Math, since it has a 10 watt minimum power draw, that would mean it would use 7.5 kilowatts per month just to have it turned on. Now at least where I live, that’s $1.11 extra.
Math remembers to carry the units for kilowatt hours.
That said, I’d pay $1.11/mo just to never have to deal with a cable on my desk again.
If it’s on solar / battery, then meh. 10 watts is pretty modest.
I think he releases most of them if you wanna make it yourselve
Hell yeah, some DIY Perks on lemmy.
Great quality video as always, even though the setup might be cumbersome to add peripherals in the long term.
But still interesting !
Nice, enjoy your wireless nightmare.
Once I had a wireless Corsair Keyboard which sometimes received input from someone else’s keyboard (it typed entire sentences on my PC). Corsair said this was impossible, yet somehow words appeared on my screen while only my keyboard was linked. A neighbor logged in to something using his email address and password and it appeared into my word document. Like, wtf!
So I love my wires. I have no wifi, no wireless devices (except for my phone and game controllers) and I have no interference issues with anything (and I have a music studio in my living room with loads of synths).
Just do some proper cable management. It’s really fun to do and gives a clean look.
Wireless peripherals and any wireless data transfer protocols are completely irrelevant to the content of this video, which is centred around wireless power transfer.
Also wireless peripherals are pretty great, not sure what you’re on about.
Wireless mouse (with low latency) is one of the best hardware purchases I’ve ever made. Wireless speakers and screen seems a bit unnecessary though but damn cool that he made it all work
Corsair
I believe I found the problem.
Do you remember the exact model? I’m interested in looking into it
Took some digging in my mailbox, but I found it: the Corsair K57 RGB wireless qwerty keyboard.
Thank you so much :D
Wireless power sounds like and RFI nightmare. It will never match the efficiency of a cable either.
This method uses magnetic resonant coupling (vs inductive which is how wireless charging works on your phone). The difference is the transmitter and receiver are both tuned LC circuits that operate at their resonant frequency, which is why this works over the impressive range shown in the video. It would have efficiencies around 80% mark based on what I could find. But yeah for RFI, this would definitely be worse than something like normal Qi charging, which operates in the 100s of KHz, while this operates in the MHz. But I think the manufacturers page says this is FCC certified? So might be not too bad.
FCC emission requirements are very lax below 30MHz, so something can pass FCC part 15 yet still jam the entire HF band.
My speakers at home hum due to my Logitech Powerplay Matt, even with a ground loop isolator. It sucks. I was kinda surprised that it wasn’t an issue with this setup.
Efficiency and outright performance isn’t always a priority.
A lan cable outperforms a wireless Internet connection in every way, yet most people just use WiFi
Sure, but I’m not paying for every byte sent overy network, while I am paying for every kWh I use.
That’s all beside the point though, this is just a fun diy project so who cares really.
I could argue that WiFi uses more power than LAN cables, so you’re paying to use WiFi
The important thing is if it’s worth the price, paying 5$ extra per month in power might be worth it for a LOT of people
I doubt anyone is under the impression that it is going to be as efficient as direct power. At least no one paying attention.
Edit: The downvotes lead me to believe a not insignificant number of people don’t understand how energy works.
The downvotes lead me to believe a not insignificant number of people don’t understand how energy works.
The number of people electrocuting themselves doing stupid stuff leads me to believe this, but these downvotes help solidify that lol
Downvotes be damned: you’re right, imo. A wire just has less to worry about, and I’m sure most people would think the same. Most people.
You’re also skipping two energy conversions by keeping it in the wire
I was actually surprised the Bluetooth keyboard and mouse still worked.
Cool… I’ll stick with my wires that work every time and don’t have latency, batteries, and connection problems thanks.
Batteries and latency? Try watching the video before typing out such ignorant and snide remarks
Yet another person commenting without having watched the video.
This better be electroboom
It’s not - this dude doesn’t zap himself even once.
It’s a good video though, showing how he integrated everything.
Whoa this was pretty cool.
I’ve seen his videos over the course of a couple of years. His skills have developed greatly over the years. One of his videos he created 3d printed speakers that seemed pretty good. Would love to try make them some day.
Yeah I’d like to see how he designs the 3d models
What I’d like to know here is if this setup is continuously drawing maximum power or if the power usage only goes up when a device is within the magnetic grid.
The power draw will go up when a device is drawing power from it, but there will be base/idle draw of course as well.
it does say on the site for the device that it draws 100W, but in the video he says that there is a 10W minimum draw, so i’m assuming it goes up from there
And what their power efficiency is. Last time I checked they were at 60% but I’m wildly outdated on these things.
Can I buy this yet
No.
A developer kit is available, but only for R&D teams: https://www.etherdyne.net/evalkit
Its r&d kits only but send em an email and they will probably sell u one
Would seem offly click baity of them to say “it’s finally here” if you couldn’t…
I think you mean “awfully” click bait, hah.
Thasjuss likyor up inyun, man.
LTT be like…
We coulda had an entirely wireless energy grid back in Tesla’s day if it wasn’t for capitalists who didn’t see a way to profit from it.
it also would have very publically been a huge failure. Tesla tended to ignore the science when he didn’t like it. It could not have possibly worked
Pretty sure I saw a movie where ol’ Nick Tesla cloned Wolverine a bunch of times to fight Batman. If he was able to make clones back in the day I’m sure he could figure out a power grid issue.
That wasn’t the real Tesla, though. It was actually the Goblin King.
Damnit! We’ve been fooled again by the Goblin King and his tight pants!
-
+ Wireless
-
- limited range
-
- horribly inefficient, increasing with distance
So, there.
tesla’s idea was global wireless power. no idea what his efficiency numbers were though.
Are you somehow under the impression that just because it is “global” there are no transmitters and receivers and distance does not matter?
no. i don’t pretend to even begin to understand how the prototype at wardenclyffe was supposed to work. i do remember that it supposedly used the atmosphere as a transmission line, but whether that meant bouncing the signal off of it (meaning it was radio based) or somehow charging it (meaning it was static based) i couldn’t tell you.
I mean you absolutely can communicate from Australia to USA with nothing but an old rusty bed frame and 5 watts of power. So there’s that. But not much more to do with that bit of non-ionising power.
deleted by creator
-
We, today, understand how to power something wirelessly. The problem is it’s horribly inefficient.
No, they saw a way of profiting from it not happening…
Why is this a video and not an article? Makes me think it’s just bullshit
It’s a YouTube channel that does high quality DIY projects, and explains the reasons behind the choices made.
Why would this be an article as opposed to, y’know, a video? His job is to make YouTube videos.
I don’t understand this obsession some on Lemmy have with shitting on hard-working creative types when they make something in video form rather than creating a blog and publishing articles.
I will quote my other reply:
What their job is has nothing to do with my statement. If the only media reporting about a new technology is a video then that thing is significantly more likely to be bullshit
Why would a YouTube channel make an article instead of, you know, making a video, which is their job?
What their job is has nothing to do with my statement. If the only media reporting about a new technology is a video then that thing is significantly more likely to be bullshit
He goes into the downsides of the technology, which you would’ve known if you had watched it. He’s also a very well known, and reputable channel, so I don’t see any reason to not trust him.
If you want more than just a video about an emerging tech then why don’t you provide an article on it, instead of expecting it from OP, who probably just wanted to post a cool tech video.
What he goes into has nothing to do with anything. You don’t seem to understand my comment, it’s very possible that i worded it poorly, so I’ll reiterate:
If the only media reporting about a new technology is a video then that thing is significantly more likely to be bullshit
Not the point. The point is that if this is an attempt at reporting cool new tech usable by the masses, then it should be posted as written coverage. YouTube videos can easily be perceived as content churn rather than reputable sources of information.
But if that wasn’t the point of the post by OP, we’re all good here.
I think we’re all on the same side, looking at it from all angles. 🤷♂️
it’s not a news video.
Yeah, not the point, like the other person said.
Nobody said it was, and is irrelevant. I will quote my other reply to explain the intended point:
If the only media reporting about a new technology is a video then that thing is significantly more likely to be bullshit
It’s not reporting on a technology. DIYPerks is a channel about cool projects he does. He shows the build process and explains everything and usually provides plans to follow along
i.e. he is reporting about a technology. Again, if the only media reporting about a new technology is a video then that thing is significantly more likely to be bullshit
He is not reporting. What’s there not to get? It’s not a news outlet. He just says “I found this neat thing and will now build some insane project around it”. I’m sure if you actually went to look, you would find other sources that talk about the technology in detail and probably did so before he made his video
That’s literally what reporting means. You don’t have to be a news outlet to do a report.
Be as pedantic as you want, but “reporting” is coloquially used to describe news. This is more akin to a blog
I hoped people on Lemmy would be less obtuse than Reddit but oh well
Yes, you’re really the one here contributing to the topical discussion 🙄
Don’t worry, you have at least one person who understands what you mean. I definitely agree. 👍 If there’s no written coverage, the significance seems low/only for clout.
Yes, because it’s a maker on YouTube showing off a project he did? It’s a clickbaity title sure, but this isn’t a research paper showcasing a new technology. He’s using a dev kit to make something he thinks is cool. Fail to see the issue.
because it’s a maker on YouTube showing off a project he did?
No.
Fail to see the issue.
We’re not getting through properly—there is no issue. It’s all in the hypothetical purpose of the post by OP.
If this was a way to announce a widely available thing, it would be more credible as an article than a YouTube video. That’s all.
But this is fine as it is. I don’t think that was the purpose of the video or post. I think it was just a fun video. 👍
Thanks, it’s weird how some people are reacting to this comment. Is this their first day on the Internet? I’m not saying this device IS bullshit, I’m saying from a long history of experience that if the only 3rd party media you can find about a device is a video then that device is significantly more likely to be bullshit. It’s simple and clearly true.
Yes. People are still down voting us. I think it’s hard to explain this concept or something. We’re not getting through. Oh well.
Did you even watch the video? It’s a well-produced piece of content from a pretty well-known individual
It’s an interesting video, you can see the sizes and form factor of the recievers this way much better. You can still skip the parts you are not interested in.
The quick start guide from the link in the description if you just want to read numbers: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/669856991b982007b8a6a788/t/67af70bd5fc318472e2f9f1a/1739550910959/Evaluation+Kit+-+Quick+Start+Guide.pdf
Because it is bullshit lol.
Wireless efficiency is around 70%-75% max with something like that; EMF and RMF issues abound in any configuration without shielding, which this one has none of. I am surprised anything works.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m not willing to pay a 30% higher electrical bill for something like this.
It wouldn’t be a 30% higher electrical bill overall. It would be 30% more for whatever power you’re using for this specific device, which, if it’s ordinarily 10W while in sleep and an average 100W while in use, and you use it 50 hours per week, or 215 hours per month, that’s a baseline power usage of 21500 watt hours in use and 5050 watt hours from idle/sleep/suspend. Or a total of 26550 watt hours, or 26.5 kWh. At 20 cents per kWh, you’re talking about $5.30 per month in electricity for the computer. A 30% increase would be an extra $1.60 per month.
I’d only consider it if I had the first world problem of overly efficient solar panels.
