Low Cost PCB's Low Cost Components

Author Topic: The uBeam FAQ  (Read 195273 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3746
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #800 on: June 05, 2017, 03:44:06 PM »
This weekend I realised that by necessity, it will need a reasonably large aperture to harvest enough energy, which explains to a large degree the size of the brick attached to the phone.

Even if all the other planets aligned and the other practicalities and regulatory issues were dealt with, increasing the footprint of the phone sufficiently for the aperture, and having to have the device oriented towards the energy source enough to make it "charge" (i.e., face down, and nothing covering the aperture), alone makes this application a non-starter.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24200
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #801 on: June 05, 2017, 04:13:38 PM »
This weekend I realised that by necessity, it will need a reasonably large aperture to harvest enough energy, which explains to a large degree the size of the brick attached to the phone.
Even if all the other planets aligned and the other practicalities and regulatory issues were dealt with, increasing the footprint of the phone sufficiently for the aperture, and having to have the device oriented towards the energy source enough to make it "charge" (i.e., face down, and nothing covering the aperture), alone makes this application a non-starter.

Anyone could see that from day 1.
People put their phones down flat on the bench most of the time. You know, right were you put a $5 Qi charging pad that is vastly more efficient and cheaper.
 

Online Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3746
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #802 on: June 05, 2017, 09:00:53 PM »
This weekend I realised that by necessity, it will need a reasonably large aperture to harvest enough energy, which explains to a large degree the size of the brick attached to the phone.
Even if all the other planets aligned and the other practicalities and regulatory issues were dealt with, increasing the footprint of the phone sufficiently for the aperture, and having to have the device oriented towards the energy source enough to make it "charge" (i.e., face down, and nothing covering the aperture), alone makes this application a non-starter.

Anyone could see that from day 1.
People put their phones down flat on the bench most of the time. You know, right were you put a $5 Qi charging pad that is vastly more efficient and cheaper.

There were two important additional facets that affect user acceptance, and I hadn't fully realized until now, and I'm not at all sure were obvious, at least not to me anyway.

Firstly, and yes, obvious now we've seen the uBeam demonstrations, seriously affects usability and user acceptance: the phone needs to be face down for ceiling-mounted uBeam power transfer to work, so the touch screen and display can't be used while charging. If, instead, the uBeam transmitters are wall mounted, then you'd either need to hold the phone by the edges only, or have it resting on its side on the table. None of these options would be reasonable use cases in my view.

Secondly, I'd not figured out until experimentation that key to the scheme is a sufficiently large area on the handset not only for the energy harvesting to collect enough energy, but also to mitigate localized energy nulls. This part is a non-negotiable part of the design. Until I'd experimented myself, I hadn't realized what importance this had. I don't believe that the energy collection area on the handset can be significantly reduced by technological improvements alone, this is a practical physics problem.
 
The following users thanked this post: PaulReynolds

Offline StillTrying

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 854
  • Country: gb
  • 100% Brand New and High Quality, in theory.
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #803 on: June 07, 2017, 12:11:34 AM »
The 1st post on the 1st page of this thread is worth a re-read occasionally.

So, what's the latest guestimate of the power efficiency of the latest versions.
I still guestimate it at about 0.03%. LOL.
Ed. Nearly forgot!  :horse:
« Last Edit: June 07, 2017, 12:14:16 AM by StillTrying »
 

Offline StillTrying

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 854
  • Country: gb
  • 100% Brand New and High Quality, in theory.
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #804 on: June 07, 2017, 10:14:01 PM »
Internship Opportunity: Electrical and Medical
If you are looking for an internship for the summer, uBeam may have an opportunity for you. We are looking for interns within these areas:

1. Mechanical Engineering
2. Electrical Engineering

https://www.workable.com/j/9FF7785215

There's a few copies of it out there, don't know if it's real or not. :horse:

Offline PaulReynolds

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 44
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #805 on: June 08, 2017, 04:30:18 PM »
The 1st post on the 1st page of this thread is worth a re-read occasionally.

So, what's the latest guestimate of the power efficiency of the latest versions.
I still guestimate it at about 0.03%. LOL.
Ed. Nearly forgot!  :horse:

Remember the easy dodge on efficiency questions - it all depends on conditions.  Distance, orientation play a role, as does output power once you're in the nonlinear regime. Most actual use cases are likely to be far from ideal.
 

Offline PaulReynolds

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 44
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #806 on: June 08, 2017, 04:51:16 PM »
Internship Opportunity: Electrical and Medical
If you are looking for an internship for the summer, uBeam may have an opportunity for you. We are looking for interns within these areas:

1. Mechanical Engineering
2. Electrical Engineering

https://www.workable.com/j/9FF7785215

There's a few copies of it out there, don't know if it's real or not. :horse:

You missed the best bit on the main page. https://ubeam-inc.workable.com/ - also advertising for a Director of Strategic Marketing but here's the company description:

uBeam is an innovation that will breed innovation. Ubiquitous wireless power will lead to a world with smaller batteries and thinner, lighter devices. With wires virtually eliminated, TVs can sit in the middle of a room cord-free and light fixtures will become “stick-on” without the need for routed power. uBeam is also a universal standard, making those bulky travel adapters a thing of the past. Imagine charging your phone, laptop or even your hearing aid virtually anywhere, without any effort. This is life powered by uBeam.

I'm not even going to comment on the first sentence. Now, TV's powered cord free? Hmmm. OK, so let's take a 50 Watt TV, and the pre-2015 OSHA limit of 145 dB, which was around 300W/m^2. That means on the receive side, with a very generous 33% efficiency (random number) that you need 0.5 m^2 to get the 150W power, so a panel around 70 cm on each side. This is the size of about 100 phones, and let's be generous and say each phone size part needs $3 of materials, so can sell for ~$10 (obviously ridiculously low, you can barely sell a phone case that's just plastic for that) then that's $1000 right there. Let's assume a generous 50% efficiency from the transmitter you have to have, that implies it needs to be around 1 m^2, so now that's $2000 there.  (Let's ignore the battery added to deal with potential interruptions in the beam). $3000 to not have to plug your TV in, along with the increased electricity bill? Hmmm, niche product.

I didn't realize uBeam is a universal standard. Did they run this past the IEEE and get a new standard done? And the regulatory limit for ultrasound outside the US is definitively 115 dB or less (0.3 W/m^2) so might be a problem there a travel adapter is OK with.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2017, 05:16:18 PM by PaulReynolds »
 

Offline PaulReynolds

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 44
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #807 on: June 08, 2017, 04:55:53 PM »
Internship Opportunity: Electrical and Medical
If you are looking for an internship for the summer, uBeam may have an opportunity for you. We are looking for interns within these areas:

1. Mechanical Engineering
2. Electrical Engineering

https://www.workable.com/j/9FF7785215

There's a few copies of it out there, don't know if it's real or not. :horse:

Wait... "Medical"?

Bwahahaha. Someone didn't proof read their copy and notice that's not how you spell "Mechanical".
 

Online coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2556
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #808 on: June 08, 2017, 06:03:29 PM »
Internship Opportunity: Electrical and Medical
If you are looking for an internship for the summer, uBeam may have an opportunity for you. We are looking for interns within these areas:

1. Mechanical Engineering
2. Electrical Engineering

https://www.workable.com/j/9FF7785215

There's a few copies of it out there, don't know if it's real or not. :horse:

Wait... "Medical"?

Bwahahaha. Someone didn't proof read their copy and notice that's not how you spell "Mechanical".
Mayve there's an expectation that you'll soon be sick of the place.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24200
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #809 on: June 08, 2017, 06:05:13 PM »
You missed the best bit on the main page. https://ubeam-inc.workable.com/ - also advertising for a Director of Strategic Marketing but here's the company description:

uBeam is an innovation that will breed innovation. Ubiquitous wireless power will lead to a world with smaller batteries and thinner, lighter devices. With wires virtually eliminated, TVs can sit in the middle of a room cord-free and light fixtures will become “stick-on” without the need for routed power. uBeam is also a universal standard, making those bulky travel adapters a thing of the past. Imagine charging your phone, laptop or even your hearing aid virtually anywhere, without any effort. This is life powered by uBeam.

How can you have a statement so demonstrably technically retarded that takes a minute of back of the envelope calcs to prove it's not possible, and hold your head up high?
 

Online Kean

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 458
  • Country: au
  • Embedded systems & IT consultant
    • Kean Electronics
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #810 on: June 08, 2017, 06:16:03 PM »
How can you have a statement so demonstrably technically retarded that takes a minute of back of the envelope calcs to prove it's not possible, and hold your head up high?

By never actually shipping anything?  And giving engineers the middle finger of course!
Mind you, like Batteriser it is actually mostly* possible, just incredibly inefficient and nothing like people imagine it to be (big, bulky, impractical).

* maybe not the hearing aid - I've not much experience with those, but that seems to stretch things the limits a bit too far
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24200
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #811 on: June 08, 2017, 06:29:29 PM »
How can you have a statement so demonstrably technically retarded that takes a minute of back of the envelope calcs to prove it's not possible, and hold your head up high?

By never actually shipping anything?  And giving engineers the middle finger of course!

Always worth repeating!

 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6590
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #812 on: June 08, 2017, 08:33:38 PM »
Quote
You missed the best bit on the main page. https://ubeam-inc.workable.com/ - also advertising for a Director of Strategic Marketing but here's the company description:

With wires virtually eliminated, TVs can sit in the middle of a room cord-free and light fixtures will become “stick-on” without the need for routed power.

How can you have a statement so demonstrably technically retarded that takes a minute of back of the envelope calcs to prove it's not possible, and hold your head up high?

(Ignoring that fact that nobody wants to multiply their electricity bill by 100)

How will they power the uBeam transmitters? Will they be "stick on" too?

It's turtles all the way down.
 

Online Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3746
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #813 on: June 08, 2017, 10:17:03 PM »
How can you have a statement so demonstrably technically retarded that takes a minute of back of the envelope calcs to prove it's not possible, and hold your head up high?

By never actually shipping anything?  And giving engineers the middle finger of course!

Always worth repeating!




Eeew, that hits 11 on the cringeworthy scale. She's completely blinded by her own arrogance. I'm still very jealous of her ability to shaft over $28m out of her rather gullible backers. I wonder if she still really believes this is a practical solution for device charging, or she's just thankful for the remaining days of her bubble, however many they may be.
 

Online mikeselectricstuff

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9880
  • Country: gb
    • Mike's Electric Stuff
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #814 on: June 08, 2017, 11:15:11 PM »
Maybe Tek can sell her one of their shiny new scopes- nothing like a new toy to spend all that money on, and it would look so impressive in the photos of their lab....
Youtube channel:Taking wierd stuff apart. Very apart.
Mike's Electric Stuff: High voltage, vintage electronics etc.
Day Job: Mostly LEDs
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24200
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #815 on: June 09, 2017, 01:02:39 AM »
Eeew, that hits 11 on the cringeworthy scale. She's completely blinded by her own arrogance.

Have you watched the whole thing?
I dare you to sit through it all

 

Online Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1535
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #816 on: June 09, 2017, 01:50:45 AM »
Have you watched the whole thing?
I dare you to sit through it all

That's the kind of dare that ought to be backed up with a bet involving a shiny new scope, or several cases of cold beer.

I used to have the pain tolerance to hang off rock faces by little more than my fingernails. I don't have the pain tolerance to watch that the whole way through...
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24200
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #817 on: June 19, 2017, 10:16:18 AM »
vimeo.com/218093800


"The vision system is picking up the pattern on the phone"
Look at the PC display of the moving phones, the transmitter somehow knows how much energy each receiver transducer picks up and is displaying it on the screen. It even seem to have a graded display based on how much energy at each transducer.
How is the data being sent back from the receiver?
 :-//

You can also see how little energy is being received by each transducer on the phone! At several points in the video the phone is receiving practical nothing on the transducers.
If you are going to release a video like this, at least have it showing the phone receiving all of the possible acoustic energy  :palm:

This all is technically very cool of course, but it is still the most retarded product idea in history.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2017, 10:29:04 AM by EEVblog »
 

Offline StillTrying

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 854
  • Country: gb
  • 100% Brand New and High Quality, in theory.
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #818 on: June 19, 2017, 11:34:18 AM »
"The vision system is picking up the pattern on the phone"

I get the impression the vision system just looks for a 1 X 2 white rectangle, the LED viewer is made up of 2.

"the transmitter somehow knows how much energy each receiver transducer picks up and is displaying it on the screen."

Guesswork based on the size of the white rectangle ?

Twitter is questioning the efficiency:

Eric Hittinger? @ElephantEating Jun 16
I second the efficiency question. For 1st gen, I would be happy if it only wasted half of the consumed energy.

:-DD   :horse:
« Last Edit: June 19, 2017, 11:36:02 AM by StillTrying »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24200
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #819 on: June 19, 2017, 12:50:52 PM »
The video is interesting - in the first few seconds it's "charging" at an angle of incidence far more steep than they claim is possible. There's a noticeable lag between the phone moving and the beam catching up - who gets insonified during that time it's not on the phone?

Look at the video from 50sec onwards, there are clearly huge side lobes of wasted energy extending out a large distance. Maybe 25% of the energy at best is being focused into an iPhone size receiver?
And that's of course before all the massive losses in the ultrasonics itself.
And that's at what, maybe 1m?
There own videos shows how inefficient this will be. It's why they don't put a power meter on the phone receiver. Laughable.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24200
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #820 on: June 19, 2017, 12:52:47 PM »
"The vision system is picking up the pattern on the phone"
I get the impression the vision system just looks for a 1 X 2 white rectangle, the LED viewer is made up of 2.
"the transmitter somehow knows how much energy each receiver transducer picks up and is displaying it on the screen."
Guesswork based on the size of the white rectangle ?

I don't think so. The PC screen seems to show the intensity data mapping as seen on the LED receiver panel.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24200
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #821 on: June 19, 2017, 01:23:52 PM »
I think I'm going to include this as part of my 1000th video  ;)

Running back of envelope calcs:
Assuming absolutely no losses in the transducers, temperature, humidity, air pressure/altitude, no non-linear effects or pressure saturation, no tilt on the phone etc.
Best case you are going to get half your power lost every meter off the bat.
And based on their practical demo video (50sec mark onwards) maybe only 25% of that energy at best would be received in an iPhone sized receiver due to the large side lobe losses that are obvious in their LED panel demo.
So right there you are down to 12.5% efficiency IDEAL BEST CASE at 1m.
That’s 6.25% at 2m, 3% at 3m, and 1.5% at their claimed 4m BEST CASE!
 
So at 145-155dB (316W/sqm - 3000W/sqm) or 0.03W/sqcm - 0.3W/sqcm
iPhone at 100sqcm assuming best case circular packing density
 
@1m 3W - 30W * 12.5% eff = 0.75W to 7.5W
@2m 3W - 30W * 6.25% eff = 0.18W to 1.8W
@3m 3W - 30W * 3.125% eff = 0.09W to 0.9W
@4m 3W - 30W * 1.56% eff = 0.04W to 0.4W

Once again all best case with zero losses apart from distance and what their own hardware lobes are showing.

We'll stop at 4m because that is their claimed distance.
Obviously if you tilt the phone or use it in any practical real world usage, it just drops to impractical levels at only 2m (approx ceiling height)
And that's not taking into account cost of this boondoggle of a system.
And of course that doesn't include the fact that the recommended safety limits are only 110-115dB in most countries. They want to use up to 155dB  :scared:

It's a complete dead duck.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2017, 01:38:09 PM by EEVblog »
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6590
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #822 on: June 20, 2017, 03:38:56 AM »
1.5% at their claimed 4m BEST CASE!

So?

There's plenty of folks out there who think that looking at electricity/fuel bills is something poor people do.

 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24200
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #823 on: June 20, 2017, 06:48:21 PM »
1.5% at their claimed 4m BEST CASE!
So?
There's plenty of folks out there who think that looking at electricity/fuel bills is something poor people do.

Ok, I won't argue that at all, I could, but I won't.

Let's looks at the absolute showstoppers that make this product impractical, any one of which is enough to entirely sink the product.

- Safety. Even if it currently legal in the US, it's not anywhere else in the world. Even their minimum 145dB SPL is well outside limits.
- Cost. I don't think there is any escaping the inevitable cost of all those transducers. These are already made in mass volume for cars and they are not cheap. This thing needs hundreds and hundreds of them.
- Size. You just can't make the transducers thin enough across the entire surface of a phone to be anything anyone would want. No one wants a brick on the back of their phone.
- The inescapable fact that people use phones lying on the table, or holding with their hand and at an angle etc. This is the thing that should have stopped the project right at the back of the napkin stage.
If you have to put the phone in some ideal position to charge it, just put the thing on a $5 Qi charging pad that is already built into your phone, takes up almost no space, has no safety effects, is efficient, and cheap.
 
 

Online mikeselectricstuff

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9880
  • Country: gb
    • Mike's Electric Stuff
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #824 on: June 20, 2017, 06:53:00 PM »
just put the thing on a $5 Qi charging pad that is already built into your phone, takes up almost no space, has no safety effects, is efficient, and cheap.
..and even Qi still isn't very widely used in public venues. I've seen way more USB sockets in cafes, hotels etc.
So anything more expensive and less widely supported stands zero chance of being adopted anywhere.
Youtube channel:Taking wierd stuff apart. Very apart.
Mike's Electric Stuff: High voltage, vintage electronics etc.
Day Job: Mostly LEDs
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf