Powercast promises wireless charging of consumer electronics at an 80-foot range

Posted:
in iPhone edited December 2017
A second at-range wireless charging company has announced its Federal Communications Commission approval, and will be demonstrating its far-field technology, capable of charging multiple devices up to 80 feet away at the Consumer Electronics Show in January.




Powercast's implementation of far-field charging technology needs no charging mat or direct line of sight. Instead, the 3W transmitter uses the 915 MHz ISM band to send to a Powercast receiver chip in a device, which converts the transmission to DC to "directly power or recharge" an enabled device at up to 80 feet for devices with low power needs.

"Others might be talking RF power possibilities, but we have consistently delivered far-field wireless power solutions that work, safely and responsibly, under FCC and other global standards providing power up to 80 feet," said Powercast Chief Operating Officer Charles Greene. "Our robust technology has capabilities beyond today's permitted standards, so our product releases will evolve as regulations do."

Powercast expects up to 30 devices left in the zone on a countertop or desktop overnight can charge by morning, sharing the transmitter's three-watt (EIRP) power output. The company notes that charging rates will vary with distance, type of device, and power consumption.





The PowerSpot transmitter uses Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS) modulation for power and Amplitude Shift Keying (ASK) modulation for data, and includes an integrated 6dBi directional antenna with a 70-degree beam pattern.

Devices cited as being good fits for the technology are devices like game controllers, smart watches, fitness bands, hearing aids, ear buds, or headphones charging best up to two feet away; with keyboards and mice up to six feet away. Accessories like TV remotes and smart cards charge well up to 10 feet away; with low-power devices like home automation environmental sensors getting sufficient charging power up to 80 feet away.

At January's Consumer Electronics Show, Powercast will be demonstrating a PoweSpot transmitter feeding into a Qi inductive wireless charging pad, like those used for the iPhone 8 family and the iPhone X. Additionally, it will show wirelessly powered game controllers, headphones, smart watches, earbuds, smart clothing, illuminated retail packaging, and reconfigurable retail price tags.

Powercast will begin production of its standalone PowerSpot charger shortly and is expecting a $100 retail on the transmitter at launch. Once PowerSpot reaches mass production, the company projects a $50 average selling price for the transmitter from major electronics stores with consumer electronics manufacturers offering it as an option on shipping devices.

The company claims that it is in discussions with several manufacturers, and has forged deals with a pair of "household names" for production of consumer electronics with the technology included.
alxyz
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 28
    At some point it will be impossible to dispute that bombarding our bodies with these kinds of things is unhealthy and destructive. But we’ll be so far into it that a reversal will mean a substantial change of life. Ironic that the manner in which we are pursuing these things will eventually bring about their downfall.
    edited December 2017 dws-2macseekerbaconstangnetmage
  • Reply 2 of 28
    georgie01 said:
    At some point it will be impossible to dispute that bombarding our bodies with these kinds of things is unhealthy and destructive. But we’ll be so far into it that a reversal will mean a substantial change of life. Ironic that the manner in which we are pursuing these things will eventually bring about their downfall.
    They said the same thing about electricity.
    StrangeDaysaylkmike1mwhitellamajony0
  • Reply 3 of 28
    georgie01 said:
    At some point it will be impossible to dispute that bombarding our bodies with these kinds of things is unhealthy and destructive. But we’ll be so far into it that a reversal will mean a substantial change of life. Ironic that the manner in which we are pursuing these things will eventually bring about their downfall.
    Or humans could like ... adapt and evolve? Also you really don't want to know about the electromagnetic rays that still make it through the atmosphere already. Also bloody well gods and goddesses forgive that we travel through space with cosmic background radiation just zooming through any shielding we give it. Trust me if you live in any modern home the amount of EF hitting you daily from the 300mhz to 60ghz band is far more than this could put out. Also you use wifi routers? This is basically an extension of that technology.
    edited December 2017 mike1kingofsomewherehotjony0
  • Reply 4 of 28
    georgie01 said:
    At some point it will be impossible to dispute that bombarding our bodies with these kinds of things is unhealthy and destructive. But we’ll be so far into it that a reversal will mean a substantial change of life. Ironic that the manner in which we are pursuing these things will eventually bring about their downfall.
    City of Atlantis, Part 2
  • Reply 5 of 28
    dws-2dws-2 Posts: 181member
    alxyz said:
    georgie01 said:
    At some point it will be impossible to dispute that bombarding our bodies with these kinds of things is unhealthy and destructive. But we’ll be so far into it that a reversal will mean a substantial change of life. Ironic that the manner in which we are pursuing these things will eventually bring about their downfall.
    They said the same thing about electricity.
    And about radiation in the early 1900s. The fact is that we don't really know yet, but that doesn't mean we should dive in.
  • Reply 6 of 28
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 3,108administrator
    georgie01 said:
    At some point it will be impossible to dispute that bombarding our bodies with these kinds of things is unhealthy and destructive. But we’ll be so far into it that a reversal will mean a substantial change of life. Ironic that the manner in which we are pursuing these things will eventually bring about their downfall.
    Your science is bad.

    We'll be talking about this from a scientific standpoint in 2018.
    patchythepirateracerhomie3bluefire1jony0
  • Reply 7 of 28
    alxyz said:
    georgie01 said:
    At some point it will be impossible to dispute that bombarding our bodies with these kinds of things is unhealthy and destructive. But we’ll be so far into it that a reversal will mean a substantial change of life. Ironic that the manner in which we are pursuing these things will eventually bring about their downfall.
    They said the same thing about electricity.
    And every other thing that’s mattered since... the cave. You know some cave dude figured out fire, brought it into the cave and was super excited to share it with them only to find the oldest most irrelevant member of his tribe bitching about getting a disease no one will live long enough to get. 
    dws-2berndogmike1netmagejony0
  • Reply 8 of 28
    roakeroake Posts: 563member
    Roanhouse said:
    georgie01 said:
    At some point it will be impossible to dispute that bombarding our bodies with these kinds of things is unhealthy and destructive. But we’ll be so far into it that a reversal will mean a substantial change of life. Ironic that the manner in which we are pursuing these things will eventually bring about their downfall.
    Or humans could like ... adapt and evolve? Also you really don't want to know about the electromagnetic rays that still make it through the atmosphere already. Also bloody well gods and goddesses forgive that we travel through space with cosmic background radiation just zooming through any shielding we give it. Trust me if you live in any modern home the amount of EF hitting you daily from the 300mhz to 60ghz band is far more than this could put out. Also you use wifi routers? This is basically an extension of that technology.
    Why?
  • Reply 9 of 28

    georgie01 said:
    At some point it will be impossible to dispute that bombarding our bodies with these kinds of things is unhealthy and destructive. But we’ll be so far into it that a reversal will mean a substantial change of life. Ironic that the manner in which we are pursuing these things will eventually bring about their downfall.
    georgie01 said:
    At some point it will be impossible to dispute that bombarding our bodies with these kinds of things is unhealthy and destructive. But we’ll be so far into it that a reversal will mean a substantial change of life. Ironic that the manner in which we are pursuing these things will eventually bring about their downfall.
    Wait - the sky is falling again and now they’ve electrified the space beneath and between it...? 

    What will we do? Oh yea... charge our phones and stuff. 

    Original thought may include some science from time to time but in general focusing on - just - thinking (sans junk science and The share sheet) would be appreciated. Not sharing will muffle the sudden and shrill of “Chicken littles” scream from the inside of every white mans elder soul. 


  • Reply 10 of 28

    georgie01 said:
    At some point it will be impossible to dispute that bombarding our bodies with these kinds of things is unhealthy and destructive. But we’ll be so far into it that a reversal will mean a substantial change of life. Ironic that the manner in which we are pursuing these things will eventually bring about their downfall.
    georgie01 said:
    At some point it will be impossible to dispute that bombarding our bodies with these kinds of things is unhealthy and destructive. But we’ll be so far into it that a reversal will mean a substantial change of life. Ironic that the manner in which we are pursuing these things will eventually bring about their downfall.
    Lastly - everybody dies. 
  • Reply 11 of 28
    georgie01 said:
    At some point it will be impossible to dispute that bombarding our bodies with these kinds of things is unhealthy and destructive. 
    If that's true, then there will be medical research and science to back that claim up. So far, zilch.
  • Reply 12 of 28

    dws-2 said:
    alxyz said:
    georgie01 said:
    At some point it will be impossible to dispute that bombarding our bodies with these kinds of things is unhealthy and destructive. But we’ll be so far into it that a reversal will mean a substantial change of life. Ironic that the manner in which we are pursuing these things will eventually bring about their downfall.
    They said the same thing about electricity.
    And about radiation in the early 1900s. The fact is that we don't really know yet, but that doesn't mean we should dive in.
    Ah, the classic "appeal to ignorance" fallacy -- you don't have any evidence, but assert the truth of your statement nonetheless. Sorry, this fallacy doesn't hold water. To assert the truth of your claim (wireless is unhealthy!) you must provide the proof.

    http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Appeal-to-Ignorance.html
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
    netmage1983
  • Reply 13 of 28
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 1,690member
    I see that security camera will benefit from this technology tremendously. A truly wireless security camera!
    roake
  • Reply 14 of 28
    roakeroake Posts: 563member

    dws-2 said:
    alxyz said:
    georgie01 said:
    At some point it will be impossible to dispute that bombarding our bodies with these kinds of things is unhealthy and destructive. But we’ll be so far into it that a reversal will mean a substantial change of life. Ironic that the manner in which we are pursuing these things will eventually bring about their downfall.
    They said the same thing about electricity.
    And about radiation in the early 1900s. The fact is that we don't really know yet, but that doesn't mean we should dive in.
    Ah, the classic "appeal to ignorance" fallacy -- you don't have any evidence, but assert the truth of your statement nonetheless. Sorry, this fallacy doesn't hold water. To assert the truth of your claim (wireless is unhealthy!) you must provide the proof.

    http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Appeal-to-Ignorance.html
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
    I'm not defending him, per se.  But attempting to strictly apply this sort of philosophy packaged "logic" (as if it applies to every situation) doesn't work.  Otherwise, the thinking would could be, "It's safe until someone proves otherwise."  How dangerous is this thinking?  Ask Marie Curie, an absolutely brilliant scientist who was responsible for amazing advances in the fields of physics and chemistry. 
    edited December 2017 netmage
  • Reply 15 of 28
    Can someone just delete all the end of the world comments and start over?

    This sounds incredible. This would be fantastic for kids toys. Build the transmitter into a toy box or just in the room. If the kiddos put their toys away, everything works the next day. If not, all the batteries die.
  • Reply 16 of 28
    wigbywigby Posts: 671member
    roake said:
    Roanhouse said:
    georgie01 said:
    At some point it will be impossible to dispute that bombarding our bodies with these kinds of things is unhealthy and destructive. But we’ll be so far into it that a reversal will mean a substantial change of life. Ironic that the manner in which we are pursuing these things will eventually bring about their downfall.
    Or humans could like ... adapt and evolve? Also you really don't want to know about the electromagnetic rays that still make it through the atmosphere already. Also bloody well gods and goddesses forgive that we travel through space with cosmic background radiation just zooming through any shielding we give it. Trust me if you live in any modern home the amount of EF hitting you daily from the 300mhz to 60ghz band is far more than this could put out. Also you use wifi routers? This is basically an extension of that technology.
    Why?
    Because they are right. But don’t listen to some anonymous commenter. Listen to every scientist. Of course climate change deniers only listen to the science that aligns with their convenient way of life so I’m not sure what to expect.
  • Reply 17 of 28
    georgie01 said:
    At some point it will be impossible to dispute that bombarding our bodies with these kinds of things is unhealthy and destructive. But we’ll be so far into it that a reversal will mean a substantial change of life. Ironic that the manner in which we are pursuing these things will eventually bring about their downfall.
    The radiation that bombards you every day from the Sun is orders of magnitude more powerful and dangerous than anything you would be exposed to from such a device. Unless you are soaking wet in a bathtub when you plug it into the wall AC you will be just fine.
  • Reply 18 of 28
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,479member
    They Video doesn’t mention smart phones as one of the objects that they can charge. That’s very strange.
  • Reply 19 of 28
    jd_in_sb said:
    They Video doesn’t mention smart phones as one of the objects that they can charge. That’s very strange.
    When one considers how much higher the power draw of a smart phone is compared to any of the other mentioned devices, it’s not really surprising at all.  
    baconstang1STnTENDERBITS
  • Reply 20 of 28
    The efficiency of this sort of device must be really, really poor when there is any distance between the two devices. Laws of physics dictate this.

    We are even seeing Cars being charged wirelessly.

    Yet, I can clearly remember seeing the effect on plants of magnetism back in the 1970's. Put the magnet one way round and the plant dies. Reverse the polarity and it grows stronger. This effect also applies to cancer cells.
    I am not convinced of their safety.
    All these extra RF Fields bouncing around our houses 24/7 can't be good for you in the long run.
    Yes, the sun sends out a lot more but at least with the advent of night the level drops considerably. With these things, they are there all the time.
    Who really knows about the long term effect of this sort of device?


    baconstangSpamSandwich
Sign In or Register to comment.