San Francisco, 8:34 AM
Thu Mar 18
22 posts in the last 24 hours
IO9 TEAM
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
Managing Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Senior Reporter:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Cyriaque Lamar |
Graphic Design:
Stephanie Fox |
Contributors:
Tim Barribeau |
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Interns:
David Daw |
Mary Ratliff |
Cayman Unterborn |
Thank goodness wireless power is coming. Now computer techs won't be constantly fielding questions like "this computer is wireless, why does it need a battery?" Not that I ever got those. Except I did.Reply
What we're going to find out is that we'll need a fraction of the electricity that we use now to achieve the same results... We've been using a sledgehammer to smash a fly....Reply
Bah! Nikola Tesla was doing this kind of stuff nearly a hundred years ago. The only difference here is that, while they can broadcast an energy signal several *feet*, Tesla was able to do so over several *miles*.
Curse you, JP Morgan; curse you and your short-sightedness.Reply
That carbon nanotube "energy source" doesn't sound like a rechargeable battery, it sounds more like a single-use capacitor driven by chemical energy. So comparing it to a lithium-ion battery is pointless. How much energy does it hold compared to, say, plain old TNT? Or gasoline, for that matter. There are plenty of chemical energy sources you can burn to provide more power than an equivalent mass of electrical batteries!Reply
Not in the alarmist camp, just the "heads -up" camp.
There have already been many incidents where carbon nanotubes have worked like asbestos in the lungs, for many of the same physical properties.
Carbon nanotubes are the future. I just hope we learned something from asbestos as this technology is deployed.Reply
@hellers1155: "Carbon nanotubes are the future. I just hope we learned something from asbestos as this technology is deployed."
Hopefully, that thing we learned will be "it's not really all that dangerous unless you work in a bath of it (like a miner, or a brake-repair specialist), so maybe we should stop freaking the hell out about it".
-Kle.Reply
Wasn't it proven that living under powerlines caused cancer or something? Am I the only one that thinks that being surrounded by free flowing electricity is a bad thing? Sure, if I were a robot or something this would be awesome, but I'm a frail human.Reply
Seems like I read once, that Tesla's idea of wireless transmition of power was never developed further, was because it interferes with radio broadcasts. So, no over the air radio, TV or cell phones. That would go over real good now, wouldn't it?Reply
@8x10: Yeah, especially considering how much ruckus the whole "broadband over powerlines" idea raised in the ham radio community. Power over wifi would be gajillions of times noisier, I suspect.Reply
Just a thought - How would you charge/meter usage for wireless electricity? What's to keep your next door neighbor frem leaching off your wireless electricity like your wifi?? Or what would keep people from feeding off the power for their street lamps? Just wondering.Reply
@jrstryker: Even wired power theft is pretty easy, but it's typically only done by people hiding other illicit activity, such as drug production. I knew someone who was growing weed, and he was dumb enough to get caught stealing power; that's how the cops caught him: when the power company investigated his meter, they called the police, who then searched his house and found the nursery.
So here's a potential solution:
Every device that can receive wireless power would have a unique Power Identification Code (PIC). It would trade keys with a Power Access Point, or PAP. The devices would be in constant communication, and the PAP would know exactly which devices are using how much current. At the end of your power session, the PAP would report your usage directly to the power company. The electric company would then bill each resident's individual account, charging them only for the electricity they used individually.
If you took this to its logical conclusion, any time you visit a friend's house and your iPod hooks in to the house's power grid to charge, it would bill directly to your account, rather than the homeowner. If you took a personal device to work (stereo, Mp3 player, even a space heater), it would bill to you, not your employer. If you share a house with a roommate or tenant, you could each be billed for your power usage separately. (Wired devices could be registered, too, and common-use devices split between residents.)
People could then also get power consumption reports based on their individual pieces of equipment: you'd know exactly how much energy goes to run your air conditioner or your freezer, so you could make smart decisions about how much to run your AC or when to replace that aging furnace.
There are some potential issues with this solution, such as spoofing. However, there are techniques to combat that, too, and by having unique ID's, you could easily identify devices that had been stolen or lost.
Imagine if you left your new, $500 smartphone at the movie theater. The next time it's within range of a PAP, it would suck some watts, and the location would be identified. If someone picked it up and took it home, a quick check of your Personal Power Usage Profile on the electric company's web site would pinpoint its location. You could then drive over and pick it up (or send the police, if the place looks dangerous.)Reply
@TomXP411: A fair idea, but that would mean you would have to register every personal electronic device you purchased. I think some people might have a problem with that...I don't know many woman that would want to register their "Rabbit" with the power company so that they can log how much they use it and so that they are billed accordingly...Reply
@TomXP411: Uh, I'm well aware of what censorship means. However, I have no idea what that has to do with anything. Perhaps you can be a little more specific?
Thank you for providing that link, though. For a minute there I had forgotten how to use Google.Reply
Nobody says that the device's individual ID would have to be linked to a specific product or model. More likely, you'd just push a button on your PAP, push a button on your device, and they'd pair - just like with wireless keyboards and mice.
The power company would have no way of knowing what a device is; they'd simply know that the device has a specific certificate associated with it, and that it's tied to a specific account.
And, of course, that only applies to something expensive enough to have its own charger. Things like cheap flashlights would still just use rechargable AA's, which could still be charged on wireless power stations.Reply
@TomXP411: Interesting solution. I something like that could work. I think you have more faith than I do that the local power company could pull this off - I guess they would need to install some sort of reporting system and interface along with your wireless electrical system - or that most people would be able to manage using this system. I assume to make sure that only your PIC enable deviced showed on on your bill you would have to register that device with the PAP, would be a big switch for people who expect electricity to be a pretty passive service - plug it in and it works.Reply
@jrstryker: I'm not saying it wouldn't be a transition... but aside from the actual wireless power, all the other technologies exist.
Anyone with a Bluetooth headset, a wireless keyboard, or even a Wii knows that you have to pair wireless devices, and that it's usually not too painful. Anyone with a laptop has had to make a WiFi connection.
And the power companies already have smart meters; more and more places are being equipped with digital power meters that report back to the power company via radio or cell modem. These meters actually let the power companies charge different rates for different times of day.
None of this is unattainable or especially complicated... but it's all dependent on someone actually coming up with a true WiPo solution, and that's the part I don't really think will happen.Reply
@InsertBullets: But isn't that always the way with technology? It's either cool, or it's efficient, but it's rarely both. The power loss is the currency you use to buy awesome.Reply
@tande04: Well, the WiTriCity Wireless charging system does use induction to transfer the electricity into the wireless device.
The fancy resonance thingy is necessary to get the magnetic field where it should, but once it arrives it's plain old induction which actually does the job.Reply
Sounds like a good idea, the wireless transmission, but the principle isn't new and hasn't been sucessfully realiced for reasons. A charger big enough to power more than a phone right next to it, say a TV, would ultimatly be big enoug to charge my neigbours TV, too... and his pacemaker, hoping it doesn't overcharge. Not to mention the studies being held at the moment about possible negative side effect of overdoses of EM radiation.Reply
@Brisco_County_Jr: that was my first thought too. just the thought of having all that electricity 'floating around' in the air gives me the willies - but of course i believe those stories about people getting fried to a crisp on NY rooftops if they are in a direct line between 2 rooftop microwave relay towers. I am sure I am overreacting, I mean a little electricity never hurt anyone.
still, i don't think foil wallpaper looks so bad...Reply
@vinylrake: While I know next to nothing as to the actual mechanics of this, it would seem that wireless electricity would work using magnetic fields, or something like that. I haven't heard (so far) that magnetic fields are terribly dangerous for us, which is good considering we live in a MASSIVE one that protects us from that bastard The Sun!
Of course, it could also use some type of light radiation, and of course we all know what happens when people get bombarded with that (hint: SUPERPOWERS)!Reply
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.