Author Topic: The uBeam FAQ  (Read 178554 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 23980
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #725 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: 23980
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #726 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: 5031
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #727 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: 3679
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #728 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: 1320
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #729 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: 557
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #730 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

 

Offline StillTrying

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 783
  • Country: gb
  • 100% Brand New and High Quality, in theory.
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #731 on: February 19, 2017, 09:19:16 AM »

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 23980
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #732 on: February 19, 2017, 09:39:05 AM »
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 23980
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #733 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

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 35
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #734 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: 23980
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #735 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: 23980
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #736 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

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 35
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #737 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: 1320
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #738 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 #739 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: 496
  • Country: ch
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #740 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

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 35
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #741 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

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 242
  • Country: nl
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #742 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 #743 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 #744 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.
 

Offline JiggyNinja

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 52
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #745 on: February 23, 2017, 03:15:56 AM »
Preaching to the choir here, Dan.
 

Offline PaulReynolds

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 35
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #746 on: March 02, 2017, 07:48:00 PM »
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 23980
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #747 on: March 02, 2017, 08:01:33 PM »
Looks like the COO has departed.
http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/03/another-one-bites-dust.html

As long as the band keeps playing, everything will be fine...
 

Offline Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3679
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #748 on: March 02, 2017, 08:24:20 PM »
From LinkedIn...

Quote
COO
Company Name uBeam
Dates Employed Sep 2015 – Feb 2017 Employment Duration1 yr 6 mos LocationSanta Monica Ca
Lead the Development and execution of uBeam Operations - including processes/functions associated with Design for X, supplier sourcing/management, IT development and deployment, Demand and supply planning, manufacturing, delivery and logistics, after sales support including installation, warranty, and call center support.

Well, nothing beats a good bullshit on your CV/resume/LinkedIn profile I guess.
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 23980
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #749 on: March 02, 2017, 08:27:36 PM »
From LinkedIn...

Quote
COO
Company Name uBeam
Dates Employed Sep 2015 – Feb 2017 Employment Duration1 yr 6 mos LocationSanta Monica Ca
Lead the Development and execution of uBeam Operations - including processes/functions associated with Design for X, supplier sourcing/management, IT development and deployment, Demand and supply planning, manufacturing, delivery and logistics, after sales support including installation, warranty, and call center support.

Well, nothing beats a good bullshit on your CV/resume/LinkedIn profile I guess.

 :-DD

Surely the company is now all but dead?
There doesn't seem to be anyone there doing the technical hard yards, practically every executive and technical head is gone.
And they can't seem to hire anyone new.
Just a slow bleed until the remaining money runs out?
No one would be dumb enough to invest again given almost every high profile person has left.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2017, 08:51:59 PM by EEVblog »
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf

 

http://opalkelly.com/