uBeam - Electrical Engineer

[Zman]

this reminds me classic:

[Howardlong]

The moral of this for me is that the presence of venture capital is *zero* indication of due diligence on anyone's part.

Here is how they do their due diligence:
http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2014/10/30/the-audacious-plan-to-make-electricity-as-easy-as-wifi/

"Sucker lists" contain phone numbers of gullible people that fall victim to cold calls from teleslime operators.
Now we can start a "VC sucker list" of gullible companies.

Well they are right, the physics is proven on this remote phone charging. And the physics says it won't work without rattling itself and your house apart, needing three phase to power it, and being about 0.005% efficient. But at least, when table mounted, your sauces won't get a skin on them.

They cannot admit it's bullshit because:

(A) They're already investing other people's money;

(B) It's their career, reputation and trustworthiness on the line;

(C) They need to be in a position to sell off their tangibly worthless investment to someone else to at least get something back before the cat's out of the bag.

Because of all of these a VC will never admit any investment they make is based on a steaming pile of dog turd, at least not until they're rid of it and have made a positive ROI in (C). I am thus really struggling to define the difference between this type of VC "investment" and a Ponzi scheme.

[Howardlong]

this reminds me classic:

Indeed, the client bears an uncanny similarity to Meredith Perry in character traits.

[tggzzz]

They cannot admit it's bullshit because:

(A) They're already investing other people's money;

(B) It's their career, reputation and trustworthiness on the line;

(C) They need to be in a position to sell off their tangibly worthless investment to someone else to at least get something back before the cat's out of the bag.

Because of all of these a VC will never admit any investment they make is based on a steaming pile of dog turd, at least not until they're rid of it and have made a positive ROI in (C). I am thus really struggling to define the difference between this type of VC "investment" and a Ponzi scheme.

The important difference is easy to define: one is legal, one is illegal.

[EEVblog]

They cannot admit it's bullshit because:
(A) They're already investing other people's money;
(B) It's their career, reputation and trustworthiness on the line;
(C) They need to be in a position to sell off their tangibly worthless investment to someone else to at least get something back before the cat's out of the bag.

When it does fail they will blame it on anything but the idea being impractical from an engineering point of view.
And they'll boast (perhaps rightly) about their great beamforming technology and production electronics etc, and how it was "ahead of it's time" 
I give it another year, tops.
If they are the least bit smart the would have already been spinning off some niche tech from it for other applications. Just like SolarRoadways will have to do, and make into fancy pavements or something, because the whole road concept was flawed to begin with.

[EEVblog]

The important difference is easy to define: one is legal, one is illegal.

Reminds me of pyramid schemes. Once they became illegal they simply make a few legal tweaks and renamed it multilevel marketing.

[B.B.Bubby]

So, she's a great social engineer.

Engineering is engineering - she's just from a different discipline

If i could sucker a VC out of millions I would.

Why the hate? 

[Howardlong]

Remember VC funding isn't just from over rich individuals, it also comes from other places like our pension pots, so when this fails the likes of you and me lose out too.

But perhaps more simply, it's a scam, and nobody likes being scammed.

Social engineering is all about scamming and fraud. Real engineering is not.

But I agree it is a form of social engineering in the end. While Meredith Perry might be charitably called naive, the VC types such as here http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2014/10/30/the-audacious-plan-to-make-electricity-as-easy-as-wifi/ are either knowingly misrepresenting or incompetent, and my money's on the former.

[LabSpokane]

So, she's a great social engineer.

Engineering is engineering - she's just from a different discipline

If i could sucker a VC out of millions I would.

Why the hate?

VCs aren't the suckers, we are. They are betting on getting out at the IPO - well before the flaws become publicly known. Howard is exactly correct about the pension funds and mutual funds etc being some of  the prime buyers of these stocks.

This whole mess really has become a form of legalized fraud. Nobody cares if the science pencils out.  Somebody should.

[EEVblog]

Why the hate?

Hating the impracticality of idea and product is not the same as hating the person, don't make the mistake of equating them.

And if you want to know why engineers aren't exactly sending her xmas cards, watch this, she doesn't have kind things to say about us:

[zapta]

And if you want to know why engineers aren't exactly sending her xmas cards, watch this, she doesn't have kind things to say about us:

She says at the end of that video 'never give up'. Let's see if she will dedicate the rest of her life to this failing idea.  I say 2-3 years at most and then she will give another talk about how other people failed her.

[fcb]

I can't see any reason it won't work (in theory) - phased array transmitter following the receiving device around. Simple...

Of course, it will be potentially dangerous and harmful if you get in the way of the beam, the overshoot of the beam or even a reflection of the beam, but one assumes they figured that out already.

And you'll need something built into or attached to your phone/device. Much like (wildly successful) inductive charging.. But clearly not a big hurdle for them to leap if they've worked out the other things.

Yup, I can see a bright future for this.

[Towger]

I can't see any reason it won't work (in theory) - phased array transmitter following the receiving device around. Simple...

From the online help of Borland Turbo C++ for DOS:

Code: [Select]

|sound, nosound|                     
  ________________
•sound turns the PC speaker on at the specified frequency
•nosound turns the PC speaker off

Declaration:
•void sound(unsigned frequency);
•void nosound(void);

Remarks:
•sound turns on the PC's speaker at a given frequency.
•nosound turns the speaker off after it has been turned on by a call to sound.
frequency specifies the frequency of the sound in hertz (cycles per second).
Return Value: None

Portability:
 + DOS + UNIX + ANSI C + C++ Only +
 | Yes |      |        |          |
 +-----+------+--------+----------+


See Also:

delay
Example (for both functions):


/* Emits a 7-Hz tone for 10 seconds.

      True story: 7 Hz is the resonant
      frequency of a chicken's skull cavity.
      This was determined empirically in
      Australia, where a new factory
      generating 7-Hz tones was located too
      close to a chicken ranch: When the
      factory started up, all the chickens
      died.

      Your PC may not be able to emit a 7-Hz tone. */

 #include

 int main(void)
 {
    sound(7);
    delay(10000);
    nosound();
    return 0;
 }

[Icarus]

I can't see any reason it won't work (in theory) - phased array transmitter following the receiving device around. Simple...

Of course, it will be potentially dangerous and harmful if you get in the way of the beam, the overshoot of the beam or even a reflection of the beam, but one assumes they figured that out already.

And you'll need something built into or attached to your phone/device. Much like (wildly successful) inductive charging.. But clearly not a big hurdle for them to leap if they've worked out the other things.

Yup, I can see a bright future for this.

There is also huge amount of attenuation as well
http://lookatmeimdanny.tumblr.com/post/101432017159/how-putting-10m-into-ubeam-illustrates-everything
Okay, by now we have been talked about what would happened if a body close to beam.
But there is also another issue; If you have a resonable powerful ultrasound beam travel through a thermoviscous fuild -such as Air- self-demodulation may occur.
LRAD uses this principle.

[fcb]

I never said it would be efficient..

[Howardlong]

The interesting thing is that the VC wankers who say the physics work don't give ANY documentary evidence that it does.

One individual, admittedly highly under qualified by dint of his physics degree and years of experience in ultrasonics in medical development, is dismissed by the VC, who then fails to give the details of his own "due diligence" other than do say it works.

The only reason the VC is bigging it up is so they can sell their soiled underwear to someone else before anyone smells it. Hopefully t'internet will reveal the truth before some unwitting souls are coerced into it.

[EEVblog]

The interesting thing is that the VC wankers who say the physics work don't give ANY documentary evidence that it does.

Of course they don't, they are technical geniuses who instinctively knew it will be practical 

The only reason the VC is bigging it up is so they can sell their soiled underwear to someone else before anyone smells it. Hopefully t'internet will reveal the truth before some unwitting souls are coerced into it.

Will be interesting to see if this one implodes, or just goes out with a whimper.

[fcb]

The interesting thing is that the VC wankers who say the physics work don't give ANY documentary evidence that it does.

One individual, admittedly highly under qualified by dint of his physics degree and years of experience in ultrasonics in medical development, is dismissed by the VC, who then fails to give the details of his own "due diligence" other than do say it works.

Why should the VC have to give details of their "due diligence" They aren't asking you to invest - it's a private matter.

The only reason the VC is bigging it up is so they can sell their soiled underwear to someone else before anyone smells it. Hopefully t'internet will reveal the truth before some unwitting souls are coerced into it.

That's a pretty cynical spin on things. But I get the sentiment.

As I've said earlier, I can't see any reason why this wouldn't work from a science POV - I can see many reasons why it won't work commercially in a 'wireless power of laptops and smart phones' application, but perhaps they have other applications in mind..

[B.B.Bubby]

Remember VC funding isn't just from over rich individuals, it also comes from other places like our pension pots, so when this fails the likes of you and me lose out too.

But perhaps more simply, it's a scam, and nobody likes being scammed.

Social engineering is all about scamming and fraud. Real engineering is not.

But I agree it is a form of social engineering in the end. While Meredith Perry might be charitably called naive, the VC types such as here http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2014/10/30/the-audacious-plan-to-make-electricity-as-easy-as-wifi/ are either knowingly misrepresenting or incompetent, and my money's on the former.

As the above post - it all comes down to due diligence. If the VC's don't practice this and would rather play a numbers game based on what idea / pie in the sky product is trending on twitter then fark them.

They need a lessen in economic Darwinism.

Once the current business model / practice the VC's use disappears, then maybe it'll be feasible to obtain funding without having to give up everything 

What are the current stats on VC funding success rates?   1 in 10  show a return?  no wonder they have to gouge and screw!!

I'm sure the good VC's have a better return rate than 1 in ten, but their rates are going to be set on the industry average.

While the dickwad VC's who do no research (other than social trends) continue to do business, well it kind of screws it up for everyone else.

Let Darwin do his job and screw them.    BTW, I do my own superannuation for this very reason     

(still got no money though    ) 

[Marco]

How are you supposed to make high Q ultrasonic transducers with an impedance close to air? AFAIK they don't exist.

[SteveyG]

How are you supposed to make high Q ultrasonic transducers with an impedance close to air? AFAIK they don't exist.

The trouble is, you're thinking linearly whereas you need to think exponentially. Only then will it become clear.

[EEVblog]

Why should the VC have to give details of their "due diligence" They aren't asking you to invest - it's a private matter.

When they write a public article supporting and spruiking the investment and going into systematic reasons to why it's a winner, then yes, they can expect criticism about the reasons they have published.
In this case, I think you can bet your bottom dollar that if they guy had real technical evidence to back his investment he certainly would have mentioned it.

As I've said earlier, I can't see any reason why this wouldn't work from a science POV - I can see many reasons why it won't work commercially in a 'wireless power of laptops and smart phones' application, but perhaps they have other applications in mind..

Bingo.
No one is saying it can't work, of course it can, that is demonstrably true.
It's just ridiculously impractical.

[zapta]

As I've said earlier, I can't see any reason why this wouldn't work from a science POV - I can see many reasons why it won't work commercially in a 'wireless power of laptops and smart phones' application, but perhaps they have other applications in mind..

Perhaps not. At the end of the TED video she mentioned charging an iPhone  so she definitely sets the expectations higher than just miniscule power.

She is full of it and the TED crowd claps for her. They used to have higher bar.

[rs20]

If i could sucker a VC out of millions I would.

Nice, real high standards you got there.

[Howardlong]

The interesting thing is that the VC wankers who say the physics work don't give ANY documentary evidence that it does.

One individual, admittedly highly under qualified by dint of his physics degree and years of experience in ultrasonics in medical development, is dismissed by the VC, who then fails to give the details of his own "due diligence" other than do say it works.

Why should the VC have to give details of their "due diligence" They aren't asking you to invest - it's a private matter.

They are bigging it up for three reasons. Firstly to make those who've actually put up the money behind the VC not feel like idiots; secondly so that they maximise the value when it comes to getting out at later funding stages for other unsuspecting investors; and thirdly to protect their perceived reputation and trustworthiness as a successful investor for future scams high potential opportunities.

After all, you're hardly going to say your investment is a turkey if your intention is to sell it on at a profit.

They are not interested in staying in for the longer term, only realising a profit from their investment in a flawed concept.

The only reason the VC is bigging it up is so they can sell their soiled underwear to someone else before anyone smells it. Hopefully t'internet will reveal the truth before some unwitting souls are coerced into it.

That's a pretty cynical spin on things. But I get the sentiment.

As I've said earlier, I can't see any reason why this wouldn't work from a science POV - I can see many reasons why it won't work commercially in a 'wireless power of laptops and smart phones' application, but perhaps they have other applications in mind..

We agree, it can work but not in practical terms, not by a long way. But their stated aim is to charge mobile devices such as cellphones and laptops.

The problem we have at the moment is that with low interest rates and mediocre performing stocks globally, there are plenty of people with money to invest in something that is perceived to be better performing. The parallels to the 2000 dot com bubble are worrying.