News Ossia Unveils Next-Gen, 5.8-GHz Wireless Power (But Where's the First Gen?)

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
I'm totally clueless when it comes to this kind of tech, but I wonder if it would interfere with microwaves? I know my home wireless network dies whenever the microwave is on.
 
jkflipflop98 said:
Yet 100 years ago Mr. Tesla could light up a lightbulb from a mile away.

Sure would be cool to have another Mr. Tesla show up.
Click to expand...
Think that was only across a stage or room, using EM induction.

The company in the article seems instead to use a phased array radar, which is how jet fighter nose cones conduct pencil beam searches. Energy transmission this way is still quite inefficient. If you thought Qi/induction got hot... now add everything that heats up in a microwave oven.

Not every Tesla idea would gain traction. He got stuff wrong - didn't realize certain hertz ranges bounced off the atmosphere, didn't want to admit resistance still dampens AC transmission, just as a 5-pound oscillator won't drop a building. But that's the price of research, and he did get us AC and induction motors sooner than otherwise. Could use more brilliant curious minds like his.
 
I don’t know. An F-35 can fry enemies ground based radar with its AESA radar. I’m not too sure how inefficient they are anymore.
 
The strange comment is they think it doesn't interfere with wifi when wifi overlaps all the 5.8 radio band. Also it depends on exactly which part of the band they are talking about.
Even if the fcc changed the transmit power allowed in the USA almost all the 5.8 band is not allowed in many countries including canada. Large parts are also not allowed in the EU or limited to say 25mw which is not going to charge very fast.
 
The key question is how many watts are consumed at the transmitter to provide those 5 watts at the receiving end.

I'm sure that burning 100-200 watts to trickle-charge a phone across the kitchen isn't going to go over very well. I could see some medical uses though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mac_angel
I don't see why people just don't fast-charge their devices in the microwave. It would be a lot faster, and almost everyone has a microwave already.
Jokes aside, I'm not completely sure how the technology works, but if it's just picking up wireless signals at 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz, I kinda have to wonder if a transmitter would really be needed. Most places are already saturated with these radio signals. Would it be possible just to figure out a receiver that can just take energy out of all the existing signals out there? You're not talking about it needing to have data encryption and security, just be able to take energy from those radio waves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lmcnabney
mac_angel said:
but if it's just picking up wireless signals at 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz, I kinda have to wonder if a transmitter would really be needed. Most places are already saturated with these radio signals. Would it be possible just to figure out a receiver that can just take energy out of all the existing signals out there? You're not talking about it needing to have data encryption and security, just be able to take energy from those radio waves.
Click to expand...
The power flux density (power per unit area) you'd get from existing source (e.g. routers) is too low. You need a highly directional antenna (array) to focus the power to the area/device you want to charge.
 
lmcnabney said:
That 600W graphics card is only pulling that much power for 3-6 hours a day. That 100W wireless charger will be trickle charging 24 hours a day.
Click to expand...
100w x 24hr = 2.4 kW/hr. 600w x 6 hr = 3.6 kW/hr.

And I don't know if these devices implement it or not, but it's possible to design a wireless charger that only broadcasts at power when items requiring a charge are in range, rather than a full 24 hours/day.
 
Endymio said:
100w x 24hr = 2.4 kW/hr. 600w x 6 hr = 3.6 kW/hr.

And I don't know if these devices implement it or not, but it's possible to design a wireless charger that only broadcasts at power when items requiring a charge are in range, rather than a full 24 hours/day.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter the current limitation for unlicensed transmit power on these radio bands is 1 watt and maybe 3 watts in some cases. In the EU it is only 25milliwatts.
100 watts would actually be dangerous. Your microwave over uses 2.4g to cook food and 5.8g is close enough in frequency to have similar effects. There is weather radar used in the 5ghz band and there are huge warning on the antenna not to stand in front of them and many of those use less than 100 watts.
 
bill001g said:
Doesn't matter the current limitation for unlicensed transmit power on these radio bands is 1 watt and maybe 3 watts in some cases. 100 watts would actually be dangerous. ...There is weather radar used in the 5ghz band and there are huge warning on the antenna not to stand in front of them and many of those use less than 100 watts.
Click to expand...
Actually, the FCC's maximum allowed SAR (specific absorption rate) is 1.6 w/kg. Meaning an 80kg human can absorb up to 128 watts, and can be exposed to a flux somwhat higher than that -- if fully defocused, of course. Near an antenna, the upper layers of tissue will absorb at a higher rate.

According to Ossia, their station can deliver one watt to individual devices by multipath focusing at a loss of less than 5db at 10meters. They don't specify how many devices simultaneously a single base can charge, however.
 
Last edited:
bill001g said:
Doesn't matter the current limitation for unlicensed transmit power on these radio bands is 1 watt and maybe 3 watts in some cases. In the EU it is only 25milliwatts.
100 watts would actually be dangerous. Your microwave over uses 2.4g to cook food and 5.8g is close enough in frequency to have similar effects. There is weather radar used in the 5ghz band and there are huge warning on the antenna not to stand in front of them and many of those use less than 100 watts.
Click to expand...
The increased power is required because these antennas can't be dynamically directional. Microwaves use 2.4ghz (which can be a source of interference, I have had one that cut wifi while operating), but microwaves are directional AND between 600 and 1800 watts. If you want to deliver 5W to a device across the room you are going to need to output a ton of power (and waste bunch more in transition) in order to provide that constant output.
 
Maybe my understanding is off.
My take from the article was that it would use existing wireless signals to produce electricity.
Not 2 separate send and receive units. Just one receive unit that is activated by existing signals from your/your neighbors/ etc.... existing router.
Similar to Tesla's wireless energy theory.
But this device is only the receiver of existing radio/energy waves. No dedicated transmitter needed.

Of course if this is true, it will probable never make it to market, just like Tesla's free energy devices.
 
lmcnabney said:
The increased power is required because these antennas can't be dynamically directional. Microwaves use 2.4ghz (which can be a source of interference, I have had one that cut wifi while operating), but microwaves are directional AND between 600 and 1800 watts. If you want to deliver 5W to a device across the room you are going to need to output a ton of power (and waste bunch more in transition) in order to provide that constant output.
Click to expand...
Not sure why you say it can't be dynamically directional. The ossia chargers use an actice phased antenna array to create a directional, aim-able beam.
 
Unolocogringo said:
Maybe my understanding is off.
My take from the article was that it would use existing wireless signals to produce electricity.
Not 2 separate send and receive units. Just one receive unit that is activated by existing signals from your/your neighbors/ etc.... existing router.
Similar to Tesla's wireless energy theory.
But this device is only the receiver of existing radio/energy waves. No dedicated transmitter needed.

Of course if this is true, it will probable never make it to market, just like Tesla's free energy devices.
Click to expand...
Yes, your understanding is off. From the article:

Using this technology, a tiny chip embedded in a device sends a signal to a base station, a flat, thin panel that resembles a notepad on a stand. It uses either a 2.4-GHz signal or a 5.8-GHz frequency to transmit energy wirelessly back to the receiver chips
Click to expand...

It operates as a transmitter-receiver pair. There is a fixed base station than transmits the power to the receiving device(s) to charge them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Unolocogringo
Endymio said:
Actually, the FCC's maximum allowed SAR (specific absorption rate) is 1.6 w/kg. Meaning an 80kg human can absorb up to 128 watts, and can be exposed to a flux somwhat higher than that -- if fully defocused, of course. Near an antenna, the upper layers of tissue will absorb at a higher rate.
Click to expand...
FCC SAR regulations are based on the highest SAR value at any point in body. If the absorbed power is evenly distributed over the entire body, then yes an 80kg human could absorb 128 W. But that is not going to be the case with directional signals like this. This tech would work better and more efficiently the more the focused the beam is, but the more focused the beam is the higher the SAR will be for a given total power output.

However, Ossia's product claims to dynamically adjust the beam to find an unimpeded path between the transmitter and receiver (including bouncing off walls), so as long as that worked well/fast enough a person would never be exposed to the beam (or only for a duration short enough to be safe).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom