Forums

Wireless Charging

Wireless Charging

I can't help but think that WiTricity and Tesla would go together pretty well. This would eliminate the need to have a plugin (mostly). I am little surprised there is not more discussion regarding this application since WiTricity is actively seeking out OEMs. Since some power might be lost 5-10%, this would make charging more expensive, but I think it would be pretty useful.

Brian H | 6 January 2013

Is this a plug for wireless? {jk}

TV | 6 January 2013

Hey, Nicola Tesla did it 100 years ago.
All I can think of is that Tesla Motors cannot afford to signup with a company that is going to have issues. Whether or not WiTricity will have issues is certainly a question. Even more important (from my viewpoint) is that wireless transmission of power has been around for a LONG time, there just hasn't been any application until now.
If I had to bet, Elon is doing his own version. Think about it. Tesla did it, and now...supercharging stations. Stations? Like in "radio stations?". I envision a letter. Written by Mr. Musk offering a "retro-fitting of all customer's Tesla cars for $9000. Call us!"
The conversion of supercharging stations towards taking solar collected power and transmitting it over the electro-magnetic spectrum is DEFINITELY coming. Just a matter of time....

Timo | 7 January 2013

Wireless power is not very efficient, you gain good enough efficiency only at very short distances (like less than half a meter).

Tesla (the person) didn't do what WiTricity does (magnetic resonance coupling), that's quite new invention in that area of technology. It requires alignment of the coils so that they face each other properly so not only distance, but also which way they are "pointing" affects the efficiency, but with proper alignment you can transfer energy at greater distance efficiently than without resonance coupling. This makes possible to build charging "roads" (slow roads work better than fast ones, busy intersections and that sort of things, those are expensive to construct so extra cost of chargers doesn't show that much. Other good one are parking lots, no cables = no vandalism and no hassle).

TV | 22 January 2013

Timo is right. Resonant magnetic coupling has elements within it that protect the purchaser of electricity from being "hacked" by their neighbors. If they hadn't created this "inferior" version of what Nikolai Tesla built in 1899, well...they'd probably go the way of Tesla when JP Morgan figured out he couldn't make money with Tesla's model. Marin Soljačić, Ph.D. is the real brains behind Witricity's model, and in truth, to take Tesla's ideas, and then build an architecture around them that will still enable Utility Companies to charge individuals (rather than seeing the entire DC model fall apart) is interesting. Further, I've always felt that if someone did "rebuild" what Tesla built, with the integration of modern Solid State Electronics and computer management, well...truthfully, I've always thought that GENERAL ELECTRIC and their Minions would press the FCC to have them say "We, the unholy FCC, do not see this as safe, and therefore it will not be licensed". Is it true? No. That would be pure BS x 100. But, it does show us the path, doesn't it? Resonant Coupling is actually patented by Witricity, but there is a little thing called "eminent domain" that I am sure Mr. Musk has already looked at. Why do you think that he built Solar City and Space X? Google Wireless Energy Transmission. Google Wireless Space Energy. Nikolai Tesla may be dead, but you can't keep a good man down. Witricity is not "realistically"'a potential Strategic Partner of Tesla Motors. Let that goofy idea go to Audi, who was quick to do a deal with Witricity. The reality is that Witricity is an "education" on what kind of framework is workable for Tesla Motors. Not using Witricity's patents, but clearly, eminent domain over-rules patents. And there are plenty of other "flavors" of Nikolai Tesla's original innovations that can be tapped into that are "superior" to what Witricity is going. It is very revealing though, about "what is around the corner" that is... Mr. Musk, walk quietly as I know you will. But in the future folks, this is why Tesla is such a good investment. Stop thinking about hoses to gas pumps and ridiculous frameworks of AC transmission using "new cables that must be layed", I mean really. Why lay cables that have already been layed? Can anyone say "Global Crossing"? How about "Variable algorithmic data compression" models used for energy transmissions? Hey, the old IXNET of Global Crossing wanted to build a Fiberoptic Grid and sell it (and this make me laugh) in a similar way that the old "Enron" model was supposed to work. Beware of BS folks, but yes...it is coming...and the power companies are playing chess with patents and legislation to protect their enslavement of the majority of the global population to a "Pay us or no electricity" model that Nikolai was so passionate about not seeing happen. Elon: "Encoded AC wireless transmissions" using variable algorithmic data compression with key encryption, accessible only by licensed receivers retrofitted into your auto products. I think I deserve a free Model S SS AWD for that little tip....Mitchell?

ptpress | 22 January 2013

Automatic wireless charging for existing electric vehicle classes: golf carts, industrial vehicles.
Automatic wireless charging for future hybrid and all-electric passenger and commercial vehicles, at home, in parking garages, at fleet depots, and at remote kiosks.
Direct wireless power interconnections to replace costly vehicle wiring harnesses and slip rings.

physical therapy techniques

Timo | 22 January 2013

@TV, Nikola, not Nikolai.

About your suggestions of using "Variable algorithmic data compression" for energy transfers; doable but really really stupid. I give you one guess why.

TV | 23 January 2013

Yea, you're right on his name. I've got that bad cold/flu that is all over the country. I just can't seem to kick it.

Ok, I'll bite. Why? Is it because you don't think I understand the fundamental differences between "data" and "energy", or is it because I didn't adequatedly describe the theoretical feasibility of using passworded rolling key encryption to initiate and measure IP Multicast (sparse dense mode-"back and forth") transmissions of packets to properly calibrate the amounts of energy requested and recieved? It would be kind of similar to the counters we have watched while we pump the gas into our tanks. Before: No pay, no gas. AC? No key, no juice. It is very possible, and I don't understand your condescension. I was teaching this stuff 20 years ago before anyone had even heard of "the cloud"...

TV | 23 January 2013

Further, broadcast is not secure, as well as being inefficient. Take a look at the technology behind "HyperFeed Technologies", which I led to an IPO 15 years ago. "The Fastest datastream in the world".
I used to show those "black boxes" beating Michael Bloomberg's T-1 speeds by 30 seconds on the open and close. A marketmaker's dream. But if you didn't integrate something like that to calibrate the usage, the big boys would shoot it down by the fact of who they are and what they can do. It seems like you do know what I am talking about. If you want to have a discussion, let me know. Thanks.

TV | 23 January 2013

Mr. Timo Sir?

http://www.esignal.com/quotrek/default.aspx
That's wireless (RF) and has been for 20 years. Real-time Market Quotes in a handheld portable device. In "Real-time"? How? Compress it, and don't pull in a "broadcast" (ugh), use "request/send" and the cloud w/packets.

uh, Timo...? > Radio Frequency (RF) with Variable Algorithmic Data Compression to permission and quantify "with greater EFFICIENCY in REAL TIME???

Gee...what does all this mean? It means you can casually type in a Customer number into your handheld portable device, and that will sync an encrypted passcode to the Supercharging Station, thereby dispensing AC Power in a calibrated fashion through the marraige of packeted compressed data ("electronic boxcars") transmitted in IP Multicast to continually permission and quantify the dispersement of AC Power to the specified receiver (in your car). Broadcast vs. Multicast. Broadcast vs. PACKETS over the cloud. I was beta-testing a Motorola (wireless) Phone in 1999. I was on a Bart Train watching Ronin in > 30 FPS. People were in shock. You see, the USA has technological bottlenecks, and Oracle began the campaign towards fixing them years ago. The delivery/speed issues with our proprietary IP Multicast with VADC are what led to viable 4G networks. Yep.

Wireless Power only over short distances? I'm not going to break down all of the inherint "one dimensional" misunderstandings behind that commment. Anyone ever heard of Wimax. pretty old stuff, just a question to stimulate thought.

Oh...and before everyone runs out to file a process patent,its been done. So relax and enjoy the ride. Elon is a 3-dimensional thinker...I'm sure he is already on this.

So who's "stupid" now Timo?

Anytime you want to compare PHDs and Bios, let me know.

Timo | 24 January 2013

@TV Is it because you don't think I understand the fundamental differences between "data" and "energy"

Apparently that. Efficient wireless energy transfer can be done only on very short distances. It also requires "antennas" that are resonance coupled which means no variable frequencies. It isn't same as data transfer.

TV | 24 January 2013

zoom...right over your head.

Vawlkus | 24 January 2013

Right comment, wrong direction TV

TV | 24 January 2013

Timo, the mantra of Witricity's Dr. Marin Soljacic is good for what it is, but it also takes us further down a technological bottleneck. Unfortunately, current government regulations limit the amount of power that can be transmitted, so we are forced to stay in the dark ages on this subject. In the United States and Canada the maximum is 4 Watts EIRP. So until REAL technology is used for "the good of the masses", and legislation stops blocking real technology, debating the subject is really "time wasted".

And as for you Vawlkus, you're not even really on the same planet are you? How can you really expect to understand Physics and energy/data transmissions over the Electromagnetic Spectrum with an electronics technician handbook and a Star Trek communicator? You're not fooling anybody. So, when Nova Scotia finally warms up, go outside, and get some fresh air.

And before you throw a temper tantrum, I'm not listening. Infact, is anyone listening to you? Besides your cat I mean...

:>)

Timo | 24 January 2013

Those government regulations you refer don't apply to wireless charging.

I don't mean to sound blunt, but you really don't seem to know what you are talking about. If you really have PHD in that area I suggest you take a bit time to catch up where this tech is currently going. Otherwise you sound like a old teacher stuck in past and more than little bit crazy.

shs | 25 January 2013

Are we talking about smart asphalt?

Timo | 25 January 2013

Among other things.

Benz | 26 January 2013

I have heard about roads on which we can drive our Electric Vehicles, and which will charge our Electric Vehicles while we are driving on these roads. Sounds fantastic. I did not know that this ever could be for real. But who knows what will happen in 2040?

Pungoteague_Dave | 26 January 2013

This thread proves once agin that self-important degree-brandishing academics are (a) impractical idiots, (b) insufferable, and (c) will never have enough money to buy a luxury car anyway. Instead they waste everyone's time....

Tesluthian | 26 January 2013

I suggest we enthusiasts set some standard of respect when engaging other enthusiasts, at least on Elon's forum. His forum is not enriched with a bunch of people insulting each other like the Jerry Springer show. If you want to engage in insults, John Peterson will be happy to oblige you over at Alpha. He's very good at fallacies and emotional attacks unrelated to good discourse and discussion. This thread was very interesting until the insults started flying. Tesla's forum should be a place where people are not afraid to present thoughts or ideas and any critiques should be constructive, not destructive.

TV | 26 January 2013

You know, I'm really sorry. If you look back, this whole thing started when I was corrected for incorrectly calling Nikola Tesal "Nikolai", and then...I was called STUPID. Right out of the blue.

Yes, I went on the offense, because I don't like being called stupid. And now it seems I'm the guy to attack. Ok. Fine. I do apologize. I am excited about what Tesla is doing, and my background is in data transfer. I don't know everything about everything, and I probably said too much. So please forgive me, and I'll forgive the everyone else. And I am saying goodbye to this forum. Seems I don't fit in, and that's ok. Bye guys.

Timo | 27 January 2013

FWIW, I didn't call you stupid, I called your idea stupid. There is a difference. I thought reason for that would have been so obvious to you that after you think about it your response would have been "doh, how didn't I see that?". We all make mistakes, sometimes stupid mistakes.

Those things you said about Vawlkus were very bad and very much unwarranted, so for that I will not miss you. Be well and be gone.

Benz | 27 January 2013

OK people, let's talk about the future of charging an Electric Vehicle.

A special kind of paint is being developed. This paint has got the ability to turn sunlight into electricity (just like solar panels). This could be extremely helpfull for all Electric Vehicles. Because the car will be charging itself during daylight. I think this is a great idea. Don't you think so?

Brian H | 27 January 2013

No. Not enough sunlight falls on a car body to make any appreciable difference. Paint has a hard enough job being good paint, without turning it into an electrode.

Benz | 29 January 2013

OK, too bad.
Maybe in 2050.

Timo | 29 January 2013

Same error as one previous poster made. It isn't about tech being insufficiently advanced to be useful, it is Sun being weak source of power.

Benz | 29 January 2013

The sun is a weak source of power?

Well, I heard that if we could absorb the energy of the sun of only 1 day, then we would have enough energy for the consumption of all the people on this planet for a whole year. Knowing this, I wouldn't call the sun a weak source of power.

But maybe I have misunderstood what you really meant to say.

Timo | 29 January 2013

Earth is kinda large place. You don't want to cover entire planet to get that power, do you?

If we cover entire planet with nuclear power plants (assuming we have the fuel for them) we would have that same energy in fraction of a second.

Benz | 29 January 2013

@Timo
Let's stick to the sun.
Let's not talk about nuclear power plants.

Can you explain why you think that the sun is a weak source of power? Because I did not realy understand what you meant by that (sorry for that).

Brian H | 29 January 2013

All the sun's power falling on a car could move it a few miles per day. The sun's power is "dilute" -- spread out. And inconstant (day, weather, season). Not the characteristics of a base dispatchable reliable power source. Very expensive to compensate for those things.

Benz, if you want to get enthusiastic about something workable, check out LPPhysics.com . It could "save the world" in 5-10 years. Really. For cheap. Really cheap.

Benz | 29 January 2013

@Brian H
I have seen the video on YouYube. Under the video is written: ".... exciting overview of current technologies and a promise of the cheap, free, safe and clean energy awaiting for us in a near future."

Now, I am not a science guy. I do not understand much of it. But I heard that it's possible to produce electricity with a "Garage Use 5 MW Generator (Clean, Inexpensive, Safe, Compact)". That sounds great for large size vehicles like ships.

Do you think that if this "Focus Fusion Energy Technology" becomes reality, it can be used to charge an EV (if one would have such a machine in the garage)?

And should Elon Musk get involved with this people to join forces? Maybe it can be useful for Tesla Motors and SpaceX as well?

Brian H | 30 January 2013

It would not be used on a personal or one-vehicle basis, just as a new way of generating "grid power", with many advantages. The generating sites could be dispersed, or "ganged" together in large groups up to several hundred together.

Benz | 30 January 2013

Good prospects for our planet. Possible in 2020?

Timo | 30 January 2013

@Benz; Can you explain why you think that the sun is a weak source of power?

Sun radiation is at best 1kW/m^2 midday from clear sky pointing directly at the Sun. This is not the case with a car, and also paint would not be able to collect nearly all the radiation (unless you want your car to be really really really black with no reflection whatsoever) and then there are conversion losses which are rather big. In reality from entire car surface you could get something like 4kWh / day. In a good day.

Benz | 30 January 2013

@Timo
I take your point, and you are right about that. That paint is a bad idea at the moment. But, I think that we both are not talking about exact the same thing.

There are two things that should be seen separately, I think.
1) The fact that there is a sun which is a the source for solar energy.
2) And then there is the second thing, which is the technology to "catch/absorb/collect" this energy of the sun. What you mean is correct, because with the technology that we have spoken of (paint) we can only "catch/absorb/collect" a tiny bit of energy, which is too little to even talk about. You are right.

My point is that I am speaking generally about the sun, and not referring to the paint. The mighty sun itself is always "throwing" energy towards us. We are just not able to catch all that energy of the sun. The sun is not to be blamed if our technology is too poor. So, the problem lies not with the sun but with us. That's what I meant, you see.

By the way, I have heard Elon Musk discussing this point. He was at the Oxfort Martin School. And he was invited there to talk about the future of Energy and Transport. After his speach, there was time for Q&A. A lady asked a question, and then he spoke about the comparison between Nuclear Power Plants and Solar Energy. He is a great fan of the sun, I can tell you that (and so am I). Maybe you can google it. It really is interesting to hear him talk about several things.

Timo | 30 January 2013

The sun is not to be blamed if our technology is too poor.

That's just it, it isn't technology issue, Sun radiation just is weak. In order to collect it in sufficient amounts you need to use very large areas.

Good thing it has is that it is available pretty much everywhere, so with cheap paint-like solar cells we can utilize it from large areas using it in areas that are already in use. Bad thing is that areas with proper seasons you probably need it most when it is not available so transporting that energy becomes a problem.

Also long periods of bad weather is a concern, you need backup power source that is equally powerful as solar, and for that we would need excess production with storage, not another power plant somewhere (if we had power plant, then what's the point of having solar at all).

Price is more a concern here than efficiency, if you can paint entire house roof with that paint with 1/10 of a cost of separate panels, then even with only 1/3 of efficiency you probably end up getting more power out of cheaper solution.

lph | 30 January 2013

Having some sort of solar energy collection on the car may help with vampire loads and keep the batteries topped up, but it would seem a stretch to get it to propel the car in a practical manner.
The best available PV's are about 20% efficient.( Just a few days ago thin film broke the 20% mark). The last time I checked the paint is about an order of magnitude less efficient). Sun energy is up to about 1kw per hour when the sun overhead. If the car were in the sun all day (12 hours-fat chance in Seattle) and the collection area were 4m^2 (which is alot for a car- bye-bye panoroof). You could in theory put 4x 0.2x12=9.6kw into the car per day. However, I don't see any more than half that in practice because of the other factors already mentioned in earlier posts. This could well be much less.
So the best is about 4.5kw per day. That would get you about 14 miles. With the paint more like 0.45kw/day or about 1.4 miles.
EIther way it is not that much, but it may be useful for battery charge maintenance/protection against bricking etc. due to vampire loads. I am thinking of times when one cannot plug in and have to leave the car for weeks at a time.
You can quibble about the exact numbers used here, but you get the point.
Not sure how cheaply this could be implemented in the real world. All those curved surfaces could make even a thin film difficult to install.
Solar energy is not my profession so those out there who are pros in this field, does that sound about right?

Benz | 31 January 2013

@ Timo
I agree that the larger the area (space) is, the more energy we could collect from the sun. And a car just does not have got that much area (space) on it. So, my friend Timo, let's stop talking about this stupid paint as it seems to be worthless anyway.

Elon Musk has come up with the best possible idea one can think of. Which is the idea of a network of Superchargers that are powered by sunlight using solar panels. This idea just really is fabulous and fantastic. Driving long distances in beautiful cars that have great performance capacities. And NO AIR POLLUTION at all!!!

I just love the sun!!! Because the sun is actually the SOURCE of this great idea, which has been turned into reality by Elon Musk. So, the sun actually really is a great source of power after all. Don't you just love the sun also?

data02 | 21 February 2015