Wireless Charging Company Energous Partners With Apple Supplier Dialog

[apolloa]

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.

Thanks for the updated link, still not sure I trust the tech. But I wouldn't spend that much for it either, a QI pad is £15 in the UK this hub would be £200 plus! Not worth the money.

 

[kdarling]

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.

No need to assume.

As pointed out in my post #97 above, the frequency being used cannot even penetrate the skin.

Re: "what type of radiation" ... it's an electromagnetic wave. "Radiation" simply means it "radiates" outward, the same way a room heater radiates heat, or a bride radiates happiness.

 

[cracksoup]

You should all see this:

DAMN I love technology. 5 years ago, I would've called this magic. It's reachable technology now. I don't think the next iPhone would include it though. Maybe the 2018 one.

 

[EdT]

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.

Even the Sun you say? Everything we can see, feel or measure from the sun is radiation. Visible light is radiation, as is ultraviolet and infrared. The entire universe is filled with Cosmic Background Radiation, and you've been exposed to it all of your life. If something is alive it gives off radiation. When something dies it continues to give off radiation, just at a decreasing rate. Anything that generates power gives off radiation, including petroleum based engines. The petroleum burning gives off radiation, so does burning coal. Or wood. Or natural gas. Or paper. Or grain dust. To shorten the list, ANY form of fuel that is burned gives off radiation, and not just heat.

The only rational arguments I've seen against wireless power is it's inefficiency at long range, with long range meaning a few feet, and the cost of the wireless transmitter. Stand under a 100 watt incandescent light bulb and you'll get 20 times the radiation that a 5 watt wireless charger will give you. Somewhere very near your house is a transformer that steps down high voltage, 10,000 volts or higher, to 440 or 220 volt for your house and that also is radiating. Your house has unshielded 120 volt power radiating from all of the wires inside your walls. You live surrounded by radiation from the electricity in every building you have or ever will be in. But until you get to ultraviolet wavelengths the energy just isn't there to directly damage cells. Even microwaves don't damage cells, they vibrates the moisture in objects to create heat, and that's a property of resonant frequency and not radiation damage. Put something in a microwave that doesn't have very much water and the item doesn't get hot.

 

[admob71]

and fAndriods did it first.

Sounds like a fanboy seems a tad bitter. Why is that?

 

[kdarling]

he 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.

Don't forget that you also have to translate that into dog years... errrr... I mean, Apple dollars.

So what, probably $399 for the big transmitter? which is a thin box about the size of a medium speaker cabinet. Plus some people will want/need one in every room.

 

[ConnorMcJeebus]

Even the Sun you say? Everything we can see, feel or measure from the sun is radiation. Visible light is radiation, as is ultraviolet and infrared. The entire universe is filled with Cosmic Background Radiation, and you've been exposed to it all of your life. If something is alive it gives off radiation. When something dies it continues to give off radiation, just at a decreasing rate. Anything that generates power gives off radiation, including petroleum based engines. The petroleum burning gives off radiation, so does burning coal. Or wood. Or natural gas. Or paper. Or grain dust. To shorten the list, ANY form of fuel that is burned gives off radiation, and not just heat.

The only rational arguments I've seen against wireless power is it's inefficiency at long range, with long range meaning a few feet, and the cost of the wireless transmitter. Stand under a 100 watt incandescent light bulb and you'll get 20 times the radiation that a 5 watt wireless charger will give you. Somewhere very near your house is a transformer that steps down high voltage, 10,000 volts or higher, to 440 or 220 volt for your house and that also is radiating. Your house has unshielded 120 volt power radiating from all of the wires inside your walls. You live surrounded by radiation from the electricity in every building you have or ever will be in. But until you get to ultraviolet wavelengths the energy just isn't there to directly damage cells. Even microwaves don't damage cells, they vibrates the moisture in objects to create heat, and that's a property of resonant frequency and not radiation damage. Put something in a microwave that doesn't have very much water and the item doesn't get hot.

No need to assume.

As pointed out in my post #97 above, the frequency being used cannot even penetrate the skin.

Re: "what type of radiation" ... it's an electromagnetic wave. "Radiation" simply means it "radiates" outward, the same way a room heater radiates heat, or a bride radiates happiness.

Ok, I think we're all basically saying the same things....radiation comes from everything, different types of radiation, some bad...some harmless(?)...blah blah. Just want to clarify somethings...

1) "Radiation" is not just an electromagnetic wave and it doesn't just mean to "radiate outward". Radiation, used in this context, is energy transfer and absorption that can occur via more ways than just electromagnetic waves. There's also acoustic, particle, gravitational, etc.

2) While, in theory, we think that microwave lengths (e.g. WiFi) are harmless at current energy levels, do we actually know it? It took approximately 50 years for someone to raise red flags about asbestos and about 60 years before someone actually died from it. How long has mainstream, widely available WiFi been around? About 20?

3) Further to point 2, even if I think I know that thermal radiation (a.k.a. heat) from a light bulb or WiFi router or computer screen or exhaust pipe is relatively harmless from a distance and for short periods of exposure, I would not want to lay my hand on a powered light bulb or hot exhaust pipe for a long period of time. Why? It will burn you. And I also wouldn't want to sleep with a WiFi router or computer screen turned on next to me in bed overnight. Would you? Are you so sure that it's safe that you would be willing to put your plugged in and turned on WiFi router in between your legs as you sleep every night? Just like a light bulb's thermal radiation will eventually cause an effect (namely, burning your tissue), who's to say the thermal radiation from the WiFi router won't have an effect on your tissue at a threshold concentration or time of exposure?

4) The conclusion that microwaves don't damage cells is incorrect. Our cells require water. If you have enough microwaves to deprive your cells of the necessary water, they will become damaged. That's why you can burn food in the microwave. If your theory was correct, the food wouldn't burn because it would stop heating up as the amount of water decreases.

 

[askep3]

Send your CV to Samsung. They're hiring.

?