- For Partners
- Apply for Beta
- For Partners
- Apply for Beta
May. 1, 2019
Ortal Alpert, chief technology officer and co-founder or Wi-Charge is the podcast guest to discuss the performance and safety of wireless power technologies.
Yuval: Hello, everyone. Welcome to How It Works, Power and Safety in Wireless Charging, a webinar by Wi-Charge. My name is Yuval, I’m chief marketing officer for the company. And today with me is Ortal Alpert, founder and CTO of the company. Hi, Ortal.
Ortal: Hi, Yuval.
Yuval: The way we’ve got this set up is that there is a chat window, and anyone is welcome to ask any questions they want throughout the event. It will appear in my chat window privately, and then I’ll try to weave as many of these questions in as possible during the call. So, Ortal, just because this is the first webinar we’re doing together, you are the founder and CTO of Wi-Charge. I believe you have a degree in molecular dynamics and physical chemistry from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, right?
Ortal: Right. I’ve got a degree in chemistry actually, the work is in fine mutants, yes.
Yuval: Excellent, and then, you are the inventor of many of the Wi-Charge patents, and, I think, quite a few patents even prior to that.
Yuval:– So why don’t we get started? So what we want to talk about today is the general topic of safety in wireless charging. What is safety, how is safety measured? Who determines what is safe and what is not safe, and so on. And then talk a little bit about the principle of operation of the Wi-Charge system, try to see how we work and how we work in safety, and then, of course, during the call and after the presentation, happy to take any audience questions as well. So starting with safety, Ortal, I’ve heard you before describe that there are five requirements for wireless charging. Would you mind describing them quickly?
Ortal: Yes, sure. You need one device that is capable of powering whatever needs to be powered, whether it’s your phone, your door lock, or your car, whatever the application is. It has to fit inside the application. For example in a phone, it has to be roughly the size, the receiver needs to be roughly the size of the phone camera, to fit inside the phone. And the operation range, the distance between the transmitter and the receiver needs to be, to be relevant to the application. For example, if you want to charge, if you want to operate a drone maybe you need something like a mile, or two miles, of range, or if you want to charge a phone, you probably need something like 15, 16 feet, which is enough to cover a room. And besides all those requirements that are product size requirements, you need, you need the product to be compliant, meaning that it’s legal to market it, and it also needs to be safe. And compliance and safety are not exactly the same thing, but are not different. Compliance is, on the one hand, a bit wider, it covers other issues besides safety, like channel allocation in RF, or with radio, and compliance with the general electric network. On the other hand, the parts of safety that are not part of compliance, sometimes because compliance is not, does not yet deal with new subjects, new technologies, and other times because every manufacturer knows his product best, and knows what needs to be the specific risks that are relative to the specific product. And every manufacturer is obligated to handle those risks, even if the standards are not completely covering every aspect of the product. So we treat those as two separate items although they are very tightly linked in calling.
Yuval: Perfect. So, people talk about safety products. What is a safe product? What constitutes a safe product and for who is it safe?
Ortal: Well, it depends on what the audience for the product is. If you take a knife, a knife is very safe in the hands of an experienced chef. But it’s certainly not safe in the hands of a toddler. So it depends who your audience is. In our case, we want to build something, we build something that is going to be in, hopefully, in every living room or every office, and therefore babies and children and non-professional users will be able to use it, and will be in interaction with it. So we want a product that is completely safe in all different scenarios and different uses, if the temperature is high, if the weather is cold, or if somebody didn’t read the manual correctly. So this is kind of like what you see on the top of the slide, this is children, young children’s bathing toys. They are supposed to be, and typically are, completely safe. Nothing you can do will cause any risk with these products. Our products are the same. If you look at the lamp, the lamp is safe, but there may be hot surfaces, it has some connection to electricity, that requires an adult, but for adults the lamp is completely safe, and for babies it’s less safe. So you put those an arms away from babies.
Yuval: So Wi-Charge’s product, our wireless power product uses laser, and I know that there are various classes of laser safety. What are these classes? Where does Wi-Charge fall, and what’s the difference between the various classes?
Ortal: Okay, so generally lasers are the four general classes of lasers. And each one has some letters after the number specifying specific details about fine print of these safety classes. But generally Class One devices are, like children’s toys. They are completely safe in any usable, usage conditions. You can, if you want, look directly into where the beam comes from, the output, you can play with it, you can torture the device in many ways, you can put it in a hot room, or in a cold room, and you don’t have to read the manual, and you will be safe. And Class Four devices, on the other hand, are university devices or military devices. They are only safe if the experienced personnel that know what they are doing, are using it, and using the proper safety equipment, safety goggles and goggles and other lab equipment. Class Two and Class Three lasers are in between. Class Two lasers, like the lasers in the supermarket, that can scan the barcodes, is safe as long as you don’t look at certain things. You are not to look at the laser in your supermarket with binoculars, that’s dangerous. And also you are not supposed to stare into the beam for a long time. But as long as you don’t do that, that’s safe, that’s okay for the general public, and it’s kind of like the lamp from the last slide. It’s safe for adults, it’s not completely safe in the hands of a very young kid. Class Three devices are safe as long as you read the manual. The typical example is the laser level. It’s kind of safe, don’t point it at anyone, if you point it into the eyes of something, it may cause damage. Unlikely, but it may cause some damage. So as long as you read the instructions, and follow the instructions, and those are safe, but they are far less safer than our products, which is a Class One laser, kind of like laser mouse. Typically you don’t even know there’s a laser in them, but if you look at the bottom of most optical mice, you may see a laser sign, or you may not, you don’t have to, not in all cases you even have to point out the fact that there’s a laser inside this product on the box, on the casing. But most optical mice today are laser mice, and if they fall into the hand of a baby, then the battery is far more dangerous than the laser.
Yuval: So if I look at a product like a laser printer, a laser printer obviously has a laser inside. Printers are Class One devices, but is the laser inside also a Class One laser? If I was able to disassemble the printer and take out the laser, is that a Class One laser, or something else?
Ortal: In a laser printer you will typically find Class Three B, or Four lasers, depends on the model. And the laser inside is dangerous, but if you take the printer apart it will require some expertise to operate it. If you just open the cover of a laser printer, the laser is automatically disconnected by the laser printer, therefore normal usage or any type of usage that does not involve a professional, the laser printer would be safe, that’s why it’s a Class One laser device. Even if a kid, even if a baby opens the cover of a laser printer, it is not exposed to the laser, the laser is terminated. If an electronics engineer disassembles the laser printer and takes out the laser and connects it to their own circuitry, then they can be held a Class Three or Class Four laser.
Yuval: So it’s possible to have a Class One product that includes parts that are not necessarily Class One, if they were standalone.
Ortal: I think that everybody that has a DVD at home, I’m sure that everybody will have a DVD or CD burner or DVD burner or Blu Ray or laser printers, already have a Class Three laser devices in their house. If they take the thing apart and they connect it to independent non-secure electronic circuitry. But the products themselves are completely safe, there’s no way you can harm yourself with the laser of a CD-ROM if you don’t intend to.
Yuval: Understood. So let’s say I create a product, or you create a product–
Ortal: Or we create a product, yes .
Yuval: We think it’s safe, but then the public wants some assurance, that it really is safe. So who certifies that the product is safe? What do they measure or test? And if they measure something, it’s probably trying to measure against a certain threshold or limit. Who sets and how are these limits set?
Ortal: So let’s talk about the certification branch, to begin with. So all countries have some very general laws, that say that products need to be safe. Typically there’s something about electrical modes something about, a law that says that a product sold to the public needs to be safe, and sometimes there’s a law about children’s safety specifics, and about fire safety specifics, and about employment regulation, employees are not supposed to put, employers are not supposed to put their employees at risk, and so on. So there are typically six, seven, eight different rules like that. And then the regulations that point out more and more detailed versions of that, depending on the specific use and specific type of product. And in the case of labor, then it’s not only labor, we can talk about at the same level about fire safety, or about radio compliance and safety, or about the mechanical safety, because sometimes there are sharp corners, for example, or fragile windows, and so there are specific standards for each one. And if you go down the tree of standards, you will find a lot of available standards you have to meet, typically it’s more than one. In our case it’s the several laser standards, that we meet, and also other standards, that will be fire safety and mechanical safety and electric safety and electronic safety. It should not get electric shock from the product, and you should not be exposed to laser, and the product should not set fire. So all these requirements, each one has its own standard. And typically the standards are set by experts in the field, that form committees that deal with safety. The people in the committees read all the safety literature and understand it, and do tests, and test the thing on humans and on the animals, and then decide on a safety threshold. Safety threshold is usually about 10% in the laser case. It’s not the same in the other fields, but in the case of lasers, the safety threshold is about 10% of where the experts think the risk level exists. In other fields like radio or electrical safety, the safety threshold is much higher than 10%. Sometimes even higher than what is considered risky. But this is because standards evolved after electricity was already in homes and it’s difficult to change.
Yuval: So let’s assume that we’re creating a product and we feel that contractually, or legally, to sell it we need UL approval. It must be a pretty long process to figure out what standards do we have to meet, design them and then do we submit the product for testing at UL or another certified lab? Or do we just do our own testing in-house?
Ortal: We do both. We test everything in-house, we have internal standards, that is, exactly what we think is completely safe, and that’s different than compliance with standards. What we think is safe, based on our experience with our product and our knowledge of what the product is built like, and what are the different behaviors that our product does. And we also submit the product, we can submit it to UL, that’s a great example, but other reputable institutes that also test. And they test against known standards. In the case of laser, there are three or four different standards, and they test against all of those. In the case of electrical safety, then in the US, there’s the National Electric Code, that requires many things and then there are standards that are derived from the National Electric Code, putting more specific requirements about the voltages and the currents that can be in your product. And the same goes for fire safety and mechanical safety and radio compliance and so on.
Yuval: So you mentioned internal standards that we would test against. I assume that these standards are more strict than the public standards, right? Because we might say, in this particular area there is no standard, but we feel that it’s our obligation to provide a safe product, so we test it to a higher standard. Is that accurate?
Ortal: Yes, that’s very accurate.
Yuval: So we’ve been spending time on this call talking about laser safety as it relates to light-based products like Wi-Charge. Obviously there are other ways to try and deliver power through the air, and one of them is radio frequency. Let’s talk a little about radio frequency. I mean, sometimes we hear, oh, our RF-based wireless power transfer works just like WiFi. Is it a fact that it works like WiFi? I mean, first, is that accurate? And even if it does, is that enough?
Ortal: Well, it’s certainly not accurate. The signal you get in your phone or in your laptop from the WiFi station in your house, the signal you get is less than a microwatt. Just to put things in context, you need about a few millions of microwatts to charge a phone. Between one and 10 millions of microwatts. So that’s not really a lot of power you can use, though certain things you can do with that. It’s big enough to transmit information, because you can amplify it. It’s not good enough to charge anything useful. Anything that works exactly like WiFi will give the same power level. So anything that actually needs a little power, will never work exactly like WiFi. It may have some things like WiFi, for example, it may work in the same frequency range of WiFi. But then in the same frequency range as WiFi, the WiFi actually transmits the maximum power allowed at that region, which is enough to generate about a microwatt of power on the receiving end. You cannot increase that, that level is one watt, and many many stuff makes it that one watt, it’s one watt if you do that and that and that only. But you are allowed to transmit one watt out of your antenna, transmitting antenna, which is enough to receive about a microwatt on the receiving end, on the business end of the receiver. And nobody is allowed to transmit more without specific guidance from FCC. And so that will work like WiFi.
Yuval: So if I wanted to receive more than a microwatt, more than one millionth of a watt, let’s say I wanted to receive half a watt, could I just say, oh well, all right, I’ll just send a 1000 watts from our transmitter, because I only get less than a watt on my receiver, is that going to be safe?
Ortal: So if you want half a watt, you need, one way you can do this is to get yourself half a million WiFi stations, turn them on, and change the receiving end into something that can handle half a watt, and then you get half a watt. But obviously nobody is going to put half a million WiFi stations at home. Another thing you can, theoretically I’m talking about, the physical level, which is not legal, at least in the US, is to try to focus the beam towards your receiver. But in all countries that I know, and certainly in the US, you are not allowed to focus that beam by more than, the technical term, 6 dBi. You’re not allowed to make a beam that is focused more than some 60 degrees or 70 degrees, I don’t remember the exact number. But you are not allowed to focus the the radio too much, because that will expose users to more power than the power that the FCC thinks and says. So theoretically you can do this, you can focus the beam till some point, but radio doesn’t focus well, but this is illegal.
Yuval: So I think the FCC, at least originally, set the standards for power limits thinking about data communications or about radio communications, right? How strong could a radio tower be, and where could it be placed, and so on. And there may be a lack of some standards for power delivery. Do you think that the amount of energy that could be sent for power should be a different limit than what is safe for radio or data communications?
Ortal: As far as safety of humans is the question, then safety of humans is not related to what type of transmission in it, just the power level. So the standard should be the same. There’s another question, which is, how much is the financial cost when you transmit a lot of power into some band and that is another limitation that prevents increasing power levels in your applications beyond what is currently allowed. So the two limitations that will prevent the increasing of power levels, beyond the current limit, one is safety of humans, and safety of humans independent on what you do with the power. Just the fact that the radio is actually transmitted, and the other thing is that if you transmit a lot of power in one band, you effectively block nearby bands for use by other applications, but it’s not related to safety.
Yuval: So we spoke, sort of, in general terms, but can you give us an idea of numbers? How much does it take, what’s considered to be safe as we discuss RF or infrared?
Ortal: Well, regarding RF, nobody knows for certain. We as humans only have experience with radio for about a 100 years. And before that there was no radio, except whatever the fans were emitting, which is kind of very low, compared to what we see today. But the general public has the feeling of what people, the general consensus of normal people, not experts, think is safe. For example, if you have a cellular antenna, an operator has an antenna in your street, most people will not move. They will pass by it when they leave home, they will worry a little bit, but they will still live in areas where cellular antennas exist. In the same level, sunlight is considered by most people to be safe amount of light. It is okay to go outside and be in the sun, and like the cellular antenna you should probably not do it in lunchtime in the desert for very extensive periods. That’s mostly because not the infrared we use, but other types of light, like ultraviolet light, especially with the hole in the ozone, are dangerous. Infrared light which we use is far less dangerous. But both these applications, the cellular tower and sunlight, nowadays people feel is okay. And this is generally in line with regulations, for example, sunlight is almost exactly, and I think this is by few, I wouldn’t say that, sunlight is almost exactly the threshold of Class Three laser. And at the same time, cellular antennas are, most people will say that are not completely safe, but they are okay to be in your street. Regarding sunlight, the answer is very certain, if you sit in the shade you are perfectly okay. That’s about 60% of sunlight, if you stay in the shade then you are safe. I said before that the experts and the regulations and standards with lasers and with light is at about 10% of the minimal level that is known to cause any danger. So in the case of laser light, this is about between 15 and 20% of sunlight level, depending on frequency, which is far from where we are, in terms of our device. With radios, the allowed levels are exactly the levels that cellphone transmits, this is about one watt of transmission. And most people use cellphones, so most people agree at least to some degree that whatever the cellphone transmits is okay. With those levels of regulations we can transmit between five and 10 watts of usable power to the client, power you can use to charge your phone, to operate some device, the electronic door lock. And I’m a smaller expert on radio frequency, but if you are transmitting one watt of power and you are limited to transmitting one watt of power, then I’m pretty certain you’re not going to deliver to the client more than 10% of that, more than 0.1 watt of usable power into your phone.
Yuval: I understand. So we’re getting to the point in the webinar we’re happy to start taking more and more questions from the audience. But let me ask something that I’m curious about. We see big radio telescope dishes, you know, tens of meters, and I think they’re used to either send or receive radio signals into far away places, into space. Why are they so big? Why do they need to be so big, and what does that tell us about power transmission in homes?
Ortal: In order to make a wave stay the same, or not expand very much, all waves expand all the time, but in order to keep a wave from expanding for a distance, you need an aperture that is significantly bigger than the wavelength. Typically in our case, we use apertures that are tens of thousands of wavelengths, that’s a lot. In the case of radio, the wavelength, you can look up the wavelength of radio on an old radio, old radios used to show the frequency and the wavelengths. The wavelengths of radio is measured in, sometimes in meters, a meter is three feet, sometimes in centimeters, or inches. So for example, if you have the wavelength, the wavelength of WiFi is about five inches, so if you want 10,000 times five inches, that’s a pretty big aperture you’ll have to use. With radio telescopes you have to use big apertures to keep the wave from expanding over lengthy distances. With light this is easier, because the wavelength is shorter.
Yuval: The other question I had is, I know that at Wi-Charge we spent a long time, a couple of years, analyzing, designing, and then submitting and working with the regulatory agencies to certify our product. Now, what if I am a manufacturer that now wants to embed Wi-Charge component inside my device. So I have a camera and I want to make it wireless. Or I have a door lock or I want to put it in my phone, or what have you. Will I have to go through the same multi-year process?
Ortal: No. Whatever you have to do for your device without the wireless power, you still have to do. You don’t get a waive off just by embedding our product, but our product, embedding our receiver or transmitter into your product does not require you to submit any paperworks to the FCC or FDA or any other government agency. When you certify your product for safety, for example with UL, we have a UL file number, and you give UL the UL file number, and they can get all the data they need from the UL file number, which includes all the different tests they do to verify that our product is safe.
Yuval: So if I, just as an analogy, if I make a children toy that is not wireless, a wired children toy, and I buy a power supply that I connect to the wall and then it gives me 5 volts for my toy. I am relying on the manufacturer of that power supply to go through the certification and basically I don’t have to repeat the same certification that they did, to guarantee that a 110 volts coming in through their power supply is safe and that the 5 volts coming out is safe. Is that pretty much the same thing when we sell a light-based wireless power supply?
Ortal: Yes, except for one thing. The power socket in your children’s room, assuming your children are very young, is not safe. And in our case it’s completely safe.
Yuval: So if I use a Wi-Charge system like I have here in the room where I’m speaking, and I stare directly into the beam, directly into the power source, maybe I should have asked the question before I joined Wi-Charge , would anything happen to me?
Ortal: Something happen on day to day? No, nothing will happen to you, that’s okay. The laser we use is a very narrow beam. It starts with the transmitter and ends at the receiver, and it doesn’t involve you. If you happened to be exactly between the transmitter and the receiver, on the path of the beam, it will stop before you are exposed to any dangerous levels of light. That’s why it stops charging. If you stare at the transmitter, it’s completely safe. The transmitter doesn’t direct the laser beam to you. It directs the laser beam only to a receiver after it verified that the receiver is actually a receiver, and its structure is intact and it’s capable of handling the power and so on. And if something interrupts the beam it will stop way way before there’s any dangerous levels of exposure.
Yuval: And these are things that the UL and other regulatory agencies that we submitted, they actually verify, right? So they don’t just rely–
Yuval: on my word or your word for that.
Ortal: No, they do two things. They measure around the room, looking for the most dangerous position and they also talk with us, understand how the device is built, and what are the riskiest points, and then go specifically to those riskiest points and try to measure those points. The typical case in our, is that we even show them there are certain ways that we can, can get extreme usage conditions, for example by heating the transmitter and cooling the receiver, and we point that out to UL or to other test agencies, so they can test these specific difficult conditions before deciding. Apart from that, both us and UL, for example, analyze the system to see all malfunctions. If there’s a short circuit, if there’s a disconnecting, some part, if something keeps happening, and so on. And we analyze what happened, analyze, and many times if possible, actually short circuit something to see what happens, and to test the device under malfunctioned conditions.
Yuval: So I think this is a good opportunity to switch to a couple of more specific questions that we received about the Wi-Charge product. One of the questions that I received through the audience, and by the way, everyone feel free to send in your questions via chat, is, for actually, for example, for a medical device, if I have something implanted in my body, can the Wi-Charge system penetrate through my skin and charge that device?
Ortal: No. Our safety is based on you not being exposed to the beam. So we will build a device that makes it necessary to shine the laser beam onto a person and also laser beams are not very efficient at penetrating the body. So if you want to reach your heart, for example, that involves passing through about three inches of flesh, and lasers are very much inefficient in doing that. Better find another way.
Yuval: So you mentioned that the beam is narrow. Is that just an artifact, or are there advantages to having a narrow beam?
Ortal: We don’t lose power between the transmitter and the receiver. Almost 100% of whatever leaves the transmitter reaches the receiver and is being absorbed by the receiver. So with distance the power does not decrease. When you reach the maximum operational range of the system, the system stops. It will not transmit to a mile. It’s not that you transmit less to a mile. It will stop transmitting at the maximum range. But until the maximum range, you get the same power level at every point.
Yuval: And how large is the receiver? How large does it need to be, if I wanted to now embed it into a device?
Ortal: Well, those are two questions. The current receivers are the size of the previous generation decently. But being frank, about 10 millimeters by 10 millimeters by 4 millimeters is what is actually needed to build the receiver. The rest is electronics that we need, we still need to do the process of shrinking, and we will do it in the next year, but currently we are focused on getting this to market. And this is small enough for most products. If you want to embed this receiver into a door lock, or into a table, that’s a very good size and very convenient for manufacturers to embed it. To embed it into a smart watch you need something that is significantly smaller and that may be in a future product.
Yuval: So just to recap this, you said 10 millimeter by 10 millimeter, so it’s less than half an inch by half an inch, and basically the beam is a little bit smaller than that, therefore, even when you are relatively far away from the transmitter, then pretty much all of the beam can hit the receiver and you get both high efficiency as well as none of the beam leaks, so to speak, to anything outside the receiver.
Yuval: And in contrast I think you mentioned that an RF beam can be focused to 60 or 70 degrees, and obviously if I had a small antenna like that, then the farther I get from the–
Ortal: No no, RF beam cannot be focused. It can be slightly less divergent. With optics you are allowed, it’s legal, and also technically very easy to focus the light to even a very small spot, smaller than the aperture it left. With RF you are not allowed to focus the beam at all. You’re allowed to make it slightly less divergent.
Yuval: So in terms of size, and where you see this going, do you think that the receiver could, for instance, be built into a double A or triple A battery?
Ortal: Yes and no. You can build it into a battery, but because we need line of sight, we will need the battery to be in line of sight with the transmitter. If the battery is inside your remote control, this would not be a very efficient way of using that. But regarding size, our receiver can certainly fit into a triple A battery.
Yuval: So if you needed to put it inside your remote control, you would need a small transparent window on the remote control to allow the light to get through to the receiver.
Ortal: Yes, it needs to be transparent to infrared, it can match the color of the remote control in the visible eye, but yes.
Yuval: So as I look at many of the modern phones, there’s a movement to have the screen cover nearly 100% of the surface of the phone, or at least one side of the phone. Do you think it’s possible to embed the receiver under the glass? So it becomes, to the end user it becomes almost invisible?
Ortal: We are working on a number of designs to do that, and we have initial test in the lab for such solution, but currently we are working on getting our first product, which is the current product, into production. So don’t expect these in two three months. But we do have some ideas about how to do this.
Yuval: And how about heat dissipation? So if we have a receiver that, say, gets half a watt and surely the receiver is not 100% efficient, so there is some amount of heat that needs to be taken care of. Is that something that Wi-Charge does, or is this something that has to be considered by the person integrating the device?
Ortal: Well, when someone integrates, there are few answers to that, when somebody integrates any electronic component into a device, they always have to take heat into account, and need to evacuate each heat. With most products like door locks or cables or WiFi cameras this is not a problem, because we don’t generate enough heat to become a problem for the device itself. With a very small product this would be a more difficult problem, and if there’s a very small product that needs a lot of power, then integration would be more complicated. But generally, I think this has partially to do with, not partially, a lot to do with the fact that we use world record efficient photo-voltaic convertors. So we generate less heat than what the equivalent solar power photo-voltaic cell would generate, a lot less.
Yuval: So as we get to the end of this conversation, Ortal, let me ask you just one or two questions in closing. The first, you mentioned the solar cell, if I wanted to charge my phone using just the solar panel, how large would that solar panel need to be?
Ortal: Are you talking about indoors or outdoors? I’ll answer both questions. Indoors this is not going to happen. The light level indoors are just not enough to generate enough power to charge a cell phone, in any reasonable user’s scenario. And outdoors you can actually buy chargers, that charge using the sunlight. The typical area of those is that of a backpack. So about 10 inches by 20 inches, about that size, and you need to align them to the sun, so they need to lie on the ground, and then they will generate enough power depending on where you are. In Arizona, in the summer they will generate enough power to charge your phone and that’s okay. If it’s a cloudy day, then it’s impossible. But those are of very big size.
Yuval: And so the last question, and I apologize if I couldn’t get through all the questions that I received during this webinar. You are, of course, welcome to continue to submit questions on the website and we’ll be happy to answer them. The last question I wanted to ask you, Ortal, is, what about data communications? People have heard about Li-Fi, or are saying, well, if you have a power link between a base station and a receiver, could you also send data over that link? Is that something that could conceivably be done with the Wi-Charge technology?
Ortal: Yes, we have a data link between the transmitter and the receiver and back, which is based on the light we send. And our first product will probably not open that up to integrators, just so that we can speed our way to getting products to market, but later on this is certainly possible, and doable and something we’ll do over time.
Yuval: Excellent. So, Ortal, I know you were just a couple of days ago on the other side of the world, so this might be a really late hour for you, relative to your biological timezone, so I very much appreciate your participation. I certainly appreciate all the people that have joined us today. A full recording of this webinar and the transcript will be available online in a couple of days, and we look forward to working with everyone and of course and to welcoming you to our next webinar. So thank you, Ortal, thank you, again.