Re: CarPlay recommendation?

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.

 

>

>

If there are differences between an Anker device and some other good brand they will be minor at best.

>
Riiiiiiiiiiight.

>
Prove me wrong numbnuts.  Go buy 3 or 4 wireless chargers and run the tests.  Assuming you can figure out how.

>
Nope.
>
I'm not the one making claims he cannot substantiate.

 If this is your best, then I guess that's it.

Yup.
We've landed on you making claims you can't substantiate.