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

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.

Comments

Just Use a Tesla Coil

[NicknameUnavailable]

Not one used to generate sparks, but a properly tuned Tesla coil (hint: they don't produce sparks when tuned properly.)

Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil

[PolygamousRanchKid]

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.

Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil

[TheDarkMaster]

You're annoyed because Tesla has contributed considerably to the world while you... well... did not contribute anything? Poor soul.

Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil

[MrL0G1C]

And what happens if we don't implement eugenics in some form? In the long run.

Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil

[Anonymous Coward]

And what happens if we don't implement eugenics in some form? In the long run.

You end up reproducing.

Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil

[Megol]

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.

Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil

[rickb928]

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.

Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil

[rickb928]

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.

Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil

[Megol]

Business as usual. Evolution.

What happens if we implement eugenics?

Business as usual. Evolution.

Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil

[rickb928]

True. 'Free' power fits right into the Socialist meme that was in ascendancy back then. Still is. Still failing at everything but killing people.

Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil

[NicknameUnavailable]

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.

Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil

[Joce640k]

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

Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil

[MrL0G1C]

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.

Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil

[Known Nutter]

You're a tool.

Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil

[rickb928]

Oh dear. So we are arguing about made-up murder?

I understand.

Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil

[Megol]

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.

Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil

[gnick]

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.

Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil

[MrL0G1C]

Without survival of the fittest, random mutations will survive.

Random mutations = disabilities.

Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil

[Lunix Nutcase]

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.

Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil

[backslashdot]

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.

Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil

[MrL0G1C]

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.

Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil

[Lunix Nutcase]

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.

Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil

[MrL0G1C]

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.

Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil

[SuiteSisterMary]

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.

Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil

[CaptainDork]

Kinda like Leonardo da Vinci.

Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil

[CaptainDork]

Evolution ends for the sentient as soon as they become sentient. ~ © 2017 CaptainDork

Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil

[CaptainDork]

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."

Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil

[torkus]

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.

Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil

[torkus]

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.

Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil

[torkus]

'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?

Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil

[Lanthanide]

Yes, like eating factory farmed meat and driving inefficient CO2 spewing machines for personal transportation.

Re: Just Use a Tesla Coil

[Lanthanide]

If AC didn't exist to transmit the power over those distances, most of the power plants would not exist.

Re:Just Use a Tesla Coil

[MrL0G1C]

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.

Reminds of this Think Geek product

[Hal_Porter]

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

Re:Reminds of this Think Geek product

[TheDarkMaster]

I bought two of these to cook chickens without having to spend time chasing them :-)

Re:Reminds of this Think Geek product

[Hal_Porter]

Dr. Durand Durand has done some interesting work in this area.

Living inside a microwave oven...

[Nocturrne]

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?

Re: Living inside a microwave oven...

[hackwrench]

You're worse than a neoteny, then.

Re:Living inside a microwave oven...

[rickb928]

WiFi.
LTE.
Your TV.
Etc.

Electromagnetic emissions are everywhere. You're already bathed in them.

(this should be good)

Nice

[nospam007]

I bet California, who recently warned about having your cellphone near your body, will just love this.

Re:Nice

[apoc.famine]

They aren't going to care in the least. Recreational pot use is legal as of January 1st there.

We've seen this before

[93 Escort Wagon]

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.

Efficiency? Power?

[HuskyDog]

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.

Re: Efficiency? Power?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Efficiency? Power?

[CanadianMacFan]

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.

Re:Efficiency? Power?

[SuiteSisterMary]

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?

Re:Efficiency? Power?

[will_die]

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.

Re:Efficiency? Power?

[CanadianMacFan]

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.

Re:Efficiency? Power?

[SuiteSisterMary]

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.

Re:Efficiency? Power?

[CanadianMacFan]

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.

Focusing power, but turned up to eleven

[DrYak]

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.

Re:Focusing power, but turned up to eleven

[Hal_Porter]

"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality."

Oh the irony!

Re:Focusing power, but turned up to eleven

[rfengr]

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.

Re:Focusing power, but turned up to eleven

[vtcodger]

"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..

Not a single beam

[DrYak]

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.

Re:Not a single beam

[jbmartin6]

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.

Re: Contributes to GLOBAL warming

[Dog-Cow]

global warming in the right places

Some, or all, of these words do not mean what you think they mean.

Inverse square law.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

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.

Re:Inverse square law.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Inverse square law.

[Anne Thwacks]

We have not repealed that law in the last 100 years.

The Australian government is probably working on that as we speak.

Re:Inverse square law.

[RNLockwood]

It's the incandescent bulb of power efficiency.

Re:Inverse square law.

[Doctor Memory]

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.

Re:Inverse square law.

[Rick Schumann]

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.

Re: Contributes to GLOBAL warming

[Megol]

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.

Re:It's non-ionising

[Anne Thwacks]

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.

Re:Oh, right, these are harmless high power waves

[Anne Thwacks]

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.

Old IEEE article on this technology

[Anonymous Coward]

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/the-smarter-grid/can-energous-deliver-on-wireless-power-promises.amp.html

Wait for it...

[sycodon]

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.

We already have wireless power

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called a light bulb and a solar panel.

WattUp?

[easyTree]

Nuthin', growing an extra arm and chillin'

Sorry about the physics and biology involved...

[Ancient_Hacker]

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.

Re: Contributes to GLOBAL warming

[CaptainDork]

OK, that made me laugh.

Re:Oh, right, these are harmless high power waves

[CaptainDork]

Unless you documented the "before," and the "after," and then pulled the "after," and observed the "before," you do not see evidence all around.

Efficiency?

[MrL0G1C]

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

Not necessarily

[Solandri]

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.

Re:Not necessarily

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

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.

Less aweful crap.

[DrYak]

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.

Using this means you don't believe climate change

[fygment]

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.