Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)
I love this idea. Bring it on.
I love this idea. Bring it on.
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.
Solar LCD Powered iPods, iPhones and Laptops?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
One of the claims specifically refers to coating the device with an anti-reflective coating, what we know as "glossy". The glossy displays actually perform much better under bright light, because they reflect less light and do so in a more focused way. At one angle, you'll get the sun straight in your eyes, but at every other angle the sun doesn't impact the viewability.Apple would have to stop using glossy screens then. Having to point your screen towards the sun would end up leaving the screen unreadable with the glare from the sun.
The glossy coat also transmits more light into the display (rather than reflect it, which is why it's called anti-reflective). You'd want this if you were using the light passed through for power generation.
Which ideas? Patents are very specific-- you'd need to point to prior art for a specific claim. I think if you look at the patent, they aren't claiming what you think they're claiming. If you think the patent is about putting an solar cell behind an LCD, you're wrong.
Read my earlier post-- Apple specifically addresses this possibility.
I was responding to the idea of using the LCD backlight to recharge the batteries. There's no point in using your batteries to generate light to power a solar cell to charge your batteries. You can see the energy loop here, you can't extend the battery life this way-- you're just generating more heat at every conversion.
Great point here, at best you recoup a bit of the energy generated, but they put so much effort to optmize their systems that they most likely aim to get light from outside rather that inside. It would still require a fair amount of both light and time to fully or usefully recharge a battery...
... unless you do not charge a battery but a capacitor.
Remember that lovely research those MIT geeks are doing...?
Now can anyone imagine an iPod or better, and iPhone, that you only need show the sunlight a few seconds and it's up and running for another 5 hours?
No more "Hey, boss, sorry my battery is dead... can't hear yo....."
Now: "Hey love, I just hung up on my boss but just hold on a second, I'll charge my phone (and make you see the bright sun of the SF beach with the integrated iSight)... that's done! Now we were saying, sushi tonight?"
Now as for laptop use, that's another story, but since iPods and soon iPhones represent a big percentage of Apple's products, the actual volume is already there, and we might assume that what may start small will likely get larger.
I would definitely walk to a window and turn my Mac to the sun a few seconds to get another hour of work, even if direct sunlight diminishes it's lifespan a few minutes at a time.
Good thinking Steve, as usual...
Frankly, i can't make myself understand why anyone should click on "negative" for this marvelous article...
Trust in apple, they know how to satisfy consumers more than any other company i could think of.
Trust in apple, they know how to satisfy consumers more than any other company i could think of.
Solar Panel Mac
There is a currently existing company- http://www.xsunx.com that manufactures a thin-film voltaic material .They plan to put it in/on glass panels. They are so thin...you can see right through them.
There is a currently existing company- http://www.xsunx.com that manufactures a thin-film voltaic material .They plan to put it in/on glass panels. They are so thin...you can see right through them.
No keyboard - two sided array on the lis.
Photo voltaic cells are sensitive to indoor light, as well as solar light. For greatest efficiency, how about a tablet that uses an touch-like keyboard on the screen, located where the keyboard is on a regular laptop, and then a two-sided solar array for the lid (where the screen usually is). You would be able to point the array to the light (the way screens tilt and rotate on current tablets).
http://www.voltaicsystems.com/
Photo voltaic cells are sensitive to indoor light, as well as solar light. For greatest efficiency, how about a tablet that uses an touch-like keyboard on the screen, located where the keyboard is on a regular laptop, and then a two-sided solar array for the lid (where the screen usually is). You would be able to point the array to the light (the way screens tilt and rotate on current tablets).
http://www.voltaicsystems.com/
my post from another forum i frequent, on this topic:
"just thinking about this, would it be possible for these cells to use the screens light itself to generate power. note that it wouldnt be more than it takes to power the screen in the first place, but it would DEFFINATLY help save the power it uses to run the screen."
basically the idea is to help offset the power it takes to run the screen, by using the light it produces to contribute to the battery
"just thinking about this, would it be possible for these cells to use the screens light itself to generate power. note that it wouldnt be more than it takes to power the screen in the first place, but it would DEFFINATLY help save the power it uses to run the screen."
basically the idea is to help offset the power it takes to run the screen, by using the light it produces to contribute to the battery
Wirelessly posted (MOT-R38.0/00.62 UP.Browser/6.2.3.4.c.1.123 (GUI) MMP/2.0)
it's perfect for a third generation iphone. . .
D4F said:
it's perfect for a third generation iphone. . .
want to clarify? are you basically seeing i overlooked the obvious use of this or that its just a stupid idea? im open for criticism, itd be helpfull if your post actually contributed something tho.
Cool! So soon we may very well have OLED razor thin displays with solar power and iSight cameras built into the displays themselves
My only question is how much do your iPods, iPhones, Laptops etc. actually have their screen exposed to the sun??? Don't you usually have your portables in your pocket and your laptops avoiding sun glare when outside??? How much power would this really add then?
My sentiments exactly. If Apple did the solar thing, it would be better thought out . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oh, sorry I was daydreaming about the second iphone and my new umpc. LOL.
So what if this is the reason why the back of the new iPhone is rumored to be "black"?
What if it's not black but instead it's a huge solar cell array (dark blue) protected by a thick transparent layer?
I know this sounds insane, but it would be so cool... Well... one can always dream.
Ooooh snap . . . now that sounds like a plan, I wish though . .
Under full bright sunlight illumination, with the solar panels pointed directly at the sun, you're only looking at an electricity generation rate of between 15 and 20 watts with the best polycrystalline solar cells available today, assuming the solar cells cover an entire 1 square foot area. If the solar energy strikes the screen at an oblique (indirect) angle, the energy collection rate begins to fall of dramatically. Indoors, you'd be lucky to generate 1-2 watts.
I'm not saying this is a terrible idea. I'm just saying that best care scenario, it extends your battery life by maybe a minute.
Yeah right . . don't you know Apple has special Apple solar panels ?
i think this patent applies only to the future somewhere between 3-5 years down the road. we are currently making leaps and bounds in solar tech, but it takes time to actually implement these things to a production stage. it will work......somewhere down the line.I'm not saying this is a terrible idea. I'm just saying that best care scenario, it extends your battery life by maybe a minute.
Yeah right . . don't you know Apple has special Apple solar panels ?
basically im just saying dont think any of this applies to apple products anytime soon (im looking at you 3G iphone/whatever gets released at WWDC)
With on obstruction at all.
Have a look at your screen, a real close look there are already gaps between pixels. That is where the solar cell goes.
Better still you texture the glass so that it focuses the UV part of the light to the depth of cells. Concentrating the useable part on the cell nodes reduces the amount silcon coverage needed in this layer.
Get smarter, read this
http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/26/ap...ity-cx_mlm_0526markets14.html?partner=yahoofp
It won't take 3 -5 years. We won't give so much time for competitors to claim a title. Apple will design,test,evaluate and sell them like hot cake!
http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/26/ap...ity-cx_mlm_0526markets14.html?partner=yahoofp
It won't take 3 -5 years. We won't give so much time for competitors to claim a title. Apple will design,test,evaluate and sell them like hot cake!
I have clarified, several times now. If you read my posts in this thread, I think you'll see that I have tried to contribute by first translating what's in the patent, and second explaining two or three times why using light coming from the display itself isn't getting anyone anywhere.
If you see where I'm missing something, then I'd be interested in more details of your idea.
I dont't think that will work.
The "nominal" sun radiation is 1000 W/m^2, which is quite bright sunlight. The best commercial solar cells have an efficiency of about 18.5% (we assume the display does not absorb any light), this gives you a nominal power output of 185 W / m^2. The display of a MacBook is about 0,3 m x 0,2 m = 0,06 m^2, so its nominal power output would be about 11W. But only in bright direct sunlight!. The rule of thumb for planing photo voltaic in middle Europe: Over a period of a year you get energy that is equivalent to the nominal power for 3 hours a day. That is 33 Wh per day. If battery and charger are very efficient you would still need 2 days to charge a standard 60Wh notebook battery without using the device the at same time.
This only if you really use that thing outside. (A MacBook is not really an outdoor device). The light inside of buildings is usually less than 10% of what is outside. Everyone who takes photos has experienced that. Charging the battery under such conditions would take weeks.
And no. Holding an iPhone towards the sun for a few minutes won't give you hours of talk time. There are commercial solar chargers for mobiles. They usually take days to charge a battery.
Christian
The "nominal" sun radiation is 1000 W/m^2, which is quite bright sunlight. The best commercial solar cells have an efficiency of about 18.5% (we assume the display does not absorb any light), this gives you a nominal power output of 185 W / m^2. The display of a MacBook is about 0,3 m x 0,2 m = 0,06 m^2, so its nominal power output would be about 11W. But only in bright direct sunlight!. The rule of thumb for planing photo voltaic in middle Europe: Over a period of a year you get energy that is equivalent to the nominal power for 3 hours a day. That is 33 Wh per day. If battery and charger are very efficient you would still need 2 days to charge a standard 60Wh notebook battery without using the device the at same time.
This only if you really use that thing outside. (A MacBook is not really an outdoor device). The light inside of buildings is usually less than 10% of what is outside. Everyone who takes photos has experienced that. Charging the battery under such conditions would take weeks.
And no. Holding an iPhone towards the sun for a few minutes won't give you hours of talk time. There are commercial solar chargers for mobiles. They usually take days to charge a battery.
Christian
Interesting idea, but....
It's an interesting idea for Apple to place the solar cells BEHIND the LCD screen, but I'm curious if there is any inefficiency with the cells recirculating energy from the unit's own backlight? And I suppose that's more than compensated for by the ambient light that's collected?
It's an interesting idea for Apple to place the solar cells BEHIND the LCD screen, but I'm curious if there is any inefficiency with the cells recirculating energy from the unit's own backlight? And I suppose that's more than compensated for by the ambient light that's collected?
IMPOSSIBLE IS NOTHING
I BELIEVE IN APPLE AND ITS TECHNOLOGY. AND ONE DAY THEY WILL SUCCEED!
THOSE CRITICS ARE JUST PEOPLE WHO SLOW THIS WORLD DOWN BUT WE THANK THEM FOR ONE THING...WITHOUT THEM, WE WON'T BE PROVING OURSELVES RIGHT!
I BELIEVE IN APPLE AND ITS TECHNOLOGY. AND ONE DAY THEY WILL SUCCEED!
THOSE CRITICS ARE JUST PEOPLE WHO SLOW THIS WORLD DOWN BUT WE THANK THEM FOR ONE THING...WITHOUT THEM, WE WON'T BE PROVING OURSELVES RIGHT!