True Wireless Power is FINALLY here (building a TRULY wire-free desk setup) (www.youtube.com)
from Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social to technology@lemmy.world on 03 Jun 14:23
https://piefed.social/post/815421

#diy #technology #wireless

threaded - newest

bizzle@lemmy.world on 03 Jun 15:30 next collapse

Can I buy this yet

infeeeee@lemm.ee on 03 Jun 15:48 next collapse

No.

A developer kit is available, but only for R&D teams: www.etherdyne.net/evalkit

Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works on 03 Jun 16:49 next collapse

Would seem offly click baity of them to say “it’s finally here” if you couldn’t…

rigatti@lemmy.world on 03 Jun 17:12 next collapse

I think you mean “awfully” click bait, hah.

HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world on 05 Jun 14:20 collapse

Thasjuss likyor up inyun, man.

DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works on 03 Jun 17:56 collapse

LTT be like…

muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee on 03 Jun 17:43 collapse

Its r&d kits only but send em an email and they will probably sell u one

sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 03 Jun 15:55 next collapse

This better be electroboom

davidgro@lemmy.world on 03 Jun 18:07 collapse

It’s not - this dude doesn’t zap himself even once.

It’s a good video though, showing how he integrated everything.

sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 03 Jun 21:02 collapse

Whoa this was pretty cool.

Defectus@lemmy.world on 04 Jun 14:48 collapse

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.

sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 04 Jun 22:56 collapse

Yeah I’d like to see how he designs the 3d models

Beacon@fedia.io on 03 Jun 16:11 next collapse

Why is this a video and not an article? Makes me think it's just bullshit

infeeeee@lemm.ee on 03 Jun 16:26 next collapse

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: …squarespace.com/…/Evaluation+Kit+-+Quick+Start+G…

echodot@feddit.uk on 03 Jun 22:52 next collapse

Did you even watch the video? It’s a well-produced piece of content from a pretty well-known individual

shadowedcross@sh.itjust.works on 03 Jun 23:56 next collapse

Why would a YouTube channel make an article instead of, you know, making a video, which is their job?

Beacon@fedia.io on 04 Jun 00:42 collapse

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

MaggiWuerze@feddit.org on 04 Jun 07:38 next collapse

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

Beacon@fedia.io on 04 Jun 15:19 collapse

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

CybranM@feddit.nu on 05 Jun 02:43 next collapse

I hoped people on Lemmy would be less obtuse than Reddit but oh well

Beacon@fedia.io on 05 Jun 02:49 collapse

Yes, you're really the one here contributing to the topical discussion 🙄

MaggiWuerze@feddit.org on 05 Jun 13:46 collapse

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

Beacon@fedia.io on 05 Jun 13:54 collapse

That's literally what reporting means. You don't have to be a news outlet to do a report.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reporting

MaggiWuerze@feddit.org on 05 Jun 14:07 collapse

Be as pedantic as you want, but “reporting” is coloquially used to describe news. This is more akin to a blog

Beacon@fedia.io on 05 Jun 14:09 collapse

I'm not being pedantic, you just don't know what the word means.

shadowedcross@sh.itjust.works on 04 Jun 09:24 next collapse

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.

victorz@lemmy.world on 04 Jun 10:55 next collapse

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. 🤷‍♂️

lime@feddit.nu on 04 Jun 11:07 collapse

it’s not a news video.

Beacon@fedia.io on 04 Jun 15:31 next collapse

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

victorz@lemmy.world on 05 Jun 06:42 collapse

Yeah, not the point, like the other person said.

Beacon@fedia.io on 04 Jun 15:26 collapse

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

victorz@lemmy.world on 04 Jun 10:50 collapse

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.

sucoiri@lemmy.world on 04 Jun 12:10 next collapse

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.

victorz@lemmy.world on 05 Jun 06:35 collapse

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. 👍

Beacon@fedia.io on 04 Jun 15:22 collapse

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.

victorz@lemmy.world on 05 Jun 06:32 collapse

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.

comador@lemmy.world on 04 Jun 02:39 next collapse

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.

Lemminary@lemmy.world on 04 Jun 08:35 next collapse

I’d only consider it if I had the first world problem of overly efficient solar panels.

exasperation@lemm.ee on 04 Jun 13:07 collapse

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.

TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world on 04 Jun 11:44 collapse

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.

Beacon@fedia.io on 04 Jun 15:17 collapse

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

TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world on 06 Jun 12:17 collapse

It’s not new technology you numpty.

It’s not news. It’s not a scientific paper. Wireless energy transfer isn’t “bullshit”, it’s been an understood aspect of physics for a long time.

Since you seem unable to grasp the concept, I’ll put it in bold and italics:

This is a video of a guy doing a DIY project where he wanted to make his setup as wireless as possible. In the video he also goes over his thoughts and design considerations, and explains how the tech works for people who don’t already know.

It is not new technology.

It is not pseudoscience.

It is a guy showing off his bespoke PC setup.

It does not need an article or a blog post. He can post about it in any form he wants.

Personally, I think showcasing this kind of thing in a video is much better than a wall of text. I want to see the process, the finished product, the tools used and how he used them.

uninvitedguest@lemmy.ca on 03 Jun 20:34 next collapse

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.

Lemminary@lemmy.world on 04 Jun 08:33 next collapse

And what their power efficiency is. Last time I checked they were at 60% but I’m wildly outdated on these things.

lime@feddit.nu on 04 Jun 11:05 next collapse

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

MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 04 Jun 18:07 collapse

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.

cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de on 03 Jun 20:39 next collapse

Wireless power sounds like and RFI nightmare. It will never match the efficiency of a cable either.

KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 03 Jun 21:38 next collapse

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.

Somojojojo@sh.itjust.works on 04 Jun 03:04 next collapse

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.

MaggiWuerze@feddit.org on 04 Jun 07:36 collapse

You’re also skipping two energy conversions by keeping it in the wire

01189998819991197253@infosec.pub on 05 Jun 01:40 collapse

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

echodot@feddit.uk on 03 Jun 22:50 next collapse

I was actually surprised the Bluetooth keyboard and mouse still worked.

Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social on 04 Jun 08:19 next collapse

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

Ghoelian@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 05 Jun 05:58 collapse

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.

Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social on 05 Jun 08:42 collapse

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

Joelk111@lemmy.world on 04 Jun 23:43 next collapse

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.

scarilog@lemmy.world on 05 Jun 01:02 collapse

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.

cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de on 05 Jun 02:55 collapse

FCC emission requirements are very lax below 30MHz, so something can pass FCC part 15 yet still jam the entire HF band.

Kolanaki@pawb.social on 03 Jun 23:59 next collapse

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.

vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de on 04 Jun 07:46 next collapse

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

allidoislietomyself@lemmy.world on 04 Jun 08:14 collapse

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.

exasperation@lemm.ee on 04 Jun 13:00 collapse

That wasn’t the real Tesla, though. It was actually the Goblin King.

allidoislietomyself@lemmy.world on 04 Jun 15:44 collapse

Damnit! We’ve been fooled again by the Goblin King and his tight pants!

Tattorack@lemmy.world on 04 Jun 08:42 next collapse

We, today, understand how to power something wirelessly. The problem is it’s horribly inefficient.

KeenFlame@feddit.nu on 04 Jun 08:51 next collapse

No, they saw a way of profiting from it not happening…

MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip on 04 Jun 10:06 collapse

  • + Wireless

  • - limited range

  • - horribly inefficient, increasing with distance

So, there.

lime@feddit.nu on 04 Jun 11:06 collapse

tesla’s idea was global wireless power. no idea what his efficiency numbers were though.

taladar@sh.itjust.works on 04 Jun 11:57 next collapse

Are you somehow under the impression that just because it is “global” there are no transmitters and receivers and distance does not matter?

lime@feddit.nu on 04 Jun 12:09 collapse

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.

[deleted] on 04 Jun 14:55 next collapse

.

MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip on 04 Jun 14:55 collapse

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.

Zoot@reddthat.com on 04 Jun 08:10 next collapse

<img alt="Buy wireless items, open it up, wires inside. Cat staring at OP as in a “What is this shit” kinda way" src="https://reddthat.com/pictrs/image/38fe96e5-e3ff-42b0-9cb1-5a5694a00d7f.jpeg">

LordWiggle@lemmy.world on 04 Jun 12:24 next collapse

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.

seliaste@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 04 Jun 15:17 next collapse

Do you remember the exact model? I’m interested in looking into it

LordWiggle@lemmy.world on 04 Jun 15:45 collapse

Took some digging in my mailbox, but I found it: the Corsair K57 RGB wireless qwerty keyboard.

seliaste@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 04 Jun 16:22 collapse

Thank you so much :D

BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world on 04 Jun 16:58 next collapse

Corsair

I believe I found the problem.

scarilog@lemmy.world on 05 Jun 00:55 collapse

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.

CybranM@feddit.nu on 05 Jun 02:37 collapse

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

Burn1ngBull3t@lemmy.world on 04 Jun 16:30 next collapse

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 !

chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world on 05 Jun 00:18 next collapse

Cool… I’ll stick with my wires that work every time and don’t have latency, batteries, and connection problems thanks.

scarilog@lemmy.world on 05 Jun 00:56 next collapse

Yet another person commenting without having watched the video.

CybranM@feddit.nu on 05 Jun 02:39 collapse

Batteries and latency? Try watching the video before typing out such ignorant and snide remarks

shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip on 05 Jun 00:42 next collapse

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.

RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works on 05 Jun 04:55 collapse

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.

BagOfHeavyStones@piefed.social on 05 Jun 05:03 collapse

If it's on solar / battery, then meh. 10 watts is pretty modest.

Defectus@lemmy.world on 05 Jun 04:15 collapse

I think he releases most of them if you wanna make it yourselve