Inductive Charging For EVs To Be Tested In Berlin 123
cylonlover writes "The increasing availability of more practical electric vehicles has seen inductive charging technology attract the attention of those looking for for a cable-free way to charge EV batteries. German automakers are taking the opportunity to put inductive charging of EVs to a real-world test as part of the 'Effizienzhaus-Plus mit Elektromobilität' project. The project is a German government-backed initiative to build an energy-efficient house that generates more electricity than it consumes, with the surplus being fed back into the grid or used to charge the occupants' electric vehicles."
Inefficient (Score:4, Informative)
Given the current costs of an EV, plus the length of time it already takes to charge, it seems there are other areas of research that would be better focused on. This technology only makes an EV more expensive to own and would probably take longer to charge with. People seem to do just fine connecting a short, thick, clunky hose to their cars now.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_charging#Disadvantages)
Re:Low efficiency? (Score:4, Informative)
You simply need to include a low voltage "handshake" type setup in the charging circuit and then only start the high power transfer once the plug is fully engaged. This shouldn't be too hard to implement for even a mildly clever engineer totally removes that risk.
That "handshake" is called a ground connection.
Many plugs have conductors of different lengths. The longer connectors are the ones you want to engage first.
Typically, the ground connectors engage first as you plug the cord in, so the device has a place to shunt current to in case of an OH SHIT moment.
Then your other, shorter connectors make contact as you continue pushing the plug in. If something's wrong with the device or those connectors, you already have a path to ground.
I think the SATA power connectors play this game with the +3.3V and +5V lines too. Not sure.
Look at the connectors on an SD card. Same principle.
Re:a smart fortwo? (Score:1, Informative)
SMART crash test [youtube.com] on youtube - although not the fortwo, and nearly six years old.
Still impressive...
Re:a smart fortwo? (Score:0, Informative)
Where do you think all that energy goes when you decelerate from 60-0 in under a second. Oh, that's right, into you, when you die...
dumbass.
Re:a smart fortwo? (Score:5, Informative)
No it isn't. For one the test was mostly show. Without accelerometers a crash test is of limited value. But visually, the car holds together but it is so rigid the passengers would have to take almost the full force of the acceleration of the impact. There is no real crumple which is what helps reduce the G forces on the passengers in bigger nosed cars if they crash. Even the windshield of the Smart Car crashed in the test lab didn't break. And when they crashed a Smart Car into concrete at 70 mph the driver's door still functioned. Given that the door basically starts at the front of the car, this thing didn't crumple hardly at all. As unscientific as the tests in that video are even the presenters noted this (I transcribed a short excerpt on it):
The downside of the shells rigidity is that there is a greater potential for the crash forces to be transmitted through to the passengers. Ideally you ought to slow them down as slowly as possible.
If the people have to take the acceleration of a crash at any sort of speed, they will die. But maybe the resale value of the car would still be good. Personally I wouldn't feel comfortable riding in one at any sort of highway speed. But what am I saying??? I ride a motorbike. Never mind... I still wouldn't feel comfortable.