LibriumArcana.Games

...in seconds.

therawstory.com wrote:An 18-year-old science student has made an astonishing breakthrough that will enable mobile phones and other batteries to be charged within seconds rather than the hours it takes today’s devices to power back up.

Saratoga, Calif. resident Eesha Khare made the breakthrough by creating a small supercapacitor that can fit inside a cell phone battery and enable ultra-fast electricity transfer and storage, delivering a full charge in 20-30 seconds instead of several hours.

The nano-tech device Khare created can supposedly withstand up to 100,000 charges, a 100-fold increase over current technology, and it’s flexible enough to be used in clothing or displays on any non-flat surface.

It could also one day be used in car batteries and charging stations not unlike those used by the Tesla Model S, which includes “supercharger” technology that promises to charge vehicles in 30 minutes or less.

“I’m in a daze,” Khare told CBS San Francisco after being honored among the three winners at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in Phoenix over the weekend. “I can’t believe this happened.”

Over 1,600 finalists from around the world competed in the science fair for a $75,000 scholarship grand prize awarded by Intel. Runners-up received $50,000 scholarships.

Khare was the runner-up to 19-year-old Romanian student Lonut Budisteanu, who created a low-cost artificial intelligence that can drive vehicles. She tied with Louisiana 17-year-old Henry Lin, who figured out new ways to measure dark matter and energy in space.

[youtube][/youtube]

This is excellent news, and bears much promise - not just that it was invented by a high school student, but what the technology promises in the future.

Jesus, this would be nice...

I don't see the hundredfold increase in battery recharges making much of a difference for cellphones (even at two recharges a day, 100,000 is 137 years), and at least from where I stand it's already more sensible (and economic) to by a new phone rather than a new battery when the old one wears out, but assuming it can be made halfway decently affordable, a lot of people are going to love the short recharge times, and the prospects for battery technology in general are certainly intriguing.

Batman wrote:I don't see the hundredfold increase in battery recharges making much of a difference for cellphones (even at two recharges a day, 100,000 is 137 years), and at least from where I stand it's already more sensible (and economic) to by a new phone rather than a new battery when the old one wears out, but assuming it can be made halfway decently affordable, a lot of people are going to love the short recharge times, and the prospects for battery technology in general are certainly intriguing.

Cell phones are basically a proof of concept for a lot of computing power in a very small space. What cell phones, and the features therein, have pushed over the past several years is an awe-inspiring race for packing as much power as possible into a very small space. Consider that the average smartphone of today has the same computing power that laptops had 5-6 years ago, and they're catching up fast.

All the engineering advances made as a result of all that progress, coupled with this rapid battery charger, has many great implications for future technological advances, especially as computers become more ubiquitous in our lives.

While I absolutely agree, I'm not exactly sure what this has got to do with what I said?

Batman wrote:While I absolutely agree, I'm not exactly sure what this has got to do with what I said?

The main issue now is planned obsolescence when it comes to cell phones driving things at the moment. It's beginning to slow, and as it slows, people will hold onto their phones for more than an average of 1.5 years. As they become more powerful, they become essentially a replacement for the PC at a certain point.

At that point, being able to rapid-recharge your phone if you need to becomes more attractive, due to the economics involved. Other advances will also encourage people to hold onto their phones longer, especially if one's cell phone becomes essentially one's electronic ID pass for security, shopping, and even gaming.

Now it took me freaking forever to get a cellphone and when I did, I got one of the most primitive ones available because it's a phone and its primary function is making phone calls so I'm obviously not your average cell phone user, but I don't see cell phones replacing PCs anytime soon. Or ever. Tablets may at some time become replacements for laptops though I find even that dubious, because in both situations, the traditional PC/laptop has distinct advantages. Cell phones are small and thus eminently portable, but also have tiny display and no keyboard nor rodent.
Tablets have larger displays but still no keyboard or rodent and are somewhat less portable.
Now the keyboard/rodent combo are not essential for everything you do with a PC, especially with a touchscreen compensating for their absence, but they're still a hell of a lot more convenient for a lot of it.
PCs/laptops have physical keyboard, physical rodent, massively larger display (you can do that in a smartphone or tablet but then you lose the portability advantage) and until we get SciFi style hologram keyboard/touchscreen technology that's not going to change.
Smartphones are here to stay, as are tablets, and as they get more affordable they'll get more prevalent too. Them replacing PCs I don't see coming in my lifetime.

Batman wrote:Now it took me freaking forever to get a cellphone and when I did, I got one of the most primitive ones available because it's a phone and its primary function is making phone calls so I'm obviously not your average cell phone user, but I don't see cell phones replacing PCs anytime soon. Or ever. Tablets may at some time become replacements for laptops though I find even that dubious, because in both situations, the traditional PC/laptop has distinct advantages. Cell phones are small and thus eminently portable, but also have tiny display and no keyboard nor rodent.
Tablets have larger displays but still no keyboard or rodent and are somewhat less portable.
Now the keyboard/rodent combo are not essential for everything you do with a PC, especially with a touchscreen compensating for their absence, but they're still a hell of a lot more convenient for a lot of it.
PCs/laptops have physical keyboard, physical rodent, massively larger display (you can do that in a smartphone or tablet but then you lose the portability advantage) and until we get SciFi style hologram keyboard/touchscreen technology that's not going to change.
Smartphones are here to stay, as are tablets, and as they get more affordable they'll get more prevalent too. Them replacing PCs I don't see coming in my lifetime.

Then, I invite you to study the trends present in PC advances, as well as cell phone advances over just the past 15 years.

The main issues preventing the cell phone from becoming a proper replacement for PC's are the interface, and the controls. Touchscreen interfaces have gone far to help mitigate the small size issue, as has voice controls. I can see those two things working to help cell phone interfaces progress further, and push technological trends even further than that.

I don't think cell phones will replace the PC within the next 10 years, but I do think it will certainly happen. Once a cell phone allows one to do everything one can on a PC just as easily, it'll only be a matter of time.

To do everything a PC can do even today, it has to provide you with a rodent, 21in or bigger screen, keyboard that doesn't overlay the screen, 100Mbit and above internet connection, 5.1 or whatever the latest standard is Dolby surround sound, several dozen terabytes of HD space, and that's ignoring that all the improvements that go into cell phones go into PCs too. Which have all those things that cellphones lack (like a keyboard, display worthy of the name, rodent, surround sound, lots of harddrive space)...

Batman wrote:To do everything a PC can do even today, it has to provide you with a rodent, 21in or bigger screen, keyboard that doesn't overlay the screen, 100Mbit and above internet connection, 5.1 or whatever the latest standard is Dolby surround sound, several dozen terabytes of HD space, and that's ignoring that all the improvements that go into cell phones go into PCs too. Which have all those things that cellphones lack (like a keyboard, display worthy of the name, rodent, surround sound, lots of harddrive space)...

Don't think of those things literally, but rather how those things are accomplished, and you'll begin to see the direction things are going.

Advances in storage technology already make it possible to store 128gb of information in something the size of a half-stack of post-it notes, and it's getting smaller all the time. Given that flash drives are almost the same speed as RAM itself, combining the two is not an unreasonable in terms of architecture. Flash drives are increasing in capacity all the time - I've seen 512gb capacities already.

Sound quality from smartphones is already surround-sound quality, provided you have earphones - which most do.

Cell phone connections are getting faster all the time, and are typically about the same speed as a DSL connection is currently. This is most definitely classed as "broadband" speed.

The display of a cell phone currently is capable of 1920x1080, albeit on a small screen. However, projectors' costs have dropped significantly, and there are several impressive cell phone designs from Japan that include built-in projector.

The groundwork for this to happen has already been done. Engineering and manufacturing advances will lower the production and improve efficiency of each of those parts, until combining them properly into once device not only makes sense, but is preferable.

The single downside to this route I can think of would be raw CPU power - however, the cloud computing concept would solve this issue neatly, provided that they're attached to the same network that you're getting your cell connection from.

Provided I have something for the picture to be projected on and that sort of nixes the touchscreen aspect...
And no, sorry, you're not getting surround sound out of headphones. If nothing else they simply don't have the wattage. Yes, some music has to be loud.

Batman wrote:Provided I have something for the picture to be projected on and that sort of nixes the touchscreen aspect...
And no, sorry, you're not getting surround sound out of headphones. If nothing else they simply don't have the wattage. Yes, some music has to be loud.

I know you like being the cynic, but at some point you have to be willing to do research yourself, Bats. There are many things that are true in this universe that do not make intuitive sense - I present quantum mechanics as a great example.

- Wattage is a function of electrical flow, and better battery technology resolves this. A co-worker was able to connect high-quality studio headphones into his cell phone a week ago, and get HD-quality sound.

- Microsoft's Kinect technology is an excellent proof of concept for controlling an interface with hand gestures, not requiring a screen to be touched at all.

The technology required is already present - it just has to be improved further.

rhoenix wrote:

Batman wrote:Provided I have something for the picture to be projected on and that sort of nixes the touchscreen aspect...
And no, sorry, you're not getting surround sound out of headphones. If nothing else they simply don't have the wattage. Yes, some music has to be loud.

I know you like being the cynic, but at some point you have to be willing to do research yourself, Bats. There are many things that are true in this universe that do not make intuitive sense - I present quantum mechanics as a great example.
- Wattage is a function of electrical flow, and better battery technology resolves this. A co-worker was able to connect high-quality studio headphones into his cell phone a week ago, and get HD-quality sound.

I wasn't questioning quality. I was questioning loudness. Hence the 'loud'. But feel free to show you can get the performance of 100s of watts stereo systems out of a smartphone.

- Microsoft's Kinect technology is an excellent proof of concept for controlling an interface with hand gestures, not requiring a screen to be touched at all.

Meaning you have no fucking clue whether or not you touched a key or not. With a touchscreen you at least know you definitely tapped the damn screen. How, exactly, does Kinect work for typing?

The technology required is already present - it just has to be improved further.

Not until the aforementioned holographic keyboards and display materialize.

This is exactly what I mean about looking stuff up for yourself, Bats. I found the answer for you after putting "kinect keyboard" into google.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/28/free ... afk-video/
http://www.psfk.com/2012/09/kinect-emai ... board.html

The only issue is lack of tactile feedback, but it appears to work just fine.

I'll happily admit that the stuff is a lot more advanced than I would have expected. Doesn't change the tactile feedback problem (which may be a pet peeve of mine as a lot of people seem to be happy with touchscreens) and I don't see how you're going to incorporate that into smartphones anytime soon.
'

Batman wrote:I'll happily admit that the stuff is a lot more advanced than I would have expected. Doesn't change the tactile feedback problem (which may be a pet peeve of mine as a lot of people seem to be happy with touchscreens) and I don't see how you're going to incorporate that into smartphones anytime soon.
'

All it requires hardware-wise is an RGB camera, depth sensor and multi-array microphone running proprietary software, according to it's wikipedia page. Cell phones already have accelerometers (to measure when someone moves or flips the phone on its side), as well as powerful cameras and microphones.

The only real developments issue that I can see is just the actual application to be made for a phone.

Batman, I'm going to make something painfully clear to you.

What you're talking about? You don't know it. You should probably either educate yourself about it or just shut up. Because you add nothing useful otherwise.

This can be applied to most every post you make, but here, I'm going to explain something to you.

Mono Sound: The sound has only one channel, and loses nothing by being played through one speaker. When played through multiple speakers, each speaker makes the exact same noise.

Stereo Sound: This sounds has two channels, right and left, which means that a richer and more natural sound is played for you from a single input, at each speaker allows each ear to get sound as though it was coming from a more natural source. This is commonly used in music for better audio clarity. It also allows for some limited directional cues in the sound, which aids in movies when something goes from left to right.

Surround Sound: This sound has anywhere from 4 to 8 channels in all, with an additional channel being used to provide bass which normal speakers cannot create. The speakers are placed around the listener and allow for a more immersive experience for video games, movies, and television shows by giving the illusion that the sound is all around them. Things coming from behind the perspective of the camera can be identified to a precise direction, allowing the user to predict where things will be on the screen. The numbers used (2.1 5.1 7.1 etc.) are first the total number of speakers, followed by the number of subwoofers. Odd numbers indicate a "center" speaker which is distinct from Left and Right, allowing for more overall quality and clarity.

There are, of course, many forms of each of these, going from large speaker setups with each speaker being the size of a cinder block or larger, to more desktop friendly brick-sized or smaller satellites, to even headphones, including wireless ones, that are able to create surround sound.

And yes, the wireless ones manage to have their own power source. I know, it's shocking. The ones that don't? They get power either from the usual 3.5mm jacks or USB connections, which can also transmit power as well as information.

Now, yes, smaller speakers such as those in headsets create a different sound profile from giant speaker systems the size of people's torsos. Turns out that has something to do with science and physics and wave characteristics and all that weird fancy stuff you wouldn't understand unless you took the time to sit down and think for a day or two. However, the property of the sound wave has more to do with the physical speaker creating the sound than the amount of electrical energy that flows through it. What matters is how it's used. A racing car sucks offroad, even though its engine is incredibly powerful compared to that of, say, a pickup truck. If that's the only thing you think of, and I'm sure it is, then yes, the car that can go 250kph has a better engine, transmission, and wheels than a pickup truck that can maybe crack 100kph at a dead sprint. And yet, somehow, people use the pickup truck for offroad driving and carrying heavy loads more. This is the same sort of situation you have with speakers. You can shove more power into the speakers themselves and that can get you the decibels you want to hear, but it won't get you the quality and nuance of the sound you're looking for. Power itself does not get you good sound, and eleven isn't necessarily better than ten.

That said, you can get some pretty fantastic approximations due to this incredible property known as the inverse square law. See, sound is a wave that radiates from the source creating it. Much like the waves you make in your bathtub while you cry and splash about because Greta, your nursemaid, took away your toy shark because you tried to use her cell phone to take pictures of it in its natural environment. As they get further away, they get weaker, but the closer they are, the stronger they are. So if you've got a small speaker making a noise, if you hold it up close, it can sound very much like the sound of a large speaker that's farther away. There are some limits, of course, but I'm sure that given how little you actually listen to anyone say, you would hardly notice the difference.

Screens, of course, use light to let you see, and light also follows this strange rule. Amazingly, you can get the same detail and screen coverage out of a smaller screen that is closer as a larger screen that is farther away. This is what lets people with cell phones today have better television picture quality than anyone in the world had thirty years ago, and between projectors and things like Google Glass or the Oculus Rift, you can have a screen that can take up most or all of your vision that you can take with you.

Now, this isn't to say cell phones will ever replace desktops, oh no, far from it, but given that my second hand cell phone today is better than my cutting edge desktop from ten years ago in just about every measurable respect, yeah, I think we can safely say that wearable computers are a conceivable thing, and going from no charge to full charge in a few seconds instead of an hour or more, yeah, that's a big deal.

By the way, there are tactile feedback touchscreens that exist, voice recognition software has remarkably improved to the point where it's actually pretty functional, even to the point of translation purposes, and you have given me a new appreciation for Siri.