Emrod

7 ms·

1.
by Emrod 6y ago
No 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 2.4G
2.
by Emrod 6y ago
You are correct. There's no magic at work here. We don't break the laws of physics, we just flex them with clever engineering... like most innovators that came before us.
3.
by Emrod 6y ago
You are right of course. Point taken. Thanks :)
4.
by Emrod 6y ago
The equations governing diffraction are relatively straight forward. We are operating within the near-field (or more accurately in the Frensel range). I'm sure you can do the math and see how focusing a phased array can reduce diffract
5.
by Emrod 6y ago
Great 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 ;)
6.
by Emrod 6y ago
No. 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 :)
7.
by 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.
8.
by Emrod 6y ago
We use coherent beaming. The interval between relays largely depends on topographical, regulatory, and environmental conditions. In any case, all our systems are designed to be absolutely safe for any organic life form. Despite initial perc
9.
by Emrod 6y ago
Theoretically any distance is possible. Practically, we are limited by antenna size considerations. For example, we are currently looking at powering an island across a distance of 30km with an end-to-end efficiency of around 60%.
10.
by 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...
11.
by Emrod 6y ago
No "erratic blasting" intended :) this is NOT like a strong WiFi. We are using a strictly point to point collimated beam that is expected to meet nothing but clear air. It shuts down if/when any transient object is about to e
12.
by Emrod 6y ago
What are you basing your statement on? have you actually done the math?
13.
by Emrod 6y ago
End to end efficiency is absolutely critical for making any wireless power endeavour viable. Beyond delivery loss, don't forget that there are other CAPEX/OPEX considerations. For example, an underwater cable from an offshore wind
14.
by Emrod 6y ago
Hi, not sure how you came to the conclusion that "still require local storage or generation resources at the receiving end". the whole point is replacing those with a steady connection to the national grid. the only difference bei
15.
by Emrod 6y ago
You could use a generator. You could also use a steam engine to power your car. But most of us prefer the cleaner, safer, more efficient solutions :) Wouldn't you agree that replacing fossil fuel based generators with a cleaner and che
16.
by Emrod 6y ago
Typically 2.4 - 5.8GHz
17.
by Emrod 6y ago
Its in the article. ISM band. typically 2.4-5.8GHz. there are a number of safety measures. some based on a feedback loop, laser safety screen and others. cant go over all those details in a gimmicky article :))
18.
by Emrod 6y ago
relays are passive and require no power. quasi-optics.
19.
by Emrod 6y ago
search up beam forming, phased arrays, collimated beams and metamaterial based beam guides
20.
by 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 peop
21.
by Emrod 6y ago
Reporters sometimes tend to pretend they are novelist and get many details wrong (to put it mildly) 70% efficiency is the current state of the art limit for solid state based Tx. we loose close to 0% in the atmosphere and our Rx is well be
22.
by Emrod 6y ago
efficiency 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
23.
by Emrod 6y ago
Coupling 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.
24.
by Emrod 6y ago
A number of studies have been done over the years exploring wind, solar and other alternatives. Unfortunately, they aren't perfect. non, including the two turbine solution, comes even close to providing the energy required and will sti
25.
by Emrod 6y ago
Power density of direct heat exchange engines exceeds anything chemical rockets have to offer us at this stage. Beaming about 80MW would help get rid of the first stage of a rocket which represents about 80% of carried weight. I imagine thi
26.
by Emrod 6y ago
Using 2.4GHz-5.5GHz means minimal (if any) weather related interference. Rain wont have any effect...unless its heavy enough to bring down the antennas. but thats going to be an issue for any outdoors structure such as pylons or communicati
27.
by Emrod 6y ago
As you rightly noted, an article wont go into those details :). you are rising a valid point which we have addressed. Happy to explain if you PM me
28.
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 a
29.
by Emrod 6y ago
No sideloabs. we are using near-field
30.
by Emrod 6y ago
You are spot on. this is one of the best use cases for Emrod tech

More ›