wireless charging Disney finally nails free-roaming wireless power delivery

[captain_to_fire]

12 minutes ago, zMeul said:

please do your fucking research and don't quote me journals

Unless you have relevant credentials who had done research similar to what Disney did which, your comments about this fantastic research can be steadfastly ignored.

So suit yourself. It's a journal you obviously didn't read.

[zMeul]

7 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

Unless you have relevant credentials who had done research similar to what Disney did which, your comments about this fantastic research can be steadfastly ignored.

So suit yourself

good god!

there were already studies done and you chose to ignore them because

• Disney?!
• some theoretical model published in a journal?!

 

---

 

what was said about cell phones being safe?

last year or so there was a study done on lab mice that linked cancer to wireless transmissions

 

but hey .. it's "bad science" 

[SCHISCHKA]

5 hours ago, stconquest said:

@hey_yo_  IIRC, his (Tesla) project and stored documents all got destroyed because he was considered a national security risk.

Wanst he trying to build a death ray to remotely blow up any city on the planet

[DELTAprime]

The concept is cool, but can we please make sure it doesn't cause cancer or other health issues before making it a commercial product?

[stconquest]

1 hour ago, SCHISCHKA said:

Wanst he trying to build a death ray to remotely blow up any city on the planet

lol, I think that was a comic book where he was made to be the villain... with him though?  I can never be sure.

 

I think he once famously said that he could crack the world in half with a resonance device.

 

Mythbusters (Season 4, Episode 17) tested his design and they were able to shake a big iron bridge to the point where they got scared.  The device was small, like 10LBS or something.

 

 

[Nup]

I had no idea that Disney did this kind of research. Very cool to see, that being said. I'd love for this to be a reality, maybe soon!

 

They could use a copper plate in the ceiling, flipping the field 90* and avoiding the big pole in the middle, that would also be nice  could also hit two vertical rooms at once. Also 40-90% efficiency is a big range, wonder how it varies, should probably read more of the paper, but im not an engineer. 

[cesrai]

2 hours ago, zMeul said:

 

---

 

what was said about cell phones being safe?

last year or so there was a study done on lab mice that linked cancer to wireless transmissions

 

Citation needed !

[AresKrieger]

Well this incredibly inefficient and not really that new of a concept just no one thought it was a good idea to make electric fields like this for a variety of reasons.

[AresKrieger]

13 minutes ago, cesrai said:

Citation needed !

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on CancerExit Disclaimer (IARC), a component of the World Health Organization, appointed an expert Working Group to review all available evidence on the use of cell phones. The Working Group classified cell phone use as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence from human studies, limited evidence from studies of radiofrequency energy and cancer in rodents, and inconsistent evidence from mechanistic studies (5).

 

In short rodent studies concluded this, human ones have not but I can confirm brain cancer rates have go up possibly coincidently with cellphone use

[TidaLWaveZ]

Remember that movie Scanners where that guys head explodes? That's what this is going to do.

 

I wanted to post a clip from youtube but decided it may be a bit to graphic for the younger members.

[goodtofufriday]

8 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

This is a good thing. I'm hoping that I'll be able to charge all my small devices (3DS, phones, cameras, etc) without having to place them on a dock. 

Honestly this is more likeky a precursor to not needing batteries in our devices at all. 

Though we will all be dead by the time its realized. 

[goodtofufriday]

15 minutes ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

Remember that movie Scanners where that guys head explodes? That's what this is going to do.

 

I wanted to post a clip from youtube but decided it may be a bit to graphic for the younger members.

Then lets show trouble in little china! 

 

[captain_to_fire]

3 hours ago, zMeul said:

good god!

there were already studies done and you chose to ignore them because

• Disney?!
• some theoretical model published in a journal?!

what was said about cell phones being safe?

last year or so there was a study done on lab mice that linked cancer to wireless transmissions

 

but hey .. it's "bad science" 

I don't want this thread to become cancer central but you do realize that what you posted about cancer is a strawman because nowhere in the OP said something about cancer or the long term safety of smartphones. Not to mention you provided no evidence nor corroboration to your claims but instead you tried to knock down the peer reviewed journal article by accusing me of ignoring research that you failed to provide citations. Lastly you whining that I decided to ignore some "alleged researches" because the post had Disney and the paper was a theoretical model is an obvious evidence that you didn't read the article or you chose to skim parts that you can knock down. Also I would like to ask if you even know what theoretical means. If you have read the article, they pretty much tested their hypothesis which makes the paper experimental. Look at section 3 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169045#sec003

 

If you even bothered to read the OP, I even linked videos testing their theory which makes it experimental. So, unless you can provide better evidence and reason out better, your posts is as good as a Sarah Palin rant. 

[AshleyAshes]

4 hours ago, zMeul said:

please do your fucking research and don't quote me journals

Anyone else appreciate the irony of this sentence or is it just me?

[paddy-stone]

10 hours ago, tmcclelland455 said:

This is terrifyingly cool. But I don't like it. Is it really that bad that people are too retarded/lazy to put their phone on a little wireless charging base?

I agree to some extent with what you're saying. But another way to think about it, if Tesla's idea could come to fruition, is that then you could have the devices that need power anywhere in your room you want... TVs would no longer have to be where a wall socket is, no more long power leads for people to trip over etc. If smaller devices like cell phones had their charging settings changed it would be great, eg they'd get down to 20% before automatically charging themselves again, and also there would be a toggle where you could charge manually.

Or even better if Tesla's dream became reality there would be free electricity everywhere, so you wouldn't need to be at the office/home before charging your devices... and devices wouldn't need such large batteries, cutting down the size and weight of devices considerably.

[flibberdipper]

11 hours ago, hey_yo_ said:

I mean wireless charging in its current state is already convenient but to say that true wireless charging that requires no pads is laziness is just like again, saying that 4G LTE is useless when things are just fine with 3G.

  Reveal hidden contents

3G

 

compare that to 4G LTE

 

Can you imagine the convenience of Disney's wireless charging especially for people with big houses? 

Not really because I can live without having my phone in my hand 24/7, and I don't care about having to put it on a charging puck.

 

8 hours ago, Wix said:

 

I'd like to see you just use a LAN / wired cable for your PC / smartphone / laptop instead of WiFi. If you won't, you're lazy.

 

I don't get why you people detest technological progress like this. Man invented the chainsaw so he can chop trees faster than with an axe.

 

Technological progress / invention is not about being lazy, it's about being efficient.

Let's just check off the things I use on LAN:
PC
Laptop
Console

And half the time my phone is tethered to my laptop... Try again, perhaps?

[tlink]

8 hours ago, hey_yo_ said:

Here's what the researchers have to say to that according to their peer-reviewed journal:

 

Chabalko, M. J., Shahmohammadi, M., & Sample, A. P. (2017). Quasistatic Cavity Resonance for Ubiquitous Wireless Power Transfer. Plos One, 12(2). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0169045

  Reveal hidden contents

SAFETY

 

If the vision of ubiquitous wireless power in everyday environments is to be realized, then it must be safe for the general public while delivering useful amounts of power. The IEEE and FCC have adopted two sets of safety guidelines. The first, based on direct measurement of the electric field, establishes an “action level” threshold of 614 V/m (RMS) for frequencies below 1.34 MHz, at which point further investigation and safety analysis is required. Given the good agreement between predicted and measured electric field values, Eq (7) can be used to calculate the input power level that meets this safety guideline. The second and more rigorous safety metric is Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), which is a measure of how much power is absorbed by biological tissue.

 

To this end, we performed a standard SAR analysis using COMSOL Multiphysics and a CAD model of an adult male body developed from full-body MRI scans [31]. The model consists of a 1.78 m (5’10”) male human body as shown in Fig 5a. Since the operating wavelength of the system is much longer than the dimensions of a human and since the field distribution is highly uniform and falls off monotonically the internal geometry of the body model can be simplified without loss of accuracy, allowing for the finite element simulation to become tractable. Once the human body model was properly meshed, the internal organs and tissues were annotated with their corresponding electromagnetic properties. The model was positioned facing the pole approximately 46 cm from the center of the room,

In simulation, the current in the pole was increased until either the model’s whole body SAR value or localized SAR [10] value met the established threshold for uncontrolled exposure for the general public. This resulted in a maximum current in the pole of 140 amps and a plot of the pointwise SAR values in the human body model are shown in Fig 5b. While the peak pointwise SAR values are near the 1.6 W/kg limit. It should be noted that the 1.6 W/kg limit is defined as the average over a 1 g tissue sample and thus we are assured that the average value is indeed below the threshold. Additionally, at the same 140 amp input current, the whole body average SAR value is approximately 0.06 W/kg, while the limit is 0.08 W/kg. Thus, based on both whole body SAR values and pointwise SAR values, 140 amps is considered a conservative upper bounds on the maximum amount of current that can be safely induced in the pole.

 

The next step is to map the 140 Amps of current in the pole to the corresponding transmit and receive power levels. However, the magnitude of the current in the pole is dependent on loading effects. For instance under no load (e.g. 0% efficiency) it takes a smaller amount of input power to induce 140 Amps into the pole and thus meet the SAR safety limit. In contrast, under high loading conditions (e.g. 90% efficiency) more power can be injected into the QSCR room –since most of it will be delivered to the load– before the 140 Amp limit is met. Thus in order to quantify safety in terms of input power, simulations have been done at various transfer efficiency levels.

 

The results of the safety analyses based on electric field magnitude (i.e. the “action level”) and SAR level are shown in Fig 6. These results show that it is possible to safely transmit 1.9 kilowatts of power to a receiver at 90% efficiency, which is equivalent to charging 320 USB powered devices. However, there is a dependency between the maximum permissible power level and transfer efficiency, since unused power is stored in the high Q-factor QSCR room. While standard methods such as real-time power tracking can be used to monitor the link efficiency between the room and receiver to ensure safe operation, it should be noted that even at the low end of the efficiency scale it is possible to safely transmit 100 watts of power, providing a significant amount of utility. Finally, for distances close to the pole (i.e. < 46cm) standard RF safety strategies such as intrusion detection or adding a mechanical keep-out in the form of a decorative wall can be employed.

 

 

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 6. Safe input power thresholds.

 

Maximum permissible power levels (green region) as a function of transfer efficiency. Red line shows where SAR limit is exceeded when the human body model is 46 cm away from the central pole, and the black line is the action level or where the E-field magnitude exceeds 614 V/m at 46 cm away from the pole.

 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169045.g006

Try reading dear

 

don't talk condescending to me, im your equal and nothing less. i simply asked for a source, i see you added it to your main post, good. i never said it isn't true, i just said im very skeptical about how well its researched since this is technology that goes into new terrains. 

[FPSwithaWacomTablet]

Yup, saw this coming... Why would anyone broadcast 1900 watts of pure EM waves within the confines of a room? Surely no one wants to get fried, right?

 

The balls however, I appreciate...

[silberdrachi]

My only question is how the power grids would handle something like this. Considering how out of date they already are, and how inefficient of a power delivery solution this is, i cant imagine this going well.

[SilicateWielder]

15 hours ago, hey_yo_ said:

But the idea is exciting. I just came from work and my phone is bleeding power at 10%. No need to plug it in or place it in a charging mat, all I need is to be inside my house and it will charge automatically. 

 

Give it 5 years at least. This is mostly a proof of concept that true, WiFi like wireless charging is possible.

AND with a decent efficiency rating. 90 percent? sure it's only when you're close to the transmitter, but still.

[cesrai]

7 hours ago, AresKrieger said:

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on CancerExit Disclaimer (IARC), a component of the World Health Organization, appointed an expert Working Group to review all available evidence on the use of cell phones. The Working Group classified cell phone use as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence from human studies, limited evidence from studies of radiofrequency energy and cancer in rodents, and inconsistent evidence from mechanistic studies (5).

 

In short rodent studies concluded this, human ones have not but I can confirm brain cancer rates have go up possibly coincidently with cellphone use

Just before I read through it. Is this what you mean ? https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet

[Stefan1024]

The idea is great and the efficiency surpiciengly high.

BUT it is still stupid. Rebuild your room just because you are too lazy to plug in a cable? Sure.

And how about the wasted power? While it wastes "only" 50% of the power and not >99% like other long range wireless chargers it's still a stupid amount of power.

 

So i have to say 3 things:

- Don't do it.

- Don't do it.

- Don't do it NOW!

[Bananasplit_00]

this is a terrefying idea seeing as you could just crank the power and fry all electronics and living things in there pretty quick. im not really for this kind of tech, atleast not at the level that it exists at yet. the pole destroyes the rooms asthetic seeing as you need a meter wide pole in the middle to keep people safe and touching the aluminum could end you dead as a brick. wireless power has a LOT of problems to get through before i can get behind it in any way

[sof006]

This is pretty damn awesome, can't wait to see a more refined version of this in the future to be implemented into homes, offices etc.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

14 hours ago, Wix said:

 

I'd like to see you just use a LAN / wired cable for your PC / smartphone / laptop instead of WiFi. If you won't, you're lazy.

 

I don't get why you people detest technological progress like this. Man invented the chainsaw so he can chop trees faster than with an axe.

 

Technological progress / invention is not about being lazy, it's about being efficient.

It's funny that you use the word efficiency, since that's precisely what you fail to understand.

The amount of engineering behind this still useless charging room is astonishing. That in itself is fine, more research and investment could lead to newer versions cutting down on drawbacks. Now, that's all on the cost side.

On the benefit side? We have things that may or may not need charging automatically charging instead of spending the nano-jule it takes to lay them in a charger and spend a little time more than 2 meters away from said device.

The cost-benefit relationship is so out of proportion that this is, precisely, terribly inefficient... unless, of course, we derive a tremendous utility from that saved split second of putting the device here or there. Which, of course, we may: but at that point, it's perfectly fine for some to regard us as lazy, since such a strong preference for saving a minuscule effort could be reasonably be labeled laziness.

 

No, it is not a binary discussion between progress vs. backwardness. Efficiency is about the spectre that goes from inventing the wheel, through inventing the automobile, to having a Wall-E type of chair to move inside your house.