Wireless Charging Becomes a Reality - Cota by Ossia - Polidicks

[video=youtube;iKd6MtwY1P4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKd6MtwY1P4[/video] [QUOTE]Wireless power. It’s less sci-fi sounding than it once was, thanks to induction charging like that based on the Qi standard, but that’s still a tech that essentially requires contact, if not incredibly close proximity. Magnetic resonance is another means to achieve wireless power, and perfect for much higher-demand applications, like charging cars. But there’s been very little work done in terms of building a solution that can power your everyday devices in a way that doesn’t require thought or changing the way we use our devices dramatically. That’s where Cota by Ossia comes in... [URL="http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/09/cota-by-ossia-wireless-power/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl24|sec1_lnk2&pLid=374680&utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=bufferbe8f3&utm_medium=facebook"]More[/URL] [/QUOTE] Nikola Tesla would be proud.

Wireless charging has been around for a bit now..

[QUOTE=Steve Harvey;42219482]Wireless charging has been around for a bit now..[/QUOTE] Through induction.

[QUOTE=Brandy92;42219487]Through induction.[/QUOTE] Good point actually.

[QUOTE=Brandy92;42219487]Through induction.[/QUOTE] Which is inefficient, almost requires contact, and gets hotter than the sun.

1/3 the power of a USB port. The average current rating of a USB 2.0 port is 500ma. That means this device can output about 166ma to charge the phone. I sure hope they can improve on that.

i'm amazed that this thing doesn't amount to pedestrian electronic warfare - delivering power over 2.4GHz? wow that's going to fuck up the wifi for sure. [editline]17th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=zombini;42219504]Which is inefficient, almost requires contact, and gets hotter than the sun.[/QUOTE] this is far less efficient

The lower output will be practical if I can just slap a phone on a desk and come back hours later to see it fully charged.

[QUOTE=Reds;42219538]The lower output will be practical if I can just slap a phone on a desk and come back hours later to see it fully charged.[/QUOTE] This is what I was thinking actually. You are no longer bound by having a cable attached so even with the lower throughput it might be acceptable. They can definitely improve on this though.

[QUOTE=Reds;42219538]The lower output will be practical if I can just slap a phone on a desk and come back hours later to see it fully charged.[/QUOTE] wireless charging may just be the epitome of sloth

[QUOTE=Reds;42219538]The lower output will be practical if I can just slap a phone on a desk and come back hours later to see it fully charged.[/QUOTE] Am I stupid, or can you not do the exact same thing with a cable, just in a slightly less convenient location?

Isn't the whole point of wireless charging convenience?

[QUOTE=Brandy92;42219579]Isn't the whole point of wireless charging convenience?[/QUOTE] Yeah, but I would consider convenience to be "My phone charged itself while I was forty miles away from my house. What does your's do Dave?"

the point is all our surfaces can be capable of charging so we might not nessicarily need bigger better batteries in our phones infact we might just need quicker charging ones. sort of like this, we put a 1 gallon gas tank on a car that takes 10 seconds to fill up, we put a 40 gallon tank, on a big truck that takes 10 minutes to fuel, ther is a point where if there is enough gas stations, your car with one gallon will be more convieniant than the bigger truck that can go further but takes a lot longer to fuel [editline]16th September 2013[/editline] also there are many devices today that won't work because batterys aren't very fesable and charging is difficult because they are too small to have a charging port or big battery

[QUOTE=Reds;42219538]The lower output will be practical if I can just slap a phone on a desk and come back hours later to see it fully charged.[/QUOTE] Generally you'd just always keep your phone on the desk/table/charging mat when you're at home and the low charge rate wouldn't matter.

[QUOTE=Sableye;42219620]the point is all our surfaces can be capable of charging so we might not nessicarily need bigger better batteries in our phones infact we might just need quicker charging ones. sort of like this, we put a 1 gallon gas tank on a car that takes 10 seconds to fill up, we put a 40 gallon tank, on a big truck that takes 10 minutes to fuel, ther is a point where if there is enough gas stations, your car with one gallon will be more convieniant than the bigger truck that can go further but takes a lot longer to fuel [editline]16th September 2013[/editline] also there are many devices today that won't work because batterys aren't very fesable and charging is difficult because they are too small to have a charging port or big battery[/QUOTE] Smaller batteries don't charge faster by runtime. They only charge to full faster because they're smaller. If you had a 10 gallon fuel tank and a 1 gallon fuel tank, if you were filling it at a rate of 1 gallon per minute and only filled for 1 minute, they would both have 1 gallon and would both be capable of traveling the same distance at the same speed. The difference is, if you have to go just one mile further, the 10 gallon tank would get you there; the 1 gallon tank would not. Ergo, there is no benefit to downgrading batteries.