IDF 08: Intel Channels the Spirit of Tesla, Plans 60 Watt Wireless Charger

28

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

XSV DBLs

Do you guys realize how much power is wasted broadcasting radio?  And you're complaining about a 25% power loss trying to charge a portable device?

avatar

Kybo_Ren

Gator...

I never understood why people slam the US education system all the time... until now. 

You really depress me.  Your grossly inadequate math skills coupled with your overly-defensive nature combine to produce the epitome of our education system's failure. 

"2 devices each losing 25% of their power means your [sic] losing 50% of your energy!"

"...    no. Just no."

 "I'M RIGHT GODDAMMIT JEEZ U SUCK!"

" [explanation] "

"Grow up"

 

First, I can't believe you believe you're correct.  Second, you make me want to kill myself

 

 

avatar

shaggygoblin

Proof that 7 x 13 = 28
from the movie In the Navy starring Abbott and Costello

Proof:    

      Check #1:                 Check #2:

    
                 13                            13
                x 7                           ---
               -----                       7 /28 
                 21                           - 7  
                + 7                           ---
               -----                           21
                 28                          -21
                                               ----
                                                  0

      Check #3:

     
                 13
                 13
                 13
                 13
                 13
                 13
               + 13
             ------
                 28  (3+3+3+3+3+3+3) + (1+1+1+1+1+1+1)

    In Check #1, multiply 7 x 3 to get 21.
    Then multiply 7 x 1 to get 7. 
    Then add 21 and 7 to get 28.

    In Check #2, we check the multiplication
    problem by dividing one factor into the product.
    Divide 7 into 2 but it doesn't go.
    So divide 7 into 8 to get 1. 
    Subtract 7 from 28 to get 21.
    Now divide 7 into 21 to get 3. 
    So the answer is 13.

    In Check #3, another way to check a
    multiplication problem is by addition.
    To check if 7 x 13 = 28, we add seven 3s and seven 1s
    together to get 28.

No Offense, but you made this come to mind by

arguing math with a 6th grader!

You should expect a call from Jeff Foxworthy

or one of his game show producers...LOL!

HILLARIOUS!

BTW, how much hair do you have left after that argument?

ROFLMAO!

avatar

kenmizell

This Idea has been around since the days of Tesla (1899 cColorado Springs experiment). http://www.mind-course.com/wireless.html 

The thing to worry about is the health effects of using EMF (Gauss) to induce power.  EMF has been blamed for many health hazards in children (http://www.mercola.com/article/emf/emf_dangers.htm). 

I'd like to have less cords, but I also don't want to have fried nutz. :)

-Ken

avatar

MXC318

Erm...  We don't use floppies too much anymore, but a lot of government IDs and the older style bank cards and credit cards (probably the majority) rely on a magnetic strip.  Wouldn't the fluctuating magnetic field created by the base station scramble those?

avatar

jwalch.hawk

Wow, great points from both of you.  Health issues (read: fried nutz) are obviously a major concern.  Though, I suspect that is already somewhat being tested by the health of the researches (unless they're wearing something more protective than just a basic lab coat) through these developments.  Nonetheless, there should be a full-blown period of tests measuring how potentially harmful the EMF actually is.  The magnetic strips on plastic concerns me a lot too.  I know there a plenty of things you can't stick in your wallet with credit cards or it might screw up the magnetic strips.  Or something as dumb as having two credit cards placed next to each other facing opposite directions such that the magnetic strips are rubbing can cause problems.  Obviously I wouldn't need to be charging my wallet (or would I?  A thought for the future, perhaps.), but I do have concerns about getting my wallet too close to the charging station rendering my plastic useless.  I hope that's something Intel's been considering.

avatar

thegamepro

If they could match the charging range with the wifi range, that would be awesome!

I will no longer need to worry about charging my PSP because it would just charge when its in my house. Hopefully intel will have a way to encypt the wireless power to prevent your next door neighbors from "borrowing" your power just as they do with your wifi.

avatar

gatorXXX

I agree!

avatar

gatorXXX

It's a great idea for no cables, but it's hardly a way to save power. Losing upto 25% in power transmission can add up to, overtime, a substancial amount to your energy bill everymonth.

Think about it....25% lost to charge cell phone.....25% lost to charge mouse....25% lost to charge camera....25% lost to charge ipod.

That equals 100% lost to nowhere. You charge these Items once a week for 4 weeks, thats a 400% increase on your energy bill to charge those items as opposed to standard charging.

Way to go INTEL!!! Now your thinking!!!

 

 

avatar

jwalch.hawk

That's got to be some of the most interesting math I've seen this week.  Aside from the technical, it seems that the theory driving that math is that the only electricity you use is to charge your consumer electronics.  Otherwise it is completely unreasonable to state that your electric bill would jump by a large figure, much less 400%.

The article states that it throws up to 60W of power.  A single PC power supply delivers easily 10 times that at 600W (and that's an extremely modest PSU - at this point many "power user" units are in the 1k ballpark).  Do you have an Energy Star certified PSU?  Awesome, all that means is 80% power transmission efficiency.  85% is considered really good. For the sake of an even playing field on the comparison, I'm going to make the (false) assumption that both devices in question draw maximum power all the time.

.15 lost * 600W > .25 lost * 60W

Ok, so 75% efficiency isn't good.  Heck, I think 90% should be the goal in both areas.  But if you think that this 60W charger is what's going to run up the electric bill, I gotta say you're pretty mistaken there.  Your time would be much better spent making your desktop (or better yet, other large household appliances) more energy efficient.  Standby, hibernate, removing energy hogging components from your PC (there are some graphics cards out there drawing an absolutely ludicrous amount of power), switching to low-wattage CPU, etc - If energy conservation is your concern, there a ton of tweaks you could make elsewhere that add up to a hell of a lot more than 5% under Energy Star certification (like I said, all it takes is 80% in that area, though there's obviously other criteria as well) on a 60W charger is going to cost you.

avatar

gatorXXX

Thats not what I said. I said there would be a 400% increase on your Ebill to charge those items...I.E. if it costs $5 a month to charge those 4 items (hardwired), then charged wireless at a 25% loss for each each week, it would then cost you $20 extra a month or $25 total. That equals a 400% increase.

And no. 25% loss in transmission is dissipated in the air as it is not hardwired. Much like wi-fi...your lose signal the farther out you go. They say it works up to 3 feet. So from ground zero to your electronic Item it loses 25% of energy efficiency into the air which is not good. So it will take 25% longer to charge them to full capacity.

You can't compare hardwired products to wireless. Why do you think MPC doesn't bench wi-fi against hardwired modems? They do for comparison, but not head to head. So you can't even come close to  the relative efficiency of a wired PSU to a wireless charging station.

And yeah, my math is fine.

avatar

n0t_a_n000b

Yeah the power dissipates in the air, but a PSU heats your computer.  And no, if it cost $5 to charge something, its not going to become $25, instead it's only up $1.25 for a total of $6.25.  If you use Windows (which I highly, highly doubt) their is a little something call a calculator under programs - accessories.  I will repeat it for you n00b.

If you use Windows (which I highly, highly doubt) their is a little
something call a calculator under programs - accessories.  I will
repeat it for you n00b.

If you use Windows (which I highly, highly doubt) their is a little
something call a calculator under programs - accessories.  I will
repeat it for you n00b.

If you use Windows (which I highly, highly doubt) their is a little
something call a calculator under programs - accessories.  I will
repeat it for you n00b.

If you use Windows (which I highly, highly doubt) their is a little
something call a calculator under programs - accessories.  I will
repeat it for you n00b.

If you use Windows (which I highly, highly doubt) their is a little
something call a calculator under programs - accessories.  I will
repeat it for you n00b.

If you use Windows (which I highly, highly doubt) their is a little
something call a calculator under programs - accessories.  I will
repeat it for you n00b.

N0t a n00b

avatar

gatorXXX

Hey b000b, I see what you did......

You only multiplied a 1 time charge at 25% for 1 week.( there are 4 weeks in a month) So iif it cost you $5 a month in Ebill costs for 1 item plugged into a wall socket, it would then cost you $6.25 for the month if you used wireless to charge it 1 time! Electric companies don't charge by the week moron.

25% or .25 x $5 is $1.25......so 5 + 1.25 = $6.25 (thats if you charge 1 item 1 time a month). We are talking charging 4 items 4 times a month @ a 25% loss per item per week.

Now dimwit.....read the comment.............thats 4 items @ $1.25 per item per week = $5(per week)

so $5 per week x 4 weeks = 20. If the start is $5...you now pay $25 for ALL 4 items a month = 400% increase.

Even if you only charged 4 items 1 time a month, that's still a 100% (25% x 4) increase. If it cost you $5 to charge all 4 items once a week plugged in, then you would pay $10 a month if it were wireless.

Go back to school and sip a slurpee. Your gonna need it.

avatar

n0t_a_n000b

Hey Gatornobrain

  1. I am still in grade school, grade 6 to be exact, and have not failed a grade, unlike you.
  2. Drinking that slurpee could give you brain freeze, which is the only explanation I have to your terrible math.

Okay, I will break it down for you.  If you have 5 gadgets, and you charge them 20 times a month, or 100 times in total, and each charge costs 5 cents, 5 x 0.25 = 1.25 cents.  1.25 cents + 5 cents = 6.25.  There you go.  That is one charge and only 1.25 cents more.  Now multiply it by 100 becuase that is your overall amount of charges in a month and you get $6.25 - what I said earlier.

N0t a n00b

avatar

gatorXXX

b00b for brains....

WHAT??????? hahahaha....you need a new math teacher. I don't really have an explanation for what you just wrote. I don't because it makes no sense. I will go easy on you since your in the sixth grade.

So basically your trying to say that it costs 5 cents per charge per item and that it costs only 5 dollars per month to charge all 5 items. Then your adding 25% loss for a grand total of 6.25 for the month.  Sorry little grasshopper, but it doesn't work that way.

I'll keep this simple and the 5 cent per charge (even though it's more like 50 cents or more). This article states....that there is a 25% loss. That is 25% loss for EACH item, per charge.

ok.......take 5 items at 5 cents per charge.

  1. cell phone: 5 cents x 25% loss = 0.0125.....6 cents
  2. Ipod        : 5 cents x 25% loss = 0.0125.....6 cents
  3. Mouse      : 5 cents x 25% loss = 0.0125.....6 cents
  4. mini DV     : 5 cents x 25% loss = 0.0125.....6 cents
  5. cell #2       : 5 cents x 25% loss = 0.0125.....6 cents

Thats 5 cents adding the 25% loss that comes out to be 0.0125 cents. Add them together, 30 cents, using the 1/4 of a percent which equals a total of 31 cents for all 5 items (rounded down). Now you charge them 100 times....you get ......WHAT?....yes....$31!! a MONTH.

If you were to add them together WITHOUT the 25% loss, plugged into a wall no wireless, you would get only ....WHAT? yes....$25 a MONTH. That's a difference of  $6 dollars just using the wireless.

Print this out and take it your teacher, mom, dad, or local congressman, i don't care but I assure you...it's not 6.25!!

 

avatar

PhynaeusClaw

6th Grader: 1 pt

Gator:0 pt

At least the (not) n00b didn't make sweeping statements of questionable validity.

Gator, unless you're 12 you shouldn't argue with a sixth grader. It's not becoming of adults to argue with the youngins. Especially when they make their point better.

avatar

rsnation

Actually, he said that each item is charged 20 times a month, for a total of 100 charges, not that each item is charged 100 times. This brings you to 31 cents times twenty which yields a much more reasonable $6.20 per month (compared to his original $5 month for wired). Also, you are failing to take into account the inefficiencies of the wired chargers (transformers, etc) that further close the gap in cost. Yes, it is a noticeable increase in energy usage, but its nowhere near the 400% you originally had stated.

avatar

n0t_a_n000b

Thanks, at least some people on this thread have brains.

N0t a n00b

Who needs to go back to grade school now, Gator_buys_overpriced_XFX_products.

avatar

gatorXXX

NO 5 items charged 20 times each  a month = 100 total charges. 100 charges x .31 = $31......key word...EACH....

And your right I shouldn't be arguing with a child.

I used the $5 base just as starting point because electricity is not free......

Come on people this is simple freakin math.......if you have 4 items losing 25% that = 100% loss...PERIOD

100% loss for 4 weeks = 400% ...PERIOD.

SO forget efficiency......if it cost $5 a month to charge 4 items wired, then you would add 400% to that if using wireless. 400% x $5 = $20.......5+20 = $25.......PERIOD.

avatar

jwalch.hawk

Ok, first of all, you and (not_a_) n00b need to stop flaming each other, it's really annoying.  In that light, I'm going to *nicely* point out one major contention I have with the math you're presenting.  I am not trying to condescend or anything, but given the content in the posts, it seems that my mathematical qualifications would trump.  (Please note that in no way means I am better than you, etc, etc...  Just that I do in fact know what I'm talking about here).

 ".if you have 4 items losing 25% that = 100% loss...PERIOD"

Now, this is not true.  Hopefully my explanation can help you out here. :) I think it would be best to use concrete examples, even if the numbers are totally made up.  So, for the sake of example, I'm going to say that I own precisely 5 items that use exactly 100W of power all the time, 24/7.  Therefore, I'm using a grand total of 5 * 100 = 500W.  Easy enough so far.  Now, let's see each of those is basically losing 25% to heat/various disappation issues.  For each item, I'm losing .25 (25%) times 100W = 25W.  Ok, so I have five items losing 25W apiece.  Ok, so multiply that 5 * 25W = 125W of energy that I am losing total.  Now, this is where the math does something that I don't think you're going to expect, but I'm hoping this helps.  I can get the total percentage of energy I'm losing by dividing the total amount I'm losing out of the total energy, yes? (rhetorical - this is a given)  So, I divide the total of 125W that I'm losing by the 500W that I'm supposed to be getting if I had 100% efficiency.  It's that damn 25% (0.25) back again!  What actually happens is that individual units don't "add up" the way you're thinking they would, but they contribute to the whole.  Let's say I changed the example and said I had 10 devices instead, but that the extra five I'm adding had 100% efficiency.  By your method, I should be losing the same percentage of power, because those extra 0% loss things don't matter.  But if you go through the steps I've shown, hopefully you can get to this step: 125W / 1000W = .125  In other words, if half of all my devices lose 25% of their power, I'm actually only losing 12.5% of my total power usage.

 

"100% loss for 4 weeks = 400% ...PERIOD."

This is also not quite true.  As an overview, basically you're multiplying a scalar by a time unit and insisting you still have a scalar.  Hopefully I can use an example here to illustrate why this is problematic so you can get something out of this. :)  See, you've arbitrarily chosen week as your time unit here.  But say I choose a day.  Why not? 28 days is precisely equal 4 weeks, yes?  So now I come in and say that you're wrong and that it should be 100% loss for 28 days = 2,800%.  But then Jimmy comes in and says that I'm still off-base because I should be using hours...  100% loss for 672 hours (28 days * 24 hours in a day) = 67,200%!!!  Basically, the bottom line to this story is that you need to be careful with your units...  What you did is multiplied a ratio (a scalar - and to be clear, a percentage is a ratio; it's always parts out of a whole) by a number in units of time... But then you're saying your answer is still a ratio, which it isn't.

 

Hopefully this has helped you so that the debate doesn't need to focus on something trivial like the math - I love the point you bring up (that the power loss is higher than preferable, perhaps).  Unfortunately, some of your mathematical errors led you to give an unreasonably bloated figure and detracted from your point.  You are most definitely correct that some power will be lost.  Heck, I might even be wrong and maybe it is a more significant amount in the scheme of things than I suspected it was.  I didn't fully research it.  So there's my challenge to you:  Research some figures on the total power usage in home, and how much is typically lost in normal appliances (remember, nothing is 100% efficient, even if most is indeed better than 75%).  Then take care to make sure your math is correct, and report back some figures on how much this would increase the average person's power bill.  It's definitely not 400%.  But it might be interesting to see how much it actually is. :)

avatar

n0t_a_n000b

 Thanks for settling the argument. My question to you is how much would you lose on your ebill if it normally cost $5 a month?

 Thanks,

        N0t a n00b

avatar

Techrocket9

Basically, with a 25% loss in efficiency (Regardless of what it was before, so long as it is a 25% additional loss) you can use the algebra problem: 3/4X=C Where C Is how much you pay now and X is what you will pay with the loss for the same amount of usable power. This equation can be rewritten as X=4/3C. So if you plug in $5 for C, (where do you live? I want that kind of bill) you get X=4/3*$5.

 

Now do the math:

4/3 = 1.3333333333333333333333333333 Repeating for those w/o scientific calculators that accept fractions.

4/3*5=X=$6.666666666666666666 repeating. The electric company will round up to $6.67. (Plus tax)

 

Hope this helps!

avatar

jwalch.hawk

Well, that's a tougher question than you're making it.  I'm assuming you mean that the cost of energy you normally use to charge small consumer electronics (ie, cell phones, iPod, etc.) costs $5 a month.  What you're asking is more or less a correlary (sp?) of the challenge I posed to Gator.  Basically, I have to make a lot of assumptions to answer the question at all.

So, in an overarching declaration of my assumptions, I'll just say this - For that, I'm assuming that each and every other factor except the power loss is constant throughout.  I'm also going to assume that this device uses DC power, and thus loses the same energy in that AC to DC inversion that the wall worts we all know and love lose in the same process.  These assumptions, combined with the rather arbitrary figure you've decided on, mean this is in NO WAY an accurate representation of what the "wasted money" the average person would experience.  There are way to many "what if"s that I haven't answered yet.  There's my disclaimer.

IF all your tethered chargers are using $5 per month worth of kilowatt-hours (a sidenote if Gator is still reading - this is the unit that power companies charge based on.  The unit of power, the Watt, has no meaning in terms of time.  However, when multiplied by a unit of time (here, the hour) you get a unit (the watt-hour...  kilo is just 1000 of those, obv) that tells you how much power was being used and how long it was used for.  I think this is what you were driving at earlier)...  We know that we'll need to consume more than that because our wireless transmission is dropping 25% of what we want.  So, a simple little algebraic schtuff to figure out how much more power we're using: x - (x * .25) = 1----> x = 4/3, or about 1.33

So you're charger component is increasing by roughly 33% in this model (1.0 is the baseline). So if you started at $5, you're at $6.67 now; an increase of $1.67.

What I'm really interested in is a more thoroughly investigated starting figure for how much electricity we use charging devices, some more details on what deviations from some of my huge assumptions might be, and then a comparison between the cost of the accurate wasted energy and how much could be saved by implementing other energy efficiency measures such as those I suggested to Gator in my initial reply.  I might have some time in the near future to put together something to that effect, but who knows...  It's a more complicated question than it initially seems.

 

avatar

gatorXXX

Yes, that 1.67 increase is for charging 1 item if it cost $5 a month on average with roughly a 25% loss. so it would be 6.67. I never disputed that. We were talking 5 items. b00b there is trying to say that it's ONLY going to rise $1.25 for ALL 5 items charged 100 times a month. And that is NOT correct. And your making him think that it charging 5 items 100 times a month will only cost an extra 1.67 with a 25% loss. And that is not correct.

Yes there are alot of other mitigating factors effecting the actual usage and cost. I used the $5 base as a starting point. (without actual diviing up the actual energy usage per electronic device.) this was just a 0 point reference. NOT an actual usage to cost ratio. No, it's not going to be an actual 25% loss with a 400% increase on your Ebill. There are too many factors like you stated. But it's a reference point as like our gas mieage. They say you get 31 mpg but actual you may get only 25mpg.

All I was trying to do was say that your ebill will rise. And it will. To what actual degree? Don't know. but it will. Your right, it needs more divuldging into to get a correct assumption.

avatar

jwalch.hawk

**frustrated sigh**

...

...

I think we're done here.

avatar

n0t_a_n000b

Hey GatorXXX, if you register today their are still spots
available in my brother's 4th grade class.  I think that's when I learned
all about basic math. Then again, some grade 1 math could help too. 

Seriously though, try calculator, it would help you.  Oh, and don't go drink a slurry becuase you might get brain freeze and write another strange math problem on this site (

like your previous comments).

 

n0t_a_n000b

avatar

gatorXXX

and....that is for charging only one item. You were almost correct that YES it is only roughly 1.25....but YOU HAVE 5 items.......

avatar

gatorXXX

Grow up.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.