So, how is it in terms of efficiency? The article mentions that it's 31% more efficient than existing reluctance motors, but doesn't give a comparison to the traditional electric motors.
Efficiency at 500 to 1000 RPM is important, and reluctance machines tend to be very poor at those speeds and low torques. So maybe he increased efficiency from 30 percent to 61 percent, which would be really good. Or maybe he increased efficiency from 50 percent to 65.5 percent (65.5/50 = 1.31 but I hate looking at percent change of a percentage). What he did not do is increase the max efficiency significantly at an already efficient operating point where most motors are already over 90 percent, and that's OK because like I said we don't operate up there very often.
BTW, IMHO the best way to characterize electric machines like this is not to look at their efficiency, but to look at their losses. There's a really nice way to plot losses but it's a bit hard to explain in a comment. He also doesn't seem to have a dyno which makes taking data and testing a lot easier.
Anyway, he did a great job and will undoubtedly continue doing so!
how do you test without a dyno? and isn't it easy to set up a electrical generator tied to a high wattage variable resistor to do it?
When working on water pumps I didn't need a dyno, as the fluid provided sufficient load. It was a bit tricky to make before/after comparisons though be cause getting the exact same operating conditions (torque and speed) was not simple.
Why is this? Thinking out loud: can't you gear your motor so that it's most efficient at cruising speed for the vehicle? But the problem is that the car still needs to be able to accelerate from zero and some gearings will make that impossible, so having an efficient band at 500—1000 RPM gives you the best chance of being able to accelerate from 0–500 RPM?
I like to plot Torque on the X axis and losses (in watts or kW) on the Y axis. Make a series of curves at different speeds (each curve is at a constant speed). These curves intersect the Y axis at zero torque, so friction can easily be seen on the Y axis. The curves have a parabolic shape (I^2 copper loss) forming a sort of butterfly. If the wings spread out at the tips (curves separate more at high torque) there may be magnetic issues. These maps are really nice, are easy to compare, and never mention efficiency at all ;-)
All engineering is about tradeoffs and if the kid is replacing air gap with "something", that efficiency has to be balanced against better bearings vs better mfgr tolerances etc. Its still a valid tool in the collection of tradeoffs; but its unlikely to match the boosterism tone of the article as being "the solution to all our problems".
The problem with boosterism is not that its positive or criticism is good or complaining that contest he was in, is mostly a contest of parental income and willingness to spend, but the problem with boosterism is it can completely overshadow any actual science or engineering. The kid probably DID do something cool and interesting, but it's buried under the boosterism and exhilarating claims of world changing etc.
Its a valid criticism because this kind of popular coverage gives the false impression that actual science journal articles or EE component datasheets should consist of 99% boosterism with perhaps 1% content. From a journalistic perspective its worthy of criticism in the sense of this is NOT science and engineering journalism, its just a puff piece full of glory and sparkles. From an educational perspective its worthy of criticism in that the tone of the article implies kids should not go into STEM fields unless their parents are rich and easy spenders, which ironically would be a better match for a non-financially rewarding liberal arts degree; I assure you that a kid can grow up to be an excellent EE even if his parents can't afford a 3d-printer.