| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<usg83q$1v90t$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone Subject: Re: CarPlay recommendation? Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 15:48:09 -0800 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 253 Message-ID: <usg83q$1v90t$1@dont-email.me> References: <urkuni$392jn$1@dont-email.me> <%qsDN.61886$mMj7.61517@fx01.iad> <urlns1$3eltr$1@dont-email.me> <wouDN.606619$p%Mb.257853@fx15.iad> <urm6tq$3h77n$1@dont-email.me> <16GDN.102979$Sf59.21402@fx48.iad> <uro7nl$33r3$1@dont-email.me> <mPPDN.60871$9cLc.33396@fx02.iad> <us044i$22mie$1@dont-email.me> <SYFFN.343825$yEgf.190899@fx09.iad> <us7fnc$3r8km$1@dont-email.me> <IkKFN.358553$q3F7.146223@fx45.iad> <us8ckl$13s3$2@dont-email.me> <zf5GN.66024$9cLc.45049@fx02.iad> <usaq5r$l61q$1@dont-email.me> <nprGN.405896$Ama9.217702@fx12.iad> <usdovu$1b9ra$1@dont-email.me> <1VLGN.355777$yEgf.243436@fx09.iad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 23:48:10 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4efdfb41437427bbc8a67970ad7760cf"; logging-data="2073629"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+xN84H5Ye7+N/5jucHd8CB3Py4GAVr46A=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:ofZPanzWNx4l+cHgCe209dFM8co= In-Reply-To: <1VLGN.355777$yEgf.243436@fx09.iad> Content-Language: en-CA Bytes: 10645 On 2024-03-08 14:01, Alan Browne wrote: > On 2024-03-07 20:17, Alan wrote: >> On 2024-03-07 14:42, Alan Browne wrote: >>> On 2024-03-06 17:19, Alan wrote: >>>> On 2024-03-06 13:30, Alan Browne wrote: >>>>> On 2024-03-05 19:16, Alan wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-03-05 11:25, Alan Browne wrote: >>>>>>> On 2024-03-05 11:02, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-03-05 06:26, Alan Browne wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-02 16:02, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-28 16:01, Alan Browne wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-28 16:14, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-28 04:58, Alan Browne wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.02.24 00:39, Alan Browne wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wireless charging is 20 - 25% less efficient than wired. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Multiply that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by a billion cars... and that's a lot of emissions the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet does not need. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is total bullshit and out of any proportion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Combustion engines >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have an efficiency of 30 to 40% max. Electric motors are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> above 90%. That >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is where the potential really lies. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Since the efficiency of the car cannot be controlled by the >>>>>>>>>>>>> choice of a phone charging cable, it is not in >>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration for the choice of wired v. wireless charging. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, if charging one's phone in the car you're looking at >>>>>>>>>>>>> how much energy is delivered to the phone. Period. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If wired, there is 0 (negligible) loss from the car to the >>>>>>>>>>>>> phone. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If wireless, there is about 20 - 25% loss. (Ever touch a >>>>>>>>>>>>> wireless charger pad? All that heat is loss). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Multiply by the number of phones in cars. That is emissions. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If your EV is charged with emissions producing sources >>>>>>>>>>>>> (natural gas, coal, etc.), then it's actually worse, as >>>>>>>>>>>>> charging the EV and extracting the EV's power from the >>>>>>>>>>>>> battery is also a lossy prospect. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If your EV is charged from renewables (like here: near 100% >>>>>>>>>>>>> hydro power), then it's still better to avoid losses so the >>>>>>>>>>>>> utility can export that power to neighbours and offset >>>>>>>>>>>>> their fossil fuel use (we export power to the US and >>>>>>>>>>>>> provinces that would otherwise use more fossil fuel). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Summary: wireless charging, no matter where or how, wastes >>>>>>>>>>>>> energy and often increases emissions as a result. Should >>>>>>>>>>>>> only be used where safety or corrosion is an issue. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ...the... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ...math. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sure - based on my own testing in 2021. Anker pad v. Apple >>>>>>>>>>> 12W charger+wire. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And what was your testing method? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> iPhone 11 from 20% to 74% charge: 34225 joules (W-s) using >>>>>>>>>>> charger and wire >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> iPhone 11 from 24% to 77% charge: 41626 joules (w-s) using >>>>>>>>>>> same Anker wireless charger and phone carefully centred on >>>>>>>>>>> the charger (better than ±1mm in X and Y). Data below. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> How did you measure the energy? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> THAT IS: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 634 joules per percent of change (average) wired. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> v. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 785 joules / percent of change (average) wireless (without a >>>>>>>>>>> case - which would have made it worse). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So it took 23% more energy to charge the battery over the >>>>>>>>>>> easiest range of about 20 - 75%. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And how do you know it wasn't the Anker charger that was >>>>>>>>>> responsible for much of that difference? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Answer those questions... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ...and then we'll go on. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sorry, you don't get an easy out on that. Wireless charging is >>>>>>>>> not a mystery - esp. as the Anker charger and iPhone both >>>>>>>>> comply to the same standard. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I asked simple questions and you demur. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Got it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, you're just looking to assail it to justify your cause. >>>>>>> Wireless charging is not a mystery. But do go out and buy some >>>>>>> other brand and make the measurements as you like. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Align two coils well and send an alternating current. In both >>>>>>>>> cases I took pains to align things mechanically as close as >>>>>>>>> possible (better than 1mm in x and y). An in car charger can >>>>>>>>> only do as well (or minusculely better) if it uses a Magsafe >>>>>>>>> style charger (that magnetically centres the phone to the >>>>>>>>> charger). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Indeed I helped the wireless case by removing the case from the >>>>>>>>> phone. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You're welcome to try a different device and put up your >>>>>>>>> results, of course. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You make a claim about efficiency... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ...but won't answer questions about how you measured it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't recall you asking. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Got it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You've got nothing. Which is par for you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Used a Kill-a-Watt widget to measure the AC current before the >>>>>>> Apple adaptor. These adaptors are about 90-95% efficient (so you >>>>>>> can discount that 5-10% if you like since nonesuch is in the car >>>>>>> scenario). The K-a-W is about 1% accurate (either way). >>>>>> >>>>>> So you used two different chargers... ...or two different >>>>>> companies' connectors (USB for wired and wireless charging from >>>>>> Anker)... >>>>> >>>>> Not the lossy part, but nice (bad) try. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ...and you just assumed that Anker's pad couldn't be of a >>>>>> different level of efficiency? >>>>> >>>>> Not going to be much - but as I said: prove it. >>>> >>>> You have to prove it, Sunshine. >>>> >>>> They're your claims. >>> >>> Sure enough. And very reasonable claims. I'm just not going to >>> shell out cash to buy 3 or 4 different ones to satisfy you. >> >> So you admit you can't prove that you weren't measuring the relative >> efficiency of two different chargers. >> >> Got it. > > If you think there will be a large difference between several different > wireless chargers, then please do go ahead and make the measurements. So you insist that tiny proportions matter... ....but only when you want them to? ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========