Talk:Resonant energy transfer

Unclear what this article is about

This article could be about:

1) Resonant transformers. 2) Inductive coupling, in which primary and secondary are in mechanically separate units, perhaps with some distance between them.

Inductive coupling (2) Usually uses (1); (1) is a small subset of (2).

If it became clear which this article was about, it would be clearer what edits are needed.--Ccrrccrr (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you actually asking whether an article called resonant energy transfer is about resonance? Given that essentially every sentence in the lead contains the word resonance, and the opening sentence says 'highly resonant'?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"Standing waves ..." is utter rubbish

"Standing waves develop between the inductors, which can allow the energy to transfer from one object to the other within times much shorter than all loss times, which were designed to be long, and thus with the maximum possible energy-transfer efficiency. Since the resonant wavelength is much larger than the resonators, the field can circumvent extraneous objects in the vicinity and thus this mid-range energy-transfer scheme does not require line-of-sight."

Speaking as a graduate physicist with 20+ years in electronics and the like, I cannot make any sense of those two sentences. It's (probably) short wave radio technology, so of course it doesn't require line of sight. What does "which can allow the energy to transfer ... within times much shorter than all loss times, which were designed to be long" possibly mean?

I'm not at all convinced that there is a commercially marketable technology here beyond charging of electric toothbrushes and near-field applications such as contactless chargecards. One outfit in the power transfer market, Splashpower, started several years ago and attempted the "small appliance power" approach. Went bust in 2008. Does that rate a mention?

Article in need of improvement by a suitably experienced contributor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.247.139 (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not radio technology in the normal sense, it's resonant inductive transfer; pure near field stuff.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I changed it anyway, but I think it sort of is a standing wave, but not in the normal sense. I mean, is the quantum wavefunction of an electron around an atom a standing wave? Yes, I think so. Similarly the magnetic field around a ringing inductor is essentially a standing wave. That's what they're talking about.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rename article

I think I'm going to move the article to resonant inductive coupling or resonant transformer. It seems to be a better name; there's other resonant energy transfers that are not inductive.- Wolfkeeper 23:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. One method of "Resonant energy transfer" is "resonant inductive coupling." Two other methods of "Resonant energy transfer" are "Electrical conduction" by means of a "Terrestrial transmission line with atmospheric return circuit" and "Electrical conduction by means of a "Terrestrial single-conductor surface wave transmission line." Because the article or page "Resonant energy transfer" deals exclusively with the "Resonant induction method" it should be renamed or moved to "Resonant inductive coupling." -- GaryPeterson (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Toothbrushes, flat TV sets

If you’ll work on this subject, please think of magnetically recharged toothbrushes and of Sony TV sets ([1]). Fritz Jörn (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)--