Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Patents Wireless TV With No Power Cable (techradar.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechRadar: Could Samsung be on the cusp of a fully wireless TV? A recent patent hints that a Samsung TV without any pesky cables could be around the corner. Spotted by LetsGoDigital, the patent was filed in March 2018 but only released publicly in late February of this year. The patent revolves around a wireless power transceiver, which would make the prospective television the first of its kind to transmit power across the room rather than relying on a power cable -- increasingly seen as an eyesore next to Samsung's premium design sets. The transceiver takes the form of a magnetic bar attached to the rear of the television, given that panels themselves are too thin to house anything of this kind. It would then require a separate power transmitter (plugged into the mains) to keep the TV running.
Wireless power of that wattage would also prevent any cell phones from working in a 2-block radius!
Added bonus!
My UID is prime and so is this number: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.
The transceiver takes the form of a magnetic bar attached to the rear of the television, given that panels themselves are too thin to house anything of this kind. It would then require a separate power transmitter (plugged into the mains) to keep the TV running.
So you'll get rid of the cord, and it'll need a clunky "base station" - which has a cord. Sweet.
Which will *also* have the media cable (Coax/CAT) attached and *also* have to transmit the video and audio signals to the display. Won't it be fun to sit in the middle of that RF soup all night. Or... you could simply run the cables to a regular display inside the wall. This seems like a solution in search of a problem.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I wonder what kind of power losses a system like this will incur. IIRC, some of the best inductive charging systems lose at least 15% of their power to the ether.
Which is the least of my worries.
The power my current TV uses is pretty much non-existent compared to the 120 lb 32 in CRT it replaced.
I do wonder how HDMI, Ethernet (yeah I know) RCA, VGA, S-Video and Antenna are supposed to work 'wirelessly"
Unless there is another proprietary Samsung "Brick" that transmits to the TV,
of a recent meme I saw. Supposedly from someone working in tech support and one of the things they've endured from those they support:
Yes, I need wireless comm and no, I won't be leaving my seat.
Is there some reason Samsung believes there is a need for wireless power other than aesthetics?
Wireless power is good for things that you need to carry around. My TV sits in one place. And with very little effort I can route the cord where it can't be seen.
Have gnu, will travel.
This seems like a solution in search of a problem.
That sums up most of what Samsung develops
Sent from my TARDIS
This seems like a solution in search of a problem.
Agreed.
But... the problem that they are not trying to solve is not what you think.
The problem that they are trying to solve is basically a marketing problem, it's to make things look futuristic. For example, this would work well for marketing displays where it would be a pain to deal with all of the cables for set up and take down, for high end houses and boardrooms, just to make the rich and execs feel special, etc.
In other words, we are not their target market for this technology....
Most home owners don't want to cut a channel through their wall or run cables or anything else. Putting in the mounting bracket for the TV is usually handled by someone else too.
If they've got a DVD player or a set top box or anything else that all plugs into the same base as what provides the power and they put the panel up on the wall and job done.
Personally, not having the cables or doing anything else is a much preferred option for me, especially as I move a lot and putting holes in landlords walls is never good and you've either got to get an understanding landlord or clean it all up before you leave. A couple of small plugs or leaving the mounting bracket behind for the next person is a lot easier to explain than a couple of holes and a bunch of cables there too.
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
This seems like a solution in search of a problem.
That sums up most of what Samsung develops
Agreed, but that Galaxy Fold is still pretty cool (when they cut the thickness by a third)
And if people think this is a great thing because it hides a power cable, then sheesh, get a life. We should be using advanced technology for things that are generally useful, not just to make some hipsters happy about buying something new.
If you're going to have the TV in a fixed position against a wall, then yes this feature is not of any interest.
But if you're going to have it in the middle of a room / on an island, or if you want to move your TV around a lot, then this could be quite a good selling point for you.
For example I imagine that exhibitors at trade shows that like to set up displays in their booths showing videos would love to have wireless displays so they don't have to fiddle with running cables or making sure they aren't stepped on / disconnected sometime during the conference, etc.
Bitter, are we?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Oh boy, forget about flying to Mars with that fake Tesla wannabee who just hijacked his name. A Wardenclyffe tower in your room is the most exciting innovation we're all waiting for for power all our appliances.
...is a TV set with no power cord, no antenna port, no internet connection. In other words a brick...but marketing people will find people who will buy it!
Aesthetics are not just for hipsters.
Using this technology for TVs does not prevent it being used for anything else.
Assuming you can cut into the wall, i.e. it's not a rented property and you have hollow walls. In Europe a lot of people have solid walls, not drywall mounted on studs.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
This is how we make advanced technology affordable. Sell some rich people a wireless TV, gain manufacturing and engineering experience, let them do the real-world testing to save on R&D.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
That's what cable conduits are for. Bonus: they're easily accessible the next time you need to change the cabling setup.
Making a gadget wireless that is never moved from its location for years until it gets thrown away.
The transceiver takes the form of a magnetic bar attached to the rear of the television, given that panels themselves are too thin to house anything of this kind. It would then require a separate power transmitter (plugged into the mains) to keep the TV running.
So you'll get rid of the cord, and it'll need a clunky "base station" - which has a cord. Sweet.
Which will *also* have the media cable (Coax/CAT) attached and *also* have to transmit the video and audio signals to the display. Won't it be fun to sit in the middle of that RF soup all night. Or... you could simply run the cables to a regular display inside the wall. This seems like a solution in search of a problem.
This is yet another digital "Bandwidth is infinite!" non-solution. I'm surprised that no one seems to notice that we are running out of RF space. And what remains is very short distance stuff.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
So, my father-in-law bought a very expensive "wireless" TV several years ago -- against my advice -- and it has been a particularly negative experience, overall. (Of course, the power wasn't actually wireless; rather, in his case, power was the one wire which still connected directly to the display panel... but that distinction is immaterial to my point.)
As soon as you decide to do everything wirelessly, you're introducing a series of new problems to the overall experience, such as latency and transmission interference. Latency means that the video signal takes long enough to reach the display, that the screen is almost entirely unusable for any kind of real-time video games, such as racing sims or FPS. (I observed this issue first hand while playing Mario Kart Wii; the Wii did not remain connected to that screen for very long.) And when -- not "if" -- transmission interference hits, that's even worse; the components have degraded over time, such that even with only a few feet between the "head unit" transmitter and the display, we ended up with random glitch-outs of the signal, growing more frequent over time.
So really, my Subject above is understating the severity of the issue... relying so heavily on wireless is more like solving one entirely noncritical aesthetics "problem" by introducing a series of potential deal-breaker technical problems. I would fully expect the same analysis to apply to this new "now, with even more wireless!" set from Samsung -- and I will be advising anyone who asks that they should stay far, far away from this hell-hound.
thanks
https://tgw.onl/hostgator/ https://tgw.onl/dreamhost/ https://tgw.onl/bluehost/