Japan space scientists make wireless energy breakthrough

March 12, 2015
Electricity gained from solar panels in space could one day be beamed to earth

Japanese scientists have succeeded in transmitting energy wirelessly, in a key step that could one day make solar power generation in space a possibility, an official said Thursday.

Researchers used microwaves to deliver 1.8 kilowatts of power—enough to run an electric kettle—through the air with pinpoint accuracy to a receiver 55 metres (170 feet) away.

While the distance was not huge, the technology could pave the way for mankind to eventually tap the vast amount of available in space and use it here on Earth, a spokesman for The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) said.

"This was the first time anyone has managed to send a high output of nearly two kilowatts of via microwaves to a small target, using a delicate directivity control device," he said.

JAXA has been working on devising Space Solar Power Systems for years, the spokesman said.

Solar power generation in space has many advantages over its Earth-based cousin, notably the permanent availability of energy, regardless of weather or time of day.

While man-made satellites, such as the International Space Station, have long since been able to use the solar energy that washes over them from the sun, getting that power down to Earth where people can use it has been the thing of science fiction.

But the Japanese research offers the possibility that humans will one day be able to farm an inexhaustible source of energy in space.

The idea, said the JAXA spokesman, would be for microwave-transmitting solar satellites—which would have sunlight-gathering panels and antennae—to be set up about 36,000 kilometres (22,300 miles) from the earth.

"But it could take decades before we see practical application of the technology—maybe in the 2040s or later," he said.

"There are a number of challenges to overcome, such as how to send huge structures into space, how to construct them and how to maintain them."

The idea of space-based emerged among US researchers in the 1960s and Japan's SSPS programme, chiefly financed by the industry ministry, started in 2009, he said.

Resource-poor Japan has to import huge amounts of fossil fuel. It has become substantially more dependent on these imports as its nuclear power industry shut down in the aftermath of the disaster at Fukushima in 2011.

Explore further: $21 Billion Orbiting Solar Array will Beam Electricity to Earth

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Using gravitational waves to catch runaway black holes

June 30, 2016

Black holes are the most powerful gravitational force in the Universe. So what could cause them to be kicked out of their host galaxies? Cambridge researchers have developed a method for detecting elusive 'black hole kicks.'

Hubble captures vivid auroras in Jupiter's atmosphere

June 30, 2016

Astronomers are using the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope to study auroras—stunning light shows in a planet's atmosphere—on the poles of the largest planet in the Solar System, Jupiter. This observation programme is supported ...

Rosetta, Philae to reunite on comet for Sept 30 mission end

June 30, 2016

After nearly two years apart, Europe's Rosetta spacecraft will join stranded robot probe Philae on September 30 on the icy surface of a comet hurtling through space, their eternal resting place, mission control said Thursday.

Measuring the shape of the Milky Way's black hole

June 24, 2016

At the heart of our galaxy's center is SagA*, a supermassive black hole containing about four million solar-masses of material. SgrA* is relatively faint, unlike the supermassive black holes in some other galaxies. This is ...

68 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

betterexists
Mar 12, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
betterexists
Mar 12, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
betterexists
Mar 12, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (21) Mar 12, 2015
Too bad Medical Science has not progressed like this.

WTF, man? This is an article about wireless energy transmission and the first thing that comes to your mind is to rant in multiple posts about the possible sensory organs of plants?

Even you must agree that this is completly insane behavior.
danwo
2.1 / 5 (11) Mar 12, 2015
Tesla was ready to beam free energy to everyone in the world. I suppose the only real difference now is that they have a controllable way to charge us for it
jediknight190501
4.8 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2015
Question: Is there any danger to organic life if it is in-between the energy sender and receiver ? In other words, If I was standing between the origin and destination of the microwave energy emission, would I be fried?
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2015
Is there any danger to organic life if it is in-between the energy sender and receiver ?

Depends on the wavelength. 'Microwaves' include a pretty large range of wavelengths between roughly 1mm and 1m.
Microwaves are within the non-ionizing range of the EM spectrum. So the effect that is most likely to produce damage is heating (e.g if you use the 2.54GHz resonance frequency of water) .
The issue would be how large your antenna array for capture is. The ideas I've seen bandied about for space based solar in the past 30 years envisioned quite big fields of antennas where the energy density would be too low to cause any harm.

Nevertheless I would declare the airspace above as a no-fly zone. And if practical I'd also put this stuff on floating artificial rafts/islands off shore in case of effects on birds.

antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 12, 2015
Something to consider also (in light of global warming discussions):
Any energy beamed down from space is a net additional input to the planet's energy balance, as all of that will eventually be converted to heat. If it means producing less CO2 then that is likely worth it (as the capture mechanism by added CO2 probably is worth for the long term balance than a slightly raised incidence coupled with a raised emission into space. And CO2 fossil fuel energy sources are also a net addition in any case)

If really need be we could counteract the increased energy input by positioning space based shades over parts of the world where it doesn't matter (oceans)
MR166
2.5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2015
Prior plans to beam microwave energy involved very wide beams of energy collected over a large area. This appears to be a different concept. A concentrated beam could be very harmful to wildlife.
dsamson
2 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2015
I would also be concerned about the increase of solar insolation if this was done on a large scale. Given the concerns about excessive trapping of heat on the planet does it really make sense to put the planet in a big microwave oven?

IMHO we would be better served with devoting resource to researching space elevator technology. Then you could move energy intensive industries into low Earth orbit and they can use the solar up there & keep it off of the planet.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2015
Given the concerns about excessive trapping of heat on the planet does it really make sense to put the planet in a big microwave oven?

Given that you need to create the energy in any case, if your only choices are fossil fuels or space based solar then both increase the net energy input the same way. Although fossil fuels give you the added CO2 which traps more heat.

Space based solar would have an effect on the upper layers of the atmosphere (transmission losses), that fossil fuels don't. Whether that is a critical issue or not - I don't know.

If you want to avoid this you need to use ground based solar (or wind/wave/biofuel).
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (10) Mar 12, 2015
Question: Is there any danger to organic life if it is in-between the energy sender and receiver ? In other words, If I was standing between the origin and destination of the microwave energy emission, would I be fried?


No one seems to care if birds are toasted by solar power concentrators or chopped to bits by windmills.

A solar power satellite over Japan beaming microwave energy to a fixed location should be much safer for all life forms.
Moebius
1.9 / 5 (10) Mar 12, 2015
Another article by scientifically witless fool?

"... 1.8 kilowatts of power... to a receiver 55 metres (170 feet) away."

Pretty useless info unless we know how much power was transmitted to deliver that 1.8 kW

barakn
3.8 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2015

If really need be we could counteract the increased energy input by positioning space based shades over parts of the world where it doesn't matter (oceans)

It matters. That's where all the photosynthetic organisms we are hoping will capture the CO2 live. Putting shades there will reduce their carbon-capturing abilities. Now if the infrared could be blocked preferentially, that would be something...
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2015
That's where all the photosynthetic organisms we are hoping will capture the CO2 live

Then position it over Antarctica, the arctic, or some desert region. Or you position it above one of the several hundred dead zones in the oceans to suppres the algal bloom.
RWT
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2015
Tesla would be proud.

If they use microwave frequencies that are transparent to water and bone then it would probably pass right through living organisms but if anything metal ever crossed the beam it would be one great fireworks display.

As for fears about Earth's energy budget, luckily there is physics. The more heat the Earth's atmosphere has the quicker the rate at which it will lose heat to space and the energy added from this would be minuscule.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2015
The more heat the Earth's atmosphere has the quicker the rate at which it will lose heat to space

While true, with more incident energy you push the equilibrium state to a higher level...with all the ancillary nasties of glaciers melting faster, more energy in weather systems (more and heavier storms), droughts, less oxygen solubility in ocean surface layers and whatnot.

So we should take a good look at this before thinking it is a panacea.
MR166
not rated yet Mar 12, 2015
I do not see the problem with adding extra heat to the earth. Assuming reasonable energy efficiency of the receiving equipment, any power generated would be offset by an equal amount of power not generated by the burning of fossil fuels. Thus, there would be no net increase in heat released for a given amount of power generated.
ryggesogn2
not rated yet Mar 12, 2015
push the equilibrium state to a higher level


But the IR windows to space from 8-12 um don't change.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2015
Not a good idea. We can get cataracts with microwaves, and already live in an electromagnetic smog of all frequencies and modulations.

These big-money, space-age ideas are made impractical and unwanted by developments in alternative energy here on Earth.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2015
Gkam for once I have to agree with you. Since the satellite must be in geosynchronous orbit there still is the 24/7 power issue. Once the power storage issue is settled, there is plenty of space for solar cells on earth. I suppose if they find a cheap way to get stuff in orbit the cost balance might change.
betterexists
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2015
@Antiheyilias
Be careful. Your gAdPrayers won't help you if you step onto the Pitcher Plant. You will be trashed in no time.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2015
. Assuming reasonable energy efficiency of the receiving equipment, any power generated would be offset by an equal amount of power not generated by the burning of fossil fuels. Thus, there would be no net increase in heat released for a given amount of power generated.

That would depend on efficiency: I.e. transmission losses vs. efficiency of fossil fuel conversion. The figure of merit is the amount of power delivered to the end user. that ha to be the same. If one system has a 30% losses and the other a 60% losses during generation and transmission then the total power generated (and hence the total heat dumped into the environment) differs. We need to consider the pollution of getting this stuff into orbit, too.

We can get cataracts with microwaves, and already live in an electromagnetic smog of all frequencies and modulations.

That's why I'd think that if we do this at all we should have the receivers off shore.
virgodave001
1 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2015
Seems to me that we will have reliable fusion reactors well before 2040. That fact will make space based solar panels a nice but unnecessary dream.
tarchon
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2015
Rectennas have been around since the 60s. What exactly is supposed to be the "breakthrough" here? That they figured out how to focus microwaves? We kinda know how to do that already. 2 kW isn't exactly newsworthy either. People were doing more than that years ago.
rocket77777
1 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2015
Space based solar energy will cause global warming if beamed back to earth and probably interfere with ozone and cause hole or something too.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2015
Gkam the ocular microwave specialist informs us:
Not a good idea. We can get cataracts with microwaves
-but a little research proves him full of manure... again.

"the 1978 NASA SPS study required a 1-km diameter transmitting antenna, and a 10 km diameter receiving rectenna, for a microwave beam at 2.45 GHz."

-But for cataracts to occur;

"For the near field 2.45 GHz frequency, the minimum power density to cause cataracts in rabbits was found to be 150 mW/cm2 for 100 minutes; a retrolental temperature of 41 °C was necessary to be achieved. When the eye temperature was kept low by external cooling, cataracts were not produced by higher field intensities; that supports the hypothesis of a thermal mechanism being involved."

"average power density of the sun's rays is about 100 mW/cm2 while the design maximum of satellite solar power systems is 25 mW/cm2 on the planet's surface"

-So, when gkam posts, it is always prudent to see what genuine experts have to say.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2015
electromagnetic smog of all frequencies and modulations... big-money, space-age ideas
But one can always rely on empty worthless slogans from the 60s to lend an air of credibility to manure yes? So gkam what experience gave you the impression that you knew anything at all about cataracts or microwaves? Reading the letters to the editor section in mother jones maybe?
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2015

Apparently otto wants to add more microwave smog for us. ANY addition is not good for us otto, or do you have studies that show it is good for us?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2015

Apparently otto wants to add more microwave smog for us. ANY addition is not good for us otto, or do you have studies that show it is good for us?
You said that microwaves from these orbital stations would cause cataracts. I showed you this was bullshit.

What in your experience has given you the idea that you can bullshit here with abandon?
ANY addition is not good for us otto
Again, WHO SAYS that existing microwaves are bad for us or that microwaves from these stations would be harmful? YOU?

Or is that just more sensationalist scare tactics from the 60s when your intellect ossified?
adam_russell_9615
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2015
/facepalm
What was the efficiency?
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2015
No, I said cataracts were tied to microwaves. I did not say the silly idea of orbiting microwave cookers would do it by themselves. Either you deliberately misrepresent my statements, or you really do The Reagan, and make up things to "believe".

You stopped questioning my work at Edwards, Korat, at PG&E, and with the research company, and even the Grand Jury, after I explained how they work to you.

Give it up, otto.

I am real, and you have to deal with it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2015
do you have studies that show it is good for us?
No see thats not how it works. You make bullshit claims and I prove to you that youre wrong. So in order to prove youre right you have to provide studies by EXPERTS and not hippie sloganeers which say that cataracts are caused by microwaves, and that these stations would cause cataracts.

You really have to back up what you say. Why would you think that anybody here would take your word for anything, given your dismal track record?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2015
No, I said cataracts were tied to microwaves. I did not say the silly idea of orbiting microwave cookers would do it by themselves
What you said was
Not a good idea. We can get cataracts with microwaves
-So where else are you suggesting we would get these cataract-producing doses, if not from the stations?
You stopped questioning my work at Edwards, Korat, at PG&E, and with the research company, and even the Grand Jury, after I explained how they work to you
Now Im really confused. Are you saying that this alleged experience has anything to do with your knowledge of microwaves, cataracts, and solar power stations??
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2015
Too bad Medical Science has not progressed like this
@betterex
maybe the reason for that is because when medicine screws up, people die and families get litigious?
no one complained about the (still) buggy stupidity of DOS/WIN, b/c is is CHEAP and widely used
and you don't see people dying because they plugged in their CPU or batteries for their DSL the wrong way either
@Antiheyilias
Be careful. Your gAdPrayers won't help you if you step onto the Pitcher Plant. You will be trashed in no time.
WTF does that even mean?
are you actually saying that a pitcher plant could consume a human?
they are NOT dangerous to humans: http://triblive.c...168.html

nicolatesla
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2015
Nikola Tesla demonstrated wireless electricity, almost 100 years ago. He did this over a distance of 6.5 miles.
In no way did anybody from Japan invent this, it's a very old established technology.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2015
Nope. Tesla did not demonstrate wireless power, but wireless signal, before Marconi, who heard of his New York stunt, and duplicated it for fun and profit.

But almost all AC is wireless in the sense it is coupled across transformers with magnetic fields, with no wires touching both primary and secondary except for ground reference, or in the case of autotransformers.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2015
/facepalm
What was the efficiency?
lol.
"Microwaves also have an efficiency advantage [vs. lasers] for a space-based solar power system, where power must be converted twice: first from DC power to microwaves aboard the satellite, then from microwaves to DC power on the ground. In lab conditions, researchers have achieved about 80 percent efficiency in that power conversion on both ends." <-- quoted from this IEEE Spectrum article from last year: http://spectrum.i...lar-farm

^ Quite in-depth, covers issues discussed in the comments here (including info supporting GoO'23 and AAphys.org's various comments/rebukes)...
ksm273
1 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2015
China has "directed-energy microwave weapon WB-1", which can turn you into Egg-Fui-Yon.
rt.com/news/214955-china-ray-gun-poly/
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2015
Tesla did not demonstrate wireless power
What an incredible moron you are.

"Tesla demonstrating wireless power transmission in a lecture at Columbia College, New York, in 1891. The two metal sheets are connected to his Tesla coil oscillator, which applies a high radio frequency oscillating voltage. The oscillating electric field between the sheets ionizes the low pressure gas in the two long Geissler tubes he is holding, causing them to glow by fluorescence, similar to neon lights."

-Did your very excellent education and experience teach you this as well?
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2015
You fool, that was electric field stuff, which decreases exponentially over distance. I can do the same thing with my own little neon transformer, but used it to make a Jacob's ladder for the kids. How far apart were the two metal plates, acting as two sides of a capacitor?

Show me where anybody sent useable power in a practical way. And beaming microwaves place to place is not efficient nor efficacious, nor safe.

Poor otto, not with any education or experience, trying to find some way to fight back. Wiki will not do it, otto, because you do not read all the way down the page, and do not understand the fields to begin with.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2015
BTW, if any of you want to learn electronics there are really good systems now. I can teach you in a few weeks what we went through in the service for months, with hands-on work. And for a few hundred dollars can teach you electronics, coding, sensors, wireless technologies, all kinds of I/O, from internet to Wi-Fi to wireless sensor systems, learning to integrate systems for synergy.

The hook is the building and programming of a robot.

Al that will be necessary for the new driverless cars and the new technologies running manufacturing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2015


Tesla did not demonstrate wireless power... Show me where anybody sent useable power in a practical way
"At his Colorado Springs laboratory during 1899-1900, by using voltages of the order of 20 megavolts generated by his enormous magnifying transmitter coil, he was able to light three incandescent lamps at a distance of about 100 feet (30 m).[5][25] The resonant inductive coupling technique pioneered by Tesla has recently become a central concept in modern wireless power development, and is being widely used in short range wireless transmission systems like cellphone charging pads."

-Seems pretty usable and practical to me.
beaming microwaves place to place is not efficient nor efficacious, nor safe
Im SORRY but your OPINIONS aren't worth much. Especially since EXPERTS in the article above disagree with you.

Provide a bonafide source or STFU.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2015
otto, that demonstration "sent" electric fields through a capacitor. AC sees capacitors as short circuits due to the electric field effects across the insulator. How far did it go? A quarter-inch? Less?

otto, do you understand the "power" we get from antennae? We tune our communications systems to break squelch at 3 microvolts. Not enough to run a factory, is it?

I should send you my course on basic electricity and typical circuits.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2015
otto, that demonstration "sent" electric fields through a capacitor. AC sees capacitors as short circuits due to the electric field effects across the insulator. How far did it go? A quarter-inch? Less?
You dont read you just write dont you?

"he was able to light three incandescent lamps at a distance of about 100 feet"
I should send you my course on basic electricity and typical circuits.
Naw just post your justification for this swill:
beaming microwaves place to place is not efficient nor efficacious, nor safe
-It needs to be text from a genuine expert or experts. Try google.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2015
Did you fail to read this sentence? I guess you just cut and pasted the caption under the illustration.

"At his Colorado Springs laboratory during 1899-1900, by using voltages of the order of 20 megavolts generated by an enormous coil, he was able to light three incandescent lamps by resonant inductive coupling at a distance of about 100 feet (30 m).[76][77] The resonant inductive coupling which Tesla pioneered is now a familiar technology used throughout electronics; its use in wireless power has been recently rediscovered and it is currently being widely applied to short-range wireless power systems.[73][78] As mentioned above it is a "near-field" effect,[73] so it is not able to transmit power over long distances."

But I disagree. At those voltages, and such low currents, they may be most likely to respond to the electric fields.

But resonance and magnetic fields are how we produce and transmit electrical power.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2015
Tesla did not demonstrate wireless power
"Tesla demonstrating wireless power transmission..."

"At his Colorado Springs laboratory during 1899-1900, by using voltages of the order of 20 megavolts generated by an enormous coil, he was able to light three incandescent lamps by resonant inductive coupling at a distance of about 100 feet"
Did you fail to read this sentence?
What sentence is that? The one where you claimed he didn't transmit power, or the one written by experts which says he did?

Which one you bullshitter? And you really need an independent source for this:
beaming microwaves place to place is not efficient nor efficacious, nor safe
-because genuine experts in the article above claim just the opposite.

And as I say your opinion is demonstrably worthless.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2015
Did you read my post above this one? And did you read: "As mentioned above it is a 'near-field' effect,[73] so it is not able to transmit power over long distances."

He used 20,000,000 Volts to light two bulbs? Not a good return in investment in equipment and input power, is it? And Tesla coils work on electric fields, although that demonstration may have used magnetic fields. In Tesla coils the currents are low and conduct mainly on surfaces of bodies, due to the frequency.

And my "opinion" has been taught all over this country.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2015
But this thread is about sending energy down in microwaves, and I object to an addition to our electromagnetic smog. You may like it.

Go pick a fight somewhere else.
mike4ty4
not rated yet Mar 14, 2015
So why doesn't Tesla's system get used in wide use now, if it solved the problem?
gkam
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2015
His real systems and devices are being used today, in the generation and transmission of electricity and AC power and the induction motor, the most useful device of its age.

His transmission of power through the ionosphere was not practical, let alone feasible.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2015
Did you read my post above this one? And did you read: "As mentioned above it is a 'near-field' effect,[73] so it is not able to transmit power over long distances."
Your original post did not say anything about distances nor practicality. It said
Tesla did not demonstrate wireless power...
-which, obviously, was your typical bullshit.
But this thread is about sending energy down in microwaves, and I object to an addition to our electromagnetic smog
So what makes you think its smog? Or harmful? And where is your reference to your assertion that these stations will cause cataracts??

You need to substantiate what you say or else we may prove it wrong and get to call it bullshit.

So easy to bullshit for lazy blowhards isnt it? A little harder to do a little research and prove you know what you are talking about.
adam_russell_9615
not rated yet Mar 14, 2015
/facepalm
What was the efficiency?
lol.
"Microwaves also have an efficiency advantage [vs. lasers] for a space-based solar power system, where power must be converted twice: first from DC power to microwaves aboard the satellite, then from microwaves to DC power on the ground. In lab conditions, researchers have achieved about 80 percent efficiency in that power conversion on both ends." <-- quoted from this IEEE Spectrum article from last year: http://spectrum.i...lar-farm

^ Quite in-depth, covers issues discussed in the comments here (including info supporting GoO'23 and AAphys.org's various comments/rebukes)...


Yes, I know they got 64% efficiency at extremely short range (thats 80% efficient conversion at both ends) but now they are claiming energy transmission to 55 meters. How badly does efficiency drop off at range?
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2015
otto dreams of me at night.

In the daytime, too.

Otto, I do not correct your claims about me because I want you to keep on making them, discrediting yourself in front of the world.

You are really easy to manipulate emotionally. Did you fall for those two draft-dodgers screaming "WMD!"?
loneislander
3 / 5 (2) Mar 15, 2015
An ultimately worthless pursuit if the intent is transmitting energy from space. Economics, when science is considered, puts this in the realm of fantasy. Several have mentioned Tesla, Elon Musk knows a thing or two about Tesla and his evaluation of this makes the case. Ground based photoelectric generation requires only one conversion from photons to electrons - space based systems will need two. That by itself nearly ruins the economy of this. But, given that, ground based receivers would have to be large (to avoid dangerous energies concentrated on small targets which would de-feather birds in flight and do other nasty things) the economics just goes out the window.

And, there's a pretty good TED talk by a guy who does this stuff across a stage with a 1m square antenna lighting a lamp. So, what's the breakthrough here? No doubt useful discoveries will be made in pursuit of this, but no goal of energy transmission will ever be viable for powering anything much.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2015
Want some fun? Try finding yourself in someone else' energy beam!
WirelessPhil
1.5 / 5 (2) Mar 15, 2015
Japan's idea not new. Plus they might cook us with microwave energy.

Nikola Tesla's (10 July 1856 – 7 January 1943) Idea of Wireless Transmission of Electrical Power.

See those big solar panels in space, they will act like a ship's sails and the solar winds will push the satellite right out of orbit.

Did you notice the birds in the animation?
They fly in, but don't fly out. They are cooked crisp, just like they are at the solar towers here on earth.

Face it!
Earth is on its way to become the new Mars, heat, cold, dry, CO2 atmosphere and radiation!
WirelessPhil
not rated yet Mar 15, 2015
GIZMODO and YouTube have the video: "Space Solar Power Systems (SSPS)"
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2015
I can see the ads now, for Cataract Power Systems.

We will be cooking ourselves in the EM/RF smog.
bearly
not rated yet Mar 15, 2015
Nikola Tesla was doing this in 1880s-90s and transmitting power for miles. While it is great that his work is being revamped and tested it is not new, or some "wonderful "breakthrough".
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Mar 15, 2015
"Nikola Tesla was doing this in 1880s-90s and transmitting power for miles"

Really? Powering which factory?
Osiris1
5 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2015
Shame all those comments and only ONE person mentioned the key problem....focus. Even then poor Tarchon did not go far enough. I have a seven cell Barstow cop flashlight from by old truck driving days. Thing did many jobs from lighting jobs to thumping tires for flats or thumping muggers as needed. It could focus its beam pretty good a hundred feet away onto a spot less than 10 feet in diameter if I adjusted the lens a bit., but the spread was beginning to show. Problem is diversion of focus over great distances. Even a second of minute of a degree of arc spread over a few miles can be a great distance over forty to seventy thousand miles down the range. Need good beam quality, intensity, and near zero degree of spread tightness and held on a small target over time for efficient operation with minumum hazard. Even then it is bye bye birdie if one flies into the beam. Not to mention all the mosquitoes it may zap on the way down. Hope the beam does not attract bats.
JessicaH
not rated yet Mar 15, 2015
I think fusion power will happen well before this happens.
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Mar 15, 2015
"I think fusion power will happen well before this happens."
----------------------------------------

Isn't that quotation from the 1960's?
aaabez
not rated yet Mar 16, 2015
This technology can be used for good but also for other uses eventually like directional energy weapons.
kirmant
not rated yet Mar 20, 2015
Boeing was hired by Jimmy Carter to find an energy solution. They did. It was a system of very large solar panels in geosynchronous orbits that beam energy via microwaves to stations on the earth. The cost per kilowatt was estimated to be competitive with hydroelectric power at the time. It's never been mentioned publicly to my knowledge though there is an organization that continues to pursue the idea: Space Island Group. I wonder what's different about this discovery?
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2015
It is the increase in efficiency.
pkos
not rated yet Apr 08, 2015
Hey all, help me out here. I'd like to write an article about all this interesting stuff, but I seem to missing a key component.

What is the efficiency of this experiment? It seems the only known was referenced by Protoplasmix to the very descriptive article written over a year ago. Where they state in a Lab they can obtain 80% on each end. However they also say later that they plan to send 1.6 kW in the beam resulting in only 350 W on the ground.

Here they claim 1.8 kW 'delivered'. Assuming delivered means the amount converted on the ground. So isn't anyone else wondering how much power was in the initial beam? Isn't this kinda critical in proving this experiment is anything more than the 1970's efficiencies?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.