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

Wireless Charging Company Energous Partners With Apple Supplier Dialog

One meter is fine. Put the charger on my desk to charge while I work, in the car to charge while I commute, on the nightstand to charge while I sleep.

As for the inverse square law, so what. To get a few watts into the device at one meter, let's say it takes 25 watts in the charger. Not a big deal, especially if it has some sort of anti-vampire tech to sense and power up only when a device is in range.
 
rturner2 said:
I still think that mat charges are better then current cables. I'm also weary of health concerns regarding long range charging.
[doublepost=1481787747][/doublepost]
Or the COMBINED effects of multiple devices are an issue without any single company taking responsibility because separately they ship safe devices.
Click to expand...

The only known effect of radio waves on the body is heat (it will NOT damage DNA). But that heating effect is so minuscule that you can't even feel it. By contrast, you can feel the heat from a single lightbulb (because visible light is a much more energetic form of radiation). Our bodies are at a near constant temperature of 98.8ish degree Fahrenheit and are able to function with an internal temperature of over 102-106. Externally, we can be much hotter. Any heating effect from radio waves would be so minuscule that it would have a near undetectable effect on your body temperature.

In other words, if the radio waves from our devices (collective or not) we're having an effect on our bodies, we would feel it as a change in our body temperature, just as we do from visible light. And for that matter, visible light is so energetic that it can cause actual chemical reactions in certain cells. In fact, that's how we are able to see: chemical reactions from the electromagnetic energy in light. So if you're worried about your wifi devices, you most be terrified of all of your light bulbs. And don't even get me started on the sun. You wouldn't be able to sleep ever again ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 341328 and kdarling
I can't think of anything more off-putting than being in a car (or room) with wireless charging, radiating my body with crap that could so easily and efficiently pass through a perfectly safe wire. I would not just totally avoid it, but point blank refuse to buy such a product, or even sit inside such a car.
 
canonical said:
I can't think of anything more off-putting than being in a car (or room) with wireless charging, radiating my body with crap that could so easily and efficiently pass through a perfectly safe wire. I would not just totally avoid it, but point blank refuse to buy such a product, or even sit inside such a car.
Click to expand...

Better get rid of your router, iPhone, iPad, computer, microwave, fluorescent lights and pretty much everything else that uses electricity then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SFamilyRep and kdarling
BreadofWonder said:
The only known effect of radio waves on the body is heat (it will NOT damage DNA). ;)
Click to expand...


Umm - maybe you should check out:

Neuroscience Letters "Exposure to cell phone radiation up-regulates apoptosis genes in primary cultures of neurons and astrocytes" ... in brief:

"The results show that even relatively short-term exposure to celll phone radio frequency emissions can up-regulate elements of apoptotic pathways in cells derived from the brain, and that neurons appear to be
more sensitive to this effect than astrocytes ...​
Cell phone emissions thus have the potential to cause dysfunction or cell death through activation of specific intracellular cell death signalling pathways"​
 
ConnorMcJeebus said:
Even if someone develops "truly wireless" charging, there has to be a limited range or a leash/tether to it. Otherwise you'd be bombarded by electromagnetic radiation coming from not only yours, but everyone else's, wireless chargers. That can't be healthy.
Click to expand...

How do you evaluate long term exposure of electromagnetic radiation on a human body. A well documented and reliable procedure does not exit. Such as it is the case with global warming, we have a group predicting doom. And others who believe its a non issue. I for one, I am very skeptical.

I can still remember the benefits of asbestos for housing, and all the propaganda it came with. Today, it is not considered that beneficial. The effect of asbestos were only noticeable after 20 yrs.
What about wireless communication?

I remember when I worked part-time for a painting factory, I continually got nauseated, the first days. After a couple of days, my body got accustomed to the smell en fumes. No more health issues which I didn't consider it a good sign.
I didn't stay for long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ConnorMcJeebus and canonical
ThisBougieLife said:
Not to be a Luddite, but this just sounds very cancerous. I'm not really that interested in wireless charging. What I would consider "earth shattering" would be the phone that takes 2 seconds to charge. Sick of being about to leave for class only to see my phone's at 5%. Would be nice if charging were instantaneous. Someone needs to develop that :)
Click to expand...

It doesn't sound cancerous at all. Electromagnetic waves are only dangerous at highly energetic wavelengths. Otherwise visible light, or waving a magnet around, would be dangerous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreadofWonder and kdarling
Jsameds said:
"Now, all you need to do is adjust the antennae on the two units so they are aimed at each other"

Good idea for stationary products such as appliances, not so great for portable devices which is where Apple wants the wireless tech.
Click to expand...

Dude, think about this.
 
69Mustang said:
Your link is a little dated. Try this one. http://www.androidauthority.com/energous-wearable-wireless-charger-666002/

Charging pads are no more or less safe than the Energous tech (it has already passed UL safety testing). The biggest hurdle people are going to have to overcome is cost. The big transmitter that can do 5 watts at 5 feet, 3.5 watts at 10 feet, and 1 watt at 15 feet currently run $200-300. The smaller, less expensive transmitter can charge at a distance of 6 inches. Now, who's spending $200 to charge a phone at a reasonable distance? The 6 inch distance is no better than the Qi pads.
[doublepost=1481805418][/doublepost]
Question you should be asking is am I willing to pay $200 to get that 5 feet.
Click to expand...

Considering how much I spent already sure why not?
 
canonical said:
I can't think of anything more off-putting than being in a car (or room) with wireless charging, radiating my body with crap that could so easily and efficiently pass through a perfectly safe wire. I would not just totally avoid it, but point blank refuse to buy such a product, or even sit inside such a car.
Click to expand...

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but your car's engine emits a tremendous amount of electromagnetic radiation, as does anything involving high heat and combustion.
 
ryanwarsaw said:
Just for the hell of it I deleted 50 GB of music from my phone and began a wifi sync. I have no idea how long it will take but wouldn't this be problematic when getting a new phone? I have time but it looks like this will take maybe until sometime tomorrow.

I am all for getting rid of the port but there would need to be a solution for this that doesn't involve subscribing to Apple music. I already pay a premium for Apple products and don't want to add to the cost by buying Icloud and Apple music subscriptions.
Click to expand...

I usually sync photos/video and apps, music I stream Spotify. It is not great at the moment, I leave it do its stuff overnight when I am sleeping. But surely it will be much more improved and when not having to bother about wires and stuff, just have a peace of device that does everything from charging to sync on it's own is just amazing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ryanwarsaw
69Mustang said:
Your link is a little dated. Try this one. http://www.androidauthority.com/energous-wearable-wireless-charger-666002/

Charging pads are no more or less safe than the Energous tech (it has already passed UL safety testing). The biggest hurdle people are going to have to overcome is cost. The big transmitter that can do 5 watts at 5 feet, 3.5 watts at 10 feet, and 1 watt at 15 feet currently run $200-300. The smaller, less expensive transmitter can charge at a distance of 6 inches. Now, who's spending $200 to charge a phone at a reasonable distance? The 6 inch distance is no better than the Qi pads.
[doublepost=1481805418][/doublepost]
Question you should be asking is am I willing to pay $200 to get that 5 feet.
Click to expand...

The UL tests are not safety tests.

In any case, it looks like the Wattup Mini is the only product they have that's actually feasible -- because it's exactly like every other wireless charging pad where the device sits directly against it.

The larger array has a lot of problems, not least of which is the amount of radiation being too high. It also requires the devices (phones etc) be angled just right towards the antenna array, while the array points back. It will use considerably more power than a charging pad/wired.
 
Last edited:
69Mustang said:
Your link is a little dated. Try this one. http://www.androidauthority.com/energous-wearable-wireless-charger-666002/

Charging pads are no more or less safe than the Energous tech (it has already passed UL safety testing). The biggest hurdle people are going to have to overcome is cost. The big transmitter that can do 5 watts at 5 feet, 3.5 watts at 10 feet, and 1 watt at 15 feet currently run $200-300. The smaller, less expensive transmitter can charge at a distance of 6 inches. Now, who's spending $200 to charge a phone at a reasonable distance? The 6 inch distance is no better than the Qi pads.
[doublepost=1481805418][/doublepost]
Question you should be asking is am I willing to pay $200 to get that 5 feet.
Click to expand...
Personally, yes.
 
Some info 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.
Energous claims to be able to deliver:
  • 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
 
BreadofWonder said:
We're already being bombarded by electromagnetic radiation. Not only do our electronics emit them (wifi, radio, cell radio, bluetooth, tv, av receiver, speakers, anything with an electric current in general, etc.) but so does anything involving combustion (your car engine, your grill, stars) and even your own body. Low energy radiation is absolutely everywhere and has been for as long life has existed on this planet. We've evolved to get along fine with it. The only real danger is if the waves are highly concentrated like in a microwave oven or a giant radio wave transmitter. They won't give you cancer but they'll cook you alive. And for the record, I highly doubt Apple, or any company for that matter, would back a technology that literally cooks its users. I'm pretty sure that would END them as a company.
Click to expand...

I'm aware that there are many sources of electromagnetic radiation...even the sun gives it off. Of course we need the sun. But it's incorrect to say that we've evolved to adapt to all forms of electromagnetic radiation. There is ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation. Non-ionizing radiation doesn't cause mutations. Ionizing radiation may cause people to turn into the Hulk. However, non-ionizing radiation still has an effect; as you pointed out, it heats up biological tissue and can even cause it to burn. We haven't adapted to get along fine with either type of radiation. Otherwise, it would have no effect on our tissue. It's just that the effect of non-ionizing radiation on our bodies is not as severe as ionizing radiation.

But getting back on topic, who knows what effect(s) true wireless charging will have over a long time, or what type of radiation the tech would require? I imagine that delivering an electrical charge to a device from a distance will require shorter wavelength radiation than your typical WiFi signal. But, I'm just assuming.

You're right that no company would back a technology that would have instant and obvious harmful side-effects. But will they bother to hold back the tech long enough to know what the long-term effects are? Heroin was first used by doctors to treat coughs. Asbestos was the ideal material for...just about anything. Of course, if companies knew what problems those products would create in the future, they wouldn't have backed them. Duh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: apolloa
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back