Live data from Hacker News

Apple is working with Energous on wireless charging

venturebeat.com

21–30 of 71 posts

Re: Apple is working with Energous on wireless charging

#21
post #15

My understanding, though, is that all of these wireless charging solutions are significantly less efficient that wired power. Even if it's, say, 10% less efficient, that's a huge, huge waste of energy on a large scale if this technology becomes popular.

Waste is relative. A smartphone uses around 1% the electricity per year of a refrigerator; I don't know if upping that even to, say, 10% would make all that much difference in the grand scheme of things.

Re: Apple is working with Energous on wireless charging

#22
post #15

My understanding, though, is that all of these wireless charging solutions are significantly less efficient that wired power. Even if it's, say, 10% less efficient, that's a huge, huge waste of energy on a large scale if this technology becomes popular.

10% less efficient?

I think charging my phone loses about 5% in thermal losses at the connector (because it gets warm)

10% is both not important (in this context) and unfortunately optimistic

Re: Apple is working with Energous on wireless charging

#23
post #3

Work on wireless power transfer has been going on over 100-years, even Tesla worked on it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_power_transfer Hard to imagine this being mainstream anytime soon. Is there any reason to believe this will become mainstream in the near future?

As a physicist, I am similarly skeptical. It seems quite unlikely to me that wireless power will take off within our lifetimes. However, if it does happen, I suspect it will be because of one of the following hypotheses: (1) Electronics continue to become more energy efficient, to the point that a tiny wireless power trickle is sufficient to run them (2) Perhaps computers will be an enabling technology, both in desig…

On the assumption that it happens? Well, you covered the more likely ones. Let me add one more.

3) Advances in molecular manufacturing (Drexler-style!) allows us to construct atomically perfect transmitters and receivers. This, somehow, increases efficiency to north of 90%. And increases range, too.

Re: Apple is working with Energous on wireless charging

#24
post #15

My understanding, though, is that all of these wireless charging solutions are significantly less efficient that wired power. Even if it's, say, 10% less efficient, that's a huge, huge waste of energy on a large scale if this technology becomes popular.

Why would it not be absorbed by proportional savings in heating?

Re: Apple is working with Energous on wireless charging

#25
The real issue is that our devices discharge much too quickly, and take too long to recharge.

By increasing battery capacity, improving the efficiency of our devices, and lowering charging time, the inconvenience of charging during the middle of the day when heavy use is likely simply wouldn't happen nearly as much.

Re: Apple is working with Energous on wireless charging

#26
post #24
post #15

My understanding, though, is that all of these wireless charging solutions are significantly less efficient that wired power. Even if it's, say, 10% less efficient, that's a huge, huge waste of energy on a large scale if this technology becomes popular.

Why would it not be absorbed by proportional savings in heating?

Depends where you live. We spend more of the year running AC here.

Re: Apple is working with Energous on wireless charging

#27
post #15

My understanding, though, is that all of these wireless charging solutions are significantly less efficient that wired power. Even if it's, say, 10% less efficient, that's a huge, huge waste of energy on a large scale if this technology becomes popular.

Wireless charging is also a pointless gimmick. You have to put the device on a mat anyway, so you might as well simply plop it into a dock. And you'll save the space inside the device that would've been needed for inductors.

You don't need a wire or even a socket on the device; flat contacts on the bottom would be fine.

Apple probably will implement this crap, more hypocrisy and another step in their war against usefulness. First they remove the audio output from their best-selling music players. Actually, not first... they've been removing battery capacity for years, in an idiotic and embarrassing campaign to make already-too-thin devices "thinner." But not really thinner, because the camera sticks out.

Think of how good the camera would be if the phone were thick enough to provide reasonable battery power?

The problem is that spineless consumers vote for products that call them stupid.

Re: Apple is working with Energous on wireless charging

#28

My favorite is still the cradle with contact pins that were on the original nexus one phones, no need to plug anything in, no need to align with magnetic grippers, just drop it in the cradle and it worked. Why did that ever go away?

EXACTLY.

This exemplifies why wireless charging is a dumb gimmick.

Re: Apple is working with Energous on wireless charging

#29
post #15

My understanding, though, is that all of these wireless charging solutions are significantly less efficient that wired power. Even if it's, say, 10% less efficient, that's a huge, huge waste of energy on a large scale if this technology becomes popular.

I think it's more than 10%. At least 20%. Maybe even 50%.

Re: Apple is working with Energous on wireless charging

#30
post #5
post #3

Work on wireless power transfer has been going on over 100-years, even Tesla worked on it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_power_transfer Hard to imagine this being mainstream anytime soon. Is there any reason to believe this will become mainstream in the near future?

I wouldn't mind it. For a lot of my devices if you put on the wireless charger the wrong way you come up to a dead device. This would theoretically allow you to be fully charged if there were enough beacons in a building.

Most people would not mind wireless power that's not dangerous, but that is not a pragmatic reasoning behind why it will happen soon, but didn't happen in the past. Right?
Post reply on HN