No. There is not enough RF energy transmitted to be of any use for the purpose you intended.

Hello,

I am doing a project to advance an insulin pump and the modern one is transferred out every three days. In our advancements we are trying to create an ongoing omni pod where it could be recharged AND not taken off the person. Is there any way to create a "forever" omni pod in which it can be charged without an actual wire... you were asked more than 10 years ago "if it's possible to transfer energy through bluetooth?" -- knowing the advancements in current technology, is this possible? My partner and I hope to make diabetes cool again.

Please answer ASAP if you want to be apart of this change. #MDCA

Mod: link to old thread.
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/charging-via-bluetooth.63226/post-435505

 

Hello,

I am doing a project to advance an insulin pump and the modern one is transferred out every three days. In our advancements we are trying to create an ongoing omni pod where it could be recharged AND not taken off the person. Is there any way to create a "forever" omni pod in which it can be charged without an actual wire... you were asked more than 10 years ago "if it's possible to transfer energy through bluetooth?" -- knowing the advancements in current technology, is this possible? My partner and I hope to make diabetes cool again.

Please answer ASAP if you want to be apart of this change. #MDCA

Mod: link to old thread.
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/charging-via-bluetooth.63226/post-435505

Now we have Bluetooth Low Energy, so there is even less RF power transmitted.

 

Wireless charging is real and available. BUT IT IS NOT Bluetooth..
So wireless charging of medical appliances is real today, but it is totally different from Bluetooth.

Check with the MEDTRONIC company. If they can't sell you one, they can tell you who can and will.
AND, Please, tell them that "MisterBill2" sent you!!

 

There is no practical technology for charging anything at more than a few cm distance.

Yes, there are demos, but the technology is large and expensive, not anywhere near ready for productization.

Unless there is something I don’t know about.

 

Certainly charging must be done at a close distance!! THAT IS A GIVEN!! Longer range charging is understood to require field strength that is understood by most folks as unsafe, at best. ALSO, charging at much distance is terribly inefficient.
So Bob makes a good point.

 

EEVBlog Dave Jones has analyzed and debunked a number of "long range" wireless charging technologies. This video goes over the practical limitations.

 

The basic math from elementary physics also "debunks" the theories. The energy loss grows with the third power of the distance., and with the second power of distance with directed energy. A possible exception being with laser beams.

 

Hello,

I am doing a project to advance an insulin pump and the modern one is transferred out every three days. In our advancements we are trying to create an ongoing omni pod where it could be recharged AND not taken off the person. Is there any way to create a "forever" omni pod in which it can be charged without an actual wire... you were asked more than 10 years ago "if it's possible to transfer energy through bluetooth?" -- knowing the advancements in current technology, is this possible? My partner and I hope to make diabetes cool again.

Please answer ASAP if you want to be apart of this change. #MDCA

Mod: link to old thread.
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/charging-via-bluetooth.63226/post-435505

Welcome to AAC.

You will not be able to safely charge a human implanted device using RF (Radio Frequency) energy. The power levels needed to do it will result in local heating and the potential from adverse effects due to RF exposure.

It is possible to use a wireless charging scheme that uses an implanted coil, but it will specifically require attaching the device to the person (think "human MagSafe"). The charge rate will necessarily be slow as well to mitigate heat.

As with any medical device, implanted ones even more so, a great deal of research and testing to discover potential adverse effects with be needed. I know of some research into using implanted MEMS coils to provide power to implanted devices. This doctoral dissertation from a colleague has a lot of information on the subject—though it is quite old at this point.

Still, it could give you a starting point, and there is sure to be a lot more in the literature by now.

 

IN ADDITION to what "Y" has explained, there are a whole lot of rules and regulations to be satisfied, plus a whole lot of testing that must be done and verified, before any device can be approved. The FDA is quite a demanding organization.

 

You will not be able to safely charge a human implanted device using RF (Radio Frequency) energy.

Are you sure? My niece has a brain stimulator implant that is charged wirelessly. I am under the impression the implanted defibrillators also work that way.

In the case of my niece’s implant, it is near the surface, so I expect the charger is held very close.

Edited to add: Looked it up, standard wireless charging. I guess it is debatable whether that should be called RF energy.

 

Are you sure? My niece has a brain stimulator implant that is charged wirelessly. I am under the impression the implanted defibrillators also work that way.

In the case of my niece’s implant, it is near the surface, so I expect the charger is held very close.

Edited to add: Looked it up, standard wireless charging. I guess it is debatable whether that should be called RF energy.

Right, it's not RF energy as radio wave propagation. The human body can be a almost perfect RF dummy load. I've seen a man's arm literally cook in seconds from HF RF exposure.

 

Right, it's not RF energy as radio wave propagation. The human body can be a almost perfect RF dummy load. I've seen a man's arm literally cook in seconds from HF RF exposure.

Not likely at the power level needed for this.

 

Not likely at the power level needed for this.

No but the heating effects and losses are the same. You want reactive electrical energy (usually mainly magnetic) instead of real EM energy to power medical devices.

 

Are you sure? My niece has a brain stimulator implant that is charged wirelessly. I am under the impression the implanted defibrillators also work that way.

In the case of my niece’s implant, it is near the surface, so I expect the charger is held very close.

Edited to add: Looked it up, standard wireless charging. I guess it is debatable whether that should be called RF energy.

Wireless charging uses B field (magnetic) not E field (electrical). Given the mention of 2.4GHz Bluetooth, which is typically called "RF", I would say it doesn't use "radio", so... yes.

 

Magnetic (inductive) charging is done on some medical devices, and it does work! BUT, first, it is not very efficient. and SECOND, if it is charging, or just powering, a device connected to a LIVE PERSON, the FDA has LOTS OF RULES and regulations.
Besides those complications, magnetic charging must be done in very close proximity, exactly as other have already mentioned.

IN ADDITION TO ALL OF THAT, while magnetic induction charging at a bigger distance is possible, the efficiency is VERY LOW.

 

Wireless charging uses B field (magnetic) not E field (electrical). Given the mention of 2.4GHz Bluetooth, which is typically called "RF", I would say it doesn't use "radio", so... yes.

So a radio receiver with a loop antenna is not receiving RF energy, but a with a dipole it is? As I said, it is debatable. It hinges on the exact meaning of RF energy.

Edited: And RFIDs should not be called that, since they are also near-field devices.

 

So a radio receiver with a loop antenna is not receiving RF energy, but a with a dipole it is? As I said, it is debatable. It hinges on the exact meaning of RF energy.

The type of antenna doesn't change anything. EM propagation vs. induction is the distinction.

Bluetooth: Gigahertz EM waves coupled from transmitter to receiver via far field propagation using both E and B fields. The is the common usage of "RF", and the the way I used it in the answer to indicate that any attempt at far field, E field dependent energy transfer into a human body would fail.

Wireless Charging: Kilohertz magnetically coupled B field waves via near-field propagation, the E field contributes nothing to the energy transfer. A wireless charger, in the practical sense, is a loosely coupled air core transformer that operates at high frequency—not a radio transmitter.

EDITED STRAY QUOTE TAG

 

So a radio receiver with a loop antenna is not receiving RF energy, but a with a dipole it is? As I said, it is debatable. It hinges on the exact meaning of RF energy.

Edited: And RFIDs should not be called that, since they are also near-field devices.

As usual, it's all about boundary conditions and losses as energy passes. Our conductive bodies act much like a faraday cage.

RF energy – or radiation
For some reason, people don't like the word radiation, so RF energy is used.

I recently had a RF energy procedure on both knees, ablation. That RF energy from the shielded probes, deep in flesh, only heated the local area around the tips to kill the nerve tissue, it didn't propagate in the body elsewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_shielding#Magnetic_shielding

 

With a loop antenna it is intuitive that there is a bit of magnetic field sensing, although how much magnetic field is questionable. Certainly not enough to produce any useful battery charging. Magnetic field coupling is entirely different, as already mentioned a few times, in detail.
Electrostatic field radiation is amazing, even after all the math and physics explain it rather well. So even with the logical explanation it still comes across as a bit of magic.

 

The type of antenna doesn't change anything. EM propagation vs. induction is the distinction.

Are you missing my point, or just trying to argue? You originally said wirelessly charging was not RF because it is coupled by the magnetic field. I pointed out two other devices that are certainly considered RF and are coupled by the magnetic field. The you changed your argument to say that is not RF energy unless it a a propagated wave.

The distinction you are making, as I hinted at in my last post, is between the near-field and far-field EM interaction.

If you say that near-field wireless charging is not charging through propagated EM waves, I would completely agree with you.

As I have said twice, it is debatable which ones involve “RF energy.”

With a loop antenna it is intuitive that there is a bit of magnetic field sensing, although how much magnetic field is questionable

Think of a loop-stick on ferrite rod, the classic potable AM radio antenna. It couples to the magnetic field. The electric field has nothing to do with its reception.