Wireless Rechargeing??

[JeffNY]

>>It either won't work or will be terribly inefficient.<<

Ok, with your electrical engineering degree an all, explain to us why.

But, one, it's already been proven to work so you are incorrect there. Besides professors at MIT showing in pictures (see above) it works, even Intel is working on it. I don't know of ANYONE who is agreeing with you it does not work. And, two, it may be "inefficient" at several feet but apparently not so at close range.

But please explain where the MIT professors equations in their published papers are incorrect. Would love to hear it.

[JeffNY]

By the way, electromagnetic field strength decreases by the square of the distance. So if it's 40% efficient at 7 feet does it not make sense it may be close to 100% efficient at 2 feet? hummm

[enersystems3]

Wireless Power Transmission for ecars and other applications

An Open Source project

These are possible applications, no testing results or hardware is available as yet (for publication). I am retired and can't do this full-time.

please see www.energy234.com for parts and any donations for as these projects develop. Some applications have been researched for a number of years.
Here are some possibilities:



Wireless Charging System for the Volt

Operational Wattage Usage Specifications:
City travel (stop and start/low speed) 8kWh (uses 8 kilowatt hours or 8k as it moves, probably cycling some regenetereve braking wattage, maintaining 30% charge)
Highway travel (linear/high speed) 25kWh (uses 25k, speeds up to 65, maintaining 30% charge)


The only reason the Volt does not recharge over 30% as it travels is to a. avoid useless overcharging or b. overheating batteries or c. using more gas to charge batteries higher, or d. other

A 'kWh' or 'k download constant' of 4k to 8k would enable unlimited city travel for a Volt (low speeds under 25mph etc)

the 'k download constant' is a phrase I developed

so is 'Operational Wattage Usage Specification'

This wattage could use micro electromagnetic field systems or non-electromagnetic field systems*:

To calculate a driven 'Transmitter-download' requirement,
multiply the 'k download constant' X (times) +-=1.25 (for any loss)
8k X 1.25 = 10k
so the 'onboard receiver-charger' system requires a 10k 'T-dnload'
receiver-charger would use:
100 channels at 100 watts each to get 10kilowatts
200 channels at 50watts each for 10k
500 channels at 20watts each for 10k
1000 channels at 10watts each for 10k

Each 'receiver-charger' could be software keyed for 'recombinent charging' through its receiver channels; that is,
it can have a keyed coded/crypted system for receiving certain frequencies/channels, the duration and other information recorded for
billing/tracking/usage purposes.

'Recombinent charging' is a TCS term for a system of receiving multiple low wattage or low transmit channels
and recombining for usable power for battery powered devices like laptops, ecars, and other uses.

Example: 1000 channels of transmit are processed through 1000 VSRs (very small receivers), each having its own separate
frequency/harmonic or other differential. A VSR can be the size of a small transistor with a small IC chip configuration.
On a card the size of a PCI modem-type computer card could be a bank of 100 microchannel receivers. Thus 10 cards would give 1000 VSRs. The footprint of the electronics of the receiver-charger could be the size of about 1 square foot.

The output voltage of the VSR bank is conditioned for use, then powered into the battery system.

This solves 2 problems: 1. no large EMFs or signals are transmitted through airwaves on any single frequency, and 2. the receiver-charger would only turn on when it needed power, and download only enough power for maintaining the 30% optimum battery power charge.

----
Wind/Air Current Mini-turbines

This 'TCS wireless charging system design' could also be coupled with onboard wind mini-mills (described at the Yahoo Group wind power forum a few weeks ago) -- although another application involves a wind mini-turbine, another older unpublished TCS design . As a concept for testing proposal: A bank of 2 to 10 of these mini-turbines the size of soda cans would have almost
zero wind/air current resistance and use hood or side scoops to drive the air into the banks of mini-turbines, using air-flow as the ecar moves at over 15mph; at 30-60mph the airflow through the turbines can be routed in such a way
along the bottom and/or sides of the vehicle to reduce drag, create slight lift, improve stability, or other functions.
These wind or air-current mini-turbines are probably 10x more efficient than small propeller/bladed mini-mills, etc.
A bank of 10 of these mini-turbines (each the size of a 12oz soda can) could produce 2k, 4k or more at peak (when the ecar is moving over 15-20mph), thus reducing the load requirement for the lithium battery bank at highway speeds.

------
Hopefully these will get developed further in the next year.
Thanks.

[IamIan]

But please explain where the MIT professors equations in their published papers are incorrect. Would love to hear it.

It isn't that black and white...

In the controlled lab experiment they did under ideal conditions and not having to be concerned with things like the $ of the result... that is the best they could do... it is not that they are wrong... it is that you have to take what they are saying in the context of what they are saying.

The efficiency of the transmission does not necessarily tell you how much of the energy you send will get to the device at the other end...
Wireless transmission spreads the energy out in all direction from the source... like a expanding sphere ... that is why the energy gets dissipated with the square of the distance... because you are spreading it out over the whole area... so even if you had 100% efficiency which nothing ever is and you will never get... but even if you had that impossible to get 100% you can only gather as much energy as the space that is occupied by your antenna ... and if all the space is occupied by the antenna than you have a normal electrical plug... with an antenna ~1sqaure foot ~1 foot away, you are only able to get ~1/12 of the power sent from the transmitter even if you get to that impossible 100% efficiency.... because the other 11/12 of the energy you sent was spread out over the rest of the area not covered by your 1square foot antenna... same antenna at 2 feet away would only get 1/50 of the power sent from the transmitter... even if the transmission itself is 100% efficient.

The only way around the spreading out of the energy into the spherical area is to try and focus the energy output... you cant not effectively do this for all things... the Magnetic fields for instance can not be significantly focused into a beam... Sound can not be effectively focused into a beam... Light can with a Laser... Some types of radio waves can, others scatter in air ... The closest you can get to a beam with Electricity is Lightning , or arching it... kw Lasers or Lightning arcs are not safe ... so we would probably not want to use those as a laser or electrical arc that could power your car would be enough energy to vaporize allot of things and kill just about anything in its path.

[JeffNY]

It's a valid concern. But it's my understanding that most of the energy radiated from the transmitter is not "lost" into the air. That only when the transmitter "couples" with a receiver does most of the energy really "flow" from the transmitter to receiver. I'll try and find where I saw that.

And yes, the total capacity of energy that can be sent between the transmitter and receiver would need to be enough for this application....maybe multiple channels, as suggested above, may be needed.

[IamIan]

It's a valid concern. But it's my understanding that most of the energy radiated from the transmitter is not "lost" into the air. That only when the transmitter "couples" with a receiver does most of the energy really "flow" from the transmitter to receiver. I'll try and find where I saw that.

And yes, the total capacity of energy that can be sent between the transmitter and receiver would need to be enough for this application....maybe multiple channels, as suggested above, may be needed.

If you find that kind of detail I'd like to see it.

I suspect they are not going to give out the kind of detail about they put x amount of watts of energy into transmitter and got y amount of watts out of receiver.

Instead they will focus on narrow definitions of efficiency ... like saying the receiver is x% efficient because it gathers y amount of the energy that hits it... but just neglecting to say how much of the energy sent by the transmitter is actually hitting / getting to the receiver and how much energy being supplied to the transmitter is sent.... little details like that always end up deflating some of those ideal condition lab reported results once you know the context of the results.

To recharge the Volt 16kWh battery in 8 hours you need to get over 2kw rate of electrical power to the batteries ... the total energy put into vs the total energy taken out is what you need to know... the efficiency of the transmission itself is almost useless information without knowing the rest of what is going on... if the total energy feeding into it from the wall outlet compared to the total energy taken out at the receiver is only the 1/12 from wide area transmission 1 foot away you would have to feed the wireless with 192 kWh just to get 16 kWh to the battery.... if it is a narrow beam focused transmission , keep the path between the transmitter and receiver free and clear at all times... or anything stepping between them would get cooked ... including people.

[JeffNY]

IamIan, you are welcome to speculate but there is a lot of published material on this if you do a Google or Yahoo search....


Below is similar to what I have read elsewhere....

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/wireless-0607.html

"The investigated design consists of two copper coils, each a self-resonant system. One of the coils, attached to the power source, is the sending unit. Instead of irradiating the environment with electromagnetic waves, it fills the space around it with a non-radiative magnetic field oscillating at MHz frequencies. The non-radiative field mediates the power exchange with the other coil (the receiving unit), which is specially designed to resonate with the field. The resonant nature of the process ensures the strong interaction between the sending unit and the receiving unit, while the interaction with the rest of the environment is weak."

"Moffatt, an MIT undergraduate in physics, explains: "The crucial advantage of using the non-radiative field lies in the fact that most of the power not picked up by the receiving coil remains bound to the vicinity of the sending unit, instead of being radiated into the environment and lost."

[IamIan]

IamIan, you are welcome to speculate but there is a lot of published material on this if you do a Google or Yahoo search....

good I'm glad I am allowed your so generous

more seriously... it isn't speculation ... the energy either expands in all directions like gravity , and sound waves tend to do.... some direction can be given but they still tend to scatter in all directions... or you focus it into a beam of energy like a laser .... that is not speculation... if you want to say it is not spreading out over the whole area... then by default it is some type of focused beam of energy.... if it is not a narrow focused beam you still run into the loss of the area not covered and if it is a tightly focused beam then you have 2+ kW of energy in a tightly focused beam.

the theory is not what I argue against... What I argue against is that the indicated study does not publish the final net total system efficiency ... power in from wall outlet to power out at the receiver... until they publish verifiable findings that show the total system efficiency and not just a small piece of it... until that happens... it is pure speculation on your part as well that they have anything worth while... neither one of us know the whole picture, or all the data about what they did , as they are not releasing all the details .... the fact that they are not releasing more details only serves to make their claims more questionable.

I am speculating... so are you ... either one of us has all the details of what they did... but I am only speculating in that I side with what has already been shown and proven .... nothing is 100% ( this is known ) ... every step of conversion has losses ( this is known ) ... a copper wire from outlet to Volt will have over 99% net system efficiency ( this is known ) ... We do not yet know the net total system efficiency of the wireless transfer process ( unknown ) ... but the wireless has 2 ( maybe more ) additional steps where it can loose efficiency from the straight wire... converting electricity to wireless signal at transmitter, and then converting at the receiver back to electricity ... those 2 additional steps and the 3rd step of the energy transferring from Point A transmitter to Point B receiver... all of that has to be better than a straight piece of copper that doesn't have to convert the electricity at all....

This is why... the already proven and known ... make this idea and its unknown look like it has to cost more energy and be less efficient.

if you have the published data about the total input power they put into the transmitter to get what total amount of output power from the receiver then by all means post it... otherwise... without that data... a wire is the already established and already so far proven to be more efficient method... so I side with what is known.

but we won't agree... so now that we both understand each other... let's agree to disagree.

[JeffNY]

>> good I'm glad I am allowed your so generous <<

It is not me being generous as much as it is me encouraging you to take issue with the guys at MIT and Intel. I have not claimed to be an expert on this and made that very clear several posts ago. But by all means dissect the published works and tell us why it does not work. I am not the guy to ask. I am simply pointing to an idea that might make the Volt a better electric car to own. As I have pointed out, I have little desire to deal with live power cords, with my hands full of stuff, every time I park and get out of my car in the garage. The solution can be a hard wired automated solution or a wireless solution. It does not matter to me. As long as it works.

As to "efficiency" I do not think it's efficient use of my time to be plugging my car in everyday...and would you consider a hard wired solution 0% efficient if you forgot to plug it in to you car on a given day? But lets say for arguments sake the wireless solution is 2% or 3% less "efficient", maybe even 5%, than a cord...does that mean it is no good or has no value? It may still have value to me if I didn't have to deal with cords. Maybe for you no. For me it's not just about "efficiency", it's about the Volt owner not having to deal with power cords and having a better ownership experience.

By the way, do you drive an internal combustion engine powered car? You are aware it is at best 20% "efficient" aren't you? That is far less "efficient" than this power antenna you are so concerned about...but you still drive it?

I am not interested in debating the physics or "witricity". I am interested in finding a solution to not having to plug in your car every day manually. Whether by automated plug in device or wireless power antenna.

Perhaps there is an online physics forum that can answer your questions.

[Altazi]

The wired power cable is simple, effective, and cheap. Hard to beat that. Virtually 100% efficient for transferring power.