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 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.


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














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