FCC Approves First Wireless 'Power-At-A-Distance' Charging System (engadget.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Approves First Wireless 'Power-At-A-Distance' Charging System (engadget.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @10:00PM from the first-of-its-kind dept.

The FCC has approved the first wireless charger that works from up to three feet away. Engadget reports: San Jose-based startup, Energous, announced on Tuesday that it has received the first such FCC certification for power-at-a-distance wireless charging with its WattUp Mid Field transmitter. The transmitter converts electricity into radio frequencies, then beams the energy to nearby devices outfitted with a corresponding receiver. This differs from the resonant induction method that the Pi wireless charging system relies upon and offers a greater range than the Belkin and Mophie chargers that require physical contact with the device. The WattUp can charge multiple devices simultaneously and should work on any number of devices, from phones and tablets to keyboards and earbuds, so long as they're outfitted with the right receiver. What's more, the WattUp ecosystem is manufacturer-agnostic -- like WiFi -- meaning that you'll still be able to, for example, charge your Samsung phone even if the transmitter is made by Sony or Apple.

138 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Just Use a Tesla Coil by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-12-26 22:04 · Score: 1

Not one used to generate sparks, but a properly tuned Tesla coil (hint: they don't produce sparks when tuned properly.)
1. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 22:24 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I wish this Tesla circlejerking would end at some point.
  No. He was not the genius you think he was. No, he was not killed by the illuminati because he wanted to give free power to the world. No, he did not blow up Tunguska with a death ray. He was a fucking lunatic who had some good ideas and some absolutely horrible ones.
  I'd mention his stance on eugenics as well but since you're probably from reddit you'd take that as a point in his favor.
2. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2017-12-26 23:09 · Score: 1
  
  He was a fucking lunatic who had some good ideas and some absolutely horrible ones.
  That more or less describes the content of Slashdot, as well.
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
3. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 23:13 · Score: 0
  
  Congratulations on being the first person here to bring up Nikola Tesla. Until you came along we were merely comparing wireless charging systems.
4. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 23:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Remote control, wireless transmission of power, alternating current, multi-phase alternating current, induction motors, incandesent bulbs...the list does go on. Like many brilliant men he had illusions of grandeur and he had a 19th century mindset because, well, he was born and raised in the 19th century.
  You ranting about a few of his crack pot ideas doesn't make him less of a genius. It just means that like most geniuses especially prior to the 20th century, he had a few crackpot ideas.
5. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by TheDarkMaster · 2017-12-26 23:17 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  You're annoyed because Tesla has contributed considerably to the world while you... well... did not contribute anything? Poor soul.
  
  --
  Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
6. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 23:18 · Score: 0
  
  He assisted Mercedes-Benz in building the gas chambers, which was used to execute 6,000,000 jews.
7. Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 23:28 · Score: 0
  
  Side note: almost everyone in the world uses electricity generated using Nikola Tesla's inventions.
8. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 23:57 · Score: 0
  
  Did he just get dementia due to syphilis? That would be very fitting for the era.
  Also : I would like contemporary geniuses to stop blathering about mind uploading. If you believe in mind uploading, you're on the wrong side of Tesla's grandeur.
9. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 00:05 · Score: 0
  
  He assisted Mercedes-Benz in building the gas chambers, which was used to execute 6,000,000 jews.
  I think the most recent estimates would rather point to around 18 million.
10. Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 00:13 · Score: 0
  
  That may be true, but the Jews killed Jesus Christ.
11. Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 00:29 · Score: 0
  
  No they didn't - the Roman's did.
12. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by MrL0G1C · 2017-12-27 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  And what happens if we don't implement eugenics in some form? In the long run.
  
  --
  Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
13. Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 00:50 · Score: 0
  
  ah yes, thwoh him to the flooh.
14. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 01:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  And what happens if we don't implement eugenics in some form? In the long run.
  You end up reproducing.
15. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by Megol · 2017-12-27 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see any form of jerking? You are of course correct that fringe-"science" people like Tesla and describe him as a near deity. He was human and had a quirky personality and a sense of PR stunts. But calling him a lunatic?
  Bringing up eugenics is a low blow. Generally people with education believed in eugenics up until ~1945 and then the reformed forms of eugenics (under other names) took over.
16. Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil by rickb928 · 2017-12-27 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  They were SUPPOSED TO.
  Please, if you're going to fiddle with theology, at least get it right. And yes,not only were the Jews supposed to murder the Christ, but it was necessary. Read. It's well discussed, and has been for centuries. Joel Osteen has nothing to add to it.
  
  --
  deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
17. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by rickb928 · 2017-12-27 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  My first thought, reading this story (the story story, elsewhere), was 'dang, that Nikki guy finally got his props'.
  But no, Tesla is a polarizing figure. Not like Einstein is in any way controversial. Oh, wait.
  
  --
  deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
18. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by Megol · 2017-12-27 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  Business as usual. Evolution.
  What happens if we implement eugenics?
  Business as usual. Evolution.
19. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by rickb928 · 2017-12-27 02:05 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  True. 'Free' power fits right into the Socialist meme that was in ascendancy back then. Still is. Still failing at everything but killing people.
  
  --
  deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
20. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-12-27 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  I wish this Tesla circlejerking would end at some point.
  You don't have the right to wish that. Tesla is responsible for the electricity you are using to go on your little rant, for the remote control technology that allows people to operate the satellites which transmits the message, for the entire concept of wireless transmission of power, hell you could even make the argument that he did more for wireless communication than Marconi.
  Musk has certainly done his part to drag Tesla's name through the dirt on behalf of his PR parasitism, but that doesn't change that Tesla is the individual responsible for virtually all of the modern world.
  But off course, that's the thought you liberals really despise: that an individual can achieve great things. You yourself will never be great and can only know any fleeting glimpse of greatness through the combined efforts of your fellow plebeians, that doesn't mean greatness doesn't exist.
  A more modern example, for which I'll likely get modded down citing, is Trump. Pre-Trump American politics descended into parasites arguing over who to take wealth from and who to give it to. Post-Trump American politics has approached and is on course to return to what made America great: making deals which create wealth.
  You liberals think that wealth is inherently relative, that for someone to have it another must have less because you are incapable of that divine Human spark of creation - it's all about who to take from and who to give to (the same goes for the RINOs like McCain,) This extends to your petty self-indulgent hatred of Tesla and anyone with the audacity to attempt to create anything, it's pathetic, even you know it is pathetic, but you are so fucking delusional about it that you simply want to pretend everyone else is equally as pathetic. You are a disgusting excuse of a Human and frankly you show that if Tesla's views on eugenics had simply been accepted the world would have been a better place as it would never have had you in it.
  Greatness doesn't just disappear, it doesn't get old, and you don't get to get sick of it just because you lack it and have the attention span of a consumerist gnat.
21. Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil by Joce640k · 2017-12-27 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  No they didn't:
  https://quran.com/4/157
  And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.
  —Qur'an, sura 4 (An-Nisa) ayat 157
  
  --
  No sig today...
22. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by MrL0G1C · 2017-12-27 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  Not Darwin's evolution though, more or less everyone survives now. If I understand correctly if we do nothing we'll end up with a situation where everybody has multiple serious disabilities.
  
  --
  Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
23. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by Known+Nutter · 2017-12-27 02:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You're a tool.
  
  --
  Beware of the Leopard.
24. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 02:45 · Score: 0
  
  We end up with more retards like yourself? If you believe in eugenics so much, sign yourself and your whole family up to be first in line to be sterilized. Otherwise, you're just another hypocrite that wants eugenics to apply to everyone but yourself.
25. Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 03:13 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think you understand correctly...
26. Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  And then they faked the moon landing.
27. Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  not only were the Jews supposed to murder the Christ, but it was necessary.
  You know those are just made-up stories, right?
28. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 03:45 · Score: 0
  
  more or less everyone survives now... if we do nothing we'll end up with a situation where everybody has multiple serious disabilities.
  It's about procreation. People with serious disabilities tend to procreate less.
29. Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil by rickb928 · 2017-12-27 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  Oh dear. So we are arguing about made-up murder?
  I understand.
  
  --
  deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
30. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 04:00 · Score: 0
  
  I wish this Tesla circlejerking would end at some point.
  No. He was not the genius you think he was. No, he was not killed by the illuminati because he wanted to give free power to the world. No, he did not blow up Tunguska with a death ray. He was a fucking lunatic who had some good ideas and some absolutely horrible ones.
  I'd mention his stance on eugenics as well but since you're probably from reddit you'd take that as a point in his favor.
  Well, he didn't go around torturing elephants to discredit a rival.
31. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 04:14 · Score: 0
  
  A more modern example, for which I'll likely get modded down citing, is Trump. Pre-Trump American politics descended into parasites arguing over who to take wealth from and who to give it to. Post-Trump American politics has approached and is on course to return to what made America great: making deals which create wealth.
  Oh, you sick, sick puppy! Trump is not a master-deal maker, he is a slimy schoolyard bully. He also delusionally seemed to think, it appeared, that he could single-handedly negotiate 193 different bilateral trade agreements that would each benefit the USA more than the other nation. There are no deals that create wealth for the USA. The most recent fiasco we have is a tax bill passed by congress that reduces taxes for giant corporations and the top income earners in the US, and does so by a wonderfully spiteful combination of shafting the middle class and ballooning the deficit at the same time.
  [And for anyone who isn't paying attention, the cost of this windfall for the rich is Paul Ryan's excuse next year for wanting to take away your social security and eliminating grandma's health care]
  No, wealth is not relative, but its distribution can indeed be a problem. When we get to the point that the top 1% has 99.9% of the wealth and that 40% of the people are basically in poverty, that's when you CAN expect a bloody revolution, my friend, and that's the way things are going. Decades of "trickle-down economics" strangely left the poor still poor and the rich even richer.
32. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by Megol · 2017-12-27 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  That is the kind of misunderstanding of evolution that leads to the more extreme versions of eugenics. It isn't true.
  While people with severe genetic diseases (the only type of disabilities relevant) have a much better chance to live to reproductive age today it also mean that those without have better chances to live longer, be more fertile and have the means to support larger families. In places where the medical care is advanced people with genetic faults have better support and information leading to less babies born with those diseases, either by those carrying genetic diseases choosing not to breed or by genetic screenings making sure the diseases doesn't get carried forward. This is very effective BTW compared to e.g. forced sterilization carried out in a lot of countries.
  Those kind of treatment, information and support are also eugenics - but factual, relevant and humane. It is also generally void of racist and religious influences.
33. Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil by gnick · 2017-12-27 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Oh dear. So we are arguing about made-up murder?
  The story you are about to see is a fib, but it's short. The names are made up, but the problems are real.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
34. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by MrL0G1C · 2017-12-27 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Without survival of the fittest, random mutations will survive.
  Random mutations = disabilities.
  
  --
  Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
35. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by Lunix+Nutcase · 2017-12-27 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  Without survival of the fittest, random mutations will survive.
  So you think survival of the fittest is some sort of mechanism to enforce genetic purity? The fuck?
  
  Random mutations = disabilities.
  No they don't. This is likely the dumbest thing you've posted in this entire subthread which is amazing since your first sentence was already pretty fucking stupid.
36. Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  Gene editing, never heard of gene editing? You can fix mutations these days. The FDA approved the fix for a genetic condition for the first time.
37. Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil by backslashdot · 2017-12-27 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Eugenicists are mass murderers trying to hide the fact that genes can be corrected nowadays by technology. The FDA approved the first gene editing drug (fixing an eye disease) a week ago.
38. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by MrL0G1C · 2017-12-27 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  How do you think genetically derived disabilities come about then, explain that to me if it's not derived from random genetic mutations.
  Then where is it from?
  I said nothing about "genetic purity" you said that, not me. Survival of the fittest simply means those that are able to survive do. These days everybody is able to survive.
  
  --
  Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
39. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by Lunix+Nutcase · 2017-12-27 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  How do you think genetically derived disabilities come about then, explain that to me if it's not derived from random genetic mutations.
  Where do you think lactose tolerance came from? Oh right, random genetic mutations and last time I checked lactose tolerance is not a disability. That's why your statement is dumb.
  
  Then where is it from?
  The issue was with your blanket statement. There are plenty of random mutations that have provided species with more hardiness rather than disability.
  
  I said nothing about "genetic purity" you said that, not me.
  No, it was just your implication.
  
  Survival of the fittest simply means those that are able to survive do. These days everybody is able to survive.
  Yes, and many species have been able to be more fit for survival because of random mutations. So basically the opposite of your entire claim.
40. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 05:12 · Score: 0
  
  As someone who has already voluntarily been sterilized due to my already known familial defects that no one else in my family was brave enough to fess up to, thus allowing my lame ass to be born, your comment is less fun-and-games and more poignant nostalgia.
  I wish more people that are bereft of socially redeeming qualities, such as myself, were willing to face reality and do something about it. Or we're gonna end up with a hell of a mess on our...oh, wait. Too late.
41. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 05:15 · Score: 0
  
  Wow.
  Trump found a way to convince the plebes that taking money from the poor and handing it to the rich is "creating wealth?" Color me shocked the American right are still so easily snowed.
42. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by MrL0G1C · 2017-12-27 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  Where do you think lactose tolerance came from? Oh right, random genetic mutations and last time I checked lactose tolerance is not a disability. That's why your statement is dumb.
  WTF dude, you keep putting words into my mouth that I definitely didn't say and then you respond to those words, it's like you're having some weird conversation with a person that doesn't exist.
  I never said Lactose intolerance is a disability. I said genetic mutations cause disabilities, I did not say all genetic mutations cause disabilities. Most genetic mutations are completely harmless and go by unnoticed, many genes are 'inactive'.
  
  Survival of the fittest simply means those that are able to survive do. These days everybody is able to survive.
  
  Yes, and many species have been able to be more fit for survival because of random mutations. So basically the opposite of your entire claim.
  No, not the opposite of my claim, exactly the same thing, part of the same system, the same mechanisms in action, FML. Survival of the fittest is what causes positive mutations to survive whilst negative mutations don't survive.
  
  --
  Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
43. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 06:04 · Score: 0
  
  Not famous enough to be easily searchable, I guess.Or exist. But I'll give you an opportunity to cite your sources, because I'm just that nice of a guy.
44. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  Plant food generator, via respiration.
45. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by SuiteSisterMary · 2017-12-27 06:07 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, that's the problem with this line of reasoning; everything is a genetic disability, until it isn't. And a lot of times, you get good and bad. I.e. on the plus side, you're now resistant to malaria. On the negative side, you're now prone to sickle-cell anemia.
  The point Darwin tried to make, and that so many people miss, is that evolution isn't a journey to a pre-defined end goal, but an adaptation to specific environments. Today's advantage might be tomorrow's weakness, and vice versa. All the other finches are laughing at your thick, blunt beak, which is useless for picking insects out of narrow holes, until a storm blows a bunch of you over to the next island, where the insects are lacking but there's delicious nuts who's hard shells you can crack with your now mighty and advantageous beak.
  
  --
  Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
46. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 06:09 · Score: 0
  
  I agree with most of your post, and your defense of Tesla. However you said "like most geniuses especially prior to the 20th century"
  Do you think that your time is somehow not vulnerable to the imperfections of the human psyche? (Are you not watching the news?)
  There are plenty of geniuses in THIS century who also hold crackpot ideas. Some of them are genius enough to put those ideas aside, and concentrate on the more practical ones or the more beneficial ones.
  Not to be cynical, just objective: There is nothing special about the current point in time. It is just another point, and someday far in the future they will study and discuss this point in time and all of its beauty and horror.
47. Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 06:18 · Score: 0
  
  ok i'll nitpick
  most systems generate the power in DC form, using DC generators (some designs of which Tesla did improve, so you have a point). then they transform it to AC, and transmit it over large distances. so to be precise,
  almost everyone in the world uses electricity transmitted using Nikola Tesla's inventions.
  DC still has a very important role, especially with respect to batteries, solar power, and thermoelectrics.
48. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by CaptainDork · 2017-12-27 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Kinda like Leonardo da Vinci.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
49. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by CaptainDork · 2017-12-27 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  Evolution ends for the sentient as soon as they become sentient. ~ © 2017 CaptainDork
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
50. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 06:27 · Score: 0
  
  you're so lost in your own hate, that this point is going to hurt. brace yourself.
  most "liberals" are intelligent. in fact, most of them statistically are more educated, have more tech/science based jobs, and have a higher measurable IQ. in general.
  so when you say "the thought you liberals really despise: that an individual can achieve great things.", you reveal that you don't really understand us at all.
  most of the great things achieved in history, statistically and objectively, tend to come from intelligent educated enlightened liberals. so how the hell could we possibly despise such an idea?
  we generally are busy inventing awesome things and making the world a better place, while you sit around complaining about gays and immigrants and women and blacks and whoever else you're afraid of.
  oh what's that? you have a recent example of a Republican right wing nut who invented something that made the world better? i'm listening.
  captcha: insults
51. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by CaptainDork · 2017-12-27 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  It's not survival of the fittest. It's survival of the survivors who can reproduce survivors that survive to reproduce survivors ...
  Today we have survivors who are certainly no the fittest.
  We nurture those who would have, and did, perish a century ago. We assign special protections in many cases.
  Survival has never been about the "fittest," anyway.
  It's been about those who adapt to the changing environment through "luck," called "mutation."
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
52. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by torkus · 2017-12-27 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  People like to apply the morals and views of today to people who lived in the past.
  Many (probably virtually all) well respected famous people - be it kings and queens or inventors or philanthropists - from 100+ years ago did things that today's society would consider reprehensible. At the time though, those things were the norm and accepted by society. In 50 or 100 years, people will look at society today and consider some of the things we do as barbaric too.
  
  --
  You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
53. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by torkus · 2017-12-27 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Random mutations are, by name, random.
  To expect them to be merely evenly distributed between good and bad is ludicrous. The chance of a random mutation doing something good, especially without negative repercussions, is extremely rare.
  
  --
  You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
54. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by torkus · 2017-12-27 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  'fittest' is relative to society which changes many orders of magnitude faster than genetic traits are formed and passed on.
  There's no singular 'right' answer, though there are many 'wrong' answers.
  To argue with myself...even the wrong answers do drive science forward and broaden our understanding and abilities in regards to genetics. Eugenics might limit bad traits but would also limit the gene pool which has it's own potentially disastrous effects. So if someone with a strange genetic mutation broadens our understanding and abilities - was that a negative mutation?
  
  --
  You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
55. Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil by Lanthanide · 2017-12-27 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, like eating factory farmed meat and driving inefficient CO2 spewing machines for personal transportation.
56. Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil by Lanthanide · 2017-12-27 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  If AC didn't exist to transmit the power over those distances, most of the power plants would not exist.
57. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by MrL0G1C · 2017-12-27 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  We have some stark choices ahead.
  So far as I know, unhelpful genetic mutations greatly outnumber helpful mutations, it stands to reason that when you randomly change something, most of the time a random change won't be beneficial.
  Options are, do nothing and allow all random genetic mutations, that I think would be hellish. Another option might in the future be to halt all genetic mutations, that would be a boring stagnation. Or we could actively choose and even create deliberate mutations (genetic engineering ourselves), a dangerous path to take. Or we could selectively allow mutations.
  Very hard to know what the best path is.
  
  --
  Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
58. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 16:24 · Score: 0
  
  Wasn't this about electricity or something like that?
59. Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 16:31 · Score: 0
  
  The "supposed to" part. And the "it was necessary" part.
60. Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 17:32 · Score: 0
  
  We've been testing gene editing techniques on the public for approximately 60 years. The amount of error and disease that's come about with these tests is nothing short of horrific. This is the price of the coming modern society, your designer grandkids will reap the benefits.
61. Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 18:02 · Score: 0
  
  Do you have a degree in history.
62. Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 19:09 · Score: 0
  
  vewy wuffly.
63. Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-12-28 00:58 · Score: 0
  
  Brainwashed != educated. If they aren't a doctor or a lawyer they didn't get educated/certified in something necessary, they got brainwashed.
64. Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 01:13 · Score: 0
  
  What do you all a user from Reddit?
  A redditard.
Wasted power is not a problem. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 22:12 · Score: 0

The problem will be interference AND waste.
Reminds of this Think Geek product by Hal_Porter · 2017-12-26 22:12 · Score: 1

http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff...

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
1. Re:Reminds of this Think Geek product by TheDarkMaster · 2017-12-26 23:35 · Score: 1
  
  I bought two of these to cook chickens without having to spend time chasing them :-)
  
  --
  Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
2. Re:Reminds of this Think Geek product by Hal_Porter · 2017-12-27 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Dr. Durand Durand has done some interesting work in this area.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Contributes to GLOBAL warming by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 22:26 · Score: 0

So this is a non-starter in any civilized nation. Just say no to our children's children's children's killer!
1. Re: Contributes to GLOBAL warming by hackwrench · 2017-12-26 23:14 · Score: 0
  
  Middle of winter here. Not that bad in summer so a judicious amount of global warming in the right places woupd be a good thing and if we can manage the sea level rise by moving water around the loss of ice at the caps isn't necessarily a bad thing as well.
2. Re: Contributes to GLOBAL warming by Dog-Cow · 2017-12-27 00:42 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  global warming in the right places
  
  Some, or all, of these words do not mean what you think they mean.
3. Re: Contributes to GLOBAL warming by Megol · 2017-12-27 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  Yes of course sea level rise is the only problem with global warming. /s
  More warming doesn't mean you will get warmer winters - if you live in some places you can get a very cold climate instead.
4. Re: Contributes to GLOBAL warming by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  Morons cannot understand (by definition) that a large, complex system is large and complex. Youâ(TM)re not going to fix that, and neither am I.
  Us: global warming (or anthropogenic global climate change) refers to the entrapment within the biosphere of Earth of slightly more energy than HAS been around IN TOTAL for tens of thousands of years, destabilizing carefully regulated (carefully regulated by NATURAL ACTION) systems. The 2 or 3 degrees rise in AVERAGE global temperatures in the portion where we live, represents a GIANT amount of extra energy taken in from the sun above what is radiated into space, destabilizing the former order UPON WHICH human civilization has come to rely. Try to imagine how much energy you would have to expend to do this ON PURPOSE, the amount of money you would have to spend trying to heat the ENTIRE ATMOSPHERE AND THE SHALLOW WATERS OF ALL THE OCEANS, and SEAS, and LAKES, and RIVERS... THAT is how much energy it takes to do it by accident, or how much energy MORE than required to maintain the balance you have to cause to be trapped. (Nature does not give a fuck if you are doing it on purpose or not.)
  Them (slack jawed sub moron fucktards): NUH UH, BECAUSE LOOK, A SNOWBALL, DURRR! It was colder this winter at my house so that means the entire planet is colder durrrrr...
  You cannot fix stupid, sir, so how do you think you can fix goddamned FUCKING stupid?
5. Re: Contributes to GLOBAL warming by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 06:01 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, sure. You go to the sea and âoemove the water aroundâ by... yelling at it? Take a bucket and go and move it to somewhere dry, a desert perhaps? Great idea.
  Erry baudy... grabs you sum bucketzz... kuz we gunoo FIXT dis...
  Words fail me for expressing how badly some people misunderstand this problem.
6. Re: Contributes to GLOBAL warming by CaptainDork · 2017-12-27 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  OK, that made me laugh.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Smartwatch by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 22:28 · Score: 0

This will be great to charge my smart watch and phone while I am in the car without needing to plug it in. Pacemakers, implants, and things like that would be great to charge on this too. I assume there would be obvious safety and security features to prevent things like overloads, theft of charging, etc.
Living inside a microwave oven... by Nocturrne · 2017-12-26 23:02 · Score: 2

No thanks. I like my DNA unmodified and my retinas not-fried. Do you really want to be in the same room with this thing?
1. Re: Living inside a microwave oven... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 23:11 · Score: 0
  
  Quiet, iphoned generation need to be stopped.
2. Re: Living inside a microwave oven... by hackwrench · 2017-12-26 23:15 · Score: 1
  
  You're worse than a neoteny, then.
3. Re:Living inside a microwave oven... by rickb928 · 2017-12-27 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  WiFi.
  LTE.
  Your TV.
  Etc.
  Electromagnetic emissions are everywhere. You're already bathed in them.
  (this should be good)
  
  --
  deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Nice by nospam007 · 2017-12-26 23:16 · Score: 4, Funny

I bet California, who recently warned about having your cellphone near your body, will just love this.
1. Re:Nice by apoc.famine · 2017-12-27 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  They aren't going to care in the least. Recreational pot use is legal as of January 1st there.
  
  --
  Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
It's non-ionising by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 23:23 · Score: 0

Just like a microwave, the described radio frequencies are not high enough to have the energy to kick molecules about, so your DNA is quite safe. All they can do is warm your molecules up, so your retinas could maybe get fried over-easy, but that would still require you stepping into an extremely tightly focused beam, or a very small Faraday cage with vastly more power than any phone charger needs.
1. Re:It's non-ionising by Anne+Thwacks · 2017-12-27 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  How long does it take to boil a eyeball? at what distance?
  This is actually a genuine risk of this technology. A tightly focussed beam could come about by accident in a variety of circumstances due to the surroundings, and its not like the beam is visible. Presumably standing waves are also possible if there are reflective (metal) surfaces around.
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Oh, right, these are harmless high power waves by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 23:40 · Score: 0

As the evidence that radiation from cell phones held to your head causes brain damage piles up, a startup is adding another source for your whole body right in your home. Sweet! At least we'll have a mass uncontrolled global epidemiological study result in about decade. I'll wait.
1. Re:Oh, right, these are harmless high power waves by Anne+Thwacks · 2017-12-27 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  As the evidence that radiation from cell phones held to your head causes brain damage piles up,
  Is it the EM radiation? Or is it the content of Twitter?
  I doubt the average experiment can resolve the difference accurately, but I see evidence all around me of brains rotted by Twitter.
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
2. Re:Oh, right, these are harmless high power waves by CaptainDork · 2017-12-27 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  Unless you documented the "before," and the "after," and then pulled the "after," and observed the "before," you do not see evidence all around.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
We've seen this before by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-12-26 23:45 · Score: 1

Mark my words - this "broadcast power" work is going to end badly. The scientists working on this will start being mysteriously killed, one after another - and this time we won't have John Steed to investigate. Yes, Mrs. Peel is still around... but I don't know if she's up to trading karate chops and judo throws with the bad guys anymore.
If you're a venture capitalist... whatever you do, don't turn your back on Hayworth or Cresswell.

--
#DeleteChrome
1. Re:We've seen this before by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  Mark my words - this "broadcast power" work is going to end badly. The scientists working on this will start being mysteriously killed, one after another - and this time we won't have John Steed to investigate. Yes, Mrs. Peel is still around... but I don't know if she's up to trading karate chops and judo throws with the bad guys anymore.
  If you're a venture capitalist... whatever you do, don't turn your back on Hayworth or Cresswell.
  I don't like the idea of broadcasting power into the air just for charging a phone (waste of power, likely dangerous in the long run), but you're obviously a nutcase.
Efficiency? Power? by HuskyDog · 2017-12-26 23:46 · Score: 1

Does anyone know some basic facts about the performance of this device: How efficient is it? What is the maximum power it can transfer? I have been to the manufacturers web site and after a quick search I can't seem to find these basic facts. It seems to say that the maximum range is 5 metres (15 feet) and I would guess that both parameters might be range dependent.

I agree that for very low power devices efficiency is not fantastically important since they contribute such a tiny amount to your total electricity bill.
1. Re: Efficiency? Power? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 00:30 · Score: 1
  
  My guess is that they are doing some sort of beam steering. While that's better than a monopole antenna, they still have the radiation limits enforced by the FCC. Last I heard, that still 1W without a license. Perhaps five radiators, so maybe 5W total output power? I gather this what they had to get the FCC to sign off on.
2. Re:Efficiency? Power? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 00:38 · Score: 0
  
  Might be useful for a watch on a night stand, an ebook or an alarm clock, though a bit of a silly luxury.
  Maybe I'm okay with it, if people stop using wifi for about one foot between the modem/router and the TV, console, computer or device.
  btw if you don't want to worry about a phone, get one with a 160x128 display. About an hour of 500mA micro USB and charging is done.
  I would like an alarm clock with li-iion and micro USB, will try to find one if it exists. (should have a replaceable battery, I'd like it to last for three decades)
  My point being, things are easy too if you only need the slowest USB.
3. Re:Efficiency? Power? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 00:44 · Score: 0
  
  The max efficiency is pretty fundamental: here is an over-simplified example. Lets say both tx and rx have 2-inch antennas, and the antennas are three feet apart (as indicated in the press release). The transmitter sends power in a 360 degree circle, and the receiving antenna fills about 3.5 degrees of that circle, so it will be about 1% efficient. But the real world is 3-dimensional, so practically the efficiency is a lot lower. If you want 5 meter range, you simply end up with a smaller angle and proportionately lower efficiency.
  You asked about maximum power transfered: you compensate for range by increasing the transmitter power until the receiver gets what it needs, so you should ask about power lost. Lets say your phone needs 1 watt to charge. At 1% efficiency (which we see is an absurdly high estimate), the transmitter will send 100 watts, and 99W is lost to you, your cat, the wall, the table. Since a more practical estimate is 0.1%, then 1000W must be transmitted, and 999W lost. Fortunately, your phone can charge with just a fraction of a watt, but you will have to wait most of the night.
  Once they put these chargers into the benches at the airport, they won't have to worry about people being too cold anymore.
4. Re:Efficiency? Power? by CanadianMacFan · 2017-12-27 01:07 · Score: 2
  
  Basically the efficiency sucks because you can't beat physics. If the power is sent out in all directions then if you double the distance from the device you have an 1/8 of the available power. You can do better by focussing the power in a beam but the beam will spread as it goes farther from the device. Then you have interactions with the atmosphere which will further reduce the efficiency.
5. Re:Efficiency? Power? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 03:22 · Score: 0
  
  The transmitter sends power in a 360 degree circle
  Why on earth wouldn't they go directional?
  You'd have to probe for devices periodically to discover when something comes in range or moves, but it's not like that is a impossible problem or a particularly power-hungry function. Especially at a range of 3 feet or less.
6. Re:Efficiency? Power? by SuiteSisterMary · 2017-12-27 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm. I wonder what would happen if you built these into, say, light sockets, or electrical sockets, with narrow sector antennas?
  Or build them into the bottom of your monitor, with the sector antenna pointed down and somewhat forward, basically to cover the front of your desk?
  
  --
  Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
7. Re:Efficiency? Power? by will_die · 2017-12-27 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  This version only does 1 meter (3 feet) they do have a version not approved which can do the 5 meters.
  I have found some references to an IEEE article on the details but not the actual article. From that the device emits 200 mW to a max of 500mW (authorized by FCC), it will take around 8+ hours to fully charge your average smart phone, to get the most benefit the antenna have to be aligned.
8. Re:Efficiency? Power? by CanadianMacFan · 2017-12-27 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing you do is going to get around the physics. Having them in lightbulbs is worse than in the monitor. If you are going to do it then have a separate device so that you can direct the beam(s) to where you want them and to be able to place the devices as close as possible. But you will never be able to beat plugging the device in.
9. Re:Efficiency? Power? by SuiteSisterMary · 2017-12-27 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  No, you'll never be able to beat plugging the device in, but will you get to 'good enough?'
  I mean, you'll never get as much bandwidth out of Wi-Fi/LTE/whatever as out of Ethernet or fiber, but man, there's an awful lot of Wi-Fi/LTE/whatever in common, daily use in the world. It's not uncommon at all to find households that have never plugged a device into Ethernet.
  
  --
  Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
10. Re:Efficiency? Power? by CanadianMacFan · 2017-12-28 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  The difference is that if you choose to use Wi-Fi instead of plugging in the device you don't lose anything. You use more energy to do the wireless transfer but you don't lose packets or data by choosing the wireless option.
  By choosing to use wireless charging you lose energy compared to a wired connection. There's the energy lost as you get farther away from the transmitter due to the transmission spreading out, the interference with the atmosphere, and the conversion to and from electromagnetic radiation. It's all incredibly wasteful and only really "works" for items that need small amounts of energy at short distances. One would think that we have solved our energy production problems and we are awash in electricity that is too cheap to measure.
  The transmission of data suffers from all of these same problems too. But because all that wanted is the transfer of information the actual power required to reach your device is small.
Non-ionising RF will still cook you by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 00:06 · Score: 0

Just like a microwave, the described radio frequencies are not high enough to have the energy to kick molecules about
Just like in a microwave oven, the incident RF field will cause polar molecules to spin, and these in turn will kick everything else in their vicinity around and heat up the material. To deny this is to deny that microwave ovens cook.
Ionization is not the only process by which electromagnetic radiation can damage molecules. It's just the most powerful.
Focusing power, but turned up to eleven by DrYak · 2017-12-27 00:29 · Score: 2

Actually, WattUp's technology stem from the same idea as behind this gadget :
Regular wireless emission would suffer from the inverse square law.
So instead, you need to avoid spreading the power all over.
The thinkgeek gadget tries to solve the problem by using highly directional antennas.
WattUp attempts to solve it by using enormous arrays of antennas, beam forming, modelling of the room, etc. to try to focus the emitted energy as precisely as possible in pocket around the charged device.

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
1. Re:Focusing power, but turned up to eleven by Hal_Porter · 2017-12-27 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality."
  Oh the irony!
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
2. Re:Focusing power, but turned up to eleven by rfengr · 2017-12-27 03:28 · Score: 2
  
  All far field wireless energy suffers from 1/r^2. Arrays don’t help that, and suffer from d^2/lambda for the far field convergence. This whole thing is crap. It’s surprising the FCC approved it.
3. Re:Focusing power, but turned up to eleven by vtcodger · 2017-12-27 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  "It’s surprising the FCC approved it."
  As long as it doesn't kill puppies and doesn't interfere with other services I don't think the FCC has the option not to approve. Mediating beneficial use use of the radio spectrum is way beyond anything the FCC is staffed or chartered to do.
  But you're right. It's hard to see how this can be anything other than horribly inefficient..
  
  --
  You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Not a single beam by DrYak · 2017-12-27 00:36 · Score: 1

so your retinas could maybe get fried over-easy, but that would still require you stepping into an extremely tightly focused beam,
which is less likely with TFA's technology.
WattUp doesn't rely on a *single* highly directional antenna (which was also a solution attempted by some wireless power solutions), but on very large arrays of antennas (and beam forming, room modelling, etc.)
So there's not as much a single emitter that throws a single beam of microwave, but rather a roomful of small antenna that work all together trying to focus the power in a small pocket around the charged device.
There's no single high powered beam into which to step.

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
1. Re:Not a single beam by jbmartin6 · 2017-12-27 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  There's no single high powered beam into which to step.
  But there is a focal point. I'm not sure I want to carry the device around in my pocket while charging like the maker envisions. But then, I don't know enough electrical engineering to judge it. I am assuming people were not bursting into flames during the trials.
  
  --
  This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
high power radio waves by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 00:47 · Score: 0

what could possibly go wrong
Inverse square law. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2017-12-27 01:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

If the wavefront is spherical the power density (watts/m^2) will drop quadratically. That is, if you go ten times farther the power available will drop 100 fold. This is why Tesla's humongous tower near New York could not transmit any usable amount of power to anyone. We have not repealed that law in the last 100 years.
Unless there is a communication protocol between the devices and the charger and a pencil like beam could be created, steered and transmitted, the efficiency of this device likely to be very poor, and the range extremely limited.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
1. Re:Inverse square law. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  there is a communication protocol between the devices and the charger and a pencil like beam could be created, steered and transmitted
  You have accurately described Energous's product.
2. Re:Inverse square law. by Anne+Thwacks · 2017-12-27 02:39 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  We have not repealed that law in the last 100 years.
  The Australian government is probably working on that as we speak.
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
3. Re:Inverse square law. by RNLockwood · 2017-12-27 03:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's the incandescent bulb of power efficiency.
  
  --
  Nate
4. Re:Inverse square law. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 03:36 · Score: 0
  
  The video shows some sort of device tracking and charging authentication system. I am wondering if it is not spherical, but directional. Hard to say from the shape of the device, but that video is just a concept so who knows. If it is directional then the max distance would be dramatically further than with a spherical transmission.
5. Re:Inverse square law. by Doctor+Memory · 2017-12-27 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  So basically there is a proprietary protocol that must be licensed from the manufacturer and built into devices in order to use it. Unless this company gets bought by Apple or Samsung, I don't see this product lasting very long.
  
  --
  Just junk food for thought...
6. Re:Inverse square law. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  Kinda like wifi?
7. Re:Inverse square law. by Rick+Schumann · 2017-12-27 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, all of what you said. I don't understand why it is they spend so much money and time developing this crap that is such a waste of power and really isn't going t be practical, and may not be safe for humans to be around in the long term.
  
  Questions:
  1. What frequency(s) is this using?
  2. How much transmit power?
  3. What's the efficiency of the transmitter? (almost a rhetorical question, it's likely to be low)
  4. At max range what's the overall efficiency? (again, it's likely to be low)
  5. Is it a broadcast, or is it directional?
  Just on guts I wouldn't want to be anywhere near one of these when it's operating, especially if it's directional/focused.
8. Re:Inverse square law. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 08:02 · Score: 0
  
  Pi is exactly 3.2
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
9. Re: Inverse square law. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 10:58 · Score: 0
  
  Sure. If your space time has a different flatness. Indiana does apparently.
Qi not Pi by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 02:51 · Score: 0

The wireless charging system is called Qi (pronounced “she”, I believe).
1. Re:Qi not Pi by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 07:34 · Score: 0
  
  "Che"
Old IEEE article on this technology by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 03:14 · Score: 1

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/the-smarter-grid/can-energous-deliver-on-wireless-power-promises.amp.html
Wait for it... by sycodon · 2017-12-27 03:23 · Score: 1

Activists used to stand under high voltage transmission lines waving around a glowing florescent tube talking about headaches, cancer, erection problems and post nasal drip.
Then there were the people who experienced these things because Starbucks had WiFi.
Now we'll be seeing them again, this time because of wireless changing.
Just wait. When we finally develop Transporter technology, those same people will be there complaining they can't get it up because of all the Transporting going on.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
PAD by ohgary · 2017-12-27 03:41 · Score: 0

I am sure all those whackadoodles that think WiFi is harming them will love this one....
We already have wireless power by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 04:01 · Score: 1

It's called a light bulb and a solar panel.
WattUp? by easyTree · 2017-12-27 04:02 · Score: 1

Nuthin', growing an extra arm and chillin'

--
Requiem for the American Dream
Sorry about the physics and biology involved... by Ancient_Hacker · 2017-12-27 04:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

Sorry, but your basic physics and biology make this idea a no-go. Re biology, it takes just milliwatts per square centimeter to cause cataracts. Most remote-power uses require a lot more than a few milliwatts per square cm of receiving antenna. Regarding the physics, you need area to capture power and the power goes down as the square of the distance. Those two main issues combined mean you can't send much power more than a few inches.
Interoperability by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 04:25 · Score: 0

> you'll still be able to, for example, charge your Samsung phone even if the transmitter is made by Sony or Apple.
Poor examples. When's the last time either Sony or Apple showed any concern about making hardware that was compatible with anybody else's products?
Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 05:38 · Score: 0

The worldâ(TM)s best wireless charging system goes largely ignored, but only because of the occasional moron being blinded by staring straight into the charger.
Efficiency? by MrL0G1C · 2017-12-27 06:47 · Score: 1

So, what % of energy is transferred and what % is lost?

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Not necessarily by Solandri · 2017-12-27 08:54 · Score: 1

A schoolmate pointed this out back in the 1980s when noise cancellation technology was first being developed. If a sound wave field has energy, and its inverse sound wave field has energy, and when you overlay the two on top of each other the sound disappears, where does the energy go?

I didn't learn the answer until grad school. The energy gets shifted from the areas experiencing destructive interference (no sound), to the areas experiencing constructive interference. It's actually the same principle that directional antennas use - sensitivity in some directions is given up in order to enhance sensitivity in other directions. It turns out the energy isn't necessarily tightly coupled to the physical waves. In fact sometimes the energy and the waves don't even move in sync - one can travel faster than the other. So you're not just limited to direction in which you can project the energy, you can also concentrate it at specific distances . With enough control, you can concentrate the transmitted energy at specific points.
1. Re:Not necessarily by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2017-12-27 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, they are called phased array antennae.
  Earlier the only way to concentrate a beam was to use a concave (usually parabolic) reflector and the only way to direct them was to move the whole contraption of the reflector. It is very good solution, even today you see many radar towers with rotation antennae, and landing approach radars that oscillate.
  But by using an array of transmitters and by using phase difference between them you could create constructive and destructive interference and radiate different amount of power at different directions.The power distribution will not be spherical front but in a "lobe" like fashion. Used heavily in fighter aircraft nose cones to have search radar without any moving parts. It can be done so that when they build TV tower on the sea shore, you dont waste half your transmitting energy over water. Yes, beams can now be "steered" by phase difference.
  You are correct about it.
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
bad physics #102938 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 09:59 · Score: 0

"The transmitter converts electricity into radio frequencies, "
*cringe*
Does anyone want to tell the OP...? Anyone?
Efficiency by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 16:50 · Score: 0

So we spent years trying to reduce wasted energy, like cutting standby power levels, etc. Now toss it all away with crap like this?
Less aweful crap. by DrYak · 2017-12-28 00:16 · Score: 2

This whole thing is crap.
Will it be perfectly efficient ? For sure, not.
(I mean even the Palm/HP's Touchstone surface induction system, which - unlike the Qi system mentioned in the summary - uses magnet to better align the phone with the induction surface, isn't very efficient neither, despite being as close to the emitter as possible)
Will it be a tiny bit better than plain blasting from a globally diffusing antenna ?
Sure, it's going to be a tiny bit better.

It’s surprising the FCC approved it.
FCC's (and similar body is other jurisdiction) only job is to regulate things which might be dangerous and/or damage or disturb other radio equipment.
They don't give a damn if it makes sense economically or in terms of efficiency.

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Using this means you don't believe climate change by fygment · 2017-12-28 01:13 · Score: 1

The system is a grossly inefficient use of resources for the convenience of ... charging a device. The environmental impact of the whole system it is meant to fit in to, from the production of batteries of the devices to the inefficient transmission of power charge them is huge. Embracing this means that really, you don't give a damn about how we use our resources, that addressing the human impact on the environment is someone else's problem.

--
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.