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.

>
> 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 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.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

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.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

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 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>

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

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 car…
>
> https://ibb.co/P92600n
>
>

Well, it would be wonderful, if only apple had offered us that special car
they were promising.

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 car…
>>
>> 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 17:52, badgolferman wrote:
> 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 car…
>>>
>>> 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.

No such thing has "set in".

People use cars for many purposes and many of those purposes can be more
than adequately served by electric cars.

> 2. Apple is not a car company. There is a lot that goes into making cars
> successfully.

Apple wasn't a phone company either, and folks like you (probably more
knowledgeable about phones than you are about cars) insisted Apple
couldn't make a successful cell phone either.

> 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.

LOL!

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...

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...

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

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.

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 20:17, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-03-07 14:42, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2024-03-06 17:19, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-06 13:30, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-05 19:16, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-05 11:25, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-05 11:02, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-03-05 06:26, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-02 16:02, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-28 16:01, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-28 16:14, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-28 04:58, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.02.24 00:39, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wireless charging is 20 - 25% less efficient than wired.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Multiply that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by a billion cars... and that's a lot of emissions the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet does not need.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is total bullshit and out of any proportion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Combustion engines
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have an efficiency of 30 to 40% max. Electric motors are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> above 90%. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is where the potential really lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since the efficiency of the car cannot be controlled by the
>>>>>>>>>>>> choice of a phone charging cable, it is not in consideration
>>>>>>>>>>>> for the choice of wired v. wireless charging.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, if charging one's phone in the car you're looking at how
>>>>>>>>>>>> much energy is delivered to the phone.  Period.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If wired, there is 0 (negligible) loss from the car to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> phone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If wireless, there is about 20 - 25% loss. (Ever touch a
>>>>>>>>>>>> wireless charger pad?  All that heat is loss).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Multiply by the number of phones in cars.  That is emissions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If your EV is charged with emissions producing sources
>>>>>>>>>>>> (natural gas, coal, etc.), then it's actually worse, as
>>>>>>>>>>>> charging the EV and extracting the EV's power from the
>>>>>>>>>>>> battery is also a lossy prospect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If your EV is charged from renewables (like here: near 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>> hydro power), then it's still better to avoid losses so the
>>>>>>>>>>>> utility can export that power to neighbours and offset their
>>>>>>>>>>>> fossil fuel use (we export power to the US and provinces
>>>>>>>>>>>> that would otherwise use more fossil fuel).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Summary: wireless charging, no matter where or how, wastes
>>>>>>>>>>>> energy and often increases emissions as a result.  Should
>>>>>>>>>>>> only be used where safety or corrosion is an issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...the...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...math.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sure - based on my own testing in 2021.  Anker pad v. Apple
>>>>>>>>>> 12W charger+wire.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And what was your testing method?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> iPhone 11 from 20% to 74% charge: 34225 joules (W-s) using
>>>>>>>>>> charger and wire
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> iPhone 11 from 24% to 77% charge: 41626 joules (w-s) using
>>>>>>>>>> same Anker wireless charger and phone carefully centred on the
>>>>>>>>>> charger (better than ±1mm in X and Y).  Data below.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How did you measure the energy?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> THAT IS:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 634 joules per percent of change (average) wired.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> v.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 785 joules / percent of change (average) wireless (without a
>>>>>>>>>> case - which would have made it worse).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So it took 23% more energy to charge the battery over the
>>>>>>>>>> easiest range of about 20 - 75%.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And how do you know it wasn't the Anker charger that was
>>>>>>>>> responsible for much of that difference?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Answer those questions...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...and then we'll go on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, you don't get an easy out on that.  Wireless charging is
>>>>>>>> not a mystery - esp. as the Anker charger and iPhone both comply
>>>>>>>> to the same standard.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I asked simple questions and you demur.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Got it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you're just looking to assail it to justify your cause.
>>>>>> Wireless charging is not a mystery.  But do go out and buy some
>>>>>> other brand and make the measurements as you like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Align two coils well and send an alternating current.  In both
>>>>>>>> cases I took pains to align things mechanically as close as
>>>>>>>> possible (better than 1mm in x and y).  An in car charger can
>>>>>>>> only do as well (or minusculely better) if it uses a Magsafe
>>>>>>>> style charger (that magnetically centres the phone to the charger).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Indeed I helped the wireless case by removing the case from the
>>>>>>>> phone.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're welcome to try a different device and put up your
>>>>>>>> results, of course.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You make a claim about efficiency...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...but won't answer questions about how you measured it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't recall you asking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Got it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've got nothing.  Which is par for you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Used a Kill-a-Watt widget to measure the AC current before the
>>>>>> Apple adaptor.  These adaptors are about 90-95% efficient (so you
>>>>>> can discount that 5-10% if you like since nonesuch is in the car
>>>>>> scenario).  The K-a-W is about 1% accurate (either way).
>>>>>
>>>>> So you used two different chargers... ...or two different
>>>>> companies' connectors (USB for wired and wireless charging from
>>>>> Anker)...
>>>>
>>>> Not the lossy part, but nice (bad) try.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ...and you just assumed that Anker's pad couldn't be of a different
>>>>> level of efficiency?
>>>>
>>>> Not going to be much - but as I said: prove it.
>>>
>>> You have to prove it, Sunshine.
>>>
>>> They're your claims.
>>
>> Sure enough.  And very reasonable claims.  I'm just not going to shell
>> out cash to buy 3 or 4 different ones to satisfy you.
>
> So you admit you can't prove that you weren't measuring the relative
> efficiency of two different chargers.
>
> Got it.

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.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2024-03-08 14:01, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2024-03-07 20:17, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-03-07 14:42, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-06 17:19, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-06 13:30, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-05 19:16, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-05 11:25, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-03-05 11:02, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-05 06:26, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-02 16:02, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-28 16:01, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-28 16:14, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-28 04:58, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.02.24 00:39, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wireless charging is 20 - 25% less efficient than wired.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Multiply that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by a billion cars... and that's a lot of emissions the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet does not need.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is total bullshit and out of any proportion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Combustion engines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have an efficiency of 30 to 40% max. Electric motors are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above 90%. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is where the potential really lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since the efficiency of the car cannot be controlled by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice of a phone charging cable, it is not in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration for the choice of wired v. wireless charging.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, if charging one's phone in the car you're looking at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> how much energy is delivered to the phone.  Period.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If wired, there is 0 (negligible) loss from the car to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> phone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If wireless, there is about 20 - 25% loss. (Ever touch a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wireless charger pad?  All that heat is loss).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Multiply by the number of phones in cars.  That is emissions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If your EV is charged with emissions producing sources
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (natural gas, coal, etc.), then it's actually worse, as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> charging the EV and extracting the EV's power from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> battery is also a lossy prospect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If your EV is charged from renewables (like here: near 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hydro power), then it's still better to avoid losses so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> utility can export that power to neighbours and offset
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their fossil fuel use (we export power to the US and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> provinces that would otherwise use more fossil fuel).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Summary: wireless charging, no matter where or how, wastes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy and often increases emissions as a result.  Should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> only be used where safety or corrosion is an issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...the...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...math.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sure - based on my own testing in 2021.  Anker pad v. Apple
>>>>>>>>>>> 12W charger+wire.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And what was your testing method?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> iPhone 11 from 20% to 74% charge: 34225 joules (W-s) using
>>>>>>>>>>> charger and wire
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> iPhone 11 from 24% to 77% charge: 41626 joules (w-s) using
>>>>>>>>>>> same Anker wireless charger and phone carefully centred on
>>>>>>>>>>> the charger (better than ±1mm in X and Y).  Data below.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How did you measure the energy?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> THAT IS:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 634 joules per percent of change (average) wired.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> v.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 785 joules / percent of change (average) wireless (without a
>>>>>>>>>>> case - which would have made it worse).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So it took 23% more energy to charge the battery over the
>>>>>>>>>>> easiest range of about 20 - 75%.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And how do you know it wasn't the Anker charger that was
>>>>>>>>>> responsible for much of that difference?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Answer those questions...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...and then we'll go on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry, you don't get an easy out on that.  Wireless charging is
>>>>>>>>> not a mystery - esp. as the Anker charger and iPhone both
>>>>>>>>> comply to the same standard.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I asked simple questions and you demur.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Got it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you're just looking to assail it to justify your cause.
>>>>>>> Wireless charging is not a mystery.  But do go out and buy some
>>>>>>> other brand and make the measurements as you like.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Align two coils well and send an alternating current.  In both
>>>>>>>>> cases I took pains to align things mechanically as close as
>>>>>>>>> possible (better than 1mm in x and y).  An in car charger can
>>>>>>>>> only do as well (or minusculely better) if it uses a Magsafe
>>>>>>>>> style charger (that magnetically centres the phone to the
>>>>>>>>> charger).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Indeed I helped the wireless case by removing the case from the
>>>>>>>>> phone.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're welcome to try a different device and put up your
>>>>>>>>> results, of course.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You make a claim about efficiency...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...but won't answer questions about how you measured it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't recall you asking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Got it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've got nothing.  Which is par for you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Used a Kill-a-Watt widget to measure the AC current before the
>>>>>>> Apple adaptor.  These adaptors are about 90-95% efficient (so you
>>>>>>> can discount that 5-10% if you like since nonesuch is in the car
>>>>>>> scenario).  The K-a-W is about 1% accurate (either way).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you used two different chargers... ...or two different
>>>>>> companies' connectors (USB for wired and wireless charging from
>>>>>> Anker)...
>>>>>
>>>>> Not the lossy part, but nice (bad) try.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...and you just assumed that Anker's pad couldn't be of a
>>>>>> different level of efficiency?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not going to be much - but as I said: prove it.
>>>>
>>>> You have to prove it, Sunshine.
>>>>
>>>> They're your claims.
>>>
>>> Sure enough.  And very reasonable claims.  I'm just not going to
>>> shell out cash to buy 3 or 4 different ones to satisfy you.
>>
>> So you admit you can't prove that you weren't measuring the relative
>> efficiency of two different chargers.
>>
>> Got it.
>
> If you think there will be a large difference between several different
> wireless chargers, then please do go ahead and make the measurements.

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 2/28/2024 8:47 PM, sms wrote:
> 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.

I eventually ended up buying the Ottocast U2-Air Pro adapter and am
happy with it so far. The only problem I have with it is that the Waze
image occasionally disappears, but pressing the app's icon will bring it
back. It is no big deal for me, especially because I am not even sure if
the adapter is at fault for that, or the Waze app.
I just find it very convenient that I don't even need to take out the
iPhone from my breast pocket when I get into my 2019 Hyundaí Kona and
the Waze up comes up on the dashboard screen without having to mess with
a USB cable.

On 2024-03-08 18:48, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-03-08 14:01, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2024-03-07 20:17, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-07 14:42, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-06 17:19, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-06 13:30, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-05 19:16, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-03-05 11:25, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-05 11:02, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-05 06:26, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-02 16:02, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-28 16:01, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-28 16:14, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-28 04:58, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.02.24 00:39, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wireless charging is 20 - 25% less efficient than wired.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Multiply that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by a billion cars... and that's a lot of emissions the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet does not need.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is total bullshit and out of any proportion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Combustion engines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have an efficiency of 30 to 40% max. Electric motors are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above 90%. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is where the potential really lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since the efficiency of the car cannot be controlled by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the choice of a phone charging cable, it is not in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration for the choice of wired v. wireless charging.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, if charging one's phone in the car you're looking at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how much energy is delivered to the phone.  Period.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If wired, there is 0 (negligible) loss from the car to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> phone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If wireless, there is about 20 - 25% loss. (Ever touch a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wireless charger pad?  All that heat is loss).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Multiply by the number of phones in cars.  That is emissions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If your EV is charged with emissions producing sources
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (natural gas, coal, etc.), then it's actually worse, as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charging the EV and extracting the EV's power from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> battery is also a lossy prospect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If your EV is charged from renewables (like here: near
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100% hydro power), then it's still better to avoid losses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the utility can export that power to neighbours and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offset their fossil fuel use (we export power to the US
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and provinces that would otherwise use more fossil fuel).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Summary: wireless charging, no matter where or how, wastes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy and often increases emissions as a result.  Should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only be used where safety or corrosion is an issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...the...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...math.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure - based on my own testing in 2021.  Anker pad v. Apple
>>>>>>>>>>>> 12W charger+wire.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And what was your testing method?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> iPhone 11 from 20% to 74% charge: 34225 joules (W-s) using
>>>>>>>>>>>> charger and wire
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> iPhone 11 from 24% to 77% charge: 41626 joules (w-s) using
>>>>>>>>>>>> same Anker wireless charger and phone carefully centred on
>>>>>>>>>>>> the charger (better than ±1mm in X and Y).  Data below.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How did you measure the energy?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT IS:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 634 joules per percent of change (average) wired.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> v.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 785 joules / percent of change (average) wireless (without a
>>>>>>>>>>>> case - which would have made it worse).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So it took 23% more energy to charge the battery over the
>>>>>>>>>>>> easiest range of about 20 - 75%.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And how do you know it wasn't the Anker charger that was
>>>>>>>>>>> responsible for much of that difference?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Answer those questions...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...and then we'll go on.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, you don't get an easy out on that.  Wireless charging
>>>>>>>>>> is not a mystery - esp. as the Anker charger and iPhone both
>>>>>>>>>> comply to the same standard.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I asked simple questions and you demur.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Got it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you're just looking to assail it to justify your cause.
>>>>>>>> Wireless charging is not a mystery.  But do go out and buy some
>>>>>>>> other brand and make the measurements as you like.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Align two coils well and send an alternating current.  In both
>>>>>>>>>> cases I took pains to align things mechanically as close as
>>>>>>>>>> possible (better than 1mm in x and y).  An in car charger can
>>>>>>>>>> only do as well (or minusculely better) if it uses a Magsafe
>>>>>>>>>> style charger (that magnetically centres the phone to the
>>>>>>>>>> charger).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Indeed I helped the wireless case by removing the case from
>>>>>>>>>> the phone.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You're welcome to try a different device and put up your
>>>>>>>>>> results, of course.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You make a claim about efficiency...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...but won't answer questions about how you measured it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't recall you asking.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Got it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You've got nothing.  Which is par for you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Used a Kill-a-Watt widget to measure the AC current before the
>>>>>>>> Apple adaptor.  These adaptors are about 90-95% efficient (so
>>>>>>>> you can discount that 5-10% if you like since nonesuch is in the
>>>>>>>> car scenario).  The K-a-W is about 1% accurate (either way).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you used two different chargers... ...or two different
>>>>>>> companies' connectors (USB for wired and wireless charging from
>>>>>>> Anker)...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not the lossy part, but nice (bad) try.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...and you just assumed that Anker's pad couldn't be of a
>>>>>>> different level of efficiency?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not going to be much - but as I said: prove it.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have to prove it, Sunshine.
>>>>>
>>>>> They're your claims.
>>>>
>>>> Sure enough.  And very reasonable claims.  I'm just not going to
>>>> shell out cash to buy 3 or 4 different ones to satisfy you.
>>>
>>> So you admit you can't prove that you weren't measuring the relative
>>> efficiency of two different chargers.
>>>
>>> Got it.
>>
>> If you think there will be a large difference between several
>> different wireless chargers, then please do go ahead and make the
>> 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.

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.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2024-03-09 06:00, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2024-03-08 18:48, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-03-08 14:01, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-07 20:17, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-07 14:42, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-06 17:19, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-06 13:30, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-03-05 19:16, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-05 11:25, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-05 11:02, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-05 06:26, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-02 16:02, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-28 16:01, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-28 16:14, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-28 04:58, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.02.24 00:39, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wireless charging is 20 - 25% less efficient than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wired. Multiply that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by a billion cars... and that's a lot of emissions the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet does not need.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is total bullshit and out of any proportion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Combustion engines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have an efficiency of 30 to 40% max. Electric motors are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above 90%. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is where the potential really lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since the efficiency of the car cannot be controlled by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the choice of a phone charging cable, it is not in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration for the choice of wired v. wireless charging.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, if charging one's phone in the car you're looking at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how much energy is delivered to the phone.  Period.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If wired, there is 0 (negligible) loss from the car to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the phone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If wireless, there is about 20 - 25% loss. (Ever touch a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wireless charger pad?  All that heat is loss).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Multiply by the number of phones in cars.  That is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emissions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If your EV is charged with emissions producing sources
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (natural gas, coal, etc.), then it's actually worse, as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charging the EV and extracting the EV's power from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> battery is also a lossy prospect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If your EV is charged from renewables (like here: near
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100% hydro power), then it's still better to avoid losses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the utility can export that power to neighbours and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offset their fossil fuel use (we export power to the US
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and provinces that would otherwise use more fossil fuel).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Summary: wireless charging, no matter where or how,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wastes energy and often increases emissions as a result.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should only be used where safety or corrosion is an issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...the...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...math.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure - based on my own testing in 2021.  Anker pad v. Apple
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12W charger+wire.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And what was your testing method?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> iPhone 11 from 20% to 74% charge: 34225 joules (W-s) using
>>>>>>>>>>>>> charger and wire
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> iPhone 11 from 24% to 77% charge: 41626 joules (w-s) using
>>>>>>>>>>>>> same Anker wireless charger and phone carefully centred on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the charger (better than ±1mm in X and Y).  Data below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How did you measure the energy?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT IS:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 634 joules per percent of change (average) wired.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> v.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 785 joules / percent of change (average) wireless (without
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a case - which would have made it worse).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So it took 23% more energy to charge the battery over the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> easiest range of about 20 - 75%.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And how do you know it wasn't the Anker charger that was
>>>>>>>>>>>> responsible for much of that difference?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Answer those questions...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...and then we'll go on.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, you don't get an easy out on that.  Wireless charging
>>>>>>>>>>> is not a mystery - esp. as the Anker charger and iPhone both
>>>>>>>>>>> comply to the same standard.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I asked simple questions and you demur.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Got it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, you're just looking to assail it to justify your cause.
>>>>>>>>> Wireless charging is not a mystery.  But do go out and buy some
>>>>>>>>> other brand and make the measurements as you like.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Align two coils well and send an alternating current.  In
>>>>>>>>>>> both cases I took pains to align things mechanically as close
>>>>>>>>>>> as possible (better than 1mm in x and y).  An in car charger
>>>>>>>>>>> can only do as well (or minusculely better) if it uses a
>>>>>>>>>>> Magsafe style charger (that magnetically centres the phone to
>>>>>>>>>>> the charger).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed I helped the wireless case by removing the case from
>>>>>>>>>>> the phone.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You're welcome to try a different device and put up your
>>>>>>>>>>> results, of course.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You make a claim about efficiency...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...but won't answer questions about how you measured it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't recall you asking.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Got it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You've got nothing.  Which is par for you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Used a Kill-a-Watt widget to measure the AC current before the
>>>>>>>>> Apple adaptor.  These adaptors are about 90-95% efficient (so
>>>>>>>>> you can discount that 5-10% if you like since nonesuch is in
>>>>>>>>> the car scenario).  The K-a-W is about 1% accurate (either way).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you used two different chargers... ...or two different
>>>>>>>> companies' connectors (USB for wired and wireless charging from
>>>>>>>> Anker)...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not the lossy part, but nice (bad) try.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...and you just assumed that Anker's pad couldn't be of a
>>>>>>>> different level of efficiency?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not going to be much - but as I said: prove it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have to prove it, Sunshine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They're your claims.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure enough.  And very reasonable claims.  I'm just not going to
>>>>> shell out cash to buy 3 or 4 different ones to satisfy you.
>>>>
>>>> So you admit you can't prove that you weren't measuring the relative
>>>> efficiency of two different chargers.
>>>>
>>>> Got it.
>>>
>>> If you think there will be a large difference between several
>>> different wireless chargers, then please do go ahead and make the
>>> 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.

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...

....that's yours.

On 2024-03-11 18:59, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-03-09 06:00, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2024-03-08 18:48, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-08 14:01, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-07 20:17, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-07 14:42, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-06 17:19, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-03-06 13:30, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-05 19:16, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-05 11:25, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-05 11:02, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-05 06:26, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-02 16:02, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-28 16:01, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-28 16:14, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-28 04:58, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.02.24 00:39, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wireless charging is 20 - 25% less efficient than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wired. Multiply that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by a billion cars... and that's a lot of emissions the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet does not need.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is total bullshit and out of any proportion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Combustion engines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have an efficiency of 30 to 40% max. Electric motors
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are above 90%. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is where the potential really lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since the efficiency of the car cannot be controlled by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the choice of a phone charging cable, it is not in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration for the choice of wired v. wireless charging.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, if charging one's phone in the car you're looking at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how much energy is delivered to the phone.  Period.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If wired, there is 0 (negligible) loss from the car to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the phone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If wireless, there is about 20 - 25% loss. (Ever touch a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wireless charger pad?  All that heat is loss).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Multiply by the number of phones in cars.  That is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emissions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If your EV is charged with emissions producing sources
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (natural gas, coal, etc.), then it's actually worse, as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charging the EV and extracting the EV's power from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> battery is also a lossy prospect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If your EV is charged from renewables (like here: near
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100% hydro power), then it's still better to avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> losses so the utility can export that power to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neighbours and offset their fossil fuel use (we export
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> power to the US and provinces that would otherwise use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more fossil fuel).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Summary: wireless charging, no matter where or how,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wastes energy and often increases emissions as a result.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should only be used where safety or corrosion is an issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...the...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...math.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure - based on my own testing in 2021.  Anker pad v.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple 12W charger+wire.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what was your testing method?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> iPhone 11 from 20% to 74% charge: 34225 joules (W-s) using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charger and wire
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> iPhone 11 from 24% to 77% charge: 41626 joules (w-s) using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same Anker wireless charger and phone carefully centred on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the charger (better than ±1mm in X and Y).  Data below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How did you measure the energy?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT IS:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 634 joules per percent of change (average) wired.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> v.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 785 joules / percent of change (average) wireless (without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a case - which would have made it worse).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So it took 23% more energy to charge the battery over the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easiest range of about 20 - 75%.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And how do you know it wasn't the Anker charger that was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsible for much of that difference?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Answer those questions...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...and then we'll go on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, you don't get an easy out on that.  Wireless charging
>>>>>>>>>>>> is not a mystery - esp. as the Anker charger and iPhone both
>>>>>>>>>>>> comply to the same standard.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I asked simple questions and you demur.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Got it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, you're just looking to assail it to justify your cause.
>>>>>>>>>> Wireless charging is not a mystery.  But do go out and buy
>>>>>>>>>> some other brand and make the measurements as you like.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Align two coils well and send an alternating current.  In
>>>>>>>>>>>> both cases I took pains to align things mechanically as
>>>>>>>>>>>> close as possible (better than 1mm in x and y).  An in car
>>>>>>>>>>>> charger can only do as well (or minusculely better) if it
>>>>>>>>>>>> uses a Magsafe style charger (that magnetically centres the
>>>>>>>>>>>> phone to the charger).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed I helped the wireless case by removing the case from
>>>>>>>>>>>> the phone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're welcome to try a different device and put up your
>>>>>>>>>>>> results, of course.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You make a claim about efficiency...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...but won't answer questions about how you measured it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't recall you asking.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Got it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You've got nothing.  Which is par for you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Used a Kill-a-Watt widget to measure the AC current before the
>>>>>>>>>> Apple adaptor.  These adaptors are about 90-95% efficient (so
>>>>>>>>>> you can discount that 5-10% if you like since nonesuch is in
>>>>>>>>>> the car scenario).  The K-a-W is about 1% accurate (either way).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you used two different chargers... ...or two different
>>>>>>>>> companies' connectors (USB for wired and wireless charging from
>>>>>>>>> Anker)...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not the lossy part, but nice (bad) try.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...and you just assumed that Anker's pad couldn't be of a
>>>>>>>>> different level of efficiency?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not going to be much - but as I said: prove it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have to prove it, Sunshine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They're your claims.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure enough.  And very reasonable claims.  I'm just not going to
>>>>>> shell out cash to buy 3 or 4 different ones to satisfy you.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you admit you can't prove that you weren't measuring the
>>>>> relative efficiency of two different chargers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Got it.
>>>>
>>>> If you think there will be a large difference between several
>>>> different wireless chargers, then please do go ahead and make the
>>>> 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.
>
> Prove yourself right.
>
> Show that your methods produced valid results.

On 2024-03-11 19:00, Alan wrote:
> 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...

See my other reply. This is pretty basis stuff. For most of us.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2024-03-11 16:27, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>> 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.

I'm rubber: you're glue.

>
> 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.

That's basically what you said the last time...

....right?

:-)