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.
Energous Says Its Truly Wireless Charging Technology Will Ship Later This Year — In Next iPhone?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Repeating one of my past posts, to help the discussion:
- The 5.8 GHz radio waves they use cannot even penetrate your skin. They're far less intrusive than say, your cell phone. However, that also means any part of your body will block the signal. Which is why it automatically tries to bounce it off a wall or ceiling if necessary.
- 4 watts at 5' (1.5m) or less, about the same as a wall charger
- 2 watts up to 10', about the same as a USB port
- 1 watt between 10'-15', which is a trickle charge
I've read that the best way to keep a battery healthy is to keep it charged between 50% and 80%
I wonder two things. How many transmitters will be needed for decent coverage of an average sized home? How much are the transmitters going to cost? Cost/benefit is going to be key.
I share your concern, but technically there's already enough radiation to charge a phone hitting your skin every day from the sun.
I know that, my point was that anything can be bad for you. There are "studies" made for every possible thing.
are you sure? because im fighting with someone that always says that we will never have true wireless charging because of health issues
I agree.. however
A chemical being inhaled into your lungs is not the same thing as a frequency which is less powerful than the damn sun.
See my post #84 just above yours.
To be able to trickle charge using their basic antenna, which has a radius of 10-15 feet, you'd need a charging station every 20-30 feet.
I think most people would only get one, for a particular room.
It's possible that a more powerful / costly station would be available as well.
Last edited:
To add a side note to that, I live in Los Alamos National Lab. We have plenty of nuclear energy here AND we're at 7200 feet (about 2000 feet above the "mile high" city. I've lived in lots of different places and people here live longer per capita than anywhere I've ever lived. So much for all that radiation will kill you (unless it goes boom or you get WAY too much).
If it is not strong enough to strip electrons and billiard-ball the protons and neutrons of your body, you will have nothing to worry about.
Which does actually kill people, so that might not be the message Apple goes with. But otherwise yeah, RF is nothing like UV and nowhere near as dangerous.
Yeah, they're supposed to have a workable demo at CES sometime later this week. Should be interesting. I see two transmitters in the average home. Living space - large transmitter and bedroom - midsize transmitter. I've seen $2-300 as well. If that's the case, personally, the cost considerably outweighs the benefit. My Qi mat was free and it's only marginally beneficial since I can lay my phone on it as I go to bed without looking for my charger. Other than that, meh.
Hey you should update your post with Energous' FAQ just to give some more information. There's a lot of guessing going on in this thread.
[doublepost=1483567866][/doublepost]
http://energous.com/technology/faqs/
Incredibly huge for Apple if true. Can't wait to be put on a 5 month waitlist for the iPhone 8 if this is true lol.
I had this thought, as well. I've always heard that the best way to keep rechargeable batteries healthy for as long as possible is to keep the electrons flowing (i.e. deplete, recharge, and repeat). Maybe that's no longer the case? I'm no battery expert.
He is either referring to Apple or Samsung. Which other companies can you guarantee someone would have products from? LG? Sony?
I don't know anyone who doesn't have an Apple product. I have friends who absolutely love Samsung Galaxy S phones and even most of them have an iPad or Mac or old iPod somewhere.
When I was a kid in the 70s, my grandparents wouldn't have a color TV in their home. I guess I was lucky. My cousins' grandparents wouldn't allow an inside toilet.
Yes, it's no longer the case.
Expert advice is to maintain charge >50% as mentioned above. Constant trickle charge is fine.
Feel free to climb into an industrial microwave any time you like mate, and rid us of your stupidity. Or stand next to a giant IR, UV or gamma wave emitter. Even sunlight has a very well known, strongly correlated health risk - skin cancer.
All of the EM spectrum has known health risks, and sure, radio waves are non-ionising, so you're in luck, this probably isn't going to directly give you cancer, but there is a massive difference in power needed to transmit a message, and the power needed to charge a phone, or a laptop. Last I checked my MacBook charger puts out 65W: jump on a treadmill and see how much power that really is, then image a fraction of that being absorbed by your body 24/7, 365 days a year, when charging, say, the watch on your wrist, the phone in your pocket, the laptop in front of you, and the glasses on your face.
I'm not saying that he's right, but don't mock his caution because you completed a science class at school that taught you that visible light is part of the EM spectrum, because you can be damn sure that the last people who are going to deeply investigate health issues are the ones who plan on profiting from this technology.
You don't need to remove it now. In the time most people take a shower, the AW charges. You don't need to leave it on the charger all night long.
what about the gym or starbucks or movie theater or airplane...? If this becomes a standard then we don't need to worry about changing cables and battery size. I believe that's the future Apple wants and why it hasn't bought the company (assuming the owners of it would accept an offer from Apple).