20kw wireless charging from the guys who brought us the atom bomb

http://www.computerworld.com/article/3051678/car-tech/govt-researchers-develop-wirelessly-car-chargers-that-are-faster-than-plug-ins.html

The DOE researchers claim their wireless charging system has achieved 95% efficiency, meaning only 5% of the electricity is lost from the source to the car's lithium ion battery system; it is typical, even for plug-in systems, to lose as much power in the charging process.

Click to expand...

The research is the first step in creating a 50KW wireless charging system that may someday allow roadways to charge vehicles while they are being driven.

Click to expand...

Better than bombs.

Life in the charge lane. No need to stop at a station.

I think that people do not fully understand the fact that stationary wireless charging is not the same as charging while in motion.
Higher power output while stationary changes nothing in respect of charging while in motion.

Also this article is a joke. Wireless charging can't be 3x as efficient as plug-in systems. Nothing in the world
can be 3x as efficient as something that is 99% efficient. Ladies and Gentlemen, 6,6kW vs 20kW is not efficiency.

arnis said:

I think that people do not fully understand the fact that stationary wireless charging is not the same as charging while in motion.
Higher power output while stationary changes nothing in respect of charging while in motion.

Also this article is a joke. Wireless charging can't be 3x as efficient as plug-in systems. Nothing in the world
can be 3x as efficient as something that is 99% efficient. Ladies and Gentlemen, 6,6kW vs 20kW is not efficiency.

Click to expand...

The other day there was a news story reporting "US women's soccer team members earn four times less than their male counterparts". Try parsing that. Perhaps for every dollar a male soccer team member earns, a female soccer team member must pay three dollars?

If something is 99% efficient, there is an inefficiency of 1%. While I don't like expressing it this way, the intent may have been that the inefficiency was reduced by a factor of three, and their wireless connection is 99.66% efficient. Unclear writing aside, the implication is they have cracked the code on wireless charging efficiency. The claim seems dubious though, as both the "power transmitter" and "power receiver" are themselves connected by wires, so it's hard to see how you could introduce some things in the middle of a wire (which is essentially what you are doing with a wireless connection) that makes the wire more efficient.

People might find the GCC article on the same topic, which I'd previously posted in the 'Autonomous LEAF' topic, to be more accurate/informative: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/03/20160331-ornl.html