5 ms·

I have a few questions: As mentioned in a top-level comment, this could be incredibly dangerous, depending on the properties of the microwave generator. Can yo

I have a few questions: As mentioned in a top-level comment, this could be incredibly dangerous, depending on the properties of the microwave generator. Can you say what the maximum level of power density experienced outside of the laser boundaries will be? Can you give attenuation figures? The Powerco project is listed as "a few kilowatts." What range of distances do you intend to test? How do you expect weather to affect efficiency? Have you tested the transmission in a driving rain? Or will you turn off the system in inclement weather?

Emrod 6y ago
This is NOT "incredibly dangerous". This is the sort of lazy internet commenting that doesn’t rely on actual research. There will always going to be sceptics. All we can do is rely on solid science and engineering and engage people to address genuine concerns. The distances we are looking at are progressive from a few hundred meters to a few kilometres. Range is only limited by line of site and an antenna size which is practical. Mind you, we can reduce antenna size and increase range by using passive relays. At the moment we are working with about 60% end to end efficiency. This is not influenced by weather as we are using near-field atmospherically agnostic frequencies.
- throwaway189262 6y ago
  How do you handle rain scatter? I'm not an RF engineer but my understanding is that rain scatters GHz range signals quite effectively. It doesn't absorb them, but it would unfocus the beam. How is this being handled?
  - Emrod 6y ago
    Rain has negligible affect on EM propagation in the frequencies we are operating in. See: http://gsp.humboldt.edu/OLM/Courses/GSP_216_Online/lesson2-1/atmosphere.html http://gsp.humboldt.edu/OLM/Courses/GSP_216_Online/lesson2-1...
    - jbay808 6y ago
      I hope you have a better source for your claim than that! That page only says that water won't absorb the radiation. Even if water is transparent in those bands, you still have to deal with its refractive index, which can mean reflection and scattering. Have you tested this? And, do you know for certain that it won't interfere with your laser safety system?
      - Bananaman28 6y ago
        I'm far from an expert in this field but rain scatter is definitely a thing on all GHz bands. It's more of a problem (or a way of propagation depending on how you see it) with 5GHz and up. Climate and the size of the droplets also matter as the wavelength changes. Presumably there would be forward scatter and back scatter to deal with I don't see how you could avoid that. Furthermore, comments about beamforming and that it uses a phased array isn't surprising with regards to the application but you will still have sidelobes, even with a very tight beamwidth / high gain. And then you have path loss etc, I have no idea how this would actually work - it sounds unfeasible on many fronts.
- tyingq 6y ago
  "This is the sort of lazy internet commenting" That's not really fair. High powered microwave transmission is dangerous. You're claiming near field, non radiating, and so, safe. Fair enough, but you're also claiming long distance. That requires a little more explanation. They call it "near field" for a reason, right?
- chillfox 6y ago
  Dismissing legitimate concerns by calling them "lazy" and "sceptics" is unhelpful. Stating your technology is safe due to "science and engineering" without explaining the science/engineering is unhelpful. There is real people who have real concerns that if they accidentally pass thought the beam of power then they will be cooked. If the safety of you technology is based on it being installed in such a way that no one would accidentally pass through the beam then you need to explain how that is done. if the safety is because it is just not dangerous to pass through the beam then you need to explain why that is and if there is a time limit on how long it is safe to stay in the beam. If you are incapable of addressing safety concerns to a technical crowd like hacker news then I don't see how you would convince the general public to be cool with this. Just to keep beating a dead horse, stating something is safe because "science and engineering" is pretty much the modern day way of saying because "magic".
  - PragmaticPulp 6y ago
    > Dismissing legitimate concerns by calling them "lazy" and "sceptics" is unhelpful Agreed. I have significant experience in this field and I’m having difficulty making heads or tails of half of the company’s explanations here. I can’t tell if it’s an attempt at watered-down explanations assuming a non-technical audience, or if they’re simply trying to change the subject whenever the difficult questions come up. Now that they’re resorting to ad-hominem (“lazy” comments to legitimate questions without even attempting to answer the questions) I’m becoming even more skeptical.
    - mirekrusin 6y ago
      I think they use lasers to detect obstructions and cut transmission off.
    - keithnz 6y ago
      having gone through the employees of the company and looked at their backgrounds and how long they've worked at the company, and the CEO (guy in thread) describes himself as "Serial tech entrepreneur and growth hacker, with over 15 years trajectory in deep tech, Internet, and mobile. Turning great ideas into successful businesses. Specializes in Disruptive Innovation, Rapid Prototyping and Technology Commercialization.", basically, this Emrod guy will have no idea how this really works. Their "lead" scientist is a guy called Ray Simpkin, who seems reputable, but hasn't really worked in this area too much, and so far their only demonstration is something over 2m. I got a feeling reality is going to bite this company in the ass, but happy to wait for actual evidence of long range transmission. It seems everything is pretty much hype based on a lab experiment, likely trying to get some investment $s
- TapWaterBandit 6y ago
  Don't mind the haters. Some people are unwilling to even try new things, sit on their hands on the sidelines tsking and judging without having the balls to step into the ring and have a go. "Incredibly Dangerous" to them just means any danger or risk at all. What could be worse than abrupt end to their life of Ubereats, Netflix, and nature walks? What would happen to their pets if they were gone?
- maybelsyrup 6y ago
  I'm about as unqualified to comment on this general topic as your average 6th grade dropout. To me, a "sidelobe" sounds like something you'd get at a shopping mall ear piercing stand. So it says something that even I can tell that this poor guy is out of his depth. He shows up to HN (a community of smart people who are willing to listen to the unorthodox), solicits questions, and gets defensive when people ... ask him questions. This won't end well. I'll get some popcorn. PS: brother, it's "line of sight". I know spelling well doesn't change the world but sheesh.
  - james412 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_lobe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_lobe
  - Vinnl 6y ago
    It's interesting how 'I'm not an expert and even I can see that...' sounds like a convincing argument, but it is often the preface of someone missing something non-obvious. (Though I don't think you have to be a subject-matter expert to judge human interactions. Just wanted to point out the invalid line of reasoning.)
    - throwaway77384 6y ago
      I'm probably about to embarrass myself, but I got stuck on this comment. I am trying to make sense of it and I can't. Can you please help me out: When someone says "I'm not an expert and even I can see that...", they are presumably implying that even without the technical knowledge required to spot an obvious 'fake' or 'quack', perhaps an impostor, they can still identify said impostor. In this case that seems to me to be a valid statement. Albeit one of relatively low value, since nothing much has been added to the discussion. All we now know, is, that the impostor has overreached and even laypeople can call their bluff (and an additional audience member has confirmed this to us). But that's it. I want to see how this is often the preface of someone missing something non-obvious though? What is the non-obvious thing in this case, that the parent commenter is missing?
- Enginerrrd 6y ago
  I haven't found any of the comments in this thread particularly alarming. However, I find your overall defensiveness, inability to answer simple technical questions directly, and your tactic of answering questions with questions casting doubt on the asker to be extremely disconcerting. That sounds major alarm bells to me of either serious technical issues or, perhaps more likely, fraud. If the tech IS actually working and safe, a proposition which grows increasingly doubtful with every comment you make, you are NOT the right person to be running this thread, and you are doing serious damage to Emrod's PR.
  - foobiekr 6y ago
    Between Tesla FSD, Neuralink, Nikola, the litany of fake listed Chinese companies like Luckin, this is truly the golden age of fraud. No surprise if this is one.
    - dredds 6y ago
      It's also the age of NZ launching it's own satellites. Sadly this thread bumping up against the Nikola investigation seems to have tainted this thread with doubters. Growing up in NZ we are taught to have an inventive spirit even without resources. Using "number eight wire" as we call it. Stories about farmers inventing jet-boats to head up rapids looking for lost sheep, or a young Peter Beck with a rocket on the back of his bike, then naming his rockets after Rutherford. Not saying every kiwi invention is a winner, but don't let the knockers put you off trying is all.

Emrod 6y ago

This is NOT "incredibly dangerous". This is the sort of lazy internet commenting that doesn’t rely on actual research. There will always going to be sceptics. All we can do is rely on solid science and engineering and engage people to address genuine concerns. The distances we are looking at are progressive from a few hundred meters to a few kilometres. Range is only limited by line of site and an antenna size which is practical. Mind you, we can reduce antenna size and increase range by using passive relays. At the moment we are working with about 60% end to end efficiency. This is not influenced by weather as we are using near-field atmospherically agnostic frequencies.

throwaway189262 6y ago
How do you handle rain scatter? I'm not an RF engineer but my understanding is that rain scatters GHz range signals quite effectively. It doesn't absorb them, but it would unfocus the beam. How is this being handled?
- Emrod 6y ago
  Rain has negligible affect on EM propagation in the frequencies we are operating in. See: http://gsp.humboldt.edu/OLM/Courses/GSP_216_Online/lesson2-1/atmosphere.html http://gsp.humboldt.edu/OLM/Courses/GSP_216_Online/lesson2-1...
  - jbay808 6y ago
    I hope you have a better source for your claim than that! That page only says that water won't absorb the radiation. Even if water is transparent in those bands, you still have to deal with its refractive index, which can mean reflection and scattering. Have you tested this? And, do you know for certain that it won't interfere with your laser safety system?
    - Bananaman28 6y ago
      I'm far from an expert in this field but rain scatter is definitely a thing on all GHz bands. It's more of a problem (or a way of propagation depending on how you see it) with 5GHz and up. Climate and the size of the droplets also matter as the wavelength changes. Presumably there would be forward scatter and back scatter to deal with I don't see how you could avoid that. Furthermore, comments about beamforming and that it uses a phased array isn't surprising with regards to the application but you will still have sidelobes, even with a very tight beamwidth / high gain. And then you have path loss etc, I have no idea how this would actually work - it sounds unfeasible on many fronts.
tyingq 6y ago
"This is the sort of lazy internet commenting" That's not really fair. High powered microwave transmission is dangerous. You're claiming near field, non radiating, and so, safe. Fair enough, but you're also claiming long distance. That requires a little more explanation. They call it "near field" for a reason, right?
chillfox 6y ago
Dismissing legitimate concerns by calling them "lazy" and "sceptics" is unhelpful. Stating your technology is safe due to "science and engineering" without explaining the science/engineering is unhelpful. There is real people who have real concerns that if they accidentally pass thought the beam of power then they will be cooked. If the safety of you technology is based on it being installed in such a way that no one would accidentally pass through the beam then you need to explain how that is done. if the safety is because it is just not dangerous to pass through the beam then you need to explain why that is and if there is a time limit on how long it is safe to stay in the beam. If you are incapable of addressing safety concerns to a technical crowd like hacker news then I don't see how you would convince the general public to be cool with this. Just to keep beating a dead horse, stating something is safe because "science and engineering" is pretty much the modern day way of saying because "magic".
- PragmaticPulp 6y ago
  > Dismissing legitimate concerns by calling them "lazy" and "sceptics" is unhelpful Agreed. I have significant experience in this field and I’m having difficulty making heads or tails of half of the company’s explanations here. I can’t tell if it’s an attempt at watered-down explanations assuming a non-technical audience, or if they’re simply trying to change the subject whenever the difficult questions come up. Now that they’re resorting to ad-hominem (“lazy” comments to legitimate questions without even attempting to answer the questions) I’m becoming even more skeptical.
  - mirekrusin 6y ago
    I think they use lasers to detect obstructions and cut transmission off.
  - keithnz 6y ago
    having gone through the employees of the company and looked at their backgrounds and how long they've worked at the company, and the CEO (guy in thread) describes himself as "Serial tech entrepreneur and growth hacker, with over 15 years trajectory in deep tech, Internet, and mobile. Turning great ideas into successful businesses. Specializes in Disruptive Innovation, Rapid Prototyping and Technology Commercialization.", basically, this Emrod guy will have no idea how this really works. Their "lead" scientist is a guy called Ray Simpkin, who seems reputable, but hasn't really worked in this area too much, and so far their only demonstration is something over 2m. I got a feeling reality is going to bite this company in the ass, but happy to wait for actual evidence of long range transmission. It seems everything is pretty much hype based on a lab experiment, likely trying to get some investment $s
TapWaterBandit 6y ago
Don't mind the haters. Some people are unwilling to even try new things, sit on their hands on the sidelines tsking and judging without having the balls to step into the ring and have a go. "Incredibly Dangerous" to them just means any danger or risk at all. What could be worse than abrupt end to their life of Ubereats, Netflix, and nature walks? What would happen to their pets if they were gone?
maybelsyrup 6y ago
I'm about as unqualified to comment on this general topic as your average 6th grade dropout. To me, a "sidelobe" sounds like something you'd get at a shopping mall ear piercing stand. So it says something that even I can tell that this poor guy is out of his depth. He shows up to HN (a community of smart people who are willing to listen to the unorthodox), solicits questions, and gets defensive when people ... ask him questions. This won't end well. I'll get some popcorn. PS: brother, it's "line of sight". I know spelling well doesn't change the world but sheesh.
- james412 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_lobe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_lobe
- Vinnl 6y ago
  It's interesting how 'I'm not an expert and even I can see that...' sounds like a convincing argument, but it is often the preface of someone missing something non-obvious. (Though I don't think you have to be a subject-matter expert to judge human interactions. Just wanted to point out the invalid line of reasoning.)
  - throwaway77384 6y ago
    I'm probably about to embarrass myself, but I got stuck on this comment. I am trying to make sense of it and I can't. Can you please help me out: When someone says "I'm not an expert and even I can see that...", they are presumably implying that even without the technical knowledge required to spot an obvious 'fake' or 'quack', perhaps an impostor, they can still identify said impostor. In this case that seems to me to be a valid statement. Albeit one of relatively low value, since nothing much has been added to the discussion. All we now know, is, that the impostor has overreached and even laypeople can call their bluff (and an additional audience member has confirmed this to us). But that's it. I want to see how this is often the preface of someone missing something non-obvious though? What is the non-obvious thing in this case, that the parent commenter is missing?
Enginerrrd 6y ago
I haven't found any of the comments in this thread particularly alarming. However, I find your overall defensiveness, inability to answer simple technical questions directly, and your tactic of answering questions with questions casting doubt on the asker to be extremely disconcerting. That sounds major alarm bells to me of either serious technical issues or, perhaps more likely, fraud. If the tech IS actually working and safe, a proposition which grows increasingly doubtful with every comment you make, you are NOT the right person to be running this thread, and you are doing serious damage to Emrod's PR.
- foobiekr 6y ago
  Between Tesla FSD, Neuralink, Nikola, the litany of fake listed Chinese companies like Luckin, this is truly the golden age of fraud. No surprise if this is one.
  - dredds 6y ago
    It's also the age of NZ launching it's own satellites. Sadly this thread bumping up against the Nikola investigation seems to have tainted this thread with doubters. Growing up in NZ we are taught to have an inventive spirit even without resources. Using "number eight wire" as we call it. Stories about farmers inventing jet-boats to head up rapids looking for lost sheep, or a young Peter Beck with a rocket on the back of his bike, then naming his rockets after Rutherford. Not saying every kiwi invention is a winner, but don't let the knockers put you off trying is all.