It's about charging devices on distance which is different than wifi signal
It's also very easy to find articles on the internet which says the opposite...
http://www.best-emf-health.com/dangers-of-electromagnetic-radiation.html
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Patent Filing Describes Wireless Power Transfer System That Can Prioritize Devices
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's about charging devices on distance which is different than wifi signal
It's also very easy to find articles on the internet which says the opposite...
http://www.best-emf-health.com/dangers-of-electromagnetic-radiation.html
No, we have to at least go back to AM radio transmission (probably someone will remind me of something earlier) and we all know about the massive number of deaths throughout the early 20th century due to radiation driving the original “wireless”.
Edit: I really fear what’s going to happen in the 1950s now that FM radio is out and we have television coming as well, stacking all those signals has to have major health impacts. I hear they’ll be releasing COLOR television some time as well, we’re doomed!
Edit 2: by 1992 there will be over 10 million cellular telephones being held directly to customers’ heads as they radiate, surely either this dangerous technology will be banned or humanity will become extinct by the year 2000.
Well, as you asked, you can go all the way back to the late 1800’s when radio was first pioneered. By the turn of the century radio was being used to communicate with ships at sea from land-based radio transmission centres. And so on and so on and blah blah blah
No. I’m not joining the argument, even though I spent years working with high power RF and microwave in the semi industry, it’s pointless banging heads.
But you did ask
Well one of those articles was by a scientist, the other an activist nut job.
In any case, here’s one that’s simpler to understand (doesn’t require any math) and it’s by Gizmodo, they’re not the NYT but generally respected in tech journalism (as opposed to your-brain-will-be-fried-unless-encased-in-tinfoil.com).
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/08/here-are-the-true-radiation-dangers-in-your-environment/
Last edited:
Yes you are right...
Only the real scientist say it's no concern at all.
And only the activist nut job are telling otherwise.....
Now I understand..........
Well if you’re going to make me point it out, OK, there’s this gem from your “source”....
So I guess we could refer to the science or the “good and bad frequencies” that God has put into play for us. Can you guess which one I put more weight in? Anyway, you’ve found your windmill, I wish you luck in its defeat.
What the World Health Organization has to say about exposure to low-level EMF (tl;dr: there is no evidence that it's harmful):
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index1.html
Nikola Tesla was able to power lights in his lab with no wires more than a century ago. When we are able to do something on that scale, I'll be impressed.
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index1.html
Nikola Tesla was able to power lights in his lab with no wires more than a century ago. When we are able to do something on that scale, I'll be impressed.
I does make it untrue due to lack of evidence for your statement!
You must realize that these products are tested in laboratories, reproduced and statistically/mathematically verified. Based on those results, it was concluded that all type of radiation produced by smartphones (and many other electric devices) lack proper energy level for tissue penetration. For this reason, a protocol is available for all manufacturers to not exceed specific thresholds. Some phone come closer to this threshold than other, but anything lower will not harm!
I’m going to be honest here... there are always some statistical outliers which may have resulted in health issues for some individuals (pure by natural variation). However, those cases always remain hard to find and investigate
Absolutely. A cogent review of the senseless fandom of some on this site. Nothing more than blind faith.
And, surely, there will coming back to you with retorts, paragraph by paragraph, telling how you missed nuances of their equivocation towards Apple.
One can only LOL.
Apple floats another "we cracked it"/transdermal blood glucose sensor/
car -- esq rumor to buoy the share price?
car -- esq rumor to buoy the share price?Concentrated radiation has an effect on our body's cells. To what extend depends on the strength and frequency. There's no doubt about this. It's how microwaves work to heat up our feed. Long-term exposure at lower levels can be just as harmful as short-term exposure at higher levels.
[doublepost=1514725991][/doublepost]
Apple floats another "we cracked it"/transdermal blood glucose sensor/
So Apple is using the patent system to influence their share price? You live in another world, my friend.
Apple has filed thousands of patents over the years, and would do so if they were public or private.
What you don't know will kill you. Or possibly the other way around. Or both.
[doublepost=1514786644][/doublepost]
In your list you forgot a few others,
Sun
Food
Air
Water,
Actually I don't think there is anything which could not become a health issue.
But wait, maybe there is something we could do, like protect ourselves, maybe even nature thought about this.
[doublepost=1514787029][/doublepost]
Even cable will loose power over distance, but there are directional techniques. And if visual radiation can be transferred like a laser, surely other electromagnetic radiation could as well.
Sun
Food
Air
Water??
Poor example
All needed to make life possible.
No comparison with charging over distance.
We already know what to much sun exposure can do to our health even when nature thought about this!!
Just use the cable no need to add another source of radiation for our convenience
Think I'll just leave this here...
https://news.sky.com/story/remember-when-cigarettes-were-good-for-you-10371944
https://news.sky.com/story/remember-when-cigarettes-were-good-for-you-10371944
Well, the sun charges our planet. Over a quite large distance. Wireless. And like WiFi, 4G, Microwave, and Bluetooth are better comparisons. And my point exactly, everything is dangerous, even life's necessity, but we found ways to protect ourselves. So can we do with wireless charging. Even if it is only for our convenience. When you discover a problem, you start looking for a solution. Thats how we have progressed.
Yes, and giant dinosaurs escaping an amusement park could become an issue for our health. Until then, it's absurd to assume it is.I respect your opinion.
I will stick with mine
Also what I meant with only wifi is that I think that the radiation is becoming a health issue because more and more and more transmission is going through the air.
All started with only wifi at home
Then bluetooth
Then microwaves
Then 4G
Then wireless charging
And now charging on distance
Etc.
All together it could become an issue for our health
Seriously. This sounds like the same unsubstantiated fear people had of electricity. Until you have medical research on your side, you're just spreading FUD around on the floor.
[doublepost=1514907937][/doublepost]
If you're not an expert in wireless power transmission, radiation, or medical treatment related to either, than your "feeling" is worthless. It's to saying "I have a feel this may be the year! The great earthquake....I feel it!"
[doublepost=1514908146][/doublepost]
When you claim something ("Wireless is unhealthy!") but then fail to prove why, and instead say "Prove it's untrue!", you are committing the logical fallacy known as "appeal to ignorance"
http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Appeal-to-Ignorance.html
Argument-from-Ignorance
...it's a fallacy and a sign of a losing argument. Click the links to read about why.
Last edited:
Thanks for all your information
Charging devices over a distance in a room still seems unhealthy to me.
No matter what you tell me and show me.
Have a nice evening
Last edited:
"Wasting your breath man" - proceeds to write 900 word essay supporting the point.
I like your style my friend.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Here I was all worried that I'd missed an interesting discussion on charging technology... Turns out I missed a discussion that quickly strayed into fear of pico watts, because opinion means more than science these days, and then left the rails completely when that argument was supported with a rant that boils down to "yeah, but fanboys, amirite?".
*sigh*
It seems the Mean Time to Nonsense in these threads is rapidly approaching zero...
The only post of value here so far has been this:
Application 20170373522 covers its bases by saying it applies to near field, far field and wired charging in the spec, but only specifically has claims for wired connections and coupling through coils (again, inductive.) The idea being patented is prioritization of devices.
This is obviously supporting tech for Apple's upcoming multi-device charging mat. The patents themselves are as tech agnostic as they can manage (as you'd expect in a patent, you don't want to limit it's applicability) but the language strongly suggests wireless charging by induction.
I get that you're not really doing anything like journalism, but the fact that this one shady company keeps popping up in your articles like it's the next big thing is making me wonder whether there's any commitment at all to informing your readers.
There's always the chance that the FCC makes massive changes to their safety standards and allows it on the market, but it's much more likely that Energous is nothing more than a means for an unscrupulous CEO to bilk investors of $5m a year. Your reporting on it so far has completely ignored the failure of the technology, and instead focused on the promises of unicorns and rainbows. Bringing them up at every given opportunity despite Apple having publicly supported the open Qi standard, is bizarre.
*sigh*
It seems the Mean Time to Nonsense in these threads is rapidly approaching zero...
The only post of value here so far has been this:
Application 20170373537 makes specific mention of a coil in claim 1, which strongly suggests this is a magnetic mode, inductive charger (Energous' FCC filings are full of E-field measurements suggesting it's using electric mode antennas). The idea being patented is a means of communicating over the wireless power link by pulsing current to the coil while power transmission is disabled.
Application 20170373522 covers its bases by saying it applies to near field, far field and wired charging in the spec, but only specifically has claims for wired connections and coupling through coils (again, inductive.) The idea being patented is prioritization of devices.
This is obviously supporting tech for Apple's upcoming multi-device charging mat. The patents themselves are as tech agnostic as they can manage (as you'd expect in a patent, you don't want to limit it's applicability) but the language strongly suggests wireless charging by induction.
MacRumors, you really need to stop with the Energous innuendos. There is absolutely no indication of a link between Apple and Energous. There is no indication that Energous has a viable technology. There is no suggestion that these patents apply to anything but the Qi chargers that Apple has publicly endorsed.
I get that you're not really doing anything like journalism, but the fact that this one shady company keeps popping up in your articles like it's the next big thing is making me wonder whether there's any commitment at all to informing your readers.
There's always the chance that the FCC makes massive changes to their safety standards and allows it on the market, but it's much more likely that Energous is nothing more than a means for an unscrupulous CEO to bilk investors of $5m a year. Your reporting on it so far has completely ignored the failure of the technology, and instead focused on the promises of unicorns and rainbows. Bringing them up at every given opportunity despite Apple having publicly supported the open Qi standard, is bizarre.
I respect your opinion.
I will stick with mine
Also what I meant with only wifi is that I think that the radiation is becoming a health issue because more and more and more transmission is going through the air.
All started with only wifi at home
Then bluetooth
Then microwaves
Then 4G
Then wireless charging
And now charging on distance
Etc.
All together it could become an issue for our health
nonsense. You are making up fears instead of doing your homework. Stop imagining how it works and learn how it works instead. You'll sleep better at night.
Homework?
You mean homework on charging devices over distance??
The article on MR is about charging over distance which was my concern
https://www.shieldyourbody.com/2015/01/unknown-risks-wireless-charging/
Much more concerning is the WattUp technology demonstrated by Energous and the offerings from startup WiTricity— as well as the fact that the Rezence specification was recently updated to accommodate charging over distance. These technologies allow for devices to be charged wirelessly, without making any contact, over a distance of 20′.
Some quotes from the article.
--
That
honest quote from an anonymous executive of a major hardware company:
“I don’t think I would want to be in a room with free moving power signals,” an executive with a leading hardware technology company said on the condition of anonymity.
Means that the environment around these types of wireless chargers is literally filled with free flowing power— much more than standard WiFi or cordless phones would create.
And I sleep better without future wireless charging over distance.
Last edited: