major radius while a is the minor radius of the plasma. The red line represents a magnetic field line which helically winds along the torus. Image from [2].

This function captures all figure and table results in the original paper. We implemented a numerical solver which allows the user to choose a variable over which to perform a parameter sweep. A ‘mode’ option has been incorporated which allows one to select a desired parameter sweep variable (‘a’, ‘H’, ‘B_max’, ‘P_E’, or ‘P_W’) when calling the function. Some example outputs of the function are described below.

As an example, we will consider the case of tuning the maximum magnetic field at the coils ‘B_max’. The figure below plots the normalized operation constraint parameters for a tokamak as functions of B_max from 10 Tesla to 25 Tesla. The unshaded region, where the vertical axis is below the value of 1, is the region where operational constraints are met. We see that for magnetic fields below about 17.5 Tesla there is at least one operation constraint that is not met, while for higher magnetic fields all operation constraints are satisfied, thus meeting the conditions for successful operation. This high magnetic field approach is the design approach of Commonwealth Fusion Systems for the reactor they are developing [3].

Operational constraint curves as a function of B_max. Successful operation occurs if all of the curves are in the unshaded region. Note, f_B/f_NC, a ratio of the achievable to required bootstrap current, is set equal to 1. In this case P_E = 1000 MW, P_W = 4 MW/m2, and H = 1. For more details on the plotted parameters and how they function as operational plasma constraints, see reference [1].

Note, however, that there is a material cost associated with achieving higher magnetic fields, as described in reference [1]. This is illustrated in the figure below, which plots the cost parameter (the ratio of engineering components volume V_I to electric power output P_E) against B_max. There is a considerable increase in cost at high magnetic fields due to the need to add material volume that can structurally handle the higher current loads required.

Cost parameter (units of volume in cubic meters per megawatt of power, m3/MW) as a function of B_max.

In this post we illustrated the case of a tunable maximum magnetic field at the coils, though as mentioned earlier, there are other parameters you can tune. This function is part of release 2022.1 of the Fusion Energy Toolbox. Contact us at info@psatellite.com or call us at +01 609 275-9606 for more information.

Thank you to interns Emma Suh and Paige Cromley for their contributions to the development of this function.

[1] Freidberg, Mangiarotti, and Minervini, “Designing a tokamak fusion reactor–How does plasma physics fit in?”, Physics of Plasmas 22, 070901 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4923266
[2] http://www-fusion-magnetique.cea.fr/gb/iter/iter02.htm
[3] https://news.mit.edu/2021/MIT-CFS-major-advance-toward-fusion-energy-0908

ARPA-E 2022 Fusion Annual Meeting

I attended the ARPA-E 2022 Fusion Annual Meeting at the Westin St. Francis hotel in San Francisco. Here is the poster for our Princeton Field Reversed Configuration ARPA-E OPEN 2018 grant.

Here is our ARPA-E GAMOW poster on power electronics. It includes work by Princeton Fusion Systems, Princeton University, Qorvo and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

The meeting had two days of interesting talks by distinguished speakers. Dr. Robert Mumgaard of Commonwealth Fusion Systems talked about their work on advanced high-temperature superconducting magnets and the theory behind high field Tokamaks. Dennis Stone of NASA discussed NASA COTS programs. Dr. Wayne Sullivan of General Atomic talked about their research programs. General Atomics has been operating a Tokamak possibly longer than anyone else. We heard talks on the Centrifugal Mirror at the University of Maryland and WHAM, the high field mirror, at the University of Wisconsin. Andrew Holland of the Fusion Industry Association said FIA had verified 31 companies that were developing fusion power technology.

We talked to several organizations in need of high voltage and high current power electronics. We plan to pivot our GAMOW work to meet the needs of these potentially near-term customers.

The meeting had breakout sessions in which we discussed funding for fusion research and how to help gain social acceptance for nuclear fusion power. Both are challenging.

Writing about Fusion

Hi! I’m Paige, and I’m an undergraduate at Princeton interested in physics and science communications. This January, I got to work as an intern here at Princeton Satellite Systems. These past few weeks, I’ve been writing about the fusion-related projects PSS is working on, such as their Princeton Field-Reversed Configuration (PFRC) fusion reactor concept and plans for a space propulsion engine.

My first task was to write a four-page report on the PFRC, including its design, market demand, and development timeline. I knew very little about fusion coming into this internship, so first I had to learn all I could about the process that powers the sun and has the potential to supply the earth with clean, practically limitless energy.

Various types of fusion reactors are under development by companies and coalitions all over the world; they differ in the reactors they use and their methods of confining and heating plasma. ITER, for instance, is an example of a tokamak under construction in France; it uses superconducting magnets to confine plasma so that the reaction of tritium and deuterium can occur. 

The PFRC, currently in the second stage of experiments at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, uses radio frequency waves to create a rotating magnetic field that spins and heats the plasma inside, which is contained by closed magnetic field lines in a field-reversed configuration resulting from the opposition of a background solenoidal magnetic field to the field created by the rotating plasma current. The fusion reaction within the PFRC is that of helium-3 and deuterium, which offers multiple advantages over reactions involving tritium. Compared with other fusion reactors, the PFRC is incredibly compact.  It will be about the size of a minivan, 1/1000th the size of ITER; this compactness makes it ideal for portable or remote applications.

After learning about the design and market applications of the PFRC, I created a four page brochure about PFRC, writing for a general audience. I included the basics of the reactor design and its advantages over other reactors, as well as market estimates and the research and development timeline. I went on to write four page brochures about PSS’s Direct Fusion Drive engine, which will use PFRC technology for space propulsion purposes, and GAMOW, the program under which PSS is collaborating on developing various power electronics for fusion reactors.

These past few weeks have been quite informative to me, and I realized how much I loved writing about science and technology! I learned all about fusion, and I especially loved learning the details of the PFRC reactor design. To summarize the design, research, and development of the PFRC and other technologies within four page flyers, I had to learn how to write about technology and research comprehensively and engagingly for a general audience, which improved my science communication skills.

Millisecond Pulse Load Switch Design

This summer I worked on the design of a millisecond pulse generator as part of the ARPA-E GAMOW grant. The goal of this project was to supply pulses of very high current to a fusion reactor’s plasma control antenna using solid-state power electronics. Some key design considerations were the ability to parallelize the pulse generator to scale to many power levels, to operate at high voltages, and to minimize the current rise time through the load antenna. I spent most of my time working in LTspice XVII to simulate the circuit and its response to rapid pulses of current. I wanted to make sure the circuit performed as desired, while also remaining safe for both the devices in the circuit and the operators controlling the circuit.

We based the design of the circuit on a load switch developed previously at Princeton Satellite Systems by Cindy Li and Eric Ham. Our biggest progress was in the selection of switching devices and the improvement of the gate drive circuitry. Because our goal is to switch current as quickly as possible, we did not want to rely on outdated klystrons as our switches. We decided to use many parallel MOSFETs to switch the current. The device we chose was a 650 V silicon carbide cascode JFET from UnitedSiC. This FET has low on-state resistance, meaning that it does not heat up as much when pulling large amounts of current. By using many devices in parallel, we can pull more total current while keeping each individual FET below its current capacity. Then by using multiple boards in parallel, we can reach different power levels for different fusion reactors. 

Implementing safe gate driver circuitry was another important step. The power MOSFETs used to switch the current cannot be turned on directly from a computer control signal, due to both power and safety concerns. A logic-level signal is not powerful enough to activate the FET, and directly connecting the computer to the high-voltage circuitry is unsafe. To solve both problems, I designed a galvanically-isolated gate drive circuit based on an Infineon gate driving IC. The intermediate circuit takes the computer control signal and steps it up to an intermediate voltage level high enough to activate the MOSFET, while keeping the both sections electrically isolated from each other. Each MOSFET has its own gate drive circuit, enabling independent control.

Working on the millisecond pulse generator was a great experience as an intern. I gained lots of practice working with team members across organizations and disciplines. I became much more proficient in LTspice, and I learned how to rigorously approach challenging engineering problems.

Titan Aircraft Design

As a summer 2021 intern, my second project was to complete the sizing, the geometry selection, and the configuration layout of the Titan Aircraft, based on known parameters and mission requirements. Certain mission requirements were already known and are summarized below:

Known Parameters Value
RangeInfinite
Cruise Speed266 m/s
Takeoff Distance 500m
Cruise Altitude1km
Known Parameters about the Titan Aircraft Mission

Clearly, there are not many well defined parameters, which made initial sizing somewhat vague. The range was based off of the Direct Fusion Drive’s engine capability. The engine acts similarly an electric engine, in that no mass of the aircraft is lost over the course of the mission. Because of this, the typical initial sizing estimates and mass fractions that are calculate to account for fuel burn over the course of the mission were unnecessary. The dry mass was a constant 2000kg.

Given the constant total dry mass, I could then roughly calculate the sizes for each part of the plane: the wing, the vertical tail, and the fuselage. These were back of the envelope calculations, using formulas from Raymer’s Aircraft Design textbook, so that I would be able to get a first sketch of what the aircraft may look like. After I calculated initial sizes of each section, I used NASA’s Open Vehicle Sketch Pad to design the first aircraft configuration, shown below:

Initial Sketch of the Titan Aircraft in OpenVSP

1U CubeSat Structural Design and 3D Print

As a Summer 2021 intern, my first project was to complete the structural design of a 1U CubeSat that will fly in orbit with and observe the NASA Solar Cruiser. The 1U CubeSat needed to follow the CubeSat design specifications set by the California Polytechnic State University; it needed to have specific dimensions, needed to weigh a certain amount, and needed to be able withstand structural loads and natural frequency/vibrational loads. In order to design and test the CubeSat, I used Fusion360’s design and simulation softwares. I based my design of the CubeSat off of the engineering drawing provided by the California Polytechnic State University’s “CubeSat Design Specification” manual.

I designed the initial model in Fusion360 as one part made up of different components, as shown below:

The top of the CubeSat faces the positive z-direction, while the front faces the negative y-direction and the right side faces the positive x-direction. The CubeSat also needed four deployable solar panels attached by hinge mechanisms to the four edges of the top face. The panels needed to start parallel to the walls and then, when deployed by some mechanism, needed to swing upward in the positive z-direction. 

After designing the idealized CubeSat, I ran multiple modal frequency analyses and structural analyses in order to make sure the CubeSat could withstand the proper loads. First, I ran modal frequency analyses, with fixed boundary conditions for a cantilever beam. The natural frequencies for the first four modes of the CubeSat are shown in the following table:

The above natural frequencies calculated in Fusion360 are very similar to the theoretical natural frequencies of a cantilever beam, given by the formula

Where “E” is the modulus of elasticity (also known as Young’s Modulus), and “I” is the area moment of inertia. This formula can be used to find the natural frequencies of a cantilever beam for any mode of vibration, “n”.

My results were also similar to other experimental results. For example, a study titled “Design, Analysis, Optimization, Manufacturing, and Testing of a 2U CubeSat” published in the International Journal of Aerospace Engineering performed a modal frequency analysis of a 2U CubeSat and found the following natural frequencies for the first four modes: 

These results are similar to the ones I found in my modal frequency analyses. 

After running the modal frequency analyses, I ran a few structural load analyses. The CubeSat frame had a honeycomb structure, which I modeled in Fusion360, and was made up of Aluminum 7075 material. The CubeSat needed to be able to withstand a maximum pressure differential of 15.2 psi (0.104 MPa) created by the Space Launch System (SLS) ascent into space, according to NASA’s Space Launch System Program’s White paper.

The maximum displacement of the CubeSat’s structure due to the applied force was 0.009 m, which is very low. Fusion360 calculates Von Mises stresses, and the maximum stress was 16.08 MPa, which is well under Young’s Modulus of Aluminum 7075 (71.7 GPa). The safety factor of the structure was 8+ everywhere on the structure, meaning the structure is much stronger than the  15.2 psi (0.104 MPa) load applied. 

After running the modal frequency and static stress analyses in Fusion360 and getting the desired results, the CubeSat was ready to be modeled as 3D printable parts and 3D printed with PLA on the FlashForge Creator Pro printer: 

The initial CubeSat design in Fusion360 had to be modified and broken up into different parts that were each 3D printable; after printing each part, I assembled them to form the whole CubeSat. I decided to break the initial design up into the following 3D printable parts: the top, the bottom, four separate side walls, four separate side rails, four deployable solar panels; finally, I needed to add four hinges plus four rods to attach each of the solar panels to the main structure (similar to a door hinge mechanism). This allowed the solar panels to rotate on a hinge from their initial position up to 180 degrees upward and back. Photos of the different 3D printed parts are shown below: 

After 3D printing all the necessary parts, I needed to assemble them. I modeled screw holes in Fusion360 on each 3D printed part in specific locations, so that I would not need to bore holes manually after the parts were printed. I ordered screws for plastic from McMaster Carr, so I knew the correct diameter and length for the screw holes I modeled in Fusion360. This way, the parts were ready to be assembled immediately after 3D printing. Images of the final assembled 1U CubeSat are shown below:

3D printing the final product was an iterative process, so I ended up assembling two different CubeSats entirely and printing a multitude of different versions of each part until I assembled the final product correctly. During the printing process I ran into many problems with the design of the parts, as well as issues with the printer itself. Some design problems included incorrect part sizes, incorrect screw hole placement, incorrect screw hole tolerancing/sizing, and incorrect dimensions of the overall assembled cube. Some printer issues included warping and two nozzle clogs. Some of my parts warped due to a lack of adhesion between the printer bed and the filament coming out of the nozzle, meaning the corners of these parts bent upward and were no longer usable. I solved this problem by reducing the heat of the 3D print bed to make sure the filament could cool down correctly on the bed. On a couple of occasions, parts would not print at all or the filament would come out tangled and would not stick to the bed; I solved this problem by taking apart the nozzle and manually unclogging it so that the filament could come out correctly. I also re-leveled the bed, to make sure the nozzle was close enough to the printer bed so that when the filament initially came out of the nozzle it would stick to the bed immediately. Photos of intermediate designs are shown below: 

Overall, this project was educational, challenging, and fun! I learned a new CAD software, Fusion360, which will be useful in the future, and I practiced my engineering design and 3D printing skills!

Overall, this project was educational, challenging, and fun! I learned a new CAD software, Fusion360, which will be useful in the future, and I practiced my engineering design and 3D printing skills!

PSS Advances in Superconducting Motors for Aircraft

PSS just finished up a research contract for NASA in which we discovered some surprising and useful ways in which Low Temperature Superconductors (LTS) may be more suitable than High Temperature Superconductors (HTS) for making light, efficient electric motors.

In short, they’re cheaper. They’re much, much easier to design, manufacture, and use. Unlike HTS, it’s easy to make LTS electrical joints that are just as superconducting as the coils. LTS experience less heating when their internal current is changed. Crucially, you can make a “persistent switch” in which an LTS magnet is charged once and the current is trapped in the coil, persisting without the need to constantly supply current. Our LTS of choice is NbTi, the “workhorse” of the LTS family.

Interested in knowing more? Then read on!

Electric Aircraft

There are several big pushes toward electric aircraft. Air travel accounts for 2.5% of our carbon emissions. So what’s preventing us from electrifying aircraft like we did with cars? The problem is weight. An extra pound of motor or batteries costs much more in an aircraft than it does in a car.

That being said, there are dozens of research groups, companies, and agencies working on hybrid electric and fully electric aircraft. There are even serious advantages to having the freedom to place propulsion units (motors rather than jet turbines) wherever you want within the aircraft, concepts called Boundary Layer Ingestion and Distributed Electric Propulsion. The aerodynamics is complicated, but the gist is that you can get huge emissions savings even if you’re still using jet fuel and turbines, if those turbines are powering lots of little motors rather than one big jet engine.

Superconducting motors

As we said earlier, all parts of the propulsion powertrain need to be lightweight in order to make a practical electric aircraft. For decades now, superconductivity has been known as a phenomenon with the potential to decrease the weight and increase the efficiency of motors. The idea goes back to the 1960s, with several experimental LTS rotors being tested in the 1970s and 1980s before the programs ended.

But what happened in the 1980s that shifted focus away from LTS motors? The answer is the discovery of HTS. On paper, HTS looks wonderful. It is superconducting at more achievable temperatures, ~100 K versus ~8 K for LTS. It can create magnetic fields much higher than LTS. Plus, it can carry much more current than LTS, meaning the same motor can weigh significantly less if made of HTS.

Yet despite research programs going back to the 1980s and continuing today, there are still no HTS motors on the market. Why is that?

The LTS difference

Our LTS magnet. This magnet was purchased from SSI for a separate NASA contract. This magnet is operated in persistent mode, in which the magnet does not need an external power supply once it has been charged.

It turns out HTS is expensive and extremely hard to use. A magnet made of HTS would cost 20 times more than one made of LTS. HTS is weak, and when it’s under strain it can’t carry as much current. It can’t be flexed in one direction. To join two cables of HTS together into one superconducting piece, you have to grow more superconductor between them; you can’t just snap them together like extension cords.

On the other hand, LTS magnets have matured since the 1980s. Most hospitals now have an LTS magnet in the form of their MRI machine. Thousands of tons of LTS are produced yearly. LTS is cheaper, stronger, more flexible, and easier to work with. Its so-called AC losses (heating that occurs when the current is changed) are lower. Two LTS cables can be joined together to make one long LTS cable.

This latter property allows the so-called persistent mode of LTS magnets. In this mode, no external current is required to power the magnet. You charge the magnet up once, then you can disconnect it and walk away. Our LTS magnet vendor, Superconducting Systems, Inc. (SSI) of Billerica MA, has magnets that have sat persistently charged for decades.

How this affects a motor design

As part of our Phase I NASA SBIR, we designed a motor using LTS. The motor design targets small aircraft like Cessna Denali or regional airliners like Beechcraft 1900. The motor’s output power is 1 MW. The total target system weight is 100 kg. The target efficiency is 99.5%.

One of the challenges of using superconducting materials is keeping them cold. Because of the low AC losses and persistent mode of LTS, we were able to cut the heat leak down from dozens of Watts to less than 1 Watt. We were able to completely eliminate the charging subsystem and cryocooler of HTS designs. We have identified four innovative technologies that are enabled by and instrumental to the use of LTS in motors. We will be developing this technology in the coming years.

One of our innovations came from the significantly reduced heat leak into the cold rotor. Rather than use heavy, expensive cryocoolers to cool the rotor, the design suddenly came into the realm of Liquid Helium (LHe) reservoirs. Our SSI partners liken it to the difference between a refrigerator and a cooler. Use the refrigerator (cryocooler) when keeping food cold for weeks or months, but use a cooler (LHe) when making a day trip to the beach.

What’s next?

The journey of the LTS motor has just begun. Work continues at PSS. Contact us for more information or partnering opportunities.

Watch this space! Some day soon, perhaps sooner than you think, you could be flying across the country in an aircraft as renewably powered as your electric car.