There are no sidelobes. We are using near-field and catching close to 100% of the radiated energy.
Range is only limited by line of site and an antenna size which is practical. Mind you, we can reduce antenna size and increase range by using passive relays.
Using a phased array, operating in the near-field. strictly point-to-point between Tx/Rx.
At the moment we are working with about 60% end to end efficiency so sending 1kw means you will get 600w at the far end… not 1w :)
Can you link me to reading material explaining how an antenna can have no sidelobes?
E.g. The radiating near field of a 2.4GHz antenna about 8 meters long would extend about 1km.
[1] - https://www.giangrandi.org/electronics/anttool/regions.shtml
Or is there some metamaterial "magic" going on even at the transmitter that I'm not accounting for?
Right, and anybody who knows enough to ask you about sidelobes likely also knows enough to know that too.
That's why, if you reply that "there are no sidelobes" you're only harming your own credibility.
A good reply is something like "there are sidelobes, but they peak at -{believable number} dB and are contained to within {small area}. We believe this is more than sufficient to address sidelobe concerns because of {standards}".
That's a reply that earns trust.
Whereas the question-train you're on is at a pretty interrogative clip ..
Very feasible.
Hypothesis A: they don't want to share basic performance metrics because they contain special secret sauce!
Hypothesis B: they don't want to share basic performance metrics because they suck.
We'll see!
> There are no sidelobes
Or are you creating a generic lens that is factory tuneable to the needed characteristics?
Suffice to say that you are on to some of our more interesting IP ;)
At the moment we are working with about 60% end to end efficiency
There's spread over distance. If you've found a way to prevent spread it's either not free space or a change to the electromagnetics fundamentals. It's a really bold claim to make. But maybe I'm misunderstanding something.
I know bullshit when someone spells it out for me.
This company can say all they want about near field tech, but the beam waist diameter relative to wavelength determines the diffraction spread. And that aspect of path loss is proportional to the distance in wavelengths even if there's no "absorption" by the air components. For any reasonable link at 2.4-5.8 GHz the length in wavelengths will be tens of thousands.
Unless of course we are beaming directly at a coms antenna, which we don't plan to :)
For micro-power IoT, maybe there's a play, but bulk power delivery this seems a stretch.
In case anyone's wondering, 40dB antenna at either end is reasonably some 14ft across at 2.4GHz, so no small thing.
All I'm saying is I hope you have a background in EM. There's lots of stuff that sounds great in approximation and models, but breaks down in reality.
[1] G=4piA/lambda^2 - I tacked on 70% eff which is mid-high for a parabolic dish
for instance. Put in a 3 by 5 meter aperture, and bam, 40dB on the nose.
If someone else is making false claims, show how the claims are false, so we can all learn something. Don't just tell that they're false and especially not in noxious ways like this. Not only do you poison the community when you post like this, you also discredit any truth that you're trying to defend: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
Other commenters have expressed skeptical reactions while staying within the guidelines. Please be like them in the future.
By the way, the claims in the OP probably are too good to be true, because most claims are too good to be true. But if we're to have an interesting forum in the long run, people need to correct bad information by respectfully providing good information, not by bashing each other in uninformative ways. Perhaps you don't owe someone who is making false claims better (I'm speaking only of the general case here, not the OP)—but you definitely owe this community better if you're posting to it. Please do better from now on.
Why do you think 100 mW/cm^2 is 'safe'? You must know from experience this is enough for tissue heating, even from sidelobes many dB down.
Over what ranges do you think this is feasible? With, say 20 km of free space path loss in the 2.4 GHz ISM and 40 dB antenna gain at each end you're going to be at least 50 dB down. Doesn't this mean for things like transmitting power to islands this tech is not useful?
Even if you start at 1 KW in (60 dBm), over 20 km the receiving antenna is going to get about 0-10 dBm, or milliwatts.
With the same generous setup at 1 km and 1 kW you get 10 watts at the far end.
This just doesn't work out.