Wireless Power Consortium Pushes for "Qi" Standard

The Wireless Power Consortium (comprised of Samsung, Sanyo, Olympus, Philips, Texas Instruments, and others) has started a push towards a wireless charging standard under the moniker "Qi" (pronounced "chee"). "Members of the Wireless Power Consortium are reviewing version 0.95 of its technical specification which defines a proposed standard for charging devices, using up to 5Watts power, delivered by electromagnetic induction. The spec could evolve into a standard — and will be demonstrated by multiple vendors on September 15th to 16th. ... It is less ambitious than the system demonstrated this summer by Witricity, which operates at a distance of a few meters, using resonance, which the company claims has green benefits through replacing disposable batteries."

Comments

Qi: The Greatest of All Scrabble Words

[eldavojohn]

I am very familiar with qi, since the Fourth Edition Scrabble Dictionary made it the most life saving play at the end of the game when fate deals you a Q.

Re:Qi: The Greatest of All Scrabble Words

[Rand310]

Qi, as in the Chinese romanization of æ£.
This is the same "qi" as Taichi's 'chi'. The life energy
It's the same 'chi' as the japanese 'Ki' æ-- as in "Tenki" (weather)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi

*Slashdot really needs to move into the modern era with support for international unicode characters...

Re:Qi: The Greatest of All Scrabble Words

[fractoid]

Great. Now whenever I see 'qi' I'll mentally pronounce it as 'aieee! *pound*'

Re:Qi: The Greatest of All Scrabble Words

[LS]

This is the same "qi" as Taichi's 'chi'. The life energy

Sorry to confuse things even more, but you are incorrect. Taichi is an old romanization. Using modern pinyin it's actually Taiji. The ji means "utmost" or "extreme". People only pronounce it "tie-chee" (in Mandarin) because they are mis-reading the old romanization, but it's actually pronounced "tie-jee", and while Qi (pronounced chee) is something that is definitely studied in the practice of Taiji, it is not the same as the "chi" in "Taichi". I've studied Taiji for 4 1/2 years in Beijing, so not just being pedantic.

BTW you are SO right about Slashdot needing to move out of the stone age....

LS

That's boring! Wake me up

[VincenzoRomano]

When I'll be bale to forget about any power cable and contact-less docking power charger, please!
We need the real wireless charger!

Re:That's boring! Wake me up

[capnchicken]

Probably as soon as all the patents held by trolls in Texas run their litigious course. See you in thirty years!

Re:That's boring! Wake me up

[gbjbaanb]

I can't see why we wouldn't need both - an induction system for recharging batteries, and a resonance system for wireless power. We need the latter because it make wireless power a reality, we need the former because there won't be universal coverage of the latter.

Re:Pronounced "Chee"

[Again]

...for those that don't want to read the summary but may wish to discuss it intelligently in person.

There. Fixed that for you.

A step in the right direction

[Peter Steil]

This is definitely a step in the right direction. I know it's really frustrating looking for a non-standard plug for my phone. I'm sure the days of searching for the right power adapter are limited.

Re:A step in the right direction

[Slavik81]

I'm sure the days of searching for the right power adapter are limited.

Modding this funny was a brilliant but subtle touch. Whoever did that deserves a round of applause.

Re:Health Issues?

[cruff]

5 watts is not a lot of energy. It's not like it is an induction cook top and you are a ferrous pan or anything. :-)

Yucky.

[Fantastic Lad]

Kind of like the corruption of the Elves into Orcs in LOTR, the idea of charging the air with yet more EM pollution and calling it "Qi" makes a sick mockery of the real thing.

And there's a frickin' pyramid with an eye ball on the dollar bill.

We're being laughed at even as we are mutilated and enslaved.

Cue the conceited, ill-informed rationalizations.

-FL

Re:Yucky.

[SanityInAnarchy]

makes a sick mockery of the real thing.

Ok, so tell me...

What is the real thing? How can it be measured and tested? Couldn't it be used for evil, as well as good?

Cue the conceited, ill-informed rationalizations.

Oh, I'm not saying that this particular "Qi" is a good thing. I'm saying that there's no proof that "real" Qi exists, nor that it would be beneficial.

I'm also not aware of any evidence that this "EM pollution" is harmful, but at least we sort of know what it is, and can measure its effect, so I trust it a hell of a lot more than I'd trust "real" Qi, if you managed to produce any.

Re:Yucky.

[JKWSN]

We're being laughed at even as we are mutilated and enslaved.

I think they are also singing!

Re:Yucky.

[Twinbee]

I'm not actually sure if this is meant to be a joke or not.

Re:Yucky.

[Fantastic Lad]

What is the real thing? How can it be measured and tested? Couldn't it be used for evil, as well as good?

I just call it 'energy' but nobody I know seems entirely clear on what exactly it is. My guess is that it is simply another variation of the unstable wave forms from which atomic matter is constructed, but that doesn't really help much since the same could be said of anything. It's hard to test for in the kind of way which would establish things once and for all because our technology and scientific understanding of reality hasn't worked out how to define or measure 'energy', and so it is discounted. It also seems to be tightly linked to awareness; if you don't believe it should be there, then it tends to obey. While quantum theory allows some space for such things, more traditional approaches to science have a lot of difficulty accepting that some aspects of reality exist relative to the state of the observer. When concrete examples of such unknown forces which fall into the same category as 'energy' rise, (and they do from time to time; we've had one or two recently), they are often ignored or otherwise awkwardly received and quietly forgotten about. Our public arena scientists simply aren't wise (or free) enough yet to look at these things clearly. Until then, one must test on a person by person basis. Like scientifically proving dreams exist; it can't be done, yet it doesn't make dreams any less a part of the human experience.

Can it be used for Good as well as Evil? Well, since Good and Evil are moving targets, I'd say, "Sure". In fact, I'd suggest that flooding the environment with EM radiation is probably not far from the evil end of the spectrum. The electromagnetic spectrum seems to be somewhat related to 'energy' in how it affects certain elements of reality and human awareness.

I'm also not aware of any evidence that this "EM pollution" is harmful, but at least we sort of know what it is, and can measure its effect, so I trust it a hell of a lot more than I'd trust "real" Qi, if you managed to produce any.

No? That tells me a lot about you; Like most taboo knowledge, it's not hidden, it's just not broadcast on prime-time television. You could benefit enormously from doing some rather easy research. I'd start with Robert O. Becker's book, Cross Currents. They have used copies for around five dollars. If you want to know things that the power brokers of the world don't want you to know, then you aren't going to find out by dancing for the little people who are certainly going to laugh at you. You have to put in a little effort and grow a bit of a spine.

Much luck to you!

-FL

Re:Yucky.

[cparker15]

Assuming the "real" qi exists, it is your life force. If you didn't have any, you wouldn't be alive. So, I'd say it would be beneficial to have.

Re:Yucky.

[SanityInAnarchy]

our technology and scientific understanding of reality hasn't worked out how to define or measure 'energy',

Oh, bullshit. Real energy can be defined and quantified. It's even a standard unit.

I don't think it's a flaw in science that proponents of "energy" or "qi" can't actually define their terms.

It also seems to be tightly linked to awareness; if you don't believe it should be there, then it tends to obey.

How convenient for it.

Things we can see in the observable world tend to not care whether or not we believe in them. We would like to believe Earth is the center of the Universe, but that doesn't match our observations.

Furthermore, if it's defined as "life force", as cparker15 does, does this mean that if I stop believing in it, I'll die?

more traditional approaches to science have a lot of difficulty accepting that some aspects of reality exist relative to the state of the observer.

Actually, we know a fair amount about bias, and the placebo effect, and so on.

Nor is it entirely untestable. Get a few dozen people who believe Qi exists, and have them run the experiments, properly recorder. Then have impartial observers interpret the data.

When concrete examples of such unknown forces which fall into the same category as 'energy' rise, (and they do from time to time; we've had one or two recently),

Citation needed.

they are often ignored or otherwise awkwardly received and quietly forgotten about.

That isn't generally how science works.

Oh, it's true -- if you aren't able to play the peer-review game, and provide sufficient evidence through repeatable experiments, you'll likely be ignored, as you should be. But again, I could point to the round Earth, relativity, quantum physics, and evolution as ideas that many scientists would've loved to ignore, but couldn't, because that is how the world works.

Until then, one must test on a person by person basis.

The point is that these tests must be repeatable, and must adjust for bias, and be backed up by numbers -- for example, how many people tested had no result at all? Are the positive results you're getting outside the realm of what you'd expect by chance?

Like scientifically proving dreams exist;

What do you mean by "exist"?

We know that people dream. We know a lot about REM sleep. If you mean to suggest that dreams are actually real in some sense other than as nightly hallucinations, I'm very curious as to how you know that.

No? That tells me a lot about you; Like most taboo knowledge,

Taboo knowledge? That's funny...

Science has a lot of taboo knowledge.

I'd start with Robert O. Becker's book, Cross Currents [amazon.com].

At a quick glance, I don't see a lot of credentials on the man, and I do see some mentions ofhow unsubstantiated his recent research is. Moreover, I see "The New Plagues" in the table of contents -- AIDS, Autism, SIDS -- seriously, is he suggesting that AIDS is caused by "electorpollution", and not, say, dirty needles or sex?

Here's the thing: You've already tripped by bullshit-o-meter with your citations of "energy". When you start talking about

things that the power brokers of the world don't want you to know,

you're well into conspiracy-theory land. I'm sure they don't want me to know about the alien implant in your brain, either.

But it does raise an interesting question: Why did this guy write a book targeted at people like you and me, rather than trying to get his theories published in a scientific journal? If this stuff really works, I am sure the scientific community, at least, would be interested.

After all, the "power brokers of the world" hav

DBZ

[gmuslera]

Maybe they could make stations (running Android) that do big blasts of that Qi charges for big devices, electric cars, etc. I propose to put them under the moniker "Kame Hame Ha".

Efficiency

[Luyseyal]

But how efficient would this be vs a wall wart?

-l

Re:Efficiency

[QuantumRiff]

I guess that one device, at 50% efficiency would probably be a ton better than 3-4 devices at >75% efficiency, but you are right..

They need to have a low power (damn near off mode) and then when something is placed nearby, then ramp up the power.. going back to low power mode again as soon as its removed.

Re:Efficiency

[supernova_hq]

What kind of damage could a table like this do to a credit card, backup tape, etc?

Re:Efficiency

[SBrach]

Most wall warts nowadays are switch mode and use almost no power when not in use.

Re:Efficiency

[Darinbob]

This was my first concern. If a device is not being charged, isn't there still some power being used?

I've wondered this about transformer wall-warts too, which is also an inductive coupling (without as much gap between the coils though). Despite all the coiling of the wire, there's still a closed circuit when you plug it into the wall and the primary coil will have some non-zero resistance, and I doubt a wall wart is anywhere close to 100% efficiency.

So what's better for efficiency and power less when there is no load: the wireless induction system here, or the wireless resonance system? Or is this a case of industry hopping on board the first convenient standard rather than going with the better solution?

Re:Efficiency

[GuldKalle]

Well, you could design the charging system as a plate where you place your equipment, and have a simple weight-activated contact underneath the plate. That way you'd save on some of that standby-power they are all so worried about. And maybe this new system would actually end up having a lower TCO than normal wall-warts during normal use.

Re:Efficiency

[hesiod]

Most wall warts nowadays are switch mode and use almost no power when not in use.

It's only been a year or so since I was told to be scared of wasting electricity with all those AC adapters, and now you're telling me I shouldn't? WHAT CAN I WORRY ABOUT NOW???

Re:Time to buy stock

[FCAdcock]

Actually, when this becomes real a tinfoil hat may be the very last thing you'd want to wear. I'm assuming this is sort of like what happens if you go near really high capacity power lines with a flouescent bulb, where the power in the air is enough to cause the bulb to light. It's also enough that having lived near one long enough I can attest that metal isn't fun to wear near one.

Brain Cancer Again...

[Xin Jing]

I forsee Witricity adapters and a slew of 3rd party knock-off components for home and travel that allow us to bathe ourselves in a continuous blanket of electromagnetic radiation 24 hours a day. I think some independant studies should be conducted to see the prolonged effects of real-world impact of this convenience. We are no longer happy with the two-hours it takes to recharge a day's worth of mobile device use, we have to charge it wirelessly while it's in use performing wireless tasks. If breaking the grip of proprietary adapter plugs is the point of contention, move the industry to a standard docking cradle, like walkie-talkies. Put the electronic toys down and go do something else. The upside of course would be the eventual decline of questions like, "can I borrow your charger?".

Re:Brain Cancer Again...

[RobVB]

The upside of course would be the eventual decline of questions like, "can I borrow your charger?".

And with it, a further decline in geeks' chances to score chicks.

Re:Brain Cancer Again...

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

I forsee Witricity adapters and a slew of 3rd party knock-off components for home and travel that allow us to bathe ourselves in a continuous blanket of electromagnetic radiation 24 hours a day.

Sorry to tell you, but that's already happening from sources such as:

• AM radio
• FM radio
• Television
• That large nearby star
• The electric power grid
• Your computer
• RADAR in the black helicopter that's following you around.

Re:Brain Cancer Again...

[confused one]

There is no link between EM radiation and cancer. There's some history here that will help dispel the myth

First, where there was an association with cancer and power lines: When an in depth study was done in cases of cancer clusters near power lines, there was always another cause found. It was usually a toxic waste dump or industrial discharge upstream. It's unfortunate, but, the cluster of kids with leukemia in the neighborhood wasn't caused by the power lines running through the back yard, it was caused by the chemical plant a mile or two up the road that the power lines were feeding.

Second: There has never been a peer reviewed study which showed any link between power lines or EM fields and cancer. None that have been confirmed. There was one study published, but the scientist was discredited. No one could duplicate his results. Nearly a decade was spent in the attempt. So, as part of the peer review process, he was asked to present his original data. When he refused, his employer, Lawrence Berkely National Lab, forced the issue. After that, he admitted to faking the data in order to get research grant money. I worked for Department of Energy at the time and this was a real slap in the face to the labs which made us review how we did internal peer review. Look up Robert P. Liburdy

Unfortunately, the original media anouncement of this false finding still persists in the general populous' memory. It has lead to suggestions like cell phones cause brain cancer. So, to the best of my knowledge (and I admit to being no expert, I'm a physicist who's work is not related to the medical field) There has never been a repeatable, peer reviewed study which has confirmed a link, with any statistical certainty, between EM fields and cancer.

Wasted technology?

[jayme0227]

Maybe I just don't understand their plan, but this seems like it would be close to a useless technology. It seems like it would be more expensive to develop and implement than a standard power cable, and you would have to set your device onto the power mat. Does it really take that much effort to grab the cable and plug it in? Also, in the case of cell phones, you wouldn't be able to use the cell phone while it's charging like most cell phones allow you to do currently. Win = Power cord.

Now, the other technology that was mentioned in the article uses electromagnetic fields. This seems like it would be incredibly inefficient as you would be beaming energy to nothing in particular in hopes that something was using it. With this technology, you wouldn't have to leave your mobile device on a mat, but you would still need to be within 2m of the source. It still seems like a traditional power cord wins.

Now, I know that Slashdot is all about advancing technology, but how do they get over these hurdles? It seems like developing a universal wired charging station would be more advantageous in the short run. What am I missing?

Re:Wasted technology?

[vertinox]

Maybe I just don't understand their plan, but this seems like it would be close to a useless technology. It seems like it would be more expensive to develop and implement than a standard power cable, and you would have to set your device onto the power mat.

The average user does not like cables.

You are just not the average user.

Re:Wasted technology?

[feepness]

I can charge ten things with one plate. Epic win.

Re:Wasted technology?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find really interesting that devices such as my cellphone won't suffer from worn connectors that don't make really good contact and go to waste.

Some people abuse of electronic devices, as much or more than me. Wireless power will probably have its own problems, but solving the worn connector problem seems like a lot to me.

Re:Wasted technology?

[NickFortune]

I can charge ten things with one plate

Well, assuming that the standard is complete with no areas left as implementation decisions, and that they all use the same resonance frequency, and all the participants conform fully to the proposal, and that no-one decides to add some sort of proprietary encrypted handshaking protocol on the charging cycle (purely in the interests of security, of course).

Otherwise, you could well end up with ten plates to charge ten devices, which would be a bit of a step back.

The thing to remember is that in all probability, for every company which has someone championing the standard, there is also a division within that company that makes most of its money from selling overpriced replacements for proprietary cables. So it's reasonable to suppose that some people are going to work to undermine this, right from the start.

OK, tin-foil hat stuff, I know. The point I'm trying to make is let's not get too caught up in all the enthusiasm.

Re:Wasted technology?

[megrims]

Power cord insertions and removals cause significant strain on the components involved. I've had several devices where the solder has eventually broken, making the device much harder to use.

Re:Wasted technology?

[dgatwood]

And in ten years, when someone points out that you can save $100 per year on electricity by using an all new cabled cell phone charger, suddenly the average user will love cables all over again. The average user doesn't know what he/she wants or needs and never will. Therefore, you should design products to cater to power users in terms of capabilities and complete idiots in terms of ease of use, and ignore the protestations of the proles. Anything else will inevitably lead to products designed by committee that satisfy no one at all.

Re:Wasted technology?

[CannonballHead]

That's only an epic win if you have ten things. Plus, wouldn't all ten things be drawing from the same rather small power supply? That sounds like it's going to be pretty slow. Maybe I don't understand how it works, could be. :)

Re:Wasted technology?

[dgatwood]

Only poorly designed connectors have this problem. Take a look at Apple's MagSafe connector or the connector that Sony Ericsson uses for examples of how to build connectors that should never wear out in this way, abuse notwithstanding.

Re:Wasted technology?

[Darinbob]

And the average user won't know what they want because they don't have the information. You can't browse phone chargers at the store and compare the on-box listings of "dollars per month". So the user is going to compare based on convenience and price.

Re:Wasted technology?

[newcastlejon]

It wasn't Apple gear by any chance? I've had enough of their cables die on me to learn that the words "strain relief" don't exist in their lexicon.

Re:Wasted technology?

[newcastlejon]

It's odd that you give those examples, I had a magsafe cord fail at the point where the cable enters and SE used to (giving them the benefit of doubt that they don't now) use soldered joints to attach connectors and worse still, volume sliders, to the PCB. I always had it drummed into me that solder is useless for attaching anything that might every carry a load, much less be put in a position to suffer fatigue.

Re:Wasted technology?

[dgatwood]

My point was that somebody will get the bright idea to start advertising wired chargers a few years later as the "green, money-saving alternative to wireless chargers", at which point customers would have at least some of the information....

Wireless power for most consumer devices is without a doubt the most idiotic concept I've heard suggested in the consumer space lately. The EM spectrum is already an awful mess. We shouldn't be raising the noise floor and wrecking our environment by increasing the consumption of all these current-guzzling power supplies just so that people don't have to plug things in. We should be mandating that all traditional transformer-based supplies be replaced with power-factor-corrected switched mode power supplies, not moving one side of the mains transformer farther away from the other side and cutting the efficiency further.... If you really want to simplify things, don't replace the cable with a wireless hack; do what the EU is doing---move towards a standard power supply voltage and connector for small consumer electronics.

Re:Wasted technology?

[dgatwood]

Just to clarify, in both examples, I was referring to the device, not the power cord. Thin DC power cords break. That's why I'm of the opinion that the government should mandate that all power cords on all devices have a connector on both ends and be available as a replacement part without buying an entire power supply. :-) IMHO, the key to good power connector design is to ensure that if something is going to break, it's the cheap power cord and not the expensive device plugged into that power cord.

Regarding the soldering on the Sony Ericsson connectors, the connectors I've seen are a series of metal plates that appear to be a fairly integral part of one section of the phone's plastic case. Assuming they didn't do something stupid in the actual design of the connector, it should be darn near impossible to break without breaking the case. I wouldn't put it past Sony to do something stupid inside the connector, of course, but my SE phone is still functioning (albeit replaced by an iPhone) after about seven or eight years. That's not half bad for a cheap phone.

Re:Wasted technology?

[wfolta]

Maybe I just don't understand their plan, but this seems like it would be close to a useless technology. It seems like it would be more expensive to develop and implement than a standard power cable, and you would have to set your device onto the power mat.

The average user does not like cables.

You are just not the average user.

The average user does not like cables.

You are just not the average user.

Not to mention that, the parent mentions a "standard power cable". Please tell me what power cable is standard for portable devices. For desktops, yes, I have a drawer full of them, but for portables, you get everything from custom sync connectors that charge to USB, mini-USB and more.

Re:Wasted technology?

[CastrTroy]

The OP says that it would be more costly to develop than a standard power cable, as in: Why aren't they developing a standard power cable rather than trying to standardize useless technology like this.

Re:Wasted technology?

[maxume]

It continues to get easier to purchase devices that charge using a USB cable. Some of them are persnickety, and lots of them violate the standard, but they seem to work okay.

Re:Wasted technology?

[maxume]

Use-while-charging is less and less important. My cell phone doesn't have a particularly large battery in it, but even so, the standby time is several days, and I don't think I have ever had a single conversation that used up half the charge.

(There are still going to be some people who use their phones a huge amount and so on, but there will also be a significant market of people who simply don't care about being able to simultaneously talk and charge, it is half of people, they just might be onto something, and batteries are continuing to improve)

Re:Wasted technology?

[fractoid]

If you're worried about the environment, consider that the wall wart is generally almost the same size as the phone itself these days, so by using wireless charging, you're halving the amount of material that needs to be manufactured. That, and we're talking 5 Watts. Even if it's only 50% efficient, that's only 5 Watts of wasted electricity. There are plenty of devices in your home that waste a lot more than that.

Re:Wasted technology?

[fractoid]

+1 to worn connectors. My old phone (an Ericsson K700i) retired not due to any inherent problem with the phone itself (it'd survived being soaked with water multiple times at Songkran in Thailand, and being thrown (along with myself, but I'm waterproof) in a dam) but because the retarded little push-contact charging plug no longer connected.

I swore never to buy another phone with the same system, then I saw the W880i (damn you, Sony, for making such a slim sexy phone!) and now two years later I'm having the same issue.

Re:Wasted technology?

[dgatwood]

True, but at $0.37/kWh, a mere 5 extra watts translates to $16 extra per year per device (most of it probably from coal with my luck). That adds up pretty quickly.

Re:Wasted technology?

[fractoid]

Hmm, this is true. Although (now I'm just playing devil's advocate for the hell of it :P ) if you live in a cold climate such that some heating is needed for most of the year, that extra energy (which will dissipate as heat) won't be wasted, it'll just be a little auxiliary warmth. :)

Re:Wasted technology?

[battjt]

Sure, but here in Indiana we only pay $0.09/kWh or $4/year/device or just over a penny a day, a penny a day for the convenience of being able to toss the phone on a pad instead of plugging it in. Given my failure rate at actually getting the phone plugged into that darn cable, I'd gladly pay a penny a day for a more reliable convenient method.

[ source http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html ]

Joe

Funny, EU just got a standard plug for mobile phon

[Mike Zilva]

For many years we've had wireless charging for electric tooth-brush, and a lot of diferent plugs on chargers for mobile phones.

Now that EU will force a standard plug for charging mobile phones, we are going to move away from plugs :)

Re: Pronounced "Chee"

[neonprimetime]

...for those that don't want to read the first damn sentence in the summary but may wish to discuss it intelligently in person.

There. Fixed that for you.

This is a good thing

[PhunkySchtuff]

This is potentially a good thing. How many different charging devices do you have at the moment? I've got one for AAA and AA batteries, one for my phone, one for my iPod, one for my wife's phone, one for my DSLR, one for my camcorder, one for my...

I don't need long-range wireless power, like some developments are working on -- whilst this would be quite cool, it's very inefficient at this stage. Wireless charging of all these devices would however be a great benefit to reduce clutter and waste. If all the devices are compatible with the one spec of charger, then should I lose my phone charger, it doesn't matter as it's compatible with the charger I've got. I've had to replace one of the phone chargers not that long ago too as SonyEricsson have quite a delicate clip on the plug -- if this clip breaks, then the plug won't stay attached and the device doesn't charge.

I already enjoy the benefits of wireless charging with my electric toothbrush - it sits in a base that charges it back up. There are no electrical contacts or plugs to get wet and gunky with toothpaste residue, it's just a smooth plastic ring that the toothbrush sits in and away it goes.

To have a pad that I could place any of my devices on to recharge would be incredibly convenient. I truly hope that enough manufactures adopt this standard to make it a possibility. Unfortunately with standards, the great thing about them is that there are so many to chose from.

Re:This is a good thing

[BESTouff]

This is potentially a good thing. How many different charging devices do you have at the moment? I've got one for AAA and AA batteries, one for my phone, one for my iPod, one for my wife's phone, one for my DSLR, one for my camcorder, one for my...

Too shy to write "sex toy" ?

Re:This is a good thing

[PhunkySchtuff]

What, you mean like the Philips Sensual Massagers? I do believe they use wireless charging as well ;-)

Re:Health Issues?

[metamatic]

Your cell phone pumps out about 4W on a regular basis, and you keep it in your pocket next to your junk.

Re:Funny, EU just got a standard plug for mobile p

[Mike Zilva]

Let's hope wireless power doesn't break the magnetic compass in some of the new devices...

Re:Funny, EU just got a standard plug for mobile p

[Xin Jing]

I see the EU being first in a lot of consumer areas. Their own version of Windows, devices that are released in Europe before the US and now a standard mobile phone adapter. I'd be curious to know why in the land where consumers are king, products are often bloated, stripped down and late.

Qi

[MadLad]

Since the word Qi is already used to describe something rather different, it is a pretty idiotic name for this idea. It merely accords with the co-opting of all sorts of Eastern concepts for marketing Western stuffs, in the footsteps of 'Zen' which nowadays stands for just about anything you'd want in a product.

Re:Qi

[nomadic]

Since the word Qi is already used to describe something rather different

Well, something nonexistent. It's not like people are going to confuse something that is real with something that is fictional.

Re:Qi

[TheRaven64]

in the footsteps of 'Zen' which nowadays stands for just about anything you'd want in a product.

As opposed to the original definition, which stands for just about anything you'd want in a philosophy?

Re:Qi

[MadLad]

Nonexistent in your humble opinion, nomadic. If you were inclined to spend a few months doing Qi Gong or some other practice, you might have experiences that would change your opinion.

And just for interest's sake, people confuse the real with the fictional all the time. For instance, many people think there is a real, unitary, unchanging self behind all of their experiences, like a little homonculus just behind the eyes. That's about as real as it gets for most people, but that kind of self doesn't exist at all.

Re:Qi

[tygerstripes]

I'd learn some Chinese or Japanese before fetishising Eastern philosophy and concepts, if I were you.

FWIW, the Japanese equivalent ki means "spirit/essence" in the loosest sense, and is used to form all sorts of compound nouns - "genki" meaning healthy, well, of good spirit, "tenki" meaning weather (heaven-spirit), "samuki" meaning a cold (cold-spirit) and... "denki" meaning electricity.

In my opinion, the languages of SE Asia are mostly beautiful, elegant and expressive, but they're still languages, and they're still used by everyday people to express everyday things. The tendency for us Occidental folk to romanticise all that is exotically Eastern - just as they are wont to do with the West - is understandable, but a little silly. I don't think you'll find any Chinese or Japanese people wailing about the bastardisation of their beautiful language in this case - though a native Chinese speaker may balk at our egregious mispronunciation of this very common word.

Re:Qi

[MadLad]

Interesting, thank you tygerstripes -- I'm now a lot less ignorant :)

Re:Qi

[tygerstripes]

Okay, now I feel like a prat for starting out sounding like an authoritative arsehole - sorry, and you're welcome :-)

Re:Qi

[MadLad]

No worries. Keep it surreal.

Re:Qi

[nomadic]

Nonexistent in terms of reality. It just doesn't exist. And my opinion is never really that humble.

Re:Qi

[MadLad]

Heheh. Okay re the humility thing.

We disagree, then. But I think your attitude is an act of faith.

I would agree that Qi is not physical, but that doesn't mean it's not real. That it can't be detected by any known scientific instruments should not surprise us, as scientific instruments are designed to detect only physical things. So for instance, scientific instruments detect the physical correlates of consciousness but not consciousness itself -- and, thus influenced, some schools posited that mental states (e.g. emotions) aren't real.

But, like nonphysical but nevertheless real mental states, Qi can be detected and affirmed by your own experience. You can conduct scientific experiments into this sort of thing. You can do the practice as the experiment, and you can experience the results. You can retain your rationality and your skepticism throughout, and have experiences that are most accurately and comprehensively explained by a "Qi" model.

Re:Qi

[nomadic]

Well you're speaking more of a philosophical construction, or way of looking at bodily experiences; however, traditionally Qi has referred to an actual, allegedly physical manifestation of something. It's this more common interpretation that I reject.

Re:Funny, EU just got a standard plug for mobile p

[Mike Zilva]

Anyway, I'd love to replace the back cover of my Android phone with a thin wireless power receiver...

Old News

[Anonymous Coward]

Not exactly a new idea. Tesla did it about 100 years ago.

Re:Transliteration is dumb

[Shikaku]

Because it's Chinese and that's how it is spelled when Chinese is romanized.

Re:Health Issues?

[ae1294]

But, what ARE the health concerns about pumping so much energy out, even if over such a short range?

I'm not honestly sure myself. We better ask goku!

Tesla is spinning in his grave...

[Phizzle]

...and generating AC electricity!

Re:Tesla is spinning in his grave...

[Mike Zilva]

I'll try some wireless power pad's to put under my Tesla Roadster ;) and on top there will be solar panels, and some wind turbins on both sides:)

Re: Pronounced "Chee"

[quarterbuck]

Wait until people start mis-prounouncing it "Kwee" and it becomes the standard spoken form. Sort of like Linux "Linucks" / "Lye-nucks" debate or the Hyundai "Hayundai"/"Hyoondai"/"Hunday" one..
Anyway, why spell it "Qi" when the Chinese/Japanese language does not use the Latin script ? I could understand it if the company in question was Malaysian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay_language#Writing_system) and they spelled the word "Chee" as "Qi" in their language.

how it works

[loki_tiwaz]

My understanding is that this system is based on work by Nikola Tesla who discovered that it was possible to magnetically transmit power using resonance. By this meaning alternating pulses through a tuned coil on both sides at a tuned frequency. The vibrational energy of a guitar string transmits quite efficiently to adjacent strings on a guitar, it stands to reason that, if like in the example of a low resistance wired coil vibrating at a frequency tuned to the length and width of the coil, the loss of energy in transmission would be much lower if the receiver coil was tuned to resonate at the same frequency or a close harmonic (1 or 2 octaves). The only thing that I am unsure of is this theoretical negation of resistance, which I understand is what the whole idea is based on.

As far as safety goes, it would be quite safe. It is magnetism below a certain frequency and the only thing that might get damaged is inadvertently tuned circuits in electronics and possibly it may damage magnetic media that find themselves in the flux lines directly between receiver and transmitter. I believe the way to limit the distance that can be used is purely about current. Conversely the circuit is limited in capacity by this, putting too many loaded receiver circuits in its range will result in an overall diminution of power transfer to all of the devices.

Re:how it works

[argent]

My understanding is that this system is based on work by Nikola Tesla who discovered that it was possible to magnetically transmit power using resonance.

It's also the basis of radio receivers and transformers. Yes, every radio set is also a wireless power receiver, so of course you can transmit power inductively... but it's terribly inefficient.

Re:how it works

[TheRaven64]

And of every transformer and of every AC induction motor and of every electric toothbrush's induction charger and of the many death rays Tesla spent his later years working on. And, let's face it, that's why geeks love Tesla. There's something unbelievably cool about someone who:

1. Works out the principles used for a large subset of modern technology.
2. Completely fails to market it and goes bankrupt several times (on one occasion because he accidentally destroyed the local power substation with one of his experiments in broadcast power).
3. In later life, refused to shake hands with anyone for fear of catching a fatal disease and devoted his life to working on death rays.

Re:how it works

[argent]

Hey, Tesla was cool, I got a 100 dinar note right here just because it's got his picture on, but the guy who invented the induction coil was a regular geek named Stanley.

So...

[FlyingSquidStudios]

Will Nintendo adopt it? Because I want a Qi Wii. And assemble it in Finland so the factory's website will be QiWii.fi

Re:So...

[hey!]

And I want to be able to parasitically power other devices from it. Then I'd have a lychee wii qi.

Re:So...

[rabiddeity]

Why not New Zealand instead of Finland? Then you could have a Kiwi Qi Wii.

Re:So...

[FlyingSquidStudios]

Make it edible and you'll have a Chewy Kiwi Qi Wii.

Re:So...

[Merls the Sneaky]

As long as they don't have a tie in with syfy channel.

Re:So...

[liquidsin]

and the apple version would be the Kiwi iQi mini

Re:So...

[judgecorp]

I believe there's a wearable version to be hung round the neck, called a T'ai Chi. And one with a built-in percussion alarm, obviously a QiGong.

Re:So...

[tygerstripes]

...actually the name of a bay on the Southern Island, popular with land-yachters - Kiwichiwee

It'll never work

[sjames]

While 5 watts isn't much, I just can't see that many people being willing to become a Qigong master just so they can run an AP from their own natural energy. It takes decades of study to reach that level.

Most people these days are far too busy multitasking to even think about the focused mental effort required.

Re:Funny, EU just got a standard plug for mobile p

[PeanutButterBreath]

I'd be curious to know why in the land where consumers are king, products are often bloated, stripped down and late.

American consumers are king like cattle are king on the feedlot.

Re:Funny, EU just got a standard plug for mobile p

[supernova_hq]

Hmmm, I wonder how many companies will start making small adapters that plug into your old phone/pda/etc's power plug so they work with this new interface...

Re: Pronounced "Chee"

[dangitman]

Anyway, why spell it "Qi" when the Chinese/Japanese language does not use the Latin script ?

Because "Qi" is sexy-looking and just begs for an elegant logo. "Chee" looks horrible and cheap.

Once again, you demonstrate why technology nerds should never be allowed to name any product or technology.

Re: Pronounced "Chee"

[bencoder]

It's called pinyin and is the standard romanisation of Chinese characters. It is used in China and therefore they DO use the "latin script".

Re:Transliteration is dumb

[dangitman]

If it is pronounced "chee" why not spell it "chee?"

See my post here for an explanation.

Why must we bind ourselves to a transliteration table that winds up producing words that are pronounced nothing like how they are spelled, and further bastardize the English language?

How can you bastardize the English language, when it has always been bastardized? That's the appeal of the English language.

If you hadn't noticed, English is chock-full of words that aren't pronounced how they are spelled. It's a major aspect of the language's charm and beauty. Can you imagine how boring and hideous it would be if every word was spelled phonetically?

Re: Pronounced "Chee"

[quarterbuck]

I'll give you the logo part, it is difficult to make a logo around Chee.
But the "Sexy" part is debatable. I bet that a word that sounds like Kwee "sounds" cheap to Asian ears, while a word that sounds like Chee sounds sophisticated.I'll even bet that Chinese has a nice pictogram for Chee, while Kwee probably has none.
It is only to English speakers ear that Chee sounds cheap (mostly due to the similarity of the sounds), while Kwee sounds like greek Ki or royal (similar to Queen? ).

Re: Pronounced "Chee"

[newcastlejon]

What? It's not because we'd split into two camps: one that names things sensibly (read: boring), and another that gives everything a comic book gloss (read: juvenile)?

Frankly I'd be quite happy calling it by the IEEE designation.

Re:Transliteration is dumb

[Slartibartfass]

Can you imagine how boring and hideous it would be if every word was spelled phonetically?

You mean like, french?

Re:Health Issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your cell phone pumps out about 4W on a regular basis, and you keep it in your pocket next to your junk.

No, cell phones are NOT continuously pumping out 4 watts.

You are FAR off the mark with the claim of 4W.
It is more like 0.250 watts and below for your average cell phone. In fact, there are STRINGENT FCC restrictions on how much power you can put out within 20cm of your skin. Even laptops are restricted to the sub half-watt power range for their wireless and broadband cards. Usually 100mw in your Novatel broadband card.

we need a consotium for a magnetic field?

[Uzik2]

Seems kinda overkill to me.

Re:Health Issues?

[metamatic]

Try reading what I wrote. Nobody said cell phones are continuously pumping out 4W.

Wikipedia: "The radio waves emitted by a GSM handset, can have a peak power of 2 watts, and a US analogue phone had a maximum transmit power of 3.6 watts."

Like I said, cell phones regularly pump out about 4W.

This standard will fail

[Lershac]

Just because it has a name that is not intuitively pronounceable. Idiots.

Re:This standard will fail

[Fex303]

Just because it has a name that is not intuitively pronounceable. Idiots.

Yeah, just like Nintendo's latest console, which flopped because its name was both not intuitively pronounceable. Does anyone even remember the Wii?

Re:This standard will fail

[Lershac]

Uh, Wii IS intuitively pronounceable... Are you phonetically impaired?

Re:This standard will fail

[jo_ham]

Yeah, it sounds just like radii and genii, am I right?

Re:This standard will fail

[Lershac]

I dunno whats the matter with you, but I got it right, and everyone I know got it right immediately...

Re:This standard will fail

[jo_ham]

So did I - and I'm not the original poster btw. Initially having never heard it pronounced out loud before I was thinking that it could be "Why" or "Wee" - both are common pronunciations of double i - the fact that it's ambiguous is the issue here, not that it's difficult to pronounce.

The fist time I heard a Nintendo ad on the TV, one of the two possible legitimate pronunciations for the word was confirmed. Without knowing which way Nintendo was going with it (since they picked the name) it wouldn't be possible to state with 100% certainty whether it would be Wee or Why without asking them first.

Looking at the word radii, you'd perhaps assume that Wii would follow that pronunciation. Or perhaps it could follow the pronunciation of ennui, even though that only ends in a single i.

Re:This standard will fail

[Fex303]

The vowel sound in 'Wii' is usually written as 'ee' and sometimes 'ea' or just 'e', examples would include 'we', 'wee', 'weed', 'read' and so on.

As jo_ham posted, 'ii' in English is usually associated with an 'eye' pronounciation, which would have made the Wii, sound like it was called the 'why'.

I found Nintendo's attempt to force the 'ee' sound out of 'ii' baffling when I first heard it, but after a couple of minutes it made sense - when Romanising Japanese, double vowels mean a long pronounciation. So for native Japanese speakers, 'Wii' is intuitively phonetic. I'm still hoping they'll go back to calling the console the Revolution, personally.

As for phonetic impairment, not so much, but thanks for your concern.

Re: Pronounced "Chee"

[dangitman]

I bet that a word that sounds like Kwee "sounds" cheap to Asian ears,

But it doesn't sound like "Kwee" it sounds like "Chee" - so it has the best of both worlds.

It is only to English speakers ear that Chee sounds cheap

I never said that "Chee" sounds cheap. I said it looks cheap. It sounds perfectly fine to my ears, and most English speakers would know the word, with a significant minority actually participating in practices that use the concept.

Re: Pronounced "Chee"

[dangitman]

What? It's not because we'd split into two camps: one that names things sensibly (read: boring), and another that gives everything a comic book gloss (read: juvenile)?

What the hell are you talking about?

Let me be the first to say...

[Enuratique]

... QiQiQi ^_^

A solution looking for a problem.

[argent]

The best direction to go for a standard recharging interface is probably just to use USB, which is (ahem) universally available and already widely used for this task.

Re:Transliteration is dumb

[plasticsquirrel]

If it is pronounced "chee" why not spell it "chee?"

Why must we bind ourselves to a transliteration table that winds up producing words that are pronounced nothing like how they are spelled, and further bastardize the English language?

It's dumb. Nothing good comes of it.

"Qi" is pronounced as it is spelled. The "Q" letter is defined to make a "CH" sound in Pinyin ("CH" is a similar but slightly different sound in Pinyin). The "I" is defined to make an "EE" sound along with its respective inflection (sometimes marked with diacritics or by numbers). As for bastardizing the English language, it has nothing to do with the English language. It's a romanization of Chinese -- that is, a system for writing spoken Chinese with the Latin alphabet (not the English pronunciation of it). The previous Wades-Giles system was closer to English in its pronunciations ("Qi" was spelled "Ch'i"), but it was abandoned a few decades ago.

Suffice it to say, the people who developed Pinyin over 50 years ago did so to alleviate the problems of using the more English-friendly phonetic systems. Going back to them would be a huge mistake, as the English pronunciation of the alphabet can not cover spoken Chinese accurately.

Cooperation first? That is something different

[ouder]

The thing that interests me is the model they are using. The major players are coming to an agreement on a standard before releasing products. The pattern over the last couple of decades has been for every major player to develop their own proprietary system and then try to force the market to their standard. This more open model is at the root of most successful technologies. Take a look at the TV industry. There was one common standard. Any company with the expertise could build a TV that would work with all commercial TV broadcasts, and broadcasters could send to any manufacturer's TV's. If TV had been invented in the 1990's, I could only watch Sony broadcasts on my Sony TV. The modern PC is another example. The IBM-PC was an inferior design, but it was an open standard; anyone could make parts and software for an IBM-PC. This technology might be boring, environmentally evil, and make us all sterile, but I am still glad to see the way this is being released.

Re:Transliteration is dumb

[TheRaven64]

More like Spanish or Welsh. Welsh is most fun, because it is phonetic but uses a very different mapping between letters and sounds to English, meaning that you get words that look like they are made entirely of consonants, but when pronounced are almost entirely vowels.

Re:Health Issues?

[el3mentary]

Watt is the unit of Power?

I'm sorry I'll get my coat

Where's the magsafe connector for my iPhone?

[swb]

I'm fairly certain that the connector on my iphone will crap out way before the phone itself does, I wish there was a magsafe power port either as a usable subset of the connector or a seperate charging port.

As often as an iPhone needs to be charged, I don't see the edged connector lasting very long.

Re:Transliteration is dumb

[g0at]

Are you saying that you've had enough, and that we should always write phonetically?... or are you saying that yu'v had enuf, and that we shud alwayz rite foneticalee?

b

Re:Transliteration is dumb

[CastrTroy]

Makes me think of the word Crwth. Doesn't sound entirely like vowels, but makes a nice scabble word.

Re: Pronounced "Chee"

[Ian Alexander]

Anyway, why spell it "Qi" when the Chinese/Japanese language does not use the Latin script ?

Because Qi is the Pinyin transliteration, and Pinyin is pretty much as close as you can get to standard. Chinese and Japanese don't use the Latin script but there most certainly do exist standards to transcribe them consistently.

It gets a little hairy with Chinese, but that's how you write it and is sexier than both "Chee" and "Chi" (the now-outmoded Wade-Giles way of transliterating it).

Re: Pronounced "Chee"

[magarity]

why spell it "Qi" when the Chinese/Japanese language does not use the Latin script ?
 
Wrong - they most certainly do, in their own way. Type 'qi' with your keyboard language setting set to chinese and you will get a choice of characters all pronounced 'chee'. Otherwise chinese keyboards would have to be the size of a large room. It's also how chinese people type text messages on a cell phone's keypad. All modern educated chinese people use latin characters as easily as people who use it for their native languages.
 
In addition to 'life energy', the same pronunciation can also mean 'wife' or 'angry'. Ah, the wisdom of the ancient chinese...
 
Oh, and 'qi' can also be the number 7 although for how that ties in to the other three you'll have to ask a numerologiist.

Re:Funny, EU just got a standard plug for mobile p

[maxume]

Of just batteries that work with the interface.

Re:Transliteration is dumb

[Wizzu]

Finnish is spelled (mostly) phonetically, and while it's hard if not impossible to be objective being a native speaker, I don't find it at all boring or hideous. There's definite advantages as well, ie. when you read any word, you know how to pronounce it, even if you might not know what it means.

Re:Time to buy stock

[fractoid]

Chemicals, man, they're everywhere!

Re: Pronounced "Chee"

[dangitman]

Well, Chi/Qi is not exclusive to Tai Chi. Yoga, meditation, etc. also use it in different forms. As for it being a rip-off of the "real thing", that's almost meaningless in this field, where every devotee of a different style believes that their way is the "true way" and that their teacher is the best.

Re:Transliteration is dumb

[dangitman]

Well, I don't know anything about Finnish. You describe it in a utilitarian sense. That's fine, a language does have to be useful for communication. But as an English speaker, a lot of the enjoyment of the language comes from the weird and wonderful words that only make sense through some sort of archaic historical reconstruction, or "quirks mode."

I'm not saying that other languages need to have these quirks to be interesting - I'm just saying that in the context of English it is meaningful. Some of the quirks inspire one to further research history, which would probably not be the case if they were simply phonetic.

I also question the value in being able to pronounce words that one does not understand. I believe that people should not be using words they don't understand in the first place.

Re:Funny, EU just got a standard plug for mobile p

[Dutch Gun]

I'd be curious to know why in the land where consumers are king, products are often bloated, stripped down and late.

I'd say you would think that because you've likely never lived in a place without an overabundance of inexpensively made goods and amazingly high living standards. Seriously, just shop around, and you can find quality if that's what you're looking for, or you can find cheap and disposable, and just about everything in-between. We have an incredible wealth of options in the market (except for the occasional government sponsored monopoly, like cable).

Honestly, I'm trying to figure out why you think we have it so bad here in the US. Seriously, you're jealous of the EU version of Windows? Or was that a joke that I missed?

Re:Health Issues?

[jhol13]

Comparing the peak power of GSM to average power of this system is misleading at best (gsm transmits only 1/8 of the time due to TDM) and a lie at worst (GSM power control almost always pushes the level 10-20dB below that).

Then 2W max is on 850/900MHz, 1800/1900 has max 1W.

Re:Transliteration is dumb

[shutdown -p now]

The real point of having "write as you speak, speak as you read" orthography is to be able to immediately pronounce the word as soon as you read it - whether in a dictionary, or in the book (where its meaning is usually clear from context).

Re:Funny, EU just got a standard plug for mobile p

[RAMMS EIN]

``I see the EU being first in a lot of consumer areas. Their own version of Windows, devices that are released in Europe before the US and now a standard mobile phone adapter. I'd be curious to know why in the land where consumers are king, products are often bloated, stripped down and late.''

Hmm, I don't think the EU is first for all of those. Standard mobile phone adapter, didn't China have that first? New devices are usually released in Japan, Taiwain, or Hong Kong before they come to the EU.

As for the EU (think "without Microsoft Internet Explorer") version of Windows, I'm still waiting to see how that plays out. But I think you're right that the EU had it first.

Re:Health Issues?

[pinkushun]

Good point, and some of us also have metal through those parts. Rule out unhealthy health concerns.

Pantsu!

[ME-tan]

...kudasai I came for the chobits references, was disappointed...

Re:Funny, EU just got a standard plug for mobile p

[notmyusualnickname]

Been (or being, at least) done.

I can't find the site in question, but they had about half a dozen adapters to go with their charging plate.

Pricy though. (~$80?)

Re: Pronounced "Chee"

[initialE]

But I Adamo the Qi! It's tomorrow's Bing! Can't wait to Tweet about it!

Re:Pronounced "Chee"

[sqldr]

how the hell is "Qi" pronounced "chee"?

Meanwhile, the alternative name is aiouxclvkjw, pronounced "bullshit".

Re:Transliteration is dumb

[dangitman]

What about them?

All from Tesla's work

[hesaigo999ca]

Nokola Tesla, was responsible for this technology because he had vision far beyond what most people could ever dream of having, here is his biography!

I wish we could try to find more of these types of people and invest in giving them access to certain technologies which as most people know if what makes them great. Most inventors usually look at some technology and think, why not do it this way, or if we try to change this over here, we might get better results.

The problem is finding these men (as most know it is the men that invent...) and making education of the technologies availabel, seeing as many sometimes come from an impoverished background. I guess you could call it the international think tank project, but it would definitely result in some new and fresh ideas!!

Pacemakers?

[dazedNconfuzed]

Any risks regarding those of us with pacemakers? (I know this is /., but forgive me as I ask an honest question.)

I've been warned against getting too close to radio transmitters and other electromagnetic sources (cradling a cell phone on my left shoulder where the implant is, letting earphones dangle near my wiring, running chainsaws and other small engines/motors within arm's reach, etc.) Having a wireless power transmitter nearby sounds like a legitimate concern. Being a cyborg (literally) brings new personal meaning to the term "fatal error"...

Re:Health Issues?

[Rockoon]

9000?!

There's no way that can be right!

Re:Health Issues?

[metamatic]

Well, the "cell phones cause cancer" folks claim that the bursty nature of GSM EM radiation exposure is exactly what makes it dangerous.

Re:Transliteration is dumb

[hesiod]

Uh... maybe that being able to pronounce them properly is important? Did you even bother thinking about the question he asked?

Pinyin doesn't make sense

[phorm]

I've never understood the concept of Pinyin.
In most euro-derived languages I know (and Europe being the original of that character set), "sh" pronounces the same sound, as does the letter "Q", etc. Obviously some things vary and certain characters may be added for various languages, but there are some fairly strong commonalities that Pinyin just seems to break.

so why would Pinyin use "Xi", (such as in Xiao, with "X" pronounced as 'sh'), or Qi pronounced as 'Ch'? Is there some standard for this, or did some person way back them just decide "well, we should use these symbols but pronounce them differently"

My girlfriend is Chinese, as well as many of my friends, but nobody seems to know the origin of this.

Re:Pinyin doesn't make sense

[badkarmadayaccount]

My girlfriend...

You don't exist, go away!

Re: Pronounced "Chee"

[phorm]

In addition to 'life energy', the same pronunciation can also mean 'wife' or 'angry'.

Maybe ancient Chinese had that one right. Seems it would make it easy to point out that "my PMS'ing wife is sucking the life outta me" :-)

Efficiency?

[MobyDisk]

In a world where companies are being pressured to reduce the standby power consumption of devices, when electricity prices are rising, while "wall warts" are wasting a significant amount of power... are we sure this is a good time to trade efficiency for convenience?

Re: Pronounced "Chee"

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Anyway, why spell it "Qi" when the Chinese/Japanese language does not use the Latin script ?

Pinyin is the standard method of Romanization -- using latin script to represent the phonetics of languages not written in the roman alphabet -- for Mandarin Chinese. Each letter/letter group has a specific phonetic pronunciation under this system - and "q" represent "ch". (As far as the deeper reasons - why that was chosen in the first place - I have no idea.

Data vacuum

[Fantastic Lad]

Oh, bullshit. Real energy can be defined and quantified. It's even a standard unit.

First of all, let me very clear; When I use the word 'Energy' to describe 'chi' or whatever it is, I am not intending to attach the same measures and values as are connected with the term 'energy' as understood by classical physics. The word is used because it embraces some of the perceived characteristics of 'chi'. It's a useful word in this regard and that is all. But you knew that already, so let's move on. . .

I don't think it's a flaw in science that proponents of "energy" or "qi" can't actually define their terms.

Then you are not thinking. I explained it clearly enough the first time. . .

It's hard to test for in the kind of way which would establish things once and for all because our technology and scientific understanding of reality hasn't worked out how to define or measure 'energy', and so it is discounted. It also seems to be tightly linked to awareness; if you don't believe it should be there, then it tends to obey. While quantum theory allows some space for such things, more traditional approaches to science have a lot of difficulty accepting that some aspects of reality exist relative to the state of the observer.

We're talking about a force (or group of forces) which are intimately related to thought. Why is it so difficult to believe that awareness and the intentions of the observer might be a component of its being measurable? If such a force existed, it would pose interesting problems for traditional measurement techniques; you have to grant that much even if we are being purely hypothetical.

Things we can see in the observable world tend to not care whether or not we believe in them. We would like to believe Earth is the center of the Universe, but that doesn't match our observations.

Really? This is actually one of those thousand year-old unprovable philosophical problems. You cannot prove that the world really exists beyond your own mind. Surely you are not suggesting that you have found an answer to this puzzle? But I do, of course, get your point. Reality is squishy, but it's not the sort of thing which can be manipulated whole cloth. It can, though, be manipulated. Energy, as it pertains to, say, sending messages from one mind to another over long distances, tends not to work so well when angry people are scowling and really, really wanting the phenomenon to fail. The real question is WHY they want it to fail so intensely. Perhaps you can answer that.

Furthermore, if it's defined as "life force", as cparker15 does, does this mean that if I stop believing in it, I'll die?

Actually, yes. But as with all people, your mind is an unholy mess of conflicting nonsense and multiple squabbling automatic personalities with competing prerogatives over which you have very little actual control, so I wouldn't worry too much. There are deeper parts of your mind which are in charge of most of your awareness which, luckily for you, your conscious layer has little to do with.

Actually, we know a fair amount about bias, and the placebo effect, and so on.

Nor is it entirely untestable. Get a few dozen people who believe Qi exists, and have them run the experiments, properly recorder. Then have impartial observers interpret the data.

What makes you think this has not been done? It has been, many times. While I hate to invoke the Doug Henning brigade, the Transcendental Meditation people have mountains of work studying their claims. The Washington meditation experiment with over 10,000 participants and the marked reduction in crime thing was an interesting example which springs to mind, and no doubt you will have heard of it. But you'd have to read through the information there yourself, which you won't. The rejection of this kind of research is a very concrete example of energy not working for those who don't want to see it. When presen

Re:Data vacuum

[walshy007]

This argument illustrates the larger point very well, namely that you've already made up your mind, you think you are right,

And you are saying you have not?, with the fervour of your replies?

Yes, I understand how the scientific method works. And yes, there certainly is such science done, though it rarely survives the nearly ad-hom bitch-fest which occurs with unpopular studies.

That's the thing with science... if people bitch at you because X wasn't taken into account, you do it with X taken into account and they tend to shut up and accept things when you get repeatable scientific results

This is actually one of those thousand year-old unprovable philosophical problems. You cannot prove that the world really exists beyond your own mind.

I also cannot prove there is no tooth fairy, or god, it is impossible to prove negatives such as this.

Proponents of chi energy etc strike me as similar people to those who willingly believe in god, it is all well and good to believe in whatever you like, but don't pretend that science is on your side in these things.

Re:Data vacuum

[Fantastic Lad]

And you are saying you have not?, with the fervour of your replies?

Well, there's a difference. In the first place, I made up my mind after studying the evidence on both sides in earnest. Most simply never do this because it takes work, choosing instead to sell their minds to the intellectual authorities.

In the second place, I am entirely willing to un-make up my mind should anybody raise a valid point. --Even on Slashdot, this does happen, forcing me to modify and re-build the knowledge structure I carry around. But one can only do this when the ego is under control and when one is being honest with oneself. The poster I was replying to "with such fervor" was being rude, thoughtless and dismissive, so my response, annoyed as it sounded, did fall within the bounds of appropriate behavior. I never know quite how to proceed with such people; in this case a face smack was what I settled on because it seemed he wasn't entirely lost and might simply have needed a kick-start. Chances are he will not likely forgive me for poking at his pride, but in a few years he might actually be able to overcome his ego and take a step outside of his bubble. That's how Slashdot works best; as a kind of crucible. We all choose to come here and participate, so the Free Will issue is partly answered in this manner.

That's the thing with science... if people bitch at you because X wasn't taken into account, you do it with X taken into account and they tend to shut up and accept things when you get repeatable scientific results

That's the difference between science and religion. . . With a religion, people bitch about X not being taken into account when really X WAS taken into account. It's simply easier to make quick, false assumptions and stick one's head back into one's dogma than it is to honestly read and consider the documentation. Most sceptics are about as far from being followers of science as those machine-gun toting 'Christian' soldiers in Iraq are followers of the 10 commandments. --I'm not condoning religion by any means, but the point remains valid.

-FL

Re:Data vacuum

[SanityInAnarchy]

being rude, thoughtless and dismissive,

Rude and dismissive, I'll grant you, but not thoughtless.

And there's a reason for that. It gets your attention, and it's a way of cutting quickly to the point. For example, you claimed that energy could not be quantified, and I showed that it can. You're now claiming that you weren't talking about the same kind of energy -- but why can't Qi be quantified?

Certainly, there was a time when electricity could not be quantified, and those bold enough to suggest that we'd be able to quantify lightning would've been seen as eccentric, to say the least.

in this case a face smack was what I settled on because it seemed he wasn't entirely lost and might simply have needed a kick-start.

That was pretty much my purpose.

So, now I'll actually reply...

Re:Data vacuum

[SanityInAnarchy]

The word is used because it embraces some of the perceived characteristics of 'chi'. It's a useful word in this regard and that is all.

But it does illustrate my point -- energy, among many other strange things, once beyond comprehension, can now be clearly quantified.

Then you are not thinking. I explained it clearly enough the first time. . .

That's not a definition, that's a cop-out.

More seriously, read it again -- it's not a definition. You're defining all of the reasons I shouldn't be able to detect it, but not what it is, or what it does.

If such a force existed, it would pose interesting problems for traditional measurement techniques;

Not entirely -- we already have an effect which depends on the thought and mental state of the individual. It's called the Placebo effect, and it's well documented and repeatedly measured.

More specifically, the Placebo effect, the healing power of laughter, and other, similar things, all suffer from the same flaws you mention -- that they depend on the mental state of the subject.

None of them depend on the mental state of the examiner, and certainly, they don't depend on the mental state of the individual who later analyzes the resultant data.

But let's suppose you're right. This presents a problem for you -- see, science is the most reliable way we have of understanding the world, and of knowing what's true and what's not. If science doesn't work to detect something, it becomes very difficult to know very much about it.

You cannot prove that the world really exists beyond your own mind.

This is true, but it also doesn't matter. You see, I can perform reliable and repeatable experiments that will tell me the nature of the universe-that-appears-to-exist. Even if it's an elaborate dream or simulation, the scientific method gives me a greater understanding of how that simulation works, and what I can expect from it.

Indeed, as I'm a software developer, I often do some computer science of my own -- and while I know that none of the software is actually "real", it still behaves in a certain way when I do certain things.

Oh, by the way, tell me again that I'm simply following intellectual authorities. I've read the Tao Te Ching, I've read David Hume, and I've made up my own mind.

Energy, as it pertains to, say, sending messages from one mind to another over long distances, tends not to work so well when angry people are scowling and really, really wanting the phenomenon to fail.

Are you telling me that it tends to work when people really, really want the phenomenon to succeed -- yet are still keeping to protocol?

Actually, yes.... There are deeper parts of your mind....

In other words, you're telling me that there's a deeper part of my mind that believes in Qi.

Aside from the fact that this seems absurd on its face, can you tell me how you know that?

While I hate to invoke the Doug Henning brigade, the Transcendental Meditation people have mountains of work studying their claims.

I live in Fairfield, IA. I was raised in the Movement, and was taught TM at a very early age. I know of what I speak.

They suffer from the success effect -- they have their mountains of research, but I'm too lazy to evaluate it all when I can see a few places where it fails absurdly. For example, you're describing the Maharishi Effect, the idea that a sufficient portion of the population practicing TM, or especially the Sidhis, will affect all aspects of society for the better.

Quantifying this as crime rate, perhaps it's worked in the past, but you'd think it would work in Fairfield. Not at all -- in fact, one student stabbed another to death in the MUM cafeteria (Annapurna) in 2

Re:Data vacuum

[Fantastic Lad]

Rude and dismissive, I'll grant you, but not thoughtless.

Well, there are many kinds of thoughts. I was referring to those which were graceful, precise and wise.

And there's a reason for that. It gets your attention, and it's a way of cutting quickly to the point.

You weren't reasoning. You were reacting automatically, that is all. You are now beginning to engage reason. There's no point to any of this without being honest with ourselves, which, granted, is very hard to do. Our automatic selves are in control most of the time and everybody has to fight with it.

For example, you claimed that energy could not be quantified, and I showed that it can. You're now claiming that you weren't talking about the same kind of energy -- but why can't Qi be quantified?

Now claiming? No, you just mis-understood me from the start. --While I am not the clearest of writers at all times, in this case I don't see how it was possible for you to misinterpret my words unless you were reading too quickly with your mind actively repelling reality in favor of your biases. But again, that's fairly normal.

That was pretty much my purpose.

I doubt it. What is more likely is that you're simply trying to lie to yourself retroactively in order to maintain self-respect.

So, now I'll actually reply...

Very good. I will too.

Re:Data vacuum

[Fantastic Lad]

But it does illustrate my point -- energy, among many other strange things, once beyond comprehension, can now be clearly quantified.

Okay. That's a fine point.

"Energy" (as I use the term in the context of Qi, or Chi or Auras or what have you), has NOT yet been clearly quantified. We're not there yet. This doesn't mean it cannot be quantified or that we don't need a word to describe in an umbrella sense the set of phenomenon which people experience. I don't, however, see the scientific community reaching any sort of consensus on what Chi is when they are so incredibly hostile towards the possibility of even looking vaguely in its direction. Maybe it'll take another 100 years. Who knows?

That's not a definition, that's a cop-out.

I wasn't trying to give you a definition. A cop-out implies sneakiness. I'm not being sneaky. I honestly don't know how to define it. --I'm just offering some possible reasons why 'Energy' has defied definition thus far.

Not entirely -- we already have an effect which depends on the thought and mental state of the individual. It's called the Placebo effect, and it's well documented and repeatedly measured.

More specifically, the Placebo effect, the healing power of laughter, and other, similar things, all suffer from the same flaws you mention -- that they depend on the mental state of the subject.

None of them depend on the mental state of the examiner, and certainly, they don't depend on the mental state of the individual who later analyzes the resultant data.

The Placebo Effect is an umbrella term which covers a whole lot of ground, thus it is not easily quantified. And it offers a wonderful example of the way in which the sciences are (inappropriately) governed by emotional biases among researchers. When the "Placebo Effect" can make head-aches and body pains go away, (or alternatively appear), then it is clear that intention and belief in the subject do indeed exert a very powerful influence over the state of the subject. Researchers accept this reality and all it well and good.

But if you dare call some aspects of the "Placebo Effect" the result instead of "Energy Manipulation", why suddenly everybody gets terribly upset, refuses to study the phenomenon on grounds that it offends their personal Bullshit-Meter, denies that the phenomenon exists, demands that the term be defined exactly and generally gets all huffy and stubborn. Emotionalism exists in the sciences. It shouldn't be, because I agree, the scientific approach is a marvel, but it is easily as corruptible as any human agency by ego and fear.

This is true, but it also doesn't matter. You see, I can perform reliable and repeatable experiments that will tell me the nature of the universe-that-appears-to-exist. Even if it's an elaborate dream or simulation, the scientific method gives me a greater understanding of how that simulation works, and what I can expect from it.

Of course it does. But if you agree that you and everything around you may merely be elaborate thought patterns, then it is also reasonable to agree that thoughts might carry more influence than you are currently allowing for. People often forget that they are PART of the system they are experimenting within, and that they do not fully understand all the forces at play.

Are you telling me that it tends to work when people really, really want the phenomenon to succeed -- yet are still keeping to protocol?

I'd be happy to attempt an answer here, but I confess I'm not entirely clear what you are asking.

In other words, you're telling me that there's a deeper part of my mind that believes in Qi. Aside from the fact that this seems absurd on its face, can you tell me how you know that?

I don't know that, because you've put it into "other words" which I didn't say, which are deliberately made to sound absurd and which do poor service to my actual meaning, (and which, I might add, is a rather chee

Re:Data vacuum

[SanityInAnarchy]

in this case I don't see how it was possible for you to misinterpret my words unless you were reading too quickly with your mind actively repelling reality...

That, or I was taking you at your word. You said "energy", so I used that word the way I understand it.

If you meant something different, the problem is that pseudoscientific people use the word "energy" to refer to all kinds of stuff. Kind of like science fiction and "Quantum Flux" (which could also be "subspace") -- it's a convenient term that people sort of understand, so you steal it to describe something different. Eventually, the term loses all practical meaning -- kind of like "cloud computing".

What's more, I would think you'd be excited at the prospect that Qi could be measured -- in Joules, no less. Were this the case, it'd certainly give your position more credibility. Oh well.

What is more likely is that you're simply trying to lie to yourself retroactively...

I have to ask: Do you actually listen to yourself? Do you realize how you've managed to sound both incredibly silly and highly offensive here?

But no, it's not really worth having much of a discussion with someone who's going to call me a liar to my face (and then whine about me being ad-hom). But let's see what you've got in the other thread.

Re:Data vacuum

[SanityInAnarchy]

When the "Placebo Effect" can make head-aches and body pains go away, (or alternatively appear), then it is clear that intention and belief in the subject do indeed exert a very powerful influence over the state of the subject. Researchers accept this reality and all it well and good.

Yes -- it's an observed fact.

But if you dare call some aspects of the "Placebo Effect" the result instead of "Energy Manipulation", why suddenly everybody gets terribly upset, refuses to study the phenomenon on grounds that it offends their personal Bullshit-Meter, denies that the phenomenon exists, demands that the term be defined exactly and generally gets all huffy and stubborn.

Ah... then, you're claiming this is an attempt to explain why the Placebo Effect happens?

You may be mistaking derisive laughter for "huffiness". Sure, you can suggest anything, but it's pure speculation without making it testable and falsifiable. The Placebo Effect has been verified to exist, but it also seems quite likely that it could be shown to work with nothing other than chemicals and hormones we already understand.

It's similar to the actions of some religious people -- find something we don't understand yet, (or more often, something they don't understand yet,) claim it's some impossible, not-understandable problem, and substitute "God did it." This looks very much like what you've done here: We know the Placebo effect exists, we don't know exactly how it works, thus, "Energy did it."

But if you agree that you and everything around you may merely be elaborate thought patterns, then it is also reasonable to agree that thoughts might carry more influence than you are currently allowing for.

But without evidence to back that up, it's not useful.

For example: It could well be that whenever I think the word "Pasta", the Flying Spaghetti Monster comes and alters my results. Certainly, this fits with the "universe-is-a-simulation" theory -- why wouldn't the simulators have a sick sense of humor? But I can't reasonably adjust my mental state for all possibilities, any more than I could come up with a Pascal's Wager that covers all religions.

Are you telling me that it tends to work when people really, really want the phenomenon to succeed -- yet are still keeping to protocol?

I'd be happy to attempt an answer here, but I confess I'm not entirely clear what you are asking.

Well, it seems like you're claiming that the phenomenon fails when people want it to fail, and succeeds when they want it to succeed. So it seems that if you had a group of scientists who want it to succeed, sticking strictly to protocol and method to compensate for their own bias, you could show the phenomenon to exist -- and you could even make it repeatable.

I haven't heard of experiments like this, though.

I don't know that, because you've put it into "other words" which I didn't say, which are deliberately made to sound absurd and which do poor service to my actual meaning, (and which, I might add, is a rather cheeky form of argument which I'm sure has a long Latin name).

If I did so deliberately, no Latin, it'd just be a Strawman argument.

Your current mind is constantly moving thoughts around, and invoking emotional reactions, etc. It's also doing the grunt work of making your heart pump and your various organs do their thing. Whether or not at your conscious layer you believe that any of this is happening, these systems will carry on. Energy is just another system.

Ah -- but this also provides no means by which I could verify this phenomenon. My heart beats, and this does change with my mental state, but I can't consciously stop my heart, nor can I observe my brain regulating it -- I can only externally measure it, by, for example, taking my pulse.

Also, while the act of takin

Re:Funny, EU just got a standard plug for mobile p

[supernova_hq]

Not if they aren't the ones selling the product in the first place (3rd party).