Solar LCD Powered iPods, iPhones and Laptops?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

A recently published patent application discovered by MacRumors reveals that Apple is investigating the use of solar power in versions of their mobile devices -- both handheld devices and portable computers. Integrating solar power into a mobile device holds the enormous potential of extending battery life significantly. However, successfully integrating solar panels into these small devices is not without its challenges.

The major issues described are the limited area available to solar panels, durability, and the "wasting" of space on a portable device. It is due to these problems that solar power has not found its way into mobile devices, not just from Apple, but from all manufacturers.


http://images.macrumors.com/article/2008/05/26/022306-solarcells_400.png


The most interesting technique described by Apple, however, is the integration of the solar panels behind the actual LCD screen of a portable device. The solar panel would absorb ambient light that passes through the LCD screen of the device. This could eliminate any additional footprint typically required by the solar panels. If successfully implemented, Apple's iPhone, iPod and laptops, could require no outward changes in design to add solar power.

Apple's not the only one exploring this technology as an old (2001) Motorola patent (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/05/motorola_patent.php) describes the same technique. While several limitations to the technique were described at that time, the issues may have been better addressed in recent years.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/05/26/solar-lcd-powered-ipods-iphones-and-laptops/)

Patent Application (http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20080094025&OS=20080094025&RS=20080094025)

[MacinDoc]

Well, if you can put the solar panels under the display (I wonder if this may be possible with OLED, although I'm no expert in the area), the increased area available for solar panels may make up for the fact that the light reaching the panels will be partly filtered by the display itself. I wonder how this will work with touchscreen technology, however.

[arn]

I wonder how this will work with touchscreen technology, however.

It apparently works with touchscreen and OLED technology. The motorola patent apparently said that only a small portion of light went through and it was only ideal for certain (black&white) screens. But that was 2001.

http://www.ubergizmo.com/15/archives/2007/05/motorola_patents_solar_lcd.html

This [Motorola] patent also includes word on how solar cells can be added to OLED and touchscreen displays as well.

arn

[D4F]

Sounds interesting.
If they manage to combine two power options this might give you some crazy use times.

[Flynntoo]

talk about think different

[MacFly123]

Cool! So soon we may very well have OLED razor thin displays with solar power and iSight cameras built into the displays themselves :D Sounds good to me!

My only question is how much do your iPods, iPhones, Laptops etc. actually have their screen exposed to the sun??? Don't you usually have your portables in your pocket and your laptops avoiding sun glare when outside??? How much power would this really add then? :confused:

[Greenbird600]

It would certainly be cool if they could do this. Another thing that I think would be awesome is if they found a way that you could attach an ipod or iphone with the solar tech in them to a laptop, and use the ipod/phone's solar panel to charge the laptop, for that extra boost.

[cnote678]

This will be awesome! Probably happen years from now, but still very cool. Efficiency=:)

[MOFS]

Without wanting to put a downer on this but would this work indoors? Computers are energy intense as we know, and I wonder how much energy a solar panel would absorb indoors (where most of the machines created with this would be used), especially if they only absorb a small proportion of ambient light anyway.

[Flynntoo]

i think if you are indoors, you probably have access to power

[BlackSp1der]

My only question is how much do your iPods, iPhones, Laptops etc. actually have their screen exposed to the sun???

:confused: I think that the idea of this tecnology is absorb the light generated by the LCD Screen.

[junkmailbonzai]

Bring it on! I am all for not having to charge my electronics as much. This would also be a godsend for hiking, camping, and car trips. Go apple! :)

[arubinst]

So what if this is the reason why the back of the new iPhone is rumored to be "black"?

What if it's not black but instead it's a huge solar cell array (dark blue) protected by a thick transparent layer?

I know this sounds insane, but it would be so cool... Well... one can always dream. ;)

[David G.]

:confused: I think that the idea of this tecnology is absorb the light generated by the LCD Screen.

OR, they could have a highly reflective backing behind the screen so they could turn brightness while appearing just as bright. Much more efficient that way.

[arn]

:confused: I think that the idea of this tecnology is absorb the light generated by the LCD Screen.

Was that a joke? In case it wasn't, the idea is that sunlight would pass through the LCD onto the solar panels.

Without wanting to put a downer on this but would this work indoors? Computers are energy intense as we know, and I wonder how much energy a solar panel would absorb indoors (where most of the machines created with this would be used), especially if they only absorb a small proportion of ambient light anyway.

They wouldn't _only_ be solar powered. You'd still have the normal battery to use in non-lit situations. It would presuambly just extend your battery life with a constant trickle of power.

arn

[anubis]

Under full bright sunlight illumination, with the solar panels pointed directly at the sun, you're only looking at an electricity generation rate of between 15 and 20 watts with the best polycrystalline solar cells available today, assuming the solar cells cover an entire 1 square foot area. If the solar energy strikes the screen at an oblique (indirect) angle, the energy collection rate begins to fall of dramatically. Indoors, you'd be lucky to generate 1-2 watts.

I'm not saying this is a terrible idea. I'm just saying that best care scenario, it extends your battery life by maybe a minute.

If the point is to collect the light "backscatter" from the screen backlight, it would be a much better use of resources to simply not generate as much backscatter, as the best solar cell efficiency you could hope for would be about 20%. I think LED backlighting mostly solves this problem, rendering the argument moot.

[g8bo]

So what if this is the reason why the back of the new iPhone is rumored to be "black"?

What if it's not black but instead it's a huge solar cell array (dark blue) protected by a thick transparent layer?

I know this sounds insane, but it would be so cool... Well... one can always dream. ;)

I once made this joke some months ago on macrumors^^ but nobody spend attention to it...

[j26]

Something like that would be useful in gps style devices (iPhone?), since they're exposed to the sun a lot, but I can't see how useful it would be for a laptop. The amount of time you'd have a laptop open in a situation where it would receive enough light to be useful would be very limited.

[kamiboy]

If only portable devices didn't spend 99,9% of their time in our darkened pockets.

[alphaod]

Apple is getting busy with all these patents aren't they? I wouldn't be surprise one bit if Apple put a device out with all the patents in one creative mess and everyone would call it a technological phenomenon.

[lowbb]

So what if this is the reason why the back of the new iPhone is rumored to be "black"?

What if it's not black but instead it's a huge solar cell array (dark blue) protected by a thick transparent layer?

I know this sounds insane, but it would be so cool... Well... one can always dream. ;)

but you hold your iPhone with your hand so that the back of the iPhone is covered
so no sunlight can pass through

[craigverse]

I love this sort of article. It's amazing what ideas are out there that may one day be put to use. Keep them coming!

[intel]

Back in the day when i was 12 i heard you can have semi transparent solar panels, we had those chunky monitors with these weird screen filters and i thought to myself, why not catch some of the light that the monitor puts out, seeing that the screen filters made the monitor dark as ****. (what can i say, i was only 12).

There are many ideas that help recharge the battery of a device being used, using the power that the device is already putting out and is going to waste.

This seems like a good idea if the solar cell catches the light emited from the backlight. I'm not exactly sure how that backlight thing works but this idea would be practical if it is more efficient than using a reflector.

There are also devices/materials that use waste heat to generate electricity. A thin layer over the top of the cpu and beside the battery would do the trick. These divices are like 25% efficient. (That's 25% of the 20% or so that is wasted as heat, whick makes it as useless as a fart in a jar giving you back only 5% of your total power, minus another 3% or so in the losses of recharging the battery leaving you with only 2%. Then if you take into account the energy(/cost) used to add that extra device, you are left with sweet nothingness but bitter remorse for buying a device that is full of ****. Something like the hybrid car phonomenon but only in its own parralel universe with a twist)

Who knows, if you combine all these techs in one neat package without blowing the budget and if it gives me that extra 5 mins on a conversation with a chick that will eventually get me layed, hell, bring it on.

[Brianstorm91]

I new I should have bought those jeans with the transparent pockets :apple:!

[Analog Kid]

Interesting, but most solar cells I've seen are black, and LCDs need to reflect light back up through the panel. Guess I'll have to read the patent...

My only question is how much do your iPods, iPhones, Laptops etc. actually have their screen exposed to the sun??? Don't you usually have your portables in your pocket and your laptops avoiding sun glare when outside??? How much power would this really add then
If the could make this efficient enough, I think it would cause a change in how people use their devices. Place it on the dash of your car, leave it out on the table, put it in a windowed pocket of your purse...
:confused: I think that the idea of this tecnology is absorb the light generated by the LCD Screen.
Um... Study up on your thermodynamics. What you're suggesting wouldn't work for the same reason perpetual motion is impossible.
This seems like a good idea if the solar cell catches the light emited from the backlight. I'm not exactly sure how that backlight thing works but this idea would be practical if it is more efficient than using a reflector.
It won't be more efficient than using a reflector for the same reason as above. A mirror or white diffuser will always be more efficient than converting light to electricity and then back to light.
There are also devices/materials that use waste heat to generate electricity. A thin layer over the top of the cpu and beside the battery would do the trick. These divices are like 25% efficient. (That's 25% of the 20% or so that is wasted as heat, whick makes it as useless as a fart in a jar giving you back only 5% of your total power, minus another 3% or so in the losses of recharging the battery leaving you with only 2%.
All the power going into the CPU comes out as heat, not just 20%. A small fraction will travel down the bus and become heat in a different device, such as the memory, but heat is where it all ends somewhere. The problem with the thermal devices you're describing has been that they typically require much higher temperatures to reach that 25% efficiency than silicon can operate at.

[Trapped]

Under full bright sunlight illumination, with the solar panels pointed directly at the sun, you're only looking at an electricity generation rate of between 15 and 20 watts with the best polycrystalline solar cells available today, assuming the solar cells cover an entire 1 square foot area. If the solar energy strikes the screen at an oblique (indirect) angle, the energy collection rate begins to fall of dramatically. Indoors, you'd be lucky to generate 1-2 watts.

I'm not saying this is a terrible idea. I'm just saying that best care scenario, it extends your battery life by maybe a minute.
.

But how much power do you need to make this technology useful? iPhone has a 1400mAh battery and is rated at a talk time of 8 hours. Presuming that ran the battery to empty, the power usage during talking is 3.7v @ 0.175A per hour, or 0.6Watts ( W = VA ). Actually, it would have to be a little less than this as Li batteries are never run down to 0%.

iPhone is 11.5x6.1 cm so a total surface area of 70cm2. A solar panel under the LCD screen isn't going to cover that whole area - maybe more like 50cm2. A 50cm2 solar cell of 12% efficiency under 'standard test conditions' has a peak output of around 0.6Watts, i.e. it would be generating power at the same rate that it's used.

Now, with 'Standard Test Conditions' being defined as 'midday, US summer time with the solar panels pointing directly at the sun', you're not going to get that kind of power generated whilst inside or with your iPhone held up to your ear. But it does suggest that if you were sitting outside during the daytime listening to music, you could leave your iPhone face upwards and be generating power faster than it's being used. iPhone also has a 250 hour standby time - power usage of about 20mWatts - a solar cell and a few of hours of sunlight every day could extend that indefinitely.

[Analog Kid]

Ok, I just read through most of the patent claims.

The invention here isn't so much about putting solar cells behind the display as about how to put solar cells in a device with no "up".

So what if this is the reason why the back of the new iPhone is rumored to be "black"?

What if it's not black but instead it's a huge solar cell array (dark blue) protected by a thick transparent layer?

I know this sounds insane, but it would be so cool... Well... one can always dream. ;)
I once made this joke some months ago on macrumors^^ but nobody spend attention to it...
Don't know that we'll see it this time around, but you were both remarkably close to what Apple is describing.

Solar cells are integrated into a portable device. Multiple cells are arranged on the surface of the device such that a number of solar cells may always be functional and produce a desired voltage even if the rest is obstructed. ... Solar cells are typically stacked with other layers made of transparent or semi-transparent materials. ... Some of these layers may be used for display or input purposes, and some layers may be coated with various materials or they may be etched with product logos or other patterns.

In particular, claim 5 describes putting a "substantial fraction" of the cells on the side opposite the display, as opposed to behind the display.

Most of the references to a display are about using the display to give the user information about the amount of power coming from the cells.

Claims 19, 21 and related claims seem to have the most to do with putting the cells behind the display in a unique way-- making the display and touch screen transparent to a specific wavelength of light and the cells most sensitive to that wavelength.

It's interesting that the apparatus claims describe two specific sizes: 30,000 sq mm, and 10,000 sq mm. The iPhone has a total surface area of about 14,000 sq mm and the iPod classic isn't much smaller. Neither meets the size specified in claim 35, though the Nano and Shuffle do, and both are about half the size of the device specified in claim 34.

Claims 41 and 42 seem to suggest a clamshell design.

Claim 43 specifically calls out a plasma display as an alternative to LCD.

All together, the first half of the claims are method claims describing the unique method of ensuring that some number of cells are always exposed to light. The second half are apparatus claims which seem to be describing a very specific device.

I have to guess that if Apple allowed this patent application to go public, they dropped plans for developing it, but it is interesting non-the-less.

[Analog Kid]

iPhone is 11.5x6.1 cm so a total surface area of 70cm2. A solar panel under the LCD screen isn't going to cover that whole area - maybe more like 50cm2. A 50cm2 solar cell of 12% efficiency under 'standard test conditions' has a peak output of around 0.6Watts, i.e. it would be generating power at the same rate that it's used.
The claims mostly describe a "portable media device", so this sounds more targeted at the iPod than the iPhone (though Apple likes to blur that distinction).

It's possible that designating a media device, rather than communication device, gets them around some existing patents for cell phones. ("It's not a phone, it's a media device with voice capability.")

[deputylove8]

Interesting patents they have these days... I wonder what will come next???

Ipod Air - The Ipod that uses Air to generate electricity?

.........:confused:

[PabloGS]

Can't wait till they introduce that thingie. It will probably not only revolutionize the mobile device market but also the fashion and wear we walk around in.

Since solar panels need light and most keep their phones in their pockets or bags we'll soon see the following cloth booming: See-Through pants, See-Through shirts, See-Through handbags, See-Through backpacks, ...

You guys get the point ;)

[CrackedButter]

It is about time, ever since the MacbookAir came out I have been wondering why devices are not wireless already with solar panels attached. I would love to have a wireless hard drive with a solar panel attached to it.

I guess its a game of patience because all this has been predicted anyway, just not implemented.

[blahblah9999]

Solar Panels heat water

Solar Cells generate electricity

You used "Solar Panels" in your article.

I just thought you might want to change it.

[Analog Kid]

Solar Panels heat water

Solar Cells generate electricity

You used "Solar Panels" in your article.

I just thought you might want to change it.
Apple uses "solar panel" to mean one or more solar cells. That's always been my understanding of the term as well...

"45. The portable data processing system of claim 39, wherein:said solar panel comprises a plurality of solar cells."

[MattInOz]

Flat screen multi-touch the other method.

We've all seen the other multi-touch demos like the Jef Han one where a camera looks at the back of the screen and a light source mostly UV is refracted with in the screen so when you touch the screen it changes to properties producing a VU dot for the camera to see.

So Apple writes a patent integrating a video cell within the screen, so you can watch for touches, the easist way maybe to use solar cells with are sensitive to UV, easy to make in standard silcon fab and if excess UV falls the screen it can be used as power.

If would seem a great thing to do would be to use that power straight away, like to make the screen brighter seeing your outdoors in bright light.
they could tie it straight LED backlight. It might need any power to light the screen in normal use. In the office the lights produce a fair amount of UV as well.

[Dreamail]

This patent doesn't really make much sense with LCDs.

LCD backlights are usually not transparent and hence would not give a solar panel behind it much to work with. Even if they would be transparent they would filter out so much light that any solar array behind it wouldn't really receive much light.

Side-lit LCDs are usually quite thick and suffer from uneven lighting, they are usually noticeably brighter at the edges than in the center of the display.

And reflective LCDs, with no backlight, suffer from poor contrast and usually need a shiny, reflective surface at the back - not black which is the typical solar panel color.


However, all these become irrelevant when using an OLED panel instead.
OLEDs emit light directly, they don't need a backlight. And they can be mounted on transparent materials. All they then need would be a black background - like a solar panel.

And there were quite a few recent developments on solar panels made from plastic, which are lighter, cheaper and thinner than silicon based ones. Albeit not as efficient.


Since OLEDs can be very thin, I'm certain any touch sensitive layer could be mounted even behind the solar panel and still work.


Makes perfect sense. Hope Apple's using it soon.
Probably not in the upcoming update, but perhaps the following one, as early as January next year?

[obivoid]

Another problem they probably have to overcome is, that exposing the device to direct sunlight will heat it up and thus shorten the batteries overall lifetime.

[MOFS]

Was that a joke? In case it wasn't, the idea is that sunlight would pass through the LCD onto the solar panels.



They wouldn't _only_ be solar powered. You'd still have the normal battery to use in non-lit situations. It would presuambly just extend your battery life with a constant trickle of power.

arn

I get that it wouldn't just be solar powered What i'm thinking is that it is unlikely to be implemented if it is purely meant to be used indoors. Laptops tend not to be used in the field, so I see this as further proof for a tablet Mac. The screen would forever be exposed to sunlight (unlike a laptop), and for me the tablet Mac would work perfectly in outdoor situations as a kinda notepad. No optical drive; just a touchscreen with "Numbers lite" for use in the field for data-crunching.

[ibjoshua]

I mentioned this in the LED backlight story the other day:

Imagine a MacBook case made out of this stuff (http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1657/) mentioned on ecogeek.org. The molecular soup mixture would have organic light-emitting diode (OLED) and solar cell building blocs that can be spread or even sprayed like paint in an ultra-thin layer that is only 100 nm thick. By combining both technologies, it may be possible to have displays on the market that don't even have to be plugged in but charged using solar panels. The companies even say it could be sprayed onto the back of cell phones to charge up the device.
Charge your machine and at the same time check your iCal (or whatever) without plugging it in or opening it.
Nice.

ibjoshua

[MadDog31]

Too bad they couldn't work in that technology watches use how they stay charged while the watch stays in motion (kinetic?).

I like the idea behind the solar though too...it'd be interesting to see.

[Applefanboy24]

Hello???
doesn't anyone remember the "electric computers" discovered in Apple's shipping manifests? Couldn't this be them? If it is, it would make total sense for macbook redesigns

[Dagless]

I've always wondered if this was possible, I hope it does get included in future tech. TBH I don't know why we're not using solar panels more, even if they just produce enough power to keep a radio on then I'd be happy.

[137489]

Cool! So soon we may very well have OLED razor thin displays with solar power and iSight cameras built into the displays themselves :D Sounds good to me!

My only question is how much do your iPods, iPhones, Laptops etc. actually have their screen exposed to the sun??? Don't you usually have your portables in your pocket and your laptops avoiding sun glare when outside??? How much power would this really add then? :confused:

true about portable devices mostly being in pockets. But seriously, they would have to do something major with the display. As it stands now with portable devices (including laptops), is you cannot see anything on the screen when you are outside in the sun. Especially since 98% of the computers out there are using glossy screens. Also, leaving electronic equipment in the sun is not always a good idea... Technology would really have to change in order for it to be viable - hey then I can get my solar powered car....

[137489]

Interesting patents they have these days... I wonder what will come next???

Ipod Air - The Ipod that uses Air to generate electricity?

.........:confused:


Don't laugh, Apple could probably do it.... You have a little tiny windmill on your ipod and as you walk, the mini breeze that is generated causes the windmill to spin. :rolleyes: or, since most of these equipment have fan to cool it, you have the windmill positioned right over the fan so not only do you get air from the outside, the fan generated the wind also.

hey, we have shake flashlights, radios and TV's you crank up, etc. seems like backwards technology, but in reality with the energy crises or when power goes out during a storm, it makes a little sense - why not have your ipod. think about it.. with the oil crisis, most people are buying motorcycles, bikes, or walking - so an air powered device would make sense. Windmill technology has not taken off to much as you have to rely on the environment - but if you are making your own wind (watch it - no comments on that please :eek:) by moving or riding outdoor equipment why not.

imagine your ipod never goes dead on a hiking, canoe, bike, or motorcycle trip - it charges as you move. other companies are already making waterprooof ipod holders for diving, boating, and swimming - why not have Apple make a device that takes advantage of air currents as you move.

[rockthecasbah]

That's really cool, I hope we see it soon! I am not holding my breath, however, since Apple patents a lot of ideas it doesn't intend to put in products... We'll see :)

[dicklacara]

In 1960, I managed the Data Processing (forerunner of IT) department of Hoffman Electronics Corporation - Semiconducter Division, El Monte, CA.

Hoffman was one of the pioneers in silicon, semiconductors and photo cells.

They were also an early pioneer in radio and television-- super-inovative and high-quality stuff... kinda' the Apple of that era.

They made one product, which really impressed me: A portable radio (AM/FM/SW) phonograph that was solar powered (to recharge the batteries, C cell, AIR).

AIR, this little jewel cost $129 and would play 45 & 33 RPM records. It was about the size of a paperback book and weighed about 3-4 lbs.

I bought one and was the only guy in town who could play records at the beach (not the best place to take records).

At that time. there were no: 5-track tapes, cassette tapes, walkmans, CDs. DVDs,-- only a few "portable" transistor radios.

It never gained much popularity (I never saw another one), but it worked, and was amazing for its day.

In, the 70's, we purchased a solar panel system for about $7,000 to heat our 20,000 gallon swimming pool (Silicon Valley). We were able to heat the pool year-round, and it paid for itself within 7 years.

In the 80's, we purchased a TownHouse in Tucson with a Solar Panel whole-house, continuous Hot water heating system. It worked great, except that the copper pipe embedded in the concrete slab was not insulated-- so the heat dissipated into the slab. Convenient (instant hot water at every tap), but, because of the glitch, more expensive than a conventional water heater. We turned it off.

So, it has been a mixed bag of experiences with solar cells.

Maybe the time is now-- if it's doable, then Apple can probably do it better than anyone.

[wheelhot]

Wow, well it might take time for this idea to appear in Apple product range, but if it does, that would be wonderful.

I guess these is one of the place where the money you pay for your overpriced macs went to. Research!.

Its sad though, if Apple managed to get Solar LCD working, expect other people to copy it in the next 6 months and people will start complaining again that Apple is overpricing their products.

Simply sad, but hey its life.

[dicklacara]

Don't laugh, Apple could probably do it.... You have a little tiny windmill on your ipod and as you walk, the mini breeze that is generated causes the windmill to spin. :rolleyes: or, since most of these equipment have fan to cool it, you have the windmill positioned right over the fan so not only do you get air from the outside, the fan generated the wind also.

hey, we have shake flashlights, radios and TV's you crank up, etc. seems like backwards technology, but in reality with the energy crises or when power goes out during a storm, it makes a little sense - why not have your ipod. think about it.. with the oil crisis, most people are buying motorcycles, bikes, or walking - so an air powered device would make sense. Windmill technology has not taken off to much as you have to rely on the environment - but if you are making your own wind (watch it - no comments on that please :eek:) by moving or riding outdoor equipment why not.

imagine your ipod never goes dead on a hiking, canoe, bike, or motorcycle trip - it charges as you move. other companies are already making waterprooof ipod holders for diving, boating, and swimming - why not have Apple make a device that takes advantage of air currents as you move.

Don't stop there...

Methane is a wasted source of huge potential power. How about a "PIMP", Personally Implemented Methane Power, device that would gather methane and convert it into electricity to continuously charge your iPhone...

...where would you plug it in :D

[mitch88ell]

I wonder if this could be a continuation of the Mac Tablet Patent? :cool::apple::cool:

[John454]

Great idea but... it amazes me how after time and time again Apple takes other people's ideas twists them ever so slightly and tries to patent it like they invented it.

[stagi]

This would be really cool, I hope that it makes its way into some products sometime.

[dicklacara]

Don't stop there...

Methane is a wasted source of huge potential power. How about a "PIMP", Personally Implemented Methane Power, device that would gather methane and convert it into electricity to continuously charge your iPhone...

...where would you plug it in :D

On further reflection...

I had to take a short library break and it gave me more time to think.

The PIMP acronym does not properly connote the idea of personal methane use. Rather, BUM, Built-in Use of Methane, says it much better!

It could be used in many products and would improve Apple's image with the "Greenies".

There would be the iPhoneBUM, MacBookBUM... and for the anal-retentive, the TouchBUM.

[CWallace]

It's a nice idea from a PR standpoint, but how effective will it be?

My iPhone spends most of it's time in a flip-case, so it would only see the sun for a few seconds a day. I suppose if you had an occupation where you spent all-day outside you could leave your iPhone in an open-faced holder, but again, how much light will it receive? And would one be worried about damage to the screen in certain occupations?

As to laptops, sunlight glare on the screen is bad enough, but now you have to adjust your screen to make it worse in order to maximize the amount of radiant sunlight it receives. I would think it would be better to put them on the back of the display so you can aim the back at the sun and help shade the LCD, but then that ruins the aesthetics. :)

I can only really see it viable on the iPod Nano since joggers put them on their upper arms which would get decent sun. And while the screen/panel area would be small, so is the power drain of those machines so it might prove itself useful.

[notjustjay]

I really like the idea a previous poster suggested, capturing energy from motion like some wristwatches do. Surely everyone's iPhone and iPod spends a lot of time bouncing around in a pocket, handbag or backpack. If that movement can be harnessed...

Wristwatches can do this because they require very little power, I don't know how viable this would be with current technology.

[jmerk]

when i last checked an iPhone, the entire back was "unused." why not just cover the back with a solar cell? i know that calculators are small and don't use nearly the power of an iPhone but if those tiny solar collectors can power one of those, why couldn't you cover the entire back of the iPhone with solar cells and get a decent amount of return?

[rockosmodurnlif]

It's a nice idea from a PR standpoint, but how effective will it be?

My iPhone spends most of it's time in a flip-case, so it would only see the sun for a few seconds a day. I suppose if you had an occupation where you spent all-day outside you could leave your iPhone in an open-faced holder, but again, how much light will it receive? And would one be worried about damage to the screen in certain occupations?

As to laptops, sunlight glare on the screen is bad enough, but now you have to adjust your screen to make it worse in order to maximize the amount of radiant sunlight it receives. I would think it would be better to put them on the back of the display so you can aim the back at the sun and help shade the LCD, but then that ruins the aesthetics. :)

I can only really see it viable on the iPod Nano since joggers put them on their upper arms which would get decent sun. And while the screen/panel area would be small, so is the power drain of those machines so it might prove itself useful.
It's about as effective as a charger and an outlet. If you know your iPhone, iPod whatever can get a boost and keep itself charged by lying in the sun, some users would alter their behavior to take advantage of this ability. ie: when driving, leaving the device on the seat or dash to catch the sun, finding a way to get a cubicle near the window, things like that.

[Rot'nApple]

Was that a joke? In case it wasn't, the idea is that sunlight would pass through the LCD onto the solar panels.



They wouldn't _only_ be solar powered. You'd still have the normal battery to use in non-lit situations. It would presuambly just extend your battery life with a constant trickle of power.

arn

My current non iPhone, non Solar Powered POS gets very little sunlight on it's screen. It's either against my face when on a call, or in it's protective vinyl case that is either dangling on my side, in my pocket or in my briefcase. I'm not against new thinking and going green when it comes to recharging iPhones and iPods but would this "solar" method require a lot of "face" time in the sun to activate the solar cells so they can do their thing and create energy or recharge the battery? I'd be curious if anyone with more understanding or background in this field could elaborate, because as a lay person, I'm thinking Solar Power houses with big collection screens on the roof or Satellites with big extended solar panels (and both are either "best positioned" re: house or "track the sun" re: satellite to get the most sunlight out of the deal to be worth a damn) to produce the energy they need, grant it, the usage of a house or satellite versus an iPhone have greatly different requirements. If I ever did get an iPhone, I just don't want to walk around with it in the palm of my hand which is raised high toward the sky for extra recharging purposes, is all...

[iVoid]

Apple would have to stop using glossy screens then. Having to point your screen towards the sun would end up leaving the screen unreadable with the glare from the sun. :cool:

[Rot'nApple]

It's about as effective as a charger and an outlet. If you know your iPhone, iPod whatever can get a boost and keep itself charged by lying in the sun, some users would alter their behavior to take advantage of this ability. ie: when driving, leaving the device on the seat or dash to catch the sun, finding a way to get a cubicle near the window, things like that.

Yeah, and people know that driving on the interstate at 55 - 60 mph saves gas... the 60 mph thing, it ain't happening!


"can get a boost and keep itself charged by lying in the sun, some users would alter their behavior to take advantage of this ability" and some users won't alter their behavior to justify the expense, and by expense I mean, I would rather see the price of the iPhone drop then have the price always remain the same or with very little fluctuation down, but be "wooed" by SJ and company about a feature I could do without in it's next product revision.

[cheekybobcat]

R.I.P. iPod Classic...

Welcome iPod Hybrid :D

[Doctor Q]

Apple would have to stop using glossy screens then. Having to point your screen towards the sun would end up leaving the screen unreadable with the glare from the sun. :cool:You'd want a portable device pointed at the sun when not in use, which is presumably a majority of the time. You can turn the other way when you're using it.

I wonder if, in theory, a tiny bit of power could be harvested from the force of pushing the face of a touchscreen, or from shaking the device. How 'bout a Hand Power button you could press 100 times to add a little more charge? Good for those people with a nervous habit of clicking and unclicking their pen all the time; they could power their phone instead.

[twoodcc]

now this would be great for battery life, which seems to always be a setback for me. i would love to see this happen. and it'd get people outdoors more also

[MacTheSpoon]

Since mobile devices are usually in pockets, I wonder if it'd be possible to integrate a thin and light solar cell array into the headphone cord instead.

[lazyrighteye]

If they could make this efficient enough, I think it would cause a change in how people use their devices. Place it on the dash of your car, leave it out on the table, put it in a windowed pocket of your purse...

Agreed.
And I'd suggest that the iPhone (and even the iPod touch) has already introduced this change - making such solar powered concepts more plausible than it was prior to the iPhone launch.

In casual observation, I've noticed iPhone users seem much more apt to leave their devices out on restaurant tables, desks at work, coffee tables at home, etc., than with any handheld device to date.

To what can you attribute this out-of-pocket phenomenon?

Good question, me.

Well I don't think users keep their iPhones out as some sort of "status symbol" - tho there are some tool boxes out there that think they'll get more p*ssy because they have an iPhone sitting out on the bar of the hip club Le Douche.

And I don't think it has anything to do with the device's physical dimension. For 2 years prior to my iPhone, I had no problem lugging around a massive Treo 650 in my pants pocket. And an iPhone is much more pocket-friendly than a Treo.

No, I suggest the real reason users are keeping their iPhones out of their pockets is because this is a device that they actually want to, and do, use.

And that represents one of the facets I like most about Apple.

<generalizing>
What separates Apple from other consumer electronics manufacturers (sorry people, facts are facts – please save any debate on that topic for another thread, if at all) is their better understanding of and their genuine concern for how it's users interact with their product(s). When they have an idea, a concept, a new technology – they don't, like most short-sighted companies focused on appeasing their stock holders, light-switch implement said idea/concept/tech just because they can.
No, through a series of tough lessons (Newton, Cube, round mouse, etc.), Apple has learned to both understand the pitfalls and temptations of such thinking/implementation as well as the importance of taking the time, energy and resources to adequately train their end user. After all, a new tech is only as "cool" as it is usable. And 5 years ago, the iPhone would have flopped. But between now and then we've seen slow implementations of more touch technology. From 2-finger scrolling to now multi-finger gestures, Apple has slowly been training it's end user and the results are beginning to reflect in the company's overall market penetration.
</generalizing>

If anyone is poised to successfully introduce and implement something like solar powered devices, it's Apple. At the vert least, it's good to see them exploring such things.

[g8bo]

aren't OLEDs lifetime susceptible to sunlight? :confused:

[wizard]

Under full bright sunlight illumination, with the solar panels pointed directly at the sun, you're only looking at an electricity generation rate of between 15 and 20 watts with the best polycrystalline solar cells available today, assuming the solar cells cover an entire 1 square foot area. If the solar energy strikes the screen at an oblique (indirect) angle, the energy collection rate begins to fall of dramatically. Indoors, you'd be lucky to generate 1-2 watts.

It is good that you highlight the realities of solar cells! However a watt is a watt and it has the potential to offset watts derived else where.

I'm not saying this is a terrible idea. I'm just saying that best care scenario, it extends your battery life by maybe a minute.

Well this can be argued about for ages. Even if the cell is only supplying 250 milliwatts it will offset battery drain. The question in my mind is just how much power does a iPod consume. Frankly it can't be a lot.

The other side of the equation is th very non-linear discharge curves that batteries exhibit. Small reductions in static drain can often dramatically extend battery life.


If the point is to collect the light "backscatter" from the screen backlight, it would be a much better use of resources to simply not generate as much backscatter, as the best solar cell efficiency you could hope for would be about 20%. I think LED backlighting mostly solves this problem, rendering the argument moot.

I don't know if the intent is to implement with current technology displays. Frankly I'd be surprised as I can't see a huge amount of photonic power getting through. The thought is that they may be targeting different technology. Ultimately what one needs to do is to make the OLED emitters also function as collectors. Maybe the could get the display to switch modes such that when the screen is off it effectively generates power.

Dave

[smythey]

iPhone is 11.5x6.1 cm so a total surface area of 70cm2. A solar panel under the LCD screen isn't going to cover that whole area - maybe more like 50cm2. A 50cm2 solar cell of 12% efficiency under 'standard test conditions' has a peak output of around 0.6Watts, i.e. it would be generating power at the same rate that it's used.

Cells rated for 12% peak would be tres expensive - much more likely they would be of the 6-8% dye-sensitized variety. Id be shyt scared leaving my iphone baking in direct sunlight in any event...

[dicklacara]

... What separates Apple from other consumer electronics manufacturers (sorry people, facts are facts – please save any debate on that topic for another thread, if at all) is their better understanding of and their genuine concern for how it's users interact with their product(s)...


This is the brochure that attracted me to buy my first computer. I think it says what you are trying to say, better! (http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Apple/Apple.II.1977.102637933.pdf)

[concordeBOAC]

Looks like a variant on Citizens eco drive technology....of course, the power requirements are different but the idea is the same... works great for the watch !


http://www.citizen-watch.co.uk/technology.html

[megfilmworks]

Even if this doesn't reach production, it does show just how Apple will look at
ideas that others may not.

[Allingby]

DAMN! DAMN! DAMN! I have for over a year thought of this, I had this od sci-fi dream where an iMac with no foot can levitate, get sun energy, have an iSight through the screen, and such as sci-fi stuff, now apple goes ahead and patents:p why didn't I?

[lazyrighteye]

This is the brochure that attracted me to buy my first computer. I think it says what you are trying to say, better! (http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Apple/Apple.II.1977.102637933.pdf)

While it may say it better, I said it with less words. :p

Wow, that PDF is a classic...
Thanks for sharing that link!

[dicklacara]

While it may say it better, I said it with less words. :p

Wow, that PDF is a classic...
Thanks for sharing that link!

Your point was spot on! That's what Apple does better than any other company-- give people what they want (even they may not know they want it).

The ad on the first page of the brochure, IMO, is the best ad Apple ever did!

[frank781]

Cool! So soon we may very well have OLED razor thin displays with solar power and iSight cameras built into the displays themselves :D Sounds good to me!

My only question is how much do your iPods, iPhones, Laptops etc. actually have their screen exposed to the sun??? Don't you usually have your portables in your pocket and your laptops avoiding sun glare when outside??? How much power would this really add then? :confused:

Solar Cells can work under artificial light conditions (i.e.: indoors) that is why you see a lot of use in calculators and other office equipment.

What's unique about this potential use, is that you can use the same surface that the screen occupies as a solar array. Since partial light might peek through to the cells, the practical use of this is to extend the battery use between charges. Only when off would the device be able to self charge.

[chris200x9]

Um... Study up on your thermodynamics. What you're suggesting wouldn't work for the same reason perpetual motion is impossible.



I don't understand your response, perpetual motion doesn't work because there is always some loss and it will never produce as much energy as it consumes. But for EXTENDING battery life I don't see why this wouldn't work. It's efficiency and cost/benifet ratio is another story though.

[LethalWolfe]

While not feasible today I think it's nifty Apple is looking this direction for products down the road. The people in my office that have iPhones and Blackberries tend to keep them out on their desks because it's more convenient that stuffing such a rather large device in and out of your pocket dozens of times a day so, at least for users w/that habit, there is ample opportunity to grab some light.


Lethal

[kornyboy]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

I love this idea. Bring it on.

[Analog Kid]

As it stands now with portable devices (including laptops), is you cannot see anything on the screen when you are outside in the sun. Especially since 98% of the computers out there are using glossy screens.
Apple would have to stop using glossy screens then. Having to point your screen towards the sun would end up leaving the screen unreadable with the glare from the sun. :cool:
One of the claims specifically refers to coating the device with an anti-reflective coating, what we know as "glossy". The glossy displays actually perform much better under bright light, because they reflect less light and do so in a more focused way. At one angle, you'll get the sun straight in your eyes, but at every other angle the sun doesn't impact the viewability.

The glossy coat also transmits more light into the display (rather than reflect it, which is why it's called anti-reflective). You'd want this if you were using the light passed through for power generation.
Great idea but... it amazes me how after time and time again Apple takes other people's ideas twists them ever so slightly and tries to patent it like they invented it.
Which ideas? Patents are very specific-- you'd need to point to prior art for a specific claim. I think if you look at the patent, they aren't claiming what you think they're claiming. If you think the patent is about putting an solar cell behind an LCD, you're wrong.
when i last checked an iPhone, the entire back was "unused." why not just cover the back with a solar cell? i know that calculators are small and don't use nearly the power of an iPhone but if those tiny solar collectors can power one of those, why couldn't you cover the entire back of the iPhone with solar cells and get a decent amount of return?
Read my earlier post-- Apple specifically addresses this possibility.
I don't understand your response, perpetual motion doesn't work because there is always some loss and it will never produce as much energy as it consumes. But for EXTENDING battery life I don't see why this wouldn't work. It's efficiency and cost/benifet ratio is another story though.
I was responding to the idea of using the LCD backlight to recharge the batteries. There's no point in using your batteries to generate light to power a solar cell to charge your batteries. You can see the energy loop here, you can't extend the battery life this way-- you're just generating more heat at every conversion.

[Sauceaspag]

I was responding to the idea of using the LCD backlight to recharge the batteries. There's no point in using your batteries to generate light to power a solar cell to charge your batteries. You can see the energy loop here, you can't extend the battery life this way-- you're just generating more heat at every conversion.

Great point here, at best you recoup a bit of the energy generated, but they put so much effort to optmize their systems that they most likely aim to get light from outside rather that inside. It would still require a fair amount of both light and time to fully or usefully recharge a battery...

... unless you do not charge a battery but a capacitor.

Remember that lovely research those MIT geeks are doing (http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&article_id=218392803)...?

Now can anyone imagine an iPod or better, and iPhone, that you only need show the sunlight a few seconds and it's up and running for another 5 hours?

No more "Hey, boss, sorry my battery is dead... can't hear yo....."

Now: "Hey love, I just hung up on my boss but just hold on a second, I'll charge my phone (and make you see the bright sun of the SF beach with the integrated iSight)... that's done! Now we were saying, sushi tonight?"

Now as for laptop use, that's another story, but since iPods and soon iPhones represent a big percentage of Apple's products, the actual volume is already there, and we might assume that what may start small will likely get larger.

I would definitely walk to a window and turn my Mac to the sun a few seconds to get another hour of work, even if direct sunlight diminishes it's lifespan a few minutes at a time.

Good thinking Steve, as usual...

[NT1440]

neat idea, wont be implemented for YEARS to come anyway.:apple:

[28monkeys]

Frankly, i can't make myself understand why anyone should click on "negative" for this marvelous article...

Trust in apple, they know how to satisfy consumers more than any other company i could think of. :cool:

[emjaymert]

There is a currently existing company- http://www.xsunx.com that manufactures a thin-film voltaic material .They plan to put it in/on glass panels. They are so thin...you can see right through them.

[rimbaud@mac.com]

Photo voltaic cells are sensitive to indoor light, as well as solar light. For greatest efficiency, how about a tablet that uses an touch-like keyboard on the screen, located where the keyboard is on a regular laptop, and then a two-sided solar array for the lid (where the screen usually is). You would be able to point the array to the light (the way screens tilt and rotate on current tablets).

http://www.voltaicsystems.com/

[NT1440]

my post from another forum i frequent, on this topic:

"just thinking about this, would it be possible for these cells to use the screens light itself to generate power. note that it wouldnt be more than it takes to power the screen in the first place, but it would DEFFINATLY help save the power it uses to run the screen."


basically the idea is to help offset the power it takes to run the screen, by using the light it produces to contribute to the battery

[emjaymert]

From what I can see these could be embedded into the screen with minimal viewing obstruction.

[ingenious]

Wirelessly posted (MOT-R38.0/00.62 UP.Browser/6.2.3.4.c.1.123 (GUI) MMP/2.0)

Sounds interesting.
If they manage to combine two power options this might give you some crazy use times.

it's perfect for a third generation iphone. . .

[NT1440]

From what I can see these could be embedded into the screen with minimal viewing obstruction,

apparantly, judging from the picture, it goes UNDER the actual screen display

[emjaymert]

I may be wrong but I get the impression it is like the plastic layer for safety glass in a cars windshield.

[Analog Kid]

basically the idea is to help offset the power it takes to run the screen, by using the light it produces to contribute to the battery
I give up...

[NT1440]

I give up...
want to clarify? are you basically seeing i overlooked the obvious use of this or that its just a stupid idea? im open for criticism, itd be helpfull if your post actually contributed something tho.

[Stately]

Cool! So soon we may very well have OLED razor thin displays with solar power and iSight cameras built into the displays themselves :D Sounds good to me!

My only question is how much do your iPods, iPhones, Laptops etc. actually have their screen exposed to the sun??? Don't you usually have your portables in your pocket and your laptops avoiding sun glare when outside??? How much power would this really add then? :confused:

My sentiments exactly. If Apple did the solar thing, it would be better thought out . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oh, sorry I was daydreaming about the second iphone and my new umpc. LOL. :cool:

[bretm]

Back in the day when i was 12 i heard you can have semi transparent solar panels, we had those chunky monitors with these weird screen filters and i thought to myself, why not catch some of the light that the monitor puts out, seeing that the screen filters made the monitor dark as ****. (what can i say, i was only 12).

There are many ideas that help recharge the battery of a device being used, using the power that the device is already putting out and is going to waste.

This seems like a good idea if the solar cell catches the light emited from the backlight. I'm not exactly sure how that backlight thing works but this idea would be practical if it is more efficient than using a reflector.

There are also devices/materials that use waste heat to generate electricity. A thin layer over the top of the cpu and beside the battery would do the trick. These divices are like 25% efficient. (That's 25% of the 20% or so that is wasted as heat, whick makes it as useless as a fart in a jar giving you back only 5% of your total power, minus another 3% or so in the losses of recharging the battery leaving you with only 2%. Then if you take into account the energy(/cost) used to add that extra device, you are left with sweet nothingness but bitter remorse for buying a device that is full of ****. Something like the hybrid car phonomenon but only in its own parralel universe with a twist)

Who knows, if you combine all these techs in one neat package without blowing the budget and if it gives me that extra 5 mins on a conversation with a chick that will eventually get me layed, hell, bring it on.

The longer you talk, the worse your odds are going to be.

[Stately]

So what if this is the reason why the back of the new iPhone is rumored to be "black"?

What if it's not black but instead it's a huge solar cell array (dark blue) protected by a thick transparent layer?

I know this sounds insane, but it would be so cool... Well... one can always dream. ;)

Ooooh snap . . . now that sounds like a plan, I wish though . . :cool:

[Stately]

[QUOTE=anubis;5483408]Under full bright sunlight illumination, with the solar panels pointed directly at the sun, you're only looking at an electricity generation rate of between 15 and 20 watts with the best polycrystalline solar cells available today, assuming the solar cells cover an entire 1 square foot area. If the solar energy strikes the screen at an oblique (indirect) angle, the energy collection rate begins to fall of dramatically. Indoors, you'd be lucky to generate 1-2 watts.

I'm not saying this is a terrible idea. I'm just saying that best care scenario, it extends your battery life by maybe a minute.

Yeah right . . don't you know Apple has special Apple solar panels ? ;)

[NT1440]

I'm not saying this is a terrible idea. I'm just saying that best care scenario, it extends your battery life by maybe a minute.

Yeah right . . don't you know Apple has special Apple solar panels ? ;)
i think this patent applies only to the future somewhere between 3-5 years down the road. we are currently making leaps and bounds in solar tech, but it takes time to actually implement these things to a production stage. it will work......somewhere down the line.

basically im just saying dont think any of this applies to apple products anytime soon (im looking at you 3G iphone/whatever gets released at WWDC)

[MattInOz]

From what I can see these could be embedded into the screen with minimal viewing obstruction.

With on obstruction at all.
Have a look at your screen, a real close look there are already gaps between pixels. That is where the solar cell goes.

Better still you texture the glass so that it focuses the UV part of the light to the depth of cells. Concentrating the useable part on the cell nodes reduces the amount silcon coverage needed in this layer.

[28monkeys]

Get smarter, read this
http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/26/apple-solar-portable-markets-equity-cx_mlm_0526markets14.html?partner=yahoofp



It won't take 3 -5 years. We won't give so much time for competitors to claim a title. Apple will design,test,evaluate and sell them like hot cake!

[Analog Kid]

want to clarify? are you basically seeing i overlooked the obvious use of this or that its just a stupid idea? im open for criticism, itd be helpfull if your post actually contributed something tho.
I have clarified, several times now. If you read my posts in this thread, I think you'll see that I have tried to contribute by first translating what's in the patent, and second explaining two or three times why using light coming from the display itself isn't getting anyone anywhere.

If you see where I'm missing something, then I'd be interested in more details of your idea.

[christian_k]

I dont't think that will work.

The "nominal" sun radiation is 1000 W/m^2, which is quite bright sunlight. The best commercial solar cells have an efficiency of about 18.5% (we assume the display does not absorb any light), this gives you a nominal power output of 185 W / m^2. The display of a MacBook is about 0,3 m x 0,2 m = 0,06 m^2, so its nominal power output would be about 11W. But only in bright direct sunlight!. The rule of thumb for planing photo voltaic in middle Europe: Over a period of a year you get energy that is equivalent to the nominal power for 3 hours a day. That is 33 Wh per day. If battery and charger are very efficient you would still need 2 days to charge a standard 60Wh notebook battery without using the device the at same time.

This only if you really use that thing outside. (A MacBook is not really an outdoor device). The light inside of buildings is usually less than 10% of what is outside. Everyone who takes photos has experienced that. Charging the battery under such conditions would take weeks.

And no. Holding an iPhone towards the sun for a few minutes won't give you hours of talk time. There are commercial solar chargers for mobiles. They usually take days to charge a battery.

Christian

[Gravity]

It's an interesting idea for Apple to place the solar cells BEHIND the LCD screen, but I'm curious if there is any inefficiency with the cells recirculating energy from the unit's own backlight? And I suppose that's more than compensated for by the ambient light that's collected?

[28monkeys]

IMPOSSIBLE IS NOTHING

I BELIEVE IN APPLE AND ITS TECHNOLOGY. AND ONE DAY THEY WILL SUCCEED!


THOSE CRITICS ARE JUST PEOPLE WHO SLOW THIS WORLD DOWN BUT WE THANK THEM FOR ONE THING...WITHOUT THEM, WE WON'T BE PROVING OURSELVES RIGHT! :apple:

[jonnylink]

so today I read about solar cells that could achieve a 44% output (http://www.physorg.com/news131027836.html). It's likely a ways off, but I'd love to see these two worlds collide...I was responding to the idea of using the LCD backlight to recharge the batteries. There's no point in using your batteries to generate light to power a solar cell to charge your batteries. You can see the energy loop here, you can't extend the battery life this way-- you're just generating more heat at every conversion.I think the person was saying that the solar cells would be used to generate a charge during normal use. Though I don't think that the backlight produces much, if any, backscatter. I don't think he was suggesting that it could be used to create a new charge, but rather to get back some of the energy it is using. This sort of thing is very common in manufacturing where steam produced by A is redirected to power B. No one imagines it is endless (perpetual) energy, but rather a way to use the energy more efficiently.

[farmboy]

Great idea but... it amazes me how after time and time again Apple takes other people's ideas twists them ever so slightly and tries to patent it like they invented it.

John, you should really read up on the requirements for patents, then you wouldn't be "amazed". It's not hard. If (using your words) Apple "twists" other people's ideas, that makes the idea "unique" and not obvious, which satisfies one of the legal requirements for an approvable patent application.

[aliasfox]

I remember, nearly a decade ago, seeing a solar cell battery extender for PowerBook 1400 - it took advantage of the 1400's customizable faceplate and replaced the plastic/paper panel with a solar cell and a little cord that would run to the power-port. I seem to recall there being a brick in-line with the cord, as well.

Anyway, this device was supposed to be able to double the battery life of the 1400 under ideal conditions, but because it was so low current, would not have been able to charge the battery.

It seems like Apple's just integrating this kind of technology into the package. Perhaps it means that on Pacific flights from the US (or Atlantic flights from Europe), if you get a window seat, you could conceivably work/watch movies for the entire flight without having to swap out batteries.

[Analog Kid]

I think the person was saying that the solar cells would be used to generate a charge during normal use. Though I don't think that the backlight produces much, if any, backscatter. I don't think he was suggesting that it could be used to create a new charge, but rather to get back some of the energy it is using. This sort of thing is very common in manufacturing where steam produced by A is redirected to power B. No one imagines it is endless (perpetual) energy, but rather a way to use the energy more efficiently.
Right, but it's redirected as steam. Produced once and used several places. That's the equivalent to using a fiber optic pipe to bring light from the display backlight to light the keyboard. If you need electricity somewhere else, you don't go from electricity to light and back to electricity-- at least not for something like this. You're better off using a reflector and dimming your backlight so you use less power to start with.

[007bond4321]

Hey, don't know if anyone cares, but this story has made it to the Drudge Report:
http://drudgereport.com/
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article4015809.ece

[ibjoshua]

You're better off using a reflector and dimming your backlight so you use less power to start with.
Yeah. Sounds like we're going around in circles here. I'm sure someone said the same thing earlier.
ibjoshua

[rockosmodurnlif]

Yeah, and people know that driving on the interstate at 55 - 60 mph saves gas... the 60 mph thing, it ain't happening!


"can get a boost and keep itself charged by lying in the sun, some users would alter their behavior to take advantage of this ability" and some users won't alter their behavior to justify the expense, and by expense I mean, I would rather see the price of the iPhone drop then have the price always remain the same or with very little fluctuation down, but be "wooed" by SJ and company about a feature I could do without in it's next product revision.
"'can get a boost and keep itself charged by lying in the sun, some users would alter their behavior to take advantage of this ability' and some users won't alter their behavior to justify the expense" and won't buy the iPhone.

[ftbotsb]

My Casio Pathfinder wristwatch has an embedded solar cell on the watch face. They call it Tough Solar Cell technology. I've had it since 2003.

[Analog Kid]

Yeah. Sounds like we're going around in circles here. I'm sure someone said the same thing earlier.
ibjoshua
Probably me, but I can't give up or people get offended...
My Casio Pathfinder wristwatch has an embedded solar cell on the watch face. They call it Tough Solar Cell technology. I've had it since 2003.
How well does it work in the basement of the science building?

[Analog Kid]

I dont't think that will work.

The "nominal" sun radiation is 1000 W/m^2, which is quite bright sunlight. The best commercial solar cells have an efficiency of about 18.5% (we assume the display does not absorb any light), this gives you a nominal power output of 185 W / m^2. The display of a MacBook is about 0,3 m x 0,2 m = 0,06 m^2, so its nominal power output would be about 11W. But only in bright direct sunlight!. The rule of thumb for planing photo voltaic in middle Europe: Over a period of a year you get energy that is equivalent to the nominal power for 3 hours a day. That is 33 Wh per day. If battery and charger are very efficient you would still need 2 days to charge a standard 60Wh notebook battery without using the device the at same time.

This only if you really use that thing outside. (A MacBook is not really an outdoor device). The light inside of buildings is usually less than 10% of what is outside. Everyone who takes photos has experienced that. Charging the battery under such conditions would take weeks.

And no. Holding an iPhone towards the sun for a few minutes won't give you hours of talk time. There are commercial solar chargers for mobiles. They usually take days to charge a battery.

Christian
Thanks for the details. How does this play with the Touch? That seems to be what the patent targets (portable media players). I get a one-sided surface area of 0.007m^2, which is a reasonable estimate for exposed area considering Apple is talking about putting cells on both sides.

That gives me 1.26W of power using your 18.5% efficiency number. That's probably not far from the operating power of the device. Granted that's in full sunlight, but not a bad showing if you ask me.

Apple also seems to cover the fact that it's much more efficient to power the unit directly when the unit is operating because you don't loose efficiency in the charger.

It sure helps that Apple has been so obsessed with thin and flat.

[bertman]

Coincidink? Well, good timing! - Bert Pasquale

http://www.laserfocusworld.com/display_article/329481/12/none/none/TECHN/Thin-film-solar-cell-design-reaches-record-efficiency

[Wolfpup]

This is SUCH a great idea! I'd love to see it in iPods and laptops :)

As some have mentioned, it might have the side benefit of recovering some power from the backlight.

I'm not sure why some people have said it wouldn't work inside....why not? If there's enough light to see by, the solar panels will be generating power. Even if it's plugged in at my desk, and even if it only cuts power use from 50 watts to 45 watts (I'm just making those numbers up), that would still add up massively over time and over the number of devices Apple sells.

REALLY neat thing! I love solar power! I wonder if Al Gore's had anything to do with this development? :)

[Mr. Giver '94]

Not like I'm an expert here, but I don't think this is that practical, especially when slim design is key. I would think a solar energy converter would take up too much space, considering the proposed memory upgrade and 3G chip addition..............Gonna whip out my solar powered :apple: iCalculator! :D

[sam10685]

:confused: I think that the idea of this tecnology is absorb the light generated by the LCD Screen.

Really good idea but do LCD lights generate the same kind of solar light?

[Wolfpup]

Really good idea but do LCD lights generate the same kind of solar light?

Well not solar light of course, but virtually any light source will power solar panels. At least any I've used work just as well under florecent and incandecent light as they do under sunlight. I don't know about LED lights, but I'd assume they work too (I think they must be converting visible light, as I don't think incandescent give off UV, and florescent don't give off all that much...at least supposedly)