RottnJP's Wireless Charger Review:
O.K., I just got my inductive charger. I'm going to give it a whirl, and put my observations here for posterity, and anyone who cares. There seems to be a dearth of solid info in this, so here goes. It was purchased from a VZW corporate store for $40 list, less 25% corporate discount.
Pictures follow my write-up.
A charging rate comparison using Battery Monitor was planned, but not completed due to PowerMat incompatibility with the VZW inductive charger.
First, some visual impressions.
The Inductive Charging Cover (ICC) looks good- The antennae are painted over, like on the Extended Battery Cover (EBC). The Inductive Charging hardware is under it's own plastic sheet inside the case, so it looks clean and nicely laid out. It has a small bank of 5 contact points at the upper left corner if the charger which appear solid. These mate with a corresponding portion of the phone which does not make contact with the OEM rear cover. (OEMC)
The ICC is bigger than the OEMC, as expected, but not as big as the EBC, which I did not expect. In fact, the ICC appears smaller than the EBC by a pretty significant margin, and is also "flatter" in profile than the EBC.
Next, I attempted to quantify the size difference:
My unscientific caliper method (made mildly challenging by the curvature and flex of the covers) shows the stock OEMC at .375 inches. For the EBC I tried to measure at the same spot. There is more bow in the EB rear case, so measuring the max thickness may be a little more subjective, but I tried to be consistent in location, and measured .635.
The ICC is flatter across most of the back, much like the profile of the stock cover, but has the "shoulder" or "rise" that will be familiar to anyone who has seen the EBC. I measure .465 thickness for the max thickness of the IC cover.
The "shelf" or ridge height of the inductive charger appears slightly less on the ICC than the EBC. It's hard to get an objective measure of that dimension with the curves involved, but the ICC seems to have about .050 less "shoulder" height.
Installation:
Installation is very similar to the EBC- It pops on with sort of "thunk" that isn't as quite as tight-sounding as the "click" I get when I put on the stock cover, and it does come off more easily with fingernail pressure. My stock case is rather more snug-fitting than either the EBC or ICC cover, for whatever reason. That having been said, I'm not really concerned it's *too* loose, because I can't just pull off either the EBC or ICC with my finger-tips- I have to get my fingernails into the slot at the bottom of the case to pop it off, and there is no appreciable movement or shifting of any of my rear covers as I try to press them laterally. As a result I conclude that the slight looseness relative to the OEMC is probably just a "difference," rather than a "problem."
Signal Strength:
For this, I repeatedly changed covers between OEMC, ICC, and EBC and held the phone in front of me with two fingers, at the upper and lower left corners of the phone as it faced me.
I tried eliminate variability in the signal by switching covers as quickly as I could, leaving the phone powered, and beginning and ending each sequence of covers on the same one. If the beginning and ending values (i.e., signal strength using the same cover at the start and end of the run) were not the same, I concluded that the signal strength was not sufficiently stable for that run, and discarded it.
At the end of this, three times I was able to get the same signal strength at the beginning and end of the test run. Once at -87, once at -80, and once at -84. For each of these runs which showed repeatability for the baseline case, the signal strength was also the same for the EBC and the ICC. I concluded from this that there is no measurable difference in the signal strength between the three rear cover variants.
Now, off to the Power Mat...
Here, our experiment comes to a screeching halt. Contrary to one "first person" claim on XDA, it appears that the VZW ICC is most likely *not* compatible with the Power Mat charging device. Either that, or I got a bad inductive cover (purchased new from VZW), or a bad Power Mat (purchased used from this site.) I don't have any other compatible hardware to verify functionality of the other parts of the system, but it seems most likely that the VZW and PowerMat brand items are simply not compatible.
Conclusion:
Oh well. I was all psyched to compare USB and wireless charging rates in Battery Monitor, but it is not to be, my friends. At the end of the day, personally I'm not willing to pay the cost of both $40 inductive charger and $60 mat (totaling $75 even after $25 corporate discount) even if the item does appear to be well-made and capable. Considering too that the ICC "indirect costs" include incompatibility with the powerful extended battery option, and reduced selection of protective cases, I have a hard time seeing all of this being a worth-while trade-off for most people relative to simply plugging in the micro USB cable. But to each his (or her) own. Perhaps an inductive rear cover which fits the extended battery would be interesting to me personally, but the cost/value question would remain, and I doubt VZW's willingness to make yet another rear cover variant.
Photos:
(Yes, I'm an idiot and had the OEMC upside down... Ooops.)
Keywords: Verizon VZW Rezound Vigor inductive wireless charger self charging extended back rear battery cover size thickness