Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Wireless ElectricityFollow

#27 Sep 08 2009 at 11:38 AM Rating: Good
Although the transmitter and receiver are magnetically coupled, they cannot produce magnetic without electric fields. They just don't produce much electric field, in some sense, and also they are non-radiative, so this is the opposite of what, say, a cell phone uses since a cell phone is for maximum range, whereas this is for good transmission of power (over quite short ranges).

Here's MIT's press release:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/wireless-0607.html

I'm a bit confused by:

"The pads, which would rely on electrical sockets as their initial sources of power, also would be more energy efficient than plugging all of the devices into power sockets directly, he said. The pads would shut off automatically when a device has finished charging and are about 70 percent to 90 percent as efficient as transferring power through a wire, he said."

Ouch. Well, whatever. These power pads, with the high efficiency claims, are over very short ranges, and not new. The new stuff is the point of the article.

"The team explored a system of two electromagnetic resonators coupled mostly through their magnetic fields; they were able to identify the strongly coupled regime in this system, even when the distance between them was several times larger than the sizes of the resonant objects. This way, efficient power transfer was enabled."

Several times the size of my cell phone is not very far. But for a room, it is possible. But worse then that, how lazy are we that we can't even plug something in?

I'm always hoping that some DC standard will come along and we'll have a single AC to DC converter in our homes or offices, which will be a smart device and shut off when not in use, that all our electronics will plug in to. Or a new standard will be set for AC to DC converters which prevents the waste which is so common now.
#28 Sep 08 2009 at 11:54 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
yossarian wrote:
But worse then that, how lazy are we that we can't even plug something in?


It's not so much about that. Think of all the wiring in your walls. Removing that removes the following:

1. Fire hazards
2. Material usage and costs
3. Electrical Hazards (kids with pens)
4. Tripping hazards

Just to name a few. A lot of people would be quite surprised how much wire is actually in their house.

@Mental: Electricians will be screwed if this becomes mainstream. Regardless of what you may think, most electricians work residential wiring. No wiring, no electricians (well much fewer, you'll still need to maintain the infrastructure to get to the houses and the hubs I assume you would need in/near your house.

Edited, Sep 8th 2009 3:55pm by Yodabunny
#29 Sep 08 2009 at 3:36 PM Rating: Good
Yodabunny wrote:
yossarian wrote:
But worse then that, how lazy are we that we can't even plug something in?


It's not so much about that. Think of all the wiring in your walls. Removing that removes the following:

1. Fire hazards
2. Material usage and costs
3. Electrical Hazards (kids with pens)
4. Tripping hazards

Just to name a few. A lot of people would be quite surprised how much wire is actually in their house.

@Mental: Electricians will be screwed if this becomes mainstream. Regardless of what you may think, most electricians work residential wiring. No wiring, no electricians (well much fewer, you'll still need to maintain the infrastructure to get to the houses and the hubs I assume you would need in/near your house.

Edited, Sep 8th 2009 3:55pm by Yodabunny


I will gladly grant you 3 and 4. I think that (2) could be worse, not better. I obviously don't know the system in detail, but if they are talking about putting a system on a whole room, or rooms, these are going to be giant coils of wire. As for (1), maybe. Same as (2), really, I don't know the system. It could be at least as much of a fire hazard as what we have now.
#30 Sep 09 2009 at 6:20 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
yossarian wrote:
I will gladly grant you 3 and 4. I think that (2) could be worse, not better. I obviously don't know the system in detail, but if they are talking about putting a system on a whole room, or rooms, these are going to be giant coils of wire. As for (1), maybe. Same as (2), really, I don't know the system. It could be at least as much of a fire hazard as what we have now.


The idea is not electrified walls, the idea is a centralized piece of hardware that wirelessly powers devices. There would be no need for wires in your walls. That effectively eliminates the risk of electrical fires (with the exception of the hub of course). Now, where the hub is will depend on what the final limits of the technology end up being.
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 256 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (256)