Low Cost PCB's Low Cost Components

Author Topic: The uBeam FAQ  (Read 195267 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24200
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #875 on: June 26, 2017, 01:39:58 PM »
But the thing that stuns me is they actually went out and bought a brand new high-end phone to prove the results were not faked, and then didn't require proof that the "receiving " box attached to the phone did not contain batteries or supercaps.
I have no idea why that box has to be so thick anyway. What is in it?

The commercial transducers are thick.
And yep, most likely a storage battery, as IIRC that is described in their patent.
So probably a transducer PCB on the back of another controller PCB, and the battery behind that. But yeah, seems overly thick even for that.
 

Offline amspire

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3176
  • Country: au
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #876 on: June 26, 2017, 01:49:32 PM »
There are some interesting things said in that USA Today post.
Quote
Asked why the battery percentage didn’t appear to increase rapidly, Perry shakes her head.

“You’re thinking about it the wrong way, this is about a paradigm shift,” she says. “If you’re moving from your car to a coffee shop to work and your phone is charging while you’re using it, it’s no long about what percentage you’re at. You could stay at 1% all day.”

This seems to be implying that uBeam have accepted that the charging power will be pretty low - particularly with multiple devices, and are trying to convince people that as long as you can get enough to match the phone's idle dissipation, the product works.

Quote
n a cramped basement office, Perry and a number of colleagues stood in front of another boxy ultrasound transmitter outfitted with an infrared camera vision system programmed to track multiple phones at once. As long as a phone in its case didn’t tilt more than 45 degrees, in other words sufficient for checking messages, the charging icon remained lit.

The tracking system could be very simple - perhaps a cheap camera module tracking IR LEDS on the receivers. Most cameras can see IR LEDS fine. It could be as simple as seeing a flashing code on a pixel on the camera and time multiplexing some power in that direction. By using multiplexing, tracking a large number of devices would be simple. A tracking system like this could even be implemented on an Arduino.

Quote
Perry flipped the switch on a large white box, about the size of a ceiling tile. A quiet hum filled the conference room as the entrepreneur asked her visitor to pick up the phone and hold it in front of the box about about four feet away.

When was the last time you heard a hum from a modern power supply? Have they got a massive transformer or is the hum the sound of powerful cooling fans?

If uBeam have developed a cheap high powered dense ultrasonic array, that could possibly be worth more then the $26 million for other uses, even if it is ultimately useless for power charging. That might be the game that is being played.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 02:32:49 PM by amspire »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24200
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #877 on: June 26, 2017, 02:29:58 PM »
There are some interesting things said in that USA Today post.
Quote
Asked why the battery percentage didn’t appear to increase rapidly, Perry shakes her head.

“You’re thinking about it the wrong way, this is about a paradigm shift,” she says. “If you’re moving from your car to a coffee shop to work and your phone is charging while you’re using it, it’s no long about what percentage you’re at. You could stay at 1% all day.”

This seems to be implying that uBeam have accepted that the charging power will be pretty low - particularly with multiple devices, and are trying to convince people that as long as you can get enough to match the phone's idle dissipation, the product works.

Yep, which is why they have never said anything other then "1.5W" (without any specifics given). That tells you everything you need to know.
They made the claim at one point that it would charge faster than wires. Oops, it's slower than even the slowest wire.

Quote
Quote
n a cramped basement office, Perry and a number of colleagues stood in front of another boxy ultrasound transmitter outfitted with an infrared camera vision system programmed to track multiple phones at once. As long as a phone in its case didn’t tilt more than 45 degrees, in other words sufficient for checking messages, the charging icon remained lit.

The tracking system could be very simple - perhaps a cheap camera module tracking IR LEDS on the receivers. Most cameras can see IR LEDS fine. It could be as simple as seeing a flashing code on a pixel on the camera and time multiplexing some power in that direction. By using multiplexing, tracking a large number of devices would be simple. A tracking system like this could even be implemented on an Arduino.

It was pretty clearly doing visual box tracking of the bright thick white frame on the back of the receiver.

Quote
Quote
Perry flipped the switch on a large white box, about the size of a ceiling tile. A quiet hum filled the conference room as the entrepreneur asked her visitor to pick up the phone and hold it in front of the box about about four feet away.

When was the last time you heard a hum from a modern power supply? Have they got a massive transformer or is the hum the sound of powerful cooling fans?

If uBeam have developed a cheap high powered dense ultrasonic array, that could possibly be worth more then the $26 million for other uses, even if it is ultimately useless for power charging. That might be the game that is being played.

Not a steerable one they haven't. At least they haven't shown it.
That small on in the room pretty clearly does not do beamforming or tracking.
 

Offline amspire

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3176
  • Country: au
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #878 on: June 26, 2017, 02:43:42 PM »

Quote
n a cramped basement office, Perry and a number of colleagues stood in front of another boxy ultrasound transmitter outfitted with an infrared camera vision system programmed to track multiple phones at once. As long as a phone in its case didn’t tilt more than 45 degrees, in other words sufficient for checking messages, the charging icon remained lit.

The tracking system could be very simple - perhaps a cheap camera module tracking IR LEDS on the receivers. Most cameras can see IR LEDS fine. It could be as simple as seeing a flashing code on a pixel on the camera and time multiplexing some power in that direction. By using multiplexing, tracking a large number of devices would be simple. A tracking system like this could even be implemented on an Arduino.

It was pretty clearly doing visual box tracking of the bright thick white frame on the back of the receiver.
This IR camera solution was "another" box that solved the problem of the limited range and tracking of the first box. So they have two different tracking solutions and it seems like the IR camera one may be the more versatile one.
Quote

Quote
Quote
Perry flipped the switch on a large white box, about the size of a ceiling tile. A quiet hum filled the conference room as the entrepreneur asked her visitor to pick up the phone and hold it in front of the box about about four feet away.

When was the last time you heard a hum from a modern power supply? Have they got a massive transformer or is the hum the sound of powerful cooling fans?

If uBeam have developed a cheap high powered dense ultrasonic array, that could possibly be worth more then the $26 million for other uses, even if it is ultimately useless for power charging. That might be the game that is being played.

Not a steerable one they haven't. At least they haven't shown it.
That small on in the room pretty clearly does not do beamforming or tracking.

If they have an imaging specialist like Matt O’Donnell onboard as a chief technology adviser, that makes me think they have a long term strategy in the imaging market rather then power transfer. If they are making an array with thousands of transducers, imaging makes more sense then a charger.

It does not mean that they are working on imaging and complex beamforming right now, but Matt seems to be excited about the transducers. He didn't say he was excited about the phone charging, just the transducers.
 

Offline djos

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Country: au
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #879 on: June 26, 2017, 02:52:10 PM »
Yep, which is why they have never said anything other then "1.5W" (without any specifics given). That tells you everything you need to know.
They made the claim at one point that it would charge faster than wires. Oops, it's slower than even the slowest wire.

They'd be better off burning their investors cash trying to make wireless charging work using WiFi as the "power source". At least that is legally allowed to put out up to 4 watts irrc (even that is likely highly implausible).
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.
 

Offline ludzinc

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 435
  • Country: au
    • My Misadventures In Engineering
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #880 on: June 26, 2017, 03:21:40 PM »
.. imaging makes more sense then a charger.


*than
 

Offline VNFTW

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 4
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #881 on: June 27, 2017, 02:12:15 AM »
If you can make it through her TedX video, try to make it through this:
http://meredithperry.tumblr.com/post/106297094145/a-brief-negation-of-time
 

Online Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3746
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #882 on: June 27, 2017, 02:38:05 AM »
If you can make it through her TedX video, try to make it through this:
http://meredithperry.tumblr.com/post/106297094145/a-brief-negation-of-time

Blimey, her tumblr posts are the very definition of why narcissism and self-indulgence are such a turn-off.
 

Offline Buriedcode

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 600
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #883 on: June 27, 2017, 04:21:52 AM »
If you can make it through her TedX video, try to make it through this:
http://meredithperry.tumblr.com/post/106297094145/a-brief-negation-of-time

Jesus. I was going to post a few quotes from that in here, but as its just her thoughts, it would be unfair to criticize them.  It did read quite a bit like the sort of enthusiastic posts made by those who follow the 'free energy' crowd.  Picking bits and pieces of theories (like misinterpreting and abusing anything 'quantum'), lumping them together, and using that as proof that they must be right.


 

Offline timb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2362
  • Country: us
  • Pretentiously Posting Polysyllabic Prose
    • timb.us
The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #884 on: June 27, 2017, 01:23:26 PM »
Quote
Meredith Perry's Dumbass Tumbler:
“The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.” –JBS Haldane

*Pictures the Universe as RuPaul.* Mmmm, girlfriend, that's one Big Bang I'd love to be part of! But you better leave your dark matter at home, because I'll be throwing plenty of shade! *Snaps Fingers* Shanté, you stay. Sashay away! *Struts down the catwalk.*
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic; e.g., Cheez Whiz, Hot Dogs and RF.
 

Online Richard Crowley

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3294
  • Country: us
  • KE7GKP
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #885 on: June 27, 2017, 01:29:55 PM »
*Pictures the Universe as RuPaul.* Mmmm, girlfriend, that's one Big Bang I'd love to be part of! But you better leave your dark matter at home, because I'll be throwing plenty of shade! *Snaps Fingers* Shanté, you stay. Sashay away! *Struts down the catwalk.*

That's some Pretty Pretentious Polysyllabic Prose there!
 

Offline daqq

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1127
  • Country: sk
    • My site
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #886 on: June 27, 2017, 02:40:50 PM »
Quote
If uBeam have developed a cheap high powered dense ultrasonic array, that could possibly be worth more then the $26 million for other uses, even if it is ultimately useless for power charging. That might be the game that is being played.
The system starts of as kickstarter phone charger, ends up as remote pigeon scaring device. That certainly is a paradigm shift.
Believe it or not, pointy haired people do exist!
+++Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot +++
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6590
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #887 on: June 27, 2017, 06:16:59 PM »
Quote
If uBeam have developed a cheap high powered dense ultrasonic array, that could possibly be worth more then the $26 million for other uses, even if it is ultimately useless for power charging. That might be the game that is being played.
The system starts of as kickstarter phone charger, ends up as remote pigeon scaring device. That certainly is a paradigm shift.

We prefer to call it a "pivot".
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24200
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #888 on: June 27, 2017, 08:44:29 PM »
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6590
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #889 on: June 28, 2017, 12:05:07 AM »
OK, so we now ask Meredith why she banned a guy simply for asking an obvious question.



 

Offline Bud

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1798
  • Country: ca
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #890 on: June 28, 2017, 03:11:46 AM »
What is the point of that connection link going to the hanging pennis?
 

Online coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2556
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #891 on: June 28, 2017, 05:31:28 AM »
Quote
If uBeam have developed a cheap high powered dense ultrasonic array, that could possibly be worth more then the $26 million for other uses, even if it is ultimately useless for power charging. That might be the game that is being played.
The system starts of as kickstarter phone charger, ends up as remote pigeon scaring device. That certainly is a paradigm shift.
To be fair, most startups which reach IPO are doing something very different from their original idea by the time of the IPO. IF uBeam could reach IPO with a successful idea that has any connection to focused ultrasonic beams they would be closer to their original concept than most companies. That's quite a big if.
 

Offline max_torque

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 656
  • Country: gb
    • bitdynamics
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #892 on: June 28, 2017, 08:05:03 PM »
There are some interesting things said in that USA Today post.
Quote
Asked why the battery percentage didn’t appear to increase rapidly, Perry shakes her head.

“You’re thinking about it the wrong way, this is about a paradigm shift,” she says. “If you’re moving from your car to a coffee shop to work and your phone is charging while you’re using it, it’s no long about what percentage you’re at. You could stay at 1% all day.”

This seems to be implying that uBeam have accepted that the charging power will be pretty low - particularly with multiple devices, and are trying to convince people that as long as you can get enough to match the phone's idle dissipation, the product works.

Quote
n a cramped basement office, Perry and a number of colleagues stood in front of another boxy ultrasound transmitter outfitted with an infrared camera vision system programmed to track multiple phones at once. As long as a phone in its case didn’t tilt more than 45 degrees, in other words sufficient for checking messages, the charging icon remained lit.

The tracking system could be very simple - perhaps a cheap camera module tracking IR LEDS on the receivers. Most cameras can see IR LEDS fine. It could be as simple as seeing a flashing code on a pixel on the camera and time multiplexing some power in that direction. By using multiplexing, tracking a large number of devices would be simple. A tracking system like this could even be implemented on an Arduino.

Quote
Perry flipped the switch on a large white box, about the size of a ceiling tile. A quiet hum filled the conference room as the entrepreneur asked her visitor to pick up the phone and hold it in front of the box about about four feet away.

When was the last time you heard a hum from a modern power supply? Have they got a massive transformer or is the hum the sound of powerful cooling fans?

If uBeam have developed a cheap high powered dense ultrasonic array, that could possibly be worth more then the $26 million for other uses, even if it is ultimately useless for power charging. That might be the game that is being played.

Doesn't this make it a "maintainer" rather than a "charger".

Charging rather suggest that the battery is being increased in it's State of Charge doesn't it?
 

Offline StillTrying

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 854
  • Country: gb
  • 100% Brand New and High Quality, in theory.

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6590
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #894 on: July 04, 2017, 09:27:44 AM »
http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/ubeam-withdraw-claims-of-wirelessly.html

Do people 'charge' their TVs? It seems a weird turn of phrase for somebody who complains about uBeam's grammar.
 

Offline PaulReynolds

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 44
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #895 on: July 05, 2017, 04:44:04 AM »
http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/ubeam-withdraw-claims-of-wirelessly.html

Do people 'charge' their TVs? It seems a weird turn of phrase for somebody who complains about uBeam's grammar.

You never used to charge your phone, either - it had a line for both voice and power. Go back 30 years, it would be a weird turn of phrase to talk about charging your phone then. To use an analogy, a TV powered this way is essentially a very large phone with battery to make wireless powering feasible, I'm just using that terminology. I'll stand by my use of that term.

Consider doing this in practice. If you are going to wirelessly power a TV you have to account for the fact that something can get into the beam and block power for a period of time. That means you must have some form of energy storage at the TV to provide enough power during those outages. Basically, power from battery plus wireless power must, on average, cover all the use cases likely to be encountered. Unless you can be 100% certain you will never lose the wireless power connection, you *must* have a battery in the TV. You could say that nothing and no-one is allowed in the spaces around the TV, but then you reduce the utility of it being in free space and you may as well have a wire. Even if you want to float a TV in the middle of a room above everyone's head, you still have to support it somehow, may as well power via one of those wires.

So basically to "run" a TV without wired power, any practical situation will need a battery and it will be a combined "power+charge", same as you'd have to do with your phone to simultaneously use the phone and have the battery level increase.

I replied in a similar manner on my blog, I'm assuming that was your comment there.

And on being the grammar police - this is a company looking to hire the best, and give an impression of quality, depth, professionalism. Take a few seconds to proofread what will be your first contact to a prospective employee. You can't be perfect all the time, I still find them in my writing after a proofread, but at least try.
 

Offline timb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2362
  • Country: us
  • Pretentiously Posting Polysyllabic Prose
    • timb.us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #896 on: July 05, 2017, 07:25:11 AM »
Plus, keep in mind you still have to plug a cable/sat receiver (which itself needs power) into the TV which requires a HDMI cable. If you don't have that type of service you'd need to hook the TV to your antenna to receive over the air broadcasts, so that means running a coax cable from the TV.

Any way you look at it you still need wires.

You'd also need to have a pretty large battery pack inside the TV to keep it going during charging interruptions, adding even more cost to the already outrageous price the uBeam would add.

Any way you approach it, it's stupid.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic; e.g., Cheez Whiz, Hot Dogs and RF.
 

Online coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2556
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #897 on: July 05, 2017, 07:33:41 AM »
Plus, keep in mind you still have to plug a cable/sat receiver (which itself needs power) into the TV which requires a HDMI cable. If you don't have that type of service you'd need to hook the TV to your antenna to receive over the air broadcasts, so that means running a coax cable from the TV.

Any way you look at it you still need wires.

You'd also need to have a pretty large battery pack inside the TV to keep it going during charging interruptions, adding even more cost to the already outrageous price the uBeam would add.

Any way you approach it, it's stupid.
We have this thing called radio these days. It can get information to a display device wirelessly. However silly the ultrasonically powered TV idea might be, needing cables to get signals to it isn't one of its problems.
 

Offline timb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2362
  • Country: us
  • Pretentiously Posting Polysyllabic Prose
    • timb.us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #898 on: July 05, 2017, 08:38:58 AM »
Plus, keep in mind you still have to plug a cable/sat receiver (which itself needs power) into the TV which requires a HDMI cable. If you don't have that type of service you'd need to hook the TV to your antenna to receive over the air broadcasts, so that means running a coax cable from the TV.

Any way you look at it you still need wires.

You'd also need to have a pretty large battery pack inside the TV to keep it going during charging interruptions, adding even more cost to the already outrageous price the uBeam would add.

Any way you approach it, it's stupid.
We have this thing called radio these days. It can get information to a display device wirelessly. However silly the ultrasonically powered TV idea might be, needing cables to get signals to it isn't one of its problems.

A large number of people require an outdoor or attic aerial antenna to pull in over the air digital TV signals. Rabbit Ears just won't cut it. For those people there's no getting around having to run coax from the TV to the wall.

As for wirelessly connecting a device to the TV... None of the Wireless HDMI standards are very good.

WirelessHD runs at 60GHz, which means it's basically line of site and has a *very* short range, just like uBeam! So it's kind of worthless if someone walks in front of your transmitter and you lose picture... At least it's uncompressed video and can theoretically support 4k Ultra HD. Overall, it's very application specific and not a general wireless video transmission solution at this time.

Then there's WHDI which seems to have stagnated. On the plus side they use the 5GHz spectrum, so it has more range than WirelessHD. On the other hand, they're using 5GHz, which means ever nearby router has the potential to cause interference and they're very limited on bandwidth. The latter point is crucial, because it means they're not transmitting raw uncompressed video. Instead, they're using lossy compression to transmit your video, which means reduced quality. Also, no 4k Ultra HD support.

So yes, we have ways of transmitting video via radio waves, but they all currently suck. Think about how much bandwidth it requires to transmit raw 4k resolution video (plus 5.1 uncompressed audio) over a serial link at 60FPS. It's not easy to do without wires (and it's why Wireless HD is using such a high frequency).
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic; e.g., Cheez Whiz, Hot Dogs and RF.
 

Offline CopperCone

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 343
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #899 on: July 05, 2017, 08:52:19 AM »
I think this has the potential to drive animals insane, cause depression in pets, effect wildlife, etc.

No matter what the achievable specifications are, this could very well turn your house into a torture chamber for a family pet.



It's rather sadistic.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf