I doubt (and hope) this will not happen. Having lost two (2) parents to cancer ... the fact they had a transformer (underground cables) and a cell phone had NOTHING to do with the brain cancer and multiple myeloma ... right?
Some advancements have too high a price ...
By the time this is implemented widely enough to matter, electric cars will already have good range and quick recharge times. The hell is the point?
meh I would go above ground instead. You know how trolley's and bumper cars are powered? With the electrical grid overhead connecting to the motor via the pole?
Why not use this method with stations every few miles. Where the driver can extend the recharging pole when his batteries need a charge. Use capacitor to battery system in car for quick energy dump so that each station need not be more than a few 10s of meters long.
There aren't enough rare earth elements for everyone. IE Lithium, which isn't even good enough anyway.
This should not be in the road, but in parking spaces at rest areas, etc. Your car could fast-charge as you are parked.
This type of wireless charging is actually very old and has been used for a while on many small appliances like toothbrushes.
This technology is new and works very different than what you are thinking.
From what I read, it works basically the same way. Magnetic fields are used to transmit power over a short distance. Basically, you split a transformer in half. You put one half in the device, and one half in the base, or road. Bring them near each other, and power flows.
The "new" part here is using multiple "bases" strung along the road and intelligently co-ordinating the charging.
If the oil reserve ran out, we'd sure figure out a way to get this out there.
No the new part is it uses resonate induction rather than direct.
I doubt resonate induction is new. Choosing which frequency to couple with can't be a new concept. I'm sure it's like radio, where, if people are going to begin to go down this path of transmitting signals through the air on some frequency carrier, they have to consider the possibility that a wide range of frequencies will be used in the future, and properly filter out unwanted frequency bands. But I think some posters are oversimplifying the problems I'm sure the stanford team is busy solving.
It is not commonly used.
Probably because it sucks. They got the grant money because it was a "green" energy project. To me it is really just a misallocation of capital.
It is not commonly used.
It is commonly used.
Now what? Do we go to italics or bold to break the tie?
