Good point. There needs to be a new approach to the way we think about developing this technology. Three brands presented here, and two of them are quite mutually individuated processes for carrying out (in essence) the same function.
We will obviously need at least several different suppliers for MRP transfer--otherwise monopolies are going to ruin the advancement of this technology. Competition between companies will drive the advances in the efficiency of the products themselves, but damn can't we at least standardize the basic electromagnetics used to operate these devices? Seriously, we're delaying the accessibility and usage of this technology AND suppressing hopes for making some critical progress in that technology by making a bunch of different frameworks for the same sh*t.
I'm probably overhyping my point of view, but come on...who is going to want to buy a ton of different types of wireless chargers unless they have to. Cross-platform compatibility is just as important to implement as is wireless systems for charging devices.
I fear the substantial increase in wireless charging revenues will be from the purchase and disposal of multiple charging solutions. I'd like an agreed upon standard to be developed and deployed so that we don't all fill up our attics with obsolete "technologies of the year". As it is, I see history repeating itself. No sooner did we eliminate the proliferation of incompatible connectors than we are moving to incompatible wireless charging solutuons. Will we never learn?
OK, time for some self-humiliation: I saw the title to this one and immediately thought "What!?! Phone companies are already making out like bandits, and now they're going to charge us 40 times more??"
I wasn't trying to bash your article, just the technology. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean we should do it. The experiments that I have seen have a very low efficiency rating at around 50% at a close distance. One of them shows a 60W light bulb only a few feet away that requires 120W from the source. Now consider inverse squared law and that people might not want to use their devices close to the source, the efficiency will be somewhere much lower than 50% and probably near 5-10%. We are in the middle of a global energy crisis and this is the innovation that the public wants pushed?
There are many documented adverse health risks associated with electromagnetic radiation. It all depends on the frequency, the distance from the source, and the power level. Let's use a microwave oven for example, they operate at 2450 MHz but are strictly regulated to 5mW of microwave radiation per cm^2 @ approximately 4 cm from the oven surface. The inverse squared law takes care of the rest, but it is that same law which diminishes the efficiency of wireless power and thus making people decide if they want to be close to a radiation source to improve the efficiency.
Regardless of the frequency, this radiation causes "electric dipole moments" in every atom and molecule in our bodies causing them to change alignment at a rate consistent with the chosen frequency. I am not sure that changing every household, diner, and coffee shop into an energy wasting microwave oven is the best course of action for the world.
Unfortunately, "TPFJ" is probably right. Too much money has been invested and is at stake for the proponents to hang up their hats and back out now.
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.