E007, Lazy or "luxury"? Or just plain not competent enough to be able to get the car plugged in correctly. There is a whole class of people unable to change a light bulb without getting it cross-threaded. And anothe bunch of people who see no problem at all with that. The lack of any skill and understanding is quite likely what will bring about the end of our great country, which while true is certainly a terrible way to go.
It will either become outlawed or people will realize the inefficiency of this process and quit using it. There are always optimists that are looking to make a quick buck off of lazy people. With phones I guess it's acceptable because of the low amount of energy exchanging hands but with a car where thousands of kWh is drawn I would consider a more efficient way.
The issue of undesirable heath effects is still up for grabs and will of course depend on how much of that radiated power is NOT recovered. None of the power that goes into charging the batteries is a problem, but all of the lost power could certainly be a problem.
BUT as the proponents of wireless charging of all kinds of things keep teling us how wonderful it is, THEY NEVER EVER TALK ABOUT ACTUAL EFFICIENCY, except possibly in some of the most confusing doubl-speak that I have ever come across. A Normal expression of efficiency, power out / power in is all that I am asking for and that should not be so very challenging to calculate. My feeling is that the efficiency is so very poor that it would kill the idea without any additional discussion. So my suggestion is that until the wireless charging sales people are willing to give actual numbers in standard units, that they be regarded as just plain liars. There is no way to make a problem go away just by refusing to talk about it. We need to see actual , reproducable, numbers to back up all those claims about it being so wonderful.
Simonts--This is one thought I had also. I have a good friend who has just had a pacemaker installed and several with hearing aids. It would be very desirable to find out what effects the wireless charging devices have, if any, on "hardware" such as pacemakers, hearing aids, TENS units, pumps, etc. etc. I am sure the manufacturers have thought of this and hopefully there are standards governing the use of these devices. One other thing, the receiving unit seems to be mounted under the rear of the car so, what resulting ground clearance are we talking about? Great post Charles.
I just bought a new Jeep Cherokee that has a wireless phone charger in the center console. I still think it a waste and question the people who want it. However I have received priority tasking from my wife to find her a Qi charging receiver for her Galaxie SIII phone. I guess 'those' people are closer to me than I thought.
I agree with you, Watashi. Yes, some people are very lazy. And yes, I don't want to drive on the same roads with them (have you ever noticed how many people recline their driver's seat WHILE they are driving?). Unfortuntely, though, they'll always be there.
I agree simonts this should be one of the major concerns, before launching the technology. There are definitely side effects of wireless charging that are mostly ignored in many applications. But as they are incorporating it in to automobiles, that means larger size which also means greater radiations. Thus, It would be totally meaningless to ignore its effects on health. I hope they make substantial amount of research in this area and adopt some preventive measures on it.
Engineers at Fuel Cell Energy have found a way to take advantage of a side reaction, unique to their carbonate fuel cell that has nothing to do with energy production, as a potential, cost-effective solution to capturing carbon from fossil fuel power plants.
To get to a trillion sensors in the IoT that we all look forward to, there are many challenges to commercialization that still remain, including interoperability, the lack of standards, and the issue of security, to name a few.
This is part one of an article discussing the University of Washington’s nationally ranked FSAE electric car (eCar) and combustible car (cCar). Stay tuned for part two, tomorrow, which will discuss the four unique PCBs used in both the eCar and cCars.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.