5 ms·
I'm with you. Investors/companies have to get into their heads that power transmission will never be as easy as data transmission. There's no power Wi-Fi, only
by darkmighty 11y ago
I'm with you. Investors/companies have to get into their heads that power transmission will never be as easy as data transmission. There's no power Wi-Fi, only some crude expensive approximations over mediocre distances with mediocre power levels. We could instead focus on improving cables (and confined power in general) -- have them available everywhere, retractable, higher power. There's hardly any physical limit to confined power transmission; if you look at trends into the future you might expect device power consumption to actually rise a little, only furthering the divide. Cables are just so more elegant.
Part of the problem not discussed here is the 'Absorption conflict': for efficient power transmission you need materials that are able to absorb very well the given form of power; but at the same time you want nothing to interact in the path of the unconfined flux. This can only be dealt with up to a point, since our everyday objects' configuration and atomic composition are not so different from the composition of a receiver. This applies to all technologies: even for resonant EM power transfer you are relying on a specific conductor geometry; thankfully there's no strong conductor in our bodies, but you will have to deal with metal parts everywhere.
Wireless information gets around this kind of limitation because power ceases to important for the capacity of a channel [1] past a threshold (roughly when the signal PSD equals the noise PSD), while the determining factor is bandwidth. So you just use a few Ghz+ radiation and you have enormous bandwidth available; once that becomes insufficient we can move to Thz+ light; and so on without much environmental concerns (just medium concerns -- atmosphere gets opaque), since power levels will be kept constant or lower.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_capacity#Example_application https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_capacity#Example_appli...
- Retric 11y agoI can think of a single highly popular counter example which used 100% wireless power over several miles. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_radio https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_radio RFID are often a short range example of the same idea. So, it's less that wireless power is useless As it is modern devices needing lots of power.
- darkmighty 11y agoCrystal radio is an interesting concept -- but note I didn't claim it was impossible, just highly inefficient and with mediocre power/range (I couldn't find sources, but apparently it's typically 40uW with a ~1m? antenna). Remember that's for a (usually) 50kW station -- that's 1e-9 efficiency, or 0.0000001%. Realistically I'd expect you to be able scale this to 10k's receivers to up to about 0.001%. It's not realistic to increase this power significantly due to health/electronics concerns for persons living close to the source and massive consumption -- bringing the power near a single station to 4W would consume 5GW, about 1% of total US power consumption! Interesting to imagine a system with sightly higher frequencies (20Mhz?) dedicated to power transmission. It'd essentially be a hugely wasteful system (and expensive with high powered antennas everywhere to mitigate invsq law) which however might be able to power ultra low power sensors and gadgets. Some clever phase distribution (pseudorandom modulation should do it) system would allow location with ~15m accuracy too (even working indoors, although building refraction and reflections might be a little troublesome).
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]