Author Topic: The uBeam FAQ  (Read 641593 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 37661
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #250 on: February 05, 2016, 01:30:13 am »
Quote
“I was impressed at the technology they have developed and also their overall approach toward solving a difficult, but not impossible, technical challenge. I am also very impressed with the team that Meredith has put together. Given this, I was excited to get involved and help them address the technical challenges moving forward.”

"The offer of a 6 figure sweetener has nothing to do with my sudden change of heart, where do I sign?" :-J  that's a tongue in cheek emoticon for the lawyers.

There is no major downside to taking the money and getting involved. He wouldn't know anything until he signs on the dotted line, and if it all goes tits-up he can claim he didn't know until he joined and then investigated it all, and that it seemed "not impossible" at the time.
 

Offline HackedFridgeMagnet

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2028
  • Country: au
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #251 on: February 05, 2016, 07:45:38 am »
Quote
There is no major downside to taking the money and getting involved. He wouldn't know anything until he signs on the dotted line, and if it all goes tits-up he can claim he didn't know until he joined and then investigated it all, and that it seemed "not impossible" at the time.

Everyone knows this project is fail.
He must realise he's throwing away his integrity, and going to be wasting his time.

I guess I might do the same too, for a certain price. Though I'm pretty sure my price is lower than the Dean Emeritus.
 

Online tszaboo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7304
  • Country: nl
  • Current job: ATEX product design
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #252 on: February 05, 2016, 11:12:17 am »
Are some people suffering as a result of increasing mass exposure of the public to ultrasound in air?
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/472/2185/20150624
Yes. And the infra sounds, generated by heavy machinery and upstairs neighbours who didn't learn how to walk properly. If anything this planet needs is less artificial noise.
 

Offline chris_leyson

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1541
  • Country: wales
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #253 on: February 05, 2016, 11:33:33 am »
Low frequency, 10s of kHz, ultrasound propagates reasonably well in air, old fashioned TV remote control for example, however, at 1MHz and above the attenuation in air is too high, you would be lucky to get 1m range. Found this paper which uses ultrasound in the 200kHz to 400kHz range. http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/2517/1/WRAP_Li_Short_Range.pdf.
I can't see how you could make an effective communications system using ultrasound, I think the guys at uBeam should have done some research.
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 16560
  • Country: 00
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #254 on: February 05, 2016, 12:15:23 pm »
I think the guys at uBeam should have done some research.

If you apply common sense to it then you won't make the team (with all the VC-funded perks...)


 

Offline dan3460

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 326
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #255 on: February 05, 2016, 02:00:51 pm »
I have not read the whole post and probably my rant have been discussed before: Why is this people proceed with this kind of projects, is this just to be able to keep receiving a paycheck with money they swindle from naïve investors? If you are transmitting on the air you are propagating the energy all around from the transmitting point, this energy (light, sound, heat, magnetic) will dissipate at the inverse of the square of the distance (I think I got this right) and it does this all over the space, wasting most the energy somewhere else but charging the phone. This is the same kind of crap from the makers of the free energy motor or the new evidence of the existence of bigfoot.   
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 37661
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #256 on: February 05, 2016, 02:04:43 pm »
I have not read the whole post and probably my rant have been discussed before: Why is this people proceed with this kind of projects

This will explain everything, here is the founder and "technology innovator"  ::)
TRIGGER WARNING: This video may cause engineers to go postal, or kill a puppy or something

 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 37661
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #257 on: February 05, 2016, 02:08:03 pm »
If you are transmitting on the air you are propagating the energy all around from the transmitting point, this energy (light, sound, heat, magnetic) will dissipate at the inverse of the square of the distance (I think I got this right) and it does this all over the space, wasting most the energy somewhere else but charging the phone.

Correct. Even the best blue sky estimate at ridiculously close range gets 90%+ loss. Probably 99%+ loss in practice.
And they think this can revolutionise the world and everyone will be using it  :palm:
 

Offline chris_leyson

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1541
  • Country: wales
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #258 on: February 05, 2016, 02:30:01 pm »
I had forgotten all about Meredith Perry, wireless charging indeed, more bad science and someone else who hasn't got a clue.

Since my Android phone got updated to Android 6 it now says "Charging Slowly" instead of "Charging" when I put it on top of my cheap knock of Qi compatible wireless charger. Sorry that should be near field or magnetic induction charger. I guess they didn't reverse engineer a real Qi charger very well or they got the sofware wrong. Anyway for £3.00 I've got some nice ferrite with a coil of Litz wire, still a lot cheaper than buying them from Wurth. Freescale Semiconductor Application Note AN4701 "Demodulating Communication Signals of Qi-Compliant Low-Power Wireless Charger Using MC56F8006 DSC", must give that another read.
 

Offline Buriedcode

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1610
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #259 on: February 05, 2016, 03:07:35 pm »
Ok, first time I bothered to watch that video.  I won't be killing any puppies but I did find my eyes rolling a lot and fist clenching as often happens when I'm patronized.

I remember a similar talk was given at my school, about innovation, engineering, and science - when I was 10.  It still amazes me that it is often talks like this which gain investment, full of fluff, rather than actual demonstration.  I think that is really the massive divide between 'Engineer' and 'salesman/marketing/businessman.  If only I could ignore my principles and bullshit my way into wealth!
 

Offline StuUK

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 390
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #260 on: February 05, 2016, 03:36:35 pm »
The more I think about this, the more I come to conclusion that this is a panic move.
Why only bring in these experts now after 3+ years of development?
If the product worked as claimed why would they need these experts?
They certainly wouldn't need them for publicity, they's just demo the tech and people would go wild and throw money at them.
They can't need them for technical direction at this late stage of development.

I can only think of 3 scenarios:

1) The tech "kinda-sorta" works, but efficiency is crap (as everyone expects). They need them to tweak it and/or try some new tricks (futile of course, but hey, let's run with that)

2) Things are starting to go to shit, the investors are getting frustrated, so they finally bought in some adult technical supervision.

3) The wheels have completely fallen off the billy cart and the investors have bought in some brains to figure out if there is any salvageable technology that can be spun off (I think there is likely some things of niche worth there)

I put money on (3). I was one of those 'brains' brought in to see if anything was salvageable on a VC/DOTCOM fail, basically you sign a NDA and get paid a decent check to trawl over the shite that they've spent millions on with no oversight or 'grown ups' making sure it's all sensible. At the end of it you struggle to deliver any good news back to the VC and basically deliver the 'nope it really is shite' message...
 

Offline l0rd_hex

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 61
  • Country: ca
  • I'm a master of karate and friendship for everyone
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #261 on: February 05, 2016, 06:56:35 pm »
Ugh, I just saw her "respond to criticism" with a ridiculous explanation of her technology:



Besides wasting money on something that isn't feasible, I can't help cringe thinking about what a poor example she's setting for women in tech. 
"I haven't paid taxes in six years, and I'm not getting busted by a damn sandwich." - Benjamin Franklin
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 37661
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #262 on: February 05, 2016, 10:34:52 pm »
Besides wasting money on something that isn't feasible, I can't help cringe thinking about what a poor example she's setting for women in tech.

She claims to support women in tech, but last I checked, not a single female engineer employed at Ubeam.
 

Offline mikeselectricstuff

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13694
  • Country: gb
    • Mike's Electric Stuff
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #263 on: February 05, 2016, 10:40:52 pm »
Besides wasting money on something that isn't feasible, I can't help cringe thinking about what a poor example she's setting for women in tech.

She claims to support women in tech, but last I checked, not a single female engineer employed at Ubeam.
Maybe they're too smart to want to work on a hopeless cause
Youtube channel:Taking wierd stuff apart. Very apart.
Mike's Electric Stuff: High voltage, vintage electronics etc.
Day Job: Mostly LEDs
 

Offline Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5315
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #264 on: February 05, 2016, 10:41:11 pm »
Ugh, I just saw her "respond to criticism" with a ridiculous explanation of her technology:



Besides wasting money on something that isn't feasible, I can't help cringe thinking about what a poor example she's setting for women in tech.

With a performance like that I can just see how she managed to raise $23.2m from a VC who takes due diligence so seriously. I am sooo in the wrong job.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 37661
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #265 on: February 05, 2016, 10:48:25 pm »
She claims to support women in tech, but last I checked, not a single female engineer employed at Ubeam.
Maybe they're too smart to want to work on a hopeless cause

There are (for whatever reason) less women in tech, so odds of finding one gullible enough to work on Ubeam is much lower than male engineers I guess.
But maybe they are just less gullible and smarter in general. They watched her TED Talk and went NOPE.
 

Online tszaboo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7304
  • Country: nl
  • Current job: ATEX product design
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #266 on: February 05, 2016, 11:04:53 pm »
I have not read the whole post and probably my rant have been discussed before: Why is this people proceed with this kind of projects

This will explain everything, here is the founder and "technology innovator"  ::)
TRIGGER WARNING: This video may cause engineers to go postal, or kill a puppy or something
Hey, they are using it for weapons! Lets commercialize it, and give it to people so they can charge their stupid phones. I like the way she described, how she became completely ignorant to reality. And people kept telling her: bad idea, dont do it, jet, she thinks somehow managed to find the holy grail of technology.
You know, I will not feel bad for her, when she gets the boot after the money runs out. Or even worse, when the first lawsuits of injured people will come. Because she kept repeatedly, time after time insulting us professionals, just in ten minutes.
And that, lady, makes you an ignorant censored.
 

Offline djacobow

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1151
  • Country: us
  • takin' it apart since the 70's
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #267 on: February 05, 2016, 11:25:14 pm »
TRIGGER WARNING: This video may cause engineers to go postal, or kill a puppy or something

Thanks for that. These videos do make me want to scream. And yet, I'm drawn to them because .... I dunno. I have to figure out how the hell she has gotten to this place. It isn't "stupidity" for sure, and if it is pure "fraud," she certainly seems to believe it herself, unless she is a fantastic actor.

My current theory is that it is a toxic mix of willful ignorance combined with innumeracy. Yes, wireless power is everywhere, and sound is fine .... but about numbers: some are very big and some are very small, and numbers cannot be arbitrarily substituted for one another. Are light and sound perfectly safe and non-carcinogenic? I know some will be surprised to hear ... it depends! Gee!

As for role models for young women, yes, I want to see more videos from thoughtful female engineers and scientists, particularly those who are not pitching.


 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 37661
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #268 on: February 05, 2016, 11:39:36 pm »
Thanks for that. These videos do make me want to scream. And yet, I'm drawn to them because .... I dunno. I have to figure out how the hell she has gotten to this place. It isn't "stupidity" for sure, and if it is pure "fraud," she certainly seems to believe it herself, unless she is a fantastic actor.

She in't acting, she really does believe it will work, she is a true believer. She's also passionate about it, enthusiastic, and assertive.
There was also some early luck in big media exposure.
Combine that with people who want to believe, VC's who are desperately looking for Unicorns, and bingo, there you have it, $22M in funding.
The funding wouldn't have happened if she was shy and timid.

Quote
As for role models for young women, yes, I want to see more videos from thoughtful female engineers and scientists, particularly those who are not pitching.

Yes, unfortunately in this case Meredith was pitching, well, Meredith.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 37661
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #269 on: February 08, 2016, 04:53:15 am »
It seems that Ms Perry was/is being sued by her former co-founder:
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/12d0733p.pdf
 

Offline Dubbie

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1114
  • Country: nz
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #270 on: February 08, 2016, 06:34:24 am »
I think they settled a year or two ago.
I think Dweck may have dodged a bullet there!


Sent from my phone using Tapatalk
 

Offline l0rd_hex

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 61
  • Country: ca
  • I'm a master of karate and friendship for everyone
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #271 on: February 08, 2016, 06:41:38 am »
I wonder what the issue was exactly, from the PDF it seems like Dweck resigned from uBeam:

On June 6, 2011, Dweck told Perry that she had decided to resign to accept a job in Los Angeles, California.

Maybe she still owned a percentage of the business?
"I haven't paid taxes in six years, and I'm not getting busted by a damn sandwich." - Benjamin Franklin
 

Offline l0rd_hex

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 61
  • Country: ca
  • I'm a master of karate and friendship for everyone
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #272 on: February 08, 2016, 06:46:14 am »
Hmm, I just noticed this press release on her Twitter*: https://twitter.com/meredithperry:

http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2016/feb/04/ubeam-hires-two-ultrasound-veterans/

Interesting to see that uBeam denied all their requests for an interview... not hiding anything there eh?

Also this meeting between O'Donnell and Perry sounds pretty interesting:

Quote
O’Donnell said he decided to become involved with uBeam after meeting with Perry at the company’s headquarters for a day.

I'm guessing she just pointed to a big stack of VC money and O'Donnell thought of all the nice things he could buy with it. It's nice that Perry overlooked the fact he's a filthy ENGINEER and is allowing him to screw up her baby with all his logic and thinking ;D

*Note: I don't recommend reading her tweets unless you want to listen to the self-glorifying verbal diarrhea of a 20-something hambeast**

** I don't mean this in a purely derogatory sense --  I probably would say "meatball" but hambeast sounds better.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2016, 06:10:27 pm by l0rd_hex »
"I haven't paid taxes in six years, and I'm not getting busted by a damn sandwich." - Benjamin Franklin
 

Offline mikeselectricstuff

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13694
  • Country: gb
    • Mike's Electric Stuff
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #273 on: February 08, 2016, 11:46:36 am »
Quote
Perry told the Business Journal in September that uBeam would have a wireless charging product to market by this year backed by “massive multi-million (unit) production.”

Quote
Matt O’Donnell, now chairman of uBeam’s technical advisor board. In the article, O’Donnell said:
"There is multiplicative risk in getting all of this together to work, but it may be possible."

Shipping millions of something that "may be possible" :-DD


Youtube channel:Taking wierd stuff apart. Very apart.
Mike's Electric Stuff: High voltage, vintage electronics etc.
Day Job: Mostly LEDs
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 37661
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #274 on: February 08, 2016, 12:38:31 pm »
Interesting to see that uBeam denied all their requests for an interview... not hiding anything there eh?

Of course not. They'll only talk to their vested buddies at Tech Crunch, other people are annoying and ask hard questions  ::)
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf