backtop


Print 77 comment(s) - last by eriohl.. on Jun 24 at 4:01 AM

A4WP gains support from an industry giant

It's not at all uncommon in the technology world for multiple organizations to be competing to become the standard for new technology. This went on in the past with the battle between Blu-ray and HD DVD among others. A new battle is brewing when it comes to wireless power with multiple organizations vying to be the standard.

The Alliance for Wireless Power (A4WP) and has added a big name to its list of supporters: Intel. “In joining A4WP, we look forward to working alongside other member companies and contributing to standards that help fuel an ecosystem of innovative solutions capable of simultaneously charging a range of devices, from low-power accessoriesto smartphones, tablets and Ultrabooks," said Navin Shenoy, Intel vice president, PC client group and general manager, mobile client platform division.

The Alliance for Wireless Power has a goal of creating a "flexible wireless power" specification wireless charging that will become an industry standard.


A4WP claims to have 50 members including some major companies in the technology realm including Broadcom, Delphi, LG Electronics, and SanDisk. The technology the company is supporting uses near field magnetic resonance charging allowing charging using a loose coupling of electromagnetic fields. The technology that A4WP is backing will allow multiple devices to be placed on a single charging pad at the same time with no need to fiddle with wires.

Competitors vying to become the industry standard for wireless charging include the Wireless Power Consortium and the Power Matters Alliance. The Wireless Power Consortium is backing technology that is already available on the market called Qi and is being used by Nokia, Samsung, and LG. The specification being pushed by the Power Matters Alliance is called Power 2.0. One of the biggest backers for the Power 2.0 standard is battery giant Duracell. The battery maker is backing Power 2.0 with its subsidiary, Powermat Technologies..

A4WP Chairman Kamil Grajski said his group aims to "[Remain] above the fray of the squabble that has broken out between first-generation players WPC and PMA" and "Has kept its eye on the next generation of [wireless charging] technologies and enhanced user experience through wireless charging spatial freedom."

Sources: Computerworld, Alliance for Wireless Power [PDF]



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Lazy!
By tigz1218 on 6/20/2013 11:24:43 AM , Rating: 3
Motoman, I usually agree with you on many things, so I'm surprised at you attacking me here.

I believe your argument is a bit shortsighted. Charging mats are only the first step. Imagine having a "wireless power generator" in your house that can power/charge any device in the home no matter where it is located. Think beyond a charging mat and think about the longer results wireless power can result in.


RE: Lazy!
By Motoman on 6/20/2013 11:31:58 AM , Rating: 1
Think about the massive waste of power you're talking about with a field induction charging system of that size.

After we build our trillion-dollar smart grid, and prop up another couple dozen nuke plants, maybe I'll stop worrying about massive (and useless) wastes of power.

Until then...it's a tragically, horrifically, mind-boggingly bad idea to use such field induction charging.

Having one of those little charge mats you drop a cell phone on? Honestly not that big a deal...the wattage in use is negligible, as is the distance that the induction field has to cover (the phone's in contact with the mat). What you're suggesting though? Nightmare.


RE: Lazy!
By tigz1218 on 6/20/2013 11:39:28 AM , Rating: 3
Think about how inefficient cars were when they first came out. Wireless power is in it's infancy, how do you expect it to get better without taking the first step? Think about how inefficient powerplants were when they first arrived...and through years and years of use and testing and studying we have developed highly efficient nuclear power plants. Where would we be today if people had your attitude and never looked beyond the infancy of the technology?

I could not disagree with you more. Wireless power can have a huge impact, especially if they are able to make it efficient. And the only way to get there is to take the initial steps.


RE: Lazy!
By Motoman on 6/20/13, Rating: 0
RE: Lazy!
By tigz1218 on 6/20/2013 12:10:16 PM , Rating: 2
Again your assumption is that we know everything possible about physics and everything we do know about physics to be 100% accurate.

Science and everything we know is constantly evolving. To say that there will never be another breakthrough and that this can't be done "Period.", as you put it, is nonsense.


RE: Lazy!
By Motoman on 6/20/2013 12:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
Um, there are many things we learn about via science that we find are immutable.

None of us is Q from Star Trek. We can't solve a problem by "changing the gravitational constant of the universe."

An induction field is a *very* simple phenomenon. It's perfectly well understood. It is what it is, and what it is is very lossy.

I'm not saying we know "everything about physics." I'm saying we have a seriously good grasp on induction fields. And we know, for a fact, that they're really lossy.

Again, if you find a legitimate, peer-reviewed study that demonstrates how an induction field can be made to *not* be lossy, I'll accept that information. Until then, you're simply comparing apples and oranges.


RE: Lazy!
By chripuck on 6/20/2013 12:33:37 PM , Rating: 3
Your entire argument relies on induction being the only possible way to provide wireless power. Granted we have nothing legitimate on the horizon now and all current form of wireless chargers utilize induction, but that doesn't mean something can't/won't be invented/discovered in the future that changes that.

Water molecules encapsulated by carbon nanotubes that convert the heat generated from microwaves (which can be highly directional) into energy. That is complete BS and has a myriad of issues that I can't even think of (nevermind cooking everything between the device and the transmitter, water in the air etc.) but the point is that we will find a way, eventually.


RE: Lazy!
By tigz1218 on 6/20/2013 12:38:04 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you! Wish I can rate you up, but I've already commented.


RE: Lazy!
By Motoman on 6/20/2013 12:40:51 PM , Rating: 1
OK, then you go off and start working on something different than field induction then.

But you're obviously talking about doing something *completely* different that bears no resemblance to *this* topic, and therefore isn't relevant to *this* discussion.

I would LOVE to see some kind of lossless, long-distance, contactless energy transfer method. It would be awesome, and would revolutionize society worldwide.

But this isn't it.


RE: Lazy!
By tigz1218 on 6/20/2013 12:46:21 PM , Rating: 2
Which brings us back to my original point. That the technology has to start somewhere. You can't expect to have the end all be all wireless generator without going through the infancy phases first.


RE: Lazy!
By Motoman on 6/20/2013 12:52:27 PM , Rating: 2
You're talking about something completely different. Like, ocean-wave generators instead of a coal power plant.

Building coal power plants doesn't help you develop ocean-wave generators.

And there's nothing new about field induction. We've understood it well for a long time. It's not like this is some amazing new discovery.


RE: Lazy!
By karimtemple on 6/20/2013 11:59:21 AM , Rating: 3
Actually, based on commercially-available tech, resonance and induction mats are more efficiency the moment you put more than one device on one. There's no plug-in adapter standard or multi-port adapter. Wireless power is the only way to share one adapter between devices.


RE: Lazy!
By Motoman on 6/20/2013 12:00:41 PM , Rating: 2
Um, no. Plugging each device into the wall will always be more efficient than any wireless system, by necessity.


RE: Lazy!
By karimtemple on 6/20/2013 12:06:42 PM , Rating: 2
No disrespect friend, but you should probably get yourself a physics book or something.


RE: Lazy!
By Motoman on 6/20/2013 12:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
I did. Learned these basics of physics in high school and college.

Unless congress passed legislation changing the laws of physics when I wasn't looking, this is the way it is.

If you want to prove me wrong, find me a peer-reviewed publication outlining research that demonstrates how field induction charging can be done without massive loss.

And yes...10% loss is *massive*.


RE: Lazy!
By karimtemple on 6/20/2013 12:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
17% is more massive than 10%, right?

Statistically speaking, nobody uses wireless power. So where is your rage for all the plug-in adapters that are losing 40% of the power feed? Most of them lose 30%?

Where has your activism been, for the entirety of human history, where adapters have to be super awesome and meet special certifications just because they only lose 20% of the power? A plurality of adapters are losing like 37% of the power feed which even just compared to an adapter that isn't that great is a 17% loss?


RE: Lazy!
By Motoman on 6/20/2013 12:31:02 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, and 17% loss is a likely number for the entire system of your wireless charging mats, whereas 10% loss is a likely number for just the A/C adapter you plug your phone into instead. Thank you for finally seeing the light.

You seem to be lost on the notion that the manufacturer claims the mat itself is 90% efficient - there's an A/C adapter involved in that system ahead of the mat, so at best you're 90% of 90%.

There's not much point in activism on A/C adapters...they are what they are, and if you have the opportunity to get one that's more efficient than another, then go ahead and do that. Generally speaking, the A/C adapters are as good as we can make them.

The problem you're not seeing is that you're adding *additional* loss on top of whatever loss there already is in the A/C adapter. unless you think your charging mat is just going to magically pull energy from the environment with some kind of zero-point energy generator.


RE: Lazy!
By karimtemple on 6/20/2013 1:59:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's not much point in activism on A/C adapters...they are what they are
This argument is entirely invalid. It's simple arithmetic:

17% > 10%. A plurality of AC adapters lose about 17% of the power feed as compared to an 80% efficient adapter. Our hypothetical EV charger loses 10% by that same metric, a lower amount of power loss than 17%. Your complaint is about the 10%. I pray you can see the illogicality.

I'm not even necessarily saying drop your suit against wireless power. I'm just saying, if you won't drop it, you need to (even more seriously) go after adapters that don't hit 80% efficiency (possibly even CEC, which is 85%, or Energy Star, which is 87%). The majority of adapters actually hit about 70%, which is representative of the 10% loss you appear to lament so deeply.

17% is more than 10%. This is Kindergarten mathematics.

Also while we're on the subject of math, even if 100% of all motor vehicles were wirelessly charged EV, the cost measurement would not be total * 0.1 = loss, except in a world where the only electric devices were said vehicles. Just Saiyan.


RE: Lazy!
By BRB29 on 6/20/2013 2:24:08 PM , Rating: 2
You need to either convert the electricity before the induction or after the induction. Just about every device has some type of converter at one point or another. The field induction part just replace the wire part.

So the converter is applied at the wall or in the device. Either way. You will lose 10% on top of the pre or post converted electricity if field induction is 90% efficient.

There is no free lunch. Wired connections are not 100% efficient either. If it was then we wouldn't need boosters.


RE: Lazy!
By BRB29 on 6/20/2013 2:26:59 PM , Rating: 2
I should also add that resistance increases in metal as temperature increases. A hot wire can be inefficient.

I don't think a field induction system will have that problem.


RE: Lazy!
By Motoman on 6/20/2013 2:32:08 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm...what do you think gets the electricity to the wireless thing?

Wires. And unless you're doing something stupid, like using aluminum wires, that's negligible under the scenario we're talking about.


RE: Lazy!
By Motoman on 6/20/2013 2:33:27 PM , Rating: 1
This is the part he's missing. Somehow he's got it in his head that the A/C -> DC bit is happening for free someplace.

It's not.

The 10% loss of the field induction is ADDITIONAL to the A/C conversion loss.

Period.


RE: Lazy!
By Motoman on 6/20/2013 2:31:05 PM , Rating: 2
There's an A/C conversion happening before your wireless thing.

The wireless thing has 10% loss between it and whatever is getting charged.

There was another 10% loss at the A/C conversion before the power got to the pad.

You're right - this is kindergarten mathematics. 10% + 10% != 10%.


RE: Lazy!
By karimtemple on 6/20/2013 2:41:37 PM , Rating: 2
I like you dude, but you're pretty bad at understanding stuff. I don't know how to do this other than in English lol.


RE: Lazy!
By BRB29 on 6/20/2013 2:59:52 PM , Rating: 2
Karim, maybe this will help you understand

efficiency = 100%(wall) X (ACDCconverterOfWirelessInductionDevice) X WirelessInductionEfficiency X Device

If you are using wired connection then you eliminate the WirelessInductionEfficiency because a normal temperature wired connection is almost 100% efficient.

http://www.endmemo.com/physics/resistt.php

The Temperature Coefficient of Copper (near room temperature) is +0.393 percent per degree C. This means if the temperature increases 1°C the resistance will increase 0.393%

If you have 1 foot of ribbon cable with a resistance of 0.0649 ohms at 20 degrees C. You plug the wire into your cable tester and keep your hands on the wire while it tests. The wire temperature goes up 10°C because of your body heat. The wire resistance will go up 0.00255 ohms (10 degrees * 0.00393 per degree * 0.0649 ohms = 0.00255 ohms) .
While the wire resistance changes about 4 percent, the total change is only 2.6 milliohms which is a very minor change.

It will take a lot before a copper wire becomes inefficient compared to field induction at 90% efficiency. But in the future, I don't see why field induction can't be more than 90% efficient.


RE: Lazy!
By karimtemple on 6/20/2013 3:33:25 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/product_spec...

If we were to use Energy Star as our baseline for acceptable efficiency, we'd get a benchmark of 84% in the case of an EV. With this baseline, assuming a 10% loss is quote "massive," all adapters below 76% efficiency should be targets in Motoman's jihad. Most are below 70%.

efficiency = 100%(wall) X (ACDCconverterOfWirelessInductionDevice)* X WirelessInductionEfficiency X Device

*You Are Here

He's directly demonstrated that he's more concerned with the 10% wireless loss on an 80% efficient adapter than a 63% efficient adapter, which represents a 9% overall loss compared to the hypothetical wireless setup.

He is literally demonstrating that whatever it is he cares about, it isn't the actual power loss or economic cost. It's some kind of odd principle about only having one source of loss, or, God, I don't know.

The 63% efficient adapter is being used RIGHT NOW all over the country. The wireless EV charger, statistically, doesn't even exist. He's raging against a nonexistent machine while a real one destroys the city behind him. The argument's lack of validity is crying out to me like a baby trapped in a well.


RE: Lazy!
By Motoman on 6/20/2013 3:42:55 PM , Rating: 2
You're wrong.

We *have* to do A/C conversion. There's no way around it. The fact that it's not 100% efficient is irrelevant to this discussion, BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN REGARDLESS OF ANYTHING ELSE.

You are ADDING additional loss to this system FOR NO GOOD REASON. We don't HAVE TO do wireless charging. You *want* to do wireless charging because you're indescribably lazy.

YOU are ADDING an ADDITIONAL 10% loss to this equation THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THERE.

Nothing can be done about the A/C conversion loss. Aside from perhaps finding a more efficient adapter, which I have already noted.

You are horrifically wrong, and honestly it's perfectly clear that you're aware of that now, because you're not even trying to defend yourself anymore - you're launching a baseless ad hominem attack on me because apparently you finally realized how utterly wrong you are.

A/C conversion loss: necessary evil.

Additional wireless loss on top of A/C conversion loss: unnecessary evil.

Now please STFU and GTFO because you have just proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that you're horribly wrong and completely unwilling to admit it (strangely, even though you've done so in the past).


RE: Lazy!
By karimtemple on 6/20/2013 3:56:23 PM , Rating: 2
I think I've found the simplest way to say this. Please note that this is only a different wording of exactly what I've been saying this whole time:

Not all conversion is created equal. If 10% is so bad to add on top of conversion, then a conversion setup that's 10% worse is bad too.

Most stuff is not Energy Star compliant because 84% (in a high-wattage scenario) is hard (read: expensive). But it's achievable, which should make anything less unacceptable and not just wireless transfer.

By your entire metric, a wireless transfer on an 84% efficient adapter is equally as bad as a 75.6% efficient adapter, and yet you never had any hissy fits about the vast majority of power adapters, which are at and below 70% efficiency. It breaks the validity of your argument.


RE: Lazy!
By Motoman on 6/20/2013 4:06:31 PM , Rating: 2
No it doesn't.

A/C conversion is an unavoidable necessity.

The % loss due to A/C conversion is a loss that can't be avoided.

The % loss due to wireless charging, instead of wireless charging, can be entirely avoided.

And note that at no point did *anyone* say *anything* that indicated approval of the efficiency rate of A/C conversion. It is what it is and it can't be avoided, so there's frankly no point in worrying about it.

Wireless charging, on the other hand, is entirely elective and all additional losses due to that are entirely avoidable.

Good god, you just keep digging your hole deeper. You so seriously should have stopped at least a dozen posts ago.


RE: Lazy!
By karimtemple on 6/20/2013 4:21:14 PM , Rating: 2
At this point it just seems like you're feigning ignorance for the sake of trolling.


RE: Lazy!
By Motoman on 6/20/2013 4:27:18 PM , Rating: 2
...wow.

You've got a serious projection problem. The very thought that you're even still trying to argue your non-case would be laughable, if it wasn't so sad.

You got caught forgetting about the fact that your precious wireless charger thingy needed A/C conversion too, and once that finally dawned on you instead of doing the decent thing and admitting that you were wrong, you just started flailing.

And you're still flailing.

Somebody get some popcorn.


RE: Lazy!
By karimtemple on 6/20/2013 4:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
Here's how this entire argument started:
quote:
A 90% transfer efficient resonance coupling on an 80% efficient adapter would be more power efficient than most plug-in adapters, none of which I've seen you complain about.
As you can see from this quote of me, I was never unaware of the power conversion before the wireless transfer.

Most adapters are less than 70% efficient. In the example I've explicitly repeated numerous times by this point, an 80% efficient adapter is still more efficient than most adapters even with a wireless transfer added on.

I described this scenario in plain English to see your response and input, which in this case was "it's still worse because it's wireless" -- a response that directly rejected simple arithmetic.

I was trying to figure out, if power efficiency is so vital to you, why you don't have the same (or any) passion about inefficient adapters. You've given no discernible response on this.

I have no way of explaining this better. I'm limited to English.


RE: Lazy!
By Motoman on 6/20/2013 4:50:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A 90% transfer efficient resonance coupling on an 80% efficient adapter would be more power efficient than most plug-in adapters, none of which I've seen you complain about.


Your mind must have exploded when you wrote that.

Make up WHATEVER % of efficiency you want for the A/C conversion. But whatever % you come up with apply it to BOTH CASES.

If you find that the A/C adapter for your phone is unacceptably inefficient, you can get a different one.

And where, exactly, did you get an 80% figure for the A/C conversion that would happen in conjunction with your wireless thing anyway? I'm guessing thin air.

The one and only rational thing to do is to hold the A/C conversion loss as a constant, and compare from there. And it's clear that wireless is by necessity adding loss to that equation.

quote:
I was trying to figure out, if power efficiency is so vital to you, why you don't have the same (or any) passion about inefficient adapters. You've given no discernible response on this.


I have already stated NUMEROUS TIMES that there's nothing that can be done about the A/C conversion loss. It's a necessary evil, and I've also stated that if you don't like the loss of a given adapter, go and buy a different one.

But the irrefutable fact of the matter, AGAIN, is that A/C conversion is NECESSARY. The fact that energy is lost there is UNAVOIDABLE.

Is that "discernable" to you? Since it apparently wasn't the last half-dozen times I said the exact same thing.

You're a f%cking loon. Absolutely off your rocker.


RE: Lazy!
By Motoman on 6/20/2013 3:19:38 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know any way to say this more simply than this:

An A/C conversion is happening in BOTH cases. Use whatever % efficiency you want for that. Say it's 80%. Fine. BOTH the wired *and* wireless charging solutions have an A/C conversion that's 80% efficient (20% loss).

THEREFORE, if you plug your phone into the A/C adapter (as one normally would), you're experiencing 20% loss due to the A/C conversion from the wall. Or another way to look at it is 80% of the power that was delivered to your wall socket made it into your phone.

IF INSTEAD you are using a wireless charging thing of some kind, that in and of itself has a 90% transmission efficiency, you are now getting 90% of the 80% to the actual phone. Because you're ALREADY LOST 20% of your power due to the A/C conversion from the wall. 90% * 80% = 72%. 72% of the power that was delivered to your wall socket made it into your phone.

Wired: 80%

Wireless: 72%.

I can't make that any easier. You have COMPLETELY lost sight of the fact that someplace there's an A/C conversion happening that's in addition to the loss during wireless power transfer. Those losses are additive.

Ergo, wireless < wired. And thus it must always be, lest you actually are a god and can change the laws of physics.


RE: Lazy!
By BRB29 on 6/20/2013 3:45:58 PM , Rating: 2
In this capitalistic world, wireless > wired. It's all about choice and sales. People only care about power plants when their power bill skyrockets or there's no power.

People will always pick convenience. Most of us who support green only do it because it makes us feel good. The best way to save energy and resources has always been to be less materialistic and buy less. Unfortunately, if we did that then the economy would tank.

The bigger fish to fry is to convert transportation to EV. If we can do that using this tech then it'll do way more good than the inefficiency it brought us.


RE: Lazy!
By Motoman on 6/20/2013 4:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
No, it'll crash our grid and bring major cities to a grinding halt.

Once again, if you put in a new smartgrid and a whackload of more nuke plants, such that we have a highly stable distribution network and power to spare, I no longer care about this issue.

But the unavoidable fact is thatt the existing grid is seriously creaky, and literally teeters on the edge of cascade failure every day.

Yes, people routinely choose convenience over the smart choice. But in this case, not making the smart choice can actually have seriously bad ramifications for our society as a whole.

Unless you can sh1t us a new smart grid.


RE: Lazy!
By BRB29 on 6/21/2013 8:14:30 AM , Rating: 2
Our grid can more than handle EVs even if 2 million of them suddenly pop up in the next hour.

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/report-us-power-gri...
^ DOE says it can handle 180mil vehicles

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/electric-cars-emwon...

http://www.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/...

The US can build a new nuclear power plants faster than automakers can pump out EVs on the market. We will not have an energy problem. Perhaps a delivery problem because some of our grids are poorly maintained.


RE: Lazy!
By Motoman on 6/21/2013 3:47:09 PM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_blackout#Unit...

Sorry brother, but as noted our grid is precarious as it is. Google "usa rolling blackouts" for example.

Saying "we can handle X" at this point is ridiculous, when it's clear we can't handle what we have already.

Yes, we need more nukes. Build them. We need a new grid. A true smart grid. It'll cost a trillion dollars. Build it.

But no...we don't have any excess capacity right now. Significant additions to the load on our existing system is foolhardy.


RE: Lazy!
By Mint on 6/24/2013 1:57:39 AM , Rating: 2
Your link proves nothing. The California rolling blackouts in 2005, for example, happened because a transmission line went out for a reason entirely unrelated to electricity demand. High usage already has a feedback mechanism with utilities charging notifying businesses of days that demand is expected to be higher (and hence prices will be high).

The US absolutely has excess capacity. There's over 1000 GW of generation capacity:
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/capacity/
Average consumption is 450 GW.
Peak consumption is 782 GW:
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_...

Near field wireless power is not going to be used for major appliances, because it costs too much. It only makes sense for things that move around a lot, like cell phones or tablets. If every household in the US charged 100 Wh of batteries a day wirelessly, then 10% loss would add up to a 0.01% increase in grid load.

So stop whining.


"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki