5 ms·

Or just, you know, use a high frequency. There are tiny antennas. You can just power it via induction (like RFID) and you're set. It still couldn't transmit sup

Or just, you know, use a high frequency. There are tiny antennas. You can just power it via induction (like RFID) and you're set. It still couldn't transmit super far but I bet it would work.

SavantIdiot 5y ago
High frequency = high power. Energy harvesting is in the femptoWatt range.
- wyager 5y ago
  > High frequency = high power This isn’t true in any sense applicable to this discussion. For example a near-optical laser transmitter can be as or more efficient in joules per bit than an RF transmitter, depending on the situation.
  - SavantIdiot 5y ago
    > A near-optical laser transmitter Do you have to aim that laser transmitter?
    - wyager 5y ago
      Depends on the application, but if you do, it won’t pose a problem: * you have more options than with RF (optics or phased array) * you’ll get better angular precision at a given transmitter size
- joshuajill 5y ago
  "Frequencies from 100 GHz to 3 THz are promising bands for the next generation of wireless communication systems because of the wide swaths of unused and unexplored spectrum." "Also, new results that give insights into power efficient beam steering algorithms". From "Wireless Communications and Applications Above 100 GHz: Opportunities and Challenges for 6G and Beyond"
joshuajill 5y ago
6G communications is being prepared to use very high frequencies. Also, plans are to use directed energy, not classical wave like RF. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6G_(network) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6G_(network)
twofornone 5y ago
The downside to high frequencies is that they generally experience much more severe attenuation, which limits their range in atmosphere. Now, if you could get these flying microchips to simply reflect (with encoded data) a high power input signal from a base station, you might be onto something...
BenjiWiebe 5y ago
Higher frequencies generally means lower range. Attenuation from atmosphere and water vapour starts to become a major issue.

Or just, you know, use a high frequency. There are tiny antennas. You can just power it via induction (like RFID) and you're set. It still couldn't transmit super far but I bet it would work.

SavantIdiot 5y ago

High frequency = high power. Energy harvesting is in the femptoWatt range.

wyager 5y ago
> High frequency = high power This isn’t true in any sense applicable to this discussion. For example a near-optical laser transmitter can be as or more efficient in joules per bit than an RF transmitter, depending on the situation.
- SavantIdiot 5y ago
  > A near-optical laser transmitter Do you have to aim that laser transmitter?
  - wyager 5y ago
    Depends on the application, but if you do, it won’t pose a problem: * you have more options than with RF (optics or phased array) * you’ll get better angular precision at a given transmitter size
joshuajill 5y ago
"Frequencies from 100 GHz to 3 THz are promising bands for the next generation of wireless communication systems because of the wide swaths of unused and unexplored spectrum." "Also, new results that give insights into power efficient beam steering algorithms". From "Wireless Communications and Applications Above 100 GHz: Opportunities and Challenges for 6G and Beyond"

joshuajill 5y ago

6G communications is being prepared to use very high frequencies. Also, plans are to use directed energy, not classical wave like RF. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6G_(network) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6G_(network)

twofornone 5y ago

The downside to high frequencies is that they generally experience much more severe attenuation, which limits their range in atmosphere. Now, if you could get these flying microchips to simply reflect (with encoded data) a high power input signal from a base station, you might be onto something...

BenjiWiebe 5y ago

Higher frequencies generally means lower range. Attenuation from atmosphere and water vapour starts to become a major issue.