How closely can you focus the beam? As someone with a pacemaker, who's been warned to steer clear of high powered military or air traffic radars, which risk disrupting function, I'm interested in energy density in watts/square meter, beamwidth at various distances from transmitter, and such.
i built my first crystal radio set when i was like, i dunno, 6, 7. and when i realized it was being powered by the radio waves themselves, i took out my invention notebook and drew a satellite beaming solar power down to earth. now i know i haven't gotten smarter since then, but i have learned things that i didn't address, nor were addressed in the video or in any of the comments: w/m^2 at a given radius, what is the divergence of the beam, what is the efficiency of the system overall (you said 100kW transmitter for one of the experiments, but that obviously doesn't mean you're pushing it to 100kW, but amplifiers also have losses) it just seems dangerous for many situations. most, perhaps. emphasis on "seems" though, because i don't have that data, you do, but you haven't shared it with us
have you ever considered going to space on microwave beams ? here's how it (theoretically) going to work : you take a spaceplane, make large portion of it's surface into a microwave reciever and launch it above the ocean, where, along it's way there are several ships or stations with nuclear or later - fusion reactors onboard, cooled by ocean water and huge antennas to beam power to the space plane of course it needs some serious material science to construct plating that is both heat-resistant and can receive or let through most of the microwave spectrum and plasma-arc engines of course, running on burning and ionising air in the atmosphere and on liquid hydrogen in space the upside of this method of spaceflight is that you don't have to carry a reactor on the plane itself, which both saves mass and makes the plane safer (no nuclear contamination in case of a crash) of course this concept needs some work and A LOT of money to accomplish, but at least it seems feasible Crab out
Video carefully avoids to state that the overall efficiency of the system is 1.8%. Input power was 91.2kW at the TX antenna, out of which 1.65kW was produced at the receiving side. ieeexplore.ieee.org/mediastore_new/IEEE/content/media/9171629/9673801/9662403/roden.t2-3130765-large.gif
The authors' paper carefully explains the link efficiency. It describes how the efficiency would be significantly increased by modestly increasing the receive antenna's size or by using a power amplifier that's better matched to the transmitter antenna size. Any rapid demonstration put together with things on hand will involve compromises.
It's not finite fuel power supply source though, so even if getting a small percentage back if that were true, it's still a percentage not being depleted at either end because it's solar powered. It's different context from limited resources power supply.
I don't know if relays involving solar or wind powered balloons/drones/zeppelins are even necessary for safety or signal strength, but maybe that's additional options if needed. Also if "heat batteries" are a real thing, whether graphite or other, it seems like continuous beaming may not even be necessary over night or in bad weather. Other thing is if there's more options than solar power, like if a "glide satellite" put in lower atmosphere could beam it's heat shield energy power. Obviously land based, remote nuclear plants and wind turbine locations(alongs high ways/waterfalls?) etc, also paths. This is more ways to export energy sales is more incentive, for at least a decade. Varied locations could create more civil energy markets/participation.
terrestrial energy production (from renewable sources) cannot be scaled up like SBSP (Space Based Solar Power). Actually, SBSP is a renewable energy. With the least environmental impact.
@@jeechun I don't know if that's accurate but...land based transmission might make sense for beaming from dessert solar...offshore wind...geothermal locations...compressed air sites...hydro electric sites..."Gravity battery" mountains and nuclear power plants built in remote locations. So while terrestrial beaming might yield small percentage, it's potentially big diversified energy pie with many sources. A "gliding satellite" might only need to cross the continental U.S for five to ten% of energy power, contributing adequately to national grid.
Could there be other ways of getting the energy to Earth? Even if it was only reliable on clear days it could be sent to Earth and stored in a battery.
Future of Microwave Power Beaming? 100kW to get 1.6kW at 1km away? that is 1.6% efficiency. So, if you can convert 100% of the suns energy in space and send it back to earth with a subsubzero efficiency, you get way less than current PV solar cells. Also, comparing producing electric energy to transporting electric energy???
Thankyou so much. Can this technology be used efficiently for terrestrial wireless electricity, so the accidents of electrical shocks can be avoided and used to supply power to remote areas and disaster affected places.
If power can be delivered to more distance point using microwave beam, at least on Earth surface ( at present not on Ocean surface) transportation canbe revelutionised with a big zero polution . I think so.
Huge radiators and a liquid ammonia cooling loop would be a pretty standard solution. Can be placed on the back side of the solar panels, or for more surface area, can be deployable perpendicular to the sunlight, like those on ISS.
We will have a project at the end of 2024 that will be installed a long-range wireless power transfer. Emrod Tele-Energy Technology. Radar and materials technology advancements have made energy transmission over long ranges possible.
They used how much equipment? and lost what percentage of power? And made how much area uninhabitable? in order to move enough energy to power a small window-shaker type air conditioner? They call this green energy production, but this system did not create any energy, it just moved it from one place to another, with a loss.
Not really a loss in this sense because, when oil burns off it is a loss, even when it's used efficiently. When sun power is not fully captured, that's just normal. We don't really deplete the sun, we just don't optimize the scraps of solar it throws us anyway.
@@TheExplosiveGuy 🤣. Sure we have cellphones, but what about direct from satellite to the human head? Can the human head receive audio and video transmissions, like a cellphone does?
@@skylandphoenix7301 yeah there's ways to implant a bone induction mic and reciever/antenna in your jaw or ear to make you hear transmitted audio but I don't know about the video part yet. Elon Musk is still working on that Neuralink thing, I'm pretty sure they want to be able to transit video and data to the human brain eventually. Just better hope you can't be hacked lol.
@@TheExplosiveGuy I would bet my life that we can already do that without implantable electrodes. Have you seen nanoradios? Besides that, we’re walking antennas, with millions(!) of nano(!) metals in us that can be used to receive transmissions. Just target the language and speech centers in the brain where a whole host of magnetite is (left temporal lobe) is and you can get a readout of action potentials. Many brain tumors arise from the left side of our brain. Maybe because of targeted electromagnetic energy? Or that the frequencies we’re bombarded with on a daily basis are interacting with the magnetite and other nano metal particles in that area?
@@USNRL yeah heard that part in video. 5%. At 10gh. As a satellite technician we wish we could get that kind of fade but b, ka,ku bands suck. So how long till we surround the sun with solar panels and beam the power back to earth😏?
They transmitted 1/22nd of what was demonstrated decades ago at Goldstone and are singing their own praises, tooting their own horns. This is progress???
You will never be able to beam power from geosync in any usable way, due to the inverse square law. Please quit promoting that as a possibility. Geosync is 22,500 miles. Do the math. I am not knocking the great work done here.......... but we already know the numbers if you have 100% efficient transmitters and "rectennas".
Looks like they are able to focus the beam, rather than a collimated beam, so that will help some. Though maintaining that focus over distance may be tough.
Truly amazing. But how can a beam of 1.6KW be safe if someone or something (bird, animal or plane) crosses in it?
Great to see this experiment come to fruition, Paul!
Absolutely amazing. Great job, Paul.
Glad you enjoyed it
Great job Chris, I sent you a few emails earlier this year about this and THOR.
Great video Paul. So much information. Enjoyed watching it.
How closely can you focus the beam? As someone with a pacemaker, who's been warned to steer clear of high powered military or air traffic radars, which risk disrupting function, I'm interested in energy density in watts/square meter, beamwidth at various distances from transmitter, and such.
This is soo great!! Imagine getting our energie from Space wooow good Job guys
i built my first crystal radio set when i was like, i dunno, 6, 7. and when i realized it was being powered by the radio waves themselves, i took out my invention notebook and drew a satellite beaming solar power down to earth. now i know i haven't gotten smarter since then, but i have learned things that i didn't address, nor were addressed in the video or in any of the comments:
w/m^2 at a given radius, what is the divergence of the beam, what is the efficiency of the system overall (you said 100kW transmitter for one of the experiments, but that obviously doesn't mean you're pushing it to 100kW, but amplifiers also have losses)
it just seems dangerous for many situations. most, perhaps. emphasis on "seems" though, because i don't have that data, you do, but you haven't shared it with us
Please share the link to the white paper. It will be interesting to read. Very interesting in the size of the rectanna
ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9662403
Let's capture a billion, a trillion, a quadrillion and more... hell yottawatts of solar power and then microwave the Earth.
Does energy lost is like distance square or is it like laser. What is the caveat for much more distance beaming?
Also, how much heat occur in the receiver side?
Wait. If we collect in space and beam to Earth, how much is lost through the atmosphere?
Same as lost from sun beaming through atmosphere directly?
How large was the transmitting antenna dish?
Check all of the technical specs in their research publication on the demo here: ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9662403&tag=1.
I'm glad microwave power beaming is definitely safe.
have you ever considered going to space on microwave beams ?
here's how it (theoretically) going to work :
you take a spaceplane, make large portion of it's surface into a microwave reciever and launch it above the ocean, where, along it's way there are several ships or stations with nuclear or later - fusion reactors onboard, cooled by ocean water and huge antennas to beam power to the space plane
of course it needs some serious material science to construct plating that is both heat-resistant and can receive or let through most of the microwave spectrum
and plasma-arc engines of course, running on burning and ionising air in the atmosphere and on liquid hydrogen in space
the upside of this method of spaceflight is that you don't have to carry a reactor on the plane itself, which both saves mass and makes the plane safer (no nuclear contamination in case of a crash)
of course this concept needs some work and A LOT of money to accomplish, but at least it seems feasible
Crab out
Great future of power using micro wave
And does it control the weather?
Emrod power beaming in New Zealand could use your help
Video carefully avoids to state that the overall efficiency of the system is 1.8%. Input power was 91.2kW at the TX antenna, out of which 1.65kW was produced at the receiving side.
ieeexplore.ieee.org/mediastore_new/IEEE/content/media/9171629/9673801/9662403/roden.t2-3130765-large.gif
The authors' paper carefully explains the link efficiency. It describes how the efficiency would be significantly increased by modestly increasing the receive antenna's size or by using a power amplifier that's better matched to the transmitter antenna size. Any rapid demonstration put together with things on hand will involve compromises.
@@1209832asdasasd Can't wait to see the demonstration with 44% overall efficiency.. :-)
@@137vuk that won't happen other than at very short distances. They will not get around the inverse square law.
It's not finite fuel power supply source though, so even if getting a small percentage back if that were true, it's still a percentage not being depleted at either end because it's solar powered. It's different context from limited resources power supply.
So, does the other 98% heat the air, and raise global warming?
Now hit a large rotating superconductor with the beam! BAM, Warp Drive!
I don't know if relays involving solar or wind powered balloons/drones/zeppelins are even necessary for safety or signal strength, but maybe that's additional options if needed. Also if "heat batteries" are a real thing, whether graphite or other, it seems like continuous beaming may not even be necessary over night or in bad weather. Other thing is if there's more options than solar power, like if a "glide satellite" put in lower atmosphere could beam it's heat shield energy power. Obviously land based, remote nuclear plants and wind turbine locations(alongs high ways/waterfalls?) etc, also paths. This is more ways to export energy sales is more incentive, for at least a decade. Varied locations could create more civil energy markets/participation.
terrestrial energy production (from renewable sources) cannot be scaled up like SBSP (Space Based Solar Power).
Actually, SBSP is a renewable energy. With the least environmental impact.
@@jeechun I don't know if that's accurate but...land based transmission might make sense for beaming from dessert solar...offshore wind...geothermal locations...compressed air sites...hydro electric sites..."Gravity battery" mountains and nuclear power plants built in remote locations. So while terrestrial beaming might yield small percentage, it's potentially big diversified energy pie with many sources. A "gliding satellite" might only need to cross the continental U.S for five to ten% of energy power, contributing adequately to national grid.
Fantastic video! Super!
This is amazing! This could raise us up to a type 2 civilization on the kardashev scale!
Could there be other ways of getting the energy to Earth? Even if it was only reliable on clear days it could be sent to Earth and stored in a battery.
..can you make tv remote to turn on tv relay to eliminate the need for standby power..?
Future of Microwave Power Beaming? 100kW to get 1.6kW at 1km away? that is 1.6% efficiency. So, if you can convert 100% of the suns energy in space and send it back to earth with a subsubzero efficiency, you get way less than current PV solar cells.
Also, comparing producing electric energy to transporting electric energy???
Tesla had some big tower that was to broadcast energy in his day. Not sure what frequency. or power source or what the receivers were to be.
Thankyou so much. Can this technology be used efficiently for terrestrial wireless electricity, so the accidents of electrical shocks can be avoided and used to supply power to remote areas and disaster affected places.
Yes
Did Tesla done it before or was his project something different?
he had a crude understanding of electromagnetic waves and the was it was slated to work, it wouldn't have
If power can be delivered to more distance point using microwave beam, at least on Earth surface ( at present not on Ocean surface) transportation canbe revelutionised with a big zero polution . I think so.
What’s happening on San Nicholas
Incredible tech
"Duty Cycle" How would you cool the transmitter components in space?
Huge radiators and a liquid ammonia cooling loop would be a pretty standard solution. Can be placed on the back side of the solar panels, or for more surface area, can be deployable perpendicular to the sunlight, like those on ISS.
Does this hook into a torsion field
Beam power to my car and I will not need batteries!
Sim city solar satelite power stations here we go!
Can we hit drone nodes
We will have a project at the end of 2024 that will be installed a long-range wireless power transfer. Emrod Tele-Energy Technology. Radar and materials technology advancements have made energy transmission over long ranges possible.
So cool 😎
You guys are two years behind schedule according to SimCity 3000.
Amaizing
Dude, I've literally seen videos of NASA doing this in the 70's.
They used how much equipment? and lost what percentage of power? And made how much area uninhabitable? in order to move enough energy to power a small window-shaker type air conditioner? They call this green energy production, but this system did not create any energy, it just moved it from one place to another, with a loss.
Not really a loss in this sense because, when oil burns off it is a loss, even when it's used efficiently. When sun power is not fully captured, that's just normal. We don't really deplete the sun, we just don't optimize the scraps of solar it throws us anyway.
I agree. A bit misleading since they don't divulge the whole production cycle, just the fact that the transmission portion is green.
What is needed to transmit data (audio and video) to a human head from a satellite?
Silly guy, you only need your phone😉.
@@TheExplosiveGuy 🤣. Sure we have cellphones, but what about direct from satellite to the human head? Can the human head receive audio and video transmissions, like a cellphone does?
@@skylandphoenix7301 yeah there's ways to implant a bone induction mic and reciever/antenna in your jaw or ear to make you hear transmitted audio but I don't know about the video part yet. Elon Musk is still working on that Neuralink thing, I'm pretty sure they want to be able to transit video and data to the human brain eventually. Just better hope you can't be hacked lol.
@@TheExplosiveGuy I would bet my life that we can already do that without implantable electrodes. Have you seen nanoradios? Besides that, we’re walking antennas, with millions(!) of nano(!) metals in us that can be used to receive transmissions. Just target the language and speech centers in the brain where a whole host of magnetite is (left temporal lobe) is and you can get a readout of action potentials. Many brain tumors arise from the left side of our brain. Maybe because of targeted electromagnetic energy? Or that the frequencies we’re bombarded with on a daily basis are interacting with the magnetite and other nano metal particles in that area?
@@TheExplosiveGuy starlink + neuralink = mindlink = brainnet
= the end to natural thinking, freedom of questioning, creativity and so forth
Great, now do it in Space, on a NEO.
1km is a long way from 1000km.
Great to see, but geothermal is the best 24x7 continuous power source.
This Chris Rodenbeck sounds like Ewan McGregor 😅
Tesla would be happy about this.
How much was lost in transition?
GaAs-diode rectenna arrays have an average collection-conversion efficiency of 82.5%
thas very impressive
Researchers stated that even in heavy rainfall, loss of power is less than five percent.
@@USNRL yeah heard that part in video. 5%. At 10gh. As a satellite technician we wish we could get that kind of fade but b, ka,ku bands suck. So how long till we surround the sun with solar panels and beam the power back to earth😏?
Power density on the receive side will never be better than inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the transmitter.
This is some "havana syndrome" grade shit.
Fun fact: Russia was already experimenting with this a long time ago.
Danger for aviation.
How much will we be fried ? Birds,bees. Children and other life forms
They transmitted 1/22nd of what was demonstrated decades ago at Goldstone and are singing their own praises, tooting their own horns. This is progress???
You will never be able to beam power from geosync in any usable way, due to the inverse square law. Please quit promoting that as a possibility. Geosync is 22,500 miles. Do the math. I am not knocking the great work done here.......... but we already know the numbers if you have 100% efficient transmitters and "rectennas".
Looks like they are able to focus the beam, rather than a collimated beam, so that will help some. Though maintaining that focus over distance may be tough.