Author Topic: The uBeam FAQ  (Read 288693 times)

PaulReynolds, lockes_empty_cabinet and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26789
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1100 on: November 19, 2017, 11:03:36 am »
Their sensor manufacturing tech (and maybe some beam forming ASIC) is all they have that's worth something.
All their stupid attempts at applications for this (which is what the entire company has been based on) are just laughable though.
And what does "significantly less expensive" mean? Why do they quantify the other factors but not the cost? Because it's 10% cheaper maybe? Whoopdy-do. You can bet that if it was 1/10th the cost they would have said so. So a huge problems remains of the cost of hundreds of these sensors for any reasonable watt level receiving (ignoring the ridiculously low efficiency)

« Last Edit: November 19, 2017, 11:08:18 am by EEVblog »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26789
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1101 on: November 19, 2017, 11:19:43 am »
And what possible reason could there be for spending money on an ASIC at this early stage? It's only ultrasonic - nothing that couldn't be handled by an FPGA/DSP and off-the-shelf analogue parts. $20M buys a lot of those.

So that you can tweet about it and call all us "linear thinkers" motherfu!@ers  ::)

 

Offline StillTrying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1409
  • Country: gb
  • 100% Brand New and High Quality, in theory.
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1102 on: November 19, 2017, 11:22:23 am »
Disclaimer @ 52:22, for just 1 sec. :-DD
« Last Edit: November 19, 2017, 11:31:10 am by StillTrying »
 

Offline brainwash

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 438
  • Country: de
    • Hack Correlation
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1103 on: November 19, 2017, 11:26:04 am »
So that you can tweet about it and call all us "linear thinkers" motherfu!@ers  ::)

We need to stop operating in our linear region. Go full zero or one. Zero is fine, look at all the great accomplishments from the zero people.
 

Offline Cyberdragon

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1709
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1104 on: November 19, 2017, 11:47:52 am »
And what possible reason could there be for spending money on an ASIC at this early stage? It's only ultrasonic - nothing that couldn't be handled by an FPGA/DSP and off-the-shelf analogue parts. $20M buys a lot of those.

No, it's so they can have some proprietary bullshit integrated into it like every garbage hippie IOT product. It must force you into some overpriced cloud service that steals all of your data and spies on you dressing. >:D
*BZZZZZZAAAAAP*
Voltamort strikes again!
Explodingus - someone who frequently causes accidental explosions
 

Online coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3633
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1105 on: November 19, 2017, 11:57:26 am »
And what possible reason could there be for spending money on an ASIC at this early stage? It's only ultrasonic - nothing that couldn't be handled by an FPGA/DSP and off-the-shelf analogue parts. $20M buys a lot of those.
Is the ASIC to do the signal processing, or is it a power device to drive the huge number of transmitter cells they have (or even combine energy from the array of receivers at the phone)?
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26789
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1106 on: November 19, 2017, 12:03:20 pm »
Disclaimer @ 52:22, for just 1 sec. :-DD

Well spotted!

 

Offline brainwash

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 438
  • Country: de
    • Hack Correlation
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1107 on: November 19, 2017, 12:29:36 pm »
And what possible reason could there be for spending money on an ASIC at this early stage? It's only ultrasonic - nothing that couldn't be handled by an FPGA/DSP and off-the-shelf analogue parts. $20M buys a lot of those.
Is the ASIC to do the signal processing, or is it a power device to drive the huge number of transmitter cells they have (or even combine energy from the array of receivers at the phone)?

As far as I understood, the ASIC design houses the transducers. Note, they are transducers/transceiver, with a possible intent of data transfer. I guess Nyquist was also a linear thinker...
 

Offline StillTrying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1409
  • Country: gb
  • 100% Brand New and High Quality, in theory.
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1108 on: November 19, 2017, 01:02:56 pm »
There's an in-car transmitter? :scared: :scared: :scared:

It's @ 26:00. I can't copy from VLC.

25 Amps drawn off the battery to trickle charge a phone, yep that'll work.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2017, 01:15:11 pm by StillTrying »
 

Online Richard Crowley

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3859
  • Country: us
  • KE7GKP
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1109 on: November 19, 2017, 02:22:47 pm »
Disclaimer @ 52:22, for just 1 sec. :-DD
That looks exactly like the boilerplate disclaimer that the US Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) requires of ALL companies. Nothing remarkable to see here, move along.
 

Online PaulReynolds

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 81
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1110 on: November 21, 2017, 04:23:46 am »
Disclaimer @ 52:22, for just 1 sec. :-DD
That looks exactly like the boilerplate disclaimer that the US Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) requires of ALL companies. Nothing remarkable to see here, move along.

Agreed. It's absolutely standard.
 

Online PaulReynolds

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 81
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1111 on: November 21, 2017, 04:25:39 am »
So after all this time all they can show is they are "talking to" a number of unspecified companies.

Hmm, I can't find it, but it has to be there. Can someone point me to Apple on this list? :)
« Last Edit: November 21, 2017, 07:16:30 am by PaulReynolds »
 

Offline StillTrying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1409
  • Country: gb
  • 100% Brand New and High Quality, in theory.
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1112 on: November 21, 2017, 09:37:38 am »
You've got to :-DD haven't you, they've already missed the 2017 Q4 millstone, any bets on the others.




Offline amspire

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3633
  • Country: au
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1113 on: November 21, 2017, 04:08:48 pm »
I love the picture of the uBeam soundbar along the bottom of the monitor.

I can't wait to be able to work all day directly in front of a 150dBm ultrasonic transmitter.

I can finally get rid of my $1 micro USB charging cable!
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8571
  • Country: 00
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1114 on: November 21, 2017, 05:48:33 pm »
I love the picture of the uBeam soundbar along the bottom of the monitor.

I can't wait to be able to work all day directly in front of a 150dBm ultrasonic transmitter.

...that costs about $5 a day to run (sum of transmitter power and aircon upgrade).

I can finally get rid of my $1 micro USB charging cable!

And the batteries in your mouse.

PS: I wonder how big the new uBeam mouses will be?
 

Offline sdpkom

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 9
  • Country: de
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1115 on: November 21, 2017, 09:08:36 pm »
How big the uBeam mouse will be.... Simple enough...


The transmitter sends out a collimated beam of 1KW/M^2, e.g. 0.1W per cm^2 of optical power.
There's some range, which means about 50% loss (Air is lossy), and conversion of ultrasound to electricity can be done at some 10% efficiency (commercial 1-2%)
Recievers have to work at some angles, I believe 45 degrees is minimal, so you need to reduce this by 30% more.
So that's about 3mW per cm^2 receiver, or 20mW/Inch^2


A mouse consumes about 1mW of power to run it and process the data, so the receiver can be small enough.

Now do the same for a phone.... A phone uses 5W to charge.... so you will need some 250 Inch^2 to charge it, you will need a 20" screen phablets (or phaTVs?) will easily accomodate it.
 

Offline Cyberdragon

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1709
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1116 on: November 22, 2017, 02:05:26 am »
If they're so damn sure it will charge a phone, why don't they try to power that desk lamp too? >:D :-DD
*BZZZZZZAAAAAP*
Voltamort strikes again!
Explodingus - someone who frequently causes accidental explosions
 

Offline mikerj

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1675
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1117 on: November 22, 2017, 03:23:46 am »
I can finally get rid of my $1 micro USB charging cable!

 :-+ The sooner we embrace single digit power efficiencies for consumer electronics, the sooner practical fusion power generation will have to happen.  She's doing the world a favour, really.

I wonder if she's approached Tesla for EV chargers yet?
 

Online PaulReynolds

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 81
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1118 on: November 22, 2017, 03:55:58 am »
How big the uBeam mouse will be.... Simple enough...


The transmitter sends out a collimated beam of 1KW/M^2, e.g. 0.1W per cm^2 of optical power.
There's some range, which means about 50% loss (Air is lossy), and conversion of ultrasound to electricity can be done at some 10% efficiency (commercial 1-2%)
Recievers have to work at some angles, I believe 45 degrees is minimal, so you need to reduce this by 30% more.
So that's about 3mW per cm^2 receiver, or 20mW/Inch^2


A mouse consumes about 1mW of power to run it and process the data, so the receiver can be small enough.

Now do the same for a phone.... A phone uses 5W to charge.... so you will need some 250 Inch^2 to charge it, you will need a 20" screen phablets (or phaTVs?) will easily accomodate it.

Not sure how you get that number for the phone. If at 150 dB that needs 0.005m^2 to get 5W, let's be super generous and say 10W with 50% efficiency of receive conversion, so 0.01m. An iPhone X is about 7.5 by 15cm so 0.01125m^2.

Wow, isn't that lucky. 150 dB works out perfectly, under perfect conditions and a receive efficiency similar to what you see in one of those pitch graphs, to charge an iPhone X rapidly. So if conditions aren't perfect, or 150dB is deemed unsafe, or receive efficiency can't approach 50%, then it's downhill from there.

Oh, and that's from a 0.33m^2 transmitter, say at 50% efficiency, so 666W used, so <1% efficiency.

 
The following users thanked this post: sdpkom

Offline Cyberdragon

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1709
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1119 on: November 22, 2017, 04:54:40 am »
I can finally get rid of my $1 micro USB charging cable!

 :-+ The sooner we embrace single digit power efficiencies for consumer electronics, the sooner practical fusion power generation will have to happen.  She's doing the world a favour, really.

I wonder if she's approached Tesla for EV chargers yet?

I think fusion, even wireless power might eventually become a reality. It won't be through sound waves though.
*BZZZZZZAAAAAP*
Voltamort strikes again!
Explodingus - someone who frequently causes accidental explosions
 
The following users thanked this post: sdpkom

Offline sdpkom

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 9
  • Country: de
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1120 on: November 22, 2017, 07:46:21 pm »
How big the uBeam mouse will be.... Simple enough...


The transmitter sends out a collimated beam of 1KW/M^2, e.g. 0.1W per cm^2 of optical power.
There's some range, which means about 50% loss (Air is lossy), and conversion of ultrasound to electricity can be done at some 10% efficiency (commercial 1-2%)
Recievers have to work at some angles, I believe 45 degrees is minimal, so you need to reduce this by 30% more.
So that's about 3mW per cm^2 receiver, or 20mW/Inch^2


A mouse consumes about 1mW of power to run it and process the data, so the receiver can be small enough.

Now do the same for a phone.... A phone uses 5W to charge.... so you will need some 250 Inch^2 to charge it, you will need a 20" screen phablets (or phaTVs?) will easily accomodate it.

Not sure how you get that number for the phone. If at 150 dB that needs 0.005m^2 to get 5W, let's be super generous and say 10W with 50% efficiency of receive conversion, so 0.01m. An iPhone X is about 7.5 by 15cm so 0.01125m^2.

Wow, isn't that lucky. 150 dB works out perfectly, under perfect conditions and a receive efficiency similar to what you see in one of those pitch graphs, to charge an iPhone X rapidly. So if conditions aren't perfect, or 150dB is deemed unsafe, or receive efficiency can't approach 50%, then it's downhill from there.

Oh, and that's from a 0.33m^2 transmitter, say at 50% efficiency, so 666W used, so <1% efficiency.

Unlike you, I'm not an ultrasound expert, so....
But I'm a practical person.... and believe products should be designed to be working, not to be lab experiments published in a research paper.

For a phone to charge, you need 5W of power, in normal conditions, that are actually competitive to available solutions, e.g. better compared to a Qi pad or usb cable.

The way I interpret the above is working when tilted to some degree (45 degrees sounds reasonable, although I would prefer 60-70)
At some distance (say 5-10 feet)
Even at 100% humidity, and cold/hot weather.
A phone that's as clean as a normal phone is, possibly with some of the area obscured.
It has to be safe, legal, and not annoying (to me, my kids or my pets, also, for it to be in my livingroom, it should not make a fan noise)

the number 1KW/M^2 is taken from uBeam's ppt, it's comparable to 150dB
I know it's possible to focus that power to a smaller spot with a phased array, but considering uBeam must be transmitting at a safe level (I'll take their word 150dB is safe and legal, althogh I know it to be not true), the beam cannot exceed this level at any point, in any weather conditions. So, if attenuation for dry air for 10-20dB higher compared to moist air, then the power density at the receiver can't exceed ~140dB acoustic.

Taking into account your 50% conversion efficiency (I believe you, although I never seen anything close) that's equivalent to 5mW/cm^2

The effective area of iPhone X tilted at 45 degrees is 70 cm^2 - that's not enough (if it were enough a solar cell would be enough to keep the phone charged, no transmitter needed).

at 5mW/cm^2 you need 1000 cm^2, taking 45 degrees phone tilt into account you need 1400cm^2

Considering phones are ~1-2 length/width ratio, that's ~35cm X 70 cm phone.

The diagonal of the screen would be almost 31 Inch.

If you're willing to charge a bit slower on a humid day.... I think 20 Inch would be enough.


 

Offline rt

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 55
  • Country: ie
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1121 on: November 22, 2017, 09:19:36 pm »
It has to be safe, legal, and not annoying (to me, my kids or my pets, also, for it to be in my livingroom, it should not make a fan noise)

the number 1KW/M^2 is taken from uBeam's ppt, it's comparable to 150dB

Don't worry.  After charging you phone at 150dB you DEFINITELY won't hear any fan noise  >:D

Please remember, Paul is doing generous calculations with reasonable/optimistic assumptions to show that this is impractical and extremely inefficient as proposed.  Arguing over small changes in assumptions doesn't change the essential message!

rt
 
The following users thanked this post: PaulReynolds

Offline StillTrying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1409
  • Country: gb
  • 100% Brand New and High Quality, in theory.
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1122 on: November 23, 2017, 12:50:13 am »
I love the picture of the uBeam soundbar along the bottom of the monitor.
I can't wait to be able to work all day directly in front of a 150dBm ultrasonic transmitter.

Don't worry, the uBean sound bar will only transmit the US power in narrow beams to devices actively requesting power using the uBean proprietary white rectangle power request protocol, - so everything will be fine. :horse:
« Last Edit: November 23, 2017, 12:52:04 am by StillTrying »
 

Online PaulReynolds

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 81
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1123 on: November 23, 2017, 05:19:17 am »

Not sure how you get that number for the phone. If at 150 dB that needs 0.005m^2 to get 5W, let's be super generous and say 10W with 50% efficiency of receive conversion, so 0.01m. An iPhone X is about 7.5 by 15cm so 0.01125m^2.


Unlike you, I'm not an ultrasound expert, so....
But I'm a practical person.... and believe products should be designed to be working, not to be lab experiments published in a research paper.

Thanks for explaining the methodology. It's mostly correct but what I suggest you look at is not the system from the Transmitter to the Receiver, but vice versa - the receiver is the fixed size, instead the question is "what's the size of transmitter needed to provide this power?". uBeam have stated the transmitter is 60x60cm for their "up to 8 Watts at 1 meter" chart, and somewhere between a small amount and all of that area can be used to target a phone. Even though there is loss between the transmitter and receiver, more transmit area can be applied to compensate for that loss and maintain the same power incident on the receiver, up until the point you run out of transmit area. Power delivered remains constant, but you lose efficiency - and that's the number that's hidden unless you go digging.

So I think you've run your numbers backwards. You've more done a "how much transmit area do I need to power a phone sized area at 5W?". You've come up with 1400 cm^2. The uBeam full panel is 3600 m^2. Ballpark similar, especially if you think they limit drive to 145dB (3x less power)

Once again we come back to the same point, which is - of course you can transmit power ultrasonically, but what about safety, efficiency, cost, and practicality?

And, as someone else points out, I tend to give calculations here that give best case numbers to a) keep it simple and b) show even in best case it's not great. Believe me, I know the difference between research and a practical product.


 
The following users thanked this post: sdpkom

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26789
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1124 on: November 23, 2017, 08:35:21 am »
I wonder if she's approached Tesla for EV chargers yet?

I waiting for the announcement of uBeam transmitters on power poles beside the road for charging cars.
Can someone please troll tweet Meredith with that idea to see if it's practical?  ;D
Makes sense after all, the power infrastructure is already there, and their beamforming tech has got to be great for targeting passing cars!
 
The following users thanked this post: sdpkom


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf