Some airports in Europe already offer charging loops integrated into the desks of cafe's. You just borrow a loop with your device's charging connector and presto!
I've seen this at least in Copenhagen, LHR and Helsinki
Sounds interesting. Does it work without adapters if your device has a built-in wireless charging coil? That would be ideal, provided the added weight and device thickness isn't too much.
Having to borrow (or rent?) and adapter has an unneeded amount of awkwardness when an AC jack plus a pocket charger is all that is needed. Last I traveled, I did not need to charge any of my electronic devices.
I tend to agree with most of your posts, but in this case the devil's in the details over time. Today you're likely right - but with advances even just a few years down the road the variable values may change significantly.
Realistically? Not likely. The loss of efficiency is controlled by physics. Radio waves from a point source dissipate uniformly and energy content falls off as the cube of distance. It is possible to focus the energy, but there's only so much you can do without having such a tiny area that it's difficult to get your device in the center of the focused beam. In theory, you could focus a beam on your desktop and then put a mark where the beam is focused, but if you're going to do that, it's even easier to just put the charger in that spot.
It's hard to imagine a scenario where remotely charging at the 10-20 foot distance that was suggested would be practical and useful.
Some airports in Europe already offer charging loops integrated into the desks of cafe's. You just borrow a loop with your device's charging connector and presto!
I've seen this at least in Copenhagen, LHR and Helsinki
Which means carrying an additional item and plugging something separate into the phone. If you're going to do that, you might as well carry the charger.
But did Nokia think of this at all much less first, are they doing it the same way etc.
For all you know, they actually licensed what they are doing from Apple.
Unlikely.
Nokia is using Qi standard for wireless charging, which is developed by Wireless Power Consortium formed back in 2008.
The WPC published the Qi low power specification in August 2009. Also Nokia joined WPC in 2009.
Without reading into details, I'd guess Apple is looking at somewhat different system. Unless they failed to realise there is existing system already, but it doesn't seem likely.
Unlikely.
Nokia is using Qi standard for wireless charging, which is developed by Wireless Power Consortium formed back in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi_(wireless_power_standard)
The WPC published the Qi low power specification in August 2009. Also Nokia joined WPC in 2009.
Without reading into details, I'd guess Apple is looking at somewhat different system. Unless they failed to realise there is existing system already, but it doesn't seem likely.
As I read the description of this patent, there's no reason that it couldn't use the Qi standard. The gist of this application seems to be that you can charge your phone if you lay it down one way and sync it if you turn it over. I don't see that this would be incompatible with an existing standard, at least as far as the charging portion.
As I read the description of this patent, there's no reason that it couldn't use the Qi standard. The gist of this application seems to be that you can charge your phone if you lay it down one way and sync it if you turn it over. I don't see that this would be incompatible with an existing standard, at least as far as the charging portion.
True, it can be a bit different take on the same standard... but can you sync and charge at the same time? Because that would be preferred scenario for me, the way I'm charging (and playing music) from my 3Gs on Logitech speakerbox at present, only without fiddling with physical connection.
The way I understand, on new Lumia 920 you'll have to touch specific part of device with top of the phone to sync it (presuming that device is sync-able and not just a charger), and sync remains when you put it flat on charging pad. Actually sync remains within couple of meters, even if phone is not sitting on charging pad at all.
So given an iPhone costs 42 cents a year to charge conventionally WiTricity should be too bad for an iPhone what ever Jrargosta thinks eh! Lol
First, I'm not sure about that 42 cents figure, but even if it's correct, let's do the math. First, at a distance of 20 feet, the power would be well under 1% of the power up close (like the Wii remote chargers). Actually, probably less than 1% since the energy declines as the cube power of distance. So your $0.42 turns into $42. Now, multiply that by 100 M units - and you're talking about over $4 B in pure waste.
Note, too, that the methodology used to derive that $0.42 figure is wrong. They took the power draw of the iphone and multiplied it only by the time it takes to charge. That assumes that you immediately unplug the charger as soon as the phone is charged and then don't plug it in again until you start charging again (or it would be accurate if the charger drew 0 power when not charging but that's not realistic). Also, a wireless charger is sending out power constantly whether the phone is in the room or not, wasting even more energy.
This site says that the power to charge iPhones would power 54,000 households. If you multiply that by 100 due to a 1% efficiency, that's over 5 M households' worth of power - wasted because someone is too lazy to take the tenth of a second it takes to plug in an iPhone? And that's even using their unreasonable assumptions.
As for the Toyota situation, there are several differences:
First, the distance is much closer. You can have the charger within about 6 inches of the coils - not 20 feet as was proposed here. Second, you know where the car will be parked, so you can direct the beam - so the losses are much, much lower. Finally, handling a heavy charging cable and dealing with lethal amounts of electricity is different than plugging in an iPhone cable.
And note that Toyota hasn't been successful with that project yet, even with the above advantages.
So given an iPhone costs 42 cents a year to charge conventionally WiTricity should be too bad for an iPhone what ever Jrargosta thinks eh! Lol
First, I'm not sure about that 42 cents figure, but even if it's correct, let's do the math. First, at a distance of 20 feet, the power would be well under 1% of the power up close (like the Wii remote chargers). Actually, probably less than 1% since the energy declines as the cube power of distance. So your $0.42 turns into $42. Now, multiply that by 100 M units - and you're talking about over $4 B in pure waste.
Note, too, that the methodology used to derive that $0.42 figure is wrong. They took the power draw of the iphone and multiplied it only by the time it takes to charge. That assumes that you immediately unplug the charger as soon as the phone is charged and then don't plug it in again until you start charging again (or it would be accurate if the charger drew 0 power when not charging but that's not realistic). Also, a wireless charger is sending out power constantly whether the phone is in the room or not, wasting even more energy.
This site says that the power to charge iPhones would power 54,000 households. If you multiply that by 100 due to a 1% efficiency, that's over 5 M households' worth of power - wasted because someone is too lazy to take the tenth of a second it takes to plug in an iPhone? And that's even using their unreasonable assumptions.
As for the Toyota situation, there are several differences:
First, the distance is much closer. You can have the charger within about 6 inches of the coils - not 20 feet as was proposed here. Second, you know where the car will be parked, so you can direct the beam - so the losses are much, much lower. Finally, handling a heavy charging cable and dealing with lethal amounts of electricity is different than plugging in an iPhone cable.
And note that Toyota hasn't been successful with that project yet, even with the above advantages.
Your argument is correct for radiated EM wave antenna coupling, since once the energy is radiated it is gone whether anything receives it or not, but much better efficiency is achievable with simple inductive coupling, such as Toyota is suggesting, since the energy transfer is not radiative - an alternating magnetic field but no alternating electric field. But - if we are talking about distances of 20ft, then inductive coupling to objects the size of a phone does not seem practical.
Apple has lots of patents that they never utilize but that doesn't mean they don't research potential technologies. Often there are great technologies that simply can't be used for aroids other reasons. Inductive charging for the iPhone might be one of them.
How would having an externally placed metal antenna and metal backing/frame affect charging and reception? Could it short out and damage components? They could use an adaptive charging pad that would sense the placement of the device first which could preent this and potentially make the power exchange more efficient. Per your linked comment I doubt that would remove the metal and add some nubs for charging.
Personally, I see this being used for something besides the iPhone.
The antennas are low inductance and tuned to E fields in the GHz range, while the inductive charging components would be high-inductance, low-frequency. I think there would be negligible interaction between those circuits.
Looking at the comments, I see there seems to be a lot of ignorance among people about how companies go about filing patents. I work in the software-telecom industry and myself have a couple of patents in the pipeline. Usually, employees of the company are given some perks for coming up with a patentable idea (typically anywhere between $500-$1000 per patent). Every month or so the patent attorneys and a group of experts scrutinize the applications, and decide to file patents on anything that they find is sufficiently unique (i.e. not obvious to an expert in that area) and is in the general domain of where the company operates. Sometimes the ideas are results of the employees working on a related project, at other times it is just out of thin air.
So, a published patent really means nothing as far as implementation goes. Infact, from my experience only about 25% of published patents are also implemented in some manner.
Sounds interesting. Does it work without adapters if your device has a built-in wireless charging coil? That would be ideal, provided the added weight and device thickness isn't too much.
Having to borrow (or rent?) and adapter has an unneeded amount of awkwardness when an AC jack plus a pocket charger is all that is needed. Last I traveled, I did not need to charge any of my electronic devices.
Which means carrying an additional item and plugging something separate into the phone. If you're going to do that, you might as well carry the charger.
Why such a negative stance? It limits your area of vision. If you had an open stance you would have noticed "You just borrow a loop with your device's charging connector and presto!" You see, it's loaned for free with your coffee. You don't have to carry anything with you.
For more data: http://powerkiss.com. This is the one being spread around in airports in Europe. Latest seems to be Lyon. "We are now in 26 airports in 60+ cafes restaurants & lounges."
It also means that it is going to be more than likely that when the tech becomes more commonplace and standardized, cafe's etc. will have charging loops integrated into the desks.
The way I understand, on new Lumia 920 you'll have to touch specific part of device with top of the phone to sync it (presuming that device is sync-able and not just a charger), and sync remains when you put it flat on charging pad. Actually sync remains within couple of meters, even if phone is not sitting on charging pad at all.
That's because they are using NFC for pairing. Apple seems to be thinking of something on the lines of wireless charging + airplay/wifi itunes sync. Meaning the mat will likely do nothing for the sync, only charging and the sync is an independent event based on the devices orientation.
I think a way to use wireless signals to charge is the way forward, as per Tesla's research. Or if that is unsafe or inefficient, perhaps a way to use eye safe lasers to beam energy to a spot on a device.
Convenience sells, inconvenience and over expense puts people off.
I think that is a real good example for Apple's patent filings:
- Inductive Charging: Invented and put to products by others before, used in many and low-tech low-cost products like electric toothbrushes
- control via device orientation: Invented and put to products by others before,e.g. game controllers and my old Samsung Wave Phone for silencing the alarm and switchin on the speakerphone
Put both together with a vague idea behind it and gee you have a cause you can sue others that have the same trivial idea without having to go through the expensive and cumbersome process of making true inventions.
And while any clear thinking man must recognise the insanity of backing this legally, the adepts will praise apple's innovation when the iPhone 6 will have it approx. a year later than Nokia. But probably this will not hinder Apple from sueing them in the end.
Looking at the comments, I see there seems to be a lot of ignorance among people about how companies go about filing patents. I work in the software-telecom industry and myself have a couple of patents in the pipeline. Usually, employees of the company are given some perks for coming up with a patentable idea (typically anywhere between $500-$1000 per patent). Every month or so the patent attorneys and a group of experts scrutinize the applications, and decide to file patents on anything that they find is sufficiently unique (i.e. not obvious to an expert in that area) and is in the general domain of where the company operates. Sometimes the ideas are results of the employees working on a related project, at other times it is just out of thin air.
So, a published patent really means nothing as far as implementation goes. Infact, from my experience only about 25% of published patents are also implemented in some manner.
Problem is, there is nothing unique in that patent filing, nor is in min. 90 % of all the other patent filings that are made nowadays in IT industry, not to speak of true innovation which is definitely more than simple unique trivialities like using the picture of a wastebin as icon for deleting files or the picture of a CD together with two quarter notes as icon for the music player...
First, I'm not sure about that 42 cents figure, but even if it's correct, let's do the math. First, at a distance of 20 feet, the power would be well under 1% of the power up close (like the Wii remote chargers). Actually, probably less than 1% since the energy declines as the cube power of distance. So your $0.42 turns into $42. Now, multiply that by 100 M units - and you're talking about over $4 B in pure waste.
Note, too, that the methodology used to derive that $0.42 figure is wrong. They took the power draw of the iphone and multiplied it only by the time it takes to charge. That assumes that you immediately unplug the charger as soon as the phone is charged and then don't plug it in again until you start charging again (or it would be accurate if the charger drew 0 power when not charging but that's not realistic). Also, a wireless charger is sending out power constantly whether the phone is in the room or not, wasting even more energy.
This site says that the power to charge iPhones would power 54,000 households. If you multiply that by 100 due to a 1% efficiency, that's over 5 M households' worth of power - wasted because someone is too lazy to take the tenth of a second it takes to plug in an iPhone? And that's even using their unreasonable assumptions.
As for the Toyota situation, there are several differences:
First, the distance is much closer. You can have the charger within about 6 inches of the coils - not 20 feet as was proposed here. Second, you know where the car will be parked, so you can direct the beam - so the losses are much, much lower. Finally, handling a heavy charging cable and dealing with lethal amounts of electricity is different than plugging in an iPhone cable.
And note that Toyota hasn't been successful with that project yet, even with the above advantages.
Color me optimistic. I think the MIT technology will within the next decade be standard for charging low powered items such as iPhones and iPads. Of course the distance will be short but the same room will suffice.
Yeah, I know what you're saying. If you follow Apple through the years, they can get predictable, but every once in a while they pull something that you didn't expect.
Comments
Sounds interesting. Does it work without adapters if your device has a built-in wireless charging coil? That would be ideal, provided the added weight and device thickness isn't too much.
Having to borrow (or rent?) and adapter has an unneeded amount of awkwardness when an AC jack plus a pocket charger is all that is needed. Last I traveled, I did not need to charge any of my electronic devices.
Realistically? Not likely. The loss of efficiency is controlled by physics. Radio waves from a point source dissipate uniformly and energy content falls off as the cube of distance. It is possible to focus the energy, but there's only so much you can do without having such a tiny area that it's difficult to get your device in the center of the focused beam. In theory, you could focus a beam on your desktop and then put a mark where the beam is focused, but if you're going to do that, it's even easier to just put the charger in that spot.
It's hard to imagine a scenario where remotely charging at the 10-20 foot distance that was suggested would be practical and useful.
Which means carrying an additional item and plugging something separate into the phone. If you're going to do that, you might as well carry the charger.
Unlikely.
Nokia is using Qi standard for wireless charging, which is developed by Wireless Power Consortium formed back in 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi_(wireless_power_standard)
The WPC published the Qi low power specification in August 2009. Also Nokia joined WPC in 2009.
Without reading into details, I'd guess Apple is looking at somewhat different system. Unless they failed to realise there is existing system already, but it doesn't seem likely.
As I read the description of this patent, there's no reason that it couldn't use the Qi standard. The gist of this application seems to be that you can charge your phone if you lay it down one way and sync it if you turn it over. I don't see that this would be incompatible with an existing standard, at least as far as the charging portion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Step 1: Read a handful of nouns from opening paragraph on AI.
Step 2: Claim Apple doesn't innovate.
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Ask mom to bring more HotPockets to your Command Center (aka bedroom).
Couldn't have said it better myself. Is there such thing as an honest troll? Nope.
True, it can be a bit different take on the same standard... but can you sync and charge at the same time? Because that would be preferred scenario for me, the way I'm charging (and playing music) from my 3Gs on Logitech speakerbox at present, only without fiddling with physical connection.
The way I understand, on new Lumia 920 you'll have to touch specific part of device with top of the phone to sync it (presuming that device is sync-able and not just a charger), and sync remains when you put it flat on charging pad. Actually sync remains within couple of meters, even if phone is not sitting on charging pad at all.
Thanks for the link. So given an iPhone costs 42 cents a year to charge conventionally WiTricity shouldn't be too bad for an iPhone.
First, I'm not sure about that 42 cents figure, but even if it's correct, let's do the math. First, at a distance of 20 feet, the power would be well under 1% of the power up close (like the Wii remote chargers). Actually, probably less than 1% since the energy declines as the cube power of distance. So your $0.42 turns into $42. Now, multiply that by 100 M units - and you're talking about over $4 B in pure waste.
Note, too, that the methodology used to derive that $0.42 figure is wrong. They took the power draw of the iphone and multiplied it only by the time it takes to charge. That assumes that you immediately unplug the charger as soon as the phone is charged and then don't plug it in again until you start charging again (or it would be accurate if the charger drew 0 power when not charging but that's not realistic). Also, a wireless charger is sending out power constantly whether the phone is in the room or not, wasting even more energy.
This site says that the power to charge iPhones would power 54,000 households. If you multiply that by 100 due to a 1% efficiency, that's over 5 M households' worth of power - wasted because someone is too lazy to take the tenth of a second it takes to plug in an iPhone? And that's even using their unreasonable assumptions.
As for the Toyota situation, there are several differences:
First, the distance is much closer. You can have the charger within about 6 inches of the coils - not 20 feet as was proposed here. Second, you know where the car will be parked, so you can direct the beam - so the losses are much, much lower. Finally, handling a heavy charging cable and dealing with lethal amounts of electricity is different than plugging in an iPhone cable.
And note that Toyota hasn't been successful with that project yet, even with the above advantages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
So given an iPhone costs 42 cents a year to charge conventionally WiTricity should be too bad for an iPhone what ever Jrargosta thinks eh! Lol
First, I'm not sure about that 42 cents figure, but even if it's correct, let's do the math. First, at a distance of 20 feet, the power would be well under 1% of the power up close (like the Wii remote chargers). Actually, probably less than 1% since the energy declines as the cube power of distance. So your $0.42 turns into $42. Now, multiply that by 100 M units - and you're talking about over $4 B in pure waste.
Note, too, that the methodology used to derive that $0.42 figure is wrong. They took the power draw of the iphone and multiplied it only by the time it takes to charge. That assumes that you immediately unplug the charger as soon as the phone is charged and then don't plug it in again until you start charging again (or it would be accurate if the charger drew 0 power when not charging but that's not realistic). Also, a wireless charger is sending out power constantly whether the phone is in the room or not, wasting even more energy.
This site says that the power to charge iPhones would power 54,000 households. If you multiply that by 100 due to a 1% efficiency, that's over 5 M households' worth of power - wasted because someone is too lazy to take the tenth of a second it takes to plug in an iPhone? And that's even using their unreasonable assumptions.
As for the Toyota situation, there are several differences:
First, the distance is much closer. You can have the charger within about 6 inches of the coils - not 20 feet as was proposed here. Second, you know where the car will be parked, so you can direct the beam - so the losses are much, much lower. Finally, handling a heavy charging cable and dealing with lethal amounts of electricity is different than plugging in an iPhone cable.
And note that Toyota hasn't been successful with that project yet, even with the above advantages.
Your argument is correct for radiated EM wave antenna coupling, since once the energy is radiated it is gone whether anything receives it or not, but much better efficiency is achievable with simple inductive coupling, such as Toyota is suggesting, since the energy transfer is not radiative - an alternating magnetic field but no alternating electric field. But - if we are talking about distances of 20ft, then inductive coupling to objects the size of a phone does not seem practical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian
Sometimes I feel like I can predict Apple's patents.
Apple has lots of patents that they never utilize but that doesn't mean they don't research potential technologies. Often there are great technologies that simply can't be used for aroids other reasons. Inductive charging for the iPhone might be one of them.
How would having an externally placed metal antenna and metal backing/frame affect charging and reception? Could it short out and damage components? They could use an adaptive charging pad that would sense the placement of the device first which could preent this and potentially make the power exchange more efficient. Per your linked comment I doubt that would remove the metal and add some nubs for charging.
Personally, I see this being used for something besides the iPhone.
The antennas are low inductance and tuned to E fields in the GHz range, while the inductive charging components would be high-inductance, low-frequency. I think there would be negligible interaction between those circuits.
Looking at the comments, I see there seems to be a lot of ignorance among people about how companies go about filing patents. I work in the software-telecom industry and myself have a couple of patents in the pipeline. Usually, employees of the company are given some perks for coming up with a patentable idea (typically anywhere between $500-$1000 per patent). Every month or so the patent attorneys and a group of experts scrutinize the applications, and decide to file patents on anything that they find is sufficiently unique (i.e. not obvious to an expert in that area) and is in the general domain of where the company operates. Sometimes the ideas are results of the employees working on a related project, at other times it is just out of thin air.
So, a published patent really means nothing as far as implementation goes. Infact, from my experience only about 25% of published patents are also implemented in some manner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Sounds interesting. Does it work without adapters if your device has a built-in wireless charging coil? That would be ideal, provided the added weight and device thickness isn't too much.
Having to borrow (or rent?) and adapter has an unneeded amount of awkwardness when an AC jack plus a pocket charger is all that is needed. Last I traveled, I did not need to charge any of my electronic devices.
It does. They will be Qi compatible next quarter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Which means carrying an additional item and plugging something separate into the phone. If you're going to do that, you might as well carry the charger.
Why such a negative stance? It limits your area of vision. If you had an open stance you would have noticed "You just borrow a loop with your device's charging connector and presto!" You see, it's loaned for free with your coffee. You don't have to carry anything with you.
For more data: http://powerkiss.com. This is the one being spread around in airports in Europe. Latest seems to be Lyon. "We are now in 26 airports in 60+ cafes restaurants & lounges."
It also means that it is going to be more than likely that when the tech becomes more commonplace and standardized, cafe's etc. will have charging loops integrated into the desks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
The way I understand, on new Lumia 920 you'll have to touch specific part of device with top of the phone to sync it (presuming that device is sync-able and not just a charger), and sync remains when you put it flat on charging pad. Actually sync remains within couple of meters, even if phone is not sitting on charging pad at all.
That's because they are using NFC for pairing. Apple seems to be thinking of something on the lines of wireless charging + airplay/wifi itunes sync. Meaning the mat will likely do nothing for the sync, only charging and the sync is an independent event based on the devices orientation.
1) Bedside.
2) Home desk.
3) Work desk.
4) Kitchen?
I think a way to use wireless signals to charge is the way forward, as per Tesla's research. Or if that is unsafe or inefficient, perhaps a way to use eye safe lasers to beam energy to a spot on a device.
Convenience sells, inconvenience and over expense puts people off.
- Inductive Charging: Invented and put to products by others before, used in many and low-tech low-cost products like electric toothbrushes
- control via device orientation: Invented and put to products by others before,e.g. game controllers and my old Samsung Wave Phone for silencing the alarm and switchin on the speakerphone
Put both together with a vague idea behind it and gee you have a cause you can sue others that have the same trivial idea without having to go through the expensive and cumbersome process of making true inventions.
And while any clear thinking man must recognise the insanity of backing this legally, the adepts will praise apple's innovation when the iPhone 6 will have it approx. a year later than Nokia. But probably this will not hinder Apple from sueing them in the end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnemani
Looking at the comments, I see there seems to be a lot of ignorance among people about how companies go about filing patents. I work in the software-telecom industry and myself have a couple of patents in the pipeline. Usually, employees of the company are given some perks for coming up with a patentable idea (typically anywhere between $500-$1000 per patent). Every month or so the patent attorneys and a group of experts scrutinize the applications, and decide to file patents on anything that they find is sufficiently unique (i.e. not obvious to an expert in that area) and is in the general domain of where the company operates. Sometimes the ideas are results of the employees working on a related project, at other times it is just out of thin air.
So, a published patent really means nothing as far as implementation goes. Infact, from my experience only about 25% of published patents are also implemented in some manner.
Problem is, there is nothing unique in that patent filing, nor is in min. 90 % of all the other patent filings that are made nowadays in IT industry, not to speak of true innovation which is definitely more than simple unique trivialities like using the picture of a wastebin as icon for deleting files or the picture of a CD together with two quarter notes as icon for the music player...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fergiej
Following in Nokia's footsteps with the 820 and 920 phones coming in November. Surprise, surprise.
Nokia is following in the footsteps of my Braun toothbrush from 20 years ago.
Color me optimistic. I think the MIT technology will within the next decade be standard for charging low powered items such as iPhones and iPads. Of course the distance will be short but the same room will suffice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian
Sometimes I feel like I can predict Apple's patents.
Yeah, I know what you're saying. If you follow Apple through the years, they can get predictable, but every once in a while they pull something that you didn't expect.