Low Cost PCB's Low Cost Components

Author Topic: The uBeam FAQ  (Read 206544 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Bud

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1842
  • Country: ca
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #975 on: August 11, 2017, 08:53:48 AM »
Being fat nullifies the advantage of being blonde.

Comments like this make you look like a cruel ignorant dick.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to critique uBeam. Stick to those.

R

Oh yes,  another keyboard warrior. Do not try to listen Queen's Fat Bottomed Girls, it may give you an insult.
 

Offline djos

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 541
  • Country: au
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #976 on: August 11, 2017, 09:34:46 AM »
Being fat nullifies the advantage of being blonde.

Comments like this make you look like a cruel ignorant dick.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to critique uBeam. Stick to those.

R

Oh yes,  another keyboard warrior. Do not try to listen Queen's Fat Bottomed Girls, it may give you an insult.

You are missing the point Bud, play the ball, not the woman!
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.
 
The following users thanked this post: ludzinc, Dubbie

Offline Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1631
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #977 on: August 11, 2017, 11:21:55 AM »
Being fat nullifies the advantage of being blonde.

Comments like this make you look like a cruel ignorant dick.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to critique uBeam. Stick to those.

R

Oh yes,  another keyboard warrior. Do not try to listen Queen's Fat Bottomed Girls, it may give you an insult.

Ah, the "Keyboard Warrior" trope. Do you have any more sad clichés to trot out in failing to support your position, or have you used up your monthly allowance of polysyllabic words?

The woman's a horror, but attack her for being a horror, not for being a blonde, or a woman, or fat bottomed (which song, by the way, was penned in praise of Fat Bottomed Girls, who apparently "make the world go around", and who am I to disagree).

Incidentally, "give you an insult", in context, is wildly ungrammatical; "insult you" would be grammatically correct, and "might cause you to feel insulted" would be more correct, save for the fact that no red-blooded man would be insulted by the idea that "fat bottomed girls make the world go around". Indeed, most red-blooded men would nod sagaciously in agreement. Faced with the idea of "Fat Bottomed Girls" I do, indeed, find myself warmly nodding.  In summary, fat bottomed girls are a delight, and should be (discretely)  appreciated by all men.

Sorry, I got a bit side-tracked by the, very pleasant, thought of fat bottomed girls when I was supposed to be castigating a chap for his sadly un-reconstructed caveman attitudes, I do apologise.

Be a good fellow, try not to drag your knuckles on the way out.
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 
The following users thanked this post: benst, Kean, Dubbie, JimRemington, newbrain, Mukrakiish, djos, jpc

Offline PaulReynolds

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 46
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #978 on: August 25, 2017, 01:32:20 PM »
uBeam have a couple of new job ads up. Once again it's jobs that show how close to delivering a consumer product in mass volume they are.

https://ubeam-inc.workable.com/

"Hardware/Software Lead Design Engineer" for the "R&D Division" only needs to have skills in "electrical, mechanical, software and systems, with a specialization in electrical and electronic design. Experience shall include expert level use of electronic design automation tools (schematic capture, VHDL, circuit simulation), knowledge of high voltage, analog and digital circuit design concepts, FPGA and embedded processor application design, PCB and ASIC design, bench level circuit debug and analysis skills with a passion for problem solving and root cause analysis. The candidate must have superior communication skills and a demonstrated ability to lead and mentor other engineers."

Not too much to ask for there.

"Acoustic Lead Scientist" is a bit more reasonable but the interesting parts here are "help educate the group in terms of general acoustics knowledge", which is not the way to phrase you're lacking in your core competency, and "Modelling of acoustic propagation or non-linear acoustics experience" so are they finally admitting that non-linearity is an issue?

Does this indicate that they have funding and are starting their hiring, or are VCs asking the question that has been pointed out for the last few months which is "Who are the transducer and acoustic team experts since that's your core company function?" and they need to answer that question somehow to get money?
 
The following users thanked this post: Kean

Offline StillTrying

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 897
  • Country: gb
  • 100% Brand New and High Quality, in theory.
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #979 on: August 26, 2017, 06:57:23 AM »
"help educate the group in terms of general acoustics knowledge"

Translation: After 6 years and $30m, we're still clueless about what we're trying to do.  :horse:

Besides, can't they just get someone to google it.  :-DD

Offline StillTrying

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 897
  • Country: gb
  • 100% Brand New and High Quality, in theory.
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #980 on: September 13, 2017, 07:31:51 AM »
 :-DD

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24369
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #981 on: September 13, 2017, 09:06:52 AM »
uBeam have a couple of new job ads up. Once again it's jobs that show how close to delivering a consumer product in mass volume they are.

https://ubeam-inc.workable.com/

LOL! Quick 2nd channel video uploading now.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24369
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #982 on: September 13, 2017, 09:22:34 AM »
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6683
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #983 on: September 15, 2017, 05:48:37 AM »
There's another new kid on the block:

https://www.wi-charge.com/

It charges using focused infra-red light.



Product Features

*  Automatic – the transmitter finds the devices and powers them without intervention
* Safe – complies with international standards and regulations
* Power delivery over distance – room, hall, or long-distance, per application
* Wide field of view – single transmitter can cover a room of 250 square feet
* High power – unlike “power harvesting” solutions, a Wi-Charge transmitter can deliver watts of electrical power
* Power is constant over distance – no power dissipation and 100% link efficiency
* Multiple devices can be charged simultaneously
* Scalable – additional transmitters can be placed to increase coverage, power and number of receivers
* Smart power delivery according to receiving-device parameters
* EMI-free

Looks like some sort if infra-red laser beam. If they can keep it from melting your phone and/or blinding everybody in the room then it sounds like it could possibly work. Meredith should be afraid.

(assuming they can persuade all the phone makers to sign up)
« Last Edit: September 15, 2017, 05:56:50 AM by Fungus »
 

Offline rich

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 248
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #984 on: September 15, 2017, 06:37:47 AM »
Not quite new kid on the block, as way back machine has them cached from about 2013, but they do have a shiny new website for 2017

Here's the tech faq:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160402094821/http://www.wi-charge.com/technology.php?ID=25
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6683
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #985 on: September 15, 2017, 06:45:11 AM »
Not quite new kid on the block, as way back machine has them cached from about 2013, but they do have a shiny new website for 2017

Fair enough. It was all over Facebook today, they must be fishing for a slice of Meredith's pie.
 

Offline Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1631
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #986 on: September 15, 2017, 07:15:18 AM »
Not quite new kid on the block, as way back machine has them cached from about 2013, but they do have a shiny new website for 2017

Fair enough. It was all over Facebook today, they must be fishing for a slice of Meredith's pie.

Yeah. But imagine what they could achieve together, she can deafen them, they can blind them, and now all it needs is the new DwarfAxeTM replacement for Bluetooth to come along and cut them off at the knees.
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 
The following users thanked this post: nugglix

Offline AlanS

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 5
  • Country: au
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #987 on: September 15, 2017, 09:18:51 AM »
Well I think that summarises the current state of play. Thank you for the vision - and the laugh.
 

Offline PaulReynolds

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 46
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #988 on: September 15, 2017, 12:27:51 PM »
A peer reviewed paper on ultrasonic wireless power transfer just appeared in IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control. It's open-access so you can download without being a journal subscriber.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8006286/

Wireless Power Transfer to Millimeter-Sized Nodes Using Airborne Ultrasound

Abstract: We propose the use of airborne ultrasound for wireless power transfer to mm-sized nodes, with intended application in the next generation of the Internet of Things. We show through simulation that ultrasonic power transfer can deliver 50?W to a mm-sized node 0.88m away from a ~50 kHz, 25 cm2 transmitter array, with the peak pressure remaining below recommended limits in air, and with load power increasing with transmitter area. We report wireless power recovery measurements with a pre-charged capacitive micromachined ultrasonic transducer, demonstrating a load power of 5?W at a simulated distance of 1.05 m. We present aperture efficiency, dynamic range, and biasfree operation as key metrics for the comparison of transducers meant for wireless power recovery. We also argue that longrange wireless charging at the watt level is extremely challenging with existing technology and regulations. Finally, we compare our acoustic powering system to cutting edge electromagnetically powered nodes and show that ultrasound has many advantages over RF as a vehicle for power delivery. Our work sets the foundation for further research into ultrasonic wireless power transfer for the Internet of Things.

Notice 50 microWatts at around 1m at 50kHz from 25cm2. Note that uBeam's panel was at least 45 by 45 cm so 80 times larger, so they are indicating 4mW from a panel that size. That means it would take 1250 hours (7+ weeks) to charge a 5Wh phone (if it was switched off). (Way worst case, but illustrative)

« Last Edit: September 15, 2017, 06:16:15 PM by PaulReynolds »
 
The following users thanked this post: Kean

Offline BrianHG

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1071
  • Country: ca
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #989 on: September 15, 2017, 12:48:50 PM »
There's another new kid on the block:

https://www.wi-charge.com/

It charges using focused infra-red light.



Product Features

*  Automatic – the transmitter finds the devices and powers them without intervention
* Safe – complies with international standards and regulations
* Power delivery over distance – room, hall, or long-distance, per application
* Wide field of view – single transmitter can cover a room of 250 square feet
* High power – unlike “power harvesting” solutions, a Wi-Charge transmitter can deliver watts of electrical power
* Power is constant over distance – no power dissipation and 100% link efficiency
* Multiple devices can be charged simultaneously
* Scalable – additional transmitters can be placed to increase coverage, power and number of receivers
* Smart power delivery according to receiving-device parameters
* EMI-free

Looks like some sort if infra-red laser beam. If they can keep it from melting your phone and/or blinding everybody in the room then it sounds like it could possibly work. Meredith should be afraid.

(assuming they can persuade all the phone makers to sign up)

The next 2 leaps in battery technology will put an end to all this crap.  Once your cell phone charge will last 4-5 days under constant use, or for a month at a time under light use, who is going to bother with wireless charging.
And believe me, much bigger $$$ is involved in making Lithium Nitrogen and Lithium Oxygen batteries a reality...
__________
BrianHG.
 

Offline timothyaag

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 38
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #990 on: September 16, 2017, 06:09:23 AM »
with existing technology

There's their out! "Our technology is new and revolutionary."
 

Offline PaulReynolds

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 46
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #991 on: September 16, 2017, 10:08:43 AM »
with existing technology

There's their out! "Our technology is new and revolutionary."

That works for us peons, but what about during Due Diligence? It's yet more evidence to be refuted during DD, when a company can't hide things, and it's impossible to ignore (assuming VCs are doing their jobs and meeting fiduciary duty to LPs).
 

Offline The_Next_Theranos

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 8
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #992 on: September 17, 2017, 12:26:05 AM »
Might this be the first uBeam installation?

From https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/14/mystery-of-sonic-weapon-attacks-at-us-embassy-in-cuba-deepens :
Quote
The blaring, grinding noise jolted the American diplomat from his bed in a Havana hotel. He moved just a few feet, and there was silence. He climbed back into bed. Inexplicably, the agonizing sound hit him again. It was as if he’d walked through some invisible wall cutting straight through his room. Soon came the hearing loss, and the speech problems, symptoms both similar and altogether different from others among at least 21 US victims in an astonishing international mystery still unfolding in Cuba. The top US diplomat has called them “health attacks”.
 

Offline PaulReynolds

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 46
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #993 on: September 19, 2017, 03:37:15 PM »
'Pi' seem to have something interesting with wireless charging. Looks like they've got more control over the magnetic field and make Qi practical. Maybe 30cm distance, a few Watts and a few devices in any orientation. I'm impressed with what they've shown so far. Believable stuff in the limitations they're admitting, and they've shown some of their working. Looking forward to getting more details on this.

http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/09/wireless-at-distance-charging-may-be.html

Company website here - https://www.picharging.com/


 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24369
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #994 on: September 19, 2017, 08:31:21 PM »
http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/09/wireless-at-distance-charging-may-be.html

It will all be about the efficiency.
The world does not need a 10% efficient charger in every home, and indeed some regulation in some countries may prevent it's sale.
I'd be impressed if they got say 20% at 30cm at any orientation.
 

Online mikeselectricstuff

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9978
  • Country: gb
    • Mike's Electric Stuff
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #995 on: September 19, 2017, 08:43:30 PM »
http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/09/wireless-at-distance-charging-may-be.html

It will all be about the efficiency.
The world does not need a 10% efficient charger in every home, and indeed some regulation in some countries may prevent it's sale.
I'd be impressed if they got say 20% at 30cm at any orientation.
The efficiency whilst running isn't that important as it will only be running for a small proportion of the time.
It would be easy for it to turn off when no devices are present by periodically sending a short pulse to see if anything is within range. There could also be some intelligence in the receiver units to decide if they need to supply power, so it isn't idling when devices are not drawing power.
 
Youtube channel:Taking wierd stuff apart. Very apart.
Mike's Electric Stuff: High voltage, vintage electronics etc.
Day Job: Mostly LEDs
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6683
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #996 on: September 20, 2017, 12:17:48 AM »
The efficiency whilst running isn't that important as it will only be running for a small proportion of the time.

Of course it's important.

You're throwing away 90%+ of the power every time you charge something. Are we supposed to build new power stations just so everybody can use this technology?
 

Offline PaulReynolds

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 46
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #997 on: September 20, 2017, 02:05:03 AM »
http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/09/wireless-at-distance-charging-may-be.html

It will all be about the efficiency.
The world does not need a 10% efficient charger in every home, and indeed some regulation in some countries may prevent it's sale.
I'd be impressed if they got say 20% at 30cm at any orientation.

It should be all about the efficiency, but we do have an economic system that sometimes rewards inefficiency. Reading my blog post this morning, I realized that to a lay person I hadn't highlighted that efficiency concern enough, and so added a section to the end of the article. Based on what I see in the paper they have, and using 60% as the baseline Qi efficiency, I get worst case 10%, best 60% (duh), and estimate 20 to 25% efficient in most applications. This would mean around a couple billion $ in new power stations and a million $ a day burned as heat. Not that green.
 

Offline Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3802
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #998 on: September 20, 2017, 04:15:17 AM »
How is the "beam-forming" working with the magnetic field? Sure, it's reasonably easy to null out parts, but beam-forming sounds like it's streching it to me considering the form factor. The picutires I saw seem to have two coils which could manipulate the field to some degree, but it'd be more like punching a pillow than beam-forming.
 

Offline PaulReynolds

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 46
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #999 on: September 20, 2017, 01:44:41 PM »
How is the "beam-forming" working with the magnetic field? Sure, it's reasonably easy to null out parts, but beam-forming sounds like it's streching it to me considering the form factor. The picutires I saw seem to have two coils which could manipulate the field to some degree, but it'd be more like punching a pillow than beam-forming.

"Beam forming" may be a little strong a term. Maybe "beam shaping"? "Nudging"?
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf