the pad has to be plugged in at all times.. so the pad is consuming power when just waiting to be used (even when not putting out waves). i have heard that plugged in items is one of the main lost of energy. think about all the things in your house that are just plugged in doing nothing, consuming a little itsy bit of power... all those hrs in a year.
Interesting that you "have heard . . ." You do not know, do you? NO OFFENSE MEANT! Lots of people do not know the numbers. I do not know the numbers, either. Seems my cell might add a buck to the bill at the end of the year, I just do not know.
I do know it cost more power to run my old phones and devices like the fax than my little cell costs me to operate today. OK, I am guessing but it seems logical to me.
It is my power to waste, is it not? Not sure who is hurt if I use the power I pay for, the way I want to use it. Is it the effect of the millions of users using tiny bits of power added up is killing Mother Earth? Is it because we must be green or fry in hell? Is it perhaps because you Androd Fanboys will opt for any old cool sounding thing?
Perhaps it is the desire to sell us something new and Buck Rodgers-ish because marketing people are running out of things to sell us cell users. Yup, that's it.
Or is it we have plenty of power and we are too dumb to know this and a few tens of millions of cells really do not hurt? Help old fart Bob out and 'splain it to me.
How about a world without cells. Which cost us more power, those millions of touch-tone and rotary phones, the extra money to deliver and process the mail, the cost of all of that Jet-A, the millions of fax machines and ink and paper or the millions of cells this do it all with a simple battery and charger per device?
What about it . . . how do "they" determine the damage our reckless use of power causes or will cause us down the road? Never been able to figure it out.
Wireless charging is a myth. If you need a device like a pad, it is not truly wireless. But for me, I define wireless charging as something that happens when you enter a room with your cell and it begins to charge.
Just think of it. Wireless charging in the bathroom. Charging in the car and on the boat and train. As I walk down the street. In the office. Never worrying about a full charge again.
It will be glorious, I tell you what.
Until it becomes Laetrile, 2015.
Well, for me, I don't have a good place to set my cable. If I leave it far enough out on my nightstand, where it overhangs the entire stand, it gets caught in the drawers. Or even better, when I open the drawer it yanks my phone off the nightstand onto the floor in a trebuchet sort of action. If I don't hang it far enough out it slides down, I have to go digging behind the nightstand for it. I know, first world problems, but I enjoy using the creature comforts that technology has given us...
P.S. and who knows, maybe the extra electrical field will stimulate my brain at night, and I will become a super genius or something!
Think about the costs of going old school vs. using a cell. I'll include tablets in this as well.
There was a time when we used tons of fax machines. My cell costs money to operate, but I use it for email and SMS. Far less faxing these days a going on at Cassa Del Bob's Office.
I think our devices save money and power because in the good old days, the devices or cells replace cost more to operate. No more faxes (well, a few I suppose) or paper or ink or gas to get replacements. It seems to me, my cell adds to the power bill, but the added cost is offset by the cost of other things so the savings is there.
I think wireless charging is marketed as more of a convenience item than a way to save power, however.
i think wireless charging is cool.. neat..
but how good is it?
with the world going green and being more efficient with power and it's consumption... reduced pollution.
But if it is a green thing, is it really green? Not sure there is really a savings in power, is there?
Consider the fax or the letters we once created in the good old days. My question is which costs us more power: sending a reply by email with an attachment, or all of the costs associated with writing a letter and mailing or faxing it?
You have the costs of power to make more paper. The adhesives on the envelopes and the stamps. The manufacturing costs include raw materials delivery to the factory; the costs associated with delivering the materials to the store and the delivery costs to your office or home must be added, I should think.
And the gas you use to visit the Post Office.
Perhaps I am over analizingm, but it seems gong green should mean that we should use more tablets and laptops and cells rather than reverting to the old ways.
Anyone care to point out my faulty reasoning? I'll listen.
Seems we use more raw materials these days than we were told we will use by going paperless. I have 5 printers these days and i still attend meetings which cost me.
