0

Hi Im new here,

Im just wondering if anyone as heard of 'Power Over Wireless' the transfer of electricity to things such as cell phones without a cable. It works similar to the electric toothbrush!!!

Anyone heard of it??

12
Contributors
24
Replies
25
Views
10 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by quintoncoert
0

spam without an attempt to lead you to a place where they either sell you some snake oil or try to steal you credit card details?

Would be the most inefficient spam in history ;)

anyway, an electric toothbrush doesn't transmit electricity (or receive it) through thin air.
It's got a built in rechargeable battery which is charged when you connect it to the base station.

Wireless transmission of power is indeed possible, and has been proposed as a means to make it possible to have solar power stations in space which transmit their generated power to downlink stations on the ground from which it can be distributed onto the powergrid.
But there's this little problem of all those high energy beams of power tearing through the atmosphere. If one were to loose focus you'd have serious problems, it could potentially evaporate everything in its path (at the very least it would be like being hit by a bolt of lightning that just doesn't stop).
Not many people want to live inside a microwave over for some reason...

Low power transmission through wireless grids has also been proposed and is in fact used in many places.
The security gates in shops which raise an alarm if you get near them with tagged items are an early application.
The keycards you only have to hold near a detector for doors to open are another.
They contain RFID chips, which get just enough power from the field around the sensor to be able to transmit their data which is picked up by the sensor.
I wouldn't want to have much more powerful fields though.

0

anyway, an electric toothbrush doesn't transmit electricity (or receive it) through thin air.
It's got a built in rechargeable battery which is charged when you connect it to the base station.

I believe that the one being discussed in the link I posted used spinning magnets which caused a magnetic field which could be used to send power.

http://www.daniweb.com/techtalkforums/post241105-1.html

neither the charger or the brush have contact terminals on them

0

I find it odd that Tesla developed the principal of transfering electricity through the air over 70 years ago but its only recent years that other scientists have started to develop it. MIT University have developed a coil to transfer power to a laptop and Japan University have developed a 1mm thin film which sits on top of a table and power objects on top it - in the picture I saw they used a miniture christmas tree complete with lights!

0

Tesla only showed in theory that it should be possible, he didn't have the technology to make it practical.
It's only now, with micro electronics and new materials that it's becoming feasible and economical.
Up until recently it might have been possible but the power requirements of the receiver would have been higher than the transmitted wattage.

0

Ive heard that many of the developers will license there technology to the bigger manufacters such as Sony and Samsung and they have plans to market the technology over the next 2 years.

0

But it's terribly inefficient. Instead, we should ban wireless phones and computers to save energy if we do anything.

I also don't want my VCR and cassette tapes and floppy disks erased by such a harebrained scheme.

0

I think it is really cool. I did not realise that it was possible.

While it might true that it could pose serious health risks for things like laptops and tooth brushes it would be great in other fields.

One thing that I can think of is the need for cheap and clean energy. We receive only a micro fraction of the sun's solar energy. If we build solar panels in space and then beam the energy down to earth we would have at least one answer against global warming.

Also it would offer an economic incentive which might spur private companies to invest in space research and equipment. That is something which I personnaly would like.

As for the danger of a misdirected beam, we can build the receivers in lowly inhabited areas like deserts or on top of mountains and from there transfer it over cables in the traditional way. Also If we can beam lasers onto a satelite for communication then I am pretty sure that our acuracy would be good enough.

0

um that would be a dumb idea. That would involve beaming high intensity light down to earth? = set fire to the atmosphere. Setting fire to the atmosphere is bad,

0

um that would be a dumb idea. That would involve beaming high intensity light down to earth? = set fire to the atmosphere. Setting fire to the atmosphere is bad,

[humor]How do you know? Is it something you've done before?[/humor]

0

they conducted loads of research into it during the nuclear arms race. They were very worried that detonating ICMBMs in space could start a firestorm.

0

um that would be a dumb idea. That would involve beaming high intensity light down to earth? = set fire to the atmosphere. Setting fire to the atmosphere is bad,

I am not sure if you are responding to my idea of space based power here. But if that is so then I must tell you that you are wrong. :-) The atmosphere will most certainly not burst into flames. In order for a fire to burn there must be fuel. What in the atmosphere is going to act as the fuel? Certainly not the oxygen.

Fire is energy released from where it is stored. Like for example wood, paper or fossil fuel. Oxygen is used to oxidize the energy rich chemicals. For example In the case of respiration in our bodies the oxygen forces the sugar to give up its hydrogen and so the sugar is reduced to CO2. The same in a space shuttle. Hydrogen is forced to give up a proton ( which is the entire hydrogen atom) which results in H2O or common water. Oxygen most certainly cannot start a fire without fuel.

Oxygen is twenty percent of the atmosphere and Nitrogen 80. Roughly. The remaining gasses(less than one percent) are too few to act as fuel and I in any case doubt if any of them can act as fuel. As I said fire is energy stored and now released.

If the athmosphere could really be made to burn it would have burst into flames by now. A simple lightning strike would have been it. And there would have been a carry on effect. One part of the burning athmosphere setting another ablaze.

Hope I am not too scientific. Not only that but I am reasoning deductively here, using my science subjects I did at school as a premises. I could be wrong so if anybody knows that I am feel free ...

0

I don't know that you're wrong, but I do have one question. Given that it ozone (O3) seems to have different properties than normal oxygen (O2), how would it react against such a high-energy strike, assuming even the slightest bit of fuel was available?

0

if talking on a mobile/listening to head phones does my ears in. Will witricity blow my head up?

0

I don't know that you're wrong, but I do have one question. Given that it ozone (O3) seems to have different properties than normal oxygen (O2), how would it react against such a high-energy strike, assuming even the slightest bit of fuel was available?

I must admit that I cannot say for sure but i think that it would be even less reactive than O2. Atoms bind in order to get stable outer orbitals. first the O3 bonds between the O atoms will have to be broken but then the bonds will probably reform quickly to give O2.

0

Ozone is highly unstable because oxygen is not supposed to form into tripatite molecules

if it breaks down it will break down into more stable O2 the same way that unstable O + O will bind into O2. The same way that highly unstable H and O will combine to form to form H2O. It all comes down to the stable outer orbital. All atoms wants to have the stable outer orbital of the noble gasses. The metals of group one and two and all atoms on the left will gladly give their electrons up while those on the right side of the periodic table will gladly accept them. Just as long as they end up stable.

Even if what you say is true the fact still remain that fuel is needed. No amount of oxygen in whatever form can start a fire on its own. As I explained before. It is a simple reduction oxidization reaction. And where is the fuel in the atmosphere?

Look at it this way. Energy can never be created or destroyed. It can only be altered from one form to another. The energy in wood is solar energy stored a long time ago. The same holds true for petrol, diesel, butane and even sugar. All that oxygen does is to oxidize them to various bindings of carbon and oxygen(e.g. the C6H12O6 of sugar oxidized to CO2) by forcing them to give up their hydrogen. Since their is no chemical in the atmosphere which contains energy there is no hope of a firestorm.

By the way what do you mean it is not supposed to form? While it might be true that it does not form as readily as O2 it does form. Not only that but it must have form some time in the last billion years on earth. I am not sure but I sincerely doubt the existence of green or brown alge on this planet before then. I admit that I am taking a shot in the dark. But plants with chloroplasts must have split the O from the H and somehow the O3 must have form. How else did it come about? Or is this another one where religious people are going to invoke God because science is not sure?

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.