Images Claim to Show Wireless Charging Pad Components Destined for the 'iPhone 8'

[charlituna]

Not excited about this type of wireless charging... I still need to put it at a specific spot to charge. Lightning cables are so easy to connect, I really don’t see the advantage of charging pads. With a cable it can charge while I hold an use it.

What I would like is true contactless wireless charging.

audio. that's the advantage. folks are still saucy about how they can't easily charge and use headphones. if its inductive charging they can. plus inductive charging is slowly spreading to restaurants etc. so why not give folks the option, provided it doesn't hurt the devices basic functioning

 

[Olganech]

I have zero interest in Inductive charging for my iPhone, especially if it’s an extra accessory I have to buy.

Also, stop calling it wireless. It’s not.

If you want to be exacting then there never has been nor is there ever likely to be true wireless charging. Trace everything back and there is something wired into a power socket somewhere at some point generating the required power.

 

[kdarling]

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).

Energous didn't say they were currently seeking FCC approval for midfield charging.

Instead, Energous refers to their latest FCC submittal as a "power at a distance" transmitter. If it has to meet current power output limits, the "distance" could be mere inches.

Also, Energous licensees will be the ones making the products, and therefore the ones who will need waivers if they want to do higher power. That's why during the Q1 call Energous said, "Our customers will begin FCC certification processes for the first WattUp enabled near field and mid-field consumer products..."

 

[9594864]

Energous didn't say they were currently seeking FCC approval for midfield charging.

Instead, Energous refers to their latest FCC submittal as a "power at a distance" transmitter. If it has to meet current power output limits, the "distance" could be mere inches.

Also, Energous licensees will be the ones making the products, and therefore the ones who will need waivers if they want to do higher power. That's why during the Q1 call Energous said, "Our customers will begin FCC certification processes for the first WattUp enabled near field and mid-field consumer products..."

Oh dear god. Power at a distance and 'mid-field transmitter' are interchangeable phraseologies in their vernacular. Please understand that, for starters. Secondly, they've specifically stated both phrases in regards to the FCC approval process. They just stated they'd completed the tests required, and the reviewal process has begun. Now, you need to leave it to the FCC who has a clue.

Finally, what you seem to fail to understand is that Energous technology has to be approved by the FCC and THEN separate FCC approvals are made by any companies licensing this technology, just like any other technologies that use EMR. This is how regulations work.

 

[Analog Kid]

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

Ok, I think it's time for you to come clean about your relationship to this company. Investor, employee, management, social media liaison? Your odd denial of objective reality, dismissal of anyone who raises a doubt, selective disclosure of what documentation exists but lack of enlightening detail, and unbending insistence that the usage model promoted by Energous is the only one consumers will settle for suggests you're not really participating out of curiosity here...

As advice for the future, if you're trying to get people to stop digging into something, don't keep saying they don't understand it and question their competence. It tends to make them look for what they missed...

I know you lose interest when people type too many details, so I'll summarize here: The only bubble you've burst is my hope that had insight into the technology. I'm not trying to prove anything at all, actually. I'm trying to learn. I, too, would like a world where nothing needs batteries or wires and we can safely power everything we need. It's a really interesting technical challenge, and there's some people in these forums who have some real expertise.



Energous has made some lofty claims, I'd like to know what they're based on. Even if their solution won't work in the end, they've put a lot of resources into the problem-- surely there's some insight to be gained. As Edison would put it, it wouldn't be a failure, it'd be something else we'd know won't work.

Both links I gave go to different search engines within the FCC. The results of the search can't be linked to, so I assumed anyone interested would have the skills to type "Energous" where it says "applicant name". Deep linking to documents seemed too selective, but since repeating the search was too hard, I'll point to the principal document here:
https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=177542&x=.

Page 1 is a request for the experimental license (for a demo to the FCC in fact), but the interesting bit is the request for interpretation that they attach as documentation of how their system works and why they would like §18.107(c) reinterpreted.

Energous does request confidentiality, but only for certain documents. For example, they requested confidentiality for their schematics and antenna pattern. They can't really request this document be confidential because changing the regulations needs to be open to public comment.

The reason they need the rules changed is because of this explicit clarification made by the FCC OET in October 2015:
https://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/oet/ea/presentations/files/oct15/6-FCC-Panel-2October-2015.pdf



Basically, that's Game Over for Energous unless they can somehow convince the FCC to revisit the issue again just two short years later using essentially the same power transfer mechanism. The approach Energous takes in their petition to the FCC is two pronged: they use the popularity arguments I anticipated in my earlier post, giving market sizes and quoting magazine articles and explaining how it would be cruel to old people to make them connect a wire, but they also propose adding "fail safes" around their tech.

In support of my statements that you call completely false:

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.

This perimeter is going to have two be fairly large, because they're using Bluetooth to locate the receiver, and even a well designed BT position system's error is typically more than a meter.

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.

 

[9594864]

Ok, I think it's time for you to come clean about your relationship to this company. Investor, employee, management, social media liaison? Your odd denial of objective reality, dismissal of anyone who raises a doubt, selective disclosure of what documentation exists but lack of enlightening detail, and unbending insistence that the usage model promoted by Energous is the only one consumers will settle for suggests you're not really participating out of curiosity here...

As advice for the future, if you're trying to get people to stop digging into something, don't keep saying they don't understand it and question their competence. It tends to make them look for what they missed...

I know you lose interest when people type too many details, so I'll summarize here: The only bubble you've burst is my hope that had insight into the technology. I'm not trying to prove anything at all, actually. I'm trying to learn. I, too, would like a world where nothing needs batteries or wires and we can safely power everything we need. It's a really interesting technical challenge, and there's some people in these forums who have some real expertise.



Energous has made some lofty claims, I'd like to know what they're based on. Even if their solution won't work in the end, they've put a lot of resources into the problem-- surely there's some insight to be gained. As Edison would put it, it wouldn't be a failure, it'd be something else we'd know won't work.

Both links I gave go to different search engines within the FCC. The results of the search can't be linked to, so I assumed anyone interested would have the skills to type "Energous" where it says "applicant name". Deep linking to documents seemed too selective, but since repeating the search was too hard, I'll point to the principal document here:
https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=177542&x=.

Page 1 is a request for the experimental license (for a demo to the FCC in fact), but the interesting bit is the request for interpretation that they attach as documentation of how their system works and why they would like §18.107(c) reinterpreted.

Energous does request confidentiality, but only for certain documents. For example, they requested confidentiality for their schematics and antenna pattern. They can't really request this document be confidential because changing the regulations needs to be open to public comment.

The reason they need the rules changed is because of this explicit clarification made by the FCC OET in October 2015:
https://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/oet/ea/presentations/files/oct15/6-FCC-Panel-2October-2015.pdf

View attachment 713567

Basically, that's Game Over for Energous unless they can somehow convince the FCC to revisit the issue again just two short years later using essentially the same power transfer mechanism. The approach Energous takes in their petition to the FCC is two pronged: they use the popularity arguments I anticipated in my earlier post, giving market sizes and quoting magazine articles and explaining how it would be cruel to old people to make them connect a wire, but they also propose adding "fail safes" around their tech.

In support of my statements that you call completely false:



View attachment 713568

This perimeter is going to have two be fairly large, because they're using Bluetooth to locate the receiver, and even a well designed BT position system's error is typically more than a meter.

View attachment 713574


View attachment 713569


View attachment 713573

I have no relationship to the company in any way. My interest is technology.

All of this is irrelevant. They've submitted test results to the FCC now. They'll be approved or they won't be approved. We'll see how that goes.

 

[Analog Kid]

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

Looks like more than $5million...

That's more than 10% of their burn rate...

 

[kdarling]

Oh dear god. Power at a distance and 'mid-field transmitter' are interchangeable phraseologies in their vernacular.

Okay, you're right. I did find an example where they used both phrases together.

Also, apparently they consider mid field to be 2-3 feet.

Secondly, they've specifically stated both phrases in regards to the FCC approval process. They just stated they'd completed the tests required, and the reviewal process has begun. Now, you need to leave it to the FCC who has a clue.

They're working with a TCB, not the FCC directly. Usually working with a TCB is a very interactive process.

So what's odd to me is that they claimed in their Q1 call that they were just days away from submittal, yet in their Q2 call three months later they claim to still have no idea where they are in the approval process, and what tests will need changes.

Finally, what you seem to fail to understand is that Energous technology has to be approved by the FCC and THEN separate FCC approvals are made by any companies licensing this technology, just like any other technologies that use EMR. This is how regulations work.

I've been through the FCC approval process before.

Unless they want to sell pre-certified hardware modules, they don't have to certify either their design or chips. Normally that is left up to each manufacturer.

 

[9594864]

Okay, you're right. I did find an example where they used both phrases together.

Also, apparently they consider mid field to be 2-3 feet.



They're working with a TCB, not the FCC directly. Usually working with a TCB is a very interactive process.

So what's odd to me is that they claimed in their Q1 call that they were just days away from submittal, yet in their Q2 call three months later they claim to still have no idea where they are in the approval process, and what tests will need changes.



I've been through the FCC approval process before.

Unless they want to sell pre-certified hardware modules, they don't have to certify either their design or chips. Normally that is left up to each manufacturer.

Well from what I understand they did the testing with TCB which is a certified laboratory for FCC testing. They then have those test results reviewed by the FCC team.

 

[DeepIn2U]

I like the concept Of wireless charging. But I really don't see the need for this personally. I have no need for wireless charging with a dock or charging mat. It's Not anymore convenient for me, as I much prefer using the lightning cable. And At least if it's connected to the lightning cable, I could still use it while it's charging.

Until we see the addition of long range wireless charging, then my interest will be more Piqued.

I'm of like mind.

 

[kdarling]

Well from what I understand they did the testing with TCB which is a certified laboratory for FCC testing. They then have those test results reviewed by the FCC team.

A common misunderstanding.

The FCC doesn't need to review. The TCB itself grants the certification. They act as an FCC proxy. TCBs were created to alleviate the FCC of the load of checking today's plethora of common low power devices, which have well defined requirements.

What a TCB cannot do, is certify high power devices. Nor can they grant rule waivers. These still require direct FCC approval.

Separate test labs are also still required with a TCB. (They can be part of the same company that owns a TCB, but they must be kept segregated. It's handy to use such an arrangement, as their proximity and familiarity with each other can help speed up the process.)

Another common misconception is that submittals are a guessing game. On the contrary, you don't normally submit test results for approval unless you're sure they're already complete and meet requirements. Redesign and retesting is done while you're still dealing only with the test lab. Otherwise you're wasting time and money doing submittals that will get rejected.

That's why it's odd for Energous to say they don't know what other tests or requirements they might need. Using a TCB automatically means the device is low power, and the requirements are well known and immutable. Plus all tests should have been satisfactorily completed before submittal.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Because, Apple is realizing that growth is in accessories. The smartphone market is becoming saturated, so you need to come up with as many accessories as possible. I've noticed this become a trend sinceAngela Ahrendts joined the company. It's why they have a $129 leather pouch for the iPad. Why sell one method of charging (cables) when you can sell two (cables and pads)?

Edited and focused quote.

Funny, Nokia learned accessories is golden over a decade ago, maybe 2 decades ago: cases, chargers ... man did they ever have chargers, and batteries. I'm surprised greenpeace dodnt try after them for no glibal recycling program!

Yet I think Apple already sees the revenue in accessories before Angela arrived, look at the $15 price for charging puck and lightning cable. These have never dropped in price.

 

[farewelwilliams]

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?

coming back to this old thread because apple insider published something interesting:
https://appleinsider.com/articles/1...-wirelessly-between-future-macbook-and-iphone

"The application also proposes that such a transmission system could also help when charging multiple devices at an outlet. By stacking devices, only one would be needed to connect to the charger, as that primary device could transmit power to others."

are you still saying that you have to "suspend reality" for stacked charging? this patent pretty much suggests that Apple has it figured out. looks like my idea wasn't totally unrealistic.

 

[69Mustang]

coming back to this old thread because apple insider published something interesting:
https://appleinsider.com/articles/1...-wirelessly-between-future-macbook-and-iphone

"The application also proposes that such a transmission system could also help when charging multiple devices at an outlet. By stacking devices, only one would be needed to connect to the charger, as that primary device could transmit power to others."

are you still saying that you have to "suspend reality" for stacked charging? this patent pretty much suggests that Apple has it figured out. looks like my idea wasn't totally unrealistic.

Aw man this was a thread that made me giggle. Going back through some of the comments makes me giggle again.
Trying to apply my thoughts about the state of tech in Aug 2017 to the current state of tech seems kind of pointless don't you think? When I made that "suspend reality" comment in 2017 it was completely accurate. Time has proven that to be so. Your idea was totally unrealistic when you made it in 2017. It's still unrealistic for Apple. I'll get back to that in a sec. Small detour.

Tangent: In fact, if you go back and look at that discussion between us pretty much everything I said was spot on. You were pretty out there though. Remember this gem: "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." Or this one: "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."

On topic: Couple of things. Ironically, yes, I think you'd still need to suspend reality to make that happen... with Apple. To make it happen in a general sense is probably possible today. Completely impractical, but not improbable for the right company. Apple likes thin. What you're proposing doesn't work with thin. Both the Qi transmitter and receiver generate heat. For "The Stacking" to work each device is going to need both, a transmitter and receiver (ipad or laptop). The devices would have to be thicker and need reworked cooling. Apple ain't making their devices thicker - neither the phones, tablets, nor laptops. A company like Asus and their Republic of Gamers (ROG) division might make thicker devices - they already do, but Apple ain't.

Btw, that patent application doesn't suggest Apple has figured out anything. It suggests that Apple has ideas about additional ways to use Qi charging. Apple files tons of patent applications. A lot of them go nowhere. Unless they are willing to substantially change their stance on thinness, this one won't go anywhere either. Imo, of course.

Apologies for the length.

 

[CarlJ]

Btw, that patent application doesn't suggest Apple has figured out anything. It suggests that Apple has ideas about additional ways to use Qi charging. Apple files tons of patent applications. A lot of them go nowhere.

Very much this. Apple files a thousand patents, sites pick up on a handful of interesting ones and publish them, and the readers go, "oh, surely this is a major direction Apple is going, because they have filed several patents this year and this is one of them." No, you're looking at one of thousands, out of context. If one were to instead read through all of the patents Apple files in a year, to take (whatever) patent in question, in context, one would see that they file hundreds or thousands, the vast majority of which never get used. Still, folks point excitedly at one, out of context, and say, "this proves XYZ will be in the new iPhone / Mac / Car / DogVacuum." Maybe "this" patent will, maybe it won't. The existence of a given patent proves little.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Aw man this was a thread that made me giggle. Going back through some of the comments makes me giggle again.
Trying to apply my thoughts about the state of tech in Aug 2017 to the current state of tech seems kind of pointless don't you think? When I made that "suspend reality" comment in 2017 it was completely accurate. Time has proven that to be so. Your idea was totally unrealistic when you made it in 2017. It's still unrealistic for Apple. I'll get back to that in a sec. Small detour.

Tangent: In fact, if you go back and look at that discussion between us pretty much everything I said was spot on. You were pretty out there though. Remember this gem: "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." Or this one: "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."

On topic: Couple of things. Ironically, yes, I think you'd still need to suspend reality to make that happen... with Apple. To make it happen in a general sense is probably possible today. Completely impractical, but not improbable for the right company. Apple likes thin. What you're proposing doesn't work with thin. Both the Qi transmitter and receiver generate heat. For "The Stacking" to work each device is going to need both, a transmitter and receiver (ipad or laptop). The devices would have to be thicker and need reworked cooling. Apple ain't making their devices thicker - neither the phones, tablets, nor laptops. A company like Asus and their Republic of Gamers (ROG) division might make thicker devices - they already do, but Apple ain't.

Btw, that patent application doesn't suggest Apple has figured out anything. It suggests that Apple has ideas about additional ways to use Qi charging. Apple files tons of patent applications. A lot of them go nowhere. Unless they are willing to substantially change their stance on thinness, this one won't go anywhere either. Imo, of course.

Apologies for the length.

Your exact phrase a long time ago was "For this to even be remotely possible", but a similar technology existed in 2016 with an actual product that people could buy (though, company went bankrupt):
http://gadgetsin.com/stacked-iphone...-included-wireless-charger-and-power-bank.htm
https://www.amazon.com/iPhone-Stack-Pack-Black-Removeable/dp/B018VK9IOO

And your statement of "Apple ain't making their devices thicker" and "Unless they are willing to substantially change their stance on thinness", those statements are flat-out wrong:

iPad Air 2 (2014) = 6.1mm
iPad (2017) = 7.5mm

iPad Mini 1 = 7.1mm
iPad Mini 2 & 3 = 7.4mm

Apple Watch Series 3 increased in thickness very slightly over Series 2

iPhone 6+ = 7.1mm
iPhone 7+ = 7.3mm
iPhone 8+ = 7.5mm
iPhone X = 7.7mm

It's not uncommon that Apple increases the thickness of products to include new features. Besides, the patent suggests reusing the same coils to be able to receive or to send power in the smaller devices. And if you remove the port from these smaller devices (which is Apple's ultimate goal), you can make room for the extra hardware (if needed) to allow the coils to be bi-directional.

I'm not sure why you're "giggling" since what you're saying is still essentially incorrect.

Oh and try recording 4k60 video on an iPhone X on a hot summer day. Really, I can barely hold onto the phone after just 3 minutes of recording. The amount of heat the processor generators far exceeds the amount of heat that the current QI charging generates. So whatever additional "heat" a bi-directional QI charger adds is likely negligible compared to the processor under load.

[doublepost=1532690743][/doublepost]

and the readers go, "oh, surely this is a major direction Apple is going, because they have filed several patents this year and this is one of them." No, you're looking at one of thousands, out of context.

You mean, you didn't know that Apple is going into a port-less feature? You don't know Apple then.
Obviously, you still need a way to charge your devices when you remove the port. Stacked charging is one compelling way to do it and solves a lot of user experience problems.

If one were to instead read through all of the patents Apple files in a year, to take (whatever) patent in question, in context, one would see that they file hundreds or thousands, the vast majority of which never get used. Still, folks point excitedly at one, out of context, and say, "this proves XYZ will be in the new iPhone / Mac / Car / DogVacuum." Maybe "this" patent will, maybe it won't. The existence of a given patent proves little.

You don't really need to lecture me on that. I check patentlyapple dot com occasionally so I have a feel of the large volume of patents that Apple files daily. I'm pointing this patent out specifically because it's a key tech that unlocks Apple's "dream" of going portless in many of their products. I never said Apple will definitely 100% use this patent. But it's definitely possible.

And it's not entirely unrealistic. As I pointed out in my other reply, there's a product that came out in 2016 that allowed you to stack charge several batteries at once. https://www.amazon.com/iPhone-Stack-Pack-Black-Removeable/dp/B018VK9IOO
Though that company went bankrupt, it at least shows it's entirely possible to implement something similar into Apple's portable devices.