Apple could bring long-distance wireless charging to iPhone, iPad as soon as 2017

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 52

    cnocbui said:
    The losses and inefficiencies with any wireless charging system are pretty big.

    Effective and practical charging at a distance is a Unicorn.
    Do you have any proof for that statement? I doubt you have evaluated any possible design of a wireless charging system. Pretty low losses over large distances have been shown with laser transmitted power, for example. And, did you even consider particle beams? Sure, it's quite likely not what Apple is going for, but that's beside the point here.

    "Any" is a pretty big word. I can clearly tell you're not an inventor cnocbui.
    ericthehalfbeenolamacguy
  • Reply 22 of 52
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,446member
    brakken said:
    What, no background or insight about what thsi mysterious tech might be?
    Another pointless vapourware story.
    How boring. 

    Please, if you don't know what the word means don't use it. "Vaporware" is a product announced by a company that never materializes. It is not a rumored product or technology written about on a fan site.

    And I'd like to point out the article mentions a specific patent filed by Apple.
    nolamacguy
  • Reply 23 of 52
    mike1mike1 Posts: 2,754member
    Mr_Grey said:
    The most advanced wireless power technology in the world, even in the theoretical laboratory stage, has an effective distance of three feet.  It also has problems with reliability and charging time at that distance and works a lot better (duh) the closer you get.  It wouldn't surprise me if Apple could duplicate at least 80% of this success rate with shipping technology but to what end?  

    As is always said when the subject of wireless charging comes up, it isn't really wireless charging, it's only wireless charging for the last few millimetres.  You still need a "charging station" or "charging pad" or cradle to put your device on to.  What difference could it possibly make to the user, to be able to put your iPad down *beside* the charger instead of right on top of it?  

    The charger/cradle still has to be on your desk.  You still have to have a spot on your desk for it thats as big as the iPad that sits on it.  You could conceivably put the iPad down on the *other* side of your desk and it would (might) still work, but how big is your desk?  And why would you bother doing that when you have a charger/cradle thingie just a foot or so away? 
    AND the device stops charging if you need to pick it up and use it. The continuous stop/start of the charging cycle cannot be good for battery longevity. Is plugging ina Lightning connector really that inconvenient?
  • Reply 24 of 52
    Wireless charging will never be more efficient than a direct connection, plus as someone mentioned above, I certainly wouldn't want to add to the already heavy radiation bath we're receiving daily from the various wi-fi connections, power lines, radio towers, etc. Millions of sources of low- and mid-power radiation cannot ultimately be good for the human animal.

    I do remember reading about their wireless patents granted years ago, but a patent received does not a product make. I'm calling this one a bust now. Not happening.
    edited January 2016
  • Reply 25 of 52
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    cnocbui said:
    The losses and inefficiencies with any wireless charging system are pretty big.  I had a Panasonic razor with wireless charging and it took hours to o charge, and if you had run it down, there was not the slightest hope of a quick top-up.

    I think Samsung's approach is best.  You can just plonk your phone on a pad when time isn't a real concern or plug it in for a really fast charge where a few minutes will give you hours of run time.  Reportedly the S7 will have even faster charging via USB-C, reaching a full charge in just half an hour.

    Effective and practical charging at a distance is a Unicorn.

    Well, this would be the biggest problem. Given how much Apple waves their green credentials, they'd have to have made a significant breakthrough in power wastage before they could release it.

    nolamacguy
  • Reply 26 of 52
    Rayz2016 said:
    cnocbui said:
    The losses and inefficiencies with any wireless charging system are pretty big.  I had a Panasonic razor with wireless charging and it took hours to o charge, and if you had run it down, there was not the slightest hope of a quick top-up.

    I think Samsung's approach is best.  You can just plonk your phone on a pad when time isn't a real concern or plug it in for a really fast charge where a few minutes will give you hours of run time.  Reportedly the S7 will have even faster charging via USB-C, reaching a full charge in just half an hour.

    Effective and practical charging at a distance is a Unicorn.

    Well, this would be the biggest problem. Given how much Apple waves their green credentials, they'd have to have made a significant breakthrough in power wastage before they could release it.

    Can't be done, even with the beamforming they mentioned in their patent. It's not even possible to get and keep a reliable wi-fi or cellular signal, much less a wireless power connection.
  • Reply 27 of 52
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member

    cnocbui said:
    The losses and inefficiencies with any wireless charging system are pretty big.

    Effective and practical charging at a distance is a Unicorn.
    Do you have any proof for that statement? I doubt you have evaluated any possible design of a wireless charging system. Pretty low losses over large distances have been shown with laser transmitted power, for example. And, did you even consider particle beams? Sure, it's quite likely not what Apple is going for, but that's beside the point here.

    "Any" is a pretty big word. I can clearly tell you're not an inventor cnocbui.
    Ha, ha, ha.  Lasers?  Particle beams?  Beam me up Mr Sulu.
  • Reply 28 of 52
    mrboba1mrboba1 Posts: 276member
    This sounds like the kind of story that roots out any leaks from Apple...
  • Reply 29 of 52
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    ksec said:
    How can something as fundamental as this be in the S year of iPhone?

    You need your design of the whole iPhone to be capable of handling it. This isn't something like force touch to add on. So this is either iPhone 7 or 8 timing. Not 7s.
    Since you don't know how this would be implemented, I'd say there's no reason it couldn't be added at the "s" release.

    Wireless charging requires an antenna, and a converter. If the chassis is designed to accomodate the future technology, it's merely a matter of plopping it into the internal hardware configuration when it's ready. Just like Touch ID was added to the 5s, or the Taptic Engine in the 6S.  For all you know they were planning to put it into the iP6 but it wasn't ready. 
    nolamacguytenly
  • Reply 30 of 52
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,548moderator
    Mr_Grey said:
    The most advanced wireless power technology in the world, even in the theoretical laboratory stage, has an effective distance of three feet.

    There are implementations that go further e.g:

    http://www.intelcapital.com/portfolio/company.html?id=19221
    http://gizmodo.com/an-iphone-charging-in-midair-is-the-coolest-ces-demo-i-1751438193

    It has to use targeted power transfer to avoid the massive falloff. They are still talking about low energy though at 1W maximum:



    The Apple Watches have batteries below 1Wh in capacity, the iPhones have about 5-11Wh. iPads ~30Wh, Macbooks ~40-100Wh. They said that an iPhone could charge in 6 hours at 30 feet. The Apple Watch would take an hour or so. An iPad could potentially charge the Apple Pencil wirelessly while it's in use and get rid of the connector. Wireless mice/keyboards could stay charged without ever having to plug them in.

    They are inefficient, these ones are 30% and mats are 50% but we're talking about single digit Watt-hours. Electricity bills are measured in kilowatt hours. The efficiency matters more when you get to the laptop batteries. Even if you wasted 2x the power of 4 iPhones, 2 iPads and 2 laptops per day, that's about 300Wh per day. A single shower can use 10x that. It's barely 3% of a typical home's daily power usage.

    If Apple can get 1W at distances ~30 feet at 30% efficiency and 5W at 1 meter at 50% efficiency for iPads/laptops, for a first generation implementation that would be useful to have as an alternative to plugging devices in. It doesn't need to charge devices fully either, it just has to keep them running longer e.g get a laptop from 10 hours to 15 hours in a working day without plugging in.

    When internet used to be wired, it almost completely defeated the point of having a portable device. There are tethers that still remain - audio, power and data. The ideal scenario is that they are all removed but at least made secondary/non-essential.

    They aren't going to be perfect at first. The first wifi Apple used was 750kBytes/s. The wifi Apple uses now is about 70MBytes/s. Wifi is 100x faster in 15 years. Wireless power implementations don't need anywhere near the same kind of improvements. If they just go from 1W to 5-10W at 30 feet with efficiency above 50%, power cables will hardly ever be used again for mobile/portable devices.

    Something better could easily take its place as it develops like fast charging batteries where you only need to plug in for minutes to get a full charge but it's worth exploring for wearables where attaching a cord at any point would need removing the wearable and it saves the annoyance of plugging as many small products in all the time - cameras, pencils, watches, mice, keyboards, headphones, webcams, remotes and so on. You just wouldn't have to think about plugging low power devices in any more.
    fastasleep
  • Reply 31 of 52
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Most of the world appears to believe in anthropogenic global warming.  The issue with regard to efficiency won't be so much what it costs the consumer but how those inefficiencies add up over hundreds of millions of devices globally and how that is viewed by chicken littles.  As I said, Greenpeace won't be happy.  George Moonbat will discern fodder for a few more articles to pay for his next flight.

    Samsung's approach - plug it in - 100% efficiency - 30min to full charge - done.
    edited January 2016 entropyssingularity
  • Reply 32 of 52
    tenly said:
    Mr_Grey said:
    The most advanced wireless power technology in the world, even in the theoretical laboratory stage, has an effective distance of three feet.  It also has problems with reliability and charging time at that distance and works a lot better (duh) the closer you get.  It wouldn't surprise me if Apple could duplicate at least 80% of this success rate with shipping technology but to what end?  

    As is always said when the subject of wireless charging comes up, it isn't really wireless charging, it's only wireless charging for the last few millimetres.  You still need a "charging station" or "charging pad" or cradle to put your device on to.  What difference could it possibly make to the user, to be able to put your iPad down *beside* the charger instead of right on top of it?  

    The charger/cradle still has to be on your desk.  You still have to have a spot on your desk for it thats as big as the iPad that sits on it.  You could conceivably put the iPad down on the *other* side of your desk and it would (might) still work, but how big is your desk?  And why would you bother doing that when you have a charger/cradle thingie just a foot or so away? 
    How about a little more imagination?  The system I envision would be attached to the headboard of my bed.  I would have my iPhone and iPad on my night table and I would be wearing my Apple Watch.  A 3 foot charging field could easily encompass all of those devices.  That would the ultimate in convenience for me since I wouldn't have to change my usage patterns at all and my devices would be automatically topped up every night! 

    A a second location that might be useful is inside your automobile.  Especially on family trips where everyone is using their personal devices simultaneously.  I'm sure the power would still be consumed faster than it charges, but such a setup could easily turn 6 hours of battery life into 7 or 8 - and for multiple people simultaneously!

    Buses?  Trains?  Airplanes?  Restaurants?  Airport lounges?  Anywhere that people are stationary for long periods of time would be candidates for such a charging station.

    I would hope that they would do some sort of study on the effects this field of energy would have on the human body with extended exposure - although I suspect it will be fine since we are already bombarded daily with almost every type of radiation imaginable.

    Don't think that would work. My understanding is the charging station "locates" the device to be charged and then does a type of "beam forming" where the energy is "aimed" to your device, in a narrow "cone".

    This is far more efficient then simply sending energy everywhere in all directions at once.
    nolamacguyGilliam_Bates
  • Reply 33 of 52
    LGVLGV Posts: 1member
    I don't have a problem charging my devices. I don't want all new accessories, again. How about computational and more meaningful improvements. The tail is wagging the dog, quite put off by it now. I no longer want fascination and pretend features to be a reason to purchase the same expensive items over and over again when there are homeless people in the snow without gloves or socks a block away from me here in NYC. I need the money to be generous and I can't count on Apple to be that. Apple has become a distraction and money sink away from the truly important responsibilities for humans. We all have the duty of nobles obliges. It's a reality check at least for me, I hope it can be for you. Peace. 
  • Reply 34 of 52
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    tenly said:
    Mr_Grey said:
    The most advanced wireless power technology in the world, even in the theoretical laboratory stage, has an effective distance of three feet.  It also has problems with reliability and charging time at that distance and works a lot better (duh) the closer you get.  It wouldn't surprise me if Apple could duplicate at least 80% of this success rate with shipping technology but to what end?  

    As is always said when the subject of wireless charging comes up, it isn't really wireless charging, it's only wireless charging for the last few millimetres.  You still need a "charging station" or "charging pad" or cradle to put your device on to.  What difference could it possibly make to the user, to be able to put your iPad down *beside* the charger instead of right on top of it?  

    The charger/cradle still has to be on your desk.  You still have to have a spot on your desk for it thats as big as the iPad that sits on it.  You could conceivably put the iPad down on the *other* side of your desk and it would (might) still work, but how big is your desk?  And why would you bother doing that when you have a charger/cradle thingie just a foot or so away? 
    How about a little more imagination?  The system I envision would be... 
    yeah you hit the nail on the head -- so many of the "It'll never fly, Orville!" naysayers show a remarkable lack of imagination. im not sure why these sorts are in IT -- to me imagination & creativity are a requirement to creating new things with technology.
    edited January 2016 Gilliam_Bates
  • Reply 35 of 52
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    LGV said:
    I don't have a problem charging my devices. I don't want all new accessories, again. How about computational and more meaningful improvements. The tail is wagging the dog, quite put off by it now. I no longer want fascination and pretend features to be a reason to purchase the same expensive items over and over again when there are homeless people in the snow without gloves or socks a block away from me here in NYC. I need the money to be generous and I can't count on Apple to be that. Apple has become a distraction and money sink away from the truly important responsibilities for humans. We all have the duty of nobles obliges. It's a reality check at least for me, I hope it can be for you. Peace. 
    so when can we expect you to donate all of your belongings and report to the abbey?
    tenly
  • Reply 36 of 52
    tenlytenly Posts: 709member
    Mr_Grey said:
    The most advanced wireless power technology in the world, even in the theoretical laboratory stage, has an effective distance of three feet.  It also has problems with reliability and charging time at that distance and works a lot better (duh) the closer you get.  It wouldn't surprise me if Apple could duplicate at least 80% of this success rate with shipping technology but to what end?  

    As is always said when the subject of wireless charging comes up, it isn't really wireless charging, it's only wireless charging for the last few millimetres.  You still need a "charging station" or "charging pad" or cradle to put your device on to.  What difference could it possibly make to the user, to be able to put your iPad down *beside* the charger instead of right on top of it?  

    The charger/cradle still has to be on your desk.  You still have to have a spot on your desk for it thats as big as the iPad that sits on it.  You could conceivably put the iPad down on the *other* side of your desk and it would (might) still work, but how big is your desk?  And why would you bother doing that when you have a charger/cradle thingie just a foot or so away? 
    Your objections stem from knowledge of existing, publicized texhnologies.  What makes you so sure that this is not something completely new?  Why couldn't this be one of the super secret projects Apple has been working on?

    You're entire post reeks of narrow-minded negativity.

    The article states several things which you ignore completely - such as "Apple is working on a new technology" which you interpret as "Apple is trying to implement an existing technology".  The "working on" implies that Apple is developing the technology itself - so that anything you know about existing technologies may not apply.  You also go on about how the device has to be very close - almost touching - a cradle or charging pad - yet the article clearly states that this is a solution for "long range" charging and further speculates that the distance could be up 1000mm (1metre) - not the "last few" which you call out as a negative.

    "It's only wireless charging for the last few millimeters".  Wow.  Thank you for that insight.  Do you mean to tell us that the air in between the charging unit and the phone is not being charged?  Are you telling us that it is only the actual battery that is charged wirelessly?  I've never heard such a completely obvious statement presented as if it were a brand new insight that only you could figure out.  Gee - next you'll be telling us that our wireless phone calls are ONLY wireless phone calls when they arrive at our phone!  And our wireless networks are only wireless networks once the signals arrive at our network adapter!!!  Such insights!  These are truly game changing insights and I'm so glad we have you here to explain such important concepts to us! /s (heaviest imaginable sarcasm)

    This entire post reeks of trolling - or of unwarranted smug arrogance.
    nemoeacGilliam_Bates
  • Reply 37 of 52
    tenlytenly Posts: 709member
    tenly said:
    How about a little more imagination?  The system I envision would be attached to the headboard of my bed.  I would have my iPhone and iPad on my night table and I would be wearing my Apple Watch.  A 3 foot charging field could easily encompass all of those devices.  That would the ultimate in convenience for me since I wouldn't have to change my usage patterns at all and my devices would be automatically topped up every night! 

    A a second location that might be useful is inside your automobile.  Especially on family trips where everyone is using their personal devices simultaneously.  I'm sure the power would still be consumed faster than it charges, but such a setup could easily turn 6 hours of battery life into 7 or 8 - and for multiple people simultaneously!

    Buses?  Trains?  Airplanes?  Restaurants?  Airport lounges?  Anywhere that people are stationary for long periods of time would be candidates for such a charging station.

    I would hope that they would do some sort of study on the effects this field of energy would have on the human body with extended exposure - although I suspect it will be fine since we are already bombarded daily with almost every type of radiation imaginable.

    Don't think that would work. My understanding is the charging station "locates" the device to be charged and then does a type of "beam forming" where the energy is "aimed" to your device, in a narrow "cone".

    This is far more efficient then simply sending energy everywhere in all directions at once.
    Yeah - that sounds completely likely - but perhaps it could be designed to locate and focus beams on more than a single device simultaneously?  (certainly not in v1)
  • Reply 38 of 52
    tenlytenly Posts: 709member
    Rayz2016 said:

    Well, this would be the biggest problem. Given how much Apple waves their green credentials, they'd have to have made a significant breakthrough in power wastage before they could release it.

    Can't be done, even with the beamforming they mentioned in their patent. It's not even possible to get and keep a reliable wi-fi or cellular signal, much less a wireless power connection.
    A power connection would be much less susceptible to temporary outages.  It doesn't matter if the signal comes and goes with a power transfer like it does with data.  It would simply stop charging briefly until the signal is reacquired.  This would extend the overall charging time - but your post makes it sound like frequent mini-outages would be a bigger deal for power transfer than it is for data transfer - and I don't see how or why that would be true....
  • Reply 39 of 52
    tenlytenly Posts: 709member
    cnocbui said:
    Most of the world appears to believe in anthropogenic global warming.  The issue with regard to efficiency won't be so much what it costs the consumer but how those inefficiencies add up over hundreds of millions of devices globally and how that is viewed by chicken littles.  As I said, Greenpeace won't be happy.  George Moonbat will discern fodder for a few more articles to pay for his next flight.

    Samsung's approach - plug it in - 100% efficiency - 30min to full charge - done.
    What is this besides trolling?  Samsung has had inductive charging for a while now.  That's already less efficient than wired.

    Most of the world believed it was flat at one point.  Most of the forum believes you're a troll.  That doesn't make it true though, right?  Or does it?
    ericthehalfbee
  • Reply 40 of 52
    tenlytenly Posts: 709member
    LGV said:
    I don't have a problem charging my devices. I don't want all new accessories, again. How about computational and more meaningful improvements. The tail is wagging the dog, quite put off by it now. I no longer want fascination and pretend features to be a reason to purchase the same expensive items over and over again when there are homeless people in the snow without gloves or socks a block away from me here in NYC. I need the money to be generous and I can't count on Apple to be that. Apple has become a distraction and money sink away from the truly important responsibilities for humans. We all have the duty of nobles obliges. It's a reality check at least for me, I hope it can be for you. Peace. 
    You can't stick your nobles obliges up your butt as far as I'm concerned.  This was your first post on an Apple enthusiast forum and you've made it clear to all of us your are an Apple hating troll.  Half the forum has probably blocked you already.  Just get rid of your devices and go help the poor already.  The fact that you know where these cold, starving homeless people are and you haven't bought them warm clothes, gloves and/or invited them into your home - shows us all that you're a hypocrite.  Lead by example.  Trash all of your devices - dispose of all of your luxuries - and go do something to help those people instead of making demands of strangers.  Living in New York is expensive - you should move to a small town and live life less large so that you'll have more money left over to help the less fortunate!
    Simply implying that Apple should be responsible for helping these people shows us what a tenuous grasp of reality you actually hold.  Perhaps you've mistaken Apple for a government or a charity?  I hope that this was both your first and last post here on our forum.
Sign In or Register to comment.