Does this mean I won't have to buy a charger every year for my MacBook Air? Never fails, craps out about a month after the warranty expires. Or would the computer just crap out from now on?
Does this mean I won't have to buy a charger every year for my MacBook Air? Never fails, craps out about a month after the warranty expires. Or would the computer just crap out from now on?
How much are the chargers? How much is Apple Care?
Won't be able to make it too market until it's done efficiently.
Inductive charging is not without disadvantages. The California Energy Commission (CEC), Level V, mandates that AC adapters meet a minimum efficiency of 85 percent; Energy Star, Level V, requires 87 percent (European CE uses CEC as a base). Adding the losses of the charger circuit to the AC adapter brings the overall efficiency for a hardwired charger to about 70 percent. Wireless charging has a transfer efficiency of 70–80 percent; coupled with their own AC power conversion the overall charge efficiency hovers between 60 and 70 percent. In addition to efficiency losses, the wireless charger includes the “readiness” mode to identify the placement of an object, a feature that adds to power consumption.
$80. It's warranty is for a year and I never bought Apple care, regrettably. I'm on my third one for my 2011 Air.
I've only ever had a PSU go bad and that was replaced by Apple. Where on the component is the issue happening? For example, could be where you wrap up the cable and could that be a result of winding that too tightly thus causing a break? I create a loop so that part has zero tension when the cable is wrapped.
I've only ever had a PSU go bad and that was replaced by Apple. Where on the component is the issue happening? For example, could be where you wrap up the cable and could that be a result of winding that too tightly thus causing a break? I create a loop so that part has zero tension when the cable is wrapped.
No breaks, never wrapped very tight. Treat it the same way I did for the charger for my old PowerBook G4, and that one lasted about 5 years. It's just getting used and one day the charging light doesn't go on when I connect. Sometimes moving it around a bit will get it to work but it's usually unusable within a week.
Thing is, once we get there, there’s not much elsewhere to go. Eventually transistors get so small that quantum effects take over and electrons jump the gap spontaneously.
There will inevitably be a paradigm shift at that point, where perhaps processing power is external to the devices. Today's magic is tomorrow's technology.
Thing is, once we get there, there’s not much elsewhere to go. Eventually transistors get so small that quantum effects take over and electrons jump the gap spontaneously.
That's where the superfast poison materials come in:
"It's very difficult to generate high frequencies above 4 or 5 gigahertz," he says, but the new graphene technology could lead to practical systems in the 500 to 1,000 gigahertz range."
Someone will figure out how to make a 1THz CPU running on less than 10W of power and that's when high-end computers including the GPUs become irrelevant. It'll just be SoCs. Intel probably has some working prototypes of crazy fast chips but they won't just launch them now.
Wireless charging gets more practical with such low power too.
"It's very difficult to generate high frequencies above 4 or 5 gigahertz," he says, but the new graphene technology could lead to practical systems in the 500 to 1,000 gigahertz range."
Ah, yes! I remember reading that now. Don’t forget stanene, which is a superconductor up to 212ºF! That’s the true revolution, replacing semi with superconductors.
There is already evidence that high frequency radio waves in close proximity to the human body cause biological disruption.
Hell sunlight can cause "disruptions" if you stay out in the sunlight long enough. That doesn't mean our bodies don't need sunlight though.
In Europe it is already recommended that children twelve years old and younger not use cell phones beside their heads. In not too many years the effects will have been studied enough to prove that all wireless home electronics cause harm to us.
I highly doubt any ethical research will find a problem. Note the word ethical there. Beyond that good science does not look for evidence to support biased theories.
I believe the electronics industry will continue to fight this knowledge getting out for fear of losing money and being sued. That is why scientists in the USA have been thwarted from studying this.
No one in the USA is being thwarted here. It has long been understood that RF energy can cause damage to humans if the power levels are high enough, nothing new here. The common cell phone simply doesn't operate at the power levels that lead to damage.
Only in Europe are some of these studies being conducted. Even there it is difficult for them.
That doesn't say a lot for the research. Remember Europe was responsible for removing lead from our electronics for no good reason.
This wireless charging really increases the strength of these transmissions.
There are many approaches here, so unless you specify what technology you are talking about there is no sense in a prolonged discussion. Personally I see wireless recharging as dumb for other reasons so in the end it doesn't matter what tech we are talking about here.
I wouldn't own one and don't want to be around them. I hope this doesn't become the standard way for small devices to be recharged.
It is all about consummer demand! You already see the glimmer in the eye of many when wireless recharging is mentioned. Sad really. Of all the tech I'd love to see in Apples next I devices, wireless recharging is no where on the list.
I could see wireless recharging outlawed simply because of the terrible power transfer. You can easily waste 50% of the recharge energy. I can only see the efficiency standards getting stricter. Very few wireless solutions will be acceptable.
Won't be able to make it too market until it's done efficiently.
Inductive charging is not without disadvantages. The California Energy Commission (CEC), Level V, mandates that AC adapters meet a minimum efficiency of 85 percent; Energy Star, Level V, requires 87 percent (European CE uses CEC as a base). Adding the losses of the charger circuit to the AC adapter brings the overall efficiency for a hardwired charger to about 70 percent. Wireless charging has a transfer efficiency of 70–80 percent; coupled with their own AC power conversion the overall charge efficiency hovers between 60 and 70 percent. In addition to efficiency losses, the wireless charger includes the “readiness” mode to identify the placement of an object, a feature that adds to power consumption.
I could see wireless recharging outlawed simply because of the terrible power transfer. You can easily waste 50% of the recharge energy. I can only see the efficiency standards getting stricter. Very few wireless solutions will be acceptable.
The smaller the battery the most likely I can see wireless charging coming from Apple. Specifically, a wearable device.
$80. It's warranty is for a year and I never bought Apple care, regrettably. I'm on my third one for my 2011 Air.
Even Applecare has some exclusions, such as limitations on batteries. Chargers are probably not among them. If you're out of warranty on anything serious that Applecare would have covered, depot repair is typically an option.
I’ve read a lot. This is complete pseudoscientific hokum.
So we get more and more electromagnetic field all around us, days and night, more and more powerful each year -3G, 4G, wifi becoming more and more common all around-, and yet, the simple idea that this might have an effect on our body is deemed as nonsense. Is that your point?
So we get more and more electromagnetic field all around us, days and night, more and more powerful each year -3G, 4G, wifi becoming more and more common all around-, and yet, the simple idea that this might have an effect on our body is deemed as nonsense. Is that your point?
Yes, that's the point. There is no firm scientific evidence to support your idea. By your logic, light bulbs would have already wiped us out by now.
Yes, that's the point. There is no firm scientific evidence to support your idea. By your logic, light bulbs would have already wiped us out by now.
Light bulbs makes... light. Don't try to be a smartass, there is no need for it. I agree, there is no "firm scientific evidence" yet. No evidence that it is harmful, and no evidence that it is harmless. And there probably won't be, since it's a billion dollars business. The lack of evidence means we simply don't know. It's up to each other to decide if they wanna try to limit at least their level of exposition for the small part they can control (for example i always deactivate my wifi network at night). You know, I might not be a scientific, but I don't need to be one to think that there might be a correlation between our lifestyle and the explosion of the number and cancer and degenerative diseases...
Light bulbs makes... light. Don't try to be a smartass, there is no need for it. I agree, there is no "firm scientific evidence" yet. No evidence that it is harmful, and no evidence that it is harmless. And there probably won't be, since it's a billion dollars business. The lack of evidence means we simply don't know. It's up to each other to decide if they wanna try to limit at least their level of exposition for the small part they can control (for example i always deactivate my wifi network at night). You know, I might not be a scientific, but I don't need to be one to think that there might be a correlation between our lifestyle and the explosion of the number and cancer and degenerative diseases...
I'm not being a smartass. Light is electromagnetic radiation. In fact, visible light has a higher frequency than the microwaves emitted by cellphones/wifi. Light bulbs are also just as powerful if not more powerful than the antennas on our phones. Both of these facts mean that light should be more damaging.
I'm not saying EM radiation can't be harmful. It can. But we already know when it is, and there are already regulations in place to ensure our communication devices are safe.
You can do as you like, but if you don't understand what's going on, don't criticize people who do.
Light bulbs makes... light. Don't try to be a smartass, there is no need for it.
He isn't being a smart ass he is trying to correct significant misinformation on your part. Your fundamental misunderstanding of technology is so bad that you really should shut up and do some reading. Light bulbs emit more than light. If you have ever been around high energy 60 HZ systems you will notice this impact it has on the local environment
I agree, there is no "firm scientific evidence" yet. No evidence that it is harmful, and no evidence that it is harmless.
This is what you don't understand RF energy can be harmful but it has to be at power levels far greater than seen in a cell phone or WiFi base station. This is why you have to have safety systems in place around high power RF transmitters and industrial systems. These effects are well known and studied extensively.
And there probably won't be, since it's a billion dollars business. The lack of evidence means we simply don't know.
This is non sense there is extensive knowledge out there with respect to the impact of RF systems on the human body. It is an area where extensive research has taken place. Credible scientist have yet to find any verifiable evidence that RF energy, at the levels used in cell phones, can cause harm to the body. To this date the only known way for RF energy to cause harm is through tissue heating which requires considerable power.
Even with people exposed to high energy systems in a haphazard manner such as amature radio operators, there has been no hard evidence of excessive cancers link able to that exposure. Believe me HAMs are often far less concerned about RF safety than main stream commercial users
It's up to each other to decide if they wanna try to limit at least their level of exposition for the small part they can control (for example i always deactivate my wifi network at night). You know, I might not be a scientific, but I don't need to be one to think that there might be a correlation between our lifestyle and the explosion of the number and cancer and degenerative diseases...
Sure there are many diseases that are directly linkable to things in our environment. The thing here is these links have been proven via real science and verified by independent study. Most of the non sense to date with respect to cell phone radiation has been the result of people having an opinion or belief trying to create something that passes as science to prove they position that these devices are bad and that we all need to go back to the Stone Age. Notice I said people above not scientist, a good scientist would try to remove his personal bias from any study he is doing.
Take this another way, years ago I ran into a woman that had a medical condition where her body retained copper. Apparently an extremely rare condition from what I understand. Using your logic, we should try to eliminate all copper every where we can. The problem is the copper is picked up from the environment so what good would that do! In the end what good does it do to vilify copper or in your case RF systems. The evidence is pretty clear that RF, in the forms talked about here, is harmless to normal people. remember we have whole industries that have relied upon RF communications for years that have never had a link made between those systems and disease. The construction industry, police and fire, HAM radio, air craft and marine communications, all have had or do make extensive use of RF based systems that use far more power than a cell phone. I'm talking hand held systems here That have been common for nearly a century now.
So we get more and more electromagnetic field all around us, days and night, more and more powerful each year -3G, 4G, wifi becoming more and more common all around-, and yet, the simple idea that this might have an effect on our body is deemed as nonsense. Is that your point?
No. Has been TESTED and PROVEN to be nonsense. What someone says is completely meaningless.
Originally Posted by Yazolight
Light bulbs makes... light.
Do you have the slightest clue what LIGHT IS?!
I agree, there is no "firm scientific evidence" yet. No evidence that it is harmful, and no evidence that it is harmless.
Except we do have evidence that it’s harmless.
And there probably won't be, since it's a billion dollars business.
Just keep your tinfoil house to yourself.
The lack of evidence means we simply don't know.
Again, no lack of evidence.
You know, I might not be a scientific, but I don’t need to be one to think that there might be a correlation between our lifestyle and the explosion of the number and cancer and degenerative diseases…
See, that’s not the scientific method.
The scientific method is coming up with a hypothesis (which is this), and then TESTING IT. Which they have done. And proven you wrong. Do you have any clue how much radiation we receive from the Universe itself?
Comments
How much are the chargers? How much is Apple Care?
Won't be able to make it too market until it's done efficiently.
Inductive charging is not without disadvantages. The California Energy Commission (CEC), Level V, mandates that AC adapters meet a minimum efficiency of 85 percent; Energy Star, Level V, requires 87 percent (European CE uses CEC as a base). Adding the losses of the charger circuit to the AC adapter brings the overall efficiency for a hardwired charger to about 70 percent. Wireless charging has a transfer efficiency of 70–80 percent; coupled with their own AC power conversion the overall charge efficiency hovers between 60 and 70 percent. In addition to efficiency losses, the wireless charger includes the “readiness” mode to identify the placement of an object, a feature that adds to power consumption.
$80. It's warranty is for a year and I never bought Apple care, regrettably. I'm on my third one for my 2011 Air.
I've only ever had a PSU go bad and that was replaced by Apple. Where on the component is the issue happening? For example, could be where you wrap up the cable and could that be a result of winding that too tightly thus causing a break? I create a loop so that part has zero tension when the cable is wrapped.
No breaks, never wrapped very tight. Treat it the same way I did for the charger for my old PowerBook G4, and that one lasted about 5 years. It's just getting used and one day the charging light doesn't go on when I connect. Sometimes moving it around a bit will get it to work but it's usually unusable within a week.
Thing is, once we get there, there’s not much elsewhere to go. Eventually transistors get so small that quantum effects take over and electrons jump the gap spontaneously.
There will inevitably be a paradigm shift at that point, where perhaps processing power is external to the devices. Today's magic is tomorrow's technology.
That's where the superfast poison materials come in:
http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/03/graphene-cadmium-arsenide-wonder-material/
With low resistance materials, chips don't heat up so much because they don't need so much power and they can bump clock speeds up:
http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/anton-shilov/intel-core-i7-4790k-overclocked-to-4-50ghz-with-passive-cooling/
http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2009/graphene-palacios-0319
"It's very difficult to generate high frequencies above 4 or 5 gigahertz," he says, but the new graphene technology could lead to practical systems in the 500 to 1,000 gigahertz range."
Someone will figure out how to make a 1THz CPU running on less than 10W of power and that's when high-end computers including the GPUs become irrelevant. It'll just be SoCs. Intel probably has some working prototypes of crazy fast chips but they won't just launch them now.
Wireless charging gets more practical with such low power too.
"It's very difficult to generate high frequencies above 4 or 5 gigahertz," he says, but the new graphene technology could lead to practical systems in the 500 to 1,000 gigahertz range."
Ah, yes! I remember reading that now. Don’t forget stanene, which is a superconductor up to 212ºF! That’s the true revolution, replacing semi with superconductors.
It is all about consummer demand! You already see the glimmer in the eye of many when wireless recharging is mentioned. Sad really. Of all the tech I'd love to see in Apples next I devices, wireless recharging is no where on the list.
The smaller the battery the most likely I can see wireless charging coming from Apple. Specifically, a wearable device.
$80. It's warranty is for a year and I never bought Apple care, regrettably. I'm on my third one for my 2011 Air.
Even Applecare has some exclusions, such as limitations on batteries. Chargers are probably not among them. If you're out of warranty on anything serious that Applecare would have covered, depot repair is typically an option.
I’ve read a lot. This is complete pseudoscientific hokum.
So we get more and more electromagnetic field all around us, days and night, more and more powerful each year -3G, 4G, wifi becoming more and more common all around-, and yet, the simple idea that this might have an effect on our body is deemed as nonsense. Is that your point?
Yes, that's the point. There is no firm scientific evidence to support your idea. By your logic, light bulbs would have already wiped us out by now.
Yes, that's the point. There is no firm scientific evidence to support your idea. By your logic, light bulbs would have already wiped us out by now.
Light bulbs makes... light. Don't try to be a smartass, there is no need for it. I agree, there is no "firm scientific evidence" yet. No evidence that it is harmful, and no evidence that it is harmless. And there probably won't be, since it's a billion dollars business. The lack of evidence means we simply don't know. It's up to each other to decide if they wanna try to limit at least their level of exposition for the small part they can control (for example i always deactivate my wifi network at night). You know, I might not be a scientific, but I don't need to be one to think that there might be a correlation between our lifestyle and the explosion of the number and cancer and degenerative diseases...
I'm not being a smartass. Light is electromagnetic radiation. In fact, visible light has a higher frequency than the microwaves emitted by cellphones/wifi. Light bulbs are also just as powerful if not more powerful than the antennas on our phones. Both of these facts mean that light should be more damaging.
I'm not saying EM radiation can't be harmful. It can. But we already know when it is, and there are already regulations in place to ensure our communication devices are safe.
You can do as you like, but if you don't understand what's going on, don't criticize people who do.
This is what you don't understand RF energy can be harmful but it has to be at power levels far greater than seen in a cell phone or WiFi base station. This is why you have to have safety systems in place around high power RF transmitters and industrial systems. These effects are well known and studied extensively. This is non sense there is extensive knowledge out there with respect to the impact of RF systems on the human body. It is an area where extensive research has taken place. Credible scientist have yet to find any verifiable evidence that RF energy, at the levels used in cell phones, can cause harm to the body. To this date the only known way for RF energy to cause harm is through tissue heating which requires considerable power.
Even with people exposed to high energy systems in a haphazard manner such as amature radio operators, there has been no hard evidence of excessive cancers link able to that exposure. Believe me HAMs are often far less concerned about RF safety than main stream commercial users
Sure there are many diseases that are directly linkable to things in our environment. The thing here is these links have been proven via real science and verified by independent study. Most of the non sense to date with respect to cell phone radiation has been the result of people having an opinion or belief trying to create something that passes as science to prove they position that these devices are bad and that we all need to go back to the Stone Age. Notice I said people above not scientist, a good scientist would try to remove his personal bias from any study he is doing.
Take this another way, years ago I ran into a woman that had a medical condition where her body retained copper. Apparently an extremely rare condition from what I understand. Using your logic, we should try to eliminate all copper every where we can. The problem is the copper is picked up from the environment so what good would that do! In the end what good does it do to vilify copper or in your case RF systems. The evidence is pretty clear that RF, in the forms talked about here, is harmless to normal people. remember we have whole industries that have relied upon RF communications for years that have never had a link made between those systems and disease. The construction industry, police and fire, HAM radio, air craft and marine communications, all have had or do make extensive use of RF based systems that use far more power than a cell phone. I'm talking hand held systems here That have been common for nearly a century now.
So we get more and more electromagnetic field all around us, days and night, more and more powerful each year -3G, 4G, wifi becoming more and more common all around-, and yet, the simple idea that this might have an effect on our body is deemed as nonsense. Is that your point?
No. Has been TESTED and PROVEN to be nonsense. What someone says is completely meaningless.
Light bulbs makes... light.
Do you have the slightest clue what LIGHT IS?!
Except we do have evidence that it’s harmless.
Again, no lack of evidence.
See, that’s not the scientific method.
The scientific method is coming up with a hypothesis (which is this), and then TESTING IT. Which they have done. And proven you wrong. Do you have any clue how much radiation we receive from the Universe itself?