Slashdot Mirror


Tesla Would Be Proud: Wireless Charging For Electric Cars Gets Closer To Reality

curtwoodward writes "For some reason, we're still plugging in electric-powered devices like a bunch of savages. But technology developed at MIT could soon make that a thing of the past, at least for hybrid cars. A small Boston-area company, WiTricity, is a key part of Toyota's growing experiment with wireless charging tech---something the world's largest car maker says it will start seriously testing in the U.S., Japan and Europe next year. The system works by converting AC to a higher frequency and voltage and sending it to a receiver that resonates at the same frequency, making it possible to transfer the power safely via magnetic field. Intel and Foxconn are also investors, and you might see them license the tech soon as well."

176 comments

  1. Efficient? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whether or not it catches on will depend mostly on efficiency. If the losses are minimal, it makes sense to eliminate mechanical connections.

    1. Re:Efficient? by Ignacio · · Score: 2

      Even if it isn't terribly efficient, it could still mean that your car could charge almost anywhere you park it. Traditional wired charging could be used at service stations where speed is more important than convenience.

    2. Re:Efficient? by Z_A_Commando · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whether or not it catches on will depend mostly on efficiency. If the losses are minimal, it makes sense to eliminate mechanical connections.

      Efficiency will definitely play a part, but I think more important will be Convenience, Cost, and Coverage.

      When you get an electric car, you need to plug it in every time you get home so that the charge is topped off and you never leave with a near empty battery. If all you have to do is drive over a special mat or the technology is embedded in the floor/pavement/whatever then that will be infinitely more convenient because it doesn't add any extra steps when you park your car.

      If the mats cost a fortune to install or require significant upgrades to a home's existing infrastructure (a la a 220V system) they'll be less likely to be deployed. If they're sold separate from the car purchase, that could cause another issue.

      Finally, if there are a bunch of competing standards or the technology doesn't catch on very widely the coverage for installations in semi-public areas like parking lots would likely never happen, leaving a large amount of city dwellers unable to get on the bandwagon.

    3. Re:Efficient? by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is a lot to say about convenience over efficiency. Now if the price to charge per mile is still less then gasoline then it will probably still work. If we could get off the grid for a lot of this stuff with say Solar Power Stations setup at stores parking and offer it for free it will be a big hit, even if it means you can add a few miles when you are parked for a half an hour.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Efficient? by somersault · · Score: 1

      Considering the price of energy and the whole economic crisis, a lot of people would probably rather plug in manually if the losses are any more than a couple of percent. Even 1% would probably put a lot of people off if they were aware of it.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    5. Re:Efficient? by jythie · · Score: 2

      That tends to be the main problem. Tesla assumed that power would be too cheap to meter and thus efficiency wouldn't be an issue, but that never really panned out
      Even if you direct it to try to reduce loss, it is still extremely wasteful and last time I checked keeping up with electricity demand is already a looming problem.

      I actually have seen wireless power used in some situations though, mainly places where the distances are small and it is cheaper to broadcast power then run a bunch of wires or traces to individual components.

    6. Re:Efficient? by internerdj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just don't plug it in at your kid's tennis match.

    7. Re:Efficient? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Considering the price of energy and the whole economic crisis, a lot of people would probably rather plug in manually if the losses are any more than a couple of percent. Even 1% would probably put a lot of people off if they were aware of it.

      Millions of people still insist on using incandescent light bulbs. Do you think the majority would give a damn about 1%?

    8. Re:Efficient? by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      Considering the price of energy and the whole economic crisis, a lot of people would probably rather plug in manually if the losses are any more than a couple of percent. Even 1% would probably put a lot of people off if they were aware of it.

      Would they? I'm not so sure. According to Wikipedia, the cost of power to drive 25 miles in an electric car is in the $1-$2 range. So even a 10% inefficiency would only cost drivers an additional 10 to 20 cents per commute. Would people spend that extra money to avoid the hassle of plugging and unplugging their car every day? Based on the number of dimes I see abandoned on the ground because nobody can be bothered to pick them up, I think many people would -- especially those who are wealthy enough to afford an electric car in the first place.

      If this device recharges more slowly than the plug-in method, OTOH, that could be a problem.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    9. Re:Efficient? by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      *If the mats cost a fortune to install or require significant upgrades to a home's existing infrastructure (a la a 220V system) they'll be less likely to be deployed.*

      Not really different than having another panel installed for a central A/C IMO. But the biggest point is the efficiency of wireless charging.

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    10. Re:Efficient? by es330td · · Score: 1

      Given that an "efficient" diesel internal combustion engine is only about 40% efficient, if electricity can be generated by non-fossil fuel sources like wind or solar it doesn't have to be efficient, especially since most driving takes place in daylight hours when potential wind and solar energy are at their peaks. All we have to do is get the Green supporters to kick some NIMBY butts and this has promise.

    11. Re:Efficient? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Considering that some people will drive an extra 3 miles to go to a gas station that's just 4 cents cheaper per gallon, yeah, a lot of people probably would.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    12. Re:Efficient? by killkillkill · · Score: 1

      I doubt that electric car consumers are different than gaosoline car consumers. They are more worried about what people think about their car purchase than the economic impact of the fuel (ie big shinny SUVs). Electric car owners cars say "I love the Earth more than you" and if they don't have to touch a dirty plug, all the better for them.

    13. Re:Efficient? by TWiTfan · · Score: 0

      I think it's the wave of the future. And the way Tesla has been catching fire lately, it's pretty obvious that people out there are burning to own electric cars.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    14. Re:Efficient? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Considering the price of energy and the whole economic crisis, a lot of people would probably rather plug in manually if the losses are any more than a couple of percent. Even 1% would probably put a lot of people off if they were aware of it.

      Millions of people still insist on using incandescent light bulbs. Do you think the majority would give a damn about 1%?

      Truly, most people care about the 99% and are unaware of the loss of power to the 1% -- the 5 cars, summer home in Barbados, tax shelters, er, oh... sorry; got carrried away there. Most people just consider these alternating currents of reality to be the flux of the excited fringe.

    15. Re:Efficient? by craftycoder · · Score: 1

      Quoting a friend, "Magnetic fields have to follow Maxwell equations. Aperture is defined in wavelength, so higher frequency can be more directive. Presume power only applied to the pad when a car has been sensed. Radio effects and power levels to transfer limit frequency selection, so this is still going to be modest directivity. Drive-on charging pad can't couple efficiently if the car body is metal (conductive), so efficiency will be very low."

    16. Re:Efficient? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      The choice between mechanical and inductive field charging has nothing to do with electric vs fuel vehicles. It is about which choice makes sense for charging electric vehicles. Whether or not they achieve mass adoption is a completely different discussion.

    17. Re:Efficient? by timeOday · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Even if it isn't terribly efficient, it could still mean that your car could charge almost anywhere you park it

      Why park? If our freeways could power electric cars wirelessly, you could drive forever without stopping to recharge. Line the freeway median with solar panels, and the loss of wireless transmission is offset by minimizing losses through power lines and battery storage.

    18. Re:Efficient? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that it will destroy you sperm just using it. Woops, nobody wants to talk about the "bad" things. I'm from the government/major lobbying group which will get this mandated, trust me.

    19. Re:Efficient? by Arker · · Score: 1

      Those people dont buy electric cars to begin with man.

      These are expensive status-symbols for spoiled rich kids. The same people who voluntarily pay more for 'green' electricity. If they have to purchase twice as much juice because their fancy wireless charger is less efficient, I really dont think that will bother them. It might even be a plus.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    20. Re:Efficient? by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      I like that idea, but the problem becomes who's going to pay for the solar panels and their upkeep? Maybe charge people based on how far along the route they drive, but it'll most likely be a tax and everyone, with or without a car, will pay. It might fly up here in Canada, or in Europe, or in Japan, but no way Americans will do it.

    21. Re:Efficient? by SinGunner · · Score: 1

      The problem of competing standards is minimized by the lack of a physical interface. If it's determined that frequency X is ideal for transmission, it will little matter what brand of receiver you're using.

    22. Re:Efficient? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      You seriously looked at that list and described the prices as "in the $1-$2 range"? There's 8 cars under $1 and 4 cars between $1 and $1.32. Of those 4 listed over a dollar, only the Model S is still for sale.

      Plugging and unplugging my car is faster and far less of a hassle than plugging in my phone.

    23. Re:Efficient? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then it gets cloudy :(

    24. Re:Efficient? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortune awaits the man who comes up with a way to put the "mat" along / under paved roads so that EVs are charged or outright powered while they drive.

      Infrastructure costs, sure, but RFID tags embedded in the vehicle could tell you who used what and when, and then you just send them a bill for the "gas" they used from your grid.

    25. Re:Efficient? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      I agree, the power transmitters along the road would still have to be connected to the grid, since the solar would never exactly equal onsite demand.

    26. Re:Efficient? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Well, that seems like asking who will pay for your data usage as you roll down the freeway streaming music to your cellphone. You will still buy the energy to power your car.

    27. Re:Efficient? by tgd · · Score: 2

      Would they? I'm not so sure. According to Wikipedia, the cost of power to drive 25 miles in an electric car is in the $1-$2 range.

      Wikipedia is wrong. Most EVs get between 3-4 miles per kwh, there's about a 20% loss in charging the battery, so you're looking at 7.5-10 kwh of electricity from the mains to go 25 miles. Only in Alaska and Hawaii is electricity expensive enough to cost $2 to go 25 miles. The average kwh cost in the US is about twelve cents, or $0.90 to $1.20 to go 25 miles.

      So I agree with you -- very few people (even the environmentally conscious who tend to buy EVs) would care about the extra dime a day it costs, if it means easy charging. If you cut range 10%, we'd be pissed, but not increase costs 10%.

      That said, I doubt its only 10% loss...

    28. Re:Efficient? by tgd · · Score: 1

      Okay, let me amend my statement, having looked at the Wikipedia page.

      Wikipedia isn't wrong. You just made up a number that doesn't appear anywhere in Wikipedia... for some bizarre reason. Did you make up a number to make the 10% figure worse than it is? The real numbers supported your case better.

    29. Re:Efficient? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Only based on stupidity. The modern replacement halogens are far FAR better than the dumb edison bulbs, but sadly most people want to be simpletons and keep saying "no curly que bulbs! AAARGH! and nobody other than the raving morons at Fox News are saying that.

      Only the idiots are stocking up on old Incandescent edison bulbs.

    30. Re:Efficient? by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      People who make a lot of money wouldn't care so much. They would rather eat a few dollars more per week if it meant they didn't have to get their hands dirty. However, people who are on a budget would probably stick to plug-in charging if it saves them a few bucks a week.

    31. Re:Efficient? by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      And that's true, but the cost is going to be significantly higher to maintain hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of solar panels, along with the tech in the road to transmit to the car, than it would be to download a few hundred megs of data. Which I don't do by the way because in Canada, at least in Nova Scotia, it's too expensive to have that kind of data plan considering I've never used more than half a Gig. I definitely wouldn't trust NS Power to keep the price reasonable.

      I'd need to see actual figures and estimated costs before I could really decide if it's something I'd take advantage of, but like I said, I think it's a great idea.

    32. Re:Efficient? by jhumkey · · Score: 1

      Looking at "Inductive charging" on Wikipedia . . . the "new improved" high frequency charging . . . is only 86% efficient compared to what direct would be.
      Even if that's way off and its more like the 99% hoped for . . . use of heavy metals, disposal of old batteries, charging inefficiency, drive efficiency (and capacity) due to battery weight . . . I'm still waiting to see the final number to prove Electric is "really" better than Gasoline. Even "pollution" . . . that Electricity didn't just magically appear. Has anyone factored in the "pollution" at the generating site?
      I don't have all those numbers . . . all I know is, even with a "government rebate" (which I'm helping pay for) . . . 3 years ago (~2010) "Electric" or "Hybrid" wasn't (lifetime of the car) a profitable deal compared to Gasoline for me.

      I'm still waiting for the magic breakthrough.

      --
      No, I don't remember your name. But the memory mapped screen on a TRS80 from 1977 is from 15360 to 16383 if that helps.
    33. Re:Efficient? by master5o1 · · Score: 1

      Do you think the majority would give a damn about 1%?

      I was about to make a poorly thought out joke about the Occupy movement. Something along the lines of most people being powerless to do anything about the 1%.

      --
      signature is pants
    34. Re:Efficient? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      I think I see your point now, which is that taking advantage of the immediate proximity to the power source removes your choice of providers. Whereas you can fill up your gas tank at your choice of gas stations, there would only be a single power infrastructure built into the road, so, no choice. It's a good point. Although, electricity transmission losses aren't THAT bad, so if the company operating the solar panels by the road got too greedy, it would be cheaper to use electricity piped in from somewhere else. But I guess the wireless power transmitters in the road would have to be operated by a regulated power utility, with all the issues of that.

    35. Re:Efficient? by mordred99 · · Score: 1

      Yes they would if A) they were totally educated on the issue. B) those non-incandescent lights didn't cost an arm and a leg just to buy one or two. C) people's experiences with the first generation of those bulbs were positive (ie. no warming up for a minute before the light got up to proper lumens)

      This is the same issue today with Americans and Diesel engines vs. traditional gasoline engines.

    36. Re:Efficient? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wireless power is the same problem now that it was then. Being that there are tremendous losses using wires the longer the distance is, wireless charging would make incandescent light bulbs look like free energy. Tesla himself found this out and yet kept on with it. You can't violate the laws of physics. He was headed east chasing a sunset.

    37. Re:Efficient? by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      People rarely care about more than 10%-25% depending. Seriously, people have known for years about electricity vampires in their homes, and most people don't unplug their TVs so they don't sap power when not in use, because it's convenient to hit the power button on the remote.

      Personally, I would use it if at least 20% of the power was actually used (80% loss) for my electric car. I'd rather pay the $0.25 per day than have to plug it in. Just park in my garage every night, and let it charge. I might even go as high as 8-10% actual useful power, that'd still only be $15 a month.

    38. Re:Efficient? by Your.Master · · Score: 2

      Lots of people have factored in pollution at the generating site.

      It depends on what the generating site is, but its uniformly better than a car. You have large plants and many employees dedicated to efficiently producing electricity, it will do it with much higher efficiency than an engine constrained to run in a relatively-small mobile plastic box with almost no serious maintenance.

      That part is super easy. The battery manufacturing and disposal processes (which you referred to) are the places you can make a serious argument about electric car pollution. The actual power generation is wildly in favour of electric cars, even if you have to add ~15% to compensate for inductive charging inefficiencies. The pollution types generated are also quite difference: more diffuse from cars and concentrated from electric. This has the same situation of nuclear power vs. fossil power (regardless of your position on nuclear power; just comparing those two in isolation since we don't have significant solar-powered cars :)), where there's significantly less pollution impact from nuclear but since it's concentrated it can look pretty bad at a glance compared to coal.

    39. Re:Efficient? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Millions of people still insist on using incandescent light bulbs. Do you think the majority would give a damn about 1%?

      If there are two gas stations across the street from one another, and one is a few cents cheaper, they get more business, no?

      When people hear 1%, they don't give a damn... when they hear 1% of their paycheck, they care a great deal.

    40. Re:Efficient? by Idbar · · Score: 1

      Some people keep thinking about the convenience of parking without plugging. I see it as the future possibility of charging while you're driving (Am I the only one thinking those could be used in some roads? Probably charge your car while in a traffic jam. And even reduce the anxiety that your battery is depleting while stuck in traffic).

    41. Re:Efficient? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      Halogens run about 30% or 40% more efficient than conventional incandescents, which is not "FAR better". They're more expensive and more dangerous, because the envelope must run very hot.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    42. Re:Efficient? by tftp · · Score: 1

      The average kwh cost in the US is about twelve cents, or $0.90 to $1.20 to go 25 miles.

      PG&E has standard rate plans that vary from 11c/kWh (which is so little that you can't afford a refrigerator) to 30c/kWh. There are also special plans (time- and season-driven); one of them is specifically intended for charging EVs. In that plan, IIRC, the rate is about 5 c/kWh - but that is at night only. I do not recall what is the rate during the day. Utilities hide the actual rate tables. PG&E has a convenient calculator. I tried it with Tesla S60 and 60 miles per day. I got about $150/mo on plan EV-A.

      60 miles per day * 30 = 1800 miles per month. If we convert this to a gas car, $150 pays for about 42 gallons of gas. This results in efficiency of 42.85 mpg. This not something to write home about. My own Prius does 52 mpg on flat land, and 45 mpg if you add climbing of the surrounding hills. If these calculations are correct, it is not efficient to use an EV even if you got it for free. At best it equals the hybrid that costs a third of the price of the EV.

    43. Re:Efficient? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      We're not talking about broadcasting here. This is more like a transformer with the primary on the floor and the secondary on the bottom of the car outside the metal body. The trick is making the gap from primary to secondary small enough to minimize stray magnetic fields, and finding a frequency range that makes the gap tolerable without requiring too expensive electronics for generating the high frequency.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    44. Re:Efficient? by jhumkey · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree. I'd just like to see all the numbers before I drink the Kool-Aid(tm). No matter how efficient the electric plant is, they still need to mine, and install, and have fleets of trucks to maintain . . . copper/wood/steel distribution systems. (I know, Gas doesn't just "appear" at my local Convenience store tank, they have refineries and fleets of trucks that pollute too, . . . I'm just saying without a FULL head to head TOTAL end to end comparison . . . its hard to separate propaganda from fact. And its in both industries interests to obscure those facts.)
      Ignoring all that . . . (3 years ago when I checked) the pricebreak for my wallet, just wan't there yet, considering . . . initial vehicle cost, my mileage per year (and the type city/highway) and expected mileages per $ on electric and including expected rising gas prices, and expected maintenance and lifespans of the vehicles . . . Hybrid just wasn't there yet. (Considering the range, and my lifestyle in KY . . . "Electric only" is totally out of the question.)
      And at the typical 15k miles per year, my life/driving is pretty typical for here.

      I'd like to by Hybrid and save the planet. I'd even pay a "slight" premium over gas. But, the numbers just aren't there yet. (And I mean by $10k+ not there.)
      If I lived in a large city and drove only locally 95% of the time (and could use a rental otherwise) . . . Maybe.
      But living an average KY life . . . Hybrid just doesn't cut it for me, dollar-wise.

      --
      No, I don't remember your name. But the memory mapped screen on a TRS80 from 1977 is from 15360 to 16383 if that helps.
    45. Re:Efficient? by MrHops · · Score: 1

      The average kwh cost in the US is about twelve cents, or $0.90 to $1.20 to go 25 miles.

      PG&E has standard rate plans that vary from 11c/kWh (which is so little that you can't afford a refrigerator) to 30c/kWh. There are also special plans (time- and season-driven); one of them is specifically intended for charging EVs. In that plan, IIRC, the rate is about 5 c/kWh - but that is at night only. I do not recall what is the rate during the day. Utilities hide the actual rate tables. PG&E has a convenient calculator. I tried it with Tesla S60 and 60 miles per day. I got about $150/mo on plan EV-A.

      60 miles per day * 30 = 1800 miles per month. If we convert this to a gas car, $150 pays for about 42 gallons of gas. This results in efficiency of 42.85 mpg. This not something to write home about. My own Prius does 52 mpg on flat land, and 45 mpg if you add climbing of the surrounding hills. If these calculations are correct, it is not efficient to use an EV even if you got it for free. At best it equals the hybrid that costs a third of the price of the EV.

      I'm not sure I understand their math. A Tesla 60 gets at least 3 miles per kWh (http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric#range), so your 60 mile day would take about 20 kWh. At 5 cents per kWh, that is $1/day, so about $30/month. To get a cost of $150/month would take electricity at $.25/kWh. At $.05/kWh, you end up getting more than 200 miles/gallon equivalent, and that's if gas is $3.57/gal. Around here (Bay area) it's closer to $3.80. Like I said, the math is squirrelly.

    46. Re:Efficient? by tftp · · Score: 1

      I don't think the nightly rate on an EV plan would be 25 cents per kWh. It can't be that high. Myself, I am not on an EV plan; I am on a net metering plan.

      The math may be squirrely indeed, but that's what they calculated. It would be good to ask someone who has an EV. There are a quite a few Leafs around in Silicon Valley. But buying an EV here is dangerous because of the hills (hard to estimate the range until you have driven the route.)

    47. Re:Efficient? by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Where I live, in Oregon, USA, we have lots of local public utilities with elected boards, open books, and a history of low prices and efficient power generation. If my utility was running it, the rates would end up being at cost and spread over time. And that would also be true if any of the utilities from neighboring communities were running it.

    48. Re:Efficient? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because people are to lazy to do basic math and realize on they are only saving 40cents per 10 gallons purchased. 80 cents if you go big and get 20 gallons. This is compounded by the fact that if they did the math and still wanted the 80 cents they'd being traded time that is worth more then 80 cents as well.

    49. Re:Efficient? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, or ask first.

    50. Re:Efficient? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Electromagnetic fields in this power range are well studied and totally harmless. None of this is new at all. http://www.teslasociety.com/tesla_tower.htm

    51. Re:Efficient? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      That said, I doubt its only 10% loss...

      According to the WiTricity FAQ the efficiency can be quite high:

      Q: How efficient is WiTricity technology?
      A: The power transfer efficiency of a WiTricity solution depends on the relative sizes of the power source and capture devices, and on the distance between the devices. Maximum efficiency is achieved when the devices are relatively close to one another, and can exceed 95%.

      What "relatively close to one another" means, how big the marketing sauce on that is and if it still works with other conducting items with 1 km radius remains to be seen.
      My own limited knowledge of this stuff tells me this could work. High frequency usually helps with transmission efficiency and resonant coils help a lot too.
      The WiTricity site mentions near field transmission. I can't find the exact frequency, but I'll assume that it's the same as their phone charger frequency (which is in their white paper): 6.78 MHz. The wavelength in meters for that is 300,000,000/6,780,000,000= 44 meter. The near field is up to about a wavelength in distance, so the near field for this should be up to 44 meter. I have not enough experience to say much insightful about the efficiency drop off inside those 44m.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    52. Re:Efficient? by somersault · · Score: 1

      Good point :p I was just thinking of my friends who are always concerned about a few pennies difference on groceries, but I guess they can't afford a new car in the first place. And electric cars aren't going to be great in the used market until battery tech/cost improves.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    53. Re:Efficient? by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      We had a great public run utility, NS Power, back in the 80's. Then the 90's conservative government sold the utility to Emera. Politicians don't like having to explain why power rates need to go up, even if it's just by a half a percent. So they sold off the utility and spun it that the private sector would be able to provide better rates and service.

      Unfortunately the opposite happened. We have monthly power outages because of "salt vapor" accumulating on power lines. In the last ten years rates have shot up uncontrollably, because people are using less power. Now NS Power is making NS Tax payers pay for an undersea power link cable to Newfoundland so they can pipe power through Nova Scotia to sell to the states.

      Where things went wrong was when the conservatives sold NS Power to Emera they *guaranteed* Emera a monopoly with a fixed ROI. In short they screwed us. Having a privately owned power corp would have been fine if it was open to competition and they actually had to compete for business or would be allowed to fail thus forcing them to actually manage their company rather than just passing CEO bonuses off to rate payers.

    54. Re:Efficient? by craftycoder · · Score: 1

      That cannot work without a core to contain the magnetic field effectively. Without a core you'd need to rely on directivity of RF energy to find efficiencies and those are not really available. This sounds like "magic" to an RF engineer with 30 years experience.

    55. Re:Efficient? by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Those non-incandescent lights cost an arm and a leg? Not my experience, now that CFLs are often available for under $1. Granted, there is some subsidy from the electric utilities in that price.

  2. Always been possible by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

    The fundamental physical principles of electromechanics have always allowed this, but safety and efficiency concerns couldn't really be mitigated without good sensors.

  3. I would like to turn my nerd card in by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Funny

    When I read Tesla in the title, my first thought was the car manufacturer. It wasn't until a few minutes later I realized it was referring to the inventor. If someone would kindly give me the proper address, I will hand in my nerd card. I'm sorry, everyone.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    1. Re:I would like to turn my nerd card in by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Moreover, none of the nerds here have noticed yet that Tesla would not be proud of this. He was trying to do wireless power across nations and oceans not inductive coupling at short range. Magnetic coupling falls off at very short range compared to propagating waves.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    2. Re:I would like to turn my nerd card in by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 2

      I agree. I think Tesla would be like "What's taking your fuckers so long?"

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    3. Re:I would like to turn my nerd card in by geekoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have written several papers through out my life about Tesla. The fact that everyone goes on and on about the stuff Tesla didn't invent and has no clue about the work he actually did is annoying as hell.

      The Oatmeal ruined pretty much everything about Tesla.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:I would like to turn my nerd card in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your incredibly informative post really helps clarify matters for me! I had no idea that that was what he actually did!

    5. Re:I would like to turn my nerd card in by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Fear not, nerds can forgive - once.

    6. Re: I would like to turn my nerd card in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla was a cool inventor. But he fancied himself a scientist. Eg, he showed that EM waves propagate through the earth faster than the speed of light. Ie, he wasn't a very good scientist. Still, he was a cool inventor.

    7. Re:I would like to turn my nerd card in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Oatmeal did more Tesla-related good yesterday than you ever have, will, or could, and you know it. You're just hoping to get some hipster cred by treating Tesla like some indie band that you were into before they got popular.

    8. Re:I would like to turn my nerd card in by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So what exactly did the oatmeal get wrong?

      http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    9. Re:I would like to turn my nerd card in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had no idea that that was what he actually did!

      It's okay, you still know more about him than geekoid does.

    10. Re:I would like to turn my nerd card in by TWiTfan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem with Tesla is that so much of his work has been mythologized that a lot of people have come to sort of dismiss it out of hand. It seems like every biographical portrayal of him in popular culture has to make him off as some sort of mystical magician, nutcase, or miracle worker. I remember an "In Search Of" episode when I was a kid that claimed he had built Stonehenge, developed a teleporter, and communicated with aliens. And don't get me started on his portrayal in The Prestige.

      I was well into my adulthood before I realized that he was an actual engineer who built real stuff, and not just some conspiracy theorist's concoction. As a kid, he went into the same category to me as Uri Geller and the aliens who built the pyramids.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    11. Re:I would like to turn my nerd card in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Oatmeal should be super popular around here. Smug, pointlessly over-intellectualized "comedy" written by someone who comes across as not having left the basement in 20 years. Truly a Slashdot hero.

    12. Re:I would like to turn my nerd card in by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      And smarter than you.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    13. Re:I would like to turn my nerd card in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wat did The Oatmeal ruin about tesla ?

    14. Re:I would like to turn my nerd card in by dkman · · Score: 1

      Direct link, for those of you who are lazy

      --
      I refuse to sign
    15. Re:I would like to turn my nerd card in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla got this wrong because its impossible. The losses are so great in the open air that it would require enormous power to get a small amount of current more than just a few hundred yards. Over oceans??? Forget it. Even a lightning bolt (that has tens of thousands of volts of potential difference) will only go a few miles.

      Of course to the Tesla cult the above is just illusion to the strange visitor from another planet.

    16. Re:I would like to turn my nerd card in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The wireless transmission of energy that was claimed that he invented just chose not to share with the rest of us? Maybe violates Maxwell's laws a bit.

    17. Re:I would like to turn my nerd card in by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Tesla didn't invent AC.
      Tesla Sued Marconi over the patents, which is the opposit of letting him use them
      Heinrich Hertz invented radar,
      Alexander Popov implemented it first.
      XRays where being observed and manipulated by dozens of inventor around the world. in 1887 pulyie was creating xrays, a decade before Tesla. Tesla did invent a unique way to create them, and he should get credit for that, but he did NOT discover them.

      Tesla warned about the dangers, and didn't use them for medical purposes. So, he was completely shorted sight on that front.

      FitzGerald came of with the earth frequency.

      Tesla never mentioned ball lightning in any of his writing or speaking There is no record from his time is known to exist stating that he created, or even knew about anything that could reasonably be called ball lightning

      Tesla didn't invent anything the can rain down electricity.

      The Oatmeal is just a reiteration of pop culture myth.

      And the Oatmeal comply ignores is actual important inventions.

      And when someone calls him on it, Inman turns into a insufferable prick.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    18. Re:I would like to turn my nerd card in by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Doubtful. However irrelevant because Inman is the biggest Douchebag since Edison.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    19. Re:I would like to turn my nerd card in by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Okay, okay, in that case I'll click the link.

    20. Re:I would like to turn my nerd card in by Aighearach · · Score: 1
  4. Wireless is more expensive and less efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Only someone trying to sell wireless charging tech would describe people who plug in as savages.

    1. Re:Wireless is more expensive and less efficient by Stoopiduk · · Score: 1

      or someone with a sense of humour.

    2. Re:Wireless is more expensive and less efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Plug in as savages" ... hmm, what would dr. Freud make of that?

  5. Efficiency? Power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If you want to pay 10% more to charge your car at slow L2 speeds because you're too lazy to spend 10 seconds plugging it in at night and unplugging it in the morning, who am I to try and stop you?

    1. Re:Efficiency? Power? by jythie · · Score: 1

      Unless it is really close range or carefully directed, we are more likely to be looking at 10% transfer then 10% loss.

    2. Re:Efficiency? Power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless it is really close range or carefully directed, we are more likely to be looking at 10% transfer then 10% loss.

      And if you're that close, why not just plug it in. All of these "wireless" chargers are really just connectionless chargers. They have none of the advantages of wireless when used to transmit information.

    3. Re:Efficiency? Power? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Using 100 year old tech you can do about 75% efficiency over a couple feet.

  6. Energy transfer efficiency? by hubie · · Score: 1

    Unless the efficiency is high, you're basically paying more to charge your car than if you just plugged it in.

    1. Re:Energy transfer efficiency? by hubie · · Score: 1

      I was basically responding to the first sentence of the summary.

      Apparently I'm also a rather slow typist. After skimming the link to see if it answered my question, and typing the above, my post looked like it was the first one. I suppose there is no browser refresh after the post is submitted ...

    2. Re:Energy transfer efficiency? by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Unless the efficiency is high, you're basically paying more to charge your car than if you just plugged it in.

      True, but it can be like WiFi where the convenience trumps the inefficiency. Think public charging spaces - you park your car, pay the parking fee (which can include the cost of the charge) and walk away. You save yourself the hassle of bringing out your heavy charge cable and all that, saving it from potential theft (I haven't seen many that can lock to the car) and unplugging by activists (I haven't seen many with locking doors over the plug, either).

      And yes, if it's wet and rainy, it's an added convenience.

      (Yes, people do get offended by seeing an electric car plugged in and will often unplug them while charging).

    3. Re:Energy transfer efficiency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't pay in $$$ for the WiFi inefficiency. It is not like WiFi would decrease your ISP usage monthly allowance by 10 or 20% so that you have to pay extra.
      On the other hand, a 90% efficiency in the Wireless power transfer effectively means you have raise your electricity price for charging by 11% by being lazy. Forget about being green etc.

      Math: 1/90% = 111%

    4. Re:Energy transfer efficiency? by Reilaos · · Score: 1

      But you do use more power than if you used network cables. I think that's what he was getting at.

    5. Re:Energy transfer efficiency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give me convenience or give me death!

  7. 30 years ago I suggested this to my physics teache by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a high school senior I asked why devices could get power wirelessly to my physics teacher. He laughed and said that would be too dangerous and not viable. Being a 16 year/old kid I said ok. Now if I was really smart I would have built a wireless power source.

  8. I already have a device that does that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's called a transformer. It transmits energy from one coil to another via a time-varying magnetic field and Ampere's Law, just like Qi and other "wireless" chargers do.

    That they're doing it at a higher frequency is nothing novel or innovative.

    1. Re:I already have a device that does that by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      I also have a transformer. It's a car that can turn into a robot.

    2. Re:I already have a device that does that by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      Power transformers use inductive coupling; things like this typically use resonant inductive coupling. It's an important distinction. It's why the windings of a power transformer have to be very close together, whereas this sort of thing can tolerate much greater separation and still maintain a reasonable efficiency.

      Nevertheless the article is amazingly short on information about how this tech is innovative, and why it's not just an application of something that's been in use for well over a century (e.g. Tesla coils). I'm not saying it isn't innovative, but you certainly can't tell that from the article.

  9. And get arrested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Man in Georgia (USA) gets arrested for charging his Honda Leaf at school (value 5 cents).
    Will there be safeguards that if the system detects a "charge hotspot" it first checks for authorization before tapping the source.

    1. Re:And get arrested by drakaan · · Score: 2

      Makes sense...the inability to bill for the supplied power was a major factor in Tesla's research not attracting funding. Hard to get investors when you can't charge for a charge.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    2. Re:And get arrested by es330td · · Score: 1

      Satellite radios already know if they are allowed to decode the signal for a listener and EZ-Pass RFID works for toll roads. I am pretty sure the "is this car allowed to charge here" problems has already been solved.

  10. so how will this work then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Will I just install a pad in my driveway? What if you don't have a one?

    The biggest problem I've found is that I live in a city without designated parking/ a garage/ anything of that matter, which makes it just about impossible to buy an electric car. Until there's a charging post on every spot, and all street parking converted into angle parking to accommodate the charging stations, you're missing out on a large percentage of where people live, and no other option except combustion engines. I am hoping you smart folks can offer suggestions on this issue.

    1. Re:so how will this work then by mythosaz · · Score: 2

      It doesn't take a charging station everywhere.

      If you drive 100+ miles a day to random locations, or to one specific location with no ability to charge, then electric cars aren't for you.

      If you drive 100 miles a day, and you've got any flexibility in it, just having a spot or two along your route to top off probably means you're viable in a "basic" electric car like the Leaf.

      All you do with public charging is top off a few miles here and there while you go about your day as normal -- except with better parking spaces :)

    2. Re:so how will this work then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Qualcomm has been trialing wireless charging technology in London. It looks like they are looking at it from precisely this point of view.

      http://www.qualcommhalo.com/index.php/media-centre/no-more-cables-5/media-9.html#media-centre

    3. Re:so how will this work then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, so the Leaf does 100 miles? So you can charge it for a few minutes here and there and be A-OK?

      Riiiight.

    4. Re:so how will this work then by tftp · · Score: 1

      People are not robots that are bolted to an assembly line and do the same work over and over again. Circumstances change all the time. Sometimes you need to go to a place that you know nothing about. You are sure there are gas stations, you don't need even to check. But chargers? More than one even, mid-route? That is not even a consideration for most normal people. A geek might accept that, but a common man will not. It takes a long time to charge. What if there is no space at the charger, and all outlets are in use? What if the charger is damaged? This is the only charger, and you MUST use it to return home. A tow truck will cost you.

      This means that an EV is only suitable as a second car. If you only own one car, forget it - you need to buy a universal, gas car that will take you anywhere. You also need to own a house, with a garage, if you want an EV - this is where your home charger will be mounted.

      Roadside (continuous) charging is nearly impossible - not because it is a technical problem, but simply because installation of such systems will require digging up all the roads in the country. Imagine how cheap and easy that is. The question of payment for the energy will also be significant. One way to do it is simply by charging every EV owner per mile driven. But that requires that most roads are equipped with chargers. The transition phase (where only some roads have them) will be long enough for that method to not work. Then you'd have to use methods of toll roads, and your privacy will be destroyed.

    5. Re:so how will this work then by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Yep. Dunno why you disbelieve basic facts that you can check.

      BTW you can get an 80% charge from a quick charging station in 30 minutes. That is why the Leaf has 2 different plugs. Even in low population areas along the interstates there are already lots of quick chargers. If you drive 60 miles, charge for 10 minutes while you get a cup of coffee, you'll already be back to 65 miles of range. And currently most downtown urban areas have places with free charging at regular 110, and if you plug in for an hour while you're doing some business somewhere, that is a lot of charge.

    6. Re:so how will this work then by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are android and iphone apps that show you where the charging stations are in your random local area. You should look at the coverage maps, there are a huge number of stations. There are even a huge number of stations offering free power. (free as in free)

    7. Re:so how will this work then by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      First, yes, you can go well over 100 miles in a Leaf on a single charge, although it depends greatly on the sort of driving you intend to do.
      http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=101293

      If you drive like an old lady, you can get 132 miles on a full charge. If you drive like I do, freeway+city mix, some "normal" speeding, you get about 80. I get 3.9 miles per kWh with a 21 kWh capacity battery. Plenty of mileage crazy Leaf owners get more. Plenty of lead-footed drivers get less.

      ...but here's how it works: I start the day with 82 miles of range. When I go out for lunch, I sometimes pick a location with a free charger in the parking lot; I get a solid 30-40 charge on a Level 2 EVSE charger -- not a "fast" or "supercharger," but the sort of charger we have 500+ of in my city - which gets my range to 90+ without doing anything except driving my car where I want to go. Going to to the movies? I'll not only park in the front row, but I'll use the free charger there and most likely have a full charge 2 hours later. Grocery store? Same thing as lunch.

      From a financial standpoint not everything is free. There's plenty of pay chargers too, and they end up costing somewhere around 8 cents a mile for the electricity from them, which is about the same cost of gas as a car that gets 45mpg.

    8. Re:so how will this work then by mythosaz · · Score: 2

      This means that an EV is only suitable as a second car. If you only own one car, forget it - you need to buy a universal, gas car that will take you anywhere.

      I barely know where to start shedding light on your ignorance.

      First, I'm absolutely certain that plenty of people get to and fro every day without a car to begin with, so this idea that you can't handle the big bad word without a gas car is as ignorant as the day is long.

      Moving on...If you can afford a new car to begin with, you can deal with the sudden unexpected realities of the world that might require you to drive more than 100 miles into unknown territory. I went from Phoenix to Albuquerque a couple weeks ago in my electric...and by that I mean I went to the airport and rented a gas car for the weekend for $20 a day. It's rare that you're ever using your entire electric range unless you weren't a good candidate for an electric car to begin with. I can count on one hand the number of times my electric car has had a range below the distance to the nearest hospital. [The cost of that $20/day rental was perfectly offset by my gas savings for the rest of the week, so all was well in my wallet...]

      You also need to own a house, with a garage, if you want an EV - this is where your home charger will be mounted.

      Perhaps you don't understand this. Your charger isn't mounted anywhere except inside the car. That fancy plug on the wall is just a plug with a switch or two in it, man. But, yes, if you're stuck with a carport only, or you have to park away from where you live, you're probably screwed -- and not a candidate for an all-electric car. The rest of us can plug in our cars anywhere there's a 110 outlet (that we're allowed to use) with an extension cord.

      You have this idea that nobody could ever live with a bicycle alone, or only have a motorcycle because their kid might get sick.

      All-electric cars have caveats too, but with way fewer restrictions that just taking the bus.

    9. Re:so how will this work then by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Also, the nav system in the car knows the nearest station and is updated OTA - provided you're not in the budget-model Leaf.

  11. It's all around you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To find the next clue, you need to be both like a tree and the Matterhorn.

  12. What's taking them so long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They just don't have the charge required to move forward.

      *da dum ching*

  13. Old news for buses by wren337 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Italy has been using this for buses since 2003.
    http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/08/induction-charged-buses/

    1. Re:Old news for buses by k2backhoe · · Score: 2

      Good article with some believable numbers. But when transmitting 100 kW at 85% efficiency, you have to wonder what is happening to 15 kW of magnetic field. Where is it going, who is it affecting? Will my fillings heat up, or my cochlear implant overload if I am near by?

    2. Re:Old news for buses by Scorchmon · · Score: 2

      Not all of the power is being converted into a magnetic field. Some of it is being lost due to resistances in the circuit from cables, copper traces, and other components where it is converted to heat.

  14. Wireless? Feh! by the_skywise · · Score: 1

    All we need to do is put poles with flexible wire strips on top of the cars and then put a wire mesh over all the roads that can be electrified so the cars can be charged while driving.

    Works for bumper cars anyway!

    (I used to joke about this but I really foresee the day when we charge our cars using a USB x.0 cable to both charge the car and sync its data (stereo, playlists, etc) nightly like we do our phones and tablets...)

  15. So we're going to start using electric cars by mark_reh · · Score: 2

    because they are energy efficient, and we're going to use wireless charging because it isn't? A wireless system will NEVER match the efficiency of plugging the thing in with wires.

    1. Re:So we're going to start using electric cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But imagine in the distant future where roads can be built with induction circuits for electric cars to use to power (or recharge) themselves as you drive, and be billed directly to you. Battery size can be reduced, lowering the vehicle weight significantly, making cars more efficient and allowing for smaller power units, needing less power. Get the picture?

    2. Re:So we're going to start using electric cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The efficiency is actually is pretty good being at 86% for existing product (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_charging.)
      Also MIT has achieved 90% efficiency at a distance of 3 ft for 60 w light bulb.

      But this is not news. Nissan has demonstrated wireless charger for Leaf almost a year ago and, as I remember, is planing to have it as an option in 2014 (http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/TECHNOLOGY/OVERVIEW/wcs.html.) And Bosch has one already available for purchase (http://www.pluglesspower.com/.)

    3. Re:So we're going to start using electric cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All this tech is really old, and 90% efficiency is pretty good for many applications where wires are a hindrence/extra cost.

      All this research is just prototyping possible manufacturing methods, which will probably either go on the market or get held back depending on who's paying the grants/funding for the research. Whether they want to sit on the tech or be competative/anticompetative.

      Last time I saw this news story was a few years ago, suprisingly here it is again. Probably just MIT getting funded by someone who was a little later to the show than one of the other patent trolls.

    4. Re:So we're going to start using electric cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because they are energy efficient, and we're going to use wireless charging because it isn't? A wireless system will NEVER match the efficiency of plugging the thing in with wires.

      Unless they were installed at every stop light.

    5. Re:So we're going to start using electric cars by ai4px · · Score: 1

      I really like this idea.... charge the cars (or at least don't run down the batteries) while driving. It'd only have to be on the main roads. When you drive away from the road that has the inductive loop, the car runs on batteries. So on the main road, use power from the road, on the side streets, drive on battery power. Love it. Now how do we make sure that a car owner is billed for the power used? How to stop cars that don't pay from getting power?

    6. Re:So we're going to start using electric cars by mark_reh · · Score: 1

      So you're going to be dumping power into this charging system embedded in roads, whether or not there is a car there to benefit from it. And how does that improve efficiency?

    7. Re:So we're going to start using electric cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're not using electric cars because they are energy efficient. We're using them because they're trendy and expensive. We're using them to save the environment from oil dependency (because that's also trendy and expensive). And we're using them because they're quiet and low maintenance.

      The fact that they are energy efficient is just a happy by product. If wireless charging makes them less energy efficient than gasoline powered cars, it's still a good deal.

    8. Re:So we're going to start using electric cars by mark_reh · · Score: 1

      You're confusing availability with efficiency. Efficiency is the ratio of the power received by the charging system in the car to the power supplied to the coil (or whatever) in the charging station. What you are talking about is improved availability, not efficiency, though it is doubtful that the limited time spent at stop light would allow much charging to take place- unless you intend to extend the duration of red lights...

    9. Re:So we're going to start using electric cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're dumping power into your house whether you're using it or not...how is that efficient?

      (Do you see your mistake yet?)

      It doesn't just disappear if it isn't in use...

    10. Re:So we're going to start using electric cars by ai4px · · Score: 1

      Pretty simple.... the bus system example showed that power was not applied to the loop until the bus approached. So you ID the car as it's travelling down the road, and turn on the loop under it. Profit! ha! Hey, no tailgating on my power loop!

  16. Not in my garage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I own a Leaf, and I plug it in every night, using (gasp!) A WIRE!!! [insert dramatic music here]

    I can't imagine myself ever going wireless for in-home charging simply because of the cost. Why pay what is surely a 4-figure sum for convenience and less efficient charging, when all I have to do is stick a plug in the nose cone of the car? It takes under 30 seconds, you can't get any more efficient, and I don't even think about it any more -- I just plug in and forget it.

    Wireless public charging could make sense, especially for areas where drivers might not want to leave a plug hanging out of their car overnight.

    1. Re:Not in my garage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everywhere you park your car has a plug.

    2. Re:Not in my garage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know a few people who can easily omit one step from a task that contains two steps. For them, "park it and forget it" works better than "park it and plug it in".

  17. energy is energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure we want those amounts of energy shooting through the ether, and our bodies. Energy is energy no matter what frequency at which it's transmitted. I'd rather be able to avoid dirty air than something I can't see.

    1. Re:energy is energy by guruevi · · Score: 1

      We disproved the atmosphere consisting out of ether before the beginning of the previous century. Air doesn't become "dirty" because there are microwaves or other electromagnetic waves going through it... *sigh* science 101

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  18. Tesla would punch us on the mouth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... for having ignored all his life work for this long time.

  19. It'll never catch on in Georgia by mbone · · Score: 1

    Not if you could get arrested just for parking your EV in a local school parking lot.

    1. Re:It'll never catch on in Georgia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You summarized that very poorly. He was arrested for CHARGING his car with the schools power. From the article, it appears he was a dick to the cop, and wouldn't agree to not do it again. Any reasonable person would have said "sorry officer, I'll unplug it." He tried to argue. If you want to argue with a cop, make sure your in the right. He wasn't.

  20. Health effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What kind of radiation are they using? Can it penetrate the skin?

    If someone walks or stands between a transmitter and a receiver, will he get a burn / cancer?

    1. Re:Health effects by amalcolm · · Score: 1

      Non-ionizing radiation, so ,no

      --
      Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
  21. Tesla proud?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tesla was all about free energy for the people.

    Intel and Foxconn are also investors, and you might see them license the tech soon as well

    Me don't thinks Tesla would be proud of that.

  22. I Can't See It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The amperage needed to charge an EV in a reasonable amount of time is very high! To transfer that much energy through induction is going to require that the induction pad be as powerful as a Magnetic Resonance Imaging system, or higher.

    That would be some dangerous stuff.I don;t want to be near the likes of this.

  23. This idea again? Nothing new, move along. by bobbied · · Score: 2, Informative

    Gee folks, the laws of physics pretty much govern how "wireless" transmission of energy works. Using magnetic fields to transfer power from here to there is not new, we've been doing it long before Edison and Westinghouse where fighting it out over AC verses DC over 100 years ago. Westinghouse used "transformers" way back then so transferring power from one coil of wire to another though a magnetic field is not new.

    But they are using a different frequency! That's new right? Not so fast... Designers have been using higher frequencies in transformers for a long time now. Aircraft have routinely used 400 Cycle power systems so designers could use smaller (and lighter) transformers since before WWII. Further, we now routinely use frequencies in the Kilohertz in switching power supplies for the same reason. More efficiency, smaller size and weight by using higher frequencies.

    But they really haven't solved anything or come up with anything new. They will suffer efficiency losses because their magnetic flux coupling is weak due to the distances involved, they will suffer from limited ability to transfer power because the maximum flux density of air is pretty low, and they will have to add significant weight to the cars being charged by adding large coils of wire with many turns to them.

    Nothing new to see here..

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  24. So Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not everywhere you park your car has a plug.

    And even fewer places, that you park or drive your car, will EVER have inductive charging pads.

    1. Re:So Right by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Ever is sure a long ways, did you enjoy your trip? And how did you get back so soon??

  25. Static application is stupid by sugar+and+acid · · Score: 1

    The static application of this, automatic charging while parked over a mat in a garage is not that interesting really. But what if sections of a similar technology was installed in interstates that could charge a car on the move? Cars with a receiving system, and a way to verify and bill the driver for the electricity while moving. We would then have electric cars with potentially infinite range.

    That application we could take a bit of inefficiency for the convenience added.

  26. Soundproof your walls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to prevent people from stealing your electricity...

  27. Slashdot, home of the swing-and-a-miss smartass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For some reason, we're still plugging in electric-powered devices like a bunch of savages.

    Look, I know you're aiming for "snarky quasi-ironic elitist who can afford an electric car and lives in an area with a strong electric car infrastructure", but you're coming off as "infomercial for people too stupid to properly operate a blanket".

    1. Re:Slashdot, home of the swing-and-a-miss smartass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They make wireless electric blankets?

      Awesome! I'll take 10!

  28. Re:This idea again? Nothing new, move along. by amalcolm · · Score: 1

    Oh for mod points. Quite right.

    --
    Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
  29. What about radation? by ai4px · · Score: 1

    With all the hype about cell phone radiation, what do you think it would be for a car charger? Of course the idea of having a loop on my garage floor that begins to charge when I park the car is very interesting. It'll probably have to have some interlock to make sure no people are nearby.

    1. Re:What about radation? by DeTech · · Score: 2

      You should look up the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing rad.

    2. Re:What about radation? by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      The creator did a TED talk where he demonstrated standing between the two loops while it powered a TV. Since he's not dying of cancer, you'll probably be ok without an interlock.

    3. Re:What about radation? by ai4px · · Score: 1

      I agree completely with you... but the blind follower cell phone radiation fanatics will have a field day. And , yes , I know the difference between ionizing and nonionizing. My process gauging job requires me to know ;-)

  30. Re:Green issues matter except when they don't by ai4px · · Score: 1

    It's not that fitting a square plug into a square hole is a problem.... its' that my wife doesn't want to get grime, dirt and salt on her hands to plug the car in. She wants to grab her purse and walk in the house. Convienance is the driving (pun??) factor here.

  31. My equally lazy but simple and 0 loss solution by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    Jeez just have some sprung conductors in the floor of your garage that come up and touch corresponding contact points on the underside of the car whenever you park.
    For safety, Include some trivial electronics to only power the conductors after a data handshake happens with the car. This both ensures the car is in contact properly and that its not say, your kids bike.

  32. Can you go to jail for parking in a public lot and by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Can you go to jail for parking in a public lot and then have the cops show up 11 days later to hull you to jail?
    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/12/04/1817227/ev-owner-arrested-over-5-cents-worth-of-electricity-from-schools-outlet

  33. Re:This idea again? Nothing new, move along. by DeTech · · Score: 1

    The caveat here is Witricity's patented light weight tuned "antenna". I took a tour of there facility once they have some neat stuff, the efficiency was pretty good at low power for large gaps... I can't imagine that it'll scale up to kW well tho.

  34. In the 1970s, EM radiation caused cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the U.S. during the 1970s, there was quite a bit of hysteria regarding the dangers of living near sources of electromagnetic radiation. A typical story would associate childhood leukemia with living in proximity of high-tension lines. Is EM radiation no longer considered a health problem now?

  35. I wonder what it will do... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    ...to my credit cards.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:I wonder what it will do... by DeTech · · Score: 1

      absolutely nothing.

  36. Re:This idea again? Nothing new, move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    YOU aren't familiar with the difference between power transfer by way of magnetic induction, and power transfer by way of *resonant* magnetic induction, so THEY haven't done anything new. :sigh:

    There's a TED Talk where the prototype-level version of this technology was demoed. It's a few years old at this stage. It doesn't require minute distances, it has lower power losses than your typical 'wall wart' AC/DC converter, and transfer efficiency doesn't drop off with the square of the range.

  37. Is the cord really a problem? by sirwired · · Score: 1

    Is the cord really a big problem when charging an electric car? I mean, I've never felt the need to have a gas pump that would squirt fuel right into the filler neck without using a hose...

    I would have thought the biggest stumbling block to widespread charging infrastructure would be the truly ridiculous power feed that would be needed to charge a significant number of cars along long-haul routes.

  38. Re:This idea again? Nothing new, move along. by bobbied · · Score: 1

    It won't scale up in power level. The usable flux density of air is going to throw a physics law wrench in their works. The distance between the car and the source is going to impose severe limits, unless there are some serious problems with our understanding of basic physics (which is highly unlikely at this point.)

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  39. Yes, it is by cultiv8 · · Score: 2

    Charging my car and my devices while driving down the road is extremely efficient. The cost of infrastructure required to support this gain in efficiency is another discussion.

    --
    sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
  40. Bandwidth zeroed out by hendrikboom · · Score: 2

    The bandwidth of a truck full of magnetic tapes goes to zero as everything is erased.

    -- hendrik

  41. Park it? by way2trivial · · Score: 2

    why not line the freeway?
    charge while you drive it.

    Want a 300 mile range?
    put 100 miles of chargers for every 300 miles of road..

    Recreate the electric bus, powered externally.

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  42. This is stupid. by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    They have had wireless charging for a decade for larger vehicles. the Golf carts at the local golf course have done this for at least 10 years. you drive on a rubber mat and the golf cart starts charging, Exact same thing for a car unless they claim they can charge the car from dead to full in 20 minutes, then I highly doubt it as inductive charging cant handle that much power in a wide air gap transformer (This is what "wireless" charging is)

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  43. Really, really, really ridiculous. by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1

    Cmon, converting electric power to radio frequency AC is at best 80% efficient, and coupling it maybe 50% at best, and converting it back to DC 80% again. I get 32% best efficiency and those are for the most optimum situation. No way this will ever fly, economically. And since people are scared of their water meters e-field of a fraction of a watt, how are they going to feel about megawatts? Not gonna fly, or even crawl.

  44. Nice idea... by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Just don't leave your wallet in your car, or the mag strips on your credit cards might stop working...
    Or your laptop with its old magnetic hard drive..

    Transferring kilowatts of power via magnetic fields is going to have some losses.

  45. My idea by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Conductive rubber tires.
    Park on metal plates and if two of the 4 tires are on different plates, you can pull power. Just don't walk over them in bare feet.

  46. Practice with F-Zero by RandomUsername99 · · Score: 1

    And they said all of those hours I spent practicing F-Zero were wasted!

  47. wonderful idea by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    That's what we need. A multi-thousand KWh device charging at pathetically low efficiency as a gimmick because people are too lazy to touch a cable to a socket. I'm going to take a wild guess that the entire neighborhood better not be using wifi or cell phones either because that level of EM can't possibly fail to affect things.

  48. An idea by Ultimate+Statement · · Score: 1

    Here is my idea: Automatic vacuum cleaners search for their charging spot before running out of power. Do apply this "search for power" to a car, something like this: You park your car on top of a simple robotic charger (it can even take control of the car when in very close proximity), the charger looks for your cars contacts, negotiates a secret token, the car opens its contacts, and the charger plugs to it with proper hi-power copper plugs. No noisy, cancer producing, water boiling wireless charging, and full efficiency. Once charge is done, it disconnect and everything goes to sleep. Want to have better climate inside your car before you go? Push the button on your mobile, and the robot (re)connects and supplies the power for the air conditioning. Want to leave before charging is done? No problem, push the power button long enough and the charger unplugs, returns vehicle control to the driver and "off" you go! :D

  49. Plugless power. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This technology is already available http://www.pluglesspower.com/

  50. Tesla is still ahead of Materialist Science by teslabox · · Score: 1

    Tesla assumed that power would be too cheap to meter and thus efficiency wouldn't be an issue, but that never really panned out

    Tesla grokked physics, and said that one day our machinery would be harnessed to "the wheelwork of nature". We are still using Tesla version 0.8 alpha (AC Power distribution). It is better than Edison's vision of a DC generator in every neighborhood, but version 1.0 of Tesla's vision - energy from the aether - would be better still.

    Tesla's vision hasn't "panned out", yet, because the energy industry is central to JP Morgan's vision for Electrodynamics. This called for a power a meter on every home.

    Rupert Sheldrake's Ted talk - the Science Delusion - has some good points too...

  51. Re:This idea again? Nothing new, move along. by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Oh so they invented some *new* thing that I don't understand? Snake oil I say.

    Look, in this part of my studies as a Electrical Engineer, I can assure you that they've not *invented* anything. Transferring power using magnetic fields requires you create an ever changing magnetic flux though the receiving coil of wire. Using a tuned circuit doesn't change how the physics of magnetic flux work only the circuits connected to the wire coils. It's still going to boil down to how much flux change can you get cutting though the receiving coil's wire to generate current. The physics don't change here, I don't care what circuits you use to generate the magnetic field or draw power from it.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101