Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Though this is what wireless charging should be like, I don’t think Apple will use this technology. Why? Because they want to keep selling their current chargers and their new AirPower pads at crazy prices.

I could see them working with Energous to implement this technology within their AirPower pads.
 
I could see them working with Energous to implement this technology within their AirPower pads.

This "technology" is the transmission of microwaves by multiple antennas focused into a relatively short range power cone.

Because it's a radiative method instead of inductive, it's at least an order of magnitude less efficient at charging than using a pad.

I'm struggling to think of a valid use for it. I mean, yeah you could use your device while it's slowly charging, but you'd have to be careful to stay within the 35" arc radius and yet also avoid accidentally moving too far towards the antennas and triggering the 20" safety shutdown. You'd almost need a painted desktop to help out :)
 
Last edited:
Though this is what wireless charging should be like, I don’t think Apple will use this technology. Why? Because they want to keep selling their current chargers and their new AirPower pads at crazy prices.

That makes zero sense. Apple could have their own charger uses this tech and still sell it at their higher price point.
 
This "technology" is the transmission of microwaves by multiple antennas focused into a relatively short range power cone.

Because it's a radiative method instead of inductive, it's at least an order of magnitude less efficient at charging than using a pad.
Can't wait to microwave my cellphone :)
 
This technology will come to your Apple devices 5 years after it has come to other devices, at a higher cost, and Apple will claim to have invented it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shirasaki
Though this is what wireless charging should be like, I don’t think Apple will use this technology. Why? Because they want to keep selling their current chargers and their new AirPower pads at crazy prices.
Because Apple wouldn’t love to sell you an AirPower Plus for $150 bones more o_O.
 
This "technology" is the transmission of microwaves by multiple antennas focused into a relatively short range power cone.

Because it's a radiative method instead of inductive, it's at least an order of magnitude less efficient at charging than using a pad.

I'm struggling to think of a valid use for it. I mean, yeah you could use your device while it's slowly charging, but you'd have to be careful to stay within the 35" arc radius and yet also avoid accidentally moving too far towards the antennas and triggering the 20" safety shutdown. You'd almost need a painted desktop to help out :)

That's not even mentioning that the device will have to be in the correct orientation to get any charge at all. :p

This company knows how to get investor/grant funding and make it seem like it's breaking new grounds. I suppose it isn't difficult when it's something people want very much and know little about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kdarling
It's all around you already, in the form of cell phone and wifi and much, much more.

Except that all that radiation is not transmitting 10 watts of power. And even in case of more powerful stations you won't be directly in from on them, so the radiation reaching you is magnitudes lower then that.
 
Though this is what wireless charging should be like, I don’t think Apple will use this technology. Why? Because they want to keep selling their current chargers and their new AirPower pads at crazy prices.

Keep selling those chargers they're not even selling yet?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ILikeAllOS
No matter how you look at it this is progression in the right direction, and if your criticising this your just gonna look like a idiot

To anyone with basic knowledge of some fundamental and immutable laws of physics, what's been shown by Energous so far looks very much like part of a continuing scam.

Could there be a way to line the walls and ceiling with many directional antennas and automatic detection of humans/pets, so that many low power beams meet at a device? Sure, expensive, but could be. But such a concept has nothing to do with the raw blunt instrument in this thread.

Except that all that radiation is not transmitting 10 watts of power. And even in case of more powerful stations you won't be directly in from on them, so the radiation reaching you is magnitudes lower then that.

Yep, even cell towers only use 5-10 Watts for each cell, and they're hundreds or thousands of feet away from us. By the time the data signal reaches us, it's usually in the microwatt range. (*)

Yet to send usable amounts of power to convert to battery charging electricity, this Energous device also has to transmit 10 watts or more, but it's within only a few feet from us! And thus it has to shut off entirely if it detects motion within 20", where the exposure amount would exceed FCC limits.

(*) Which is why it's such idiocy when well meaning but ignorant people say they want fewer cell towers. Fewer towers means cells have to transmit at a higher power, and moreover, so do the phones that we have next to our heads! Our phone's nearby power is many magnitudes higher than what we get back from the tower. Conversely, more towers = less transmitted power needed on both sides.
 
Last edited:
It's all around you already, in the form of cell phone and wifi and much, much more.

Wrong!

Has never been used in the history of mankind with this intensity without hesitation !!!!

In many cases, intensity plays an outstanding role in health issues (all high-frequency fields incl. microwave or ultraviolet radiation, particle radiation, radioactivity).

Fear is a bad counselor, but also unscrupulousness is stupid. It would be nice if there were studies on body reactions to permanent stress with high intensity HF.
 
Last edited:
It's all around you already, in the form of cell phone and wifi and much, much more.

Some ambient electromagnetic radiation was always around -- even before electrification started in the 1880s. The difference is power. These things are kicking out far more power than a cell phone valiantly trying to connect to every cell phone tower from the overhead compartment at 30,000 feet.

Include me out. I don't want to be anywhere near this stuff. I want to see about 10 years of research before getting near any of those beam-boxes.

The only thing dumber is living within 500 feet of high-power transmission lines.
 
This is the way wireless charging should be. Walking in your home, office, cafe bar, restaurant, station, airport. your device connects and charges. Eventually you feel no need to look at your devices battery level.

And what you listed for ideas is huge. Because eventually and hopefully, one day we see this type of technology that allows us to not have to be tethered to an electrical outlet to charge our ilPhones. Especially given circumstances like airports, coffee shops, and of course our houses. That's a major convenience factor and a breakthrough if this technology does happen. Even if it has its limitations, the mobile world that we live in today, it's almost as if this technology should happen.
 
I'll be literally glowing by the time I step out of places stacked with all that RF magnetic field I'll be exposed to. Then after a few years in the market, people will come back here and complain about unnecessary exposure and getting sick by it and suing said companies that sell and offer these things.

(I'm speculating of course)
 
This is the very early stages of a technological push that will revolutionize the world. Wall Street seems to think so too. Energous' stock went up 150% on one day...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.