The "hype" about what?
When you make a post in response to another post, but don't quote the post(s) you are responding to, it can be difficult to understand what you are referring to.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Glass
- Thread starter Mo City
- Start date
-
- Tags
- hud Tesla Inc.
When you make a post in response to another post, but don't quote the post(s) you are responding to, it can be difficult to understand what you are referring to.
Whitmarsh
Member
Before all the talk about HUD goes too far, please can we establish that HUD stands for head-up display - one single head, looking up. More than one doesn't make sense.
TaoJones
Beyond Driven
Note that Japanese interests will move forward with side cameras and, ostensibly, with SHUD (tm me) - side heads up display.
Gets interesting in space when the window is rolled down. Maybe that triggers a split screen - take the rear camera display and use 20% left and right panels for the side views if/when the mirrors are rolled down.
I am reminded of a private shower suite (glorified bathroom) in a Petro travel plaza (truck stop). Therein was DirecTV in all its glory embedded in the mirror behind the sink.
Rudimentary technology by comparison to be sure, and to call that Google Glass without the headgear is a stretch, but maybe instead of controlling the tint of the glass, Tesla wants to control the content that passes *through* a piece of glass. In real time and in HD, of course.
A better analogy might be the viewing of 3D imaging without glasses. Already a solved problem with small screens.
Anyway, SHUD is around the proverbial corner. Subject to the usual regulatory hurdles of course. After all, that Model X prototype from 2014 that used to be at Hawthorne had camera stalks in lieu of side mirrors...
Just another thing that probably won't be retrofittable. I've never been one to consider a new or even newish car every 2-3 years, but Tesla sure does make a compelling case during these early stages.
Gets interesting in space when the window is rolled down. Maybe that triggers a split screen - take the rear camera display and use 20% left and right panels for the side views if/when the mirrors are rolled down.
I am reminded of a private shower suite (glorified bathroom) in a Petro travel plaza (truck stop). Therein was DirecTV in all its glory embedded in the mirror behind the sink.
Rudimentary technology by comparison to be sure, and to call that Google Glass without the headgear is a stretch, but maybe instead of controlling the tint of the glass, Tesla wants to control the content that passes *through* a piece of glass. In real time and in HD, of course.
A better analogy might be the viewing of 3D imaging without glasses. Already a solved problem with small screens.
Anyway, SHUD is around the proverbial corner. Subject to the usual regulatory hurdles of course. After all, that Model X prototype from 2014 that used to be at Hawthorne had camera stalks in lieu of side mirrors...
Just another thing that probably won't be retrofittable. I've never been one to consider a new or even newish car every 2-3 years, but Tesla sure does make a compelling case during these early stages.
Xminus6
Member
Yeah, we have these at a restaurant here in San Fran. They deliver their food through small cubbies and each of them has a transparent display on it. Pretty interesting stuff but I wouldn't want it on a windshield. The screen itself is darkened even when it's transparent and the images are very opaque when displayed. I would find a windshield like that really irritating.
Fred Thompson
Member
Tesla may be working on sandwiching highly efficient transparent solar cells in glass. Sandwiching solar cells in all the glass of a Tesla vehicle would complement the combining of SolarCity with Tesla Motors. With limited expense for sandwiching solar cells in the glass, Tesla may be able to install the glass in all their vehicles and activate the option with software. Taking into account Tesla’s cost and what they could charge for this option, this could be a great money maker for Tesla.
Shock-On-T
⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️
Shock-On-T
⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️
Two square metres of PV impregnated glass, with say 10% efficiency would generate:
1 x 5 x 2 x 0.1 = 5kwh a day, about 25km of driving at 200wh/km.
Numbers:
1 kw/m2 average insolation at earths surface.
5 hours per day effective full sunlight
2 m2 of pv glass
0.1 for 10% efficiency
1 x 5 x 2 x 0.1 = 5kwh a day, about 25km of driving at 200wh/km.
Numbers:
1 kw/m2 average insolation at earths surface.
5 hours per day effective full sunlight
2 m2 of pv glass
0.1 for 10% efficiency
I find it difficult to believe that solar cells and the connections between them could be made essentially invisible. They would have to be so as not to obstruct the drivers vision.
And the amount of energy they would produce would be minor, as @ShockOnT just demonstrated.
Even if such cells did exist, the added cost to the vehicle makes this a dubious proposition at best.
I think it more likely that Tesla Glass is working on electrochromatic windows that rapidly adjust to changing light conditions so that the overhead areas of the glass instantly darken in full sun and then lighten in cloudy weather and are fully transparent in the dark.
Shock-On-T
⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️
Actually the technology already exists, and with Tesla's merge with a PV company I think PV glass is a pretty likely candidate for Tesla Glass.
Invisible Solar Cells That Could Power Skyscrapers
Also, 25km per day is non-trivial. The vampire drain is about 6km/day.
Another way to look at it is a saving of 25 x 365 = 9125km per year. In Australia average yearly distance is 15,000kms (although I usually do about 40,000
HankLloydRight
No Roads
Wow, I'm confused. When Fisker put solar panels on the roof of their car, almost everyone here was quick to pounce on top of them saying how inefficient they are and how little power they produce, you might as well not have them (there are hundreds of posts about this).
But when Tesla does it, with absolutely clear PVs in the windshield (yet to be seen), suddenly is a big source of energy and a boon to stop vampire losses.
So which one is it?
But when Tesla does it, with absolutely clear PVs in the windshield (yet to be seen), suddenly is a big source of energy and a boon to stop vampire losses.
So which one is it?
IF that new technology can be scaled up to mass production, and IF it can be produced at a reasonable cost, it offers only a relatively low 10% maximum efficiency (because those cells only create power from small fractions of the non-visible spectrum) when positioned at the optimal angle relative to the sun, and in real life use the efficiency will be much less because car windows will rarely be positioned optimally and cars are often parked under cover.
In real life the amount of solar power that would be produced by 2 square meters of vehicle glass with those solar cells in them would be trivial and the cost would certainly be non-trivial.
I hope they prove me wrong. But when viewed rationally, transparent solar cells in vehicle glass makes no sense.
Bheuring
Member
I would be insanely happy with just an invisible defrost grid on all the windows
Compared to everyone else hear my idea is very low I'm imagination scale Lol
Compared to everyone else hear my idea is very low I'm imagination scale Lol
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
I would not want this for one reason:
Leaving the car out all day to pick up the sunlight would be MURDER on the paint job. Call me vain, but my baby stays garaged if at all possible, even when out and about and at work.
Leaving the car out all day to pick up the sunlight would be MURDER on the paint job. Call me vain, but my baby stays garaged if at all possible, even when out and about and at work.
Shock-On-T
⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️
It all depends on the numbers, a wonderful meld of physics and economics.
If it's cheap enough and the efficiency is high enough and it can be part of the existing structure (not additional to it) then it could work.
It's all nothing more than a pleasurable (for me at least) thought experiment at this stage, because no one knows the relevant numbers (cost, efficiency etc).
For example, if it was free and took zero effort to add to the car then it would be worth it at any efficiency. Obviously it's not free and there would be some engineering challenges and costs, so there will be some efficiency number above which it's worth doing and below which it isn't.
But if anyone could do it it would be a company that actually makes electric cars and PVs, because the ability to fabricate in the same plant as the vehicle would lower the cost, and thus lower the required efficiency to make it worthwhile.
HankLloydRight
No Roads
I think your numbers are off.
1 x 5 x 2 x 0.1 = 1kWh a day, not 5kWh.
From this page: New Solar Panel Material Could Make SolarCity’s Gigafactory Hyper Efficient
So at 25% efficiency and 2m2 of glass, that's 500 watts. Times 5 hours is 2.5kWh.
At 10% efficiency and 2m2 of glass, that's just 200 watts, times 5 hours is just 1kWh.
Barklikeadog
Active Member
If it works, its worth it, but don't sink a lot of time and money into something that doesn't add much. Now is not the time for that. Specially for something which a customer may not like. I can't stand the pano roof, I don't even like sunroofs.
