FCC approves first wireless 'power-at-a-distance' charging system
Charging your mobile device wirelessly is certainly less of a hassle than plugging it in, but still requires the device be in physical contact with its station to actually work. That's about to change now that the Federal Communications Commission has approved the first wireless charger that works from up to three feet away.
San Jose-based startup, Energous, announced on Tuesday that it has received the first such FCC certification for power-at-a-distance wireless charging with its WattUp Mid Field transmitter. The transmitter converts electricity into radio frequencies, then beams the energy to nearby devices outfitted with a corresponding receiver. This differs from the resonant induction method that the Pi wireless charging system relies upon and offers a greater range than the Belkin and Mophie chargers that require physical contact with the device.
Also at Ubergizmo.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MostCynical on Thursday December 28 2017, @03:06AM (4 children)
so, can you over-drive these?
"Free charging and cooking"
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday December 28 2017, @03:13AM (2 children)
I don't think the FCC would approve of that.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @07:26AM
Trump's in charge. FCC now approves anything that makes more money for shareholders no matter the consequences.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @02:06PM
What about 10 of these pointed to the same area in a conference room. Walk in to a presentation, walk out with cancer.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @03:24AM
It's yours!
Not possible luv. I use WattUp.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday December 28 2017, @04:58AM (6 children)
People claiming sensitivity to Wifi are really going to hate all over this stuff.
More Drama. [sciencebasedmedicine.org]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @07:47AM (2 children)
I'm reminded of James Randi's challenges.
For instance, he offered cash to anyone who could find water by "dowsing". [google.com]
(Nobody got the prize.)
There was also the case of the new RF installation where the local folks bitched about the radiation (and the thing hadn't been powered up yet.)
There's also the place in West Virginia where transmitters aren't allowed.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday December 28 2017, @12:55PM
Maybe it's coming back?
California Issues Warning Over Cellphones; Study Links Non-Ionizing Radiation to Miscarriage [soylentnews.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @04:00PM
James Randi is pretty much an asshole and nobody with any actual skills is going to bother with him.
Skeptics are the only people more annoying and generally less useful than the true believers they try to debunk.
The sad thing is, that they don't realize that their attempts to dismiss things that can't be proven are often times just as ludicrous as the explanations themselves.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday December 28 2017, @09:10AM (2 children)
Am I a bad person for laughing as I read that, and then thinking "fewer bad genes in the genepool"?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @03:51PM
was she hot?
losing a hot girl is a tragedy. losing an ugly one is a statistic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @08:20PM
Oh, you think suicide is funny? I think I see someone else who could use mental health services. Perhaps even a few more bad genes in the genepool -- sociopathic ones.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Thursday December 28 2017, @05:15AM (3 children)
Did anyone see any reference to the actual power output of these things? I read/skimmed two fine articles without seeing any mention of that piece of information...
(Score: 1) by anubi on Thursday December 28 2017, @08:40AM (2 children)
I would also be interested in the power transfer ratio.... how many joules do I have to feed the thing to get a joule out at the charger and into the battery?
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Thursday December 28 2017, @09:45AM
Indeed. And they were throwing around both "directional" and "can charge multiple devices simultaneously", so knowing just how many beams they can form would also be useful. Oh, and do the charge beams track moving devices?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @01:38PM
The FCC docs show it uses 4W at 913 MHz. There's also a 'stay out' zone within 20cm that is monitored for movement - the RF is shut off if movement is detected.
(Score: 4, Informative) by bradley13 on Thursday December 28 2017, @10:38AM
Here is a link to a semiconductor company producing actual WattUp products [dialog-semiconductor.com]. However, the available documents are pretty light on details. From the "product brief" the transmitter supports 1-4 antennas. Receiving antennas can be as small as 2mmx3mm (intended for hearing aids, for example). No information at all on how much power can be transmitted, or what efficiency they can achieve, but the hearing-aid use case implies that receivers do not have to be stationary. Communication between transmitter and receiver is via Bluetooth.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @07:23PM
Seems like this could cause death fast.
(Score: 1) by sonamchauhan on Thursday December 28 2017, @11:57PM
This stuff is probably going to be dangerous. Especially with many of these stuffed into a conference room... to recharge laser pointers, tablets, phones, laptops, bluetooth earpieces, projectors... the 'bodies in the way' are going to be collateral damage.
Non-Thermal Effect of Microwave Radiation on Human Brain
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10669-005-4282-x [springer.com]
Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation
https://www.amazon.com/Disconnect-Truth-About-Phone-Radiation/dp/0991219902/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 [amazon.com]