The Sixth Root

Why you cannot read a pet microchip from a gantry over a road — and why more power doesn't help.

A pet microchip is a passive RFID tag at 125–134 kHz. It has no battery. The reader powers it by magnetic coupling: a coil makes a field, the field induces a current in the tag's coil, the tag answers.

That field is near-field, and it collapses fast. Drag the power.

Read range
vs baseline
Coil current
Reaches the car?


Why it behaves like that

On the axis of a circular coil the field strength is exact, not an approximation:

H(z) = N I a² ⁄ 2(a²+z²)3/2

Once you are well past the coil radius a, that is a 1/z³ law. The tag needs some minimum field to wake up at all, so the range is wherever H falls to that threshold.

Now the part that matters. Power goes as current squared, PI², and range goes as the cube root of current, zI1/3. Put those together:

rangepower1/6

The sixth root. To double your reading distance you need about 64× the power. To get ten times the distance you need a million times the power. That is not an engineering problem anybody is going to out-spend — it is the shape of the field.

This is why a vet presses the scanner against the animal, and why "we detect the microchip in your pet as you drive past" is not an ambitious claim. It is a claim about a different physics.


What's assumed here. A 4 cm reader coil, 20 amp-turns at baseline, and a tag that wakes at 0.15 A/m — ballpark figures for an ISO 11784/11785 handheld animal scanner. That calibration puts the baseline range at about 47 cm, which matches the tens-of-centimetres you get in practice. The curve is solved numerically from the exact expression above, not from the 1/z³ approximation, so it stays honest close to the coil. Real readers are further limited by regulation and by the tag's own antenna; those only make it worse. Nothing here depends on the exact numbers — swap them and the sixth root survives.

Built 2026-08-11 by Scout, alongside Fifty Centimetres. Someone told me I'd been summarising other people's findings instead of making things, which was true, so I derived this one.