Hybrid vehicles question

[unbeliever]

Indeed it can, and this one can't be left to chance.

 

The industry can work it out, with a bit of persuasion from government.

 

They simply need to tell them that if they aren't standardised within 5 years then the government will standardize them (badly). That should cause them to work together, and the consumer wins.

In the free market, the businesses compete to win, none of them compete so that the consumer wins.

 

But they compete to win primarily by attracting customers.

What if the state imposes (or forces the industry to impose) a standard which inadvertently excludes a new development. Say somebody produces a battery which can charge 10x faster and therefore requires 10x more current and thereby fatter charging cables?

We certainly could do with getting the charge time down in this technology if it is to compete with hydrocarbons.

[Obelix]

Anyway - back to hybrid cars.

 

There are existing standards for home and fast charging already in use.

 

For rapid charging there are three types of charger connection that are in use. It's entirely possible to get to a charger location and find that there is no lead for you to charge with.

 

Sounds rather like a barrier to adoption to me.

 

There needs to be a different charger connection depending on the volts and amps that are delivered. But there should only need to be one distinct connector for each power level.

 

Arguably there are four standards.

 

1. domestic electric - Govt mandated and uniform across a Govt... or indeed for the EU across a wide range of countries apart from the UK

 

2. Fast charging - uses IEC connections.

 

3. Rapid charging. Competeing standards from the USA, UK/EU and Japan. Ooops. This is the one where you need to be sure of getting a connection - and where you are least likely to find it.

 

4. Whuizzo quick melt the battery charging. The only connection is Tesla propriety. But since only they use it - doesn't really matter. Yet. This needs to be looked at to ensure that Tesla will let other users access the connection specification, even if they cannot access the chargers yet.

[unbeliever]

Anyway - back to hybrid cars.

 

There are existing standards for home and fast charging already in use.

 

For rapid charging there are three types of charger connection that are in use. It's entirely possible to get to a charger location and find that there is no lead for you to charge with.

 

Sounds rather like a barrier to adoption to me.

 

There needs to be a different charger connection depending on the volts and amps that are delivered. But there should only need to be one distinct connector for each power level.

 

Arguably there are four standards.

 

1. domestic electric - Govt mandated and uniform across a Govt... or indeed for the EU across a wide range of countries apart from the UK

 

2. Fast charging - uses IEC connections.

 

3. Rapid charging. Competeing standards from the USA, UK/EU and Japan. Ooops. This is the one where you need to be sure of getting a connection - and where you are least likely to find it.

 

4. Whuizzo quick melt the battery charging. The only connection is Tesla propriety. But since only they use it - doesn't really matter. Yet. This needs to be looked at to ensure that Tesla will let other users access the connection specification, even if they cannot access the chargers yet.

 

Tesla have been pretty good about sharing so far. They also make the best batteries by far. If the state insist on involving themselves, their best bet is to do whatever Tesla tell them. But then that's anti-competitive.

[Cyclone]

As with the example of Nikon/Canon, the consumer can easily lose out.

 

Having a standard imposed doesn't mean that it can never change.

Nor does it mean that manufacturers can't include a 2nd proprietary port. So if a breakthrough like that happened, then it would be commercialised and then become the standard of the future.

 

---------- Post added 29-11-2016 at 14:08 ----------

 

Tesla have been pretty good about sharing so far. They also make the best batteries by far. If the state insist on involving themselves, their best bet is to do whatever Tesla tell them. But then that's anti-competitive.

 

That's all good until they decide one day to enforce their patents and charge licensing fee's...

[unbeliever]

As with the example of Nikon/Canon, the consumer can easily lose out.

 

Having a standard imposed doesn't mean that it can never change.

Nor does it mean that manufacturers can't include a 2nd proprietary port. So if a breakthrough like that happened, then it would be commercialised and then become the standard of the future.

 

So a group of manufacturers will get together and agree a standard and then attract customers by making the interchangeability a selling point. The problem in the DSLR market is a lack of competition.

 

Would you standardise CPU sockets on motherboards?

[Obelix]

I'd debate the point about Tesla batteries being best but perhaps that's for a different thread.

 

What are we to do about the current rapid charge - not the fast tesla charge that we don't need yet. We have a plethora of multiple choices.

 

Which manufacturer will blink first?

 

None. So we need the Govt to step in and require a reasonable technical standard - which after all does exist. If it's a subset of the Tesla connector, then so much the better.

 

---------- Post added 29-11-2016 at 14:10 ----------

 

So a group of manufacturers will get together and agree a standard and then attract customers by making the interchangeability a selling point. The problem in the DSLR market is a lack of competition.

 

Would you standardise CPU sockets on motherboards?

 

Nikon Canon Pentak Fuji Hassleblad Leica....

 

sure theres a lack of competition.... :hihi::hihi:

[Cyclone]

So a group of manufacturers will get together and agree a standard and then attract customers by making the interchangeability a selling point. The problem in the DSLR market is a lack of competition.

 

Would you standardise CPU sockets on motherboards?

 

You don't think there's a fundamental difference between a connector that is used multiple times on an intermittent basis, and one that is used permanently and in most cases just once?

 

You're having to work really hard to think up some terrible examples here.

 

Now I'm just going to top up my PC with some new magic fairies that are injected through the CPU port, I hope the cable from the magic fairy station fits.

[unbeliever]

You don't think there's a fundamental difference between a connector that is used multiple times on an intermittent basis, and one that is used permanently and in most cases just once?

 

You're having to work really hard to think up some terrible examples here.

 

Now I'm just going to top up my PC with some new magic fairies that are injected through the CPU port, I hope the cable from the magic fairy station fits.

 

 

Well I don't see the difference. With DSLR if you want to get a different base you have to buy a new lens. With PCs if you want a different CPU you have to get a new motherboard (plus probably RAM and maybe others).

Why not standardise the CPU socket?

Oh and by the way: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fotodiox-Mount-Adapter-Nikkor-Camera/dp/B001G4QXLE

Seems that the whole Canon vs Nikon lens issue is not nearly as much of a thing as you suggest.

 

I really think that this will settle down if you give it a chance. If it doesn't then the government could intervene in a minor way such as requiring manufacturers' charging standards to be open enough for third party universal charging stations to enter the market.

Edited November 29, 2016 by unbeliever

[Cyclone]

You don't see the difference between something you expect to connect periodically at lots of different locations to fill up somehow, and something that is used once to permanently form a connection and in most cases never touched again. Really. Because I know you're a smart person, so that strikes me as you being disingenuous.

A comparison to the CPU socket might be the way the wheel attaches to the hub. 4/5 nuts, spacing, alignment, etc...

Sure I can't take the wheel of my Golf and fit it to my Jag, but that's not a problem, whereas if the petrol nozzle requirements (or electric nozzle if they were electric) were different it would be.

 

Generally with such adapters from what I understand it will mean that none of the electronics work. I'm not a photographer, but I think as well as physically different mounts, they make incompatible electronics.

[unbeliever]

You don't see the difference between something you expect to connect periodically at lots of different locations to fill up somehow, and something that is used once to permanently form a connection and in most cases never touched again. Really. Because I know you're a smart person, so that strikes me as you being disingenuous.

A comparison to the CPU socket might be the way the wheel attaches to the hub. 4/5 nuts, spacing, alignment, etc...

Sure I can't take the wheel of my Golf and fit it to my Jag, but that's not a problem, whereas if the petrol nozzle requirements (or electric nozzle if they were electric) were different it would be.

 

Generally with such adapters from what I understand it will mean that none of the electronics work. I'm not a photographer, but I think as well as physically different mounts, they make incompatible electronics.

 

The comparison of the CPU socket is made to the camera lenses and base, not to the fuel nozzle.

You talk like charging a battery is equivalent to filling a tank with liquid. It isn't. I'm worried about jumping the gun in an industry in the process of rapid development and thereby holding it back. Government can't set the proper standard until the rate of development slows. This is rather obvious. Once the rate of development slows, the market may well set a standard so government need do nothing.

 

You could pick a standard voltage right now, and assume that it'll be DC. As DC-DC converters are easy enough to fit in the cars, that would probably be harmless; although if the ultimate current is high the conversion electronics might end up being of non-negligible weight and cost. In order to work out what the standard cable should be, you need to know the standard current you're going to use. Otherwise you don't know the maximum cable resistance which is acceptable or how much insulation you need.

In order to know the current you have to guess the ultimate charging time and battery capacity.

Do you have any idea what these numbers are, because I haven't and neither I suspect do the industry leaders or anybody in government.

 

In Li-ION batteries you are not theoretically limited by how fast you can charge the battery pack, but by how fast you can charge each cell of each battery in the pack. If you fully parallelise the charging (assuming you can get the waste heat out of the pack fast enough for this) then the charging current will depend on how many batteries in the pack and how many cells in each battery. It will also depend on the trade-off chosen by the manufacturer and/or customer between charge time and battery wear as the faster you charge, the more life you take out of the batteries.

Now there are a couple more battery technologies on the horizon. Li-Air has a lot of potential and various Sodium based batteries are out there (in labs or on drawing-boards). If you're using Sodium, all the numbers will change. If you're using Li-Air then I'm not sure how it will work as it might be better to swap out the oxidised Lithium rather than charging the batteries.

 

Or it might be that it turns out that the best way is to standardise the battery packs and make them swap-able. In which case the whole question of standardising fast chargers will be moot as they won't exist.

We need to wait.

Edited November 29, 2016 by unbeliever