Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Your distinction to the differences are only academic.

However, it can still be an important distinction to make. And yes, I'm aware of the unification of electricity and magnetism.


And what about power efficiency, will this take more power then the direct charging?

I read it's ~40% efficient at a couple of metres but it depends on distance (can be >90% if the device is very close by) and that may be out of date now. Not ideal, but it is a low power device so in terms of actual electricity wasted is isn't massive, but I'd still like to see that improved. I guess this will change with more development.
 
Last edited:
next up...all your data via electic outlets.

(i think this was done in a movie before, no?..with Colin Farel)
 
This is true! But it always depends on the dose you are exposed to. Some MRTs work with such high dose you have to increase and decrease it very very slowly because you really could harm (even kill) your patient. It is not harmless at all, but considered safe because of the safety mechanisms build in.

BUT MRT is high dose in little time and this WiTricity is (whatever dose) every time.

And for those willing to really get informed here is an actual paper on studies relating to the influence of electro-magnetic fields on the human body. Which affects primarily children and pregnant women... Oh and to a lesser extend our brains... But really who needs a brain ? http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/magnetic-fields

One could always wear an aluminum foil suit each time you get in to your home. It would certainly make for noisy tv watching or interesting (read painful, ouch !) love making... (Take your pick !) ;)
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/9A5259f Safari/6533.18.5)

Uh, Nikola Tesla invented this nearly a century ago. Except that he discovered that he could power the entire planet wirelessly with only a few resonance towers, at 90% efficiency. The electricity industry turned him down and burried his discovery because they would not be able to meter and charge people for it the way they wanted to. Thank you American greed. Now MIT digs it up, dumbs it down, and calls it their own. Don't get me wrong, I hope it finally takes off, even if it isn't even close to the magnitide of Tesla's creation. But give credit where credit is due.
 
Just like a river!

Why dint people jump up and down like this when they put in a new drainage channel! It's the same concept, using something that exists naturally for a new purpose. Lots of people can drown in channels but why aren't there protests against them?

Just hope this will make some people reilse how stupid they are by just jumping to conclusions, whilst not actualy reaserching or even just thinking
 
Places like North America and the EU have extremely strict safety requirements and are not going to let this get into the public domain without checking it out!


I'm sure 'they' checked out thalidomide, DDT, BSE (transfer to human) et al before stating its safe or no risk and releasing to the public domain.

I love the sound of this technology as long as the LONG TERM health implications are FULLY researched.
 
This is true! But it always depends on the dose you are exposed to. Some MRTs work with such high dose you have to increase and decrease it very very slowly because you really could harm (even kill) your patient. It is not harmless at all, but considered safe because of the safety mechanisms build in.

BUT MRT is high dose in little time and this WiTricity is (whatever dose) every time.

iPhysicist, you should quote which part of the MRT is dangerous and qualify what aspect of it causes harm. Magnetic field strength? Electromagnetic Energy absorption? Peripheral Nerve Stimulation? etc...

A bit of a blanket statement if you ask me; which serves only to cause fear rather than an educated caution.

If you're going to write about the dangers of MRT you should write this:
The main risks involved are those patients with ferrite contamination in fragments or with implants with ferromagnetic composition - in the presence of such strong fields, it would rip out of the patient like a missile. Such devices are 'contraindicated' and as such, they should not be scanned with MRT. There isn't a shred of evidence that any biological material is affected even in strong static fields.

Again, another uneducated post. You idiots are like politicians; quote out-of-context, use statements which tender single-sided arguments.

Your point about exposure 'high dose in small time' doesn't correlate with 'low dose over a long time'. As another poster said, the earth is a magnet. Even though it's small, no more than a bar magnet, the field is enormous. It encompasses the earth and out into space, PROTECTING us from harmful solar radiation. But we sit in the middle of it, over our entire lives, over generations; we're like ants being bathed in this electromagnetic soup.

i--Physicist? I think not.

Some people are being so alarmist about such topics; especially when some twit here talks about taking an "Amish" approach; yet contradicts himself by the mere fact of writing it, in front of a computer, aiming electromagnetic energy straight at his head from the monitor he sits in front of.

Good grief... they should take off the tin foil helmet when they walk across the street; they might not see the car that would run them down.
 
However, it can still be an important distinction to make.

It is an important distinction, you are correct. However I do point out it is only academic; in the context of this discussion and the general ignorance of what's being branded around here, I think that distinction is lost upon them.

The unification jibe... was just a geek joke :p
 
Amazing

These people will produce anything! So I assume that long term exposure to electromagnetic fields on top of bluetooth, wi-fi, cellular and other forms of radiation and penetrating waves will not pose a health risk. Indeed.

All for the Almighty $$$$$
Humanity is lost.
 
People should really stop complaining about getting cancer from this. Your microwave is probably a lot more dangerous to you, and yet we all love them. People always find an excuse to complain about something. Wireless charging is the future, and I am pretty damn sure MIT can figure out how to make it safe.

I am all for wireless charging.
 
I'm sure 'they' checked out thalidomide, DDT, BSE (transfer to human) et al before stating its safe or no risk and releasing to the public domain.

I love the sound of this technology as long as the LONG TERM health implications are FULLY researched.

No system is 100% secure, bad things will happen, it's life! However, the general standard is very high. It's better than the alternative of burying our heads in the sand and never improving.

The lack of understanding on this thread is very sad. Spend a few minutes on google looking at primary research and read up on this technology. It has so much potential, yet people are worried about magnetic fields etc when it emits less than a lot of domestic appliances. Plus it operates at a very low frequency, only 10MHz!


It is an important distinction, you are correct. However I do point out it is only academic; in the context of this discussion and the general ignorance of what's being branded around here, I think that distinction is lost upon them.

That's true, it's really depressing! Kind of makes me wish I had read surfing studies or something at university instead of chemistry. Then I could be blissfully ignorant!
 
And what about power efficiency, will this take more power then the direct charging?

Always, yes. You're never going to be able to capture ALL the electromagnetic energy that is emitted, since it needs to be 'distributed' over a given 3D space. The receiving device would need to enclose the source completely in order to achieve maximum capture, and even then, you have power electronic losses in conversion.
 
Sounds like you won't be able to reliably use your built in compass in the near future in your own house, or in densely populated areas...

While an interesting technology, I'm a bit skeptical towards the idea of transmitting the energy to power your home appliances using magnetic fields throughout your living room... They say it is safe, but so did the people who made or produced DDT, Asbestos or Thalidomide....

Good points. But you forgot the most recent discovery in health risks. The reports now that cell use may have a connection to brain tumors. That's pretty scary when you think about it. This tech is now, so we'll only discovery health issues over time.
 
Power + Wifi?

What if the power emitting device was combined (or linked to) the wifi base station of the house? If no approved devices were connected to the wifi network, than the power emitter would be turned off which would save power. When a device (like an iPhone or iMac) was turned on and connected to the wifi, the router could transmit this data to the wifi enabled power emitter and turn it on.

This could also be used as a preliminary way to keep people from "stealing" your power if Apple included some kind of hardware inside its devices which prevented them from charging unless connected to an approved network. I realize that the magnetic waves would be picked up by the phone automatically, however, Apple could have some sort of mechanism to disable the charging feature. It wouldn't work for tech-savy people but it would keep the vast majority of people from stealing power?
 
I have the same question. (about pacemakers)

Mark

I wonder too... Considering that if they're completely enclosed in a ferro-metallic body, they'd be veritable Faraday Cages.

Or maybe they should make them like so. Then they'd be impervious to EM fields. Only the probes that come out of them would be a concern? Any biomedical electrical engineers here?
 
No system is 100% secure, bad things will happen, it's life! However, the general standard is very high. It's better than the alternative of burying our heads in the sand and never improving.

The lack of understanding on this thread is very sad. Spend a few minutes on google looking at primary research and read up on this technology. It has so much potential, yet people are worried about magnetic fields etc when it emits less than a lot of domestic appliances. Plus it operates at a very low frequency, only 10MHz!




That's true, it's really depressing! Kind of makes me wish I had read surfing studies or something at university instead of chemistry. Then I could be blissfully ignorant!

I hear ya mate, I live NEXT to the beach... Should've been surfing instead of studying in the university up the road.
 
Sounds like it could be wasteful of electricity, but if it also receives a wireless signal that turns the emitter on/off only when something needs it, that could help. Sounds like something worth looking into further, at least.

As for cancer... lay off the sugar, cigarettes, and sun!

I don’t think I’d want to let this thing anywhere near my old floppy disks though :)
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

RawKurd said:
Does something like this use wifi because that will screw up one's bandwidth

No, this is a much lower frequency than wifi.
 
Amen brother.

Imagine you go somewhere where there's not "free" power. Now you have to register and pay. Imagine you travel to the sticks/boonies or central Africa, where you're lucky to even have wired power. What then?

And imagine a federally controlled power grid, and a state that decides to assert their 10th Amendment rights. (assuming this is to be rolled out as a replacement for the existing grid where practical)

For instance, Texas recently tried to forbid invasive patdowns. The federal govt then threatened Texas with a ban on flights. What would stop an already overbearing government from "rolling brownouts" to force compliance?

Before anyone groans, the Federal Govt has a history of doing exactly this. Threats to withhold highway funds for needed repairs when states didn't want to lower speed limits, or increase drinking ages, for instance.
 
This is a great concept. Especially for short range (like the idea about using an imac to charge peripheral devices). It'll be interesting to see if this ever become manifest...
 
And what about power efficiency, will this take more power then the direct charging?

To answer you question very VERY bad efficiency. A lot of the power just goes to waste as the farther you get from the transmitter the worse it gets and it is exponential worse the greater the distance. There is no way around that issue at all.
 
I'd imagine the goal here is to go all-wireless so Apple doesn't have to put ports on the iPhone, and make it even thinner.
 
I think we can guarantee with certainty 2 things will result from this.

#1 There will be an immediate cancer study, but that will take 20 years.

#2 When deployed, you can kiss AM radio in the home goodbye (not that anyone listens much now anyway, but still)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.