[emersonbiggins]

This has the potential for revolutionizing the transmission capabilities of the energy industry. I want my fully wireless laptop! Seriously, though, this team powered a 60W light bulb from 7 feet away, using no wires. Neat-O, I say. Baby steps man.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Goodbye wires… MIT team experimentally demonstrates wireless power transfer, potentially useful for powering laptops, cell phones without cords

Franklin Hadley, Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies June 7, 2007

Imagine a future in which wireless power transfer is feasible: cell phones, household robots, mp3 players, laptop computers and other portable electronics capable of charging themselves without ever being plugged in, freeing us from that final, ubiquitous power wire. Some of these devices might not even need their bulky batteries to operate.

A team from MIT's Department of Physics, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies (ISN) has experimentally demonstrated an important step toward accomplishing this vision of the future.

The team members are Andre Kurs, Aristeidis Karalis, Robert Moffatt, Prof. Peter Fisher, and Prof. John Joannopoulos (Francis Wright Davis Chair and director of ISN), led by Prof. Marin Soljacic.

Realizing their recent theoretical prediction, they were able to light a 60W light bulb from a power source seven feet (more than two meters) away; there was no physical connection between the source and the appliance. The MIT team refers to its concept as "WiTricity" (as in wireless electricity). The work will be reported in the June 7 issue of Science Express, the advance online publication of the journal Science.
...

MIT press release

[Armageddon]

Can you say cancer by the age of 20 ?

[emersonbiggins]

Also, from the article, for your misty-eyed enjoyment (emphasis mine)...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s for what the future holds, Soljacic adds, "Once, when my son was about three years old, we visited his grandparents' house. They had a 20-year-old phone and my son picked up the handset, asking, 'Dad, why is this phone attached with a cord to the wall?' That is the mindset of a child growing up in a wireless world. My best response was, 'It is strange and awkward, isn't it? Hopefully, we will be getting rid of some more wires, and also batteries, soon.'"

[Valdemar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Armageddon', 'C')an you say cancer by the age of 20 ?

[Madpaddy]

Armageddon,

That was my first thought exactly. I don't want to knock every technological announcement but I'ld like to see the medical tests if any carried out on this project. As it is, alarm bells are beginning over wireless broadband signals in Europe.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/f ... ge_id=1879

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')arah, 51, is one of a growing band of people who claim to be experiencing extreme - and incapacitating - sensitivity to electrical appliances, as well as to certain frequencies of electromagnetic waves.

"Wi-Fi, or wireless broadband networks, seem to be the worst thing," she says.

"Closely followed by mobile phones - particularly if they're being used in an enclosed space - the base stations of cordless telephones and mobile phone masts.

[Valdemar]

We've been surrounded by EM energy for decades, since the first radios and TVs appeared. The fact that a handful of people are more sensitive to certain frequencies e.g. fluorescent lamps, is not a reason to halt wireless technology. In fact, you could reason that this medical excuse is enough to outlaw ALL electrical appliances. It reeks of the fluoride scares over water.

Until someone actually posts a credible article in Nature or Science on actual, demonstrable harm to the masses from Wi-Fi or mobiles, I'm going to take the bizarre step of totally ignoring The Daily Wail on this. As with most things.

[Valdemar]

They're mostly hypochondriacs. There was an op-ed piece in The Independent this week that got hammered by many readers' letters after it was published. The woman, a self-confessed worrier over her health, brought up the idea of being surrounded in an "electrosmog", which is technically true. But she then went on to say this caused her aches and pains and poor diet and all sorts of bullshit, and went on to promote homeopathy, magnetic rings and even an expensive electrical device that cancels out harmful EM energy within the room it's in(!).

I can only assume she failed basic science class at school and is likely a shareholder in many alternative therapy schemes. If what she said had any merit whatsoever, then every ham radio operator this century would now be coming down with horrible cancers and other maladies.

Funny how they're not.

[Madpaddy]

The Daily WAIL - that's good.

I agree that wireless technology is an almost overwhelmingly good thing. In fact for the type of powerdown society which may be enforced upon us by PO, mobile phones, wireless and satellite broadband etc. will be absolutely essential.

[Valdemar]

Tesla did toy with largescale wireless energy transfer. I do recall that the emitters were essentially directed energy weapons in the microwave frequency, so it's not surprising he also got working on a "death ray" to end all wars at that point too.

But this is really meant for small, portable devices where power cells can't get better than lithium types used today, and so having buildings use such a system means recharging and accessing the Internet without wires, which is convenient.

So it will be a shame when PO does hit that such things will be less focused on, though anything to replace wires for power transmission on the national scale would be far better than dilapidated overhead/underground cables we have today.

[shortonoil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '.')..."The risk is extremely high," declares Dr. Cherry. "There are 66 epidemiological studies showing that electromagnetic radiation across the spectrum increase brain tumors in human populations. Two of those studies are for particular brain tumors from cell
phones."....

[abelardlindsay]

I am really surprised at the reaction to this technology. Powercast made an announcement that they had developed similar technology two months ago and people treated it as a hoax first and as a carcinogen second.

This is truly the spirit of our age. Every new technological advance, especially in the field of energy, is greeted with ridicule and skepticism first and environmental paranoia second.

BTW, this technology does not utilize em radiation that comes out of your cell phone, wi-fi or microwave but magnetic resonance energy transmission. There are no applications of this phenomenon that are currently in use. Few people understood this, even on Slashdot, where there are a lot of people with a science background.

Everyone thought the phenomenon was created as a result of large levels of em radiation. Magnetic resonance is too spooky of a technology right now. If this hadn't been MIT doing the experiment the technology would have been dismissed as a hoax and was last April when powercast made their announcement.

For all of you who still think this poses the same cancer threat as radio towers, microwaves, and cell phones I beg you to please read the following:


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Radiation methods

Various methods of transmitting power wirelessly have been known for centuries. Perhaps the best known example is electromagnetic radiation, such as radio waves. While such radiation is excellent for wireless transmission of information, it is not feasible to use it for power transmission. Since radiation spreads in all directions, a vast majority of power would end up being wasted into free space.

One can envision using directed electromagnetic radiation, such as lasers, but this is not very practical and can even be dangerous. It requires an uninterrupted line of sight between the source and the device, as well as a sophisticated tracking mechanism when the device is mobile.
The key: Magnetically coupled resonance

In contrast, WiTricity is based on using coupled resonant objects. Two resonant objects of the same resonant frequency tend to exchange energy efficiently, while interacting weakly with extraneous off-resonant objects. A child on a swing is a good example of this. A swing is a type of mechanical resonance, so only when the child pumps her legs at the natural frequency of the swing is she able to impart substantial energy.

Another example involves acoustic resonances: Imagine a room with 100 identical wine glasses, each filled with wine up to a different level, so they all have different resonant frequencies. If an opera singer sings a sufficiently loud single note inside the room, a glass of the corresponding frequency might accumulate sufficient energy to even explode, while not influencing the other glasses. In any system of coupled resonators there often exists a so-called "strongly coupled" regime of operation. If one ensures to operate in that regime in a given system, the energy transfer can be very efficient.

[Valdemar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonoil', '
')Absurd, I doubt it, unless you are one of the people who only belief science when it is to your liking, or profit. I have been following Dr. Cherry’s work for about two years, I can find nothing wrong with his findings. You can do what you want, but I threw my cell phone out; that also had the benefit of making it much quieter around here.

Note:

Recent research coming out of China shows that emf exposure above 30mW/cc damages the mitochondria in neural cells. No link available.

[coyote]

The issue seems to be undecided at the moment, with a possible large-scale study beginning this year, and hopefully we'll have a better idea after that. But for now, we just don't know. Taking that into account, it's a good thing to remain polite. You could be wrong.

[coyote]

Hm, apparently the study already conducted about mobile handset's link to brain tumors has been or will be published in the International Journal of Cancer. Interesting, have to look into that.

Telegraph.co.uk

[Valdemar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', 'T')he issue seems to be undecided at the moment, with a possible large-scale study beginning this year, and hopefully we'll have a better idea after that. But for now, we just don't know. Taking that into account, it's a good thing to remain polite. You could be wrong.

[Clouseau2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Valdemar', 'T')hey're mostly hypochondriacs. There was an op-ed piece in The Independent this week that got hammered by many readers' letters after it was published. The woman, a self-confessed worrier over her health, brought up the idea of being surrounded in an "electrosmog", which is technically true. But she then went on to say this caused her aches and pains and poor diet and all sorts of bullshit, and went on to promote homeopathy, magnetic rings and even an expensive electrical device that cancels out harmful EM energy within the room it's in(!).

I can only assume she failed basic science class at school and is likely a shareholder in many alternative therapy schemes. If what she said had any merit whatsoever, then every ham radio operator this century would now be coming down with horrible cancers and other maladies.

Funny how they're not.

[Valdemar]

Yeah, a woman in a recent Panorama report on Wi-Fi brought up the same symptoms when she was near a switched on mobile or used one. The funny thing was, she didn't realise a Wi-Fi router was on out of view and only reacted when she was shown it.

Wow, I'm convinced.

It's not unlike the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging effect. The technology, created by the USN post-war, was renamed to just MRI because of the panic some people exhibited when hearing the "N" word. The same could be said of mobile phones because "radiation" is there in the discussion, despite the fact the energies pumped out are orders of magnitude below the ionising spectrum and any thermal effects would be readily noticeable on your skin first (ignoring the fact that transmitters we've had around for decades for radio and TV output the same level of power at range and same frequencies).

All of these studies are "might be linked to" or "could cause" when a rat is subject to sitting in front of a directed source for hours on end. Hardly good science, which is why for every study that says there "might" be a risk, there are ten that say the risk isn't there or is entirely negligible. And even if there was a risk, I'm not losing sleep over it and only a fool would chuck away their mobile phone over this and not do the same for EVERY electrical device they possess. We see risks in charring food when cooking it - cancer can occur from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in, say, burnt toast - yet no one is going ape over this, same with hayfever. So what? You'd get rid of all the plants as you would all the mobiles and Wi-Fi routers? Be reasonable.

[coyote]

The news article I linked doesn't seem to indicate a 'vast consensus' on this issue.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') large-scale study found that those who had regularly used mobiles for longer than 10 years were almost 40 per cent more likely to develop nervous system tumours called gliomas near to where they hold their phones.

The new research, to be published later this year in the International Journal of Cancer, is the second study to suggest increased risks of specific types of brain tumours in regions close to where mobile phone emissions enter the head.

However, a number of other studies have found no increased health risks associated with mobile phone use.

Prof Lawrie Challis, the chairman of the government-funded Mobile Telecommunications Health Research (MTHR) programme, said last week that most research had shown that mobiles were safe in the short term but that there was a "hint of something" for longer-term users.

[Valdemar]

No, it simply reiterates my point that there is no evidence to show any cause for alarm.

Besides, the WHO tends to agree with me, I kind've trust them on health matters.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WHO Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile telephones and their base stations', 'W')HO has identified research needs to make better health risk assessment and promoted the research to funding agencies. Briefly, at present time this research indicates:

* Cancer: Current scientific evidence indicates that exposure to RF fields, such as those emitted by mobile phones and their base stations, is unlikely to induce or promote cancers. Several studies of animals exposed to RF fields similar to those emitted by mobile phones found no evidence that RF causes or promotes brain cancer. While one 1997 study found that RF fields increased the rate at which genetically engineered mice developed lymphoma, the health implications of this result is unclear. Several studies are underway to confirm this finding and determine any relevance of these results to cancer in human beings. Three recent epidemiological studies found no convincing evidence of increase in risk of cancer or any other disease with use of mobile phones.
* Other health risks: Scientists have reported other effects of using mobile phones including changes in brain activity, reaction times, and sleep patterns. These effects are small and have no apparent health significance. More studies are in progress to try to confirm these findings.
* Driving: Research has clearly shown an increased risk of traffic accidents when mobile phones (either handheld or with a "hands-free" kit) are used while driving.
* Electromagnetic interference: When mobile phones are used close to some medical devices (including pacemakers, implantable defibrillators, and certain hearing aids) there is the possibility of causing interference. There is also the potential of interference between mobile phones and aircraft electronics.

[Terrapin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Valdemar', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Armageddon', 'C')an you say cancer by the age of 20 ?