Dictation.
We're a long way from ever building a magnetic induction device that would shift the Earth's magnetic field. Still, concern for environmental damage is a consideration with new devices that are being manufactured. Some reports claim that wireless charging devices are not friendly with the environment. That's debatable, and in the future it will become clear.
But back to the reason why I put this here. There are presently two different interests that are claiming to be the standard for the wireless charging technology. These two clashing groups are going to make it difficult for us consumers. If you buy the wrong device, you will end up with an orphaned device that in future years will not be usable. This is a sad situation, the differences in wireless charging technology are not so huge that we need to have two conflicting standards for the technology.
Let me recap something I mentioned earlier. There are two kinds of wireless charging technology in use at the present time. One is simple induction that requires both the transmitter and receiver to be closely coupled, so rack , holder or a cradle to keep the smart phone within one centimetre of the inductive transmitter. That type of device has moderate efficiency and a rather simple design. A common example of this would be the rechargeable toothbrush. Certainly you don't want to brush her teeth with something that's plugged into electrical socket. By making the cordless toothbrush wireless it becomes a very desirable and practical device.
The other way is use of a assonant inductive coupling. This is cool, but pricey.
And let's talk about smart phones. With smart phones you could go either way, either a simple inductive device or the other kind of device that's called our RF wireless charging technology. This kind of technology has some benefits and also has some serious disadvantages.
One of the benefits of the RF method is that the device does not have to be carefully positioned over the transmitter. Also, it's possible to charge two or more devices at once if the transmitter is in the form of a bowl or cradle that would hold more than one device. Now about the downside. It costs more. And the efficiency is very poor.
There would be less need for any of this wireless charging technology if the manufactured had made better electrical connectors. Some electrical connectors being used in present-day cell phones are despicable. Apparently the schools are no longer teaching people anything about mechanical engineering. At least it looks that way. It should not be so hard to make electrical connector that is reliable, easy-to-use and cost-effective.
There are some applications where the wireless technology is almost a necessity. One case would be with medical devices that have to be worn or even inserted into the body of a patient. In these devices can be recharged with the RF technology, it would be more cost effective than having somebody going into and out clinic three times a year to have his batteries checked. Cutting somebody open just to check the charge in his batteries is a risky procedure.
But in order for this technology to succeed, it has to be accepted by the masses to bring the cost down. So the manufacturers of wireless charging technology are going to be pushing more and more of their PR into convincing people that they really want to have these devices in their life.
The point I wanted to make with this post was the need for the average user to pay attention to what's going on in the marketplace and being aware that you will have to make a decision about whether not you want this technology in your life.
Now about this business with Tulsa. Long ago he wanted to explore the idea of transmitting electrical power over long distances without the use of wires. At first this seems like a fantasy, but there is some logic to what he wanted to do. Transmission of electrical energy over long distances using copper wire is not really very cost effective at all. Actually, it is more effective to put down a pipeline for natural gas and run natural gas into local generating stations. Do the math. What does it cost to put in these huge monster towers that carry 100,000 V over a distance of 500 miles? Then after doing that, figure out how much energy can you transmit through a steel pipe carrying natural gas? Natural gas is almost as free as hydroelectric energy. Well, when you consider the cost of building a dam, hydroelectric energy is not really free at all anyway. So you have the dilemma of choosing between hydroelectric power for natural gas power. Many people believe that hydroelectric energy is much better than natural gas. But that's debatable.
About the wireless charging technology. Is it really scalable? Could it really be in large to the point of where you could transmit a large amount of power over a distance of say 100 miles at a reasonable efficiency? Well, using our present knowledge, the answer would have to be no. It's very difficult to find microwave equipment that will generate more than 10,000 W of microwave energy at a reasonable efficiency. If you have a massive array of microwave transmitters, you have the problem of trying to synchronize all these transmitters of the Therrien phase. And even if you did that, there is the hidden health and safety issue. Imagine the somebody is flying around in a hang glider and he drops down to the altitude of these microwave towers and he gets sapped by 10 MW of microwave energy. That would be very bad news.
Anybody who wants to do more research on this idea of wireless charging technology can search on the following keywords:
Wireless Power Transmission.
And of course the acronym for this is WPT.
Another miss concept is about whether not the wireless charger could interfere with radio and television reception. The answer is yes. That is why some of the current technologies are restricted to use frequencies that have already been allocated to microwave ovens. At the present time microwave ovens are supposed to be on the frequency of 916 MHz. This means that that frequency cannot be used for much of anything else except some kind of high-power transmission. That frequency now is ruined for you sass a form of radio or television communication. Of course, if the transmission is very stable and does not have a wide bandwidth, it doesn't present much of a hazard to radio communication.
As for myself, I have mixed feelings about this. I don't like the idea of using a technology that's expensive and not efficient. But on the other hand, I don't like the mass of wires it accumulating in my workspace. It's a safety hazard. Someday I'm going to trip over this mess of wires and break a leg.
End of dictation.
