Samsung Patents Wireless TV With No Power Cable (techradar.com) 55
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechRadar: Could Samsung be on the cusp of a fully wireless TV? A recent patent hints that a Samsung TV without any pesky cables could be around the corner. Spotted by LetsGoDigital, the patent was filed in March 2018 but only released publicly in late February of this year. The patent revolves around a wireless power transceiver, which would make the prospective television the first of its kind to transmit power across the room rather than relying on a power cable -- increasingly seen as an eyesore next to Samsung's premium design sets. The transceiver takes the form of a magnetic bar attached to the rear of the television, given that panels themselves are too thin to house anything of this kind. It would then require a separate power transmitter (plugged into the mains) to keep the TV running.
Another advantage... (Score:4, Funny)
Wireless power of that wattage would also prevent any cell phones from working in a 2-block radius!
Added bonus!
Re: Another advantage... (Score:1)
And it will sterilize you! Although, in your case, that would affect nothing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Induction powered (Score:4)
The transceiver takes the form of a magnetic bar attached to the rear of the television, given that panels themselves are too thin to house anything of this kind. It would then require a separate power transmitter (plugged into the mains) to keep the TV running.
So you'll get rid of the cord, and it'll need a clunky "base station" - which has a cord. Sweet.
Which will *also* have the media cable (Coax/CAT) attached and *also* have to transmit the video and audio signals to the display. Won't it be fun to sit in the middle of that RF soup all night. Or... you could simply run the cables to a regular display inside the wall. This seems like a solution in search of a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
This seems like a solution in search of a problem.
That sums up most of what Samsung develops
Re: (Score:2)
This seems like a solution in search of a problem.
That sums up most of what Samsung develops
Agreed, but that Galaxy Fold is still pretty cool (when they cut the thickness by a third)
Re: (Score:2)
Bitter, are we?
Re: (Score:3)
This seems like a solution in search of a problem.
Agreed.
But... the problem that they are not trying to solve is not what you think.
The problem that they are trying to solve is basically a marketing problem, it's to make things look futuristic. For example, this would work well for marketing displays where it would be a pain to deal with all of the cables for set up and take down, for high end houses and boardrooms, just to make the rich and execs feel special, etc.
In other words, we are not their target market for this technology....
Re: (Score:2)
Most home owners don't want to cut a channel through their wall or run cables or anything else. Putting in the mounting bracket for the TV is usually handled by someone else too.
If they've got a DVD player or a set top box or anything else that all plugs into the same base as what provides the power and they put the panel up on the wall and job done.
Personally, not having the cables or doing anything else is a much preferred option for me, especially as I move a lot and putting holes in landlords walls is n
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to have the TV in a fixed position against a wall, then yes this feature is not of any interest.
But if you're going to have it in the middle of a room / on an island, or if you want to move your TV around a lot, then this could be quite a good selling point for you.
For example I imagine that exhibitors at trade shows that like to set up displays in their booths showing videos would love to have wireless displays so they don't have to fiddle with running cables or making sure they aren't step
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming you can cut into the wall, i.e. it's not a rented property and you have hollow walls. In Europe a lot of people have solid walls, not drywall mounted on studs.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what cable conduits are for. Bonus: they're easily accessible the next time you need to change the cabling setup.
Re: (Score:2)
The transceiver takes the form of a magnetic bar attached to the rear of the television, given that panels themselves are too thin to house anything of this kind. It would then require a separate power transmitter (plugged into the mains) to keep the TV running.
So you'll get rid of the cord, and it'll need a clunky "base station" - which has a cord. Sweet.
Which will *also* have the media cable (Coax/CAT) attached and *also* have to transmit the video and audio signals to the display. Won't it be fun to sit in the middle of that RF soup all night. Or... you could simply run the cables to a regular display inside the wall. This seems like a solution in search of a problem.
This is yet another digital "Bandwidth is infinite!" non-solution. I'm surprised that no one seems to notice that we are running out of RF space. And what remains is very short distance stuff.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
And if people think this is a great thing because it hides a power cable, then sheesh, get a life. We should be using advanced technology for things that are generally useful, not just to make some hipsters happy about buying something new.
Re: (Score:3)
Using this technology for TVs does not prevent it being used for anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
This is how we make advanced technology affordable. Sell some rich people a wireless TV, gain manufacturing and engineering experience, let them do the real-world testing to save on R&D.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Efficiency of such systems? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Efficiency of such systems? (Score:4, Funny)
Do your in-laws have pacemakers?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it's great if you have a concentrated beam with no obstructions. This is sometimes done with microwaves, but you wouldn't want to sit in the middle of the beam.
In your lighting setup, try to estimate what fraction of the floodlight output falls on the yard lamp cells. There's a good start for your efficiency number, of course the actual number will be a lot lower depending on the solar cell etc.
Wireless POWER (Score:2)
Which is the least of my worries.
The power my current TV uses is pretty much non-existent compared to the 120 lb 32 in CRT it replaced.
I do wonder how HDMI, Ethernet (yeah I know) RCA, VGA, S-Video and Antenna are supposed to work 'wirelessly"
Unless there is another proprietary Samsung "Brick" that transmits to the TV,
Reminds me. . . (Score:2)
of a recent meme I saw. Supposedly from someone working in tech support and one of the things they've endured from those they support:
Yes, I need wireless comm and no, I won't be leaving my seat.
Is there some reason Samsung believes there is a need for wireless power other than aesthetics?
Re:Reminds me. . . (Score:4, Informative)
No, we're supposed to waste all that energy with wireless power just so that people don't have to see a power cord hanging down from a television mounted on a wall.
Re: (Score:1)
Why? (Score:3)
Wireless power is good for things that you need to carry around. My TV sits in one place. And with very little effort I can route the cord where it can't be seen.
Re: (Score:2)
It's for easy wall mounting. No need to cut two holes in the wall to hide the cables.
In fact maybe no need to modify the wall at all, which would be great for people in rented apartments. LG already have a magnetically mounted TV, and I wonder if you could use the metal in a stud wall or some kind of removable adhesive metal sheet. Or maybe just fit the drywall with the metal sheet attached inside.
I use a magnetic mount for my phone in my car. It's better than any suction mount, never falls off even with a
Tesla's Wardenclyffe Tower in your room (Score:2)
The real cusp... (Score:2)
Way to go (Score:2)
Making a gadget wireless that is never moved from its location for years until it gets thrown away.
Solution in search of a problem (Score:2)
So, my father-in-law bought a very expensive "wireless" TV several years ago -- against my advice -- and it has been a particularly negative experience, overall. (Of course, the power wasn't actually wireless; rather, in his case, power was the one wire which still connected directly to the display panel... but that distinction is immaterial to my point.)
As soon as you decide to do everything wirelessly, you're introducing a series of new problems to the overall experience, such as latency and transmission