71–80 of 99 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd still be battling the inverse square law. Wireless power is just too inefficient to ever be used for serious appliances.
You wouldn't if the whole house is metallic would you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always found it odd that people talking about sexism use 'woman' like it's an adjective. Common use has made it one, but it used to be just a noun. Anyway, my point is that we don't say "man founders" or "man drivers" or "men professionals".
It is because woman are considered to be the adjunct, not the norm, not the average, not the expected or assumed. Its even obvious in the word itself - a prefix on the word "man", which can and is often used in place of "person" or "human", and will describe a person who is more than likely assumed to be of the masculine persuasion. A+ on not putting "Woman" in the headline for the article, though!
I cannot see in a world were we are trying to reduce energy use how wireless power is possible? Even if it's got some sort of feedback that allows it to be a highly concentrated beam between devices it still seems to me it'll be very lossy. Loss in the air. Loss in transforming the energy twice more than normal.
Most of us here are discussing the science of this thing. But let's just say that the science somehow miraculously works. Would any of you actually want to buy that big square thing and put it in your rooms? I can't imagine I would.
If it actually works it'll inevitably be miniaturized over time I'd imagine, pretty much like everything else in technology.
At first I felt awful because I was thinking like part of the establishment: there's no way she came up with something that will replace power cords. I've got a degree in physics, and have always been interested in acoustics, and sound in air has some amazing properties, including the ability to transfer non-trivial amounts of power, especially at nodes, and especially when focused with, say, a parabolic reflector..…
I think that the reason this new idea came from someone outside of Physics or Electrical Engineering is because its poor efficiency is obvious to people with a background in those fields. Sometimes it takes an outsider to challenge assumptions and achieve a breakthrough, but I don't think thats going to happen in this particular case.
I'm not trying to troll with pedantry here, I'm genuinely interested in the reasoning that surely went on at the NYT.
I cannot see in a world were we are trying to reduce energy use how wireless power is possible? Even if it's got some sort of feedback that allows it to be a highly concentrated beam between devices it still seems to me it'll be very lossy. Loss in the air. Loss in transforming the energy twice more than normal.
Batteries are both lossy and environmentally problematic objects to manufacture and dispose of. Also, a good fraction of all the energy used by society is spent hauling around energy storage. Wireless power would help fix both these issues even if it was fairly lossy compared to a copper wire.
At first I felt awful because I was thinking like part of the establishment: there's no way she came up with something that will replace power cords. I've got a degree in physics, and have always been interested in acoustics, and sound in air has some amazing properties, including the ability to transfer non-trivial amounts of power, especially at nodes, and especially when focused with, say, a parabolic reflector..…