Talk:Inductive charging

Untitled
"conductive charging generally charges too slowly and generates too much heat for most portable electronics"

wrong. an upcoming Palm smartphone will use it, so its feasible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.92.18 (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality
I found this article to be biased in favor of this kind of technology. There is no discussion at all, in the "advantage and disadvantages" section, of any possible disadvantages, including, perhaps most importantly, the inefficiencies involved in inductive charging. At the very least something needs to be said about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgheck (talk • contribs) 00:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems your NPOV issues have been resolved, so I have removed the template. 202.180.108.82 (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * More than resolved, at least if this was considered to be in favor of wireless charging, I would say. Considering that the lack of de-facto standard is included. The Qi page lists some major phone makers (well, some of them have a bit wider portfolio, I believe), but in addition to those, for example Panasonic, Philips, Energizer, Belkin and Verizon Wireless are behind the standard... No moving or breakable parts when connecting... And lower efficiency is basically listed twice. The references in 'more costly' do not mention anything about the actual cost (well, I guess the coils would by default increase the cost, but is this a significant amount when compared to a 'normal' charger?)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojisama (talk • contribs) 11:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Oral-B
I added a reference to Oral-B toothbrushes because I thought the article would gain value by having a very common consumer-grade device in the example list.47.9.28.2 (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Might add the rest. Sonicare is popular, also. As well as I know, all rechargeable toothbrushes do it, I suspect for some legal reason. Gah4 (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Might add the rest. Sonicare is popular, also. As well as I know, all rechargeable toothbrushes do it, I suspect for some legal reason. Gah4 (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Powermat
I added a reference to powermat in the main page, the company plans to commercialize wireless charging. the link is below to their website.

Powermat unveils it's line of wireless charging products at CES 2009. Powermat provides wireless charging by means of magnetic induction through a two part system which requires a receiver and mat. --Powermatassistant (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I’m a Powermat Employee, but I wanted to weigh in on this because some of our recent applications might fit in the “Examples” section.

Powermat introduces new line up at CES 2010. --Powermatassistant (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Powermatlooks to revolutionize the future at MWC 2010. --Powermatassistant (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Advantages/Disadvantages
I am going to split up these two sections for better organization purposes. There needs to be more and better examples.

The supposedly lower efficiency of inductive power charging is arguable; recent battery chargers with direct connection (an example in the link below) do not show much better efficiency 85-90% compared to the 20 year-old Magne Charge system with 86% efficiency. Progress in semi-conductors have been made since then, which make both technologies just as efficient, at least when it comes to power ranges in kiloWatts for charging batteries. http://www.lhvpower.com/pdf/EV.pdf Regarding examples: http://www.gsv.co.at/vl/veranstaltungsberichte/iir_elektromobilitaet_kudlicza.pdf http://awbriefing.com/presentations/inductive_charging_conductix.pdf Aaclps (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the corrected the crystal radio section to agree with the physics. 10/6/14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.241.250 (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Some power is likely lost into other metal objects, or radiated. The less efficient coupling might require more current, so more I2R loss, even if all the rest of the power got to the device. Gah4 (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Some power is likely lost into other metal objects, or radiated. The less efficient coupling might require more current, so more I2R loss, even if all the rest of the power got to the device. Gah4 (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Some power is likely lost into other metal objects, or radiated. The less efficient coupling might require more current, so more I2R loss, even if all the rest of the power got to the device. Gah4 (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Green Section
I added a green section to this topic. The idea of inductive charging vs disposable batteries is a green issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bh36njit (talk • contribs) 05:28, 30 November 2009
 * No, rechargeable battery vs. disposable battery is a green issue. How the battery is recharged is a less important environmental issue that's part of, and implied by, efficiency. It looks like someone (correctly) removed any "Green Section" from the article. -- Skierpage (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Inductive charging itself can be a green issue. Many products the employ the use of inductive charging also have smart technology within it that allows the unit to stop supplying power to a device once it is fully charged. This prevents overcharging of the battery, thus prolonging the life of the battery in the device. With one ac adapter you can charge up to 3 to 4 devices at a given time reducing the need for a power strip. This will help reduce the amount of electicity that is being used which is also a green issue.--Powermatassistant (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Many current battery charging devices have smart technology to prevent overcharging of batteries. I would argue that the smart technology preventing overcharging is a green issue and not inductive charging itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.42 (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If you look at a product that uses either inductive or conductive methods for charging, the commonality is that it only requires one energy source to power multiple devices. You are reducing the need for a power strip or various outlets. As we all know the more items you have plugged into an outlet the more energy you are using even if that device is turned off. With one ac adapter you can charge up to 3-4 devices without having to pull extra energy therefore saving energy and money. --Powermatassistant (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an entirely unbalanced opinion! Appliances which are entirely switched off instead of in standby do not draw any power. Old transformer units (aka wall warts) do continue to draw a tiny amount of current but those are quickly being replaced by much more efficient switched mode units so this is a none issue. Wireless charging is less efficient than charging with a cord and therefore less green - there's no 'ifs' or 'buts', wireless charging is a backwards step in 'green' terms not a forward one. 82.17.93.186 (talk) 10:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Common Sense and Knowledge
First, to the "green" guy above. It will be great when we don't have all these dead batteries lying around. However, if the guy above is right and it take much longer to charge "green" inductive batteries, then it will take more electrical power which means more power companies producing all the more greenhouse gases or nuclear winter gases, I forget which one we are harping on at the moment. Second, anybody here remember a guy named Tesla? He already had wireless electrical current perfected back in the 20's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alabamaxslim (talk • contribs) 07:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say perfected.... -76.30.149.123 (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Pictures
Added diagram of inductive charging and removed reqdiagram tag. If more / clearer pictures needed then add to the top of the page. Egmason (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

AC vs DC
So if I remember ELEC 101, transformers only work with AC power, and batteries can only produce (and use?) a DC voltage. Most wired chargers I've seen have a "box" that converts 120V AC to some low voltage DC that is supplied to the battery. Does this kind of system require AC/DC converter circuits in the device? It seems to me that would be a big problem handheld devices like cell phones... I know my phone's charger is probably about 50% of the weight of the phone. 74.200.27.250 (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The transformer itself is most of the weight, an inverter circuit is pretty lightweight in fact.- Wolfkeeper 16:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The "inverter" circuit in a small device usually doesn't need to be anything more than a diode and perhaps a capacitor - not much bigger or heavier than a couple grains of rice.47.9.28.2 (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

What might be interesting is inductive charging to power AC motors running light rail or electric buses. There is some complaint about over head electrical lines. With induction a system in the street could be made that had the electricity going to the AC motors directly instead of to batteries with no danger of anyone touching the power. There may be a need for a capacitor on the vehicle for extra power when starting and for regenerative braking. It this were used on a street, personal electric vehicles could use it as well, perhaps including other electronic controls such as braking and steering to designated locations.
 * Traditionally the AC to DC conversion was an (iron core) transformer and rectifier diode(s). Also, a current limiting (and power wasting) resistor. The usual switch mode power supply, (with a lighter ferrite core transformer) first converts the AC input to DC, from 170V to about 350V, then runs a little oscillator to convert to 20kHz AC. Then through a tiny ferrite core transformer (tiny because of the higher frequency), then back to DC again. The switch oscillator is part of the regulator, so (maybe) not so much resistor loss. Gah4 (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Traditionally the AC to DC conversion was an (iron core) transformer and rectifier diode(s). Also, a current limiting (and power wasting) resistor. The usual switch mode power supply, (with a lighter ferrite core transformer) first converts the AC input to DC, from 170V to about 350V, then runs a little oscillator to convert to 20kHz AC. Then through a tiny ferrite core transformer (tiny because of the higher frequency), then back to DC again. The switch oscillator is part of the regulator, so (maybe) not so much resistor loss. Gah4 (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Typical efficiencies
I think the article could really use more up-to-date figures regarding the efficiency of consumer grade inductive charging mats. Feel free to criticize me for being too lazy to find said figures.

173.25.120.150 (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Inductive charging and V-Poles
Inductive charging related development that I think would be appropriate to add to Wikipedia (perhaps this article and Douglas Coupland article). article in Globe and Mail and http://www.v-pole.com/. --EarthFurst (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The "common sense" pseudo-citation
Regarding this pseudo-citation:

Source: Common sense-- energy is sent in all directions instead of just one

This is a dangerous thing to do. Common sense is easily wrong when human intuition fails. In particular, inductive charging is based on near field effects and the energy is most certainly *not* sent in all directions instead of just one, at least not equally. --Romanski (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Energy is sent in (almost) all directions. Whether it is lost or not, depends. If there is a device to use it, the back EMF causes actual power to be used. Otherwise, it is just reactive power (not real) power. Gah4 (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Energy is sent in (almost) all directions. Whether it is lost or not, depends. If there is a device to use it, the back EMF causes actual power to be used. Otherwise, it is just reactive power (not real) power. Gah4 (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

This article looks like advertising
I used to come to Wikipedia to get an unbiased opinion of various subject matters and, as of late, all I've been getting is marketing. It seems like companies that sell these technologies are dictating what's on these articles. That's unacceptable and really shows how little shame these companies have.

The sources cited here are also not very helpful.

For example under disadvantages the first citation is a Howstuff works article about how inductive charging works. This article is supposed to be the article that attempts to explain how the science works and cite research backing its claims. For instance what independent studies have been done establishing that inductive studies are less efficient and by how much. Were two similar 1000mAH batteries simultaneously charged by both methods and did anyone time to see how long it took each to become fully charged? Who conducted this research? The second citation is to some useless patent that doesn't give any useful information either.

Then the article attempts to downplay the alleged disadvantages, almost like an advertisement would, by saying "Newer approaches reduce transfer losses through the use of ultra thin coils, higher frequencies, and optimized drive electronics. This results in more efficient and compact chargers and receivers, facilitating their integration into mobile devices or batteries with minimal changes required."

This whole thing reads like marketing. The citations aren't very helpful either with no quantifiable numbers resulting from independent studies. The fourth citation says "The efficiency of electric power transmission is higher than 70%, including the peripheral circuit, according to the company." This is not a valid citation. Independent studies with a stated control group, as a benchmark, and quantifiable numbers are necessary.

I'm sorry to say but this is not science but marketing. If I wanted marketing I can always go to the manufacturer's website. Why has Wikipedia essentially turned into a marketing platform for companies to market their products. I'm seeing it more and more and it infuriates me that this is acceptable. and now you have ruthless Powermat employees coming over here to look for an advertising opportunity. Don't these companies have no shame. Their advertisements should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.197.0 (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Another possible disadvantage
I know someone that got a Samsung inductive charger for their Samsung S3 and, after the phone was fully charged the charger never shut off. The phone started heating and it turns out that the charger wasn't meant for that phone or something? The person ended up returning the inductive charger. So perhaps some caution about ensuring the charger works with the device being charged and that it will shut off after it is fully charged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.197.0 (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, there is WP:NOTHOWTO. We just explain things, people have to figure out how to actually use them, properly or not, by themself. Gah4 (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, there is WP:NOTHOWTO. We just explain things, people have to figure out how to actually use them, properly or not, by themself. Gah4 (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Seawhelan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Section on Reverse Wireless Charging needed.
I noticed there haven't been any discussions about the reverse wireless charging, a feature offered by some Huawei and Samsung devices. The article would not be encyclopedic to not mention this new implementation of the inductive charging technology. Aceus0shrifter (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Impact on battery life
There is some discussion on how inductive charging may impact battery life (in real world applications like phone charging):

''The issue is that when the iPhone is being charged using a cable, the phone is being powered by the cord (there is some load on the battery, but it's minimal), but when using wireless charging, the battery is what's powering the iPhone, with the wireless charger only being used to top up the battery. This means that by switching from a cable to a wireless charger, my battery isn't getting a break, and in turn, this is making me go through recharge cycles at an even faster rate.'' Source

I doubt this, becaus you can't simultaneously charge and discharg your battery at the same time. The current goes either in our out of the battery. Still, there may be and issue of charging the battery with constant "small bumps" instead of a constant current.

Can someone with some technical understanding look into this and check with other sources if this is an issue?

--Tischbeinahe (talk) 07:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Article looks messy
What's up with this article? There's three pictures of the same Prius that's also on the page for Wireless power transfer Derekrichline (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

At least Primove has/ had more projects
At least Primove had more omnibus projects, at least up to 200kW, which at least did it to type approval/ Roadworthiness and an evaluation project.

They also had some project for trams, where the development initially came from.

One link to information on their site is https://bombardier.com/en/media/news/bombardiers-primove-technology-enters-service-scandinavias-first-inductively-charged-bus.

I never added something to a complex article here and hesitate to mess it up.

Also I was working for them in the past and do not want to write something biased.

Would be great if someone would add it and I am happy to support based on information, which is available in public (I have to be careful, because for sure I know more than what got published). Torsten Knodt (talk) 08:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Safety/Revisions
I added a new section header that reads "Safety" in the article. I believe that this is a valuable addition because with advances in technologies we must be aware of the dangers that stronger inductive charging coils can cause with the electrical magnetic fields that are emitted. I included this to what we are headed to in the future but, to also see some possible side effects as well. I also read the article and added small grammatical error fixations and revision in one sentence. The sentence in question read "Inductive charging is so named because it transfers energy through inductive coupling". I first read this and was unclear on the "so named" and changed it to "named so". I believe both sentences are correct, but this made for a more clear and understandable sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhutch2001 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion
I believe the recently edited safety section needs to be reviewed. Is the cited source legitimate regarding the danger of having a wireless smartphone charger? 99.150.225.47 (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I checked that section and of the two sources I was able to access, both are being used to support statements that are not in those sources. I suspect this is probably true for the remaining IEEE source as well. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Wireless battery charging
I am working on an article on the above subject only from an angle of interest and enthusiasm not from a point of expertise. Do we think it is the same as conductive wireless charging/ inductive charging? Avoiding a situation where I painstakingly complete the article and it gets merged or redirected. Danidamiobi (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wireless battery charging is not exactly the same thing as inductive charging, no. There are at least three ways to implement wireless power transfer, and many different purposes it can be put to. Inductive charging is one instance of wireless power transfer in which the transfer is done inductively, and the power is used to charge a battery. An article on wireless battery charging could conceivably cover non-inductive methods, but it's hard for me to imagine there would be enough material for such an article. What were you thinking would go in your new article that wouldn't belong in this article?
 * "Conductive wireless charging" is a useless term that I imagine was thought up by non-technical people. I don't like the term "conductive charging" either but it's what Wikipedia uses. It's not the same as wireless battery charging. Conductive charging uses wires but wireless battery charging does not. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)