Charging is probably going to be totally different for the next gens...

So you make an incorrect statement, "Inverse square law does not apply to inductive charging" which is as ridiculous as saying 2-2 does not equal 0.

I correct you saying yes it does.

And now somehow I'm the bad guy.
Got it.
:-|

PS. Direct connect is still better. No loss except for the 1.5 dB where two metals contact one another.

 

Near and far field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WiTricity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Closer always helps, but is not necessary when you are using non-radiative transfer mechanisms.
"The company's FAQ [1] claims it uses a "...non-radiative mode of energy transfer, relying instead on the magnetic near field. "

 

batteries, charging and available ev distance.
What type of cells will be used in the next gen traction pack?
What type of charging capabilities will it have ?
How long will it take to recharge the pack?
And will it use wind for recharging?
I noticed in one of the FCV videos there are turbines between the nose and front wheels
as well as body panel inlet and outlets cutting WR.
Can air through turbines be redirected in a way to clean up turbulence around the wheels?
How slippery is gen 4?
Finally, ev distance, is it safe to say we all want some more 999mpg if we can have it

 

Inductive chargers ought to be buried in the highways, so an EV can run off that instead of its battery (which would be reserved for sideroads that don't have buried chargers)

 

Wow 2 people liked my post. That's a first.

 

If you read back several pages, you will see that I am a supporter of inductive charging.

I like the idea of imbedding the technology in the highway as well, but I also anticipate many problems. For example people will claim their pace-makers are adversely effected; the "kooks" will claim they are targeted with extraneous "beams"; the masses will claim headaches, seizures, joint aches, and all manner of other physical ailments. Don't doubt me on this, just spend one night answering the telephone at a police station and you will hear all of the above. Congress will hold hearing and members will pontificate endlessly on television. Tart lawyers will advertise to call this number for a free consultation if you are effected by any of these symptoms.

 

And then the standard will change or become incompatible with others elsewhere in the World causing the whole thing to be dug up and replaced at great expense.

The idea of embedding seems ok at first thought, just like BetterPlace thought battery swapping was going to change the world too.

It's hard enough trying to get the car manufacturers to agree on a charging port, let alone this electric highway idea.

 

I did not include the following in my above comment, but have have dreamed of the day when this would be possible.

While embedding in the Interstate system the inductive charging system, at the same time they could imbed an automatic steering and traffic control (for want of a better term) system. I envision entering the Interstate system and synchronizing the vehicle with the "automatic steering and traffic control system." Your car would then be auto guided, speed would be controlled, other traffic would be recognized and maintained at a safe distance, and the driver could swivel in his chair and join the conversation, or watch tv, or whatever. It is not so far fetched when you consider that car cars now park themselves.

 

Self driving vehicles will be a reality sooner than later. But I'm pretty confident this will not be the way it happens. There is a whole other thread about autonomous vehicles.

 

Easy answer. The charging energy should just be beamed down to the tops of cars, from space. Anyone who thinks there are any hazards from that delivery need only wear aluminum foil hats, thus saving themselves from "the waves." A side benefit is that iPhone12's needn't be plugged in either to recharge.

 

Electrified railroads don't seem to have this problem.

 

That's right. Because there are about 8 railroad companies in the UK and they buy their own trains in batches of about a dozen a time and built to be compatible on the lines. They have them built to their own standards. Though there are about 10! differing standards here; various overhead powered trains of differing voltages and the older DC third rail trains, again with a number of incompatible standards.

Railway electrification in Great Britain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (this doesn't really help your argument )

There are about 30 different car manufacturers and 20 million possible car owners in the UK.

You only have to look at the issue of Better Place and their Renault Fluence battery replacement idea. It relied on ALL batteries being the same, all complying to the same regulations. It failed. The Renault Fluence failed; they've sold about 70 cars in the UK over 3 years.

Then you have to look at all the different charge port regulations. There's CHAdeMO, then Tesla, then Mennekes, then the one used by VW etc etc. If they can't agree on compatible charge ports, then you have no hope of having all manufacturers agreeing on a common road charging system.

Then who's going to pay? How do they know how much to bill the customer for? Does that involve tracking the car and if so, will the customers be happy with that? The number of people being paying members of the various UK charging networks is low. People don't want it. They'd rather top up at home or a hotel, rather than pay for a trickle charge on the street.

It's all a nice idea - in theory. And that's where it'll stay.

 

Well the UK is messed-up then.
In the US all the rail companies cooperated & set a standard so they could share the rails. (Same way they met with one another & established four timezones to avoid timing issues/collisions.)

 

It might have a messed up rail network but passenger numbers are higher than any time since the 30's and increasing year on year. I am also curious that ALL your trains and trams use the same system and voltages? So the New York subway uses the same system as Amtrak?

Your 100% compatible rail system is struggling and struggling to grow. The USA is about 5 times bigger than the UK but Amtrak carried 33 million passengers in one year. Our rail service carried 1.5 billion passengers in a year. So it appears incompatible systems work.

Rail transport in Great Britain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Amtrak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Ridership section just over half way down)

I know you're a troll after an argument, but there is no way all the Worlds car manufacturers are going to agree on a single standard to allow continuous charging under roads. It just isn't going to happen this side of 2214. What happens when all the infrastructure is in place and someone invents a much more efficient but non backwards compatible system? What if the French want to do their own thing? Too many national interests, let alone expense.

 

Americans don't normally think of a subway as a "train" which is why I did not include it. But to answer your question: The light rail & regular rail do not interact with one another. The light rail can only handle passenger cars over a limited distance (width of a city) (10-20 miles). In contrast the regular railroad has to bear the weight of carrying oil-laden tankers and other heavy freight across the 3000-width of the continent. This railroad is wider gauge, with a firm underlying foundation.

I still think an electrified interstate for EVs makes sense. The interstates are owned by the U.S. Congress so they can mandate, "We shall install inductive chargers in all Interstate roads by 2030," and it will happen. Just the same as they mandated the interstates in the first place, with set standards of operation.

If there is an argument, you started it in Post 47 by being negative about the "inductive interstate" idea. There would be no argument if you had kept your negative "it won't work" attitude silent. So I take the "you're a troll" insult and bounce it back at you.

 

No, but I've dated a few

 

Sony was actually first to the market with videotape (Betamax) and had several manufacturers backing them. It was the "renegade" JVC that arrived two years later, and it paid off for them, because VHS eventually won (despite being introduced late).

As for Apple, they were first with the home computer (1977). Commodore* and Radio Shack arrived second and third (still 1977). Even Atari and Texas Instruments had their own computers (1978). The "renegade" who arrived late to the party in 1982 was IBM & microsoft on the PC platform. Sometimes being late or bucking the tide pays off. (For both JVC and MS.)

* Commodore supplied the CPUs that ran the Apples and Ataris and later the Nintendo ES and Super NES.

 

Agree. Google/Android was the last to the smartphone party (after Palm, Blackberry, and Apple) and now have a commanding market share lead.

 

Incorrect history. See my previous post.