Slashdot Log In
Future Desks to Charge Gadgets Wirelessly
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Jan 20, 2007 02:48 PM
from the much-better-than-hope-and-batteries dept.
from the much-better-than-hope-and-batteries dept.
IronMan writes "Future desks may allow us to charge our phones, iPods, PDAs and other gadgets wirelessly. Office equipment maker Herman Miller is one of the first companies to license the eCoupled inductive coupling technology from Fulton Innovation, Engadget reports. The desk will allows wireless transfer of energy through a magnetic field. Motorola is working together with eCoupled, but still is not sure when the first consumer devices with this technology will appear on the market. From the article: 'Of course, cordless charging isn't an entirely new concept, with HP recently showing off some of its own ideas for juiced-up furniture, and Splashpower talking up its charge-on-contact system for a few years now. We guess we'll just have to wait and see if this new power-happy desk becomes the same status symbol for the Web 2.0 crowd that Herman Miller's Aeron chair was back in Web 1.0 days -- assuming we haven't moved on to Web 3.0 by the time the desk actually comes out, that is.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Health concerns (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Health concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem here is that you are asking for proof of a negative. You see, in science, when someone asserts the condition X may have effect Y out of the blue like that, the only proper response is "I have seen no evidence of this, so unless you can show evidence of a link, I must assume it to be false". Claiming "just because it's not proven doesn't mean it's not true" is foolish and childlike. Claims must be supported by proof. The burden is not on the rest of the world to disprove. Science is built on facts, not speculations. Logical thinking--- it works!
It still amazes me how many people there are out there that apparently need this explained to them.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Health concerns (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As a counter point to your argument, look at lead and uranium based paints. Some one correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that anyone thought there was anything wrong with lead based paint until its use
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At this point, we can fairly safely put an upper bound on any negative effects of magnetic fields. If they were, for instance, instantly fatal, we'd know. If they increased your bone cancer chances by 1000 times, we'd know. The maximum negative effect must be pretty small, or we wouldn't be sitting here arguing about it, we'd be pointing to the 99.9%-confidence studies.
Meanwhile, we have very real benefits from the devices generating these fields.
Re: (Score:2)
My opinion is based upon other peoples (scientists) as yet unfinished scientific studies. Secondly "100+" years means nothing,
Show me the proof. This is really very simple. In 100+ years of strong magnetic fields, no one has yet shown proof of serious ill effects from magnetism. You believe in "unfinished scientific studies", which you haven't shown to us or even named. Claims demand proof.
things that are thought as safe often get proven to be dangerous, remember Marie Curie's glowing potato shed?
The cancer causing effects of radiation were noticed as early as 1902, a mere 4 years after the Curies began their experiments. What was not known was how much radiation was harmful, and how radioactive various things were.
Secondly, You quote three very valid types of employment who do work in close vacinity to magnetic fields. However, exposure assesments based on job title are a very crude method of assessing exposure due to the possibility of exposure misclassification. Also I used to string large electricity pylons I am still alive, I hope we both agree this prooves nothing.
WTF are you t
Re: (Score:2)
Claims demand proof.
Yes. ALL claims demand proof, even your claim that a relationship is false DEMANDS proof, to any reasonable person. The onus or burden is on anyone who makes a claim to prove that claim to their interlocutor, positive OR negative. Your statements about being asked to prove the negative are the same irrational, book-banging routine, which I've seen thousands of times -- it's the rallying cry for the irrational members of the scientific community. If you need positive proof to form your own opinion about the veracity of a claim, fine. However, if you want to overstep that boundary and in addition, not only request positive proof, but claim now that it's false -- well, then, now YOU need to do some explaining.
I don't need to explain anything you nutcase. I didn't originate any assertions. Claims demand proof, and that starts with the first person to make an assertion! Let me explain how this works so that you can understand:
1. Person A opens mouth and makes unsupported Claim X
2. Person B hears unsupported Claim X and demands proof
Person B is not required to prove anything because Person B did not make any claims! This is simple logic! Person A cannot turn around simply say "prove it's not true", because
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your cellphone, your power mains, radio signal, TV broadcasts, 2-way radios, WiFi, you name it. All of them surround you in radiation.
I'm not so concerned about adding one more source.
Re:Health concerns (Score:5, Funny)
Shoo! SHOO!
Parent
Mod Parent Ignorant (Score:2)
"Magnetic radiation" isn't strong enough to make or break chemical bonds. Now certain kinds of electro-magnetic radiation *are* harmful, like gamma rays, X-rays, UV, and even visible light. But magnetic fields by themselves aren't going to do much more than erase your credit cards and put your protons in excited spin states.
Now if they were using Tesla coils to recharge stuff wirelessly, then I'd be wo
Re: (Score:2)
And is also true that individuals who are exposed to magnetic radiation in their workplace have not been found to be worse off than everyone else. Therefore on
Re: (Score:2)
It is still disputed (last I heard, Childhood Cancer Research Group says yes but Childhood Cancer Study says no). But even in the case of the CCRG, neither of the hypotheses they advanced to explain their findings had anything to do with magnetic fields.
And is also true that individuals who are exposed to magneti
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I can't possibly see how. Most systems in the body depend on oxidation/reduction reactions, the cleavage/formation of phosphate bonds, or Na/K ion channels. Most elements present in vivo don't even have spin-active nuclei. Even if they get in excited spin states, that doesn't affect their reactivity in any meaningful way.
Therefore one cannot claim that low fre
Re: (Score:2)
The body, especially the brain and the nervous system is also a conductor, therefore and antenna. The brain's electrical signal are low enough that it won't take much to disrupt them. I imagine if someone is living close to a radio station, where people with metal fillings can hear "voices" in their head, there might be some interference with the central nervous system. I am not talking about burnt brain matter but
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
News flash to you, if you live in a home with electrical wiring and electricity then you are living inside a very large magnetic field, your car has lots of magentic fields.
And god help you if you carry a cellphone, use a walkie talkie, have a TV set, etc...
Pick your death, magnetic radiation and die of cancer when you are 85 or live like they did on the frontier and die without cancer but at age 45.
Life on this planet is deadly, the dangers of a magnetic fie
Efficiency Concerns (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
All that said, though, I'm not convinced this desk is going to work like a perfectly
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and the result is a lot less efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
I walk into your office, reach over your desk to shake your hand (not knowing your charger is there) and collapse...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No more shopping online. (Score:3, Funny)
"Not exactly new" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess this'll put a nail in the CRT coffin. (Score:3, Funny)
not to mention pacemakers, insulin pumps...
And your laptops HD for that matter. (Score:2, Interesting)
The charging device is even more practical, since it's more portable.
Re: (Score:2)
Old technology (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Web 4.27.1@#$! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sheesh! (Score:3, Funny)
Imagine... (Score:3, Funny)
Hell, you don't even have to imagine. We already live with the incompatibility of low voltage power connectors... Only now instead of replacing an adapter when we get a device from a different manufacturer, we can buy all new office furniture! Joy!
This technology is useless until the patents expire and building and electric codes require a specific version of the technology.
Re: (Score:2)
All it takes is a cheaply available and relatively generalized wireless power/data standard, with wide enough support that it becomes in a device maker's interests to leverage everyone's preexisting chargers for their new products. In fact, it seems likely that given the lack of physical plug designs to wrangle over for smalle
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And there's the reason why this inductive-charging scheme will not be adopted quickly by gadget companies: accessories are a cash cow.
Indeed, it is possible to sell a gadget at a loss, and earn all your profits on things like wall adapters, car adapters, USB ada
Wireless mouse (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
efficiency, inefficiency, personal responsibility (Score:2)
My first thought, too... (Score:2)
I've got a much better idea: How about we standardize the power connectors on 'phones so that you can easily have a charger at work *and* at home, borrow a friend's charger, use the charger in your friend's car, etc.
If you really must have contactless charging, how about a cradle which is roughly the same size/shape as a 'phone - so the induction coils actually line up properly and you only
Closer to 1898 (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Still, I think this is the solution to the wrong problem. I don't find a single cord and an adapter that much of a hassle. The problem I have is that every single device needs a different charger- laptop, cell phone, iPod, digital camera, etc. I think the real need is for some standardization so you could have just one adapter charging multiple devices.