75% Efficiency From Induction Electrification of Roadbeds

[Bret Cahill]

Since battery costs are 2X grid costs, even 33% efficiency would be
competitive with charging stations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_energy_transfer#Size.2C_distance_and_efficiency


Wireless electric energy transfer for experimentally powering electric
automobiles and buses is a higher power application (>10kW) of
resonant inductive energy transfer. High power levels are required for
rapid recharging and high energy transfer efficiency is required both
for operational economy and to avoid negative environmental impact of
the system. An experimental electrified roadway test track built circa
1990 achieved 80% energy efficiency while recharging the battery of a
prototype bus at a specially equipped bus stop <SUP class=reference
id=cite_ref-17>[18] <SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-18>[19]. The bus
could be outfitted with a retractable receiving coil for greater coil
clearance when moving. The gap between the transmit and receive coils
was designed to be less than 10 cm when powered. In addition to buses
the use of wireless transfer has been investigated for recharging
electric automobiles in parking spots and garages as well.

Some of these wireless resonant inductive devices operate at low
milliwatt power levels and are battery powered. Others operate at
higher kilowatt power levels. Current implantable medical and road
electrification device designs achieve more than 75% transfer
efficiency at an operating distance between the transmit and receive
coils of less than 10 cm.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Any pot holes deeper than 10 cm are "shovel ready" projects.


Bret Cahill

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:47:10 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:

Since battery costs are 2X grid costs, even 33% efficiency would be
competitive with charging stations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_energy_transfer#Size.2C_distance_and_efficiency


Wireless electric energy transfer for experimentally powering electric
automobiles and buses is a higher power application (>10kW) of
resonant inductive energy transfer. High power levels are required for
rapid recharging and high energy transfer efficiency is required both
for operational economy and to avoid negative environmental impact of
the system. An experimental electrified roadway test track built circa
1990 achieved 80% energy efficiency while recharging the battery of a
prototype bus at a specially equipped bus stop

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



Doesn't sound like they were charging a moving vehicle. If it's
stopped, why not used a connector, and get 100% transfer efficiency?

John

 

[Eeyore]

Bret Cahill wrote:

Some of these wireless resonant inductive devices operate at low
milliwatt power levels and are battery powered. Others operate at
higher kilowatt power levels.

Good for a push-bike maybe ?

When you get to several 100s of kW tell me about it.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Doesn't sound like they were charging a moving vehicle. If it's
stopped, why not used a connector, and get 100% transfer efficiency?

Rain, mud, ice, sleet, snow, vehicular damage, vandalism come to mind as a few possible
reasons.

Graham

 

Some of these wireless resonant inductive devices operate at low
milliwatt power levels and are battery powered. Others operate at
higher kilowatt power levels.

Good for a push-bike maybe ?

If you read the article you'ld know it could handle buses which are in
the 100 kW range.


Bret Cahill

 

Since battery costs are 2X grid costs, even 33% efficiency would be
competitive with charging stations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_energy_transfer#Size.2C_distanc...

Wireless electric energy transfer for experimentally powering electric
automobiles and buses is a higher power application (>10kW) of
resonant inductive energy transfer. High power levels are required for
rapid recharging and high energy transfer efficiency is required both
for operational economy and to avoid negative environmental impact of
the system. An experimental electrified roadway test track built circa
1990 achieved 80% energy efficiency while recharging the battery of a
prototype bus at a specially equipped bus stop

ďż˝ ďż˝ ďż˝ ďż˝ ďż˝ ďż˝ ďż˝ ďż˝ ďż˝ ďż˝ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Doesn't sound like they were charging a moving vehicle.

Do you see any problems with a moving version? Not that it would
necessarily be cost effective but of anything in thermo or fields that
would make it impossible or very difficult?

If it's
stopped, why not used a connector, and get 100% transfer efficiency?

For that matter why not just put a couple rails in the pavement like
subways? A vac truck could come by every so often to keep trash from
shorting it out. In heavy downpours, ice or snow you burn fuel.

The consumer society was pre peak. We need to adapt to a survival
society. Kids shouldn't be playing in interstate traffic anyway.


Bret Cahill

 

[Eeyore]

Bret Cahill wrote:

Since battery costs are 2X grid costs

Please explain. A battery is a capital investment for energy storage. Grid electricity is
paying for energy as you use it.

These are wholly different concepts. You cannot compare them.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote:

Do you see any problems with a moving version?

YES ! VAST problems. Basic to physics which you clearly have never understood,
so it's largely pointless trying to explain why.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote:

Some of these wireless resonant inductive devices operate at low
milliwatt power levels and are battery powered. Others operate at
higher kilowatt power levels.

Good for a push-bike maybe ?

If you read the article you'ld know it could handle buses which are in
the 100 kW range.

Even that is low power for a bus. Continuously 100% of the time ? You're
so way out of your depth you don't even know it.

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:26:28 -0800 (PST), Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com
wrote:

Since battery costs are 2X grid costs, even 33% efficiency would be
competitive with charging stations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_energy_transfer#Size.2C_distanc...

Wireless electric energy transfer for experimentally powering electric
automobiles and buses is a higher power application (>10kW) of
resonant inductive energy transfer. High power levels are required for
rapid recharging and high energy transfer efficiency is required both
for operational economy and to avoid negative environmental impact of
the system. An experimental electrified roadway test track built circa
1990 achieved 80% energy efficiency while recharging the battery of a
prototype bus at a specially equipped bus stop

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Doesn't sound like they were charging a moving vehicle.

Do you see any problems with a moving version? Not that it would
necessarily be cost effective but of anything in thermo or fields that
would make it impossible or very difficult?

The field shape would be tricky, especially since a vehicle wouldn't
always be in the exact center of a lane. And a road has to be pretty
thick to be strong enough to support trucks, so getting a small air
gap will be difficult. A few thousand miles of pole pieces and coils
and electronic drivers might get a tad expensive, too. Maintenance
would be interesting.

If you have a workable topology in mind, post a sketch and some
numbers. Words are cheap.

Silly idea, when gasoline engines work so well.

John

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:26:28 -0800 (PST), Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote:

Since battery costs are 2X grid costs, even 33% efficiency would be
competitive with charging stations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_energy_transfer#Size.2C_distanc...

Wireless electric energy transfer for experimentally powering electric
automobiles and buses is a higher power application (>10kW) of
resonant inductive energy transfer. High power levels are required for
rapid recharging and high energy transfer efficiency is required both
for operational economy and to avoid negative environmental impact of
the system. An experimental electrified roadway test track built circa
1990 achieved 80% energy efficiency while recharging the battery of a
prototype bus at a specially equipped bus stop

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Doesn't sound like they were charging a moving vehicle.

Do you see any problems with a moving version?

---
Yes, many.
---

Not that it would
necessarily be cost effective but of anything in thermo or fields that
would make it impossible or very difficult?

---
Yes
---

If it's
stopped, why not used a connector, and get 100% transfer efficiency?

For that matter why not just put a couple rails in the pavement like
subways?

---
Grasping at straws, are we?

Let's say we have this electric car which can tool along at 60MPH while
using 20HP worth of electricity supplied by the grid.

That's 15kW, so if we pick some more-or-less "safe" voltage on the
rails, say 1kV, that means the car will present a 15A load across the
rails. Multiply that by, say, 10000 cars and the load becomes 150000
amperes. Put another way, that's 150 Megawatts, and that's just what
the cars are eating up. On top of that will be the I˛R losses in the
rails themselves.

Now, since I've done the car part, how about if you do the rails part?

That is, pick an acceptable loss for a 10 mile stretch of road and
determine the cross-sectional area and material to be used for the rails
in order to meet that goal, OK?
---

A vac truck could come by every so often to keep trash from
shorting it out. In heavy downpours, ice or snow you burn fuel.

---
Now _that's_ funny!
---

The consumer society was pre peak. We need to adapt to a survival
society. Kids shouldn't be playing in interstate traffic anyway.

---
Blah, blah, blah, blah fucking blah.

JF

 

[Bret Cahill]

Since battery costs are 2X grid costs, even 33% efficiency would be
competitive with charging stations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_energy_transfer#Size.2C_distanc....

Wireless electric energy transfer for experimentally powering electric
automobiles and buses is a higher power application (>10kW) of
resonant inductive energy transfer. High power levels are required for
rapid recharging and high energy transfer efficiency is required both
for operational economy and to avoid negative environmental impact of
the system. An experimental electrified roadway test track built circa
1990 achieved 80% energy efficiency while recharging the battery of a
prototype bus at a specially equipped bus stop

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Doesn't sound like they were charging a moving vehicle.

Do you see any problems with a moving version? ďż˝

---
Yes, many.

Which are?

Not that it would
necessarily be cost effective but of anything in thermo or fields that
would make it impossible or very difficult?

---
Yes

Which are?

�If it's
stopped, why not used a connector, and get 100% transfer efficiency?

For that matter why not just put a couple rails in the pavement like
subways? ďż˝

---
Grasping at straws, are we?

You certainly are when you keep trying to fake a tech background.

Let's say we have this electric car which can tool along at 60MPH while
using 20HP worth of electricity supplied by the grid.

That's 15kW, so if we pick some more-or-less "safe" voltage on the
rails, say 1kV, that means the car will present a 15A load across the
rails. �Multiply that by, say, 10000 cars

How many miles would it take for 100000 cars to be spaced, each with a
safe following distance?

and the load becomes 150000
amperes. ďż˝

What is the spacing between the sub stations feeding the road?

Put another way, that's 150 Megawatts, and that's just what
the cars are eating up. ďż˝

Instead of paying $75,000/hour for $5/gallon fuel they could pay
15,000 for juice, savings of $60,000/hour or $6/hr/car.

The savings for a trucker would be over $50,000/year.

On top of that will be the I�R losses in the
rails themselves. ďż˝

What's the conductivity of the rails?

Now, since I've done the car part, how about if you do the rails part?

No wonder you're confused. The rail part is the only part of the
problem.

And you haven't done that either.

That is, pick an acceptable loss for a 10 mile stretch of road and
determine the cross-sectional area and material to be used for the rails
in order to meet that goal, OK?

It's a spreadsheet problem.

Set the cost of sub stations + cost of rail to the minimum.

Of course, we already know you are clueless as to how to set up the
problem.

A vac truck could come by every so often to keep trash from
shorting it out. �In heavy downpours, ice or snow you burn fuel.

---
Now _that's_ funny!
---

Is it as funny as burning $10/gallon fuel 100% of the time?


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Since battery costs are 2X grid costs, even 33% efficiency
would be
competitive with charging stations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_energy_transfer#Size.2C_distanc....

Wireless electric energy transfer for experimentally powering electric
automobiles and buses is a higher power application (>10kW) of
resonant inductive energy transfer. High power levels are required for
rapid recharging and high energy transfer efficiency is required both
for operational economy and to avoid negative environmental impact of
the system. An experimental electrified roadway test track built circa
1990 achieved 80% energy efficiency while recharging the battery of a
prototype bus at a specially equipped bus stop

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Doesn't sound like they were charging a moving vehicle.

Do you see any problems with a moving version? �Not that it would
necessarily be cost effective but of anything in thermo or fields that
would make it impossible or very difficult?

The field shape would be tricky, especially since a vehicle wouldn't
always be in the exact center of a lane.

It's only tricky for those who are fifty years behind the times in
electronics.

The technology to precisely position a car in a lane with an over ride
option has been trivial for quite some time.

In fact, even many English majors smart enough to know about Ford
hiring Microsoft to build robo cars.

And a road has to be pretty
thick to be strong enough to support trucks, so getting a small air
gap will be difficult.

You think 10 cm is precision?

It would be in the center of the lane, several feet from the wheels.

A few thousand miles of pole pieces and coils
and electronic drivers might get a tad expensive, too. Maintenance
would be interesting.

$20 billion/day in fuel is a tad expensive too.

If you have a workable topology in mind, post a sketch and some
numbers. Words are cheap.

That's why no one believes you have any "happy customers."

In the words of cowboy poet and large animal vet Baxter Black, you
aren't self employed. "You are self _un_employed."

Some how that nonsense got started and every dunce on newsgroups goes
around saying he "has a lot of happy customers."

Silly idea, when gasoline engines work so well.

Gasoline engines work very well at what has been called the "largest
transfer of wealth out of a nation in the history of civilization."


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Do you see any problems with a moving version?

YES !

Well?

Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs!

Tell us them problems!

VAST problems.

But are these problems as vast as Al Gore?

Basic to physics which you clearly have never understood,

Don't you want to enlighten all of Poo Bear's friends?

so it's largely pointless trying to explain why.

Especisally if you don't know.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Since battery costs are 2X grid costs

Please explain. A battery is a capital investment for energy storage.

How many times can the battery be cycled before it degrades and needs
to be replaced?

Grid electricity is
paying for energy as you use it.

Most batteries are so expensive they will need financing and people
will be paying as they use the battery.


Bret Cahill

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 11:27:38 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:

Since battery costs are 2X grid costs, even 33% efficiency would be
competitive with charging stations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_energy_transfer#Size.2C_distanc...

Wireless electric energy transfer for experimentally powering electric
automobiles and buses is a higher power application (>10kW) of
resonant inductive energy transfer. High power levels are required for
rapid recharging and high energy transfer efficiency is required both
for operational economy and to avoid negative environmental impact of
the system. An experimental electrified roadway test track built circa
1990 achieved 80% energy efficiency while recharging the battery of a
prototype bus at a specially equipped bus stop

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Doesn't sound like they were charging a moving vehicle.

Do you see any problems with a moving version? ?

---
Yes, many.

Which are?

Not that it would
necessarily be cost effective but of anything in thermo or fields that
would make it impossible or very difficult?

---
Yes

Which are?

---
You're trying to fly before you learn to crawl.

For starters, tell us what you think that "magnetic induction cable" and
"pickup coil" you were touting earlier look like and how you think
they'd work, and then maybe, if you're polite, we can go on from there.
---

?If it's
stopped, why not used a connector, and get 100% transfer efficiency?

For that matter why not just put a couple rails in the pavement like
subways? ?

---
Grasping at straws, are we?

You certainly are when you keep trying to fake a tech background.

---
You seem to think that just by endlessly parroting lies they'll suddenly
turn into truth.
---

Let's say we have this electric car which can tool along at 60MPH while
using 20HP worth of electricity supplied by the grid.

That's 15kW, so if we pick some more-or-less "safe" voltage on the
rails, say 1kV, that means the car will present a 15A load across the
rails. ?Multiply that by, say, 10000 cars

How many miles would it take for 100000 cars to be spaced, each with a
safe following distance?

---
Depends on the number of lanes, the speed at which the cars were moving,
the reaction times of the drivers, and the phase of the moon.

But that's your part of the problem, so get off your ignorant ass and
try to work it out.
---

and the load becomes 150000
amperes.

What is the spacing between the sub stations feeding the road?

---
You're the one who thinks it's a good idea, and that's your part of the
problem, so get off your ignorant ass and try to work it out.
---

Put another way, that's 150 Megawatts, and that's just what
the cars are eating up.

Instead of paying $75,000/hour for $5/gallon fuel they could pay
15,000 for juice, savings of $60,000/hour or $6/hr/car.

The savings for a trucker would be over $50,000/year.

On top of that will be the I˛R losses in the
rails themselves.

What's the conductivity of the rails?

---
Depends on how much loss you're prepared to suffer in the rails. That's
your part of the problem, so get off your ignorant ass and try to work
it out.
---

Now, since I've done the car part, how about if you do the rails part?

No wonder you're confused. The rail part is the only part of the
problem.

---
No, dumbass, it isn't.

The vehicular part is the load, and without the load there is no
problem.

But you wouldn't know anything about that either, would you?
---

And you haven't done that either.

---
Not my job.

I did the load part, and since it's your idea, you do the rest, OK?
---

That is, pick an acceptable loss for a 10 mile stretch of road and
determine the cross-sectional area and material to be used for the rails
in order to meet that goal, OK?

It's a spreadsheet problem.

---
Then post the solution.
---

Set the cost of sub stations + cost of rail to the minimum.

Of course, we already know you are clueless as to how to set up the
problem.

---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoEuIJQo0_I
---

A vac truck could come by every so often to keep trash from
shorting it out. ?In heavy downpours, ice or snow you burn fuel.

---
Now _that's_ funny!
---

Is it as funny as burning $10/gallon fuel 100% of the time?

---
Much funnier, since gas is now about $2/gallon and you haven't the
slightest clue as to what it would take to run and maintain your
pie-in-the-sky roadrail(c) system.


JF

 

[hhc314@yahoo.com]

On Jan 1, 2:53 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

Do you see any problems with a moving version?

YES !

Well?

Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs!

Tell us them problems!

VAST problems.

But are these problems as vast as Al Gore?

 Basic to physics which you clearly have never understood,

Don't you want to enlighten all of Poo Bear's friends?

so it's largely pointless trying to explain why.

Especisally if you don't know.

Bret Cahill

Beret. I fear that you are mixing two very different methods of
supplying traction power into one jumble.

First of all, track vehicles such as subways, mainline rail, PRT, and
trackless trolleys acquire their motive power from physical conductors
of electricity, and routinely achieve transmission energy transmission
efficiencies of 95% or above.

A very different subject is non-contact of energy to individual
vechicles on a roadway.and not on a guideway or on tracks. The US
Federal Government as part of their IVHS program has been exploring
this for now well over 20 years, without much evidence of success thus
far. This project also addresses the driverless operation of
individual vehicles.

Surprising, the wireless transfer of operating traction energy to the
individual vehicles is not, as I understand it, the major obstacle,
but is problematic. As I understand it, the greates coefficient of
coupling thus obtained is about 15%, which is close to the figure
obtain by your inductively charged electric toothbrush. Energy
efficiency is not the issue here, since energy that is not coupled to
a load is not lost.

What is the issue is the safety associated with automatically
controlled vehicles not on a limited guideway. What is needed is a
truly failsafe system, and thus far. IVHS or not, no such mechanism
has yet been identified.

Another issue is how would each of the roadway powered vehicles
charged for their individual energy consumption. Fortunately, that has
a rather simplistic solution, much like that employed on a Pitney-
Bowes postage meter. The DOT or whoever would on payment pre-load your
meter box with a specific number of kilowatt hours...and when they are
used up, the car of truck simply glides to a stop. Same as with
gasoline fuel.

Harry C.

p.s., I really don't experct to see such systems in my lifetime, or
even that of my children. Given another 75-100 years from now, I
believe that such things will be commonplace.

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 11:48:49 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:

Since battery costs are 2X grid costs, even 33% efficiency
would be
competitive with charging stations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_energy_transfer#Size.2C_distanc...

Wireless electric energy transfer for experimentally powering electric
automobiles and buses is a higher power application (>10kW) of
resonant inductive energy transfer. High power levels are required for
rapid recharging and high energy transfer efficiency is required both
for operational economy and to avoid negative environmental impact of
the system. An experimental electrified roadway test track built circa
1990 achieved 80% energy efficiency while recharging the battery of a
prototype bus at a specially equipped bus stop

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Doesn't sound like they were charging a moving vehicle.

Do you see any problems with a moving version? ?Not that it would
necessarily be cost effective but of anything in thermo or fields that
would make it impossible or very difficult?

The field shape would be tricky, especially since a vehicle wouldn't
always be in the exact center of a lane.

It's only tricky for those who are fifty years behind the times in
electronics.

The technology to precisely position a car in a lane with an over ride
option has been trivial for quite some time.

In fact, even many English majors smart enough to know about Ford
hiring Microsoft to build robo cars.

Even many English majors smart enough to use verbs.

But OMG, carnage on the highways, especially once a year when the
calendar rolls over.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/31/zune_death/

Silly me, I was even considering buying a Ford. Thanks for the
warning.

And a road has to be pretty
thick to be strong enough to support trucks, so getting a small air
gap will be difficult.

You think 10 cm is precision?

You think interstate highways are 10 cm thick?

It would be in the center of the lane, several feet from the wheels.

A few thousand miles of pole pieces and coils
and electronic drivers might get a tad expensive, too. Maintenance
would be interesting.

$20 billion/day in fuel is a tad expensive too.

If you have a workable topology in mind, post a sketch and some
numbers. Words are cheap.

That's why no one believes you have any "happy customers."

In the words of cowboy poet and large animal vet Baxter Black, you
aren't self employed. "You are self _un_employed."

No, I have a regular job and a regular salary.

A couple of managers from NIF dropped by the other day. They gave me
this...

ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/NIF3.jpg

Some how that nonsense got started and every dunce on newsgroups goes
around saying he "has a lot of happy customers."

Silly idea, when gasoline engines work so well.

Gasoline engines work very well at what has been called the "largest
transfer of wealth out of a nation in the history of civilization."

Not wealth, just dollars. And virtual dollars, at that. 1s and 0s in
some files somewhere. Sounds like a good deal to me.

John

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 11:53:43 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:

Do you see any problems with a moving version?

YES !

Well?

Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs!

Tell us them problems!

VAST problems.

But are these problems as vast as Al Gore?

Basic to physics which you clearly have never understood,

Don't you want to enlighten all of Poo Bear's friends?

so it's largely pointless trying to explain why.

Especisally if you don't know.

---
Which is precisely why you try to get others inflamed to the point where
they'll say: "Yes, dammit, I _do_ know!" and then they spill the beans
and you can pretend you knew the trick all along and owe them nothing.


JF

 

Do you see any problems with a moving version?

YES !

Well?

Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs!

Tell us them problems!

VAST problems.

But are these problems as vast as Al Gore?

�Basic to physics which you clearly have never understood,

Don't you want to enlighten all of Poo Bear's friends?

so it's largely pointless trying to explain why.

Especisally if you don't know.

Bret Cahill

Beret. I fear that you are mixing two very different methods of
supplying traction power into one jumble.

We're merely comparing the two systems. Either one would beat
battery-only or fuel hybrid-only as the cost of batteries and fuel is
so high.

First of all, track vehicles such as subways, mainline rail, PRT, and
trackless trolleys acquire their motive power from physical conductors
of electricity, and routinely achieve transmission energy transmission
efficiencies of 95% or above.

I personally think that would be the way to go. Kids are more likely
to play on subway tracks than get out into the roadbed of a freeway.

A very different subject is non-contact of energy to individual
vechicles on a roadway.and not on a guideway or on tracks. The US
Federal Government as part of their IVHS program has been exploring
this for now well over 20 years, without much evidence of success thus
far. This project also addresses the driverless operation of
individual vehicles.

How about assisted steering for a vehicle _with_ a driver?

Just cruise along and when you don't like what the system is doing,
you over ride it.

It should be _safer_ than driving by the seat of your pants.

Surprising, the wireless transfer of operating traction energy to the
individual vehicles is not, as I understand it, the major obstacle,
but is problematic. As I understand it, the greates coefficient of
coupling thus obtained is about 15%, which is close to the figure
obtain by your inductively charged electric toothbrush. �Energy
efficiency is not the issue here, since energy that is not coupled to
a load is not lost.

What is the issue is the safety associated with automatically
controlled vehicles not on a limited guideway. What is needed is a
truly failsafe system, and thus far. IVHS or not, no such mechanism
has yet been identified.

A system with an over ride would certainly be more failsafe than human
only.

In fact it would be safer _period_.

Another issue is how would each of the roadway powered vehicles
charged for their individual energy consumption. Fortunately, that has
a rather simplistic solution, much like that employed on a Pitney-
Bowes postage meter. The DOT or whoever would on payment pre-load your
meter box with a specific number of kilowatt hours...and when they are
used up, the car of truck simply glides to a stop. Same as with
gasoline fuel.

That theft problem might be more difficult to prevent than you think.

Anyone could rig up a bypass.

Why not start out giving the energy away for free to motorists and
only charge big rigs?

p.s., I really don't experct to see such systems in my lifetime, or
even that of my children. �Given another 75-100 years from now, I
believe that such things will be commonplace.

You don't think $20 billion/day in oil cost savings could finance
anything?


Bret Cahill