4 ms·

I’m not sure why people get excited about this. Putting 92kW in for a 47dBm over 1km is comedic levels of loss. It’d be more efficient to move a 2kW generator

by uuyi 4y ago

I’m not sure why people get excited about this. Putting 92kW in for a 47dBm over 1km is comedic levels of loss. It’d be more efficient to move a 2kW generator over and send several people on laps with pogo sticks carrying thimbles full of diesel to keep it running. I all really tired of all the unicorn shit being shoveled in the wireless energy transfer research area.

hilbert42 4y ago
Neither am I for precisely the same reasons. Ten points for your brilliant description about efficiency, it beats my long technical diatribe by miles. :-)
LB232323 4y ago
Because you have to start somewhere, if these technologists took these armchair physicist internet comments to heart, then what progress would they make? Having worked for defense technology contractors in the area, these people want ideas. They want brand-new, sci-fi level ideas. These militaries and defense companies will literally hire sci-fi writers for inspiration. It's not like SV where the primary focus is profit. It's less limited than that, these researches are on the cutting edge, it's where we received the internet itself. Remember, researchers in this league led the use and development of radio in its early stages for military reasons. The truth is, in order to attract defense funds, you have to oversell an idea way, way down the line. Imaginative people with bold ideas of the future. It's beyond market trends, publicly-funded technological development is pure and machine-like. Blows any selfish, boyhood fantasies of the world's richest men out of the water.
- uuyi 4y ago
  This is optimist fantasy hyperbole. You can’t imagine physics into existence. And also the military is well known for spending on ideas that don’t even have a hope of working out whatsoever. We can use goat staring as a fine example of military thinking. Having also worked for clearly larger and more respectable defence contractors, one of whom had a big stake in early radio, in an RF engineering capacity, this stuff is laughed off the table. No one really wants or needs this capability nor believes it will work. It’s fringe garbage. Defence projects start with capabilities and then work out what you can deliver within those capabilities and client expectations. Knowing when to tell the client they are lunatics rather than taking the money and dragging a project out while paying subcontractors is where things are divided in the market.
  - iancmceachern 4y ago
    Exactly. I worked on a huge project to beam power into the body, wirelessly, for an implanted blood pump /artificial heart. It works for small amounts of power, like for pacemakers or nerve stimulators. But for any kind of real power, the power needed to move motors and do real work, it's just not feasible. No matter what fancy math or physics you do, no matter if you work with a fancy tech firm that has decades of IP in this field and was founded to make this technology specifically (like wiitricity). None of those things changes the fundamental underlying physics. Energy in the EM spectrum decreases with the square of the distance, period. If you need to beam a tenth of a watt one foot, that's possible, if you want to beam 10 watts 2 or 3 feet, that's possible (both with very large losses, 50% or more). Anything beyond this in distance or power is just wasting energy. It's like heating up 500 gallons of water, carrying it one mile and using the last 2 degrees of delta temperature left to do something. Instead it's far smarter to just take the 50 gallons of fuel one mile, heat the water there, and use its full energy.
spacemark 4y ago
Hey if these unicorns get you going, let me introduce you to my friend "Space Based Solar Power." You'll really feel alive.
rhipitr 4y ago
Would this inefficiency be acceptable if it’s transmitting power over rugged/impassable terrain?
- uuyi 4y ago
  Dropping fuel from carrier pigeons would still be more efficient.
dogma1138 4y ago
You are missing the point… 1.6kw is enough to power a drone for example. If the receiver is compact enough and light enough then this for examples allows you to have a drone orbiting a surface warship pretty much indefinitely. Just so you know there is far greater loss of power in extracting oil, transporting it, refining it and then transporting the refined fuel to its destination. But it’s still better than not bothering with all of that just because the fuel allows you to power up thing that otherwise you won’t be able to do so.
- saargrin 4y ago
  a warship could (and some do) have baloons for that already though, and there are also drones that can be fed power through tether but if you could put a serious loitering drone over a section of urban terrain in a conflict zone or in high crime area, that could move around to get angles as required, that would be cool
- uuyi 4y ago
  I don't think I'm the one missing the point. Drones are usually required to have a low radar surface and loiter far from any associated targets. The launch and landing points need to be masked. Can anyone realistically throw 100kW out to power a <2kW drone with a 1km range without basically sticking a big electronic sign on the transmitter saying where to send the bombs? With some of the wideband phased array sensors out there now you can probably use the incident reflections off the drone to track the location of it as well. It's just a monumentally stupid idea end to end.
  - dogma1138 4y ago
    Drones are useful for observation, search and rescue as well as defense/offense if they are say kamikaze drones. Surface vessels already are lit like a pulsar due to their radar… Civilian marine radars can easily reach upto 25kw. The AN/SPY-1 which is the radar of the Aegis Combat System has a power output of 6MW….
    - uuyi 4y ago
saargrin 4y ago
you can power a drone if this could work at 10km range , that would be hella awesome even at 2 km, a wireless drone with endless loiter time is awesome from some tactical applications
- agapon 4y ago
  How about having N drones and taking turns? Seems to be much cheaper and doable right now. For instance, people cannot operate 100% of time. I know that there's been some research in eliminating the need for sleep, etc, but having watches worked for ages.
- uuyi 4y ago
  Apart from the fact you’re illuminating the target with a massive RF source and broadcasting the location of the transmitter. So no it is a silly idea.

by uuyi 4y ago

hilbert42 4y ago

Neither am I for precisely the same reasons. Ten points for your brilliant description about efficiency, it beats my long technical diatribe by miles. :-)

LB232323 4y ago

Because you have to start somewhere, if these technologists took these armchair physicist internet comments to heart, then what progress would they make? Having worked for defense technology contractors in the area, these people want ideas. They want brand-new, sci-fi level ideas. These militaries and defense companies will literally hire sci-fi writers for inspiration. It's not like SV where the primary focus is profit. It's less limited than that, these researches are on the cutting edge, it's where we received the internet itself. Remember, researchers in this league led the use and development of radio in its early stages for military reasons. The truth is, in order to attract defense funds, you have to oversell an idea way, way down the line. Imaginative people with bold ideas of the future. It's beyond market trends, publicly-funded technological development is pure and machine-like. Blows any selfish, boyhood fantasies of the world's richest men out of the water.

uuyi 4y ago
This is optimist fantasy hyperbole. You can’t imagine physics into existence. And also the military is well known for spending on ideas that don’t even have a hope of working out whatsoever. We can use goat staring as a fine example of military thinking. Having also worked for clearly larger and more respectable defence contractors, one of whom had a big stake in early radio, in an RF engineering capacity, this stuff is laughed off the table. No one really wants or needs this capability nor believes it will work. It’s fringe garbage. Defence projects start with capabilities and then work out what you can deliver within those capabilities and client expectations. Knowing when to tell the client they are lunatics rather than taking the money and dragging a project out while paying subcontractors is where things are divided in the market.
- iancmceachern 4y ago
  Exactly. I worked on a huge project to beam power into the body, wirelessly, for an implanted blood pump /artificial heart. It works for small amounts of power, like for pacemakers or nerve stimulators. But for any kind of real power, the power needed to move motors and do real work, it's just not feasible. No matter what fancy math or physics you do, no matter if you work with a fancy tech firm that has decades of IP in this field and was founded to make this technology specifically (like wiitricity). None of those things changes the fundamental underlying physics. Energy in the EM spectrum decreases with the square of the distance, period. If you need to beam a tenth of a watt one foot, that's possible, if you want to beam 10 watts 2 or 3 feet, that's possible (both with very large losses, 50% or more). Anything beyond this in distance or power is just wasting energy. It's like heating up 500 gallons of water, carrying it one mile and using the last 2 degrees of delta temperature left to do something. Instead it's far smarter to just take the 50 gallons of fuel one mile, heat the water there, and use its full energy.

spacemark 4y ago

Hey if these unicorns get you going, let me introduce you to my friend "Space Based Solar Power." You'll really feel alive.

rhipitr 4y ago

Would this inefficiency be acceptable if it’s transmitting power over rugged/impassable terrain?

uuyi 4y ago
Dropping fuel from carrier pigeons would still be more efficient.

dogma1138 4y ago

You are missing the point… 1.6kw is enough to power a drone for example. If the receiver is compact enough and light enough then this for examples allows you to have a drone orbiting a surface warship pretty much indefinitely. Just so you know there is far greater loss of power in extracting oil, transporting it, refining it and then transporting the refined fuel to its destination. But it’s still better than not bothering with all of that just because the fuel allows you to power up thing that otherwise you won’t be able to do so.

saargrin 4y ago
a warship could (and some do) have baloons for that already though, and there are also drones that can be fed power through tether but if you could put a serious loitering drone over a section of urban terrain in a conflict zone or in high crime area, that could move around to get angles as required, that would be cool
uuyi 4y ago
I don't think I'm the one missing the point. Drones are usually required to have a low radar surface and loiter far from any associated targets. The launch and landing points need to be masked. Can anyone realistically throw 100kW out to power a <2kW drone with a 1km range without basically sticking a big electronic sign on the transmitter saying where to send the bombs? With some of the wideband phased array sensors out there now you can probably use the incident reflections off the drone to track the location of it as well. It's just a monumentally stupid idea end to end.
- dogma1138 4y ago
  Drones are useful for observation, search and rescue as well as defense/offense if they are say kamikaze drones. Surface vessels already are lit like a pulsar due to their radar… Civilian marine radars can easily reach upto 25kw. The AN/SPY-1 which is the radar of the Aegis Combat System has a power output of 6MW….
  - uuyi 4y ago

saargrin 4y ago

you can power a drone if this could work at 10km range , that would be hella awesome even at 2 km, a wireless drone with endless loiter time is awesome from some tactical applications

agapon 4y ago
How about having N drones and taking turns? Seems to be much cheaper and doable right now. For instance, people cannot operate 100% of time. I know that there's been some research in eliminating the need for sleep, etc, but having watches worked for ages.
uuyi 4y ago
Apart from the fact you’re illuminating the target with a massive RF source and broadcasting the location of the transmitter. So no it is a silly idea.