• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Extending the range of inductive charging for S6?

norweger

norweger

Well-Known Member
With electric cars, there can be at least a foot between the charger and the car.

When it comes to cell phones, are there some non-stock chargers that has a range of 1-5 feet?

That way you won't have to put the phone down for charging, but can keep using it, or just having it in the pocket while it's charging.

If you don't have a pace maker or other metal parts in the body, I guess such a powerful inductive charger (with a large range) won't have anything but a theoretical negative health effect.
 
norweger said:
With electric cars, there can be at least a foot between the charger and the car.

When it comes to cell phones, are there some non-stock chargers that has a range of 1-5 feet?

That way you won't have to put the phone down for charging, but can keep using it, or just having it in the pocket while it's charging.

If you don't have a pace maker or other metal parts in the body, I guess such a powerful inductive charger (with a large range) won't have anything but a theoretical negative health effect.
Click to expand...
They've been playing around with whole-room chargers in the lab.

It may be feasible by using several sources in the room to offset the drop over distance - and unlike the car example, this application has a much lower target power level.

But - only in lab. Today, it's still very near field only.
 
ispamforfood said:
yeah, just what we need, more cancer-causing rays coursing through our bodies...
Click to expand...

I have typically thought of "cancer causing rays" as short wavelength (uv light and typically even shorter) and high frequency, which disturb the cells in the body.

But when you use the term "ray" about the electromagnetic field of inductive charging, how are they related?
 
Last edited:
norweger said:
But when you use the term "ray" about the electromagnetic field of inductive charging, how are they related?
Click to expand...
They're not related at all but this myth is never going to die so long as people believe that science is something that you can vote on. That's especially true for European lawyers who have won lawsuits over the power line "mystery" and American lawyers who have won lawsuits claiming that FM radio frequencies can disturb fish (despite the signal being unable to penetrate more than a few millimeters from the surface due to the laws of nature) and the juries that they managed to line up to win the nonsense cases.

I have no idea what goes in to making quiche but I would be laughed out of existence if I said it caused cancer.

Thanks to the idiot lawyers, substitute any technology for the word quiche and suddenly everyone gets to say, "Well, we just don't have all of the information yet."

Yes. Yes we do.

Btw - thanks to cholesterol, quiche is far more dangerous than low-level non-ionizing radiation. By about a bazillion percent.

This is silly but one of the stories today -

http://phandroid.com/2015/06/17/energous-wattup-wireless-charging/

Note that's a year and half off, assuming that they can get it actually working and enough people care to want to buy it.
 
Last edited:
EarlyMon said:
This is silly but one of the stories today -

http://phandroid.com/2015/06/17/energous-wattup-wireless-charging/

Note that's a year and half off, assuming that they can get it actually working and enough people care to want to buy it.
Click to expand...

Hmm, so basically they are trying to transmit «light» with wavelengths longer than infrared, just like a WiFi does with some GHz in frequency, and then have their WattUp charger attached to the back of the phone, making it transform that «light» from radiowaves to DC, not that far off what cell chargers that get their energy from normal sunlight (like this chunky thing). Of course only that it's radio waves and not ultra violet waves?

I have wondered how come gamma rays (short wavelength) and radio waves (longer wavelength than visible light) can both pass through walls. Intuitively it would seem that either longer or shorter wavelengths should pass through walls, and not both.
 
Last edited:
EMSpec.gif


Light is both a particle and a wave at a specific energy level.

Walls block low energy gamma, not the high energy stuff.
 
Nice Graphic Earlymon, mind if I steal it ? Or better still do you have it's source.

Back on topic.

I had a stand up row about 3G masts (cell towers) with a protester when they tried to erect one near work back in 2008 (I think). Try having an arguments about the SARs and wattages to a moron that doesn't actually believe that UV from the sun will penetrate further and is much more dangerous than the "radiation" from a mobile phone call. I was really annoyed it actually got blocked by the protests (a 4G mast sits there now though). Luddites - we'd be still in caves bashing flints together to make fire if it were up to them. I personally would love a nuclear power station in our district, a cell tower outside my bedroom window, and a neighbourhood Wi-Fi repeater bolted to my wall. Add to that all flat surfaces in my home being Qi charging plates so whenever and wherever I put my phone down it charged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom