Future Desks to Charge Gadgets Wirelessly

IronMan writes "Future desks may allow us to charge our phones, iPods, PDAs and other gadgets wirelessly. Office equipment maker Herman Miller is one of the first companies to license the eCoupled inductive coupling technology from Fulton Innovation, Engadget reports. The desk will allows wireless transfer of energy through a magnetic field. Motorola is working together with eCoupled, but still is not sure when the first consumer devices with this technology will appear on the market. From the article: 'Of course, cordless charging isn't an entirely new concept, with HP recently showing off some of its own ideas for juiced-up furniture, and Splashpower talking up its charge-on-contact system for a few years now. We guess we'll just have to wait and see if this new power-happy desk becomes the same status symbol for the Web 2.0 crowd that Herman Miller's Aeron chair was back in Web 1.0 days -- assuming we haven't moved on to Web 3.0 by the time the desk actually comes out, that is.'"

Comments

Health concerns

[rossdee]

Is anyone worried about what the effects might be on the person sitting at the desk? Long term exposure to magnetic radiation may cause cancer...

Re:Health concerns

[Asm-Coder]

I don't buy that. Strong Magnetic fields can be dangerous, (see my credit card example below) but I've never heard of harmful medical effects due to magnetic fields. (it's not really radiation) However, Life is known to the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects, so, don't buy this desk if you live in California.

Re:Health concerns

[zigziggityzoo]

You're exposed to radiation everywhere, every day.

Your cellphone, your power mains, radio signal, TV broadcasts, 2-way radios, WiFi, you name it. All of them surround you in radiation.

I'm not so concerned about adding one more source.

Re:Health concerns

[chris_eineke]

But I thought magnetic waves were supposed to heal injuries, not cause them! You are destroying my worldview -- you must be one of those scienti... I mean terrorists that are eradicating the American way of life!
Shoo! SHOO!

Re:Health concerns

[Dun Malg]

Your opinion, as stated, gives the impression of there being no evidence whatsoever, due to the fact that "you" have not "heard" of any harmfull medical effects due to magnetic fields, and total ignorance (and scepticism) of any potential mechanism at all, which is far from a balanced reflection of the actual evidence at this time in the scientific community. OK, how about this: Over the last 100+ years of exposure to magnetic fields, the closest anyone has come to finding a statistical link between low-grade magnetic fields and any health problems is the now-famous study showing a correlation between leukemia and living under power lines--- but the notion of a causal link between the two is spurious at best. Studies of MRI technician, aluminum foundry workers, and electrical linesmen have shown no health effects that can be linked to their exposure to magnetic fields, and they are exposed to fields many times greater than you'd ever see from an inductively coupling charging system. Studies so far have shown that there is little negative reaction by organic systems to magnetic fields.

The problem here is that you are asking for proof of a negative. You see, in science, when someone asserts the condition X may have effect Y out of the blue like that, the only proper response is "I have seen no evidence of this, so unless you can show evidence of a link, I must assume it to be false". Claiming "just because it's not proven doesn't mean it's not true" is foolish and childlike. Claims must be supported by proof. The burden is not on the rest of the world to disprove. Science is built on facts, not speculations. Logical thinking--- it works!

It still amazes me how many people there are out there that apparently need this explained to them.

Re:Health concerns

[krs804]

Once the word RADIATION is heard, most people cringe. They lump all EM radiation into the same category as UV, X and Gamma rays, or even confuse it with particle radiation. Anyway, I seriously doubt that this desk will emit anything higher than a few millivolts at a couple hundred Hertz.

Re:Health concerns

[Normal Dan]

I think the health concerns have more to do with a lack of understanding magnetism than a lack of understanding proofs of a negative. People have a natural fear of the unknown. We don't yet understand magnetism and if/how our own bodies use it. Think about in the past, people were afraid if they sailed too far they would fall off the edge of the earth. They had no proof of this, but they also had no understanding of the way the world worked. Although I admit magnetism is a bit different, the natural fear of the unknown is there.

Re:Health concerns

[beaverfever]

Yeah, but can I expect a positive or negative effect from the tin foil in my hat?

Re:Health concerns

[PachmanP]

In our risk adverse society, it is not unreasonable to expect for people to want something new to be proven to be safe vs. "well, we haven't seen any negative side effects yet, so it must be safe". "Proof" only coming with time and widespread use which introduces the chicken and the egg problem.

As a counter point to your argument, look at lead and uranium based paints. Some one correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that anyone thought there was anything wrong with lead based paint until its use was widespread enough that kids were eating it. As for uranium paints, science didn't understand radiation well, so it wasn't until later that people realized that maybe it wasn't the best thing to paint plates with.

Finally, science is not build on facts, but rather ton the idea that everything is suspect until it has been tested repeatedly. Then it, in an ideal universe, graduates to "our best understanding at the moment of what is going on". While we have a fair understanding of a lot of things, we do not know nor can we observe everything.

Re:Health concerns

[Jerf]

Actually, we don't even have to show a zero-negative effect.

At this point, we can fairly safely put an upper bound on any negative effects of magnetic fields. If they were, for instance, instantly fatal, we'd know. If they increased your bone cancer chances by 1000 times, we'd know. The maximum negative effect must be pretty small, or we wouldn't be sitting here arguing about it, we'd be pointing to the 99.9%-confidence studies.

Meanwhile, we have very real benefits from the devices generating these fields. Refrigeration alone saves an unbelievable number of lives every year, and that's just one example.

The upper bound of negative effects of magnetic fields is certainly well under the benefits of the things that cause those fields, and at this point, most likely below the noise floor of any negative effects we could determine. And "below the noise floor" is as good a definition of "no negative effect" as any.

It literally is such a small concern that it wasn't worth my time to write this debunking. (However, I'm charging this time to "educating others", which is worth it; I have to live with the lunatics that insist on determining danger levels of things by whether or not your fear glands are spewing hormones into their bloodstream, rather than, say, actually finding out.)

No more shopping online.

[Asm-Coder]

Or, at least, no more shopping at stores in town after laying your credit card down on your desk while shopping online.

"Not exactly new"

[SilentBob0727]

The wireless transfer of energy through magnetic fields is called electromagnetic induction, and it's been a well-known phenomenon since 1831. It's also currently used the world over: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer

I guess this'll put a nail in the CRT coffin.

[Robot Randy]

And the cassette tape, floppy disk, microcassette, LTO-3 Backup, etc...

not to mention pacemakers, insulin pumps...

Old technology

[NineNine]

I've been charging my dog's "invisible fence" collar this way for years. Actually, with that technology, it doesn't even have to touch. It just has to get close to the charger (within an inch or two). Works great. My dog's zapper collar is 100% sealed shut, making it 100% waterproof.

Web 4.27.1@#$!

[1010110010]

I can't seriously be the only one tired of hearing about Web x.0.

Re:Web 4.27.1@#$!

[Mr. Underbridge]

"Web 2.0" is the "information superhighway" of the middle of this decade. That is, it is the phrase that makes it clear that the speaker is a moron. And what the fuck the web has to do with a charging desk, I dunno.

Closer to 1898

[Gavin86]

Nikola Tesla beat you to the punch by about 100 years or so. (Edison can suck it!)

Sheesh!

[camperdave]

Now they're expecting me to carry a desk around whenever I need to charge things? No thanks. I'll just carry a wall-wart and plug it into any of the billion+ outlets scattered throughout North America.

Imagine...

[ivan256]

...if every electrical outlet had a different type of prongs depending on the brand of plug you bought.

Hell, you don't even have to imagine. We already live with the incompatibility of low voltage power connectors... Only now instead of replacing an adapter when we get a device from a different manufacturer, we can buy all new office furniture! Joy!

This technology is useless until the patents expire and building and electric codes require a specific version of the technology.

Re:wireless transfer of energy??

[ShadowBlasko]

Yeah, someone tell the folks over at Sonicare that they are using technology that comes from the future.

Wireless mouse

[Bacon Bits]

The first thing to come into my mind is a wireless mouse that gets power through the mouse pad. Wouldn't even need batteries, probably. Just capacitors.

Re:Wireless mouse

[FooAtWFU]

Well, it's not EXACTLY the same, but if you get a Wacom graphics tablet, they include a mouse that only works on the tablet... it doesn't have a power supply at all, though, batteries or otherwise, and neither does the pen...

Re:Wireless mouse

[springbox]

Wireless mouse. Seems kind of stupid though. It's like a wired mouse without the wire connected to the mouse itself.

Efficiency Concerns

[cliffski]

I'd be more concerned about eh power wastage / efficiency concerns. Electricity ain't getting any cheaper (quite the reverse), and I can't say its *that* onerous a task to plug in a device only when it needs charging. Is this an always-on solution? because if so, that seems horribly wasteful to me.

And your laptops HD for that matter.

[aix tom]

And I don't really see a benefit in having to place your device on a certain spot on the desk to recharge it over having to place it in some charging device.

The charging device is even more practical, since it's more portable.

Re:Mod Parent Ignorant

[damian cosmas]

Yes, the "magnetic radiation" is not strong enough to break chemical bonds but it may still affect the nervous system or other systems of the body.

I can't possibly see how. Most systems in the body depend on oxidation/reduction reactions, the cleavage/formation of phosphate bonds, or Na/K ion channels. Most elements present in vivo don't even have spin-active nuclei. Even if they get in excited spin states, that doesn't affect their reactivity in any meaningful way.

Therefore one cannot claim that low frequency EM radiation is completely safe or definitely harmful.

Let me walk you through what various kinds of radiation can do, in order of increasing energy.

Radio waves: excite nuclear spin states. This won't cook food. This is where most "Magnetic Radiation" comes from. This isn't known to make chemical reactions happen that wouldn't otherwise happen. Radio waves are so ubiquitous that if you believe that low-freq Radio Waves are harmful, you may as well kill yourself now. Won't cause cancer, but has led to the proliferation of junk science.
Microwaves: molecular rotation (stuff tumbles around). This cooks food (if there's a dipole). This will make chemical reactions (that would normally happen) happen faster in the same way that applying heat would. Won't cause cancer, but will burn you.
IR: molecular vibration (stretches chemical bonds). Heats stuff (think of a broiler or heat lamp). Might cause chemical bonds to break if you pump enough energy into it. Won't cause cancer, but will burn you.
Uv-Visible light: Excites electrons in transition metals and highly-unsaturated/aromatic organics (some DNA bases are aromatic organics). Makes stuff emit photons when relaxing from excited states (fluorescence, phosphorescence, etc.). Has been linked to skin cancer.
X-rays: ionizing radiation. Hits heavier nuclei (transitions and lower p-blocks) and creates ions, which can then react with things around them. Causes health problems. Best avoided.

Say 50Hz might be safe but 120Hz might cause you to hallucinate or something like that.

120 Hz better not--it's the first overtone of the AC power found in much of the world. This is one small step above searching for The Brown Note.