not so much ignorance as not reading my post back. I did indeed mean Electro Magnenic field. Which some people would also say are harmless. Some people also would say Nuclear is pretty safe. There have been so few incidents.
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's Interest in WiTricity Wireless Charging
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
not so much ignorance as not reading my post back. I did indeed mean Electro Magnenic field. Which some people would also say are harmless. Some people also would say Nuclear is pretty safe. There have been so few incidents.
The rest of your post was pretty solid. I'm only going to take on this little piece 
Cell phones do not use X-Rays, so I'm not sure what the comparison is here with led bibs.
High intensity visible light can also cause temporary blindness, but I don't wear sunglasses when microwaving my coffee
They are all different forms of radiation. The type of radiation used in cell phone communication is not at a wavelength that could cause cell mutation according to scientists I trust more than the news media and internet forum goers.
X-Rays however can cause cancer, which is why you don't want to have lunch in the X-Ray room every week
Cell phones do not use X-Rays, so I'm not sure what the comparison is here with led bibs.
High intensity visible light can also cause temporary blindness, but I don't wear sunglasses when microwaving my coffee
They are all different forms of radiation. The type of radiation used in cell phone communication is not at a wavelength that could cause cell mutation according to scientists I trust more than the news media and internet forum goers.
X-Rays however can cause cancer, which is why you don't want to have lunch in the X-Ray room every week
^Very low. Less than a lot of common domestic appliances.
10MHz if I recall correctly. So 200 times less than wifi. Even lower than FM radio. Electromagnetic waves at that kind of frequency are pretty damn safe.
There will always be people who think something is making them ill.
10MHz if I recall correctly. So 200 times less than wifi. Even lower than FM radio. Electromagnetic waves at that kind of frequency are pretty damn safe.
There will always be people who think something is making them ill.
I was under the impression that the field was somewhere between TV and microwave, being closer to TV. My question: is that TV radiation CRT or LCD or Plasma or OLED?
Backpedal faster
Let me quote you and highlight the places where you lead us to believe that radiation is dangerous.
"Umm, it acutally IS using radiation. I know "oscillating magnetic field" doesn't sound dangerous at all, but it is the same as an electromagnetic wave, therefore radiation. So, yes it can cause illnesses which are connected to high electromagnetic doses."
It's not even connected, it's a proven fact that certain frequencies and intensities can cause cell mutation. In a quantity high enough, the body can not repair and deal with the mutation fast enough.
However assigning that sort of "illness" to something as broad as radiation is like saying "Liquid is poisonous!". Both are so pervasive in this universe that it becomes rather important to distinguish instead of spreading the sort of fear the media loves to deal in.
We have enough paranoid people on this planet, we hardly need to encourage more...
Last edited:
From NIH: Magnetic-Field–Induced DNA Strand Breaks in Brain Cells of the Rat
How'd you like to turn your living room into the inside of a giant MRI machine?
How'd you like to turn your living room into the inside of a giant MRI machine?
What gets me is that most of the morons who are against this technology will happily wear headphones!
So, that's two magnetic waves, one on each ear producing noise through a modulating magnetic wave, and that's not dangerous? But charging your iPhone in front of your computer is....
The term for many of these people is "flat earthers"
To be fair, the average set of Ear buds (at max power) will barely register on all but the most sensitive EMF gauges. The fields are simply too low to register.
While there is a debate as to exactly what is safe for a static EMF, usually anything below .05 - 1 Gauss is considered safe or ambient by some, but not all researchers.
I would assume CRT. The highest source of EMF from a TV of any other than CRT, would be the power inverters for the lamps, and or Transformers for the overall TV power.
MRI machines put out a magnetic field thousands of times stronger than the earths magnetic field. WiTricity's is very small in comparison.
Seems like we already have. That paper appears to be showing that the AC current used in your house is of the right frequency to kill you given enough time and proximity to the weak electromagnetic field.
Sounds like it's easy enough to test though. Fire this new device at rats for a while and see what happens.
For everyone's reference as this discussion continues:
Click for larger
Last edited by a moderator:
Someone posted that exact paper earlier in the thread. I'll say the same thing as I did then-
They exposed rats to 10uT constantly for 24 and 48hrs. The MIT paper that inspired the WiTricity stated it used a field of 1uT (EDIT- sorry, should read 0.1uT), so at any real distance it will be a tiny amount. Probably less than the magnetic field strength of your TV, vacuum or microwave.
Last edited:
Looks like we will all be mutants in a few years like X-men, but with perfectly charged iphones.
Or, better yet since harmless let's get them implanted . Guaranteed plenty of takers.
Or, better yet since harmless let's get them implanted . Guaranteed plenty of takers.
Problem is the 1uT covers a much larger area that your TV and we would be exposed over a much longer time span. The research Amps it up to get measurable results in a relatively short time span. Put being in that 1uT for years and you can have damage start to really build up.
Personally I think the wireless tech like from WiTricity is crap and should not be used because it waste so much energy and no amount of science break threw is going to solve the fundamental issue.
The rest of your post was pretty solid. I'm only going to take on this little piece
Cell phones do not use X-Rays, so I'm not sure what the comparison is here with led bibs.
High intensity visible light can also cause temporary blindness, but I don't wear sunglasses when microwaving my coffee
They are all different forms of radiation. The type of radiation used in cell phone communication is not at a wavelength that could cause cell mutation according to scientists I trust more than the news media and internet forum goers.
X-Rays however can cause cancer, which is why you don't want to have lunch in the X-Ray room every week
Each sort of radiation can cause its own sort of damage. UV-a and UV-b can cause sun poisoning, as well as skin cancer. This is easily testible, as it's a high-intensity radiation. If you go the other way, you get microwaves, which are also dangerous, in the right ammount.
Along the same lines, light- red, green, blue, yellow- can do the exact same thing that UV/Microwaves do. We (as humans) just happen to have evolved a special receptor to detect high amounts of it (eyes), as well as defenses against this sort of radiation. However, we can see how it can be turned back into energy easily enough, using solar panels or photosynthesis.
Going back to cellphones (and WiTricity), it mayyy be the most mundane, non-harmful sort of radiation that our body can easily deal with. But it might not be.
I have no fear that using cellphones leads to a much higher cancer rate, and I'll use my cellphone alll the time. The point is, though, that we don't know what prolonged exposure does over time. At BEST, we have ~20 years of data, where people are exposed to cellphone radiation occasionally. Maybe a few hours a day, at most. It doesn't mean it's not harmful, just that it's not harmful enough to cause symptoms (such as a maligment tumor).
WiTricity would be a prolonged dose- say 14 hours a day, every day. And it's at a frequency that our bodies aren't normally exposed to, so our inate defenses probably aren't as strong.
Again, remember the newness of the technology. 30 years ago, there was no wifi, cellphones, much less exposure to x-rays, microwaves, etc. So we can, at most, only assume a study that's lasted ~30 years. max, when it comes to any sort of low-dose, long term exposure, radiation poisoning.
Remember that the strength will decay with distance, after a short distance the strength will be absolutely tiny.
I'm not 100% on this, but I'm not sure it is valid to scale up. It's not like chemicals where continued exposure can mean it builds up over time (DDT being an example). With electromagnetism, a weak field intensity may have no effect at all, however once a certain threshold is reached there will be one. So comparing a short intense exposure to a long weak exposure may not be valid.
How much waste energy is tolerable?
Compared to a direct cable it loses more, but compared to other forms of power conversation it seems to do quite well, yes?
It will affect your health. You'll walk miles less cumulatively looking for a wall plug-in and your cable and die early of cardiovascular disease.
Apple, killing its customers since 1976.
No it is piss poor no matter how you cut it.
At more than a few inches you are going to waste 50% more power over direct cable. It is horrible and a Huge huge waste of power.
Anybody know what the equivalent charging current would be? And can anyone explain the difference between this and an induction charger? I have no clue how it works.
I don't think the magnetic field from that charger is strong enough to do this:
or this:
Otherwise you better remove all the metal from your living room
I don't think the magnetic field from that charger is strong enough to do this:
or this:
Otherwise you better remove all the metal from your living room
Um, citation?
In 2007 the MIT researchers managed 45% efficiency at 7 feet. Surely WiTricity is doing better than that by now. On their site, they state that at optimum the efficiency is 95%.
As a matter of comparison, most electric motors operate at 60-70% efficiency. Most internal combustion engines operate at well under 50%.
That said, I do understand that we are effectively trading efficient for less efficient. But as far as using the earth's energy is concerned, there are better ways to save power than the 20% you lose charging an iPhone