4 ms·
You're making a few of your own assumptions here. I'm op in this thread and yes, I do think this is going to fail because of the physics of it. The free space p
by superkuh 6y ago
You're making a few of your own assumptions here. I'm op in this thread and yes, I do think this is going to fail because of the physics of it. The free space path loss is always going to lose most of the power (ie, 40-50 dB off the top, and it's the top that matters) for any reasonable dish sizes, freq choice, and distance over 1km.
- medlyyy 6y agoWhy do you think that, though? If the beam is shaped so that it's almost all captured, and there are negligible atmospheric losses due to the frequency range chosen, why should there be high path losses?
- Johnythree 6y agoThe laws of physics say that it's impossible to generate such a tightly focused beam with manageable antenna sizes. (with or without Near Field considerations) Why do you think that Radio Astronomy dishes are so humongous?
- Emrod 6y agoNo magic at play here. The equations are open for all to explore. We are not breaking the laws of physics. Just flexing them with clever engineering.. just like innovators that came before us. For example, the radiating near field of a 2.4GHz antenna about 8 meters long would extend about 1km. Surely you do not expect Emrod to discuss in detail the subject matter of its patent applications?
- cwhiz 6y agoThe physicists, scientists, engineers, governments, corporations, and investors all seem to disagree. But some guy on the internet says it won’t work.