No plug, no cord, no problem. Evatran, which has been working with companies such as Google, Hertz and Duke Energy to test its Plugless electric-vehicle charging system, had gotten the OK from Intertek. The testing-certification organization made Evatran's Plugless L2 the first cordless system to receive ETL certification.

The 240-volt system, which so far is compatible with the Chevy Volt extended-range plug-in and Nissan Leaf battery-electric, uses inductive power and magnetic fields to transfer an electric charge to the vehicle's on-board adapter from a garage-floor pad. Evatran and Intertek say the system has been tested for more than 16,000 hours worth of charging and didn't have a single safety-related incident. Google was an early tester, first installing a trial system in 2011.

Evatran showed off its Plugless system, which is said to charge just as quickly as those with cords, at Las Vegas's Consumer Electronics Show in January and priced it at about $3,000. The company has also worked with entities such as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the Clemson University International Center for Automotive Research and has promised it would announce more plug-in vehicles that are compatible with the system later this year. While we wait for that, take a look at Intertek and Evatran's press release below.
Show full PR text
PLUGLESS L2 System is First Wireless Electric Vehicle Charger to Receive Intertek ETL Certification

Joins a prestigious family of products to carry the Intertek certification mark

DETROIT--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Intertek, a leading provider of quality and safety solutions serving a wide range of industries around the world, today announces that the PLUGLESS L2 System manufactured by Evatran is the first wireless electric vehicle (EV) charging system to carry the prestigious ETL certification mark.

"Because advanced charging technologies are critical for the evolvement of electric vehicle refuelling and EV adoption, it is a major achievement for Intertek to certify the first wireless charging station"

The PLUGLESS L2 System is currently available for both the Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf vehicles, and uses inductive power transfer through magnetic fields to transfer energy from a transmitting coil in the system's parking pad, which lies on the garage floor. Using the system's parking guidance feature, the driver parks his vehicle above the pad, which converts this energy into an electrical current that charges the EV. The PLUGLESS System has been in use with trial partners, including Google, Hertz and Duke Energy, for more than two years and has logged over 16,000 charging hours without a single safety incident.

The system charges the EV as quickly as a plug-in Level 2 (240v) station, which is approximately three hours for the Chevrolet Volt and eight hours for the Nissan Leaf. The PLUGLESS System allows the driver to continue using all standard EV charging features such as charge timers and remote status checks, and even allows the driver to continue plugging-in where wireless charging is not available.

"Because advanced charging technologies are critical for the evolvement of electric vehicle refuelling and EV adoption, it is a major achievement for Intertek to certify the first wireless charging station," said Tim Hubbard, Sr. VP of Intertek's Transportation Technologies Business Line. "Consumers will see the ETL certification mark on the PLUGLESS L2 System and feel confident that the product has met the relevant safety standards and will perform as promised."

The PLUGLESS L2 System was tested to UL 2594, and CSA C22.2 No. 280-13 the Standard for Safety for Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment, allowing it to carry the cETLus mark for the USA and Canada.

Rebecca Hough, Evatran's CEO and Co-Founder, added, "Safety has always been the first priority for the PLUGLESS system, so we are proud to have completed the required testing to carry the ETL mark. With this safety certification, we are able to offer our customers the most innovative charging system available with the highest confidence in safety and reliability."

The history of the ETL Mark began when Thomas Edison founded the first independent electrical testing laboratory in 1896, soon after to be named Electrical Testing Laboratory (ETL), to evaluate the quality and safety of his own inventions. Today, billions of ETL Marks appear on products across North America as evidence of compliance to product safety standards, including household appliances, consumer electronics, medical devices, life safety and, among many others, security products. The ETL Mark has become the premier product safety mark for global manufacturers concerned with safety and market entry of innovative technologies, such as Evatran's PLUGLESS L2 System.

Intertek, a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) through OSHA, is one of the world's largest and fastest growing testing and certification organizations. With over a century of testing and certification expertise, and 35 years of automotive testing experience, Evatran called on Intertek and its ETL Mark to ensure the PLUGLESS L2 System meets the most rigorous safety standards.

For more information on Intertek's ETL Mark and battery/component testing services, call 1-800-WORLDLAB (967-5352) or visit the website at www.intertek.com/battery.

For more information on the PLUGLESS L2 System, visit www.PLUGLESS.com.

About Intertek

Intertek is a leading quality solutions provider to industries worldwide. From auditing and inspection, to testing, training, advisory, quality assurance and certification, Intertek adds value for its customers by helping improve the quality and safety of their products, assets and processes. With a network of more than 1,000 laboratories and offices and over 36,000 people in more than 100 countries, Intertek supports companies' success in the global marketplace, by helping customers to meet end users' expectations for safety, sustainability, performance, integrity and desirability in virtually any market worldwide. Visit www.intertek.com.

About Evatran

The PLUGLESS™ Level 2 EV Charging System, developed by Evatran™, is the first electric vehicle (EV) charging system on the market to offer customers a simple way to charge their EVs with the ease of wireless technology. The Company is currently working with Oak Ridge National Lab on a three-year DOE grant to integrate high power wireless charging technology into production electric vehicles. Evatran has signed an installation and distribution agreement with Bosch Automotive Service Solutions to support the installation of the PLUGLESS Level 2 EV Charging System nationwide and has installed over 30 trial systems with partners across the country including Google, Duke Energy, and Hertz. To learn more about PLUGLESS L2 or to reserve a wireless charging system for your own EV, visit www.PLUGLESS.com.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 66 Comments
      Joeviocoe
      • 8 Months Ago
      Yay... an answer to a question, nobody was seriously asking. How about telling us exactly how much energy would be lost compared to conductive charging? http://youtu.be/n7X4TRBazvo?t=21m30s Elon Musk talks about wireless charging. Basically, Elon and JB won't even consider wireless charging at current efficiencies of 90%. Stating, "to increase the entire energy consumption by 10%" ... is not worth the money/time/effort... just because people don't like to plug in.
        Joeviocoe
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Joeviocoe
        Tesla are also one of the few EVs that have a high enough price point that their customers would likely pay extra for such a convenience. It makes LESS sense for cheaper vehicles like the Volt and Leaf... to add so much extra cost on a vehicle when they are trying to drop the price... for such a minor thing. Also, For Tesla vehicles S, X, and E.... the engineering redesign needed for inductive charging from the floor, would likely hinder Tesla's ability to Fast swap and to place a large flat battery where they currently located. Other automakers might want to look at this... but really, they will be repeating mistakes of the past. Thinking that EVs are such an inconvenience to plug in, people are willing to pay so much more for this... while most people want cost reductions, not 3 seconds of spare time.
        DarylMc
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Joeviocoe
        The video you linked shows at least one person asking the question. Tesla's Model S has far less need for wireless charging than Volt or Leaf due to it having a decent range to start with so I don't think Elon is the person to ask. He struggled to give a straight answer is because he is smart enough to know that singling out a persons choice to use 10% more energy for a convenience device opens a whole set of arguments which could just as easily be directed at his company. I can think of a number of situations where wireless charging might be useful such as the elderly, disabled or even for people who are just damned lazy. Also for people doing many trips per day back to a home or work base.
        BipDBo
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Joeviocoe
        Not only that, but customers are going to be wary of powerful magnetic waves in their homes. People already don't like to live under power lines. People often worry about cell phones causing brain tumor, even wireless routers. Right or wrong, the fear is real. This concern of accumulated damage from electromagnetic radiation would not be addressed by saying that lab tests showed not "a single safety-related incident."
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @BipDBo
          The fear is real for some, true... but those are the same people who were afraid of EVs in the first place thinking that the large electric motor was sending dangerous EM rays through their body. I think we can (and should) ignore that particular minority of Foil Heads.
        Joeviocoe
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Joeviocoe
        Tesla are also one of the few EVs that have a high enough price point that their customers would likely pay extra for such a convenience. It makes LESS sense for cheaper vehicles like the Volt and Leaf... to add so much extra cost on a vehicle when they are trying to drop the price... for such a minor thing. Also, For Tesla vehicles S, X, and E.... the engineering redesign needed for inductive charging from the floor, would likely hinder Tesla's ability to Fast swap and to place a large flat battery where they currently located. Other automakers might want to look at this... but really, they will be repeating mistakes of the past. Thinking that EVs are such an inconvenience to plug in, people are willing to pay so much more for this... while most people want cost reductions, not 3 seconds of spare time.
      Joeviocoe
      • 8 Months Ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAY27NU1Jog Isn't that the company from "Office Space"?
      Joeviocoe
      • 8 Months Ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAY27NU1Jog Isn't that the company from "Office Space"?
      Spec
      • 8 Months Ago
      Did anyone doubt the safety of these systems?
        DarylMc
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Spec
        As an electrician I can say with a bit of confidence that wireless charging should offer increased safety to customers over having a cord. I can also say that it is unlikely that wireless can come close to the efficiency of a wired system. 10% or even 5% loss on charging an 80kwh Model S is significant so I entirely support Tesla's decision to stick with the cord. Model S range is significant and someone looking to use that multiple times per day would be better off with the high power charging which a wired connection can allow.
        Joeviocoe
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Spec
        Only the trolls... So not only do we need to endure the trolls, we need to endure the articles that answer the critiques that only trolls pose.
        Joeviocoe
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Spec
        Only the trolls... So not only do we need to endure the trolls, we need to endure the articles that answer the critiques that only trolls pose.
      Aaron
      • 8 Months Ago
      Charing has always been safe. I charred the hell out of a steak last night. Oops.
      DarylMc
      • 8 Months Ago
      Danny King Goodness I hope you guys are aware. At the moment anyone has to be thankful if their comments get posted and even if they do get through it is no guarantee that they wont randomly disappear. It's not a good thing for this site.
      Aaron
      • 8 Months Ago
      Charing has always been safe. I charred the hell out of a steak last night. Oops.
      Jeff C
      • 8 Months Ago
      Not sure I see this as being critical for the evolvement of electric vehicle refuelling and EV adoption. With 22,000 EV miles driven, I've always considered it a pleasure to plug my car in! The real evolution of electric vehicles and adoption will be when the vehicle can be charged dynamically, while driving down the road. I'd pay $3000 for that!
        Joeviocoe
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Jeff C
        You are right... it was never critical for EV adoption. It was just one of the many idle criticisms that EV detractors brought up many years ago. Basically, another, "I don't want to change any of my habits, so I will demand that EVs be made with every convenience regardless of the cost, because I won't buy one anyway."
      Jeff C
      • 8 Months Ago
      Not sure I see this as being critical for the evolvement of electric vehicle refuelling and EV adoption. With 22,000 EV miles driven, I've always considered it a pleasure to plug my car in! The real evolution of electric vehicles and adoption will be when the vehicle can be charged dynamically, while driving down the road. I'd pay $3000 for that!
      Actionable Mango
      • 8 Months Ago
      A lot of nay-sayers here. I don't see how anyone can look at the history of human invention and think that convenience won't sell. Premium car manufacturers will want it as a differentiating luxury feature. The rich will want it. The lazy will want it. People who don't want to walk over a trip hazard every time they walk around in the garage will want it. People who accidentally forget to plug in, then can't get to work in the morning will want it. People have always paid more for convenience and luxury. People absolutely will pay 10% more on their car charging. And everyone with solar on the roof won't care anyway.
        rubley00
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Actionable Mango
        You couldn't be more clueless. The people willing to buy plugin cars care about efficiency. Saying that extra 10% doesn't matter is just nonsense. If I didn't care about energy I wouldn't own a Volt, I would have bought another Lexus. You don't know anything about solar, do you? throwing away 10% is the antithesis of the attitude of someone who installs solar panels.
        DarylMc
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Actionable Mango
        I'm all for wireless charging being an option. For EV's with a small range which get to park in the same spot it just has to be an appealing feature. Especially if they are in and out of that spot many times a day. I checked out the FAQ and the whole Evatran website web site and it is quite obvious that they do not wish to advertise the efficiency. They may consider that a good business idea but I am sceptical and until proven otherwise I can only assume that the efficiency is even worse than people might imagine. Perhaps it will cost them sales but they should be up front about this. I think it is a bit criminal not to make that information readily available.
        Joeviocoe
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Actionable Mango
        Mango, that is an over-simplification of the objections. Of course convenience sells... but at what price? Is it worth so much extra money up front, 10% higher bills, and right now, likely a smaller battery pack to fit around the coils. All for a very minor bit of convenience. Bring the efficiency a bit higher, and the cost much lower, and we will revisit this. Nobody is writing this off indefinitely.
        rubley00
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Actionable Mango
        You couldn't be more clueless. The people willing to buy plugin cars care about efficiency. Saying that extra 10% doesn't matter is just nonsense. If I didn't care about energy I wouldn't own a Volt, I would have bought another Lexus. You don't know anything about solar, do you? throwing away 10% is the antithesis of the attitude of someone who installs solar panels.
          Actionable Mango
          • 8 Months Ago
          @rubley00
          I agree with you that the CURRENT people willing to buy plugin cars have the attitude you describe. I am talking about the future when EVs have wide acceptance. Not everyone is like you. There are hundreds of millions of drivers out there, and just as there are people willing to drive full-size pickup trucks for office commutes, there will be plenty of people willing to trade 10% for convenience. Also, you are not "throwing away 10%", you are paying extra per month for convenience. Look around you, people pay DEARLY for convenience. We are willing to pay $40,000 for a car, plus tax, maintenance, insurance, and licensing, so that we don't have to be inconvenienced by taking the bus. I'm not arguing that YOU will want it. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do. I'm saying there are plenty of people who want this once EVs go mainstream.
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @rubley00
          Mango, that is an over-simplification of the objections. Of course convenience sells... but at what price? Is it worth so much extra money up front, 10% higher bills, and right now, likely a smaller battery pack to fit around the coils. All for a very minor bit of convenience. Bring the efficiency a bit higher, and the cost much lower, and we will revisit this. Nobody is writing this off indefinitely. --------- But if you are talking "the future when EVs have wide acceptance."... then I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you... since the assumption of that future would also have larger batteries and cheaper wireless charging equipment.
        Letstakeawalk
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Actionable Mango
        The sort of EV buyer who values pure efficiency over convenience is the one who chooses an iMiev over a Model S P85+. 112mpge vs. 89mpge. Evidence that many EV drivers are willing to fork over a lot of cash, and lose a lot of efficiency, in the name of convenience.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          Not a straw man argument at all. I'm simply saying that I see evidence that people are willing to pay money for a product that makes their lives more convenient. Joeviocoe rightfully points out the benefits of paying more for a Tesla - but no doubt there are those who'd say that the Model S is overkill as a city car, and that the iMeiv makes a fantastic city car. I also agree that the price of inductive charging will undoubtedly drop, making the price differential inconsequential, possibly even to the point of inductive charging capability becoming standard on mass-market EVs. In the long run, and by that I mean fairly quickly in BEV development, inductive charging will become a very popular feature.
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          Yep, that is about a 20% loss. But for that loss of efficiency going from iMiev, to Model S P85+.... what do you get? Triple the range. Access to Superchargers. Much larger car with more passenger and cargo room, better interior, MUCH nicer exterior. Performance went from mediocre, to OMG beating ferraris... etc, etc, etc. So what do you get for another 10% loss with wireless charging (maybe more, they're not saying)? About an extra few seconds of time saved when you first get home. Bring the efficiency a bit higher, and the cost much lower, and we will revisit this. Nobody is writing this off indefinitely. ------------ Like I said, "Of course convenience sells... but at what price?" Is this worth the same as going half way from an iMiev to a Model S P85+ ???
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          Yep, that is about a 20% loss. But for that loss of efficiency going from iMiev, to Model S P85+.... what do you get? Triple the range. Access to Superchargers. Much larger car with more passenger and cargo room, better interior, MUCH nicer exterior. Performance went from mediocre, to OMG beating ferraris... etc, etc, etc. So what do you get for another 10% loss with wireless charging (maybe more, they're not saying)? About an extra few seconds of time saved when you first get home. Bring the efficiency a bit higher, and the cost much lower, and we will revisit this. Nobody is writing this off indefinitely. ------------ Like I said, "Of course convenience sells... but at what price?" Is this worth the same as going half way from an iMiev to a Model S P85+ ???
          archos
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          There isn't a single person alive who chooses either an iMiev or a Model S over the other based on "efficiency" alone. Ridiculous straw man argument.
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          Yep, that is about a 20% loss. But for that loss of efficiency going from iMiev, to Model S P85+.... what do you get? Triple the range. Access to Superchargers. Much larger car with more passenger and cargo room, better interior, MUCH nicer exterior. Performance went from mediocre, to OMG beating ferraris... etc, etc, etc. So what do you get for another 10% loss with wireless charging (maybe more, they're not saying)? About an extra few seconds of time saved when you first get home. Bring the efficiency a bit higher, and the cost much lower, and we will revisit this. Nobody is writing this off indefinitely. ------------ Like I said, "Of course convenience sells... but at what price?" Is this worth the same as going half way from an iMiev to a Model S P85+ ???
          Letstakeawalk
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          Not a straw man argument at all. I'm simply saying that I see evidence that people are willing to pay money for a product that makes their lives more convenient. Joeviocoe rightfully points out the benefits of paying more for a Tesla - but no doubt there are those who'd say that the Model S is overkill as a city car, and that the iMeiv makes a fantastic city car. I also agree that the price of inductive charging will undoubtedly drop, making the price differential inconsequential, possibly even to the point of inductive charging capability becoming standard on mass-market EVs. In the long run, and by that I mean fairly quickly in BEV development, inductive charging will become a very popular feature.
      Marco Polo
      • 8 Months Ago
      I'm a big fan of wireless (inductive ) charging. Not only is it safer and more convenient for the overwhelming majority of car owners, but allows a simple method of charging for a driver unused driving an EV. In car parks, or public charging facilities, these installations create less of a target for vandalism and less disputes. Inductive charging like the electric self starter, and automatic clutch, will become the method of charging by the vast majority of EV motorists. It will be one more reason to expand EV technology more quickly to the general public.
        Joeviocoe
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Marco Polo
        Safer than conductive charging? Not really. It has all the same components as conductive, minus a connector (which is very safe and simple).. and ADDS a whole bunch of components which add complexity and safety concerns of their own. It seems as though "FASTER" charging, NOT "WIRELESS" charging... is way more akin to the ' electric self starter, and automatic clutch, ' to provide greater adoption. With Wireless, there are physical limitations as to how much power can be safely transferred without significant loss. Ask yourself why the two most important specs, are always ignored in these press releases. Continuous power levels, and total efficiency. Also, vandals will have just as much fun damaging a wireless charging system as a conductive system. And now, they can add slipping aluminum foil in between the surfaces.
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Yes, flexible cords add a huge point of failure in any electrical system. But so does undue complexity. You should know that wireless charging typically has to change voltages and current levels of the AC input. And also must increase the frequency to several kHz too. Now, instead of pushing power through thick but flexible copper strands.. you are pushing that same power over much thinner copper, in much longer loops of coil, at much higher frequencies and through at least 2 additional pieces of equipment.. which may or may not be from the same manufacturer. True, there would be no plug to get damaged, so that would remove one point of failure... but adds several others. This violates every interpretation of KISS. -------------------- The lack of knowledge of "How" to vandalize is NOT and has NEVER been a barrier. If the information about "How" it is done is censored, then only the criminals will know how. But Engineers who build things... must also know how they can be broken (so they can know how to protect it)... and we must share information without trying to guilt anyone else into thinking they are advocating criminal behavior or calling people "irresponsible". After all, the "irresponsible" thing to do, would be to advocate and/or sell such devices to the general public with a false sense of security. All because you didn't want to give "vandals" any ideas? So what happens when a vandal is as clever as some random guy, and figures it out on his own? Was it better to shut up about it? Or better to pose the safety question? After all, if "threat of vandalism" is fair game for conductive charging systems... why should we not discuss possible threats to wireless systems? ------------------ Basically, the "vandalism" argument is equally relevant for both. And the "safety/durability" argument is also the same (or worse for wireless). So it really does boil down to CONVENIENCE being the ONLY tangible advantage... the rest of the arguments are just incomplete thoughts that do not consider what a commercially available wireless charging system will actually be like in the real world. And since wireless charging's only advantage is convenience and the many disadvantages such as costs, efficiency, low power, battery pack location incompatibility, and possible safety issues.... I don't think this will make it any time soon. When the costs come down and the power output goes up (or at least efficiency)... only then, this may work.
          DarylMc
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Hi Joevioce Please ignore the "irresponsible" comment I made. The comment system is giving me a bit of grief. Few things are completely vandal proof and I don't think you could seriously argue that plug in wired connections are more vandal resistant than wireless. Aside from that plugs, sockets and leads are wearing items. For plugs and sockets especially with frequent insertion and removal and high current levels. It's probably even possible to unplug some chargers under load correct? We have already seen Tesla have problems with it. They have done some good things to address it and that's great. They installed a temperature fuse to shut down an overheating plug, great. There is no reason to expect more or less likelihood of fire from Tesla's plugs or the wireless charging units. Does every EV have temp sensors in every plug and socket for the charging cable, I don't know to be honest. Leads are a separate matter because they are easily able to be damaged and expose live conductors. Care needs to be taken. Wireless charging removes plugs, sockets and handling of leads from the equation and should offer good electrical safety particularly when it comes to the risk of touching exposed live wires. Wireless charging absolutely does offer some safety, vandalism and convenience features. Other than that I agree with you:)
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Ditto on the comment system. Horrible. --"argue that plug in wired connections are more vandal resistant than wireless." Right, I never argued that. I argued against the original claim that wireless would be more resistant. My position is that neither is more or less... and should thus NOT be counted as an advantage for wireless. Which is why I wrote, "the "vandalism" argument is equally relevant for both" --"It's probably even possible to unplug some chargers under load correct?" No, this is called good engineering. "The [signaling] pins are of the first-make, last-break variety. If the plug is in the charging port of the vehicle and charging, and it is removed, the control pilot and proximity detection pins will break first so that the Power Pin relay in the charging station will be shut off and no current will flow." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAE_J1772#Safety Good engineering can also allow such a connector to last through thousands of plug/unplug cycles... enough for the life of the car, and then some. --"[Tesla] installed a temperature fuse to shut down an overheating plug, great." That is only for the mobile connector NEMA plug to the 240V outlet on the wall... NOT the SAE J1772 connector to the EV. This would not even compete with wireless charging options... because any customer who can install a floor mounted wireless charging system, could also have a hard wired EVSE that does not have a NEMA outlet plug. --"Wireless charging removes plugs, sockets and handling of leads from the equation and should offer good electrical safety particularly when it comes to the risk of touching exposed live wires." I agreed in previous comments. My argument is that the shock safety advantage gained by removal of the plug, is negated by the fire hazard risk of "extra" components both on the garage floor, and inside the EV. --"Wireless charging absolutely does offer some safety, vandalism and convenience features." I disagree. The Vandalism is on par. The safety concerns are merely "Different", not less. The "convenience" remains the sole advantage.
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Yes, flexible cords add a huge point of failure in any electrical system. But so does undue complexity. You should know that wireless charging typically has to change voltages and current levels of the AC input. And also must increase the frequency to several kHz too. Now, instead of pushing power through thick but flexible copper strands.. you are pushing that same power over much thinner copper, in much longer loops of coil, at much higher frequencies and through at least 2 additional pieces of equipment.. which may or may not be from the same manufacturer. True, there would be no plug to get damaged, so that would remove one point of failure... but adds several others. This violates every interpretation of KISS. -------------------- The lack of knowledge of "How" to vandalize is NOT and has NEVER been a barrier. If the information about "How" it is done is censored, then only the criminals will know how. But Engineers who build things... must also know how they can be broken (so they can know how to protect it)... and we must share information without trying to guilt anyone else into thinking they are advocating criminal behavior or calling people "irresponsible". After all, the "irresponsible" thing to do, would be to advocate and/or sell such devices to the general public with a false sense of security. All because you didn't want to give "vandals" any ideas? So what happens when a vandal is as clever as some random guy, and figures it out on his own? Was it better to shut up about it? Or better to pose the safety question? After all, if "threat of vandalism" is fair game for conductive charging systems... why should we not discuss possible threats to wireless systems? ------------------ Basically, the "vandalism" argument is equally relevant for both. And the "safety/durability" argument is also the same (or worse for wireless). So it really does boil down to CONVENIENCE being the ONLY tangible advantage... the rest of the arguments are just incomplete thoughts that do not consider what a commercially available wireless charging system will actually be like in the real world. And since wireless charging's only advantage is convenience and the many disadvantages such as costs, efficiency, low power, battery pack location incompatibility, and possible safety issues.... I don't think this will make it any time soon. When the costs come down and the power output goes up (or at least efficiency)... only then, this may work.
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Yes, flexible cords add a huge point of failure in any electrical system. But so does undue complexity. You should know that wireless charging typically has to change voltages and current levels of the AC input. And also must increase the frequency to several kHz too. Now, instead of pushing power through thick but flexible copper strands.. you are pushing that same power over much thinner copper, in much longer loops of coil, at much higher frequencies and through at least 2 additional pieces of equipment.. which may or may not be from the same manufacturer. True, there would be no plug to get damaged, so that would remove one point of failure... but adds several others. This violates every interpretation of KISS. -------------------- The lack of knowledge of "How" to vandalize is NOT and has NEVER been a barrier. If the information about "How" it is done is censored, then only the criminals will know how. But Engineers who build things... must also know how they can be broken (so they can know how to protect it)... and we must share information without trying to guilt anyone else into thinking they are advocating criminal behavior or calling people "irresponsible". After all, the "irresponsible" thing to do, would be to advocate and/or sell such devices to the general public with a false sense of security. All because you didn't want to give "vandals" any ideas? So what happens when a vandal is as clever as some random guy, and figures it out on his own? Was it better to shut up about it? Or better to pose the safety question? After all, if "threat of vandalism" is fair game for conductive charging systems... why should we not discuss possible threats to wireless systems? ------------------ Basically, the "vandalism" argument is equally relevant for both. And the "safety/durability" argument is also the same (or worse for wireless). So it really does boil down to CONVENIENCE being the ONLY tangible advantage... the rest of the arguments are just incomplete thoughts that do not consider what a commercially available wireless charging system will actually be like in the real world. And since wireless charging's only advantage is convenience and the many disadvantages such as costs, efficiency, low power, battery pack location incompatibility, and possible safety issues.... I don't think this will make it any time soon. When the costs come down and the power output goes up (or at least efficiency)... only then, this may work.
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Yes, flexible cords add a huge point of failure in any electrical system. But so does undue complexity. You should know that wireless charging typically has to change voltages and current levels of the AC input. And also must increase the frequency to several kHz too. Now, instead of pushing power through thick but flexible copper strands.. you are pushing that same power over much thinner copper, in much longer loops of coil, at much higher frequencies and through at least 2 additional pieces of equipment.. which may or may not be from the same manufacturer. True, there would be no plug to get damaged, so that would remove one point of failure... but adds several others. This violates every interpretation of KISS. -------------------- The lack of knowledge of "How" to vandalize is NOT and has NEVER been a barrier. If the information about "How" it is done is censored, then only the criminals will know how. But Engineers who build things... must also know how they can be broken (so they can know how to protect it)... and we must share information without trying to guilt anyone else into thinking they are advocating criminal behavior or calling people "irresponsible". After all, the "irresponsible" thing to do, would be to advocate and/or sell such devices to the general public with a false sense of security. All because you didn't want to give "vandals" any ideas? So what happens when a vandal is as clever as some random guy, and figures it out on his own? Was it better to shut up about it? Or better to pose the safety question? After all, if "threat of vandalism" is fair game for conductive charging systems... why should we not discuss possible threats to wireless systems? ------------------ Basically, the "vandalism" argument is equally relevant for both. And the "safety/durability" argument is also the same (or worse for wireless). So it really does boil down to CONVENIENCE being the ONLY tangible advantage... the rest of the arguments are just incomplete thoughts that do not consider what a commercially available wireless charging system will actually be like in the real world. And since wireless charging's only advantage is convenience and the many disadvantages such as costs, efficiency, low power, battery pack location incompatibility, and possible safety issues.... I don't think this will make it any time soon. When the costs come down and the power output goes up (or at least efficiency)... only then, this may work.
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Caveats: --"In car parks, or public charging facilities, these installations create less of a target for vandalism and less disputes." Vandalism was address already. That was a no. Less disputes at public charging spots might be an advantage... but that invites a whole new disadvantage.... it requires standardization of wireless charging systems and locations in the EV. We already have a standards war with DC Fast charging... let's enjoy the Level 2 AC standard J1772 for a while before we attempt to tell automakers, not only what type of coils to use... but where they can and cannot put their battery. If inductive charging were the wave of the future because of their superior safety... I would think the old Paddle chargers would have been popular still, instead of a dead standard. --"flexible cord is considered a greater risk for electric shock than fixed wiring" True, although probability of fire is a MUCH bigger hazard than electrical shock. And with extra components handling high power levels, both in the car (pre charger), and on the garage floor (where it could be run over)... this threat makes wireless a bit worse for safety compared to simple conductive plugs.
          DarylMc
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          RE disconnecting under load I assumed this would not be possible with the plug on the vehicle. But it is definitely possible with the mobile charger if it is plugged into an outlet. That would quickly damage a plug and socket if someone was unaware enough to try. Sorry I was thinking of a mobile charger in my previous post and yes that is not comparable. OK I'm going to throw trip hazard out there now. You know it's true:) Bugger just realised someone might walk over that thing on the floor.
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Ditto on the comment system. Horrible. --"argue that plug in wired connections are more vandal resistant than wireless." Right, I never argued that. I argued against the original claim that wireless would be more resistant. My position is that neither is more or less... and should thus NOT be counted as an advantage for wireless. Which is why I wrote, "the "vandalism" argument is equally relevant for both" --"It's probably even possible to unplug some chargers under load correct?" No, this is called good engineering. "The [signaling] pins are of the first-make, last-break variety. If the plug is in the charging port of the vehicle and charging, and it is removed, the control pilot and proximity detection pins will break first so that the Power Pin relay in the charging station will be shut off and no current will flow." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAE_J1772#Safety Good engineering can also allow such a connector to last through thousands of plug/unplug cycles... enough for the life of the car, and then some. --"[Tesla] installed a temperature fuse to shut down an overheating plug, great." That is only for the mobile connector NEMA plug to the 240V outlet on the wall... NOT the SAE J1772 connector to the EV. This would not even compete with wireless charging options... because any customer who can install a floor mounted wireless charging system, could also have a hard wired EVSE that does not have a NEMA outlet plug. --"Wireless charging removes plugs, sockets and handling of leads from the equation and should offer good electrical safety particularly when it comes to the risk of touching exposed live wires." I agreed in previous comments. My argument is that the shock safety advantage gained by removal of the plug, is negated by the fire hazard risk of "extra" components both on the garage floor, and inside the EV. --"Wireless charging absolutely does offer some safety, vandalism and convenience features." I disagree. The Vandalism is on par. The safety concerns are merely "Different", not less. The "convenience" remains the sole advantage.
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Yes, flexible cords add a huge point of failure in any electrical system. But so does undue complexity. You should know that wireless charging typically has to change voltages and current levels of the AC input. And also must increase the frequency to several kHz too. Now, instead of pushing power through thick but flexible copper strands.. you are pushing that same power over much thinner copper, in much longer loops of coil, at much higher frequencies and through at least 2 additional pieces of equipment.. which may or may not be from the same manufacturer. True, there would be no plug to get damaged, so that would remove one point of failure... but adds several others. This violates every interpretation of KISS. -------------------- The lack of knowledge of "How" to vandalize is NOT and has NEVER been a barrier. If the information about "How" it is done is censored, then only the criminals will know how. But Engineers who build things... must also know how they can be broken (so they can know how to protect it)... and we must share information without trying to guilt anyone else into thinking they are advocating criminal behavior or calling people "irresponsible". After all, the "irresponsible" thing to do, would be to advocate and/or sell such devices to the general public with a false sense of security. All because you didn't want to give "vandals" any ideas? So what happens when a vandal is as clever as some random guy, and figures it out on his own? Was it better to shut up about it? Or better to pose the safety question? After all, if "threat of vandalism" is fair game for conductive charging systems... why should we not discuss possible threats to wireless systems? ------------------ Basically, the "vandalism" argument is equally relevant for both. And the "safety/durability" argument is also the same (or worse for wireless). So it really does boil down to CONVENIENCE being the ONLY tangible advantage... the rest of the arguments are just incomplete thoughts that do not consider what a commercially available wireless charging system will actually be like in the real world. And since wireless charging's only advantage is convenience and the many disadvantages such as costs, efficiency, low power, battery pack location incompatibility, and possible safety issues.... I don't think this will make it any time soon. When the costs come down and the power output goes up (or at least efficiency)... only then, this may work.
          DarylMc
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Hi Joeviocoe No one is suggesting that wireless charging is more electrically efficient than wired. Or that it can match the high power which wired connections can do. In the electrical industry anything connected to a flexible cord is considered a greater risk for electric shock than fixed wiring. High current plugs and flexible cords fail every day in industry due to poor design selection, environmental conditions, physical damage, wear and misuse. That doesn't mean that they cant be used safely or shouldn't be used but some care does need to be taken just like many things in our modern world. You mentioning ideas how to vandalise a wireless charging system is irresponsible and I am sure you would see that if someone started listing ways to vandalise a wired charging system.
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Yes, flexible cords add a huge point of failure in any electrical system. But so does undue complexity. You should know that wireless charging typically has to change voltages and current levels of the AC input. And also must increase the frequency to several kHz too. Now, instead of pushing power through thick but flexible copper strands.. you are pushing that same power over much thinner copper, in much longer loops of coil, at much higher frequencies and through at least 2 additional pieces of equipment.. which may or may not be from the same manufacturer. True, there would be no plug to get damaged, so that would remove one point of failure... but adds several others. This violates every interpretation of KISS. -------------------- The lack of knowledge of "How" to vandalize is NOT and has NEVER been a barrier. If the information about "How" it is done is censored, then only the criminals will know how. But Engineers who build things... must also know how they can be broken (so they can know how to protect it)... and we must share information without trying to guilt anyone else into thinking they are advocating criminal behavior or calling people "irresponsible". After all, the "irresponsible" thing to do, would be to advocate and/or sell such devices to the general public with a false sense of security. All because you didn't want to give "vandals" any ideas? So what happens when a vandal is as clever as some random guy, and figures it out on his own? Was it better to shut up about it? Or better to pose the safety question? After all, if "threat of vandalism" is fair game for conductive charging systems... why should we not discuss possible threats to wireless systems? ------------------ Basically, the "vandalism" argument is equally relevant for both. And the "safety/durability" argument is also the same (or worse for wireless). So it really does boil down to CONVENIENCE being the ONLY tangible advantage... the rest of the arguments are just incomplete thoughts that do not consider what a commercially available wireless charging system will actually be like in the real world. And since wireless charging's only advantage is convenience and the many disadvantages such as costs, efficiency, low power, battery pack location incompatibility, and possible safety issues.... I don't think this will make it any time soon. When the costs come down and the power output goes up (or at least efficiency)... only then, this may work.
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Yes, flexible cords add a huge point of failure in any electrical system. But so does undue complexity. You should know that wireless charging typically has to change voltages and current levels of the AC input. And also must increase the frequency to several kHz too. Now, instead of pushing power through thick but flexible copper strands.. you are pushing that same power over much thinner copper, in much longer loops of coil, at much higher frequencies and through at least 2 additional pieces of equipment.. which may or may not be from the same manufacturer. True, there would be no plug to get damaged, so that would remove one point of failure... but adds several others. This violates every interpretation of KISS. -------------------- The lack of knowledge of "How" to vandalize is NOT and has NEVER been a barrier. If the information about "How" it is done is censored, then only the criminals will know how. But Engineers who build things... must also know how they can be broken (so they can know how to protect it)... and we must share information without trying to guilt anyone else into thinking they are advocating criminal behavior or calling people "irresponsible". After all, the "irresponsible" thing to do, would be to advocate and/or sell such devices to the general public with a false sense of security. All because you didn't want to give "vandals" any ideas? So what happens when a vandal is as clever as some random guy, and figures it out on his own? Was it better to shut up about it? Or better to pose the safety question? After all, if "threat of vandalism" is fair game for conductive charging systems... why should we not discuss possible threats to wireless systems? ------------------ Basically, the "vandalism" argument is equally relevant for both. And the "safety/durability" argument is also the same (or worse for wireless). So it really does boil down to CONVENIENCE being the ONLY tangible advantage... the rest of the arguments are just incomplete thoughts that do not consider what a commercially available wireless charging system will actually be like in the real world. And since wireless charging's only advantage is convenience and the many disadvantages such as costs, efficiency, low power, battery pack location incompatibility, and possible safety issues.... I don't think this will make it any time soon. When the costs come down and the power output goes up (or at least efficiency)... only then, this may work.
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Ditto on the comment system. Horrible. --"argue that plug in wired connections are more vandal resistant than wireless." Right, I never argued that. I argued against the original claim that wireless would be more resistant. My position is that neither is more or less... and should thus NOT be counted as an advantage for wireless. Which is why I wrote, "the "vandalism" argument is equally relevant for both" --"It's probably even possible to unplug some chargers under load correct?" No, this is called good engineering. "The [signaling] pins are of the first-make, last-break variety. If the plug is in the charging port of the vehicle and charging, and it is removed, the control pilot and proximity detection pins will break first so that the Power Pin relay in the charging station will be shut off and no current will flow." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAE_J1772#Safety Good engineering can also allow such a connector to last through thousands of plug/unplug cycles... enough for the life of the car, and then some. --"[Tesla] installed a temperature fuse to shut down an overheating plug, great." That is only for the mobile connector NEMA plug to the 240V outlet on the wall... NOT the SAE J1772 connector to the EV. This would not even compete with wireless charging options... because any customer who can install a floor mounted wireless charging system, could also have a hard wired EVSE that does not have a NEMA outlet plug. --"Wireless charging removes plugs, sockets and handling of leads from the equation and should offer good electrical safety particularly when it comes to the risk of touching exposed live wires." I agreed in previous comments. My argument is that the shock safety advantage gained by removal of the plug, is negated by the fire hazard risk of "extra" components both on the garage floor, and inside the EV. --"Wireless charging absolutely does offer some safety, vandalism and convenience features." I disagree. The Vandalism is on par. The safety concerns are merely "Different", not less. The "convenience" remains the sole advantage.
          DarylMc
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Hi Joevioco I looked at the link, thanks. Was talking about the NEMA plug in the last post but it's OK thanks.
          DarylMc
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Hi Joevioce The comment system is giving me a bit of grief. Please ignore the "irresponsible" comment I made. Few things are completely vandal proof and I don't think you could seriously argue that plug in wired connections are more vandal resistant than wireless. Aside from that plugs, sockets and leads are wearing items. For plugs and sockets especially with frequent insertion and removal and high current levels. It's probably even possible to unplug some chargers under load correct? We have already seen Tesla have problems with it. They have done some good things to address it and that's great. They installed a temperature fuse to shut down an overheating plug, great. There is no reason to expect more or less likelihood of fire from Tesla's plugs or the wireless charging units. Does every EV have temp sensors in every plug and socket for the charging cable, I don't know to be honest. Leads are a separate matter because they are easily able to be damaged and expose live conductors. Care needs to be taken. Wireless charging removes plugs, sockets and handling of leads from the equation and should offer good electrical safety particularly when it comes to the risk of touching exposed live wires. Wireless charging absolutely does offer some safety, vandalism and convenience features. Other than that I agree with you:)
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          --"RE disconnecting under load... I assumed this would not be possible with the plug on the vehicle." No... Read the Link. It is about the J1772 plug that connects the EVSE to the Vehicle. So not only "possible" but IS EXACTLY how it already works. No real danger to the user, the signal command is disconnected first, and within fractions of a second, the relay cuts the main power to the charge, so by the time the user can pull the plug out all the way, there is no main power. Even the Mobile chargers still follow J1772 standard connectors... and the EVSE would disconnect power, regardless if the portable EVSE is connected to the House panel via hard wire or NEMA outlet. ---------------- --"OK I'm going to throw trip hazard out there now. You know it's true:)" Well, let's think this through. If a customer has the ability to install a wireless charger system that sits on the garage floor for the car to roll over... their MUST already be cables that either lie on the ground or are buried in the garage floor. Either way, that cable must be protected not only from tripping over, but hardened to be rolled over. So would it not be cheaper, easier to run cables inside the same protected conduit as would be afforded for a wireless charger?? Furthermore, their are even MORE options for the conductive charger location. Wireless MUST run cables to the center of the garage to an exact position for every car sold with that system. While conductive charging customers have the option of buying a cheap Floor Cable Cover and pedestal for the plug... or even a ceiling/wall mounted retractable spool (like air compressors). More flexibility for conductive charging. Bottom line. Anything but "convenience", when trying to find advantages for wireless charging, is a stretch.
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Yes, flexible cords add a huge point of failure in any electrical system. But so does undue complexity. You should know that wireless charging typically has to change voltages and current levels of the AC input. And also must increase the frequency to several kHz too. Now, instead of pushing power through thick but flexible copper strands.. you are pushing that same power over much thinner copper, in much longer loops of coil, at much higher frequencies and through at least 2 additional pieces of equipment.. which may or may not be from the same manufacturer. True, there would be no plug to get damaged, so that would remove one point of failure... but adds several others. This violates every interpretation of KISS. -------------------- The lack of knowledge of "How" to vandalize is NOT and has NEVER been a barrier. If the information about "How" it is done is censored, then only the criminals will know how. But Engineers who build things... must also know how they can be broken (so they can know how to protect it)... and we must share information without trying to guilt anyone else into thinking they are advocating criminal behavior or calling people "irresponsible". After all, the "irresponsible" thing to do, would be to advocate and/or sell such devices to the general public with a false sense of security. All because you didn't want to give "vandals" any ideas? So what happens when a vandal is as clever as some random guy, and figures it out on his own? Was it better to shut up about it? Or better to pose the safety question? After all, if "threat of vandalism" is fair game for conductive charging systems... why should we not discuss possible threats to wireless systems? ------------------ Basically, the "vandalism" argument is equally relevant for both. And the "safety/durability" argument is also the same (or worse for wireless). So it really does boil down to CONVENIENCE being the ONLY tangible advantage... the rest of the arguments are just incomplete thoughts that do not consider what a commercially available wireless charging system will actually be like in the real world. And since wireless charging's only advantage is convenience and the many disadvantages such as costs, efficiency, low power, battery pack location incompatibility, and possible safety issues.... I don't think this will make it any time soon. When the costs come down and the power output goes up (or at least efficiency)... only then, this may work.
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Ditto on the comment system. Horrible. --"argue that plug in wired connections are more vandal resistant than wireless." Right, I never argued that. I argued against the original claim that wireless would be more resistant. My position is that neither is more or less... and should thus NOT be counted as an advantage for wireless. Which is why I wrote, "the "vandalism" argument is equally relevant for both" --"It's probably even possible to unplug some chargers under load correct?" No, this is called good engineering. "The [signaling] pins are of the first-make, last-break variety. If the plug is in the charging port of the vehicle and charging, and it is removed, the control pilot and proximity detection pins will break first so that the Power Pin relay in the charging station will be shut off and no current will flow." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAE_J1772#Safety Good engineering can also allow such a connector to last through thousands of plug/unplug cycles... enough for the life of the car, and then some. --"[Tesla] installed a temperature fuse to shut down an overheating plug, great." That is only for the mobile connector NEMA plug to the 240V outlet on the wall... NOT the SAE J1772 connector to the EV. This would not even compete with wireless charging options... because any customer who can install a floor mounted wireless charging system, could also have a hard wired EVSE that does not have a NEMA outlet plug. --"Wireless charging removes plugs, sockets and handling of leads from the equation and should offer good electrical safety particularly when it comes to the risk of touching exposed live wires." I agreed in previous comments. My argument is that the shock safety advantage gained by removal of the plug, is negated by the fire hazard risk of "extra" components both on the garage floor, and inside the EV. --"Wireless charging absolutely does offer some safety, vandalism and convenience features." I disagree. The Vandalism is on par. The safety concerns are merely "Different", not less. The "convenience" remains the sole advantage.
          DarylMc
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Hi Joeviocoe No one is suggesting that wireless charging is more electrically efficient than wired. Or that it can match the high power which wired connections can do. In the electrical industry anything connected to a flexible cord is considered a greater risk for electric shock than fixed wiring. High current plugs and flexible cords fail every day in industry due to poor design selection, environmental conditions, physical damage, wear and misuse. That doesn't mean that they cant be used safely or shouldn't be used but some care does need to be taken just like many things in our modern world. You mentioning ideas how to vandalise a wireless charging system is irresponsible and I am sure you would see that if someone started listing ways to vandalise a wired charging system.
        Joeviocoe
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Marco Polo
        Safer than conductive charging? Not really. It has all the same components as conductive, minus a connector (which is very safe and simple).. and ADDS a whole bunch of components which add complexity and safety concerns of their own. It seems as though "FASTER" charging, NOT "WIRELESS" charging... is way more akin to the ' electric self starter, and automatic clutch, ' to provide greater adoption. With Wireless, there are physical limitations as to how much power can be safely transferred without significant loss. Ask yourself why the two most important specs, are always ignored in these press releases. Continuous power levels, and total efficiency. Also, vandals will have just as much fun damaging a wireless charging system as a conductive system. And now, they can add slipping aluminum foil in between the surfaces.
      2 wheeled menace
      • 8 Months Ago
      What happens when kitty cat checks it out?
        Joeviocoe
        • 8 Months Ago
        @2 wheeled menace
        https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/1621156096/h9018D059/
        Joeviocoe
        • 8 Months Ago
        @2 wheeled menace
        Daryl... your example sounds as if you are talking about stray cats that sleep in warm engine bays being harmed. 2WM is talking about house pet getting curious not looking for a place to warm up on a cold night. So the incidents of owners running over their own cats when starting the car in their garages... is frankly very low.... and he poses a valid question. Seriously, I would think that the gap will likely be just a few inches at most (just enough to handle minor up/down motion of a vehicle pulling in/out at low speed and passenger ingress/egress). So there might be plenty of low EMF areas around the plates that kitty will be able to walk through, without wanting/needing to try and squeeze between the plates where the field is likely dangerous.
        DarylMc
        • 8 Months Ago
        @2 wheeled menace
        Hi 2 wheeled menace It's probably a good question. I'd say the chance of a cat coming into close range would be fairly high. Especially if it is a bit warm next to the inductive plate. What would happen? Mind you there are many cats run over by motor cars and it's not unheard of to find a cat stuck in the engine bay. Still not enough for me to give up the motor vehicle. http://mypolice.qld.gov.au/southbrisbane/2013/04/29/rin-the-stowaway-cat-travels-under-bonnet-of-car-from-gold-coast-to-brisbane/
        Actionable Mango
        • 8 Months Ago
        @2 wheeled menace
        I imagine nothing, because it will be off unless it detects the car via whatever method it uses for activation. I *suppose* it's possible that the mfr would design it to be constantly running, but that would stupid.
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Actionable Mango
          While charging, if kitty is curious about this warm, buzzy thing.. and squeezes in between. That was the concern, not about when the car is not gone.
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Actionable Mango
          While charging, if kitty is curious about this warm, buzzy thing.. and squeezes in between. That was the concern, not about when the car is not gone.
        Joeviocoe
        • 8 Months Ago
        @2 wheeled menace
        Daryl... your example sounds as if you are talking about stray cats that sleep in warm engine bays being harmed. 2WM is talking about house pet getting curious not looking for a place to warm up on a cold night. So the incidents of owners running over their own cats when starting the car in their garages... is frankly very low.... and he poses a valid question. Seriously, I would think that the gap will likely be just a few inches at most (just enough to handle minor up/down motion of a vehicle pulling in/out at low speed and passenger ingress/egress). So there might be plenty of low EMF areas around the plates that kitty will be able to walk through, without wanting/needing to try and squeeze between the plates where the field is likely dangerous.
        Joeviocoe
        • 8 Months Ago
        @2 wheeled menace
        https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/1621156096/h9018D059/
        Joeviocoe
        • 8 Months Ago
        @2 wheeled menace
        Daryl... your example sounds as if you are talking about stray cats that sleep in warm engine bays being harmed. 2WM is talking about house pet getting curious not looking for a place to warm up on a cold night. So the incidents of owners running over their own cats when starting the car in their garages... is frankly very low.... and he poses a valid question. Seriously, I would think that the gap will likely be just a few inches at most (just enough to handle minor up/down motion of a vehicle pulling in/out at low speed and passenger ingress/egress). So there might be plenty of low EMF areas around the plates that kitty will be able to walk through, without wanting/needing to try and squeeze between the plates where the field is likely dangerous.
          DarylMc
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Hi Joevioco pluglesspower.com say 4 inches nominal gap. That would be enough for a cat to be in very close proximity. It's going to happen that a cat will be there one day and that is why I repeated 2WM's question "what would happen"
    • Load More Comments