Slashdot Mirror
Wireless Charging Tech Adopted By Ford, Chrysler, and Toyota Goes Open Source
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.
Ultimate Safety: No electromagnetic fields to fear. Zero risk of cancer!
Holy shit I facepalmed.
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.
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
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....
if you put your tinfoil hat on that charging surface?
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?
Cancer, apparently, according to their first benefit point.
Qi has been around for quite some time. My last 3 phones have supported it and i love it
:)) 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)
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
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)
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.
no electromagnetic fields? You mean there is no current at all or that they are stupid?
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.
That line must've been written for the Wi-Fi allergy crowd.
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.
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.'"
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.'"
Chrysler/Dodge/RAM are one company.
Shill much?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
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.
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?
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.