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%.

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?