Author Topic: The uBeam FAQ  (Read 289639 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline JiggyNinja

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 52
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #700 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: 81
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #701 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."



 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26840
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #702 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?
 

Online Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4370
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #703 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 »
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26840
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #704 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
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26840
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #705 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!
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26840
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #706 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: 5775
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #707 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"...
 

Online Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4370
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #708 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.
 

Offline Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3300
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #709 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: 722
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #710 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: 1415
  • Country: gb
  • 100% Brand New and High Quality, in theory.
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #711 on: February 19, 2017, 09:19:16 am »

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26840
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #712 on: February 19, 2017, 09:39:05 am »
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26840
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #713 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: 81
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #714 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

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26840
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #715 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?
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26840
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #716 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: 81
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #717 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

Offline Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3300
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #718 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 #719 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 #720 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.
 

Offline PaulReynolds

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 81
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #721 on: February 20, 2017, 05:11:55 am »
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".

Yep, I'm kinda aware that it's not ultrasound - but your second statement is exactly what I posted the link. There are always tradeoffs in safety, efficiency, cost, charge rate, and practicality with wireless power - this one loses on practicality and maybe cost. So even when safe (though I'd want to dig into that more), somewhat efficient, and with a solid charge rate, there's no route to a large scale commercial product with this. How well does that bode for any other at-distance wireless solution? Disney apparently see that, which is why they published it, and why no-one else, anywhere, is going nuts over it.

I commend them for the detail in which they presented their work, they did a good job.
 

Offline DutchGert

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 254
  • Country: nl
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #722 on: February 20, 2017, 05:29:29 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

WTF:?:

"Working Conditions

 Must have the ability to stand or sit for an extended period of time
 May require lifting of up to 50 or more lbs.
 Work may include use of chemicals such as solvents and/or epoxies, and others
 The current position is located in Santa Monica but uBeam reserves the right to require work in other locations and/or relocation from Santa Monica
"

Is it normal to put this in a job ad?
 

Offline JiggyNinja

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 52
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #723 on: February 20, 2017, 05:46:06 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

WTF:?:

"Working Conditions

 Must have the ability to stand or sit for an extended period of time
 May require lifting of up to 50 or more lbs.
 Work may include use of chemicals such as solvents and/or epoxies, and others
 The current position is located in Santa Monica but uBeam reserves the right to require work in other locations and/or relocation from Santa Monica
"

Is it normal to put this in a job ad?
Nothing jumps out as odd for a US job posting. The standing and lifting parts are probably related to if disability accommodations will be needed. I know that "Can you lift more than 50 lbs.?" is a pretty standard question in applications.
 

Offline Danseur

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 21
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #724 on: February 22, 2017, 11:19:31 am »
But uBeam doesn't even meet basic theory if atmospheric absorption reaches 99% after a few meters of air.  uBeam is flat out impossible to get above 1% efficiency at any usable distance.

What you're talking about where something is theoretically possible but totally impractical is Energous (WATT stock).  Energous uses RF to send power which is fine so long as you're willing to run a microwave oven with the doors open and you don't mind accidentally exploding someone's eye.

The only solution that works at a distance is resonance inductance charging.  That's the only technology that can pass through a solid wood table without losing power.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf