• NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Inductive charging has come a long way and doesn’t have to have as big a power loss anymore.

      E.g this government research project had 120kw at 97% which is on par or better with existing fast charging methods.

      https://www.elektormagazine.com/news/120-kw-inductive-vehicle-charging-system-achieves-97-efficiency

      Edit: Also anyone charging on a regular 120v outlet, which is really all most people need for at home charging, is in the low 80’s. Also Wiferon has ones commercially available at 93%.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I’m curious why you are downvoted?
        When searching “wireless charging efficiency” on Google, Google offer this short explanation:

        The efficiency rate of inductive chargers usually falls between 70% and 80%, though some newer models boast efficiencies closer to 90% under optimal conditions. This is slightly lower than the 90% to 95% efficiency rate often seen in traditional wired charging.

        Not too far off from the statement above that 93% is already available, and apparently progress is being made.

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Sir/Madam

          You appear to be wearing the wrong glasses. Try these ones one

          OP: Tesla BAD! How dare Tesla!

          Me: Tesla doing this doesn’t mean it’s going to be bad!

          Hope that helps.

          (edit: and all those votes came after my edits which were very early on)

  • Bell@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    First off it looks like none of the demo items failed at the event, so that’s a nice change.

    • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Well that’s to be expected when you set extremely unambitious requirements in the first place. In practice it’ll still be a disaster one way or another because they just don’t think things through. The idea of “personal public transit” suggest they want to compete with buses but don’t meet any of the criteria of a public bus.

    • seaQueue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      The real question is how were they faked? These demos almost never use the real production technology, they’re just scripted to appear to

  • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Now he can finally automate the Vegas loop. It would be not that more difficult then this demo, with nice open tunnels, no traffic, no pedestrians. Let’s first see how this thing handles a city with busy traffic.

    20-30k for an Optimus robot. Yeah, and the cyber truck was also 10-20k more expensive than promised so doubts about that price.

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      He said eventually for the robot price. They’ve been designing it to be cheaper to build, so if they get it to the scale they’re talking (big if) then it doesn’t seem unreasonable to be that price.