Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Infiniverse48

macrumors 65816
Jun 28, 2017
1,055
963
And then it's turtles, all the way down!



Thanks for that link. I love the part of the first video where it shows "3mW"...

Nothing I see suggests a solution for phones. Charge a keyboard from 1m away? The 5m system was described as "trickle charging" a TV remote.

There are very few bands where you can put more than 1W in the air total, even with a pencil beam, you'll get a fifth of the current you get from the little iPhone charge block. The FCC won't waive that limit for a device you keep in your pocket without out comprehensive biological testing.

Yeah, but assuming they're under part 15 (and part 18 seems like a heck of a stretch for something like this in an open room), they've got 1W of total radiated power. At 15ft, that's 3mW/m^2. The entire surface area of the iPhone 7+ is 0.01m^2, so you're starting from 30µW. Since the effective antenna won't be the full size of the device, you need to knock that back further. You can use a directional antenna, but once you get past 6dBi you need to reduce the conducted power by 1dB for every 3dB you add in gain-- and a mass produced array won't be near 100% efficient. So maybe every doubling in the number of antennas increase your power delivery by 1.5dB, or about 40%.

Let's say by some crazy amount of persistence, you get to 1mW of charging power: you'd do better by replacing a CR3032 coin cell once every 5 weeks.

And if they do manage part 18 approval, and they take a microwave oven and remove the shielding then focus all of the output through a phased array at the phone in your pocket, these conservative calculations only get them to 1W delivered to the device...
However, you're not among the electrical engineers and have no concept of the methodology they're using for this. Maybe if you were apprised of the details, you'd respect its feasibility a bit more. As for the FCC approvals, let's wait and see, as opposed to acting like we have the faintest idea of what the FCC has directed this company to do for their testing purposes, nor whether they'll approve it or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pete011

69Mustang

macrumors 604
Jan 7, 2014
7,889
15,034
In between a rock and a hard place
However, you're not among the electrical engineers and have no concept of the methodology they're using for this. Maybe if you were apprised of the details, you'd respect its feasibility a bit more. As for the FCC approvals, let's wait and see, as opposed to acting like we have the faintest idea of what the FCC has directed this company to do for their testing purposes, nor whether they'll approve it or not.
You are really quick to assert that other people have no credentials, expertise, or insight into Energous and their tech. Yet you've never once provided any counter argument based on facts. @Analog Kid gave detailed science, I gave words quoted directly from the CEO, and in that same article there's info about their FCC hurdles and expert opinion about their chances of success. Yet you continually assert what others don't know. What exactly is it that you know?
 

Analog Kid

macrumors 604
Mar 4, 2003
7,331
8,000
However, you're not among the electrical engineers and have no concept of the methodology they're using for this. Maybe if you were apprised of the details, you'd respect its feasibility a bit more. As for the FCC approvals, let's wait and see, as opposed to acting like we have the faintest idea of what the FCC has directed this company to do for their testing purposes, nor whether they'll approve it or not.
You're right, I don't work for the company, but I recognize the pattern I'm seeing. A company comes out with wild claims and a big marketing push. They build the sense these products are already possible. They try to build up big press and generate dissatisfaction with the alternatives.

Over time, it becomes clear that they're held to the same laws of physics that everyone else is. Language gets parsed a little more carefully. Claims get quietly walked back. The demonstrated performance is either in line with what skeptics predicted when first released, or it's done in controlled environments where they can operate under R&D licenses.

When the circus finally calms down, it becomes clear why they needed so much publicity up front: their whole strategy rests on changing the laws. They need to convince FCC to change the regulatory regime, and they're hoping the publicity will convince the agency that it's in the public interest to do so.

In the end, there's no new technology-- it's simply a lobbying effort.

It's an antenna array system. They claim 100's of elements in their far field version which is an engineering feat, but not new physics. They're applying beam steering and MIMO techniques from communications, but they want it treated under ISM regulations for industrial power equipment. The reason they want to be allowed to output the power of a microwave oven is because they think they can target it on a small bubble in your pocket.

What this means for us is entirely new levels of ambient radio power in our environment to get milliwatts into our phones. They've said as much.


I'm with @69Mustang -- if I'm missing something here, tell me what. I really do love a deep dive into science and tech. In the mean time, I've got no problem answering baseless claims that this wundertek is on the horizon with my informed skepticism.
 
Last edited:

69Mustang

macrumors 604
Jan 7, 2014
7,889
15,034
In between a rock and a hard place
for example, how about stack all of your apple portable devices and they'll all start charging in one place? stack macbook, then ipad, then mouse/trackpad, then iphone, then airpods and watch? that way you only use one outlet, you only need one wire, you don't take up that much space, you can charge your entire family's devices, and it is super portable (less things to pack for a trip).
For this to even be remotely possible we'd have to suspend reality. There's ample information out there about Energous tech. It can't even come close to doing what you're suggesting. Instead of just creating pie in the sky guesses, why not research what's actually feasible?

if they were planning on using Qi charging in iPhone with the same use case as what Android phones do, they would have already done it. there has to be some sort of UX improvement that Apple figured out with Qi charging.
None of this makes sense. That's like saying if they were planning to use OLED with the same use case as Android phones they would have already done it. Same with 1080p, 4K Apple TV, larger phones, etc. Apple dismisses stuff until they use it. It's marketing, not some brand new use case.

it was necessary in the watch for water/sweat resistance. watch could break if you plugged it in right after sweating/swimming using a lightning port.
This makes no sense either. Qi charging was not necessary for water/sweat resistance. Apple could have easily charged the AW with a lightning port or contact pins. There are plenty of devices that charge through ports and with pins and have IP certification for dust and water intrusion. Qi was not necessary. Besides, no one would be charging a wet AW just like no one would be charging a wet iPhone.
 

Infiniverse48

macrumors 65816
Jun 28, 2017
1,055
963
You are really quick to assert that other people have no credentials, expertise, or insight into Energous and their tech. Yet you've never once provided any counter argument based on facts. @Analog Kid gave detailed science, I gave words quoted directly from the CEO, and in that same article there's info about their FCC hurdles and expert opinion about their chances of success. Yet you continually assert what others don't know. What exactly is it that you know?
I know that Dialog Semiconductor has 1,000+ engineers and is a multi-billion dollar company. I know that Dialog has invested $25 million+ into Energous. I know that Dialog has done their due diligence being a multi-billion dollar company with a plethora of engineers. I know that Energous has been working with, and has signed a contract with one of the largest consumer electronics companies in the world (they cannot lie about this without extreme consequences). I know that whoever the multi-billion dollar electronics company is, has also done their own due diligence on the feasibility of the tech and its passing regulatory bodies.

What I don't know is what everyone else on here, and elsewhere doesn't know, and that is whether they will get FCC approval, and how the tech works from a detailed, technical standpoint. What I do know is that Dialog Semi and the multi-billion dollar electronics company both DO know the technical details and its feasibility and directionality toward FCC approval.

I'm not pretending I know that which I don't. I'm asserting I know that none of you know anything in regards to what is happening with the tech. As far as what the CEO said, that's not some new revelation..that's been the story, and anyone with a clue understands that of course the idea is to trickle charge at that distance, it's the only feasible way, and the extremely simple principle there is that you charge when otherwise you wouldn't be, far more frequently, and without thinking about it.
[doublepost=1503022980][/doublepost]
For this to even be remotely possible we'd have to suspend reality. There's ample information out there about Energous tech. It can't even come close to doing what you're suggesting. Instead of just creating pie in the sky guesses, why not research what's actually feasible?


None of this makes sense. That's like saying if they were planning to use OLED with the same use case as Android phones they would have already done it. Same with 1080p, 4K Apple TV, larger phones, etc. Apple dismisses stuff until they use it. It's marketing, not some brand new use case.


This makes no sense either. Qi charging was not necessary for water/sweat resistance. Apple could have easily charged the AW with a lightning port or contact pins. There are plenty of devices that charge through ports and with pins and have IP certification for dust and water intrusion. Qi was not necessary. Besides, no one would be charging a wet AW just like no one would be charging a wet iPhone.
If you don't know why the Watch uses inductive charging I just....can't even.
 

69Mustang

macrumors 604
Jan 7, 2014
7,889
15,034
In between a rock and a hard place
I know that Dialog Semiconductor has 1,000+ engineers and is a multi-billion dollar company. I know that Dialog has invested $25 million+ into Energous. I know that Dialog has done their due diligence being a multi-billion dollar company with a plethora of engineers. I know that Energous has been working with, and has signed a contract with one of the largest consumer electronics companies in the world (they cannot lie about this without extreme consequences). I know that whoever the multi-billion dollar electronics company is, has also done their own due diligence on the feasibility of the tech and its passing regulatory bodies.
You're not really helping your point by embellishing Dialog's resume. They are not a multi-billion dollar company. Never have been either. They are a single, as in one, billion dollar company. Their highest revenue ever was $1.35B in 2015. They ended last year at $1.2B. I'm doubting the 1000+ engineers as well since the company only has 1650 employees total.
Now, I do know of a multi-hundred billion dollar company that has 1000+ engineers. I know that they invested over $500 million into a company. I also know that being a multi-hundred billion dollar company with a plethora of engineers, they did their due diligence. Even with all that due diligence, the only thing of value produced from that deal was a pair of big boy pants. The point: Dialog and Apple having faith in Energous tech is no guarantee Energous will deliver a viable product. Point 2: Don't embellish. Hurts credibility.
If you don't know why the Watch uses inductive charging I just....can't even.
You can't what? Provide an opinion as to why you think differently?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Demo Kit and CarlJ

Analog Kid

macrumors 604
Mar 4, 2003
7,331
8,000
Before going too much further in the "you don't know what I don't know" back and forth, I want to remind you of this:
My assertion for a long time has been this:

Apple includes Energous/Dialog RF-based wireless charging chips in all 2017 iPhones. These chips provide all of these devices with the capability to charge from contact AND distance charging. Energous has FCC approval for the contact-based charging, and therefore all 2017 iPhones come equipped to contact-charge, and they all come equipped with the hardware readiness for distance charging when FCC approval permits it. I believe the HomePod is the first distance charging device, providing 3ft charging range for these devices. I believe it's launch in December with availability in only the US, UK, and Australia is specifically to get regulatory approval for this charging.

Next year or the year after sees 'Apple Home', a larger more feature-packed device with a display and distance charging of up to 15ft.

That's my vision.

So before arguing that we should wait and see before suggesting that it might not work, remember that the skepticism of Energous is directly responding to the "I'm-so-sure-this-is-happening-this-year-they-said-they-had-a-contract-with-an-unnamed-electronics-maker-that-so-had-to-be-Apple-because-who-else-could-it-be-and-if-iPhone-8-uses-inductive-Apple-sucks" hype.

FWIW, I don't know you're wrong. I just don't see it as anything like a slam dunk and feel the need to inject some reality. I get that people want power to be like WiFi, but there's some serious challenges to that concept.

I know that Dialog Semiconductor has 1,000+ engineers and is a multi-billion dollar company. I know that Dialog has invested $25 million+ into Energous. I know that Dialog has done their due diligence being a multi-billion dollar company with a plethora of engineers. I know that Energous has been working with, and has signed a contract with one of the largest consumer electronics companies in the world (they cannot lie about this without extreme consequences). I know that whoever the multi-billion dollar electronics company is, has also done their own due diligence on the feasibility of the tech and its passing regulatory bodies.

What I don't know is what everyone else on here, and elsewhere doesn't know, and that is whether they will get FCC approval, and how the tech works from a detailed, technical standpoint. What I do know is that Dialog Semi and the multi-billion dollar electronics company both DO know the technical details and its feasibility and directionality toward FCC approval.

I'm not pretending I know that which I don't. I'm asserting I know that none of you know anything in regards to what is happening with the tech. As far as what the CEO said, that's not some new revelation..that's been the story, and anyone with a clue understands that of course the idea is to trickle charge at that distance, it's the only feasible way, and the extremely simple principle there is that you charge when otherwise you wouldn't be, far more frequently, and without thinking about it.
An old boss used to say, "if everything goes great, and everyone's making money, you don't need a contract. Contracts are for when things go bad." Merchant of Venice is all about how a contract doesn't necessarily mean you expect things to go well for the other party.

Yes, I'm sure Dialog did their due diligence and what they decided is that the investment was in their interest. Maybe they invested because they supply parts to Apple, maybe they invested because they're hoping to diversify from Apple. Maybe it's because they saw a miracle in the design, maybe it's because if it fails they've set the contract up to take ownership of Energous IP as collateral.

Remember the big sapphire glass investment Apple made in GT? When that went south, Apple took their pound of flesh.

Same with this "unnamed company" that keeps getting mentioned. It's in Energous' interest to hype that arrangement, but the counter-party hasn't shown themselves. Apple has a partnership with Liquid Metal, and all they're shipping is a SIM extraction tool so you don't have to bend your own paperclips.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Demo Kit

Infiniverse48

macrumors 65816
Jun 28, 2017
1,055
963
You're not really helping your point by embellishing Dialog's resume. They are not a multi-billion dollar company. Never have been either. They are a single, as in one, billion dollar company. Their highest revenue ever was $1.35B in 2015. They ended last year at $1.2B. I'm doubting the 1000+ engineers as well since the company only has 1650 employees total.
Now, I do know of a multi-hundred billion dollar company that has 1000+ engineers. I know that they invested over $500 million into a company. I also know that being a multi-hundred billion dollar company with a plethora of engineers, they did their due diligence. Even with all that due diligence, the only thing of value produced from that deal was a pair of big boy pants. The point: Dialog and Apple having faith in Energous tech is no guarantee Energous will deliver a viable product. Point 2: Don't embellish. Hurts credibility.

You can't what? Provide an opinion as to why you think differently?
That's right, a billion dollar company, same difference to my point in due diligence.

The Watch uses inductive charging for these reasons, but not only these. Some reasons I don't know.

Number one and by far the most important is internal space. The watch needs the maximum x and y axes space as possible, and the omission of a large intrusive hole is critically impactful to that end. Secondly, the device is far more aesthetically pleasing without a large hole that is gigantic relative to the body. The watch also needs as much water and dust resistance as possible, given its nature. Now, water isn't as much of an issue as the dust would be. Another reason is that the watch is not a device which is used while it is charging, whereas the smartphone or tablet is commonly used while they are charging. You take a Watch off and lay it down, there is no reason to use it while it's charging, and therefore contact-based charging is perfectly sound.
[doublepost=1503028742][/doublepost]
Before going too much further in the "you don't know what I don't know" back and forth, I want to remind you of this:


So before arguing that we should wait and see before suggesting that it might not work, remember that the skepticism of Energous is directly responding to the "I'm-so-sure-this-is-happening-this-year-they-said-they-had-a-contract-with-an-unnamed-electronics-maker-that-so-had-to-be-Apple-because-who-else-could-it-be-and-if-iPhone-8-uses-inductive-Apple-sucks" hype.

FWIW, I don't know you're wrong. I just don't see it as anything like a slam dunk and feel the need to inject some reality. I get that people want power to be like WiFi, but there's some serious challenges to that concept.


An old boss used to say, "if everything goes great, and everyone's making money, you don't need a contract. Contracts are for when things go bad." Merchant of Venice is all about how a contract doesn't necessarily mean you expect things to go well for the other party.

Yes, I'm sure Dialog did their due diligence and what they decided is that the investment was in their interest. Maybe they invested because they supply parts to Apple, maybe they invested because they're hoping to diversify from Apple. Maybe it's because they saw a miracle in the design, maybe it's because if it fails they've set the contract up to take ownership of Energous IP as collateral.

Remember the big sapphire glass investment Apple made in GT? When that went south, Apple took their pound of flesh.

Same with this "unnamed company" that keeps getting mentioned. It's in Energous' interest to hype that arrangement, but the counter-party hasn't shown themselves. Apple has a partnership with Liquid Metal, and all they're shipping is a SIM extraction tool so you don't have to bend your own paperclips.
That was my vision you quoted, I didn't say it was definite. And yes I fully and vehemently believe that Apple is embarrassing themselves if they are using inductive-based wireless charging in these phones. Apple has waited because they knew it's convenience is so minute that it's inclusion would be technically a downgrade, not an upgrade. Why is it a downgrade? Because it impacts the x, y, and z dimensions which are all of pivotal importance to the smartphone, especially in 2017 when every mm is being carefully architected to add the maximal features.
 

Analog Kid

macrumors 604
Mar 4, 2003
7,331
8,000
That was my vision you quoted, I didn't say it was definite. And yes I fully and vehemently believe that Apple is embarrassing themselves if they are using inductive-based wireless charging in these phones. Apple has waited because they knew it's convenience is so minute that it's inclusion would be technically a downgrade, not an upgrade. Why is it a downgrade? Because it impacts the x, y, and z dimensions which are all of pivotal importance to the smartphone, especially in 2017 when every mm is being carefully architected to add the maximal features.
So, in the end, what you've been saying is that I have no concept of the engineering and should refrain from commenting because you have visions?

Anyway...

I'm not all that excited about inductive charging either, frankly. Some people seem to be. People have been complaining about the lack of it for years since the old Palm Pre. The nightstand in the dark argument is the best I've come across, but it still doesn't inspire me.

"Why now?" is a perfectly reasonable question. Maybe they figured out how to do it without the space penalty. Rumor had it they were looking at using the NFC antenna for inductive charging. The NFC antenna is integrated into the rest of the system and doesn't take a lot of dedicated space.

Maybe they're moving toward removing lightning in baby steps.

What I think would be embarrassing, though, is if they waste the space on a technology that can't provide enough power to top up the battery with the screen on. Granted, Energous has a near field charging solution that Apple might consider, but I'd be surprised if Apple hitched their wagon to a company with that uncertain a future unless either Apple or Dialog could guarantee continued production after Energous went belly up. Thus an investment contract with the IP as collateral...
 
Last edited:

mrklaw

macrumors 68030
Jan 29, 2008
2,678
984
seems like it would be a good alternative to a lightning dock - they're actually quite annoying and difficult to 'park' your phone on quickly. I'd probably swap my lightning dock for a wireless charging pad..
 

Infiniverse48

macrumors 65816
Jun 28, 2017
1,055
963
So, in the end, what you've been saying is that I have no concept of the engineering and should refrain from commenting because you have visions?

Anyway...

I'm not all that excited about inductive charging either, frankly. Some people seem to be. People have been complaining about the lack of it for years since the old Palm Pre. The nightstand in the dark argument is the best I've come across, but it still doesn't inspire me.

"Why now?" is a perfectly reasonable question. Maybe they figured out how to do it without the space penalty. Rumor had it they were looking at using the NFC antenna for inductive charging. The NFC antenna is integrated into the rest of the system and doesn't take a lot of dedicated space.

Maybe they're moving toward removing lightning in baby steps.

What I think would be embarrassing, though, is if they waste the space on a technology that can't provide enough power to top up the battery with the screen on. Granted, Energous has a near field charging solution that Apple might consider, but I'd be surprised if Apple hitched their wagon to a company with that uncertain a future unless either Apple or Dialog could guarantee continued production after Energous went belly up. Thus an investment contract with the IP as collateral...
No I've been saying you have no concept of the engineering so if you were smart you'd be reluctant to assert that you do.

Anyway...

There's only one way to get rid of Lightning, which I believe they want to do, and that is to introduce some form of distance charging. You must ensure the device can be used while being charged at a distance of at least 3ft, which by the way 3ft would be offering impactful charging, whereas 15ft would be extreme trickle charging. Other than that, Apple would need a Smart Connector successor that had a magnet strong enough to keep a new power cord attached to the device without frequent disconnections. A smart connector takes virtually no internal space.
 

farewelwilliams

Suspended
Jun 18, 2014
4,966
18,041
For this to even be remotely possible we'd have to suspend reality. There's ample information out there about Energous tech. It can't even come close to doing what you're suggesting. Instead of just creating pie in the sky guesses, why not research what's actually feasible?
what are you talking about? energous does more than what i'm talking about. energous LITERALLY DOES CHARGING AT A DISTANCE. how is that "can't even come close"?

None of this makes sense. That's like saying if they were planning to use OLED with the same use case as Android phones they would have already done it. Same with 1080p, 4K Apple TV, larger phones, etc. Apple dismisses stuff until they use it. It's marketing, not some brand new use case.

We don't even know if the upcoming OLED iPhone is using the same basic off-the-shelf OLED that other Android devices are using.

Apple TV is a streaming device. They introduced the 720p Apple TV because most of America didn't even have internet connections that can stream 1080p at the time, not to mention that 1080p TV's weren't in most households. Then they upgraded 1080p when it was right. Ask Roku how their 4k device was selling vs their lower tier devices.

I don't recall Apple marketing the 720p->1080p Apple TV. In fact, I don't recall a single TV ad for the 1080p Apple TV. No, it's not just marketing.

This makes no sense either. Qi charging was not necessary for water/sweat resistance. Apple could have easily charged the AW with a lightning port or contact pins.
No. You can damage the iPhone 7 if you charged it several times while it's soaked, despite it being marketed as water resistant.
For apple watch some users, the watch gets soaked/sweaty on a daily basis. It wouldn't survive with a lightning port.
 
Last edited:

Analog Kid

macrumors 604
Mar 4, 2003
7,331
8,000
No I've been saying you have no concept of the engineering so if you were smart you'd be reluctant to assert that you do.
Which again reminds me of this:
My assertion for a long time has been this:

Apple includes Energous/Dialog RF-based wireless charging chips in all 2017 iPhones. These chips provide all of these devices with the capability to charge from contact AND distance charging.

So, if I shouldn't make assertions because I "have no concept of the engineering", and you're happily making assertions, then you must have a concept of the engineering. But you have yet to make a single technical argument, and I'd love to hear one from someone. Teach me. I'm a quick study.

Or at least throw me a bone and convince me you understand the technical arguments. "Another company is working with them and they must know what they're doing so it's obviously all going to work", is not a rebuttal to a discussion of field strengths, path loss, and antenna arrays.

Because so far it sounds like it's ok to speculate that this never before possible distance charging works despite all available evidence, but it's improper to bring up anything that suggests it might not be technically feasible to do what you're claiming (and what Energous themselves are admitting they can't do).

I can't tell if you're just an Energous True Believer who can't tolerate skepticism, someone who thinks every rumor is connected ("Apple is the unnamed company and their 10th anniversary iPhone will include distance charging from HomePod!"), or if we're being astroturfed...

There's only one way to get rid of Lightning, which I believe they want to do, and that is to introduce some form of distance charging. You must ensure the device can be used while being charged at a distance of at least 3ft, which by the way 3ft would be offering impactful charging, whereas 15ft would be extreme trickle charging. Other than that, Apple would need a Smart Connector successor that had a magnet strong enough to keep a new power cord attached to the device without frequent disconnections. A smart connector takes virtually no internal space.
So you said there's only one way, then gave two and ignored the obvious third: Qi could get rid of lightning. There's nothing magic about 3 feet except that it happens to be the suggested range of the hypothetical Energous midfield transmitter.

And 3 feet hasn't been shown to offer anything "impactful":
Screen Shot 2017-08-18 at 10.33.46 AM copy.png

That's from 2015, so you'd think maybe they'd upped their game, but their big demo now is charging a keyboard from 1 foot, not 3. Something Logitech does with some small solar panels.

Screen Shot 2017-08-18 at 10.36.16 AM.png

So you're right-- I don't know for certain that there's not some here-to-fore undiscovered magic happening, but you've given me nothing so far that convinces me that's true. No technical loop hole, no flaw in my argument, not even an existence proof showing something working.

Until you do, I'll remain skeptical that we'll see anyone charge a working phone at 3 feet from a 1W source under FCC part 15, or that we're going to see FCC part 18 consumer products pumping hundreds of watts of RF energy directly adjacent to the high speed WiFi band into the room and focusing it next to people's ears to charge a phone while talking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Demo Kit

Infiniverse48

macrumors 65816
Jun 28, 2017
1,055
963
Which again reminds me of this:


So, if I shouldn't make assertions because I "have no concept of the engineering", and you're happily making assertions, then you must have a concept of the engineering. But you have yet to make a single technical argument, and I'd love to hear one from someone. Teach me. I'm a quick study.

Or at least throw me a bone and convince me you understand the technical arguments. "Another company is working with them and they must know what they're doing so it's obviously all going to work", is not a rebuttal to a discussion of field strengths, path loss, and antenna arrays.

Because so far it sounds like it's ok to speculate that this never before possible distance charging works despite all available evidence, but it's improper to bring up anything that suggests it might not be technically feasible to do what you're claiming (and what Energous themselves are admitting they can't do).

I can't tell if you're just an Energous True Believer who can't tolerate skepticism, someone who thinks every rumor is connected ("Apple is the unnamed company and their 10th anniversary iPhone will include distance charging from HomePod!"), or if we're being astroturfed...


So you said there's only one way, then gave two and ignored the obvious third: Qi could get rid of lightning. There's nothing magic about 3 feet except that it happens to be the suggested range of the hypothetical Energous midfield transmitter.

And 3 feet hasn't been shown to offer anything "impactful":
View attachment 713461

That's from 2015, so you'd think maybe they'd upped their game, but their big demo now is charging a keyboard from 1 foot, not 3. Something Logitech does with some small solar panels.

View attachment 713459

So you're right-- I don't know for certain that there's not some here-to-fore undiscovered magic happening, but you've given me nothing so far that convinces me that's true. No technical loop hole, no flaw in my argument, not even an existence proof showing something working.

Until you do, I'll remain skeptical that we'll see anyone charge a working phone at 3 feet from a 1W source under FCC part 15, or that we're going to see FCC part 18 consumer products pumping hundreds of watts of RF energy directly adjacent to the high speed WiFi band into the room and focusing it next to people's ears to charge a phone while talking.
Wow you typed way too much to keep interest, but anyway, look up the definition of assertion. It's my belief that is what was intended. That's a definition for assertion. Belief.

Let's see, secondly, I stated there was only one way, and gave that second way only because it's not a full removal in the sense that a smart connector is still a contact point with which a cord would attach to the phone. QI cannot replace the Lightning Port.......you HAVE to be capable of charging while using the device. You cannot use the device when it's on a piece of garbage mat. Sorry that's a fact. No one in the world would be stupid enough to stand at a mat and peck away at the phone hahah
 

69Mustang

macrumors 604
Jan 7, 2014
7,889
15,034
In between a rock and a hard place
what are you talking about? energous does more than what i'm talking about. energous LITERALLY DOES CHARGING AT A DISTANCE.
Please, please, please do some research. Please. Energous cannot offer anyone distance charging. They only have one product that has received FCC approval for consumer use: a charging mat. Their mid-size and large transmitters are not approved. Even when/if they do get approval the CEO himself said their charging solution can only offer a trickle charge:
“Several watts at a distance? No,” Gordon Bell told me. “As we’ve learned a lot more, we’ve tempered that [claim] down. We talk about 5 watts at a very close distance, but not at distance anymore. It’s more of a trickle charge for a phone. Now, if you’re constantly on the phone, 15 feet from the transmitter, that’d be hard for us to increase the battery. We’d just keep it from going down.” - Energous VP of Marketing Course correction: Earlier I attributed this quote to the CEO. Source article.

Basically, the power output of the Energous transmitters will be far too low to do anything you imagined. So yeah, they literally do distance charging. But that charging is 1. not approved yet. 2. not commercial yet. 3. if/once apprved, too weak to come close to what their marketing videos claim to do.


[doublepost=1503083572][/doublepost]Posted a yahoo article on Energous. Never actually looked at the video. Saw something interesting in it though. At the 3:16 mark they have an transmitter component encased in acryllic sitting on the shelf. Around the 3:31 mark they show a close up of the component. It's very similar to what is reported in this article. Not hard to imagine the small changes that could happen through revisions.
upload_2017-8-18_15-12-11.png
 
Last edited:

farewelwilliams

Suspended
Jun 18, 2014
4,966
18,041
Please, please, please do some research. Please. Energous cannot offer anyone distance charging. They only have one product that has received FCC approval for consumer use: a charging mat. Their mid-size and large transmitters are not approved. Even when/if they do get approval the CEO himself said their charging solution can only offer a trickle charge:
“Several watts at a distance? No,” Gordon Bell told me. “As we’ve learned a lot more, we’ve tempered that [claim] down. We talk about 5 watts at a very close distance, but not at distance anymore. It’s more of a trickle charge for a phone. Now, if you’re constantly on the phone, 15 feet from the transmitter, that’d be hard for us to increase the battery. We’d just keep it from going down.” - Energous VP of Marketing Course correction: Earlier I attributed this quote to the CEO. Source article.

Basically, the power output of the Energous transmitters will be far too low to do anything you imagined. So yeah, they literally do distance charging. But that charging is 1. not approved yet. 2. not commercial yet. 3. if/once apprved, too weak to come close to what their marketing videos claim to do.


[doublepost=1503083572][/doublepost]Posted a yahoo article on Energous. Never actually looked at the video. Saw something interesting in it though. At the 3:16 mark they have an transmitter component encased in acryllic sitting on the shelf. Around the 3:31 mark they show a close up of the component. It's very similar to what is reported in this article. Not hard to imagine the small changes that could happen through revisions.
View attachment 713465


that wasn't my point. i wasn't talking about what energous has now, but their concept. regardless if energous is a hoax, you were saying that energous doesn't even come close to my idea, but infact charging at a distance does MORE than stacking devices.

i've done my research with energous the moment macrumors posted a rumor about apple possibly using energous. i've actually made some $$$ from shorting their company.

also there are devices available today that does induction charging with an airgap for EV cars. they already have demo kits available that works and that you can actually buy. if you can charge an EV car at a (small air gap) distance, then that means that it already does more than stacking devices.


last note, i'm not saying "oh yeah, definitely Apple is going to introduce stack device charging", it was an example of what UX improvement is possible with wireless charging. i'm sure Jony and his team figured something out that's worthy of finally introducing wireless charging. i mean do you REALLY want to buy an additional $99 accessory that does what android devices do already? it's not a huge UX improvement, so why would Apple change their design to use glass to make wireless charging possible? i'm willing to bet that there is some other UX improvement other than the ability to set down the phone to charge.

just because you can't figure out a UX improvement doesn't mean that there isn't one. remember all those apple watch concepts before the watch was introduced? none of them came even close to the final design. i dont think i saw one that suggested the digital crown.
 
Last edited:

Analog Kid

macrumors 604
Mar 4, 2003
7,331
8,000
Wow you typed way too much to keep interest, but anyway, look up the definition of assertion. It's my belief that is what was intended. That's a definition for assertion. Belief.

Let's see, secondly, I stated there was only one way, and gave that second way only because it's not a full removal in the sense that a smart connector is still a contact point with which a cord would attach to the phone. QI cannot replace the Lightning Port.......you HAVE to be capable of charging while using the device. You cannot use the device when it's on a piece of garbage mat. Sorry that's a fact. No one in the world would be stupid enough to stand at a mat and peck away at the phone hahah
Defining a term doesn't change the logic... Substitute "belief" for "assertion" into all those quotes and see.

At any rate, it looks like there's no new information to be had. I'd hoped you were holding out...

And even in caps, you don't have to be able to use it while charging it. You'd like to be able to do that, but that's a different thing. You have to be able to use it, you have to be able to charge it, you don't have to be able to do both at the same time.

Apple's strategy on a number of their products recently has been to allow quick charge for short term use in a pinch. Pencil, AirPods, mouse and keyboard...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Demo Kit

Infiniverse48

macrumors 65816
Jun 28, 2017
1,055
963
Defining a term doesn't change the logic... Substitute "belief" for "assertion" into all those quotes and see.

At any rate, it looks like there's no new information to be had. I'd hoped you were holding out...

And even in caps, you don't have to be able to use it while charging it. You'd like to be able to do that, but that's a different thing. You have to be able to use it, you have to be able to charge it, you don't have to be able to do both at the same time.

Apple's strategy on a number of their products recently has been to allow quick charge for short term use in a pinch. Pencil, AirPods, mouse and keyboard...
I can assure you, Apple is aware even if you aren't, that the iPhone and iPad must be able to be used while charging. The devices you mentioned are all devices with extremely small batteries which use very little power and can quick charge to a significant percentage of their usage time within minutes to seconds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Analog Kid

kdarling

macrumors P6
What I don't know is what everyone else on here, and elsewhere doesn't know, and that is whether they will get FCC approval, ...

Actually, we know that Energous itself doesn't intend to apply for FCC approval for their remote charging systems (estimated to require hundreds of Watts) that would go far beyond the legal limits of one Watt fed to the antenna.

Their company plan specifically states that getting an FCC waiver, for using more than the current maximum transmitter power, is solely up to its licensees... and that there is no guarantee that such a waiver will ever happen.

In other words, even if their system works, it might never be legal to use.
 
Last edited:

Analog Kid

macrumors 604
Mar 4, 2003
7,331
8,000
@kdarling got me looking for Energous FCC filings. These are just the approvals, I'm still looking for their other communications. One thing that stood out to me though: the max power of their near field system is only 1W from the transmitter. Not sure what efficiency to expect, but it will certainly be less than 1W to the phone. I'm surprised they went through the expense of getting that qualified...

Other interesting tidbits: they've only qualified it for spacings of between 0 and 2mm from transmit to receive, and it requires a BLE communications path from the device being charged to turn the transmitter on safely.

And this also turned up in my search which I found hilarious:
Energous Time-to-Carrot Model
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kdarling

martin2345uk

macrumors 65816
Jan 6, 2013
1,268
1,011
Essex
I can assure you, Apple is aware even if you aren't, that the iPhone and iPad must be able to be used while charging. The devices you mentioned are all devices with extremely small batteries which use very little power and can quick charge to a significant percentage of their usage time within minutes to seconds.

Personally I’m with you on this Infiniverse, but IF Apple do come out with a charging mat this time around, I think you should let us hold you down and tickle your feet for 30 seconds. Just cuz.

 

Analog Kid

macrumors 604
Mar 4, 2003
7,331
8,000
I can assure you, Apple is aware even if you aren't, that the iPhone and iPad must be able to be used while charging. The devices you mentioned are all devices with extremely small batteries which use very little power and can quick charge to a significant percentage of their usage time within minutes to seconds.
Found what I was looking for. Their experimental license application.

There's a lot to read through, so I'm just skimming, but two points you might find interesting. The first is that you can't use the phone while charging using WattUp. You can't even have it in your pocket. They're proposing sensors that will shut down the transmitter if people or pets are near the device being charged.

They also require line of sight to the device being charged. If an object is between the transmitter and receiver, it shuts down-- even if the object is RF transparent.

They're also claiming that their antenna system needs to be "significant" compared to the distance being transmitted over-- basically you'll need an antenna that's a few feet by a few feet in size to get 15 feet of range. The smaller the antenna, the less focused the energy, and the more dangerous it is to surrounding tissue.
 
Last edited:

kdarling

macrumors P6
@kdarling got me looking for Energous FCC filings. ... the max power of their near field system is only 1W from the transmitter.
... they've only qualified it for spacings of between 0 and 2mm from transmit to receive,

Yep, that's their charging pad. No distance at all, since it's within legal power limits. And IIRC, it transfers much less power than a Qi charger.

Getting approval for that was more of a publicity action, designed to suck in more investors.

And this also turned up in my search which I found hilarious:
Energous Time-to-Carrot Model

One of my favorites.

Also, the fact that its CEO gets paid $2 million a year from their limited funding, sure seems suspect.
 
Last edited:

Infiniverse48

macrumors 65816
Jun 28, 2017
1,055
963
Actually, we know that Energous itself doesn't intend to apply for FCC approval for their remote charging systems (estimated to require hundreds of Watts) that would go far beyond the legal limits of one Watt fed to the antenna.

Their company plan specifically states that getting an FCC waiver, for using more than the current maximum transmitter power, is solely up to its licensees... and that there is no guarantee that such a waiver will ever happen.

In other words, even if their system works, it might never be legal to use.
Nope. That is unequivocally false. They are presently seeking FCC approval for their mid-range charging after having TESTED in an FCC approved laboratory and given the results to the FCC for verification. You sir, have no idea what you're talking about. This was said just two weeks ago during their last quarterly which by the way, cannot be a lie, which I'm sure you're aware (or not).
[doublepost=1503143018][/doublepost]
Personally I’m with you on this Infiniverse, but IF Apple do come out with a charging mat this time around, I think you should let us hold you down and tickle your feet for 30 seconds. Just cuz.

I've always said it will include the ability to contact charge if they used Energous tech. Contact charging is cheap and can reach the maximal number of users. That's the good thing about the tech, it can contact charge and distance charge with the exact same chip inside the devices.
[doublepost=1503143384][/doublepost]
Found what I was looking for. Their experimental license application.

There's a lot to read through, so I'm just skimming, but two points you might find interesting. The first is that you can't use the phone while charging using WattUp. You can't even have it in your pocket. They're proposing sensors that will shut down the transmitter if people or pets are near the device being charged.

They also require line of sight to the device being charged. If an object is between the transmitter and receiver, it shuts down-- even if the object is RF transparent.

They're also claiming that their antenna system needs to be "significant" compared to the distance being transmitted over-- basically you'll need an antenna that's a few feet by a few feet in size to get 15 feet of range. The smaller the antenna, the less focused the energy, and the more dangerous it is to surrounding tissue.
Firstly, your link goes no where, secondly that's completely false. Thirdly, there is no FCC information in regards to their mid-range charging system or long-range, so it would be impossible for you to garner information in regards to that. Nice try though? I'm not sure what you're trying to prove to yourself at this point? You have no concept of the tech or what the FCC will do, that's the truth.

Now, what I can tell you is that you can find FCC info on Energous contact charging solutions which have passed the FCC regulations. What you will not find is the testing which Energous just completed and sent to the FCC for approval. The CEO literally just stated this two weeks ago at the last quarterly. So good luck finding any FCC information on that which has strict confidentiality restrictions and time-delayed public documentation.

Sorry to burst your bubble again hahah
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.