Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

The problem with wireless charging is the same as with any wireless power transmission - it's not directed. How much of the electricity goes into the actual device, vs how much radiates out in all directions randomly?

Wireless charging devices basically have this pad that's larger than the phone that you have to put the phone on to charge it. It's "cool" but it's not an improvement over having a cable, the charging base needs a lot more materials in it's construction, uses more power (because rather than piping the power straight into the phone by cable, you're piping power into the base by cable, then radiating it in the hopes some gets into the phone) and the phone needs to have a receiver (an antenna basically) for the power, which adds bulk to the device. And it's actually harder to move the device around when it's charging, because you have to keep it on the frikkin huge base rather than just make sure the cable doesn't fall out. Plus, it doesn't eliminate the need for the charging socket on the phone anyway, unless you want a phone without any data / USB port.

So wireless charging phones are a step back: they're the gass guzzling SUVs of the smartphone world, in a time when we really should be looking to reduce our footprint on the environment. I really dislike any "improvement" that's inherently lazy and wasteful. And by implication, only for elite wealthy westerners: because if every smartphone user has this (~6 billion subscribers worldwide now) it would be an ecological disaster. So it's like "wow I love this invention, for me, as long as all those other people don't get it and fuck things up".

[Knit tie]

The problem with wireless charging is the same as with any wireless power transmission - it's not directed. How much of the electricity goes into the actual device, vs how much radiates out in all directions randomly?

Wireless charging devices basically have this pad that's larger than the phone that you have to put the phone on to charge it. It's "cool" but it's not an improvement over having a cable, the charging base needs a lot more materials in it's construction, uses more power (because rather than piping the power straight into the phone by cable, you're piping power into the base by cable, then radiating it in the hopes some gets into the phone) and the phone needs to have a receiver (an antenna basically) for the power, which adds bulk to the device. And it's actually harder to move the device around when it's charging, because you have to keep it on the frikkin huge base rather than just make sure the cable doesn't fall out. Plus, it doesn't eliminate the need for the charging socket on the phone anyway, unless you want a phone without any data / USB port.

So wireless charging phones are a step back: they're the gass guzzling SUVs of the smartphone world, in a time when we really should be looking to reduce our footprint on the environment. I really dislike any "improvement" that's inherently lazy and wasteful. And by implication, only for elite wealthy westerners: because if every smartphone user has this (~6 billion subscribers worldwide now) it would be an ecological disaster. So it's like "wow I love this invention, for me, as long as all those other people don't get it and fuck things up".

I always wondered, those hearing aid charging zones on buses in Edinburgh, they use wireless charging, right?

[Reelya]

I don't know about that, but looking up some papers gives those systems 30% overall efficiency to recharge a Lithium-Ion battery in a hearing aid wirelessly. That'd have to be compared to normal Lithium -Ion battery charging, and sites give a 97-99% electrical efficiency for recharging consumer grade Lithium-Ion batteries.

So going by that call it triple the normal energy consumption to go wireless charging. But I don't think hearing aids use a whole lot of power, so it's not a big deal in that situation, the expense is warranted as a it is public service, and a "corded" recharge solution would be impractical for public transport customers.

[Arx]

Perfect digital model of nematode worm planned for next year.

I'm still confused by the prospect of a simulation feeling pain.

[Levi]

Perfect digital model of nematode worm planned for next year.

I'm still confused by the prospect of a simulation feeling pain.

Awesome.  One step closer to uploading my brain into a satellite.

[Lagslayer]

If the cybernetic revolution ever happens, I will personally lead the rebellion against them.

[Sergarr]

If the cybernetic revolution ever happens, I will personally lead the rebellion against them.

But what if you're already in a cybernetic world?

[Il Palazzo]

If the cybernetic revolution ever happens, I will personally lead the rebellion against them.

Have you recently rebelled against your using of external memory banks?

[Lagslayer]

If the cybernetic revolution ever happens, I will personally lead the rebellion against them.

But what if you're already in a cybernetic world?

Then I'm sure somebody with access to nukes would be sympathetic to my plight. Nukes may kill fleshy organisms, but it can also destroy the cyborgs and disable the mechanical parts with an EMP from a much longer distance. A high-altitude nuclear explosion can have quite a devastating effect on electronics.

[Sergarr]

I didn't mean the "cybernetic" world as in Terminator, I meant the "cybernetic" world as in Matrix.

What now, filthy human, what now?

[Sheb]

Would it? Do we have any data on what a nuke would do to modern electronics?

[LordSlowpoke]

Would it? Do we have any data on what a nuke would do to modern electronics?

these guys should help you

[10ebbor10]

Would it? Do we have any data on what a nuke would do to modern electronics?

Quite a lot

Mostly due nuclear power and space applications, as well as the obviously hardened military hardware.

The short answer is easy. Wrap it in a Faraday cage, and the EMP isnt going to do a thing.0

[Lagslayer]

Would it? Do we have any data on what a nuke would do to modern electronics?

The EMP burst could fry older electrical systems with fewer moving parts. Today, there are far more electrical devices, with far more intricate and fragile circuitry and other parts. Further, the vast majority of them (especially civilian stuff) is not at all shielded from electromagnetic interference. We are far more vulnerable to it than we used to be.

But has there been large scale testing? No. Somehow, I don't think that would go over well.




edit: ninja'd

[Levi]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/26/us-health-genetherapy-price-idUSKCN0JA1TP20141126

Kinda neat, despite the initial price.  Gene therapy has a lot of potential to fix a lot of things.