2 reasons why I haven't purchased a watch

[deeddawg]

2. I get sleep info, heartbeat, steps, some geographical info, rudimentary info being passed to my wrist from the phone regarding texts/emails, with my current combo.

If I didn't have the Fitbit, I'd still need to eval WHY I should not go out and buy a new Fitbit as the solution rather than the "much more expensive" Apple Watch solution.

As with all things, it depends on what it is you want to do with the device.

Some folks just want the basics of activity tracking and wrist notification. An Apple Watch, bringing a bunch of other capabilities, may well be overkill.

That said, I'm familiar with the Charge3 as my wife has one and likes it a lot -- yet it'd be tough today to suggest spending $150 for a Charge3 vs $200 for an Apple Watch Series 3 unless one specifically wanted the fitbit's sleep tracking abilities.

 

[Euroamerican]

^----- Good point. 150 vs 200.... I definitely want the sleep tracking for my purposes, though.

But I forgot about the 200 USD price point model of the Apple Watch.

 

[questionwonder]

I don't quite understand what you're saying here. Are you implying that you only intend to use the watch for 2-3 hours a day? Then why bother with all the perpetual motion/solar/RF field charging shenanigans?

If you look at my response in full you'll see that my opinion suggests that getting to a point where you'll never have to charge is the ultimate goal!
IF I check the time ~10/day, check texts and respond 10+ times a day, run a heart rate app 1hr/day and maybe a few other things for a few minutes worth of time. I wouldn't be using the watch for more than 1-2hrs/day. So with a trickle charge coming in to the watch from a perpetually charging electrical component (sitting next to the battery) feeding a small current/voltage into the battery all day and night. I think you could get enough juice from it that you wouldn't need to recharge your watch on the stand as frequently as you do now! ~1/day which I assume is at night.

 

[questionwonder]

So two questions for you:

#1 - how much energy do you expect your component could generate over the course of a typical day?

#2 - how much energy do you expect the typical user's watch uses in a day?

To take a rough guess at #2: The ifixit S4 teardown indicates a 1.1 Watt-hour battery. In my usage, my S4 typically has around 50% battery on at bedtime on days I didn't go for a run, less if I did. Seldom do I see the watch go below 10% battery before putting it on my nightstand charger.

So let's say my typical watch power needs are 0.8WH per day. Provide the answer to #1 and we'll see if your idea is feasible with the current generation of Apple Watches.

EDIT: I see @d.steve was on the same path as I was typing my post. LOL

I think you're missing the whole point of having a component that generates a "trickle current" into the battery.
The component isn't to charge your device like the charging stand, it's to provides a trickle! And as it's works by movement, it would continually trickle charge your watch. Additionally, the more/faster you move the more current it generates. Think of it as a supplement, not a replacement for the charger. So for many people including myself, who wouldn't use the watch for much more than time and maybe some texts and workout stuff. It would be a supplement to keep my watch charged to the point where I might only have to charge it 1/10 or 1/30 as many times as I would if it didn't have it.

#1. Depends on the size of the component inside the watch
#2. Depends on the user!
[doublepost=1568428316][/doublepost]

perpetual motion is a myth.
self-charging could happen but I don't think enough energy could be generated.
Solar is more likely.

You must not know what "perpetual motion" technology is that Rolex implements in their watches!???
FYI - There's a mechanical pendulum that spins as you walk around and move your wrist, winding the watch, there by eliminating the winding or reducing it significantly.
So the idea for the AW is the create a small electrical component that works the same way, inside the watch, but that feeds a small trickle into the battery. There by eliminating or reducing the charging frequency.

 

[matrix07]

I'm surprised that the OP is actually being serious of his post lol.

 

[TJ82]

When I upload data from the Strava AW app to Strava I see my HR starts and stops a lot. Looks like the HR monitor either cuts out continually or has an issue maintaining a reading. Either way I find it's not genuinely useful if you're working to HR.

Look what happens when you add solar charging to the new Fenix 6x Pro:
https://buy.garmin.com/en-GB/GB/p/641375/pn/010-02157-21#

Extra £200! And only the 51mm version does it.

No problem adding solar to a watch, but the bigger a screen you have the better (something serious multisports watches have in abundance), and then there's the extra weight. I'd love it, but I can't see Apple going for it for many years to come until the tech is super lightweight. If anything maybe they could add a sportier version of the Apple Watch. More rugged round design with solar and features you'd find on Suuntos etc.

 

[deeddawg]

I think you're missing the whole point of having a component that generates a "trickle current" into the battery.
The component isn't to charge your device like the charging stand, it's to provides a trickle! And as it's works by movement, it would continually trickle charge your watch. Additionally, the more/faster you move the more current it generates. Think of it as a supplement, not a replacement for the charger. So for many people including myself, who wouldn't use the watch for much more than time and maybe some texts and workout stuff. It would be a supplement to keep my watch charged to the point where I might only have to charge it 1/10 or 1/30 as many times as I would if it didn't have it.

I understand completely. You want to provide 9/10ths to 29/30ths of the watch's power needs through movement.

The existing battery capacity and battery life provide guidance as to how much trickle charge the movement must provide. Given existing info, this means your trickle charge mechanism must produce approximately 0.8Wh per day to achieve your stated goal of only having to charge the watch 1/10 or 1/30 as many times as you would now.

#1. Depends on the size of the component inside the watch
#2. Depends on the user!

You earlier stated the following, indicating you thought this was possible today -- but now you don't have any idea of what sort of power the typical user would generate nor how much power the watch would require.

It's clear now this just a fanciful thought on your part and you haven't really worked out the numbers to see if it is or is not currently feasible.

Do your CAD device and make some measurements, then come back to discuss.

I thought about it for a few minutes and I think I could CAD out a small component that could create a small enough charge to feed into the battery that if you are someone who just uses the watch to check the time and run a couple of apps for < 1 hour a day then I think I could get it to generate enough electrical charge to feed into the battery.

[doublepost=1568465892][/doublepost]

When I upload data from the Strava AW app to Strava I see my HR starts and stops a lot. Looks like the HR monitor either cuts out continually or has an issue maintaining a reading. Either way I find it's not genuinely useful if you're working to HR.

Use something like RunGap app to directly extract the Activity data. Here's a run of mine that uploaded to Garmin Connect via RunGap. Although the AW is not as good as a dedicated Garmin running watch for doing HR zone training, it does work reasonably well.

 

[parseckadet]

I think you're missing the whole point of having a component that generates a "trickle current" into the battery.
The component isn't to charge your device like the charging stand, it's to provides a trickle! And as it's works by movement, it would continually trickle charge your watch. Additionally, the more/faster you move the more current it generates. Think of it as a supplement, not a replacement for the charger. So for many people including myself, who wouldn't use the watch for much more than time and maybe some texts and workout stuff. It would be a supplement to keep my watch charged to the point where I might only have to charge it 1/10 or 1/30 as many times as I would if it didn't have it.

#1. Depends on the size of the component inside the watch
#2. Depends on the user!
[doublepost=1568428316][/doublepost]

You must not know what "perpetual motion" technology is that Rolex implements in their watches!???
FYI - There's a mechanical pendulum that spins as you walk around and move your wrist, winding the watch, there by eliminating the winding or reducing it significantly.
So the idea for the AW is the create a small electrical component that works the same way, inside the watch, but that feeds a small trickle into the battery. There by eliminating or reducing the charging frequency.

Look, you don’t have to talk to us like we’re imbeciles. We know what you’re referring to. Just because such a device works for mechanical watches that doesn’t mean it will work for electronic ones. I won’t speak for everyone else, but personally I seriously doubt the mechanical motion you’re talking about will generate anywhere CLOSE to the even tiny amount of electricity you’re describing. Do you seriously think nobody has thought of this? It’s not like this is a problem that only came around with the advent of smart watches. People have been looking for ways to power a watch indefinitely even since the first quartz watches came around in the 1970’s. Nobody has sold such a product even to power the most basic Casio watches. What makes you think it will suddenly work for an Apple Watch?

And before you say it, I understand that what you’re saying is that it might extend the battery a little bit and that if it made so that you only had to charge every other day, or even less, it would be worth it. What I’m saying is that I bet you would be lucky to get even an additional 5 minutes out of such an arrangement.

 

[JT2002TJ]

Some day there will be technology that charges (or supplementally charges) watches from human skin. Who knows how long it will be until this technology is developed, but I’m willing to bet it will come.

 

[questionwonder]

Look, you don’t have to talk to us like we’re imbeciles. We know what you’re referring to. Just because such a device works for mechanical watches that doesn’t mean it will work for electronic ones. I won’t speak for everyone else, but personally I seriously doubt the mechanical motion you’re talking about will generate anywhere CLOSE to the even tiny amount of electricity you’re describing. Do you seriously think nobody has thought of this? It’s not like this is a problem that only came around with the advent of smart watches. People have been looking for ways to power a watch indefinitely even since the first quartz watches came around in the 1970’s. Nobody has sold such a product even to power the most basic Casio watches. What makes you think it will suddenly work for an Apple Watch?

And before you say it, I understand that what you’re saying is that it might extend the battery a little bit and that if it made so that you only had to charge every other day, or even less, it would be worth it. What I’m saying is that I bet you would be lucky to get even an additional 5 minutes out of such an arrangement.

I think maybe you misunderstood my idea. I never said the component was mechanical, in fact I said it would be electrical. The perfect component would be an electromagnetic inductor running the height, for example, of the watch.

Ex. Create a cylindrical tube containing a very low viscous solution inside. This tube would be completely sealed. And inside the tube within the solution you have your magnet. Around the tube you have the copper wire and as so then as you move your wrist back and forth, up and down, the magnetic inside the tube pendulates/oscillates back and forth and generates a small amount of current to feed into the battery.

Now there are many variables to play with, such as the size of the magnet inside the tube, the gauge of the wire, the overall size of the generator, how fast you move your wrist throughout the day, etc, etc, etc, etc and playing and discovering the best specs would take more time than I have, so maybe someone else who has the time can do this..
[doublepost=1568531278][/doublepost]

I understand completely. You want to provide 9/10ths to 29/30ths of the watch's power needs through movement.

The existing battery capacity and battery life provide guidance as to how much trickle charge the movement must provide. Given existing info, this means your trickle charge mechanism must produce approximately 0.8Wh per day to achieve your stated goal of only having to charge the watch 1/10 or 1/30 as many times as you would now.




You earlier stated the following, indicating you thought this was possible today -- but now you don't have any idea of what sort of power the typical user would generate nor how much power the watch would require.

It's clear now this just a fanciful thought on your part and you haven't really worked out the numbers to see if it is or is not currently feasible.

Do your CAD device and make some measurements, then come back to discuss.

​

[doublepost=1568465892][/doublepost]

Use something like RunGap app to directly extract the Activity data. Here's a run of mine that uploaded to Garmin Connect via RunGap. Although the AW is not as good as a dedicated Garmin running watch for doing HR zone training, it does work reasonably well.

View attachment 858309

1/10 or 1/30 is just an example, not something I'm sticking to as a hard number.
And generating a device is possible today, it's very simple actually. It would be a simple electromagnetic inductor! The idea of knowing what the "power the typical user would generate" would be outside the scope of this thread as every user is different. And not only is every user different but different every day.

So this isn't a fanciful idea, I'll describe an example of the electrical component verbally.
Ex. Create a cylindrical tube containing a very low viscous solution inside it. This tube would be completely sealed. And inside the tube within the solution you have your magnet. Around the tube you have wound copper wire and so as you move your wrist back and forth, up and down, the magnetic inside the tube pendulates/oscillates back and forth and generates a small amount of current to feed into the battery from the wound wire.

Now there are many variables to play with, such as the size of the magnet inside the tube, the gauge of the wire, the overall size of the inducting generator, how fast you move your wrist throughout the day (did you take that spin class?), etc, etc, etc, etc and playing and discovering the best specs would take more time than I have, so maybe someone else who has the time can do this..

 

[questionwonder]

Here is my idea for all those who are interested.

 

[douglasf13]

Here is my idea for all those who are interested.

So you’re proposing that what is essentially a miniature shake-flashlight would make a noticeable difference in powering in an Apple Watch?

 

[questionwonder]

So you’re proposing that what is essentially a miniature shake-flashlight would make a noticeable difference in powering in an Apple Watch?

sure. I don't know too much about the insides of the shake flashlight, but I guess the concept would be similar. But it wouldn't power the device like you stated, it would just supplement its power.

 

[douglasf13]

absolutely. but not powering, supplementing its power. There's a difference!

Sure, and I haven't run any numbers, but my guess is that such a device wouldn't create enough power to even supplement things any meaningful way...especially if the contraption is small enough to fit in an Apple Watch.

 

[questionwonder]

Sure, and I haven't run any numbers, but my guess is that such a device wouldn't create enough power to even supplement things any meaningful way...especially if the contraption is small enough to fit in an Apple Watch.

If you're so sure it won't work, why don't you run some numbers and let us all know.
I disagree and think you could and can absolutely get enough current out of it to extend the battery life.
Just look at what the shake-flashlight can generate with just a few shakes!
Now think of your watch shaking all day when you're wearing it!
It will generate some current, how much, you tell me?
Depends on many, many, many variables.
My original post was about having an additional way to extend the life as a feature that would make it more desirable to own.
If you think you have a better idea let me know?

 

[douglasf13]

If you're so sure it won't work, why don't you run some numbers and let us all know.
I disagree and think you could and can absolutely get enough current out of it to extend the battery life.
Just look at what the shake-flashlight can generate with just a few shakes!
Now think of your watch shaking all day when you're wearing it!
It will generate some current, how much, you tell me?
Depends on many, many, many variables.
My original post was about having an additional way to extend the life as a feature that would make it more desirable to own.
If you think you have a better idea let me know?

[doublepost=1568602122][/doublepost]

If you're so sure it won't work, why don't you run some numbers and let us all know.
I disagree and think you could and can absolutely get enough current out of it to extend the battery life.
Just look at what the shake-flashlight can generate with just a few shakes!
Now think of your watch shaking all day when you're wearing it!
It will generate some current, how much, you tell me?
Depends on many, many, many variables.
My original post was about having an additional way to extend the life as a feature that would make it more desirable to own.
If you think you have a better idea let me know?

lol. I believe the impetus is on you to show us actual numbers, but you have to shake a shake-light quite rapidly for 30 seconds just to light a single LED for a few minutes, and the size of that mechanism is gigantic relative to the Apple Watch. May as well put a handcrank on there, too.

It’s called linear induction, btw, and it’s an old idea. We would have seen it in larger devices, like iPods, if there was any chance of it making a difference.

 

[questionwonder]

[doublepost=1568602122][/doublepost]

lol. I believe the impetus is on you to show us actual numbers, but you have to shake a shake-light quite rapidly for 30 seconds just to light a single LED for a few minutes, and the size of that mechanism is gigantic relative to the Apple Watch. May as well put a handcrank on there, too.

It’s called linear induction, btw, and it’s an old idea. We would have seen it in larger devices, like iPods, if there was any chance of it making a difference.

Then prove me wrong and do some math, tough guy!
My post was just throwing out an idea and you're trying to disprove it by opinion...
FYI - If you think a little more about it, which I'm sure your capable of doing, then you'll see that shaking the electromagnetic inductor continuously (which is what would happen) you will most definitely create PLENTY of current to supplement the device big boy!

If you want me to do some math and impress you, then come back to me with this info. Because as of now they are unknowns to me.
1. What is the internal casing length/height?
2. What is the internal casing depth?
1 and 2 will help me determine the tubing diameter, then what is the thinnest thickness of the tubbing I can get and what material will it be?
3. What is the smallest gauge wire I can use? And google prob won't give you the answer I'm looking for.
4. Is copper/gold/silver/etc going to be the best material for the wiring?
5. What is the strongest magnet I get get that will fit in this tube?
6. what's the solution with the lowest viscosity?
7. How much shielding will we need?
8.9....and it goes on and on and on

These are just some of the questions that have unknowns at this point.
Help me with these and I'll do the math. The math is the easy part.

 

[douglasf13]

Then prove me wrong and do some math, tough guy!
My post was just throwing out an idea and you're trying to disprove it by opinion...
FYI - If you think a little more about it, which I'm sure your capable of doing, then you'll see that shaking the electromagnetic inductor continuously (which is what would happen) you will most definitely create PLENTY of current to supplement the device big boy!

This isn’t some amazing new idea. It’s been around a long time. You can read this white paper about why shaking or twisting movements aren’t sufficient to power even an MP3 player, and you can also read about other human powered methods, some of which could work in a relatively huge package. Again, like a crank.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.133.7844&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

[claude512]

Every inventor had to endure the naysayers... invention happens through ideas and trying many possibilities! I for one fully welcome someone who goes beyond just moaning about how apple gets it wrong

Get started building prototypes, I’d very much like to have you succeed!

 

[Precursor]

Look, you don’t have to talk to us like we’re imbeciles. We know what you’re referring to. Just because such a device works for mechanical watches that doesn’t mean it will work for electronic ones. I won’t speak for everyone else, but personally I seriously doubt the mechanical motion you’re talking about will generate anywhere CLOSE to the even tiny amount of electricity you’re describing. Do you seriously think nobody has thought of this? It’s not like this is a problem that only came around with the advent of smart watches. People have been looking for ways to power a watch indefinitely even since the first quartz watches came around in the 1970’s. Nobody has sold such a product even to power the most basic Casio watches. What makes you think it will suddenly work for an Apple Watch?

And before you say it, I understand that what you’re saying is that it might extend the battery a little bit and that if it made so that you only had to charge every other day, or even less, it would be worth it. What I’m saying is that I bet you would be lucky to get even an additional 5 minutes out of such an arrangement.

Self winding smart watches are already in the works (along with solar powered ones) and many big brands in the watch making world are racing with each other to make the ultimate hybrid watch (mechanical movement, electronic display). Currently the displays on smart watches use a lot of energy but very soon (in a couple of years) having to charge smart watches will be history.

 

[deeddawg]

And generating a device is possible today,

Never said it wasn't.

The idea of knowing what the "power the typical user would generate" would be outside the scope of this thread as every user is different. And not only is every user different but different every day.

In the real world, we go beyond whether something is possible to whether it is effective.

That's the part folks are asking you to address: how much power can be generated is completely within the scope of the thread. It needs to be able to reduce charging frequency enough to offset the added cost, complexity, and size.

Now there are many variables to play with [...] discovering the best specs would take more time than I have, so maybe someone else who has the time can do this..

As I assessed above, you have no idea how much power would be generated, and thus idea whether it's workable or not, despite your initial post suggesting it is.