"Wireless" has remote connotations, which obviously are inconsistent with the required resonant conditions for high efficiency. Just call it resonant inductive coupling, there's no proximity advantage over wired.
In the trend of GREEN initiatives , this wireless charging techniques is likely to do just the opposite - wasting more energy to the losses than the energy transferred to the device being charged.And if is going to be just a few millimeters and centimeters what is the advantage?
There were various institutes, including MIT, doing extensive research in wireless charging. The improvement over years is a lot. Nonetheless, according to law of physics, wireless charging just can't beat direct connection in terms of efficiency. Given this fact, would you rather pay a bit more to get the convenience that wireless charging brings on the table?
We had an HP TouchPad and TouchStone wireless charging dock for a few weeks for evaluation and it charged as quickly as our iPad did using a wired connection.
Here are user reviews from Amazon...
I think that like most things, wireless needs to ba an option. It is ideally suited to rugged devices that may get wet and/or use by the elderly who may not want the hassle of fiddling with cables and are less likely to be moving their device around, it will normally lay near the telephone or a coffee table. (This based on ageing family members!)
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.