http://opalkelly.com/

Author Topic: The uBeam FAQ  (Read 167948 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online djos

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 368
  • Country: au
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #700 on: December 19, 2016, 12:14:00 PM »
Looks like these clowns have closed down.  :horse:

Source?
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.
 

Offline StillTrying

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 732
  • Country: gb
  • 100% Brand New and High Quality, in theory.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2016, 09:37:24 AM by StillTrying »
 

Offline PaulReynolds

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 31
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #702 on: December 20, 2016, 12:17:49 PM »
Looks like these clowns have closed down.  :horse:

Nope.
 

Online Dubbie

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 324
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #703 on: December 20, 2016, 01:08:28 PM »
Interesting watching that video. Seems like some of her original hubris and arrogance has had the corners rubbed off somewhat.
She seemed a lot less confident in what she was talking about than in her original PR videos.

I guess you would be like that if in your heart of hearts, you knew that your earthshattering idea could never work anything like how you originally sold it.
 

Offline Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3639
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #704 on: December 20, 2016, 07:40:20 PM »
I hadn't realised the BBC had done a segment about her here from October 2015.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34604842
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34604843

No hubris lacking here. At 3:03, there's what looks like an MDO3000 and an Analog Discovery box, with Meredith pointing to a scope screen that may or may not be switched on.

The only ultrasound stuff in the video was the same kit she's been using for 5 1/2 years. Nothing is actually demonstrated, so the modus operandi remains the same in that respect.

 

Offline StillTrying

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 732
  • Country: gb
  • 100% Brand New and High Quality, in theory.
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #705 on: December 21, 2016, 02:43:01 AM »
The only ultrasound stuff in the video was the same kit she's been using for 5 1/2 years. Nothing is actually demonstrated, so the modus operandi remains the same in that respect.
They've seem to have only publicly demonstrated 2 days worth of work in 5 years, and most of that 2 days would have been waiting for the bits to arrive.  :)

Offline iaeen

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 65
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #706 on: December 23, 2016, 01:49:32 AM »
We are not saying, "never will work."  We are saying, "always impractical and ridiculously inefficient."  The losses will be the same 2000 years from now.

Yes, same losses but nobody will care if energy becomes plentiful and dirt cheap.

Disposable cups were impractical 500 years ago but they are now. Expect changes. Awesome things are going to happen.

You're still not even close to proving your point.

The cost of energy isn't the only reason to worry about efficiency. You are pretending that the wasted energy just disappears, but it doesn't. It is released into the atmosphere as heat. Someone charging a phone at 5 watts is going to be dumping something like 500W into the room as waste heat. Put 10 people all doing this in the same coffee shop, and the place is going to turn into a blast furnace! A small minded person would argue that that is what the AC is for, but that doesn't get rid of the heat either. It just vents it out into the atmosphere. Looking at a global scale, we would have terawatts of waste heat being dumped into the atmosphere, all for one freaking product! Do you really think that isn't going to have a negative effect on the environment?

Also, you're ignoring the health effects. Early on, it was pointed out that this thing would be louder than a jet engine if it was going to transmit the energy. Sure, the human ear can't actually hear that, but there are still health considerations that have been pointed out several times in this thread. They say they are going to use directional beam forming technology to work around that, but sound is just pressure waves that propagate by molecules colliding with each other. There will always be leakage, and that is unacceptable at these power levels.

Ill say it again. This will NEVER be practical.  :horse:
 

Offline JiggyNinja

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 52
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #707 on: December 23, 2016, 03:30:22 AM »
There will always be leakage, and that is unacceptable at these power levels.

Ill say it again. This will NEVER be practical.  :horse:
Even before you consider leakage, I think reflections are going to be a bigger issue. How tight would they even be able to make the beam when it's going more than a couple meters? My gob would be smacked if they were able to get it to even a phone sized tightness, much less if they could limit it to the size of the receiving transducer. So probably a lot of the transmitted power, even if it goes the distance, will just pass right on by and scatter off the first hard surface it hits, exposing everyone to loud ultrasonic noise.

You can't just blast that much power out into the ether and give it a "Gandalf" range limit (YOU SHALL NOT PASS). It keeps going until it dissipates into heat or hits something.
 

Offline StillTrying

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 732
  • Country: gb
  • 100% Brand New and High Quality, in theory.
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #708 on: December 23, 2016, 12:44:33 PM »
I think reflections are going to be a bigger issue.

I think even the receiving transducer will reflect 50% of the signal, and air currents/draughts will wobble 'the beam' all over the place.

Ill say it again. This will NEVER be practical.
+1e9

Offline Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3639
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #709 on: January 18, 2017, 02:56:15 PM »
Are they trying get even more money?

"uBeam: Invested in Series A round valuing it at $57 million; now looking to raise at a $500 million valuation, Pitchbook says — although it has recently been involved in a big controversy."

From http://uk.businessinsider.com/yahoo-ceo-marissa-mayer-should-be-a-vc-investor-2017-1 (Published 16 Jan 2017)
 

Offline StillTrying

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 732
  • Country: gb
  • 100% Brand New and High Quality, in theory.
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #710 on: January 20, 2017, 01:42:25 AM »
"now looking to raise at a $500 million valuation"   :-DD   :horse:

Offline JiggyNinja

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 52
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #711 on: January 20, 2017, 04:40:01 AM »
Are they trying get even more money?

"uBeam: Invested in Series A round valuing it at $57 million; now looking to raise at a $500 million valuation, Pitchbook says — although it has recently been involved in a big controversy."

From http://uk.businessinsider.com/yahoo-ceo-marissa-mayer-should-be-a-vc-investor-2017-1 (Published 16 Jan 2017)
How can you quote that and not include the immediately following paragraph?
Quote
Of course, startup valuations are sometimes considered vanity numbers that don't always reflect the health of the overall business. Also, Mayer has a horrible acquisition history at Yahoo that calls her eye for good startups into question.
A real winner there.
 

Offline thesgoat

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 7
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #712 on: February 04, 2017, 12:27:10 PM »
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2490
  • Country: hk
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #713 on: February 04, 2017, 02:56:05 PM »
 
The following users thanked this post: nugglix, PaulReynolds

Offline PaulReynolds

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 31
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #714 on: February 04, 2017, 05:36:13 PM »
uBeam finally shows off its wireless charging tech
https://www.axios.com/ubeam-finally-shows-off-its-wireless-charging-technology-2236385621.html

That crowd sure is easily impressed. A more objective report might be http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.hk/

Best to link directly to the post, that just links to the latest so will change over time:

http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/02/ubeam-still-all-sizzle.html
 
The following users thanked this post: nugglix

Offline JiggyNinja

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 52
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #715 on: February 08, 2017, 03:07:22 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.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 23752
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #716 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: 2490
  • Country: hk
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #717 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 #718 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: 33
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #719 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 #720 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

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 31
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #721 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: 23752
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #722 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: 3639
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #723 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: 23752
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #724 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
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf