Wireless charging has an efficiency issue

Markoni35

Posts: 768   +268
No, only about 30% does. We get a full kilowatt per sq. meter at the surface on a good day ... and you know what? People don't try to avoid it; they strip off most of their clothes and go bathe in that radiation.
Actually, 97% to 99% of the most dangerous frequencies are absorbed by our atmosphere. And those remaining 1% to 3% can produce serious sunburns if you just carelessly get naked and spend hours directly exposed. Even if your skin is brown, you're not fully protected from long exposure.

Regarding that kilowatt, you're aware that's almost entirely visible and infrared light, right? There's a very small amount of other radio frequencies, especially long-wave. So I'm not sure why did you even mention it.

And regarding the inverse-square law... if your charger is on your desktop, then you're pretty close to the source of radiation. You might be almost touching it, or looking at it. Have fun. It's really not a big problem for me to attach the cable. The charger takes less space. And it's more ecological as well.
 

Endymio

Posts: 610   +491
Actually, 97% to 99% of the most dangerous frequencies are absorbed by our atmosphere.
Which is what I said. That is, if you define "dangerous" as ionizing radiation.

However, if you engage in scientifically-illiterate fearmongering and define "dangerous" as "causing heat" (I.e. your original post referring to radiothermal absorption) then, yes, 70% of the sun's radiation reaches the earth's surface.

There's a very small amount of other radio frequencies, especially long-wave. So I'm not sure why did you even mention it.
I mentioned it because you did. Also I must point out that even the small fraction the sun normally emits in the radio spectrum is more than you'll receive from a wireless charger. And, due to synchrotron emissions during high sunspot activity, the sun can overwhelm a 100,000 watt radio station almost at its very base.

The charger takes less space. And it's more ecological as well.
Again, a fallacy. As has already been pointed out, if wireless charging results in longer lifetime of your phone (less wear on the charge plug) or the greater convenience results changes a person's ratio of usage between their phone and computer, then wireless charging would be the more ecological alternative. But the impact in either case is, compared other other factors, essentially zero.
 

Markoni35

Posts: 768   +268
I mentioned it because you did. Also I must point out that even the small fraction the sun normally emits in the radio spectrum is more than you'll receive from a wireless charger. And, due to synchrotron emissions during high sunspot activity, the sun can overwhelm a 100,000 watt radio station almost at its very base.
Sorry, but that level of longer-wave radio emissions is unusual. Happens rarely and for a short time. Plus, most of the time you're surrounded with reinforced concrete, which creates a Faraday cage. As opposed to the charger, which is trapped inside the cage with you.

The wear on the charge plug is not a big problem nowadays when you can't even replace the battery in your phone. The battery becomes unusable after 500 recharge cycles or so. That's a bigger problem. And productivity..... please. That straw is too short even for you.

The problem with inductive charging, aside from its direct danger, is also that it becomes acceptable to people. And then they start thinking "why not use wireless charging for my laptop". Next year they'll think "why not use wireless charging for my electric car". Bad ideas spread fast. That technology has to be stopped before the stupid new generations get used to it.
 

Endymio

Posts: 610   +491
that level of longer-wave radio emissions is unusual...
But it happens. And even the usual level of emission is far higher than what a wireless charger produces.

...most of the time you're surrounded with reinforced concrete, which creates a Faraday cage...
Eh? Concrete doesn't make a Faraday cage, not unless the rebar inside is spaced much closer together than normal, conductively tied across the ceiling and floor, and no windows larger than half a meter in any dimension. Concrete itself stops very little in the meter-length and longer bands. And in any case, most people charge their phone at home. Residential construction rarely uses reinforced concrete.

...as opposed to the charger, which is trapped inside the cage with you...
Again, you're dodging the point that not one peer-reviewed medical study has demonstrated, or even indicated, any issues with exposure to low-level, long-wave radio emissions. Next, you'll be railing against the dangers of aircraft contrails and power-line magnetic fields.

...when you can't even replace the battery in your phone...
Who told you that you can't replace the battery on a phone? Google for 2,350,000 ways to do so easily.

And then they start thinking "why not use wireless charging for my laptop". Next year they'll think "why not use wireless charging for my electric car".
Sounds good. If they had wireless charging built under Interstate highways, a few million more people would buy electric cars. With the current state of affairs, they will always be a fringe product. Who wants a vehicle that takes hours to refuel?
 
Last edited:

Markoni35

Posts: 768   +268
Sounds good. If they had wireless charging built under Interstate highways, a few million more people would buy electric cars. With the current state of affairs, they will always be a fringe product. Who wants a vehicle that takes hours to refuel?
Yeah, right. I can see that your understanding of electromagnetic effects on human body is zero to none. You're one of those that would recharge a car while being in it. Well, you know what? I want it to be true for you. I want you and people similar to you to recharge all of your devices like that. The more the better.

I just don't want anyone I like, anyone I want to live long and healthy, to do that. But you... sure. I want you to do that as much as possible.