Author Topic: The uBeam FAQ  (Read 277866 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26344
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #700 on: February 08, 2017, 04:41:34 pm »
Stupid reporter phrasing from the Axios article:
Quote
It's also controversial, with some having publicly suggested that uBeam's technology defies the laws of physics.
Their technology isn't defying the laws of physics. They're trying to make it defy the laws of physics. There's a big difference in implication between those two phrasings.

It completely obeys the laws of physics, and yes it does work. It's just the practical limits of the environmental physics that is the show stopper and the reason why it will never, ever, work as advertised.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3477
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #701 on: February 08, 2017, 05:00:29 pm »
Stupid reporter phrasing from the Axios article:
Quote
It's also controversial, with some having publicly suggested that uBeam's technology defies the laws of physics.
Their technology isn't defying the laws of physics. They're trying to make it defy the laws of physics. There's a big difference in implication between those two phrasings.

It completely obeys the laws of physics, and yes it does work. It's just the practical limits of the environmental physics that is the show stopper and the reason why it will never, ever, work as advertised.
uBeam works in the same way that crushing someone's skull stops a headache. The goal may be achieved, but the side effects might be considered undesirable.
 

Offline JiggyNinja

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 52
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #702 on: February 09, 2017, 02:20:27 am »
It completely obeys the laws of physics, and yes it does work. It's just the practical limits of the environmental physics that is the show stopper and the reason why it will never, ever, work as advertised.
You're falling into the trap laid by their supporters, isolating the one aspect of their claims that is in their favor and pounding on it.

uBeam doesn't just need to make power transfer through ultrasound. They also need to do it in a way that is safe, efficient, convenient, and useful. If it needed to pump 200 dB of sound into the room, OSHA would never permit it. If it's 0.001% efficient, it's too expensive to be worth operating. If people need to have a bulky adapter and place their phone in a specific position in a specific orientation, it's harder to use. If it only manages 10 mA of charging current, it's useless.

Individual pieces of their goal might be achievable in isolation in specific conditions, but that doesn't mean anything. They're hyping the total combination, and that combination is physically impossible. That's what's defying the laws of physics. Don't let yourself be dragged off of that message by the deluded stooges.

My beef was with the reporter's phrasing. "Their technology defies the laws of physics" implies that they currently have something that defies the laws of physics. That is not true. They're trying to design technology that defies the laws of physics. There's a totally different feel to those two phrasings.

I have the same issue with the way you phrase your Batteroo rebuttals. "Oh course it'll work, it's a boost converter!" Except that's not what they're selling. If Batteroo's pitch was "your toys and flashlights will run more consistently", nobody would give a shit. Their pitch is "8 TIMES LONGER!!!!!". They aren't selling a "battery voltage regulator", they're selling a "battery life extender". The fact that it attempts to do that by boosting voltage is an irrelevant distraction. Almost every test done by you, Frank, and others on here have shown that it reduces battery life.

If a device claims to increase battery life, and it doesn't do that, then it simply doesn't work. It's pointless to argue for or against any other obscure figure of merit when it fails so completely at its main claim.

Quote
uBeam works in the same way that crushing someone's skull stops a headache. The goal may be achieved, but the side effects might be considered undesirable.
This is exactly correct.
 

Offline timothyaag

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 41
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #703 on: February 09, 2017, 02:53:41 am »
uBeam works in the same way that crushing someone's skull stops a headache. The goal may be achieved, but the side effects might be considered undesirable.

I think that can be considered solidly undesirable.
 

Offline JiggyNinja

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 52
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #704 on: February 09, 2017, 04:55:43 am »
uBeam works in the same way that crushing someone's skull stops a headache. The goal may be achieved, but the side effects might be considered undesirable.

I think that can be considered solidly undesirable.
Depends on whose skull it is, I think.
 

Offline PaulReynolds

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 79
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #705 on: February 17, 2017, 07:36:56 pm »
Disney Research and wireless power transfer.

https://www.disneyresearch.com/publication/quasistatic-cavity-resonance-for-ubiquitous-wireless-power-transfer/

"An experimental demonstration shows that a 54 m3 QSCR room can deliver power to small coil receivers in nearly any position with 40% to 95% efficiency. Finally, a detailed safety analysis shows that up to 1900 watts can be transmitted to a coil receiver enabling safe and ubiquitous wireless power."



 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26344
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #706 on: February 17, 2017, 08:01:25 pm »
Disney Research and wireless power transfer.

https://www.disneyresearch.com/publication/quasistatic-cavity-resonance-for-ubiquitous-wireless-power-transfer/

"An experimental demonstration shows that a 54 m3 QSCR room can deliver power to small coil receivers in nearly any position with 40% to 95% efficiency. Finally, a detailed safety analysis shows that up to 1900 watts can be transmitted to a coil receiver enabling safe and ubiquitous wireless power."

Link doesn't work for me?
 

Offline Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4312
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #707 on: February 17, 2017, 08:26:13 pm »
It was slow for me but eventually loaded.

This looks like the meat of it, there's an order of magnitude more stuff in this 14 page paper than divulged in five+ years of Meredith's rhetoric.

https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/disneyresearch/wp-content/uploads/20170215220933/Quasistatic-Cavity-Resonance-for-Ubiquitous-Wireless-Power-Transfer-Paper.pdf

Edit: make that two orders of magnitude more stuff.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2017, 08:31:24 pm by Howardlong »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26344
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #708 on: February 17, 2017, 08:39:15 pm »
It was slow for me but eventually loaded.
This looks like the meat of it, there's an order of magnitude more stuff in this 14 page paper than divulged in five+ years of Meredith's rhetoric.
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/disneyresearch/wp-content/uploads/20170215220933/Quasistatic-Cavity-Resonance-for-Ubiquitous-Wireless-Power-Transfer-Paper.pdf
Edit: make that two orders of magnitude more stuff.

I think you are still out by several orders  ;D
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26344
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #709 on: February 17, 2017, 08:43:37 pm »
Quote
Experimental Results
The above theoretical derivation was experimentally validated using the QSCR wireless power
room shown in Fig 3a. The room has dimensions 160 × 160 × 7.50 (4.9 × 4.9 × 2.3 m) and the
floor, ceiling, and walls are made of painted aluminum sheet metal, bolted to an aluminum
frame (with gray carpet covering the floor).

New homes will have to be Faraday shields!
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26344
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #710 on: February 17, 2017, 08:46:14 pm »
Quote
Since the magnetic field is invariant with respect to the z-height, the WPT efficiency is also
invariant to the receiver’s z-position. A peak efficiency of 95% occurs when the receiver is
placed near the pole and falls off to about 40% near the walls. This results in approximately
80% of the room’s 54 m3 total volume being able to deliver wireless power to a receiver at over
of 40% efficiency.

So much for the 40% minimum figure. Murphy will ensure you are in that 20% space
 

Offline amyk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5656
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #711 on: February 17, 2017, 09:00:14 pm »
Quote
Since the magnetic field is invariant with respect to the z-height, the WPT efficiency is also
invariant to the receiver’s z-position. A peak efficiency of 95% occurs when the receiver is
placed near the pole and falls off to about 40% near the walls. This results in approximately
80% of the room’s 54 m3 total volume being able to deliver wireless power to a receiver at over
of 40% efficiency.

So much for the 40% minimum figure. Murphy will ensure you are in that 20% space
I'm more worried about what happens to the rest of the energy. I saw a mention of 1900W :o

And... Disney Research? I guess this brings a whole new meaning to "Mickey Mouse science"...
 

Offline Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4312
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #712 on: February 17, 2017, 10:02:24 pm »
Quote
Experimental Results
The above theoretical derivation was experimentally validated using the QSCR wireless power
room shown in Fig 3a. The room has dimensions 160 × 160 × 7.50 (4.9 × 4.9 × 2.3 m) and the
floor, ceiling, and walls are made of painted aluminum sheet metal, bolted to an aluminum
frame (with gray carpet covering the floor).

New homes will have to be Faraday shields!

So, while you'll be able to charge your mobile phones, you just won't be able to use them.
 

Online Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2871
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #713 on: February 18, 2017, 01:28:07 am »
And... Disney Research? I guess this brings a whole new meaning to "Mickey Mouse science"...

You've just gotta hope that someone from Disney Research has met someone from NASA at a party.

MMS: So what do you do?

NS: Oh, I'm a rocket scientist. I work at JPL on rocket engine design so I'm literally a rocket scientist. How about you?

MMS: That's an odd coincidence, I'm a research scientist too. I work for Disney... [pauses] Yes, I'm a Mickey Mouse Scientist. [Fx: rimshot] [Dances off stage waving top hat and cane to pit orchestra comedy sting.]
« Last Edit: February 18, 2017, 01:32:13 am by Cerebus »
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 

Offline LaserSteve

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 697
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #714 on: February 18, 2017, 03:59:33 am »
I'm not looking forward to checking into hotel rooms with a pole in the middle, but I am impressed with the Disney study. 


Steve

"I've Never Heard of a Nuclear Meltdown Caused by a Buffer Overflow"  filssavi
 

Offline StillTrying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1336
  • Country: gb
  • 100% Brand New and High Quality, in theory.
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #715 on: February 19, 2017, 09:19:16 am »

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26344
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #716 on: February 19, 2017, 09:39:05 am »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26344
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #717 on: February 19, 2017, 09:45:35 am »
http://www.startuphire.com/job/mems-modelling-and-simulation-engineer-santa-monica-ca-ubeam-402303

Quote
If it does not break the laws of physics, it can be done.

It's unquestioned faith in statements like this that cause the problem.
There is a huge difference between physics theory and practical application, it's called, umm, engineering.
It's nice (essential) to have that spirit of course, but if you can't temper that with engineering reality then you end up down this uBeam black hole.
 

Offline PaulReynolds

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 79
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #718 on: February 19, 2017, 11:00:36 am »
If the physics don't work, then try a different engineer.
http://www.startuphire.com/job/mems-modelling-and-simulation-engineer-santa-monica-ca-ubeam-402303

I'm glad to see my UK spelling of "Modelling" still exists at the company, though I really think someone should proof read those job ads before sending them out, some pretty basic errors in there.

Regardless, clearly this indicates an imminent move to production and scaling for commercial volume sales.
 
The following users thanked this post: ludzinc, newbrain

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26344
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #719 on: February 19, 2017, 11:14:19 am »
Regardless, clearly this indicates an imminent move to production and scaling for commercial volume sales.


How so?
Sounds very researchy to me still, or is my sarcasm detector off today?
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26344
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #720 on: February 19, 2017, 11:15:22 am »
BTW, I was close to starting a uBeam video a few weeks back, but the amount of work required just didn't seem worthwhile
 

Offline PaulReynolds

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 79
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #721 on: February 19, 2017, 11:34:46 am »
Regardless, clearly this indicates an imminent move to production and scaling for commercial volume sales.


How so?
Sounds very researchy to me still, or is my sarcasm detector off today?

Bang the sarcasm detector a few times to get it working again...
 
The following users thanked this post: cowana, Kean, newbrain

Online Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2871
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #722 on: February 19, 2017, 11:42:03 am »
Regardless, clearly this indicates an imminent move to production and scaling for commercial volume sales.


How so?
Sounds very researchy to me still, or is my sarcasm detector off today?


Bang the sarcasm detector a few times to get it working again...

Pull the batteries out of it, slip some Batteroos on them and stick 'em back in. That ought to get it working.
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 

Offline JiggyNinja

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 52
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #723 on: February 19, 2017, 01:19:28 pm »
Disney Research and wireless power transfer.

https://www.disneyresearch.com/publication/quasistatic-cavity-resonance-for-ubiquitous-wireless-power-transfer/

"An experimental demonstration shows that a 54 m3 QSCR room can deliver power to small coil receivers in nearly any position with 40% to 95% efficiency. Finally, a detailed safety analysis shows that up to 1900 watts can be transmitted to a coil receiver enabling safe and ubiquitous wireless power."
Not ultrasound and the entire room has to be designed with this in mind.
Quote
We introduce quasistatic cavity resonance (QSCR), which can enable purpose-built structures, such as cabinets, rooms, and warehouses, to generate quasistatic magnetic fields that safely deliver kilowatts of power to mobile receivers contained nearly anywhere within.

I think that's an appropriate level of tradeoff that most of us here are expecting when they say "not impossible, but highly impractical".
 

Offline Maxlor

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 553
  • Country: ch
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #724 on: February 20, 2017, 12:20:23 am »
They even have a short video presentation of their work:



I could see applications for that if it happens to be Qi-compatible or something like that.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf