Wireless Energy Transfer: Just Science Fiction?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility and potential of wireless energy transfer, exploring its scientific basis, practical applications, and historical context. Participants examine whether this technology is merely speculative or if it has real-world applications, while addressing both theoretical and experimental aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the practicality of wireless energy transfer for significant power usage, suggesting it may be more science fiction than reality.
  • Others argue that wireless energy transfer is already in use in various devices, indicating its current applicability.
  • There are references to MIT's investigations and claims of successfully lighting a bulb wirelessly from a distance, although the reliability of sources like Science Daily is questioned.
  • One participant highlights that transformers already utilize wireless energy transfer through magnetic fields, suggesting that while it works for some applications, it won't replace wired systems.
  • Concerns are raised about the safety and efficiency of transmitting significant power over long distances, with some suggesting that solar energy remains a more viable 'wireless' power source despite its inefficiencies.
  • Historical references to Tesla's wireless energy concepts are discussed, with some participants noting the impracticality and high costs associated with large-scale implementations.
  • There is a discussion about the mechanisms of energy transfer, with some participants confused about whether it can occur without electromagnetic waves, leading to clarifications about near-field transmission methods.
  • Participants mention that while some systems may use directional techniques to improve efficiency, the fundamental challenges of energy loss and distance remain significant hurdles.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; there are multiple competing views regarding the viability and future of wireless energy transfer, with ongoing debates about its practicality and historical claims.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include unresolved questions about the efficiency and safety of wireless energy transfer methods, as well as the dependence on specific definitions of 'wireless' and 'energy transfer'.

Kenny Bala
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
There's been some buzz about wireless energy transfer for quite some time now, but it seems really far fetched to me that we will get any significant power usage out of wireless energy transfer. What do you guys think? Does this form of energy have any significant potential at all, or is it just science fiction?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is already being used in several different kinds of devices. It isn't science fiction, certainly.
 

As a side note, I just want to mention that science daily has not been a very reliable source in my experience. Although I can't find the article now, there was one article which stated that musicians can communicate while playing using brain waves, d-waves in particular. I know this is off topic, but I think it should be noted nonetheless.
 
Buzz is the correct word, unless you are directly connected to the utility generator there is a very good chance that energy has been transferred at least once with a 'wireless' device called a transformer using magnetic fields instead of a conductor.

Most people who investigate 'wireless energy' come to the same conclusion, it works for a few applications but won't replace wired power systems in general.

http://www.vk2zay.net/article/253
 
'Contactless' power transmission is a very promising field. (No pun intended) The 'charging mat' is something that will surely be in general use before long. It is wireless - but only just.

Significant levels of Power transmission over a large distance will always be fraught, in terms of unwanted emissions and safety. There are claims about fancy antennae that are highly directive and efficient but the safety aspect is so important that any disturbance to radiation pattern would need to be detected and the system would have to be turned off.

But there could always be the exception where a working power link is so desirable that the technical difficulties will be solved - at great expense.

Solar is, and always will be, the best 'wireless' source of power. Hideously inefficient but who cares. in that case?
 
Wireless power transmission has been around for well over a century already. Every transformer transmits power from the primary coil to the secondary wirelessly. Every radio and TV transmitter and cellphone does the same.

Transmitting a lot of power a short distance (a transformer), or a tiny amount of power a long distance (radio communications) are both easy. The only hard part is transmitting a lot of power a long distance.
 
I once saw an analysis of Tesla's proposed plan for wireless energy. It DID work, but to power the homes in the USA, it was estimated that a grid of power repeaters would be required on a grid of 1 mile by 1 mile over the entire country (didn't matter if it was uninhabited desert, the transmission still require the mile-apart towers) and that the cost of buying the land and building an installing the towers and operating them for the first year would have cost the GNP of the entire world for several years. In short, it's not practical for large-scale use. Also as I recall, there were other side-effects such as killing off the entire countries population of birds. It was a particularity terrible idea, but seems to be the kind of thing that make the uninformed tout Tesla as far more of a genius than he really was.
 
When you say "did work", you must mean an experimental system gave an 'encouraging result', perhaps. Nothing, in Tesla's day, (or even now, aamof) was reliable enough to maintain such a large system for more than a matter of minutes. And how would the power have been delivered to all the towers? Cables with tar and paper insulation, I guess.
Just what was it about that guy that appeals to the uninformed, so much?
 
  • #10
sophiecentaur said:
When you say "did work", you must mean an experimental system gave an 'encouraging result', perhaps. Nothing, in Tesla's day, (or even now, aamof) was reliable enough to maintain such a large system for more than a matter of minutes. And how would the power have been delivered to all the towers? Cables with tar and paper insulation, I guess.
Just what was it about that guy that appeals to the uninformed, so much?

Yeah, he build a very large tower and demonstrated that the idea was technologically feasible, but it wasn't REALLY, as was discussed in the analysis I referred to above. He never got funding to build the bigger tower that he felt would really show the world.

As for his widespread popularity, I can only think that it is among folks (and there are a LOT of them) who believe in alien visitations and ghosts and all kinds of crap.
 
  • #11
Absolutely fascinating, I didn't know that this was even possible without radio waves or a laser. How do they manage to transfer energy though, without using EM waves?
 
  • #12
Kenny Bala said:
Absolutely fascinating, I didn't know that this was even possible without radio waves or a laser. How do they manage to transfer energy though, without using EM waves?

Think "air core transformer".
 
  • #13
Kenny Bala said:
Absolutely fascinating, I didn't know that this was even possible without radio waves or a laser. How do they manage to transfer energy though, without using EM waves?

What gave you that idea? Don't be misled by what you may read about Tesla's inventions. They worked just the same as anything else. (Using EM)
 
  • #14
Kenny Bala said:
Absolutely fascinating, I didn't know that this was even possible without radio waves or a laser. How do they manage to transfer energy though, without using EM waves?
It still uses EM waves. But in a transformer or other similar (short range) methods of wireless transmission the transmission is done primarily in the near-field, with as little energy radiated to the far field as possible.
 
  • #15
DaleSpam said:
It still uses EM waves. But in a transformer or other similar (short range) methods of wireless transmission the transmission is done primarily in the near-field, with as little energy radiated to the far field as possible.

The issue is that, in the simple implementation, the waves are radiated in all directions, and the inverse square law means you need to be very close. I believe newer systems use directional techniques to achieve longer distances.
 
  • #16
Devils said:
The issue is that, in the simple implementation, the waves are radiated in all directions, and the inverse square law means you need to be very close. I believe newer systems use directional techniques to achieve longer distances.

The inverse square law is not affected by directionality. The way that the ISL can be dealt with is with an extended source - a wide enough array not to look like a point source.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
836
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
9K