"from 10 hours to three minutes, while supercharger stations could fully recharge a vehicle in 90 seconds."
Name one single type of battery in commercial use today that actually takes 10 hours to charge.
F1 batteries already charge at 120C if I'm not mistaken, so 30 seconds per charge cycle.

If you have a modern premium sedan with 100 kWh battery and you want to charge it in 90 seconds, that requires an average of 4 MW. Which type of charge cable or medium is suggested for that? Perhaps it's a better ideal to have 13 chargers of 350-400 kW each and have the battery be divided by relays to take a 13-part charge bar, I guess ideally automatically attached from underground and you park in the general position over the charger.

With long range, a charge under 5 minutes doesn't really make sense anymore. You need to freshen up after a few hours of driving anyway.
NIO offers automated battery swaps along main routes, but you only reveive a used battery with 90% state of charge an with current model swap stations, you need a driver in the car during the 7 minute swap. You'd be freshening up before or after, coming to a 12 minute minimum realistic stop. Kia and Hyundai cars do a 10-80% charge in 18 minutes, on common charge stations and using only ~220 kW peak. Not a lot of improvement needed there, although a 50% larger battery as seen on luxury sedans would add 50% more energy in the same 18 minutes, getting 45-49% more range. A 12 minute stop (during which one would freshen up) would then charge about the same range added (say 10-60%) as the NIO car did with the fancy swap, but you would have all the 12 minutes to stretch the legs, freshen up and buy some drink and snack.

Ridiculous to cite home chargers, round off to 10 hours, and then "invent" the option to have hight power chargers, NOT at home... Disingenuous marketing, who is actually ever helped by that?

There are 5-figure cars that do 18-minute 10-80% charges on any of many thousands of chargers place in convenient locations by long distance routes, TODAY.

Citing 10 hours as the base line and then throwing out 90 seconds, is just a huge insult of intelligence. If you don't feel your intelligence was insulted, well that's nice for you.

We have several designer prototypes for low weight and consume solution :

https://c5designer.co.uk/
http://www.bubblemania.fr/en/inventaire-colani/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loremo
https://esoro.ch/konzeptfahrzeuge/


Beside electricity recharge there is as alternative :
liquid electrolyte recharge
https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-magazine/tenfold-improvement-liquid-batteries-mean-electric-car-refuelling-could-take-minutes
'  The result was a flow battery with roughly ten times more energy density than had previously been achieved – 225 watt-hours per litre, with the possibility of up to 1,000 watt-hours per litre...'

I reed two decades before about :

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&ST=advanced&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=Milton+knight&IN=&CPC=&IC=
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=3573987A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19710406&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#
' .....As a result of applicant's invention a battery is created which will provide a theoretical 2000 watt hours per pound of reactants, such as with the lithiumchlorine trifluoride system; whereas the best of the presently available batteries, such as the silver zinc solid electrode battery provides a theoretical 200 watt hours per pound of reactants....'

Liquid battery fuel


Alu fuel cell/battery cell
https://www.upsbatterycenter.com/blog/father-of-eight-vehicle-fuel-cell/

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/10/20/uk-man-invents-aluminum-air-battery-in-his-garage/
' ....  After years of experimentation, Jackson devised a new electrolyte — whose composition is a closely guarded secret — he says makes it possible for his invention to power an electric car for up to 1500 miles | 2414 kilometers. ...'

Mr.Jacksons mentioned electric car average consume ?
' .....Some comparisons are in order. A Tesla Model S can drive up to 370 miles | 595 km on a single charge.

https://ev-database.org/car/1324/Tesla-Model-S-Performance ,consume 18,3 KWh/100 Km



Jackson says if you drove the same car with an aluminum-air cell that weighed the same as the Tesla’s lithium-ion battery, it would have a range of 2700 miles | 4345 km. Aluminum-air cells also take up less space. If that same Tesla were fitted with an aluminum-air fuel cell the same size as its current battery, it could run non-stop for 1500 miles | 2414 km.
a. weight comparison ratio   b. size comparison ratio

Jackson says the battery for that long range Tesla Model S costs about £30,000. Tesla aficionados will probably quibble with that number but Jackson claims his aluminum-air battery/fuel cell that could power the same car for longer would cost just £5,000. Of course, if the owner has to spend £5,000 every 1500 miles | 2414 km, the economic case for the new energy source is compromised somewhat. Time will tell. ...'


We have to see this as possible technical solution,economical it is questionable !


The possible range by 1,5 KWh/100 Km electric consume ,as reference improved Porquer transmission ?

18,3 KWh/100 Tesla S  divided 1,5 KWh/100 Km Porquer transmission car = 12,2/1
As emergency case  range extender pack interestant ! Hibrid energy storage !

By size  ratio : 2414 Km x 12,2 =  29450 Km drive range maximum

Emergency 100 Km drive extension pack  = 100 Km/29450 Km x £5000 = £17
Emergency 500 Km drive extension pack  = £17 x 5 = £85


Tata-Fiat Nano conversion :

https://www.goldenmotor.com/eCar/frame-eCar.htm
Motor Power : 10 KW   Speed : 95 Km/h
Consume per hour,40 Km•h average velocity ?

Tata-Fiat Nano with improved Porquer transmission and Jacksons Alu fuel cell max.speed and max. range ?
As 5000 US$ solution ?  ~ actual in Bharat,formerly 'India',Renault Kwid ic engine car version base price !

Reading about OU car concept :
https://m.timesofindia.com/auto/cars/0-100-kmph-in-under-1-second-student-built-ev-breaks-world-record-in-0-956s/articleshow/103661541.cms
during 12,3 metres distance ,140 Kg empty weight,243 KW total 4x wheel drive

243 KW nominal ,assuming 500 KW peak ,divided 3600 sec ~ 0,14 KWh consume

An other model class,as fast : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hiNFlXXSWEY

The 0-40 Km•h  a.conventional electric car b.improved Porquer transmission car

acceleration time  and metric distance ?
https://patents.google.com/patent/US7017685B2/en  ' Eco-Trike'

The above equations allow estimation of power requirements for various travel conditions. The total mass of the vehicle m is 220 kg (484 lbs) composed of 84 kg (185 lbs) for the vehicle structure plus 45 kg (˜100 lbs) for the batteries and 91 kg (200 lbs) for a rider and freight.

The power of accelerating this 220 kg mass from a standstill to 40 km/hr (11.1 m/sec or 25 mph) can be calculated by inserting various values of acceleration in equation 2.

A modest level of acceleration of 1 meter per second squared (i.e. 1/10^th of a g) requires 1200 watts of power for 11 seconds.

This shows that the 2 hp designed into Ecotrike™ is needed for adequate acceleration.

When steady velocity is reached, Paccel becomes zero.

At any steady speed, the Power required to keep the vehicle moving will be the sum of the remaining terms in equation 1.
 The power to overcome tire rolling resistance, Prol is 194 watts, per equation 3 (assuming 40 km/hr and a rolling resistance factor of 0.0065 and an efficiency of 0.8.

The power to counter the air resistance at 40 km/hr is 316 watts using equation 5 for Pair, (assuming a frontal area of 0.75 meters squared, a drag coefficient of 0.4, and no head wind).

Thus on level ground the steady power sums to 510 watts or about ⅔ of a horsepower.

For  this inertia phase/start the hibrid concept = starter ' liquid fuel' battery + closed recharge cycle battery pack
Similar hibrid ,disadvantages minimizing,advantages coupling,concept  :
https://csiropedia.csiro.au/ultrabattery/

  ,
http://www.velomo.eu/velocar.html
https://mochet.org/

Organizing the average 1 Wh/Km net electric consume city car/-t ,by pedal velos,3-/4 wheels,  electrification !
1000 Wh cell battery capacity  !
Compared :

https://www.autozeitung.de/weltrekord-elektroauto-reichweite-204691.html
Range world record
2571 Km range/15,5 KWh cell battery pack  ~ 6 Wh/Km

https://tufast-eco.de/?page_id=573&lang=de#038;lang=de
Consume world record

2016 :  81,16 Wh/100km~ ≤ 1 Wh/Km



Sedans and similar electric cars are too fat planned,overweighted,to have an argument for such expensive sold carriages !
There is not ' real life intelligence' inside !
And for the future driver-free,the best probably : passenger-free ?!

Auto(mobile) faehrt dann tata= spatiare,ambulare,spazieren ,sozinho,alleine,alone

The Upper Class mobility preference,road rush-hour time losts free
 :
https://cureforglobalcrises.weebly.com/vision-vtol.html
2014 :

At only 4 times current Lithium polymer density, the Vision becomes practical with a 4 hour range. We are working with 30 times current density and storage life expectancy. This allows transcontinental range at high speed and will inevitably make electric aviation by far the most practical form of transportation.
 
Imagine a car with a 10,000 mile range. Now imagine what that really means. With a similar advance in electric aviation, roads and even airports can become almost obsolete

The Vision is the beginning of a new breed of transportation that is specifically designed for ultra long range electric power and storage - point to point transportation with unprecedented safety and luxury. First designed over 10 years ago, all technologies required are now fully developed.
 
Welcome to the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 €/Kg urban 3-/4-wheel car/-t challenge,all included !

Asking ChatGPT 3.0 how ?

Re-/cycle material system

3d print,
low living costs zone worker*innen(german gender star ),low cost prisoner*innen work force ,comparing with  Usbekistan 159 US$/month low skill work costs

24/7 humanoid/robot work plant,1 US$ per hour capital costs per unit
Reference : BostonDynamics,Tesla Bot/Optimus
= holding the material transformation costs low


From B.O.S. to A.I.B.O.S.,Build-Operate-Sell
Reference :
 https://pplware.sapo.pt/motores/citroen-ami-um-carro-100-electrico-que-custa-6-900-euros-ou-20-euros-por-mes/

[ (100 Kg car/t x 5 €/Kg) divided 6900 € ] x 20 € = ?  A.I.Selling fee per month

0,05 €/day,we can think : affordable !?

Which are the physical barriers to reach output ≥ input ,a.electrical,b.magnetical,c.kinetical ?
Scientifical (non) censorship ? Cause ( political )  untouchable , Dr.med. von Helmholtz theories ?
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070007844A1/en
[0038] +
.....

[0044]         Ampere's principle of transverse magnetic attraction and repulsion between electric currents had been made into an equation for the magnetic force between moving electric charges by Carl Frederick Gauss (written in 1835, published posthumously in 1865). The critical part of Gauss's equation shows, and modem physics texts agree, that magnetic force is transverse to the force that imparts a relative velocity (i.e., perpendicular to a connecting line) between charges.


https://www.google.com/search?q=Gauss%27s+transverse+magnetic-force+equation&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m

Lacking a direct backforce, a transverse magnetic force can produce a greater force than the force that causes it. 
Also to mention as practical experiment :
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/2magpup.htm

 [0045]

 The only physicist to recognize in print the profound significance of Gauss's work was James Clerk Maxwell (1873), who stated, “[If Gauss's formula is correct,] energy might be generated indefinitely in a finite system by physical means.” Prepossessed with Helmholtz's “law,” Maxwell chose not to believe Gauss's transverse magnetic-force equation and accepted Wilhelm Weber's (1846) erroneous in-line formula instead. Maxwell even admitted knowing of Gauss's (1845) rebuke of Weber for his mistaken direction of magnetic force as “a complete overthrow of Ampere's fundamental formula and the adoption of essentially a different one.”
 [0046]  In 1893 the critical part of Ampère's formula for magnetic force, which Weber and Maxwell rejected, and which Helmholtz had replaced with his contrary metaphysical explanation, was proposed for the basis for the international measure of electric current, the Ampere (or amp), to be defined in terms of the transverse magnetic force that the current produces. But Helmholtz's doctrine had become so impervious to facts that anyone who challenged this “law” faced defamation and ridicule. 
 [0047]  The first recognition of unlimited energy came from Sir Joseph Larmor who reported in 1897, “[A] single ion e, describing an elliptic orbit under an attraction to a fixed center . . . must rapidly lose its energy by radiation . . . [but] in the cases of steady motion it is just this amount that is needed to maintain the permanency of motion in the aether.” Apparently to mollify critics of his heretical concept, Larmor offered a half-hearted recantation in 1900: “[T]he energy of orbital groups . . . would be through time sensibly dissipated by radiation, so that such groups could not be permanent.”
 [0048]  In 1911 Rutherford found that an atom resembles a small solar system with negative ions moving like planets around a small, positively charged nucleus. These endlessly orbiting electrons were a source of the perpetual radiation that had been aptly described by Larmor, and these orbiting electrons were also Planck's (1911) “harmonic oscillators” that he used to explain Zero-Point Energy (ZPE). ZPE was shown by the fact that helium remains liquid under atmospheric pressure at absolute zero, so that helium must be pressurized to become solid at that temperature. Planck believed that harmonic oscillators derived “dark energy” from the aether to sustain their oscillations, thereby admitting that an infinite source of energy exists. However, he assigned an occult origin to this infinite energy rather than a conventional source that had not met with Helmholtz's approval. 

https://de.scribd.com/doc/226463563/Mandelstam-Papalexi-On-the-Parametric-Excitation-of-Electric-Oscillations-1934-NASA-1968
page31
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.reed.edu/physics/faculty/wheeler/documents/Sophmore%2520Class%2520Notes%25202007/Chapter%25203.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjfpciRv7qBAxU4T6QEHcvMCe8QFnoECAAQAg&usg=AOvVaw2GDjrxKClROsLVhWsYXMsz


 [0049]  Niels Bohr (1924) was bothered by the notion that radiation from an orbiting electron would quickly drain its energy so that the electron should spiral into the nucleus. Whittaker (1951) states, “[Bohr and associates] abandoned the principle . . . that an atom which is emitting or absorbing radiation must be losing or gaining energy. In its place they introduced the notion of virtual radiation, which was propagated in . . . waves but which does not transmit energy or momentum.” Subsequently the entire scientific community dismissed Larmor radiation as a source of real energy because it failed to conform to Helmholtz's universally accepted doctrine. 
 [0050]  Helmholtz's constraining idea that the vast amount of light and heat radiating from the many billions of stars in the universe can only come from previously stored energy has led scientists to concur that fusion of pre-existing hydrogen to helium supplies nearly all the energy that causes light and heat to radiate from the sun and other stars. If so, then the entire universe will become completely dark after the present hydrogen supply in stars is consumed in about 20 billion years. William A. Fowler (1965) believed that essentially all the hydrogen in the universe “emerged from the first few minutes of the early high temperature, high density stage of the expanding Universe, the so-called ‘big bang’. . . .” Moreover, the background energy of the universe was thought by some to be “relic” radiation from the “Big Bang.”
 [0051]  To accept the Big Bang idea that all the stars in the universe originated at the same time, it was necessary to disregard the fact that most stars are much younger or older than the supposed age of the one-time event, which indicates that their energy must have come from a recurring source. The Big Bang is entirely dependent on the idea that the whole universe is expanding, which stemmed from the interpretation that Hubble's red-shift with distance from the light source represents a Doppler shift of receding stars and galaxies. This expanding-universe interpretation was shattered by William G. Tifft (1976, 1977), who found that observed red-shifts are not spread randomly and smoothly over a range of values, as would be expected from the Doppler shifts of a vast number of receding stars and galaxies. Instead, the observed red-shifts all fall on evenly spaced, quantized values. 
 [0052]  Moreover, Shpenkov and Kreidik (2002) determined that the radiation temperature corresponding to the fundamental period of the orbital electron motion in the hydrogen atom of 2.7289° K. matches the measured temperature of cosmic background radiation of 2.725°±0.002° K. This represents perpetual zero-level Larmor radiation from interstellar hydrogen atoms dispersed in the universe. So, Helmholtz's idea that “the energy in the universe is a fixed amount immutable in quantity from eternity to eternity” does not stand up to known facts. 

Who is pro Helmholtz theorem,who is contra,after scientifical  facts listening ?
Das ' von' posthum aberkannt ,Scharlatan !

Spiral,whirl,vortex,helix,...... virtual

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19820817&CC=US&NR=4345174A&KC=A#
Now with capacitive coils !?
Or

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=1&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19740514&CC=US&NR=3811058A&KC=A#
The magnetic force radiated from a magnetic material is normally proportional to the size of the material and therefore is indirectly proportional to the weight of the material. It has been observed that the repulsion force between two magnets is large enough to repel 500 times their own weight. That is, when two magnets weighing one pound each are juxtaposed to each other, a repulsion force of 500 pounds is created between them to drive the magnets apart. Such high repulsion force is particularly found in magnetic materials such as strontium ferrite alloy. The repulsion magnetomotive force is useful for driving the piston of reciprocating devices.

compared axial/tangential force/weight ratio    http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/2magpup.htm


Remembering to studied this Kiniski application in the 90' it is interestant who cited this document and improved probably the process later :

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/citingDocuments?DB=EPODOC&ND=3&bcId=3&locale=en_EP&page=0&return=true&FT=D&date=19740514&CC=US&NR=3811058A&KC=A



digitalcommons.uri.edu › cgi › vie...11.09.2020 · Gauss's law is a general relation between electric charge and electric field. • In electrostatics: Gauss's law is equivalent to Coulomb's law
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=2013147298A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=4&date=20130613&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#

 [0032]    The operation of the mechanism will now be described generally and with reference to the relative strengths and directions of the mutual attractions and repulsions for the magnets performing the primary functions of the invention. In general, the magnetic attraction/repulsion forces between any two magnets is provided by Coulomb's law which states that the magnitude of the force of interaction between two point charges is directly proportional to the scalar multiplication of the magnitudes of charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distances between them. The following equation provides a scalar mathematical representation of the attractive or repulsive for force F according to Coulomb's law:

 [mathematical formula]

 [0033]    Where q1 and q2 are the magnitudes of the point charges, r is the distance between the point charges and ke=1/4πε0. A detailed explanation as to how an accurate evaluation of the sum of all point charges, say for example on one actuator magnet, is beyond the scope of this application. However, computer models can be used to calculate and provide a sum of the surface integrals for each magnet in the overall system at each point in time to arrive at such a complete mode. Thus, the description below will focus on a high-level evaluation of the overlapping magnetic field lines to describe the operation of the present invention as it pertains to magnetic field interactions.

http://www.didik.com/   
f.e.  http://www.didik.com/dturtle.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20080312062108/http://flywheel.esmartbiz.com/humpwr.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20080310222049/http://flywheel.esmartbiz.com/car.htm


Beginning ' smart' ,2 wheels :
ordinary bicycle
and cover :

https://www.velopedia.online/Document/Show/1026
https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/luigi-colani-fahrrad-verkleidung-3050-c-2ad4c4aac1
Front-wheel e-motor
Back-wheel generator

motor/generator net zero consume relationship

It is about losts observation in electro-magnetic-kinetic transforming machines !
The only one direction conversion use as common practizising ( industrial low cost ),when we ever have the two Fleming hand-rules direction currents to converse and inverse,positive and negative forces and electrical : positive and negative signals as Hertzian Cycles/Swing Circle  pulses !

One the motoric the other the generatoric effect = C-/EMF

Right direction current coil and left direction current coil = bi-filiar .

90% motor efficiency means by conventional machine actually  :
physical XY(Z)Axis 45 % total C-/EMF output conversion !


System improvement : under right square and cube law effect apply !

Only concentrating to one direction,assuming actio/reactio forces as same, means 50% conversion potential from 100% physical potential diminuation,applying the cube effect :0,5 x 0,5 x 0,5 = 0,125 =

                 12,5 per cent is the constructive maximal conversion efficiency !               
                                                        Full load condition !

By fixed RPM and partial/fractional load ( net-grid Voltage and Frequency controlled ):

                                                                     ≤ 10 % !


Next :

One motor coil per stator or rotor to multiple independent ' each pole its own circuit' freedom degree improvement or/and  as multi-disc/rotor  arrangement !

Halfing the consume,doubling the generator output :  consume percentage saturation by recuperation ?
The front-wheel motor also as rotorverter device,or motor with generator coil.

As e-bike 25 Km/h velocity ~ 7 m/sec

https://overunity.com/2238/cheap-wind-farming/5/wap2/
Example: A wind turbine with a nominal 400 W (manufacturer's specification) generated at a wind force of approx. 20 m / sec. an output of 70 watts. After converting the generator to combined windings, the system delivered with a wind force of 5-6 m / sec. 140 watts. At 10-12 m / sec. were generated over 320 watts!
Back-wheel as 'wind-ing turbine rotor ' !
Front-wheel : magnet array and bi-/double winding
to

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&ST=advanced&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=Li+Yng+Tyan+&IN=&CPC=&IC=&Submit=Search

Nominal and peak,flat land and hill,....... : differences

 Yes,there are many pro-/contra points to re-/search for PERFECTION

We are in 'Common Future' experimental stage !

And there are street rules and laws :

personal assisted pedelec ( human pedalling)
full electric bicycle / emotor-bike
E-trike regulation versus normative ' car'-regulations !



And comercial end seller price mechanism :

250-100 finance unit  :  international granted  patent saved object

30 financial units :         non patent saved object,singularly buy,shop price

15 financial units :         non patent saved object,group buy,fob factory

7,5 financial units:         non patent saved object,group buy,fob factory,self-montage kit

The above for new ware,
for second-hand/used market ware the last,
 7,5 financial units,the maximal price base ,
down to worthpoor scratch value and price


25 Km/ h divided 1,68 ( km/land-mile) ~ 14,9 mph
http://watersturbine.weebly.com/waters-turbine.html
Third party and direct comparison test
There have been three separate third party tests, including extensive computer flow analysis (CFA). My own direct comparative tests against a conventional high performance wind turbine in a broad range of conditions confirm theory. We ran extensive direct comparisons in real world conditions because 3rd party results seemed too high. An aerodynamicist study over several months of tests using CFA and wind tunnel tests showed up to 122 times more efficient than existing designs at 14 mph.

Personal Wind Assistant on Cabin-bike ?
The Water Turbine with Arestov double winding generator coupled ?
The Arestov generator output to Asaoka magnet force amplifier ?
By only 50% turbine output improvement,before Arestov generator couple,the drag/resistance would be important !
But by 122 times = 12 200 percentual improvement : quantite negliable !
122 times : much ?
Richard Fradella 1000 RPM 1000 W nominal pulse dc generator :

by                           500 RPM    125 W output

by                           100 RPM      1 W output

1 W to 125 W = 125 times improvement,12 500 % = 5 times RPM amplifying

Wind like other fluid  stream is cube-istical in effect !