Slashdot Mirror


Ultrasonic Power Transfer Investigated Using Data From uBeam Patent Filings (hackaday.com)

szczys writes: Transmitting power through the air using sound above the range of human hearing: that's the gist of ultrasonic power transfer. The promise is that you can sit in a coffee shop and use your phone like normal while it's recharged by invisible waves of energy. That's a future we all want — and one that uBeam has been promoting, but hasn't backed it up with proof. Physics is a cruel mistress, and this is no exception. Using the data found in uBeam's patent filings you can see that ultrasonic power transfer is a brutal engineering challenge. It's probably not impossible, but looking at what it would take for a widespread rollout of the tech makes it highly improbable.

120 comments

  1. My Phone is Charging! by DumbSwede · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...But my EYES and EARS are bleeding.

    1. Re:My Phone is Charging! by rrohbeck · · Score: 3, Funny

      But it'll clean your glasses and dentures at the same time.

    2. Re:My Phone is Charging! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get that effect from the typical ringtone cacophony anywhere theres a crowd these days.

    3. Re: My Phone is Charging! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure theres a chance of cancer, but plugging things in is tough!

    4. Re:My Phone is Charging! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      And every dog with 10 blocks is howling!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    5. Re:My Phone is Charging! by davester666 · · Score: 1

      As a bonus, it keeps those pesky teenagers away!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    6. Re:My Phone is Charging! by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 0

      withIN moron. withIN. Spell check is the new fail of first world problems.

  2. Ugh by grimmjeeper · · Score: 2

    When are people going to learn that pushing power through air, in any form, is horribly inefficient and impractical for anything more than a science experiment?

    1. Re:Ugh by ralphsiegler · · Score: 1

      oh? I think winding two or more sets of insulated wires around an inductor might be a way to push power through the air while altering EMF level for devices that need it at a different level, in a very efficient manner. We could call such a device a pusherformer.

    2. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what they said about wireless ethernet traffic 20 years ago.

    3. Re:Ugh by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      100W of power to get 10W to charge my phone is acceptable if my phone will charge when placed anywhere in a 20x20ft room.

      As long as I still have to place my phone in a 0.5x0.5ft area to use a wireless charger i'll just stick with a cable.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    4. Re:Ugh by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The whole planet is struggling to keep up with energy demands and you think it's acceptable to waste 90% of the energy you use?

    5. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now compare the loss, the amount of materials, and cost of your transformer with a single piece of copper wire to transfer that power over a equivalent length.

      If you think the point of transformers is for power transfer, then I have a bridge to sell you.

    6. Re:Ugh by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      What percentage of the energy in sunlight striking the Earth do you think gets wasted?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    7. Re:Ugh by Aaden42 · · Score: 1

      Not so much: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      In 1971, ALOHAnet connected the Hawaiian Islands with a UHF wireless packet network. ALOHAnet and the ALOHA protocol were early forerunners to Ethernet, and later the IEEE 802.11 protocols, respectively.

    8. Re:Ugh by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If I can't have charging as useful & accessible as wifi, then what's the point?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    9. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What kind of a stupid rhetorical response is this?

      It's like asking "How much water does Niagra Falls waste?" in response to someone pointing out the stupidity of hosing down your pickup truck during a drought.

    10. Re:Ugh by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      If I am the one that is paying for it why should you even care?
      There are hundreds of thousands of outdated computers still in use today that have much worse power efficiency ratings compared to today's equipment. Their was a /. article about that a short while ago. http://hardware.slashdot.org/s...

      Energy demand problems in this country tend to be related to NIMBY. We need a new power plant but no one wants it in their backyard.

      I like energy efficient appliances up to the point that they no longer function as they should. Incandescents bulbs are lights, led bulbs are lights but CFL bulbs are an abomination of energy policy and optimistic manufacturing that never should have happened.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    11. Re:Ugh by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Outside of plants, about 95% of it.

      With plants, about 90% of it.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    12. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you so daft that you can't tell the difference between power transfer and information transfer?

      Also, I'm pretty sure "they" = "no one". Since radios existed well before 20 years ago.

    13. Re:Ugh by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      The whole planet is struggling to keep up with energy demands and you think it's acceptable to waste 90% of the energy you use?

      The amount of power used to charge cell phones is negligible. So it doesn't really matter if it is inefficient. It is still negligible.

      I get into a similar argument with co-workers about water here in California. They wanted to save dishwater and use it to flush the toilet. Then I pointed out that we can flush the toilet twice a day for a year with the amount of water saved by eating tofu for lunch instead of beef ONE TIME.

      Keep some perspective.

    14. Re:Ugh by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Actually: none.

      It hits the earth, so it has an effect ... what exactly did you want to say?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    15. Re:Ugh by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      There's a reason transformers don't have coils across the room from each other. Maybe someone smart already figured out how fast the energy drops off the further away you get... ;)

    16. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as I still have to place my phone in a 0.5x0.5ft area to use a wireless charger i'll just stick with a cable.

      Which to me is the difference between a wireless charger and a connector less charger. If your phone has to be nearly in contact with the wiring, it's not wireless. It's connectorless.

    17. Re:Ugh by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      I already eat tofu, you insensitive clod!

    18. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100W of power to get 10W to charge my phone is acceptable if my phone will charge when placed anywhere in a 20x20ft room.

      What? I have to be in a specific room to charge my phone with this device?

      Sarcasm aside, how fucking lazy are people these days?

    19. Re:Ugh by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Which Is slightly more convenient but it's not worth the extra cost and loss of efficiency imho. Maybe if it was standard but not as an extra.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    20. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it isn't, here in Quebec we have so much surplus power it's a scandal.

    21. Re:Ugh by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Meh 20x20 is big enough that if I need it in every room I can buy a couple more and never have to worry about it.

      As for laziness just having to have my phone in a 20x20 room a few hours every day would completely eliminate ever having to remember or think about charging my phone. That would easily be worth the loss in efficiency and extra cost of the setup.

      Think about how much time wifi saves you sure it's insecure slow and unreliable. But having wireless web access on your devices is so awesome people use it anyway. At least I think so but then again I had wifi when I was still using dialup. sharing a 56k connection among 3 computers and a nintendo ds with 802.11b now that's some fun!

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    22. Re: Ugh by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 1

      And the data rate was...9600 bits per second, over the air.

    23. Re:Ugh by Tyrannosaur · · Score: 1

      The whole planet is struggling to keep up with energy demands and you think it's acceptable to waste 90% of the energy you use?

      Yes

    24. Re:Ugh by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      I also live here and I still think it's a waste. We could be selling that surplus to the U.S.A.!

    25. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are being hyperbolic by describing the entire field of wireless power as impractical. There are many more applications than just "charging your cell phone/car/laptop". In fact, as we enter the era of the IoT, a predominant number of the sensors/radios may need no more than mW of power. Additionally, if you have a better idea as to how to power bioelectronics, I suspect there would be more than a few investors, not to mention the slashdot masses, interested.

    26. Re:Ugh by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

      I like this. With the exception of Tesla, pushing anything through the resistance of air tends to look like lightning with all of the downsides.

    27. Re:Ugh by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I thought we bought some? I'm in Maine. Well, not technically, but my home is in Maine. I also don't buy power but make enough to push some back into the grid but I think other Mainers buy power from Quebec. At least I'm pretty sure I've read such a few times in the paper.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    28. Re: Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be efficient because other things are not? That's pretty silly.

      You're also exaggerating the water used by the amount of beef in a meal and makes me think you're just a tool. You know, because the cows drink from your tap and all that.

    29. Re: Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the difference between using your phone as you need to get things done vs strapped to a seat and stuck waiting for it to charge.

      Thinking too much effort? FFS

    30. Re: Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Water usage for beef averages about 15000 L / kg. The vast majority of that is related to the animal's feed, not what they drink. The water used for plants might not come from the tap, but it does in many areas come from the same sources as tap water and diverting large amounts of water to grow things still causes huge environmental impact. This siteis a bit of wonky design, but discusses amounts of water usage for different types of food and, importantly, actually cites sources for the numbers.

  3. If it was easy ... by tommeke100 · · Score: 1

    it would already have been done. Obviously did not RTFA, but this probably has very bad efficiency and a lot of the power gets lost.

  4. The Universe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the only thing that is efficiently capable of pushing power through space, and even that is very quickly losing sight of everything inside itself.

    pp reindeer

  5. 'Wireless charging' is for fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    People who think that you can run your entire house off a generator connected to a bicycle, or that putting a propeller connected to a generator on the hood of your car is 'free energy', are the same idiots who believe that 'wireless charging' is a good idea. The Inverse Square Law fully applies to any sort of wireless charging because physics works, and no amount of wishful thinking or marketing bullshit is going to change that. Sitting there saying 'But it works, we have it right now' means Jack Shit because it's all so wasteful of energy as to be worse than useless. Just plug your gods-be-damned phone into a USB port, let it charge, and fucking get over it already. Oh, and memo to those of you who want 'wireless charging' because you keep annihilating the USB connector on your phone: Try being a little more careful instead of looking for a workaround for how clumsy and careless you are with your expensive electronics, and stop encouraging retarded marketing people who keep pushing for this rediculous and unnecessary technology, it's just distracting developers and engineers from working on things that actually matter.

    1. Re: 'Wireless charging' is for fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can use beam forming to change the virtual distance used for the calculation of the power transmission efficiency. Examples if you use an ideal parabolic reflector behind a point source the distance used for that computation should be measured from the focal point

    2. Re:'Wireless charging' is for fools by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 2

      What people need are docking stations. No cable to handle and yet it's not wireless.

    3. Re:'Wireless charging' is for fools by Knee+Patch · · Score: 1

      The Inverse Square Law fully applies to any sort of wireless charging because physics works.

      I'm pretty sure the fact that most wireless charging systems operate in the near field and rely and near field effects means that the inverse square law doesn't "fully apply". Even if it does in a technical sense, the distance between transmitter and receiver is very small.

    4. Re: 'Wireless charging' is for fools by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      If you have to use a highly directional transmitter and receiver, might as well use an infrared laser beam. If you're making it omnidirectional, than power drops off as the cube of distance, so extremely inefficient. I'm not seeing an up side here.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    5. Re: 'Wireless charging' is for fools by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      You can use beam forming to change the virtual distance used for the calculation of the power transmission efficiency. Examples if you use an ideal parabolic reflector behind a point source the distance used for that computation should be measured from the focal point

      This. At Starbucks (who apparently is investing in this thing), you can do two things at once - keep your coffee hot and charge your laptop. Three things - keep your coffee hot, charge laptops and fry the brain of everyone in the establishment.

      Sounds like a winner to me.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:'Wireless charging' is for fools by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Even if it does in a technical sense, the distance between transmitter and receiver is very small."

      Induction charging, even at its best, is only about 40% efficient and that's practically touching coils together.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    7. Re: 'Wireless charging' is for fools by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Again: power drops of with the square of distance. As this is the increase of surface it is illuminating.

      You should have learned that in school.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:'Wireless charging' is for fools by Knee+Patch · · Score: 1

      Induction charging, even at its best, is only about 40% efficient and that's practically touching coils together.

      Sure, but that loss isn't due to any inverse square law, is it? Like you said, the coils are practically touching. The op was implying that all wireless charging is stupid because loss increases with the square of the distance. I'm saying (with no research and little expertise in the area) that all of the wireless charging I've seen operates in the near field; and while I don't know how much that 40% efficiency number you gave could be improved upon, I doubt that the dominating factor in the loss is distance in this specific case.

    9. Re:'Wireless charging' is for fools by Hussman32 · · Score: 1

      For linear attenuation of sound, Stoke's Law is more appropriate for a back of the envelope estimate. More searching will yield more refined models. That being said, no planar transducer propagates only linearly, and there is decay in the x and y directions (considering z as the normal vector).

      I was scratching my head when I read about this idea because I work with ultrasonics a bit and we have a heck of a time with maintaining energy density over short distances.

      --
      "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    10. Re:'Wireless charging' is for fools by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Sure, but that loss isn't due to any inverse square law, is it?"

      A good deal of that loss is inverse square (or inverse cube in the case of omnidirectional transmission.) Doesn't matter if you're doing millimeters, centimeters, inches, whatever. Whatever you're getting at 2mm distance is half (or less) what you'd get at 1m distance. That's how great the inverse dropoff effect is.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    11. Re:'Wireless charging' is for fools by Knee+Patch · · Score: 1

      Cool, does that mean I can get infinite power out of it as long as I can get the receiver and transmitter arbitrarily close to each other? Sounds like each time I cut the distance in half I get twice the power. Zeno saves the day!

      If distance=0 represents a theoretical "full power", then how do you double that distance to get the half (or quarter) power according to the inverse law? If some distance > 0 represents "full power", then getting the TX and RX that close ought to be free of this nasty inverse square business.

    12. Re:'Wireless charging' is for fools by kheldan · · Score: 1

      If distance=0 represents a theoretical "full power", then how do you double that distance to get the half (or quarter) power according to the inverse law?

      You're halfway across the bridge.
      You're three quarters of the way across the bridge.
      You're seven eighths of the way across the bridge.
      You're fifteen sixteenths of the way across the bridge.
      You're thirty-one thirty-seconds of the way across the bridge.
      You're sixty-three sixty-fourths of the way across the bridge.
      You're one hundred twenty-seven one hundred twenty-eighths of the way across the bridge.
      You're two hundred fifty-five two hundred fifty-sixths of the way across the bridge.
      (and so on, and so on..)

      A transformer, which has tightly wound coils over a metal core, is something like 99.99% efficient. Loosening things up with distance, the efficiency starts dropping off quickly, as previously stated by others.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    13. Re:'Wireless charging' is for fools by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      After you get so close the wires touch and then its not wireless power anymore. :P

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    14. Re: 'Wireless charging' is for fools by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      If they're at Starbucks then frying their brain is a bit redundant.

    15. Re:'Wireless charging' is for fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't matter if you're doing millimeters, centimeters, inches, whatever. Whatever you're getting at 2mm distance is half (or less) what you'd get at 1m distance. That's how great the inverse dropoff effect is.

      This is flat out false, and you seem to have no idea what people mean when they talk about the near field, yet still respond with utmost confidence.

      In the extreme case, you have the near field of a laser where the divergence can be very, very small, as it will follow a hyperbolic spread that is only conical (i.e. inverse square drop off) far away from the laser. Larger off the shelf lasers can easily be setup to have Rayleigh distances in the kilometers, so that when you go from 1 m to 2 m, the drop off is not a factor of four (the drop off would be 0.5 ppm for a Gaussian beam with a Rayleigh distance of 1 km).

      In the less extreme case, this applies fine to low frequency equipment when your distance from the antenna is on the order of the size of the antenna. Walking from 1 m to 2 m from a large dipole antenna is not going to give you a factor of four drop off. Likewise, a wireless charger, especially a resonant one that minimizes the amount wasted from what just amounts to extra inductance in the system, can produce efficiencies of 80-95% with distances on the order of the antenna size. Your "40% at best" is just a BS number.

    16. Re:'Wireless charging' is for fools by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Yup. In fact, you can already do that. You just plug it in and contact is made. Tada! You now have wireless power - except for still having the wires, of course. But you get much greater efficiency. (Reduction starts immediately - as soon as you have even the smallest of gaps.)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    17. Re:'Wireless charging' is for fools by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "and you seem to have no idea what people mean when they talk about the near field"

      You're not paying any fucking attention to the conversation. Near-Field in this context means radio and I am ENTIRELY CORRECT - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Try again when you can actually comprehend the fucking conversation taking place, nimrod.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    18. Re:'Wireless charging' is for fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Near field means the same thing in any electromagnetic context, whether radio or light. It depends on the wavelength and source size. Off the shelf Qi wireless chargers are 60-70% efficient. High power wireless car recharging schemes are now about 85% efficient. This is mentioned briefly in the article you cite, even more so if you followed the more in depth article on resonant coupling. And you're still wrong about the r-squared loss in the near field, as even the article you cite talks about the coupling constant k being what matters in the near field, and the calculation for that doesn't drop off as 1/r^2, even with non-resonant coupling.

    19. Re:'Wireless charging' is for fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Gaussian beam example discussed isn't specific to lasers and works just as well for radio waves. There might be much fewer practical uses for a low frequency Gaussian beam due to sizes involved, but that is only one example. As said, dipole antennas don't follow inverse square law in the near field, and those are used in both radio and optical regimes. Saying you are talking about radio changes nothing, as these are basic principles that apply to all electromagnetic radiation. Heck, just look up the field from a loop of wire along the central axis, and you can see clearly it drops off very slowly until you get a couple loop radii away.

  6. highly improbable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Piffle! They also said man will never fly! You are all Luddites. Computers got better, therefore everything will get better. This is why we have the 20 hour work week and supersonic passenger transport today.

    1. Re:highly improbable? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the flying cars and hoverboards! Seriously, we've had 30 years to work on this... where is my fricken' hoverboard (the liquid-nitrogen cooled superconducting magnet on a specialized track doesn't count!)

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:highly improbable? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      There is no hoverboard, and there never will be one: deal with it.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:highly improbable? by Hussman32 · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing this hoverboard doesn't meet your criteria either.

      --
      "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    4. Re:highly improbable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is "noone" of consequence? That's not a word.

  7. No, No, No, No..... This will not work by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Any technology which attempts to push power though a transmission medium where you have to worry about the "Inverse of the Square" of the distance is going to fail on it's face. Sound though air is such a problem. Magnetic and electric fields though air/vacuum is another. Power transfer may be possible, but the amount of losses means it will never be practical unless you have HUGE amounts of power to waste.

    In this case you may not be able to hear ultra sonic frequencies, but that does NOT mean it cannot harm your hearing at the SPL's required to get any kind of power transferred.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:No, No, No, No..... This will not work by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      For the small amount of power required I feel 10% efficiency is acceptable. I doubt any wireless charging tech will ever be energy star certified. Wireless charging tech will always be less efficient than wired. But I think you will find most people are willing to pay for convenience.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    2. Re:No, No, No, No..... This will not work by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      It 3 dimensional, therefore inverse cube, not inverse square. But agreed, losses are phenomenal over even short distance with an omnidirectional point source. an array of transmitters in the ceiling would be slightly more efficient, but in that case, why not use infrared transmitters and photovoltaics? Or, here's a twist: use sunlight?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:No, No, No, No..... This will not work by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "For the small amount of power required I feel 10% efficiency is acceptable."

      When it comes to SPL, your efficiency means nothing. We're still dealing with sonic ranges, here. For you to get enough sound energy to charge your wireless phone in an hour inside of a room, the ultrasonic energy would be such that it would fuck with you if you spent more than ten minutes in proximity to it.

      How acceptable is it when your brain and hearing is getting turned to shit? 7 watts at audible ranges is enough to make you deaf from SPL.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:No, No, No, No..... This will not work by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      It is inverse square, not cube.
      We are talking about the area the beam is hitting, not the volume of space it is occupying.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:No, No, No, No..... This will not work by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      That would be a unacceptable sacrifice in safety.

      If that were acceptable we would have microwave based.. http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff... wireless charging today.

      Wifi is only safe because it is so low power even though it operates at the same frequency as your microwave.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    6. Re:No, No, No, No..... This will not work by JoeDuncan · · Score: 1

      Magnetic and electric fields though air/vacuum is another. Power transfer may be possible, but the amount of losses means it will never be practical unless you have HUGE amounts of power to waste.

      Not true. Microwave power transfer with rectennas can have efficiencies up to 90% or so...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    7. Re:No, No, No, No..... This will not work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, "inverse of the square" is incorrect in this context (a viscous, homogeneous medium like air). Per Stokes law amplitude attenuation is proportional to a=1/e, not 1/r. Therefore power loss will be similarly proportional to e. Google as appropriate.

      EM of course will follow square attenuation per your freshman Fields and Waves course.

    8. Re:No, No, No, No..... This will not work by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Consider this..

      You won't get 10% unless you are within a very short distance, lets say 1 foot is that distance, lets also say that the collection surface is 1 square foot, which is big for a phone, but is about right for a large tablet. Charging takes 1 hour. If you assume an isotropic radiation pattern from the emitter, a 1 foot sphere has a surface area of 4*Pi*(square of (1)) or about 12 square feet. My phone has a 12 Watt/Hour battery, so assume 1 square foot generates 12 watts, and my huge phone will charge in an hour.

      Double the distance to two feet from the emitter and you have a sphere of (4*Pi*(Square 2)) = 50 square feet, so moving your phone ONE FOOT further away from the emitter takes the time to charge from 1 hour to 50.

      Halfway across the room at say 5 feet the power available will be drastically reduced (4*Pi*(Square of 5)) = 314 Square Feet, which means now, with the same power input as before it's going to take 314 hours to charge that same phone.

      Do you see how this doesn't work? Even if you have a directional radiation pattern, the power density you can get will suffer from the square of the distance being on the bottom of the ratios here.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    9. Re:No, No, No, No..... This will not work by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Which is NOT practical approach, even for what is intended.

      Microwave power transfer requires very high frequencies amd very large transmission antennas which can successfully keep all the energy from the transmitter in a narrow beam. Even then, the receiving end of this arrangement requires a receiving array kilometers in size because no antenna can perfectly produce a beam of energy and going though the ionosphere, atmosphere, clouds, dust, wind and rain causes a drop off on the cohesiveness of the beam and quickly degrades the efficiency to a formula that has the square of the distance in the denominator.

      You see this is a geometry problem. You have to get all that energy though some transmission medium by making the energy stay narrowly confined and not refracting away and spreading out. Any amount of spreading and you end up with the distance squared in the bottom of the power in to power out ratio. It's really really hard to keep that ratio from going to absurd fractions (for a power system). Unless you can construct an antenna that only radiates in a single direction, has a zero degree beam width AND can put useable amounts of power out, get said antenna into space, pointing exactly at the right spot which is moving all the time without wreaking it, warping it or having it deform due to uneven heating in orbit, this technically possible feat, becomes practically impossible to accomplish.

      So, Yes, what I said is true. It won't work. Nor will this idea of using microwaves to transfer power to earth ever work. The equipment require is too heavy to get into space, too difficult to assemble once it's there and impossible to get and keep aligned. Even a minor variation from the idea will quickly kill any efficiency and because the distance is SO large and the alignment required so exacting it's not going to be possible on an industrial scale. It won't work unless you have lots of power to waste and even then it's going to be darn hard and expensive to do and even more expensive to maintin.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    10. Re:No, No, No, No..... This will not work by bobbied · · Score: 1

      The issue is not about the volume, but the energy passing though the surface of what ever geometry the radiator emits energy into. Of course the "isotropic" radiator is the theoretical device that puts out equal amounts of energy in all directions and makes the math simple because we can use a sphere. The surface area of a sphere is (4*Pi* Radius Squared).

      I've run the numbers elsewhere, but if you have a 1 foot collection area about 1 foot away from an isotropic radiator, you will get about 1/10th of the radiated power at best. 2 Feet gives you about 1/50th of the power and 5 feet lowers the available power to 1/300.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    11. Re:No, No, No, No..... This will not work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You did your math wrong. If 1 sq. ft. generates 12 W at 1 ft then the transmitter is sending out 144 W. This means at 2 ft away, you would get 144/50, about 3 W of power in a square foot. So it would take 4 hours to charge your phone, not 50. In other words, just as the inverse square law says (twice the distance, quarter the power density). Although even correct, the inverse square law assumes a source that is much smaller than the distances involved, and attenuation is a whole mess with ultrasound in air.

    12. Re:No, No, No, No..... This will not work by khchung · · Score: 1

      Power transfer may be possible, but the amount of losses means it will never be practical unless you have HUGE amounts of power to waste.

      Waste itself is not the biggest problem, if you are rich enough, waste becomes unimportant.

      *Unintended absorption* will be the killer. Whatever means you use to send energy, "wasting" 90% means 90% of the energy would be absorbed by *something else*.

      Probably something that is near the phone you want to charge, such as your body. Tinfoil hat should be provided to all customers.

      --
      Oliver.
    13. Re:No, No, No, No..... This will not work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While the inverse square law does restrict transmission of energy at distance in terms of efficiency, there are many applications where bounding the receiver is of primary importance, i.e. within the body, under water, and industrial applications. The benefits of wireless power can improve the reliability and ruggedness by removing the necessity to connect and disconnect the repeatedly fragile electric cord.

    14. Re:No, No, No, No..... This will not work by citizenr · · Score: 1

      Hearing is one thing, I dont want my cornea to get unglued

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    15. Re:No, No, No, No..... This will not work by JoeDuncan · · Score: 1

      Not practical NOW, no. But your statement was that this type of thing would NEVER be practical, and as far as I can see, all of your objections are simply engineering problems, the concept and theory is solid and has been proven in the lab and experimental implementations.

      The only issue is in refinement of methods and equipment, which as I said, is just an engineering issue, so your NEVER modal qualifier is simply false.

    16. Re:No, No, No, No..... This will not work by bobbied · · Score: 1

      This isn't an engineering problem it's a physics problem, and it's the physics that make it impossible. Technology and engineering cannot change the physics, but must work within the rules that physics provides.

      All lab experiments aside, the physics of the problem mean it will not work on an industrial scale at any reasonable distance for a price anybody can afford. Why? The structures required are HUGE, literally kilometers in size, both in space and on the ground and this size is driven by the physics. Building such structures, while conceivable and possible, is VERY expensive and VER"Y time consuming, especially in space. (Lots of money) X (Lots of time) = Never going to happen.

      So "NEVER going to happen" is accurate enough for a rule of thumb in this case.

      Some things just are never going to be practical, I don't care how much you wish it was different. Sometimes the physics of a problem require a solution that simply cannot ever be implemented. Where the theoretical solution is beyond what can be successfully engineered to a theoretically possible cost and schedule. This is such a problem/solution.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    17. Re:No, No, No, No..... This will not work by JoeDuncan · · Score: 1

      ...will not work on an industrial scale at any reasonable distance for a price anybody can afford. Why? The structures required are HUGE, literally kilometers in size, both in space and on the ground and this size is driven by the physics.

      "reasonable distance for a price anybody can afford"? You keep watering down your definition of practical. So it's only practical if you can have one today, in your garage? You know that we build structures of this magnitude already, right? Space telescopes, particle accelerators... etc

      Building such structures, while conceivable and possible, is VERY expensive and VER"Y time consuming, especially in space. (Lots of money) X (Lots of time) = Never going to happen.

      The building of these structures, in terms of materials and time, is precisely the engineering problem I was referring to, so this just confirms what I already said. Sure, it may be time consuming and expensive NOW, but reducing the material costs and construction time isn't a physics problem, it's entirely an engineering one. The physics are already proven.

    18. Re:No, No, No, No..... This will not work by bobbied · · Score: 1

      You are engaged in wishful thinking. It will NEVER be economically possible to put structures together in orbit that are measured in kilometers, espically ones that will need to be aligned to tolerances in the micrometers. It's too expensive to get the materials into orbit that would be required to build the transmitting array and it would take too long to assemble and align an array for any useful amount of power to get transferred to the surface. You cannot make smaller arrays because of the physics involved and no amount of engineering or technology can change this.

      Don't you see, it's like saying the entire text of "War and Peace" could be written by monkeys hitting random keys on a typewriter if we use enough monkey typewriter pairs or wait long enough. Sure, it's *possible* in that we could assign a possibility that the a series of random selections just happened to match the text we are looking for, but it doesn't mean it will ever happen. One could never buy enough typewriters, obtain enough monkeys or create a workable schedule for this project yet you want to hang your hat on that "it's possible" part and just ignore the rest.

      The lab demos of this amount to getting a group of monkeys to type "War" as their first word on the first page. They transferred a few watts over a very short distance and achieved fairly good efficiency. But, they used a LOT of time and Resources to create their transmission and receiving arrays for the power levels achieved, used very short distances compared to what would be required in an industrial application and then scaled up their engineered solution mathematically to simulate how it might work on an industrial scale. I implore you to scale up their costs and multiply by a few orders of magnitude to account for the difficulty of getting all this into space and assembled. The costs are HUGE and the payoff is nowhere near enough to justify it, and that will never change. Just like buying monkeys and typewriters will never get you "War and Peace" even though it's *possible* it could happen.

      The "Use microwaves to send power back to earth from space" idea is NOT practical and that will never change because the physics of the problem require structures which are simply too large to build and maintain for the benefit they could possibly provide. No amount of engineering is going to change that, unless you are suggesting we can change the laws of physics if we simply try hard enough... It's never going to happen because the rules of physics don't change...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    19. Re:No, No, No, No..... This will not work by JoeDuncan · · Score: 1

      You are engaged in wishful thinking.

      Maybe, but you keep repeatedly missing the point.

      It will NEVER be economically possible to put structures together in orbit that are measured in kilometers,...

      I disagree, this is nothing but speculation on your part.

      ...espically ones that will need to be aligned to tolerances in the micrometers. It's too expensive to get the materials into orbit that would be required to build the transmitting array and it would take too long to assemble and align an array for any useful amount of power to get transferred to the surface.

      Every single one of these objections are engineering problems. Tolerances? Find better sync algorithms, better materials with less "give" in the relevant properties etc... Too expensive to get materials into orbit? Work on more efficient transport mechanisms, more efficient use of materials, or develop better/lighter materials to use, or use material from the moon, asteroids or comets etc... that you don't need to lift up a well. Assembly and alignment issues? Again, just a matter of better engineering, better assembly methods, better tools for more accurate alignment etc... ALL of your relevant objections are only obstacles to our CURRENT technology and can be addressed via innovation and engineering.

      Saying these issues can NEVER be addressed is pure hubris.

      You cannot make smaller arrays because of the physics involved and no amount of engineering or technology can change this.

      So what? We don't need to make them smaller. The size of the arrays are only an obstacle because of current engineering constraints.

      The costs are HUGE and the payoff is nowhere near enough to justify it, and that will never change.

      Costs and payoffs change *all the time*! Saying these things are fixed and "that's that" is just plain silly. History is full of ideas that were once deemed "impossible" for reasons of costs and payoffs, yet became practical later with better methods and materials. Airplanes and the analytical engine; just to name two.

    20. Re:No, No, No, No..... This will not work by bobbied · · Score: 1

      LOL... I think you are missing the point. These theoretical things are sized by the physics and they are literally too big to fly. This isn't hubris on my part it's wide eyed practicality that's driving my preannouncements on this. These devices are KILOMETERS in size and anything that size is going to be pretty heavy. Big and heavy are the two things which are very difficult and thus expensive when you want to throw them into space, even in LEO. The amount of energy required to lift this stuff into orbit will exceed what it can return as power. This fails the practical test on it's face.

      Physics dictate the size of this thing. Physics will dictate how much power it can transfer, how much it will loose and how much it will have to collect. Physics will dictate how much solar collection area you will need, engineering may be able to approach that someday. Physics will mandate how much energy it will take to get everything necessary into the proper locations. You will be able to engineer lighter structures, but not smaller ones. There is a lower limit on the weight of this structure, regardless of the properties of the materials we can engineer. You might be able to engineer cheaper ways of getting something into orbit, but you cannot change the minimum energy required by physics.

      Physics is your problem. It defines a system that is so massive that there is no way it ever gets to be cost effective to build because by my calculations, it will take more energy to create and operate this thing than you can ever hope to recover. That makes it uneconomical too.

      Believe what you want though. Personally I think there are much better uses for our time and resources spent on developing new energy sources. Things which are way more cost effective and promising than this nutty idea of throwing solar panels into space and beaming the energy home. Can we say fusion? That's a much better and more effective way to produce energy that we know is theoretically possible too. The remaining engineering problems of fusion are close to workable solutions and the physics, while daunting, do not mandate that we build engineering solutions which are massive in size and complexity. Seems very likely to me we can master these problems and if we did, there would be no need for your pet energy solution where the laws of physics demand massive structures in very harsh environments and equally massive development and deployment costs.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    21. Re:No, No, No, No..... This will not work by JoeDuncan · · Score: 1

      Big and heavy are the two things which are very difficult and thus expensive when you want to throw them into space, even in LEO. The amount of energy required to lift this stuff into orbit will exceed what it can return as power.

      ...and completely ignoring the idea of building using materials already outside the gravity well, or development of alternative lift methods that are more efficient. Rockets are at best like 70% efficient for lifting loads into orbit (under ideal circumstances, in practice it's lower). You're saying it's *impossible* to *ever* do better? I won't deny it might be difficult to do better, but claiming it's impossible is short-sighted.

      Big is irrelevant, heavy is the issue. If you think it will NEVER be possible to build a structure of the appropriate size using less material or lighter material, then we'll just have to disagree. Personally, I think you're ignoring the fact that we can build much larger structures in micro-gravity with much less material because they are under a lot less stress. Just look at how thin and light solar sails are, they cover huge areas with a tiny amount of material.

      Physics dictate the size of this thing. Physics will dictate how much power it can transfer, how much it will loose and how much it will have to collect. Physics will dictate how much solar collection area you will need, engineering may be able to approach that someday. Physics will mandate how much energy it will take to get everything necessary into the proper locations.

      I don't dispute any of this. I agree.

      You will be able to engineer lighter structures, but not smaller ones.

      At the risk of repeating myself, size is irrelevant in space. You have all the room you need. Between size and weight, the only relevant issue here is weight, and you've just agreed that we can likely engineer lighter structures.

      There is a lower limit on the weight of this structure, regardless of the properties of the materials we can engineer.

      Agreed, but neither you nor I are in any position to say what that lower limit is, or assert that that lower limit is absolutely too high to ever be practical.

      You might be able to engineer cheaper ways of getting something into orbit, but you cannot change the minimum energy required by physics.

      Obviously. I've never claimed you could change the energy requirements for a given mass, but like I've said already, there are ways around that. Like using material which is already up the well, using lighter materials or better construction that uses less material. Using better lift efficiencies, lighter or less material, or eliminating the need to lift stuff out of the well altogether could all go a long way to making it more practical. I'm not saying it IS possible, even with these improvements it might not be; but I AM saying that declaring it impossible now and forever is unwarranted.

      Physics is your problem. It defines a system that is so massive that there is no way it ever gets to be cost effective to build...

      No, physics is not the problem, it's just one of the constraints on the problem. You can't possibly *know* that the lower limit on mass is too massive to be practical. Unless you can predict the future, new developments in material science could change that in a heartbeat.

      ...because by my calculations, it will take more energy to create and operate this thing than you can ever hope to recover. That makes it uneconomical too.

      Calculations which are based on the constraints of current materials, structural engineering techniques, lift efficiency and the necessity of lifting resources out of a gravity well. Change any one of those things and your calculations are no longer valid. You seem mighty confident that it's impossible to change ANY of them. Me, I'm not so much of an absolutist.

      With

  8. Wireless charging is for COWS. by kheldan · · Score: 0

    Moo. XD

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  9. A solution in search of a problem & likely fr by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

    Assuming the project isn't essentially fraudulent, and is technically feasible- why? It would have worse performance than inductive charging and would require a specific alignment of an extra peripheral towards the sound source.

    Anyway, there's another link in the article to a take-down of the product that goes over basic physics and sound level safety requirements that suggest this project is fraudulent. One thing you do see in there, however, is talk about Ubeam's 25 year old CEO, Meredith Perry. A google search quickly reveals she's an attractive young lady.

    Quite frankly I think she's a huckster, and is using her charisma, beauty, and the latest 'women in tech' craze to bilk a few investors who have money to blow. Sure, there might be a few engineers performing 'research'- fiddling with components and actually transmitting power with ultrasound in a carefully controlled and isolated environment. Their function is to provide Ms. Perry with legal cover. They'll do work obstinately in the relevant line of investigation, while knowing full well that the final finished product can never be delivered for a variety of reasons. They'll issue reports saying 'the next obstacle to overcome is....' knowing that obstacle is insurmountable. And the entire time, Ms. Perry will be collecting an excellent salary for a 25 year old, and may even get bought out by some fool.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  10. why not user ultra low frequency instead? by Ionized · · Score: 1

    i feel like the obvious question is, why use ultrasonic frequencies that lose half their power in a meter of air, when we could be using ultra low frequencies that travel much further before losing power - and are also much better at penetrating obstacles? something like 5hz or 10hz?

    anyone care to dig into the physics or biology of why that wouldn't work either?

    1. Re:why not user ultra low frequency instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because (due to the wavelengths used in ULF) the transmitting antenna must be long and even more powerful. Look up mining communication systems.

    2. Re:why not user ultra low frequency instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The size of the receiver. A huge wavelength requires a huge antenna.

    3. Re:why not user ultra low frequency instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, and the transmitter is really hard. Move a speaker cone at 10 Hz and the air particles don't rebound in a transverse wave, they just move out of the way.

    4. Re:why not user ultra low frequency instead? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Because a device as small as a cell phone can not pick up a wave that is several meters long?

      (facepalm)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:why not user ultra low frequency instead? by Ionized · · Score: 1

      antenna? we are talking sound waves, not radio waves - they need a speaker, not an antenna. i'm not a sound geek but my understanding is that relatively standard subwoofers can put out sound below 20hz, approaching as low as 10hz, so i wouldn't expect size to be an issue.

    6. Re:why not user ultra low frequency instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Low frequencies tend to induce terror.

    7. Re:why not user ultra low frequency instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, you've gotten something complete wrong again. Look at something like clocks powered by atmospheric pressure changes. They are smaller than a breadbox, but extra power from pressure waves with essentially periods of hours to days. At low frequencies, you just have something that looks like a background DC field, so you can't use anything that depends on spatial gradients. But there are plenty of ways of coupling DC fields to something that can extract gradual changes of that field.

    8. Re:why not user ultra low frequency instead? by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      Low frequencies carry less energy per unit of amplitude.
      So to charge a phone with a 5-10 Hz frequency, you need something really loud. Loud enough for you to feel it through your body and to rattle things.

      Additionally, because of impedance mismatch, low frequencies are hard to transmit through air, that's why subwoofers are so big and powerful.

  11. Re: A solution in search of a problem & likely by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

    I realize I used 'obstinately' when I meant 'ostensibly.' oops

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  12. Pet-friendly? by Dark+Fire · · Score: 1

    Doesn't "sound" very pet-friendly to me. Perhaps some evil genius is looking for a way to fund the development of his doomsday device.

  13. This sounds like a great idea! by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    I'd love to see this implemented. Then I'd get some popcorn and stay the heck away from the area cause once the soundwaves bounce off enough surfaces, they'll lose enough energy to fall into hearing range, and suddenly you feel like you're back in the 80s, surrounded by TVs with failing transformers.

  14. If Apple would have adopted the micro-USB... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we wouldn't need to be discussing this shit...

  15. oops. yeah i suppose that explains it by Ionized · · Score: 1

    n/t

  16. actually, are you sure about that? by Ionized · · Score: 1

    looking at the size of various sound waves, it looks like for instance a 50hz soundwave has a wavelength somewhere around 30 feet. yet that is within the range of human hearing - somehow our tiny eardrums are able to hear 30ft soundwaves? so its a little more complicated than you make it out to be

    1. Re:actually, are you sure about that? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Of course it is ... closer to 25 feet actually ... but that does not change the fact that small devices are bad with long wavelengths.

      E.g. you mainly hear low frequency sound because your body is picking it up and transports it to your head. That is the reason why your ears are not able to detect the origin(direction) of low frequency sounds.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:actually, are you sure about that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You simply don't know what you're talking about. You can hear 50Hz sound just fine out of a good pair of headphones. Also, small microphones can record low-frequency sounds just fine. Having a structure in natural resonance with the sound is not necessary for detection. It may not be fully necessary for power transmission either - consider the case of a tidal powerplant drawing energy from waves whose length is half the circumference of the Earth. But I do suspect there's some efficiency to be gained from resonance if it's available.

      FYI the directional sound perception has to do with time, level and spectral differences between the ears. Below ~80Hz, the phase difference becomes imperceptible (because the distance between ears is a small fraction of wavelength) and the level difference is minimal below ~200Hz, which is what makes it difficult to locate a low sound.

  17. Some of their tech might have uses by mhkohne · · Score: 1

    If their beam-steering is actually something new and quick, then it might have applications elsewhere - medical ultrasound is a pain in the ass partly because the tech has to fool around a lot to get a good image. If you could steer the beam and do the ultrasound equivalent of auto-focus, you could make some ultrasound studies quite a bit faster and therefore easier on the patient.

    But in a Starbucks? Forget it. Install 5V USB outlets on every table and call it a day instead.

    --
    A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
    1. Re:Some of their tech might have uses by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Is there a reason why they can't use the same autofocus algorithms on ultrasound? Other than the fact that the autofocus in cameras has the bad habit of picking everything but what you want to take a picture of to focus on. What's worse is most cameras today don't even have a manual focus option.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  18. a future we all want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL

  19. Ultimate dog whistle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can only imagine how dogs would react to high-frequency, high-energy beams of audio. It would be like a dog-whistle on steroids!

    (for that matter, being one of those freaks who can still hear to 20kHz in their late 30s, I'm not so keen on the idea myself)

  20. Definitely Possible, not Practical by chesterw · · Score: 1

    Of course it will work; this is exactly what an ultrasound transducer does; it converts electrical energy to acoustic energy via mechanical strain in response to said electrical energy, then converts acoustic energy back to electrical energy via mechanical strain when impacted by the returning acoustic bounceback. Well and truly settled issue. The problem is the power loss over distance, as has already been pointed out. So while it will work, it will work poorly, be expensive, and is overly complicated. It is an idea backed by a fundamentally sound theory, but like so many the practical application is unworkable.

  21. And Breaking Disablities Act type Laws Likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If service dogs for the blind are truly affected by this technology, that would seem likely to block access by blind people to places having this "service", and thus be illegal.

  22. Tesla by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

    Isn't this similar to what Nikola Tesla wanted to do in order to provide free electricity to the masses?

    How can this be patented? Prior art must be all over the place.

    --
    Love sees no species.
    1. Re:Tesla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla wasn't using sound. He was using a form of radio wave that we don't use today, and worse, nobody understands. The only guy I know of today who's considered a wingnut, but actually makes a lot of sense when you listen to him, is Eric Dollard. See you tube for 4 hours talks.

      Tesla's magnifying transmitter operated at a very specific wavelength that was bouncing radio waves off the ionosphere, but also capable of travelling through the ground. I believe he had to calculate the resonance frequency of the planet as part of the frequency chosen. There's Tesla legends of lightning coming out of living plants, and back into the ground in and around Colarado Springs. (Forgive my spelling if wrong, I'm not American).

      But Tesla talked of being able to beam energy to the moon with practically no loss. How is this possible? You though "beam" referred to a direct push, like a laser. But no loss? This is where it gets crazy. I think the closest we get to understanding this is at the quantum level where you could separate two entangled elements, and just hit one with energy to affect the other (on the moon, per say.). That would work, and most agree.
      But Tesla's effect, I believe was nothing like this. I know it was a kind of radio wave, and I believe I understrand what Eric Dollard has to say on the subject. It sounds like science fiction, and until someone stumps up the cash to recreate this work, it will disappear into legend before being proven possible or impossible.

      We need an Eric Dollard fund!

    2. Re:Tesla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Tesla wanted to use electrical resonance. Basically treat the earth's atmosphere as a giant electromagnetic resonant cavity into which you would inject power at point a and extract at point b, where b could be anywhere.

      Interestingly after years of saying that resonance doesn't work like that it has been shown that the atmosphere does indeed resonate around 7Hz (or maybe it was 70... can't remember). So while it would most likely be incredibly/prohibitively inefficient it should, at least in principle, be possible.

    3. Re:Tesla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the closest we get to understanding this is at the quantum level where you could separate two entangled elements, and just hit one with energy to affect the other (on the moon, per say.). That would work, and most agree.

      No, that is not how quantum entanglement works at all. So most physicists would definitely not agree, and only "most agree" would apply to those on the internet that continue to speculate what entanglement can do without picking up an intro textbook or even reading the history of actual experiments on Wikipedia.

      Also, just about any RF engineer should be familiar with ground/surface wave propagation. It is kind of important to things like antenna design. The probable is while Tesla developed a lot of technology related to electrical resonance and had a better understanding of it than just about anyone else at the time, he didn't have a complete understanding, including sources of inefficiencies that would make larger scale applications less practical.

  23. Re: A solution in search of a problem & likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well it worked for Carly Fiorina.

  24. If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only some genius, some Einstein, or another, had come up with a way to... absorb photons and convert them directly into electrical energy...

    If only these smart devices had a large, flat surface somewhere on them not being used for anything that could somehow house one of these ... panel things to absorb stray photons...

    If only someone were clever enough to figure out how to... combine these technologies...

    What a shame we don't have any of these things.