Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Working On Wireless Charging For Self-Driving Cars (inhabitat.com)

Posted by yaelk on from the ready-set-go dept.

MikeChino writes: New FCC filings suggest that Google is currently installing wireless charging systems for self-driving cars at its headquarters in Mountain View. The documents suggest that the systems will be installed by Hevo Power and Momentum Dynamics. Both companies offer technology that can wirelessly charge an electric car via plates that are embedded in the ground.

60 comments

  1. cellphones are bad enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wireless charging is wildly inefficient, in no way is it a better idea to do this than using a plug especially for something as hungry as a car.

    1. Re:cellphones are bad enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Wireless charging is wildly inefficient, in no way is it a better idea to do this than using a plug especially for something as hungry as a car.

      Plus the plates in the ground will flash-cook your cat.

    2. Re:cellphones are bad enough by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      You may well be right - but I think the idea is to be able to charge while you drive. Even if it is wildly inefficient and almost certainly can't give you continuous driving (at least no time soon) - it could likely extend the range of an electric vehicle by a good 30% or so, which many people would value. The cost of the infrastructure will be high but since it's value is spread over so many beneficiaries it's cost-per-user is actually quite low.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    3. Re:cellphones are bad enough by donaldm · · Score: 1

      Wireless charging is wildly inefficient, in no way is it a better idea to do this than using a plug especially for something as hungry as a car.

      You may well be right - but I think the idea is to be able to charge while you drive. Even if it is wildly inefficient and almost certainly can't give you continuous driving (at least no time soon) - it could likely extend the range of an electric vehicle by a good 30% or so, which many people would value. The cost of the infrastructure will be high but since it's value is spread over so many beneficiaries it's cost-per-user is actually quite low.

      A simple way to provide charging is to have a ground plate that would spring up and mate with an identical plate in the car therefore providing energy transfer very much like a standard transformer with a small air gap. It would be more efficient to have a charging plug which would remove the need to extra locating circuitry for the plates not to mention the losses associated with a loosely coupled transformer. Not to be a spoilsport but energy stored plus energy lost still has to be paid for by the consumer.

      As for charging while you drive. This is actually done by regenerative breaking or where energy is not being applied to the drive motor such as downhill conditions.

      From the article:

      The idea is that, initially, a self-driving car would position itself briefly over a charging pad between rides, and ultimately, the infrastructure would be put in place that would allow a car to continually recharge its batteries as it travels along the road.

      Now that broke me up considering electric buses and trains have been doing that for decades. But electric cars "briefly" passing over a charging plate? I really do think that some of these people should get their heads out of the clouds, what next Mr Fusion and flying cars - oh wait!

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    4. Re:cellphones are bad enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that cost per user is really cost per adopter of electric vehicle among the population of some city in the US, or country much smaller than Vermont.

    5. Re:cellphones are bad enough by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      People want electric cars in order to conserve energy, not for themselves but for the environment. So having a very inefficient charger defeats that purpose.

    6. Re: cellphones are bad enough by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Today. But just a few years ago it was the population of a small suburb. That number is liable to grow exponentially.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    7. Re: cellphones are bad enough by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I think its both. I want an electric car because electricity is a shitload cheaper than petrol or diesel here. The enviromental benefits are a bonus though. By that reasoning nobody would buy electric cars when their grid is fossil fuel powered. It reduces the benefit it does not negate it.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    8. Re: cellphones are bad enough by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      I think its both. I want an electric car because electricity is a shitload cheaper than petrol or diesel here.

      Only because there is massive tax on petrol and diesel (in the UK anyway) and not on electricity. As long as only a few people adopt electric cars the government will be content to posture as the Godfather of Green-ness, and even give subsidies for it, but if/when most cars are electric do we really believe that the government will tolerate the loss of all that tax revenue? Good luck with that.

      By that reasoning nobody would buy electric cars when their grid is fossil fuel powered. It reduces the benefit it does not negate it.

      You are under-estimating the power of marketing. I once tried in vain to explain to a chatty guy on a train that his idea that running everything on compressed air "would cost nothing, because air was free, and pollution-free", would not in fact solve the World's energy problems.

    9. Re: cellphones are bad enough by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      For fossil fuels though thats far from the only factor. Big generators will always be cheaper per joule there because they have access to a wider range of fuels (when oil is expensive crank up the gas generators) and much better economies of scale. Coal by the ton costs a lot less than coal by the kilo.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    10. Re:cellphones are bad enough by bentcd · · Score: 2

      People want electric cars in order to conserve energy, not for themselves but for the environment. So having a very inefficient charger defeats that purpose.

      People are very different. I bought an electric car because it doesn't shake, rattle or stink, it's silent, and when I hit the accelerator it actually accelerates.

      If it's also environmentally friendly, then I'll take that. Nice bonus. It's not my primary motivator however.

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
    11. Re:cellphones are bad enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People want electric cars in order to conserve energy, not for themselves but for the environment. So having a very inefficient charger defeats that purpose.

      Doesn't always matter. Take a look at Norway as an example. (Second largest market for the Tesla.)
      They cover their entire electricity production with hydroelectric.
      An inefficient charger is not a big deal there, it will lead to some more electricity being used but it won't have a large environmental impact.
      If the extra convenience of an inductive charger can get more people to switch over to EV then it will be beneficial for the environment, even if the charger has unnecessary losses.

    12. Re:cellphones are bad enough by necro81 · · Score: 1

      You may well be right - but I think the idea is to be able to charge while you drive. Even if it is wildly inefficient and almost certainly can't give you continuous driving (at least no time soon) - it could likely extend the range of an electric vehicle by a good 30% or so, which many people would value. The cost of the infrastructure will be high but since it's value is spread over so many beneficiaries it's cost-per-user is actually quite low.

      "Wildly inefficient" is the key thing. Stationary charging (e.g., cellphones) is, if you believe manufacturer's claims, up to 85% efficient. In my experience (I integrated Qi charging into a product that required no cable ports), it is more like 50-80% efficient. That much waste isn't a big deal if you are charging a phone at 5-10 W. Some things will get warm, but not too bad. It's another thing entirely when you are talking about charging an electric vehicle at 10's of kW. Even a 90% efficient inductive charger will be wasting several kW of power - comparable to an electric stovetop. (I'll note that, as far as I know, no one has demonstrated charging a vehicle in motion at anything close to 90% efficiency - so even this is a stretch.)

      This would be a huge step backwards, if the goal of adopting electric vehicles is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Depending on whose numbers you use and how the electricity is generated, a battery electric vehicle is, emissions-wise, comparable to or a bit better than a decent gas-electric hybrid. If suddenly you slap a 50% efficiency "tax" on charging an electric vehicle, we'll not be making any progress towards reducing overall emissions.

    13. Re: cellphones are bad enough by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      On the other hand it could help keep the roads clear of snow :p

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    14. Re:cellphones are bad enough by jpyeck · · Score: 1

      This is a feature and future revenue stream for Google.

      Imagine the number of YouTube cooked-cat videos and the resulting ad revenue!

    15. Re: cellphones are bad enough by necro81 · · Score: 1

      I am guessing you are making a joke. However, if keeping the roads clear of snow were a major priority in road construction, then I would advocate using waste steam from the electrical plants that are used to produce the electricity for the (plugged in) vehicles. This energy is usually wasted through a cooling tower. However, it is still useful as process heat for various purposes, like snow melting, and making some use of it increases the overall (chemical or nuclear potential energy input to electrical output) efficiency of generator plants.

    16. Re:cellphones are bad enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wireless charging is wildly inefficient, in no way is it a better idea to do this than using a plug especially for something as hungry as a car.

      How so? Wireless charging may be highly ineffective compared to a wired connection, but saying that it is "wildly inefficient" would seem to hyperbole, or perhaps stemming from a wildly ignorant understanding of how electrical transmission works.

    17. Re:cellphones are bad enough by lhowaf · · Score: 1

      I think the Tesla "snake" charger is a lot closer to the ideal. Even if it is a bit overwrought, it still must be cheaper than repaving road surface for every installation.

    18. Re:cellphones are bad enough by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

      That's not what this article is talking about. These are fixed charging stations at Google's headquarters. Here's one of the companies they're working with. As they describe on their website, it's something where you drive up to the charger, stop your car, use your phone to monitor the progress of charging, etc.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
  2. Gee, the Roger Rabbit electric bus revisited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Back when the Disneyland Roger Rabbit area of Fantasy land was brand new there were little charging pads to charge up the bus people could ride from one side to the other of the area. At the places the bus would stop charging coils were installed in the ground. This didn't last long at all. It's nice to see Google reviving the fantasy.

    {^_-}

    1. Re:Gee, the Roger Rabbit electric bus revisited by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Informative

      So you're example of a past attempt is from circa 1989 ? You do realize that practically every piece of technology in the tool-chain up to and including the batteries (and their charge times) have gotten orders better in the decades since then ? That's like saying "New horizons was an impossible mission because when we launched Apollo 11 it could barely make it to the moon and back".

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    2. Re:Gee, the Roger Rabbit electric bus revisited by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      practically every piece of technology in the tool-chain up to and including the batteries (and their charge times) have gotten orders better in the decades since then

      The laws of physics have not gotten better though. Charging across a significant air gap remains an inefficient part of the chain, no matter how much you improve the bits either side.

  3. We've had these for 2 years already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Buses in Milton Keynes (England), have been using this for two years.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25621426

    1. Re:We've had these for 2 years already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Milton Keynes Central, a stop never missed!
      On thy concrete cows my love and I kissed.

      Balliol or Magd'len could never compare -
      Six miles closer to London, I save on the fare.

    2. Re:We've had these for 2 years already by nukenerd · · Score: 1
      FTFA :-

      the bus parks over plates buried in the road. The driver then lowers receiver plates on the bottom of the bus to within 4cm of the road surface and the bus is charged

      So it is not on the move, and the bus lowers plates. Might as well lower contacts - much cheaper and more efficient.

    3. Re:We've had these for 2 years already by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      The plate is used to provide a large area for induction because the charging is done while passengers are getting on and off the bus. Using contacts would be cheaper and more efficient but would require the driver to be very precise in their placement of the bus if they were to be automatically deployed or have live connections open at street level. You lose some efficiency by using induction but gain in usability.

  4. like an electric toothbrush? by quenda · · Score: 2

    Why link to that useless tease at inhabitat?

    Here is TFA: http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-...

    Though it still does not explain why induction might be better than using a conventional dock, especially for an automated car.

    1. Re:like an electric toothbrush? by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Though it still does not explain why induction might be better than using a conventional dock, especially for an automated car.

      Okay, have you seen tesla's automated charge connector? It's like something out of a bad horror movie.

      Still, a list in no particular order:
      More resistant against vandals
      doesn't take up real estate with a charging station
      No need for a person to hook up the charger(or a horror movie snake-thing)
      faster connection
      no need to play with adapters
      no cables to trip over
      ability to embed charger at stop lights, bus stops(for electric buses), taxi stops(for taxis), and such for a 'quick top-off'. Might not matter for a Tesla type car, but for a electric bus? Might be the difference between getting through en entire day and having to swap out the batteries for a bus or taxi.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:like an electric toothbrush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Though it still does not explain why induction might be better than using a conventional dock, especially for an automated car.

      Well, there are plenty of reason. If they outweigh the extra losses you get from induction charging is hard to tell but I can see why they don't feel the need to reiterate the same arguments for induction charging over and over again. The reasons are based on how the world works and doesn't change quarterly.
      No connection wear. The coil can be environmentally protected. No need for any mechanically complex robotic arms that attaches a connector.

    3. Re:like an electric toothbrush? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Induction for opportunistic charging with less maintenance than using a connector. Connectors wear out, incorrect insertion can damage one or both ends, and they require some sort of above-ground post that can be hit by bad drivers. Inductive plates on the ground are much more robust, so you trade that against the reduced efficiency.

      There is also the convenience. Say you install them at a bus stop, the bus can recharge while it is taking on passengers and then move off immediately.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:like an electric toothbrush? by donaldm · · Score: 1

      Wireless charging can be done via two means.

      The first being by induction charging .

      The second being by beamed radiation which could be ultrasonic or microwave or even Laser. See the following.

      In principle wireless charging sounds good however there are normally huge losses associate with this and since we live in a society of "user pays" I don't think that many people would like to pay for energy losses. Fine for a mobile phone wireless charger since the losses are relatively small but for a car or bus the losses can be quite considerable although I won't deny they can be improved but there are theoretical limits and to date the laws of thermodynamics and transformers have not been repealed.

      ability to embed charger at stop lights, bus stops(for electric buses), taxi stops(for taxis), and such for a 'quick top-off'. Might not matter for a Tesla type car, but for a electric bus? Might be the difference between getting through en entire day and having to swap out the batteries for a bus or taxi.

      The mind boggles at this. Even it it could be done how much to you think it would cost. It is actually much cheaper to install enough batteries in an electric vehicle so it will get through a working day and I don't think this will change any-time soon. Actually gas and diesel powered buses have been very effective in many cities.

      Pure electric cars are great if you are travelling relatively short distances (ie. less than 130 km) around a city although hilly terrain may be problematic. If you are travelling longer distances then petrol is the better solution although hybrids are pretty good as well but relatively more expensive. For long distance driving diesel is the most economical although it can be problematic for short stop and go conditions. Of course public transport is the best if it is cost effective and convenient and unfortunately I have yet to see or hear of a city where this is the case.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    5. Re:like an electric toothbrush? by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      ........ why induction might be better than using a conventional dock, especially for an automated car.

      More resistant against vandals.

      A plug-in point on a post does not seem particularly vandal prone. Avoid putting them in vandal-prone areas - cars are generally more mobile than vandals.

      doesn't take up real estate with a charging station

      Except for the credit card reader, unless everything is going to be free in La-La Land. Anyway, people (and entrepreneurs) will still want the adjacent shop to buy their booze and fags when they top up, so a few charging pillars wont make much difference.

      No need for a person to hook up the charger.
      faster connection
      no need to play with adapters
      no cables to trip over

      A hard connection could be automated with a connector descending from the car to sockets on the ground. Some types of tram used to do that years ago. We are talking about self-parking cars aren't we? Even conventional cars do that now, so positioning is not a problem.

      Contactless charging would be a bit more convenient than a hard connection, but seems unlikely to outweigh the penalty of energy losses in this "green" age. Seems to me that the main point is with regard to self-driving cars - that the car could be sent off empty to top up somewhere unattended, although as I said even a hard connection could be automated.

    6. Re:like an electric toothbrush? by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      Except for the credit card reader, unless everything is going to be free in La-La Land.

      Well, outside of La-La land they can just use wireless billing or subscription services, you know?

      Anyway, people (and entrepreneurs) will still want the adjacent shop to buy their booze and fags when they top up, so a few charging pillars wont make much difference.

      Note how I said buses and taxis. Not vehicles that can be EVs spend that much time in parking lots. Also, on road charging.

      Though as batteries keep getting cheaper such ideas become financially less feasible compared to just adding more batteries.

      although as I said even a hard connection could be automated.

      As I mentioned as well, remember Tesla's automated charger?

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    7. Re:like an electric toothbrush? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Actually, they don't need any kind of payment system built in to the charger. The charger just asks the car for its VIN number, the back end checks that it has an account and tells the charger to turn on. When the charger is finished it reports back how much energy it dispensed and the back end bills the user.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re: like an electric toothbrush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm an electrician by trade with a bit of electrical engineering under my belt. I suppose the question I have for you is.. What do you consider to be huge losses? All the theory I've come across while doing schooling suggests that transformers are usually in the +97% range for efficiency. Which, yes, you will notice, but for the average consumer, I'm guessing it would easily be a willing tradeoff as opposed to a big ass cable you gotta lug around opposed to something you just plant in your driveway/garage.

    9. Re:like an electric toothbrush? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      IE a subscription service, right?

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    10. Re:like an electric toothbrush? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Might be the difference between getting through en entire day and having to swap out the batteries for a bus or taxi.

      But with an automated bus/taxi fleet (or even a manned one), the vehicle that's running low on juice can be swapped out for a freshly charged one, sending the low-charge vehicle back to the charging station (and to be inspected). This fills two needs: energy efficiency and regular maintenance. You could also have forklift-loadable batteries always charging to be swapped out as needed during high volume days to get vehicles back out sooner without the maintenance checks.

    11. Re: like an electric toothbrush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm an electrical engineer by trade, with a lot of electrical engineering under my belt. Yes, transformers are extremely efficient. They're also closed loop where there's a ferrous material channeling the flux of the magnetic field. When it's no longer closed loop, and instead open loop (read air gap), the efficiency drops extremely quickly.

    12. Re:like an electric toothbrush? by necro81 · · Score: 1

      More resistant against vandals

      Perhaps, but inductive chargers are going to be havens for vagrants and the homeless - just think of how warm and toasty they'll be!

    13. Re:like an electric toothbrush? by kheldan · · Score: 1

      So let me get this straight: We're living in a world that is increasingly demanding more and more power, production isn't meeting the demand, we need to get away from coal-fired plants, everyone is too much of a scared caveman to have nuclear power of any kind anymore (not even LFTR), everything and everyone is constantly under pressure to conserve power, yet we're going to throw away all sorts of power as useless heat (which the world does not need!) just to solve your first-world convenience problems? Really? Seriously?

      This is stupid. Plug in your gods-be-damned car to recharge it, it's not that hard!

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    14. Re:like an electric toothbrush? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      yet we're going to throw away all sorts of power as useless heat (which the world does not need!) just to solve your first-world convenience problems?

      The systems aren't that less efficient. At those scales, induction charging is only a percent or two less efficient than a cable hook-up.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    15. Re:like an electric toothbrush? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      But with an automated bus/taxi fleet (or even a manned one), the vehicle that's running low on juice can be swapped out for a freshly charged one

      Swapping means you need an extra bus, and they're expensive. You can do maintenance checks daily, not 'per charge'.

      Rather than forklifting batteries, have a dedicated robot doing it that undoes the bolts and replaces the battery.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    16. Re:like an electric toothbrush? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      heh. Not really - they're very efficient today, and would only be powered when there's a vehicle to charge on top of them.

      That being said, it'd be cheaper to just put those types up in housing.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    17. Re:like an electric toothbrush? by kheldan · · Score: 1

      How about ZERO inefficiency by just plugging your damn car in? People have been pumping their own gas for decades now, and that's considerably more difficult and dangerous than plugging in a simple cable.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    18. Re:like an electric toothbrush? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      How about ZERO inefficiency by just plugging your damn car in?

      There's still loss from the cable, and the transformer that's in the charging unit - whether in the car or in the exterior charger. You can get rid of that transformer when you're using induction.

      As for the danger, at the voltages and amps we're looking at, it actually IS dangerous if it wasn't for that said cables are very much NOT simple, containing sensors to limit voltage potential to what's needed to detect a connection. Something like 1V until it's done a handshake, then it can ramp up to 400V or more.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  5. "working on" or let other install? by sittingnut · · Score: 2

    seems it is other companies that are "working on" the technology of wireless charging. and there is no particular technological breakthrough to warrant a story.
    google is just using it, as does others.

  6. You mean like the buses in Italy? by grungeman · · Score: 2

    Google should send some of their engineers to Italy. They have been doing this for more than ten years with buses in Turin and Genoa. Seems to work. http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.co...

    --

    Signature deleted by lameness filter.
    1. Re:You mean like the buses in Italy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google lives in silicon valley. Nothing exists unless it was invented there.

  7. inductive charging efficiency by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Informative

    At the scale they're doing induction charging, it's actually quite efficient. Part of it is that you don't need a separate transformer to get the voltage to the right level for the car. You're only loosing a percent or so for the systems they're examining.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  8. who would buy a self driving car from google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's just what I want... not only do I want google to monitor every site people visit on the net, to record everyone's email (even if you don't use gmail, everyone ELSE does), to know every site people sign up for via google captcha, everyone's location and who they associate with in real life, know their social network, and what they buy, and almost everything they've ever done online... but google should ALSO know where everyone drives and have the ultimate control over their cars.

    Big Brother is here. But he wasn't forced on us. We invited him in.

    1. Re:who would buy a self driving car from google? by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      That's just what I want... not only do I want google to monitor every site people visit on the net, to record everyone's email (even if you don't use gmail, everyone ELSE does), to know every site people sign up for via google captcha, everyone's location and who they associate with in real life, know their social network, and what they buy, and almost everything they've ever done online... but google should ALSO know where everyone drives and have the ultimate control over their cars.

      Big Brother is here. But he wasn't forced on us. We invited him in.

      At least when they determine you've done something wrong they will be able to lock the doors and drive you straight to the jail house

  9. Strange by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Yes, there's a few ways to do wireless charging. Given that in this context we're talking about inductive charging and that's what I was talking about(even though I didn't specify it) I'm not sure why you're bringing up the other ways.

    When you're making a charge array as large as that for a wireless car, it's actually quite efficient over the relatively few inches from the charger to the car's receiver. So the losses aren't 'huge'.

    Now, you're actually right about the additional batteries - when I last read about these ideas, EV batteries were running about double the expense per kWh, so minimizing them was a consideration.

    As for gas and diesel powered buses - there's several problems with them: First, diesel has gotten a lot more expensive over the years, though it's currently in a valley. Electric could be cheaper(if not for battery expense). The second is pollution - the more combustion we can get out of the cities, the better. Third is maintenance - said buses are used enough to get quite expensive, EVs can actually be more durable.

    Of course public transport is the best if it is cost effective and convenient and unfortunately I have yet to see or hear of a city where this is the case.

    Europe.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You keep saying it's quite efficient. I don't think that means what you think it means. Here's the problem with induction charging, it falls off at a distance. Very quickly. How quickly you ask? Here, take two magnets, and try to stick the north ends of both of them together. See how when they're really close it's really hard to stick them together? Now, see how quickly that force falls off? yeah, that's how quickly it falls off. And all that is inefficiency. Within a few inches you've lost an enormous amount of energy.

      Plus having induction chargers powerful enough to charge a car? How dangerous is that? I'm just thinking the issues with MRIs where you have to be extremely careful about what's allowed near them. I'd imagine to have any meaningful charging to something as power hungry as a car, the electromagnetic fields would have to be similar in strength to an MRI, which can literally tear metallic objects apart.

  10. Hey, didn't you know? by Viol8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Something hasn't been invented until someone in america re-invents it and pretends its an original and unique idea worthy of a patent at the not-at-all-partisan US Patent Office.

  11. Does Roomba have the patents locked up? by paiute · · Score: 1

    Why not just have the car back into a charging station and make physical contact? A self-driving electrical car could drop you off at the front door and go over to a remote part of the parking lot and hook itself up.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:Does Roomba have the patents locked up? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Because you could place these at spots where the vehicles would commonly be dropping people off or picking them up and each time they did the vehicle could charge. For example put one at the drop off point at the airport and while the person is getting out and taking the luggage out of the trunk you might get a minute or two of charging. Enough of these top ups during the day might let a vehicle get an extra run or two in before having to return to the garage.

      It might make building garages for fleets easier since you would have the charger on the floor. You wouldn't need to have charging stations so your garage could be smaller.

  12. So This is a Good Thing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plus the plates in the ground will flash-cook your cat.

    So this is a good thing then!

    1. Re: So This is a Good Thing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is great! Next year they plan on flying them too.

  13. Free Degaussing! by Tighe_L · · Score: 1

    Just throw your hard drives and CRTs on the parking lot for free degaussing!