On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:25:27 +0200, you wrote: >Indeed cell phone batteries will still be needed, but with >sufficiently ubiquitous witricity they will live much longer because >they will be more or less permanently on charge, even when in your >pocket:
--- For that to happen, the cell phone would have to be in an undulating magnetic field with sufficient intensity to charge the battery while quite far away from the source of the field. To me, that doesn't seem like a realistic scenario in that metallic objects close to the source (rings, necklaces,etc) could act like cookware on an induction heating cooktop. --- >this lengthens considerably a cell phone's life, as it lowers >the number of cycles in a given period. This is of particular interest >for newer cell phones, which are used for many other purposes than >phoning and therefore use more energy. > >If the battery lives say twice longer, then the total cost of your >cell phone's energy is divided by about two (the cost of the >electricity itself being negligible compared to that of the battery >wear out). So witricity will save you money, and will probably save >energy globally, as manufacturing batteries takes energy. --- What you've forgotten about is the fact that induction charging is less efficient than conventional switch-mode chargers and, unless turned off when not loaded, will continue to dissipate power. On a global scale this would amount to a huge waste of power. --- >Michel > >P.S. The top posting convention is a disability thing like Terry said. >It has been adopted by most email software providers to make life >easier for blind people. Since they use text to speech software to >read their emails, with bottom posting thay have to hear all the old >stuff they have already heard before getting to the new stuff. --- Looking through your older posts here, I notice that nearly all of them are bottom-posts, yet you chose to top post this one. Any particular reason?
