What is Digg?203 Comments
- whiteknives, on 05/03/2008, -7/+210We would have been there decades ago if it wasn't for that douchebag Edison. Tesla ftw.
- tbhurst, on 05/03/2008, -1/+76Not the same technology as Tesla but the same concept. The question is whether or not it is safe.
- connieLingus, on 05/03/2008, -1/+75why do i feel the sudden urge to wrap my testicles in lead when i read this story?
- goldenratiophi, on 05/03/2008, -2/+70cause you have a lead fetish?
- Markpdotcom, on 05/03/2008, -6/+49Short answer: No, it needs lots of testing.
Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, it needs lots of testing! - Pg5of16, on 05/03/2008, -1/+39Somehow I think the MIT guy understands more about physics than you. I'm sure he understands the problems.
- DeFex, on 05/03/2008, -3/+36it is very inefficient. why waste power just because you are too lazy to plug something in.
- Todamont, on 05/03/2008, -2/+31Tesla wirelessly supplied electricity to light his entire lab in 1890. Then he started work on the Wardenclyffe transmitter that woud have supplied the entire world with wireless energy. Problem was no way to tally the charge for each "customer" so the whole thing was put on the skids. This is OLD OLD news, like 100 yrs old...
- goldenratiophi, on 05/03/2008, -6/+31no, the new instant digg-up is
OGC - EarthernJar, on 05/03/2008, -3/+24Wireless power has been around for years: they call it "lightning"
- sk2134, on 05/03/2008, -3/+23TESLA'S THE MAN
- SlechtValk, on 05/03/2008, -7/+27that's such a stupid comment... i just logged in, only to digg you down.
- lebatte, on 05/04/2008, -1/+19You read my mind... WIRELESSLY.
- Inri137, on 05/03/2008, -1/+19If you look through his paper, the electric fields are confined entirely to the transmitting and receiving units. The magnetic field transfers the energy, and it never exceeds ~.5 gaus, which is approximately the earth's magnetic field. Certainly, I'm not worried that the earth's magnetic field is permeating this room right now. It's not enough to disrupt devices that operate on electromagnetic principles, and doesn't have any gross effects on biology. It may not be safe, but it's definitely not volatile and dangerous like the pictured Tesla coil.
- trofeo, on 05/03/2008, -1/+18That should make 'em drop XD
- Gogogo111, on 05/03/2008, -1/+16Foam mattress spammer? What the *****? Hahahaha
- HyperJack, on 05/03/2008, -2/+17Oh just shut up. Everyone else, including you, understood it. Stop making pointless criticisms.
- phybere, on 05/03/2008, -2/+16I'm pretty certain water is already wireless.
- rheaume, on 05/03/2008, -2/+16USA! USA! USA!
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/04/2008, -1/+14Yeah but this article puts ideal power loss at 20%. That cost an astronomical figure. The world already has an oil crisis, this would make it a worse.
The idea is fabulous, but we need much better access to cheap power for this to really be a benefit, and not a hidden burden. - nerdherder, on 05/03/2008, -3/+15The question doesn't say, "Do you think wireless power is closer than you think?"
- jenshik, on 05/03/2008, -3/+15I can't see what's wrong with just rememering to plug your phone in at night.
- mokki, on 05/03/2008, -1/+13Indeed, this is a "powerful concept".Magnetic resonance is a promising means of electricity transfer.
- mal1964, on 05/03/2008, -1/+12It is until my neighbor moves.
- jawdog, on 05/04/2008, -0/+11....Rule 34?
- geobay, on 05/03/2008, -1/+11Slacker....drink like a man
- Inri137, on 05/03/2008, -1/+11What Dongvid said is absolutely wrong. Mutual inductive coupling won't work, but driving with the resonance frequency will. Professor Soljačić and his team have obtained 60% efficiency over the range of a few meters (and up to 80% for even closer than that). All of this at room temperature, to boot. That's pretty amazing. I invite you to check out one of his papers here: http://www.mit.edu/~soljacic/wireless-power_AoP.pd ... . You can see a picture of Professor Soljacic with his team, here: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/wireless-grp1-e ... , where an AC outlet powers a light bulb from two meters away, with the team standing in the intervening space. I would urge you not to so readily dismiss it.
- jordan314, on 05/03/2008, -1/+11Because you like lead poisoning?
- MacTyler, on 05/03/2008, -1/+11Well you should have taken the time to look it up. This is the internet, we demand perfection.
- mtekk, on 05/03/2008, -0/+9Technically, genetic mutations are the leading cause of cancer. High energy waves tend to produce genetic mutations. Magnetic fields are not necessarily high energy waves, though they do have a relationship.
- kahrn, on 05/03/2008, -1/+10I might be 15% drunk but i know spam when i see it.
- mcapplbee, on 05/03/2008, -0/+8This is so old. Why is this near the top? The article itself is not very informative. Since this has no new information on Witricity, buried.
- yuutokun, on 05/04/2008, -1/+9So is your grandma, but she is still a fine and classy lady.
- flyingcatcircus, on 05/04/2008, -0/+8Tell stories in Digg comments.
- justz00t, on 05/03/2008, -0/+8Its true that efficiency is a issue but just think of the endless possibility's this technology could provide to future innovations. This could be a big leap in technology like land line to cellphone or mainframe to PC and I sure would not like to stop tech leap like that just over efficiency issues. Another thing I would like to seriously know is are you suggesting that AC cannot be converted to DC on board a remote device? None sense!
- carpespasm, on 05/03/2008, -1/+9yes, only problem is that tesla and edison both got involved with some very eccentric and unscientific projects in their later years. if he had a technology that could have made such wonders possible then why wouldn't he make the means to do so public so that others could implement his idea after his own money ran out? People always say that there wouldn't have been any way to charge for the power generated under this system, but I don't see why there wouldn't be since one would assume that the power gathering device must be of at least a fairly complex design for us to have been at a complete loss for how to make it in the last 100 years, and this complex device would have to be purchased. That's like saying that broadcast radio doesn't work because there's nothing to stop me from building my own radio and getting transmission without being charged for it.
Tesla was a very interesting and brilliant man, but the later projects in his life that didn't pan out don't stand up to the scrutiny that believing "it was a conspiracy against free power" requires. - inactive, on 05/03/2008, -3/+11There are many ways to wirelessly charge things. Takes an introductory reading of wikipedia.
- Atomic05, on 05/03/2008, -2/+9Why is this guy being dugg down? He isn't wrong; a system like this will waste far more energy than simple hardwiring no matter how efficient they manage to make it.
- jbouchard, on 05/03/2008, -1/+8Nikola Tesla . . . . ac power wirelessly FREE to the masses. . . the problem was free isn't a word the big cats (and WASPS) like and thats why they ruined his life and made him look like a crazy
- foofightrs777, on 05/03/2008, -2/+9I'm a history major who went to a school with a large engineering program. I remember telling several EE students about 3-4 years ago about how wireless power was not only possible, but likely inevitable. Needless to say, they laughed at the silly history major and his "fake major" and dismissed my talk about Tesla's wireless power experiments as "silly". I didn't claim to understand every facet of the concept but more than enough to see that t was theoretically possible. I think I need to send a few e-mails out on account of smugness being proved wrong.
- UpperUpsilon, on 05/03/2008, -4/+11Digg comments are going downhill.
- mcapplbee, on 05/04/2008, -3/+9http://digg.com/general_sciences/WIRELESS_Electric ...
http://digg.com/general_sciences/WIRELESS_Electric ...
http://digg.com/general_sciences/WIRELESS_Electric ...
Almost a year ago. This is SO old. - KMartSheriff, on 05/03/2008, -2/+8Only after reading this story?
- xerigen, on 05/04/2008, -1/+6Here is an awesome documentary on Tesla: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2188562935 ...
- MikeSD34, on 05/04/2008, -0/+4According to wikipedia (so take it with a grain of salt), the power supply in your computer is likely operating at about 70% to 75% efficiency. That puts power loss at 25% to 30%, and you're still logged into your computer... I don't think that kind of loss is going to shy most people away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_power_supply ... - BlackGum, on 05/03/2008, -1/+5do you waste as much air as you do space?
- Dongvid, on 05/04/2008, -0/+4I know I lack the authority to completely deny the existance of this technology, I'm just an undergrad in electrical engineering writing a hasty reply on Digg. From my experience, though, this is crap. This is something Tesla couldn't accomplish, so before you're blinded by the letters "MIT," take a step back and look at the scope of the problem at hand. An article that says the exact same thing about revolutionary "wireless power" comes out every few months. I'll tell you how its created. It requires a change in magnetic flux through the enclosed area of the loops. Then an induced EMF is created. Its the same concept as a transformer except instead of using a good conductor (like iron or copper) as the core, it uses air. The problem with that is the flux is not required to stay mostly inside the boundary of the solid.
But none of you know what I'm talking about, of course, because knowing HTML is way more important than physics. Some nerds you are. - Rileyluck, on 05/03/2008, -3/+7well i had a 50/50 chance :(
- MrSilverblood, on 05/04/2008, -0/+4Very cool if this technology can work with no adverse side affects to the body. Until then, give me my plug and I'm good.
- krnldmp, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3Some of these resonance tuned designs with two way data transfer are far more sophisticated than your magnetic coupled toothbrush charger. Simple magnetic coupling is very efficient for controllable short distances like when you put your brush into the base. They also have quite low leakage. Some of the design I believe the article refers to attempt to transfer moderate amounts of power over comparatively large distances and really can't be considered equivalent to your tooth brush setup. They are also, unfortunately, quite a bit less efficient and subject to greater concern about electromagnetic radiation.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 201 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 