Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> The FCC rules for wireless charging devices like AirPower are quite strict, and limit exposure to 20 cm (8 in) above the device to 50 mW/cm^2.

Who's to say that 50 mW/cm^2 is the right field strength limit? Remember when we couldn't use cell phones on airplanes during takeoff because of the theoretical possibility that something, somewhere might interfere? As it turns out, there was no interference problem, cell phones were perfectly safe to use in that environment, and the precautionary ban just stalled progress without improving anybody's safety.

Maybe we're in the same situation here. I'd like to know what specific problem an EM field of the strength AirPower produced would cause in the real world. It's possible that we're weighing "backward compatibility" with existing EM-sensitive devices too heavily relative to technological progress.




I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here, in what way did the ban on cellphones on planes stall progress? It seemed more like a minor annoyance / inconvenience, but I could be misunderstanding or not have context.


One thing: it's become increasingly common to ditch in-seat entertainment units and just have people watch airline-provided entertainment on their own devices over wifi. This approach saves weight and money. Would it have been viable if electronic devices were still banned during takeoff?

Regardless, utility matters. This argument from frivolity --- that we shouldn't allow thing X that has rare side effect Y because X is just a "toy" --- is dangerous, because everything in modern civilization, from the right perspective, is frivolous. The whole point of technology is to make life easier, so it's not fair to argue against thing X merely because thing X exists to make life easier. Everything we really needed for survival was invented a long, long time ago.


Personal devices were taking over from built in entertainment units long before the ban was lifted on portable electronic use below 10,000ft. Having an extra 20 minutes to use your own device doesn’t make that much of a difference.


You would risk even one pacemaker failing in light of 'technical progress'?


We're already risking that. The regulatory limits aren’t a 100% guarantee of safety, they’re just an effort to make a good tradeoff between safety and utility.

There’s no guarantee that all pacemakers will accept interference that falls below the regulatory limit, nor is there a guarantee that every certified device actually complies with the limit. Manufacturing defects or gaps in testing mean you can never be totally sure. If your standard is to not risk even one pacemaker failing due to outside interference, you would need to eliminate all other electronics. (And you’d still have the unlikely but non-zero risk that one pacemaker would emit interference that causes another one to fail.)


Well, yeah --- just like I'd risk one person getting hit by a train in order to achieve the "technological progress" of rail transport. Every new technology comes with risks. If we focus on the risks and ignore the benefits, we can't make progress, and it's progress that ultimately benefits more people than any amount of harm avoidance.


There are plenty of wireless chargers out there, I don't think it's worth someone dying so you can have another apple toy




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: