9 ms·
FCC approves first wireless power at a distance charging system
- amerine 9y agoIs it normal to feel a tad bit scared of wireless charging?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- huade 9y agoI share the same concerns. I wasn't able to find enough details to support their claim about "safe, small, and focused amounts" of power.
- jtolmar 9y agoUntil it's been independently tested and used in the real world for a while, it makes sense to be suspicious of any form of energy transmission or storage. Energy is dangerous. Just don't let the suspicion last long enough to become superstition.
- 1001101 9y ago... and shareholders were richly rewarded: https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/WATT:US https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/WATT:US (the stock was up 168.10% on the day)
- vxNsr 9y agoAlso first time since IPO that it's above the IPO price. Right on time for the first employees to cash out. Everybody wins!
- bsder 9y agoWhat's the proper way to flag these obvious PR pieces with no technical information at all?
- grzm 9y agoAs with any submission you think is not appropriate for HN, use "flag".
- QAPereo 9y agoStart by not assuming that the poster is endorsing it; maybe they just want to share something relevant and stupid being spread around. Maybe it’s a discussion piece, centered on the flaws in the piece.
- josephpmay 9y agoIf you have enough karma there's a "flag" button, but I don't see any reason to flag PR pieces that have useful information in them
- bsder 9y agoWell, it's "useful" to know the FCC actually approved this, but it's at the barest end of that. But this piece doesn't include even the barest of technical details. If it included things like which band (5GHz), what power (claimed to be 4 watts at 5 feet--how does that get by FCC?), or any other technological point, I probably wouldn't be so annoyed. As it stands, this is quite obviously a stock pump PR piece, and this company has a history of doing this since at least 2014. I do have a flag button, but I normally reserve that for things which are ferociously offensive rather than just scummy.
- exabrial 9y agoI can't seem to get any info on how much power is actually transmitted/received... it's hard to beat the Inverse Square Law.
- bsder 9y agoPrevious articles claim 4 watts at 5 feet in the 5GHz ISM band via phased array antennas. I'm as skeptical as you.
- pranjalv123 9y agono it's not, you use a directional antenna or phased arrays and beamforming (which is what they're doing).
- deepspace 9y agoIt looks like the FCC approval pertains to a device delivering ~10W at a distance of 0.5m in the 900MHz band. https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=B6rKOmC6QGs13hWdV%2FM5%2Fg%3D%3D&fcc_id=2ADNG-MS300 https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm...
- revelation 9y agoSo what makes the radio waves magically drop off the face of the earth after .5m? And who allows 40 dBm (much more if we're talking at .5m distance) in an ISM band? I mean, that test report is making a lot of assumptions and setup constraints that are now magically not present in the video..
- deepspace 9y agoYes, I have been trying (unsuccessfully) to get my head around how the test setup would translate into a practical application. And that the certification appears to violate the FCC's own 30dBm power limit in the 900MHz ISM band. Very strange.
- 9y ago
- smaili 9y ago> The transmitter converts electricity into radio frequencies, then beams the energy to nearby devices outfitted with a corresponding receiver. Just curious, any thoughts on radiation impact to people?
- klodolph 9y agoRadio waves have been extensively studied for over 100 years, and there have been numerous studies trying to ascertain if they cause health problems in humans or other animals. "Radiation" is a bit of a scary word, the general public thinks of nuclear radiation. Even though radio waves can be called radiation they cannot cause harm in the same way that UV radiation causes cancer, for example. Radio waves can heat things up, and can even cause burns, but you'd need to do something incredibly stupid like disassemble your microwave, or stand in front of a primary radar dish. By comparison, the word "radiation" is often used to refer to ionizing radiation which can destroy molecules in your body, even at low power. The battery charging works because the antennas are very efficient at picking up radio waves of a specific frequency, unlike humans, which do not make very good antennas. I am personally skeptical about the power efficiency of wireless battery charging but radio waves are fairly benign to those of us made out of meat.
- empraptor 9y agoEDIT: I didn't consider dielectric heating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_heating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_heating). Seeing as how microwave ovens have 500W rating on the low end, I assume heat generated by 10W source can be dissipated fast enough that proteins don't get denatured even if it's directed at a small area of the body. Most energetic photon in radio frequencies has wavelength of 1mm and energy of 0.00124eV (http://www.photonics.byu.edu/fwnomograph.phtml http://www.photonics.byu.edu/fwnomograph.phtml) I think. Would just pass through a single cell as cell is much smaller than the wavelength. And 0.0012eV is really small amount of energy. "Van der Waals bonds are weak bonds with a dissociation energy of about 0.01 eV" (http://lamp.tu-graz.ac.at/~hadley/ss1/crystalbinding/bonds/bonds.php http://lamp.tu-graz.ac.at/~hadley/ss1/crystalbinding/bonds/b...) I wouldn't expect it to do anything cellular/molecular level. Not really a biology person so don't know if there's some effect on aggregate of cells on the millimeter level that could be harmful. Human body's electrical resistance inside is high and through skin is higher so I don't expect much effect on that scale either?
- IronWolve 9y agoAnother Wattup company with tech specs in the faq http://energous.com http://energous.com
- supermdguy 9y agoFor some more details, you can look at there press release[0]. It says the device "can deliver power via radio frequency (RF) energy to WattUp-enabled electronic devices at a distance of up to three feet". You could also listen to their conference call[1] where they "review the FCC certification details in greater depth and answer questions". I haven't gone through it, though. [0] https://ir.energous.com/press-releases/detail/596/energous-receives-industry-first-fcc-certification-for https://ir.energous.com/press-releases/detail/596/energous-r... [1] https://services.choruscall.com/links/watt171227.html https://services.choruscall.com/links/watt171227.html
- Steko 9y agoBlog with some analysis and a lot of older info on Energous: https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/12/energous-and-fcc-approval-for-mid-range.html https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/12/energous-and-f... Previously on HN: CES announcement (3 years ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8860644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8860644 Apple reported working with Energous (1 yr ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12508409 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12508409
- neom 9y agoCan't uBeam already do this?? https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/06/01/ubeams-meredith-perry-shows-her-stealth-wireless-charging-technology-really-works/102336880/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/06/01/ubeams-m...
- deepspace 9y agoNo. Perry's scam utilizes ultrasound, and it works as well as you would expect if you do the math, i.e. pretty much not at all.
- derekmhewitt 9y agoSounds really cool! I can't wait to charge my phone just by setting it on my nightstand at the end of the day. And my smart watch, and my headphones.
- squarefoot 9y agoFrom the title: "from 3 feet away." From article and press release: "of up to three feet." As usual, the devil is in the details: one angstrom would satisfy the "up to three feet" claim as well. I also would like to see the actual throughput. Wasting say 10 watts to get 1 watt of available power because one doesn't want to use a cable seems pretty lame to me.
- tabeth 9y agoWhat are some situations that: 1. Has a device in question draw less than the wireless charging could input (both practical and theoretical). Obviously, unless it's OK with the device still running in a "net negative" state, you'd want the wireless charging to at least cover the device's use. and 2. Necessitate motion or usage, or in other words, have the item not be at rest The idea here is that if the device primarily sits, there's little advantage to wireless charging - Power tools, for example cover (2), however not (1). - An iPhone may cover (1), but not (2).