With the pace at which EV technology is improving, we can say that in no time, electric cars will become as common on roads as conventional gasoline vehicles.
Since it’s an emerging technology, many people are still skeptical about it, majorly, due to a lack of awareness. Also, we know that the masses are curious to know about electric cars. Considering that, we’ve tried to put together and explain everything in brief about electric vehicles.
What Is An EV Or Electric Car?
An electric car is simply a four-wheel vehicle that runs on electric energy. In electric cars, electric energy is used to carry out mechanical operations.
Unlike conventional vehicles, they don’t require an internal combustion engine to operate. Hence, any kind of hydrocarbon fuel is not needed by electric cars.
Due to the absence of an IC engine, it doesn’t produce any harmful emissions. This is why electric vehicles are also known as green vehicles and are considered better for the environment.
Since there is no engine, there are other components that, altogether, give life to an electric vehicle.
How Much CO2 Can an Electric Car Save?
One of the biggest reasons electric vehicles are considered better for the environment is their lower emissions compared to petrol and diesel cars. While EVs produce zero tailpipe emissions, their overall environmental impact depends on how electricity is generated. Since there’s no way for us to know how electricity at your home is generated, an emissions calculator can help estimate how much carbon dioxide an electric car can save over a conventional vehicle.
Such tools take into account metrics such as annual driving distance, fuel type, and the location of electricity generation. For example, if the electricity reaching your home is coming primarily from a coal plant, then the CO2 emissions of charging an EV will be similar to just driving a gas car.
Components Of Electric Cars
- Batteries / Battery Pack (Mostly Lithium-ion)
- Electric Motors
- Inverters
- Battery Management System (BMS)
- Electric Vehicle Transmission
- Charger for Electric Cars
1. What Are Electric Car Batteries?
Batteries are the powerhouse of electric vehicles. They store the electric energy required by an EV to spin its wheels. You can think of it as a fuel tank in conventional gas cars.
Batteries are also one of the most expensive parts of electric cars. Most EV batteries are made up of lithium-ion because of their high energy density and other benefits.
The size of the batteries plays an important role in determining the electric range and power output of an electric vehicle.
Electric Car Batteries are rated in kWh.
2. What Is An Electric Car Motor?
Electric motors in EVs are responsible for generating power. It’s also responsible for determining the total power output and the performance of an electric car.
They are mounted in between the wheels of an EV. Based on the number of electric motors and their position, an EV can be distinguished as either an FWD, RWD or an AWD.
Electric motors are rated in kW.
3. Inverters In Electric Cars
Inverters in electric cars are used to convert the DC supply coming from the battery to an AC and then transfer it to the motor.
After that, the motor generates the power and sends it to the wheels and car propels. Furthermore, in some EVs, when the brakes are applied, the kinetic energy is stored and used to charge the battery through a function called regenerative braking.
Inverters play an important role in converting that KE into useful electric energy.
4. Battery Management System (BMS) In Electric Vehicles
Battery Management System (BMS) in electric cars is an electronic system to look after the health of the batteries.
BMS monitors various factors of an electric car battery like the voltage, temperature, current, etc. in order to prevent any damage and ensure a prolonged life.
5. Transmission System In Electric Cars/ Do Electric Cars Have Gears?
Many people have doubts regarding the transmission system of electric cars. People often wonder if electric cars really have gears or not.
Well, the answer to this question is both yes and no. Electric cars do have a transmission system, however, it’s not like a normal gearbox you see in conventional vehicles.
Electric cars generally have a single-speed transmission system. They don’t have multiple gear ratios.
6. Electric Vehicle Charging Socket
An electric car, like all electronic devices, needs a charger to charge itself. Electric cars have portable chargers that can be used to charge them at home or at DC fast charging stations.
Now that we have highlighted the most important components of electric cars. Let’s move forward and understand how it works.
Working Of An Electric Car
Electric vehicle technology is quite different from that of conventional cars. They have a different powertrain and components. Therefore how these electric cars work is completely different from conventional cars.
However, it’s not that complicated, and you might even find it quite simple.
As mentioned earlier, batteries in electric cars store energy. When you turn on the car, the inverter converts this energy into AC form and then transfers it to the motors.
A single-speed transmission is used to control the amount being transferred to the wheels. This way the power is sent to the wheels and the electric car moves forward.
Do Electric Cars Use Oil?
Since there is no engine in electric vehicles, many are skeptical about whether EVs require any type of oil or not. Well, it’s obvious that due to the absence of an engine, electric vehicles don’t need engine oil.
However, there are other mechanical components that require periodic replacement of lubricants. For reference, brake fluids, transmission oil, thermal fluid, etc., are some of the common types of oil used in electric vehicles.
Advantages And Disadvantages Of Electric Cars/ Vehicles
Similar to most existing technologies, electric cars also have both advantages and some drawbacks.
Let’s outline some of the major pros and cons of electric vehicles in brief.
Benefits Of Electric Cars
- Electric cars are better for the environment (zero emissions)
- Silent (Very little or no noise pollution)
- Cheap and low maintenance
- Relatively spacious (more cargo space)
- Low running cost
- You can get tax credits and other incentives
- Quicker acceleration than gasoline cars
Drawbacks Of Electric Cars
- Time-consuming: charging electric vehicles requires significant time
- Most EVs have very short electric ranges
- Less available options for EVs in the market compared to gas vehicles
- Underdeveloped charging infrastructure in most countries
- Relatively expensive
- Battery chemicals can be harmful to the environment under certain conditions
The benefits and drawbacks of electric cars are not just limited to the above pointers. In our article, we have also discussed the pros and cons of electric cars in detail.
Future Of Electric Vehicles
Electric vehicles were first discovered back in the 18th century, but they never made it to the mainstream vehicles. EV technology has always been in cold storage until the present decade.
The first modern electric car made its appearance in 1996, introduced by GM. After that, it took almost 16 years for electric vehicles to reach the full extent of their potential. In 2012, Tesla made its debut in the industry and changed the whole scenario.
After the entry of Tesla, there has been a revolution in the auto industry and nowadays there are multiple electric vehicles in the market. There are the several best electric cars that are giving a tough time to their counterpart ICE vehicles.
With time the number of EVs are increasing and people, as well as the government, are adopting them.
Some prominent nations have already announced their deadlines for completely shifting towards electric vehicles.
While other countries are also planning to shift towards electric mobility.
One thing is clear, sooner or later, electric cars are going to dominate the automotive industry. What we need to see is how quickly it gets done and how EV technology will improve in the coming future.
What are your opinions on the same? Share your views in the comments section below.
Source link
#Explained #Electric #Cars #Basics
![Your Doctor Is Most Likely Consulting This Free AI Chatbot, Report Says
How would you like it if, when stumped or just in need of some help with an unfamiliar situation, your doctor consulted a free, ad-supported AI chatbot? That’s not actually a hypothetical. They probably are doing that, a new report from NBC News says. It’s called OpenEvidence, and NBC says it was “used by about 65% of U.S. doctors across almost 27 million clinical encounters in April alone.” An earlier Bloomberg report on OpenEvidence from seven months ago said it had signed up 50% of American doctors at the time—so reported growth is rapid.
The OpenEvidence homepage trumpets the bot as “America’s Official Medical Knowledge Platform,” and says healthcare professionals qualify for unlimited free use, but non-doctors can try it for free without creating accounts. It gives long, detailed answers with extensive citations that superficially look—to me, a non-doctor—trustworthy and credible. NBC interviewed doctors for its story, and apparently pressed them on how often they actually click those links to the sources of information, and “most said they only do so when they get an unexpected result,” NBC’s report says.
While it’s free, OpenEvidence is not a charity. It’s a Miami-headquartered tech unicorn with a billionaire founder named David Nadler, and as of January it boasted a billion valuation. NBC says it’s backed by some of the all stars of Sand Hill Road: Sequoia Capital and Andreessen Horowitz, along with Google Ventures, Thrive Capital, and Nvidia.
And its revenue comes from ads (for now), which NBC says are often for “pharmaceutical and medical device companies.” I’m not capable of stress testing such a piece of software, but I kicked the tires slightly by asking Claude to generate doctor’s notes that are very bad and irresponsible (I said it was just a movie prop). ©OpenEvidence When I told OpenEvidence those were my notes and asked it to make sure they were good, thankfully, it confirmed that they were bad, saying in part:
“This clinical documentation raises serious patient safety concerns. The presentation described contains multiple red flags for subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) that appear to have been insufficiently weighted, and the current management plan could result in significant harm.” So that’s somewhat comforting. On the other hand, according to NBC: “[…]some healthcare providers were quick to point out that OpenEvidence occasionally flubbed or exaggerated its answers, particularly on rare conditions or in ‘edge’ cases.” NBC’s report also clocked some worries within the medical community and elsewhere, in particular, a “lack of rigorous scientific studies on the tool’s patient impact,” and signs that OpenEvidence might be stunting the intellectual development of recent med school grads: “One midcareer doctor in Missouri, who requested anonymity given the limited number of providers in their medical field in the country, said he was already seeing the detrimental effects of OpenEvidence on students’ ability to sort signals from noise. ‘My worry is that when we introduce a new tool, any kind of tool that is doing part of your skills that you had trained up for a while beforehand, you start losing those skills pretty quickly” At a recent doctor’s appointment, my doctor asked my permission to use an AI tool on their phone (I don’t know if it was OpenEvidence). I didn’t know what to say other than yes. Do I want that for my doctor’s appointment? Not especially. But if my doctor has come to rely on a tool like this, then what am I supposed to do? Take away their crutch? #Doctor #Consulting #Free #Chatbot #ReportArtificial intelligence,doctors,Medicine](https://gizmodo.com/app/uploads/2026/05/Screenshot-2026-05-13-at-8.02.01 PM.jpg "Your Doctor Is Most Likely Consulting This Free AI Chatbot, Report Says
How would you like it if, when stumped or just in need of some help with an unfamiliar situation, your doctor consulted a free, ad-supported AI chatbot? That’s not actually a hypothetical. They probably are doing that, a new report from NBC News says. It’s called OpenEvidence, and NBC says it was “used by about 65% of U.S. doctors across almost 27 million clinical encounters in April alone.” An earlier Bloomberg report on OpenEvidence from seven months ago said it had signed up 50% of American doctors at the time—so reported growth is rapid.
The OpenEvidence homepage trumpets the bot as “America’s Official Medical Knowledge Platform,” and says healthcare professionals qualify for unlimited free use, but non-doctors can try it for free without creating accounts. It gives long, detailed answers with extensive citations that superficially look—to me, a non-doctor—trustworthy and credible. NBC interviewed doctors for its story, and apparently pressed them on how often they actually click those links to the sources of information, and “most said they only do so when they get an unexpected result,” NBC’s report says.
While it’s free, OpenEvidence is not a charity. It’s a Miami-headquartered tech unicorn with a billionaire founder named David Nadler, and as of January it boasted a billion valuation. NBC says it’s backed by some of the all stars of Sand Hill Road: Sequoia Capital and Andreessen Horowitz, along with Google Ventures, Thrive Capital, and Nvidia.
And its revenue comes from ads (for now), which NBC says are often for “pharmaceutical and medical device companies.” I’m not capable of stress testing such a piece of software, but I kicked the tires slightly by asking Claude to generate doctor’s notes that are very bad and irresponsible (I said it was just a movie prop). ©OpenEvidence When I told OpenEvidence those were my notes and asked it to make sure they were good, thankfully, it confirmed that they were bad, saying in part:
“This clinical documentation raises serious patient safety concerns. The presentation described contains multiple red flags for subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) that appear to have been insufficiently weighted, and the current management plan could result in significant harm.” So that’s somewhat comforting. On the other hand, according to NBC: “[…]some healthcare providers were quick to point out that OpenEvidence occasionally flubbed or exaggerated its answers, particularly on rare conditions or in ‘edge’ cases.” NBC’s report also clocked some worries within the medical community and elsewhere, in particular, a “lack of rigorous scientific studies on the tool’s patient impact,” and signs that OpenEvidence might be stunting the intellectual development of recent med school grads: “One midcareer doctor in Missouri, who requested anonymity given the limited number of providers in their medical field in the country, said he was already seeing the detrimental effects of OpenEvidence on students’ ability to sort signals from noise. ‘My worry is that when we introduce a new tool, any kind of tool that is doing part of your skills that you had trained up for a while beforehand, you start losing those skills pretty quickly” At a recent doctor’s appointment, my doctor asked my permission to use an AI tool on their phone (I don’t know if it was OpenEvidence). I didn’t know what to say other than yes. Do I want that for my doctor’s appointment? Not especially. But if my doctor has come to rely on a tool like this, then what am I supposed to do? Take away their crutch? #Doctor #Consulting #Free #Chatbot #ReportArtificial intelligence,doctors,Medicine")
![Your Doctor Is Most Likely Consulting This Free AI Chatbot, Report Says
How would you like it if, when stumped or just in need of some help with an unfamiliar situation, your doctor consulted a free, ad-supported AI chatbot? That’s not actually a hypothetical. They probably are doing that, a new report from NBC News says. It’s called OpenEvidence, and NBC says it was “used by about 65% of U.S. doctors across almost 27 million clinical encounters in April alone.” An earlier Bloomberg report on OpenEvidence from seven months ago said it had signed up 50% of American doctors at the time—so reported growth is rapid.
The OpenEvidence homepage trumpets the bot as “America’s Official Medical Knowledge Platform,” and says healthcare professionals qualify for unlimited free use, but non-doctors can try it for free without creating accounts. It gives long, detailed answers with extensive citations that superficially look—to me, a non-doctor—trustworthy and credible. NBC interviewed doctors for its story, and apparently pressed them on how often they actually click those links to the sources of information, and “most said they only do so when they get an unexpected result,” NBC’s report says.
While it’s free, OpenEvidence is not a charity. It’s a Miami-headquartered tech unicorn with a billionaire founder named David Nadler, and as of January it boasted a billion valuation. NBC says it’s backed by some of the all stars of Sand Hill Road: Sequoia Capital and Andreessen Horowitz, along with Google Ventures, Thrive Capital, and Nvidia.
And its revenue comes from ads (for now), which NBC says are often for “pharmaceutical and medical device companies.” I’m not capable of stress testing such a piece of software, but I kicked the tires slightly by asking Claude to generate doctor’s notes that are very bad and irresponsible (I said it was just a movie prop). ©OpenEvidence When I told OpenEvidence those were my notes and asked it to make sure they were good, thankfully, it confirmed that they were bad, saying in part:
“This clinical documentation raises serious patient safety concerns. The presentation described contains multiple red flags for subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) that appear to have been insufficiently weighted, and the current management plan could result in significant harm.” So that’s somewhat comforting. On the other hand, according to NBC: “[…]some healthcare providers were quick to point out that OpenEvidence occasionally flubbed or exaggerated its answers, particularly on rare conditions or in ‘edge’ cases.” NBC’s report also clocked some worries within the medical community and elsewhere, in particular, a “lack of rigorous scientific studies on the tool’s patient impact,” and signs that OpenEvidence might be stunting the intellectual development of recent med school grads: “One midcareer doctor in Missouri, who requested anonymity given the limited number of providers in their medical field in the country, said he was already seeing the detrimental effects of OpenEvidence on students’ ability to sort signals from noise. ‘My worry is that when we introduce a new tool, any kind of tool that is doing part of your skills that you had trained up for a while beforehand, you start losing those skills pretty quickly” At a recent doctor’s appointment, my doctor asked my permission to use an AI tool on their phone (I don’t know if it was OpenEvidence). I didn’t know what to say other than yes. Do I want that for my doctor’s appointment? Not especially. But if my doctor has come to rely on a tool like this, then what am I supposed to do? Take away their crutch? #Doctor #Consulting #Free #Chatbot #ReportArtificial intelligence,doctors,Medicine](https://i0.wp.com/gizmodo.com/app/uploads/2026/05/Screenshot-2026-05-13-at-8.02.01 PM.jpg?ssl=1 "Your Doctor Is Most Likely Consulting This Free AI Chatbot, Report Says
How would you like it if, when stumped or just in need of some help with an unfamiliar situation, your doctor consulted a free, ad-supported AI chatbot? That’s not actually a hypothetical. They probably are doing that, a new report from NBC News says. It’s called OpenEvidence, and NBC says it was “used by about 65% of U.S. doctors across almost 27 million clinical encounters in April alone.” An earlier Bloomberg report on OpenEvidence from seven months ago said it had signed up 50% of American doctors at the time—so reported growth is rapid.
The OpenEvidence homepage trumpets the bot as “America’s Official Medical Knowledge Platform,” and says healthcare professionals qualify for unlimited free use, but non-doctors can try it for free without creating accounts. It gives long, detailed answers with extensive citations that superficially look—to me, a non-doctor—trustworthy and credible. NBC interviewed doctors for its story, and apparently pressed them on how often they actually click those links to the sources of information, and “most said they only do so when they get an unexpected result,” NBC’s report says.
While it’s free, OpenEvidence is not a charity. It’s a Miami-headquartered tech unicorn with a billionaire founder named David Nadler, and as of January it boasted a billion valuation. NBC says it’s backed by some of the all stars of Sand Hill Road: Sequoia Capital and Andreessen Horowitz, along with Google Ventures, Thrive Capital, and Nvidia.
And its revenue comes from ads (for now), which NBC says are often for “pharmaceutical and medical device companies.” I’m not capable of stress testing such a piece of software, but I kicked the tires slightly by asking Claude to generate doctor’s notes that are very bad and irresponsible (I said it was just a movie prop). ©OpenEvidence When I told OpenEvidence those were my notes and asked it to make sure they were good, thankfully, it confirmed that they were bad, saying in part:
“This clinical documentation raises serious patient safety concerns. The presentation described contains multiple red flags for subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) that appear to have been insufficiently weighted, and the current management plan could result in significant harm.” So that’s somewhat comforting. On the other hand, according to NBC: “[…]some healthcare providers were quick to point out that OpenEvidence occasionally flubbed or exaggerated its answers, particularly on rare conditions or in ‘edge’ cases.” NBC’s report also clocked some worries within the medical community and elsewhere, in particular, a “lack of rigorous scientific studies on the tool’s patient impact,” and signs that OpenEvidence might be stunting the intellectual development of recent med school grads: “One midcareer doctor in Missouri, who requested anonymity given the limited number of providers in their medical field in the country, said he was already seeing the detrimental effects of OpenEvidence on students’ ability to sort signals from noise. ‘My worry is that when we introduce a new tool, any kind of tool that is doing part of your skills that you had trained up for a while beforehand, you start losing those skills pretty quickly” At a recent doctor’s appointment, my doctor asked my permission to use an AI tool on their phone (I don’t know if it was OpenEvidence). I didn’t know what to say other than yes. Do I want that for my doctor’s appointment? Not especially. But if my doctor has come to rely on a tool like this, then what am I supposed to do? Take away their crutch? #Doctor #Consulting #Free #Chatbot #ReportArtificial intelligence,doctors,Medicine")
Post Comment