NEWS: Physics promises wireless power

anything wrong

I'm not saying he's necessarily wrong, I just found it ironic that John completely poo-pooed an established (albeit imperfect) existing technology like solar power, while promoting a so-far theoretical one in the same thread.

Do I think we'll never see wireless power transmission? No, I just think it's far enough away that we need not get too excited about it just yet! Heck, I'm still waiting for my laptop's hydrogen fuel cell- how many new power technologies can I get excited about? ;-)

Reply to
Todd Allcock
Loading thread data ...

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 09:59:07 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote in :

Undoubtedly a long way from reality, although "acceptable" performance appears to be possible without further breakthroughs.

While more research is called for, I think it's closer to practicality than you suggest -- note that air exhibited the modeled high-Q "acceptable" behavior.

In any event, it's promising and exciting! Note that calculations of conducting loops performance show essentially no energy dissipated inside the human.

p.s. I'm reminded of how physicists at the end of the 19th century thought they knew everything, that nothing remained to be discovered. LOL!

Reply to
John Navas

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:17:54 -0700, Todd Allcock wrote in :

To be clear, I was just pointing out that the energy density of solar panels is too low to make them practical for powering a laptop computer. And of course the cost is prohibitive.

Reply to
John Navas

John Navas hath wroth:

formatting link

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:37:04 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote in :

I am of course aware of such systems. We use solar trickle chargers on sailboats all the time. They fill an important niche, and are fine if you're willing and able to charge the battery for relatively long daytime in order to get relatively short runtime.

I was talking indefinite power during the day, with enough reserve to charge the battery for use during the night. For that you need a very big and very expensive RV-type system.

Reply to
John Navas

So 60Hz is the freq. of the lithium ion? Got any references for that statement? Sounds like you've been to the Tesla conference.

Reply to
rob

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:11:09 GMT, rob wrote in :

See his citation. And note:

"DRAFT--DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE"

"The human evidence, as described in the next section, suggests that magnetic fields, rather than electric fields, are associated with cancer incidence..."

"Electric fields were not found to be a critical factor thus far."

This is the old unproven bugaboo of proximity to high-voltage electric transmission lines, not low-voltage residential electric service.

Reply to
John Navas

I know, and I honestly wasn'ttrying to offend- my warped sence of humor just found a delicious irony when you pointing out the (very real) shortcomings of an existing technology while waxing poetic about one that is still (mostly?) theoretical!

Reply to
Todd Allcock

dOn Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:02:13 -0700, Todd Allcock wrote in :

Point taken.

Reply to
John Navas

Yes, I searched after I opened my mouth ( insert foot ). However I still maintain that most of the current operating long distance transmission lines are HVAC. The articles I found listed a handful of HVDC lines, one even originating in my home state of Utah. I learn new things every day. Of course I forget them tomorrow so I can learn it again later, but that's another story.

Gordon Montgomery Living Scriptures, Inc snipped-for-privacy@lsi.com (anti spam - replace lsi with livingscriptures) (801) 627-2000

Reply to
Gordon Montgomery

Kind of like *extended GSM"..huh?

Reply to
decaturtxcowboy

John Navas wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

So, you're giving someone a hard time because you googled stuff you don't understand and they didn't bother?

Polly want a cracker?

Reply to
Scott

John Navas wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Physician, heal thyself.

Reply to
Scott

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:26:41 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@lsi.com (Gordon Montgomery) wrote in :

Correct.

Reply to
John Navas

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:37:31 GMT, decaturtxcowboy wrote in :

Reply to
John Navas

Nonsense, I use solar power often when out in the field for extended periods. Cost effectiveness isn't an issue when there aren't other viable power sources.

Reply to
decaturtxcowboy

Four hours of good sunlight gives me almost 30 kilowatts of stored power. Its not that expensive. Tad under $5,000.

Reply to
decaturtxcowboy

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:52:31 GMT, decaturtxcowboy wrote in :

LOL!

Reply to
John Navas

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:49:12 GMT, decaturtxcowboy wrote in :

There are of course other viable power sources.

Way less expensive than an RV-type solar system. Way more powerful.

Reply to
John Navas

Yeah, but the $450 shipping was ridiculous.

Reply to
decaturtxcowboy

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.