[LINK] Some shocking news about wireless electricity

[Adam Todd]

At 11:47 AM 11/06/2007, Stewart Fist wrote:

>Adam writes about Witricity:
>
> > Of course no details on how much energy is used in the power emitting
> > device.  To drive a 60 watt light bulb I'd guess it's pretty damn
> > high!  I know I need 5 watts to drive a 300 mW circuit.  But then I
> > don't have lab and bottomless pit of money to throw at R&D :)
>
>Whatever the technology, it still has to obey two fundamental laws of
>physics
>
>1. you can't get out more energy than you put in
>2. Inverse square law

Laws can be broken :)  But that aside ...

>Then there's the inherent inefficiencies in electronics, and in transforming
>one form of energy to another.

Agree.  As I detailed in my own example.

>In combination, this will always mean that such devices are enormously
>inefficient -- at a time when everyone has begun worrying about the power
>being consumed by their digital alarm clocks and TV standby.

Really?  We use Solar power :)  We don't worry :)  It never seems to 
run out, not even the last few days of non stop rain, in fact the 
batteries are fully charged by around 11 AM every day, during the 
rain.  I'm stunned!

>I thought this announcement was about the most ridiculous I'd heard since
>the announcement that they were going to use the power lines to distribute
>HDTV.

Yes well, as I said, 5 Watts to power a 300 mW transmitter :)

>I can imagine that there are some minor uses, but as a consumer product to
>charge cell-phones, it is in cloud-cookoo land.

I think if the technology was fitted into devices such as LCD screens 
and desk top power line powered equipment, then the radiating field 
would be beneficial in that it can charge local devices.

But there is a lot of cooperation from a range of manufacturers and 
designers to even start doing such things.

Then the idea of turning the TV of instead of Standby no longer is 
relevant because it's charging the phone, laptop, shaver, watch, pace 
maker, and other devices :)