1. While I dont have a peer review yet, it managed to pass through the nature comm editorial process.
Ok. At least Springer Nature denied accusations
Anyway when you get proper peer review - then we talk.
3. I always took a strong and clear stance, that in order for it to be a proper ZN wave, they have to conform to 3 necessary conditions.
When theory says that ZW is many orders of magnitude less efficient than wire, it does not actually matter - they manage to match theory or not.
4. The system I designed has already been in production with Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI).
What system? Any pointers to information? Efficiency figures?
Again, the space payload thing has been quoted from Dr. George E Ponchak. He commented that during WPTC 2014, where I had presented my work.
I can't find him in the author index. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber=6828591
So, you can take that issue with him. ZW is not lossy when conductors are around, thats exactly my work is all about.
ZW is lossless? How's that? From point A to point B you can generate/transmit/receive ZW power with better efficiency than wires?
5. Laser based WPT is again from Prof.Dr. Zoya Popvic's work at University of Colorado Springs, Boulder. Kindly follow her work, before dismissing it as "all hat no cattle".
It is obvious that one may transmit some (hilariously small amount of) power using laser and PV cells. To compete with wires - you need nearly- 100% efficient PV cells, laser and fiber. I do not recall reading tech news about such. When laser power transfer will be more efficient than wire, humanity most likely will not need power transfer at all.
1. Is it not the thing I said earlier? may be we can share my manuscript via email. I am rather happy to take a Physicist's approach. i.e. to first demonstrate a concept, master it and then Engineer it.
2. Using ZN or Surface waves on earth is way different than using them at metal-dielectric or metal-air interfaces. For SW they have been using corrugated metal structures.
3. Before we talk about efficiency, we need to understand the system requirements a bit first:
(a) Conventional fire alarm systems on the marine vessels rely on powerline, as well as the health check requires the cable as well. They wanted to do away with cables for the fire alarm system and go for a wireless solution.
(b) For wireless system to realize, the metal walls and doors stand as a hindrance. EM shielding.
While efficiency is important, however, primary target is a cable less power up and health monitoring. HHI wanted low power transmission and health monitoring signals to be sent to the fire alarm.
Now coming to your question:
The
one to one efficiency is just ~56% with my current design. But the multi receiver efficiency is (1 Tx and 2 Rx )66% at 2 m across a 40 mm thick metal door. The water tightening door uses neoprene rubber gasket, thus making the scenario of a leaky shield. I send the ZN wave to transmit power along the metal.
You might want to ask,
i. Where is the rest of the power getting lost?
ii. The power which is being lost, not harmful to human operators around? Does it comply with ICNIRP ratings?
iii. Any field measurements done using state-of-the-art ICNIRP approved equipment?
I have asked these questions to myself as well.
So here is what I came up with based on HFSS analysis, some intuition and experiment based measurements.
- The system which I designed, sets up a Transverse magnetic (TM-Mode) wave, this implies that the wave is kind of spread across the metal. So, all the power is propagating, once the metal reaches its end point, the sharp corners are going to cause radiation of the wave.
- In order to prevent that, you can increase the number of receiving units, as it is a wave based power transmission, there is no issue of freq peak splitting. As we no longer rely on coupling as a mode of transmission. Also been observed in the studies by Noda &Shinoda[] and Kurs et al[]. These two studies pertain to weakly coupled WPT systems. So, in principle you can achieve a very high efficiency by increasing the number of Rx. Ofcourse, there would be limitations, needs further investigation. But, right now as a researcher, I need to bring a proof of concept. Therefore, I only restricted myself to two receivers.
- I used the NARDA field analyzer to measure the radiation levels. I wont be able to share that data on the forum, but, I can send you via email.
- The findings were that the system shows ~36% lower E-field values and ~80% lower H-field values than the permissible radiation levels. However, when I increase the power levels beyond 100 watts, the radiation levels reach the permissible levels. But, then am using only two receivers. However, when using 65 watts, single receiver and multiple receiver there is a solid difference is radiation levels.
4. George E. Ponchak was the chair of the conference. He had no keynote sessions there. We spoke at lengths during the break times and post-dinner.
5. I already answered this point in the point 3. ZN is lossy when we have earth, it is therefore I have been skeptical about power the globe claims. In terms of metals, its not lossy(relative). Unfortunately, the current Transceiver I use, loses power due to radiation at the metal corners and eddy current generated in the metal due to the primary coil. I had limited success in reducing losses,by adjusting the spacing and by introducing a ferrite core.
6. Please take that issue with Zoya Popovic. I have zero understanding of how the Laser system might be engineered.
Am not much of an engineer, I am more interested in the physics. Whatever I have spoken at the moment has more to do with Science rather than Engineering.
![Confused :-//](https://www.eevblog.com/forum/Smileys/default/confused0024.gif.pagespeed.ce.5xOqKkq0Co.gif)
Reference:
[1] Noda, A. and Shinoda, H. Selective Wireless Power Transmission Through High- Flat Waveguide-Ring Resonator on 2-D Waveguide Sheet, IEEE Trans. Micro. Theory and Tech.,59,2011
[2] Kurs, A., Moffatt, R., & Soljaˇci´c, M. Simultaneous mid-range power transfer to multiple devices. App. Phys. Lett., 96, 044102-3(2010).