Comments on: PowerBeam steps closer to launch of wireless electricity

By: boyankir

boyankir — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:43:43 +0000

I think a green laser pointer will help the experiment carrying out better.

By: edhardy622

edhardy622 — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:22:22 +0000

British law student sues Abercrombie-Fitch for disability discrimination.
http://www.abercrombieshop.us

By: ramdin

ramdin — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:35:54 +0000

Jeffri...shoot and e-mail to info@powerbeaminc.com and they can show you how to do this in a better way...

Obviously this is not a school level technology as many people on this board prefer to refer it to as...

Even the principles of airplanes is simple...but how many companies can really make a plane??

It takes some smart and skillfully experienced engineers to design "safe" and "secure" wireless power transmission...

By: Jeffri

Jeffri — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:14:06 +0000

Just Recently, We have made an experiment on wireless electricity at school, we failed miserably which shows me that we may be a little far from understanding and ultimately produce wireless electricity.

————————————-
Electric Bicycles

By: Jeffrey

Jeffrey — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:23:33 +0000

That is a great idea, once achieve they can combine a speaker that transfer sounds in the air which we already have and one that transfer electricity in the air.

By: DeeperCollaboration

DeeperCollaboration — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:03:37 +0000

Are PowerBeam and Powercast in some type of collaboration? As it appears from what is available on each of their web-site, their approach to wireless power uses entirely different approach. One is a low-power RF (below allowed emmision levels and RF harvesting) technology whereas the other one is a FIR based blast of Laser power to achieve reasonable power levels at large distances.
Can Steve or Chris explain how in the future the two technologies may complement each other? Do you plan some kind of approach where in PowerBeam proveides the long ditance hauling of wireless power and Powercast does the local distribution?
This exchange of pleasantaries between stiff competitors looks very pleasing and wonderful but is there something more cooking here.
Ha Ha, just found out that the poor guys at PowerBeam are not even properly funded whereas Powercast is already selling hardware development kits.

By: Randy

Randy — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:36:44 +0000

Not to be a grammar or spelling nazi, but there are *two* mistakes in the above posting. I don't know if I want to trust my money or eyes to a person that cannot spell (or even spellcheck) “pass” and “comply”. Instead of “past” and “compile”.

By: jintoreedwine

jintoreedwine — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:46:16 +0000

Indeed, Tesla did invent a form of wireless power, but if you have ever seen it the limitations are quite large. The antenna must be in the same plane as the waves emitting the power and the strength drops off as an inverse square as you move further away from the source.

By: James

James — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:03:36 +0000

This is the sort of idea that gives scientists and engineers a bad name:
From the comments above, I see a startup company cobbling together a sales pitch for something that is either dangerous and won't work, or if not dangerous - is so low power as to be completely useless.
For example:
The assertion "The beams run in the IR at 1470 nm wavelength. Anything north of 1400 nm is eye safe." First: Do NOT use terms like "north of 1400nm" which immediately puts you in the sales-speak "playing wth the big boys" or "take the ball and run with it" nonsense. The fact that you use a laser wavelength below the eye's sensitivity doesn't help: On the contrary, it's good at boiling wanter, or doing interesting chemistry which leads to injury or death.
Saying "Real life isn't like James Bond" is flippant: Lasers are dangerous, as you'd know if ever you attended a laser safety course, which is mandatory for scientists using milliwatt lasers.
And you glibly talk of "only 1.5W".

Finally: The very idea is fatally flawed from the efficiency viewpoint, as mentioned above.

The only people who will be interested in this idea are:
- Industries needing to power devices in inaccessible, low light conditions: For example nuclear power stations, or just possibly - mining. And even then - non-critical applications only.
- The military: They have more money than sense.

But stop giving renewables a bad name, and re-write your business plan along the lines of niche industrial applications or military applications.

By: wburchill

wburchill — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:45:47 +0000

“Anything north of 1400 nm is eye safe”.

This is a dangerously absurd statement.

It is always a question of wavelengths, powerlevels, and exposure times. For example, here's a quote from
http://www.eyesafety.4ursafety.com/laser-eye-sa...

“THE UNPROTECTED HUMAN EYE is extremely sensitive to laser radiation and can be permanently damaged from direct or reflected beams. The site of ocular damage for any given laser depends upon its output wavelength. Laser light in the visible and near infrared spectrum 400 – 1400 nm (the majority of lasers used in dermatology) contributes to the so-called “retinal hazard region” and can cause damage to the retina, while wavelengths outside this region (i.e., ultraviolet and far infrared spectrum) are absorbed by the anterior segment of the eye causing damage to the cornea and/or to the lens. The extent of ocular damage is determined by the laser irradiance, exposure duration, and beam size. As laser retinal burns may be painless and the damaging beam sometimes invisible..”

By: Me

Me — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:13:54 +0000

Another factor of safety mentioned on their website is the power density which they said would not exceed 10mw per mm^2 (and would more likely be 2mw per mm^2) i.e. while greater then the power density for the sun (1.35mw per mm^2) it is not sufficiently high enough to create sufficient heat to be dangerous quicker then any shutoff could control (minutes till it gets warm not milliseconds) as for the eye this is still in fair tolerance of a safety for its wavelength as can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_safety

By: Sceptic

Sceptic — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 06:28:35 +0000

1. By a "pending" patent, do you mean a conditional patent? These are publicly available records (www.uspto.gov). You should be free to discuss that which has been previously disclosed.
2. Reliance on an adjunct safey system makes the system only as safe as the system is reliable. What if this system fails?
3. If, as you state, the stated wavelength runs at an eye-safe wave length, why do you need to go to the added expense and trouble of an additional safety system.

By: Sceptic

Sceptic — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 06:19:26 +0000

Chris,
I think any “Optical Energy” (i.e. light), whether coherent or not, has the potential to cause eye damage if it's bright enough, regardless of its visibility. Staring at the sun, for example is not advisable. I also think that the damage might not be immediately apparent.
Questions:
1. How bright is your “Optical Energy” source compared to other sources of “Optical Energy” – e.g. the sun? To be fair, the comparison should be based on energy density.
2. Can you point to objective tests using animal models that show that this product does not cause eye damage? If not, why not? After all, if this isn't safe enough for a mouse or a rabbit, how can you claim that it will be safe enough for the public at large (i.e. babies, toddlers, the mentally/judgementally challenged, tow truck drivers, carnies, etc)
3. Would you be willing to post a demonstration video to youtube where you, or better still your child stares directly into the “Optical Energy” light source for some extended period of time, say a 60 seconds?

By: cyber_rigger

cyber_rigger — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:21:26 +0000

Tesla & associates were unsuccessful in MARKETING wireless power.

There seems to be no doubt that Tesla achieved wireless power transmission.

This article needs to be corrected.

By: Simon Redington

Simon Redington — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:01:07 +0000

Note to Dean Takahashi: Any antenna receives wireless power. We also get quite a bit of wireless energy from the sun, about a KW per square meter. Electromagnetic Radiation.