5 ms·
The antenna size is governed by the wavelength and the distance between Tx and Rx (or relays). There are no sidelobes. We are using near-field and catching clo
by Emrod 6y ago
The antenna size is governed by the wavelength and the distance between Tx and Rx (or relays).
There are no sidelobes. We are using near-field and catching close to 100% of the radiated energy.
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.
Using a phased array, operating in the near-field. strictly point-to-point between Tx/Rx.
At the moment we are working with about 60% end to end efficiency so sending 1kw means you will get 600w at the far end… not 1w :)
- sroussey 6y agoHow do you get around the inverse power law? Is the beamforming that perfect?
- etimberg 6y agoYeah, there aren't enough details here to prove the claims. Not to mention, how much power do the "transmitting relays" use. Those sound like they need to be active devices that require a power source. Yes you can siphon off power from the beam, but with all the losses involved it doesn't seem to make sense.
- Emrod 6y agorelays are passive and require no power. quasi-optics.
- etimberg 6y agoDoes this mean that the meta-material lenses are custom built for each relay station? For example, to bend the beam around fixed obstacles like a mountain. Do you believe this will be a barrier to manufacturing and installation? Or are you creating a generic lens that is factory tuneable to the needed characteristics?
- Emrod 6y agoGreat question! in fact... so good that I cant answer it properly without divulging some of the secret source. Suffice to say that you are on to some of our more interesting IP ;)
- superkuh 6y ago60% end to end efficiency at what distance? It's a function of distance. I'm guessing about 30 meters?
- Emrod 6y agoefficiency is not a function of distance when there is no lose in the atmosphere :) At the moment we are working with about 60% end to end efficiency
- superkuh 6y agoIf path loss doesn't matter to you then you've revolutionized both communications and war. There's spread over distance. If you've found a way to prevent spread it's either not free space or a change to the electromagnetics fundamentals. It's a really bold claim to make. But maybe I'm misunderstanding something.
- ladberg 6y agoEliminating path loss has always been relatively easy if both ends never move. I’m assuming they mean negligible spread over the distance tested instead of no spread.
- ac29 6y agoI work with radio, and I'm not sure how exactly you are "eliminating" path loss on any sort of real world link, even ones fixed in position. Even very high gain antennas and very small wavelengths are going to spread the energy out to some degree over any non-trivial distance (most links I work on are 10km+, so maybe your definition of non-trivial distances are different than mine).
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago> there is no lose in the atmosphere I know bullshit when someone spells it out for me.
- mdifrgechd 6y agoThis reference from 2007 wherr a lab at MIT demonstrated wireless power transfer, may be relevant for explaining inductive coupling and the idea that this is not radiative (far field) power transfer - correct me if this technology is fundamentally different: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/317/5834/83 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/317/5834/83
- Emrod 6y agoCoupling has nothing to do with Emrod tech. Its intrinsically limited to low power and small range. It is also has a much more significant impact on health and safty.
- mdifrgechd 6y agoOk understood. The "near field" comment made me think it was the same thing... I don't understand how this works then (not a criticism, just a walking back from thinking I got it)
- hansihe 6y agoAs far as I understand it near-field effects stop being relevant at a couple of wavelengths away from the transmitter. For 2.4ghz that would give you what, a meter of distance? Can you link me to reading material explaining how an antenna can have no sidelobes?
- Emrod 6y agosearch up beam forming, phased arrays, collimated beams and metamaterial based beam guides
- hansihe 6y agoRight, but even a phased array will give you sidelobes, it's only a question about reducing them, right? Your claim that there are no sidelobes at all seems a bit dubious to me. Or is there some metamaterial "magic" going on even at the transmitter that I'm not accounting for?
- Emrod 6y ago:)) no magic, just solid engineering. There will always be sidle-lobes. The question is how much and what do you do with it.
- jbay808 6y ago> There will always be sidle-lobes. Right, and anybody who knows enough to ask you about sidelobes likely also knows enough to know that too. That's why, if you reply that "there are no sidelobes" you're only harming your own credibility. A good reply is something like "there are sidelobes, but they peak at -{believable number} dB and are contained to within {small area}. We believe this is more than sufficient to address sidelobe concerns because of {standards}". That's a reply that earns trust.
- fit2rule 6y agoReads more like he doesn't want to tell you what he's doing with the sidelobes, in case you DO get it. Whereas the question-train you're on is at a pretty interrogative clip ..
- throwawaynothx 6y agoline of sight
- topspin 6y agoWhat frequency or range of frequencies is used?
- Emrod 6y agoTypically 2.4 - 5.8GHz
- jjcm 6y agoMy understanding of wave physics is minimal, but at the strengths you're broadcasting at wont this completely drown out any wifi signals nearby?
- Emrod 6y agoNo. we are beaming strictly point-to-point in the near field unlike WiFi, Bluetooth, RFIF, etc Unless of course we are beaming directly at a coms antenna, which we don't plan to :)