Slatterz writes "We've already heard about wireless power before, but now we're a step closer to throwing away our power cables and chargers. A consortium of eight companies has launched an
initiative to develop a wireless power standard. The drive was announced at the first Wireless Power Consortium conference at the Hong Kong Science Park yesterday. Most consumer electronic devices require a different charger, and the resulting tangle of wires and bulky devices is 'ugly, frustrating and inconvenient to use,' the group said. 'Wireless power charging takes away the need for wires and connectors. You simply drop your mobile phone, game device, electric shaver on the charging station and the battery is recharged,' explained Satoru Nishimura, senior manager at Sanyo."
The Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] talks about efficiencies between 40% and 80% for near field transmission. Indeed, that seems like a serious waste just for the convenience of not having to plug in your device...
FYI, far field transmissions using microwave can reach an efficiency of 95%, but I don't think you want such a beam in your house:-)
But... With one way to charge your stuff you may be able to get a better quality one. Those AC to DC converters take power even when they are not charging anything. If you make a nice near field transmission system. With say with a physical on off switch or a weight activated switch you can save power from having all those AC DC plugged in (unplugging them when they are not in use is really to much of a hassle for some locations to even consider making people switch).
How exactly does the power go from AC in the wall to the near field without going through a DC converter? How do you ensure that is not just sucking power out of the wall?
What if it turns on for a very short interval every so often and detects whether there is a power drain. The change in the drop in voltage across the unit gives a clue as to the state of need. Essentially it becomes a sampling frequency and threshold decision problem.
Isn't this "wireless power" stuff just a terrible waste of energy?
Transformers (not the Hasbro sort) are basically two adjacent coils, with the difference in the number of windings on each side determining the voltage step-up or step-down.
Here you have what is basically a transformer, just with the coils moved further away from each other. A 1:1 step ratio in a transformer is pretty efficient.
You're not wasting electricity spraying electrons in the air like a water sprinkler, there has to be a circuit before potential can be moved from one coil to the other. Electronics can keep idle current to a minimum. Where's the problem?
Many people leave their charging transformers plugged in, even when not charging their appliance.
Since most of these chargers are cheap, they are not only highly inefficient when charging (how hot does your laptop power supply get?), but also consume power when not doing anything useful.
Would need to factor these things in to properly judge efficiency of near-field charging, which can get above 80% if I remember correctly...
In time this can be improved above 80% efficiency. It's not about "may as well plug it in", it's also about space constraints, plugs, etc. This can remove the need for a lot of wiring and is not a new technology by far.
Shaver's plug gets bust? Would be nice to replace the plug and not the whole damn thing, etc. This bypasses that entirely.
Sure. Let's just use this other power adapter from something else. With a little extra force, see, it fits fine. OK, now just to plug it in...
BLAMMO!!!!
Wife comes running in and sees the disaster and, being a good American, calls a lawyer.
This is why power adapters of different voltages, different capacities and different functionalities are designed with unique connectors. The intent is to keep you from causing problems for the company via lawsuits. Lawsuits caused directly by your ability to connect two mismatched devices together. Unless this risk can be eliminated, you are not going to get rid of every device having a different and unique connector.
Now it might be nice if there was an ISO standard for connectors (like there is for mains power connections) so there would be a few thousand "standard" connectors for every given voltage, regulation mode, current and AC or DC variety. This would solve everyone's problem, wouldn't it? Until you attempt to get everyone behind the idea of the few thousand "standard" connectors. That are all unique and different from today's non-standard connectors.
Two Coils joined with a Core. No Core, and the efficiency goes way down
That depends on the frequency of the AC voltage/current. At lower frequencies, an iron core is needed to help concentrate and focus the electromagnetic field due to the extremely-long wavelengths involved. Higher frequencies not so much. At the right frequency, a conductive loop an inch or so in diameter in the charger and the device under charge would be plenty to transfer power at surprisingly-high efficiencies depending on the range r
Unfortunately, 400 hertz is about the optimum frequency for inductive loads to be as efficient without a core as a 60 hertz inductive load is with a core.
Better tell that to all the radio transmitter designers that use nothing more than two coils in proximity to each other to couple many watts of power from the transmitters' plate-tank circuit to the load.
And then there is the whole thing about the established power grid running at 50 to 60 hertz
Switching power supplies are ubiquitous these days and could b
I was going to leave this alone, but...+1 informative? Really?
Hold the phone, let me call my friends at MIT and let them know that their wireless chargers are hopeless, because they don't have a core.
*facepalm* [flickr.com]...air is still a core. And the effect is diminished with large coils, like these people are using. And smaller distances, which is the case with cell phones. I'm pretty sure the engineers at MIT have figured this stuff out.
They're talking about a near-contact charging station. That can be pretty efficient -- as others pointed out, a transformer can be VERY efficient and this is basically the same thing.
Note that it's distinct from the charge-your-laptop-across-the-room style of wireless power, which IS very inefficient.
I doubt it. This style of charging station is just a transformer except that the two halves are in different cases.
Wardenclyffe Tower was designed basically as a radio transmission tower. It was supposed to demonstrate transmission of electricity over long distances through the air, which is exactly what radio transmitters do. For an example of widespread deployment, find one of those little transistor radios that can power themselves from the received radio signal.
Sadly, this looks to be a case of form over functionality. Still, I know I would never buy one of these. Saving myself a foot or two of cabling simply isn't worth an increased energy bill.
There are other advantages.
It lessens the number of connections needed to the outside, increasing the ability to weatherproof (my waterproof electic toothbrush uses such a system).
If it was standard, I certainly could see paying a premium so that my cell phone/mp3 player/PDA/e-book reader/shaver, all low power devices, could share one charger. (My computers, not so much.)
Depending on the range, I could be paying a premium so I never have to remember to charge my devices. For instance, if it could cover my whole couch, then I could charge whenever I watch TV or play video games. And some devices (wireless video game controllers) live in that region, so that would be great.
Lastly, the efficency is likely to increase. Creating a standard now, before there are practical uses, is one of the few times it's possible to do so without competing companies pushing their pet standard.
One benefit for the environment: a battery's life is inversely proportional to the number of times it was completely discharged. If you tend not to charge your phone every day, you are likely to let it run dry evey once in a while. That means the battery is not going to last much more than a year, and after that the battery goes to the dump, and you need a new one.
Both the battery in the trash and the need to manufacture a new one would be saved if you charged your phone every day. And that's much easier t
where can I buy that cell phone/mp3 player/PDA/e-book reader/shaver? That sounds pretty frickin handy...
Steve Jobs was supposed to announce it at Macworld. Unfortately, we've had some problems with the mass production of them. He may have to drop out of giving the keynote if we cannot solve the problem.
Edit: Apparently Steve decided to cancel for the keynote.
So tell me - how far are your mouse, keyboard, and monitors from your desk?
The perfect use for this, in my mind, would be to have it built into your PC case. PC case sits under your desk, and monitors, mouse, keyboard, speakers are all just free standing. Awesome for LAN parties (assuming separate power transmitters don't interfere with each other), the worst thing about moving a computer (or even having one set up somewhere) is the spaghetti nest of wires tying it together. Of course, I'd probably duct-tape some tinfoil lining into my lucky rocketship underpants...
As for efficiency, I'd presume that the efficiency they're talking about is just that of the wireless transmission. There'd be a transformer at each side to get the voltages correct so it's still going to be less efficient overall than your power brick. A more apt comparison would be the 90% @ 3 feet compared to the power loss over the wires from the power brick to the device.
That'd certainly be a nice start. They've come some way to that with standardizing the AC side of two-strand power cables (the kind everyone uses for localized power packs, one power brick that can take from 110-250 volts input and a different wall-side cable for each region). The hard bit would be convincing all the different device manufacturers (mobile phone makers I'm looking at you, stop inventing new and terribad ways to plug a handful of wires into your phones!) that they can make do with one of a sm
would be more efficient than your laptop's power pack.
Well, yes and no. The laptop power adapter changes AC line voltage to some DC voltage, which the computer the uses. It's a single conversion step.
Now consider wireless power. It isn't going to be coming like some aether from the walls - you're going to need to produce it somewhere, somehow, probably from AC line voltage via a, you guessed it, power adapter. So the 75% to 90% wireless transmission efficiency is on top of the efficiency of the pow
Because then the OEMs and hardware companies would be losing money due to consumers buying the same cable for their product from another, cheaper, company thus losing profit. If Dell sold replacement power supplies for their laptops for ~$20.00, and say since the cable is a standard HP sells the same one for $15.00, Dell would be losing some profit unless they change the connector on the cable to only fit their hardware, hence the "drawer full of cables" we all seem to have (except those in the A/V business
Because then the OEMs and hardware companies would be losing money due to consumers buying the same cable for their product from another, cheaper, company thus losing profit.
Not to fear. The invisible rotting penis of the market will come along eventually and sort it all out.
Wireless power is only practical in short ranges anyway. With standardized cables I wouldn't have drawerfuls of power cables.
Which is precisely what they're aiming for.
A standardized cable isn't gonna help you much when your mobile phone takes 5 volts to charge and your shaver or laptop takes 9 to 18. I imagine the technology would mimic proximity cards, you'd have a flat surface (say, a tabletop) and you'd sit your PDA, mobile, laptop, portable game system, etc. on it and depending on the number of windings in the receiving device and a small rectifier circuit, it would automatically receive the proper voltage.
Short range wireless power is alright, it makes charging a little easier, but the real revolution is going to be when an efficient method of mid-range wireless power is developed.
If you can get wireless power in an entire room then we can finally ditch the last cord to our laptops, which is what consumers are waiting for when they ask for wireless power. If you have to put the items on a tray, it is a little easier, but it might as well be a dock or a physical connection. If you have power to an entire r
Wireless power covering an entire room will have to wait until wireless devices' power requirements go low enough that the radiated energy won't be a hazard to the user. At the power levels currently used by laptops, the power source would have to emit enough energy that you would microwave-cook the user. The device described in this article is probably using short-range magnetic coupling, not radio waves; not a particular threat to health, but putting your laptop on top of the charger would probably scramble the hard drive.
The coils are designed grab a charge and pull it to it. It's not like an explosion where the power simply radiates everywhere. That's what we have microwaves for and why they are shielded. If the SSD is in the path of the charge, it would be impacted by it (shielded or not), but otherwise it's not like this will go everywhere for short range. The electricity leaps towards the coils, essentially.
For my Masters Thesis, I designed a wireless powering system for a fully implanted bio-monitoring device for a mouse running around, untethered, in a cage [ohiolink.edu]. Now, a mouse is actually quite small, so our implant had to be about the size of a U.S. dime (actually, a bit smaller). The mouse was never more than a few cm away from the cage floor, but could move around, stand up, roll over, etc., so we could not make the powering system very "directed" in nature. As a result, our optimized average power coupling efficiency we near 0.08% (Page 25, specs on Page 95), which was actually pretty good for the application. It did mean that our implant needed to be extremely low-power, however, involving all sorts of power supply optimizations (Chapter 3), MEMS sensors, and the like.)
The problem with trying to power your wireless devices anywhere in a room is similar, due to the fact that you can move around and change the orientation of your devices. As the ratio of power-receiving-antenna to "cage" is even lower, you are likely looking at even lower power efficiencies. Yes, you can perform all sorts of fractal antenna optimizations and the like, but, if you want to be able to receive power anywhere in the room, then you are limited by the laws of physics: If your powering system covers the whole room, your efficiency is limited by the simple ratio of the area of your receiving antenna in the plane parallel to the floor (or wherever you place your powering system) to the area of the powering antenna itself.
The recent demos of wireless power by Intel and others have all involved highly directed powering antennae, where moving the receiver even a small amount cuts off the power supply. Directed power does have its uses, however. Imagine medical implants that can be powered in a short time by placing a directed antenna on your skin each morning, or even wearing a battery pack on your belt with a directed antenna to power a device with a built in radio communicator. No (highly infectable) wires penetrate the skin, no surgery is necessary to replace batteries that run low, and, even in the worst cases, you should still be able to remove the battery back for a time to perform certain functions (exercising, bathing) without losing device functionality.
I see the article is tagged with "cancer", which got me thinking: could all this energy going through the air cause cancer potentially? I know its only a few volts of direct current, but think of the spectrum and the (very high) frequencies of gamma rays and the like, could it be possible? I am no expert in this field by any means, but I have to ask.
Of course it could. Would it? Almost certainly not. Yes, if you were spraying around gamma rays then you would definitely cause some cancer. Wireless power doesn't do that - it uses far lower frequencies.
Put it this way - see that lightbulb? It's spraying around watts of much higher frequency radiation than any consumer wireless device would.
Put it this way - see that lightbulb? It's spraying around watts of much higher frequency radiation than any consumer wireless device would.
That's true, and look how sensitive the electrons in our eyes are to it. It's like saying that microwaves can't be seen (they're at a much lower frequency than our eyes detect), therefore they can't hurt us. Good luck with *that*.
As I understand it, no it isn't going to cause cancer. This isn't radiation flying about the room, not even in the sense of EM radiation like microwaves. These systems use an alternating magnetic current that produces a sympithetic current in the device being charged. Rather than sending power in the EM spectrum and generating a current based on a photovoltaic effect.
Ideally, bugs like cancer-causing levels of radiation will be worked out before it goes into production.
I sure hope so, but some things can easily slip by quality control, and I would think this could be easier in wireless development due to possible difficulties in testing, and a lack of knowing "exactly" what causes cancer in the first place.
And it is also scary how quality control's quality itself seems to be decreasing [slashdot.org] drastically [thecoffeedesk.com].
Im not an expert with this kind of thing by any means
but isn't there a chance that it could cause damage to more advanced devices?
anyone have any ideas how they get around that?
Last I checked USB was pretty much the defacto standard power connector already, for low power devices. And you can make a nice looking USB charging dock for SUB a lot more cheaply than you can make these space-wasting power pads.
You can't develop a standard if you don't have similar technologies, and wireless power developers so far have been coming up with all kinds of different technologies. Remove the part of TFA that makes no sense in light of this, and you end up with an advertisement for this "consortium" disguised as a press release, faithfully and unquestioningly reproduced by PC Authority. Had PC Authority tried to do real journalism rather than simple reproduction, they'd have found that not only are the major proposed schemes so different that the idea of standardization is ridiculous, but that some of the members of the consortium aren't even developing any of those schemes.
Intel chief technology officer Justin Rattner demonstrated a Wireless Energy Resonant Link [today.com] as he spoke at the annual Intel developers forum in San Francisco yesterday.
Rattner demonstrated this by causing his ears to light up at 60 watts of power a yard from a power transmitter operated by his assistant Igor. Only four journalists were incinerated when the power earthed through them from his fingertips.
Rattner reassured us that pumping kilowatts of power around the home through magnetic induction power is absolutely harmless. "The human body is not affected by magnetic fields," he said as one journalist with a pacemaker collapsed and another with a knee replacement watched his leg catch fire. "There's no danger whatsoever from it, any more than there is from mobile phones cooking your brain, microwave leakage blinding you, chemical waste unraveling all the DNA in your balls or statistical clusters of kids with cancer wherever high-tension power lines run overhead. Asbestos and thalidomide were horribly slandered in their day too."
"Of course, Nikola Tesla did it first in 1899," said enthusiast Albert Tedious-Anorak, 54, of Little Boring. "I detailed this at length on Wikipedia, but they refused to believe the value of my revelations on this matter due to a conspiracy of Edison fans amongst the site administrators."
Actually, cords are a pain for portable gear. Plugging and unplugging, and moving them is very hard on them. I go through a laptop power cord about once a year. They all wear out right where the wire enters the connector on the laptop side. For cell phones, the connectors themselves often break, get dirty or otherwise damaged. Irritating when it happens to the cord. Worse when it happens to the phone.
Other than using a heavier cord, or a heavy support mesh, there's not really much that can be done abo
I work in a 3 Tesla fMRI environment. You know, the thing with the superconductive, super cooled magnets that require a few kV to maintain and that eventually has enough power to align all water molecules in your body and then send another magnetic field through to take pictures of your physical structure. You know if your head needs to be scanned, we put it inside a head coil which is basically the secondary coil side of a transformer. I usually work on the computers right next to the power boxes (huge cabinets with transformers in them).
So far, fMRI has produced no cancers in me, the fMRI specialist who worked in fMRI for the last 20 years and is next to the machine on a daily basis, the technicians that maintain it or any of the subjects (except for the ones already having cancer or in which they induced cancer to study). Also, fMRI has no reported effects on pregnancy although we won't allow it because of the electricity that can be induced in the body but the main reason would be the contrast fluids.
I don't believe your mW sender/receiver has enough power to harm let alone kill anyone.
But... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But... (Score:5, Informative)
The Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] talks about efficiencies between 40% and 80% for near field transmission. Indeed, that seems like a serious waste just for the convenience of not having to plug in your device...
FYI, far field transmissions using microwave can reach an efficiency of 95%, but I don't think you want such a beam in your house :-)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
But... With one way to charge your stuff you may be able to get a better quality one. Those AC to DC converters take power even when they are not charging anything. If you make a nice near field transmission system. With say with a physical on off switch or a weight activated switch you can save power from having all those AC DC plugged in (unplugging them when they are not in use is really to much of a hassle for some locations to even consider making people switch).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How exactly does the power go from AC in the wall to the near field without going through a DC converter? How do you ensure that is not just sucking power out of the wall?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What if it turns on for a very short interval every so often and detects whether there is a power drain. The change in the drop in voltage across the unit gives a clue as to the state of need. Essentially it becomes a sampling frequency and threshold decision problem.
Transformers are efficient (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this "wireless power" stuff just a terrible waste of energy?
Transformers (not the Hasbro sort) are basically two adjacent coils, with the difference in the number of windings on each side determining the voltage step-up or step-down.
Here you have what is basically a transformer, just with the coils moved further away from each other. A 1:1 step ratio in a transformer is pretty efficient.
You're not wasting electricity spraying electrons in the air like a water sprinkler, there has to be a circuit before potential can be moved from one coil to the other. Electronics can keep idle current to a minimum. Where's the problem?
Parent
Re:Transformers are efficient (Score:5, Interesting)
Many people leave their charging transformers plugged in, even when not charging their appliance.
Since most of these chargers are cheap, they are not only highly inefficient when charging (how hot does your laptop power supply get?), but also consume power when not doing anything useful.
Would need to factor these things in to properly judge efficiency of near-field charging, which can get above 80% if I remember correctly...
Parent
Re:Transformers are efficient (Score:4, Interesting)
Umm, no let's not plug it in.
In time this can be improved above 80% efficiency. It's not about "may as well plug it in", it's also about space constraints, plugs, etc. This can remove the need for a lot of wiring and is not a new technology by far.
People have used mice [a4tech.com] (not the animals) to do this for years.
Not to mention this could force standardizing of connections thus disabling companies from having proprietary connectors to connect things.
Shaver's plug gets bust? Would be nice to replace the plug and not the whole damn thing, etc. This bypasses that entirely.
Parent
Re:Transformers are efficient (Score:5, Insightful)
Shaver's plug gets bust? Would be nice to replace the plug and not the whole damn thing, etc. This bypasses that entirely.
Sure. Let's just use this other power adapter from something else. With a little extra force, see, it fits fine. OK, now just to plug it in...
BLAMMO!!!!
Wife comes running in and sees the disaster and, being a good American, calls a lawyer.
This is why power adapters of different voltages, different capacities and different functionalities are designed with unique connectors. The intent is to keep you from causing problems for the company via lawsuits. Lawsuits caused directly by your ability to connect two mismatched devices together. Unless this risk can be eliminated, you are not going to get rid of every device having a different and unique connector.
Now it might be nice if there was an ISO standard for connectors (like there is for mains power connections) so there would be a few thousand "standard" connectors for every given voltage, regulation mode, current and AC or DC variety. This would solve everyone's problem, wouldn't it? Until you attempt to get everyone behind the idea of the few thousand "standard" connectors. That are all unique and different from today's non-standard connectors.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Two Coils joined with a Core. No Core, and the efficiency goes way down
That depends on the frequency of the AC voltage/current. At lower frequencies, an iron core is needed to help concentrate and focus the electromagnetic field due to the extremely-long wavelengths involved. Higher frequencies not so much. At the right frequency, a conductive loop an inch or so in diameter in the charger and the device under charge would be plenty to transfer power at surprisingly-high efficiencies depending on the range r
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, 400 hertz is about the optimum frequency for inductive loads to be as efficient without a core as a 60 hertz inductive load is with a core.
Better tell that to all the radio transmitter designers that use nothing more than two coils in proximity to each other to couple many watts of power from the transmitters' plate-tank circuit to the load.
And then there is the whole thing about the established power grid running at 50 to 60 hertz
Switching power supplies are ubiquitous these days and could b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hold the phone, let me call my friends at MIT and let them know that their wireless chargers are hopeless, because they don't have a core.
*facepalm* [flickr.com]...air is still a core. And the effect is diminished with large coils, like these people are using. And smaller distances, which is the case with cell phones. I'm pretty sure the engineers at MIT have figured this stuff out.
Re: (Score:2)
They're talking about a near-contact charging station. That can be pretty efficient -- as others pointed out, a transformer can be VERY efficient and this is basically the same thing.
Note that it's distinct from the charge-your-laptop-across-the-room style of wireless power, which IS very inefficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that it's distinct from the charge-your-laptop-across-the-room style of wireless power, which IS very inefficient.
Anything topical or substantial available from old notes on Wardenclyffe? I mean the Tesla notes, not the liner notes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardenclyffe_Tower/ [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it. This style of charging station is just a transformer except that the two halves are in different cases.
Wardenclyffe Tower was designed basically as a radio transmission tower. It was supposed to demonstrate transmission of electricity over long distances through the air, which is exactly what radio transmitters do. For an example of widespread deployment, find one of those little transistor radios that can power themselves from the received radio signal.
Re:But... (Score:5, Interesting)
There are other advantages.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Steve Jobs was supposed to announce it at Macworld. Unfortately, we've had some problems with the mass production of them. He may have to drop out of giving the keynote if we cannot solve the problem.
Edit: Apparently Steve decided to cancel for the keynote.
Re:But... (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, MIT has managed to produce wireless power at 75% and even 90% efficiency, either of which would be more efficient than your laptop's power pack. [cnn.com]
Parent
Re:But... (Score:5, Funny)
FTA: 90% efficiency when three feet apart?
I've got a cold fusion rector you might be interested in...
Parent
Re:But... (Score:5, Interesting)
The perfect use for this, in my mind, would be to have it built into your PC case. PC case sits under your desk, and monitors, mouse, keyboard, speakers are all just free standing. Awesome for LAN parties (assuming separate power transmitters don't interfere with each other), the worst thing about moving a computer (or even having one set up somewhere) is the spaghetti nest of wires tying it together. Of course, I'd probably duct-tape some tinfoil lining into my lucky rocketship underpants...
As for efficiency, I'd presume that the efficiency they're talking about is just that of the wireless transmission. There'd be a transformer at each side to get the voltages correct so it's still going to be less efficient overall than your power brick. A more apt comparison would be the 90% @ 3 feet compared to the power loss over the wires from the power brick to the device.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just don't put it under your desk for very long, or your boys won't swim anymore.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, yes and no. The laptop power adapter changes AC line voltage to some DC voltage, which the computer the uses. It's a single conversion step.
Now consider wireless power. It isn't going to be coming like some aether from the walls - you're going to need to produce it somewhere, somehow, probably from AC line voltage via a, you guessed it, power adapter. So the 75% to 90% wireless transmission efficiency is on top of the efficiency of the pow
Why not just standardize the cables? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to fear. The invisible rotting penis of the market will come along eventually and sort it all out.
Re:Why not just standardize the cables? (Score:5, Informative)
Wireless power is only practical in short ranges anyway. With standardized cables I wouldn't have drawerfuls of power cables.
Which is precisely what they're aiming for.
A standardized cable isn't gonna help you much when your mobile phone takes 5 volts to charge and your shaver or laptop takes 9 to 18. I imagine the technology would mimic proximity cards, you'd have a flat surface (say, a tabletop) and you'd sit your PDA, mobile, laptop, portable game system, etc. on it and depending on the number of windings in the receiving device and a small rectifier circuit, it would automatically receive the proper voltage.
AC electricity is fun.
Parent
I'd suggest tinfoil underpants... (Score:5, Funny)
...but that might not be such a good idea.
Yeah... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Mid Range Wireless (Score:2, Insightful)
If you can get wireless power in an entire room then we can finally ditch the last cord to our laptops, which is what consumers are waiting for when they ask for wireless power. If you have to put the items on a tray, it is a little easier, but it might as well be a dock or a physical connection. If you have power to an entire r
Re:Mid Range Wireless (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
putting your laptop on top of the charger would probably scramble the hard drive.
With SSD that won't be a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, not quite.
The coils are designed grab a charge and pull it to it.
It's not like an explosion where the power simply radiates everywhere. That's what we have microwaves for and why they are shielded. If the SSD is in the path of the charge, it would be impacted by it (shielded or not), but otherwise it's not like this will go everywhere for short range. The electricity leaps towards the coils, essentially.
Long range is another game entirely, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Sod your stupid cell phone and laptop! This would be super awesome for my toy helicopter!
Re:Mid Range Wireless (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with trying to power your wireless devices anywhere in a room is similar, due to the fact that you can move around and change the orientation of your devices. As the ratio of power-receiving-antenna to "cage" is even lower, you are likely looking at even lower power efficiencies. Yes, you can perform all sorts of fractal antenna optimizations and the like, but, if you want to be able to receive power anywhere in the room, then you are limited by the laws of physics: If your powering system covers the whole room, your efficiency is limited by the simple ratio of the area of your receiving antenna in the plane parallel to the floor (or wherever you place your powering system) to the area of the powering antenna itself.
The recent demos of wireless power by Intel and others have all involved highly directed powering antennae, where moving the receiver even a small amount cuts off the power supply. Directed power does have its uses, however. Imagine medical implants that can be powered in a short time by placing a directed antenna on your skin each morning, or even wearing a battery pack on your belt with a directed antenna to power a device with a built in radio communicator. No (highly infectable) wires penetrate the skin, no surgery is necessary to replace batteries that run low, and, even in the worst cases, you should still be able to remove the battery back for a time to perform certain functions (exercising, bathing) without losing device functionality.
Parent
"Cancer" tag (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it could. Would it? Almost certainly not. Yes, if you were spraying around gamma rays then you would definitely cause some cancer. Wireless power doesn't do that - it uses far lower frequencies.
Put it this way - see that lightbulb? It's spraying around watts of much higher frequency radiation than any consumer wireless device would.
Re: (Score:2)
Put it this way - see that lightbulb? It's spraying around watts of much higher frequency radiation than any consumer wireless device would.
That's true, and look how sensitive the electrons in our eyes are to it. It's like saying that microwaves can't be seen (they're at a much lower frequency than our eyes detect), therefore they can't hurt us. Good luck with *that*.
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, no it isn't going to cause cancer. This isn't radiation flying about the room, not even in the sense of EM radiation like microwaves. These systems use an alternating magnetic current that produces a sympithetic current in the device being charged. Rather than sending power in the EM spectrum and generating a current based on a photovoltaic effect.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
All studies point to "Not likely" which is doctor parlance for "No, but we don't want you to get cancer from some other source and then blame us"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ideally, bugs like cancer-causing levels of radiation will be worked out before it goes into production.
I sure hope so, but some things can easily slip by quality control, and I would think this could be easier in wireless development due to possible difficulties in testing, and a lack of knowing "exactly" what causes cancer in the first place.
And it is also scary how quality control's quality itself seems to be decreasing [slashdot.org] drastically [thecoffeedesk.com].
damage? (Score:2, Interesting)
How about my electric car? (Score:3, Interesting)
Standard power cable? You mean USB? (Score:2)
Last I checked USB was pretty much the defacto standard power connector already, for low power devices. And you can make a nice looking USB charging dock for SUB a lot more cheaply than you can make these space-wasting power pads.
Standards Requires Standard Technology (Score:5, Informative)
You can't develop a standard if you don't have similar technologies, and wireless power developers so far have been coming up with all kinds of different technologies. Remove the part of TFA that makes no sense in light of this, and you end up with an advertisement for this "consortium" disguised as a press release, faithfully and unquestioningly reproduced by PC Authority. Had PC Authority tried to do real journalism rather than simple reproduction, they'd have found that not only are the major proposed schemes so different that the idea of standardization is ridiculous, but that some of the members of the consortium aren't even developing any of those schemes.
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Funny)
Intel chief technology officer Justin Rattner demonstrated a Wireless Energy Resonant Link [today.com] as he spoke at the annual Intel developers forum in San Francisco yesterday.
Rattner demonstrated this by causing his ears to light up at 60 watts of power a yard from a power transmitter operated by his assistant Igor. Only four journalists were incinerated when the power earthed through them from his fingertips.
Rattner reassured us that pumping kilowatts of power around the home through magnetic induction power is absolutely harmless. "The human body is not affected by magnetic fields," he said as one journalist with a pacemaker collapsed and another with a knee replacement watched his leg catch fire. "There's no danger whatsoever from it, any more than there is from mobile phones cooking your brain, microwave leakage blinding you, chemical waste unraveling all the DNA in your balls or statistical clusters of kids with cancer wherever high-tension power lines run overhead. Asbestos and thalidomide were horribly slandered in their day too."
"Of course, Nikola Tesla did it first in 1899," said enthusiast Albert Tedious-Anorak, 54, of Little Boring. "I detailed this at length on Wikipedia, but they refused to believe the value of my revelations on this matter due to a conspiracy of Edison fans amongst the site administrators."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, cords are a pain for portable gear. Plugging and unplugging, and moving them is very hard on them. I go through a laptop power cord about once a year. They all wear out right where the wire enters the connector on the laptop side. For cell phones, the connectors themselves often break, get dirty or otherwise damaged. Irritating when it happens to the cord. Worse when it happens to the phone.
Other than using a heavier cord, or a heavy support mesh, there's not really much that can be done abo
Re:Scared, paranoid? (Score:4, Insightful)
I work in a 3 Tesla fMRI environment. You know, the thing with the superconductive, super cooled magnets that require a few kV to maintain and that eventually has enough power to align all water molecules in your body and then send another magnetic field through to take pictures of your physical structure. You know if your head needs to be scanned, we put it inside a head coil which is basically the secondary coil side of a transformer. I usually work on the computers right next to the power boxes (huge cabinets with transformers in them).
So far, fMRI has produced no cancers in me, the fMRI specialist who worked in fMRI for the last 20 years and is next to the machine on a daily basis, the technicians that maintain it or any of the subjects (except for the ones already having cancer or in which they induced cancer to study). Also, fMRI has no reported effects on pregnancy although we won't allow it because of the electricity that can be induced in the body but the main reason would be the contrast fluids.
I don't believe your mW sender/receiver has enough power to harm let alone kill anyone.
Parent