Re: Any alternatives for conventional gasoline?



Josh Hill wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 05:28:30 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Josh Hill wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 06:57:18 -0700, Don Lancaster <don@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Give it up.

Induction ain't gonna happen because of fundamental economic and
engineering absurdities.

The former, perhaps. The latter appear to be figmentary.

You apparently haven't twigged that no 'useful power' can be supplied through anything more than
a minute air gap. This is why power transformers are wound on magnetic cores not air cores.

That'll require a vehicle to be stationary while being recharged. This is *utterly fundamental*
science.

No, it is not: the larger the poles the less rapidly the field falls
off. That's the reason proposed inductively-powered vehicles have,
well, large pole pieces.

And those pole pieces are collosally *heavy* !

You still can't make an efficient magnetic circuit this way though.


Then too, if you thought a bit, you'd realize that Maglev trains
transfer "useful power" over gaps of many centimeters.

Irrelevant to road vehicles.


And you'd realize too that the gap in an induction vehicle can be
made, within reasonable limits, as small as one likes: the
(undesirable) limit is surface contact, and there are already lots of
vehicles that achieve surface contact: electric trains and buses, even
bumper cars.

Needless to say, there are practical obstacles to an induction system,
e.g., cost, robustness, compatibility with existing vehicles, snow and
debris. My sense from the beginning has been that it won't happen
because there are more economical, more versatile alternatives on the
horizon, e.g., FCV's. But the obstacles to induction-powered vehicles
aren't theoretical: the theory and the engineering knowledge necessary
to make them has been available for something like 100 years.

I'm fairly amazed that people are treating this ordinary engineering
exercise as if it were a proposal to build a warp drive, but I guess I
shouldn't be, since I've seen the phenomenon often enough. Still, I
wish people would do a bit of research before making like they're
oracles: there are inductive vehicle patents available online which
deal with precisely these issues.

Having a patent doesn't mean that an idea is practical, workable or viable. I've seen some utterly
ridiculous patents.

To quote yourself " I wish people would do a bit of research ". In your case a basic course in
Electromagnetism would be in order !

It really is that fundamental. I guess you prefer pipe dreaming ? You might as well wish for over
unity to become viable too !

To repeat - inductively coupled power will *never* be a workable solution to powering EVs in motion.

Graham

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Any alternatives for conventional gasoline?
    ... Inductive charging paddles are already used on some battery-powered ... vehicles with coils under a driveway: ... Those induction charging paddles involve very small airgaps. ... On cost, perhaps, although the coils would need to be present on only ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Any alternatives for conventional gasoline?
    ... Inductive charging paddles are already used on some battery-powered ... vehicles with coils under a driveway: ... Those induction charging paddles involve very small airgaps. ... and practicality, ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Any alternatives for conventional gasoline?
    ... That's the reason proposed inductively-powered vehicles have, ... And you'd realize too that the gap in an induction vehicle can be ... the theory and the engineering knowledge necessary ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)