www.allpcb.com

Author Topic: The uBeam FAQ  (Read 140367 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline crispy_tofu

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1124
  • Country: au
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #25 on: October 21, 2015, 01:34:18 PM »


666 guests viewing the thread???  :wtf:

611 now... must be very popular?   ???
 

Offline NANDBlog

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2877
  • Country: be
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #26 on: October 21, 2015, 09:08:06 PM »


666 guests viewing the thread???  :wtf:

611 now... must be very popular?   ???
Someone is generating traffic to this particular forum, for SEO, which is also a FAQ. So as far as I'm concerned we arrived to the deep $#%#$% of the internet age again, payed dislikes, clicks and stuff.
I guess uBeam has to go on the top on google search.
That probably explains what kind of "innovators" we are dealing with.
 

Offline DeuxVis

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 5
  • Country: fr
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #27 on: October 21, 2015, 10:58:14 PM »


666 guests viewing the thread???  :wtf:

611 now... must be very popular?   ???
Someone is generating traffic to this particular forum, for SEO, which is also a FAQ. So as far as I'm concerned we arrived to the deep $#%#$% of the internet age again, payed dislikes, clicks and stuff.
I guess uBeam has to go on the top on google search.
That probably explains what kind of "innovators" we are dealing with.

Don't get paranoid  :) The traffic possibly comes from the fact this post have been hack(aday)ed : http://hackaday.com/2015/10/20/the-curious-case-of-ultrasonic-power-transfer/
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 23203
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #28 on: October 21, 2015, 11:34:10 PM »
Dave (or anyone else who wants to share their opinion), what are your thoughts about Qi or other inductive wireless charging products for mobile phones?

I just got one for my phone, and it's completely flakey. Granted, it was a cheapie.
I'm actually planning on some experiments in this area.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2388
  • Country: hk
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #29 on: October 22, 2015, 03:09:13 AM »
Dave (or anyone else who wants to share their opinion), what are your thoughts about Qi or other inductive wireless charging products for mobile phones?

I just got one for my phone, and it's completely flakey. Granted, it was a cheapie.
I'm actually planning on some experiments in this area.
A lot of them are a stupid shape, so the phone won't stay in the right place easily, and a tablet has almost no chance.
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6017
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #30 on: October 22, 2015, 03:13:16 AM »
Dave (or anyone else who wants to share their opinion), what are your thoughts about Qi or other inductive wireless charging products for mobile phones?

I just got one for my phone, and it's completely flakey. Granted, it was a cheapie.
I'm actually planning on some experiments in this area.
A lot of them are a stupid shape, so the phone won't stay in the right place easily, and a tablet has almost no chance.

A good inductive power surface should be orientation and position free. I saw 12 years ago a 10" square prototype with 70% efficiency that did it and supported multiple phones. This didn't get to the market for non technical reasons.

Free positioning constructive surfaces can achieve even 95% efficiency.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2015, 03:18:29 AM by zapta »
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline NANDBlog

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2877
  • Country: be
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #31 on: October 22, 2015, 05:15:19 AM »
Don't get paranoid  :) The traffic possibly comes from the fact this post have been hack(aday)ed : http://hackaday.com/2015/10/20/the-curious-case-of-ultrasonic-power-transfer/
or that.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2388
  • Country: hk
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #32 on: October 22, 2015, 06:57:12 PM »
Dave (or anyone else who wants to share their opinion), what are your thoughts about Qi or other inductive wireless charging products for mobile phones?

I just got one for my phone, and it's completely flakey. Granted, it was a cheapie.
I'm actually planning on some experiments in this area.
A lot of them are a stupid shape, so the phone won't stay in the right place easily, and a tablet has almost no chance.

A good inductive power surface should be orientation and position free. I saw 12 years ago a 10" square prototype with 70% efficiency that did it and supported multiple phones. This didn't get to the market for non technical reasons.

Free positioning constructive surfaces can achieve even 95% efficiency.
How well do these position free inductive systems of yours work when the phone has fallen on the floor. I suspect they were slightly less position free than you are letting on. Most QI charger gadgets are small. Phones are big. They just slide off.
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6017
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #33 on: October 26, 2015, 09:36:14 AM »
Dave (or anyone else who wants to share their opinion), what are your thoughts about Qi or other inductive wireless charging products for mobile phones?

I just got one for my phone, and it's completely flakey. Granted, it was a cheapie.
I'm actually planning on some experiments in this area.
A lot of them are a stupid shape, so the phone won't stay in the right place easily, and a tablet has almost no chance.

A good inductive power surface should be orientation and position free. I saw 12 years ago a 10" square prototype with 70% efficiency that did it and supported multiple phones. This didn't get to the market for non technical reasons.

Free positioning constructive surfaces can achieve even 95% efficiency.
How well do these position free inductive systems of yours work when the phone has fallen on the floor. I suspect they were slightly less position free than you are letting on. Most QI charger gadgets are small. Phones are big. They just slide off.

Sorry, I don't understand what you are asking. Willing to rephrase?
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline jurge24pez

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 7
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #34 on: November 06, 2015, 03:28:26 AM »
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?
 

Offline Dongulus

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 229
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #35 on: November 06, 2015, 04:34:38 AM »
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?
 

Offline mikerj

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1183
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #36 on: November 06, 2015, 04:37:13 AM »
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?

He is giving detailed technical information on why the entire scheme is doomed to failure.  Could you state what your agenda is please?
 

Offline jazon

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 3
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #37 on: November 09, 2015, 01:58:30 AM »
A pretty good follow up to this post. Experts say the same thing...

uBeam's Problems with Efficiency, Practicality and Cost Makes Experts Skeptical

http://www.labusinessjournal.com/news/2015/nov/08/skeptics-zap-wireless-charging/
 

Offline tombola

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 2
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #38 on: November 09, 2015, 04:49:56 AM »
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)
« Last Edit: November 09, 2015, 04:57:29 AM by tombola »
 

Offline andy o

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 3
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #39 on: November 09, 2015, 09:36:27 AM »
I read earlier that article at the LA Business Journal linked above, and it makes a pretty apt comparison with Theranos, which I've been fascinated about for the past several weeks. How did it get to this point in the first place? These two are based on cult of personalities, and these two CEOs are behaving in very similar ways when confronted with criticism.

By the way, I've known this site and forums for some time now, but got here from the rather credulous latest Tech Crunch article, which btw, links this thread as "blind cynicism", making the good old skeptic/cynic fallacy and pulling the "I'm the real open minded skeptic" schtick at the same time.

The curious thing is that Theranos has been reported neutrally (which is not really as critical as some of us would like, but it's not too bad either) by Tech Crunch. I guess this time they're getting the scoop directly from the company, so something's gotta give. Reminds me of all the credulous reporting from tech sites who were given access to the Healbe Gobe, including big names like Engadget.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2015, 09:48:14 AM by andy o »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 23203
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #40 on: November 09, 2015, 09:58:59 AM »
By the way, I've known this site and forums for some time now, but got here from the rather credulous latest Tech Crunch article, which btw, links this thread as "blind cynicism", making the good old skeptic/cynic fallacy and pulling the "I'm the real open minded skeptic" schtick at the same time.

It's very important to know that Tech Crunh's founder is an investor in Ubeam
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 23203
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #41 on: November 09, 2015, 10:05:35 AM »
uBeam have given Techcrunch (whose owner runs CrunchFund, investors in uBeam) some new information:
http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/wireless-power-charger/

It's crap like this that is precisely what is wrong with UBeam:

Quote
Dr. Matt O’Donnell, PhD is one of the world’s leading experts in ultrasonics, and is the Professor and Dean Emeritus of Engineering at the University of Washington. He writes:
“If uBeam can continuously deliver 145-155 dB of ultrasound successfully to a cell phone, then it may be possible to charge a phone with at least a few watts. There is multiplicative risk in getting all of this together to work, but it may be possible. If uBeam can deliver that amount of power to a phone with reasonable efficiency, reception, and electronic management, then their system does not violate the laws of physics.”
While he can’t vouch that the technology does work, he concludes that given the specs, it’s not infeasible. It will just be very tough to execute.

 :palm:

OF COURSE it can work!
No critic has ever said it can't work!
The problem is with the practicality of it. You know, that annoying stuff that engineers like to deal with to make a product actually work in the real world to be reliable, safe, and meet the claimed performance specs over a whole host of environmental and other factors.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 23203
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #42 on: November 09, 2015, 10:17:16 AM »
http://www.labusinessjournal.com/news/2015/nov/08/skeptics-zap-wireless-charging/

Sounds like this researcher would know:

Quote
Ultrasound has been used to transmit energy before, said Henry Scarton, a mechanical engineer and director of the Laboratory for Noise and Vibration Control Research at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y. Scarton has built systems that project ultrasonic energy through metal submarine hulls to underwater listening devices and through oil-carrying pipe to sensors.
But under closely controlled conditions, those systems only generate a maximum of 50 percent efficiency, he said.
“In air, it would be ridiculously small. Not practical,” Scarton said.

And that's a huge problem for Ubeam
Even if it does everything they claim, it's ultimately still going to be horribly inefficient. So it's not going to be something that we should be using on a mass global scale. Because, you know, we are trying to actually  save energy, not piss it away. It's the whole reason behind the Energy Star scheme.
 

Offline andy o

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 3
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #43 on: November 09, 2015, 10:23:40 AM »
By the way, I've known this site and forums for some time now, but got here from the rather credulous latest Tech Crunch article, which btw, links this thread as "blind cynicism", making the good old skeptic/cynic fallacy and pulling the "I'm the real open minded skeptic" schtick at the same time.

It's very important to know that Tech Crunh's founder is an investor in Ubeam

Yeah, missed that bit of info in the last post, got it from the hackaday post after I'd posted.
 

Offline LabSpokane

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1740
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #44 on: November 09, 2015, 10:24:14 AM »
One of the major issues with high-power ultrasonics is sub-harmonics.  There is no shortage of items that will resonate at a fraction of the fundamental frequency of the transducer.  It usually results in a screeching that is just incredibly obnoxious.  It's hard to imagine a system that has enough power to overcome the free-space path loss, still can impart a meaningful amount of power to a device, and *not* cause unintentional resonance with an ever-changing set of random objects in its field. 
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 23203
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #45 on: November 09, 2015, 02:40:58 PM »
    • uBeam can charge multiple devices simultaneously within a range of up to a 4 meter radius from a single transmitter

    So by their own admission is become effectively useless at greater than 4m?
    That tells you a lot.

     

    Offline jurge24pez

    • Contributor
    • Posts: 7
    • Country: us
    Re: The uBeam FAQ
    « Reply #46 on: November 09, 2015, 03:33:09 PM »
    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. 
     

    Offline Bud

    • Super Contributor
    • ***
    • Posts: 1687
    • Country: ca
    Re: The uBeam FAQ
    « Reply #47 on: November 09, 2015, 03:37:12 PM »
    • 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)

    Im just hoping those places will have signs displayed so i can avoid going there.

    Quote
    • At launch, uBeam plans to... both sell the receiver phone cases and work with partners to loan them out to patrons of places with transmitters installed.

    To me practicality ends here.
     

    Offline EEVblog

    • Administrator
    • *****
    • Posts: 23203
    • Country: au
      • EEVblog
    Re: The uBeam FAQ
    « Reply #48 on: November 09, 2015, 04:07:44 PM »
    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 great thing about facts and data and research is, it doesn't matter what angle you come from.

    This forum is full of engineers who just love to "debunk" stuff for no reason other than the fun of it, and/or an intellectual exercise.
    Engineers hate wild marketing claims, with a passion.

    Quote
    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. 

    uBeam is not new technologies, it's just a foolish upstart trying to get blood from an engineering stone.
    They have already extracted money from the stone, and that in itself is a very impressive feat. But I suspect that's as far as they'll ever get. They'll ever die, or if they are clever, will find a niche market application.
     

    Offline EEVblog

    • Administrator
    • *****
    • Posts: 23203
    • Country: au
      • EEVblog
    Re: The uBeam FAQ
    « Reply #49 on: November 09, 2015, 04:08:29 PM »
    • 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)
    Im just hoping those places will have signs displayed so i can avoid going there.

    And don't bring your cat.
     


    Share me

    Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
    Smf