×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

An Open Standard For Wireless Charging?

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the tall-skinny-latte-power-surcharge dept.

Power 82

Charging portable devices without needing to carry a power adapter sounds handy, and it's slowly getting closer to widespread use. IPAQ2000 writes that AT&T, Google and Starbucks announced yesterday "that they have joined the Power Matters Alliance (PMA). Founded by Powermat Technologies and Procter & Gamble, the PMA's Honorary Chairman is Google's Vint Cerf – one of the fathers of the Internet — and its board now also includes AT&T, Duracell, Google and Starbucks. The U.S. Government's Energy Star and Federal Communications Commission – both PMA members — are board observers." (How does Starbucks come into it? They're "testing PMA-compatible Wireless Charging Spots in select Boston stores.")

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

82 comments

....mmmmkay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41816659)

I'll put it right next to the flying car and the fusion generator.

Re:....mmmmkay (5, Funny)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#41817167)

I'll put it right next to the flying car and the fusion generator.

Your wireless charging pad will be easier to find than that.. it'll be under the sleeping cat. If X% of the power gets turned into heat, and cats have a magic ability to find horizontal sources of heat and then sleep on them, simply locate the sleeping cat to find the wireless charger underneath the cat. As for the phone? Oh that's on the floor with a broken screen, fluffy knocked it off the charger.

Actually, (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41817345)

unlike those examples, wireless charging tech is real [amazon.com]. The problem is there's too much 'diversity of implementation' and not enough interchangeability.

Re:Actually, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41817891)

Why don't we cut out the middle man (batteries) and just go to wireless powering of devices?

http://ewh.ieee.org/r7/hamilton/biographies/JacksonS.htm [ieee.org]

Too much of a good thing? (1)

The Lonely Goat (2763355) | about a year and a half ago | (#41816661)

Is there any possibility that having access to an always on source of power would contribute to the overcharging of a battery? I guess what I'm asking is whether or not this would be equivalent to leaving a laptop plugged in to the wall for weeks and unplugging it only to find that the battery now has a maximum charge of two hours or something similar.

Re:Too much of a good thing? (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41816745)

I have the original 15 year old battery in my laptop that still gives me about an hour and a half, down from maybe 2 hours when it was new. The real limit seems to be the number of cycles it goes through. I did unplug the machine when I wasn't using it. I believe the internal charger shuts off when the battery is full. Overcharging should not be an issue.

Re:Too much of a good thing? (3, Interesting)

marcansoft (727665) | about a year and a half ago | (#41816775)

That isn't caused by overcharging, it's caused by the battery simply being at 100% charge. Li-ion batteries like to be stored at 40% charge, and degrade much faster at 100%.

The technical solution to this problem is a trivial firmware change to the charging controller to only charge the battery to 40%. However, I suspect nobody has done it because nobody has figured out how to get the users to switch to "40% maintenance charge mode" when always plugged in, without pissing them off when they run off and discover that their device is only 40% charged. The fundamental problem is being able to predict when the user will need to actually use the battery, and only fully charge it immediately prior.

Re:Too much of a good thing? (2)

queazocotal (915608) | about a year and a half ago | (#41816843)

Thinkpads can do this.
I have my thinkpad battery set to charge to 80%.
Yes, it means I have 20% less capacity - for the first year or so.
After that, I actually have more, as it degrades _lots_ less fast.

Re:Too much of a good thing? (1)

marcansoft (727665) | about a year and a half ago | (#41817337)

Now you've left me wondering. Where is this setting? I certainly can't find it on the BIOS setup menu (ThinkPad X220).

Re:Too much of a good thing? (2)

bemymonkey (1244086) | about a year and a half ago | (#41817417)

Try the "Battery maintenance" button in the power manager's Battery tab.

Re:Too much of a good thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41819135)

Try the "Battery maintenance" button in the power manager's Battery tab.

You need to install the Lenovo power management drivers/utilities to have these options, but yeah, have this on my X220 too.

Re:Too much of a good thing? (2)

marcansoft (727665) | about a year and a half ago | (#41823971)

Ah, one of those stupid Windows-only features. Sigh.

There seems to be a reverse-engineered [thinkwiki.org] driver for Linux but support is sketchy for the X220. I guess I'll try it and see.

Re:Too much of a good thing? (1)

kullnd (760403) | about a year and a half ago | (#41825721)

If you have a drive that you could boot windows to this setting should stick once it is set, if you configure it inside of windows you should be able to run linux and the system will respect those settings that you configured.

Re:Too much of a good thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41827795)

Should help to save $400 for a new battery, but the pain of booting into Windows makes me not doing that, not for $400

Re:Too much of a good thing? (2)

kullnd (760403) | about a year and a half ago | (#41818101)

I do allow my X220 to run full 100% charge, but it is rarely at 100% as I plug in most of the time and my battery is set to not start charging until it is below 70% ... As I move it from place to place and leave it in standby, and occasionally run on battery power, the battery slowly runs down to less than 70% and this setting keeps my battery from getting charge current more than an average of probably 4-5 times in a month. For my T510 that is always docked, the battery is set to start at 50% and stop at 80% since I just really don't use it or need the capacity.

This is one of my favorite features of the ThinkPad ... As a reseller, I generally set all of my clients systems to start at about 90-93% to prevent the 1% charge cycles.

Re:Too much of a good thing? (1)

fa2k (881632) | about a year and a half ago | (#41818917)

I actually set my thinkpad to start charging at 38 % and stop at 48 %. Then I charge it fully before flights and meetings where I don't have power. After 2.5 years, it claims to have 55.25 Wh max capacity left, while the design capacity is 56.16 Wh. I don't know if the reason it has held up so well is because I keep it half way charged or if it's just because I don't charge/discharge it that often.

Re:Too much of a good thing? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41817635)

There's lots of reasons why nobody has maximally-charged Li-Ion, Li-Po, Li-Fe batteries to 40%, but most of them have to do with form factors and battery costs. You want to use more of the battery. But complex devices do commonly lie to the user about battery charge status. On the Motorola Triplets and RAZR phones you could do quite a bit to the battery charge profiles to the point where if you tried hard enough you could probably set your battery on fire, especially if it was a cheap knockoff. Or you can lie to the user and never charge the battery above 40%, but they couldn't afford what that would do to the runtime.

Re:Too much of a good thing? (1)

FaxeTheCat (1394763) | about a year and a half ago | (#41816807)

This is a problem only when your mobile device is not mobile anymore.
It will only be charged when it is stationary on a charging hotspot. Move it a few inches, and no charging.

Re:Too much of a good thing? (1)

slim (1652) | about a year and a half ago | (#41817117)

Yeah. I don't find plugging in a charger a problem. I do like to use my device while it's charging.

Re:Too much of a good thing? (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#41818163)

Good point.

I can still use my phone/tablet/ipod when they're plugged into the charger. Including making phone calls, playing games, etc.

Can't do that if it needs to be sitting on/right next to the hotspot.

Re:Too much of a good thing? (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about a year and a half ago | (#41817123)

You're not plugging the battery directly into the power outlet! There's something called a chargeing controller between them. Its job is to sense whe the battery is charged and to cut power then. (Or throttle it to a sustaining charge). That's to prevent overcharging, because modern batteries don't simply overcharge and die silently, but rather tend to go with a bang. Literally.

Will this chargers be "always on"? (3, Insightful)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | about a year and a half ago | (#41816683)

I hope they put a switch on them, so you can turn them off, when not in use.

I was surprised, a couple of years back, when I measured how much power unused wall-warts added up to. And don't even get me started on VCRs...

Re:Will this chargers be "always on"? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41816809)

It would be nice if they also tested it for possible health impacts. Everyone seems to think wireless is harmless.

Re:Will this chargers be "always on"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41816959)

Go ahead and fuck right off right now with your wireless hysteria. Idiot.

Re:Will this chargers be "always on"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41817197)

Wireless has been prove to caused brain damage in kids and gender neutral. It's health impacts are hidden by legislation corporate interests who want to sterilze people with cellphones. FACT.

Re:Will this chargers be "always on"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41817323)

Wireless has been prove to caused brain damage in kids and gender neutral. It's health impacts are hidden by legislation corporate interests who want to sterilze people with cellphones. FACT.

Could you pleas provide a SOURCE

Re:Will this chargers be "always on"? (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#41818931)

Wireless has been prove to caused brain damage in kids and gender neutral. It's health impacts are hidden by legislation corporate interests who want to sterilze people with cellphones. FACT.

Could you pleas provide a SOURCE

Look around you. All of those idiots using cellphones and wireless headsets. Do you think that nature could create such fools?

It's so obvious once you open your eyes.

Re:Will this chargers be "always on"? (1)

vikingpower (768921) | about a year and a half ago | (#41824757)

You sound like conspiracy theory incarnate. Take some sound advice, dude: when you get up tomorrow morning, use Occam's razor. You'll be amazed at how clean and neat you look without all these nonsensical hairs sticking out from your brains.

Re:Will this chargers be "always on"? (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about a year and a half ago | (#41816871)

I hope they put a switch on them, so you can turn them off, when not in use.

Some countries have outlets that have integrated on/off switches. See AC power plugs and sockets [wikipedia.org]. Having this makes eliminating vampire power usage much easier. The only alternative I can see for the US is to use an outlet that is routed through a light switch (which is common in some rooms in US houses) or to use an external power board with its own isolation switch.

Re:Will this chargers be "always on"? (2)

Beorytis (1014777) | about a year and a half ago | (#41817171)

I was surprised, a couple of years back, when I measured how much power unused wall-warts added up to.

Have you checked lately? I have a Kill-a-Watt meter, and the loads on modern chargers have gone way down in the past 10 years, especially when the load is disconnected.

Re:Will this chargers be "always on"? (1)

marcansoft (727665) | about a year and a half ago | (#41817451)

How did you measure the power usage? If you used a cheap power meter that does not have accurate power factor measurement, then your measurements are completely useless. Idle switching power supplies have very low power usage, but a very low power factor, because they act as capacitive loads. This means that a naive current meter will measure all of that out-of-phase current and you'll end up with a grossly inflated power figure. A proper power meter measures both instantaneous voltage and current many times during each AC power cycle, and can therefore report both real power and apparent power. If you measure an idle switching wall wart with such a meter, you will see a low W (real power) figure and a high VA (apparent power) figure. Residential customers are usually charged for real power only.

Re:Will this chargers be "always on"? (1)

Lord Byron II (671689) | about a year and a half ago | (#41837181)

[quote]Residential customers are usually charged for real power only[/quote]

Yes, that's true, but power plants have to supply the "naive" amount of current. When you factor in losses due to delivery, it adds up. The point is, regardless of the power factor, it's worth saving electricity, if not for your pocketbook, then for the environment.

Re:Will this chargers be "always on"? (1)

Speare (84249) | about a year and a half ago | (#41819721)

I haven't seen the standard, but it'll likely include a handshake that's a lot like the NFC coils, perhaps even simpler. Check every 250ms with a very short low-power ping, and if there's a compliant device, start supplying higher power to the main coil for inductive charging.

Great, even more high-power EM around us (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41816685)

Let's see what health ailments the next generation will have that we don't.

Re:Great, even more high-power EM around us (1)

ozduo (2043408) | about a year and a half ago | (#41816723)

Hey my tinfoil helmet protects my brain and my tinfoil underpants: well they chafe!

Re:Great, even more high-power EM around us (1)

fikx (704101) | about a year and a half ago | (#41826147)

Or what health benefits they have that we don't....

maybe they will be able to eat less with power all around....

Convenient but inefficient (5, Insightful)

Coisiche (2000870) | about a year and a half ago | (#41816693)

It seems slightly strange that when a lot of effort is devoted to improving power efficiency this is championed when it's just favouring convenience over efficiency. Maybe one day people will regret that.

Re:Convenient but inefficient (-1, Troll)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year and a half ago | (#41816855)

Yeah, I don't think the number of portable devices being recharged is going to cause the global apocalypse. But keep that part about regret burning bright in your mind, it certainly isn't coloring your thought processes.

Re:Convenient but inefficient (1)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#41817037)

I think the semi-realistic fear is that most "standards" are pushing for 5 watt devices now and 100 watts in the future, the problem is not merely 90% efficient at 5 watts, but when they roll out a 500 watt standard and people simply stop using power cords anymore for all but major appliances. Its convenient if your kitchen stand mixer or waffle iron or deep oil fryer don't need to be plugged in, maybe even a bit safer WRT to tripping on power cords, but it begins to get pretty expensive in terms of loss.

The killer isn't even my waffle iron which only gets a couple hours use per year, but something like TVs which might be on a large fraction of the day. Sounds convenient to have wireless power and wireless internet streaming meaning no cables, at all, to hang a TV on the wall, but the energy costs do add up over time.

Or imagine the waste of cordless desk lamps for room illumination. Looks nice, and being an expensive waste of money they'll be the new coolness, but kind of a waste.

Re:Convenient but inefficient (3, Interesting)

Artraze (600366) | about a year and a half ago | (#41818119)

While I'm not going to say "never ever", the future you propose is not going to happen. Efficiency drops off _drastically_ with distance; the notion that you would have some power transmitter somewhere that would power a light somewhere else is so purely sci-fi that it's pointless to even speculate on efficiency of a setup. Sure, you could put a wireless power unit behind the wall where your TV is mounted, but why not just run a wire through the wall at that point? The hole isn't even an argument because you'll have already added some to mount it. Ditto with lights.

Wireless power isn't about wireless in the WiFi sense that it grands mobility, it's wireless in the NFC sense that it doesn't require a wire to be plugged in. That means less cycles on a fragile connecter, no plug/unplug time, etc. Maybe even allowing hermetically sealed devices. Realistically the most this might be used for is a laptop, but even then I think it would usually make more sense to just plug it in (e.g. at home... this might make sense for a cafe table).

Re:Convenient but inefficient (1)

slim (1652) | about a year and a half ago | (#41818831)

Sure, you could put a wireless power unit behind the wall where your TV is mounted, but why not just run a wire through the wall at that point? The hole isn't even an argument because you'll have already added some to mount it.

Hmm, how about a future display which you can put away when not in use, leaving a bare wall? Held up by magnets behind the painted surface; power and data via some contactless technology...

Re:Convenient but inefficient (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41820695)

Sure, you could put a wireless power unit behind the wall where your TV is mounted, but why not just run a wire through the wall at that point? The hole isn't even an argument because you'll have already added some to mount it.

Hmm, how about a future display which you can put away when not in use, leaving a bare wall? Held up by magnets behind the painted surface; power and data via some contactless technology...

Like... a projector?

Re:Convenient but inefficient (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#41821535)

Hmm, how about a future display which you can put away when not in use, leaving a bare wall?

Why would you want a bare wall? A bare wall is an ugly wall.

Held up by magnets behind the painted surface

They'd have to be some damned strong magnets to hold a 55 inch TV. And do you want to move that TV out of the closet every time you want to watch a movie?

Re:Convenient but inefficient (1)

slim (1652) | about a year and a half ago | (#41828147)

They'd have to be some damned strong magnets to hold a 55 inch TV. And do you want to move that TV out of the closet every time you want to watch a movie?

*Future* TV.

Re:Convenient but inefficient (1)

MrSteveSD (801820) | about a year and a half ago | (#41822535)

The near field Witricity [witricity.com] technology can transmit power over a meter or two. Even further with passive repeater antenna which can be disguised as picture frames, table-mats etc.

It's a much better technology than the simple induction pads that you put your mobile phone on and could be quite revolutionary. It seems they have recently released development kits too, so hopefully it won't be too long before its generally available.

We have to do the math, push for higher standards (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41817127)

I understand your concern. We would have to do the math, though, and contact the committee and our legislators for a wired and wireless standard that is energy efficient. The wireless method might be less efficient, but we also need to consider also how much energy is spent with the manufacturing of every new charger shipped with a phone or rechargeable device.
I guess that a lot of people must have a lot of chargers around their homes, which they don't use anymore. Conscious people will recycle them, others will just dump them. A lot of toys and other devices could take advantage of this wireless method, and avoid that people keep wasting money on batteries that, again, could eventually be dumped to the trash.
If a real standard could be achieved, cell phones and other devices would no longer include a charger in the box: the wired charger would be an optional accessory, because you could keep using your standard charger with every new phone.
If you consider that a phone or ebook reader uses a fraction of the energy that would be required to produce the paper to make all the books, magazines, and newspapers that you can read on them, even the inefficient wireless method would probably not offset that gain.

Re:We have to do the math, push for higher standar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41820357)

Keep in mind that if wireless charging were *the* only means of charging your portable devices, you'd have a lot less waste generated by cabling. I've easily dozens of unused charges/USB cables sitting in a drawer in my home office because they were proprietary, or when I upgrade, the cables went from USB to mini and now to micro.

Re:Convenient but inefficient (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41817549)

just favouring convenience over efficiency. Maybe one day people will regret that.

That is the story of civilization writ large. You can get more food per acre if you cultivate by hand, using no machines ever except possibly an initial tilling. That takes a lot less energy but a lot more of it is in the form of labor. Lumber is now milled smooth at the cost of producing more sawdust both because it is more convenient for the builder to have smooth timbers but also because of the demand for shortcut materials like MDF. While some technologies do save energy, in general that is not the focus.

Re:Convenient but inefficient (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41817815)

Complaining about 60% efficiency versus 90% efficiency versus 99.99% efficiency is overblown IMO. You could achieve the same gains that you get by going from 60% to 99.9% just by cutting down your use of the device by 40% - something which for wireless devices we could ALL do. But don't, because that wouldn't be convenient. A balance is necessary, but it's important not to be penny wise and pound foolish here.

Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41816699)

what does this have to do with apple?

Re:Apple? (4, Funny)

pecosdave (536896) | about a year and a half ago | (#41816857)

It will set a standard that everyone will adopt so Apple will have to watch it closely to insure their devices don't accidentally work with it as well as the version Apple themselves are working on.

Re:Apple? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41816901)

Because the fact that Apple isn't involved is the big news here. This means the standard will be unsuccessful by default, just like Windows, Android, MicroUSB, and every other non-Apple sponsored standard.

Re:Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41817419)

Agreed regarding Apple... just like IBM and Microsoft used their dominance and established de facto standards, now Apple plays by its own rules. But nobody is above the law, so Apple had to comply in Europe, and the same could be done in other countries (including the US). I'm sure some people is unhappy about Apple converter. The difference might be that in Europe people would complain about Apple's idiocy, and in the US people would complain about government idiocy :-)

However... you are wrong regarding Android: there are twice more Android phones than Apple phones (http://bgr.com/2012/07/02/android-market-share-us-smartphone-iphone/). Welcome to the real world: iPhones are a minority (at least in the US).

Re:Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41818029)

Android has a 60% worldwide phone marketshare.

I also suspect the 20-25% i marketshare largely consist of the same people, artificially boosting the marketshare rate. I mean, how many of your i user buddies have purchased more than 1 phone even if their contract isn't renewed?

Re:Apple? (1)

Seeteufel (1736784) | about a year and a half ago | (#41817177)

Here you find a dated news message from the European Commission. [europa.eu]:

In June 2009, Europe's major mobile phone manufacturers agreed to adopt a universal charger for data-enabled mobile phones sold in the EU. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) - to date signed by 14 manufacturers - commits the industry to provide charger compatibility on the basis of the micro-USB connector. In the first months of 2011, European consumers will be able to purchase a standard mobile phone charger for all data-enabled phones - including smartphones - sold in all 27 EU Member States.

Here you find the signatories of the MoU [europa.eu]. Apple complies by adaptor.

Contactless charging! (1, Funny)

aglider (2435074) | about a year and a half ago | (#41816721)

Not wireless! You insensitive discharged clod!

Re:Contactless charging! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41816923)

Errr... There are no wires connecting the charger and the device - but there is contact between them...

Re:Contactless charging! (1)

aglider (2435074) | about a year and a half ago | (#41817077)

I meant "with no electrical contact".
"Wireless" is commonly used to mean "through EM radio emissions", as seen in WiFi.

"open" standard (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | about a year and a half ago | (#41816785)

How is it an open standard, when I need to join their organization to see the specs?

Re:"open" standard (1)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#41816979)

How is it an open standard, when I need to join their organization to see the specs?

I am mostly uninterested in transnational megacorp products but I REALLY want cheap gadgetry from the usual hardware hacker sources that's compatible with the overall wireless power system.

Although I don't use arduinos, I'd like an arduino power shield, and I'd like a module about the size of a 9-volt battery to replace the battery inside my multi-meter, and and I'd like something the shape of some AA batteries with a really big capacitor to replace my remote control battery, and I'd like to retrofit my ham radio HTs and my scanner to charge wirelessly. I'd like a desktop robot kit for foolin around that doesn't need onboard batteries. I'd like to retrofit my radio controlled car and TX to slow charge merely my being placed on the shelf next to the charger. Heck why can't my soldering iron have a wireless power RX, if it can output 20 watts or so peak?

All the transnational megacorps want to do with this tech is sell me a trendy stylish new cellphone exactly like my old phone but now with a wireless charger. Bleh. I want to do more, really use the tech, not just as a cruddy cellphone dongle.

Yes I know there are Qi dev boards from digikey and last time I checked a TX/RX dev board set was only $300. Just the litz wire coils alone were like $10 each (Litz wire, in 2012? Will that tech ever die?) I'm talking about demanding something more like $5 a piece.

Re:"open" standard (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41817599)

If I could buy battery-format receivers which would go into my existing devices, I might pay pretty well for the ones I only use during the day when the sun is shining and the birds are chirping and the power is on. Problem is, I have few devices like that, and I'm not willing to pay a lot for a transmitter for few devices.

Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41816813)

Do they really have to make up a new "standard", when Qi is already around? Who cares if it's "open", when the best thing would be if everybody would just start to use the thing already having some steam.

For the big corporations listed in this thing, it isn't about money. For them it's actually more about some behind-the-scenes power struggle, flowing over from other things like smartphone wars.

Re:Really? (1)

queazocotal (915608) | about a year and a half ago | (#41816895)

It matters if it's open because then anyone can make a wireless charging pad, and have it just work.
There is no issue with licencing, or royalty.

There are essentially no novel ideas in wireless charging.
Merely implementation details that someones managed to patent, in the hopes of profit.

It finally caught on (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41816885)

Tesla was just born about a 100 years too soon to have his wireless ideas popularized, regardless of whether his methods were more or less efficient then the way forward this group plans to go. I'm personally glad to see this being researched. You can't make an inefficient process more efficient if you ignore it. Who knows what we'll learn and discover while researching this topic not to mention the potential device revolution when you're no longer limited in size by ports for power and data transfer. Maybe we'll start seeing foldable devices that can open to a full sheet of paper (a good scifi example is the device used in the movie 'Looper'; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I9MsT7juTM&noredirect=1).

I'm excited to see what comes out of this group!

Open Standard competition (2)

jader3rd (2222716) | about a year and a half ago | (#41817049)

I'm sure the public is going to love figuring out if a wireless charging pad is a Qi charging pad or a PMA charging pad.

Re:Open Standard competition (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about a year and a half ago | (#41817157)

Doesn't that new Nexus phone already have a Qi wireless charger? And then why is Google dibbling into PMA?

Why does it have to be wireless, anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41817069)

What's wrong with charging docks and the like?

/. Effect = True (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41817139)

Bookmark & Read Later

About Time (1)

fbumg (632974) | about a year and a half ago | (#41817169)

This is going to make comparing bills across carriers so much easier. Now we can compare apples-to-apples on the hidden "charges" in each company.

There is one already called Qi (pronounced "Chi") (4, Interesting)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about a year and a half ago | (#41817227)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi_(inductive_power_standard) [wikipedia.org]

Samsung and Nokia are already releasing phones with it, too.

How many of these wireless charging standards do we need? (Oops, I'm gettin' it now...)

Re:There is one already called Qi (pronounced "Chi (1)

judgecorp (778838) | about a year and a half ago | (#41831973)

The Wireless Power Consortium (creator of Qi) believes this activity is a smokescreen, designed to promote a proprietary standard, against an established open standard (Qi is based on shared IP). Also Google's stance is confused, since the Nexus 4 actually uses Qi. More details here http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/qi-wireless-charging-powermat-pma-97875 [techweekeurope.co.uk]

Follow up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41826595)

Here's a map of the Boston Starbucks locationss where they're piloting Duracell Powermat chargine stations: http://bitly.com/Ub8ePI

wireless charging at Helsinki Airport (Vaanta) (1)

dwater (72834) | about a year and a half ago | (#41828723)

"First in the world' apparently :

Free too...and free internet access too...and free wired power too.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...