Author Topic: The uBeam FAQ  (Read 262854 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 25743
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1200 on: March 16, 2018, 09:14:39 am »
https://www.linkedin.com/in/larrypendergrass/

Another CTO of uBeam has left, for Keysight this time where real practical engineering happens  :-DD

At least he lasted 17 months, that's impressive.
 

Online Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4160
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1201 on: March 16, 2018, 09:27:32 pm »
https://www.linkedin.com/in/larrypendergrass/

Another CTO of uBeam has left, for Keysight this time where real practical engineering happens  :-DD

At least he lasted 17 months, that's impressive.

If I were him I'd be very glad to be putting the nonsense behind me, and count myself lucky to be getting back into the real engineering left behind six years ago.
 

Online Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4160
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1202 on: March 17, 2018, 05:42:07 pm »
About Theranos, an interesting parallel:

Quote
The SEC summed up what was wrong with Ms Holmes and Theranos in a damning report: "Innovators who seek to revolutionise and disrupt an industry must tell investors the truth about what their technology can do today - not just what they hope it might do someday."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43415967

 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7797
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1203 on: March 19, 2018, 06:47:02 pm »
Which part of the word "show" am I failing to understand?  :popcorn:





« Last Edit: March 19, 2018, 06:48:45 pm by Fungus »
 

Offline StillTrying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1176
  • Country: gb
  • 100% Brand New and High Quality, in theory.
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1204 on: March 24, 2018, 11:27:18 pm »

Online Cyberdragon

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1405
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1205 on: March 25, 2018, 02:20:22 am »
https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/977102334294605824  :horse:

Translate(str)

Translating:

Hello, we would like to rot more women's brains to decrease the overall intelligence of the female population.

 :palm:
*BZZZZZZAAAAAP*
Voltamort strikes again!
Explodingus - someone who frequently causes accidental explosions
 

Offline Raj

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Country: in
  • Self taught, experimenter, noob(ish)
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1206 on: April 17, 2018, 01:53:19 pm »
here's it's copycat-Kill it before it spwans- http://www.wi-charge.com/
 :palm: :scared: :-BROKE
they're trying to seek indian citizen's funding.kill it before that.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2018, 08:42:09 pm by Raj »
 

Offline Dubbie

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 635
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1207 on: April 17, 2018, 03:08:07 pm »
At least they specify what power they claim to deliver over what distance.
 

Online Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4160
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1208 on: April 17, 2018, 07:50:03 pm »
The video showed a phone sleeve with about a 2cm^2 aperture.

Assuming maximum IR is 1kW/m^2, then you'll get 0.2W into a 2cm^2 aperture, but then their own white paper says you need 2W to power a smartphone. That 2W I'd say is too high.

Looking at it another way, 0.2W is about 70mA of charging current. A common battery capacity of a phone is 2400mAh, so it'd take 34 hours to charge, assuming the phone wasn't taking any juice in standby, and that it would even consider charging at that rate.

Let's be generous and say a 2400mAh battery lasts about 10 days in standby, or 240 hours, so the phone standby current draw is 10mA, so net charging current is 60mA, or a 40 hour charge time in standby.

I'm sceptical that this charging rate is enough to gain general acceptance for the prime use case of call phones, but it seems a more practical and cheaper solution compared to uBeam, although I don't know how their beamforming works, I assume it'd be with mechanically adjusted lenses, which begs the question about the complexity for multiple targets.

If on the other hand it used a sleeve with a 5cm x 10 cm aperture on the back of the device, the charge rate would by 25 times that of a 2cm^2 aperture shown in the video, leading to a far more respectable 1.6 hour charge time.

Irrespective, just like uBeam and Energous, I'd say they're a very long way from delivering a useful practical product that fits the significant market they've hoodwinked their investors with.
 

Online PA0PBZ

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3492
  • Country: nl
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1209 on: April 17, 2018, 09:07:27 pm »
And how do you use it? To power a Qi pad of course!  :-DD

Keyboard error: Press F1 to continue.
 

Offline Daixiwen

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 34
  • Country: no
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1210 on: April 17, 2018, 11:31:02 pm »
Your calculation also assumes that the receiver is perfectly angled with the transmitter. With the use case they show, phone flat on the table, sender somewhere over the kitchen bench, you'll have less power available per unit of surface.
I really don't get how they can say they send 2W of power on such small surfaces and still pretend it's safe. I'd never try and put my hand between the phone and the sender. (I'll admit it's not a common use case... unless you'd like to.... pick up your phone for example?)
 

Online Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4160
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1211 on: April 18, 2018, 01:04:07 am »
Your calculation also assumes that the receiver is perfectly angled with the transmitter. With the use case they show, phone flat on the table, sender somewhere over the kitchen bench, you'll have less power available per unit of surface.
I really don't get how they can say they send 2W of power on such small surfaces and still pretend it's safe. I'd never try and put my hand between the phone and the sender. (I'll admit it's not a common use case... unless you'd like to.... pick up your phone for example?)

Indeed, I agree, I was deliberately giving them the benefit of the doubt! The point is is if it isn't practical in even the best case scenarios, it's a non-starter, unless the point is to extract money from poorly informed or educated investors.

The modus operandi is exactly the same as we've seen before, promise the world on a stick, with fancy marketing and well produced videos, but be permanently just 18 months off from being production ready with what you promised.
 

Offline Raj

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Country: in
  • Self taught, experimenter, noob(ish)
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1212 on: April 18, 2018, 08:43:25 pm »
still,even if it's 0.2wt laser,the most efficient solar cell is only efficient upto 44%
and what happens if the laser bending mechanism fails or someone somehow gets his face in the path of laser without the machine noticing it?
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 25743
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1213 on: April 18, 2018, 08:56:03 pm »
The modus operandi is exactly the same as we've seen before, promise the world on a stick, with fancy marketing and well produced videos, but be permanently just 18 months off from being production ready with what you promised.

You can live full time for many years on someone else's dime like this. Then when it fails, rinse and repeat using your new found fame like Meredith's. After all, wasn't she supposed to be the next Elon Musk?
http://fortune.com/2015/07/29/ubeam-meredith-perry-wireless-charging/
I mean, it's Fortune magazine...
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 25743
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1214 on: April 30, 2018, 06:18:00 pm »
More bragging on twitter.
New VP of Engineering:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/larry-starr-2328706/
And a whole host of new hires it seems, burning through the new cash in the pointless pursuit of ultrasonic charging  ::)

https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/990279009228369920

The attentive eye will note that they aren't the size arrays, so size comparisons are kinda  :palm:





« Last Edit: April 30, 2018, 06:19:43 pm by EEVblog »
 

Online NANDBlog

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3938
  • Country: be
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1215 on: May 01, 2018, 04:02:37 am »
https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/977102334294605824  :horse:

Translate(str)

Translating:

Hello, we would like to rot more women's brains to decrease the overall intelligence of the female population.

 :palm:
Isn't hiring based on gender illegal in the USA anyway?
It would be nice to bring down SJWs with their own weapons in a courtroom.
 

Offline jancumps

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Country: be
  • New Low
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1216 on: May 01, 2018, 04:13:12 am »
.....


Isn't hiring based on gender illegal in the USA anyway?
It would be nice to bring down SJWs with their own weapons in a courtroom.

Aw com'on, this is a technology debunking thread on an engineering forum. Over tired of trying to pull them into non-techno directions. The blog suffers from it.
 
The following users thanked this post: janoc, daveshah, Dubbie

Offline Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2693
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1217 on: May 01, 2018, 05:02:50 am »
.....


Isn't hiring based on gender illegal in the USA anyway?
It would be nice to bring down SJWs with their own weapons in a courtroom.

Aw com'on, this is a technology debunking thread on an engineering forum. Over tired of trying to pull them into non-techno directions. The blog suffers from it.

It does get a bit wearing doesn't it.

I've often wondered if the people who like to moan about "SJWs" at every turn would quieten down if we pointed out at every opportunity that the natural counterpart to the SJW must be the Anti-social Injustice Coward?  >:D
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 
The following users thanked this post: janoc, daveshah, Dubbie

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 25743
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1218 on: May 01, 2018, 09:13:00 pm »
Aw com'on, this is a technology debunking thread on an engineering forum. Over tired of trying to pull them into non-techno directions. The blog suffers from it.

What does that mean?
 

Offline Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2693
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1219 on: May 01, 2018, 11:21:58 pm »
Aw com'on, this is a technology debunking thread on an engineering forum. Over tired of trying to pull them into non-techno directions. The blog suffers from it.

What does that mean?

I read that as a slip and assumed, just from context, they meant 'forum' rather than 'blog'.
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 

Offline jancumps

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Country: be
  • New Low
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1220 on: May 02, 2018, 12:21:28 am »
yes, the forum. I meant to say the EEVblog forum, then goofed up :)
 

Offline StillTrying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1176
  • Country: gb
  • 100% Brand New and High Quality, in theory.
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1221 on: May 02, 2018, 12:33:32 am »
It looks like they've given up on things like efficiency, and turned to producing endless mis-shaped prototypes instead, those enclosures might be surplus from something else, plenty of ventilation needed to get 0.8W into a phone battery!
The good news is that with that rate of size reduction it will vanish completely in less than 1 year. :) :horse:

Offline LaserSteve

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 670
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1222 on: May 02, 2018, 12:34:10 am »
Tainted  comparison picture...   First prototype appears to be a "MEB", ie mostly empty box on the side view.  I'm used to seeing MEBs in marketing demos... Make the investor think they are getting something, or harvested from the local surplus yard are the big driver of MEBs...

EDIT:   latest proto looks three D printed, and those big vents are going to cause issues in a commercial environment.

Steve
« Last Edit: May 02, 2018, 12:37:48 am by LaserSteve »
"I've Never Heard of a Nuclear Meltdown Caused by a Buffer Overflow"  filssavi
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 25743
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1223 on: May 02, 2018, 12:41:51 am »
It looks like they've given up on things like efficiency

Forced to by those pesky laws of physics  ;D

[quote
The good news is that with that rate of size reduction it will vanish completely in less than 1 year. :) :horse:
[/quote]

Boom-tish!
 
The following users thanked this post: jancumps

Offline Kevman

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 134
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1224 on: May 02, 2018, 03:26:00 am »
More bragging on twitter.
New VP of Engineering:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/larry-starr-2328706/
And a whole host of new hires it seems, burning through the new cash in the pointless pursuit of ultrasonic charging  ::)

https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/990279009228369920

The attentive eye will note that they aren't the size arrays, so size comparisons are kinda  :palm:


I love that the size comparison has the largest enclosure open, showing that its mostly empty.

Looks to me like you could fit the largest into the middle just by switching to properly sized backplanes.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf