all 23 comments

[–]ionstorm66 10 points11 points  (9 children)

Inverse-square law. Same reason this wont work, is why none of the other takes on wireless power haven't worked.

[–]Ermaghert 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Not saying you are wrong but not all electric fields scale like that. That would depend on the geometry of the source and the space we talk about. Between two plates of a capacitor the field for example is constant everywhere. So if one was able to use a special field geometry that confines the field to a smaller space and directs it properly then it might work with higher efficency (think laser vs light bulb).

[–]ionstorm66 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Then you need to way to track devices in real time, and direct the beam at them, which is even more complex.

[–]Ermaghert 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True. But not infeasible and most likely expensive as well.

[–]Sirisian 2 points3 points  (3 children)

If you look at most of these techniques it's a form of pocket energy which is directed using a series of transmitters. They use bluetooth or some other protocol and sweep a large energy pocket through a specified region (usually 15 feet radius) until the battery detects and transmits that it detected the energy pocket. Then the system refines the search until it's concentrated and following the battery. While inverse square law applies, it's not as dire as it seems at first glance. Ceilings over 15 feet would cause an issue though.

It's important to realize, or be able to do napkin math, that for most applications, like replacing batteries or charging a phone, you're talking about devices that cost a quarter to charge a year. Even with inefficiency you're raising the price to maybe 50 cents a year.

[–]quartertopi 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Hmm, then they still could be imbedded in the floor instead? Defeats the disuise, but rednecked...

[–]Sirisian 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Definitely. I think embedding it into a coffee table, nightstand, or anything in the center of a room would be sufficient. The drop ceiling tile idea in general sounds like it would be ideal for an office environment. My office at work for instance is all drop ceiling tiles.

Depending on the power output one could have little perpetual drones flying around in the office. I kind of want this.

[–]quartertopi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm, thinking about it - yeah, me kinda, too! The exclamation mark probably gave it away, i definitely want your latter application.

[–]jknielse 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From the article “the transmitter broadcasts a directed and concentrated RF signal towards a given device”.

No deets on how, but apparently they’re doing some kind of device tracking

[–]Fuck_Up_Cunts 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If/when we have an abundance of energy - this is no longer important, correct?

[–]PeanutButterBear93 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The concept is quite amazing. But the effect of its long term exposure on human body must be experimented before it is released for use to general people. In spite of that wireless charging is the future and this battery seems a step towards it.

[–]Vote4We 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I remember years ago reading a patent for batteries charged remotely.

[–]farticustheelder 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fighting off the flu, brain is even fuzzier than normal. BUT! C'mon guys this is not a battery. Does not work like a battery. Lacks critical battery properties that we rely on.

The damn thing is just a rectenna form-factored into standard battery sizes...jeez I hope that wasn't a trade secret...

The 'not a battery' thing means that if you go out of range the device dies, so no more videos of bears shitting in the woods.

Suits looking for funding to put the cord back on phones.

[–]Utopness -4 points-3 points  (7 children)

Nice, and with 5G coming...I hope the next trend in fashion will be anti-EMF clothing, with all those electromagnetic waves beaming every where.

[–]Rexxhunt 10 points11 points  (3 children)

.... As opposed to right now where we live in an emf free world right?

[–]Utopness -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

Yeah I know, but wireless charging and 5G mean higher frequencies and wider spectrum, that is known for a fact to increase the rate of cancer in lab rats, I'm not sure for human though, I guess we gonna find out in a few years

[–]Fuck_Up_Cunts 0 points1 point  (1 child)

One study, where the female rats mysterious didn't get cancer. I don't think we know anything 'for a fact'


[–]Utopness -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Seems to me like a good start for a single-gender word SciFi story.

[–]GerrardsClaw 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I had the same thought. I'm not an expert in wireless charging. My understanding is that the inverse square nature would mean you would have to put out really high levels of power to make this effective. Is there someone who knows on the thread?

[–]mvfsullivan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wireless energy will never be efficient. It would take a seriously complex and accurate system in order to be even close to 50%, and that's a long shot.

Right now, technologies that exist today are around 20% efficient. That's a ton of wasted energy!

[–]OliverSparrow 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Tinfoil hats all round. I suspect people will start worrying when bodies very obviously block 5G transmissions in offices. Mind you, the cellotape dispenser is a significant source of X-rays. Nature has an image made by radiation from unwinding tape.