
New Zealand is about to test long-range wireless power transmission - walterbell
https://singularityhub.com/2020/08/30/new-zealand-is-about-to-test-long-range-wireless-power-transmission/
======
Emrod
Guys, This is Greg Kushnir, founder of Emrod.

I am excited and humbled by your support.

At Emrod we have safety and environmental considerations at the core. I’m
happy to explain why our tech is not only safe but also has a far smaller
environmental footprint than any powerlines, communications antennas, etc.

As with any new transformative technology, there will always be sceptics. All
we can do is rely on solid science and engineering, listen to the public and
address their concerns.

I invite you to engage us in an open honest conversation. We would love to
hear your concerns, thoughts about possible applications, or even just drop us
a line to say what you think about wireless power.

~~~
superkuh
What frequency are you using and over what bandwidth? How many dB down are
your sidelobes from your main beam? Are you using parabolic reflectors for
your primary antennas, how big are they relative to your wavelength (what's
the beamwidth)? What role do meta-materials play, are they the collimating
relay? What about the sidelobes on the relay?

Why do you think 100 mW/cm^2 is 'safe'? You must know from experience this is
enough for tissue heating, even from sidelobes many dB down.

Over what ranges do you think this is feasible? With, say 20 km of free space
path loss in the 2.4 GHz ISM and 40 dB antenna gain at each end you're going
to be at least 50 dB down. Doesn't this mean for things like transmitting
power to islands this tech is not useful?

Even if you start at 1 KW in (60 dBm), over 20 km the receiving antenna is
going to get about 0-10 dBm, or milliwatts.

With the same generous setup at 1 km and 1 kW you get 10 watts at the far end.

This just doesn't work out.

~~~
Emrod
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 :)

~~~
hansihe
As far as I understand it near-field effects stop being relevant at a couple
of wavelengths away from the transmitter. For 2.4ghz that would give you what,
a meter of distance?

Can you link me to reading material explaining how an antenna can have no
sidelobes?

~~~
zaroth
Near-field is only a few wavelengths away when the antenna itself is a half
wavelength in dimension. Otherwise you would calculate the size of the near
field as a function of the physical dimension of the antenna and the
wavelength: r2 = 2d^2/λ.

E.g. The radiating near field of a 2.4GHz antenna about 8 meters long would
extend about 1km.

[1] -
[https://www.giangrandi.org/electronics/anttool/regions.shtml](https://www.giangrandi.org/electronics/anttool/regions.shtml)

~~~
hansihe
Thanks for clearing that up!

------
RangerScience
Microwave beam, not magnifying transmitter.

AFAIK, Tesla's theory about how to do wireless power transmission was to use a
specially modified absolutely gigantic Tesla coil (a "magnifying transmitter")
to resonate the electrostatic sphere of the Earth; spark-gap radio and
lightning strikes, only tuned to resonate.

It remains unclear to me if this was ever actually attempted - Tesla's
original attempt, Wardenclyffe Tower, was never completed and AFAIK no-one has
since attempted it.

None of this has anything to do with this attempt in NZ, since it's a beam,
instead.

~~~
taneq
I thought the general reason nobody had tried it was that the resultant EMF
would fry pretty much all electronics globally?

~~~
RangerScience
Could be, but that wouldn't have been true for 30+ years after Wardenclyffe.

------
unchocked
70% efficiency is nothing to sneeze at. Stewart Island, which they envision
serving with a commercial system, is powered by diesel generators with a cost
of electricity of ~$1/kW-h. It's about 50km across the water from Bluff, where
there is a surplus of energy due to a large aluminum smelter served by a
dedicated hydroelectric plant.

With only about 300 people, the community on Stewart Island can't justify an
undersea cable. But a microwave power beaming system could be built for much
less, and supply energy much cheaper (and greener) than burning diesel.

~~~
Justsignedup
would this also be the technology to use for satellite -> surface energy
transfer?

~~~
unchocked
Yes, it's essentially the same architecture: two large phased arrays pointing
at each other. The terrestrial technology development could transfer to the
space application, or vice versa.

------
skepticp
I think i've figured out how they are doing it. This is copy paste about a
company he co-founded on his linkedin page. Case cracked! Psychic power
transfer... awesome.

Zodiac Psychics operates a marketplace for online spiritual and psychic
consulting. A rapidly growing number of advisors are servicing their clients
daily over the Zodiac Psychics platform.

Zodiac Psychics has become a top destination for anyone looking for guidance
about love, relationship and life’s day-to-day challenges. Professional
Psychics and spiritual advisors from around the world are available for online
psychic readings, spiritual coaching, and connection with deceased loved ones
via confidential, one-to-one online chat. Qualified Psychics and Tarot readers
are enjoying lowest fees in the industry and timely payments. see less

Edit: Reference: [https://www.linkedin.com/company/zodiac-
psychics/](https://www.linkedin.com/company/zodiac-psychics/)

~~~
dorkwood
Wow, so he's a grifter?

------
ngvrnd
Wait I've seen this movie:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quiet_Earth_(film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quiet_Earth_\(film\))

~~~
lsllc
I came here looking for this comment. Well done! (Great movie btw).

------
roywiggins
"A famous image of inventor Nikola Tesla shows him casually sitting on a
chair, legs crossed, taking notes—oblivious to the profusion of artificial
lightning rending the air meters away."

Oblivious, because the image was a double negative.

"The photo was a promotional stunt by photographer Dickenson V. Alley; a
double exposure. First the machine's huge sparks were photographed in the
darkened room, then the photographic plate was exposed again with the machine
off and Tesla sitting in the chair. In his Colorado Springs Notes Tesla
admitted that the photo is false:

    
    
        "Of course, the discharge was not playing when the experimenter was photographed, as might be imagined!"
    

Tesla's biographers Carl Willis and Mark Seifer confirm this."

[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nikola_Tesla,_with_h...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nikola_Tesla,_with_his_equipment_Wellcome_M0014782.jpg)

~~~
hinkley
Tesla had figured out the math for the minimum safe distance from his coils
and had a habit of building the biggest one he could get away with in the shop
space he had. Which meant they tended to nearly exactly fit into his workshop.

Which led to a situation mentioned in one of his biographies, where he was on
the far side of the shop and somehow the switch got thrown. It was either make
a new exit through a wall or window, or leverage the fact that discharges are
sphere shaped but shops are generally box-shaped; army crawl out through the
little 'triangle' of space between the floor and the wall/benches outside of
the radius. I would hope some new safety protocols were introduced after that,
but I couldn't rightly say. The rest of that story sort of overshadows such
details in your memory.

~~~
maxerickson
Perhaps the circular fence in the photo is a safety protocol?

------
wsetchell
I wonder how they're thinking about this versus the steady march of solar +
battery performance.

I would think that in the 5-10 years it'll take to get this safe enough for a
commercial product, solar + battery would be scaling and they'd never be able
to catch up on price due to the efficiency ceiling.

Maybe there's something possible in aviation for this. There might be electric
drones/planes applications which would be way better if they didn't have to
carry batteries.

~~~
thysultan
This does not compete with this solar/batteries so much as it competes with
electrical wires.

~~~
msandford
Yeah that's the idea. But if you have somewhere remote enough that's there's
no power there then solar and wind are competitors to building wires. There
are thousands upon thousands of houses in the US that choose to put up solar
and wind and use batteries vs spend $50k to have wires pulled. Same for wells
and septic vs city water and sewer.

~~~
waheoo
Probably thinking about west coast of the South Island, New Zealand. Its
rugged weather down there, still no mobile reception for most of it, sparsely
populated and right up against the Alps.

They struggle to get powerlines/phone lines through already so I'm not
surprised they're thinking this might be a valid option to relay power for
small settlements.

------
mrfusion
I think the most exciting application for this would be for launching
spacecraft.

The tyranny of the rocket equation makes launches super expensive because
rockets have to carry fuel to lift the fuel and so on.

So it we can provide energy for a launch from the ground it could be amazing.

~~~
sacred_numbers
I don't think wireless electric spacecraft are really viable for getting into
Earth orbit, at least not in the foreseeable future. In order to escape
Earth's gravity well, a spacecraft must be accelerating at more than 9.8 m/s
(1 g), and realistically at double or triple that rate to minimize fuel
consumption.

Imagine a spacecraft with a mass of 100 tons (including fuel and payload).
Let's also assume a specific impulse of 2,956 (the highest thrust version of
VASIMR according to this source:
[http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#...](http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#id
--Electromagnetic_\(Plasma\)--VASIMR)). If we require an acceleration of 2 g
and assume that our engine is 100% efficient we would require about 28 GW of
electricity. This is approximately equivalent to the average electricity
consumption of California. I don't think it would be possible (with current or
projected future technology) to build a receiver that could handle 28 GW of
electricity and still stay under 100 tons. If we could build such a receiver I
don't think it would be able to survive accelerating through Earth's
atmosphere.

The silver lining, though, is that wireless power transfer is a very useful
technology for use in space after getting to orbit. Lasers are probably a
better technology than microwaves for transferring power over interplanetary
distances, but the concept is the same. If we ever travel to another star
there is a pretty good chance that the journey will be at least partially
powered by an array of very large lasers.

~~~
zaroth
> _...and realistically at double or triple that rate to minimize fuel
> consumption._

But that’s the whole point, with traditional rockets every second spent on the
way up is wasted fuel combatting the cumulative force of gravity.

But if your energy is being beamed up, as long as that energy is enough to
overcome gravity, you eventually achieve orbit. You’re no longer burning a
limited resource just to “hover + 1”.

I’m not saying it works, but it does fundamentally change the equation if you
can beam “fuel” to the rocket on the way up.

Unfortunately energy =/= fuel. In the end, mass has to exit the rocket at high
velocity out one end in order to provide acceleration in the opposite
direction, and that mass is limited.

~~~
wankeler
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightcraft](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightcraft)

------
mxuribe
I'm certainly not an expert of electricity nor radio nor microwave emitters,
and such...And, the approach here sounds really amazing...But would a heavy
enough downpour of rain act as a strong enough obstruction to trigger the
lasers? In essence would weather - at least precipitation - have a negative
impact here?

~~~
Emrod
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.

~~~
etimberg
If you are using 2.4 GHz, how are you remaining in the near field yet
extending the distances out to many km?

At 2.4GHz, λ is approximately 0.125m. Since the wavelength is small, the
antenna is likely to be "electromagnetically long", i.e. the size of the
antenna is of comparable size to the wavelength.

The edge of the near field in this case is defined by the Fraunhofer Distance
[0][1]. Let's assume we want the edge of the near field to be 1km away.
Running that through the Fraunhofer distance equation to compute the largest
dimension of the radiator, we get ~7.9m. That's huge. For 10km it is 25m.

0\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field#Electromagn...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field#Electromagnetically_long_antennas)

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_distance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_distance)

------
soperj
If this is functional I think it would have huge implication w/r to disaster
relief. Much easier to start transmitting power to an area wirelessly then
start repairing broken infrastructure.

------
EricE
All the fussing over Marconi was a bit painful to read through - it's not
"Marconi's radio waves" \- Tesla was there first too. Unfortunately it
happened after both their deaths but Marconi's patents were invalidated and
Teslas were held up. It's annoying to see this myth about Marconi still
perpetuated.

More: [https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/tesla-
invent...](https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/tesla-invented-
radio-not-marconi)

~~~
gregwebs
Thanks, I was thinking the same thing. Marconi deserves credit for developing
the concept of radio as we know it for long range communication whereas Tesla
invented radio and demonstrated remote control but did not pursue
communication.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_radio#Tesla's_boa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_radio#Tesla's_boat)

------
panda88888
I am trying to reconcile what I read in the comments and the article. Namely,

\- we are using nearfield. No sidelobe.

\- 2.4 - 5.5 GHz

\- long distance (I am assuming km’s)

Is there anything to read so I can better understand the technology?

~~~
tyingq
No, you're right. They call it near field for a reason. Likely single or
double-digit meters in distance depending on the antenna size for that
frequency range.

For example, 10 foot antenna, 4Ghz == 12 meters of "reactive near field" or
~250 meters of "radiating near field" though the claim is it's not radiating,
therefore it's safe.

Either this is bs, or something important isn't being said.

------
gopalv
> The system uses a net of lasers surrounding the beam to detect obstructions,
> like a bird or person, and it automatically shuts off transmission until the
> obstruction has moved on.

The sensor + electronics part is what is different today from what Nikola
Tesla could do.

But the ISM band usage might suck for anyone who needs high SNR for other use,
because the scattering on moisture + a 1kw/sqm power delivery means it will
look like shining a laser through a dusty room.

------
gregwebs
The introduction is a bit off. Tesla even invented the concept of radio before
Marconi but only utilized it for remote control. Marconi invented the concept
of radio for long range communication.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_radio#Tesla's_boa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_radio#Tesla's_boat)

~~~
roywiggins
The introduction is _really_ off. The image of Tesla and his transmitter was a
double negative, no wonder he looks so relaxed. He wasn't actually sitting
there with the transmitter turned on.

------
reilly3000
I’m totally uninformed about wireless power and it’s safety, but it seems like
a lot of people in these threads are so I’d like to fire it this question: can
high gain 5Ghz WiFi cause any adverse health effects? I just got a new
MikroTik router yesterday that has a really high gain radio on it. It shipped
with the 5Ghz dedicated radio disabled, and I have it sitting under my desk.
When I turned the radio on, I started to feel a tingle and a dullish pain in
my ankles. When I switched my phone to the 5GHz network I perceived increased
radio noise, and noticed a tingling sensation in my hands. Prolonged use
seemed to irritate my forearms. It’s entirely possible this is a psychosomatic
effect and I’ve kept the radio on based on that assumption. Still, I’m
concerned. It feels similar to the effect I feel standing off-axis from my
microwave while it’s running 1100W full blast.

Is this in my head? Am I safe to use this radio at full gain? Should I not
keep it by my desk?

~~~
jakear
Have some third party toggle it a few (3+) times and see if you can tell the
difference.

~~~
beowulfey
Yes this is a great suggestion

------
qubex
The famous photograph of Tesla sitting with the lightening hurtling out from
his coils was a double exposure.

------
hellotomyrars
"Ultimately, the technology may help power rural areas or transmit energy from
offshore wind farms, both cases where it’s expensive to build physical
infrastructure to tap or feed the grid."

While I understand case 1 and I worry some people don't understand that even
if we get the tech figured out it's going to only make sense in certain
contexts (at least until/unless we have infinite `free` power), but I think #2
is a bit weird.

Yes building that infrastructure to the wind farm is costly/difficult but
also... It seems weird to bottleneck the generation at the gen site. I guess
if the infrastructure costs for wireless transmission are minimal you could
get things bootstrapped easier/cheaper but it def seems shortsighted if you're
already creating a big loss at the first stage of generation.

~~~
thysultan
You can have a satellite at low earth orbit taking energy from the sun or even
more ambitiously nuclear fusion(like the sun) that may very well be easier to
archive in low gravity of near space, then transmit this to a base earth
station. It would be near-free in the same sense that the suns energy is near-
free.

~~~
minitoar
Just use some mirrors and ground based pv?

------
hyko
How It Works

The system consists of four components: A scientifically illiterate public, a
gullible trade press, desperate capitalists, and wide eyed entrepreneurs
riding the hype cycle all the way to the exit.

------
RickDerrick
Yeah, there aren't enough details here to prove the claims. Not to mention,
how much power do the "transmitting relays" use. Those sound like they need to
be active devices that require a power source. Yes you can siphon off power
from the beam, but with all the losses involved it doesn't seem to make sense.

Regards, Rick Derrick <a href="[https://123hp-com-
setup.net/">123.hp.com/setup</a>](https://123hp-com-
setup.net/">123.hp.com/setup</a>)

~~~
rckoepke
This is AI generated spam. Spam itself is not notable, and soon AI generated
spam will not be notable either. But it's interesting to see the beginning
where it starts showing up in the wild.

------
ponker
Every single one of these companies to date has been vaporware, but very
interested to see if we ever get one that isn't.

------
packet_nerd
Edit: As several have pointed out... I'm wrong. I was confusing energy with
power.

> microwave energy—an electromagnetic wave just like Marconi’s radio waves,
> only a bit more energetic

Sorry for the nitpick, but, the difference between microwave and longer
wavelength radio waves is frequency, not energy! I see this all the time in
popular science reporting and it drives me nuts... Microwaves are
electromagnetic waves, just like UHF, VHF, etc., except that they are a higher
frequency (and thus, shorter wavelength). In fact, in general, longer
wavelength radio waves are often transmitted at higher power than shorter.

Unless they mean that this microwave energy transfer scheme itself is using
more energetic radio waves than other types of radio systems... but it doesn't
read that way to me.

~~~
SigmundA
Higher frequency means more energy per photon. You seem to be referring to
power not energy.

You see it reported all over as energy because that is the correct term for
what is being discussed.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_energy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_energy)

~~~
packet_nerd
Thanks for the link.. yes, I had energy and power confused.

------
MrQuincle
I was hoping someone would write down a list of companies or startups doing
wireless transmission better! Would be great!

~~~
extrapickles
Powerlight Technologies does power transmission via lasers, and does it at
non-toy power levels (they have demonstrated 1kW delivered @ 1kM). They do
both free-space and power over fiber. The main downside to doing it optically
is the cost of the system as the focus so far has been on custom tailored
systems for use-cases where there isn't any other way to get power.

Disclaimer: I'm involved with them.

------
jzer0cool
Is there a safe, simple way to demo this with a led light? Curious to create
but I'm not too good with circuits.

~~~
the_pwner224
It's very similar to a LED and a solar panel.

Except instead of a LED converting electricity into visible EM radiation, it's
an antenna that converts electricity into a _focused beam_ of microwave EM
radiation. And on the other side instead of a solar panel you have an antenna
to convert back from EM into electricity.

A similar example is WiFi/Bluetooth where you have antennas converting
electricity to EM radition and back. Except they're at much lower power - well
under a watt for phones/laptops, and up to a watt for routers, and generally
the antennas are omnidirectional instead of focused.

If you really wanted to use visible light instead of microwave and not have
antennas you could do a laser and a solar panel to get effectively the same
product. Pretty sure laser power transmission is a thing with some niche use
cases.

------
X6S1x6Okd1st
What happens when there is fog?

------
superkuh
Unless there's some physical reason you can't run physical conductor there's
every reason not to do this.

This setup proposes to use 100mw/cm^2. That's just not acceptable unless
you're sure no humans or animals are going to cross the beam (or even it's
sidebands!). Even a horn has diffraction sidebands, and unless they're all at
least 8dB down in all situations that's bad. The laser trips won't cover this.

This exceeds the safety standards established by the US Navy back when they
were dealing with their high powered radars for the first time. They found
that anything over 10mW/cm^2 can cause enough heating in animal eyes to cause
clouding of the eye. Humans' deep set eyes and brow ridges help (depending on
freq) but 10mW/cm^2 can still cause health issues. The measured e-field for
that powerlevel, depending on wavelength, will almost certainly be above the
electrical field limit for exposure in the USA. I hope that's also true in NZ.

~~~
mrfusion
I wish HN commenters would try to think of solutions instead of automatically
listing the problems.

This place is pretty depressing sometimes.

~~~
rvnx
Inspectors of finished works

~~~
superkuh
Well, okay guys, I'll give you a "solution" since this is proposing to use RF
anyway. Instead of doing it entirely wirelessly use a very thin conductor
surface wave transmission line (SWTL). That way only one conductor is needed
and the RF energy is mostly contained within a wavelength or so of the SWTL
(think "inside-out waveguide). The conductor can be very thin, like 28 awg.
Or, for spanning larger distance, SWTL mode has been demonstrated on twisted
aluminum cord used in normal power lines. It's just a matter of adapting the
coaxial to SWTL launcher (sort of cone).

~~~
Johnythree
Except "Surface Wave Transmission Lines" leak.

A lot.

------
itcrowd
Let's do the math. edit: math was wrong, I am very sorry

~~~
Emrod
:) you need you replace you envelop or do some serious research.. your
assumptions and calculations have very little to do with reality.

Unfortunately, this is typical armchair, internet commentary some people
prefer instead of doing actual research.

~~~
itcrowd
I agree my math was wrong, I am sorry and I have removed it. I should not be
commenting on the internet late at night.

I have crunched the numbers again on a new envelope, and with some realistic
Tx/Rx panel size (3 meters) at 5 GHz, I see how you may end up with 70%
efficiency assuming diffraction limited panels but also with 100% efficiency
of the electronics.

Since I have the idea that you are part of Emrod, I would like to ask you why
you opted for rectennas at receive and not some other antenna tech? Is it
simply the integration between antenna and rectifier (smaller footprint?) or
are there more reasons?

~~~
Johnythree
> ... Rectennas at receive and not some other antenna tech?

A Rectenna is just a dipole with a rectifier at the feed point.

They could be in a phased array (of dipoles), or in the center of a parabolic
reflector.

There is no possible way to increase on efficiency in a passive antenna.

~~~
itcrowd
> They could be in a phased array

So could any other type of antenna, basically. It doesn't have to be a dipole,
though.

> or in the center of a parabolic reflector

Based on the images, that's not what happens here

> There is no possible way to increase on efficiency in a passive antenna.

That is absolute horseshit. Large dipole arrays will suffer from high mutual
coupling which could drastically reduce performance (depending on design
choices). Different antenna types might be more suitable for different
scenarios, but that's why I would like EmRod to explain their choices.

Furthermore, a rectenna gives you DC power out, but why would EmRod want this?

------
MarkusWandel
Uh oh.

[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089869](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089869)

~~~
tanepiper
I was thinking the same

------
ramon
What about exposure to radiation?

------
Taniwha
Just for the record there is NO ISM band in ITU region 3 (in which NZ is
located)

~~~
Johnythree
There most definitely ARE ISM bands in Region 3.

The ITU has allocated 12 different ISM bands world wide, with some local
differences.

see the "Table of Radio Spectrum Usage in New Zealand"

[https://www.rsm.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/documents/pibs/ff001f...](https://www.rsm.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/documents/pibs/ff001f5055/table-
of-radio-spectrum-usage-in-new-zealand-pib-21.pdf)

------
godmode2019
This would be great for crowd control.

------
londons_explore
What could possibly go wrong...

~~~
webkike
What are you even implying could go wrong? Seems perfectly safe to me.

~~~
mhh__
It's a very manageable risk (i.e. this isn't like dredging a canal with a
nuclear bomb), but high power electromagnetic radiation can hurt you. Not in
the 5G-causes-arse-cancer sense, but you could end up at least microwaving
some birds.

------
taurath
In 2020?? Can’t we just wait 4 months, we don’t want to give it any more fuel

