I believe that the potential for cost savings here is enormous. Non rechargeable batteries would become a thing of the past, a toxic element would be removed from landfills, power lines and poles could be replaced and some of the dangers to line works would be eliminated. Safety costs money and eliminating some of those safety issues could save billions in overhead expenses AND in insurance premiums. Now, I don’t doubt that the cost of migration to this technology would be staggering, but long term (and in some instances the short term) cost savings could be phenomenal.

The purpose of the presentation was to show that the phones would begin charging their batteries when inside the field. It wan not meant to present a mobile device without a battery, but a device that would automatically begin charging when wireless electricity would become available. Taking the battery out all together would be irrelevant IMHO as this system won’t be available everywhere in a city, or on the road, or the country, so the battery is still a necessary evil.

In theory yes…in practice the amount of electricity generated would likely be much less than what is required to build the energy capture device. Eric Giler’s device works by fluctuating the magnetic field. A static magnetic field can be used to transmit power, however it either 1) pulls an object towards it until the object is as close as it can get at which point maximum power has been transmitted, or 2) it pushes the object away and the magnetic field strength weakens as the distance increases. What this device does is cycles the power on/off, or cycles north/south. Unless the earth does that at some location this tech would be able to capture power from the earth.