Emrod

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 2.4GHz 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?

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.

You are right of course. Point taken. Thanks :)

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 diffraction at this range :)

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 ;)

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 :)

:)) no magic, just solid engineering. There will always be sidle-lobes. The question is how much and what do you do with it.

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 perception (mostly driven by the 5G frenzy I presume), if you do the research you'll realise that it is the most environmentally friendly solution out there. This is how EBDs can go green! No ELF, no people or animals immersed in RF or electrocuted, no carbon emission, no cutting through forests and rivers with huge pylons and no underwater cables disturbing marine life.

I hope this addressed your concerns?

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%.

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...

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 enter the beam path.

Also, don't forget that the important figure you should be looking at is power density rather than total power

What are you basing your statement on? have you actually done the math?

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-farm might be a more efficient means of energy delivery but it's installation and maintenance cost would be much much higher and require more time to deploy than a wireless solution.

That is inevitably a significant part of any economic benchmarking.

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 being it would be wireless rather than copper based.

A transient object like a bird would not have a significant affect on continuity of supply. it is very small compared to the Tx/Rx surface and doesn't linger in the beam path.

Wouldn't you agree that replacing expensive imported polluting fossil fuel generation with a cleaner and cheaper locally sustainably generated energy is worthwhile?

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 cheaper alternative is worthwhile?

Typically 2.4 - 5.8GHz

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 :))

relays are passive and require no power. quasi-optics.

search up beam forming, phased arrays, collimated beams and metamaterial based beam guides

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 people to address genuine concerns.

The distances we are looking at are progressive from a few hundred meters to a few kilometres. 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.

At the moment we are working with about 60% end to end efficiency. This is not influenced by weather as we are using near-field atmospherically agnostic frequencies.

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 beyond 90% efficient.

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

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.

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 still require diesel generation and LPG on the island. there is no more room for anything beyond 2 turbines on the island so it a partial solution with no scalability. Emrod can provide x5 the current energy required on the island, cheaper, replacing Diesel and LPG, future proofing supply continuity, with a far smaller environmental footprint.

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 this would cut space payloads cost significantly :)

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 communication towers.

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

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 :)

No sideloabs. we are using near-field

You are spot on. this is one of the best use cases for Emrod tech