[FoRK] Redox battery for EVs is recharged in minutes through electrolyte exchange
sdw at lig.net
Thu Oct 22 19:37:51 PDT 2009
Damien Morton wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Stephen Williams <sdw at lig.net> wrote:
>> [This spot for a wild and crazy idea.]:
>> Create tracking intense light projecting zones on streets, highways, and
>> especially hills. Use grates, mirrors, whatever. As photo-rechargeable
>> cars drive over the charging zones, focused, high intensity light
>> illuminates just the receptors on the bottom of cars. The intense pulse is
>> captured by multi-layer / fractal / nano receivers and the impulse is stored
>> in capacitor banks that slowly drain into the batteries / wheels. Presto:
>> an optical (or microwave, or even inductive) "third rail". Probable power
>> scale mismatch, probably safety issues...
> Dude, you just gave me a brilliant idea.
> Instead of an optical energy transfer system, you could have a simple
> mechanical energy transfer system.
I considered mechanical, like something to rev a flywheel or an arm for
forward motion. All too crazy. Electric power or burning / expanding
fuel is needed.
> Lets say that in the center of each lane is a slot, and under the slot is a
> cable moving in the direction the vehicle is travelling. To transfer kinetic
> energy to the vehicle, the vehicle merely couples itself to the cable. Short
> term energy storage for travelling off the grid is achieved by a kinetic
> rolling mass energy system.
Lol... The cable car auto revolution we never had.
> Advantage of this approach is that it uses no new technology at all, and no
> fuel or motor is required on the vehicle, enabling mass and cost reductions
> barely imaginable to the current automotive industry.
Installing, maintaining, and powering that cable with its massive
friction burden doesn't seem cool.
I have pointed out before that we ought to have very efficient train
cars with loading as easy as pulling into a parking spot. Drive to a
station just off the highway, pull into a slot, have that loaded,
potentially in continuous motion on a moving train, then zip along at
fairly high speed (100mph+) to the next major node, then drive to your
destination. Trains are efficient, but using a train isn't unless you
happen to be within very close walking distance on each side.
If we could convert individual travel to train-level efficiency, whether
using a train or not, that would be a huge win and likely good enough
for quite a while. 400 short ton-miles per gallon could translate to
400 miles per gallon per 2000 lb. vehicle, or as little as .25 gallon
per 400 miles per person.
> I estimate that switching to this remarkable new mode of transportation
> could save anywhere from 10 - 90% of the United State's oil consumption in
> the transport sector.
Lol. You could start with a car that can clip onto existing cable car
cables in SF! ;-)
More information about the FoRK