Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Wireless Networking

Samsung's New TV Remote Uses Radio Waves From Your Router To Stay Charged 65

Posted by BeauHD from the fascinating-tricks dept.
The new version of Samsung's Eco Remote features "RF harvesting capabilities that let the remote preserve its charge by 'collecting routers' radio waves and converting them to energy,'" reports The Verge. It can also be charged with solar energy. From the report: Aside from the new RF harvesting option, the Eco Remote can be charged from both outdoor and indoor light or (for the fastest results) over USB-C. Samsung says it's introducing a white model of the remote this year, which the company says is meant to better complement its "lifestyle" TVs like The Frame, Serif, and Sero. As with the original remote, the intention here is to ditch AAA batteries. Samsung has previously estimated that switching to solar-powered remotes could avoid 99 million discarded batteries over the course of seven years. It has also explored other ways of self-charging the internal battery such as "harnessing the kinetic energy that's created when the remote is shaken" and "using the vibrational energy that's created when the microphone picks up sounds." But this time around it settled on adding RF harvesting as another way to keep the clicker functioning whenever you need it.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samsung's New TV Remote Uses Radio Waves From Your Router To Stay Charged More

Samsung's New TV Remote Uses Radio Waves From Your Router To Stay Charged

Comments Filter:

  • Won't this potentially impact the performance of the wireless network? Seems like something you wouldn't want to do right next to a device you're using for something like streaming video.

    I am not an RF engineer so I don't know if it's marginal or significant, but I can only suspect that if something is absorbing radio frequency waves and turning them into battery juice, those same radio waves are not being reflected or received by the intended radio receiver.

    • rig and EV to change like this! there are roads where it may just work
      https://www.google.com/maps/@4... [google.com]

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Won't this potentially impact the performance of the wireless network?

      No.

      I am not an RF engineer

      Guess what, the people who designed this thing probably are.

    • It might slightly degrade the signal in a very small area immediately on the other side of the remote, relative to the wifi transmitter. However, it would never be enough to notice, even if you placed a dozen remotes on the table with your laptop or cellphone behind them.

      Radio waves that are reflected were already mostly noise, not a useful part of the signal. Wifi is high frequency, you need line of sight or objects that can be penetrated. It isn't like low frequency AM, where you bounce it around.

      • Radio waves that are reflected were already mostly noise, not a useful part of the signal. Wifi is high frequency, you need line of sight or objects that can be penetrated. It isn't like low frequency AM, where you bounce it around.

        That's a vast oversimplification. MIMO routers can, and do, use waves that have been reflected. WiFi penetration is not great, but it's not crap either.

    • Won't this potentially impact the performance of the wireless network? Seems like something you wouldn't want to do right next to a device you're using for something like streaming video.

      I am not an RF engineer so I don't know if it's marginal or significant, but I can only suspect that if something is absorbing radio frequency waves and turning them into battery juice, those same radio waves are not being reflected or received by the intended radio receiver.

      It won't impact it at all. The only waves it can covert to electricity are those that directly hit it, and they wouldn't be hitting your other wireless devices anyhow.

  • Or go back to the actual "clicker" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lije Baley ( 88936 ) on Monday January 03, 2022 @05:37PM (#62139735)

    The original "clickers" had no batteries. They just mechanically emitted ultrasonic (and/or audible) signals.

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by rsiIvergun ( 7443340 )
      This dates me, but I had a Zenith growing up with a clicker. Space Command they called it. It was neat at the time, but there was this big annoyance if you picked up your keys, it occasionally changed the channel. My girlfriend's dad had a cockatoo that mimicked every sound possible. He claimed the bird managed to change the channels when he didn't like what was on TV. I think I saw it happen once, and he did something with his beak that was almost inaudible.

      History! [zenith.com]

      • The button you pushed struck a tuned (brass?) rod and the frequency (us kids could hear it) would determine what function was performed.
        Only four functions I can recall, Channel up/down and volume up/down, I think power was still manual meaning you had a kid do it.
        Before that the remote was connected by a large cord to the TV, my girlfriend's dad had both, they charged a lot more for each version.
        I made great points with my girlfriend's dad by being able to get both the corded and the 'clicker' remote work

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Bert64 ( 520050 )

          We had a long piece of bamboo that could be used to press the physical controls on the front of the tv.

    • The original remotes were long rounded wooden sticks called pool cues. Every house used to have about five of them.

      • Re:Cue that (Score:4, Funny)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot&worf,net> on Tuesday January 04, 2022 @05:12AM (#62140977)

        The original remotes were long rounded wooden sticks called pool cues. Every house used to have about five of them.

        No, the original remote control was voice activated. You told your kid to change the channel and he did.

        Only downside is it only worked until 9pm or so. After that the kid was in bed and you lost your remote control.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Bert64 ( 520050 )

          You just need to shout louder.
          The kid can't hear you if he's in his bedroom, or if he's asleep you're not loud enough to wake him.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Reminds me of battery-free RF light switches. The switch is a little stiffer than normal, and the mechanical energy when you flip it is converted to electrical energy to send out a radio signal.

  • Sure... (Score:3)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Monday January 03, 2022 @05:39PM (#62139739)

    It can also be charged with solar energy. ... both outdoor and indoor light ...

    Because the room with my home theater setup is really brightly lit ... :-)

    Eco Remote features "RF harvesting capabilities that let the remote preserve its charge by 'collecting routers' radio waves and converting them to energy,'"

    Uh huh. Can't wait for the remote to ask to connect to WiFi to phone home -- I mean, "optimize RF charging" ... /cynical

    • With modern electronics and transmitters the energy use can be so tiny it doesn't matter. Though I assume it won't use classical IR transmitter modulation.

  • Oh great. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ichijo ( 607641 ) on Monday January 03, 2022 @05:51PM (#62139771) Journal

    As with the original remote, the intention here is to ditch AAA batteries. Samsung has previously estimated that switching to solar-powered remotes could avoid 99 million discarded batteries over the course of seven years.

    They could have installed a pair of rechargeable AAA batteries but instead they made it so you have to throw out the whole remote when the battery dies. Brilliant!

    • Re:Oh great. (Score:4, Funny)

      by RitchCraft ( 6454710 ) on Monday January 03, 2022 @06:52PM (#62139921)
      Came here to sat exactly this. For Pete's sake, removable batteries ARE ALWAYS a better option than anything else. Here's an idea, return to the audible clickers from the 70's, but instead of sound being used to change channels, a piezoelectric charge is generated by pressing the button (like in gas grill starters and lighters). That small charge coupled with a capacitor should be enough to generate a one time signal through an IR LED. As a bonus you could hold the clicker next to your sister and shock the crap out of her when she becomes annoying while watching TV.

      • It seems to me that the tech in most remote controls must be a little dated - why do they need big batteries? I couldn't tell you have often I charge my Apple TV remote because it's so infrequently - perhaps once or twice per year max? If the power draw is that little, youâ(TM)d think it could be charged by the solar panels from a 1980s calculator.

        • We have a 4k smart TV, not so frequently used.
          It was bought some 5 or 10 years ago, the exact timeframe escapes me.
          Since then I had to change the two AAA (I think) batteries maybe once.

          This looks like a solution in search of a problem.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        There are already wireless light switches that work that way, although they use RF instead of IR because it actually requires a lot less energy to send a short RF on/off signal.

        You probably wouldn't want it on a remote though. The switch has to be stiffer than usual, which is fine for a light switch you use occasionally but not ideal for a remote where you need to make many button presses. Also it wouldn't work in situations where you need to hold the button down, such as scrolling through a list.

      • Agreed piezoelectric seems like a natural fit here, motion-driven charging. I'm curious why they decided not to go with either of these options. My remote has the opposite of motion-driven charging - it actually lights up if you move it. So it slowly drains charge every time someone touches it.

        The solar cell also seems like a good idea, although I suspect it'd be charged more from ambient home lights than actual sunlight (unless you let it sit on a windowsill).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      You can thank Apple for that. Cordless phones used to have battery compartments, you could put in your own set of AA NiMH cells. Now they are usually sealed, disposable units. The iPod has a lot to answer for.

      That said, maybe they don't need a battery at all. Super capacitors are pretty good now, and could potentially store enough energy for a remote control. Capacitors have basically unlimited recharge cycles, they don't wear out like batteries do.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lsllll ( 830002 )
        The problem with capacitors in general is leakage. I have a bank of 20F 16V super capacitors that I used for a project in my car. Testing them, they don't hold their charge for an extended period of time if left untapped. Plus they would be too bulky for a remote control at 20F, so you'd have to live with 1-2F.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by lsllll ( 830002 )
          NVM. I see where you're going with this. The remote with a capacitor sits on the coffee table for nearly 24 hours a day and keeps the cap charged. The only time it'd fail would be if someone left a book on it, but it can be programmed to cut off after a 5 second hold of a button.

  • In future conversations ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Monday January 03, 2022 @05:51PM (#62139773)

    It has also explored other ways of self-charging the internal battery such as "harnessing the kinetic energy that's created when the remote is shaken" ...

    Gal: Honey, are you watching porn *again*?
    Guy: No! Just recharging the remote ...

    ... using the vibrational energy that's created when the microphone picks up sounds.

    Guy: Honey, are you watching porn *again*?
    Gal: No! Just recharging the remote ...

  • So what happens when the remote no longer accepts a charge to its internal battery? I have remotes almost 30 years old that still work. And how do you recycle that internal battery, I bet most will wind up in landfills.
    • I have one of these solar remotes from last year. It's terrible due to how simplified it is lacking essential controls that negate the need to navigate the terrible TV menu like changing the input source.. I bought a compatible Samsung remote with all the buttons which uses AAAs instead to replace it. So much for saving batteries from ending up in landfills if the user prefers a traditional remote due to it's poor design. My previous TV was also a Samsung and it also came with an optional smaller simplified

  • If this is legit, and it really can be powered solely by WiFi emissions, then the power consumption of this remote is insanely small. In fact, if that is the case, then such tiny power consumption is a far bigger breakthrough than harvesting ambient radio waves for energy.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by flink ( 18449 )

      Think about how a remote is used. It sits idle 99.999% of the time, and then for a few microseconds a day it emits some tiny amount of RF. Even if the wireless charging is insanely inefficient it only needs to recoup a small amount of energy. That said, unless the internal battery is replaceable and they intend to make replacements indefinitely, I still think it's a bad idea. Why not just send that energy into a couple of rechargeable AAAs? Or charge up a capacitor that you discharge before tapping the batt

      • Imagine where the WiFi router is in your home right now. It is outputting, maximum, 100 mW, all-directional in roughly a donut-shape. Now consider the surface area of the antenna that would be inside the remote, which is very small, and what percentage of the RF would actually be encountering the antenna in the remote.

        Now consider that the RF power received is the inverse square of the distance from the originating source.

        And further, the WiFi router is not transmitting continuously. In fact, the vast maj

    • Remotes have stuck to ancient IR modulation schemes and transmitter/receiver electronics for decades, which puts high lower bounds on power consumption. The breakthrough is likely abandoning backwards compatibility.

  • > 'collecting routers' radio waves

    ITYM wireless "access point" (AP). "Router" doesn't imply that it has WiFi, or is even an RF radiator (beyond what most digital electronics do, which they try to minimize). There's no reason a router would put out more RF than the TV itself. And calling those consumer things "routers" is like calling a Little Tikes Cozy Coupe an "automobile."

    • "Router" doesn't imply that it has WiFi, or is even an RF radiator

      It does if you're in the year 2022 and not 1992.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by msauve ( 701917 )
        Odd. Cisco, Juniper, Extreme, HPE, Aruba, none have routers with WiFi in 2022. You obviously don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Go back to your toy D-Link.

        • What a stupid comment. First of all, you're not even arguing with what I said. You're arguing with something else. Second, I'm not some dumb-fuck. Learn to recognize my handle. Learn to look shit up before you make a technical claim.

          Even though you're an idiot, if you'd thought, "Gee, I don't think Cisco has wifi routers," and then you looked it up with a quick web search, you'd save yourself the embarrassment of saying something so stupid. A lot of the enterprise router products sold are for mesh wifi cove

  • Jokes on you (Score:3)

    by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Monday January 03, 2022 @06:37PM (#62139877)

    My router doesn't have wireless. Die remote. Die!

    And in case anyone was wondering, that does not mean what you think it means. It's German for, "Thee remote. Thee!" [youtube.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      You can steal your neighbour's wifi energy.

      That's actually an interesting legal point. You can run small appliances off commercial radio and TV broadcasts with a suitable antenna. All you need are some diodes to rectify and double the voltage a few times, and a very efficient regulator. Things like LCD clocks that use very little energy run fine from them, it's just that the antenna tends to be larger than the thing it is powering. Antennas get smaller with the frequency they are tuned for, and wifi is much

  • Why not just add a small amorphous photovoltaic cell on each controller? Amorphous photovoltaic cells produce a voltage with just about any visible light which means your indoor lighting would be more than sufficient. Beyond that, it's a cheap and proven technology that's being produced. RF energy harvesting is problematic at best.

    • You'd need one top and bottom, putting a bunch of rectannas on a PCB was likely far cheaper.

      • Nah, you would only need to put a curved one on the front by the emitter and even indirect light would be enough. However, if it's a simple as connecting special patterns on a PCB to a energy harvesting IC then you are right about the cost. However, I'm betting they are going to be harvesting the most energy not from your router but from the WiFi connection on the "SmartTV"/computer itself.

    • Some TVs are the centerpoint of "entertainment rooms" which do not have ambient light (no windows, lighted only for ingress/egress). Think cinemas at home scale.
      You can't put this system in an expensive TV system and have it not working for the "premium" consumers, i.e. the ones with the space and means to create a "media room".
      On the other hand, WiFi is basically everywhere in a current home (at least in one that can pay for a premium Samsung TV).

  • .. put an inductive charger in the TV set. And a holster (or magnetic pad) to hold the remote in place while not in use and being charged. So you'd know where the freakin' remote is when you need it.

  • For 2024 Samsung plants to harvest human bio-energy for this remote, using tank pods and electrodes. And so began the reign of the machines.

  • kind of reminds of what Nicola Tesla proposed back in the early 1900's.

    A way of using broadcasted energy to power devices wirelessly.

    If Samsung tries to enforce any patents they might have for this tech there is a lot of possible prior art to fight them with.

  • Also, your brain is using these "radio waves" to produce more cancerous mutations.

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close