Low Cost PCB's Low Cost Components

Author Topic: The uBeam FAQ  (Read 195268 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6009
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #650 on: December 11, 2016, 11:19:08 AM »

Physical laws are things that we *discover*.

We can discover only things that preexisted. The 'laws of physics' are merely man-made models that generalize the results of a final set of observations we have conducted.

They have made zero claims about any radically new innovative technology or method, and Perry has said it herself, just "world's most powerful/smallest/most efficient/cheapest etc etc".

My point was that we shouldn't confuse 'we can't do it with our current level of technology and understanding of physics' with 'it will never be done'. 200 years ago, nobody would imagine the things we do now and they would easily be 'debunked' as physically impossible.

As for Perry, her Ted X presentation lead me to believe that she is an arrogant charlatan.
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline StillTrying

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 854
  • Country: gb
  • 100% Brand New and High Quality, in theory.
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #651 on: December 11, 2016, 11:50:49 AM »
Over 50 viewing this thread. :o Have they released the stick on light bulbs.

I might be the only one(there's always one isn't there!), but I'm still finding that even assuming 100% efficiency and no losses anywhere that it's impossible to get more than a fraction of the inputted power into the 'focussed beam' of a phased array.
There might be a good reason why the energy efficiency of a phased array is not discussed anywhere, and there might be a good reason why no phased array power transfer device exists, no one in their right mind would try to invent one!

Que, someone to say they're very efficient because they 'focus' the beam. Yes, they focus the beam but not the power!

http://www.radartutorial.eu/06.antennas/Phased%20Array%20Antenna.en.html

AFAICT RF, radio, and radar are all much the same.

Online coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2556
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #652 on: December 11, 2016, 03:01:00 PM »
Que, someone to say they're very efficient because they 'focus' the beam. Yes, they focus the beam but not the power!

http://www.radartutorial.eu/06.antennas/Phased%20Array%20Antenna.en.html

AFAICT RF, radio, and radar are all much the same.
How could you focus a beam without focusing the power? The link you quoted shows reasonably well how things work, even if the English reads a big strangely. I assume its a translation.
 

Offline Corporate666

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1908
  • Country: us
  • Remember, you are unique, just like everybody else
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #653 on: December 11, 2016, 04:36:23 PM »
Say what you like about Meredith, she's certainly living the life...

How do you know what life she's living?  Investors may have her on a very short leash, especially if there were questions raised about the validity of uBeam's technology.  She is likely earning less than she would otherwise be working for someone else, and she will have to ride this thing into the ground, where it will inevitably end up.

Don't fall for too many (possibly politically derived) delusions about how CEO's live.
It's not always the most popular person who gets the job done.
 

Offline Corporate666

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1908
  • Country: us
  • Remember, you are unique, just like everybody else
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #654 on: December 11, 2016, 04:45:55 PM »
By all means put money into research into the area of ultrasonic power delivery, possibly for niche applications, just leave out the ridiculous demonstrably un-doable consumer claims.

Just out of curiosity, and if you are comfortable saying.... have you ever been contacted by a venture capital group or investor asking your opinion on a product or technology they were looking at investing in?  I'm guessing it must have happened, or possibly happens regularly.  I am quite surprised it doesn't appear to happen all the time (with you or others) - and if it does, I can't understand how companies like uBeam get funding.
It's not always the most popular person who gets the job done.
 

Offline Bud

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1798
  • Country: ca
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #655 on: December 11, 2016, 06:44:35 PM »
Things can happen if you belong to a certain ethnic group.
 

Offline timb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2362
  • Country: us
  • Pretentiously Posting Polysyllabic Prose
    • timb.us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #656 on: December 11, 2016, 06:47:27 PM »

Physical laws are things that we *discover*.

We can discover only things that preexisted. The 'laws of physics' are merely man-made models that generalize the results of a final set of observations we have conducted.

:palm: You clearly just enjoy arguing *or* don't really get what we're saying...
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic; e.g., Cheez Whiz, Hot Dogs and RF.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24200
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #657 on: December 11, 2016, 06:52:42 PM »
They have made zero claims about any radically new innovative technology or method, and Perry has said it herself, just "world's most powerful/smallest/most efficient/cheapest etc etc".
My point was that we shouldn't confuse 'we can't do it with our current level of technology and understanding of physics' with 'it will never be done'.

We are not confusing anything, we are talking about the very specific claims uBeam have made, and their method of going about it delivering energy wirelessly. Vibrating air to transfer energy for consumer product charging will never happen on a practical consumer level at the W level. If you don't understand why then I'd hazard a guess that you're in the wrong field.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24200
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #658 on: December 11, 2016, 07:00:40 PM »
By all means put money into research into the area of ultrasonic power delivery, possibly for niche applications, just leave out the ridiculous demonstrably un-doable consumer claims.
Just out of curiosity, and if you are comfortable saying.... have you ever been contacted by a venture capital group or investor asking your opinion on a product or technology they were looking at investing in?  I'm guessing it must have happened, or possibly happens regularly.  I am quite surprised it doesn't appear to happen all the time (with you or others) - and if it does, I can't understand how companies like uBeam get funding.

Not from a VC or other such group, no.
But countless "inventors" have contacted me, and way before the blog and even the internet. I used to get hand written letters in the post asking for help on some crackpot invention.
They are almost always the same:
- I've got this great idea no one has thought of before and I've been working on it for years
- I've thoroughly investigated the market potential and it's worth millions/billions.
- All you have to do is design and build it and we can become partners, I'm the "ideas man".
- I've thought of everything that can possibly go wrong and there is no way this can't work.
Blah Blah.

They get very upset when I destroy their idea with one google search or one calculation, and *insert rant* about the Wright Brothers  ::)

I've been getting this crap for over 20 years.
 
The following users thanked this post: SeanB, ludzinc, newbrain

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6009
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #659 on: December 11, 2016, 09:38:14 PM »
... Vibrating air to transfer energy for consumer product charging will never happen on a practical consumer level at the W level. If you don't understand why then I'd hazard a guess that you're in the wrong field.

Don't be too cocky with your 'never' about our current technology and understanding of physics. Many things that people considered 'never' 300 years ago are possible with today's technology. We have a lot of learning ahead of us.
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24200
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #660 on: December 11, 2016, 10:47:29 PM »
... Vibrating air to transfer energy for consumer product charging will never happen on a practical consumer level at the W level. If you don't understand why then I'd hazard a guess that you're in the wrong field.

Don't be too cocky with your 'never' about our current technology and understanding of physics. Many things that people considered 'never' 300 years ago are possible with today's technology. We have a lot of learning ahead of us.

What part of the first part of my paragraph that you snipped did you not understand? :
Quote
We are not confusing anything, we are talking about the very specific claims uBeam have made, and their method of going about it delivering energy wirelessly. Vibrating air to transfer energy for consumer product charging will never happen on a practical consumer level at the W level. If you don't understand why then I'd hazard a guess that you're in the wrong field.
 

Online Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1535
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #661 on: December 11, 2016, 11:32:16 PM »
Just out of curiosity, and if you are comfortable saying.... have you ever been contacted by a venture capital group or investor asking your opinion on a product or technology they were looking at investing in?  I'm guessing it must have happened, or possibly happens regularly.  I am quite surprised it doesn't appear to happen all the time (with you or others) - and if it does, I can't understand how companies like uBeam get funding.

Venture capitalists are no different from the rest of us, if they want free advice (you don't get rich paying for things) they ask people they already know. The pool of 'expertise' they draw from is what you might expect, people they know down the pub/tennis club/country club/whatever and people at firms they've already invested in. Typically they, just like the average person, goes looking for, not a specific domain expert, but some who 'knows a bit about X'. It's a variation on the Dunning-Kruger effect where you don't know enough to judge whether whom you perceive as a 'domain expert' actually has relevant expertise.

When I worked at a company that had funding from a VC fund and two independent private investors about every two months one of the three would turn up looking for free advice on the technology aspects of one of their prospective investments. We were turning out early AI software tools, but they'd come and ask about anything that involved a computer with little regard for whether we had any real relevant expertise.
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 

Online Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1535
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #662 on: December 11, 2016, 11:45:41 PM »
But countless "inventors" have contacted me, and way before the blog and even the internet. I used to get hand written letters in the post asking for help on some crackpot invention.
They are almost always the same:
- I've got this great idea no one has thought of before and I've been working on it for years
- I've thoroughly investigated the market potential and it's worth millions/billions.
- All you have to do is design and build it and we can become partners, I'm the "ideas man".
- I've thought of everything that can possibly go wrong and there is no way this can't work.
Blah Blah.

They get very upset when I destroy their idea with one google search or one calculation, and *insert rant* about the Wright Brothers  ::)

I've been getting this crap for over 20 years.

Back in my tech journo days we'd get at least one of these a week sent to the magazine, as Tech Editor they used to land on my desk. There were three tactics used.

If they were amusing enough that we passed them around the office and had a good giggle we'd publish them in the Letters column. If they were run of the mill they got a stock reply will all the usual excuses 'can't offer advice outside of the magazine pages/liability/lawyers foaming at the mouth/publisher would shoot me as he doesn't pay me for that'. If they came on good enough stationery and offered 'dinner at my expense to discuss the matter' I'd see if the Deputy Editor wanted a free dinner somewhere posh.
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6590
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #663 on: December 11, 2016, 11:57:13 PM »
Many things that people considered 'never' 300 years ago are possible with today's technology.

Which things were considered 'never'? Can you provide a list?

 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6009
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #664 on: December 12, 2016, 02:02:17 AM »
... Vibrating air to transfer energy for consumer product charging will never happen on a practical consumer level at the W level. If you don't understand why then I'd hazard a guess that you're in the wrong field.

Don't be too cocky with your 'never' about our current technology and understanding of physics. Many things that people considered 'never' 300 years ago are possible with today's technology. We have a lot of learning ahead of us.

What part of the first part of my paragraph that you snipped did you not understand? :
Quote
We are not confusing anything, we are talking about the very specific claims uBeam have made, and their method of going about it delivering energy wirelessly. Vibrating air to transfer energy for consumer product charging will never happen on a practical consumer level at the W level. If you don't understand why then I'd hazard a guess that you're in the wrong field.
I understood all of it and was commenting on the definite 'never' part.
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline PaulReynolds

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 44
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #665 on: December 12, 2016, 05:52:59 AM »

Physical laws are things that we *discover*.

We can discover only things that preexisted. The 'laws of physics' are merely man-made models that generalize the results of a final set of observations we have conducted.

They have made zero claims about any radically new innovative technology or method, and Perry has said it herself, just "world's most powerful/smallest/most efficient/cheapest etc etc".

My point was that we shouldn't confuse 'we can't do it with our current level of technology and understanding of physics' with 'it will never be done'. 200 years ago, nobody would imagine the things we do now and they would easily be 'debunked' as physically impossible.

As for Perry, her Ted X presentation lead me to believe that she is an arrogant charlatan.

If you want to know why VCs fund perpetual motion machines it's because of statements like this from engineers and scientists. You're right, we *may* find a way of extracting vacuum energy at zero cost like in sci-fi movies, just like any second now all the air in the room may decide to randomly move in the same direction and you will die of asphyxiation. But the odds are so low that to any practical extent the answer is "no don't be stupid neither of those things is going to happen". When you say "Well, we don't know for sure, it's not 100% certain, so don't be arrogant it might change in the next 100 years" what a VC hears is "Yes it's possible".

People in that type of position never hear the caveats, the "at risk", the concerns, the timelines, or anything like that - all they hear is "Yes" or "No". And engineers hate reducing answers to that level of simplicity yet that is exactly what is demanded by senior executives and money people. Want to know why charlatans or the less technically skilled get to the top in engineering? Because they don't know enough to say anything but "Yes" or "No" and they'll say whichever one the boss or man with money wants to hear.

You're basically asking us to prove a negative, and a future time negative at that. It's not going to happen. Must be nice to have an argument where you've constructed it so you cannot possibly lose no matter what, as long as you stick to your guns. The onus is on *you* to prove that the established data, laws, rules, equations, or what ever you want to call them are not correct, or there are exceptions. The methodology is clear in how to do this. It's called "scientific method" and it doesn't involve stubbornly repeating your statements again and again. That works in politics, not so much in science.

So, to repeat, VCs fund perpetual motion machines because one engineer, somewhere, with some form of credentials, says "Well, there's a slim possibility....". So stop it.

The burden of proof is on you.
 
The following users thanked this post: Kean, helius

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6009
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #666 on: December 12, 2016, 07:15:10 AM »
The burden of proof is on you.

The burden of proof that our understanding of reality evolves over time and that things that were considered impossible are later consider trivial? 

Just look at the last 1000 years and extrapolate.

It's one thing to debunk in the context of our current science and technology. It's another to debunk 'forever'.
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline edy

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1410
  • Country: ca
    • DevHackMod Channel
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #667 on: December 12, 2016, 08:44:25 AM »
Let's forget about any possible power transfer that can be used for charging via uBeam. Let's say they design some system or a tiny chip with a small tuning fork designed to oscillate at some very high frequency, attach it to a Quartz element (similar to a Phono cartridge) and they use uBeam as a way to broadcast "data" local to certain locales (much like a WiFi) but uni-directionally.

Now you have the potential to have data transfer of advertisements, specials, WiFi-password information, etc... something to the phone that may bootstrap a potential WiFi or BlueTooth connection based on the location proximity due to sound. Usually something within a room. Maybe even like in Museums or other places.

There can be potential here in that sphere of thinking..... What do you think? With things like Pokemon Go being all the rage, location-specific broadcasts through open systems may have some potential. Not sure why would need yet another communication method but this may be good for data-only benefits.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2016, 08:54:47 AM by edy »
YouTube: www.devhackmod.com
"Ye cannae change the laws of physics, captain" - Scotty
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24200
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #668 on: December 12, 2016, 09:58:11 AM »
Let's forget about any possible power transfer that can be used for charging via uBeam. Let's say they design some system or a tiny chip with a small tuning fork designed to oscillate at some very high frequency, attach it to a Quartz element (similar to a Phono cartridge) and they use uBeam as a way to broadcast "data" local to certain locales (much like a WiFi) but uni-directionally.
Now you have the potential to have data transfer of advertisements, specials, WiFi-password information, etc... something to the phone that may bootstrap a potential WiFi or BlueTooth connection based on the location proximity due to sound. Usually something within a room. Maybe even like in Museums or other places.
There can be potential here in that sphere of thinking..... What do you think? With things like Pokemon Go being all the rage, location-specific broadcasts through open systems may have some potential. Not sure why would need yet another communication method but this may be good for data-only benefits.

Sure, that's possible, but who's going to build ultrasonic receiving circuitry into phones to do just this one thing? Let alone everyone installing ultrasonic transmitters everywhere to enable it?
This power transfer/charging thing was the "killer app" enabler for that alternative use. Without that it's not going to happen.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24200
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #669 on: December 12, 2016, 10:11:27 AM »
Physical laws are things that we *discover*.
We can discover only things that preexisted. The 'laws of physics' are merely man-made models that generalize the results of a final set of observations we have conducted.
They have made zero claims about any radically new innovative technology or method, and Perry has said it herself, just "world's most powerful/smallest/most efficient/cheapest etc etc".
My point was that we shouldn't confuse 'we can't do it with our current level of technology and understanding of physics' with 'it will never be done'. 200 years ago, nobody would imagine the things we do now and they would easily be 'debunked' as physically impossible.

As for Perry, her Ted X presentation lead me to believe that she is an arrogant charlatan.

If you want to know why VCs fund perpetual motion machines it's because of statements like this from engineers and scientists. You're right, we *may* find a way of extracting vacuum energy at zero cost like in sci-fi movies, just like any second now all the air in the room may decide to randomly move in the same direction and you will die of asphyxiation. But the odds are so low that to any practical extent the answer is "no don't be stupid neither of those things is going to happen". When you say "Well, we don't know for sure, it's not 100% certain, so don't be arrogant it might change in the next 100 years" what a VC hears is "Yes it's possible".

Absolutely nailed it.

Quote
People in that type of position never hear the caveats, the "at risk", the concerns, the timelines, or anything like that - all they hear is "Yes" or "No". And engineers hate reducing answers to that level of simplicity yet that is exactly what is demanded by senior executives and money people. Want to know why charlatans or the less technically skilled get to the top in engineering? Because they don't know enough to say anything but "Yes" or "No" and they'll say whichever one the boss or man with money wants to hear.

Yes, and that is a major problem with engineers and other technical people. We generally hate saying "no", "not possible" etc, but sometimes we simply have to laugh at people and their stupid impractical idea and tell them a firm "no".
Carl Sagan said it best - It pay to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.

Remember, VC's generally fund practical ideas, they want a practical return on their investment in a few years, they do not usually fund general research into new physics etc.
This means that engineers like us have to be very strict and not think "what new physics discoveries might be like in 100 years", instead we have to call bullshit on ideas like uBeam here and now.
I've said, and I'm sure Paul and others would agree that it's important to encourage basic research in these fields, but only when this basic research shows some sort of promise should us engineers come along and go (especially to VC's) "yeah, that might be possible".

Once again uBeam made no claims they were working on or spending any money toward basic acoustics or physics research. They were simply taking an existing concept and seeing if they could beat it with a big engineering hammer to make it practical. It was obvious to any competent engineer from day 1 that it wasn't going to be practical for the application they wanted.
 
The following users thanked this post: edy, djos

Offline edy

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1410
  • Country: ca
    • DevHackMod Channel
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #670 on: December 12, 2016, 10:38:31 AM »
Carl Sagan said it best - It pay to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.

 :-DD  Oh that is a good one.    :-+




...  and while looking for the above, I found another one pertinent to this discussion ...

« Last Edit: December 12, 2016, 10:44:10 AM by edy »
YouTube: www.devhackmod.com
"Ye cannae change the laws of physics, captain" - Scotty
 

Offline timb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2362
  • Country: us
  • Pretentiously Posting Polysyllabic Prose
    • timb.us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #671 on: December 12, 2016, 10:46:02 AM »
I understood all of it and was commenting on the definite 'never' part.

The most important part of Dave's quote is this:

Quote from: EEVblog
Vibrating air to transfer energy for consumer product charging will never happen on a practical consumer scale at the watt level.
(Edited for clarity; emphasis mine.)

I already qualified this for you in an earlier reply, but I'll say it again and try to be a bit clearer...

Charging a modern smartphone requires 5 to 10 watts, minimum. Sending that much power through the air with ultrasonic, at a distance of more than a few inches, cannot be done safely, reliably and efficiently in a consumer setting. That will be the same at any time. Today or 300 years from now, it doesn't matter.

There may be some niche industrial uses for ultrasonic power transmission. Perhaps to power sensors on rotating machinery, however that requires less than 1W of power and can be confined to a specific area that wouldn't pose a danger to people and animals.

The only way ultrasonic power transfer would ever be viable, on a consumer level, is if the device only required microwatts of power. Maybe 50 years from now when our phones are all running carbon nanotube bio-organic 3D stacked hyper processors that are 800x more powerful than today's SoC, yet only consume 10uW, it might be practical to power them wirelessly with ultrasonic chargers. Then again, you can get that amount of power from an amorphous solar cell, so it might be pointless.

However, today, in the real world where the rest of us live, it's not physically possible. And 50 or even 300 years from now, it still won't be possible to transmit multiple watts of power via an ultrasonic beam. Nothing we can discover about physics will change that.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic; e.g., Cheez Whiz, Hot Dogs and RF.
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6009
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #672 on: December 12, 2016, 10:53:57 AM »


... Nothing we can discover about physics will change that.

OK.

Drain the swamp.
 

Offline Zad

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1006
  • Country: gb
    • Digital Wizardry, Analogue Alchemy, Software Sorcery
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #673 on: December 12, 2016, 12:32:44 PM »
An arrogant (charismatic) charlatan? Anyone offering odds that she is going to get the job heading up the country's science research?



Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6009
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #674 on: December 12, 2016, 01:39:34 PM »
An arrogant (charismatic) charlatan? Anyone offering odds that she is going to get the job heading up the country's science research?
I say zero since she achieved nothing of significance in her career but high probability that when ubeam will close she will blame others.
Drain the swamp.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf