5 ms·
Shouldn't we skip directly to wireless charging?
by zigzaggy 6y ago
Shouldn't we skip directly to wireless charging?
- leetcrew 6y agoI assume all the hardware they want to hook up is ultimately being powered by a battery. wireless power delivery is significantly less efficient than wired. it's not enough to matter when you're drawing from mains, but probably a big deal when you're drawing from a battery that soldiers have to lug around in the field.
- dexen 6y agoAside of the excellent points raised by leetcrew in sibling post, there's also the matter of avoiding spurious EM emissions. Wireless charging sounds like creating a bright, pulsating "soldiers be hiding here" beacon for any opposing force.
- VLM 6y agoMost likely a beacon for mines and IEDs Was a pretty common argument against "smart passports" doesn't matter if the stored data is encrypted, just matters that a signal is detected from a first world target in range of the mine/IED.
- musingsole 6y agoIt also had me imagine a far future scenario where soldiers get too close to an enemy and accidentally recharge the enemy's depleted railgun.
- dexen 6y agoAmusing scenario however don't expect it to be a significant risk - any wireless system would most probably perform negotiations before beaming out any significant amount of power. You want that to avoid damaging sensitive electronics, overheating a random chunk of metal, or plainly wasting energy. Even the good old Qi wireless charging standard does negotiations, tho those aren't secured by any means.
- moftz 6y agoIt's probably easier to just have some sort of magsafe-like connector for power and data inside the vehicle. Charge the batteries with something like USB-PD to get the most out of the time a soldier might be stationary in the vehicle. Use the data connection to allow everyone's communications to go through the vehicle radio.