Apple iWatch due in October 2014, to wirelessly charge from one metre away – report Apple's long-rumored iWatch will be released in October 2014, and will come equipped with a magnetic-resonance wireless charging system that will allow the wristable iDevice to be charged from as far as one metre away. This latest rumor comes from G 4 Games, which spotted a report (Google Translate) in the Chinese-language …
Back in the 1970s, I had a wristwatch that wound itself up using energy from the motion of my wrist. Altogether more convenient: I never had to think about it. IIRC it was my inheritance from my grandfather.
That was back in the days when watches were beautifully luminous. Before that fell victim to hysteria about radiation (and someone noticed that luminous watches emitted far higher levels than were permitted to the nuclear power industry, so only the atomic weapons folks could dispose of them).
You can still buy wristwatches with tritium markers, but the tritium is usually contained in tiny glass vials on the hands and hour markers. The half-life of tritium is such that your grandfather could read the watch in the dark, but you probably can't. In addition, the radiation degrades the phosphorescent material into dust, which isn't good for the watch mechanism, or for anyone who services it without a fume cabinet.
T Swiss Made T
I bought a couple of those Traser Glowrings some 13-15 years ago, they're still glowing but as the half-life of the tritium is 12.3 years they've lost over half their brightness.
Bought them as unique novelties and at a pub one day showed a friend them they thought they were cool but his dad was seriously not happy about me having them and wouldn't go near them.
They're now stuck either side of a lightswitch so I can always find it in the dark.
I still have one, and am getting another soon as I quite fancy a diver's style watch (Seiko SK007 or similar) as I like the idea of actual clockwork, er, clocks. Never needs a battery, self-winding, and surprisingly accurate. Not as accurate as my solar-powered quartz seiko which doesn't need batteries either, but within a minute or two is good enough for me.
Now then, that "designer's impression" picture: It's round. OK. So who has a perfectly round wrist? Nobody. Fail...
@Nick
My Omega does that too, my general movement during the day easily keeps it going, and it lasts for about three days if I forget to wear it.
A quick word if you still have yours, and I have no idea how true this, is but when I last had it serviced the chap told me that should it "go flat" start it by winding rather than rotating. Apparently the mechanism will take less damage that way.
Get the opposing forces to think you have better technology so that they spend themselves into a corner playing catch up. Distribute rumours and innuendo so that they devise technology for a market that doesn't exist.
Then announce to the world you are not pursuing such technology.
Watch as the opposition have bankrupted themselves at the bottom of a dead end alley.
If your keyboard could act as a charger, it could top off your watch and the phone in your pocket while you work since both are within a meter of it, that would take care of the workaholic issue of running your phone dry before the end of the workday.
I suspect an Apple watch would not include a charging port and wireless will be the only way to charge it. The wireless charging solution may finally find the problem it has been looking so hard to find!
Hopefully the charger can be made very compact, because no one is going to want to bring something bulky with them when they travel. That no one wants to bring a charging mat with them when they travel is one of the (several) reasons wireless charging has been a flop so far.
>If your keyboard could act as a charger
The Reg reported on an Apple patent about a year ago for magnetic charging, including daisy chaining and a way of switching between which device to charge first (i.e prioritise a phone over a mouse or keyboard).
The Reg has also reported on Apple patents for a micro-deflection control surface that looks like aluminium, but can be used as a display thanks to tiny perforations.
Add to that their investment in sapphire manufacturing, and the ingredients for a smart watch are coming into focus.
"Hopefully the charger can be made very compact, because no one is going to want to bring something bulky with them when they travel. That no one wants to bring a charging mat with them when they travel is one of the (several) reasons wireless charging has been a flop so far."
The wireless charging option exists now, i use it daily. Most people are not bothered or totally unaware the it exists because Apple haven't released their copy yet. Of course once they do, their cult will snap it up.
Doesn't shine a positive light on consumers as a whole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonant_inductive_coupling
It's effectively a tuned transformer with a large (and variable) air gap between primary and secondary. The idea is to improve the power transfer efficiency compared to a non-tuned gapped transformer; though it would be nowhere near as efficient as plugging a power cable in. For such small levels of power and bearing in mind the application, that isn't really a consideration.
Listen, watches are old-school, vintage crap we used to have to wear so we could see what time it was. Since the 90's we have had cellphones to do that.
Who in their right mind wears watches^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hchronographs these days ? Showoffs and pedants. My mobe syncs with internet time, guyz ... no swiss mech is gonna beat that, -period-
Who would want a tech watch apart from gadget freaks ? Right, so I cannot believe Apple are going that route, I mean, Samsung have made idiots out of themselves with their sCrapWatch, why would Apple follow - Apple are leaders, not followers.
>Who in their right mind wears watches^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hchronographs these days ?
People who don't want to fumble in their pockets every time they wish to know the time.
People who wish to turn their phones off, from time to time.
People at work who need to time an operation, but don't want a manager to think they're texting their friends - or reading The Reg.
Wristwatches came in because pulling a pocket watch was too much hassle in a busy environment. Pulling a phone out my pocket is just as inconvienent when I'm busy and I think a lot of people find that. I don't use a chonograph (not even digital), just a plain "old-school" watch that shows the date as well as time. Much more convienient than fumbling in my pocket and pressing buttons to find out the time or date.
As for "tech-watches", not my cup of tea but who knows.
I'm seeing the same old arguments for smartwatches. Wrist watches succeeded pocketwatches! As if we all still need regular updates about the time whilst carrying a rifle...
A device strapped to the wrist might be slightly more convenient for telling the time but a smartphone is still more convenient for everything else that you'd expect a smartwatch to do.
Most people are willing to accept the slight inconvenience of pulling a smartphone out of their pocket to read the time because of all of the other conveniences it provides. A few people will wear a dumb-watch because they're of a generation that grew up wearing them or they're in a job that doesn't allow for phones (such as the military,) but most just won't bother.
Very few people of my generation wear wristwatches. Adding a bunch of features that are duplicates of those provided by their smartphone and are executed less well is not going to convince them to shell out several hundred quid for a smartwatch.
Your downvotes, much like your tears, are delicious.
"Very few people of my generation wear wristwatches. "
Son, every generation wants to distinguish its self from those gone before.
You are no different! Like it or not.
"Most people are willing to accept the slight inconvenience of pulling a smartphone out of their pocket to read the time because of all of the other conveniences it provides."
But what if all I want to know it the time? I have to go fishing for 00's tech to look for the time. How Dickensian. Next you will be extolling the virtues of the spy glass.
Just NO!
Anyway, A smart Rolex sitting on the wrist says alot more that a toll roads iPhone!
"But what if all I want to know it the time? I have to go fishing for 00's tech to look for the time. How Dickensian. Next you will be extolling the virtues of the spy glass."
Wear a £4.99 Casio if you simply must save the second or two that pulling your phone out takes. Like it or not, most people just don't bother carrying around a second device for that small saving of time.
I'm still at a loss as to how being slightly more convenient for telling the time is going to make smartwatches the next big thing.
Wrote :- "Most people are willing to accept the slight inconvenience of pulling a smartphone out of their pocket to read the time [as opposed to glancing at a wrist watch] because of all of the other conveniences it provides."
I must be unusual then. I have a wristwatch AND a phone, so I get all the conveniences added together. Should I patent the idea?
Very few people of my generation wear wristwatches.
Really? A lot of my friends are unaware that you're their spokesman, then -- I've been getting questions about my watch, because people of your generation got tired of pulling out their phone to check the time.
Your downvotes, much like your tears, are delicious.
Ah, passive-aggressive hipsters, how predictable you are.
>Right, so I cannot believe Apple are going that route, I mean, Samsung have made idiots out of themselves with their sCrapWatch, why would Apple follow [?]
There were mobile phones before the iPhone, and MP3 players before the iPod.
The iPhone is an interesting case, since it is telling what Apple left out - 3G. If they had included 3G, the battery wouldn't have lasted long enough to be practical, and bad press would have followed. This was mitigated by having an app to fetch, for example, train times, which more data-efficient than having the user hunt down the same information on a browser.
Samsung's smartwatch has taken the 'throw everything in it' approach - it can even run normal Android apps -but it doesn't really know what it is for. Apple are likely to focus in on a few core applications - simple alerts and media remote control, perhaps - and then expand the capabilities over time as improved chips and batteries allow it.
Oh, and a geek watch doesn't have to look like a geek watch. Tissot make a model with thermometer, compass and barometer which is indistinguishable from a a normal 3-hand wristwatch; touching the face at 12, 3, 6,or 9 causes the hands to display that information instead of the time.
Gadget freaks who want to have an idea of elevation (for instance) without worrying about their phone running out of power or being lost or broken or stolen.
Sometimes this stuff matters.
Also, knowing the time quickly and without fuss is worth lugging less than an ounce around, locked, safe on the hand, waterproof, in the shower, available at night without fumbling, okay to peek at in the cinema, especially since the battery lasts years not hours.
Jesus wept, when did having a wristwatch - a brilliant development saving people from having to reach into their pockets all the time - become so old-fashioned?.
"Jesus wept, when did having a wristwatch - a brilliant development saving people from having to reach into their pockets all the time - become so old-fashioned?."
When Apple cultists started to realise that it might be true, Apple not as innovative as they were suckered into believing and Apple is just a cult! That's when!
These fashionistas who are far to fashionable to used a watch. A specific piece of tech designed solely for the purpose of not having to pull a device from the pocket to see the time.
Glass would allow you to see the time at all times! No lifting your wrist or fishing in your pocket like a Dickensian.
Using a cell phone as a time piece is emulating a pocket watch from the '30s and it uses up one hand. Using a wrist watch is hands free. People with brains and who do not try to be 'trendy' use watches. The watch I wear is atomic/radio controlled, it has a solar cell so never needs batteries or charging ever. Just slap it on your wrist and forget about it.
>Wristwatches came in because pulling a pocket watch was too much hassle in a busy environment.
Specifically the trenches of WWI
However the idea of attaching my phone to a gold chain and removing it from my waistcoat pocket to consult it through my monocle is appealing
Now if I could have a Thunderbirds video watch (remember them? Good old 60s technology) I'd probably go for it. Otherwise I just rely on my internal clock most of the time, which is usually accurate to within 15 minutes and is good enough for most things. If I really need a more accurate reminder then yes, the phone in my pocket can be told to alert me at the correct time. I haven't worn a watch for many years, ever since the battery in it went flat (and the watch itself is 30 years old.)
>Now if I could have a Thunderbirds video watch (remember them?
Vaguely... though I suspect I saw it on the Peter Cook and Dudley Moore Thunderbirds spoof in 'Not Only But Also...' It looked a bit like the Holly Wristwatch from Red Dwarf, IIRC (now that was a smartwatch - it had an IQ of 6000!)
Searching Google for Thunderbirds Watch just returns pictures of Rolexes customised in celebration of a USAF outfit.
"But we can't help but quiver in dread if Apple and Samsung both bring devices to market that use magnetic resonance charging technology. The patent-infringement lawsuits could be depressingly tedious, indeed."
If Apple and Samsung both bring out any devices with any similarities at all the patent infringement lawsuits could be depressingly tedious.
And given the areas they operate in, that is pretty much inevitable. If they were two schoolkids squabbling, you could give them a good telling off and make them apologise and shake hands, but they'd still walk away muttering, and by tomorrow they'd be squabbling again.
The credit card would have to resonate with the coil... a bit like how an opera singer can shatter a wine glass, but not a beer bottle or spectacle lenses.
It wouldn't be working the same way - if you're transferring power then resonance improves things. If you're just encouraging the little magnetic domains to wobble back and forth and stick at random as the field strength drops, that takes very little power at the receiving device. However, it has to be quite a powerful field, and I doubt if it would upset the magnetic strip even if you put the card on the transmitter, given that there's probably a thickness of plastic and air between the card and coil. The field strength might be enough to fry the NFC side of things though, so it wouldn't be all bad :-)
More to the point ... will my Fender Stratocaster guitar single coil pickups be adversely affected by the magnetic resonance? Will I have to upgrade to a Gibson Les Paul with Humbuckers to counteract the noise? This is a very worrying development...
Already noticed that I need to position my laptop at least a metre away from my guitar to avoid noise pickup.
Why NOT wear a watch?
- They're jewelry, one of the few types that men can wear and not look douchey
- Looking a watch is more socially acceptable than pulling out a phone
- It's FASTER to just look at your wrist to check the time
- A mechanical watch is cool as hell, especially self-winders
I certainly have no problem with my smartphone, but I wear a watch almost always.
I can't wear a wristwatch because the extra tension on the wrist causes shoulder/neck pain[1]. First found myself always taking it off, then realised why I was doing that, thought about it, and got myself a pocket watch. By the time the second pocket watch died, the era of the 'phone was upon us, so I haven't had a watch since.
[1] http://bahumbug.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/pain/
- They're jewelry, one of the few types that men can wear and not look douchey
Nope. Expensive watches do indeed make you look douchey. Best way of spotting male asshole, in fact.
- A mechanical watch is cool as hell, especially self-winders
Impressive feats of engineering, yes. Interesting curiosities. Cool? Tastes may differ.
I used to wear a £15 casio digital, which did everything I needed to do, but it screwed with my RSI, so I got rid of it. Actually, I found it the other day whilst tidying the living room. It had fallen behind the tv some time around 2008. Still showing the time, more than a decade after I bought it, gotta love that battery life. Wish my phone did that.
"- They're jewelry, one of the few types that men can wear and not look douchey
Nope. Expensive watches do indeed make you look douchey. Best way of spotting male asshole, in fact."
So you would reject that Rolex then? Don't talk utter rubbish man!
A Rolex on the wrist gives far more man points then pulling out any girly un-smartphone!
If you're a cultist that still thinks owning an iPhone gives you a status boost because they are so expensive, how does that compare to being seen with a Rolex? You can't have your cake and eat it!
"Citizen Eco - solar trickle charged. Had it for over eight years and it has never stopped."
I have a regular bottom-end Casio. Battery life leans towards a decade.
It functions under most normal environmental conditions, including the dark, and underwater.
Best of all, it doesn't whine at me when someone tweets about the latest pimple they've popped.
Apple have the late arrival advantage here, watching as others get it all wrong, or almost right - (Qualcomm Toq is the best to date), and battery life is the issue, as is usability and what you use it for. Notifications and remote control of your phone are the most obvious, but having key information available ALL the time, not just when you press a button or are in sunlight can only be achieved with an eInk display with an automatic (Kindle paperwhite like light) for low light readage. Why do I say eInk? (Colour of course.) Because it draws no power when static, draws little when active - and provides excellent daylight viewing angles, so it won't even be necessary to twist your wrist to 'take a reading'.
Unless of course Apple are working with Qualcomm on an improved version of their Mirasol tech, which currently doesn't do colour as well as LCD or AMOLED.
Apple take stuff and perfect it. We had smartphones but not iPhones and now almost all smartphones are like iPhones. We had MP3 players but the iPod revolutionised music players and iTunes the way we can download single tracks and legal access to digital music. We had laptops and Apple refined and improved them and now the Macbook Pro and Air are (for most people) the best laptops you can buy - even if you want to run Windows (for some reason). And of course the iPad - compare it to the previous 'tablets' we had and it's barely a comparison - now everyone makes copies - but unless you have to have Android there is little that gets close to the iPad Air for a full size tablet.
I'm looking forward to the iWatch - should have some good tech.
Possible health risks from the transmitter come to mind, and indeed the press release contains the following:
"To prevent the controversy over health risks, the Korea Electronics Technology Institute is planning to use the avoidance technology. KETI said, 'As there is a controversy over health risks, we are thinking of blocking electric power if a person approaches or making electricity flow on the wall.'"
That would be rather incompatible with charging it on one's wrist.
I've spent a fair bit of time in the past winding experimental air and ferrite cored transformers, and I still just can't get myself to believe in this thing unless the efficiency is very close indeed to 0. How do you get the field to align between the transmitting coil and the watch?
I know Koreans are very clever, but the claims on the face of it just don't add up.
"i can totally see the point of using a wrist watch than using your phone - using a phone takes longer and that probably adds up to a lot of time over your lifetime. Apart from the speed it's just more convenient as my mobile is usually in a case in a zipped pocket or in my bag."
Is the idea of a watch that alien to you? You're justifying in your own head the case for a watch?
I have no faith in your decision making process if you are over thinking the simple wrist watch.
I stopped wearing a watch when I started working with mass spectrometers. Their large magnets are effectively short range since the intention is to concentrate the field between the poles and in the path of the ion flow not waste it in attracting paper clips and loose screws but I still didn't want to risk the mechanism, or find myself "handcuffed" to the flight tube.
But I do wonder how efficient charging can be at one metre compared to 1 centimetre
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimagnetic_watch
That said, I do wonder ho many Rolex Milgaus are sold to people who just want to look like they are a physicist, in the same way Rolex Submariners are sold to people who just want to look like they are divers, Heuer Monacos to people who want to look like racing car drivers, Omega Speedmasters to would-be astronauts etc.
[Disclaimer: I have not but the faintest inkling when it comes to tech of this sort.]
However: I cannot believe that this is not horribly inefficient as a means of energy transmission. It might be cool, but it's not very on-message in these times of energy austerity, surely?
Perhaps I am wrong and this actually is reasonably efficient, but I can't see it.
The energy available from a magnetic field in free space (rather than a ferromagnetic substance) almost follows an inverse cube law. Resonance implies that they are tuning the oscillator based on the combined inductance of the watch receiver and the generator, but the watch receiver at a metre is tiny compared to the area of the enclosed volume. If the watch loop is 50mm in diameter, at 1m it can enclose at most 1/1600 of the total flux perpendicular to the radius from the generator to the watch. In fact it will be less than that because the field at 1M is much weaker than it is closer in.
The watch absorbs some of the energy, and some of it is absorbed by any suitable ferromagnetics in the region, plus a loss due to em radiation.
Going out on a complete limb, I think maybe your decimal point needs shifting a few places. The battery will store about 0.4WH. Assuming a 10h charge rate, that's around 40mW continuous. I'm going to speculate wildly that the generator outputs around 1-10W to achieve that, for an efficiency around 0.4-4%.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
