...ainly agree. (had accidentally hit the send button, sorry)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michel Jullian <[email protected]> Date: 2009/10/6 Subject: Re: [Vo]:The coming of Wireless Power, A report on CNN To: [email protected] Reviving this thread at the occasion of Sony announcing their own wireless power system: http://www.trustedreviews.com/peripherals/news/2009/10/02/Sony-Reveals-Efficient-Wireless-Power-Technology/p1 John, note the following excerpt: "Furthermore, even if there are metal objects located between the transmitter and receiver, no heat induction occurs." BTW, what your computation below showed is that _wireless charging_ of a cell phone costs more (0.9/0.5 = 1.8 times, 1.5 times if we use Sony's 60% overall efficiency figure) than wired charging , what mine (earlier in the thread) showed is that _wireless powering_ of a cell phone costs several orders of magnitude (480 times) less than battery powering. We are both right. Wireless power will definitely induce (pun intended) huge savings when it will be used in stead of battery power, and it will definitely induce some losses when it will be used for battery charging in stead of wired charging. However, the more ubiquitous wireless power will become, the more wireless powering it will do, and therefore the less battery charging it will do, so the savings will soon considerably outweigh the losses, as you'll cert Michel 2009/9/20 John Fields <[email protected]>: > On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:54:05 -0500, you wrote: > > >>Since the wireless system is 50% efficient it'll eat 1.8kWh while >>delivering 1.8kWh, while the wired system, being 90% efficient, will eat >>only 0.2kWh. >> >>At USD 0.1 per kWh, that's $1.80 for the wireless system, while only >>$0.2 for the wired system. > > --- > Oops... 18 cents wireless VS 2 cents wired. > >
