| Nearly 125 years late, wireless recharging arrives |
by subbywan |
2008-08-22 08:58:19 |
| Wireless recharging one step closer to reality
Hurrah! It's only taken them up to now to repeat what was first done in 1887. Tech progress FTW!
|
|
[ Reply ] |
|
:sigh: And they didn't even *mention* Nikola Tesla | by bitflipper | 2008-08-22 09:03:03 |
|
higher loss, maybe, but his still worked | by subbywan | 2008-08-22 09:04:41 |
|
I guess my electric toothbrush desn't count? | by vetitice | 2008-08-22 09:12:52 |
|
nope. not the same principle, as I understand it | by subbywan | 2008-08-22 09:13:53 |
|
Wireless recharging is easy. | by AndyA | 2008-08-22 09:14:33 |
|
75%-90% isn't a bad start. (n/t) | by subbywan | 2008-08-22 09:17:44 |
|
At three feet. | by bwkaz | 2008-08-22 09:35:23 |
|
Directional "antenna" maybe | by Menetlaus | 2008-08-22 09:46:59 |
|
Just be careful where you put Mister Peep's cage! | by kahuana | 2008-08-22 09:49:21 |
|
It'll still be inverse square. | by bwkaz | 2008-08-22 09:51:53 |
|
How's that? | by Menetlaus | 2008-08-22 11:54:12 |
|
It's not inverse-square, or plain inverse. | by bwkaz | 2008-08-22 12:23:56 |
|
It is inverse square if you are far enough away | by hej | 2008-08-22 14:25:31 |
|
Shouldn't the near version be a line, rather than | by bwkaz | 2008-08-22 15:43:50 |
|
The near version I talked about is even closer. | by hej | 2008-08-22 16:37:28 |
|
Ah, I get it. Thanks! (n/t) | by bwkaz | 2008-08-22 16:56:12 |
|
Lasers | by weedwacker01 | 2008-08-22 20:48:04 |
|
Doesn't work. | by hej | 2008-08-24 11:27:17 |
|
I think you are missing something. | by AndyA | 2008-08-22 10:33:58 |
|
... Dang, yeah, you're right. | by bwkaz | 2008-08-22 12:19:21 |
|
On the other hand: | by bwkaz | 2008-08-22 12:22:42 |
|
If you lower the frequency then | by AndyA | 2008-08-22 13:22:54 |
|
Hmm; that could be the intent. | by bwkaz | 2008-08-22 13:26:47 |
|
But it could also "universalize" recharging. | by merlin | 2008-08-22 13:31:11 |
|
Could... but won't | by Menetlaus | 2008-08-22 13:45:38 |
|
but less cables = good. | by AndyA | 2008-08-22 13:59:43 |
|
Maybe the average consumer. | by bwkaz | 2008-08-22 14:20:44 |
|
Just plug your wireless into an outlet! :-) (n/t) | by kahuana | 2008-08-22 09:31:35 |
|
Let's see -- 60W, 75% efficiency... | by bwkaz | 2008-08-22 09:31:55 |
|
Inverse square doesn't apply. | by AndyA | 2008-08-22 11:05:38 |
|
75 Watts with 25% loss - and people complain about | by UnFair | 2008-08-22 09:33:10 |
|
Very different energy. | by AndyA | 2008-08-22 10:35:57 |
|
I laugh at their notion of "biggest challenge" | by kahuana | 2008-08-22 09:37:37 |
|
Not to mention... | by jdelphiki | 2008-08-22 10:19:08 |
|
*phppppptt!* So much for my Electronics teacher... | by taitano | 2008-08-22 11:09:38 |
|
Tesla did it back at the turn of the century. | by subbywan | 2008-08-22 11:12:06 |
|
If he'd have timed it right he could've also | by kahuana | 2008-08-22 11:19:02 |
|
In the building where the E class is, is a circuit | by taitano | 2008-08-22 11:33:41 |
|
IRONY!!! | by weedwacker01 | 2008-08-22 20:38:32 |
