EEVblog #55 – RCA Airnergy WiFi Charging Free Energy Harvesting Marketing BS

Here’s Your Opportunity To CLONE My Entire Internet Business System Today: Click Here! Dave can smell marketing bullshit a mile away, so checks out the new RCA WiFi Free Energy Harvesting "Airnergy" device with some back of the envelope calculations. Marketing bullshit or can it actually work? Can you really charge your smartphone with Wifi … Continue reading “EEVblog #55 – RCA Airnergy WiFi Charging Free Energy Harvesting Marketing BS”

Here’s Your Opportunity To CLONE My Entire Internet Business System Today: Click Here!

Dave can smell marketing bullshit a mile away, so checks out the new RCA WiFi Free Energy Harvesting "Airnergy" device with some back of the envelope calculations. Marketing bullshit or can it actually work?
Can you really charge your smartphone with Wifi Energy?

Watch the RCA video here:

EEVblog #55 - RCA Airnergy WiFi Charging Free Energy Harvesting Marketing BS

Dave can smell marketing bullshit a mile away, so checks out the new RCA WiFi Free Energy Harvesting "Airnergy" device with some back of the envelope calculations. Marketing bullshit or can it actually work?
Can you really charge your smartphone with Wifi Energy?

Watch the RCA video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMMbihbeIls

34 thoughts on “EEVblog #55 – RCA Airnergy WiFi Charging Free Energy Harvesting Marketing BS”

  1. maybe if you stick it in your microwave oven. that will give it a decent bit of power in the 2.4g range.

  2. +Thomas Sears Hahaha! By the way, somewhere (I know it’s in print in a book titled “Entering Space”) is a very similar rant regarding solar power satellites (SPS) in the accent of Dr. Robert Zubrin. The advantage of the SPS is that it’s up on geosynchronous orbit where it can get power 24/7 and there’s never a cloud in the sky (except for a few hours in the spring and fall when it hits Earth’s shadow.) The first problem is that once you have the power on the spacecraft, beaming it to the Earth reintroduces several of the standard problems of gathering sunlight directly from the ground, which means that your receiving station for the expensive SPS is going to be bigger for the same amount of power as a solar array gathering the “free” solar energy from a Sun that’s already there. The second problem is that once the power density of the beam is enough that your solar power satellite receiver is going to be smaller than a straight solar array operating straight off the sun, the beam gets dangerous. It’s dual-use nature is so much worse than nuclear energy that I’d bet at least even money that if anyone ever seriously wants to launch a solar power satellite, it’s actually a space laser in disguise.

  3. +Terry Wilson (featherwinglove)
    Now imagine e-ter0rists hacking into that orbiting station and “slightly” change the antenna aiming algorithms…

  4. I did the math. Charging and iPhone with the power from my wireless router across the house would take upwards of two million years.

  5. Free energy to charge a cellphone ? How about one of those portable flexible solar panels they are selling these days that actually work ? Even if it is not always sunny or even if you live in an area where it rain often a solar panel would still harvest way more energy then this thing could ever dream about.

  6. WiFi is not something even worth looking at for energy purposes, perhaps we take a different approach completely. maybe there could be no use for batteries in the future; as the reciever would be power the object ideally.

  7. +Dominick Aldrich I just measured a -50 dBm Wifi signal from across my house. The typical iPhone 5 has a 5.45 Wh battery, meaning it holds 19620 J of energy. -50 dBm translates to 10 nW or 10 nJ/s. At that rate, it would take 1.5 million years to get to 19620 J, so I guess my signal was weaker when I first did the calculation.

  8. If you put it right next to a powerful radio transmitter …. well that is the only place where it might work. And by right next to, I mean, covering the Arecibo with the antenna.

  9. To add on to the 10 router discussion: The electromagnetic waves from the routers will most likely be out of phase, and as they meet in space they’ll interfere with each other and cancel out at some points (destructive interference) and amplify each other at some points (constructive interference). This means that at some points in space it wouldn’t even charge at all, and the theoretical maximum would be your calculated value x10 but it could charge at any multiplicity between 0-10. So you’d have to have A LOT of routers for it to even be viable, but also you need to find the sweet spot to get the highest efficiency every time you charge your phone. I agree, this is absolutely BS!

  10. “I always wanted to live inside a microwave. RCA makes this dream come true with their new gigawatt WiFi” I can see them trying to sell it 😀

  11. word is not 1 anten work 🙂 How many radio channels are there. How many gsm antennas are watt?

  12. Why dont you calculate the signal density in cubic centimeters? The receiver of free energy is in has a size in 3d so the amount of energy it can receive is proportional to the volume of sphere with radius the length of the outer dimensions of the receiver. Divide the volume of “sphere with radius the length of the outer dimensions of the receiver” with the volume of the receiver and you get the absolute possible energy reception. The real results are much lover then this aps value, because wires cant block/receive all the signal energy as it just passes through them at a certain total percentage.

  13. I can confirm that if you own an Iphone, the best way to charge it is in the microwave.

Comments are closed.