Winning a book on most detail ever published - what are you trying to do, land a job with them. No, you are disputing them so not the case. Are you with a competitor and merely want to take them out or whats the agenda here?
I think point #13 sums up OP's reasons quite well.
Your agenda, however, I'm not so sure of as you are a brand new user on this forum who just happened to choose this thread to make a first post. Are you a supporter and merely want to overlook OP's valid points by questioning his motives?
There is no agenda; merely doing research on the topic and was surprised at the number of detailed analyses by one individual. It made me wonder if they were working for a competitor, or maybe even used to work for ubeam. I was referred to this site by a fellow researcher. One has to assume that the fellow putting so much effort into the analysis is wanting to compete, join, or debunk the company?
The recent LABJ article might do that for him if the goal is debunking since the CEO is now being compared to Theranos who'd technology was also kept secret too long for critics. But the details of the specs that ubeam released do offer some indications that there are a lot of huge risks ahead if ubeam ever hopes to bring a product to consumers at a reasonable price point. The comparative data for Energous also makes one question their validity of claims, and yet they don't get the amount of blog criticisms.
Aren't they, and for that matter, all new wireless power transmission endeavors including witriity destined to fail in the minds of those who aren't in the deep day to day engineering that each of the companies is chasing? It is a new technology and has to overcome challenges or it wouldn't be worth inventing. Conceding though that the challenges are fairly dominating in the timeframe they claim to be launching.
uBeam have given Techcrunch (whose owner runs CrunchFund, investors in uBeam) some new information:
http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/wireless-power-charger/
- uBeam has developed a high-powered air-coupled ultrasonic transducer to transmit and receive sound waves at a single frequency within the range of 45kHz to 75kHz with an output of 145dB to 155dB (or 316 W/m2 – 3kW/m2)
- uBeam can charge multiple devices simultaneously within a range of up to a 4 meter radius from a single transmitter
- uBeam is designed to deliver a minimum of 1.5 watts of electricity to smartphones, or enough to keep a phone from losing battery life even when being heavily used. Depending on the number of devices being charged simultaneously by a single transmitter, and depending on the distance of those devices to the transmitter, uBeam could charge devices at comparable rates to a wire, or faster.
- uBeam has 30-plus filed patents and 6 issued ones. At the core of its technology is the transducer the company invented, which it believes can deliver more power at the right frequency than any other.
- The patents also cover technologies including its ultrasonic phased array transmitter that includes thousands of individually addressable and controllable elements, its beamforming algorithms that can shape and steer multiple beams to multiple moving devices, and the receiver that can harvest acoustic power from these beams coming in from multiple angles.
- At launch, uBeam plans to both sell its transmitters and work with partners to install them in public places like restaurants, hotels, or cafes. It will also both sell the receiver phone cases and work with partners to loan them out to patrons of places with transmitters installed.
They claim "The information here about focused beams, frequency, and decibel level dispels many of the rumors about uBeam being too inefficient or unsafe. " with a link to this page behind 'rumors'.
They speak to Matthew O'Donnell: http://depts.washington.edu/bioe/portfolio-items/odonnell/
and Babur Hadimioglu https://www.linkedin.com/pub/babur-hadimioglu/8/799/b53
Would be fascinated to see a response from George Smith
(ps yes this is my first post, long-time lurker & youtube video watcher, first time poster)
George Smith, you really need to question Energous' claims.QuoteEnergous is a publicly traded company (stock symbol WATT). Their website describes a charging technology called WattUp, which transmits power via radio waves[51]. Energous's website says that each WattUp transmitter can reach a range of 15 feet, and charge 12 devices at once[51]. Energous has signed a partnership agreement with a "tier one consumer electronics company"[52], likely Apple or Samsung[53], to include its technology in cellphones. uBeam's website claims that "RF [radio] and microwaves also both require impractically large transmitters and receivers to send power over distances greater than a meter"[1], but this appears to have been proven false by Energous's CES demonstration[8].
Here is the only article raising questions.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3024956-energous-more-reasons-to-be-dubious
Energous claims 16W at 5 feet using 5.7 GHz.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/energous-wattup-wireless-charging-haier,27944.html
Even assuming 100% efficiency and zero inverse square loss, the FCC transmit max is 1 watt and we all know EIRP doesn't actually mean more energy. If Energous did focus the energy, they'd have to drop 1 dB transmit power for every 3 dBi antenna gain. Either way they're likely going to face more than 99.99% beam spread loss.
Energous seems to be pulling the same stunt as RCA.
I think this was brought up much earlier, but in a phased array type system, isn't there going to be substantial noise and harmonics in the negative space? Kind of how a fourier approximation can't quite perfectly make a step function, it has fuzzy noise at the corners.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/can-ubeams-throughtheair-phone-charging-system-live-up-to-the-hype
Thoroughly professional, researched, and pulls no punches. Exactly what you'd expect from the IEEE.
I haven't done in-depth investigation of Energous, so I can't speak to whether they exceed safety limits in that part of the radio spectrum. However, their device was recently tested by UL (link), and the results showed 4-5 watts at 5 feet, not 16 watts. Energous's stated design goal was 4 W at 5 feet, 2 W at 10 feet and 1 W at 15 feet.
I'm not saying it's is impossible to receive 4 watts at 5 feet, but your 5.7 GHz transmitters would have to be sending enormous amounts of energy, at least an order of magnitude greater than the energy received. Since when does the FCC allow you to transmit 40+ watts on unlicensed 5.7 GHz? The FCC max is 1W and you're only allowed to use 6 dBi gain when transmitting at max 1W. You may use 30 dBi gain, but you must reduce transmit power by 8 dBm to use such a high gain antenna.
I haven't done in-depth investigation of Energous, so I can't speak to whether they exceed safety limits in that part of the radio spectrum. However, their device was recently tested by UL (link), and the results showed 4-5 watts at 5 feet, not 16 watts. Energous's stated design goal was 4 W at 5 feet, 2 W at 10 feet and 1 W at 15 feet.
I'm not saying it's is impossible to receive 4 watts at 5 feet, but your 5.7 GHz transmitters would have to be sending enormous amounts of energy, at least an order of magnitude greater than the energy received. Since when does the FCC allow you to transmit 40+ watts on unlicensed 5.7 GHz? The FCC max is 1W and you're only allowed to use 6 dBi gain when transmitting at max 1W. You may use 30 dBi gain, but you must reduce transmit power by 8 dBm to use such a high gain antenna.The FCC maximum applies to a single transmitter. They don't prevent you using numerous transmitters. Any large office is doing so, with multiple 802.11 APs in the 5GHz band. Energous seem to be using arrays to achieve their goals.
I did consider this, but now we're talking about using 40 transmitter+antenna pairs just to charge one phone! And that's if you can actually deliver 0.1 watts with a single transmitter+antenna which is highly doubtful. Dave Jones' video shows how absurd the whole idea is.
Are any regulatory bodies really going to allow 155dB of sound (at any frequency) in public places? Surely not?
Are any regulatory bodies really going to allow 155dB of sound (at any frequency) in public places? Surely not?Is there anything to stop that right now, or would fresh regulation be required? The health and safety legislation in most places only seems to specify maximum sound intensities for frequencies up to 6kHz or 8kHz. This seems weird, as a machine putting out 155dB at 10kHz is definitely a problem.
Ultrasonics are regulated in the US primarily due to the sub harmonics issue:
https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/health_effects/ultrasonics.html
155 dB is totally out of the question. That is not a permissible exposure level at any frequency being discussed.
If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts
Are any regulatory bodies really going to allow 155dB of sound (at any frequency) in public places? Surely not?Is there anything to stop that right now, or would fresh regulation be required? The health and safety legislation in most places only seems to specify maximum sound intensities for frequencies up to 6kHz or 8kHz. This seems weird, as a machine putting out 155dB at 10kHz is definitely a problem.
It must be regulated somehow, while giant wind turbine farms can make ultrasound too, while its wing end passes the air at huge speeds
Wind turbine noise is supposedly classified as "infrasound."
This preliminary investigation recorded ultrasound from only a limited sample of wind turbines.
...
Potential sources of ultrasound from wind turbines include 1) ultrasound generated like a whistle from rotors moving through the air, 2) electronic components, and 3) mechanical components. The transmission and generator components of wind turbines do not turn with rotational speeds at which the generation of ultrasound would be expected. However, loss of lubrication on moving surfaces could occasionally result in ultrasound generation, but the maintenance schedules of the turbines would limit or avoid such occurrences.
New followup article by Garrett Reim: UBeam’s Disclosure Raises New Questions, Doesn’t Answer Old Ones
Furthermore, if uBeam’s receiver is not perpendicular to the ultrasonic beam, additional energy would fall out of focus and be wasted, experts said. In the TechCrunch blog post, uBeam also acknowledged it could not transmit through cloth or human flesh, meaning it would have difficulty charging a cellphone in your pocket or in hand.
“Presumably, the receiver surface is on the back of the phone where your hand is, so that’s going to cover that up,” said Pompei.
In essence, it appears an uBeam-equipped cellphone could only receive a trickle charge while flipped face down in your hand or on a table. That might make the system less useful than a PowerMat or Qi near-field wireless charging system, which charge face up.
And therein lies the major problem. Even if it is safe, efficient, low cost etc, no one is going to want have to charge their phone face down.
I believe there is a possible "green" aspect to the proposed technology that has not been discussed.
Given the rather large expenditure of power involved in transmitting the ultrasonic beams (offsetting the losses to air) perhaps coffee shops that embrace the technology would not have to heat their establishments in winter.
I believe there is a possible "green" aspect to the proposed technology that has not been discussed.
"The 25th First Annual Ig Nobel Prize Ceremony introduced ten new Ig Nobel Prize winners - Each has done something that makes people laugh then think"
Nope. Wind turbines aren't giant propellers. The blades aren't pushing on the air, the air is pushing on the blade. You'd be surprised how quiet they are when you stand right under one.
The whole 'wind farms make me sick' brigade pretty much belongs in the same camp as the "wifi makes me sick' brigade. Attempts have been made to record any sound at all in the houses of the affected but I don't think anybody's managed it yet.