Wichargless: when the power claim and the submitted configuration do not match

Wichargless presents a specific promise: 200 mW of continuous DC power delivered to one load at both two and three meters. The configuration submitted for FCC testing operates at 4 W effective isotropic radiated power, or EIRP. The central diligence question is whether that same configuration supports the output on which the investment case depends.

The answer is no under the stated specifications. The calculated DC output is 0.340 mW at two meters and 0.151 mW at three meters. Those results are 588 and 1,324 times below the advertised output. Establishing that mismatch requires a reproducible link budget, not speculation about the wider wireless-power market.

The problem: three different quantities presented as one story

Transmitter power, received RF power, and usable DC power describe different points in the system. A transmitter specification cannot establish the energy available to the load. Nor can an equipment-authorization claim substitute for a performance measurement.

The review therefore holds the advertised outcome and the submitted configuration together. The load must receive continuous DC power at the stated distances. A brief reading sustained by a charged capacitor or battery would answer a different question. Changing the receiver, antenna gain, waveform, or transmit power would also change the proposition being assessed.

A calculation with explicit assumptions

The case specifies a 915 MHz free-space, far-field link, ideal alignment and impedance matching, 0 dBi receiving-antenna gain, and 50% RF-to-DC conversion. The transmission mode is assumed to qualify under Part 15.247. These are inputs to the analysis, not findings inferred from a photograph or a demonstration.

Using the standard free-space relationship, the calculation is:

DC output = conversion efficiency × EIRP × receive gain × (wavelength / (4π × distance))². The antenna-aperture and power-density relationships are documented in the NTIA handbook. [1]

At 915 MHz, wavelength is approximately 0.32764 meters. Applying the specified inputs produces the following calculated results:

Quantity	At 2 meters	At 3 meters
Received RF power	0.680 mW	0.302 mW
DC output at 50% conversion	0.340 mW	0.151 mW
Advertised DC output	200 mW	200 mW
Output shortfall	588×	1,324×
EIRP needed for the claim	2.35 kW	5.30 kW

These are modeled values, not laboratory measurements. No extra feed, polarization, blockage, or circuit losses have been deducted. Free space provides a defined benchmark; reflections can increase or decrease local indoor fields, so it should not be described as a universal indoor upper bound.

Why efficiency does not rescue the claim

Improving the conversion stage cannot supply RF energy that the receiver never captures. Even an ideal 100% conversion stage would deliver only 0.680 mW at two meters and 0.302 mW at three meters under this model. The claimed output remains far beyond either figure.

Solving the same equation for transmit power makes the scale of the discrepancy visible: approximately 2.35 kW EIRP at two meters and 5.30 kW at three meters. Those figures are not proposed operating settings. They show what the existing receiver assumptions imply if the 200 mW claim is held fixed.

The regulatory question must use the same configuration

For qualifying digital modulation in the relevant band, Part 15.247 permits up to 1 W conducted power with 6 dBi antenna gain, approximately 4 W EIRP. Other conditions, including modulation, bandwidth, and spectral density, also matter. An unmodulated carrier cannot simply inherit that route. [2]

Four watts is not a universal FCC ceiling. Part 18 includes the 915 MHz ISM band; eligible RF wireless-power equipment may qualify under that framework. Eligibility, emissions, and exposure requirements must be assessed for the actual equipment and operating mode. [3,4,5] A different route does not itself establish delivered power. Equally, approval of a lower-power configuration cannot validate a higher-output marketing claim.

Decision: no go on the stated technical premise

The submitted configuration does not support the core promise. That is sufficient to reject the investment case as presented; another testing round is not required to reach this conclusion. The recommendation concerns the stated technology claim, rather than valuation or commercial prospects.

Reopening the opportunity would require a revised claim or design, a sustained voltage-and-current measurement into a defined load at both distances, and matching authorization and exposure evidence for that same hardware and operating mode. Those are conditions for reconsidering a declined proposition, not reasons to defer the present decision.