Sony Prototype Sends Electricity Through the Air 240
itwbennett writes "Sony announced Friday that it has developed a prototype power system based on magnetic resonance that can send 'a conventional 100 volt electricity supply over a distance of 50 centimeters to power a 22-inch LCD television.' Unfortunately, Sony's prototype wasted 1/5 of the power fed into it and additional losses 'occurred in circuitry connected to the secondary coil so the original 80 watts of power was cut by roughly a quarter to 60 watts once it had made its way through the system.'"
It's a start (Score:4, Funny)
(sorry for mixing units)
Re:It's a start (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know, if they could make it out to 1000 barleycorns or even several rods, i'd buy a hogshead of them next fortnight.
Re: (Score:2)
Already been done.
http://www.ted.com/talks/eric_giler_demos_wireless_electricity.html [ted.com]
Re:It's a start (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's a start (Score:4, Funny)
You do realize that /41/ products are jokes, right?
Lossless... (Score:2)
Who pwns you? Sony!
Re: (Score:2)
But if they can't improve on 50cm, I'm just getting a 2ft extension cord for fixed items. (sorry for mixing units)
You joke, but my bicycle has an Italian bottom bracket [wikipedia.org] that is officially defined as 36mm x 24 threads per inch. *ack*.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that IQ, like money, tends to be a dividing factor between the haves and have nots.
Those who go to college tend to be prepared to get high enough paying jobs to make sure that their kids go to college, whereas the poor tend to stay poor since they can't afford to pass on the tradition of getting a degree.
Seeing as africans were once considered mere slaves, and thus excluded from the vast majority of societal benefits enjoyed by the white man, I'm not surprised that they're still crippled from ages o
Re: (Score:2)
Well I don't know what race you are, but you weren't very lucky: but you have 2 nations inventing calculus...
video source? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you still need a cable to connect your video sources, what's the point?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
uh, wireless hdmi?
$800
Latency 85-90ms.
Maxes out at 1080p30.
Some motion-compression artifacts. Some loss in detail. Gefen Wireless HDMI Extender (EXT-WHDMI) [pcmag.com]
The HDMI 1.4 cable supports 4K x 2K video, 3D over HDMI, Ethernet, etc.
Re:video source? (Score:5, Funny)
I here someone once figured out a way to send signals from a TV station to a TV set without wires. Crazy I know, but true.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it's only commercial-filled crap beamed from a broadcaster, which doesn't allow you to pause, rewind, store programs, choose exactly what movie you want to watch and when, etc. And due to FCC rules, you're not allowed to transmit your own video on public channels (since it would inevitably interfere with other people doing the same thing).
Re: (Score:2)
You realize you can use a DVR with broadcast TV, right?
Re: (Score:2)
So? You're still stuck with whatever they broadcast. What if you want to watch a Blu-Ray? Or download something from BitTorrent?
Besides, you do realize that DVRs require a cable to connect to the TV, right? So that throws this "wireless TV" thing right out the window, which was the point the OP was trying to make.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't realize you're the OP. So you invalidated your own point. What good is not needing wires to connect to your TV if you need a wire to connect the DVR to the TV?
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the DVR and Blu-Ray player and a Wifi card are all built into the TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that'll work real well. Look how well TVs have sold in the past when VCRs and DVDs were built-in. It's a stupid idea because as soon as some other thing comes out, your TV is obsolete and saddled with POS you never use.
I'll bet a lot of people are glad they never bought a $3000 TV with built-in HD-DVD (not that one was ever offered, but for exactly this reason).
Even "clueless" non-tech-savvy consumers know not to buy TVs with built-in stuff. Everyone knows that they keep their TV for many years, so
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say it was a smart business decision.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure prototypes (and maybe one or two production implementations) of systems which can transmit analog and digital streams (including, in either form, audio+video streams) between points without cables have existed for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
These things will probably be banned if they become technically workable and appear on the market. Remember, the main reason to use such a thing would be to connect your Blu-Ray player to your 52" flat-screen TV without having to run cables through the walls. But doing this wirelessly would constitute public distribution of this copyrighted content, which is illegal as the FCC notice says at the beginning of the movie, so the studios will probably have this technology banned.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but as you pointed out, their quality was poor, mainly because they convert to FM radio which is noticeably worse than CD-quality audio.
Anything expected to replace HDMI cables would need to have equal quality, and that would make it possible to make a perfect digital copy by sniffing the transmission. The media companies will hate that and try to get their employees in Congress to ban it, which should be easier since Congress is currently Democrat-controlled, and the Dems are in the pockets of the m
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you don't actually need to connect video sources. You can use a USB Stick attached to the TV, specially if it is one of those TV's used in showrooms and company entrance halls that just show a video on loop.
Re: (Score:2)
WiTricity? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Since it's from Sony, it will probably have built-in DRM, so only authorized systems can use the power.
Basic physics/electronics fail? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Lets stop innovation entirely and let technology sit and stagnate for a few hundred years.
It's a good thing you showed us the error of our ways or we might have advanced by leaps and bounds.
Re: (Score:2)
There's lots of places where technological advances would not only be very useful, but maybe even necessary for the continued existence of our civilization: biotech and agriculture to make more food for our geometrically-increasing population and cure diseases, newer transportation technology, etc.
Wireless power (at least not one with such a limited range) is not something that has any serious uses. It might make it easier to recharge your cellphone, but please don't try to argue that this is some critical
Re: (Score:2)
Like what? Specifics, or your point is invalid.
What could possibly be SOOOOO useful about not needing an 18" long extension cord? If you can get power to within 50cm of a device, you can get it all the way to the device without any extra trouble. If you can't get it within 50cm, then this technology is useless. The laws of physics pretty much guarantee it isn't going to be used for any long-range power transmission.
Re: (Score:2)
You're acting like innovation doesn't exist, as if this technology will stay in the exact same form as when it was originally invented.
Where did you get that from? I never made any such claims.
The world sure would suck if you were best friends with the guy who invented the first transistor. "Its useless! Its too big, too costly to make, takes way to much power and is too inefficient to do anything of real use! We should go back to working on flying cars, thats a real problem in the world today!"
This is jus
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I just wanted a demonstration on power through the air that was totally safe. (not the Sony method)
http://www.videosift.com/video/Wireless-Electricity-Demonstration-TED-Talk [videosift.com]
Was a demo by TED talk.
They actually demo it with a TV, and cell phone application. Uses high frequency vibrations to generate electricity with magnetic waves.
Super bad ass. Way more interesting that this crap.
Re: (Score:2)
To put it in programming terms, yes, the losses are O(N^2). But that says nothing about lower-order factors.
The whole point of resonant coupling are that you greatly extend the distance at which your losses occur. They still fall off by the same scale, but at a much greater distance. Think of it akin to broadcasting microwaves with a non-directional antenna versus a parabolic dish. Only in this case, you don't have to "aim".
Re: (Score:2)
Why is anyone wasting any time on useless technology like this? Is it based on consumer demand? If so then consumers need some basic physics and electronics lessons. This is not Star Trek, people, we can't "beam" your [data] to you via subspace, the inverse-square law fully applies, this is not ever going to be efficient or practical! [communication] things require [phone] cords, get over it!
You'd be ranting about horseless carriages if you were living a hundred years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, from what I remember of Star Trek, there was no wireless power there, either. Phasers, communicators, etc., all were powered by some kind of battery. That's why phasers could be set to overload, and explode, or ran out of power occasionally. "Subspace" was only useful for transmitting communications FTL, not power.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It is inverse square even if it is focused.
Just that the factor might be close to one (or zero, if you count losses).
One thing we know for sure (Score:5, Funny)
Missed it by that much! (Score:5, Funny)
Sony Should Shop At ThinkGeek (Score:5, Funny)
Quick! Somebody buy the Sony engineers a pair of these [thinkgeek.com]!
Re: (Score:2)
Quick! Somebody buy the Sony engineers a pair of these [thinkgeek.com]!
The warning for this "WEC [thinkgeek.com]" device reminds me of an old SNL skit [wikipedia.org]:
* Warning: Pregnant women, the elderly, and children under 10 should avoid prolonged exposure to Happy Fun Ball.
* Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly accelerate to dangerous speeds.
* Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core, which, if exposed due to rupture, should not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
* Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
* Discontinue use of Happy Fun Ball if any of the following occurs:
o
So they may be on Tesla's trail. And...? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
...Tesla never really disclosed the efficiency of his Colorado Springs transmitter. (And IIRC he wasted a lot of time trying to overcome the grounding problems). He never got to complete the New Jersey installation, which I've always thought may have been because his backers didn't know how to install meters to monetise the reception of the power.
Re: (Score:2)
There are cases in the early 20th century where farmers stole power by rigging up systems using rolls of barbed wire under high capacity power lines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say that it's also a good bet that whatever he managed was impressive by the standards of the day, but of no lasting significance. Most likely he managed to light
What would it do to my hand ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Suddenly déjà vu, (Score:2)
Run for the hills Siberians!
Resonant frequency (Score:2)
Fortunately this isn't using the same method, so there's no risk of charging the planet.
100 years later.. (Score:3, Informative)
This would be great (Score:5, Interesting)
Forget the Sony jokes for a minute. I can think of a great use for this technology : recharging smartphones!
Essentially, if they can miniaturize the receiver coils sufficiently enough, you could pack them so that they are integrated inside the batteries used in a smartphone. (yes, yes, it is somewhat inconvenient to swap the battery in certain Apple phones...)
Imagine the possibilities. You could have one of these transmitters in your car, plugged into the cigarette lighter and stuck between the driver's seat and the cupholders. Another could be on top of your nightstand in your bedroom, or wherever you tend to toss your keys, wallet, and phone at the end of the day. A third one would be in your office on your desk.
If the range is enough (100 centimeters or so) your phone would get recharged while it's still in your pocket! You'd never have to remember to plug it in, and you would be able to use the various power sucking features (games, turn by turn GPS, etc) all you wanted and would almost never run out of battery. It would neatly solve the battery problems with the current generation of smart-phones without having to make the phones bulkier or heavier.
Problems :
1. The receiver coil might take up too much space inside the phone.
2. The range might not be 100 centimeters due to various scaling laws
3. The electromagnetic charging fields might cause biological tissue damage, making it dangerous to use while in your pocket. It might interfere with pacemakers.
4. The fields might wipe credit cards or interfere with electronics in your car or office.
But if these problems aren't that bad, or can be avoided somehow, it would be great!
Re: (Score:2)
your phone would get recharged while it's still in your pocket!
letting sony recharge my phone while it's in my pocket!?
i'm sorry sir, but my balls don't need to be more warm than they usually are.
Re: (Score:2)
The range is so short that the Pre must be placed on the wireless charger. That's quite a bit different to 50cm (which is still to short, I think).
Great! Only they're 110 years late (Score:4, Informative)
Tesla is a candidate for the title of "smartest person who ever lived," and without him we probably would not have alternating current, which probably means we would get zapped much more often from our PCs (or "PMFs", i.e. Personal MainFrames). Now, considering the way society neglects its heroes of innovation, just watch Sony finish this and claim to have brought "wireless power" to the world, without ever having mentioned Tesla. "Oh yeah, him? Well we figured this out on our own. We just read a lot of these old books on magnetic resonance and pieced it all together. So smart is we!"
I'll stick to wires, thanks. (Score:2)
People have been demonstrating variations on this for over a century, since Tesla shorted out the city of Colorado Springs.
It's still largely a solution looking for a problem. There's some areas where this kind of thing is both safe and useful, but they're pretty specialized. Charging or powering personal electronics isn't one of those areas.
Not invented here... (Score:2, Funny)
Not gonna happen (Score:5, Insightful)
All this "broadcasting power" stuff is not going to fly.
All the schemes that have been tried by Tesla and latecomers don't have a chance. Either they're spewing out energy, which goes down in intensity as the square of the distance, or they're like Sony, and making big air-core transformers, where the fields go down as the CUBE of the distance. You'll notice it takes a 40cm coil to send power 50cm. And so on.
Then there's the problem with all the scattered energy that does not end up in the receiving device. We're talking many watts of power. Microwave ovens are only allowed to leak a thousandth of a watt-- no national safety agency is going to allow ten thousand times that much power wandering around our houses. Yes, the power couples somewhat weakly to flesh, but it's still a lot of power to be bathing in 24/7.
fun times ahead (Score:2)
Put this in the center of the roads, and power your electric vehicle without a huge battery bank required. Even more efficient because you won't have to be using electricity to haul around 500kg (or however much) of batteries.
Someday.
Tesla would be proud.
Tagged as "badtitle" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:can we get this tagged (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Doods, they've already got this....it's called lighting bolts and stuff....
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm appalled. This "prototype" isn't already perfected technology and they had the gall to send out a press release! They should just chunk the idea out the window! And please people, please stop creating this technologizma stuff because it's destroying Mother Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
We in the IT industry would rather all the environmentalists take a flying leap and fuck off.
We make loads of profits giving our entitlement-mentality trained customers what they want, and since we don't have to pay for hurting mother earth we will do so. Your grandkids will be paying, not us.
Oh, and all of our competitors think the same way, so we really need to make sure that if the earth is going to be ravaged anyway that we at least get a slice of the pie.
Tragedy of the commons and all that.
Re:can we get this tagged (Score:5, Insightful)
75% efficiency is perfectly acceptable for low power devices. Making and shipping alkaline batteries repeatedly, or relying on rechargeable NiMH batteries that often leak more energy than gets used in the device, is certainly far more wasteful. So using this sort of tech to power those kinds of devices (clocks, smoke alarms, stick-on lights, etc) sounds quite reasonable. I'd certainly buy a $20 device that meant I never had to change a smoke alarm or clock battery again. In fact, 75% efficiency means it'd probably be a about breakeven powering a NiMH Roomba or Scooba versus charging their packs (in addition to leaking, NiMH isn't a very efficient charger). So you could have your home robotics never leak charge or have to waste energy charging, and never have battery packs need to be replaced, as well as the obvious "no limit on how long they can run for before needing to go back to dock".
They're going to have to significantly improve on the range, though. 1 1/2 feet isn't much at all.
Another interesting possibility would be to have a pocket-sized device powered by a li-ion battery pack. Carry it on your person and all of your portable gismos -- cameras, flashlights, cell phones, etc -- stay charged. When you get back home or to your hotel room, you plug it in to charge it. They wouldn't need as much range improvement, but they would need to make it a lot smaller than 40cm across (unless it'd be something you carry in a backpack).
Certainly you don't want 75% efficiency running TVs or charging electric cars (unless you can do it on the road, for long trip range extending -- but then you'd need some *serious* range!). But for battery-powered devices, that's fine.
Re:can we get this tagged (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd certainly buy a $20 device that meant I never had to change a smoke alarm or clock battery again.
What happens when the power goes out? Does the $20 dollar device have a battery?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What happens when the power goes out? Does the $20 dollar device have a battery?
Don't worry. The power never goes out in a fire.
Re: (Score:2)
So using this sort of tech to power those kinds of devices (clocks, smoke alarms, stick-on lights, etc) sounds quite reasonable.
Smoke alarms have to use wires: it's how they avoid battery usage altogether (except as backup), and connect to each other so they all alarm at the same time. Every new house is required to be wired for smoke detectors.
Honestly, I can only think of one application where not needing a power cord for a 50cm distance is all that helpful: a "charging pad" to recharge your mobile devi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Every new house is required to be wired for smoke detectors.
Perhaps every new house, but mine certainly isn't. I have to change the 9-volts regularly.
Honestly, I can only think of one application where not needing a power cord for a 50cm distance is all that helpful:
Take a walk through your house some time, and look at every last little gadget in the house, and count how many batteries (replaceable or rechargeable, embedded or removable) you find. I bet you'll be surprised.
a "charging pad" to recharge yo
Re: (Score:2)
Take a walk through your house some time, and look at every last little gadget in the house, and count how many batteries (replaceable or rechargeable, embedded or removable) you find. I bet you'll be surprised.
Yes, that's the application I named: recharging mobile devices without messing with cords with proprietary. This Sony thing doesn't even appear to be aimed at that, and as you showed, the technology to do that is already here, even though no one wants to build it in.
Huh? That's already here. And ind
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a PS2 and never have to recharge the controllers.
Re: (Score:2)
What about if the closest available outlet is on the other side of a wall from where you need the device?
Re: (Score:2)
Cut a hole in the wall, and wire a new outlet to the other outlet. If it's a device you're going to be using in that location for a while, it's worth an hour of time and $3 in parts from Lowe's. This is exactly what I did for a motorized cat litter box I put in a closet.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, it's an all-American invention. And it's quite frankly the best automatic litter box made. The other ones are cheaply made and jam easily.
http://www.litter-robot.com/ [litter-robot.com]
Just a satisfied customer.
Re: (Score:2)
All cell phones don't use proprietary connectors. I've made it a point with my last two phones to get a model with a standardized USB connector for power and sync capabilities, so I can charge from any powered USB port I can find. I can't even count the number of times I've recharged my phone off my laptop while driving or on a train, or even at friend's houses by just making sure a common USB cable.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>75% efficiency is perfectly acceptable for low power devices.
Then how come the EU and U.S. are banning incandescent bulbs? The latest prototypes using laser-carved filaments operate at just 20 watts, and make the same light as a 15 watt compact fluorescent light. So that's what? 75% efficiency? And yet this is considered unacceptable by the politicians.
I say, if the bulbs are banned for inefficiency, then so too should these over-the-air power transmissions (for the same reason).
Re: (Score:2)
Since when do laser-carved filament incandescents make the same light as 15W CFLs? A 15W CFL has the same lumen output as a traditional 60W incandescent.
This page [discovermagazine.com] says that the laser treatment boosted a 60W bulb to the output of a 100W bulb. Hardly the 3x increase you claim. And they say it's not ready for commercialization (for one, I have to wonder how long that nanostructured surface that gives the greater efficiency will last through hours of operation)
Re: (Score:2)
Hair shirt environmentalism.
Such a lamp will remain legal in the US. A 20 watt incandescent light bulb will be legal in the US whatever the output, given current legislation; a light bulb emitting 900 lumens will be legal at 43W or less.
No; it's 33% less efficient than the
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad that 7 billion times 20W = 140GW, which is more than what Germany consumes right now.
Re:can we get this tagged (Score:5, Insightful)
one side of the tech business is actively thinking "hmmm fossil fuels will be running out, WTF are we gonna do" whilst the other side goes "WOOOOOOOOOO! Wireless power! PARTY ON!"
Don't be a doofus, this is a prototype. It's not like they're releasing it for mass consumption. Besides, who says we can't have wireless green electricity. The only thing NOT green about this is where the electricity comes from. Who gives a shit if it wastes 1/5th of the power if all that power comes from solar panels. There are plenty of nasty false dichotomies in the public sphere (nature/nurture, democrat/republican) we don't need another one. Don't be a doofus.
Re: (Score:2)
Duh, household electricity is a 60Hz, green is ~560THz.
Re:can we get this tagged (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, just because this early prototype has 75% efficiency we must assume that the maximum that can ever be achieved. Best to just stop investigating it instead of working on improving the range and efficiency. After all scientific progress has advanced quite far enough hasn't it?
God forbid that we improve this technology and use it to replace other sources of loss to reduce energy consumption! After all we are rapidly moving towards an electric infrastructure for vehicles, and they are always this close to the road. Imagine just how bad it would be for global warming if we replaced batteries (and their associated losses) with this technology. Evil scientists.
Re: (Score:2)
What happens with the energy sending coil ? We're just looking at loss in the transfer here, but I assume you'd keep that sucker going day and night to immediately power any device you might happen to carry by it. What's going to be the energy cost of that ?
Re: (Score:2)
Wireless power has a responsible niche: cell phones, mp3 players, laptop etc. My TV doesnt need wireless power. It never moves and it has tons of other cables.
The palm pre already support wireless power. I picture a pad like the touchstone, but bigger, and which can charge all my little toys just by tossing them on there. No fuss.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please, not this tripe again.
For one thing, your invention list is severely flawed. Many things which you say were invented by one group were actually invented by someone else and then developed or refined by another. The Japanese didn't invent hybrids; locomotive and heavy construction equipment makers have been using diesel-electric powertrains for decades.
You're also forgetting the Arabs and algebra and various other things (granted, this was back around 1000 AD, not recently when they've been too b
Re: (Score:2)
that is what i thought too. 80% efficient! Its not like wires are 100% efficient.
I'm more interested in this type of technology for charging all the various devices with batteries without having to have the right assortment of cables and adapters.
Re:Unfortunately? That's really good efficiency (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd be hard pressed to measure the line loss of a standard copper wire over two feet. It's probably like 99% efficient, if not higher.
Re:Unfortunately? That's really good efficiency (Score:5, Informative)
A typical lightweight power cord is 16 AWG. 60 Watts (assuming good power factor correction) is 0.5 A. 16 AWG wire is ~ 4 mOhm/ft. So 4 ft of wire (2 ft cord, supply and return) is 16 mOhm. That means you're losing 8 mV of your supply voltage, or 4 mW of power. That's about 99.993% efficient.
You have to get significantly longer extension cord and put a lot more current through it before the power loss is relevant. Even if you used a 12 ft cord, and drew a rather significant 4A, that's still only 1.5W out of 480, or 99.7% efficient. And most extension cords are 14 AWG or thicker.
Re: (Score:2)
This is impressive efficiency.
50cm is still too short though, so let's see if the efficiency remains workable as distance increases (square law).
IDK, according to a square law you could just move it farther away from the source to get more power
:-P
Re:Wasted 1/5 of energy? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if your lights are within 2 feet of an outlet.
But, if you did this with all the overhead lights you have in you house (guessing around 12), you could save up to 24 inches of copper wiring, with only a 25% increase in your power needs for those lights.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I wonder what the losses are if you charge the earth. Distance wouldn't matter then. Maybe we could build some wooden transmission towers near the generators at Niagara falls or something...
Re: (Score:2)