Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from personal
experience? Would prefer models that also work with AndroidAuto.
Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from personal
experience? Would prefer models that also work with AndroidAuto.
On 2024-02-27 10:22, Cameo wrote:
Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from personal
experience? Would prefer models that also work with AndroidAuto.
Use a USB cable and reduce your fuel consumption and emissions.
Cameo <cameo@unreal.invalid> wrote:
Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from personal
experience? Would prefer models that also work with AndroidAuto.
Try asking in http://reddit.com/r/carplay since there lots of users.
On 2/27/2024 10:25 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-27 10:22, Cameo wrote:
Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from personal
experience? Would prefer models that also work with AndroidAuto.
Use a USB cable and reduce your fuel consumption and emissions.
That's what I have been using, but find it inconvenient.
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.
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.
On 2024-02-27 17:31, Cameo wrote:
On 2/27/2024 10:25 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-27 10:22, Cameo wrote:
Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from personal
experience? Would prefer models that also work with AndroidAuto.
Use a USB cable and reduce your fuel consumption and emissions.
That's what I have been using, but find it inconvenient.
I find climate change inconvenient.
Today I had to run some errands. Being conscientious I 'gang' a bunch
of errands together to save fuel (and emissions). Each time I got out
of the car, brought my phone. Got back in the car, plugged in the phone.
Not very inconvenient.
One thing that helps: I bought a pretty short cable for the car. Just enough to go from the centre console storage USB port to the position
where I have a phone holder (that is it runs forward to the phone). This means the cable doesn't wander off far when I unplug it. This makes it
more convenient.
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.
I don't believe in human-caused climate change in the first place. So
that's that.
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> 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. >>
< eye roll >
On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
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.
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.
On 2/28/2024 12:39 AM, 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.
Good for you. Your argument is not a winner with me because, you see, I
don't believe in human-caused climate change in the first place. So
that's that.
Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
Am 28.02.24 um 13:58 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
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.
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.
*ROTFLSTC*. Tell that my new electric car. The range is halfed when I
put my phones in the wireless charging bay.
That’s what you get for investing in inconvenient and unproven technology.
On 2/27/2024 4:06 PM, badgolferman wrote:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
<snip>
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.
< eye roll >
While wireless charging does indeed use slightly more power than wired charging, on the whole, wireless charging has less impact on the climate
than wired charging. You have to look at the big picture.
Am 28.02.24 um 13:58 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
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.
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.
*ROTFLSTC*. Tell that my new electric car. The range is halfed when I
put my phones in the wireless charging bay.
On 2/28/2024 9:46 AM, badgolferman wrote:
Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
Am 28.02.24 um 13:58 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
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.
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.
*ROTFLSTC*. Tell that my new electric car. The range is halfed when I
put my phones in the wireless charging bay.
That’s what you get for investing in inconvenient and unproven
technology.
LOL. That's why Apple just canceled their electric car program
Seriously though, when you take into account all the factors of wired
versus wireless charging, the tiny amount of extra power needed to
charge them pales in comparison with all the environmental advantages.
That's why I created the document, to help people like Alan Browne
Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from personal
experience? Would prefer models that also work with AndroidAuto.
On 2024-02-28 12:40, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
Am 28.02.24 um 13:58 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
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.
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.
*ROTFLSTC*. Tell that my new electric car. The range is halfed when I
put my phones in the wireless charging bay.
While you being ill-informed on technical issues
If your house (or even car) has additional solar, then you're forgiven.
Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
Am 28.02.24 um 13:58 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
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.
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.
*ROTFLSTC*. Tell that my new electric car. The range is halfed when I
put my phones in the wireless charging bay.
That’s what you get for investing in inconvenient and unproven technology.
On 2024-02-27 17:31, Cameo wrote:
On 2/27/2024 10:25 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-27 10:22, Cameo wrote:
Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from personal
experience? Would prefer models that also work with AndroidAuto.
Use a USB cable and reduce your fuel consumption and emissions.
That's what I have been using, but find it inconvenient.
I find climate change inconvenient.
Today I had to run some errands. Being conscientious I 'gang' a bunch
of errands together to save fuel (and emissions). Each time I got out
of the car, brought my phone. Got back in the car, plugged in the phone.
Not very inconvenient.
One thing that helps: I bought a pretty short cable for the car. Just enough to go from the centre console storage USB port to the position
where I have a phone holder (that is it runs forward to the phone). This means the cable doesn't wander off far when I unplug it. This makes it
more convenient.
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.
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.
Am 28.02.24 um 19:45 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2024-02-28 12:40, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
Am 28.02.24 um 13:58 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
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.
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.
*ROTFLSTC*. Tell that my new electric car. The range is halfed when I
put my phones in the wireless charging bay.
While you being ill-informed on technical issues
*LOL*. Give the bullshit you produce again in this thread you understand nothing.
Electricity in Switzerland is 98% renewable. With the exception of Norway
no other industrialised country comes even close.
On 2024-02-28 12:40, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
Am 28.02.24 um 13:58 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
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.
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.
*ROTFLSTC*. Tell that my new electric car. The range is halfed when I
put my phones in the wireless charging bay.
While you being ill-informed on technical issues (ionizing radiation
from cell phones comes to mind, but there are many more), when you
wirelessly charge your phone in the car it takes more from your car's
battery than wired would; in turn needs to be replaced by your utility. Switzerland at least has some hydro and nuclear (though not enough).
If your house (or even car) has additional solar, then you're forgiven.
Am 28.02.24 um 19:45 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2024-02-28 12:40, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
Am 28.02.24 um 13:58 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
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.
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.
*ROTFLSTC*. Tell that my new electric car. The range is halfed when I
put my phones in the wireless charging bay.
While you being ill-informed on technical issues
*LOL*. Give the bullshit you produce again in this thread you understand nothing.
Electricity in Switzerland is 98% renewable. With the exception of
Norway no other industrialised country comes even close.
If your house (or even car) has additional solar, then you're forgiven.
Chatterbox!
The world does not need solar. The world needs non-volatile and reliable
base band electricity which can be best produced CO2-free with nuclear
power plants or hydro plants.
On 2024-02-27 15:39, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-27 17:31, Cameo wrote:
On 2/27/2024 10:25 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-27 10:22, Cameo wrote:
Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from personal
experience? Would prefer models that also work with AndroidAuto.
Use a USB cable and reduce your fuel consumption and emissions.
That's what I have been using, but find it inconvenient.
I find climate change inconvenient.
Today I had to run some errands. Being conscientious I 'gang' a bunch
of errands together to save fuel (and emissions). Each time I got out
of the car, brought my phone. Got back in the car, plugged in the phone. >>
Not very inconvenient.
One thing that helps: I bought a pretty short cable for the car. Just
enough to go from the centre console storage USB port to the position
where I have a phone holder (that is it runs forward to the phone).
This means the cable doesn't wander off far when I unplug it. This
makes it more convenient.
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.
I suggest you demonstrate the math of the situation.
Go ahead and assume that a billion phones are being wirelessly charged
for 12 hours a day, every day in cars.
On 2/27/2024 7:22 AM, Cameo wrote:
Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from personal
experience? Would prefer models that also work with AndroidAuto.
Seems like there are not a lot of choices that support both Android Auto
and Apple CarPlay, and they aren't inexpensive, i.e. <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CKMMS19S>. Not a lot of reviews on any of
the dual-support units.
It's really nice to just plop your phone onto a MagSafe charger/phone
holder in the car and then connect wirelessly to your vehicle's head unit.
OTOH, it's not that much trouble to plug in a USB-C cable to the phone
when you need the full-functionality of Android Auto or Apple CarPlay,
and if you're not using wireless charging you have to plug in a cable
anyway.
Most of the time I'm listening to music or audiobooks while driving,
it's only on long trips where I care that much about displaying maps on
the head unit's screen. The after-market head unit I have in my SUV
supports wired Android Auto and wired Apple CarPlay and I haven't bought
a wireless adapter yet.
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.
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.
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.
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%.
So, if one does that 200 times per year (going to work), that comes to:
151 joules * 200 days * 1B people = 30.2E12 joules.
or 8.39 GWh lost to heat in wireless charging.
Gas engines are (at cruise) about 30% efficient, so now we're at:
28 GWh worth of gasoline ...
Until you consider the efficiency of the alternator, put at 70 to 80% by various sources. I'll use 75%:
=37.3 GWh worth of gasoline. @ 12.78 kWh/Kg of gasoline...
=2,917,000 Kg of gasoline used (for no good reason);
1 Kg of gasoline reacted with 14.7 Kg of air = 3.18 Kg of CO2 emitted
=9,269,000 Kg of CO2 emitted because of wireless charging.
Scale as you like. But it's clear that avoiding millions of Kg of CO2 emissions per year is better than putting it out there.
On 2024-02-28 15:50, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
Am 28.02.24 um 19:45 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2024-02-28 12:40, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
Am 28.02.24 um 13:58 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
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.
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.
*ROTFLSTC*. Tell that my new electric car. The range is halfed when I
put my phones in the wireless charging bay.
While you being ill-informed on technical issues
*LOL*. Give the bullshit you produce again in this thread you
understand nothing.
Nice how you snip things...
It remains and cannot be refuted: wireless charging produces more waste heat. That energy is forever gone.
On 2024-02-28 10:45, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-28 12:40, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
Am 28.02.24 um 13:58 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
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.
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.
*ROTFLSTC*. Tell that my new electric car. The range is halfed when I
put my phones in the wireless charging bay.
While you being ill-informed on technical issues (ionizing radiation
from cell phones comes to mind, but there are many more), when you
wirelessly charge your phone in the car it takes more from your car's
battery than wired would; in turn needs to be replaced by your utility.
Switzerland at least has some hydro and nuclear (though not enough).
If your house (or even car) has additional solar, then you're forgiven.
Dude...
The fastest charging rate for an iPhone is 27 Watts.
That is equivalent to a horsepower of 0.036hp.
The MagSafe maximum charging rate is 15W.
That's 0.02hp.
MagSafe charging is 75% efficent, so he maximum loss you could be experiencing is 0.007hp.
Typical horsepower for cruising along the highway is 17-25hp, so let's
take the average as 21hp.
So...
On 2024-02-28 15:52, Alan wrote:
On 2024-02-27 15:39, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-27 17:31, Cameo wrote:
On 2/27/2024 10:25 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-27 10:22, Cameo wrote:
Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from personal
experience? Would prefer models that also work with AndroidAuto.
Use a USB cable and reduce your fuel consumption and emissions.
That's what I have been using, but find it inconvenient.
I find climate change inconvenient.
Today I had to run some errands. Being conscientious I 'gang' a
bunch of errands together to save fuel (and emissions). Each time I
got out of the car, brought my phone. Got back in the car, plugged
in the phone.
Not very inconvenient.
One thing that helps: I bought a pretty short cable for the car.
Just enough to go from the centre console storage USB port to the
position where I have a phone holder (that is it runs forward to the
phone). This means the cable doesn't wander off far when I unplug
it. This makes it more convenient.
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.
I suggest you demonstrate the math of the situation.
Go ahead and assume that a billion phones are being wirelessly charged
for 12 hours a day, every day in cars.
It doesn't matter how many hours per day, it will be many 10s to over hundreds of hours per year per person * 1 B (or more depending on uptake).
1B tends to make a lot out of a little. Then multiply by years, and so
on and so forth.
Then of course there is the source. Unlike your house current, a car's engine is grossly inefficient even before driving the alternator.
(thermal efficiency above 30% when at cruise, otherwise it's far less).
Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency".
Or (if an EV), the charge discharge cycle is already 10 - 15% or more
loss. Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency".
Plug in a wireless charger and put a phone on it. The wireless side
heats up because: that's what coils do when not 100% matched to the
opposing coil (pro tip: can never be 100% matched (ask you local power
co.)).
He does not understand the proportionality of your or my arguments.
On 2024-02-28 14:55, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-28 15:50, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
Am 28.02.24 um 19:45 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2024-02-28 12:40, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
Am 28.02.24 um 13:58 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
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.
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.
*ROTFLSTC*. Tell that my new electric car. The range is halfed when I >>>>> put my phones in the wireless charging bay.
While you being ill-informed on technical issues
*LOL*. Give the bullshit you produce again in this thread you
understand nothing.
Nice how you snip things...
It remains and cannot be refuted: wireless charging produces more
waste heat. That energy is forever gone.
Actually, any time you're also using the car's heater to warm the car,
when it is then not wasted at all.
On 2024-02-28 15:02, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-28 15:52, Alan wrote:
On 2024-02-27 15:39, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-27 17:31, Cameo wrote:
On 2/27/2024 10:25 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-27 10:22, Cameo wrote:
Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from personal
experience? Would prefer models that also work with AndroidAuto.
Use a USB cable and reduce your fuel consumption and emissions.
That's what I have been using, but find it inconvenient.
I find climate change inconvenient.
Today I had to run some errands. Being conscientious I 'gang' a
bunch of errands together to save fuel (and emissions). Each time I
got out of the car, brought my phone. Got back in the car, plugged
in the phone.
Not very inconvenient.
One thing that helps: I bought a pretty short cable for the car.
Just enough to go from the centre console storage USB port to the
position where I have a phone holder (that is it runs forward to the
phone). This means the cable doesn't wander off far when I unplug
it. This makes it more convenient.
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.
I suggest you demonstrate the math of the situation.
Go ahead and assume that a billion phones are being wirelessly
charged for 12 hours a day, every day in cars.
It doesn't matter how many hours per day, it will be many 10s to over
hundreds of hours per year per person * 1 B (or more depending on
uptake).
It most certainly DOES matter, doofus.
It's about PROPORTION.
1B tends to make a lot out of a little. Then multiply by years, and
so on and so forth.
Then of course there is the source. Unlike your house current, a
car's engine is grossly inefficient even before driving the
alternator. (thermal efficiency above 30% when at cruise, otherwise
it's far less). Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency".
Or (if an EV), the charge discharge cycle is already 10 - 15% or more
loss. Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency".
None of that matters when comparing two things that are both using the
same power source (the car's alternator)
Plug in a wireless charger and put a phone on it. The wireless side
heats up because: that's what coils do when not 100% matched to the
opposing coil (pro tip: can never be 100% matched (ask you local power
co.)).
From someone who clearly doesn't understand basic concepts in physics
and math, I'm not buying your bullshit.
On 2024-02-29 17:32, Alan wrote:
On 2024-02-28 15:02, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-28 15:52, Alan wrote:
On 2024-02-27 15:39, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-27 17:31, Cameo wrote:
On 2/27/2024 10:25 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-27 10:22, Cameo wrote:
Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from personal >>>>>>>> experience? Would prefer models that also work with AndroidAuto. >>>>>>>Use a USB cable and reduce your fuel consumption and emissions.
That's what I have been using, but find it inconvenient.
I find climate change inconvenient.
Today I had to run some errands. Being conscientious I 'gang' a
bunch of errands together to save fuel (and emissions). Each time
I got out of the car, brought my phone. Got back in the car,
plugged in the phone.
Not very inconvenient.
One thing that helps: I bought a pretty short cable for the car.
Just enough to go from the centre console storage USB port to the
position where I have a phone holder (that is it runs forward to
the phone). This means the cable doesn't wander off far when I
unplug it. This makes it more convenient.
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.
I suggest you demonstrate the math of the situation.
Go ahead and assume that a billion phones are being wirelessly
charged for 12 hours a day, every day in cars.
It doesn't matter how many hours per day, it will be many 10s to over
hundreds of hours per year per person * 1 B (or more depending on
uptake).
It most certainly DOES matter, doofus.
Ad hominem? Are you for real?
It's about PROPORTION.
Indeed: Let's say people went around littering plastic every day. A
little bit. nothing much. Everyone tosses out a little plastic on the
way to work and on their way home.
We all know, today (or since the 1970's or so), that would not be tolerated. Not only socially, but you would get a littering ticket if a
cop saw you.
"But, your honour, in PROPORTION to the plastic waste in the world, it
was hardly anything!"
And you know the judge will uphold the ticket. And rightly so.
This is akin to that. Even though it is not "all that much" in the
great scheme of CO2 output, it is:
A lot of CO2 no matter how you look at it.
(278,070,000 Kg of CO2 per year for the case as presented).
And (per NASA) the CO2 will persist for 300 .. 1000 years - so in all
that time it will be contributing to sending heat back to earth that
should have escaped into space.
Of course nobody can see CO2 so your extra contribution is not seen.
That removes the social barrier.
Therefore, avoid doing that. Use a wire. Not wireless. As it happens
I had to go to two stores today and the inserting of the wire and disconnecting it are trivial things to do. Near so-called "muscle
memory" when getting into the car.
1B tends to make a lot out of a little. Then multiply by years, and
so on and so forth.
Then of course there is the source. Unlike your house current, a
car's engine is grossly inefficient even before driving the
alternator. (thermal efficiency above 30% when at cruise, otherwise
it's far less). Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency".
Or (if an EV), the charge discharge cycle is already 10 - 15% or more
loss. Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency".
None of that matters when comparing two things that are both using the
same power source (the car's alternator)
An EV doesn't power accessories from an alternator - they come from the propulsion battery of the EV via DC:DC converter. As such you would consider the EV's charge/discharge cycle to the cell phone. If the EV
were renewable charged (hydro, solar, wind, biomass, then it would be relatively efficient.
Plug in a wireless charger and put a phone on it. The wireless side
heats up because: that's what coils do when not 100% matched to the
opposing coil (pro tip: can never be 100% matched (ask you local
power co.)).
From someone who clearly doesn't understand basic concepts in physics
and math, I'm not buying your bullshit.
The calculations I made demonstrate above basic understanding of
physics. Which is not a limit.
On 2024-02-29 15:08, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-29 17:32, Alan wrote:
On 2024-02-28 15:02, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-28 15:52, Alan wrote:
On 2024-02-27 15:39, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-27 17:31, Cameo wrote:
On 2/27/2024 10:25 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-27 10:22, Cameo wrote:That's what I have been using, but find it inconvenient.
Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from personal >>>>>>>>> experience? Would prefer models that also work with AndroidAuto. >>>>>>>>Use a USB cable and reduce your fuel consumption and emissions. >>>>>>>
I find climate change inconvenient.
Today I had to run some errands. Being conscientious I 'gang' a
bunch of errands together to save fuel (and emissions). Each time >>>>>> I got out of the car, brought my phone. Got back in the car,
plugged in the phone.
Not very inconvenient.
One thing that helps: I bought a pretty short cable for the car.
Just enough to go from the centre console storage USB port to the
position where I have a phone holder (that is it runs forward to
the phone). This means the cable doesn't wander off far when I
unplug it. This makes it more convenient.
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.
I suggest you demonstrate the math of the situation.
Go ahead and assume that a billion phones are being wirelessly
charged for 12 hours a day, every day in cars.
It doesn't matter how many hours per day, it will be many 10s to
over hundreds of hours per year per person * 1 B (or more depending
on uptake).
It most certainly DOES matter, doofus.
Ad hominem? Are you for real?
It's about PROPORTION.
Indeed: Let's say people went around littering plastic every day. A
little bit. nothing much. Everyone tosses out a little plastic on
the way to work and on their way home.
Not even remotely the same.
We all know, today (or since the 1970's or so), that would not be
tolerated. Not only socially, but you would get a littering ticket if
a cop saw you.
"But, your honour, in PROPORTION to the plastic waste in the world, it
was hardly anything!"
And you know the judge will uphold the ticket. And rightly so.
This is akin to that. Even though it is not "all that much" in the
great scheme of CO2 output, it is:
A lot of CO2 no matter how you look at it.
(278,070,000 Kg of CO2 per year for the case as presented).
Which is a tiny drop in the bucket even though your numbers are
completely unrealistic.
And (per NASA) the CO2 will persist for 300 .. 1000 years - so in all
that time it will be contributing to sending heat back to earth that
should have escaped into space.
Of course nobody can see CO2 so your extra contribution is not seen.
That removes the social barrier.
Therefore, avoid doing that. Use a wire. Not wireless. As it
happens I had to go to two stores today and the inserting of the wire
and disconnecting it are trivial things to do. Near so-called "muscle
memory" when getting into the car.
The difference is infinitesimal.
1B tends to make a lot out of a little. Then multiply by years, and
so on and so forth.
Then of course there is the source. Unlike your house current, a
car's engine is grossly inefficient even before driving the
alternator. (thermal efficiency above 30% when at cruise, otherwise
it's far less). Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency".
Or (if an EV), the charge discharge cycle is already 10 - 15% or
more loss. Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency".
None of that matters when comparing two things that are both using
the same power source (the car's alternator)
An EV doesn't power accessories from an alternator - they come from
the propulsion battery of the EV via DC:DC converter. As such you
would consider the EV's charge/discharge cycle to the cell phone. If
the EV were renewable charged (hydro, solar, wind, biomass, then it
would be relatively efficient.
You really don't understand this stuff, dude. It's quite sad.
The POINT was an A/B comparison between wired and wireless when in a
car, but it applies to any situation where the power source is the same
for both A and B.
So alternator, EV battery or house current.
The only difference is the wired vs wireless charging, but you keep
trying to fold the inefficiency of the alternator into the equation.
<irrelevancy snipped>It can be done that way for an individual, of course. But I'm
Plug in a wireless charger and put a phone on it. The wireless side
heats up because: that's what coils do when not 100% matched to the
opposing coil (pro tip: can never be 100% matched (ask you local
power co.)).
From someone who clearly doesn't understand basic concepts in
physics and math, I'm not buying your bullshit.
The calculations I made demonstrate above basic understanding of
physics. Which is not a limit.
No. They demonstrate your ignorance.
Do the math for charging your phone continuously for 20,000 miles of
highway driving a year wired vs wireless.
But this time, do it step by step and I'll show you where you went wrong.
On 2024-02-29 22:20, Alan wrote:
On 2024-02-29 15:08, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-29 17:32, Alan wrote:
On 2024-02-28 15:02, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-28 15:52, Alan wrote:
On 2024-02-27 15:39, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-27 17:31, Cameo wrote:
On 2/27/2024 10:25 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-27 10:22, Cameo wrote:That's what I have been using, but find it inconvenient.
Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from
personal experience? Would prefer models that also work with >>>>>>>>>> AndroidAuto.
Use a USB cable and reduce your fuel consumption and emissions. >>>>>>>>
I find climate change inconvenient.
Today I had to run some errands. Being conscientious I 'gang' a >>>>>>> bunch of errands together to save fuel (and emissions). Each
time I got out of the car, brought my phone. Got back in the
car, plugged in the phone.
Not very inconvenient.
One thing that helps: I bought a pretty short cable for the car. >>>>>>> Just enough to go from the centre console storage USB port to the >>>>>>> position where I have a phone holder (that is it runs forward to >>>>>>> the phone). This means the cable doesn't wander off far when I
unplug it. This makes it more convenient.
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.
I suggest you demonstrate the math of the situation.
Go ahead and assume that a billion phones are being wirelessly
charged for 12 hours a day, every day in cars.
It doesn't matter how many hours per day, it will be many 10s to
over hundreds of hours per year per person * 1 B (or more depending
on uptake).
It most certainly DOES matter, doofus.
Ad hominem? Are you for real?
It's about PROPORTION.
Indeed: Let's say people went around littering plastic every day. A
little bit. nothing much. Everyone tosses out a little plastic on
the way to work and on their way home.
Not even remotely the same.
We all know, today (or since the 1970's or so), that would not be
tolerated. Not only socially, but you would get a littering ticket
if a cop saw you.
"But, your honour, in PROPORTION to the plastic waste in the world,
it was hardly anything!"
And you know the judge will uphold the ticket. And rightly so.
This is akin to that. Even though it is not "all that much" in the
great scheme of CO2 output, it is:
A lot of CO2 no matter how you look at it.
(278,070,000 Kg of CO2 per year for the case as presented).
Which is a tiny drop in the bucket even though your numbers are
completely unrealistic.
And (per NASA) the CO2 will persist for 300 .. 1000 years - so in all
that time it will be contributing to sending heat back to earth that
should have escaped into space.
Of course nobody can see CO2 so your extra contribution is not seen.
That removes the social barrier.
Therefore, avoid doing that. Use a wire. Not wireless. As it
happens I had to go to two stores today and the inserting of the wire
and disconnecting it are trivial things to do. Near so-called
"muscle memory" when getting into the car.
The difference is infinitesimal.
1B tends to make a lot out of a little. Then multiply by years,
and so on and so forth.
Then of course there is the source. Unlike your house current, a
car's engine is grossly inefficient even before driving the
alternator. (thermal efficiency above 30% when at cruise, otherwise
it's far less). Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency". >>>>>
Or (if an EV), the charge discharge cycle is already 10 - 15% or
more loss. Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency".
None of that matters when comparing two things that are both using
the same power source (the car's alternator)
An EV doesn't power accessories from an alternator - they come from
the propulsion battery of the EV via DC:DC converter. As such you
would consider the EV's charge/discharge cycle to the cell phone. If
the EV were renewable charged (hydro, solar, wind, biomass, then it
would be relatively efficient.
You really don't understand this stuff, dude. It's quite sad.
The POINT was an A/B comparison between wired and wireless when in a
car, but it applies to any situation where the power source is the
same for both A and B.
So alternator, EV battery or house current.
House current is (usually) much more efficient than any car can produce
- EVEN - if that power came from coal or other fossil plants.
The only difference is the wired vs wireless charging, but you keep
trying to fold the inefficiency of the alternator into the equation.
Since (in an ICE) that is where the power comes from, yes.
Which is how I did the numbers in the other post (see the corrected
version for 30% charge).
<irrelevancy snipped>
Plug in a wireless charger and put a phone on it. The wireless
side heats up because: that's what coils do when not 100% matched
to the opposing coil (pro tip: can never be 100% matched (ask you
local power co.)).
From someone who clearly doesn't understand basic concepts in
physics and math, I'm not buying your bullshit.
The calculations I made demonstrate above basic understanding of
physics. Which is not a limit.
No. They demonstrate your ignorance.
Do the math for charging your phone continuously for 20,000 miles ofIt can be done that way for an individual, of course. But I'm
highway driving a year wired vs wireless.
(properly) looking at the effect when many people do it.
You can easily compute it for 20,000 miles (Christ! Miles. WTF will
the US get with it?) with the same data I provided. (I avoided this and just converted joules to how much gasoline it takes to produce those
joules in the car - much smarter way to go about it as it doesn't matter
what the car is, for pretty much any car, no matter the size of the
engine, a joule is a joule is a joule - and that is what the phone
battery is charged with).
It's not about what 1 person does, it's about 100,000,000 to a billion
people all doing the same bad thing. Like if everyone threw out a bit
of plastic every day on their way to and from work... one person? Nobody would notice. Not even after a year of it...
But this time, do it step by step and I'll show you where you went wrong.
1) I put up the data.
2) I put up how that translates to energy consumption in a car using an
ICE.
3) That of course involves de-rating the car's ICE to mechanical work
lack of efficiency, and de-rating the alternator's conversion of
mechanical work to electricity.
eg: for a car to produce 1 joule of power to charge a phone, it has to
burn 3.7 joules of gasoline.
4) That translates into gasoline usage directly which translates into emissions directly.
Multiply by whatever number of users you want (the individual
contribution is trivial - just like one person throwing out bits of
plastic).
And it all adds up to a lot of CO2 emitted. Is it a fraction of total
car CO2 emissions? Sure. But why go in reverse and add CO2 that can be avoided?
CO2 that lingers for centuries.
What you're really saying is wired charging is too inconvenient to you.
Which is pretty arrogant. Takes me all of 3 seconds when getting into
the car. (Actually I don't even bother unless I need the Map up).
On 2024-03-02 10:35, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-29 22:20, Alan wrote:
On 2024-02-29 15:08, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-29 17:32, Alan wrote:
On 2024-02-28 15:02, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-28 15:52, Alan wrote:
On 2024-02-27 15:39, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-27 17:31, Cameo wrote:
On 2/27/2024 10:25 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-27 10:22, Cameo wrote:That's what I have been using, but find it inconvenient.
Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from
personal experience? Would prefer models that also work with >>>>>>>>>>> AndroidAuto.
Use a USB cable and reduce your fuel consumption and emissions. >>>>>>>>>
I find climate change inconvenient.
Today I had to run some errands. Being conscientious I 'gang' a >>>>>>>> bunch of errands together to save fuel (and emissions). Each >>>>>>>> time I got out of the car, brought my phone. Got back in the >>>>>>>> car, plugged in the phone.
Not very inconvenient.
One thing that helps: I bought a pretty short cable for the car. >>>>>>>> Just enough to go from the centre console storage USB port to
the position where I have a phone holder (that is it runs
forward to the phone). This means the cable doesn't wander off >>>>>>>> far when I unplug it. This makes it more convenient.
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.
I suggest you demonstrate the math of the situation.
Go ahead and assume that a billion phones are being wirelessly
charged for 12 hours a day, every day in cars.
It doesn't matter how many hours per day, it will be many 10s to
over hundreds of hours per year per person * 1 B (or more
depending on uptake).
It most certainly DOES matter, doofus.
Ad hominem? Are you for real?
It's about PROPORTION.
Indeed: Let's say people went around littering plastic every day. A
little bit. nothing much. Everyone tosses out a little plastic on
the way to work and on their way home.
Not even remotely the same.
We all know, today (or since the 1970's or so), that would not be
tolerated. Not only socially, but you would get a littering ticket
if a cop saw you.
"But, your honour, in PROPORTION to the plastic waste in the world,
it was hardly anything!"
And you know the judge will uphold the ticket. And rightly so.
This is akin to that. Even though it is not "all that much" in the
great scheme of CO2 output, it is:
A lot of CO2 no matter how you look at it.
(278,070,000 Kg of CO2 per year for the case as presented).
Which is a tiny drop in the bucket even though your numbers are
completely unrealistic.
And (per NASA) the CO2 will persist for 300 .. 1000 years - so in
all that time it will be contributing to sending heat back to earth
that should have escaped into space.
Of course nobody can see CO2 so your extra contribution is not seen.
That removes the social barrier.
Therefore, avoid doing that. Use a wire. Not wireless. As it
happens I had to go to two stores today and the inserting of the
wire and disconnecting it are trivial things to do. Near so-called
"muscle memory" when getting into the car.
The difference is infinitesimal.
1B tends to make a lot out of a little. Then multiply by years,
and so on and so forth.
Then of course there is the source. Unlike your house current, a >>>>>> car's engine is grossly inefficient even before driving the
alternator. (thermal efficiency above 30% when at cruise,
otherwise it's far less). Then multiply by the wireless charging
"efficiency".
Or (if an EV), the charge discharge cycle is already 10 - 15% or
more loss. Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency".
None of that matters when comparing two things that are both using
the same power source (the car's alternator)
An EV doesn't power accessories from an alternator - they come from
the propulsion battery of the EV via DC:DC converter. As such you
would consider the EV's charge/discharge cycle to the cell phone.
If the EV were renewable charged (hydro, solar, wind, biomass, then
it would be relatively efficient.
You really don't understand this stuff, dude. It's quite sad.
The POINT was an A/B comparison between wired and wireless when in a
car, but it applies to any situation where the power source is the
same for both A and B.
So alternator, EV battery or house current.
House current is (usually) much more efficient than any car can
produce - EVEN - if that power came from coal or other fossil plants.
The only difference is the wired vs wireless charging, but you keep
trying to fold the inefficiency of the alternator into the equation.
Since (in an ICE) that is where the power comes from, yes.
Which is how I did the numbers in the other post (see the corrected
version for 30% charge).
<irrelevancy snipped>It can be done that way for an individual, of course. But I'm
Plug in a wireless charger and put a phone on it. The wireless
side heats up because: that's what coils do when not 100% matched
to the opposing coil (pro tip: can never be 100% matched (ask you
local power co.)).
From someone who clearly doesn't understand basic concepts in
physics and math, I'm not buying your bullshit.
The calculations I made demonstrate above basic understanding of
physics. Which is not a limit.
No. They demonstrate your ignorance.
Do the math for charging your phone continuously for 20,000 miles of
highway driving a year wired vs wireless.
(properly) looking at the effect when many people do it.
You can easily compute it for 20,000 miles (Christ! Miles. WTF will
the US get with it?) with the same data I provided. (I avoided this
and just converted joules to how much gasoline it takes to produce
those joules in the car - much smarter way to go about it as it
doesn't matter what the car is, for pretty much any car, no matter the
size of the engine, a joule is a joule is a joule - and that is what
the phone battery is charged with).
It's not about what 1 person does, it's about 100,000,000 to a billion
people all doing the same bad thing. Like if everyone threw out a bit
of plastic every day on their way to and from work... one person?
Nobody would notice. Not even after a year of it...
But this time, do it step by step and I'll show you where you went
wrong.
1) I put up the data.
If so, extremely badly.
2) I put up how that translates to energy consumption in a car using
an ICE.
3) That of course involves de-rating the car's ICE to mechanical work
lack of efficiency, and de-rating the alternator's conversion of
mechanical work to electricity.
I understand this...
...but you've tried to spin it as if it matters when considering the DIFFERENCE between to charging methods that both get power from a car's altenator...
...and that just bullshit.
eg: for a car to produce 1 joule of power to charge a phone, it has to
burn 3.7 joules of gasoline.
4) That translates into gasoline usage directly which translates into
emissions directly.
No one is arguing it doesn't.
Multiply by whatever number of users you want (the individual
contribution is trivial - just like one person throwing out bits of
plastic).
And it all adds up to a lot of CO2 emitted. Is it a fraction of total
car CO2 emissions? Sure. But why go in reverse and add CO2 that can
be avoided?
It is a negligible difference, dude. It doesn't ever arise to the level
of background noise.
CO2 that lingers for centuries.
What you're really saying is wired charging is too inconvenient to
you. Which is pretty arrogant. Takes me all of 3 seconds when getting
into the car. (Actually I don't even bother unless I need the Map up).
Actually, I do charge wirelessly.
You're just being an ignorant idiot.
DO THE MATH.
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.
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.
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%.
So, if one does that 200 times per year (going to work), that comes to:
151 joules * 200 days * 1B people = 30.2E12 joules.
or 8.39 GWh lost to heat in wireless charging.
Gas engines are (at cruise) about 30% efficient, so now we're at:
28 GWh worth of gasoline ...
Until you consider the efficiency of the alternator, put at 70 to 80% by various sources. I'll use 75%:
=37.3 GWh worth of gasoline. @ 12.78 kWh/Kg of gasoline...
=2,917,000 Kg of gasoline used (for no good reason);
1 Kg of gasoline reacted with 14.7 Kg of air = 3.18 Kg of CO2 emitted
=9,269,000 Kg of CO2 emitted because of wireless charging.
Scale as you like. But it's clear that avoiding millions of Kg of CO2 emissions per year is better than putting it out there.
Esp. as it lingers for 20 - 50 years or more.
Test data.
===============
2021-11-30 iPad 12W charger
iPhone 11 Pro Wired charge
Power(W)Start End Dt Energy (Ws)
13.9 20% 25% 4.16 minutes 3475
13.9 25% 31% 5 minutes 4170
13.9 31% 37% 5 minutes 4170
13.9 37% 43% 5 minutes 4170
12.2 43% 50% 5 minutes 3660
11.8 50% 56% 5 minutes 3540
12 56% 61% 5 minutes 3600
11.8 61% 67% 5 minutes 3540
6.5 67% 74% 10 minutes 3900
34225
===============
2021-12-03 iPad 12 W charger
iPhone 11 Pro Anker pad No case (bare metal to charger)
Power(W)Start End Dt Energy (Ws)
6.1 24% 28% 7.75 minutes 2836.5
6.1 28% 34% 15 minutes 5490
6.1 34% 41% 15 minutes 5490
6.1 41% 49% 15 minutes 5490
6.2 49% 56% 15 minutes 5580
6.2 56% 63% 15 minutes 5580
6.2 63% 70% 15 minutes 5580
6.2 70% 77% 15 minutes 5580
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.
So, if one does that 200 times per year (going to work), that comes to:
151 joules * 200 days * 1B people = 30.2E12 joules.
or 8.39 GWh lost to heat in wireless charging.
Gas engines are (at cruise) about 30% efficient, so now we're at:
28 GWh worth of gasoline ...
Until you consider the efficiency of the alternator, put at 70 to 80%
by various sources. I'll use 75%:
=37.3 GWh worth of gasoline. @ 12.78 kWh/Kg of gasoline...
=2,917,000 Kg of gasoline used (for no good reason);
1 Kg of gasoline reacted with 14.7 Kg of air = 3.18 Kg of CO2 emitted
=9,269,000 Kg of CO2 emitted because of wireless charging.
Scale as you like. But it's clear that avoiding millions of Kg of CO2
emissions per year is better than putting it out there.
Esp. as it lingers for 20 - 50 years or more.
Test data.
===============
2021-11-30 iPad 12W charger
iPhone 11 Pro Wired charge
Power(W)Start End Dt Energy (Ws)
13.9 20% 25% 4.16 minutes 3475
13.9 25% 31% 5 minutes 4170
13.9 31% 37% 5 minutes 4170
13.9 37% 43% 5 minutes 4170
12.2 43% 50% 5 minutes 3660
11.8 50% 56% 5 minutes 3540
12 56% 61% 5 minutes 3600
11.8 61% 67% 5 minutes 3540
6.5 67% 74% 10 minutes 3900
34225
===============
2021-12-03 iPad 12 W charger
iPhone 11 Pro Anker pad No case (bare metal to charger)
Power(W)Start End Dt Energy (Ws)
6.1 24% 28% 7.75 minutes 2836.5
6.1 28% 34% 15 minutes 5490
6.1 34% 41% 15 minutes 5490
6.1 41% 49% 15 minutes 5490
6.2 49% 56% 15 minutes 5580
6.2 56% 63% 15 minutes 5580
6.2 63% 70% 15 minutes 5580
6.2 70% 77% 15 minutes 5580
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.
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.
On 2024-03-02 14:15, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-02 10:35, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-29 22:20, Alan wrote:
On 2024-02-29 15:08, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-29 17:32, Alan wrote:
On 2024-02-28 15:02, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-28 15:52, Alan wrote:
On 2024-02-27 15:39, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-27 17:31, Cameo wrote:
On 2/27/2024 10:25 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-27 10:22, Cameo wrote:That's what I have been using, but find it inconvenient.
Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from >>>>>>>>>>>> personal experience? Would prefer models that also work with >>>>>>>>>>>> AndroidAuto.
Use a USB cable and reduce your fuel consumption and emissions. >>>>>>>>>>
I find climate change inconvenient.
Today I had to run some errands. Being conscientious I 'gang' >>>>>>>>> a bunch of errands together to save fuel (and emissions). Each >>>>>>>>> time I got out of the car, brought my phone. Got back in the >>>>>>>>> car, plugged in the phone.
Not very inconvenient.
One thing that helps: I bought a pretty short cable for the
car. Just enough to go from the centre console storage USB port >>>>>>>>> to the position where I have a phone holder (that is it runs >>>>>>>>> forward to the phone). This means the cable doesn't wander off >>>>>>>>> far when I unplug it. This makes it more convenient.
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.
I suggest you demonstrate the math of the situation.
Go ahead and assume that a billion phones are being wirelessly >>>>>>>> charged for 12 hours a day, every day in cars.
It doesn't matter how many hours per day, it will be many 10s to >>>>>>> over hundreds of hours per year per person * 1 B (or more
depending on uptake).
It most certainly DOES matter, doofus.
Ad hominem? Are you for real?
It's about PROPORTION.
Indeed: Let's say people went around littering plastic every day.
A little bit. nothing much. Everyone tosses out a little plastic >>>>> on the way to work and on their way home.
Not even remotely the same.
We all know, today (or since the 1970's or so), that would not be
tolerated. Not only socially, but you would get a littering ticket >>>>> if a cop saw you.
"But, your honour, in PROPORTION to the plastic waste in the world,
it was hardly anything!"
And you know the judge will uphold the ticket. And rightly so.
This is akin to that. Even though it is not "all that much" in the >>>>> great scheme of CO2 output, it is:
A lot of CO2 no matter how you look at it.
(278,070,000 Kg of CO2 per year for the case as presented).
Which is a tiny drop in the bucket even though your numbers are
completely unrealistic.
And (per NASA) the CO2 will persist for 300 .. 1000 years - so in
all that time it will be contributing to sending heat back to earth
that should have escaped into space.
Of course nobody can see CO2 so your extra contribution is not
seen. That removes the social barrier.
Therefore, avoid doing that. Use a wire. Not wireless. As it
happens I had to go to two stores today and the inserting of the
wire and disconnecting it are trivial things to do. Near so-called >>>>> "muscle memory" when getting into the car.
The difference is infinitesimal.
None of that matters when comparing two things that are both using >>>>>> the same power source (the car's alternator)
1B tends to make a lot out of a little. Then multiply by years, >>>>>>> and so on and so forth.
Then of course there is the source. Unlike your house current, a >>>>>>> car's engine is grossly inefficient even before driving the
alternator. (thermal efficiency above 30% when at cruise,
otherwise it's far less). Then multiply by the wireless charging >>>>>>> "efficiency".
Or (if an EV), the charge discharge cycle is already 10 - 15% or >>>>>>> more loss. Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency". >>>>>>
An EV doesn't power accessories from an alternator - they come from
the propulsion battery of the EV via DC:DC converter. As such you
would consider the EV's charge/discharge cycle to the cell phone.
If the EV were renewable charged (hydro, solar, wind, biomass, then
it would be relatively efficient.
You really don't understand this stuff, dude. It's quite sad.
The POINT was an A/B comparison between wired and wireless when in a
car, but it applies to any situation where the power source is the
same for both A and B.
So alternator, EV battery or house current.
House current is (usually) much more efficient than any car can
produce - EVEN - if that power came from coal or other fossil plants.
The only difference is the wired vs wireless charging, but you keep
trying to fold the inefficiency of the alternator into the equation.
Since (in an ICE) that is where the power comes from, yes.
Which is how I did the numbers in the other post (see the corrected
version for 30% charge).
<irrelevancy snipped>It can be done that way for an individual, of course. But I'm
Plug in a wireless charger and put a phone on it. The wireless >>>>>>> side heats up because: that's what coils do when not 100% matched >>>>>>> to the opposing coil (pro tip: can never be 100% matched (ask you >>>>>>> local power co.)).
From someone who clearly doesn't understand basic concepts in
physics and math, I'm not buying your bullshit.
The calculations I made demonstrate above basic understanding of
physics. Which is not a limit.
No. They demonstrate your ignorance.
Do the math for charging your phone continuously for 20,000 miles of
highway driving a year wired vs wireless.
(properly) looking at the effect when many people do it.
You can easily compute it for 20,000 miles (Christ! Miles. WTF will
the US get with it?) with the same data I provided. (I avoided this
and just converted joules to how much gasoline it takes to produce
those joules in the car - much smarter way to go about it as it
doesn't matter what the car is, for pretty much any car, no matter
the size of the engine, a joule is a joule is a joule - and that is
what the phone battery is charged with).
It's not about what 1 person does, it's about 100,000,000 to a
billion people all doing the same bad thing. Like if everyone threw
out a bit of plastic every day on their way to and from work... one
person? Nobody would notice. Not even after a year of it...
But this time, do it step by step and I'll show you where you went
wrong.
1) I put up the data.
If so, extremely badly.
I did so, and quite clearly for both wired and wireless cases.
2) I put up how that translates to energy consumption in a car using
an ICE.
3) That of course involves de-rating the car's ICE to mechanical work
lack of efficiency, and de-rating the alternator's conversion of
mechanical work to electricity.
I understand this...
...but you've tried to spin it as if it matters when considering the
DIFFERENCE between to charging methods that both get power from a
car's altenator...
...and that just bullshit.
Then you've misunderstood. I put up a calculation that goes for the difference in charging wired or wirelessly and how that translates to emissions. Emissions come from gas burning.
The alternator is just 1 link in the chain from gasoline to charging the phone.
combustion -> mechanical work -> electricity (alternator) -> phone
30%. 90%
1 / 0.3 / 0.9 = 3.7 joules of gasoline burning for each joule
delivered to the phone (wired) or to the wireless device that charges
the phone.
Per my data (listed in the other post), it comes to a difference (on
average) of 151 joules per 1% of charge in the range of about 20 to 75%
of charge.
Then (arbitrarily) chose 30% as the range of charge one might do on
their way to/from work. So 151 joules X 30%.
The difference is that for 30% of battery charge, you need 4530 more
joules (electric) to charge that range (say 40 to 70%).
Or 16,761 joules of gasoline burning to generate those 4530 joules
electric.
eg: for a car to produce 1 joule of power to charge a phone, it has
to burn 3.7 joules of gasoline.
4) That translates into gasoline usage directly which translates into
emissions directly.
No one is arguing it doesn't.
Right - then my presentation has no glaring flaws.
Multiply by whatever number of users you want (the individual
contribution is trivial - just like one person throwing out bits of
plastic).
And it all adds up to a lot of CO2 emitted. Is it a fraction of
total car CO2 emissions? Sure. But why go in reverse and add CO2
that can be avoided?
It is a negligible difference, dude. It doesn't ever arise to the
level of background noise.
In what world is an additional 278,000,000 Kg of CO2 "negligible".
Once it's out there, it's out there for 300 - 1000 years (per NASA).
Sheesh. Just plug the damned phone in.
CO2 that lingers for centuries.
What you're really saying is wired charging is too inconvenient to
you. Which is pretty arrogant. Takes me all of 3 seconds when
getting into the car. (Actually I don't even bother unless I need
the Map up).
Actually, I do charge wirelessly.
You're just being an ignorant idiot.
Not at all. Continue the ad hominem. It's the losers way.
DO THE MATH.
I did. In spades. And presented it. If you don't get it, that's your problem.
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.
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.
Got it.
On 2024-03-02 11:43, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-02 14:15, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-02 10:35, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-29 22:20, Alan wrote:
On 2024-02-29 15:08, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-29 17:32, Alan wrote:
On 2024-02-28 15:02, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-28 15:52, Alan wrote:
On 2024-02-27 15:39, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-27 17:31, Cameo wrote:
On 2/27/2024 10:25 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-27 10:22, Cameo wrote:That's what I have been using, but find it inconvenient.
Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from >>>>>>>>>>>>> personal experience? Would prefer models that also work >>>>>>>>>>>>> with AndroidAuto.
Use a USB cable and reduce your fuel consumption and emissions. >>>>>>>>>>>
I find climate change inconvenient.
Today I had to run some errands. Being conscientious I 'gang' >>>>>>>>>> a bunch of errands together to save fuel (and emissions).
Each time I got out of the car, brought my phone. Got back in >>>>>>>>>> the car, plugged in the phone.
Not very inconvenient.
One thing that helps: I bought a pretty short cable for the >>>>>>>>>> car. Just enough to go from the centre console storage USB >>>>>>>>>> port to the position where I have a phone holder (that is it >>>>>>>>>> runs forward to the phone). This means the cable doesn't
wander off far when I unplug it. This makes it more convenient. >>>>>>>>>>
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.
I suggest you demonstrate the math of the situation.
Go ahead and assume that a billion phones are being wirelessly >>>>>>>>> charged for 12 hours a day, every day in cars.
It doesn't matter how many hours per day, it will be many 10s to >>>>>>>> over hundreds of hours per year per person * 1 B (or more
depending on uptake).
It most certainly DOES matter, doofus.
Ad hominem? Are you for real?
It's about PROPORTION.
Indeed: Let's say people went around littering plastic every day.
A little bit. nothing much. Everyone tosses out a little plastic >>>>>> on the way to work and on their way home.
Not even remotely the same.
We all know, today (or since the 1970's or so), that would not be
tolerated. Not only socially, but you would get a littering
ticket if a cop saw you.
"But, your honour, in PROPORTION to the plastic waste in the
world, it was hardly anything!"
And you know the judge will uphold the ticket. And rightly so.
This is akin to that. Even though it is not "all that much" in
the great scheme of CO2 output, it is:
A lot of CO2 no matter how you look at it.
(278,070,000 Kg of CO2 per year for the case as presented).
Which is a tiny drop in the bucket even though your numbers are
completely unrealistic.
And (per NASA) the CO2 will persist for 300 .. 1000 years - so in
all that time it will be contributing to sending heat back to
earth that should have escaped into space.
Of course nobody can see CO2 so your extra contribution is not
seen. That removes the social barrier.
Therefore, avoid doing that. Use a wire. Not wireless. As it >>>>>> happens I had to go to two stores today and the inserting of the
wire and disconnecting it are trivial things to do. Near
so-called "muscle memory" when getting into the car.
The difference is infinitesimal.
None of that matters when comparing two things that are both
1B tends to make a lot out of a little. Then multiply by years, >>>>>>>> and so on and so forth.
Then of course there is the source. Unlike your house current, >>>>>>>> a car's engine is grossly inefficient even before driving the
alternator. (thermal efficiency above 30% when at cruise,
otherwise it's far less). Then multiply by the wireless charging >>>>>>>> "efficiency".
Or (if an EV), the charge discharge cycle is already 10 - 15% or >>>>>>>> more loss. Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency". >>>>>>>
using the same power source (the car's alternator)
An EV doesn't power accessories from an alternator - they come
from the propulsion battery of the EV via DC:DC converter. As
such you would consider the EV's charge/discharge cycle to the
cell phone. If the EV were renewable charged (hydro, solar, wind,
biomass, then it would be relatively efficient.
You really don't understand this stuff, dude. It's quite sad.
The POINT was an A/B comparison between wired and wireless when in
a car, but it applies to any situation where the power source is
the same for both A and B.
So alternator, EV battery or house current.
House current is (usually) much more efficient than any car can
produce - EVEN - if that power came from coal or other fossil plants.
The only difference is the wired vs wireless charging, but you keep
trying to fold the inefficiency of the alternator into the equation.
Since (in an ICE) that is where the power comes from, yes.
Which is how I did the numbers in the other post (see the corrected
version for 30% charge).
<irrelevancy snipped>It can be done that way for an individual, of course. But I'm
Plug in a wireless charger and put a phone on it. The wireless >>>>>>>> side heats up because: that's what coils do when not 100%
matched to the opposing coil (pro tip: can never be 100% matched >>>>>>>> (ask you local power co.)).
From someone who clearly doesn't understand basic concepts in
physics and math, I'm not buying your bullshit.
The calculations I made demonstrate above basic understanding of
physics. Which is not a limit.
No. They demonstrate your ignorance.
Do the math for charging your phone continuously for 20,000 miles
of highway driving a year wired vs wireless.
(properly) looking at the effect when many people do it.
You can easily compute it for 20,000 miles (Christ! Miles. WTF
will the US get with it?) with the same data I provided. (I avoided
this and just converted joules to how much gasoline it takes to
produce those joules in the car - much smarter way to go about it as
it doesn't matter what the car is, for pretty much any car, no
matter the size of the engine, a joule is a joule is a joule - and
that is what the phone battery is charged with).
It's not about what 1 person does, it's about 100,000,000 to a
billion people all doing the same bad thing. Like if everyone threw
out a bit of plastic every day on their way to and from work... one
person? Nobody would notice. Not even after a year of it...
But this time, do it step by step and I'll show you where you went
wrong.
1) I put up the data.
If so, extremely badly.
I did so, and quite clearly for both wired and wireless cases.
2) I put up how that translates to energy consumption in a car using
an ICE.
3) That of course involves de-rating the car's ICE to mechanical
work lack of efficiency, and de-rating the alternator's conversion
of mechanical work to electricity.
I understand this...
...but you've tried to spin it as if it matters when considering the
DIFFERENCE between to charging methods that both get power from a
car's altenator...
...and that just bullshit.
Then you've misunderstood. I put up a calculation that goes for the
difference in charging wired or wirelessly and how that translates to
emissions. Emissions come from gas burning.
The alternator is just 1 link in the chain from gasoline to charging
the phone.
combustion -> mechanical work -> electricity (alternator) -> phone >> 30%. 90%
1 / 0.3 / 0.9 = 3.7 joules of gasoline burning for each joule
delivered to the phone (wired) or to the wireless device that charges
the phone.
Per my data (listed in the other post), it comes to a difference (on
average) of 151 joules per 1% of charge in the range of about 20 to
75% of charge.
Then (arbitrarily) chose 30% as the range of charge one might do on
their way to/from work. So 151 joules X 30%.
The difference is that for 30% of battery charge, you need 4530 more
joules (electric) to charge that range (say 40 to 70%).
Or 16,761 joules of gasoline burning to generate those 4530 joules
electric.
eg: for a car to produce 1 joule of power to charge a phone, it has
to burn 3.7 joules of gasoline.
4) That translates into gasoline usage directly which translates
into emissions directly.
No one is arguing it doesn't.
Right - then my presentation has no glaring flaws.
Multiply by whatever number of users you want (the individual
contribution is trivial - just like one person throwing out bits of
plastic).
And it all adds up to a lot of CO2 emitted. Is it a fraction of
total car CO2 emissions? Sure. But why go in reverse and add CO2
that can be avoided?
It is a negligible difference, dude. It doesn't ever arise to the
level of background noise.
In what world is an additional 278,000,000 Kg of CO2 "negligible".
Where there are a huge number of assumptions to get to that
278,000,000Kg...
...and where the total is 37,150,000,000,000Kg...
...so the 278,000,000 is 0.0007%...
...(yes: seven ten THOUSANDTHS of one percent).
Once it's out there, it's out there for 300 - 1000 years (per NASA).
Sheesh. Just plug the damned phone in.
Sheesh, get a better hill to die on.
CO2 that lingers for centuries.
What you're really saying is wired charging is too inconvenient to
you. Which is pretty arrogant. Takes me all of 3 seconds when
getting into the car. (Actually I don't even bother unless I need
the Map up).
Actually, I do charge wirelessly.
You're just being an ignorant idiot.
Not at all. Continue the ad hominem. It's the losers way.
It's not ad hominem when it's correct.
DO THE MATH.
I did. In spades. And presented it. If you don't get it, that's
your problem.
And when challenged on basic claims, you punked.
On 2024-03-05 11:08, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-02 11:43, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-02 14:15, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-02 10:35, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-29 22:20, Alan wrote:
On 2024-02-29 15:08, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-29 17:32, Alan wrote:
On 2024-02-28 15:02, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-28 15:52, Alan wrote:
On 2024-02-27 15:39, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-27 17:31, Cameo wrote:
On 2/27/2024 10:25 PM, Alan Browne wrote:I find climate change inconvenient.
On 2024-02-27 10:22, Cameo wrote:
Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal experience? Would prefer models that also work >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with AndroidAuto.
Use a USB cable and reduce your fuel consumption and >>>>>>>>>>>>> emissions.
That's what I have been using, but find it inconvenient. >>>>>>>>>>>
Today I had to run some errands. Being conscientious I >>>>>>>>>>> 'gang' a bunch of errands together to save fuel (and
emissions). Each time I got out of the car, brought my
phone. Got back in the car, plugged in the phone.
Not very inconvenient.
One thing that helps: I bought a pretty short cable for the >>>>>>>>>>> car. Just enough to go from the centre console storage USB >>>>>>>>>>> port to the position where I have a phone holder (that is it >>>>>>>>>>> runs forward to the phone). This means the cable doesn't >>>>>>>>>>> wander off far when I unplug it. This makes it more convenient. >>>>>>>>>>>
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.
I suggest you demonstrate the math of the situation.
Go ahead and assume that a billion phones are being wirelessly >>>>>>>>>> charged for 12 hours a day, every day in cars.
It doesn't matter how many hours per day, it will be many 10s >>>>>>>>> to over hundreds of hours per year per person * 1 B (or more >>>>>>>>> depending on uptake).
It most certainly DOES matter, doofus.
Ad hominem? Are you for real?
It's about PROPORTION.
Indeed: Let's say people went around littering plastic every day. >>>>>>> A little bit. nothing much. Everyone tosses out a little
plastic on the way to work and on their way home.
Not even remotely the same.
We all know, today (or since the 1970's or so), that would not be >>>>>>> tolerated. Not only socially, but you would get a littering
ticket if a cop saw you.
"But, your honour, in PROPORTION to the plastic waste in the
world, it was hardly anything!"
And you know the judge will uphold the ticket. And rightly so. >>>>>>>
This is akin to that. Even though it is not "all that much" in >>>>>>> the great scheme of CO2 output, it is:
A lot of CO2 no matter how you look at it.
(278,070,000 Kg of CO2 per year for the case as presented).
Which is a tiny drop in the bucket even though your numbers are
completely unrealistic.
And (per NASA) the CO2 will persist for 300 .. 1000 years - so in >>>>>>> all that time it will be contributing to sending heat back to
earth that should have escaped into space.
Of course nobody can see CO2 so your extra contribution is not
seen. That removes the social barrier.
Therefore, avoid doing that. Use a wire. Not wireless. As it >>>>>>> happens I had to go to two stores today and the inserting of the >>>>>>> wire and disconnecting it are trivial things to do. Near
so-called "muscle memory" when getting into the car.
The difference is infinitesimal.
1B tends to make a lot out of a little. Then multiply by
years, and so on and so forth.
Then of course there is the source. Unlike your house current, >>>>>>>>> a car's engine is grossly inefficient even before driving the >>>>>>>>> alternator. (thermal efficiency above 30% when at cruise,
otherwise it's far less). Then multiply by the wireless
charging "efficiency".
Or (if an EV), the charge discharge cycle is already 10 - 15% >>>>>>>>> or more loss. Then multiply by the wireless charging
"efficiency".
None of that matters when comparing two things that are both
using the same power source (the car's alternator)
An EV doesn't power accessories from an alternator - they come
from the propulsion battery of the EV via DC:DC converter. As
such you would consider the EV's charge/discharge cycle to the
cell phone. If the EV were renewable charged (hydro, solar, wind, >>>>>>> biomass, then it would be relatively efficient.
You really don't understand this stuff, dude. It's quite sad.
The POINT was an A/B comparison between wired and wireless when in >>>>>> a car, but it applies to any situation where the power source is
the same for both A and B.
So alternator, EV battery or house current.
House current is (usually) much more efficient than any car can
produce - EVEN - if that power came from coal or other fossil plants. >>>>>
The only difference is the wired vs wireless charging, but you
keep trying to fold the inefficiency of the alternator into the
equation.
Since (in an ICE) that is where the power comes from, yes.
Which is how I did the numbers in the other post (see the corrected
version for 30% charge).
<irrelevancy snipped>It can be done that way for an individual, of course. But I'm
Plug in a wireless charger and put a phone on it. The wireless >>>>>>>>> side heats up because: that's what coils do when not 100%
matched to the opposing coil (pro tip: can never be 100%
matched (ask you local power co.)).
From someone who clearly doesn't understand basic concepts in >>>>>>>> physics and math, I'm not buying your bullshit.
The calculations I made demonstrate above basic understanding of >>>>>>> physics. Which is not a limit.
No. They demonstrate your ignorance.
Do the math for charging your phone continuously for 20,000 miles
of highway driving a year wired vs wireless.
(properly) looking at the effect when many people do it.
You can easily compute it for 20,000 miles (Christ! Miles. WTF
will the US get with it?) with the same data I provided. (I
avoided this and just converted joules to how much gasoline it
takes to produce those joules in the car - much smarter way to go
about it as it doesn't matter what the car is, for pretty much any
car, no matter the size of the engine, a joule is a joule is a
joule - and that is what the phone battery is charged with).
It's not about what 1 person does, it's about 100,000,000 to a
billion people all doing the same bad thing. Like if everyone
threw out a bit of plastic every day on their way to and from
work... one person? Nobody would notice. Not even after a year of
it...
But this time, do it step by step and I'll show you where you went >>>>>> wrong.
1) I put up the data.
If so, extremely badly.
I did so, and quite clearly for both wired and wireless cases.
2) I put up how that translates to energy consumption in a car
using an ICE.
3) That of course involves de-rating the car's ICE to mechanical
work lack of efficiency, and de-rating the alternator's conversion
of mechanical work to electricity.
I understand this...
...but you've tried to spin it as if it matters when considering the
DIFFERENCE between to charging methods that both get power from a
car's altenator...
...and that just bullshit.
Then you've misunderstood. I put up a calculation that goes for the
difference in charging wired or wirelessly and how that translates to
emissions. Emissions come from gas burning.
The alternator is just 1 link in the chain from gasoline to charging
the phone.
combustion -> mechanical work -> electricity (alternator) -> phone >>> 30%. 90%
1 / 0.3 / 0.9 = 3.7 joules of gasoline burning for each joule
delivered to the phone (wired) or to the wireless device that charges
the phone.
Per my data (listed in the other post), it comes to a difference (on
average) of 151 joules per 1% of charge in the range of about 20 to
75% of charge.
Then (arbitrarily) chose 30% as the range of charge one might do on
their way to/from work. So 151 joules X 30%.
The difference is that for 30% of battery charge, you need 4530 more
joules (electric) to charge that range (say 40 to 70%).
Or 16,761 joules of gasoline burning to generate those 4530 joules
electric.
eg: for a car to produce 1 joule of power to charge a phone, it has
to burn 3.7 joules of gasoline.
4) That translates into gasoline usage directly which translates
into emissions directly.
No one is arguing it doesn't.
Right - then my presentation has no glaring flaws.
Multiply by whatever number of users you want (the individual
contribution is trivial - just like one person throwing out bits of
plastic).
And it all adds up to a lot of CO2 emitted. Is it a fraction of
total car CO2 emissions? Sure. But why go in reverse and add CO2 >>>>> that can be avoided?
It is a negligible difference, dude. It doesn't ever arise to the
level of background noise.
In what world is an additional 278,000,000 Kg of CO2 "negligible".
Where there are a huge number of assumptions to get to that
278,000,000Kg...
Not really. What does "huge" mean to you anyway?
...and where the total is 37,150,000,000,000Kg...
...so the 278,000,000 is 0.0007%...
...(yes: seven ten THOUSANDTHS of one percent).
So what? It's avoidable emissions. Avoid it. Takes 3 seconds to plug
in a wire (full disclosure: takes 2 hands which might mean beyond your
skill level).
Further, multiply it by a number of years and by the time it persists.
Once it's out there, it's out there for 300 - 1000 years (per NASA).
Sheesh. Just plug the damned phone in.
Sheesh, get a better hill to die on.
CO2 that lingers for centuries.
What you're really saying is wired charging is too inconvenient to
you. Which is pretty arrogant. Takes me all of 3 seconds when
getting into the car. (Actually I don't even bother unless I need
the Map up).
Actually, I do charge wirelessly.
You're just being an ignorant idiot.
Not at all. Continue the ad hominem. It's the losers way.
It's not ad hominem when it's correct.
Well it isn't correct.
DO THE MATH.
I did. In spades. And presented it. If you don't get it, that's
your problem.
And when challenged on basic claims, you punked.
I what? Is that a word?
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).
From there: for the wired test: 5 minute interval current amounts were recorded (see table in other post); for the Wireless, 15 minute
intervals (as it was slower). This was posted in two tables.
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)...
...and you just assumed that Anker's pad couldn't be of a different
level of efficiency?
Shoddy... ....very shoddy.
On 2024-03-05 11:21, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:08, Alan wrote:
Well it isn't correct.
Says the guy who doesn't understand proportion.
DO THE MATH.
I did. In spades. And presented it. If you don't get it, that's
your problem.
And when challenged on basic claims, you punked.
I what? Is that a word?
Yup. I'm using it in a common slang sense, but only the truly ignorant
don't know that "punk" is most definitely a word and has been since the
late 16th century.
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.
Shoddy... ....very shoddy.
Not at all - did it with what was on hand.
Which is much more that what you've done.
On 2024-03-05 19:08, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:21, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:08, Alan wrote:
Well it isn't correct.
Says the guy who doesn't understand proportion.
What I understand is I will avoid polluting no matter how small the amount.
Its seems inconsequential as you cannot see it. Were it little bits of plastic I'm sure you wouldn't do it.
DO THE MATH.
I did. In spades. And presented it. If you don't get it, that's >>>>> your problem.
And when challenged on basic claims, you punked.
I what? Is that a word?
Yup. I'm using it in a common slang sense, but only the truly ignorant
don't know that "punk" is most definitely a word and has been since
the late 16th century.
Punk is no issue. Punked as slang is just that - and wrongly used by
you in any case.
Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> 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.
How to go on a road trip with an electric car…
https://ibb.co/P92600n
Hank Rogers <hank@nospam.invalid> wrote:
badgolferman wrote:
Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> 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.
How to go on a road trip with an electric carâ¦
https://ibb.co/P92600n
Well, it would be wonderful, if only apple had offered us that special car >> they were promising.
Apple was smart to stop it.
1. The reality has set in about the infeasibility of electric cars, especially in a vast country like USA.
2. Apple is not a car company. There is a lot that goes into making cars successfully.
3. Electric car battery production is not as “green” as Apple wants to be.
4. People are just not buying them much anymore. The “new” has worn off and
the cost of ownership has taken people aback.
On 2024-03-06 13:47, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 19:08, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:21, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:08, Alan wrote:
Well it isn't correct.
Says the guy who doesn't understand proportion.
What I understand is I will avoid polluting no matter how small the
amount.
Its seems inconsequential as you cannot see it. Were it little bits
of plastic I'm sure you wouldn't do it.
It doesn't SEEM inconsequential, sunshine: it IS inconsequential.
Literally less than one THOUSANDTH of one percent.
DO THE MATH.
I did. In spades. And presented it. If you don't get it, that's >>>>>> your problem.
And when challenged on basic claims, you punked.
I what? Is that a word?
Yup. I'm using it in a common slang sense, but only the truly
ignorant don't know that "punk" is most definitely a word and has
been since the late 16th century.
Punk is no issue. Punked as slang is just that - and wrongly used by
you in any case.
Nope.
'4. (especially with "out") To give up or concede; to act like a wimp.
Jimmy was going to help me with the prank, but he punked (out) at the
last minute.'
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/punk>
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.
Shoddy... ....very shoddy.
Not at all - did it with what was on hand.
Which is much more that what you've done.
And you admit you're using two different chargers...
...and just assuming that all the difference in efficiency is down to
the wired vs wireless.
On 2024-03-06 17:23, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 13:47, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 19:08, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:21, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:08, Alan wrote:
Well it isn't correct.
Says the guy who doesn't understand proportion.
What I understand is I will avoid polluting no matter how small the
amount.
Its seems inconsequential as you cannot see it. Were it little bits
of plastic I'm sure you wouldn't do it.
It doesn't SEEM inconsequential, sunshine: it IS inconsequential.
Literally less than one THOUSANDTH of one percent.
And then it lingers for 300 - 1000 years ... actually worse than most plastics...
DO THE MATH.
I did. In spades. And presented it. If you don't get it,
that's your problem.
And when challenged on basic claims, you punked.
I what? Is that a word?
Yup. I'm using it in a common slang sense, but only the truly
ignorant don't know that "punk" is most definitely a word and has
been since the late 16th century.
Punk is no issue. Punked as slang is just that - and wrongly used by
you in any case.
Nope.
'4. (especially with "out") To give up or concede; to act like a wimp.
Jimmy was going to help me with the prank, but he punked (out) at the
last minute.'
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/punk>
Still not applicable. Really grasping...
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.
Shoddy... ....very shoddy.
Not at all - did it with what was on hand.
Which is much more that what you've done.
And you admit you're using two different chargers...
No I didn't. Both chargers (wall unit) were the same one.
The difference is:
-Anker charging pad and its cable v. the Apple cable direct to the phone
- and the cable is not going to be where losses are.
I thought that was clear enough.
...and just assuming that all the difference in efficiency is down to
the wired vs wireless.
Wireless is simply lossy. This is evident in how warm the charge device gets. Any transformer is lossy (which is what this is). In the
wireless device charging configuration, it's even lossier.
If there are differences between an Anker device and some other good
brand they will be minor at best.
On 2024-03-07 14:43, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-06 17:23, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 13:47, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 19:08, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:21, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:08, Alan wrote:
Well it isn't correct.
Says the guy who doesn't understand proportion.
What I understand is I will avoid polluting no matter how small the
amount.
Its seems inconsequential as you cannot see it. Were it little bits
of plastic I'm sure you wouldn't do it.
It doesn't SEEM inconsequential, sunshine: it IS inconsequential.
Literally less than one THOUSANDTH of one percent.
And then it lingers for 300 - 1000 years ... actually worse than most
plastics...
In the grand scheme of things it makes NO DIFFERENCE.
DO THE MATH.
I did. In spades. And presented it. If you don't get it, >>>>>>>> that's your problem.
And when challenged on basic claims, you punked.
I what? Is that a word?
Yup. I'm using it in a common slang sense, but only the truly
ignorant don't know that "punk" is most definitely a word and has
been since the late 16th century.
Punk is no issue. Punked as slang is just that - and wrongly used
by you in any case.
Nope.
'4. (especially with "out") To give up or concede; to act like a wimp.
Jimmy was going to help me with the prank, but he punked (out) at the
last minute.'
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/punk>
Still not applicable. Really grasping...
Absolutely applicable, sunshine. Let me demonstrate:
"And when challenged on basic claims, you [gave up]".
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.
Shoddy... ....very shoddy.
Not at all - did it with what was on hand.
Which is much more that what you've done.
And you admit you're using two different chargers...
No I didn't. Both chargers (wall unit) were the same one.
The difference is:
-Anker charging pad and its cable v. the Apple cable direct to the
phone - and the cable is not going to be where losses are.
And you KNOW how efficient Anker's charging pad is?
I thought that was clear enough.
...and just assuming that all the difference in efficiency is down to
the wired vs wireless.
Wireless is simply lossy. This is evident in how warm the charge
device gets. Any transformer is lossy (which is what this is). In
the wireless device charging configuration, it's even lossier.
Does the pad get warm...
...or is it the fact that the phone's battery gets warm...
...but it is sitting in contact with the pad?
If there are differences between an Anker device and some other good
brand they will be minor at best.
Riiiiiiiiiiight.
On 2024-03-07 20:19, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-07 14:43, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-06 17:23, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 13:47, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 19:08, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:21, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:08, Alan wrote:
Well it isn't correct.
Says the guy who doesn't understand proportion.
What I understand is I will avoid polluting no matter how small the
amount.
Its seems inconsequential as you cannot see it. Were it little
bits of plastic I'm sure you wouldn't do it.
It doesn't SEEM inconsequential, sunshine: it IS inconsequential.
Literally less than one THOUSANDTH of one percent.
And then it lingers for 300 - 1000 years ... actually worse than most
plastics...
In the grand scheme of things it makes NO DIFFERENCE.
Nor does throwing out tiny bits of plastic. But I doubt you do that.
DO THE MATH.
I did. In spades. And presented it. If you don't get it, >>>>>>>>> that's your problem.
And when challenged on basic claims, you punked.
I what? Is that a word?
Yup. I'm using it in a common slang sense, but only the truly
ignorant don't know that "punk" is most definitely a word and has
been since the late 16th century.
Punk is no issue. Punked as slang is just that - and wrongly used
by you in any case.
Nope.
'4. (especially with "out") To give up or concede; to act like a wimp. >>>> Jimmy was going to help me with the prank, but he punked (out) at
the last minute.'
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/punk>
Still not applicable. Really grasping...
Absolutely applicable, sunshine. Let me demonstrate:
"And when challenged on basic claims, you [gave up]".
All in your head.
On 2/27/2024 7:22 AM, Cameo wrote:
Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from personal
experience? Would prefer models that also work with AndroidAuto.
Seems like there are not a lot of choices that support both Android Auto
and Apple CarPlay, and they aren't inexpensive, i.e. <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CKMMS19S>. Not a lot of reviews on any of
the dual-support units.
It's really nice to just plop your phone onto a MagSafe charger/phone
holder in the car and then connect wirelessly to your vehicle's head unit.
OTOH, it's not that much trouble to plug in a USB-C cable to the phone
when you need the full-functionality of Android Auto or Apple CarPlay,
and if you're not using wireless charging you have to plug in a cable
anyway.
Most of the time I'm listening to music or audiobooks while driving,
it's only on long trips where I care that much about displaying maps on
the head unit's screen. The after-market head unit I have in my SUV
supports wired Android Auto and wired Apple CarPlay and I haven't bought
a wireless adapter yet.
On 2024-03-08 14:02, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-07 20:19, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-07 14:43, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-06 17:23, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 13:47, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 19:08, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:21, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:08, Alan wrote:
Well it isn't correct.
Says the guy who doesn't understand proportion.
What I understand is I will avoid polluting no matter how small
the amount.
Its seems inconsequential as you cannot see it. Were it little
bits of plastic I'm sure you wouldn't do it.
It doesn't SEEM inconsequential, sunshine: it IS inconsequential.
Literally less than one THOUSANDTH of one percent.
And then it lingers for 300 - 1000 years ... actually worse than
most plastics...
In the grand scheme of things it makes NO DIFFERENCE.
Nor does throwing out tiny bits of plastic. But I doubt you do that.
DO THE MATH.
I did. In spades. And presented it. If you don't get it, >>>>>>>>>> that's your problem.
And when challenged on basic claims, you punked.
I what? Is that a word?
Yup. I'm using it in a common slang sense, but only the truly
ignorant don't know that "punk" is most definitely a word and has >>>>>>> been since the late 16th century.
Punk is no issue. Punked as slang is just that - and wrongly used >>>>>> by you in any case.
Nope.
'4. (especially with "out") To give up or concede; to act like a wimp. >>>>> Jimmy was going to help me with the prank, but he punked (out) at
the last minute.'
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/punk>
Still not applicable. Really grasping...
Absolutely applicable, sunshine. Let me demonstrate:
"And when challenged on basic claims, you [gave up]".
All in your head.
I challenged your claims and you gave up on supporting them.
That's just reality, sunshine.
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?
How did you measure the energy?
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. >>>>>>>>>>>
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?
Shoddy... ....very shoddy.
Not at all - did it with what was on hand.
Which is much more that what you've done.
And you admit you're using two different chargers...
No I didn't. Both chargers (wall unit) were the same one.
The difference is:
-Anker charging pad and its cable v. the Apple cable direct to the
phone - and the cable is not going to be where losses are.
And you KNOW how efficient Anker's charging pad is?
Pretty closely from the data, sure (compared to wired charging, of
course).
Ummmmmm... ...no.
You have no data on how much of the difference in energy used is down to
the actual wireless transfer and how much to the implementation of it in
that particular device.
I thought that was clear enough.
...and just assuming that all the difference in efficiency is down
to the wired vs wireless.
Wireless is simply lossy. This is evident in how warm the charge
device gets. Any transformer is lossy (which is what this is). In
the wireless device charging configuration, it's even lossier.
Does the pad get warm...
...or is it the fact that the phone's battery gets warm...
...but it is sitting in contact with the pad?
Surely some heat comes from the phone, but given that:
1) Wired needs less energy than wireless to charge, and
Circular argument: ever heard of it?
2) Transformers get hot because they are inefficient, and
3) Wireless charging is a form of transformer - just less efficient,
then...
the greatest contribution to the wireless pad getting warm is its own
inefficiency.
Says the guy who has literally no idea if that's true.
If there are differences between an Anker device and some other good
brand they will be minor at best.
Riiiiiiiiiiight.
Prove me wrong numbnuts. Go buy 3 or 4 wireless chargers and run the
tests. Assuming you can figure out how.
Nope.
I'm not the one making claims he cannot substantiate.
On 2024-03-08 18:48, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-08 14:02, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-07 20:19, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-07 14:43, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-06 17:23, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 13:47, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 19:08, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:21, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:08, Alan wrote:
Well it isn't correct.
Says the guy who doesn't understand proportion.
What I understand is I will avoid polluting no matter how small
the amount.
Its seems inconsequential as you cannot see it. Were it little >>>>>>> bits of plastic I'm sure you wouldn't do it.
It doesn't SEEM inconsequential, sunshine: it IS inconsequential.
Literally less than one THOUSANDTH of one percent.
And then it lingers for 300 - 1000 years ... actually worse than
most plastics...
In the grand scheme of things it makes NO DIFFERENCE.
Nor does throwing out tiny bits of plastic. But I doubt you do that.
DO THE MATH.
I did. In spades. And presented it. If you don't get it, >>>>>>>>>>> that's your problem.
And when challenged on basic claims, you punked.
I what? Is that a word?
Yup. I'm using it in a common slang sense, but only the truly
ignorant don't know that "punk" is most definitely a word and
has been since the late 16th century.
Punk is no issue. Punked as slang is just that - and wrongly
used by you in any case.
Nope.
'4. (especially with "out") To give up or concede; to act like a
wimp.
Jimmy was going to help me with the prank, but he punked (out) at
the last minute.'
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/punk>
Still not applicable. Really grasping...
Absolutely applicable, sunshine. Let me demonstrate:
"And when challenged on basic claims, you [gave up]".
All in your head.
I challenged your claims and you gave up on supporting them.
That's just reality, sunshine.
You're under some delusion that I have an obligation to satisfy you. I certainly don't.
You have the option of proving me wrong, if you don't take it, that's
your problem.
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:So you used two different chargers... ...or two different
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?
How did you measure the energy?
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>
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). >>>>>>>>
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?
Shoddy... ....very shoddy.
Not at all - did it with what was on hand.
Which is much more that what you've done.
And you admit you're using two different chargers...
No I didn't. Both chargers (wall unit) were the same one.
The difference is:
-Anker charging pad and its cable v. the Apple cable direct to the
phone - and the cable is not going to be where losses are.
And you KNOW how efficient Anker's charging pad is?
Pretty closely from the data, sure (compared to wired charging, of
course).
Ummmmmm... ...no.
You have no data on how much of the difference in energy used is down
to the actual wireless transfer and how much to the implementation of
it in that particular device.
Measured it.
Wired uses so much energy to effect charge difference in the phone.
Wireless used more energy to effect the same difference in the phone.
Covered many times.
I thought that was clear enough.
...and just assuming that all the difference in efficiency is down >>>>>> to the wired vs wireless.
Wireless is simply lossy. This is evident in how warm the charge
device gets. Any transformer is lossy (which is what this is). In >>>>> the wireless device charging configuration, it's even lossier.
Does the pad get warm...
...or is it the fact that the phone's battery gets warm...
...but it is sitting in contact with the pad?
Surely some heat comes from the phone, but given that:
1) Wired needs less energy than wireless to charge, and
Circular argument: ever heard of it?
Not circular at all. Wireless is simply less efficient - it's an air
gapped transformer. Even the best designed transformers are not close
to 100% efficiency.
2) Transformers get hot because they are inefficient, and
3) Wireless charging is a form of transformer - just less efficient,
then...
the greatest contribution to the wireless pad getting warm is its own
inefficiency.
Says the guy who has literally no idea if that's true.
So, go prove me wrong. Go buy 3 or 4 similar chargers and do your own measurements.
If there are differences between an Anker device and some other
good brand they will be minor at best.
Riiiiiiiiiiight.
Prove me wrong numbnuts. Go buy 3 or 4 wireless chargers and run the
tests. Assuming you can figure out how.
Nope.
I'm not the one making claims he cannot substantiate.
If this is your best, then I guess that's it.
On 2024-03-09 06:01, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-08 18:48, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-08 14:02, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-07 20:19, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-07 14:43, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-06 17:23, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 13:47, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 19:08, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:21, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:08, Alan wrote:
Well it isn't correct.
Says the guy who doesn't understand proportion.
What I understand is I will avoid polluting no matter how small >>>>>>>> the amount.
Its seems inconsequential as you cannot see it. Were it little >>>>>>>> bits of plastic I'm sure you wouldn't do it.
It doesn't SEEM inconsequential, sunshine: it IS inconsequential. >>>>>>>
Literally less than one THOUSANDTH of one percent.
And then it lingers for 300 - 1000 years ... actually worse than
most plastics...
In the grand scheme of things it makes NO DIFFERENCE.
Nor does throwing out tiny bits of plastic. But I doubt you do that. >>>>
DO THE MATH.
I did. In spades. And presented it. If you don't get it, >>>>>>>>>>>> that's your problem.
And when challenged on basic claims, you punked.
I what? Is that a word?
Yup. I'm using it in a common slang sense, but only the truly >>>>>>>>> ignorant don't know that "punk" is most definitely a word and >>>>>>>>> has been since the late 16th century.
Punk is no issue. Punked as slang is just that - and wrongly >>>>>>>> used by you in any case.
Nope.
'4. (especially with "out") To give up or concede; to act like a >>>>>>> wimp.
Jimmy was going to help me with the prank, but he punked (out) at >>>>>>> the last minute.'
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/punk>
Still not applicable. Really grasping...
Absolutely applicable, sunshine. Let me demonstrate:
"And when challenged on basic claims, you [gave up]".
All in your head.
I challenged your claims and you gave up on supporting them.
That's just reality, sunshine.
You're under some delusion that I have an obligation to satisfy you.
I certainly don't.
Of course you don't. The delusion is you thinking I think you had such
an obligation.
You have the option of proving me wrong, if you don't take it, that's
your problem.
And if you can't substantiate your claims...
I challenged your claims and you gave up on supporting them.
That's just reality, sunshine.
You're under some delusion that I have an obligation to satisfy you.
I certainly don't.
Of course you don't. The delusion is you thinking I think you had such
an obligation.
You have the option of proving me wrong, if you don't take it, that's
your problem.
And if you can't substantiate your claims...
See my other reply. This is pretty basis stuff. For most of us.
Prove me wrong numbnuts. Go buy 3 or 4 wireless chargers and run
the tests. Assuming you can figure out how.
Nope.
I'm not the one making claims he cannot substantiate.
If this is your best, then I guess that's it.
Yup.
We've landed on you making claims you can't substantiate.
I'm satisfied. You're frustrated. Go try it yourself.
Anyway, done with you - this has circled the drain enough. The
measurements are clear. The fact that wireless charging with an airgap transformer is not efficient is not going to surprise anyone.
With that - I'm done.
On 2024-03-11 16:27, Alan Browne wrote:
I challenged your claims and you gave up on supporting them.
That's just reality, sunshine.
You're under some delusion that I have an obligation to satisfy you.
I certainly don't.
Of course you don't. The delusion is you thinking I think you had
such an obligation.
You have the option of proving me wrong, if you don't take it,
that's your problem.
And if you can't substantiate your claims...
See my other reply. This is pretty basis stuff. For most of us.
So you admit that after claiming you were "done"...
...you then posted this!
It is basic stuff, sunshine:
You made a claim.
I challenged you to substantiate it.
You punked out.
On 2024-03-11 20:26, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-11 16:27, Alan Browne wrote:
I challenged your claims and you gave up on supporting them.
That's just reality, sunshine.
You're under some delusion that I have an obligation to satisfy
you. I certainly don't.
Of course you don't. The delusion is you thinking I think you had
such an obligation.
You have the option of proving me wrong, if you don't take it,
that's your problem.
And if you can't substantiate your claims...
See my other reply. This is pretty basis stuff. For most of us.
So you admit that after claiming you were "done"...
...you then posted this!
It is basic stuff, sunshine:
You made a claim.
I challenged you to substantiate it.
You punked out.
... not at all ... I have zero obligation to meet your challenges.
Put your outsize ego into the thimble it actually fits.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 26:59:08 |
| Calls: | 10,390 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,061 |