Forums

Join The Community
RegisterLogin

Idea: Boost Lane

I have an idea for Tesla vehicles charging. I call it the boost lane. It is just like the FastTrack toys. If two metallic rails can be installed on a span of a highway lane and a connecting device can be added on the bottom of the vehicles the cars can get a boost during their trip. Just wanted to share it let me know what you guys think.

I think it would be a great idea, but only if drivers stuck in traffic are allowed to place a turkey across the rails to cook it (you know, to save time since they'll be late because of traffic). With the amount of investment it would take to install and supply high voltage to this system, I think investing in a ray gun mounted above the freeway would be better. Imagine getting zapped by this gun as you drive past it and receive "an upcharge". It is just like Power Rangers!
Seriously though, take some time to educate yourself on how electricity works. Keep it simple and start with Ohm's law. Once you grasp the basic concept, you will quickly realize why trolley's, trains etc. have always depended on the limited network of suspended cables to supply their electricity instead of having it pushed through steel rails on the ground in public areas.

TESLAholic, if the idea is so bad, why is it that subways get their electricity from a third rail which is not much different from what the op suggested??????

That's not easily accessible to outsiders, subway cars rarely crash and rails work as grounding unit unlike car tires, so you would need two of those very close each other. Metal also gets very slippery for rubber tires in rain. Cars also come in various sizes and shapes, so getting alignment just right is near impossibility.

Wireless. That's the solution. Technology is here for just that kind of solution, but infrastructure construction is lagging behind techs.

"That's not easily accessible to outsiders, subway cars rarely crash and rails work as grounding unit unlike car tires, so you would need two of those very close each other. Metal also gets very slippery for rubber tires in rain. Cars also come in various sizes and shapes, so getting alignment just right is near impossibility."

And also the tremendous amount of money it would require to supply electricity to an entire charging network, not to mention having to deal with DOT when it comes to constant road renovation projects.

It will happen some day and will be an imbedded charger that induces the current into the car charger. We do it now with induction cooktops. The technology just needs to mature. You will see it first on city bus routes were you get the most bang for the buck and the added complexity of higher speeds is not a factor.

Inductive charging might be a possibility. ideas like this have been explored in decades past, but
As it stands I think that the proportionate number of EV's to Gas-Powered Vehicles on the road makes this a disproportionate challenge. The investment risk is likely unfavourable... at this time. It is possible though and in the future, if we start to see numbers of EV drivers increasing, it may be viable. if there was a way to charge for the service - or at minimum, make it sustainable from an investment standpoint, we could see charging pads in parking lots or at stop lights in busy city centres.

I like the idea, but maybe we aren't there yet? Theres a number of issues that would need addressing and solving before such an idea could be viable.

Good thinking! keep the ideas floating. some are bound to make a difference if they're real world applicable, valuable and viable!

I was really looking forward to seeing the limitations of Infiniti LE's inductive charging setup. Unfortunately, the concept was put on hold indefinitely by the former CEO of Audi, who now heads the Infiniti brand.

"at stop lights". Heh. I can see cars running low on charge sitting there, trying to get enough to get home!

HONK! I'm charging here! I'll show you charge....

I think in the not so near future the vehicles won't have engines and will be propelled by the roads themselves, using magnetism. My vision is that along the roads there will be lined up empty vehicles (probably with just one or two seats), you get into them, they join the traffic, you punch in where you want to go and it takes you there. It turns off at the right intersections and once you arrived, it leaves the road, you can get off and the vehicle either stays there for others to take, or goes back to the road and is taken to a busier place. Every road will be connected to the net. Vehicles not in use could be stored underground....

There will be no collision because the vehicles will repel each other and can't collide. This will happen when the population and the cities will be so dense that they can't waste the space on wide roads and large vehicles with one person in each. Possibly, this whole system will move underground and there will be no traffic on the surface. The vehicles will deliver people directly to under their houses/apartments.

The op's vision would fit in with this picture of mine.

Thank you for the replies. I understand there are many limitations and challenges, but taking into consideration Hyperloop, Space X and Tesla itself it appears that these guys are thinking out of the box. That is the only reason I see this idea as a fit for the company.

doctrova, never apologize for an idea. Ideas are there to be debated. People might agree or they might not. It can be that you have lacked some important information and you are wrong, but it can also be that you can see something others can't.

There is a difference between crazy ideas people come up with just to shock others and genuine ones that sound weird first, but later turn out to be revolutionary.

"If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it." Einstein

"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken

This is so true, because most revolutionary ideas go against the contemporary common knowledge and everybody puts them down as nonsense.

EvaP, I don't believe your future prediction just because cars want to be driven, I for one would not like a auto-taxi services at all.

It's not the destination, it's the journey that matters.

Timo, I don't think it will be decided based on what people like, but on necessity.

I am sure when the first cars showed up, people missed the smell and whinnying of the horses, hated the noise of the engine and the speed.

These are quotes I found on how much people hated cars when they first appeared:

"a writer in Lippincott’s Magazine insisted that since 'Americans are a horse-loving nation … the wide-spread adoption of the motor-driven vehicle in this country is open to serious doubt.'"

” Can you imagine, asked Seymour, “Napoleon crossing the Alps in a blinding snow storm on a bicycle or Alexander riding heroically at the head of his armies in a horseless carriage?”

What necessity is that? I don't see any necessity forcing us to forgo our freedom.

Overpopulation?

Population growth is already slowing down a lot. It will peak at about 9-10billion and then start to actually drop. High tech/education culture seems to slow down population growth a lot.

That taxi service could work on city centers, but I would not give away my car for that.

The only correct predictor is historically the Low Band of the UN Population survey. It now says 8bn in 30 years, then falling indefinitely.

Timo, I don't think it would happen in our lifetime, so we can stop worrying about it.

Re: World population. If you look at recent history, the trend is for the settlements to become more and more dense. Every free space people have discovered so far (Africa, Americas, Australia) have been filled with cities, towns and people. I can't see why the trend would change....
There is a huge part of population in developing countries with no birth control, where the only old age security is having many children. This makes the population growth there exponential.
World religions that frown upon birth control are on the rise worldwide.
Industrialists, and so politicians, are interested in large population to make sure there are enough workers and consumers. Also, having more people means more military power. I can't see them do anything to curb population growth.

Yes, Europe's population is going down, but it is replenished by immigration from overpopulated or impoverished countries.

Unless something drastic happens, the growth will go on until we will have to spread to places like the surface or the bottom of the ocean, North and South Poles, Sahara, underground, etc. It will happen faster than you think. Exponential growth is very tricky. When I was a kid, I have learned about 2.5 billion people. Yes, I am 62 years old. We have more than doubled in the last 50 years. If this continues, we will have 15 billion in 50 years, not 8 or 9 billion.

Yes, I think 100-200 years from now people won't have the luxury of sitting in a car all by themselves and drive slowly, enjoying the scenery.

But they won't miss it because they have never experienced it. Just like most of us don't know what it is like to sit on a horse. If the electric car becomes the norm, the next generations will look at us like we were crazy spewing all that poison into the air and sitting in noisy cars instead of breathing nice, clean air and sit peacefully in silent cars, sliding through the landscape.

Everything is a matter of getting used to.

Birth rates are falling world-wide, America one of the few exceptions. http://www.fpri.org/ww/0505.200407.eberstadt.demography.html

It is fashionable to worry about warming and overpopulation, when the real risks are cooling and depopulation.

P.S. The wealthier a society gets, the more space is freed up. Google 'Peak Farmland'.

Thanks for the link Brian.

I never believed in global warming. I think it is based on a mistake and the planet doesn't work like a green house.

Yes it does. Greenhouse effect is real, otherwise Earth would froze all over. Only question here is how high effect humans have to that.

"depopulation" is no risk. Human civilization would survive with 99% of people gone, and highly probably would do a lot better than it does now. World is already "overpopulated", just not gone over critical limits.

Timo, I am reading that recently, the areas covered with ice are getting bigger, not smaller. Other thing nobody seems to consider (because they are so anxious to prove the greenhouse effect) that while it might be getting smaller on the North Pole, the opposite is true on the South Pole. There is a cooling going on there.

I just had a conversation online where I suggested that IF it is true that the heat the sun is radiating, can't get through the greenhouse gases and gets "trapped" on Earth, then the same thing must happen when it reaches Earth: It can't get through, so the whole process evens itself out. Less radiation is coming, less is leaving: same is staying....

I was told that is nonsense and people gave me elaborate explanations on why it was wrong. Guess what? I have read the SAME thing in a NASA article, only of course, in a more scientific language. I will try to find the article and post it here, but this is what I found for now.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-ga...

Common sense is common sense. If you can imagine how things happen, you are bound to realize that the whole thing does not make sense. Turns out the computer simulations where wrong, because Earth does not work the way they assumed.

This thread has gone off topic. Lets try to focus on the initial idea.

Here is the quote:

"NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface."

Nasa website is down, but I found a link

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

Sorry for the offtopic doctrova, just tell us more about the initial idea so we can get back discussing that.

Inductive boosting has been under exploration for a while, but of course there's a chicken&egg issue: install infrastructure and inspire purchase of vehicles capable of using it, or make and sell vehicles with the power receivers, and hope for/demand the infrastructure?

EvaP; Timo, I am reading that recently, the areas covered with ice are getting bigger, not smaller

and thinner. Also not true for glaciers and north pole. It's just propaganda made by environment change denialist.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/...

For that chicken&egg problem I suggest modular design that allows refitting car later for those things.

MediaMatters? the lowest of the low.


X Deutschland Site Besuchen