[HN Gopher] US Navy wirelessly beams 1.6 kW of power a kilometer... ___________________________________________________________________ US Navy wirelessly beams 1.6 kW of power a kilometer using microwaves Author : geox Score : 105 points Date : 2022-04-22 21:17 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (newatlas.com) (TXT) w3m dump (newatlas.com) | awslattery wrote: | Had to do a double take for a minute, as in my days in the Army, | we could max out our AN/TRC-170 on troposcatter mode at 2.0 kW, | with a substantial range on a good atmosphere day. | | The use case here, however, is incredibly different. We'd | typically be towing 2x 10 kW diesel generators with us, so this | is certainly an interesting POC to follow. | walrus01 wrote: | one of the fun things about "modern" troposcatter modems is | they're pretty much the same as the more advanced SCPC | satellite modems you might see in use for a dedicated piece of | transponder kHz in the C or Ku bands, and a geostationary-based | link between two locations. I've only done a tiny bit of | troposcatter but it's my understanding that the extreme loss in | the path generally results in using fairly rudimentary | modulation (like QPSK 1/2) with a vast amount of FEC in the | total percentage. | olliej wrote: | Wow, 60% is way higher efficiency than I thought these systems | were getting. I was fully expecting "using 16kw of power 1.6kw | was successfully transmitted" | mikeweiss wrote: | Anything in-between the beam would be badly burned or set on | fire.... Correct? | white_dragon88 wrote: | Oh god yes. | vernon99 wrote: | No. " The frequency was chosen because it was not only able to | beam even in heavy rain with a loss of power of under five | percent, it's also safe to use under international standards in | the presence of birds, animals, and people. This means the | system doesn't need the automatic cutouts developed for earlier | laser-based systems." | GordonS wrote: | > it's also safe to use under international standards in the | presence of birds, animals, and people | | Wow, is it really safe to beam 1.6kW of microwave energy | through a person? | skykooler wrote: | Theoretically, it should be equivalent to standing directly | in front of a space heater in the worst case (if the human | absorbs 100% of the microwaves). | speed_spread wrote: | The beam is likely much wider than a person and at a | precise frequency requiring a tuned antenna to convert it | efficiently to electricity or heat. You might not want to | stand in it for minutes, but passing through would be safe | enough. | qgin wrote: | Depends on how focused the energy is. The sun is beaming | over 1MW per square meter and it doesn't vaporize people. | DennisP wrote: | Actually one kilowatt per square meter. | nwiswell wrote: | There's a pretty big spectrum between "safe" and | "catastrophic". | | Probably only a fraction of a percent of the transmission | energy is getting absorbed by the body, but that doesn't | mean I'd want to try it out. | | I think the idea is that you'd take basic measures to try | to avoid/discourage exposure, but you wouldn't have to | worry about any extreme safety measures to guarantee it. | freemint wrote: | Well, apparently. For reference neutrinos from the Sun are | around 30W 24/7 and does it harm us? | | https://www.quora.com/How-much-energy-is-in-the-neutrinos- | pa... | [deleted] | rcxdude wrote: | Not really, because the power is not super concentrated. The | power is flowing through an area of a few m2, so it's less | power per unit area than a sunny day, though on a similar order | of magnitude, and that's assuming the microwaves are perfectly | absorbed (the frequency of microwaves used is one where water | is much more transparent than the one in microwave ovens). In | the video they claim the beam is safe for people and animals to | pass through (based on current standards for RF exposure). | | This is comparison to e.g. lasers where even if the power | density is the same the fact that it's concentrated in a few | mm2 makes it a lot more dangerous. | silexia wrote: | The most impressive note in the article is that they only had a | power loss of five percent. | BenjiWiebe wrote: | It says they operated at an efficiency of 60%. 5% is the | additional loss when it's raining. Some microwave frequencies | are easily rained out. | coenhyde wrote: | 1km through the atmosphere is probably all you need to verify | that the approach would work for Space Based Solar. I know the | military is interested in that. Imagine being able to deploy | energy anywhere on Earth and not have to setup a logistics chain | to facilitate it. That's priceless. The economics for SBS don't | really make sense to me, for domestic energy consumption. But | economics are irrelevant if it enables you to project power | deeper into hostile territory. | ghostly_s wrote: | > 1km through the atmosphere is probably all you need to verify | that the approach would work for Space Based Solar. | | How so? Wouldn't a space-based-solar facility need to transmit | through the full height of the atmosphere which is much more | than 1km? | coenhyde wrote: | It is. I guess I was extrapolating without explaining. | Whatever results they get from this test at sea level, they | should be able to predict the efficiency for a Space Based | Solar System. I wasn't necessarily saying their test verifies | that Space Based Solar would work, but just that they have | the information to determine if it would. | pmoriarty wrote: | If Space-Based Solar becomes a thing and starts being used in | war zones, then it seems almost inevitable that warfare will | move in to space... and that could lead to a catastrophic chain | reaction of exploding satellites (aka the Kessler syndrome[1]) | leading to an impenetrable field of space junk around Earth, | which will prevent or at least greatly delay further | use/exploration of space. | | [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome | TechBro8615 wrote: | How would space-based solar increase the risk of warfare in | space more than space-based communications and geolocation | infrastructure already risks it? Knocking out GPS satellites | seems like it'd be nearly as effective as knocking out power- | supplying satellites. | | I guess maybe the difference is there is redundancy in the | GPS network - taking out one satellite wouldn't do much | damage, but with power supplying satellites I presume it | would. | walrus01 wrote: | space based solar probably works fine outside the atmosphere, | but any space based "power beaming" system would need to | contend with the entire thickness of the atmosphere for path | loss. | | > Imagine being able to deploy energy anywhere on Earth and not | have to setup a logistics chain to facilitate it. | | theoretical setups for receiver arrays for space based solar | power beamed over microwave are very large, if you're going to | go to the trouble to erect a big receiving array somewhere in | an empty piece of land, you might as well just build a large | ground mount photovoltaic system based on commodity 72-cell | monocrystalline Si 400W rated panels. | DennisP wrote: | The atmosphere is fairly transparent to microwaves, so the | loss shouldn't be much worse. The book _The Case for Space | Solar Panel_ cited net efficiency of 40% with the tech at the | time it was written, with a theoretical maximum of 60%. It 's | a pretty good deal given that a panel in geostationary | collects five times as much energy in 24 hours as the same | panel on the ground, and the power flows 24/7 for most of the | year with no need for storage. | scythe wrote: | We're a long way from geostationary orbit with this tech, | though. They got 1 km, now you need 35,000. | giantg2 wrote: | I guess it depends on how tight the maser beam stays. | Most of that 35k km has little to no atmosphere, so that | part is a little less important. | walrus01 wrote: | I'd question whether anyone writing "the atmosphere is | fairly transparent to microwaves" has calculated the link | budget, then implemented in the real world an FCC part 101 | licensed microwave radio system (example: 1024QAM | modulation, 11 GHz standard FDD band plan, +16 Tx power, 80 | MHz channels H&V dual linear, 35 km, 180 cm high | performance dishes both ends) and seen the path loss in | reality. | | I think anyone that's done terrestrial point to point | microwave telecom professionally will take a very skeptical | view of things like 10 GHz band, 1 km power "beams". | | the reality is that the atmosphere absolutely eats | microwave, and when it's not eating it, you have | temperature inversions, ducting and diffraction effects to | take into account at long distances as well. this is why | their demo only works at 1.0 km. | DennisP wrote: | Indeed. Such a writer may, however, have read up on | studies on expected losses for the frequencies proposed | for SPS. The book I mentioned covers a lot, but a paper I | just googled is available on scihub at your discretion. | Here's the abstract: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/ | 10.1080/00222739.1970.11... | | The paper is published in the _Journal of Microwave | Power_ , proposes using a wavelength around 10 cm, and | with a vertical beam calculates a loss of 1% in clear | skies and up to 10% loss with rain. | sillysaurusx wrote: | My imagination is limited. Care to help me out? | | 1.6kW deployed to any area in the world. I'm not sure how to | visualize that, or what the implications are. | | Could this power a drone indefinitely with no need to land? | agumonkey wrote: | 500W is enough to power a bike strong enough an adult will | have to fight to stay on top at first. 1600W seems plenty for | a lot of devices. | _s wrote: | Yes, any vehicle that can be drive with a motor. | | Here's an out there scenario - a few power generating | aircraft or satellites in high orbit sending power down to | drones at lower altitudes, and vehicles on the ground that | just have inverters and motors. No costly batteries, let | alone the logistical supplies required for fuel and | maintenance for combustion. You are no longer limited by the | slow moving fuel vehicles; a blitz is a whole other thing | now. | | Generators and solar arrays are the backbone of most forward | operating bases - no longer. You have so much more freedom | and space as you are no longer restricted by your power / | fuel requirements. | | It will shift the balance of war, vehicles, infrastructure, | logistics. | | For less military uses - imagine doing away with power cables | entirely. No more costly infrastructure built above or below | the ground. Just a few towers (much like mobile phone towers) | transmitting to households. Depending on where the technology | goes, imagine not needing batteries in anything anymore. | You're just hooked up to the wireless grid for power too. | | It's still in its infancy, but this is pretty significant. | imperio59 wrote: | Or you know, maybe we can strive for less wars and all | that. Because this also means space warfare is going to | become an important component of every major military | power's defense system, and that's not good. | Retric wrote: | It might have value in a military setting, but it's got to | be really really stupidly cheap to compete in the civilian | space. | | Which seems extremely unlikely. | reaperducer wrote: | _No costly batteries, let alone the logistical supplies | required for fuel and maintenance for combustion_ | | And if the enemy captures your vehicles, you can simply | deauthorize them and they won't work anymore. | thinkmassive wrote: | Sounds cool, but also like that satellite is a massive | single point of failure | micromacrofoot wrote: | parachute is still way lighter than a battery | kylehotchkiss wrote: | it'd be really cool (and understandably unlikely) if this could | be harnessed for cargo ships so they don't need to burn bunker | fuel | walrus01 wrote: | the cassegrain reflector design dish aimed sideways like that | looks remarkably similar to a 1970s era troposcatter data link | system used by the DoD. | nayuki wrote: | Outside of SimCity games, I never heard of microwave power | transmission in the real world... | KaiserPro wrote: | The key point here is that it has a 60% efficient. | | The question is, why is it important? | | Well in the later part of Afghanistan war, significant time, | money, and lives were spend shipping diesel around. If you can | avoid that, you can save a shit tonne on logistics. | Terry_Roll wrote: | So like all technological achievements, things will improve so | the amount of power that can be transmitted will increase and | the distance will increase. | | At some point in the future it might become feasible to beam | the energy down from a Low Earth Orbiting Satellite, which | would transfer logistical costs into the preemptive side of | accountancy instead of reactionary accountancy, but if they | could do this from a LEO, then perhaps its also become a bit of | a non ballistics weapon which may not be covered/restrained by | current international agreements. | DennisP wrote: | Most solar power satellite designs put the sat in | geostationary, which simplifies things dramatically. It makes | the power density low enough at ground level that birds can | fly through the beam without harm. The receiver has to be | several square kilometers but it's mostly antenna wire. | | The transmitter would be a phased array antenna, and getting | even that much focus would require a reference signal | transmitted from the ground station. | walrus01 wrote: | In my opinion by the time you're going to the trouble to | clear a flat plot of land and get into the construction | project of erecting a several square km sized receiver | array, you might as well just go whole-hog on commodity | ground mount photovoltaics on the same area of land. And | totally eliminate the cost of the satellite. | | There's plenty of contractors out there who specialize in | building such things from existing COTS systems/subsystems | and components. Look at the specifications and size of some | of the large ground mount PV systems in China and India. | Margins are very thin in this business and very competitive | on $ per kWh feed-in tariff rates paid to contracted | systems. The construction process has been optimized to | nearly as good as it can get now. Labor is a major cost. | DennisP wrote: | And add the cost of batteries. | walrus01 wrote: | doesn't necessarily have to have batteries, as in many | common installations, daytime PV is used to flatten the | curve of fuel consumed by regional coal, gas, other | fossil fuel power plants servicing the daytime peak of | load demand. Conveniently enough in many places with hot | weather when the peak of load demand is occurring mid | afternoon with everybody's air conditioner running, the | PV system is also performing at its best. | | Or can be connected to something long distance similar in | tech to the pacific HVDC inter-tie to move power long | distances to where it's needed, or can be used to pump | water uphill in a nearby pumped-storage hydroelectric | system. | DennisP wrote: | I mean yes, of course ground-based is cheaper if it's | just part of a grid with lots of fossil power. I'm | assuming we want to eliminate the fossil plants. For | that, SPS at SpaceX Starship launch costs has a decent | chance of being cheaper than ground-based solar plus the | the various extra systems required to turn it into | reliable power. | FredPret wrote: | There is a power plant in Sim City that operates on this | principle. Would be cool to have a nuclear reactor in orbit! | Terry_Roll wrote: | Tesla built the means to transmit power in the early | 1900's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardenclyffe_Tower ht | tps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_power_transfer#Histor. | .. | | I would imagine alot of Radio transmitting knowledge would | be useful in this domain of knowledge. | walrus01 wrote: | based on terrain and other logistical challenges in Afghanistan | I bet you $5 that sending a 20' ISO container packed with solar | panel/ground mounting/advanced battery system would accomplish | a whole lot more kWh per month than a "power over microwave" | system from some central point to regional FOBs. | | 1.0km and 60% efficient is not very impressive. | | various parts of the DoD are very interested in things like | hydrogen fuel cell generators, more advanced/efficient diesel | generators, prepackaged photovoltaic power systems, etc. they | fund and buy prototypes all the time. they're well aware of the | problem in transporting liquid fuel around. | manquer wrote: | Plenty of applications at 1 km and 60 % are possible, many | devices are small and becomes easier to operate around a | outpost if powering them wasn't impractical with wiring , or | have short battery lives | | Recharging drones is a good example, depending on how compact | the receiver can be developed you could even integrate into | the drone and keeping it up continuously . | | There are bots like the stuff Boston dynamics builds that can | work in say a minefield or other hostile environments for | more time or continuously if you could be beam power to them. | | You could use it to recharge cctv and other perimeter | monitoring system sensors rapidly in a new output where you | haven't time to do wiring , or the outpost is temporary . | | In a urban environment you could to keep you active EM | emitting equipment like radar / satellite dishes equipment 1 | km away and be safer from missile strikes. | | Sure it would be nice to have 100s kW at 10s of km but a kW | is plenty of power for a lot of devices and there are solid | applications | bushbaba wrote: | Those solar panels might disclose your location. This is | likely substantially more covert. | | There's also a big benefit of refueling electric drones with | this. | walrus01 wrote: | Even the smallest sort of COP or FOB is very obvious where | it is - you aren't going to disguise any concrete t-walls, | rows of stacked HESCO bastion, perimeter guard towers, etc. | | it's a whole construction project to erect one, anybody | that lives in the area or has access to half-decent aerial | photography is going to know fully where/what it is. | | putting up a big-ass tower with a flat microwave receiver | array aimed somewhere towards the horizon is going to be | even more obvious than ground mount solar. | Manuel_D wrote: | I'm not sure how passive solar panels would be more covert | than actively emitting radiation. Solar panels may be more | visible from satellite imagery, but your base is going to | be visible anyway. Militaries have been focused on | pinpointing micro-wave emitters for decades, it's | foundational to detecting radar stations. | lallysingh wrote: | This would help hide the receiver of the power, no? | CyanLite2 wrote: | Yea, seems like easier technology is out there for real | battle zones. I think this wireless power idea would be best | in disaster scenario areas on the US mainland after weather | events. | | They could pre-ship out the dishes to EMA agencies around the | country. Quickly deploy in a few hours and re-power areas | that have been destroyed by hurricanes/tornadoes/wildfires | until the electrical grid is re-established or a ISO | container can be sent. | powersnail wrote: | The article mentions rain. What about sandstorms or snow? Is | microwave heavily hindered by any other climate adversities? | cwillu wrote: | The very latest in coerced wireless heating technology. | jakedata wrote: | Detune for death-ray mode. | formvoltron wrote: | Next stop, the Dyson sphere. | jleyank wrote: | A maser? Obviously tuned to avoid hitting the rotational | frequencies of things like water vapour (think microwaves). Neat | bit of engineering. | R0b0t1 wrote: | The microwave frequencies we use don't perfectly match water. | If they did it would only heat the skin on top. They have some | penetration. | | To do this they probably beamed far more than 1.6kW. You need | to heat the vapor in the middle and either go through it or | move it out of the way. | | Fun consequence of this, you can disperse clouds by pointing | microwaves up. It doesn't take a massive amount of power | either, but scales with power. | ianai wrote: | Could that trigger rain? | R0b0t1 wrote: | Somewhere else, yes, you're driving the clouds off, though | admittedly the effects may not always be so direct. | pfdietz wrote: | Why would you think it's a maser? | geoduck14 wrote: | For context, 1.6 kW is about enough to power 1 home appliance: a | dishwasher, refrigerator, or toaster. | | I think your A/C would be more - but I'm not certain | | If you had Solar panels deliver this power, you could get similar | power if you spent ~$1.5k on a panel 6.5 ft X 16 ft | cptcobalt wrote: | > For context, 1.6 kW is about enough to power 1 home | appliance: a dishwasher, refrigerator, or toaster. | | Most (US) homes put outlets on a 15A breaker (sometimes 20A), | which gives have 1.8 kW to play with. So this is less power | than a typical home outlet. | | > I think your A/C would be more - but I'm not certain | | A/C _definitely_ requires far more power--you have to deal a | high peak load for motor start. Absolutely not happening with | this setup. | | The applications of this are rather curious, and definitely not | for the any typical person. Probably defense, with a very short | lead time, with the need for faster mobility? | | > If you had Solar panels deliver this power [...] | | Yes, definitely. And it can still be highly mobile: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTiDklyEYaI (and once a setup | is at a location, you could throw it on the back of a truck for | some short-range transit. You'd just need to spread out the | solar in each new place. FWIW, Solar and Microwave both have | interesting yet different line of sight requirements.) | varenc wrote: | > Most (US) homes put outlets on a 15A breaker (sometimes | 20A), which gives have 1.8 kW to play with. So this is less | power than a typical home outlet. | | US outlets run at 15A, but per the NEC [0] no single plug-in | appliance can continuously pull more than 80% of the max | rating, or 12A. Which is why space heaters all max out at | 1500W instead of 1800W. But an intermittent appliance, like a | hair dryer or toaster, can pull the full 1800W though. | | NEC 210-23: https://arlweb.msha.gov/District/DIST_09/Electric | al%20test%2... | skykooler wrote: | My window-mount AC unit says to put it on a dedicated 15A | circuit, which should mean it pulls a maximum of 1.8 kW, no? | Otherwise it would trip the breaker every time it turned on. | willis936 wrote: | Those appliances nearly never have 100% duty cycle. It's | important to note that this power can be transmitted when it is | cloudy or nighttime and could potentially require less weight | and setup. | | I'm not saying line-of-sight transmission is a great solution, | but this is an impressive engineering demonstration with some | limited battlefield application. | closeparen wrote: | How much does a battery powered drone need to recharge? | nannal wrote: | Perfect application for this tech. Drones can fly back to the | ship to recharge without landing, local aerial defence fleets | can be lighter as they'd need a smaller capacity battery. | | Moderately long distance wireless power transmission has a | whole host of applications. | tapland wrote: | In the US this is almost exactly the maximum you'll find to not | risk blowing fuses. Electric heaters are probably the most | obvious continuous draw ones. | Neil44 wrote: | My toaster is about 1kw, fridge and freezer a few hundred | watts. 1.6 is touch and go for a dishwasher though. | tuatoru wrote: | Yeah, but only for fixed sites, or intermittently mobile sites. | | Perovskites open the possibility of printing your solar cells | on flexible films, so the panels can be unrolled like projector | screens or greenhouse roofs, and rolled up again.[1] | | 10-15 kW of panels and suitable batteries would get you near | 1.6 kW continuous. | | This (microwave power beaming) is for battlefield applications, | where mobility is primary. | | 1. Several groups are developing these. For example in | Australia, https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology- | space/energy/Pho... | gpm wrote: | Is there some reason that this doesn't scale up to however high | you want if you add more input power? I would have thought that | 60% efficiency would be the interesting figure, not 1.6 kW. | | I wonder if you could use this for "aerial refueling" of an | electric drone - might be a cheaper way to make small long- | endurance vehicles than trying to stick ICEs in them (though it | has the downside of "tethering" them to a ground station). | walrus01 wrote: | google "microwave atmospheric path loss calculation" or | "microwave free space path loss" - standard calculations for | point to point microwave telecom systems, you lose quite a lot | to the molecules in the air. probably would work a whole lot | better in a vacuum. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-23 23:00 UTC)