Powermat wireless charging pad (good, or bad?) Powermat USA | Wireless charging mats and receivers for your iPhone, iPod, BlackBerry and other devices and Duracell | myGrid Cell Phone Starter Kit Is it just me, or doesn't Inductive recharging waste energy/power? ( [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_charging"]Inductive charging - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] ) So why would someone pay $100 for the pad, and have an higher power bill? because they are too lazy to plug in the charger..
Yeah, these have been around for a while. And yes, they are less efficient than plugging it in directly. However, lets look at some other common areas where we've eliminated wires for the sake of convenience. Who here has a wireless mouse? The simple act of charging the batteries in order to use it is less efficient than a wired mouse... but it's also a lot more convenient. Who uses a bluetooth headset, or the built in bluetooth in their car, with their phone? That's awfully convenient... but a huge waste of power, both in the headset batteries and from your phone having bluetooth constantly turned on. We don't say wireless mice or bluetooth connectivity on phones is a waste of power and stems from pure laziness. They're a trade off between cost and convenience that many, many people decide to make. This is really no different... just newer.
In normal operation, wireless mice and similar devices consume a fraction of the energy of wired devices, because they must do so to get reasonable battery life. It is not cost effective to drive the power consumption of the wired mice down to similar levels. If the wireless units consume more lifecycle energy, it is from the embodied energy of building the original battery, not from recharging or normal operation. For things that are already wireless, Powermat does increase total energy use, for the sake of convenience.
Have a link to back that up? It's more cost effective for them to utilize the same parts, design, and manufacturing processes in both their wired and wireless mice than to need to source different parts, go through the trouble of different designs, and have entirely different manufacturing lines for them. Yeah, some things are different (bluetooth/RF chip instead of one that works on the USB bus, for example), but a lot more is going to be the same (the same optical components, for example). Wireless communication (bluetooth or RF) is very power hungry. USB communication isn't nearly as power hungry.
I think the pads are just more crapgadgets for people who have to have the latest iPhone,etc. However, I'm surprised that people don't go OMFG EMF radiation!!!!!111!one I'd argue that Bluetooth headsets are in a different category, though. They allow you to greatly reduce the microwave radiation you expose your head to when using a cell phone, and thus do have a useful, constructive benefit.
I have an induction charger for my Wii remotes. If you use the condoms on the remotes an induction charger is a must if you dont what to keep removing the condom every time to change batteries.
However... you could, just as easily, use a wired headset. They've been around a lot longer than bluetooth ones, and would serve the same purpose.
If you simply unplug the mat when it isn't charging anything, you'll be greener than somebody who leaves a wired charger plugged in all the time.
The wireless headset allows you to place the phone further from your body. Also, wasn't there some evidence that the wire itself became something of an antenna a while back?
Lets say you increase the waste by 10 Watt hours on this recharger per charge and you charge twice a week. That is an increase of your power bill by about 2 cents. That's probably not going to deter too many buyers.
No. Nice try though. That depends on volume. Bluetooth is not power efficient for low data rate devices, and no radio is operated continuously. The decorative lighting on numerous wired mice far exceeds total power budget of wireless units. Same with caps-, function-, and Num-lock indicators on keyboards. Though an 'on' light on a USB dongle receiver isn't good either, especially when not shared by multiple wireless units. Wireless devices require aggressive power control when inactive, while wired units tend to remain in a higher power state for instant response when being returned to active use.
Decorative lighting? Seriously? Maybe I've been living in the stone age here, but I've never bought a mouse (wired or wireless) with decorative lighting on it. So please, lets try to compare apples to apples here... Assume we're talking about functionally (and decoratively!) equivalent mice. You can even keep it to the same product families (like Logitech's LX3 and LX6... essentially the same mouse, only one is wired and the other wireless). As for instant response... my wireless mouse at home responds instantly - just bumping the table when i sit down is often enough to wake my computer up. Both the wireless and wired mice I use regularly (with different computers) act exactly the same... When not being actively used, they both go into a low power state, blinking the optical tracking light periodically. Also... you mentioned the dongle, something I had completely forgotten to include in my estimates of power consumption. How power hungry do you think that dongle is, when it does nothing but sit there broadcasting over bluetooth or RF? Those devices are essentially always on, and always searching for new devices to connect to. They may have low power states, but i highly doubt it's any more low power than a wired mouse.
