Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 27 Sep '17 03:46 / 1 edit
    It seems to me the two concepts we have wrong with the next generation of cars are :-

    1) You don't put the AI in the car. It goes in the road.
    2) You don't recharge the car. You swap batteries the batteries out.

    This would point to several obvious advantages. Can somebody tell me the science behind why we have chosen to go down the route we have with next generation cars?
  2. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    27 Sep '17 09:13
    Originally posted by @christopher-albon
    It seems to me the two concepts we have wrong with the next generation of cars are :-

    1) You don't put the AI in the car. It goes in the road.
    2) You don't recharge the car. You swap batteries the batteries out.

    This would point to several obvious advantages. Can somebody tell me the science behind why we have chosen to go down the route we have with next generation cars?
    Centralized control over individual will.
  3. 28 Sep '17 00:04
    Originally posted by @freakykbh
    Centralized control over individual will.
    The future is pointing our choices in the hands of computers for the greater good of humanity.
  4. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    28 Sep '17 00:45
    Originally posted by @eladar
    The future is pointing our choices in the hands of computers for the greater good of humanity.
    Amen and amen.
    We will all be safer that way.
    And safe is good.
  5. 28 Sep '17 07:14
    Originally posted by @christopher-albon
    It seems to me the two concepts we have wrong with the next generation of cars are :-

    1) You don't put the AI in the car. It goes in the road.
    2) You don't recharge the car. You swap batteries the batteries out.

    This would point to several obvious advantages. Can somebody tell me the science behind why we have chosen to go down the route we have with next generation cars?
    "1) You don't put the AI in the car. It goes in the road."
    I don't understand this premise. Of course you can have AI as an aid in a car.

    "2) You don't recharge the car. You swap batteries the batteries out."
    I would rather have everyone responsible for its own battery. You don't swap petrol tank, you just fill it. Same should be with batteries.
  6. 30 Sep '17 10:29 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @freakykbh
    Amen and amen.
    We will all be safer that way.
    And safe is good.
    I disagree. I think we need to set the interface as far towards human as possible and only begrudgingly give way to machines. Otherwise we are destined to become the ghost in the machine.
  7. 30 Sep '17 11:26
    Originally posted by @christopher-albon
    It seems to me the two concepts we have wrong with the next generation of cars are :-

    1) You don't put the AI in the car. It goes in the road.
    2) You don't recharge the car. You swap batteries the batteries out.

    This would point to several obvious advantages. Can somebody tell me the science behind why we have chosen to go down the route we have with next generation cars?
    1) more expensive
    2) more expensive
  8. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    01 Oct '17 17:57
    Originally posted by @christopher-albon
    It seems to me the two concepts we have wrong with the next generation of cars are :-

    1) You don't put the AI in the car. It goes in the road.
    2) You don't recharge the car. You swap batteries the batteries out.

    This would point to several obvious advantages. Can somebody tell me the science behind why we have chosen to go down the route we have with next generation cars?
    # 1 may work if they want to put in the effort to have a WIFi or bluetooth kind of thing to communicate with each car but why not have both so there is a back up in case the autonomous unit in the car has a brain fart, the road AI can take over and keep it from crashing.

    #2, Don't think that will end up being needed, for instance, Solar cells in the form of the paint on the car itself being developed will allow recharging or at least extending the range of existing batteries. Also there is a kind of development fight going on between fuel cells powered by hydrogen which has some advantages such as using the existing kind of infrastructure already in place but substituting gasoline with H2 and the new engineering of Metalorganic structures holding more and more H2 will end up competing directly with Lithium technology but Lithium will not stand still either, Lion batteries continue to be developed in terms of range and weight. But other batteries may come in later too, sulphur batteries may give longer range than Lion. So if electric wins it looks to be a combination of lighter, smaller batteries capable of recharging in a few minutes supplimented by solar paint giving energy as long as the sun shines. For instance, if you have a commuter car, say you have an 80 Km one way commute, you get to work, just park in the sun and when you leave, you have topped off the battery so you almost never have to do an official recharge in the first place, the sun doing the work.

    Right now there are solar powered cars in a race across Australia and they are now reaching speeds of over 120 Km/hr, 80 miles an hour. Just on solar alone. Eventually it seems certain Peroskvite cells will perform better than silicon and be ten times cheaper and last just as long. Right now that last is the problem, the best of them right now are running maybe a thousand hours and coming down 10% but they have to do much better than that, and of course overcome the Peroskvite moisture problem which kills those cells to they have to be permentantly shielded from water and get to 30+ % efficient and there is work being done now pointing the way to even 60% cells with nanotech, different from either of those technologies.

    So it is not as cut and dried as you seem to want to make it out.
  9. Standard member apathist
    looking for loot
    01 Oct '17 18:42
    Originally posted by @fabianfnas
    "1) You don't put the AI in the car. It goes in the road."
    I don't understand this premise. Of course you can have AI as an aid in a car....
    We will see it with the interstate system first. Your vehicle turns control over to the system.
  10. 01 Oct '17 19:00
    Originally posted by @apathist
    We will see it with the interstate system first. Your vehicle turns control over to the system.
    AI can do amazing number of things:
    Park the car in a slot when too narrow for you to do it.
    Suggest faster choice of roads according to traffic situation.
    And drive the car - but not just yet.
  11. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    02 Oct '17 03:53
    Originally posted by @christopher-albon
    It seems to me the two concepts we have wrong with the next generation of cars are :-

    1) You don't put the AI in the car. It goes in the road.
    2) You don't recharge the car. You swap batteries the batteries out.

    This would point to several obvious advantages. Can somebody tell me the science behind why we have chosen to go down the route we have with next generation cars?
    If you put the AI in the road the government has to pay for it. One of the main reasons we have cars instead of public transportation is to get the populace to pay for their own transportation.
  12. Standard member apathist
    looking for loot
    02 Oct '17 17:19
    Originally posted by @athousandyoung
    ... One of the main reasons we have cars instead of public transportation is to get the populace to pay for their own transportation.
    No. The main reason for public transportation is to relieve traffic congestion, which is the opposite of what you suggest.
  13. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    03 Oct '17 06:24
    Originally posted by @apathist
    No. The main reason for public transportation is to relieve traffic congestion, which is the opposite of what you suggest.
    I meant one of the reasons we have private cars instead of public transport...
  14. 03 Oct '17 09:56 / 2 edits
    Agreed that the car needs to be semi-intelligent for the reason you state ( brain farts). Secondly we don't want to dispose of those already built. With regards to the technologies you have listed, that sounds incredibly expensive. Wouldn't it be cheaper to paint a solenoid on the car and use inductance charging from the centre Isle? Could this then be used as a braking system to feed energy back into the grid. Having a low cost, generic, swappable battery may be a good interim solution for make electric cars accessible from those on low incomes and could even be extended to bicycles and long boards. It would be great to tour the US without the need to keep waiting for recharges. Then there's the ongoing issue of interfacing several million AI's and the potential for misuse. Something we're all too familiar with here in the UK. One more thing, I believe people actually find release driving around the countrywide, so why give an AI that pleasure.
  15. 03 Oct '17 10:36 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @athousandyoung
    If you put the AI in the road the government has to pay for it. One of the main reasons we have cars instead of public transportation is to get the populace to pay for their own transportation.
    A solenoid in the centre Isle could mean that those who wish to go faster pay more as they will be returning more energy to the grid. What would happen if you then put another, opposite solenoid on the outer lane for the electric cars to receive the power generated from the fossil fuel cars on the inner lane?