Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wireless Charging Tech Adopted By Ford, Chrysler, and Toyota Goes Open Source

Posted by timothy on from the cautious-optimism dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The in-vehicle wireless charging technology adopted by Ford, Chrysler, Dodge, RAM, and Toyota has been released to the public domain without royalties or licenses. This technology that you probably never heard of before is in 12 vehicles; more vehicles than all the other wireless charging standards combined. The open standard web page shows schematics, app notes, and certification information to get companies to make compatible wireless charging products.

75 comments

  1. Oh lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ultimate Safety: No electromagnetic fields to fear. Zero risk of cancer!

    Holy shit I facepalmed.

    1. Re:Oh lord... by Nabeel_co · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The thing that pisses me off most about the whole "Cell phones/EMFs cause cancer" thing is that it takes attention away from what damage they really do.

      Very few people know that it's actually been proven that Cell phones cause bone density loss, especially in older people. So if you are always keeping your cell phone in the same pocket for many years, years down the line, that hip has a high chance of becoming frail because the mild heating affect of the EM can cause premature cell death.

      Of course people are too worried that they are going to get cancer from their cell phone -- which has been proven time and time again to not be a thing -- and instead don't learn about the real risks.

    2. Re:Oh lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that the EMF of the cellphone would likely be stronger than sny EMF from the wireless charger. The point reeks of stupidity.

    3. Re:Oh lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing that pisses me off most about the whole "Cell phones/EMFs cause cancer" thing is that it takes attention away from what damage they really do.

      Very few people know that it's actually been proven that Cell phones cause bone density loss, especially in older people. So if you are always keeping your cell phone in the same pocket for many years, years down the line, that hip has a high chance of becoming frail because the mild heating affect of the EM can cause premature cell death.

      Of course people are too worried that they are going to get cancer from their cell phone -- which has been proven time and time again to not be a thing -- and instead don't learn about the real risks.

      I heard about that on Coast to Coast AM. And maybe Dr. Oz.

    4. Re:Oh lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Proven" except that the study says it's not statistically significant.

    5. Re: Oh lord... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Are you sure that it was not on Dr. Demento?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    6. Re:Oh lord... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Feel like comparing the occasional study that keeps the EMF-from-electrical-fields meme going to the long-established data on cancer from benzene derivatives?

    7. Re:Oh lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but NIH is in on the conspiracy between the cell companies, big pharma and the Reptilians.

    8. Re: Oh lord... by MondoGordo · · Score: 1

      I thought they were the same person ...

    9. Re:Oh lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never trust Homo reptilious!

    10. Re:Oh lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, it probably does cause cancer in California.

    11. Re:Oh lord... by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      No, it reeks of careful presentation/marketing and preempting the inevitable media scaremongering (it uses radio waves, it must be killing children).

    12. Re:Oh lord... by Nabeel_co · · Score: 1

      Hmm, Interesting. Well then I guess even that's out the window!

      The only reason I had given that theory any credit in the past was because I know someone who was suffering bone loss on the one side of their hip, and the doctor had said that it was due to the cell phone.

      I went home and researched it, and low and behold these studies were being conducted, and the info seemed to suggest at that time that there was a link, but that was a good 6-7 years ago... I didn't bother checking for new developments.

      My bad.

  2. Not Wireless by Cytotoxic · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is not exactly wireless... It is not "hard wired' in that you don't plug in a cable. The technology uses a system of electric strips of alternating polarity and a pattern of contact pickups on the device to connect to the strips. It is cool, and should be much better than wireless in terms of efficiency.

    1. Re: Not Wireless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it. Where are the roads with these powered strips? And where are the contacts, on the tires? Why not just have powered rails and brushes?

      (P.S. This comment is based on a misreading of the information.)

    2. Re:Not Wireless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The downsides to this
      1) it's clearly not going to work if you have a case on your phone, unless that case was designed to support it via pass through contacts. I don't currently use any wireless charging, but my understanding (which may be wrong) was that a Qi capable phone was still able to charge when it has a case on it, and the case doesn't need to support the Qi standard.

      2) It seems like it would have contact issues.If for any reason the phone isn't sitting completely flat, the contacts won't connect and the phone wont charge.

      3) https://xkcd.com/927/

    3. Re:Not Wireless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So there are no wires? Um, doesn't that make it wireless? But you will get +5 insightful

    4. Re:Not Wireless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The downsides to this
      1) it's clearly not going to work if you have a case on your phone, unless that case was designed to support it via pass through contacts. I don't currently use any wireless charging, but my understanding (which may be wrong) was that a Qi capable phone was still able to charge when it has a case on it, and the case doesn't need to support the Qi standard.

      2) It seems like it would have contact issues.If for any reason the phone isn't sitting completely flat, the contacts won't connect and the phone wont charge.

      3) https://xkcd.com/927/

      Given that this is an open, royalty-free standard, there is nothing to say that a Qi charging pad couldn't be powered (wire-free) by this standard. If that is what you want. This is exactly why it is a far more flexible solution. If someone comes out with a Qi rival tomorrow that blows Qi away, this standard interface is still there, ready to accept the newer, shinier, hipster-approved web-3.0-send-all-your-charging-stats-to-the-cloud charging pad.

    5. Re:Not Wireless by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      15v or 19v watch how many companies will put a cheap LDO to get it down to a usable voltage like IDK say 5v. When it's in a case that then connects to USB. Watch as 2/3 to 3/4 goes into waste heat before even hitting the phone. What phones directly support this "standard". Looks like Car companies want to sell ya some cheap metal strips and call it a feature.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    6. Re:Not Wireless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, it's actually different. The word wireless actually has a very specific definition

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wireless

      Notice that the definitions all center around using radio waves for the actual transmission.

    7. Re:Not Wireless by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      my understanding (which may be wrong) was that a Qi capable phone was still able to charge when it has a case on it, and the case doesn't need to support the Qi standard.

      2) It seems like it would have contact issues.If for any reason the phone isn't sitting completely flat,

      It seems like herein would lie the rub, but from what I've read, Qi devices are pretty much the same way if you have a case on your phone. They're not that sensitive to alignment if you don't have a case, but if you do, then they are. They can handle the distance or a bit of misalignment but not both. The slim cases present the least problem but also provide the least protection.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Not Wireless by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      This is not exactly wireless... It is not "hard wired' in that you don't plug in a cable. The technology uses a system of electric strips of alternating polarity and a pattern of contact pickups on the device to connect to the strips. It is cool, and should be much better than wireless in terms of efficiency.

      Exactly. This is a wired technology. The device needs to make electrical contact with the charging pad strips. Just because it doesn't require a traditional cable or plug doesn't change that fact. The open dots alliance page actually refers to it as "wire-free" technology, referring to the fact that you don't need a cable. The article writers are misunderstanding the technology and substituting wireless for cable free.

      It would be interesting to see just how this technology works. After all, you won't be able to just toss a device on it. It looks like you will have to place it. Also, you won't be able to place devices in different orientations unless they are connected to differing circuits as the +/- would be reversed for one of them.

      Finally, since these are electrical contacts, they will likely be subject to wear, breakage, corrosion, etc.

    9. Re: Not Wireless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a whole explanation in the fact that there's 4 points of connection to a rectifier bridge. So at least one will be on a positive and one will be on a negative. No matter which way it's sitting as long as it's completely on the of. The cell phone/case/gps/whatever has the rectifier bridge on it. To make sure the current is going in the right direction.

    10. Re:Not Wireless by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      My Qi capable phones have *not* been able to charge with the cases on. At least not any reasonably substantial one. Why in the world I can't find a case that does have pass-through contacts is beyond me.

    11. Re:Not Wireless by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Seems that some metal charging contacts on the back of the devices would be the way to go. Cases could just have pass-through contacts as previously mentioned. Then you can just walk in somewhere, set your phone down on the table, and have electricity. No connectors that wear out. No crawling under tables for sockets. We managed to get all cars to have the same fuel filler holes. We got all phones to be micro-USB (thanks to European Union regulations) So this seems a logical next step. My guess is that the EU will adopt a contact charging standard that the device and case manufacturers have to use and then it will become ubiquitous

    12. Re:Not Wireless by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      The qi charger in my Camry has trouble charging my S6 even without a case on it.

      I have two 3 coil qi chargers (one at work and one at home). They work great. I always end up breaking my charger ports so it's very nice for me to only need to use that port when transferring files between my phone and computer.

    13. Re:Not Wireless by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      I had this problem until I purchased a CHOE Stadium Qi Wireless Charger

      http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...

      The one I had before was 3 coils two with a nice kickstand. I liked the idea of that since it would be easier to use the phone while charging but it would just start then stop charging. The beeps really got on my nerves and my phone would be dead by morning

  3. cordless phone charger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's essentially a tweaked version of a portable phone charger. But instead of two contacts in the caddy/base station, there are a series of points arranged so it can be placed in any position. Still plenty of chances for shorting.

    "Safety – No electromagnetic fields are used. Zero risk of cancer claimed." -- Metal contacts will do that
    "High Power – The technology can deliver up to 160 Watts" -- It could do more or less depending on how the manufacturer designs it
    "Power Diversity – High and low power devices can operate side-by-side on a pad" -- This is a function of the thing being charged.
    "Bulk Charging – A pad will charge as many devices as will fit on its surface" -- Well done. They've learned about parallel circuits.
    "High Efficiency – Efficiency is nearly 100%" -- touching the contacts togeth/er will do that
    "Low Cost – The technology is inherently low-cost." -- What about reliability

    1. Re:cordless phone charger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      regrading 100% efficiency -
      the standard calls for 2 rectifier diodes in the current path, which causes a small drop (good schottkey drops about 0.4v each). This is why the charging voltage is 15v-20v, to minimize the losses.

    2. Re:cordless phone charger by Quince+alPillan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my mouse had similar tech. You dropped it into a cradle and it would charge...

      Unfortunately, it had the nasty problem of the contacts corroding or wearing off, preventing it from charging. Given that it was corroding in a mostly temperature and humidity controlled environment, I won't give good odds to these things lasting in a hot and muggy car.

    3. Re: cordless phone charger by smaddox · · Score: 1

      That is likely due to the lack of a sensing circuit. If you turn off the voltage when there's no item to charge, corrosion should be greatly supposed.

    4. Re:cordless phone charger by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Lack of device support makes it all pointless. Many devices already have Qi and users are happy with it. We don't need another standard that will be dead in a few years.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. wirefree not quite the same as wireless by Maxwell · · Score: 1
    From their site: Guaranteed Safe – No electromagnetic fields are used. Zero risk of cancer.

    Random Placement – Devices receive power at any position or orientation on a pad.

    High Power – The technology can deliver up to 160 Watts

    Power Diversity – High and low power devices can operate side-by-side on a pad

    Bulk Charging – A pad will charge as many devices as will fit on its surface

    High Efficiency – Efficiency is nearly 100%

    Low Cost – The technology is inherently low-cost.

    ----------------

    This is toted as 'wire free' not through-the-air-gap wireless.

    Could work, but phones with a rounded back (looks at g3 sadly) need not apply....

  5. so what happens by rossdee · · Score: 3, Funny

    if you put your tinfoil hat on that charging surface?

    1. Re:so what happens by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      if you put your tinfoil hat on that charging surface?

      You turn into one of the lizard people which you already knew.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  6. Another standard... why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We already have Qi which has some adoption; I've been using it in my car since the Nexus 4. Drop and go is beautiful; it's very convenient. Qi is the one missing feature in my OnePlus One and it is indeed missed.

    I'm kind of annoyed that this is a new, incompatible standard. Serves me right for being an early adopter.

    What does the new standard bring to the table that we didn't have with Qi?

    1. Re:Another standard... why? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Cancer, apparently, according to their first benefit point.

    2. Re:Another standard... why? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that be Cancer free rather than free cancer (with every order)?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  7. charge what? by Mirar · · Score: 1

    I was trying to figure out what cars they had that can be charged. Turns out it was the other way around, the car will charge your cellphone.

    What was wrong with the QI standard?

    1. Re:charge what? by slew · · Score: 1

      Qi (the current spec) basically induction coil based and limited to about 5 watts. It is AC in nature and thus in a car requires DC->AC (and the associated losses) from the electrical system, then AC->DC rectification (and associated losses) on the device being charged.

      AFAIKT, the open dots alliance is a dc charging system (with a diode rectifier bridge to handle the polarity swap) capable of up to 160 watts. Presumably there would be less loss leaving things DC and fewer components required on the device being charged and in the case of a car electrical system fewer components on the charger.

    2. Re:charge what? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The car companies felt QI wasn't good enough, and that they needed a better more car friendly charging standard. So they came up with something almost entirely less useful than QI. I suppose the benefit is that you will be able to get QI chargers that hook up to this and therefore don't need the USB cable hanging in front of the car stereo anymore.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    3. Re:charge what? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      The major losses are not in the DC-AC conversion nor in the AC-DC conversion. Both are usually done with high efficiency. The losses are in bridging the 1 mm air gap between the transmitting coil and the receiving coil and the presence of any other conducting material nearby. You see when the Qi charger (or whatever tech) transmits it's power over that gap some of it leaks out through the side. That leaking field starts to induce current in whatever conducting material it encounters. Those are your losses and they scale up with something like the third or fourth power of the distance between the emitting and the receiving coils.

      By the way, the recieving end of OpenDots treats the power as AC, as it feeds it through a similar rectifier, in order to correct for polarity changes. These losses are not removed.
      The are not a simple percentile loss however. On high power installations (like car charger) this rectifier would not be a simple Shotkey diode rectifier. It would be a sensing circuit with mosfets to switch the connections. Those are more expensive and have make no sense in low power applications but for the charging of a car using a mosfet rectifier makes sense.
      You see, even Shotkey diodes have a 0.2V voltage drop over them. With a 40A charging current this means 8 W is continuously turned into heat by the diodes. The mosfet rectifier needs some power to work but that is in the order of 0.1 W, depending on the number of contact points.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    4. Re:charge what? by Mirar · · Score: 1

      Very informative. Thanks.

  8. Hardware != Open Source by T.E.D. · · Score: 0
    There's a really annoying trend lately of people completely misusing the term "Open Source". By definition, for something to be "Open Source", there must be some source code somewhere in it (and term only applies to that part). Calling a pure hardware system "open source" makes no sense whatsoever.

    The word "open" works just fine there all by itself. There is no need to embellish it with the nonsensical "source".

    1. Re:Hardware != Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, obviously the blame lies with the submitter, because the linked webpage writes

      open standard for wire-free power

      It mentions neither open source, nor wireless charging (but of course you could use that power to charge a compatible device).

    2. Re:Hardware != Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a really annoying trend lately of people completely misusing the term "Open Source". By definition, for something to be "Open Source", there must be some source code somewhere in it...

      Open source as a development model promotes a universal access via a free license to a product's design or blueprint, and universal redistribution of that design or blueprint, including subsequent improvements to it by anyone. [OSI]

      Source code is not the only type of source material in existence.

    3. Re:Hardware != Open Source by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Open source as a development model promotes a universal access via a free license to a product's design or blueprint

      The term Open Source was invented to describe software licenses in the face of copyright law. Hardware in general is "protected" by patents, not by copyright. Those are two completely different mechanisms, and talking about them like they are somehow the same makes no sense at all.

    4. Re:Hardware != Open Source by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There's a really annoying trend lately of people completely misusing the term "Open Source". By definition, for something to be "Open Source", there must be some source code somewhere in it (and term only applies to that part). Calling a pure hardware system "open source" makes no sense whatsoever.

      The term "Open Source" was preceded by the same term in the intelligence community, meaning a source who provided valuable information to opposing parties in a conflict. A well-known, public, commercial entity of this type would be Jane's. So the issue is a fairly confused one.

      Nerds have long enjoyed muddying the waters of language, both with willingness to hack grammar and to coin new words and phrases. For example, the oft-demonstrated belief that all nouns can be verbed, and all verbs can be nouned. We've often compared source code to blueprints. Don't be surprised when people start referring to blueprints as source code. In its way, it's true enough.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. Seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do they want us to take them seriously with that ugly website and schematics using...wait for it... COMIC SANS?
    http://opendotsalliance.org/technical-information/open-dots-101/

  10. Lets reinvent the wheel! by nomaddamon · · Score: 1

    Qi has been around for quite some time. My last 3 phones have supported it and i love it

    If i want to use OpenDots I have to buy a new phone (none on market atm), a few new charging plates (none on market atm) and a car that supports it (a few on market)?

    OpenDots is not as safe (try spilling your drink on the pad :)) and is not supported by a single phone at the moment, while Qi has ~50 phones with built in support on sale at the moment and hundreds more that accommodate Qi via accessories (i.e. Qi enabled cover)

    Qi is not open-source but its free for low wattage devices (phones) and at reasonable cost for higher wattage devices (all patents are RAND)

    What is the advantage for consumer to use OpenDots vs Qi?
    What is the advantage for manufacturer to use OpenDots vs Qi (considering existing Qi infrastructure)

    1. Re:Lets reinvent the wheel! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the link with an open mind. This is about how to get power to your Qi pad. Or providing power to a laptop. Or both at the same time. And how you won't need to buy a new car if a better version of your Qi pad is released.

      If you bother reading the history page, you'll see that they aren't reinventing the wheel at all. They show the progression of patents starting in 1928 that lead to this configuration which was patented in the 1970s with some new but vaguely applicable patents from the 1990s.

    2. Re:Lets reinvent the wheel! by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Read the link with an open mind.

      I tried but stupidity like this:

      Guaranteed Safe – No electromagnetic fields are used. Zero risk of cancer.

      makes it pretty hard.

    3. Re:Lets reinvent the wheel! by suutar · · Score: 1

      That's not stupidity, it's a marketing reaction to stupidity.

    4. Re:Lets reinvent the wheel! by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      No, it's stupidity. There can be no current with no electromagnetic field.

    5. Re:Lets reinvent the wheel! by suutar · · Score: 1

      There is that. I was assuming they were talking about fluctuating fields, like the ones around AC lines, antennas in use, and transformers, rather than the more constant field around a DC device, but you're right, read literally, it's BS.

  11. Bus stations by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    Would love to see this technology used at long distant bus stations. Instead of having busses idling, running the engine, the parking spot would have an induction charger that could be used power things like A/C and possibly an engine warmer, when it is cold.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Bus stations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, it's not that kind of charging technology. It's limited to 160W and intended for gadgets inside the vehicle, not the vehicle itself. It's an alternative to the QI wireless charging standard, but is probably better referred to as "plugless" than wireless, since it still uses direct electrical contacs, as opposed to inductive charging used by QI.

  12. Re:wirefree not quite the same as wireless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only 160W? They're blowing me away with their generosity.

  13. Re:wirefree not quite the same as wireless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    no electromagnetic fields? You mean there is no current at all or that they are stupid?

  14. So alternating strips and 2 voltages by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

    Coupled with a 4 way bridge, there is not a whole lot of tech here. I do not even see how it stays in place ya know while driving.

    --
    No sir I dont like it.
    1. Re:So alternating strips and 2 voltages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Magnets. How do they work?

    2. Re:So alternating strips and 2 voltages by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      It doesn't need to stay in place. In fact in TFA the tech is used in a racetrack for model cars. The rectifiers are there so the polarity of the input of each dot can switch without the output changing. If you make the alternating strips pad big enough it will be able to handle a lot of shifting around during driving. If you place it into a tray so the phone bumps into the edge of the tray before loosing contact with the pad then you've got the major problems solved unless you drive so aggressively everything has to be bolted in place anyway or you have an accident.
      The tech is simple, yes, but I see that as an advantage.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    3. Re:So alternating strips and 2 voltages by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      A tray implies that it's sitting screen up pretty much parallel to the ground. Thats fine for listening to music and voice commands. It's horrid for GPS or passenger infotainment where you want it mounted to the dash, headrest, seatback, etc.

      Granted car companies love selling GPS nav and infotainment packages for a couple k that are outdated in a few years.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    4. Re:So alternating strips and 2 voltages by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Qi has the same problem. You can simply build it into a generic GSM support clip to solve that. This solves the alignment issue so you don't have to plug in the connector.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  15. Re:wirefree not quite the same as wireless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could work as long as you don't drop a paperclip on it.

  16. Re:wirefree not quite the same as wireless by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

    That line must've been written for the Wi-Fi allergy crowd.

  17. Re:wirefree not quite the same as wireless by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    It's better, in its way, in that it can deliver a lot more power. It would be great for laptops on desktops, or in this case, rear seat tray tables. More cars are going more towards luxury of late because it's a place where automakers can compete while spending relatively little money (they're spending a bit on R&D of cheaper soft-touch materials, basically, which they can use across their ranges) and the US crash test "safety" regulations as written really encourage larger cars, it's very difficult to get good ratings with a smaller one. (Experts disagree on how much of that is specific requirements regarding positioning and type of devices in the regulations, and how much is physics.) So the vehicles are getting larger and have more room for stuff like laptops and netbooks, even when they're cheap.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  18. One company by msobkow · · Score: 1

    Chrysler/Dodge/RAM are one company.

    Shill much?

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  19. Not sure I understand this "open standard" stuff.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can someone explain it using a car analogy?

  20. Re:wirefree not quite the same as wireless by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    From their site: Guaranteed Safe -- No electromagnetic fields

    Wait ... what? They're going to charge my phone, with electricity, with no electromagnetic fields involved?

    Now, I'm not rocket surgeon, but I'm pretty much sure that sets off my bullshit detectors.

    What are they charging the phone with? Unicorn farts?

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  21. Big deal... It's not like it's some software or so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just simple plain CAD schematics for future 3D printers :-)))) Any vocationally-educated electrician will tell you these schematics are as "Open Source" as water coming out of your kitchen faucet.

  22. 160W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long will that take to charge the car?

  23. what a disappointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "oh great, the car manufacturers are finally finding a charging standard!"
    "no tesla? oh well, okay"
    "wireless? i would have thought wired was more efficient, but let's see"
    "woah, it's in 12 cars already?
    "no magnetic field? so contacts. that's gonna be a bit unreliable. also that dot pattern ... this looks like something belonging on the underside of the car, so this is _really_ unreliable - also somewhat of a hassle - look, i understand the benefits of it but if it was worth it tesla would probably already have done it"

    "160 WATTS? How many years do you expect me to sit there waiting for my car to charge?! Okay, this is bullshit. Those cars must be horrible, I don't get how _12 models_ could have been approved with this. "
    after minutes of figuring and reading the /. comments:
    "ITS FOR CONSUMER DEVICES INSIDE THE CAR?!?!?!? Those idiots. DO YOU KNOW WHAT USB IS FOR"

  24. Re:wirefree not quite the same as wireless by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

    The main bullshit is in the reason they listed that, not in the tech. This is not a wireless charging solution, it "merely" has a few of the advantages of wireless charging and does not have some of the disadvantages like efficiency and triggering the EM radiation allergy tinfoil hatters.

    It merely eliminates the need for precise orientation when plugging in. Therefore it should be relatively easy to use it to charge a car automatically, with a charging pad under the car (with automatically retracting protection cover) and a self-raising charging pad on or in the floor of your parking spot. Park your car and walk away. The charging pads connect and the car will be charged. If the GPS in the car detects that the car should be in a charging spot while it does not detect a charger send an SMS to the owner so they can plug in the cable and/or fix the reason it doesn't work.

    --
    Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.