Talk:WiTricity

Untitled
This article should be WiTricity, not Witricity, similarly as WiFi. --62.240.180.1 10:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hellerman Deutsch
There was a design for a power coupler using a two part (separable) toroidal transformer used in armaments in the 1980's - its main attraction was that any incident power arriving was canceled by the winding opposite, making it highly suitable for dirty EMI environments found on missiles. I believe that the company did experiments for domestic applications - children could not stick pencils into the socket, so there was no risk of shock. However the project fizzled out, but maybe this could help someone close to the project to remember something relevant from the dim and distant past?Timpo (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Tesla
I really don't understand why this document fails to mention Tesla at all. The MIT work is a direct application of his documented work. An attempt at rewriting history... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.207.152.141 (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * THAT IS BS! IF TESLA INVENTED THIS 100 YEARS WHY THE IS YOUR COMPUTER STILL RUNNING ON WIRES YOU STUPID RETARD? --62.199.168.98 (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

this document should have in it the researches of Tesla who was the first to come up with the idea of wireless electricity transmission, and provide links to his biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dokuro (talk • contribs)
 * It already does. --soum talk 15:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does reference Tesla (who did mostly failed attempts at efficient long distance wireless power transfer), but on the other hand the document also failed to mention near-field magnetically coupled Tesla coils. Quite a lot of other prior art is not mentioned, either. This actually is not surprising since the authors of the original MIT article have otherwise good backgrounds, but obviously not in basic electronics, RF design or electromagnetics, and unnecessarily re-did a lot of measurements that were done something like 100 years ago. Which is actually the main contents of their article, which reads like a final report from some student lab. No truly new developments, apart from a nice new name for the old wireless power transfer concept. Anyway I tried to Be Bold add some of those missing prior art things now. Needless to say, edit at will. Jwagnerhki 19:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If separate the primary side and the secondary side in considering about the WiTricity power transfer system, the primary side resonator and source coil, the secondary side resonator and device coil, it would be noticed that each parts are very similar to the Tesla coil. They might have been inspired by the two Tesla-coils which are closely setting.--Neotesla (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Physics background and anticipated loss, industrial applications?
It would be extremely informative to give some explanation of why this technology is efficient and previous attempts are not. Is it true that previous attempts radiate energy equally in all directions, regardless of whether or not there is a power receiver nearby? Is it true that this technology avoids that problem? -- Beland 19:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Near and far field says as much, so I added that to the article. -- Beland 18:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 9.9 MHz equals a wavelenghth of about 30 m, making lambda/4 to about 7 m. The experiment bridging 2 m thus takes place in near field altogether. The real problem in invisibly powering a flat TV set on the wall from below is the necessity to capture the power with a large horizontal coil. If the receiving coil were to hang vertically, the transmitter ought to be behind the wall in the next room. Drilling a hole behind the TV might be easier and with less power loss. --Fritz Jörn (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is good reason for skepticism about the efficiency of this compared to, say, power over ethernet, which runs a nice 30-80W at a nicely variable voltage over an ordinary Ethernet cable about the same distances that this is good for. More efficient batteries that only need to be plugged into an AC power or Ethernet/USB/DC power plug for a few hours a year might be just as good for most of these applications and save the cost of a magnetic coil.  With metal prices rising it seems this would be the most likely killer for this as an in-home technology.  Could be useful for lots of industrial purposes, though, particularly as low level radiation already exists in those environments and is more tolerable, and people are after all being paid to take risks in the workplace anyway.


 * The comparison with Power Over Ethernet is a good one. It's easy to put 50 watts over a wire, the reason you need PoE technology to do this is to ensure that the power is actually going into the intended device, not into a random resistive conductor heating up and starting a fire.  They accomplish this by have smart microchips at both ends talking to each other and comparing notes on power sent and received.  If they don't match exactly the power sender shuts off the current in a millisecond before any serious damage is done.  The same applies to WiTricity.  Once you have the safety protocol in place, you can up the power.


 * At the Home Page of Marin Soljačić(researcher team leader) on MIT you can find the most relevant materials about WiTriciy. I added the link to the article Brunomsantiago 06:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Article now also mentions that the claim of "non-radiative" seems to be one made by the authors themselves, and that this seems not to have been subjected to third party clinical trials or even to a competent reproduction of their experiments... ? There's nothing on any FCC testing of it other than the optimism of the creators themselves.


 * It would be so indeed. Influence of the energy of this system decrease in inverse proportion to the cube of the distance. It has been reported in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan.--Neotesla (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Radio interference and actual heat/radiation levels
Could someone elaborate a bit about the radio interference issue. The article, as it is now, tries to say there would be no RFI issue, but we are still talking about 20-60 % energy leak, which is either conducted (heat to air) or radioated (RFI). Putting up a 100 watts in / 60 watts out link would be transmitting 40 watts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.209.176.129 (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No it's almost all resistance losses; it ends up as heat. There will be some transmitted signal, but it will be at a single frequency, and can be put wherever is convenient and shouldn't cause any issues.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 14:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Heat is still radiation. ;-)  However this is a rather intense loss compared even to short run DC cable which is the obvious competitor (power over ethernet being the most obvious standard for this).  And while cheap superconductors like carbon nanotubes can reduce cable loss, it's not clear that they assist this wireless energy transfer much.


 * That said, the heat can be a plus in cold environments. I don't think we want a technology that runs only in winter, though, admittedly, we are usually outside with these devices in the summer. ;-p


 * The comparison with Power Over Ethernet is a good one. It's easy to put 50 watts over a wire, the reason you need PoE technology to do this is to ensure that the power is actually going into the intended device, not into a random resistive conductor heating up and starting a fire. They accomplish this by have smart microchips at both ends talking to each other and comparing notes on power sent and received. If they don't match exactly the power sender shuts off the current in a millisecond before any serious damage is done. The same applies to WiTricity. Once you have the safety protocol in place, you can up the power — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.96.144 (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Wavelength
The extent of the near-field is related to wavelength, not distance. Thus I suggest:

"the receiving devices must be within medium range (few meters) from the transmitter. The system uses a relatively low frequency (few MHz)." should read something like:

"the receiving devices must be no more than about a quarter wavelength from the transmitter, that is a few meters at the relatively low frequency of a few MHz used by the system." - GilesW 23:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation
What is the correct pronunciation of WiTricity? It is correct to assume is pronounced like Why-tricity? Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's how they (who work down the hall from me) pronounce it. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

my recent changes - future of article
the article did sound a lot like an advertisement. imo wording like "witricity transmitters" has no place in an encyclopedia. so i removed that.

the article still doesnt quite clarify the position of witricity technologicaly. i made a first step, by making it clear witricity is wireless energy transfer (instead of hiding the link in a description of the technology). but i think the most important information about witricity needs to be, if witricity is just a new word for an old technology, or if its the term for a new technological incarnation of an old idea. this information needs to be spelled out.

future edits should focus to clarify what makes witricity different from other wireless energy transfer technology. or if there is none, rewrite the technological informations to clarify this is nothing "witricity specific", and witricity beeing just a new term for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.97.97 (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Pacemakers and defibrillators
aren't there any plans to implement technology in Pacemakers and defibrillators (so no surgery is required every 4-6 years to replace batteries ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.131.67 (talk) 09:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

WREL
Intel's witricity is called WREL (wireless resonant energy link) perhaps this can be included into article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.173.181 (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Trademarks, and other entries
WiTricity is a broadly registered trademark of John Joannopolous, not a generic term. Also, the subject is well covered in the article Wireless_energy_transfer Altaphon (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have any verifiable sources to match that claim? The Witricity corporation claims that it is their trademark.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, it does seem to be the name that registered it..- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Electrosmog energy harvesting
An article about Electrosmog energy harvesting needs to be made. Unlike WiTricity dough, the flow of electricity can't be controlled. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/10/nokia-mobile-phone 91.182.161.120 (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Energy "harvesting" was supposedly done in Berlin "Schrebergärten" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allotment_%28gardening%29) in the 1930s, with a medium vawe radio transmitter as souce. Note that classic analog TV transmitters often sport tremendous wattages: "North American stations can go up to 5000 kW ERP for video" says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_station#Transmission. Which makes "harvesting" nearby very easy. --Fritz Jörn (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone used witricity to power magnetohydrodynamics yet there are not any papers on a search. it seems like just creating a conductive layer of a fluid of antenna type could be witricity tuned then magnetohydrodynamic basic parameters described — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.2.34 (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on WiTricity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081231103130/http://thefutureofthings.com/pod/250/wireless-power-demonstrated.html to http://thefutureofthings.com/pod/250/wireless-power-demonstrated.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101209070825/http://thefutureofthings.com/news/5763/intel-s-wireless-power-technology-demonstrated.html to http://thefutureofthings.com/news/5763/intel-s-wireless-power-technology-demonstrated.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WiTGA PowerTransfer.jpg

Neutrality of the article and inappropriate synthesis
The current version of the article is highly non-neutral. It seems to be a hatchet job written on top of a pre-existing advertising brochure. I removed the derogatory content and was starting on addressing the spam, when I was reverted and accused of vandalism. , I get that you think WiTricity are up to no good, but Wikipedia is not the place for you to wage this campaign. The bulk of the stuff you added is original research or, at best, synthesis of published sources. For example, sources 16 and 17 don't even mention WiTricity; you just cite them to advance an argument for why you personally think WiTricity doesn't work. All of your personal opinions about the MIT thesis ("the MIT researchers were clearly"...) is also just that, personal opinion, and it is not supported by the cited sources. All of this nonsense needs to stop, as well as removing the maintenance tags without reason. Reyk YO! 10:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

My reply: These are not personal opinions at all Reyk! Read the WiTricity referred to MIT thesis... they first stated that they got 45% efficiency at 7 feet... deep inside the MIT thesis they clarified that they were actually consuming 400W, to light up a 60W bulb... do the math... 60/400 = 0.15, i.e. 15%. Keep in mind that the creation of the proposed company and phrase "WTricity" occurred in late 2006, whereas the MIT thesis was itself submitted in September 2007... so the idea to make money preceded the technical justification... their graduate student famously claimed that their setup was a "million times better" that the competition. Try http://news.mit.edu/2007/wireless-0607 ... this was complete self-promotion from Day -1... and as engineers we need to study facts... do not automatically assume that "MIT" spells honesty...every university is a potential incubator of questionable claims too...and we are committed to the truth. The Japanese researcher was originally mentioned on Wikipedia's page for Wireless Power Transfer, and he himself implied that MIT researchers mis-represented the data. WiTricty keeps talking about the analogy of their technology to an opera singer busting wine glasses. Scientific American has in a well-quoted article reported their is not one recorded case of that ever happening, so it is folklore. Close attention to details and WiTricty's record of bluffing away and misusing Wikipedia pages to promote themselves, sometimes through ignorant reviewers who buy into the "made-in-MIT" claim to fame... is really despicable. Please point to actual references which are wrong... say their attempt at drones and Rezence appliances... why did that go nowhere? Are you using WiTricity technology in any product you have today? No... so there are reasons for that..think... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Receptiondesk11 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Reyk... take a look at this cover picture of WiTricity... https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/14/tech/innovation/wireless-electricity/index.html and this one which was also all over the world att some stage, generated by Witricity...http://inventionsintechnology.blogspot.com/2016/09/witricity.html The first one shows entire homes including vacuum cleaners, lighting, computers, phones, cars etc all being charged wirelessly by Witricity... is that even close to your house today? So when you accuse me of a personal campaign against Witricity, please get your facts in order... it is just the truth! Witricity failed at almost everything they promised starting 2007...Does your phone wireless charger at least use their MIT thesis "discovery"? And tell me which university, leave aside a famous one, round up numbers (data) to the nearest tens or hundreds? Witricity/MIT thesis claimed they lit a 60W bulb and deep inside on Page 36 I think of the thesis, "clarfied" they were actually drawing 400W from the AC mains... Now just because you lit a 60W bulb, does not mean you were actually pushing 60W EXACT into it does it? And why 400W... when you take data, it is usually to the nearest first decimal.. like say 399.6W... these guys are rounding up to the nearest 10W or 100W.. and there is NO actual data/numbers in the MIT thesis... even for a Masters in Physics thesis, which this was, NOT a Ph.D in EE as implied, this level of approximation is horrifying... as I said: the intent to create a company called Witricity and make tons of money peddling a "theory" was done 9 months before the MIT thesis was even submitted.. display attention to detail please... what exacty is meant by a scientist declaring their technology is "a million times better than the competition" when there is NO credible data even presented ??? Do you believe it? Really? Or are you a buddy of Witricity CEO and are here doing his lying for him, all in the name of truth? You have no idea what is the truth OR you know very well, but are paid to HIDE it... If I am wrong please point to the EXACT reference/links that are "not neutral" or say something else, and I will be the first to correct it .... because I believe in the truth... nd I am very pained to see a stunning corporate strategy of constantly misusing Wikipedia to manipulate PR... the mission of Wikipedia was NOT to take ads from companies like Witricity, so they could relate the truth... but they dont seem to have any control over "editors" like you with hidden agendas or complete denial of facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Receptiondesk11 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, it is not the place of Wikipedia editors to "do the math" to draw conclusions not explicitly stated in primary sources, to interpret an instance of sloppy rounding as a grandiose conspiracy, or any other such thing. We report what's plainly stated in independent sources, no more. Are there reliable secondary sources that describe WiTricity as charlatans explicitly? If so, that can be included in the article. But you are combining things from various different sources to advance an opinion that is not in any of them, and that's not what Wikipedia is for. Reyk YO! 22:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * And Reyk: When you talk of looking at "independent sources"... those you want to ONLY look at are just Witricity sources! Didn't you see that? There was not one memtion of the failurte of Rezence at their hands, Intel bailing out etc... I added that! It is a piece of history...The original versions of the article was FULLY written by Witricity employees... IP addresses recently recorded from as far as from Greece... doing exactly what you are doing: trying to revert to the original PR article! Wanna know why? Because one of the MIT team, https://www.linkedin.com/in/karalis/ is from Greece! So, in terms of independent sources: Mention that Intel lost $25 million on Witricity? WHY? No "grandiose theory", just facts! Why does it bother you no end if that is pointed out? And since you asked, the Japanese researcher, himself referring to an article published, and this Japanese researcher (who has no connection with me.. I have not the foggiest idea who he is) is referred to on the Wikipedia page of "wireless power transfer" (where I found it... has been there for a long time.. posted by someone way smarter and more neutral than you or me too perhaps)... http://blog.livedoor.jp/neotesla/archives/51508967.html ... What does he write? Read it... INDEPENDENT SOURCE that you keep trying to delete... why? This is Reference number 12 in the current Witricity page, which you are trying to revert back to the original PR version. And didn't you read the other link I introduced which tells you and the world an INDEPENDENT fact that Intel, after Intel Capital invested 25 million into Witricity https://xconomy.com/boston/2013/10/23/witricitys-wireless-power-tech-attracts-25m-intel-foxconn/ SUDDENLY bailed out: https://xconomy.com/boston/2013/10/23/witricitys-wireless-power-tech-attracts-25m-intel-foxconn/... Failure speaks for itself.. it is the recorded HISTORY of Witricity, whivch bothers you so much, you invent stories of agendas, never revealing you are the one with a very sinister agenda.... For the record: Simply state that you have no connection to Witricity! State it here as a legal record, and when someone sues Witricity for misinformation, maybe the next Intel or BMW, you will be called to testify...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Receptiondesk11 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

And Reyk: here is the current CEO promising back in 2014 all sorts of Witricity based appliances https://phys.org/news/2014-07-witricity-wireless-technology-mobile-devices.html ... he hawks the "theory" of wine glasses being shattered" ... as an analogy to their technology... Here is the Scientific American INDEPENDENT article which debunks that "theory"...https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-opera-singer-can-shatter-glass/ ... So it was an independent source calling the bluff of the CEO of Witricity.. who wrote the same bluff on Wikipedia page! Which you want to revert to...now tell me: Mr Gruzen, did not have the resources or brains to know through a simple Google search that this opera singer thing is plain folklore?... It was his responsibility to know that, not mine... then he should never be lying, knowingly or inknowingly.. please add these links too, to the Witricity page! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Receptiondesk11 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * LOL. As if I have any affiliation with WiTricity. And in fact I was working to reduce the spammyness of the article when you reverted me, so don't start with that. Be careful about invoking threats of legal action because Wikipedia has strict rules about that. Anyway, I have no idea what you are talking about- you're ranting- and this article is still in rubbish shape. I've tried a few times now to explain the difference between proper sourcing and improper synthesis, but you're still not getting it. Reyk YO! 03:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You made multiple nonsensical edits, clearly to try to improve on your "Senior Editor" tag.. which as Wkipedia explains is simply based on a count of the number of times you edited... not on the noteworthiness of any edit... that is your gig.. shame on you for exploiting the system of honor so obviously... and if you think you are a writer, ha ha... you have no idea how well-known I am... but you know that already don't you? Witricity knows there is no one with so much knowledge of the subject, that's why they send guys like you to pontificate on Wikipedia standards and laws.. in a vile attempt to hide the truth about the astounding history of failure!After failure....Witricity!

Draft article
Hello! On behalf of WiTricity, and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I have drafted a new Wikipedia article to replace the existing entry. The current article is, well, in terrible shape, as evidenced by the 5 tags at the top of the page. I have to agree with the warning banners: the current article uses inappropriate sources, is overly detailed, contains original research and synthesis, and should be entirely rewritten. So I've done just that! Please see User:Inkian Jason/WiTricity.

I've worked to draft an accurate, neutral, and up to date overview of the company and its technology, based on Wikipedia-appropriate sourcing. I've disclosed my conflict of interest at the top of this page, in compliance with Wikipedia's Terms of Use, and WiTricity has verified the accuracy of the proposed draft. I'd like to think the draft is a significant improvement over the current article, but I will let volunteer editors review and implement appropriately.

I see you've engaged in discussions above and worked hard to improve the article. But, you've also acknowledged the entry is still a mess. I'm hoping you might be willing to review User:Inkian Jason/WiTricity and copy markup over appropriately. I think you'll find the draft has an appropriate level of detail and no contentious claims. In fact, most of the claims can probably be verified by multiple reputable sources because I've taken a more conservative approach for this replacement entry. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Hi there. I'm hardly active these days so I don't really have the time or inclination to get involved with this. Best of luck with your rewrite. Reyk YO! 11:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem! Thanks for letting me know. I will seek help elsewhere. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks to User:Jordano53 for updating the article. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Updates
Hello again! On behalf of WiTricity, and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I'd like to propose a few updates to this Wikipedia entry.

I won't be editing the article directly because of my conflict of interest, so I'd appreciate if willing volunteers could review and implement on my behalf. I'd also like to make User:Jordano53 aware of this request per previous assistance above. Please let me know if I can answer any questions or address any concerns. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , other than #2, I don't see any of the requests adding encyclopedic value, just value for the company itself. I will leave the rest for another reviewer. Wish I could have been more of assistance. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing, CNMall41. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

History
1. First, I'd like to propose the following addition to the History section:
 * WiTricity received honorable mention in Fast Company 2021 Innovation by Design Awards, in the mobility category for "making smart cities a reality".


 * I never like to put industry awards into articles as they are promotional. Will leave for another reviewer to decide. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: agreed, this reads overly promotional to me, and "honorable mention" doesn't reach the level of importance required to get over it.  <span style="display:inline-block;transform:scale(-1,1)rotate(-30deg);">&#x2130; mi1y<sub style="color:#b766d2;">&#x29fc;T&middot;C&#x29fd; 11:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Siemens
2. Next, Siemens has recently acquired a minority stake in the company, so I propose the following addition to the History section: In June 2022, Siemens invested $25 million to acquire a minority stake in WiTricity.
 * DONE
 * Thanks for updating the article here. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Michigan Mobility Funding Platform
3. For the Uses subsection, I suggest the following addition based on secondary coverage:
 * In 2022, WiTricity received a $50,000 grant from the Michigan Mobility Funding Platform and the State of Michigan to install a wireless charging station at the Detroit Smart Parking Lab, operated by the American Center for Mobility.

✅ @Inkian Jason Cheers. Duke Gilmore (talk) 11:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Genesis GV60
4. I also propose the following update to the Uses subsection, which mentions other vehicles with WiTricity technology:
 * The 2022 Hyundai Genesis GV60 uses wireless charging hardware by WiTricity.

@Inkian Jason Cheers. Duke Gilmore (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Wireless Power Consortium
5. I propose adding mention of the company's Wireless Power Consortium membership:
 * WiTricity is a member of the Wireless Power Consortium.

Thanks for reviewing. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

✅ @Inkian Jason  Added to the History section, first paragraph. Cheers. Duke Gilmore (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiferion
Finally, I propose adding mention of the recent licensing agreement with Wiferion to the Uses section:
 * In 2022, WiTricity licensed its technology with Wiferion, which develops wireless charging systems for industrial applications such as automated guided vehicles, cobots, and trucks.

Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

✅ @Inkian Jason Cheers. Duke Gilmore (talk) 11:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)