| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<uso2cf$3sb3d$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: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:59:27 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 283 Message-ID: <uso2cf$3sb3d$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> <usg83q$1v90t$1@dont-email.me> <pYZGN.118353$m4d.28055@fx43.iad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 22:59:27 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f2ae12452000c11022d4a43390c5a4cc"; logging-data="4074605"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+1suTFEN3/RAVM9rAQRi5IS1KjVnSL0Xs=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:LijuY1mJtPTWx+I1iNqIZQ14q0o= Content-Language: en-CA In-Reply-To: <pYZGN.118353$m4d.28055@fx43.iad> Bytes: 11988 On 2024-03-09 06:00, Alan Browne wrote: > On 2024-03-08 18:48, Alan wrote: >> 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========