EEVblog Electronics Community Forum

General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: georgesmith on October 11, 2015, 11:08:53 pm

Title: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: georgesmith on October 11, 2015, 11:08:53 pm
(I was going to post this on my own site. But more people might be interested here, since there's already a long uBeam thread. @Mods, feel free to move if this is the wrong forum.)

Version 1.11 - Last updated 2016-05-17

Disclaimer: The author is not affiliated with uBeam, or any uBeam competitor.

1. What is uBeam?


uBeam[1] is a hardware startup, founded in 2011 by Meredith Perry[2] and Nora Dweck[3]. uBeam aims to create "a world without wires", where almost all electronics are powered by uBeam's wireless ultrasound technology[1].

2. Why is uBeam controversial?

Wireless power has always been a dream of electrical engineers, ever since Nikola Tesla's experiments in the early 20th century[4]. However, it faces many serious obstacles. Many people have questioned whether uBeam can overcome these obstacles, and produce a commercially practical device.[5][6][7] This FAQ aims to answer some of those questions.

3. How much is known about uBeam?

Very little. uBeam has never shipped a product, and has never exhibited a prototype (unlike some competitors, who demonstrated their tech at CES 2015 [8][9]). uBeam has also never released basic technical specs, such as range, efficiency, and amount of power delivered. uBeam says they have a working prototype, but even uBeam investor Mark Cuban says he never saw it before investing[29].

4. Why is uBeam so secretive?

No one really knows. uBeam has said that "like all technology companies in the product development process, with critical intellectual property, at this time, we cannot release our full technical specifications to the public".[1] However, the accuracy of this explanation is questionable. uBeam competitor WiTricity, which is also pre-launch, has not only released technical specs but sells a demonstration kit for $995 [10]. Further, unlike most "stealth" startups (eg. [11]), uBeam has started a large-scale PR campaign, with over 750 Google News hits as of late 2015 [12]. uBeam's website says that "since uBeam owns the entire ultrasonic wireless power space from an IP perspective, the world will have to leverage uBeam’s technology", so the need for secrecy is unclear when uBeam feels they already have strong patent protection.

5. How intense is uBeam's ultrasound?

Very intense. A TechCrunch article says that uBeam "is still keeping some technical details such as the acoustic intensities involved under wraps"[13], but uBeam's patent applications describe intensities of "up to about 155 dB"[14]. The dB (decibel) scale can be deceptive, because it's a logarithmic scale, not a linear scale. Adding another 10 dB means the sound becomes ten times as loud. An 80 dB sound isn't twice as loud as a 40 dB sound; it's ten thousand times as loud.

Here are two graphs for illustration:

(http://i.imgur.com/Xl2j9oM.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/LLosdZo.png)

155 dB is incredibly loud. It's about five times louder than standing four feet away from a jet engine. It's about 300,000 times louder than using a jack hammer.[15] Humans can't normally hear ultrasound, but at that intensity, other problems start to arise (as this FAQ discusses later). The blog post at [6] describes a worker's experience with 155 dB ultrasound:

"The transducer was so loud, I could only use it after normal business hours, with a 24 hour advance email warning to everyone on the floor, putting signs on the lab doors, making foam earplugs available to everyone in my lab area, and making sure that no one was doing small animal work at the times when it would be on."

uBeam claims that it "operates at a frequency and power level broadly similar to that of other commercial systems such as Holosonic's "Audio Spotlight"" [1]. However, that seems fairly implausible. Holosonic's devices are widely described as operating in the 80-100 dB range[16][17], but that'd be much too weak to transmit power, as discussed in Question #9.

6. What is uBeam's range?

uBeam hasn't said. However, we can make some estimates from the physical properties of ultrasound.

Sound is a wave moving through a medium, like air or water. The molecules of the medium are constantly in motion. When this motion is random, we call it "heat" - hot objects have faster motion than cold ones. When the motion is organized in a wave pattern, we call it "sound".

As a sound wave moves outward from its source, the motion of the wave becomes less organized - some of the wave motion becomes random motion, or heat. This is called "attenuation". Attenuation is a different effect from sound "spreading out" as it travels - the sound energy is absorbed by the medium it travels through, in addition to spreading out more. Energy losses from spreading out increase with the square of the distance, while losses from attenuation increase exponentially with distance [18].

Generally, attenuation is stronger at higher frequencies. Here's a graph of sound attenuation in air [19]:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Atmospheric_sound_absorption_coefficient_2.svg/640px-Atmospheric_sound_absorption_coefficient_2.svg.png)

uBeam claims that their system "will not affect pets or animals"[1]. Some common animals, such as cats and mice, can hear frequencies up to 80 kHz[20]. To be safely above the hearing threshold of most animals, uBeam would have to operate around 100 kHz. However, attenuation in air is strong at these high frequencies. According to [19], the attenuation at 100 kHz would be about 3-4 dB per meter. If we assume that the transmitter is 100% efficient, the receiver is 100% efficient, the beam is 100% straight, the receiver is perpendicular to the beam, there are no obstacles between the receiver and transmitter (discussed in Question #8), and there are no nonlinear effects (discussed in Question #10), uBeam will still be only about 20% efficient at a distance of 2 meters (6-7 feet). An iPhone charger delivers 5 watts [21], so the uBeam transmitter would have to draw 25 watts at 2 meters away, even given the previous unrealistic assumptions. Since attenuation increases exponentially - ~125 watts would be needed at 4 meters, ~625 watts at 6 meters, and so on - it's clear that uBeam wouldn't be practical beyond about 1.5 meters/5 feet. uBeam themselves don't appear to dispute this, saying that "ultrasound levels decay very rapidly beyond a few meters"[1].

7. Is ultrasound safe?

That's not really the right question. The real question is, "what level of ultrasound is safe"?

A fundamental principle of toxicology is "the dose makes the poison".[22] At a low enough level, everything is safe. The element selenium is poisonous, but in trace amounts it's essential to human life[23]. On the other hand, too much of anything will hurt, even oxygen[24] and water[25].

uBeam says that "ultrasound is all around us in our day-to-day lives in car parking sensors, fluorescent lighting, directional speakers, automatic door sensors, and alarm systems"[1]. uBeam investor Mark Suster adds that "[ultrasound] is just an inaudible soundwave being transferred – as in the kind also used for women during pregnancy. It also happens to be how your car likely tells the distance to objects when you park or if you have a side assist whether you can change lanes safely"[26]. That's perfectly true. However, those applications involve lower levels of ultrasound. At higher levels, ultrasound is also used to destroy tissue during surgery[27], and can artificially cause infertility[28].

[30] discusses the limits that different agencies have proposed on human exposure to ultrasound. These limits are summarized in this table:

(http://i.imgur.com/auffu9i.png)

The highest level listed is 115 dB, which is ten thousand times less than the highest uBeam level of 155 dB (from Question #5). In 2003, the US's OSHA broke from international standards, and voted to raise their exposure limits to 145 dB (ten times less than 155 dB), when "there is no possibility that the ultrasound can couple with the body by touching water or some other medium"[31]. The meaning of this phrasing is unclear[31], and an independent 2005 review recommended that "sound pressure levels should be less than 110 dB above 25 kHz, regardless of the exposure duration, to prevent the undesirable subjective effects of ultrasound."[31]. [30] takes the position (in section 4.2.1) that 110 dB may be exceeded in a work environment, but only if the intensity can't be feasibly reduced, all workers have ear protection, and the intensity level is still kept below 137 dB, about 1.5% of 155 dB.

uBeam claims that the "air coupled ultrasound method used by uBeam cannot, even if focused directly on a person for a continuous period, cause any noticeable heating."[1] But for sound levels of 165 dB, which would be needed for larger appliances (Question #9) or longer ranges (Question #6), the literature reports that "local heating in the crevices between fingers caused burns almost instantly at these levels. Painful heating occurred after several seconds of exposure of broader surfaces such as the palm of the hand." ([30], citing [32]). Skin heating has been observed at levels as low as 140 dB, roughly 3% of the stated highest uBeam level of 155 dB ([30], citing [33]).

Moreover, even if true, this claim by uBeam might not be relevant. As intensity increases, the first biological effect of ultrasound isn't skin heating, but a subjective "ultrasound sickness" which "involv[es] manifestations of nausea, headache, tinnitus, pain, dizziness, and fatigue".[30] Exposure limits in the 110-115 dB range exist in part to prevent this "ultrasound sickness"[30][31]. This effect isn't thought to cause serious harm, but is still concerning for what's essentially a luxury product, especially if it affects innocent bystanders. A more serious, though less certain, concern is permanent hearing loss, which the literature review at [35] discusses: "For ultrasonic components 20 kHz and above, DRCs [Damage Risk Criteria] were specified to avoid hearing damage in the audible (lower) frequencies. Such damage would take the form of Temporary Threshold Shift on a daily basis, possibly leading to permanent NIHL [Noise Induced Hearing Loss] over years of occupational exposure. However, the maximum acceptable one-third-octave band levels of 105-115 dB had been demonstrated to produce no hearing deficit. Without information to suggest that the band levels are over-protective, there seems little reason to relax the DRCs."

Anecdotally, [6] also reports other effects at 155 dB: "Human keratinocytes become damaged in a way that’s incompatible with life in a matter of minutes due to mechanical stress. You should care about this because keratinocytes are the most plentiful type of cell in your skin, and they produce keratin, a structural protein that helps hold all your insides together. They’re strong little bastards, and if they’re hurt by ultrasound, you can bet that less structurally focused cells will suffer too. Mechanical damage... think of a scrape, just larger. Like large swaths of your skin. I don’t want to even contemplate eyeball damage."

uBeam's design uses a focused beam system with active receiver tracking[1], which lowers human exposure to ultrasound. However, this safety system will fail sometimes, and even when it doesn't, some amount of sound will always "leak out" of the beam into surrounding air. It's likely that regulators don't even know what failure and leakage rates would be acceptable, as historically "such high sound-pressure levels [between 145 and 155 dB] have never been encountered in either commercial or industrial applications."[30]. As of 2001, high-power ultrasound in air was so rare that there might have only been a few hundred workers exposed to it in the entire UK ([35], pg. 48). If uBeam became popular, this blank spot on the regulatory map would get filled in fast.

uBeam also claims that "the power levels beamed are more than 50 times lower than the lowest ultrasound imaging exposure limits set by the FDA for medical imaging"[1]. It's unclear what this refers to, as the uBeam website cites no source[1]. Nevertheless, it's likely to be irrelevant. Medical imaging is done on human tissue, which is mostly water. Water is roughly 800 times denser than air, and its characteristics as a sound medium are totally different. In particular, most medical ultrasound uses frequencies in the megahertz range ([34], table 3.2), which are so high that air becomes basically opaque due to extremely strong attenuation[34]. Sound in water doesn't even use the same intensity scale as sound in air; a 67 dB noise in water is considered barely audible[36], while in air 67 dB would be as loud as an electric mixer[15].
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: georgesmith on October 11, 2015, 11:09:12 pm
8. How convenient would uBeam be?

Not very. Unlike WiFi, which uses radio, uBeam's ultrasound can't penetrate obstacles. It requires a continuous line-of-sight between the transmitter and receiver. uBeam themselves say that "uBeam’s system functions only in the “line of sight”", and ultrasound "[does] not penetrate walls, doors, or windows"[1]. But more importantly, it doesn't penetrate clothes, bags, furniture, or fingers. This severely limits its potential.

According to uBeam, when their first product launches, the receiver will be on the outside of a phone case[1]. When not being used, a smartphone is usually in a purse, bag, pocket, or other container, and any container obscures the receiver's line-of-sight. When a phone is being used, its back (and hence the uBeam receiver) is usually pointed down, facing the floor, and partially covered by the user's hands. Looking at stock photos from Google Images:

(http://i.imgur.com/Ixf2qz1.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/0DZcL8U.jpg)

Ignoring the hands problem, putting transmitters in the floor (facing the phone) means running new wires across it, and transmitters would inevitably get stepped on, especially in public places. Putting transmitters in the lower wall avoids the stepping problem, but the signal will likely get blocked by legs, bags and furniture. For example, this is a stock photo of a coffee shop:

(http://i.imgur.com/Xh089I2.jpg)

The left wall, and probably also the back wall, is obscured by chairs, tables, legs, and bags. The lower right wall has a clear line-of-sight, but is too far away from most tables, given the range limits discussed in Question #5 (this room is likely about 22 ft/7 m across). The upper walls and ceiling have a clear line-of-sight, but putting transmitters there requires turning phones so their back side faces up, making a phone very annoying to use during charging.

uBeam hasn't said if a single transmitter can support more than one receiver. However, a very large number would be needed to cover a significant area. A single WiFi transmitter can connect about fifty devices[37], and can cover many rooms by itself. If attached to the wall, one uBeam transmitter with a 2 meter range (Question #5) could cover about 6 square meters (~65 square feet).[38] Hence, assuming perfect geometry, one would need about 20 transmitters to cover a 120 square meter house. An average US grocery store is about 46,000 square feet [39], and would need about 700 transmitters.

9. How much power can uBeam deliver?

uBeam hasn't said, but again, we can guess based on physics.

At uBeam's assumed maximum intensity of 155 dB (from Question #5), sound has a power density of about 0.3 watts per square centimeter[6][40]. Apple's iPhone 6, a typical smartphone, has a height of 13.8 cm and a width of 6.7 cm [41], for a total surface area of 92.46 cm^2, which is realistically about 90 (to account for rounded corners, edges, etc). Hence, under ideal conditions - receiver right next to transmitter, all parts are 100% efficient, no obstacles - uBeam's total power will be about 90 * 0.3 = 27 watts. That's definitely enough to charge the phone, since a standard iPhone charger draws 5 watts[21]. So, under very good conditions, ultrasound will charge an iPhone at the sound intensity uBeam describes.

However, there are several limitations. The first, already discussed in Question #5, is range. At 100 kHz, sound intensity drops by about a factor of 5 every two meters. Two meters away, uBeam will only deliver 5.2 watts, about the same as the iPhone charger. At four meters (13 feet), uBeam will deliver 1.08 watts, which is close to useless.

The second limitation is that uBeam can't use a less intense beam to address the safety concerns in Question #7. At 140 dB, the lowest limit of skin heating, uBeam will only deliver 0.85 watts - not enough to keep a phone charged. At 115 dB, a standard international safety limit, uBeam delivers a negligible 2.7 milliwatts.

The third limitation is that this calculation assumes 100% efficiency. If the transmitter is inefficient, one can just feed it more power (if one doesn't mind the electric bill). But if the receiver is inefficient, the power can't be increased without sending more than 155 dB of sound, which is intense enough. uBeam hasn't released efficiency numbers, but if the receiver is (say) 30% efficient, that would reduce the maximum power to 8.1 watts.

The fourth limitation is that 27 watts assumes the phone is perpendicular to the beam. The "effective area" (receiver area facing the beam) is proportional to sin(theta), where theta is the angle between the beam and receiver. At a 90 degree angle (perpendicular), one gets 100% power; at a 45 degree angle, one gets 70%; at a 30 degree angle, 50%; and at a 15 degree angle, just 26%.

The fifth limitation is that we assumed no "beam spread"; ie., the beam is perfectly parallel, and perfectly focused on the receiver. If part of the beam misses the receiver, that energy is lost.

The sixth limitation is that this calculation assumes no obstacles. From Question #8, under realistic conditions, one's hand will cover part of the phone while one is using it. If (a big if) the uBeam transmitter can intelligently avoid fingers for safety reasons, they're still obstacles that lower the power available. If one's hand covers half of the back, that reduces the power by 50%. (Another thing, that hasn't been mentioned yet, is that phones take a lot of abuse - they get dropped, scratched, abraded, and so on, for years at a time. Since uBeam hasn't released a prototype, it's unclear how well an ultrasonic receiver can take this wear and tear without breaking.)

Finally, all of these limitations "stack" - each one adds to the others. If the transmitter is two feet away, and the beam power is reduced to 152 dB for safety reasons, and the receiver is only 50% efficient, and the phone is at a 30-degree angle, and half of the beam misses the phone, and fingers cover half the phone's back... each effect reduces the power by 50%, for a combined total of 63/64 = 98.4%, and a final power of ~0.4 watts. By itself, each problem would be manageable, but together they make charging impractical.

uBeam's website also describes uBeam powering other electronics, such as "hearing aids, tablets, sensors, light bulbs, computers, and flat screen TVs"[1]. Some of these use less power than smartphones, but others use far more. A typical large, flat-screen TV (eg. [42]) will draw about 60 watts. Since a TV is usually mounted in one place, some of the limitations get easier, but not all - if the TV is two feet (60 cm) from the wall, and the receiver is 40% efficient, that's still about 80% losses. To transmit 300 watts at 0.3 W/cm^2, one has to have a 1,000 cm^2 transmitter, a bit over a foot on each side (31.6 cm). One could make the transmitter smaller (100 cm^2, or 4 inches/10 cm across) by increasing the intensity to 165 dB, a level that causes burns "almost instantly" (from Question #7), but that seems unwise. Since most power outlets are near the floor, and the TV probably isn't, one would still have to run a cord to the transmitter. And uBeam takes 240 watts of electricity, about a dozen light bulbs' worth, and dumps it into the air for no real reason. That's not good for the environment. Or the power bill. Or the air conditioning - all that heat makes the room hotter.

10. What are nonlinear effects?

According to [6], air becomes a nonlinear medium in an intense ultrasound beam, which causes additional problems. Since [6] is only a blog post, it's not really a reliable source, but the discussion is included for completeness. More reliable sources here would be welcomed. [6] says:

"If you’re in a room with a focused ultrasound beam, and that beam is strong enough, the medium through which it’s traveling (air in uBeam’s case) becomes nonlinear, the oscillations of which causes beams of widely ranging frequencies to be generated, and because they have different wave propagation speeds due to dispersion, they don’t focus, and instead propagate in all different directions. Air becomes a dispersive medium at frequencies greater than 28 kHz thanks to the presence of CO2. These propagating beams are hard to predict and control, and given that they’re going to be at lower frequencies than the original beam (because physics), they will probably drop into the audible human range (upper bound is around 23 kHz) and will be at the very least annoying as hell. Factors that influence this phenomenon is [sic] air temperature, pressure, altitude, CO2 concentration... controlling this is well-nigh impossible."

(Note: Former uBeam engineer Paul Reynolds has written a detailed explanation of non-linearity here (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/acoustic-nonlinearity.html).)

11. Has anyone done due diligence on uBeam?

As of October 2015, uBeam has received $23 million in funding from 37 investors [2]. For some of them, the level of due diligence is questionable - Mark Cuban invested without seeing uBeam's claimed prototype, and Marissa Meyer invested after just a 15-minute meeting [29]. But despite that, it's probably safe to assume that, with 37 investors, a few have done some due diligence. In particular, Mark Suster says he investigated many of uBeam's claims[26].

Unfortunately, in the world we live in, receiving VC funding doesn't show a company's science is sound. Famously, even BlackLight Power has received tens of millions in funding - BlackLight claimed it could get energy from putting hydrogen atoms into a state below the ground state, which is prohibited by freshman quantum mechanics [43]. Not surprisingly, BlackLight Power has failed to ship a product since it was started in 1991 [43].

Even more worringly, the quantum computing company D-Wave has received over $100 million in funding [44]. Its investors included Goldman Sachs, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, the CIA, and Jeff Bezos [45], and its customers include Google, NASA, and Lockheed Martin [46]. But in 2013, quantum computing professor Scott Aaronson reported that a team lead by Matthias Troyer proved D-Wave's $20 million computer was no faster than a laptop [47]. D-Wave's computer outperformed off-the-shelf software by focusing on one particular subproblem, but when a laptop's software was focused in the same way, it ran faster than D-Wave's machine.

12. Who are uBeam's competitors?

uBeam claims they have no real competitors; their website states that "[ultrasound] is the only type of energy that can safely and reliably transmit energy wirelessly; thus it's the only type of energy that can be used for over-distance wireless power transmission."[1]. However, this isn't very plausible. The companies WiTricity and Energous, among others, also say they've solved the wireless energy problem. Unlike uBeam, both WiTricity and Energous have shown prototypes at CES 2015 [8][9], where "dozens of companies [were] demonstrating wireless power devices"[48].

WiTricity was founded in 2007 at MIT[48]. They deliver wireless power through magnetic resonance technology, and in 2013 published a booklet describing the technical details and physics behind their device [49]. They sell a demonstration kit for $995 [10], and plan to start shipping in 2016 by integrating wireless charging technology into laptops [4]. uBeam's website says that magnetic resonance "require [sic] gigantic transmitters and receivers" [1], but WiTricity has demonstrated powering a light bulb from seven feet away with much smaller coils [48], and their slide decks say their coils are compact enough to fit inside a phone[50].

Energous is a publicly traded company (stock symbol WATT). Their website describes a charging technology called WattUp, which transmits power via radio waves[51]. Energous's website says that each WattUp transmitter can reach a range of 15 feet, and charge 12 devices at once[51]. Energous has signed a partnership agreement with a "tier one consumer electronics company"[52], likely Apple or Samsung[53], to include its technology in cellphones. uBeam's website claims that "RF [radio] and microwaves also both require impractically large transmitters and receivers to send power over distances greater than a meter"[1], but this appears to have been proven false by Energous's CES demonstration[8].

(Note: Electrical engineer Paul Reynolds has since given some reasons (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/those-other-guys-pt-1.html) to be skeptical of Energous.)

WiTricity, Energous, and the other companies in wireless power all have their own technical problems. It's unclear if any of them will succeed in the market. However, they are in many ways further along than uBeam, and it's misleading for uBeam to dismiss their technologies as impossible. It's doubly misleading when uBeam director Mark Suster [54] wrote a long, emotional essay declaring that some startup founders were "backbenchers [who] never do anything. They get to sit in the back of the room, snicker, criticize and yet enjoy the benefits of our efforts. They aren’t just free riders – they are negative with no personal ideas for how to make things better", because they had dismissed uBeam's technology as impossible [55].

What is clear is that USB Type-C, a new charging cable, is being adopted fast. It can deliver 100 watts of power, twenty times more than an iPhone charger [21], and enough to power laptops and other electronics [56]. Apple and Google are both using it [56], and faster charging will reduce the need for wireless power of all kinds.

13. So what? Who cares?

Thousands of startups have technical problems. Why uBeam? Why make this FAQ?

Investors have given uBeam over $23 million [2]. But that's not a big problem. It's their money, they can spend it how they want, and they can afford to lose it.

It's likely that uBeam's product will fail, if it ever launches. But that's not a problem either. Plenty of other companies take unlikely chances (eg. [11]), and on the whole, we're better off for it. We can't succeed without failures along the way.

The problem is that uBeam's CEO, Meredith Perry, has turned the wireless power industry into a vehicle for her own self-promotion. uBeam, which has never demoed a prototype, lead Forbes to proclaim "Is this woman the next Elon Musk?"[29], among hundreds of other press hits [12]. uBeam constantly stresses their need for secrecy, to avoid discussing any technical details [1][55], while at the same time doing photoshoots for fashion magazines that say Meredith Perry "is the real-life version of Tony Stark"[57]. When someone else in the ultrasound industry criticized uBeam [7], uBeam director Mark Suster didn't show his math was wrong, even when it was. His rebuttal had not a single number, no diagrams, no graphs, no references to the literature on ultrasound. Instead, it sounded like the victim of a personality cult[55]:

"Meredith Perry is 25. She has withstood 2+ years of backbenchers questioning what she’s working on. My experiences with her have been amazing. She never lost enthusiasm for her pursuit. She never lost confidence in the team’s ability to innovate and execute. She never got distracted from her core mission. She has never given up despite setbacks. The determination, grit & pluck are inspirational. I wish I had 20% of her confidence, focus and leadership skills at 25."

But at least Suster is an investor, so he's supposed to be biased. The same can't be said for the tech press:

"It's not a stretch to imagine a time in the not-too-distant future when Meredith Perry gets a Nobel Prize."[58]

"Perry and her potentially world-changing startup are a breath of fresh air -- for women, New Yorkers and entrepreneurs everywhere. For being only 22, Perry is unbelievably driven. Her impressive list of investors (Google's Marissa Mayer, Andreessen Horowitz, and FF Angel etc) must think so too. She knew nothing about electrical engineering when she started working on uBeam. Still, she built a working prototype merely by conducting research on Google and Wikipedia. (...) New York needs more hardware and tech companies like uBeam. Women in tech should be more like Perry."[59]

"Obviously [Perry's] ability to do power transmission wirelessly through sound was something that was fundamentally new."[60], quoting investor Scott Nolan

Of course, Perry didn't really invent ultrasonic power transmission. There have been patents in the area since at least 2003:

"A method and apparatus for converting electrical power from a wall outlet to electronically focused ultrasound, and converting the electronically focused ultrasound back to electrical power at a compatible receiving device is provided. The compatible receiving device may be cell phone, PDA, or a notebook computer or other suitable devices. (...) A power unit is provided in which it electronically scans the available space looking for a compatible receiving device (a cell phone, a PDA, or a notebook computer outfitted with the embodiment of this invention). Once the compatible receiving device is located, the power unit focuses its beam on the compatible receiving device, thereby delivering power thereto." [61]

There's nothing wrong with fame, just like there's nothing wrong with making money. But if one makes money by selling gadgets that can't do what they say they can, that's called "fraud". The same principle applies here.

14. Are additions/corrections welcome?

All suggestions, additions, corrections and comments are appreciated. However, please provide sources, especially for any controversial claims.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: georgesmith on October 11, 2015, 11:09:58 pm
References

[1] Perry, Meredith. A new age of power. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://ubeam.com/ (http://ubeam.com/)
[2] uBeam. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/ubeam (https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/ubeam)
[3] Borison, Rebecca. (2014, August 22). 2 Women Who Were College Roommates Founded uBeam, One Of Tech's Hottest Startups - And Promptly Sued Each Other. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.businessinsider.com/college-roommates-founded-hot-tech-startup-and-sued-each-other-2014-8 (http://www.businessinsider.com/college-roommates-founded-hot-tech-startup-and-sued-each-other-2014-8)
[4] Mims, Christopher. (2015, October 5). Soon, Power Will Be Delivered to Your Device by Air. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/soon-power-will-be-delivered-to-your-device-by-air-1444017661 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/soon-power-will-be-delivered-to-your-device-by-air-1444017661)
[5] Jones, Dave. (2014, August 7). UBeam Ultrasonic Wireless Charging – A Familiar Fish Smell. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.eevblog.com/2014/08/07/ubeam-ultrasonic-wireless-charging-a-familiar-fish-smell/ (http://www.eevblog.com/2014/08/07/ubeam-ultrasonic-wireless-charging-a-familiar-fish-smell/)
[6] Boer, Miriam. (2014, November 3). Ultrasound, thermodynamics, and robot overlords. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://independentscience.tumblr.com/post/101728968844/ultrasound-thermodynamics-and-robot-overlords (http://independentscience.tumblr.com/post/101728968844/ultrasound-thermodynamics-and-robot-overlords)
[7] Rogers, Danny. (2014, October 31). How putting $10M into UBeam illustrates everything that is wrong with tech investing today. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://lookatmeimdanny.tumblr.com/post/101432017159/how-putting-10m-into-ubeam-illustrates-everything (http://lookatmeimdanny.tumblr.com/post/101432017159/how-putting-10m-into-ubeam-illustrates-everything)
[8] Energous Corporation Demonstrates Wire-free Charging during CES In a Future Home Environment. (2015, January 5). Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.energous.com/energous-corporation-demonstrates-wire-free-charging-during-ces-in-a-future-home-environment/ (http://www.energous.com/energous-corporation-demonstrates-wire-free-charging-during-ces-in-a-future-home-environment/)
[9] Ewalt, David. (2015, January 8). WiTricity’s wireless power connects at CES. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.betaboston.com/news/2015/01/08/witricitys-wireless-power-connects-at-ces/ (http://www.betaboston.com/news/2015/01/08/witricitys-wireless-power-connects-at-ces/)
[10] Prodigy - WiTricity Corporation. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://witricity.com/products/prodigy/ (http://witricity.com/products/prodigy/)
[11] Stone, Maddie. (2015, August 26). A Startup With No Website Just Announced a Major Fusion Breakthrough. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://gizmodo.com/secretive-energy-company-claims-fusion-power-breakthrou-1726782476 (http://gizmodo.com/secretive-energy-company-claims-fusion-power-breakthrou-1726782476)
[12] Personal search on http://news.google.com/ (http://news.google.com/) for "uBeam" "perry", conducted October 11, 2015. The term "perry" was included to avoid extraneous hits.
[13] Constine, Josh. (2015, October 8). UBeam Finally Reveals The Secret Of How Its Wireless Charging Phone Case Works Safely. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/08/how-ubeam-works/ (http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/08/how-ubeam-works/)
[14] Perry, Meredith. (2012, November 29). Patent Application US20120299540 A1 - Sender communications for wireless power transfer. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from https://www.google.com/patents/US20120299540 (https://www.google.com/patents/US20120299540)
[15] Examples taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure#Examples_of_sound_pressure. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure#Examples_of_sound_pressure.) Of course, these numbers are only approximate. More reliable sources appreciated.
[16] http://www.holosonics.com/brochure/Audio_Spotlight-Brochure.pdf (http://www.holosonics.com/brochure/Audio_Spotlight-Brochure.pdf)
[17] http://avlelec.com/HoloSonic.htm (http://avlelec.com/HoloSonic.htm)
[18] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuation. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuation.) More reliable sources would be appreciated here, if any are online.
[19] Engineering Acoustics/Outdoor Sound Propagation. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Engineering_Acoustics/Outdoor_Sound_Propagation (https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Engineering_Acoustics/Outdoor_Sound_Propagation)
[20] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Animal_hearing_frequency_range.svg (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Animal_hearing_frequency_range.svg)
[21] Bonnington, Christina. (2013, December 18). Choose the Right Charger and Power Your Gadgets Properly. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.wired.com/2013/12/charging-devices-faq/ (http://www.wired.com/2013/12/charging-devices-faq/)
[22] http://ei.cornell.edu/teacher/pdf/ATR/ATR_Chapter1_X.pdf (http://ei.cornell.edu/teacher/pdf/ATR/ATR_Chapter1_X.pdf)
[23] Selenium. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/minerals/selenium#toxicity (http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/minerals/selenium#toxicity)
[24] Jenkinson, S.G., Oxygen toxicity. New Horiz, 1993. 1(4): p. 504-11. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8087571 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8087571)
[25] DiLonardo, Mary Jo. (2014, August 14). When You Drink Too Much Water Too Fast, What Can Happen? Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/water-intoxication (http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/water-intoxication)
[26] Suster, Mark. (2014, October 30). The Audacious Plan to Make Electricity as Easy as WiFi. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2014/10/30/the-audacious-plan-to-make-electricity-as-easy-as-wifi/ (http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2014/10/30/the-audacious-plan-to-make-electricity-as-easy-as-wifi/)
[27] MR-Guided Focused Ultrasound Surgery (MR-gFUS). Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/radiology/medical-imaging-research/research-1/Focused-Ultrasound/Focused-Ultrasound-Surgery (http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/radiology/medical-imaging-research/research-1/Focused-Ultrasound/Focused-Ultrasound-Surgery)
[28] Therapeutic ultrasound as a potential male contraceptive: power, frequency and temperature required to deplete rat testes of meiotic cells and epididymides of sperm determined using a commercially available system. James K Tsuruta, Paul A Dayton, Caterina M Gallippi, Michael G O’Rand, Michael A Streicker, Ryan C Gessner, Thomas S Gregory, Erick JR Silva, Katherine G Hamil, Glenda J Moser and David C Sokal. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 2012, 10:7 doi:10.1186/1477-7827-10-7. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.rbej.com/content/10/1/7/abstract (http://www.rbej.com/content/10/1/7/abstract)
[29] Roberts, Daniel. (2015, July 29). Is this woman the next Elon Musk? Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://fortune.com/2015/07/29/ubeam-meredith-perry-wireless-charging/ (http://fortune.com/2015/07/29/ubeam-meredith-perry-wireless-charging/)
[30] Guidelines for the Safe Use of Ultrasound: Part II. (2008, September 15). Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/radiation/safety-code_24-securite/index-eng.php (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/radiation/safety-code_24-securite/index-eng.php)
[31] Howard, C., Hansen, C., & Zander, A. (2004, September 8). A review of current airborne ultrasound exposure limits. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety - Australia and New Zealand 01/2005; 21(3):253-257. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235923211_A_review_of_current_airborne_ultrasound_exposure_limits (http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235923211_A_review_of_current_airborne_ultrasound_exposure_limits)
[32] Allen, C.H., Frings, H., Rudnick, I. (1948). "Some Biological Effects of Intense High Frequency Airborne Sound." J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 20, pp. 62-65. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/20/2/10.1121/1.1916916 (http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/20/2/10.1121/1.1916916)
[33] Acton, W.I. (1974). "The Effects of Industrial Airborne Ultrasound on Humans." Ultrasonics, May, pp. 124-128. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0041624X74900699 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0041624X74900699)
[34] Health Effects of Exposure to Ultrasound and Infrasound: Report of the Independent Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation. London; Chilton, Didcot: Health Protection Agency; Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, 2010. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335014/RCE-14_for_web_with_security.pdf (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335014/RCE-14_for_web_with_security.pdf)
[35] Lawton, B.W. (2001) Damage to human hearing by airborne sound of very high frequency or ultrasonic frequency, London, Health & Safety Executive, 77pp. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/crr_pdf/2001/crr01343.pdf (http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/crr_pdf/2001/crr01343.pdf)
[36] Renzo Mora, Sara Penco and Luca Guastini (2011). The Effect of Sonar on Human Hearing, Sonar Systems, Prof. Nikolai Kolev (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-307-345-3, InTech. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/18878.pdf (http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/18878.pdf)
[37] http://serverfault.com/questions/451516/how-many-access-points-do-i-need. (http://serverfault.com/questions/451516/how-many-access-points-do-i-need.) More precise sources appreciated.
[38] Area covered = pi * r^2 / 2, since the transmitter's line-of-sight forms a semicircle. r = 2 meters, so area = 3.14159 * 4 / 2 ~= 6.28318 m^2. Rounded down to 6 because this ignores 3D effects; if the transmitter and receiver are at different heights, that adds extra distance.
[39] Tuttle, Brad. (2011, January 25). Fewer Choices, More Savings: The New Way to Buy Groceries. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://business.time.com/2011/01/25/fewer-choices-more-savings-the-new-way-to-buy-groceries/ (http://business.time.com/2011/01/25/fewer-choices-more-savings-the-new-way-to-buy-groceries/)
[40] Calculation in [6] double-checked, via http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/acoustic/invsqs.html#c3 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/acoustic/invsqs.html#c3)
[41] IPhone 6 - Technical Specifications - Apple. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.apple.com/iphone-6/specs/ (http://www.apple.com/iphone-6/specs/)
[42] 2015 VIZIO E-Series 50. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.vizio.com/e50c1.html (http://www.vizio.com/e50c1.html)
[43] Lynch, Michael. (2015, June 1). Warning Signs For Energy Technology Investors 3: Yes, They Can Be That Stupid. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2015/06/01/warning-signs-for-energy-technology-investors-3-yes-they-can-be-that-stupid/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2015/06/01/warning-signs-for-energy-technology-investors-3-yes-they-can-be-that-stupid/)
[44] D-Wave Systems. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/d-wave-systems (https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/d-wave-systems)
[45] D-Wave Systems - Investors. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/d-wave-systems/investors (https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/d-wave-systems/investors)
[46] Customers. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.dwavesys.com/our-company/customers (http://www.dwavesys.com/our-company/customers)
[47] Aaronson, Scott. (2013, May 16). D-Wave: Truth finally starts to emerge. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400 (http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400)
[48] Moore, Galen. (2015, January 8). Wireless Charging Is About to Explode and WiTricity Has a Shot at Owning It. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2015/01/08/wireless-charging-ces2015-wont-set-the-standard-technology/ (http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2015/01/08/wireless-charging-ces2015-wont-set-the-standard-technology/)
[49] Kesler, Morris. (2013). WiTricity Highly Resonant Wireless Power Transfer: Safe, Efficient, and over Distance. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.witricity.com/assets/highly-resonant-power-transfer-kesler-witricity-2013.pdf (http://www.witricity.com/assets/highly-resonant-power-transfer-kesler-witricity-2013.pdf)
[50] Greene, Catherine. Understanding WiTricity. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.radford.edu/~nsrl/creu1011/PowerPoints/WiTricityGreene1.pdf (http://www.radford.edu/~nsrl/creu1011/PowerPoints/WiTricityGreene1.pdf)
[51] Product Overview. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.energous.com/overview/ (http://www.energous.com/overview/)
[52] Energous Corporation Reports First Quarter 2015 Results; Hosts Corporate Update Call Today. (2015, March 4). Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.energous.com/energous-corporation-reports-first-quarter-2015-results-hosts-corporate-update-call-today/ (http://www.energous.com/energous-corporation-reports-first-quarter-2015-results-hosts-corporate-update-call-today/)
[53] Padnos, Benjamin. (2015, March 26). What's Up With Energous After First Development, Licensing Agreement Announcements? Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://seekingalpha.com/article/3030986-whats-up-with-energous-after-first-development-licensing-agreement-announcements (http://seekingalpha.com/article/3030986-whats-up-with-energous-after-first-development-licensing-agreement-announcements)
[54] Swisher, Kara. (2014, October 30). Wireless Power Startup uBeam Raises $10 Million in Funding. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://recode.net/2014/10/30/wireless-power-startup-ubeam-raises-10-million-in-funding/ (http://recode.net/2014/10/30/wireless-power-startup-ubeam-raises-10-million-in-funding/)
[55] Suster, Mark. (2014, November 5). The Case for Optimism and Risk at Startups. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2014/11/05/the-case-for-optimism-and-risk-at-startups/ (http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2014/11/05/the-case-for-optimism-and-risk-at-startups/)
[56] Edwards, L., & Betters, E. (2015, March 13). USB Type-C is here: Faster charging, quicker data, smaller mobiles and the death of AC laptop chargers. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/130338-usb-type-c-is-here-faster-charging-quicker-data-smaller-mobiles-and-the-death-of-ac-laptop-chargers (http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/130338-usb-type-c-is-here-faster-charging-quicker-data-smaller-mobiles-and-the-death-of-ac-laptop-chargers)
[57] Tafoya, Angela. (2013, July 16). S.F.'s Rising Stars: 30 Under 30. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.refinery29.com/30-under-30-san-francisco#page-21 (http://www.refinery29.com/30-under-30-san-francisco#page-21)
[58] Moss, Jennings. (2015, February 10). Meredith Perry — uBeam. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://upstart.bizjournals.com/entrepreneurs/hot-shots/2015/02/10/upstart100-meredith-perry.html (http://upstart.bizjournals.com/entrepreneurs/hot-shots/2015/02/10/upstart100-meredith-perry.html)
[59] Shontell, Alyson. (2012, July 12). Meredith Perry, Thank You For Breaking All New York And Female Founder Stereotypes. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.businessinsider.com/open-letter-to-meredith-perry-and-ubeam-2012-7 (http://www.businessinsider.com/open-letter-to-meredith-perry-and-ubeam-2012-7)
[60] Hitt, Jack. (2013, August 17). An Inventor Wants One Less Wire to Worry About. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/technology/an-inventor-wants-one-less-wire-to-worry-about.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/technology/an-inventor-wants-one-less-wire-to-worry-about.html)
[61] Charych, Arthur. (2003, June 19). Patent US6798716 - System and method for wireless electrical power transmission. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from https://www.google.com/patents/US6798716 (https://www.google.com/patents/US6798716)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on October 11, 2015, 11:22:04 pm
Crikey. And the detailed post of the day award goes to georgesmith!  :-+
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: nctnico on October 11, 2015, 11:44:19 pm
I'll throw in a lifetime achievement award nomination. Maybe the Wikinazis would even allow it on their holy Wikipedia!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on October 11, 2015, 11:51:44 pm
Have we ever had a post citing 61 references before?  :o
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Daniel_Reyes on October 11, 2015, 11:58:30 pm
Glad this post was nipped early on. Hahaha

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: djacobow on October 12, 2015, 02:44:04 am
Ummmm, hot damn!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Bud on October 12, 2015, 05:08:45 am
Someone please enlighten me how (assuming the transitter part works) "the beam" will work through phone protective cases huge variety of which exists. Do i need to strip my phone off its protective case and put on some sort of a receiver shell that i"ll be given at the door as i walk into a coffee shop? I cant get past this stupid part each time i read abt ubeam.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on October 12, 2015, 06:26:31 am
Someone please enlighten me how (assuming the transitter part works) "the beam" will work through phone protective cases huge variety of which exists.

It won't.

Quote
Do i need to strip my phone off its protective case and put on some sort of a receiver shell that i"ll be given at the door as i walk into a coffee shop?

Yep, you need a uBeam phone cover.
But of course they'll be lusting after getting some phone company to try and integrate it like they have the Qi wireless charging, but of course they would do real technical due-diligence...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mexakin on October 12, 2015, 08:56:59 am
indeed great work, I thought ubeam is dead by now, checked their page last time like a month ago, and because of the post I did check it again, and it seems they still alive :)

What bothers me the most is that there still exist people who really believe in this technology, and then again we are the ones who more or less understand it, for others with non engineering background maybe they just want to believe...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on October 12, 2015, 09:44:01 am
indeed great work, I thought ubeam is dead by now, checked their page last time like a month ago, and because of the post I did check it again, and it seems they still alive :)

Sees they have only just ran out of the initial VC money.
They usually don't fold until the money is all spent. But seems they had enough smoke'n'mirrors to convince them to part with more money.

Quote
What bothers me the most is that there still exist people who really believe in this technology, and then again we are the ones who more or less understand it, for others with non engineering background maybe they just want to believe...

That's how the game work. VC's will never admit they bought into a turkey until it's well and truly cooked.
The VC game is to pick pie-in-the-sky schemes like uBeam and bet big, because, you know, they are the smart ones  ::)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: tszaboo on October 12, 2015, 10:19:43 am
Please DONT make this product a reality. You also said:
Quote
Exposure limits in the 110-115 dB range exist in part to prevent this "ultrasound sickness"[30][31]. This effect isn't thought to cause serious harm, but is still concerning for what's essentially a luxury product, especially if it affects innocent bystanders. A more serious, though less certain, concern is permanent hearing loss, which the literature review at [35] discusses: "For ultrasonic components 20 kHz and above, DRCs [Damage Risk Criteria] were specified to avoid hearing damage in the audible (lower) frequencies. Such damage would take the form of Temporary Threshold Shift on a daily basis, possibly leading to permanent NIHL [Noise Induced Hearing Loss] over years of occupational exposure. However, the maximum acceptable one-third-octave band levels of 105-115 dB had been demonstrated to produce no hearing deficit. Without information to suggest that the band levels are over-protective, there seems little reason to relax the DRCs.
We dont know how high level ultrasound affects people on the long term. We dont know, how it damages the body. It is quite possible that hearing loss happens in your ear, even if you dont hear it.
You have a complex system in your ear, multiple stages. Second stage is a low pass filter, you damage the first one with the high level high frequency ultrasound.
Accustic beat happens and high frequency signals suddenly are audible. Imagine that a 23KHz and a 22KHz 155 dB signal meets, and you have a 1KHz signal which deafens someone. 
Animals will be affected more than humans. Imagine my dog will start barking and crawl under the bed every time two block away someone starts charging.
Or birds can be affected by ultrasound, they hate it. Imagine the bullfinch (hears up to 25 KHz) go extinct because of this. Can you really live with that?

Please dont do this. Even if possible. Please. Because my neighbor will buy it, and I cannot do anything about it.

In doctor who they are using sonic technology and they almost destroy two universes, and they bring deadly cybermen to the Earth. You dont want that, dont you?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: funkyant on October 12, 2015, 10:32:55 am
Great post.

I'd just like to make a correction. 10dB gain is not 10 times louder. Perceived loudness is a whole other ball game, but to be correct, 3dB of gain is equal to double the energy of the waveform.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Psi on October 12, 2015, 10:36:52 am
Ever stuck you finger in the hole of one of those ultrasonic underwater fog generators while its running?

Well don't!
It really hurts.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: eneuro on October 12, 2015, 10:41:43 am
... the detailed post of the day award goes to ...
Do you know this guy (maybe girl >:D)  personally, while maybe you suported u  :bullshit: Beam unintencionally ?  :-DD

BTW: If we remove u  :bullshit: Beam useless in practice references than this list becomes much shorter ;)

Anyway, probbaly within a few weeks I will have my own WPT device almoust for free, so u  :bullshit: Beam no longer needed and this is my last comment on u  :bullshit: Beam regardless what happends to this project :--
I will never ever use u  :bullshit: Beam ... I won't risk my health and my animals , while I prefere to have bats in my garden fighting moskitos in the summer  :popcorn:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on October 12, 2015, 10:53:00 am
Great post.

I'd just like to make a correction. 10dB gain is not 10 times louder. Perceived loudness is a whole other ball game, but to be correct, 3dB of gain is equal to double the energy of the waveform.
The discussion is about energy levels, so perceived loudness is not relevant. Actual loudness is, and +10dB means a 10 times increase in energy level, so 10 times as loud..
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: crispy_tofu on October 12, 2015, 11:32:13 am
Thank you, great post!!  :) Very nice, the explanations are very detailed.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: ralphd on October 12, 2015, 02:55:55 pm
The D-wave reference brings your objectivity into question.  Quantum computing is real, not comparable some zero-point energy quackery.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: DanielS on October 12, 2015, 04:46:09 pm
Ever stuck you finger in the hole of one of those ultrasonic underwater fog generators while its running?
I did it when I was a kid. I was puzzled about how I burnt the tip of my finger in seemingly cold water.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: georgesmith on October 12, 2015, 05:05:23 pm
The D-wave reference brings your objectivity into question.  Quantum computing is real, not comparable some zero-point energy quackery.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the argument. Quantum coherence and ultrasound are both real, they're just both very impractical to use commercially. In a hundred years, we might have a better shot at practical quantum computing than practical ultrasound, but that's irrelevant to what's plausible as a viable business today. In 2015, we're just orders and orders of magnitude away from a quantum computer that's plausibly cost-competitive with classical computing.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jakeypoo on October 20, 2015, 05:31:18 pm
But of course they'll be lusting after getting some phone company to try and integrate it like they have the Qi wireless charging, but of course they would do real technical due-diligence...

Dave (or anyone else who wants to share their opinion), what are your thoughts about Qi or other inductive wireless charging products for mobile phones?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: ConKbot on October 20, 2015, 06:22:37 pm
But of course they'll be lusting after getting some phone company to try and integrate it like they have the Qi wireless charging, but of course they would do real technical due-diligence...

Dave (or anyone else who wants to share their opinion), what are your thoughts about Qi or other inductive wireless charging products for mobile phones?

It works great.  At work I have crap service, and I'm back and forth from my desk a lot.  Crap service = phone drains the battery quickly as it runs the TX power way up to communicate with the tower.  I can lay the phone on the pad on my desk and it keeps it charged up, without having to plug in a microUSB 10 x per day. It also would make sense in a car situation, lightly padded slot you can drop your phone in, still see the indicator light, and charge the phone.  Extra points for NFC tag to turn on bluetooth and start up your music of choice.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Electric Gypsy on October 21, 2015, 12:57:03 am
But of course they'll be lusting after getting some phone company to try and integrate it like they have the Qi wireless charging, but of course they would do real technical due-diligence...

Dave (or anyone else who wants to share their opinion), what are your thoughts about Qi or other inductive wireless charging products for mobile phones?

I am designing a product with Qi ICs at the moment. So far it seems quite nice, and rather handy. 1A at 5V, this is not bad, and I understand we can go to 2A (though this seems to fall outside the whole idea of Qi as I understand it). Also to be fair, I am holding complete judgement of the wireless charging systems until we begin the fully functional prototype testing.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: tec5c on October 21, 2015, 02:26:25 am
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2ir6o2e.png)

666 guests viewing the thread???  :wtf:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: crispy_tofu on October 21, 2015, 02:34:18 am
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2ir6o2e.png)

666 guests viewing the thread???  :wtf:

611 now... must be very popular?   ???
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: tszaboo on October 21, 2015, 10:08:06 am
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2ir6o2e.png)

666 guests viewing the thread???  :wtf:

611 now... must be very popular?   ???
Someone is generating traffic to this particular forum, for SEO, which is also a FAQ. So as far as I'm concerned we arrived to the deep $#%#$% of the internet age again, payed dislikes, clicks and stuff.
I guess uBeam has to go on the top on google search.
That probably explains what kind of "innovators" we are dealing with.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: DeuxVis on October 21, 2015, 11:58:14 am
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2ir6o2e.png)

666 guests viewing the thread???  :wtf:

611 now... must be very popular?   ???
Someone is generating traffic to this particular forum, for SEO, which is also a FAQ. So as far as I'm concerned we arrived to the deep $#%#$% of the internet age again, payed dislikes, clicks and stuff.
I guess uBeam has to go on the top on google search.
That probably explains what kind of "innovators" we are dealing with.

Don't get paranoid  :) The traffic possibly comes from the fact this post have been hack(aday)ed : http://hackaday.com/2015/10/20/the-curious-case-of-ultrasonic-power-transfer/ (http://hackaday.com/2015/10/20/the-curious-case-of-ultrasonic-power-transfer/)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on October 21, 2015, 12:34:10 pm
Dave (or anyone else who wants to share their opinion), what are your thoughts about Qi or other inductive wireless charging products for mobile phones?

I just got one for my phone, and it's completely flakey. Granted, it was a cheapie.
I'm actually planning on some experiments in this area.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on October 21, 2015, 04:09:13 pm
Dave (or anyone else who wants to share their opinion), what are your thoughts about Qi or other inductive wireless charging products for mobile phones?

I just got one for my phone, and it's completely flakey. Granted, it was a cheapie.
I'm actually planning on some experiments in this area.
A lot of them are a stupid shape, so the phone won't stay in the right place easily, and a tablet has almost no chance.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on October 21, 2015, 04:13:16 pm
Dave (or anyone else who wants to share their opinion), what are your thoughts about Qi or other inductive wireless charging products for mobile phones?

I just got one for my phone, and it's completely flakey. Granted, it was a cheapie.
I'm actually planning on some experiments in this area.
A lot of them are a stupid shape, so the phone won't stay in the right place easily, and a tablet has almost no chance.

A good inductive power surface should be orientation and position free. I saw 12 years ago a 10" square prototype with 70% efficiency that did it and supported multiple phones. This didn't get to the market for non technical reasons.

Free positioning constructive surfaces can achieve even 95% efficiency.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: tszaboo on October 21, 2015, 06:15:19 pm
Don't get paranoid  :) The traffic possibly comes from the fact this post have been hack(aday)ed : http://hackaday.com/2015/10/20/the-curious-case-of-ultrasonic-power-transfer/ (http://hackaday.com/2015/10/20/the-curious-case-of-ultrasonic-power-transfer/)
or that.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on October 22, 2015, 07:57:12 am
Dave (or anyone else who wants to share their opinion), what are your thoughts about Qi or other inductive wireless charging products for mobile phones?

I just got one for my phone, and it's completely flakey. Granted, it was a cheapie.
I'm actually planning on some experiments in this area.
A lot of them are a stupid shape, so the phone won't stay in the right place easily, and a tablet has almost no chance.

A good inductive power surface should be orientation and position free. I saw 12 years ago a 10" square prototype with 70% efficiency that did it and supported multiple phones. This didn't get to the market for non technical reasons.

Free positioning constructive surfaces can achieve even 95% efficiency.
How well do these position free inductive systems of yours work when the phone has fallen on the floor. I suspect they were slightly less position free than you are letting on. Most QI charger gadgets are small. Phones are big. They just slide off.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on October 25, 2015, 10:36:14 pm
Dave (or anyone else who wants to share their opinion), what are your thoughts about Qi or other inductive wireless charging products for mobile phones?

I just got one for my phone, and it's completely flakey. Granted, it was a cheapie.
I'm actually planning on some experiments in this area.
A lot of them are a stupid shape, so the phone won't stay in the right place easily, and a tablet has almost no chance.

A good inductive power surface should be orientation and position free. I saw 12 years ago a 10" square prototype with 70% efficiency that did it and supported multiple phones. This didn't get to the market for non technical reasons.

Free positioning constructive surfaces can achieve even 95% efficiency.
How well do these position free inductive systems of yours work when the phone has fallen on the floor. I suspect they were slightly less position free than you are letting on. Most QI charger gadgets are small. Phones are big. They just slide off.

Sorry, I don't understand what you are asking. Willing to rephrase?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jurge24pez on November 05, 2015, 04:28:26 pm
Winning a book on most detail ever published - what are you trying to do, land a job with them.  No, you are disputing them so not the case.  Are you with a competitor and merely want to take them out or whats the agenda here?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Dongulus on November 05, 2015, 05:34:38 pm
Winning a book on most detail ever published - what are you trying to do, land a job with them.  No, you are disputing them so not the case.  Are you with a competitor and merely want to take them out or whats the agenda here?

I think point #13 sums up OP's reasons quite well.

Your agenda, however, I'm not so sure of as you are a brand new user on this forum who just happened to choose this thread to make a first post. Are you a supporter and merely want to overlook OP's valid points by questioning his motives?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikerj on November 05, 2015, 05:37:13 pm
Winning a book on most detail ever published - what are you trying to do, land a job with them.  No, you are disputing them so not the case.  Are you with a competitor and merely want to take them out or whats the agenda here?

He is giving detailed technical information on why the entire scheme is doomed to failure.  Could you state what your agenda is please?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jazon on November 08, 2015, 02:58:30 pm
A pretty good follow up to this post. Experts say the same thing...

uBeam's Problems with Efficiency, Practicality and Cost Makes Experts Skeptical

http://www.labusinessjournal.com/news/2015/nov/08/skeptics-zap-wireless-charging/ (http://www.labusinessjournal.com/news/2015/nov/08/skeptics-zap-wireless-charging/)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: tombola on November 08, 2015, 05:49:56 pm
uBeam have given Techcrunch (whose owner runs CrunchFund, investors in uBeam) some new information:

http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/wireless-power-charger/ (http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/wireless-power-charger/)


They claim "The information here about focused beams, frequency, and decibel level dispels many of the rumors about uBeam being too inefficient or unsafe. " with a link to this page behind 'rumors'.

They speak to Matthew O'Donnell: http://depts.washington.edu/bioe/portfolio-items/odonnell/ (http://depts.washington.edu/bioe/portfolio-items/odonnell/)
and Babur Hadimioglu https://www.linkedin.com/pub/babur-hadimioglu/8/799/b53 (https://www.linkedin.com/pub/babur-hadimioglu/8/799/b53)

Would be fascinated to see a response from George Smith

(ps yes this is my first post, long-time lurker & youtube video watcher, first time poster)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: andy o on November 08, 2015, 10:36:27 pm
I read earlier that article at the LA Business Journal linked above, and it makes a pretty apt comparison with Theranos, which I've been fascinated about for the past several weeks. How did it get to this point in the first place? These two are based on cult of personalities, and these two CEOs are behaving in very similar ways when confronted with criticism.

By the way, I've known this site and forums for some time now, but got here from the rather credulous latest Tech Crunch article, which btw, links this thread as "blind cynicism", making the good old skeptic/cynic fallacy and pulling the "I'm the real open minded skeptic" schtick at the same time.

The curious thing is that Theranos has been reported neutrally (which is not really as critical as some of us would like, but it's not too bad either) by Tech Crunch. I guess this time they're getting the scoop directly from the company, so something's gotta give. Reminds me of all the credulous reporting from tech sites who were given access to the Healbe Gobe, including big names like Engadget.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 08, 2015, 10:58:59 pm
By the way, I've known this site and forums for some time now, but got here from the rather credulous latest Tech Crunch article, which btw, links this thread as "blind cynicism", making the good old skeptic/cynic fallacy and pulling the "I'm the real open minded skeptic" schtick at the same time.

It's very important to know that Tech Crunh's founder is an investor in Ubeam
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 08, 2015, 11:05:35 pm
uBeam have given Techcrunch (whose owner runs CrunchFund, investors in uBeam) some new information:
http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/wireless-power-charger/ (http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/wireless-power-charger/)

It's crap like this that is precisely what is wrong with UBeam:

Quote
Dr. Matt O’Donnell, PhD is one of the world’s leading experts in ultrasonics, and is the Professor and Dean Emeritus of Engineering at the University of Washington. He writes:
“If uBeam can continuously deliver 145-155 dB of ultrasound successfully to a cell phone, then it may be possible to charge a phone with at least a few watts. There is multiplicative risk in getting all of this together to work, but it may be possible. If uBeam can deliver that amount of power to a phone with reasonable efficiency, reception, and electronic management, then their system does not violate the laws of physics.”
While he can’t vouch that the technology does work, he concludes that given the specs, it’s not infeasible. It will just be very tough to execute.

 :palm:

OF COURSE it can work!
No critic has ever said it can't work!
The problem is with the practicality of it. You know, that annoying stuff that engineers like to deal with to make a product actually work in the real world to be reliable, safe, and meet the claimed performance specs over a whole host of environmental and other factors.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 08, 2015, 11:17:16 pm
http://www.labusinessjournal.com/news/2015/nov/08/skeptics-zap-wireless-charging/ (http://www.labusinessjournal.com/news/2015/nov/08/skeptics-zap-wireless-charging/)

Sounds like this researcher would know:

Quote
Ultrasound has been used to transmit energy before, said Henry Scarton, a mechanical engineer and director of the Laboratory for Noise and Vibration Control Research at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y. Scarton has built systems that project ultrasonic energy through metal submarine hulls to underwater listening devices and through oil-carrying pipe to sensors.
But under closely controlled conditions, those systems only generate a maximum of 50 percent efficiency, he said.
“In air, it would be ridiculously small. Not practical,” Scarton said.

And that's a huge problem for Ubeam
Even if it does everything they claim, it's ultimately still going to be horribly inefficient. So it's not going to be something that we should be using on a mass global scale. Because, you know, we are trying to actually  save energy, not piss it away. It's the whole reason behind the Energy Star scheme.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: andy o on November 08, 2015, 11:23:40 pm
By the way, I've known this site and forums for some time now, but got here from the rather credulous latest Tech Crunch article, which btw, links this thread as "blind cynicism", making the good old skeptic/cynic fallacy and pulling the "I'm the real open minded skeptic" schtick at the same time.

It's very important to know that Tech Crunh's founder is an investor in Ubeam

Yeah, missed that bit of info in the last post, got it from the hackaday post after I'd posted.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on November 08, 2015, 11:24:14 pm
One of the major issues with high-power ultrasonics is sub-harmonics.  There is no shortage of items that will resonate at a fraction of the fundamental frequency of the transducer.  It usually results in a screeching that is just incredibly obnoxious.  It's hard to imagine a system that has enough power to overcome the free-space path loss, still can impart a meaningful amount of power to a device, and *not* cause unintentional resonance with an ever-changing set of random objects in its field. 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 09, 2015, 03:40:58 am
  • uBeam can charge multiple devices simultaneously within a range of up to a 4 meter radius from a single transmitter

So by their own admission is become effectively useless at greater than 4m?
That tells you a lot.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jurge24pez on November 09, 2015, 04:33:09 am
Winning a book on most detail ever published - what are you trying to do, land a job with them.  No, you are disputing them so not the case.  Are you with a competitor and merely want to take them out or whats the agenda here?

I think point #13 sums up OP's reasons quite well.

Your agenda, however, I'm not so sure of as you are a brand new user on this forum who just happened to choose this thread to make a first post. Are you a supporter and merely want to overlook OP's valid points by questioning his motives?

There is no agenda; merely doing research on the topic and was surprised at the number of detailed analyses by one individual. It made me wonder if they were working for a competitor, or maybe even used to work for ubeam. I was referred to this site by a fellow researcher.  One has to assume that the fellow putting so much effort into the analysis is wanting to compete, join, or debunk the company?

The recent LABJ article  might do that for him if the goal is debunking since the CEO is now being compared to Theranos who'd technology was also kept secret too long for critics.  But the details of the specs that ubeam released do offer some indications that there are a lot of huge risks ahead if ubeam ever hopes to bring a product to consumers at a reasonable price point.  The comparative data for Energous also makes one question their validity of claims, and yet they don't get the amount of blog criticisms. 
Aren't they, and for that matter, all new wireless power transmission endeavors including witriity destined to fail in the minds of those who aren't in the deep day to day engineering that each of the companies is chasing?  It is a new technology and has to overcome challenges or it wouldn't be worth inventing.  Conceding though that the challenges are fairly dominating in the timeframe they claim to be launching. 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Bud on November 09, 2015, 04:37:12 am
  • uBeam has developed a high-powered air-coupled ultrasonic transducer to transmit and receive sound waves at a single frequency within the range of 45kHz to 75kHz with an output of 145dB to 155dB (or 316 W/m2 – 3kW/m2)

Im just hoping those places will have signs displayed so i can avoid going there.

Quote
  • At launch, uBeam plans to... both sell the receiver phone cases and work with partners to loan them out to patrons of places with transmitters installed.

To me practicality ends here.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 09, 2015, 05:07:44 am
There is no agenda; merely doing research on the topic and was surprised at the number of detailed analyses by one individual. It made me wonder if they were working for a competitor, or maybe even used to work for ubeam. I was referred to this site by a fellow researcher.  One has to assume that the fellow putting so much effort into the analysis is wanting to compete, join, or debunk the company?

The great thing about facts and data and research is, it doesn't matter what angle you come from.

This forum is full of engineers who just love to "debunk" stuff for no reason other than the fun of it, and/or an intellectual exercise.
Engineers hate wild marketing claims, with a passion.

Quote
Aren't they, and for that matter, all new wireless power transmission endeavors including witriity destined to fail in the minds of those who aren't in the deep day to day engineering that each of the companies is chasing?  It is a new technology and has to overcome challenges or it wouldn't be worth inventing. 

uBeam is not new technologies, it's just a foolish upstart trying to get blood from an engineering stone.
They have already extracted money from the stone, and that in itself is a very impressive feat. But I suspect that's as far as they'll ever get. They'll ever die, or if they are clever, will find a niche market application.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 09, 2015, 05:08:29 am
  • uBeam has developed a high-powered air-coupled ultrasonic transducer to transmit and receive sound waves at a single frequency within the range of 45kHz to 75kHz with an output of 145dB to 155dB (or 316 W/m2 – 3kW/m2)
Im just hoping those places will have signs displayed so i can avoid going there.

And don't bring your cat.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on November 09, 2015, 05:10:46 am
  • uBeam has developed a high-powered air-coupled ultrasonic transducer to transmit and receive sound waves at a single frequency within the range of 45kHz to 75kHz with an output of 145dB to 155dB (or 316 W/m2 – 3kW/m2)
Im just hoping those places will have signs displayed so i can avoid going there.

And don't bring your cat.
Surely its best to bring your cat. Its time the canaries got their own back.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: FrankenPC on November 09, 2015, 05:39:49 am
Frankly, I'd rather like to see someone build a universal laminate that can be applied to any surface that can be powered to provide a coupled charger anywhere you put devices.  I just want to set my device down anywhere and have it charge.  I don't need something like ubeam. 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on November 09, 2015, 09:32:43 am
UBeam has not addressed a single fundamental criticism on this FAQ.  We have Josh Constine of TechCrunch attacking this UBeam FAQ as "blind cynicism" because it dared assume that UBeam would want to avoid injuring dogs and cats so the FAQ ran estimates based on 100 KHz.  But Josh Constine said "gotcha", this FAQ wrongly assumed that UBeam cared about cats and dogs and they're actually going to use 45 to 75 KHz.
I was surprised to see 45kHz-75kHz being talked about in a new article. Wasn't there something from uBeam which actually said they have raised their frequency to something beyond 100kHz, because of issues caused by their original lower frequency?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: itdontgo on November 09, 2015, 09:38:16 am
Sounds efficient.  Is it really that hard to plug your phone in?  Where isn't there a USB port these days?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 09, 2015, 10:36:17 am
With the UBeam system, you'd have to put the phone face down if you wanted to use overhead transmitters.  If you're going to do that, just shine a bright spotlight onto the phone and put a photovoltaic cell on the back.

Or just sit it on a Qi charging pad  ::)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on November 09, 2015, 12:32:52 pm
We haven't even started talking about the problem of sub-harmonics damaging dogs, cats, and humans.

I already brought up the sub-harmonics issue.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikerj on November 09, 2015, 07:29:30 pm
How about beating between transmitters?  If you walked away from one 100kHz transmitter and towards another at typical walking speed (1m/s), you'd get a shift of about -300Hz on the you are walking away from and +300 on the one you are walking towards.  That seems like it would cause audible beating even if the transmitters were frequency locked together.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: eneuro on November 09, 2015, 09:00:24 pm
With the UBeam system, you'd have to put the phone face down if you wanted to use overhead transmitters.  If you're going to do that, just shine a bright spotlight onto the phone and put a photovoltaic cell on the back.

Or just sit it on a Qi charging pad  ::)
Or cut toroid core at half, put one part with a few turns of high frequency AC in transmiter, while second half install at the bottom of your celphone with synchronous rectifier diodes and voltag regulator to charge or provide live current for your phone when those toroid parts are touched to close magnetic circuit with air gap as small as possible ;)

No bloody u  :bullshit: Beam needed, never ever...
They loose their life for such stupid things-better they watch this and forget about this stupid ultrasound pink girl dreams ;)
Universe is driven and powered by gravity and nuclear reactions, creating huge magnetic fields, electricity, but not ultrasound... better use human power and gravity to run high eficiency electric motor to charge something rather than bloody ultrasound...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a0FbQdH3dY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a0FbQdH3dY)

BTW: in this latest article about his mind change they reused Nicola Tesla lab photo which is huge progress-they will use WPT based chargers anyway, but of course not ultrasonic but, using high frequency magnetic circuits, which has benefit over RF resonant circuts, that while magnetic circuit i closed radio noise is greatly reduced and additionally we have galvanic insuation between transmiter windings and receiver ;)

https://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/wireless-power.png?w=738 (https://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/wireless-power.png?w=738)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 09, 2015, 09:37:22 pm
We haven't even started talking about the problem of sub-harmonics damaging dogs, cats, and humans.
I already brought up the sub-harmonics issue.

I bought that up in my original blog article too.
It's how directional speakers and sound weapons work.
Not just on a single unit and the environment, but when they flood a Starbucks with dozens of units as they boast they want to do.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on November 09, 2015, 10:58:47 pm
We haven't even started talking about the problem of sub-harmonics damaging dogs, cats, and humans.
I already brought up the sub-harmonics issue.

I bought that up in my original blog article too.
It's how directional speakers and sound weapons work.
Not just on a single unit and the environment, but when they flood a Starbucks with dozens of units as they boast they want to do.

I'm just floored that anyone that's actually worked with ultrasonics at any meaningful power level doesn't know about the sub-harmonics issue. It's more than just a minor nuisance. More than a few ultrasonic welders are stuffed into acoustic enclosures for this very reason.

You'd think that someone who had millions at her disposal could buy ultrasonic power supplies and transducers from Dukane or Branson and quickly realize the many problems with this booby hatch.

20/30/40 and 50kHz systems are all off the shelf technology.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on November 09, 2015, 10:59:20 pm
I bought that up in my original blog article too.
It's how directional speakers and sound weapons work.
Not just on a single unit and the environment, but when they flood a Starbucks with dozens of units as they boast they want to do.

Just boost the power by 100 and do time sharing between 100 devices at 100 different points. It's just as impractical as the rest of their design.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: wijowa on November 10, 2015, 12:04:47 am
There is an IEEE Spectrum article on this that just came out too:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/can-ubeams-throughtheair-phone-charging-system-live-up-to-the-hype (http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/can-ubeams-throughtheair-phone-charging-system-live-up-to-the-hype)

I find it most hilarious that the TechCrunch article quotes two physicists basically saying "Well, if they can make it work, they can make it work" and Spectrum reaches out to those physicists in their article.

Now that they are saying they are working at 40-75 khz and their site still says "uBeam operates at such a high frequency that even animals, such as dogs, are not sensitive to its transmission." Because of the focused, directional nature of the beams.  it's becoming clear the level of flim-flammery this company is executing. 

Clearly they have a somewhat-valuable trademark and IP and are developing some technology that could find a niche.  Conceivably the effort can pay off for those early investors either as a pump and dump scheme or in a quick sale of the niche technology and trademark.  It might be interesting to try and conceive of other niche applications this could find its way into.

Adding to this:

For example, one might make a VR "Holodeck" with Oculus Rift type face masks, where the front of the face mask is receiving power so as not to require wires.  This would be a constrained situation that would possibly make the issues worthwhile.  In this particular case, Facebook is acquisition-prone and could easily shell out the cash to buy out Ubeam to integrate into the Oculus product.  John Carmack was quoted somewhere as saying wires were the biggest challenge of making VR seamless, so could definitely see something like this being the ultimate fate of ubeam's technology. Even if for all commercial intents it's impractical even for constrained situations like that, and ultimately never sees practical implementation outside of CES or E3.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: SaintGimp on November 10, 2015, 02:02:43 am
IMHO, the most damaging piece of information in that IEEE Spectrum article is this:

Quote
The company appears to have suffered an exodus of technical talent. With the exception of Perry, none of the engineers listed on uBeam’s patents are still at the company, according to their LinkedIn profiles.

The engineers always know when it's not going to work, and they vote with their feet.  Unless and until uBeam coughs up a working prototype, this is the clearest signal we have about how product development is actually going.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 10, 2015, 02:23:56 am
IMHO, the most damaging piece of information in that IEEE Spectrum article is this:
Quote
The company appears to have suffered an exodus of technical talent. With the exception of Perry, none of the engineers listed on uBeam’s patents are still at the company, according to their LinkedIn profiles.
The engineers always know when it's not going to work, and they vote with their feet.  Unless and until uBeam coughs up a working prototype, this is the clearest signal we have about how product development is actually going.

 :-DD
And totally unsurprising.
Ubeam will be lucky if it doesn't implode.

And just remember Merideth's classic bitch slap to engineers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukgnU2aXM2c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukgnU2aXM2c)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 10, 2015, 02:28:09 am
No reviews for Ubeam on GlassDoor yet...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 10, 2015, 02:31:23 am
There is an IEEE Spectrum article on this that just came out too:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/can-ubeams-throughtheair-phone-charging-system-live-up-to-the-hype (http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/can-ubeams-throughtheair-phone-charging-system-live-up-to-the-hype)

Big shoutout in that article to this thread and George's comprehensive FAQ
Quote
Perhaps the most devastating critique was a 3,000 word post on EEVblog Electronics Forum, which, among other things, says that a large room will require dozens of transmitters to provide full coverage. What is striking about that last post is the nearly universal praise it has received for accuracy, with the endorsements coming both from persons familiar with uBeam as well as highly-credentialed outside experts. Several from the former category said they couldn't find any mistakes. “He did a very good job with it,” said one.
:-+
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 10, 2015, 02:39:00 am
Huge  :-+ to Lee Gomes for that IEEE article
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/can-ubeams-throughtheair-phone-charging-system-live-up-to-the-hype (http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/can-ubeams-throughtheair-phone-charging-system-live-up-to-the-hype)
Thoroughly professional, researched, and pulls no punches. Exactly what you'd expect from the IEEE.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on November 10, 2015, 03:21:13 am
Quote
In an e-mailed response, a uBeam spokesperson said the questions had “a negative slant,” and added, “If you want to write about real science, for a scientific audience, you would reach out to us and work with us in a collaborative rather than offensive way.”

"Real science."

Wow.

On that note, the "careers" section of uBeam's website is curiously missing.   ;D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 10, 2015, 03:27:47 am
On that note, the "careers" section of uBeam's website is curiously missing.   ;D

Last update:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150928054829/http://ubeam.com/careers/ (https://web.archive.org/web/20150928054829/http://ubeam.com/careers/)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Delta on November 10, 2015, 03:38:32 am
As mentioned in the IEEE article, Ms uBeam tweeted “You just can't win with people that want to bring you down,” and then added “but I got news for you guys. I'm a resilient SOB and you're going to have to nuke me to kill me.”

FFS.  We are a bunch of engineering geeks.  It isn't a battle or even a debate, just show some data or working prototype and that's that.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on November 10, 2015, 03:51:31 am
The ubeam.com web site now refers to http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041624X15001973 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041624X15001973) , which is a genuinely interesting experiment in ultrasonic charging. The article is about charging medical devices under the skin of a pig, using ultrasonic power directly applied to its skin. That sounds like a potentially useful idea, although I didn't see mention of why it might be an better alternative to the inductive coupled charging currently used for medical implants.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on November 10, 2015, 04:12:44 am
The ubeam.com web site now refers to http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041624X15001973 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041624X15001973) , which is a genuinely interesting experiment in ultrasonic charging. The article is about charging medical devices under the skin of a pig, using ultrasonic power directly applied to its skin. That sounds like a potentially useful idea, although I didn't see mention of why it might be an better alternative to the inductive coupled charging currently used for medical implants.

Ultrasound works great through water.  Sonar transducers are how a few of the big ultrasonics companies got their start.  Between the favorable medium and short transmission distance, that's a form of ultrasonic charging that I would actually buy into. 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: itdontgo on November 10, 2015, 04:48:05 am
Oh my this woman is deluded and her investors do not understand anything.  What the planet really does not need are billions of 3W mobile chargers being replaced by billions of inefficient 3kW chargers doing the same job!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34604843 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34604843)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: wijowa on November 10, 2015, 04:58:59 am
As mentioned in the IEEE article, Ms uBeam tweeted “You just can't win with people that want to bring you down,” and then added “but I got news for you guys. I'm a resilient SOB and you're going to have to nuke me to kill me.”

Her tweets seem to reveal more information about the product development, quoting:

Quote
2/Some challenges we had 2 overcome to make @uBeam viable: impedancemismatch/aircoupling/beamforming/acoustic losses/low power rectification

3/Thru yrs of development & hard work, our team of brilliant engineers/scientists developed& realized solutions to the following challenges:

4/Built novel high powered air-coupled ultrasonic txt, operates btwn 45-75 kHz, output btwn 145dB – 155dB (=316 W/m2 – 3kW/m2). Took 3 yrs

5/Built phased array transmitter w 1000s of individually addressable & controllable elements that enable us to beam power over 1-4m radius

6/ Develop a detection and tracking system to precisely locate receiving electronic devices in air in real-time

7/ Develop beamforming algorithms that can shape & steer multiple focused beams to several moving devices based on their loc & size in space

7/Build receiver that harvests & convert acoustic power w multiple focused beams hitting Rx @ multiple angles, while Rx itself is in motion


I think this was brought up much earlier, but in a phased array type system, isn't there going to be substantial noise and harmonics in the negative space? Kind of how a fourier approximation can't quite perfectly make a step function, it has fuzzy noise at the corners.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 10, 2015, 05:01:19 am
It seems that Mark Suster (big investor in Ubeam http://www.businessinsider.com.au/startup-ubeams-10-million-debate-2014-11 (http://www.businessinsider.com.au/startup-ubeams-10-million-debate-2014-11) ) is tad upset at the article.
He's going to town on Twitter
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: georgesmith on November 10, 2015, 05:16:21 am
Winning a book on most detail ever published - what are you trying to do, land a job with them.  No, you are disputing them so not the case.  Are you with a competitor and merely want to take them out or whats the agenda here?

I think point #13 sums up OP's reasons quite well.

Your agenda, however, I'm not so sure of as you are a brand new user on this forum who just happened to choose this thread to make a first post. Are you a supporter and merely want to overlook OP's valid points by questioning his motives?

There is no agenda; merely doing research on the topic and was surprised at the number of detailed analyses by one individual. It made me wonder if they were working for a competitor, or maybe even used to work for ubeam. I was referred to this site by a fellow researcher.  One has to assume that the fellow putting so much effort into the analysis is wanting to compete, join, or debunk the company?

The recent LABJ article  might do that for him if the goal is debunking since the CEO is now being compared to Theranos who'd technology was also kept secret too long for critics.  But the details of the specs that ubeam released do offer some indications that there are a lot of huge risks ahead if ubeam ever hopes to bring a product to consumers at a reasonable price point.  The comparative data for Energous also makes one question their validity of claims, and yet they don't get the amount of blog criticisms. 
Aren't they, and for that matter, all new wireless power transmission endeavors including witriity destined to fail in the minds of those who aren't in the deep day to day engineering that each of the companies is chasing?  It is a new technology and has to overcome challenges or it wouldn't be worth inventing.  Conceding though that the challenges are fairly dominating in the timeframe they claim to be launching.

FWIW, I don't work for uBeam, and I also don't work for any uBeam competitor. I've never worked for uBeam, and I've never worked for a uBeam competitor. I'm not being compensated in any way. I have no financial interest at all here, and never have.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on November 10, 2015, 05:17:11 am
uBeam is "not in the market"??!!  Are they kidding?  They're marketing this perfumed bilge water in hopes of spinning it in an IPO.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: georgesmith on November 10, 2015, 06:03:16 am
uBeam have given Techcrunch (whose owner runs CrunchFund, investors in uBeam) some new information:

http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/wireless-power-charger/ (http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/wireless-power-charger/)

  • uBeam has developed a high-powered air-coupled ultrasonic transducer to transmit and receive sound waves at a single frequency within the range of 45kHz to 75kHz with an output of 145dB to 155dB (or 316 W/m2 – 3kW/m2)
  • uBeam can charge multiple devices simultaneously within a range of up to a 4 meter radius from a single transmitter
  • uBeam is designed to deliver a minimum of 1.5 watts of electricity to smartphones, or enough to keep a phone from losing battery life even when being heavily used. Depending on the number of devices being charged simultaneously by a single transmitter, and depending on the distance of those devices to the transmitter, uBeam could charge devices at comparable rates to a wire, or faster.
  • uBeam has 30-plus filed patents and 6 issued ones. At the core of its technology is the transducer the company invented, which it believes can deliver more power at the right frequency than any other.
  • The patents also cover technologies including its ultrasonic phased array transmitter that includes thousands of individually addressable and controllable elements, its beamforming algorithms that can shape and steer multiple beams to multiple moving devices, and the receiver that can harvest acoustic power from these beams coming in from multiple angles.
  • At launch, uBeam plans to both sell its transmitters and work with partners to install them in public places like restaurants, hotels, or cafes. It will also both sell the receiver phone cases and work with partners to loan them out to patrons of places with transmitters installed.

They claim "The information here about focused beams, frequency, and decibel level dispels many of the rumors about uBeam being too inefficient or unsafe. " with a link to this page behind 'rumors'.

They speak to Matthew O'Donnell: http://depts.washington.edu/bioe/portfolio-items/odonnell/ (http://depts.washington.edu/bioe/portfolio-items/odonnell/)
and Babur Hadimioglu https://www.linkedin.com/pub/babur-hadimioglu/8/799/b53 (https://www.linkedin.com/pub/babur-hadimioglu/8/799/b53)

Would be fascinated to see a response from George Smith

(ps yes this is my first post, long-time lurker & youtube video watcher, first time poster)

Hey tombola. That article by Constine was both funny and a little depressing. A few weeks ago, Meredith Perry tweeted (https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/656377376394227712):

"Going dark until product launch. I'll tweet about other things, but uBeam's back in the vault. No press. Heads down & focused until launch."

I admired her for making the right decision: cutting down the PR hype. But one week later, she did an on-camera interview with the BBC, including a tour of the uBeam offices:

Could we soon charge our phones through the air? (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34604842)

And then two weeks later, that TechCrunch piece came out.  :palm:

The funny thing is that TechCrunch/Constine act like they're debunking skeptics, and then go on to confirm almost everything the skeptics said. Extremely high intensities: confirmed. (In fact, uBeam now claims to have the most powerful in-air transducers ever built.) Limited to line-of-sight: confirmed. Short ranges: confirmed.

The only thing different is the frequency. I assumed 100 kHz in my calculations, while TechCrunch quotes a range of 45 to 75 kHz. A lower frequency does give uBeam a somewhat longer range. But those frequencies are well within cat hearing range (cats top out at ~80 kHz), and the longer range also means stray noise travels farther. Going back to uBeam's website, it's interesting how they brush that under the rug:

"As for animals, only bats, cats, whales, and a few other animals could possibly detect the ultrasound that uBeam creates. We love aquatic animals but it is unlikely that uBeam would be used in the water! As for bats, these animals would hear uBeam only if it were used outside. Because uBeam uses "locked on" directional focused beams, only animals that carried a uBeam receiver would be able to "hear" the uBeam. uBeam's system will not affect pets or animals." (emphasis added)

They explain why bats and whales (mostly) aren't a problem, but appear to forget about cats. There are ~160 million cats in the US, so that's a significant oversight. It's a focused system, yes, but if it transmits 155 dB, and the goal is to keep noise leaks below "very loud" (~85 dB), the beam has to keep losses, reflections, dispersion, etc. under 0.00001%. That's just not practical.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: georgesmith on November 10, 2015, 06:10:42 am
George Smith, you really need to question Energous' claims.

Quote
Energous is a publicly traded company (stock symbol WATT). Their website describes a charging technology called WattUp, which transmits power via radio waves[51]. Energous's website says that each WattUp transmitter can reach a range of 15 feet, and charge 12 devices at once[51]. Energous has signed a partnership agreement with a "tier one consumer electronics company"[52], likely Apple or Samsung[53], to include its technology in cellphones. uBeam's website claims that "RF [radio] and microwaves also both require impractically large transmitters and receivers to send power over distances greater than a meter"[1], but this appears to have been proven false by Energous's CES demonstration[8].

Here is the only article raising questions.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3024956-energous-more-reasons-to-be-dubious (http://seekingalpha.com/article/3024956-energous-more-reasons-to-be-dubious)

Energous claims 16W at 5 feet using 5.7 GHz.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/energous-wattup-wireless-charging-haier,27944.html (http://www.tomshardware.com/news/energous-wattup-wireless-charging-haier,27944.html)

Even assuming 100% efficiency and zero inverse square loss, the FCC transmit max is 1 watt and we all know EIRP doesn't actually mean more energy. If Energous did focus the energy, they'd have to drop 1 dB transmit power for every 3 dBi antenna gain. Either way they're likely going to face more than 99.99% beam spread loss.

Energous seems to be pulling the same stunt as RCA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8s3Xjeg0sk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8s3Xjeg0sk)

I haven't done in-depth investigation of Energous, so I can't speak to whether they exceed safety limits in that part of the radio spectrum. However, their device was recently tested by UL (link (http://ir.energous.com/press-releases/detail/540)), and the results showed 4-5 watts at 5 feet, not 16 watts. Energous's stated design goal was 4 W at 5 feet, 2 W at 10 feet and 1 W at 15 feet.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on November 10, 2015, 06:22:42 am
I think this was brought up much earlier, but in a phased array type system, isn't there going to be substantial noise and harmonics in the negative space? Kind of how a fourier approximation can't quite perfectly make a step function, it has fuzzy noise at the corners.
Phased arrays won't necessarily give a lot of noise and harmonics. That's mostly an issue of the quality of the circuitry and transducers. However, practical arrays do give a lot of sidelobes, and the main lobe is not the kind of hard edged thing some of the descriptions of phased arrays seem to paint a picture of. To get the peak of the energy impinging on a small target across the room still leaves considerable energy going to all the wrong places.

I find it interesting that they keep emphasising how safe ultrasonic energy is, but also keep emphasising how safety concious the system is in cutting off power the moment something obstructs the beam. Seems like the are oscillating between two messages.  ;)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: georgesmith on November 10, 2015, 06:52:52 am
The recent IEEE Spectrum article stated:

"With the exception of Perry, none of the engineers listed on uBeam’s patents are still at the company, according to their LinkedIn profiles."

IIRC, someone on Twitter replied (sadly can't find the source) that the engineers in question were contractors, not employees, and so were never expected to be at uBeam long-term. I looked up their LinkedIn profiles, and that seems to be accurate. In fact, uBeam looks like it had no full-time employees at all (other than Perry) before raising $10 million in October 2014. Article from Dec. 2014 (http://fortune.com/2014/12/30/meredith-perry-ubeam/):

"Well, back in 2012, we had raised a bunch of money, I had this whole plan planned out, but it was extremely difficult because I was working with only contractors. Up until a few months ago, even. Until we raised our Series A [funding round, totaling $10 million and led by Upfront Ventures] we didn’t have any full-time employees except me."

There's nothing wrong with that, per se. It's good to hire slowly in the early stages of a startup. But back in 2012, a Pando article said (https://pando.com/2012/07/10/ubeam-raises-750k-from-ff-angel-andreessen-horowitz-and-crunchfund-and-angels/):

"The company was created by Perry, a recent University of Pennsylvania grad and student ambassador at NASA. The idea? Enabling gadgets to recharge wirelessly via ultrasound transmitters. Perry plans to move her operation from New York to California. uBeam plans to launch a functional product by next year." (emphasis added)

Now that's just weird. Did Perry, uBeam's investors, and/or the media expect her to design, build, test, manufacture, and distribute a complex hardware product all by herself, with no other full-time employees? It just sounds strange.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: eneuro on November 10, 2015, 06:55:22 am
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/can-ubeams-throughtheair-phone-charging-system-live-up-to-the-hype (http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/can-ubeams-throughtheair-phone-charging-system-live-up-to-the-hype)
Thoroughly professional, researched, and pulls no punches. Exactly what you'd expect from the IEEE.

Now, we know why it looks like she doesn't know what she is talking about  :-DD
"In a TED speech from 2012, Perry seems to brag that she knew nearly nothing of physics before starting the company—not even how a TV remote control worked."

Today, with decent amount of money invested someone can  scam internet with nothing and maybe even make living on this for short time, but without any knowledge in the field, she will be only pink girl.
It is nice when someone comes from scientific research he made with someone else, and starts company, while he knows ehether it may work or not and push things in correct direction, but Mrs Perry after three years when started to learn something about ultrasound at least will undertand she was wrong.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on November 10, 2015, 07:00:28 am
I haven't done in-depth investigation of Energous, so I can't speak to whether they exceed safety limits in that part of the radio spectrum. However, their device was recently tested by UL (link (http://ir.energous.com/press-releases/detail/540)), and the results showed 4-5 watts at 5 feet, not 16 watts. Energous's stated design goal was 4 W at 5 feet, 2 W at 10 feet and 1 W at 15 feet.

I'm not saying it's is impossible to receive 4 watts at 5 feet, but your 5.7 GHz transmitters would have to be sending enormous amounts of energy, at least an order of magnitude greater than the energy received.  Since when does the FCC allow you to transmit 40+ watts on unlicensed 5.7 GHz?  The FCC max is 1W and you're only allowed to use 6 dBi gain when transmitting at max 1W.  You may use 30 dBi gain, but you must reduce transmit power by 8 dBm to use such a high gain antenna.
The FCC maximum applies to a single transmitter. They don't prevent you using numerous transmitters. Any large office is doing so, with multiple 802.11 APs in the 5GHz band. Energous seem to be using arrays to achieve their goals.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on November 10, 2015, 07:39:01 am
I haven't done in-depth investigation of Energous, so I can't speak to whether they exceed safety limits in that part of the radio spectrum. However, their device was recently tested by UL (link (http://ir.energous.com/press-releases/detail/540)), and the results showed 4-5 watts at 5 feet, not 16 watts. Energous's stated design goal was 4 W at 5 feet, 2 W at 10 feet and 1 W at 15 feet.

I'm not saying it's is impossible to receive 4 watts at 5 feet, but your 5.7 GHz transmitters would have to be sending enormous amounts of energy, at least an order of magnitude greater than the energy received.  Since when does the FCC allow you to transmit 40+ watts on unlicensed 5.7 GHz?  The FCC max is 1W and you're only allowed to use 6 dBi gain when transmitting at max 1W.  You may use 30 dBi gain, but you must reduce transmit power by 8 dBm to use such a high gain antenna.
The FCC maximum applies to a single transmitter. They don't prevent you using numerous transmitters. Any large office is doing so, with multiple 802.11 APs in the 5GHz band. Energous seem to be using arrays to achieve their goals.

I did consider this, but now we're talking about using 40 transmitter+antenna pairs just to charge one phone!  And that's if you can actually deliver 0.1 watts with a single transmitter+antenna which is highly doubtful.  Dave Jones' video shows how absurd the whole idea is.
There is a video of one 5GHz power transfer demo (I think its Witricity) where the transmitter is hidden behind a curtain. However, at one point the curtain is moved, and you can see a huge array of PCBs making up the transmitter. These types of thing may be economically unrealistic for anything but specialist applications, but why let practically spoil the fun.  :)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Delta on November 10, 2015, 08:21:35 am
Are any regulatory bodies really going to allow 155dB of sound (at any frequency) in public places?  Surely not?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on November 10, 2015, 08:42:02 am
Are any regulatory bodies really going to allow 155dB of sound (at any frequency) in public places?  Surely not?
Is there anything to stop that right now, or would fresh regulation be required? The health and safety legislation in most places only seems to specify maximum sound intensities for frequencies up to 6kHz or 8kHz. This seems weird, as a machine putting out 155dB at 10kHz is definitely a problem.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on November 10, 2015, 10:35:07 am
Are any regulatory bodies really going to allow 155dB of sound (at any frequency) in public places?  Surely not?
Is there anything to stop that right now, or would fresh regulation be required? The health and safety legislation in most places only seems to specify maximum sound intensities for frequencies up to 6kHz or 8kHz. This seems weird, as a machine putting out 155dB at 10kHz is definitely a problem.

Ultrasonics are regulated in the US primarily due to the sub harmonics issue:

https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/health_effects/ultrasonics.html (https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/health_effects/ultrasonics.html)

155 dB is totally out of the question. That is not a permissible exposure level at any frequency being discussed.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: eneuro on November 10, 2015, 12:26:07 pm
Ultrasonics are regulated in the US primarily due to the sub harmonics issue:

https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/health_effects/ultrasonics.html (https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/health_effects/ultrasonics.html)

155 dB is totally out of the question. That is not a permissible exposure level at any frequency being discussed.

Isn't this the first thing someone wanting to bring something "fantastic" to the market should check?  :palm:

Nice, I do want check how ultrasound is regulated in Euroean Union countries, to ensure this bloody u  :bullshit: Beam will never ever will be available there ;)

It must be regulated somehow, while giant wind turbine farms can make ultrasound too,  while its wing end passes the air at huge speeds, so there must be some limits and measures to ensure that tens of such huge wind turbines placed close together will not make too much ultrasonic issues (nois) and I'm interested in this more since those turbines are commercially available and sometimes govenments approves building such huge wild turbines too close to human houses, hoping nobody will punish them for high noise levels and landscape devastation  :--

It looks like, u  :bullshit: Beam is done, while hopefully they will not be able follow this quote  which could help them to handle those ultrasound issues :-DD
Quote
If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on November 10, 2015, 06:46:05 pm
Here's the chart for those who dislike linking:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=181206;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on November 10, 2015, 06:54:20 pm
Are any regulatory bodies really going to allow 155dB of sound (at any frequency) in public places?  Surely not?
Is there anything to stop that right now, or would fresh regulation be required? The health and safety legislation in most places only seems to specify maximum sound intensities for frequencies up to 6kHz or 8kHz. This seems weird, as a machine putting out 155dB at 10kHz is definitely a problem.

The chart I posted is an international standard, so I believe that for the North America and Europe, the sound level you question is clearly prohibited. 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on November 10, 2015, 07:27:05 pm
It must be regulated somehow, while giant wind turbine farms can make ultrasound too,  while its wing end passes the air at huge speeds

Nope. Wind turbines aren't giant propellers. The blades aren't pushing on the air, the air is pushing on the blade. You'd be surprised how quiet they are when you stand right under one.

The whole 'wind farms make me sick' brigade pretty much belongs in the same camp as the "wifi makes me sick' brigade. Attempts have been made to record any sound at all in the houses of the affected but I don't think anybody's managed it yet.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on November 10, 2015, 07:34:15 pm
uBeam is ultrasound-based.

Wind turbine noise is supposedly classified as "infrasound."

They are two totally opposite ends of the sound "spectrum" as it were.  Let's not clutter this thread up with wind turbine debates.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: eneuro on November 10, 2015, 08:52:14 pm
Wind turbine noise is supposedly classified as "infrasound."
Nope, it dependa how far away and wind turbine manufacture details:

PDF: Ultrasound emissions from wind turbines as a potential attractant to bats: a preliminary investigation (http://www.batsandwind.org/pdf/ultrasoundem.pdf)

Quote
This preliminary investigation recorded ultrasound from only a limited sample of wind turbines.
...
Potential sources of ultrasound from wind turbines include 1) ultrasound generated like a whistle from rotors moving through the air, 2) electronic components, and 3) mechanical components. The transmission and generator components of wind turbines do not turn with rotational speeds at which the generation of ultrasound would be expected. However, loss of lubrication on moving surfaces could occasionally result in ultrasound generation, but the maintenance schedules of the turbines would limit or avoid such occurrences.

Now imagine, ultrasound levels in u  :bullshit: Beam ... reflected from so many places where its bloody devices operates... disaster for bats population  :--
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: georgesmith on November 11, 2015, 02:28:46 am
New followup article by Garrett Reim: UBeam’s Disclosure Raises New Questions, Doesn’t Answer Old Ones (http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2015/nov/10/ubeams-disclosure-raises-new-questions-doesnt-answ/)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 11, 2015, 03:07:30 am
From:
New followup article by Garrett Reim: UBeam’s Disclosure Raises New Questions, Doesn’t Answer Old Ones (http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2015/nov/10/ubeams-disclosure-raises-new-questions-doesnt-answ/)

Quote
Furthermore, if uBeam’s receiver is not perpendicular to the ultrasonic beam, additional energy would fall out of focus and be wasted, experts said. In the TechCrunch blog post, uBeam also acknowledged it could not transmit through cloth or human flesh, meaning it would have difficulty charging a cellphone in your pocket or in hand.

“Presumably, the receiver surface is on the back of the phone where your hand is, so that’s going to cover that up,” said Pompei.

In essence, it appears an uBeam-equipped cellphone could only receive a trickle charge while flipped face down in your hand or on a table. That might make the system less useful than a PowerMat or Qi near-field wireless charging system, which charge face up.

And therein lies the major problem. Even if it is safe, efficient, low cost etc, no one is going to want have to charge their phone face down.
It's just a completely flawed idea that is forever being pushed backward into a never ending pocket of impracticality.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on November 11, 2015, 04:23:56 am
And therein lies the major problem. Even if it is safe, efficient, low cost etc, no one is going to want have to charge their phone face down.

Don't say such things before you've seen the secret prototype:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=181258;image)

There's plenty of surface area there for transducers and the display is perfectly visible while sitting on the table. 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: JimRemington on November 11, 2015, 04:33:00 am
I believe there is a possible "green" aspect to the proposed technology that has not been discussed.

Given the rather large expenditure of power involved in transmitting the ultrasonic beams (offsetting the losses to air) perhaps coffee shops that embrace the technology would not have to heat their establishments in winter.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on November 11, 2015, 05:52:40 am
I believe there is a possible "green" aspect to the proposed technology that has not been discussed.

Given the rather large expenditure of power involved in transmitting the ultrasonic beams (offsetting the losses to air) perhaps coffee shops that embrace the technology would not have to heat their establishments in winter.
Where I live coffee shops don't heat their establishments in winter, and they might need to uprate their air cons to deal with ubeams in the spring, summer and autumn.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: eneuro on November 11, 2015, 09:55:18 am
I believe there is a possible "green" aspect to the proposed technology that has not been discussed.
Yep, they could use their breakthrougth ultrasound transducers tracking technolgy to... kill mosquitos from the sky at the yard like this laser :-DD

New laser zaps mosquitoes out of the air
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH_x3kpG8Z4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH_x3kpG8Z4)

But this is my idea disclousued right now at EEVBlog, so I think it can be used as prior art if Mrs Perry wanted patent this, so she have to have another great dream if she wants make profit, else the only way to earn something on u  :bullshit: Beam will be The 25th First Annual Ig Nobel Prize Ceremony (http://www.improbable.com/ig/2015/)

Quote
"The 25th First Annual Ig Nobel Prize Ceremony introduced ten new Ig Nobel Prize winners - Each has done something that makes people laugh then think"

But hey showed results of his work to win this price, so there is huge difference and probably no chance for u  :bullshit: Beam win even this  :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on November 13, 2015, 01:23:47 am
Nope. Wind turbines aren't giant propellers. The blades aren't pushing on the air, the air is pushing on the blade. You'd be surprised how quiet they are when you stand right under one.

The whole 'wind farms make me sick' brigade pretty much belongs in the same camp as the "wifi makes me sick' brigade. Attempts have been made to record any sound at all in the houses of the affected but I don't think anybody's managed it yet.

You should watch Windfall. Last time I checked it was on Netflix.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 04, 2015, 03:17:32 am
Their website now suggests charging on planes.
Yeah, that's going to work a treat...  :palm:

(http://i.imgur.com/9VHdSuL.png)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 04, 2015, 03:22:44 am
Their website now suggests charging on planes.
Yeah, that's going to work a treat...  :palm:

(http://i.imgur.com/9VHdSuL.png)
There's a lot of vibrational energy on a plane, you know. Its amazing how they can shake electronics to pieces given a few years.  :)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 04, 2015, 03:24:22 am
And this guy is the VP of engineering:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/seantaffler (https://www.linkedin.com/in/seantaffler)

Will be interesting to see if he's still there when the ship sinks.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 04, 2015, 03:46:04 am
More Jobs:
http://ubeam.com/career/ (http://ubeam.com/career/)

Quote
Vice President, Electrical Engineering
SANTA MONICA, CA AND SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, CA

uBeam is seeking a VP of Electrical Engineering to oversee and manage the design and build of uBeam transmitter and receiver electronics from prototype to production. The VP of EE will have experience in driving at least one consumer electronic device from concept to production. The candidate will understand the requirements for volume production and the tradeoffs that make fast prototypes possible. The candidate will be responsible for overseeing the design, integration, and qualification of the electronics systems. The ideal candidate has designed high volume, high power, high-quality consumer electronics products with a consistent focus on product design as well as attention to detail. The candidate will work closely with in-house and contract engineering teams (EE, Acoustic) to develop complete solutions.

They will work with the rest of the team to design, develop, and bring the products from concept to production. The candidate will also be responsible for building out the team to fit its needs as the company grows.

Desired Skills and Experience

Electrical engineering design/engineering/build/test
Acoustic transducer driver (or low frequency power amplifier) & interface electronics
Electronics simulation (eg SPICE), design optimization, and model iteration using experimental data
Mixed signal (analog & digital) ASIC design
Battery charging and power management electronics
Microcontroller programming and architecture
PCB design, engineering, build, and test experience
Key differentiator is specific experience in all common methods of PCB fabrication and assembly (etch/mill/stencil/pick-place/etc)
Design AND build experience with high density PCBs
Chip-on-board & flex circuit design experience
Consumer electronics design experience
ASIC Design & ASIC House Selection
Electronics production and manufacturing experience
 Experience in selecting EE components, writing detailed electrical specification of the system interface, and test plan documents
Communication of design requirements to fabrication houses
Define Design for Manufacturing (DFM) guidelines
Prototype build, test, and debugging
Working with vendors/suppliers/manufacturing partners
Experience in analyzing trade-offs between performance, manufacturability and cost
Clearly articulate, track, and drive project objectives in a dynamic, fast-paced environment
Accurately summarize and communicate project status, risks, and mitigation plans to other departments and to executive management
Identify and resolve project dependencies and issues quickly and efficiently
Own all scheduling and logistics for a project
Develop and maintain strong working relationships with internal and external resources
Guide the team in accomplishing the roadmap, from both a product and a technical perspective
Ensure that timelines are met
Ensure that each phase of product development process is carefully managed and adhered to
Leadership Experience

Performance, scalability, reliability and capacity planning
Hardware and Software Interoperability
Ability to effectively work and collaborate across groups boundaries
An influential leader who get things done
Experience in hiring, mentoring and building a team from the start
Excellent communication skills
Education/Experience

BS EE/CE degree required, MS/PhD desired
15+ years industry experience
ABOUT YOU

Given the future growth trajectory, uBeam is building the necessary bench strength to propel the company into the future. As much as technical qualifications, and leadership excellence are key to your success, you manifest the fundamental values of our company culture that are critical to our ability to eventually power the world seamlessly:

If it doesn’t break the laws of physics, it can be done
Take “charge” of your destiny. Think around corners. Always have 3 backup plans.
Make and beat commitments

Quote
Senior Vision Scientist
SANTA MONICA, CA AND SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, CA

The senior vision scientist will be responsible for the object detection and tracking component of the uBeam power delivery system. They will use their knowledge in the field of object detection to identify and catalog mobile devices within the uBeam environment. They will also develop practical models to enable tracking (and predictive tracking ) of those devices. They will also develop methods to estimate the pose of the device.

Responsibilities

Prototype hardware and software solutions for tracking, detection and modeling
Develop creative computer vision and tracking software
Build novel real-time 3D object detection techniques and systems
Research and prototype techniques and algorithms for object detection and recognition
Contribute research that can be applied to uBeam product development
Devise data-driven models of human movement and behavior within the uBeam environment
Develop robust software to integrating multiple sensors and tracking systems
Research and prototype techniques and algorithms for moving object detection, segmentation, or and recognition
Assist with the translation of these algorithms and techniques to an embedded system and understand the tradeoffs required.
Requirements

PhD in Computer Science / Engineering or Electrical Engineering with a focus on Computer Vision and/or Machine Learning
3+ years experience in computer vision and machine learning
Competence with computer vision/machine learning libraries such as OpenCV, Matlab, or Torch
Hands-on experience with object detection and tracking, and optical flow
Fast prototyping skills, including comprehensive feature integration during all cycles of development
Practical knowledge of machine learning, Bayesian filtering, information theory, and 3D geometry
Demonstrated experience in a high level language (C++ /C# / Python etc)
Collaborative, positive, team-oriented mindset
Excellent technical writing and problem solving skills.

Quote
Engineering Projet Manager
SANTA MONICA, CA AND SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, CA

The Engineering Project Manager will manage and lead a cross functional team of skilled EE, Acoustic, SW and ME engineers. This role manages and tracks schedules and communicates risks and priorities. The successful candidate will be following up on day to day activities with the engineering team having the top level project goals in sight at all times.

The uBeam EPM role is highly technical. The uBeam EPM will utilize a solid EE/CE background to understand technical details of cross-functional issues and risks. This will enable you to set the proper priorities and put risk mitigation plans in place.

Key Qualifications

BS EE/CE degree required, MS/PhD desired
5+ years of industry experience
5+ years of project management experience
Excellent communication skills verbally and written
Experience with portable consumer electronics devices
Strong technical background
Experienced in setting up project schedules and work breakdown structures
Description

Lead cross-functional development teams
Management and tracking of development schedules
Identify and prioritize project tasks and risks
Drive engineering teams, managers, and suppliers, to integrate their deliverables and schedules into the project
Collaborate with contract manufacturers
Interaction with cross-functional team including Electrical Engineering, Firmware, Acoustics, and Mechanical Engineering
Communicating status and the big picture to the project team and management
Project risk assessment
Clearly articulate, track, and drive project objectives in a dynamic, fast-paced environment
Accurately summarize and communicate project status, risks, and mitigation plans to other departments and to executive management
Identify and resolve project dependencies and issues quickly and efficiently
Own all scheduling and logistics for a project
Develop and maintain strong working relationships with internal and external resources
Guide the team in accomplishing the roadmap, from both a product and a technical perspective
Ensure that timelines are met
Ensure that each phase of product development process is carefully managed and adhered to
Education

BS EE/CE degree required, MS/PhD desired

ABOUT YOU

Given the future growth trajectory, uBeam is building the necessary bench strength to propel the company into the future. As much as technical qualifications, and leadership excellence are key to your success, you manifest the fundamental values of our company culture that are critical to our ability to eventually power the world seamlessly:

If it doesn’t break the laws of physics, it can be done
Take “charge” of your destiny. Think around corners. Always have 3 backup plans.
Make and meet commitments
Break Boundaries
You are a renegade of technology. You look at complex engineering projects with grit and an obsessive desire to execute. You plan for success and you plan for failures.   Attention to detail is critical, and managing and mitigating risk are core to your DNA. You have a unique ability to manage and motivate very smart leading edge thinkers – to inspire excellence, quality and creativity.

You have been there, done that, and love to coach, teach and train, but with a sense of urgency in driving to milestones. Having led many a team from concept to mass production, the obstacles ahead still excite you as you apply those learnings to a new technology.

The uBeam mission:

uBeam is a disruptive wireless power company whose products beam electricity through the air to wirelessly charge electronic devices via bleeding edge and novel ultrasonic energy transmission and harvesting technology.  It is the wireless charging analog to WiFi.

uBeam is the world’s first & only commercially viable true wireless power technology that can charge consumer electronics over the air safely, without interfering with communication systems, and without enormous transmitters/receivers.   uBeam will charge the gamut of electronic devices – everything from hearing aid batteries, to smartphones, to flat screen TVs.

Our engineering team is comprised of world-class multidisciplinary inventors, where the word “impossible” is not part of our lexicon.  We take pride in solving the most difficult and complex technological problems quickly, across many fields.  At uBeam, we go from PowerPoint to prototype in a month or less.  We’re on a mission to untether the world, and we’re in search of a hands-on, seasoned, dedicated engineering leader who is driven to push the boundaries of technology.  We’re looking for someone who wants to leave their boring 9-to-5 desk job and come join uBeam to make tectonic shifts in the world of electricity.

We’re extremely well capitalized with backers including Andreessen Horowitz, Peter Thiel, Upfront Ventures, Marissa Mayer, Mark Cuban and others.

Quote
Transducer Acoustics Engineer
SANTA MONICA, CA AND SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, CA

uBeam is seeking candidates with physics/EE background focused on electromechanical transduction devices, specifically, design, test, simulation and construction of piezoelectric transducer systems to work on high power airborne ultrasonic phased array transmission systems. Candidate will work with EEs and Acoustic Transducer engineers to design, model, and test optimal systems.

Desired Skills and Experience:

Applicant must have demonstrated experience in the following core responsibilities:

Electromechanical Transducer Design:

Fundamentals of electromechanical device design, sensors and/or actuators. Piezoelectric devices a plus
Phased arrays, 2D phased array experience a plus
Beamforming methods, implementation and optimization
Experience of integration of design into mass produced product
Multi-industry experience desirable
Acoustics or energy harvesting knowledge desirable
Transducer/Acoustic Numerical Simulation

Fundamentals of calculations for standard device metrics and beam calculation
Experience in FE codes

ANSYS, Simulia, COMSOL, PZFlex and other specialist codes such as Field II and general codes such as MATLAB and Octave, CAD such as SolidWorks or Pro-E.
Small Scale or MEMS Device Manufacture

Hands on experience in construction of transduction devices, millimeter or smaller scale
Bonding, alignment, wiring
Familiar with basic clean rooms, cleaners, ovens, wire/blade saws
Test Experience

Experience in standard ultrasound testing equipment:
Impedance analyzers, vibrometers, hydrophones etc.
Analysis and presentation of large quantities of test data, and validation of simulation results.
Materials knowledge of fundamentals of constituent components

Piezoelectric knowledge a plus
Programming

Knowledge of basic scripting languages such as Python, LabView
Experience in numerical coding of physical phenomena a plus
Educational Background

7-10+ years experience or equivalent
Engineering or Physics degree required
ABOUT YOU

Self-starter, ability to work in a cross disciplinary team in a rapidly growing company.
This is an ideal position for an experienced and talented engineer looking for the opportunity to make a major contribution to a ground-breaking technology product.  May be individual contributor growing to manager role or above
Candidate must be able to work in the U.S.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 04, 2015, 03:48:57 am
and more jobs:
Quote
Digital Hardware Engineer
SANTA MONICA, CA AND SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, CA

The Hardware Digital Design engineer will design, implement and bring-up high-speed digital boards. They will use their experience in microprocessor and FPGA based systems to realize a commercially viable product. Leveraging their experience to achieve a cost competitive layout. They should be familiar with the typical control and signaling protocols of high speed microprocessors and systems.

Responsibilities:

They will own the Transmitter Controller Board from design through EVT, DVT and to production. Including regulatory testing and approvals.

Requirements:

10+ years of experience in hardware digital design engineering.
Proven experience with board level design and FPGA
Proven success in building high speed digital boards with Application Processor, DDR3, Flash memory, Ethernet, WiFi and Bluetooth
Experience in designing with standard interfaces such as PCIe, I2C, SPI, MMC and JTAG.
Experience in designing with DC/DC buck/boost converter, LDO and other power regulators used on PCB.
Experience working with a team on PCB layout.
Experience working with the software team on debugging and problem resolution.
Involvement with regulatory testing activities.

Quote
Electrical/Mechanical Super-Technician
SANTA MONICA, CA AND SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, CA

uBeam is seeking an experienced technician to assist engineering staff in the development of a consumer electromechanical product, with responsibility for developing and testing solutions to solve technical problems in research and development, and manufacturing.

The technician will be responsible for conducting procedures and tests, maintains and repairs electrical/electronic, mechanical, hydraulic, and pneumatic systems and components. The position applies knowledge of electrical/electronics and mechanical principles in diagnosing equipment malfunctions and applies skills in restoring equipment to operation, and provides skilled mechanical and electrical/electronic support to all areas of manufacturing.

Our major requirement: Resourceful and creative solutions to complex technical problems in electrical and mechanical areas.

Can read schematics for both electronic and mechanical drawings.
Ability to debug both electronic systems and mechanical systems.
Assist engineers and scientists as they create, modify, and test products and processes.
Perform extensive research and development during creation phase of product.
Inspect products and processes for flaws and identify areas of improvement.
Conduct tests and collect data.
Assist in product design, development, and production.
Build and set up equipment.
Prepare and conduct experiments.
Calculate or record results during experiments.
Create prototypes of equipment.
Utilize computer-aided design and drafting equipment during design phase.
Calibrate test equipment.
Familiar with basic prototyping and machining equipment such as lathes, mills, 3D printers, laser micromachining etc
Experience with standard software packages for mCAD and eCAD
Experience transferring designs to manufacture
5+ years relevant experience
This is an ideal position for an experienced and talented engineer looking for the opportunity to make a major contribution to a ground-breaking technology product.

Candidate must be able to work in the U.S.

Quote
Electrical Engineer- Digital Engineer
SANTA MONICA, CA AND SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, CA

uBeam is seeking Digital Signal Engineers to work on uBeam transmitter and receiver systems.  Senior level candidates should have experience / qualifications matching the majority of requirements

EE candidates will be responsible for the design, integration, and qualification of the electronics systems.  The ideal candidate has designed and brought up digital high speed boards and high volume, high power, high-quality consumer electronics products with a consistent focus on product design as well as attention to detail.  The candidate will work closely with in-house and contract engineering teams (EE, Acoustic) to develop complete solutions.  They will work with the rest of the team to design, develop, and bring the products from concept to production.

Applicant are desired with experience in the following areas:

5+ years experience in design and bring up of digital high speed boards.
Design experience of standard interfaces such as USB, SPI, I2C etc.
Experience in uProcessor layout and routing,
FPGA break out and routing
Power supplies and power supply sequencing for the above
Memory modules, and high speed interfaces between both FPGA, uP and memory
Familiarity with integration of bluetooth/ wifi modules and ethernet PHY
Additionally, candidates should have demonstrated success with uP layouts and fabrication (requirement). Understanding of the requirements and constraints of high speed memory and bus layout and routing critical.
Some understanding of firmware a plus (Linux, FreeRTOS, etc)
BS EE/CE degree required, MS/PhD desired
7+ years industry experience
You manifest the fundamental values of our company culture that are critical to our ability to eventually power the world seamlessly:
If it doesn’t break the laws of physics, it can be done
Take “charge” of your destiny. Think around corners. Always have 3 backup plans.
Make and meet commitments
Break Boundaries

Quote
Electrical Engineer- Mixed Signal
SANTA MONICA, CA AND SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, CA

uBeam is seeking Electrical Engineers to work on uBeam transmitter and receiver systems.  Senior level candidates should have experience / qualifications matching the majority of requirements

EE candidates will be responsible for the design, integration, and qualification of the electronics systems.  The ideal candidate has designed high volume, high power, high-quality consumer electronics products with a consistent focus on product design as well as attention to detail.  The candidate will work closely with in-house and contract engineering teams (EE, Acoustic) to develop complete solutions.  They will work with the rest of the team to design, develop, and bring the products from concept to production.

Applicant are desired with experience in the following areas:

Electrical engineering design/engineering/build/test
Acoustic transducer driver (or low frequency power amplifier) & interface electronics
Electronics simulation (eg SPICE), design optimization, and model iteration using experimental data
Mixed signal (analog & digital) ASIC design
Battery charging and power management electronics
Microcontroller programming and architecture
PCB design, engineering, build, and test experience
Key differentiator is specific experience in all common methods of PCB fabrication and assembly (etch/mill/stencil/pick-place/etc)
Design AND build experience with high density PCBs
Chip-on-board & flex circuit design experience
Consumer electronics design experience
Electronics production and manufacturing experience
Experience in selecting EE components, writing detailed electrical specification of the system interface, and test plan documents
Communication of design requirements to fabrication houses
Define Design for Manufacturing (DFM) guidelines
Prototype build, test, and debugging
Working with vendors/suppliers/manufacturing partners
Experience in analyzing trade-offs between performance, manufacturability and cost
BS EE/CE degree required, MS/PhD desired7+ years industry experience
You manifest the fundamental values of our company culture that are critical to our ability to eventually power the world seamlessly:
If it doesn’t break the laws of physics, it can be done
Take “charge” of your destiny. Think around corners. Always have 3 backup plans.
Make and meet commitments
Break Boundaries
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 04, 2015, 03:50:00 am
and even more jobs!

Quote
High Speed Digital Engineer
SANTA MONICA, CA AND SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, CA

uBeam is seeking High Speed Digital Signal Engineers to work on uBeam transmitter and receiver systems. Senior level candidates should have experience /qualifications matching the majority of requirements. EE candidates will be responsible for the design, integration, and qualification of theelectronics systems. The ideal candidate has designed and brought up digital highspeed boards and high volume, high power, high-quality consumer electronics products with a consistent focus on product design as well as attention to detail. The candidate will work closely with in-house and contract engineering teams (EE, Acoustic) to develop complete solutions. They will work with the rest of the team to design, develop, and bring the products from concept to production.

Desired Skills and Experience

10+ years experience in design and bring up of digital high speed boards.
Design experience of standard interfaces such as USB, SPI, I2C etc.
Experience in uProcessor layout and routing,
FPGA break out and routing
Power supplies and power supply sequencing for the above
Memory modules, and high speed interfaces between both FPGA, uP andmemory
Familiarity with integration of bluetooth/ wifi modules and ethernet PHY
Candidates should have demonstrated success with uP layouts and fabrication (requirement)
Understanding of the requirements and constraints of high speed memory and bus layout and routing critical.
Some understanding of firmware a plus (Linux, FreeRTOS, etc)
Education

BS EE/CE degree required, MS/PhD desired
5+ years industry experience
About You

You manifest the fundamental values of our company culture that are critical to our ability to eventually power the world seamlessly:

If it doesn’t break the laws of physics, it can be done
Take “charge” of your destiny. Think around corners. Always have 3 backup plans.
Make and meet commitments
Break Boundaries
Characteristics Sought:

Self starter
Looking for opportunity for growth
Able to work in fast-paced, deadline driven environment Team environment
Ability to work immediately within US

Quote
Mathematical Physicist
SANTA MONICA, CA AND SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, CA

uBeam is seeking a mathematician, physicist, or engineer comfortable with the fundamental analysis of physical systems. Requires the ability to quickly learn the basic phenomena of a physical system (e.g. electrical, mechanical, acoustic etc) and reduce the system effectively to a mathematical/analytical representation that allows for detailed understanding. This can either be from first principles, or via adaptation of existing work to the specifics of uBeam. Further, the candidate will be able to use this representation to quickly demonstrate key behavioral characteristics of the system, and make statements as to the general effect of changes and assist in the optimization of the system for device needs. Candidate must be competent in programming the developed analytical representation into an efficient software format and presenting results.

Skills

Analytic model development
Control theory optimization
Finite Element and/or numerical simulation experience
Mechanical / Electro-mechanical analysis
Ideal Experience

Beamforming (radar/cell phone/acoustics/WiFi/SONAR)
Numeric algorithm optimization
Low-level programming experience (C/Asm)
Parallelization experience
Mathematical modeling from first principles
MEMS/sensor/actuator experience Education/Experience
Minimum Bachelors in a hard science, engineering, mathematics. MS/PhD desired
Computer Science, 5-7+ years or equivalent experience. Specific Tool Knowledge
Desirable Python/NumPY
C/Asm
MATLAB Extra
LabVIEW Any major FE package VHDL/Verilog
Characteristics Sought

Self starter
Looking for opportunity for growth
Able to work in fast-paced, deadline driven environment Team environment
Ability to work immediately within US
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 04, 2015, 03:50:51 am
Interesting job descriptions. They are looking at vision based methods of finding the target devices to beam at? That sounds a rather weird approach, but it does help with ensure unobstructed line of sight beaming, I guess.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 04, 2015, 03:52:14 am
Those jobs are worded like they are almost starting from scratch again  :-//
Doesn't sounds like job descriptions for extra people to get over the last hurdle into production.

My favourite quote is:
Quote
Think around corners. Always have 3 backup plans.
Yeah, you need backup plans when you realise that your whole fundamental concept is impractical in the real word
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 04, 2015, 03:55:41 am
Those jobs are worded like they are almost starting from scratch again  :-//
Doesn't sounds like job descriptions for extra people to get over the last hurdle into production.

My favourite quote is:
Quote
Think around corners. Always have 3 backup plans.
Yeah, you need backup plans when you realise that your whole fundamental concept is impractical in the real word
They certainly don't sound like jobs to grow a team. They sound more like they have lost everyone, and are recruiting a replacement team.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 04, 2015, 03:57:36 am
Interesting job descriptions. They are looking at vision based methods of finding the target devices to beam at? That sounds a rather weird approach

It sounds like a getting desperate approach to me.
Their biggest problem (among many) is efficency. Efficiency is practically zero unless you know precisely where the phone is at least several meters away and you can steer your beam toward it. And then because people are pesky and move around all the time and block your beam, you need to be able to have multiple transmitters and now perhaps vision system to see if the phone is line of sight, and then switch transmitters as required.

Ubeam has to be the ultimate project that has fallen down the rabbit hole of impracticality.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 04, 2015, 03:58:37 am
They certainly don't sound like jobs to grow a team. They sound more like they have lost everyone, and are recruiting a replacement team.

Yup, sounds precisely like that.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: miguelvp on December 04, 2015, 04:17:05 am
but... dreams can come true right?  :-//

You only need to have a vision and it all can be achieved (by hiring a brand new team)

 :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on December 04, 2015, 05:39:15 am
Here Ted presentation is the last Ted video I ever watched.  I did respect it until then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukgnU2aXM2c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukgnU2aXM2c)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 04, 2015, 05:42:17 am
Here Ted presentation is the last Ted video I ever watched.  I did respect it until then.
Did you notice that was a TEDx talk, and not a real TED one? I don't know if they make any attempt to control quality for those external events, but most of the truly iffy talks are TEDx ones.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 04, 2015, 05:56:24 am
Poor Meredith seems a bit on edge:
http://fortune.com/2015/12/02/meredith-perry-ubeam-criticism-science/ (http://fortune.com/2015/12/02/meredith-perry-ubeam-criticism-science/)
Video:
http://for.tn/1TvzoBs (http://for.tn/1TvzoBs)

Nobody is claiming it "breaks the laws of physics"   :palm:
They (we) are claiming that it's not a viable practical solution (except perhaps in niche use scenarios)

A quote from the article:
Quote
If it’s real, Mark Cuban believes it is “a zillion-dollar idea.” Yes, there are wireless charging mats, but they require you to lay your phone on a surface. What Perry has said uBeam will do is “true” wireless charging, where your phone’s battery can charge from across a room, sans wires.

Err, no it's not  :palm:
UBeam can't be used with your phone sitting face up on the table. And It can't be used while you are holding it. About as far from "true" wireless power as you can get!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on December 04, 2015, 06:10:36 am
Here Ted presentation is the last Ted video I ever watched.  I did respect it until then.
Did you notice that was a TEDx talk, and not a real TED one? I don't know if they make any attempt to control quality for those external events, but most of the truly iffy talks are TEDx ones.

It's like having CERNx promoting astrology. Still the same brand as CERN.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 04, 2015, 06:20:37 am
Poor Meredith seems a bit on edge:
http://fortune.com/2015/12/02/meredith-perry-ubeam-criticism-science/ (http://fortune.com/2015/12/02/meredith-perry-ubeam-criticism-science/)
Video:
http://for.tn/1TvzoBs (http://for.tn/1TvzoBs)

Nobody is claiming it "breaks the laws of physics"   :palm:
They (we) are claiming that it's not a viable practical solution (except perhaps in niche use scenarios)
That Fortune article references this http://independentscience.tumblr.com/post/101728968844/ultrasound-thermodynamics-and-robot-overlords (http://independentscience.tumblr.com/post/101728968844/ultrasound-thermodynamics-and-robot-overlords) as something supporting the viability of ubeam. Try reading it. Its quite amusing in how it tears the idea to pieces.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Delta on December 04, 2015, 07:57:05 am
I might apply for the job of "Super Technician"!  Is it an Americanism for "Supervising Technician", or just a tech who is absolutely super at their job?  O0
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 04, 2015, 08:00:06 am
I might apply for the job of "Super Technician"!  Is it an Americanism for "Supervising Technician", or just a tech who is absolutely super at their job?  O0
I think a Super Technician is someone who reports to a Super Duper Technician.

I miss the old days when people from Apple would give you a business card with a job title like "Hardware Wizzkid".
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on December 04, 2015, 08:46:00 am
I wonder why the previous incumbants left?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TRTkCHE1sS4
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on December 04, 2015, 09:24:11 am
Quote
Any theories supporting or questioning uBeam’s science are only theories until there’s an actual concrete product.

Where have we heard that before...?  :palm:

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: GNU_Ninja on December 04, 2015, 09:46:43 am
It's like having CERNx promoting astrology. Still the same brand as CERN.


Patterns in this proton proton collision indicate romance is in the air, avoid the use of 22 kohm resistors and PNP transistors in your next project. Do not wear a hat next Tuesday.

Mystic CERN predicts  ;)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 04, 2015, 10:15:10 am
And if you want to know Ms Perry’s views on physics and the laws of thermodynamics, here you go:
http://meredithperry.tumblr.com/post/106297094145/a-brief-negation-of-time (http://meredithperry.tumblr.com/post/106297094145/a-brief-negation-of-time)

Quote
Like the question of time, all things we know about the universe are only theories.
And yes folks, she has a science degree.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Artlav on December 04, 2015, 10:40:08 am
Funny thing is, she is not wrong.
In the same sense that it's not wrong to say that you can win a jackpot a 100 times in a row.
Or not wrong to say that all the air in a room can spontaneously move to one side of the room.

Now, how would you explain to common folks that "not wrong" is not the same as "can be expected to ever happen"?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 04, 2015, 10:43:20 am
And if you want to know Ms Perry’s views on physics and the laws of thermodynamics, here you go:
http://meredithperry.tumblr.com/post/106297094145/a-brief-negation-of-time (http://meredithperry.tumblr.com/post/106297094145/a-brief-negation-of-time)

Quote
Like the question of time, all things we know about the universe are only theories.
And yes folks, she has a science degree.
As Tim Minchin says of that twisting of the word theory: Gravity is only a theory. Maybe she'll just float away.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on December 04, 2015, 11:46:40 am
Funny thing is, she is not wrong.
In the same sense that it's not wrong to say that you can win a jackpot a 100 times in a row.
Or not wrong to say that all the air in a room can spontaneously move to one side of the room.

Now, how would you explain to common folks that "not wrong" is not the same as "can be expected to ever happen"?

A good lie is built around a kernel of truth. People assume naively that if a part is true then so is the rest. If we can practically transfer 1uw by ultrasound, we can also do the same with 10w.

Looking at the TEDx video, all the signs of a con man and her investors fell for it. Suckers.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 04, 2015, 12:00:37 pm
Looking at the TEDx video, all the signs of a con man and her investors fell for it. Suckers.

I think it's clear that she deeply believes it is practical, so it's not a con.
But yes, they are suckers for believing it is practical, she sold them a good story. All they had to do was a bit of real due diligence like Lee Gomes did in his excellent IEEE article and it should have given them more than enough to be highly skeptical. But the investors are believers too, they work in a world where hey only need the slightest hint of "plausible" in order to roll the dice on a massive pay day wet dream.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on December 04, 2015, 01:32:16 pm
Looking at the TEDx video, all the signs of a con man and her investors fell for it. Suckers.
I think it's clear that she deeply believes it is practical, so it's not a con.
Yep, I actually believe that she thinks that anything that isn't denied by the laws of physics is just an engineering problem.

Find the right engineer? Problem solved!

It hasn't occurred to her that the laws of physics can rule things out purely in terms of practicality, eg. the warp engine for spaceships or brute forcing 128 bit encryption. Both of those are possible on paper, neither will ever happen in practice no matter who attempts them.

It looks like she currently believes a high intensity 'beam' of ultrasound could be aimed at a phone using some sort of optical tracking. Making that work is just another engineering problem.  :popcorn:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: andy o on December 04, 2015, 01:44:00 pm
Well, she did read A Brief History of Time, you know.

Quote
After re-visiting Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time”, I was inspired to revisit some of my own theories about time

That has got to be the mostest Dunning-Krugerest sentence I've read in a while.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: AF6LJ on December 04, 2015, 02:05:21 pm
We use to have something in this country called "Outcome Based Education" In short it was all about teaching to pass the test.


I think this person, the one who came up with this idea has been a victim of OBE...
Sound waves no matter how new and improved, or ultra won't get any work done at a distance. This beats the Batterizer for stupid project of the Decade.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on December 04, 2015, 02:16:57 pm
Sound waves no matter how new and improved, or ultra won't get any work done at a distance.

Prove it.  :popcorn:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: GNU_Ninja on December 04, 2015, 02:29:37 pm
Sound waves no matter how new and improved, or ultra won't get any work done at a distance.

Prove it.  :popcorn:

If you can hear it. Work is being done on your eardrum :)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on December 04, 2015, 02:30:37 pm
Sound waves no matter how new and improved, or ultra won't get any work done at a distance.
Prove it.  :popcorn:
If you can hear it. Energy is doing some work on your eardrum  :)

Proof that sound can do work at a distance!

Everything else is just engineering (and thinking outside the box, obviously!)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on December 04, 2015, 03:51:40 pm
Looking at the TEDx video, all the signs of a con man and her investors fell for it. Suckers.

I think it's clear that she deeply believes it is practical, so it's not a con.

Some people are wired differently than most of us. They can lie with conviction and confidence (hence the 'con' in con man) and don't have the normal qualms that most people have. They are not evil, just wired differently. Don't fall for that over confidence.

I worked once very closely with a person like that and it was an eye opener for me. All the normal assumptions about human behavior and minimal decency don't apply, and when I saw that Ted video many red flagged popped up. I am sure that the people that worked with her and now left the company have many interesting stories to tell.

Gomes put in in nice words but basically it's about lying:
Quote
.. people familiar with the situation say that uBeam engineers felt pressured by management to describe the technology in more optimistic terms than they were comfortable with.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: AF6LJ on December 04, 2015, 04:48:27 pm
Sound waves no matter how new and improved, or ultra won't get any work done at a distance.

Prove it.  :popcorn:
It won't be doing enough work to charge a battery at any reasonable rate.
Common sense requires no proof...
Want butter for that popcorn??
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: AF6LJ on December 04, 2015, 04:50:38 pm
I wonder what the health effects are from long term exposure to ultrasound are.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on December 04, 2015, 04:58:15 pm
I wonder what the health effects are from long term exposure to ultrasound are.

(http://doctorspiller.com/images/Dentures/FlexibleFace.JPG)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Dongulus on December 04, 2015, 05:40:15 pm
I wouldn't mind relocating up to Santa Monica. Maybe I should apply and get a share of some of that VC money.

Who knows? When uBeam becomes the next revolution in charging technology I may stand to boatload a lot of money.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: AF6LJ on December 04, 2015, 06:46:10 pm
I heard they are also working on cold fusion and an economical process for turning led into gold.

Here is a song for all the U Beam fans, you and Batterizer mavens...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtx4ZJ1cwI0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtx4ZJ1cwI0)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: timb on December 04, 2015, 09:14:07 pm
When the whole project finally collapses on her, I predict she'll pull the "I wasn't allowed to be successful because I'm a *woman* in engineering" card. She's already setting up for it.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: AF6LJ on December 04, 2015, 09:22:00 pm
When the whole project finally collapses on her, I predict she'll pull the "I wasn't allowed to be successful because I'm a *woman* in engineering" card. She's already setting up for it.

I have no respect for a female who pulls that without la few pounds of evidence, a lawyer and witnesses to back her up.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on December 04, 2015, 09:51:46 pm
Looking at the TEDx video, all the signs of a con man and her investors fell for it. Suckers.

I think it's clear that she deeply believes it is practical, so it's not a con.

I'm not sure she understands that  practicality is way more important than whether it's possible.
If she can show that it's possible, she'll think she's proved she was right, and the subsequent failure will be down to the business side of things and then start whinging on about being a victim.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 04, 2015, 10:10:18 pm
I'm not sure she understands that  practicality is way more important than whether it's possible.

She has to by now at least understand of difficulty of executing this in practice, but she obviously thinks that any practicality problem is solvable and that it will be as  amazing s revolution as she thinks it must be. Because, you know, she thought of it, and she's a "Technology innovator"  ::)

Quote
If she can show that it's possible, she'll think she's proved she was right, and the subsequent failure will be down to the business side of things and then start whinging on about being a victim.

The ultimate failure and the blame game will be funny to watch.
They do have an "out" here, as they no doubt have some interesting ultrasound tech that might be spun off into some niche app. Heck, someone might even want to buy it for that.
But this thing was supposed to be the next VC "unicorn" (A billion dollar startup) because it was supposed to revolutionise the world. So I think this one will go completely bust.

And it must go bust, because anyone with any technical sense knows it can't be practical. Heck, UBeam have practically admitted it by saying it can't work through clothes or bodies etc. And the thing is supposed to be a clip on phone cover, so it obviously can't work flat on the bench face up, or while holding it. And the idea will die if it's a dongle people have to carry.
There is simply no way this can succeed as promised. It's done.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Dongulus on December 04, 2015, 10:31:29 pm
When the whole project finally collapses on her, I predict she'll pull the "I wasn't allowed to be successful because I'm a *woman* in engineering" card. She's already setting up for it.

I have no respect for a female who pulls that without la few pounds of evidence, a lawyer and witnesses to back her up.

Ahem... Carly Fiorina
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on December 05, 2015, 01:20:48 am
When the whole project finally collapses on her, I predict she'll pull the "I wasn't allowed to be successful because I'm a *woman* in engineering" card. She's already setting up for it.

And I predict that a few years after this company will fold she will have another startup and have new investors. There are always new suckers.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: AF6LJ on December 06, 2015, 09:14:06 pm
When the whole project finally collapses on her, I predict she'll pull the "I wasn't allowed to be successful because I'm a *woman* in engineering" card. She's already setting up for it.

I have no respect for a female who pulls that without la few pounds of evidence, a lawyer and witnesses to back her up.

Ahem... Carly Fiorina

That Scank.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: skipjackrc4 on December 07, 2015, 12:36:07 am
I'm thinking about starting a competing company--aquaBeam.

Rather than installing ultrasound transducers on phones, we'll use water wheels.  A high pressure stream of water will be directed toward the phone from an overhead charging station, thus spinning the wheel and charging the phone.  Worried that a stream of water won't have enough power to charge your power hungry laptop?  No worries!  Select locations will be equipped with a fire hose capable of delivering many watts of power.

You may be thinking that the use of water wheels will not lead to anything practical.  Let me remind you that, according to some, Nikola Tesla once said "The water wheel is the most efficient form of power conversion known to mankind".  If Tesla might have believed in it, so should you!

 O0
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on December 07, 2015, 05:16:29 am

I have no respect for a female who pulls that without la few pounds of evidence, a lawyer and witnesses to back her up.

Ahem... Carly Fiorina

That Scank.

Stay classy AF6LJ.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: timb on December 07, 2015, 07:39:20 am

I'm thinking about starting a competing company--aquaBeam.

Rather than installing ultrasound transducers on phones, we'll use water wheels.  A high pressure stream of water will be directed toward the phone from an overhead charging station, thus spinning the wheel and charging the phone.  Worried that a stream of water won't have enough power to charge your power hungry laptop?  No worries!  Select locations will be equipped with a fire hose capable of delivering many watts of power.

You may be thinking that the use of water wheels will not lead to anything practical.  Let me remind you that, according to some, Nikola Tesla once said "The water wheel is the most efficient form of power conversion known to mankind".  If Tesla might have believed in it, so should you!

 O0

You could change things really fast this way as there's no risk of overheating! I'd like to invest $10 Million. Let's make this shit happen!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on December 07, 2015, 08:22:16 am
Sound waves no matter how new and improved, or ultra won't get any work done at a distance.
Prove it.  :popcorn:
It won't be doing enough work to charge a battery at any reasonable rate.
Common sense requires no proof...
What won't? What's "it"?

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: AF6LJ on December 09, 2015, 09:08:37 pm
Sound waves no matter how new and improved, or ultra won't get any work done at a distance.
Prove it.  :popcorn:
It won't be doing enough work to charge a battery at any reasonable rate.
Common sense requires no proof...
What won't? What's "it"?

The ultrasound what did you think?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikerj on December 09, 2015, 10:46:44 pm
Sound waves no matter how new and improved, or ultra won't get any work done at a distance.
Prove it.  :popcorn:
It won't be doing enough work to charge a battery at any reasonable rate.
Common sense requires no proof...
What won't? What's "it"?

Could be way off, but since this entire thread is about uBeam I'm pretty sure 'it' is uBeam.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: l0rd_hex on December 09, 2015, 10:48:28 pm
Obligatory Simpson's reference:

(http://d.justpo.st/media/images/2014/07/f3307ea5b8ad908d893cd029288d6465.jpg)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: HackedFridgeMagnet on December 09, 2015, 11:29:03 pm
I'm thinking about starting a competing company--aquaBeam.

Rather than installing ultrasound transducers on phones, we'll use water wheels.  A high pressure stream of water will be directed toward the phone from an overhead charging station, thus spinning the wheel and charging the phone.  Worried that a stream of water won't have enough power to charge your power hungry laptop?  No worries!  Select locations will be equipped with a fire hose capable of delivering many watts of power.

You may be thinking that the use of water wheels will not lead to anything practical.  Let me remind you that, according to some, Nikola Tesla once said "The water wheel is the most efficient form of power conversion known to mankind".  If Tesla might have believed in it, so should you!

 O0
I want that technology, my phone is waterproof and my budgie smugglers are on.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on December 10, 2015, 06:38:00 am
Sound waves no matter how new and improved, or ultra won't get any work done at a distance.
Prove it.  :popcorn:
It won't be doing enough work to charge a battery at any reasonable rate.
Common sense requires no proof...
What won't? What's "it"?

The ultrasound what did you think?
I'm just clarifying...

So your claim is: It (ultrasound) cannot, ever, charge a battery. Not with any technology.

My response was: "Prove it!"
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 10, 2015, 07:06:22 am
Sound waves no matter how new and improved, or ultra won't get any work done at a distance.
Prove it.  :popcorn:
It won't be doing enough work to charge a battery at any reasonable rate.
Common sense requires no proof...
What won't? What's "it"?

The ultrasound what did you think?
I'm just clarifying...

So your claim is: It (ultrasound) cannot, ever, charge a battery. Not with any technology.

My response was: "Prove it!"
This sloppiness and shifting sands is as bad as the people from uBeam:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on December 10, 2015, 07:16:30 am
Common sense (at least an experienced engineer's common sense) says this is obviously rubbish.
...but who knows?[/li][/list]

  • The later statement was that ultrasonic could not charge a battery at a reasonable rate. This is probably also false. Pump enough energy out and you could probably charge a phone battery quite fast.
So ... you're not saying it CANNOT be done?

If it's not ruled out by physics then it's just an engineering problem. All we need is somebody smart enough.

Collateral damage might be a problem though. Charging a phone battery at a reasonable rate without crazy energy levels in the air is where it gets interesting. Doing it with a reasonable electric bill also makes it interesting. None of this seems deducible from common sense, though. You need to do the analysis and run the numbers to see just how very serious a challenge this is. So, this claim was on the right track, and was not sufficiently qualified with wording about safety, efficiency and cost to be accurate.[/li][/list]

They used to think similar things about Gamma-ray bursts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst).

Then somebody really smart figured out they must be narrowly focused beams, not spherical blasts of energy.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 10, 2015, 07:22:46 am
Common sense (at least an experienced engineer's common sense) says this is obviously rubbish.
...but who knows?[/li][/list]

  • The later statement was that ultrasonic could not charge a battery at a reasonable rate. This is probably also false. Pump enough energy out and you could probably charge a phone battery quite fast.
So ... you're not saying it CANNOT be done?

If it's not ruled out by physics then it's just an engineering problem. All we need is somebody smart enough.
What idiot came up with that stupid idea? I keep hearing it used more and more.
Quote
Collateral damage might be a problem though. Charging a phone battery at a reasonable rate without crazy energy levels in the air is where it gets interesting. Doing it with a reasonable electric bill also makes it interesting. None of this seems deducible from common sense, though. You need to do the analysis and run the numbers to see just how very serious a challenge this is. So, this claim was on the right track, and was not sufficiently qualified with wording about safety, efficiency and cost to be accurate.[/li][/list]

They used to think similar things about Gamma-ray bursts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst).

Then somebody really smart figured out they must be narrowly focused beams, not spherical blasts of energy.
This is the first time I've heard anyone say anything like that about gamma ray bursts, but if you are determined to just make stuff up.....
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on December 10, 2015, 07:37:02 am
Quote from: fungus
They used to think similar things about Gamma-ray bursts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst).

Then somebody really smart figured out they must be narrowly focused beams, not spherical blasts of energy.
This is the first time I've heard anyone say anything like that about gamma ray bursts, but if you are determined to just make stuff up.....

Huh?

http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/research/grbs/grbinfo.html (http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/research/grbs/grbinfo.html)

"For a long time, it was believed that GRBs must come from within our own Galaxy. It seemed impossible that they could be much more distant: for a gamma-ray burst to have come from a distant galaxy, it would have to be incredibly powerful to explain its observed brightness."

"We believe them to be beamed - the energy does not escape from the explosion everywhere equally, but is focused into a narrow jet"


Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 10, 2015, 07:47:42 am
Quote from: fungus
They used to think similar things about Gamma-ray bursts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst).

Then somebody really smart figured out they must be narrowly focused beams, not spherical blasts of energy.
This is the first time I've heard anyone say anything like that about gamma ray bursts, but if you are determined to just make stuff up.....

Huh?

http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/research/grbs/grbinfo.html (http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/research/grbs/grbinfo.html)

"For a long time, it was believed that GRBs must come from within our own Galaxy. It seemed impossible that they could be much more distant: for a gamma-ray burst to have come from a distant galaxy, it would have to be incredibly powerful to explain its observed brightness."

"We believe them to be beamed - the energy does not escape from the explosion everywhere equally, but is focused into a narrow jet"
That's very poorly written. Even Wikipedia describes things better, saying most hypotheses were based on these events originating in our own galaxy because of the high energy levels. Beamed events from distant sources, like pulsars, were known about long before the origins of gamma ray bursts were figured out. It was well know that nature could produce massive output in narrow beams, so that always had to be one of the options.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on December 10, 2015, 08:25:35 am
It was well know that nature could produce massive output in narrow beams, so that always had to be one of the options.

Right... so why can't uBeam?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Delta on December 10, 2015, 08:35:41 am
It was well know that nature could produce massive output in narrow beams, so that always had to be one of the options.

Right... so why can't uBeam?

Because it would damage anything that got in the way, such as your flesh.

Are you taking the piss out of uBeam, playing Devil's advocate, old fashioned trolling, or just being an imbecile?  I genuinely can't work it out!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on December 10, 2015, 08:42:19 am
Are you taking the piss out of uBeam, playing Devil's advocate, old fashioned trolling, or just being an imbecile?  I genuinely can't work it out!

I'm trying to see if anybody can prove that uBeam is impossible.

eg. We can prove mathematically and experimentally that Batteriser is impossible, what about uBeam? Do we have the same degree of certainty or is it just "very unlikely"?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: timb on December 10, 2015, 08:48:55 am

Are you taking the piss out of uBeam, playing Devil's advocate, old fashioned trolling, or just being an imbecile?  I genuinely can't work it out!

I'm trying to see if anybody can prove that uBeam is impossible.

eg. We can prove mathematically and experimentally that Batteriser is impossible, what about uBeam?

It's impossible to do efficiently and safely (the frequency and power output required would harm bats, cats, dogs and human hearing at the very least), not to mention the serious practical problems (doesn't work through clothing, while holding the phone or with it laying on a desk).

The detailed explanations have been stated over and over again in this thread. I suggest reading it before making yourself look even dumber.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 10, 2015, 08:52:03 am
It was well know that nature could produce massive output in narrow beams, so that always had to be one of the options.

Right... so why can't uBeam?
They do beam the energy. They actually say that much of their development work has been to build a high performance dynamic phased array beam forming system. They say they steer the beam continuously to focus on the target, with continuous feedback from the target to assist in this process. They also say they will cut the beam if anything gets in the way.

Physics (or maths, if you want to look at it that way) places limits on how much you can focus a beam, and the extent of the sidelobes you will get. This is a path trotten heavily by engineers in the sonar field for more than half a century, so most of the constraints are well understood - although better understood for water as a medium than air. However, it is engineering that places the final constraints. Engineers might find health and safety people annoying, but it would be a very poor engineer who doesn't build things to be safe and healthy to use. High levels of acoustic energy in the air are problematic for humans, and physics says too much of the energy will miss the target for engineers to consider this safe. Physics says this type of charging will be inefficient, but still allows us to use kilowatts to charge a phone. Engineering says the resulting energy bills would only allow the rich to use such a system. Some engineering constraints just won't go away with additional work.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: tszaboo on December 10, 2015, 09:47:03 am

Are you taking the piss out of uBeam, playing Devil's advocate, old fashioned trolling, or just being an imbecile?  I genuinely can't work it out!

I'm trying to see if anybody can prove that uBeam is impossible.

eg. We can prove mathematically and experimentally that Batteriser is impossible, what about uBeam?

It's impossible to do efficiently and safely (the frequency and power output required would harm bats, cats, dogs and human hearing at the very least), not to mention the serious practical problems (doesn't work through clothing, while holding the phone or with it laying on a desk).

The detailed explanations have been stated over and over again in this thread. I suggest reading it before making yourself look even dumber.
Thank you! Finally people with some sense.
I'll repeat myself: Even if it is possible, it shouldn't be made.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 10, 2015, 10:04:06 am
Are you taking the piss out of uBeam, playing Devil's advocate, old fashioned trolling, or just being an imbecile?  I genuinely can't work it out!
I'm trying to see if anybody can prove that uBeam is impossible.
eg. We can prove mathematically and experimentally that Batteriser is impossible, what about uBeam? Do we have the same degree of certainty or is it just "very unlikely"?

 |O
The uBeam defenders don't get it, including Meredith Perry, so I'll use big bold font to make it clear:

1) uBeam is NOT impossible
2) uBeam does NOT break any laws of physics.


So what's the problem?

uBeam is IMPRACTICAL.
An idea that is caught in an impracticality death spiral into a black hole from which there is no escape.
Although just like black holes emit Hawking radiation, uBeam will always emit marketing wank and little cries of the hopes and dreams of VC's chasing unicorns.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 10, 2015, 10:11:06 am
Are you taking the piss out of uBeam, playing Devil's advocate, old fashioned trolling, or just being an imbecile?  I genuinely can't work it out!
I'm trying to see if anybody can prove that uBeam is impossible.
eg. We can prove mathematically and experimentally that Batteriser is impossible, what about uBeam? Do we have the same degree of certainty or is it just "very unlikely"?

 |O
The uBeam defenders don't get it, including Meredith Perry, so I'll use big bold font to make it clear:

1) uBeam is NOT impossible
2) uBeam does NOT break any laws of physics.


So what's the problem?

uBeam is IMPRACTICAL.
An idea that is caught in an impracticality death spiral into a black hole from which there is no escape.
Although just like black holes emit Hawking radiation, uBeam will always emit marketing wank and little cries of the hopes and dreams of VC's chasing unicorns.
That's an odd choice of words. Almost everything in high volume manufacture today was impractical once upon a time. It it were merely impractical it would be just the kind of thing engineering resources should be put into.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 10, 2015, 10:32:25 am
Here is neat easy infographic that explains uBeam

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=186507;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 10, 2015, 10:43:32 am
Here is neat easy infographic that explains uBeam
You like to use the metaphor of VCs chasing unicorns, as though its the height of unrealistic behaviour. Well, we still have some white rhinos in this world. If there's a big enough market its quite plausible that some VC funding could get them genetically engineered to be truly white.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 10, 2015, 10:46:24 am
That's an odd choice of words. Almost everything in high volume manufacture today was impractical once upon a time. It it were merely impractical it would be just the kind of thing engineering resources should be put into.

Oh please.
Not every idea has a practical viable engineering solution, no matter how many resources you put into it.

uBeam has spent 10's of millions of dollars, hired the best people in the business, and no doubt created some great tech in upon itself. But they have admitted they can only get 1.5W @ 4m maximum (almost certainly under the best case ideal conditions - remember these are marketing numbers!) at some ridiculous sound pressure level, using some no doubt ridiculously complicated tracking system for the beam forming that can't go through clothing or any other object, can't use it with the phone face up on a table or while being held in the hand, and no doubt have ridiculously small level of efficiency, and you want to tell me it's just matter of more engineering resources.
 :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 10, 2015, 10:51:49 am
That's an odd choice of words. Almost everything in high volume manufacture today was impractical once upon a time. It it were merely impractical it would be just the kind of thing engineering resources should be put into.

Oh please.
Not every idea has a practical viable engineering solution, no matter how many resources you put into it.

uBeam has spent 10's of millions of dollars, hired the best people in the business, and no doubt created some great tech in upon itself. But they have admitted they can only get 1.5W @ 4m maximum (almost certainly under the best case ideal conditions - remember these are marketing numbers!) at some ridiculous sound pressure level, using some no doubt ridiculously complicated tracking system for the beam forming that can't go through clothing or any other object, can't use it with the phone face up on a table or while being held in the hand, and no doubt have ridiculously small level of efficiency, and you want to tell me it's just matter of more engineering resources.
 :palm:
What relevance does that have to what I said? This idea has deep seated problems that won't go away. Most engineers can see that. However, when you use words like "impractical", and talk about "chasing unicorns" most people don't hear "ridiculous". They hear "needs further development".
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 10, 2015, 11:09:29 am
What relevance does that have to what I said? This idea has deep seated problems that won't go away. Most engineers can see that. However, when you use words like "impractical", and talk about "chasing unicorns" most people don't hear "ridiculous". They hear "needs further development".

Oh please, people know what impractical means.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on December 10, 2015, 11:12:24 am
What relevance does that have to what I said? This idea has deep seated problems that won't go away. Most engineers can see that. However, when you use words like "impractical", and talk about "chasing unicorns" most people don't hear "ridiculous". They hear "needs further development".

I think you need to look up "impractical" in the dictionary.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on December 10, 2015, 11:15:08 am
What relevance does that have to what I said? This idea has deep seated problems that won't go away. Most engineers can see that. However, when you use words like "impractical", and talk about "chasing unicorns" most people don't hear "ridiculous". They hear "needs further development".

If VC's want to spend money on further development, let them. They're not crowdfunding backers who need defending.

How do you think these VCs get their money? It's pretty likely to be your pension pot.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-09-23/are-public-pensions-inflating-a-venture-capital-bubble (http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-09-23/are-public-pensions-inflating-a-venture-capital-bubble)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Delta on December 10, 2015, 11:15:20 am

If VC's want to spend money on further development, let them. They're not crowdfunding backers who need defending.

I don't take the line that all VCs are evil and nasty-wasty amd horrid, so I don't like to see them waste money any more than crowdfunders.  For one, That could be your pension they are investing, and for two, every penny wasted on bullshit like this is a penny that can't be invested in the next decent project to come along.

Although one would hope that VCs would do a bit more investigation of claims than some idiot hipster sat in front of IGG...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 10, 2015, 11:22:21 am
I don't take the line that all VCs are evil and nasty-wasty amd horrid, so I don't like to see them waste money any more than crowdfunders.  For one, That could be your pension they are investing, and for two, every penny wasted on bullshit like this is a penny that can't be invested in the next decent project to come along.

+1

I'll fight for a VC firms right to invest in any batshit crazy idea they like, provided it's their money.
But it may very well be innocent people's money who rely on them to do proper due diligence though, and cut losses when they know they have a turkey on their hands.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: georgesmith on December 10, 2015, 11:25:29 am
(http://i.imgur.com/clyNLtB.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/DXXXM99.png)

(that's not a Photoshop; Perry actually made that card)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 10, 2015, 11:25:58 am
What relevance does that have to what I said? This idea has deep seated problems that won't go away. Most engineers can see that. However, when you use words like "impractical", and talk about "chasing unicorns" most people don't hear "ridiculous". They hear "needs further development".
I think you need to look up "impractical" in the dictionary.
Maybe you should look it up. Its far too broad a word to be using the way Dave does. He has specific intent, and he needs to express that. Some of us try to.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 10, 2015, 11:30:19 am
What relevance does that have to what I said? This idea has deep seated problems that won't go away. Most engineers can see that. However, when you use words like "impractical", and talk about "chasing unicorns" most people don't hear "ridiculous". They hear "needs further development".
I think you need to look up "impractical" in the dictionary.
Maybe you should look it up. Its far too broad a word to be using the way Dave does. He has specific intent, and he needs to express that. Some of us try to.

Excuse me for not being a linguistical poet ninja and master of the Queens English.
How about you amaze us with the word you'd use?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 10, 2015, 11:35:22 am
I don't understand uBeam well enough to comment too deeply but I could see that perhaps they could develop new more efficient transducers or antennas or amplifiers. Who really knows? They basic idea may be impractical but if they have a core of smart people and money something may come of it.

That is the only exit for them. To spin off the tech into some niche app before the whole mobile phone charging idea goes belly-up.
I suspect they won't be able to do that with Perry in charge though, she's the true believer.
Either way someone will likely gobble up the tech, maybe for pennies on the dollar.
They have a class 100 clean room apparently, and no doubt some leading edge ultrasonic beamforming tech.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 10, 2015, 11:36:52 am
(http://i.imgur.com/clyNLtB.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/DXXXM99.png)

(that's not a Photoshop; Perry actually made that card)

She did indeed offer me a tour.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on December 10, 2015, 11:39:03 am
Kickstarter to send Dave to LA?  :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 10, 2015, 11:43:25 am
Kickstarter to send Dave to LA?  :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

I'd probably immediately get that same nauseous feeling I get when I enter a church.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on December 10, 2015, 11:44:55 am
So looks like I'm not getting an invite antime soon....
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on December 10, 2015, 11:45:39 am
Kickstarter to send Dave to LA?  :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

I'd probably immediately get that same nauseous feeling I get when I enter a church.
And doubtles a ridiculous NDA...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Delta on December 10, 2015, 11:45:53 am
Take something to settle your stomach and accept her offer.  Come on Dave, call her bluff.  It's a win all round.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 10, 2015, 11:48:33 am
I do find it very convenient timing that mere minutes after I tweet that I'm thinking about doing a debunking video on uBeam, that she contacts me being all nice with an offer of a tour.
If I was cynical I'd say she's a tad nervous about a debunking video going out to 300,000 subscribers  ;D
Don't blame her though, uBeam copped a public flogging in Lee Gomes's excellent IEEE article.
If I was her I'd be in firefighting mode.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 10, 2015, 12:43:40 pm
Dave, is just just having a lie down and deciding to not bother an option?

Yeah, it's a real option. The video would actually require a lot of work researching various stuff and would be a big editing effort. Not something I could complete in day, which is my usual enthusiasm bar for videos. A lot more than just a blab with me shouting it's a load of bunk.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on December 10, 2015, 12:47:35 pm
I think the only remaining angle is "Ubeam could work but is still stupid"
Start with "ultrasonic charging is completely possible" and show a simple demo with 2 U/S transducers, charging a small capacitance to flash a LED.
Then go through all the reasons why it doesn't scale, including that even if all the tech could be made to work, other issues like needing a dongle because phone makers will never build it in make it pointless.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 10, 2015, 12:54:05 pm
Then go through all the reasons why it doesn't scale, including that even if all the tech could be made to work, other issues like needing a dongle because phone makers will never build it in make it pointless.

And then the dongle doesn't work phone face up on the table, or held in your hand, and at best under ideal totally clear line of sight conditions based on the best marketing numbers they can muster, can only deliver 1.5W at 4m at a ridiculously low efficiency that would destroy the planet if it was used on a global scale.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on December 10, 2015, 12:59:15 pm
What relevance does that have to what I said? This idea has deep seated problems that won't go away. Most engineers can see that. However, when you use words like "impractical", and talk about "chasing unicorns" most people don't hear "ridiculous". They hear "needs further development".
I think you need to look up "impractical" in the dictionary.
Maybe you should look it up. Its far too broad a word to be using the way Dave does. He has specific intent, and he needs to express that.
I did. There's no doubt in what's being said in context, but evidentially for some reason best known to yourself I can only conclude that you're being deliberately vexatious and deliberately misconstruing what's being said.
Quote
Some of us try to.

Well, you're not doing a very good job of it, the only obvious thing I can see you expressing is deliberate misunderstanding.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on December 10, 2015, 01:06:07 pm
Dave, is just just having a lie down and deciding to not bother an option?

Yeah, it's a real option. The video would actually require a lot of work researching various stuff and would be a big editing effort. Not something I could complete in day, which is my usual enthusiasm bar for videos. A lot more than just a blab with me shouting it's a load of bunk.

OTOH it might be good if tech journals had a regular go-to place for debunking.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: GNU_Ninja on December 10, 2015, 01:39:55 pm
Some links for your amusement and edification ... The Spectrum article is somewhat critical of uBeam's claims, the other links are just some general stuff on ultrasound power delivery. Enjoy  :)

https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/opticalandsemidev/Public/Publications/Ultrasonic%20vs.%20Inductive.pdf (https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/opticalandsemidev/Public/Publications/Ultrasonic%20vs.%20Inductive.pdf)

http://phys.org/news/2013-12-method-wirelessly-recharging-medical-device.html (http://phys.org/news/2013-12-method-wirelessly-recharging-medical-device.html)

http://www.ktu.lt/ultra/journal/pdf_50_1/50-2004-Vol.1_09-A.Vladisauskas.pdf (http://www.ktu.lt/ultra/journal/pdf_50_1/50-2004-Vol.1_09-A.Vladisauskas.pdf)

http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/experts-still-think-ubeamrsquos-throughtheair-charging-tech-is-unlikely (http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/experts-still-think-ubeamrsquos-throughtheair-charging-tech-is-unlikely)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: AF6LJ on December 10, 2015, 02:01:39 pm
I do find it very convenient timing that mere minutes after I tweet that I'm thinking about doing a debunking video on uBeam, that she contacts me being all nice with an offer of a tour.
If I was cynical I'd say she's a tad nervous about a debunking video going out to 300,000 subscribers  ;D
Don't blame her though, uBeam copped a public flogging in Lee Gomes's excellent IEEE article.
If I was her I'd be in firefighting mode.
Firefighting mode only works when you can put the fire out.

She has a fire in a coal mine and the smart thing to do is to admit it is not practical and walk away. (maybe pick up a year's worth of physics classes at the local JC.)

The idea of wireless charging and power distribution is sexy but isn't going to happen with our current knowledge of physics, maybe not at all but who knows..
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Delta on December 10, 2015, 02:03:38 pm
Is there any way to make some money from the inevitable failure of this ludicrous project?
Like those crazy stock market dudes do when they short-sell shares?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on December 10, 2015, 02:13:32 pm
Is there any way to make some money from the inevitable failure of this ludicrous project?
Like those crazy stock market dudes do when they short-sell shares?

It's a private company, so.... no.

Not unless you can find somebody willing to make a private bet against you.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Delta on December 10, 2015, 02:17:01 pm
Is there any way to make some money from the inevitable failure of this ludicrous project?
Like those crazy stock market dudes do when they short-sell shares?

It's a private company, so.... no.

Not unless you can find somebody willing to make a private bet against you.

Can I interest anyone in a private bet?  :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: timb on December 10, 2015, 03:31:05 pm

So looks like I'm not getting an invite antime soon....

That's a great picture of her. She has that desperate look of quite contemplation and fear that only someone about to have a barbed pine cone removed from their ass could muster.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: GNU_Ninja on December 10, 2015, 03:55:16 pm
Looks like they're hiring. http://ubeam.com/career/ (http://ubeam.com/career/) Anybody feel up to the 'challenge'  >:D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on December 10, 2015, 04:28:42 pm
Quote
Is there any way to make some money from the inevitable failure of this ludicrous project?

Quote
Looks like they're hiring.

There you go. Just stay away from share options ;)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Delta on December 10, 2015, 06:53:37 pm
Quote
Is there any way to make some money from the inevitable failure of this ludicrous project?

Quote
Looks like they're hiring.

There you go. Just stay away from share options ;)

Well I do consider myself to be a "Super Technician"....!  (If I do say so myself...)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Danseur on December 11, 2015, 06:01:04 am
I don't understand uBeam well enough to comment too deeply but I could see that perhaps they could develop new more efficient transducers or antennas or amplifiers. Who really knows? They basic idea may be impractical but if they have a core of smart people and money something may come of it.

If you don't understand well enough, why are you arguing with engineers here who do know?

It's not just a problem of the transducers.  It's not just the energy lost in the conversion of electricity to sound and back to electricity.  That's actually the least of uBeam's worries.  Their big problem is that 93% to 97% of ultrasonic energy is absorbed by 12 feet of air!  That's a fundamental physics barrier that can never be crossed.  Of the remaining 3% to 7% energy, most of that gets lost in the conversion to and from sound.

Even if all the above problems did not exist, uBeam has the fundamental usability issue of the requirement for a clear line-of-sight.  Nobody wants to use a product that requires a bulky receiver that forces the screen to face down.

Even more energy is lost if the receiver isn't pointing the right direction and that's something uBeam can't control.  uBeam might be able to control the direction of the transmitter, but they can't control the receiver direction or whether it's covered by hands, table, leather purse, or clothing.  If the angle of the receiver is 90 degrees or more off, the efficiency goes to zero.  If clothing is blocking 100% of the receiver, the efficiency goes to 0%.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 11, 2015, 06:08:59 am
So looks like I'm not getting an invite antime soon....

I'm special too:
(http://i.imgur.com/30hPgpJ.png)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 11, 2015, 06:30:36 am
It's not just a problem of the transducers.  It's not just the energy lost in the conversion of electricity to sound and back to electricity.  That's actually the least of uBeam's worries.  Their big problem is that 93% to 97% of ultrasonic energy is absorbed by 12 feet of air!  That's a fundamental physics barrier that can never be crossed.  Of the remaining 3% to 7% energy, most of that gets lost in the conversion to and from sound.
Even if all the above problems did not exist, uBeam has the fundamental usability issue of the requirement for a clear line-of-sight.  Nobody wants to use a product that requires a bulky receiver that forces the screen to face down.

Yup. It's plainly and demonstrably impractical to anyone with a clue.
But there continues to be believers.

The efficiency is a problem from an environmental point of view as well.
Take their claimed 1.5W, and be generous on the efficiency, let's say 2% total system efficiency. That's 75W to charge a phone at 1.5W.
Let's assume that 1/10th the population of the US will charge their phone, say 30M phones. 30M x 75W = 2250MW of power required.
And that's being generous.
That's an awful amount of waste. And a huge step backward given the EnergyStar and other efficiency measures the world has been taking up.
Yet uBeam want to revolutionise the whole world with this rubbish!
Look at their website of what they want to use this with :
(http://i.imgur.com/NgzOqP5.png)

It's outright disgusting to champion a power technology with such wastage!
They should change that slogan to "Waste At 100%"
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Danseur on December 11, 2015, 06:46:25 am
Yup. It's plainly and demonstrably impractical to anyone with a clue.
But there continues to be believers.

The efficiency is a problem from an environmental point of view as well.
Take their claimed 1.5W, and be generous on the efficiency, let's say 2% total system efficiency. That's 75W to charge a phone at 1.5W.
Let's assume that 1/10th the population of the US will charge their phone, say 30M phones. 30M x 75W = 2250MW of power required.
And that's being generous.
That's an awful amount of waste. And a huge step backward given the EnergyStar and other efficiency measures the world has been taking up.
Yet uBeam want to revolutionise the whole world with this rubbish!
Look at their website of what they want to use this with :
(http://i.imgur.com/NgzOqP5.png)

It's outright disgusting to champion a power technology with such wastage!
They should change that slogan to "Waste At 100%"

When I brought this up, a well know security researcher got really mad at me for hating on uBeam.  He straight up told me that he didn't care one bit if he wasted 99 watts to deliver 1 watt to his phone.  Then I told him it can't deliver 1 watt and haven't heard from him since.  Don't know if he personally knows Meredith Perry or if he is involved in the company.
Title: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: timb on December 11, 2015, 09:06:47 am
Perhaps they may find a way to remotely fry bacon using ultrasonic technology (SonicBacon(TM) *Patent Pending*) or as a weapon that would literally burn the flesh off of Merideth's adversaries (MerryDeath Ultra Beams(TM) *Patent Pending*). It's doubtful though.

Ultrasonic transducers have been well researched and developed over the years. From Polaroid to Seawolf-class Submarines. This is a subject Dave actually knows a little something about; he's not just talking out of his tight little sphincter.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Danseur on December 11, 2015, 09:33:40 am
Actually, I'm not arguing. I'm just participating in the discussion. You have simply allowed your biases to cloud your comprehension of what I said.

What I said was basically. Even though the idea may be impractical they may in their attempts to develop it find improvement in some areas. If you want to rant against the concept only in its entirety, fine. I accept it is impractical.

Participation is fine, but you're not really listening to what everyone keeps telling you here.

What we are saying is that even if we assumed zero losses (when reality puts it at a theoretical minimum of 95% at 12 feet range), it is a dead end product.  Nobody wants a charger that only works with the screen facing down sitting on the table.  uBeam used to claim they'll work in a purse or pocket.  Now they've come out to "debunk" their critics but they actually admitted they can't work through fabric and need unhindered line of sight.

Now if uBeam put an ultrasonic transmitter on the tablet, the phone would have to sit on top of it.  But Qi chargers are far cheaper, more compact, fundamentally more efficient, and will work through a phone cover and doesn't need an external receiver.  So what we're saying is that uBeam is absolutely worthless no matter how much they improve the technology.  That is final.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: HackedFridgeMagnet on December 11, 2015, 12:36:25 pm
Actually, I'm not arguing. I'm just participating in the discussion. You have simply allowed your biases to cloud your comprehension of what I said.

What I said was basically. Even though the idea may be impractical they may in their attempts to develop it find improvement in some areas. If you want to rant against the concept only in its entirety, fine. I accept it is impractical.

Participation is fine, but you're not really listening to what everyone keeps telling you here.

Do you really not notice the irony of what you just said?
There's no irony there.
I'm guessing you probably meant hypocrisy. (not that I necessarily agree with that either)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikerj on December 11, 2015, 01:28:38 pm
Actually, I'm not arguing. I'm just participating in the discussion. You have simply allowed your biases to cloud your comprehension of what I said.

What I said was basically. Even though the idea may be impractical they may in their attempts to develop it find improvement in some areas. If you want to rant against the concept only in its entirety, fine. I accept it is impractical.

Would it not be more beneficial if all those man-hours were invested in developing something that would actually be useful?  I don't think you can defend the utter stupidity of this dead end project by claiming that perhaps something interesting/useful might be discovered before it's canned.  I suspect the most useful thing this project will highlight is that VC's should do a bit of homework before pouring money into impractical projects dreamed up by "technology innovators" like Meredith Perry.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on December 11, 2015, 04:00:34 pm
I don't think you can defend the utter stupidity of this dead end project by claiming that perhaps something interesting/useful might be discovered before it's canned.

I don't think Wilfred is defending anything. He is just saying that there is a non zero probability that along the way they will have a side innovation that will be valuable in other applications. Since he didn't specify the probability it's seem to be a reasonable assertion. The possibility is there.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on December 12, 2015, 12:18:30 am
Do you want to live in a world where you can claim with absolute certainty that that cannot happen? I sure as hell don't. That would be a world without hope.
I'd be quite happy to live in world where common sense rules, and that ideas that can be clearly be demonstrated as being impractical for multiple reasons - technical, logistical and business, are called out as the bullshit they are.

Unfortunately we live in a world where common sense is sometimes overridden by self-delusion, greed and lack of technical knowledge. 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on December 12, 2015, 12:33:48 am
Do you want to live in a world where you can claim with absolute certainty that that cannot happen? I sure as hell don't. That would be a world without hope.

As long as they're investing their own money, good luck to them.

This is not. It is yours and mine. That is where it ends.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: miguelvp on December 12, 2015, 01:28:22 am
They would have more success in vibrating the tables at the ultrasound frequency and resting the phone on the table.

But harmonics might make your soup escape the bowl  :-DD

Edit: but at least it probably helps your soup remain hot, or even heat it, so be careful taking a spoonful.
And speaking of the silverware, just put them in a container with water on the table to clean them after you are done.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Danseur on December 12, 2015, 10:50:04 am
I don't think Wilfred is defending anything. He is just saying that there is a non zero probability that along the way they will have a side innovation that will be valuable in other applications. Since he didn't specify the probability it's seem to be a reasonable assertion. The possibility is there.

Except uBeam is not promising some non-zero probability on some "we don't know yet" innovation.  uBeam has specifically promised that they will provide wireless power to phones and even TVs at 15+ feet range and work while the phone is in the purse or pocket.  They have steadily cut back on their utterly impossible - YES IMPOSSIBLE - assertion that it will work through leather and clothing or at 15+ foot range.  You can basically view 15 feet of air as a near impenetrable barrier of ultrasonic energy.  It is impossible to get more than 3% of the ultrasonic energy through that much air under typical pressure and humidity.

But it was uBeam's deceptive assertions that they've recently backed off on that hyped them up and got them their $35+ million investment at $500 million valuation.  That money isn't all just private VCs, that includes mutual funds from people's retirement savings.  uBeam has defrauded everyone.

Companies and individuals are allowed to solicit investments on any hair brained idea with extremely high levels of risk.  What they are not allowed to do is misrepresent the level of risk and their own capability.  This is why we have the SEC.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: DutchGert on December 12, 2015, 11:50:40 am
Do you want to live in a world where you can claim with absolute certainty that that cannot happen? I sure as hell don't. That would be a world without hope.
I'd be quite happy to live in world where common sense rules, and that ideas that can be clearly be demonstrated as being impractical for multiple reasons - technical, logistical and business, are called out as the bullshit they are.

Unfortunately we live in a world where common sense is sometimes overridden by self-delusion, greed and lack of technical knowledge.

Amen
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: SL4P on December 15, 2015, 12:58:33 pm
Can we nail a Batteriser on to uBeam, and get 5x the range?  :-/O
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Danseur on December 18, 2015, 11:21:06 pm
Looks like uBeam is having trouble raising money.  Now they're resorting to CrowdSourcing and some are calling this a "down round".
http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2015/dec/18/maker-wireless-charger-losing-investment-power/ (http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2015/dec/18/maker-wireless-charger-losing-investment-power/)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: helius on December 18, 2015, 11:40:30 pm
A "down round" is going to make talent flee like rats. You own a diluting share of a depreciating asset—in other words there will be nothing left.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 18, 2015, 11:43:11 pm
Looks like uBeam is having trouble raising money.  Now they're resorting to CrowdSourcing and some are calling this a "down round".
http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2015/dec/18/maker-wireless-charger-losing-investment-power/ (http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2015/dec/18/maker-wireless-charger-losing-investment-power/)

Woah!
Where is their crowd funding campaign?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on December 18, 2015, 11:45:27 pm
Looks like uBeam is having trouble raising money.  Now they're resorting to CrowdSourcing and some are calling this a "down round".
http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2015/dec/18/maker-wireless-charger-losing-investment-power/ (http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2015/dec/18/maker-wireless-charger-losing-investment-power/)

"The No. 1 rule in financing is you get what you can,” he said. “It’s really hard to bring really good tech to the market.”

Even harder when the tech is shit.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Danseur on December 19, 2015, 12:21:38 am
A "down round" is going to make talent flee like rats. You own a diluting share of a depreciating asset—in other words there will be nothing left.

A lot of times a down round doesn't just dilute!  If there are ratchets involved and the price drop is severe enough, lower priority equity holders can be whittled down to zero!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Danseur on December 19, 2015, 12:22:49 am
Woah!
Where is their crowd funding campaign?

FTA: "The crowdfunding effort began in July and is being facilitated by crowdfunding platform OurCrowd of Jerusalem"
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on December 19, 2015, 12:35:24 am
Woah!
Where is their crowd funding campaign?

FTA: "The crowdfunding effort began in July and is being facilitated by crowdfunding platform OurCrowd of Jerusalem"

"There's a sucker born every minute"

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 19, 2015, 06:50:36 am
A "down round" is going to make talent flee like rats.

Rumor has it they already have.
The ton of jobs they have on offer make it sound like they are rebooting the staff.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 19, 2015, 06:54:30 am
http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2015/dec/18/maker-wireless-charger-losing-investment-power/ (http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2015/dec/18/maker-wireless-charger-losing-investment-power/)
Quote
UBeam’s crowdfunding efforts have so far raised $2.6 million of its $4.7 million target, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. That amount was raised from 95 investors, who each invested a minimum of $10,000. The crowdfunding effort began in July and is being facilitated by crowdfunding platform OurCrowd of Jerusalem.

So they found another 95 suckers to fleece >$10K out of.
Got to give them an A for effort.
The question is though why do they need it?
Didn't they just get another $10M option from the original investors?
http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/ubeam-wireless-charging-funding/ (http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/ubeam-wireless-charging-funding/)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on December 19, 2015, 11:54:10 am
And how exactly can you piss away $30m and have nothing to show for it...?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 19, 2015, 12:03:31 pm
And how exactly can you piss away $30m and have nothing to show for it...?
I see you've never worked on a defence contract. :)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 19, 2015, 12:28:04 pm
And how exactly can you piss away $30m and have nothing to show for it...?
I see you've never worked on a defence contract. :)

True indeed.
I've worked on military projects that have pissed away >$10M and never saw the light of day. And that's chicken feed.

But in the case of uBeam, from what I have gathered, it seems they have set up their own class 100 cleanroom, their own transducer manufacturing facilities, all the latest high end manufacturing toys etc. Not to mention the high end staff for several years etc.
Wouldn't be too hard to spend that money if you bet big time by designing and setting up high volume custom manufacturing based on faith that it's all going to work as intended.
The 30 odd patent also would have cost a pretty penny, probably half a mil right there.
So they certainly won't have "nothing to show for it", they'd have considerable asset that could be sold off. or combined with the patents and know-how of whatever staff is left holding the bag, it would be worth something to a buyer for a niche application.
Odds are though it'll all be sold for pennies on the dollar when the merry-go-round eventually stops.

They are obviously starting the death spiral. All the signs are there:
a) Apparent loss of significant staff
b) Starting what sounds for all the world like a major R&D and production staff reboot
c) Going for the crowd funding after having raised $30M (and presumably spent with nothing publicly to show for it)
d) Both Meredith and one the key investors personally looking for and putting out potential media fires on twitter recently.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 19, 2015, 12:48:26 pm
But in the case of uBeam, from what I have gathered, it seems they have set up their own class 100 cleanroom, their own transducer manufacturing facilities, all the latest high end manufacturing toys etc. Not to mention the high end staff for several years etc.
Where did you find that? Sounds like an interesting read. The key to success doing anything really new is to only solve one major problem. Setting up the production of piezo devices, rather than going to existing experts in the field, like Morgan, seems insane.
The 30 odd patent also would have cost a pretty penny, probably half a mil right there.
Not cheap, but spending on patents is exactly where you need to put your money when you are trying to start something you hope will become big.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 19, 2015, 01:22:23 pm
But in the case of uBeam, from what I have gathered, it seems they have set up their own class 100 cleanroom, their own transducer manufacturing facilities, all the latest high end manufacturing toys etc. Not to mention the high end staff for several years etc.
Where did you find that?

LinkedIn profiles.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/joeaguerra (https://www.linkedin.com/in/joeaguerra)
Oops, class 10,000 sorry

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=188175;image)

They are doing their own $1M+ ASIC too:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/seantaffler (https://www.linkedin.com/in/seantaffler)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=188312;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikerj on December 19, 2015, 04:13:40 pm
Odds are though it'll all be sold for pennies on the dollar when the merry-go-round eventually stops.

Or the Merrideth-go-round in this case.

Why are people still investing significant sums of money into a technology that's not only unproven, but has negligible chance of success?  Is common sense now an endangered commodity, or is there some other angle to this?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 19, 2015, 04:47:58 pm
But in the case of uBeam, from what I have gathered, it seems they have set up their own class 100 cleanroom, their own transducer manufacturing facilities, all the latest high end manufacturing toys etc. Not to mention the high end staff for several years etc.
Where did you find that?

LinkedIn profiles.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/joeaguerra (https://www.linkedin.com/in/joeaguerra)
Oops, class 10,000 sorry

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=188175;image)

They are doing their own $1M+ ASIC too:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/seantaffler (https://www.linkedin.com/in/seantaffler)
That doesn't really say they are making transducers, although the clean room hints at it. What startup put so many resources into the ability to make their own PCBs? Its as wacky as building an ASIC when they don't have mature demos built with off the shelf stuff, like FPGAs.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on December 19, 2015, 09:51:48 pm
Quote
That doesn't really say they are making transducers, although the clean room hints at it. What startup put so many resources into the ability to make their own PCBs? Its as wacky as building an ASIC when they don't have mature demos built with off the shelf stuff, like FPGAs.
This seems to me to sum up the level of cluelessness involved - doing this sort of thing in-house is just insanity, and can only distract from developing the core techology.
I'm sure there are plenty of companies with decades of experience in ultrasonics who could have produced prototypes.
I wonder if maybe that's what they tried first and when told that it wasn't doable, ignored that advice in their unfounded belief that they could do better.
Or maybe they were just paranoid about people stealing their "new ideas"
Some people just won't take advice.
I have no doubt whatsoever that when it all eventually implodes, Meredith will blame everyone but herself and refuse to acknowledge that the idea was just plain bad.

There are some people that just won't be told they're wrong.

 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on December 19, 2015, 11:43:29 pm
UBeam likely started making transducers after every commercial transducer manufacturer told them to piss off.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 20, 2015, 12:29:34 am
That doesn't really say they are making transducers, although the clean room hints at it. What startup put so many resources into the ability to make their own PCBs? Its as wacky as building an ASIC when they don't have mature demos built with off the shelf stuff, like FPGAs.

Because that's what "big" companies with "big" funding and with "big" ideas are supposed to do, to, you know, make them look and sound "big".
Practical risk-mitigating development methodologies are tossed out the window.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 20, 2015, 12:38:00 am
This seems to me to sum up the level of cluelessness involved - doing this sort of thing in-house is just insanity, and can only distract from developing the core techology.
I'm sure there are plenty of companies with decades of experience in ultrasonics who could have produced prototypes.
I wonder if maybe that's what they tried first and when told that it wasn't doable, ignored that advice in their unfounded belief that they could do better.

The odds of that are high.
Although the advice of the people you hire also plays a big part. What happens when you have almost unlimited deep pockets, and a likely easy to convince CEO with no practical experience or knowledge in the field who dreams nothing but big "I'm a technology innovator" dreams.
The engineers and scientists they hired would be champing at the bit to get all the cool gear they possibly can and will spin stories as to why the need it. It would have bee like shooting fish in a barrel. Manufacturing people you hire will gladly will tell you in-house is the way to go. The scientists you hire will see the blank cheque and start salivating.
This is when you need adult supervision.

They (the investors) also would have wanted a quick return, so would have pushed hard for an impressive development schedule. So that means hire everyone from every disciple and go to work on parallel development. Risk, why worry about that when you have media darling CEO and a hacked together prototype that shows it clearly "works". it's just a matter of money to bring it to scale  ::)

Quote
I have no doubt whatsoever that when it all eventually implodes, Meredith will blame everyone but herself and refuse to acknowledge that the idea was just plain bad.

No doubt.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 20, 2015, 12:39:43 am
UBeam likely started making transducers after every commercial transducer manufacturer told them to piss off.

They probably happily took their money and gave them to best they could.
But then uBeam found that the leading edge wasn't good enough, so hey, just develop your own, because everyone knows ultrasonic power transmission "works"
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on December 20, 2015, 01:04:37 am
UBeam likely started making transducers after every commercial transducer manufacturer told them to piss off.

They probably happily took their money and gave them to best they could.
But then uBeam found that the leading edge wasn't good enough, so hey, just develop your own, because everyone knows ultrasonic power transmission "works"

I work in the power industry, so I get to talk to "free energy" types more than I would like. Unless your business is selling prototypes, there isn't real money to be had with onesy twosey stuff. Those jobs are looked as bets one takes that hopefully work out commercially.  We generally take very few of those types of bets unless the business climate is really bleak.  uBeam type of projects really are a huge distraction and unless the energy balances looked good on paper, the phone conversation was more along the lines of, "no Meredith ... uh no Meredith. Sorry, it doesn't work that way....no...no...no. Gotta run. Bye. (Click)"

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on December 20, 2015, 02:27:26 am
It would have bee like shooting fish in a barrel. Manufacturing people you hire will gladly will tell you in-house is the way to go. The scientists you hire will see the blank cheque and start salivating.
Sorta reminds me of the Gold Rush - the people who made the real money are those that sold the equipment, ran the bars & whorehouses....

Those new jobs at ubeam could be tempting for any techies at a loose end for a month or two right now, just as long as they get NDAs preventing ubeam ever revealing they worked for them to avoid future embarrassment. Hell it might be fun just to go to an interview to see how bad/delusional  things really are
 

 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 20, 2015, 03:27:22 am
That doesn't really say they are making transducers, although the clean room hints at it. What startup put so many resources into the ability to make their own PCBs? Its as wacky as building an ASIC when they don't have mature demos built with off the shelf stuff, like FPGAs.

Because that's what "big" companies with "big" funding and with "big" ideas are supposed to do, to, you know, make them look and sound "big".
Practical risk-mitigating development methodologies are tossed out the window.
Isn't the current fashion still for "big" companies to outsource everything?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 20, 2015, 03:33:19 am
There are some people that just won't be told they're wrong.
I have experience of watching a non-technical businessman who thought they'd had a brilliant idea cling to that through thick and thin. Its quite strange to watch as they completely misidentify what is important in developing and protecting that idea. If you watch carefully, however, it can tell you some interesting things about how their minds work.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 27, 2016, 08:22:22 am
Are some people suffering as a result of increasing mass exposure of the public to ultrasound in air?
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/472/2185/20150624 (http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/472/2185/20150624)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: helius on January 27, 2016, 04:48:33 pm
"Existing guidelines are based on an insufficient evidence base, most of which was collected over 40 years ago by researchers who themselves considered it insufficient to finalize guidelines, but which produced preliminary guidelines. This warning of inadequacy was lost as nations and organizations issued ‘new’ guidelines based on these early guidelines, and through such repetition generated a false impression of consensus. The evidence base is so slim that few reports have progressed far along the sequence from anecdote to case study, to formal scientific controlled trials and epidemiological studies."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woozle_effect
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: tombola on February 04, 2016, 05:47:55 pm
November 2015, Techcrunch (http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/wireless-power-charger/#.md3tlp:Q7n1):
"Still, most people can’t look at this info and conclude if uBeam is plausible. So I spoke with two experts in the space that have reviewed these details to get their thoughts.
Dr. Matt O’Donnell, PhD is one of the world’s leading experts in ultrasonics, and is the Professor and Dean Emeritus of Engineering at the University of Washington. He writes:<snip>...their system does not violate the laws of physics.”"

January 2016, uBeam Press Release:  (http://ubeam.com/ultrasonic_experts_join_beam/)
"We’re very excited to announce today that we’ve added two distinguished experts in acoustics to head uBeam’s engineering. <snip> Matthew O’Donnell, Ph.D., currently Dean Emeritus of Engineering at the University of Washington... has joined uBeam as Chairman of our Technical Advisory Board."

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on February 04, 2016, 07:52:18 pm
November 2015, Techcrunch (http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/wireless-power-charger/#.md3tlp:Q7n1):
"Still, most people can’t look at this info and conclude if uBeam is plausible. So I spoke with two experts in the space that have reviewed these details to get their thoughts.
Dr. Matt O’Donnell, PhD is one of the world’s leading experts in ultrasonics, and is the Professor and Dean Emeritus of Engineering at the University of Washington. He writes:<snip>...their system does not violate the laws of physics.”"

January 2016, uBeam Press Release:  (http://ubeam.com/ultrasonic_experts_join_beam/)
"We’re very excited to announce today that we’ve added two distinguished experts in acoustics to head uBeam’s engineering. <snip> Matthew O’Donnell, Ph.D., currently Dean Emeritus of Engineering at the University of Washington... has joined uBeam as Chairman of our Technical Advisory Board."

That is a complete coincidence.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 04, 2016, 10:14:34 pm
January 2016, uBeam Press Release:  (http://ubeam.com/ultrasonic_experts_join_beam/)
"We’re very excited to announce today that we’ve added two distinguished experts in acoustics to head uBeam’s engineering. <snip> Matthew O’Donnell, Ph.D., currently Dean Emeritus of Engineering at the University of Washington... has joined uBeam as Chairman of our Technical Advisory Board."

Interesting development.
"Chairman of our Technical Advisory Board" is juts what is sounds like though, an advisory role. i.e. "Spend the money here, because that's more viable" etc.
Doesn't change the real world practicality of the technology though.
Maybe the whole thing is going tits-up, and this is the investors last ditch effort to find out what's really going on and see if it's still viable? He'll happily take the pay cheque to advise I'm sure.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jazon on February 05, 2016, 12:11:24 am
UBeam Hires Two Ultrasound Veterans (LA Business Journal article)

http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2016/feb/04/ubeam-hires-two-ultrasound-veterans (http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2016/feb/04/ubeam-hires-two-ultrasound-veterans)/

Sections highlighted below:

Quote
Former ultrasonic medical imaging consultant Paul Chandler has been hired as the company’s vice president of acoustics. Matthew O’Donnell, dean emeritus of engineering at the University of Washington, will be chairman of the company’s technical advisor board.

Quote
A number of ultrasonic experts, physicists and electrical engineers told the Business Journal in November that the proposed uBeam system would be inefficient, costly and infeasible.

At the time Perry declined to be interview by the Business Journal, but instead opted to release technical details to tech industry blog TechCrunch. One of the sources for that article, was Matt O’Donnell, now chairman of uBeam’s technical advisor board. In the article, O’Donnell said:

“There is multiplicative risk in getting all of this together to work, but it may be possible. If uBeam can deliver that amount of power to a phone with reasonable efficiency, reception, and electronic management, then their system does not violate the laws of physics.”

Quote
IEEE Spectrum reported that O’Donnell said he was contacted by uBeam prior to the TechCrunch article and asked if he would provide statements for reporters. When the Business Journal reached out to O’Donnell, he declined to be interviewed, but emailed back a statement:

“I am not expert in the details of this system. I was quoted (in the TechCrunch article) because there was a question about the basic ultrasound physics. I am a biomedical guy and know virtually nothing about the details of the wireless power space. I have no idea whether uBeam’s system is practical or not.”
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 05, 2016, 12:38:40 am
The more I think about this, the more I come to conclusion that this is a panic move.
Why only bring in these experts now after 3+ years of development?
If the product worked as claimed why would they need these experts?
They certainly wouldn't need them for publicity, they's just demo the tech and people would go wild and throw money at them.
They can't need them for technical direction at this late stage of development.

I can only think of 3 scenarios:

1) The tech "kinda-sorta" works, but efficiency is crap (as everyone expects). They need them to tweak it and/or try some new tricks (futile of course, but hey, let's run with that)

2) Things are starting to go to shit, the investors are getting frustrated, so they finally bought in some adult technical supervision.

3) The wheels have completely fallen off the billy cart and the investors have bought in some brains to figure out if there is any salvageable technology that can be spun off (I think there is likely some things of niche worth there)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on February 05, 2016, 12:39:33 am
UBeam Hires Two Ultrasound Veterans (LA Business Journal article)

http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2016/feb/04/ubeam-hires-two-ultrasound-veterans (http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2016/feb/04/ubeam-hires-two-ultrasound-veterans)/

Quote
IEEE Spectrum reported that O’Donnell said he was contacted by uBeam prior to the TechCrunch article and asked if he would provide statements for reporters. When the Business Journal reached out to O’Donnell, he declined to be interviewed, but emailed back a statement:

“I am not expert in the details of this system. I was quoted (in the TechCrunch article) because there was a question about the basic ultrasound physics. I am a biomedical guy and know virtually nothing about the details of the wireless power space. I have no idea whether uBeam’s system is practical or not.”

"But seeing as uBeam have $23.2m to piss away, and being the open-minded type"

Quote
“I was impressed at the technology they have developed and also their overall approach toward solving a difficult, but not impossible, technical challenge. I am also very impressed with the team that Meredith has put together. Given this, I was excited to get involved and help them address the technical challenges moving forward.”

"The offer of a 6 figure sweetener has nothing to do with my sudden change of heart, where do I sign?" :-J  that's a tongue in cheek emoticon for the lawyers.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 05, 2016, 01:30:13 am
Quote
“I was impressed at the technology they have developed and also their overall approach toward solving a difficult, but not impossible, technical challenge. I am also very impressed with the team that Meredith has put together. Given this, I was excited to get involved and help them address the technical challenges moving forward.”

"The offer of a 6 figure sweetener has nothing to do with my sudden change of heart, where do I sign?" :-J  that's a tongue in cheek emoticon for the lawyers.

There is no major downside to taking the money and getting involved. He wouldn't know anything until he signs on the dotted line, and if it all goes tits-up he can claim he didn't know until he joined and then investigated it all, and that it seemed "not impossible" at the time.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: HackedFridgeMagnet on February 05, 2016, 07:45:38 am
Quote
There is no major downside to taking the money and getting involved. He wouldn't know anything until he signs on the dotted line, and if it all goes tits-up he can claim he didn't know until he joined and then investigated it all, and that it seemed "not impossible" at the time.

Everyone knows this project is fail.
He must realise he's throwing away his integrity, and going to be wasting his time.

I guess I might do the same too, for a certain price. Though I'm pretty sure my price is lower than the Dean Emeritus.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: tszaboo on February 05, 2016, 11:12:17 am
Are some people suffering as a result of increasing mass exposure of the public to ultrasound in air?
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/472/2185/20150624 (http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/472/2185/20150624)
Yes. And the infra sounds, generated by heavy machinery and upstairs neighbours who didn't learn how to walk properly. If anything this planet needs is less artificial noise.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: chris_leyson on February 05, 2016, 11:33:33 am
Low frequency, 10s of kHz, ultrasound propagates reasonably well in air, old fashioned TV remote control for example, however, at 1MHz and above the attenuation in air is too high, you would be lucky to get 1m range. Found this paper which uses ultrasound in the 200kHz to 400kHz range. http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/2517/1/WRAP_Li_Short_Range.pdf (http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/2517/1/WRAP_Li_Short_Range.pdf).
I can't see how you could make an effective communications system using ultrasound, I think the guys at uBeam should have done some research.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on February 05, 2016, 12:15:23 pm
I think the guys at uBeam should have done some research.

If you apply common sense to it then you won't make the team (with all the VC-funded perks...)


Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: dan3460 on February 05, 2016, 02:00:51 pm
I have not read the whole post and probably my rant have been discussed before: Why is this people proceed with this kind of projects, is this just to be able to keep receiving a paycheck with money they swindle from naïve investors? If you are transmitting on the air you are propagating the energy all around from the transmitting point, this energy (light, sound, heat, magnetic) will dissipate at the inverse of the square of the distance (I think I got this right) and it does this all over the space, wasting most the energy somewhere else but charging the phone. This is the same kind of crap from the makers of the free energy motor or the new evidence of the existence of bigfoot.   
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 05, 2016, 02:04:43 pm
I have not read the whole post and probably my rant have been discussed before: Why is this people proceed with this kind of projects

This will explain everything, here is the founder and "technology innovator"  ::)
TRIGGER WARNING: This video may cause engineers to go postal, or kill a puppy or something

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukgnU2aXM2c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukgnU2aXM2c)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 05, 2016, 02:08:03 pm
If you are transmitting on the air you are propagating the energy all around from the transmitting point, this energy (light, sound, heat, magnetic) will dissipate at the inverse of the square of the distance (I think I got this right) and it does this all over the space, wasting most the energy somewhere else but charging the phone.

Correct. Even the best blue sky estimate at ridiculously close range gets 90%+ loss. Probably 99%+ loss in practice.
And they think this can revolutionise the world and everyone will be using it  :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: chris_leyson on February 05, 2016, 02:30:01 pm
I had forgotten all about Meredith Perry, wireless charging indeed, more bad science and someone else who hasn't got a clue.

Since my Android phone got updated to Android 6 it now says "Charging Slowly" instead of "Charging" when I put it on top of my cheap knock of Qi compatible wireless charger. Sorry that should be near field or magnetic induction charger. I guess they didn't reverse engineer a real Qi charger very well or they got the sofware wrong. Anyway for £3.00 I've got some nice ferrite with a coil of Litz wire, still a lot cheaper than buying them from Wurth. Freescale Semiconductor Application Note AN4701 "Demodulating Communication Signals of Qi-Compliant Low-Power Wireless Charger Using MC56F8006 DSC", must give that another read.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Buriedcode on February 05, 2016, 03:07:35 pm
Ok, first time I bothered to watch that video.  I won't be killing any puppies but I did find my eyes rolling a lot and fist clenching as often happens when I'm patronized.

I remember a similar talk was given at my school, about innovation, engineering, and science - when I was 10.  It still amazes me that it is often talks like this which gain investment, full of fluff, rather than actual demonstration.  I think that is really the massive divide between 'Engineer' and 'salesman/marketing/businessman.  If only I could ignore my principles and bullshit my way into wealth!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StuUK on February 05, 2016, 03:36:35 pm
The more I think about this, the more I come to conclusion that this is a panic move.
Why only bring in these experts now after 3+ years of development?
If the product worked as claimed why would they need these experts?
They certainly wouldn't need them for publicity, they's just demo the tech and people would go wild and throw money at them.
They can't need them for technical direction at this late stage of development.

I can only think of 3 scenarios:

1) The tech "kinda-sorta" works, but efficiency is crap (as everyone expects). They need them to tweak it and/or try some new tricks (futile of course, but hey, let's run with that)

2) Things are starting to go to shit, the investors are getting frustrated, so they finally bought in some adult technical supervision.

3) The wheels have completely fallen off the billy cart and the investors have bought in some brains to figure out if there is any salvageable technology that can be spun off (I think there is likely some things of niche worth there)

I put money on (3). I was one of those 'brains' brought in to see if anything was salvageable on a VC/DOTCOM fail, basically you sign a NDA and get paid a decent check to trawl over the shite that they've spent millions on with no oversight or 'grown ups' making sure it's all sensible. At the end of it you struggle to deliver any good news back to the VC and basically deliver the 'nope it really is shite' message...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: l0rd_hex on February 05, 2016, 06:56:35 pm
Ugh, I just saw her "respond to criticism" with a ridiculous explanation of her technology:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nReXqE-cEwQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nReXqE-cEwQ)

Besides wasting money on something that isn't feasible, I can't help cringe thinking about what a poor example she's setting for women in tech. 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 05, 2016, 10:34:52 pm
Besides wasting money on something that isn't feasible, I can't help cringe thinking about what a poor example she's setting for women in tech.

She claims to support women in tech, but last I checked, not a single female engineer employed at Ubeam.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on February 05, 2016, 10:40:52 pm
Besides wasting money on something that isn't feasible, I can't help cringe thinking about what a poor example she's setting for women in tech.

She claims to support women in tech, but last I checked, not a single female engineer employed at Ubeam.
Maybe they're too smart to want to work on a hopeless cause
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on February 05, 2016, 10:41:11 pm
Ugh, I just saw her "respond to criticism" with a ridiculous explanation of her technology:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nReXqE-cEwQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nReXqE-cEwQ)

Besides wasting money on something that isn't feasible, I can't help cringe thinking about what a poor example she's setting for women in tech.

With a performance like that I can just see how she managed to raise $23.2m from a VC who takes due diligence so seriously. I am sooo in the wrong job.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 05, 2016, 10:48:25 pm
She claims to support women in tech, but last I checked, not a single female engineer employed at Ubeam.
Maybe they're too smart to want to work on a hopeless cause

There are (for whatever reason) less women in tech, so odds of finding one gullible enough to work on Ubeam is much lower than male engineers I guess.
But maybe they are just less gullible and smarter in general. They watched her TED Talk and went NOPE.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: tszaboo on February 05, 2016, 11:04:53 pm
I have not read the whole post and probably my rant have been discussed before: Why is this people proceed with this kind of projects

This will explain everything, here is the founder and "technology innovator"  ::)
TRIGGER WARNING: This video may cause engineers to go postal, or kill a puppy or something
Hey, they are using it for weapons! Lets commercialize it, and give it to people so they can charge their stupid phones. I like the way she described, how she became completely ignorant to reality. And people kept telling her: bad idea, dont do it, jet, she thinks somehow managed to find the holy grail of technology.
You know, I will not feel bad for her, when she gets the boot after the money runs out. Or even worse, when the first lawsuits of injured people will come. Because she kept repeatedly, time after time insulting us professionals, just in ten minutes.
And that, lady, makes you an ignorant censored.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: djacobow on February 05, 2016, 11:25:14 pm
TRIGGER WARNING: This video may cause engineers to go postal, or kill a puppy or something

Thanks for that. These videos do make me want to scream. And yet, I'm drawn to them because .... I dunno. I have to figure out how the hell she has gotten to this place. It isn't "stupidity" for sure, and if it is pure "fraud," she certainly seems to believe it herself, unless she is a fantastic actor.

My current theory is that it is a toxic mix of willful ignorance combined with innumeracy. Yes, wireless power is everywhere, and sound is fine .... but about numbers: some are very big and some are very small, and numbers cannot be arbitrarily substituted for one another. Are light and sound perfectly safe and non-carcinogenic? I know some will be surprised to hear ... it depends! Gee!

As for role models for young women, yes, I want to see more videos from thoughtful female engineers and scientists, particularly those who are not pitching.


Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 05, 2016, 11:39:36 pm
Thanks for that. These videos do make me want to scream. And yet, I'm drawn to them because .... I dunno. I have to figure out how the hell she has gotten to this place. It isn't "stupidity" for sure, and if it is pure "fraud," she certainly seems to believe it herself, unless she is a fantastic actor.

She in't acting, she really does believe it will work, she is a true believer. She's also passionate about it, enthusiastic, and assertive.
There was also some early luck in big media exposure.
Combine that with people who want to believe, VC's who are desperately looking for Unicorns, and bingo, there you have it, $22M in funding.
The funding wouldn't have happened if she was shy and timid.

Quote
As for role models for young women, yes, I want to see more videos from thoughtful female engineers and scientists, particularly those who are not pitching.

Yes, unfortunately in this case Meredith was pitching, well, Meredith.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 08, 2016, 04:53:15 am
It seems that Ms Perry was/is being sued by her former co-founder:
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/12d0733p.pdf (http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/12d0733p.pdf)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Dubbie on February 08, 2016, 06:34:24 am
I think they settled a year or two ago.
I think Dweck may have dodged a bullet there!


Sent from my phone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: l0rd_hex on February 08, 2016, 06:41:38 am
I wonder what the issue was exactly, from the PDF it seems like Dweck resigned from uBeam:

On June 6, 2011, Dweck told Perry that she had decided to resign to accept a job in Los Angeles, California.

Maybe she still owned a percentage of the business?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: l0rd_hex on February 08, 2016, 06:46:14 am
Hmm, I just noticed this press release on her Twitter*: https://twitter.com/meredithperry (https://twitter.com/meredithperry):

http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2016/feb/04/ubeam-hires-two-ultrasound-veterans/ (http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2016/feb/04/ubeam-hires-two-ultrasound-veterans/)

Interesting to see that uBeam denied all their requests for an interview... not hiding anything there eh?

Also this meeting between O'Donnell and Perry sounds pretty interesting:

Quote
O’Donnell said he decided to become involved with uBeam after meeting with Perry at the company’s headquarters for a day.

I'm guessing she just pointed to a big stack of VC money and O'Donnell thought of all the nice things he could buy with it. It's nice that Perry overlooked the fact he's a filthy ENGINEER and is allowing him to screw up her baby with all his logic and thinking ;D

*Note: I don't recommend reading her tweets unless you want to listen to the self-glorifying verbal diarrhea of a 20-something hambeast**

** I don't mean this in a purely derogatory sense --  I probably would say "meatball" but hambeast sounds better.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on February 08, 2016, 11:46:36 am
Quote
Perry told the Business Journal in September that uBeam would have a wireless charging product to market by this year backed by “massive multi-million (unit) production.”

Quote
Matt O’Donnell, now chairman of uBeam’s technical advisor board. In the article, O’Donnell said:
"There is multiplicative risk in getting all of this together to work, but it may be possible."

Shipping millions of something that "may be possible" :-DD


Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 08, 2016, 12:38:31 pm
Interesting to see that uBeam denied all their requests for an interview... not hiding anything there eh?

Of course not. They'll only talk to their vested buddies at Tech Crunch, other people are annoying and ask hard questions  ::)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 20, 2016, 04:48:23 am
Check this out:
http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2016/02/15/so-what-is-the-right-level-of-burn-rate-for-a-startup-these-days/ (http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2016/02/15/so-what-is-the-right-level-of-burn-rate-for-a-startup-these-days/)

Mark Suster who funded uBeam to the tune of $10M, odds are he's talking about uBeam here:
Quote
If on the other hand we have committed $10 million and if you don’t have 3 other investors around the table and if you’re burning $800k / month (implying you need $10 million more to fund one-year’s operations or nearly $15 million to fund 18 months) – we’re simply “over our skis” in order to help you because we wouldn’t put $25 million in one company at our size fund. So even if we LOVE your business you are stretching our ability to fund you in tough times.

He invested $7.5M, the "biggest cheque he's ever written", and $800k/month churn rate sounds about right for a company the size of uBeam.
Obviously using uBeam as a case example here even though he's not saying it. And he says "It’s a very personal topic "

And rumour has it they aren't showing real hardware demo's to anyone, even under NDA. Glad I didn't take Perry up on her offer of a tour, that would have been a waste of a 24,000km trip
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: HackedFridgeMagnet on February 20, 2016, 05:40:03 am
Like the names for the little lessons to learn
"Tragedy of the Commons", "Pottery-Barn Rule", "free rider problem" and "in over our skis"
but I didn't see in Mr Suster's list any mention of "make sure the technology isn't bullshit". I now implore him to put that item in.

I think my grandfather had a better system for picking winners at the dog racing than this guy has at picking viable companies.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: l0rd_hex on February 20, 2016, 06:49:47 am
And rumour has it they aren't showing real hardware demo's to anyone, even under NDA. Glad I didn't take Perry up on her offer of a tour, that would have been a waste of a 24,000km trip

Shoulda sent Dave #2 aka David :)

BTW: Rumor around my apartment is she just makes you watch while she eats an entire ham (after signing an NDA).
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: timb on February 20, 2016, 12:57:46 pm

And rumour has it they aren't showing real hardware demo's to anyone, even under NDA. Glad I didn't take Perry up on her offer of a tour, that would have been a waste of a 24,000km trip

Shoulda sent Dave #2 aka David :)

BTW: Rumor around my apartment is she just makes you watch while she eats an entire ham (after signing an NDA).

Hey, don't knock it. Some guys will pay a kingly sum to fap it to a plus sized beauty eating an entire ham. An entire ham.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: l0rd_hex on February 20, 2016, 08:59:26 pm
Yes, "hamming" is taking America by storm!

I didn't actually mean anything against her directly, I was going for the absurdity of signing an NDA, having your top technical people arrive at their headquarters and being led into a room where there is something covered by a sheet on a table. Perry arrives and gives a 15 minute speech about how awesome she is and then the moment of truth... the sheet is whipped away and it's.... a ham? The doors lock and everyone looks around nervously as Perry takes the ham with both hands and takes a large bite. She continues to talk about their technical advances but no one can anything over the sound of ham! "I ache with embarrassment" says one of the Japanese backers. "I wonder if that's honey ham" says one of your finest EEs. After nearly an hour of hamming someone speaks up "Uh, is that all? We were expecting to see a prototype...". Perry throws the ham bone at the group and they turn to run. "Make a prototype outta that!" she yells while smacking on the last of the ham.

<end scene>

 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on February 21, 2016, 11:09:40 pm
Check this out:
http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2016/02/15/so-what-is-the-right-level-of-burn-rate-for-a-startup-these-days/ (http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2016/02/15/so-what-is-the-right-level-of-burn-rate-for-a-startup-these-days/)

Mark Suster who funded uBeam to the tune of $10M, odds are he's talking about uBeam here:
Quote
If on the other hand we have committed $10 million and if you don’t have 3 other investors around the table and if you’re burning $800k / month (implying you need $10 million more to fund one-year’s operations or nearly $15 million to fund 18 months) – we’re simply “over our skis” in order to help you because we wouldn’t put $25 million in one company at our size fund. So even if we LOVE your business you are stretching our ability to fund you in tough times.

He invested $7.5M, the "biggest cheque he's ever written", and $800k/month churn rate sounds about right for a company the size of uBeam.
Obviously using uBeam as a case example here even though he's not saying it. And he says "It’s a very personal topic "

And rumour has it they aren't showing real hardware demo's to anyone, even under NDA. Glad I didn't take Perry up on her offer of a tour, that would have been a waste of a 24,000km trip

$800k/mo seems pretty outrageous to me. That would be at least 50 well paid engineers plus bennies and overhead. Obvious there are some hardware costs in there, but that really smells fishy to me. I'm not saying this is going on a uBeam, but it's not unheard of for the "other people's money" being spent to boomerang back into the execs' pockets in the form of owning the property being leased, making loans to the company at high interest rates, etc.  That just seems like a metric shit ton of cash flowing with nothing to show for it.
Title: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: timb on February 22, 2016, 12:08:08 am
Check this out:
http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2016/02/15/so-what-is-the-right-level-of-burn-rate-for-a-startup-these-days/ (http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2016/02/15/so-what-is-the-right-level-of-burn-rate-for-a-startup-these-days/)

Mark Suster who funded uBeam to the tune of $10M, odds are he's talking about uBeam here:
Quote
If on the other hand we have committed $10 million and if you don’t have 3 other investors around the table and if you’re burning $800k / month (implying you need $10 million more to fund one-year’s operations or nearly $15 million to fund 18 months) – we’re simply “over our skis” in order to help you because we wouldn’t put $25 million in one company at our size fund. So even if we LOVE your business you are stretching our ability to fund you in tough times.

He invested $7.5M, the "biggest cheque he's ever written", and $800k/month churn rate sounds about right for a company the size of uBeam.
Obviously using uBeam as a case example here even though he's not saying it. And he says "It’s a very personal topic "

And rumour has it they aren't showing real hardware demo's to anyone, even under NDA. Glad I didn't take Perry up on her offer of a tour, that would have been a waste of a 24,000km trip

$800k/mo seems pretty outrageous to me. That would be at least 50 well paid engineers plus bennies and overhead. Obvious there are some hardware costs in there, but that really smells fishy to me. I'm not saying this is going on a uBeam, but it's not unheard of for the "other people's money" being spent to boomerang back into the execs' pockets in the form of owning the property being leased, making loans to the company at high interest rates, etc.  That just seems like a metric shit ton of cash flowing with nothing to show for it.

I know where the money is going!

A former executive from Smithfield Foods told me that Meredith Perry is attempting a hostile takeover of the company. She plans on renovating the smoke house so she can live there. Apparently she wants a conveyer belt installed so all the hams produced go directly into her mouth.

(I used to live in Smithfield, VA (Ham Capitol of the World) and on days when the wind was jussst right, you could smell smoked ham. On days the wind was wrong, you'd smell the pig trucks, which was about as bad as you'd imagine.)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 22, 2016, 12:18:55 am
$800k/mo seems pretty outrageous to me. That would be at least 50 well paid engineers plus bennies and overhead. Obvious there are some hardware costs in there, but that really smells fishy to me.

According to LinkedIn they have 24 employees:
https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?f_CC=3038762&trk=extra_biz_employees_deg_connected (https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?f_CC=3038762&trk=extra_biz_employees_deg_connected)
So maybe double that as everyone is not on Linkedin, or bother to update.

Also, it seems they have a production clean room and all the latest toys. Just their production setup alone would cost a lot, they are making their own transducers apparently.

I have no doubt the facilities and tech would be very impressive if you visited, which is almost certainly the reason Perry invited me (apart from fire fighting and pre-empting my announcement I was thinking about doing a video on it).
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 22, 2016, 12:22:50 am
I think they settled a year or two ago.
I think Dweck may have dodged a bullet there!

I heard she got a sizeable chunk of the company.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on February 22, 2016, 05:40:56 am
$800k/mo seems pretty outrageous to me. That would be at least 50 well paid engineers plus bennies and overhead. Obvious there are some hardware costs in there, but that really smells fishy to me.

According to LinkedIn they have 24 employees:
https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?f_CC=3038762&trk=extra_biz_employees_deg_connected (https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?f_CC=3038762&trk=extra_biz_employees_deg_connected)
So maybe double that as everyone is not on Linkedin, or bother to update.

Also, it seems they have a production clean room and all the latest toys. Just their production setup alone would cost a lot, they are making their own transducers apparently.

I have no doubt the facilities and tech would be very impressive if you visited, which is almost certainly the reason Perry invited me (apart from fire fighting and pre-empting my announcement I was thinking about doing a video on it).

I'm certainly cynical about these types of companies, but every picture I've seen is of a lab with gear that's either on par or inferior to what I have in my personal lab.  If I had a high end facility and was dying for cash, I'd showcase the facility.

As for building one's own tranducers, thats just a total headscratcher. Maybe there's an IP issue that drove the decision, but ultrasonics is a technology that's at least seven decades old and well into maturity. So, inventing their own production techniques really strikes me as odd. Typically that's what one has to do after everyone that knows what they're doing tells you to FO. 

If I visited, maybe I would find the production equipment (if it exists, I have my serious doubts) interesting, but I'm not sure about being impressed. I'm more impressed by companies that manage their cash flow toward a self-sustaining future. ;-)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: l0rd_hex on February 22, 2016, 05:48:27 am
As for building one's own tranducers, thats just a total headscratcher. Maybe there's an IP issue that drove the decision, but ultrasonics is a technology that's at least seven decades old and well into maturity. So, inventing their own production techniques really strikes me as odd. Typically that's what one has to do after everyone that knows what they're doing tells you to FO.

Maybe the IP is from the steering side? (i.e.) how to locate the other transducer and blast it with nature's finesttm ultra sonic?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: l0rd_hex on February 22, 2016, 05:52:53 am
(I used to live in Smithfield, VA (Ham Capitol of the World) and on days when the wind was jussst right, you could smell smoked ham. On days the wind was wrong, you'd smell the pig trucks, which was about as bad as you'd imagine.)

The real danger here is SALTY HAMS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvbvqYGgBqM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvbvqYGgBqM)

Although there is the ham of truth!:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2Ka2nkIi2I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2Ka2nkIi2I)


Fun Fact: Canadian comedy has been dominated by ham-based jokes for the last 35 years
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 06, 2016, 09:08:48 am
Meredith tweeted this the other day and them promptly deleted, presumably after someone tapped her on the shoulder and said that's probably not a good idea.
A photo of their first ASIC.
What does that mean? Well it obviously means that they were not close to production if this is their first ever ASIC. It's not even packaged yet, just hot off the wafer line.
And it shows were the money has been going too, ASIC's aren't cheap.
Also, what ASIC is it? The transmitter? The receiver?
It also shows how much further they have to do before actual production.

And of course, more classic Meredith - "Keeping silicon relevant in the valley" as if no one else is doing it  ::)

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=206296;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 06, 2016, 09:18:45 am
I haven't watched it, don't know what's in it, but here are the two amigo's:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwpJsWb-jWM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwpJsWb-jWM)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 06, 2016, 09:27:00 am
Interesting way he words things at 12:30:
"If this works, and you would say when this works" and that's the guy who funded it  ::)
https://youtu.be/dwpJsWb-jWM?t=12m30s

And then Perry says "You aren't going to lose your money because we have alternate plans, you know that"
So obviously they expect to fail and have planed for that.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on March 06, 2016, 09:56:00 am
Meredith tweeted this the other day and them promptly deleted, presumably after someone tapped her on the shoulder and said that's probably not a good idea.
A photo of their first ASIC.
What does that mean? Well it obviously means that they were not close to production if this is their first ever ASIC. It's not even packaged yet, just hot off the wafer line.
And it shows were the money has been going too, ASIC's aren't cheap.
Also, what ASIC is it? The transmitter? The receiver?
It also shows how much further they have to do before actual production.

And of course, more classic Meredith - "Keeping silicon relevant in the valley" as if no one else is doing it  ::)

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=206296;image)
And WTF are they doing making ASICs before demonstrating anything ? Just pissing more VC money away?
And that die looks huge, way too big for it to be cost-viable in a receiver.
Or it could just be BS
 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on March 06, 2016, 10:03:45 am
"you'll be able to lift your phone in the air & charge"  :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD
"almost delusional mentality" - well that's about right, minus the "almost"
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 06, 2016, 01:05:21 pm
And WTF are they doing making ASICs before demonstrating anything ? Just pissing more VC money away?

Yep, because that's what "vision" people do when they innovate, they go big or go home.
None of this rubbish about really proving the technology first, that amateurs who don't have the balls to be real "innovators". All it takes is an "innovator" with true vision and unwavering belief, and the input of money and it will work  ::)

Of course, if they did actually have something that worked, you can bet your bottom dollar Perry would be on every stage whipping out her phone with the receiver attached and show it charging, preferably with a power meter. Even if it was brick size she'd still be shoving it in everyone's face with a big grin saying "See, I told you it works!"
But of course they have never shown a thing. AFAIK the last demo was Perry's original veroboard proto, and that was never shown actually outputting any useful power.

Quote
And that die looks huge, way too big for it to be cost-viable in a receiver.
Or it could just be BS

Presuming it is the actual die, then yes, it's huge, so best guess is the beamforming transmitter. Their researchers must have had a field day with that one. No wonder they can get people to work for them, spend all you want developing a cutting edge ASIC, all you gotta do is pretend you believe it's going to be a practical product.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 06, 2016, 01:05:59 pm
"almost delusional mentality" - well that's about right, minus the "almost"

I chuckled at that bit  ;D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: HackedFridgeMagnet on March 06, 2016, 01:54:20 pm
Watching the interview it seems to me that this is the start of the end game. How are they going to get out with money, and reputations not too damaged?

They are the ones sowing the doubt here about uBeam. Probably preparing the backers for their eventual failure.
Then glossing things over by implying failure is actually ok in this business.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on March 06, 2016, 03:23:42 pm
If that's a picture of a wafer those are some strange looking die. If you just look at one square it looks more like a lead frame than a chip.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: SeanB on March 06, 2016, 06:26:05 pm
If that's a picture of a wafer those are some strange looking die. If you just look at one square it looks more like a lead frame than a chip.

More like a memory array, with the central high density memory array surrounded by decode logic and support logic.

If it is a power device it must be running at insane power levels if the bonding has to be 100 plus wires to the chip.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on March 06, 2016, 08:02:36 pm
Just had a quick browse through some of the patents.
The feeling I get is they are trying to cover as many possibilities as possible for anything relating to ultrasonic power transfer.
My guess is that that when they realise that it's a complete fail for consumer phone charging  they will try to sell/license the patent portfolio and any manufacturing IP for niche applications.

Of course it could be that they're just trying to throw as many patent applications out there as possible to give some credibility that they've actually achieved something useful. 

 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: dadler on March 06, 2016, 08:06:59 pm
But...but.. She demonstrated real devices right there from her mission impossible briefcase. You just put this on the ceiling and put that on your phone...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on March 06, 2016, 09:28:08 pm
Apparently, when every other aspect of one's plan is in the shitter, building an ASIC is what one does to demonstrate "progress."  It looks impressive - even if it's total horseshit.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 06, 2016, 10:43:47 pm
My guess is that that when they realise that it's a complete fail for consumer phone charging  they will try to sell/license the patent portfolio and any manufacturing IP for niche applications.
Of course it could be that they're just trying to throw as many patent applications out there as possible to give some credibility that they've actually achieved something useful.

Both.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: AF6LJ on March 06, 2016, 10:45:57 pm
My guess is that that when they realise that it's a complete fail for consumer phone charging  they will try to sell/license the patent portfolio and any manufacturing IP for niche applications.
Of course it could be that they're just trying to throw as many patent applications out there as possible to give some credibility that they've actually achieved something useful.

Both.
Indeed this is the modern version of patent medicine.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Khendrask on March 21, 2016, 04:13:45 pm
Now she's claiming that not only will it charge your phone, but provide a "Secure Data Link" as well...

http://www.businessinsider.com/ubeam-wireless-charging-adds-data-2016-2 (http://www.businessinsider.com/ubeam-wireless-charging-adds-data-2016-2)

That should be even more fun to hear the explanation on...   Why can't this just go away?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: miguelvp on March 21, 2016, 05:34:57 pm
I guess that was plan B she was referring to.

Data over ultrasound is a no brainer and not even difficult to do, of course the optimal resonant frequency will be affected and you end up with the too many features but master of none.

I guess in the VC world it probably helps them continue research and funding so it's just a way to fail without failing because now it can do even more than anticipated.

If they did an ultrasound wireless data only that will probably will be a good thing in densely populated areas, but of course that means that the device won't be using wifi so less power requirements on the phone since wifi being on will make  their task impossible. With spread spectrum tech it wouldn't be that hard to get a decent data link over ultrasound without your vacuum cleaner interfering.
 
But I think of this announcement as in buying time because the original premise won't work as advertised.
So lets get rid off the wifi since it needs too much power and won't make ubeam feasible.

Edit: so their solution seems to be to cut off all the radios so they might have a chance to trickle charge a device that is using a few mAs, of course that would be for a barebone phone that doesn't have a power consuming GPU, but I guess now they are going to demonstrate that they can make this thing work on a very power efficient dumb phone that no one will use anyways, but it will look like they did achieve their goal by changing the parameters of the device :)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: helius on March 21, 2016, 05:55:30 pm
From the starting point of already using ultrasonic power, the data stream comes almost for free because there needs to be a reverse channel anyway to register and track the receivers. But it doesn't make the efficiency look any better, you end up spending much more energy on ultrasonic data (than you would for wifi) with the higher path loss.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on March 21, 2016, 06:15:55 pm
And how do you then get the ultrasonically transmitted data to the phone?

Oh, sorry I forgot, all the phone makers are queueing up to integrate uBeam into their phones  :-DD :-DD

And what sort of data would this be any use for ?

The only "security" aspect I can see is that it won't go through walls as easily as the RF the phone is already equipped for.

The bullshit just keeps flowing.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: ChunkyPastaSauce on March 21, 2016, 06:21:32 pm
I guess that was plan B she was referring to.

Data over ultrasound is a no brainer and not even difficult to do, of course the optimal resonant frequency will be affected and you end up with the too many features but master of none.

I guess in the VC world it probably helps them continue research and funding so it's just a way to fail without failing because now it can do even more than anticipated.

If they did an ultrasound wireless data only that will probably will be a good thing in densely populated areas, but of course that means that the device won't be using wifi so less power requirements on the phone since wifi being on will make  their task impossible. With spread spectrum tech it wouldn't be that hard to get a decent data link over ultrasound without your vacuum cleaner interfering.
 
But I think of this announcement as in buying time because the original premise won't work as advertised.
So lets get rid off the wifi since it needs too much power and won't make ubeam feasible.

Edit: so their solution seems to be to cut off all the radios so they might have a chance to trickle charge a device that is using a few mAs, of course that would be for a barebone phone that doesn't have a power consuming GPU, but I guess now they are going to demonstrate that they can make this thing work on a very power efficient dumb phone that no one will use anyways, but it will look like they did achieve their goal by changing the parameters of the device :)

I think if you needed low power data, you'd just use something like bluetooth ble or something.

This might be useful in places where there is a lot of rfi in the area (and you can't guarantee line of sight for other options), or in areas where you don't want to add rfi, or you want to bypass regulatory stuff for some reason. But I think it would be really niche.

Have no idea what she is talking about being secure (over other tech). Only thing I can think of is if they went the route of only leasing a limited number of units with tight control over who has them. It's possible very few others would have equipment to reliably pickup the data, since everything has to be specifically tuned. Would have to either be extremely expensive (and a market), or rights sold off to entity like gov for any chance of profit.

Nothing I said may have made any sense...  ::)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: miguelvp on March 21, 2016, 06:51:05 pm
It's easy.

She WANTS to be right so she will do whatever it takes to make something functional even if its not efficient or even desirable by consumers.

So whatever it takes for her to be able to say: "In your face" that's all the motivation that seems to be driving her. It doesn't need to be practical.

So redefine the device to be powered to a simple cell phone with all the radios turned off and without a power hungry display. At this point she will do whatever it takes (as she has always done) just to give the finger to all naysayers even if the ending results has no commercial value.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: rx8pilot on March 21, 2016, 07:25:33 pm
I am now calling this and Batteroo the 'Claims' industry. These people are chewing up $millions on 'claims' that are pulled directly from the anus. It is truly an industry to plant the ideas on the internet with some polished PR and get investors to dive in - big and small.

The work product delivered is the PR itself and not a product intended for sale.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jancumps on March 21, 2016, 08:09:43 pm
If my telephone wants to reply back to the sender with ultrasone signals while it's in my pants,
won't that render me impotent after a few days?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: miguelvp on March 21, 2016, 10:20:34 pm
If my telephone wants to reply back to the sender with ultrasone signals while it's in my pants,
won't that render me impotent after a few days?

Don't concern yourself with details, she just wants to be able to say: "See I proved everyone wrong and got a working prototype"

Plus the prototype probably only can receive data not send it, that would require power they don't have. Unless they use BLE for that part :)

Why not use it bidirectional low energy blue tooth? well that doesn't make her right, so Ultrasound it is for receiving data on the phone to keep investors happy and feeling good about their investment while we know it has no commercial application they don't really care, they'll sell the idea whatever that means.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: vaughn22 on March 26, 2016, 06:32:42 am
It should be noted that while an iPhone charger provides 5W of power, 5W is not needed to charge a phone in all cases. Looking at the specs for the iPhone 6, we have a 6.9 Wh battery that has a life of up to 14 h while talking on the phone, 50 h while playing music, and 250 h on standby. This means that, while 5 W would be required to breakeven while talking, only 138 mW would be needed while playing music and 27.6 mW would be needed when the phone is on standby, so 1.07 W is hardly "almost useless" in general, and I would argue that even appreciably extending the battery life of your device while you're out and about is an accomplishment worthy of merit.

That said

The idea that a system which consumes hundreds of watts of power to deliver kinda sorta maybe 1 W to your phone sometimes if it's Tuesday and you ate a sesame seed bagel that morning untoasted with cream cheese on the side and you paid with a debit card and the cashier was a green-eyed brunette with a peg leg and a chinchilla named Steve who can recite the periodic table backwards but only if it's greater than 50 degrees Fahrenheit outside could possibly gain widespread commercial use is far more contrived than this paragraph will ever be. It's wasteful, it's stupid, and it's completely undeserving of the recognition uBeam has gained. It's like me using a helicopter to cross the street when I could just walk. Finding an outlet is not anywhere close to inconvenient enough for me to justify such a pointless waste of electricity. Heck, this isn't even considering multiple simultaneous users and the fact that current screenshots indicate that the transmitters are unceremoniously bulky and don't even lend themselves to mounting on walls and ceilings very well.

And then there's the safety component. Let's say that the uBeam website's claims are correct and the beam shuts off if there's an obstruction. What's the response time? Even if it's short, won't my hearing be damaged if I experience this burst many times? (As would be the case if your tech becomes as ubiquitous as you seem to think it will be.) Hearing loss is a cumulative effect after all. What about grating lobes? What about spurious emissions? If two devices are close to one another, what will be the interference effect between their respective beams? This is in addition to all the concerns raised in the FAQ.

And get this, now Perry is saying she wants to use this system to transmit secure data.........

So now you're telling me you want to introduce a whole host of systemic and algorithmic problems that I suspect your current team has no idea how to address all so I can transmit data TO A PERSON THAT HAS TO ALREADY BE IN THE SAME ROOM WITH ME AT A DATARATE THAT IS SLOWER THAN THE INTERNET CONNECTION ON MY OLD FLIP PHONE???

 |O

I think the part that gets me the most is that all of us would shut up about all this if we were just provided with data. You have a working prototype? Show us. You think your tech is viable? Tell us why. All Meredith Perry does is go on and on about how much adversity she is facing and how she'll never give up and how she will succeed despite the laws of physics and common sense. As far as I'm concerned, she's nothing more than a stubborn arrogant half-wit who dug herself into a hole so deep she can't see the light anymore. She needs to be taken down a notch. The utter disrespect she has shown the engineering community is staggering, just watch her TED talk.

I'm sorry this turned ranty, the whole uBeam thing just rubs me the wrong way. Anyway, great FAQ, thanks for posting!

Peace out  O0
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 26, 2016, 07:21:00 am
I am now calling this and Batteroo the 'Claims' industry. These people are chewing up $millions on 'claims' that are pulled directly from the anus.

The big problem with projects like the Batteriser, uBeam, Solar Roadways, that new scuba mask thingo etc etc is not that they are completely obvious pie-in-the-sky bullshit, even to some engineers, as they all ultimately based on real engineering principles. It's just that they aren't at all practical in the real world. But proving that is quite hard when you are up against the "But all we need is the money and resources to solve the problems" crowd. And it's all too easy to be accused of not having enough "vision" to see the potential, if only you would put money into it and let them do it ::)

Investors think of themselves as people who can sniff out people and ideas with "vision", it's a match made in heaven.

Perry is the classic case though. Declares herself a visionary and "outside the box" thinker, savages the ability of engineers and then realises she must hire them to actually do the work.
And the final act will be the engineers saying "Sorry Dick, it doesn't work" (in-joke for Aussies), and Perry will blame every but the engineering practicality of the idea.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 26, 2016, 07:29:27 am
It should be noted that while an iPhone charger provides 5W of power, 5W is not needed to charge a phone in all cases. Looking at the specs for the iPhone 6, we have a 6.9 Wh battery that has a life of up to 14 h while talking on the phone, 50 h while playing music, and 250 h on standby. This means that, while 5 W would be required to breakeven while talking, only 138 mW would be needed while playing music and 27.6 mW would be needed when the phone is on standby, so 1.07 W is hardly "almost useless" in general, and I would argue that even appreciably extending the battery life of your device while you're out and about is an accomplishment worthy of merit.

Phone chargers usually don't work like that. You can't just give it a few hundred mW of available power and expect it to start charging.

Quote
The idea that a system which consumes hundreds of watts of power to deliver kinda sorta maybe 1 W to your phone sometimes if it's Tuesday and you ate a sesame seed bagel that morning untoasted with cream cheese on the side and you paid with a debit card and the cashier was a green-eyed brunette with a peg leg and a chinchilla named Steve who can recite the periodic table backwards but only if it's greater than 50 degrees Fahrenheit outside could possibly gain widespread commercial use is far more contrived than this paragraph will ever be. It's wasteful, it's stupid, and it's completely undeserving of the recognition uBeam has gained.

A nice concise summary!
Even if they actually produce a product that works and is safe and everything else, the efficiency of it makes it a complete non-starter. It will never catch on, ever. And even if it would catch on, there should be a law against a charger that is sub 1% efficient. They did it with the legislation for the phone charger standby power thing.

Quote
And get this, now Perry is saying she wants to use this system to transmit secure data.........

Ooh, got a link for this gem?

Quote
So now you're telling me you want to introduce a whole host of systemic and algorithmic problems that I suspect your current team has no idea how to address all so I can transmit data TO A PERSON THAT HAS TO ALREADY BE IN THE SAME ROOM WITH ME AT A DATARATE THAT IS SLOWER THAN THE INTERNET CONNECTION ON MY OLD FLIP PHONE???

But you can get extra development money for new ideas like that  ::)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on March 26, 2016, 07:42:01 am
"The same transmitter that we use for power transmission can also be used to transfer highly secure data," Perry said.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/ubeam-wireless-charging-adds-data-2016-2?r=US&IR=T (http://uk.businessinsider.com/ubeam-wireless-charging-adds-data-2016-2?r=US&IR=T)

Oooo let me see now, bandwidth. Hmm, Bandwidth. What sort of bandwidth does she think she'll achieve using ultrasonic?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: miguelvp on March 26, 2016, 08:20:00 am
Oooo let me see now, bandwidth. Hmm, Bandwidth. What sort of bandwidth does she think she'll achieve using ultrasonic?
The same that you can over a 60/50Hz power line but with more losses at a distance since it transmits via air.

Bandwidth wont be a problem, but distance to the transmitter will be, but not as bad as powering over a distance, so it might have some slight practicality on that end, taking into account of course that it would be all downstream because there is no way they could add a transmitter on the device to suck the little energy they'll be feeding it via ultrasound.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: SeanB on March 26, 2016, 08:49:52 am
Power line comms uses the lines as a very ( really really in this case, and incredibly so) lossy differential transmission line, and even though almost all of the 5W or so of transmitted power is radiated as RF noise , the frequency used is very much higher than the 50/60Hz the lines are intended for.

Sending data using ultrasonics means either using FSK, AM or some form of QAM to send it, using the base frequency as a carrier.  With that QAM 256 is around the best, you could get up to ( asterisk, only for the absolutely best case condition under controlled conditions with no reflections and no obstructions with a short direct path) 256 bits for every cycle of the 40kHz carrier. Best case 1.2MB/s with no error correction, no interbit pauses and absolutely no return path acknowledgement ( shared spectrum and such inconveniences of a broadcast medium), along with a very high probability of having audible subharmonics that are going to be incredibly annoying. Add to that any form of error correction ,forward error correction or spread spectrum dithering to reduce audible subharmonics and a return signal path and plain bluetooth is starting to look very good in comparison.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on March 26, 2016, 10:47:05 am
Sure you can transmit data, but why ? No use whatsoever in the phone application. There might be some super-niche applications where it has advantages over radio but even then, optical would often be a better choice.
And if you then narrow down to those applications that need ultrasonic data and power, it's going to take a loooog time to recoup all the VC money.



Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on March 26, 2016, 11:42:19 am
Power line comms uses the lines as a very ( really really in this case, and incredibly so) lossy differential transmission line, and even though almost all of the 5W or so of transmitted power is radiated as RF noise , the frequency used is very much higher than the 50/60Hz the lines are intended for.

Sending data using ultrasonics means either using FSK, AM or some form of QAM to send it, using the base frequency as a carrier.  With that QAM 256 is around the best, you could get up to ( asterisk, only for the absolutely best case condition under controlled conditions with no reflections and no obstructions with a short direct path) 256 bits for every cycle of the 40kHz carrier. Best case 1.2MB/s with no error correction, no interbit pauses and absolutely no return path acknowledgement ( shared spectrum and such inconveniences of a broadcast medium), along with a very high probability of having audible subharmonics that are going to be incredibly annoying. Add to that any form of error correction ,forward error correction or spread spectrum dithering to reduce audible subharmonics and a return signal path and plain bluetooth is starting to look very good in comparison.

Agreed, although those figures are absolute best possible case.

The upstream will be interesting, or is that out of band, done with RF? In which case, if you have a radio already, why use ultrasonics for radio at all? What benefit does ultrasonics have over RF for data transmission?

In short, I can't see the point, the RF infrastructure already in place (WiFi, 4G, 3G) is pretty mature and ubiquitous, and its performance far outweighs anything you could possibly hope to achieve with ultrasonics.

Disgusting that VCs piss other people's money away on this shit.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 26, 2016, 12:01:14 pm
along with a very high probability of having audible subharmonics that are going to be incredibly annoying.

That was my immediate first thought.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 26, 2016, 12:27:56 pm
In short, I can't see the point

There is no point. It's just Perry brain farting up "visionary" ideas again.
http://meredithperry.tumblr.com/ (http://meredithperry.tumblr.com/)

Surely the money can't last much longer? This impractical merry-go-round must end soon  :popcorn:

Interesting recent post by her:
http://meredithperry.tumblr.com/post/136374842310/keeponkeepinon (http://meredithperry.tumblr.com/post/136374842310/keeponkeepinon)

Possible Translation:
Quote
Never, never, never give up (if you believe in what you’re doing and if you’re not breaking the laws of physics).
Never give up until the money runs out. And then blame anything but the impracticality of the idea.

Quote
There will always be unknown unknowns.  Plan for them.
That alternative plan for when the tech doesn't work as advertised might come in handy.

Quote
Every company needs a strong culture and if somebody isn’t a good fit with your culture, it’s best to part ways no matter how smart or successful they are.
Those pesky engineers said it's not practical, so I gave them the arse.

Quote
Sometimes “reinventing the wheel” is actually a great thing to do.
I finally admit I didn't invent ultrasonic wireless charging.

Quote
Make sure there are never any single points of failure in a system and/or organization.
Engineers who leave are a real PITA.

Quote
Skillset + belief in/passion for the mission + tenacity have been the 3 most important things in evaluating a candidate. 
It's all about belief, just like a religion. If you don't pray 5 times a day for this idea to work, it won't work and you will just dragging the team down, we don't want you.

Quote
Always keep some cards in your back pocket.  You never know when you’ll need them.
I've got a new idea for secure data transmission! That'll show the investors how smart I am.

Quote
Always be honest and always act with integrity.  Check your ego at the door and only do what’s best for the company.

That's why I haven't shown a single prototype since the vero board and calling a multimeter a power meter. I've got nothing to show that really works as claimed, so I haven't shown anything.

Quote
As CEO, you’re a big part of the package.  Your hires need to believe in you as much as they believe in the company.  I hire many people twice my age with 2-3x my experience.  Before I bring them on, I make this difference quite clear: “I’m 26 years old and this is my first real job. I’m your boss, and that’s not going to change.”  If they can’t handle that, it ain’t gonna work.

Be in awe of my ability to extract money from investors that will pay your wages.

Quote
When you hire people who have infinitely more experience than you do, your job changes to empowering and embracing those people.
Except if they tell you something won't work.

Quote
If it smells like a fish, looks like a fish, and tastes like a fish, it’s probably a fish.  Background checks are very useful.

I discovered a candidate who hangs out on this EEVblog forum filled with practical engineers who like to speak their mind, lucky we caught that one!  ;D

Quote
As CEO, it’s your fault if something goes wrong in your company.  Either you didn’t plan well, or you didn’t hire well.  Putting the blame on anyone but yourself is pointless.  Do what you need to do to fix it. 

Unless the entire premise of your company is totally impractical, in which case it's not the founders fault and should never be admitted.

Quote
Don’t get excited until it’s signed.

I can't believe they actually gave me more money!

Quote
People aren’t robots.  Touch the heart.

Engineers like cool toys and working on cool tech for the sake of it. Give them that and they'll believe anything you want them too.

Quote
When you’re trying to get a company off the ground, your life is your company.  Sure it’s a marathon, but it’s also a sprint. You’ll probably lose friends, you’ll probably lose some social skills, you’ll probably gain weight, and you’ll definitely lose sleep.  90% of startups fail, and no matter how difficult the startup, they’re life consuming. This is why you should only start a company that solves a meaningful problem, because when shit hits the fan (and it always does), the only way to keep your company from crumbling is your tenacity and passion.

Like that day it finally dawned on me this thing isn't really practical. That was a fun day.

Quote
We live in an era of clicks.  Journalistic integrity ain’t what it used to be.
Stay above the fray.  There’s a lot of really stupid people on the internet.

Like all those pesky engineers on the EEVblog forum. What losers!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: SeanB on March 26, 2016, 12:32:26 pm
along with a very high probability of having audible subharmonics that are going to be incredibly annoying.

That was my immediate first thought.

Which large speaker manufacturer was it that was experimenting with non linear mixing in the ear of ultrasonic energies to make a tweeter that would have an incredible frequency response? These guys might be annoyed at this blatant patent infringement from uBeam.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on March 26, 2016, 01:06:08 pm
Which large speaker manufacturer was it that was experimenting with non linear mixing in the ear of ultrasonic energies to make a tweeter that would have an incredible frequency response? These guys might be annoyed at this blatant patent infringement from uBeam.
The maybe http://www.ultrasonic-audio.com/products/acouspade.html (http://www.ultrasonic-audio.com/products/acouspade.html)
Quote
Never, never, never give up (if you believe in what you’re doing and if you’re not breaking the laws of physics).
The problem is that the laws of physics are only one of many thing you need to consider when determining if a product will work in the real world.
Even if Ubeam worked really well at the physical level, it would still be hopeless as a consumer product.

Case in point - the Upp fuel cell charger does work ( just) , but has no advantages, and multiple disadvantages, over a lithium battery pack. It's just a stupid application of a completely inappropriate technology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y48wCuC3KcA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y48wCuC3KcA)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: vaughn22 on March 26, 2016, 03:04:55 pm
It should be noted that while an iPhone charger provides 5W of power, 5W is not needed to charge a phone in all cases. Looking at the specs for the iPhone 6, we have a 6.9 Wh battery that has a life of up to 14 h while talking on the phone, 50 h while playing music, and 250 h on standby. This means that, while 5 W would be required to breakeven while talking, only 138 mW would be needed while playing music and 27.6 mW would be needed when the phone is on standby, so 1.07 W is hardly "almost useless" in general, and I would argue that even appreciably extending the battery life of your device while you're out and about is an accomplishment worthy of merit.

Phone chargers usually don't work like that. You can't just give it a few hundred mW of available power and expect it to start charging.


Ah, see I don't know too terribly much about powering electronics (I'm mainly an antenna engineer). I just assumed that if energy in > energy out, then charging (even trickle charging) was theoretically possible, but it now occurs to me that it's probably more complicated than that so I'll take your word for it. Oh look, I admitted I was probably wrong, something Meredith Perry is incapable of doing.

And Howardlong provided the link, but here it is again:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/ubeam-wireless-charging-adds-data-2016-2?r=US&IR=T (http://uk.businessinsider.com/ubeam-wireless-charging-adds-data-2016-2?r=US&IR=T)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: SeanB on March 26, 2016, 08:03:48 pm
Cellphone chargers are funny that way. Provide a small voltage to them over a certain level and the phone wakes up, turns on the charge circuitry and starts trying to charge, polling the voltage and current to see if it is charging. If you never reach the level it starts to charge properly it actually discharges the battery faster by the extra circuitry being active, and the charge controller being out of the deep sleep near zero power state.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 28, 2016, 03:08:10 am
Ah, see I don't know too terribly much about powering electronics (I'm mainly an antenna engineer). I just assumed that if energy in > energy out, then charging (even trickle charging) was theoretically possible, but it now occurs to me that it's probably more complicated than that so I'll take your word for it. Oh look, I admitted I was probably wrong, something Meredith Perry is incapable of doing.

Well it is theoretically and also practically possible, but only if you design your phone with charging circuitry with that requirement in mind from the start.
The problem is most (all?) phone are not designed that way, they expect a certain minimum power requirement. Not uncommon to see warning against this, like "5V 500mA" charger minimum (as that is the regular USB standard)
Anything less than that and charging operation is usually not guaranteed or even possible. Good products (like some USB charging cameras for example) will detect this and not charge at all.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: amspire on March 28, 2016, 04:34:36 am
As well as the urgently needed low speed ultrasonic data transfer capability, there is another positive claim uBeam can add to this product. Apparently the lethal 20kHz sound level for mice is 144dB  for 10s to 3min through overheating in their body. Probably higher frequencies will have the same effect. Just no end to the benefits!

But we should make allowances for the uBeam developers. According to a study by L. Markiewicz in 1978:
Quote
Workers exposed to noise emitted by ultrasound devices suffered from increased neural excitability, irritation, memory problems and difficulties with concentration and learning
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 30, 2016, 08:41:43 am
Serious research in a paper by The Royalty Society that weighs in on the safety debate and mentions uBeam specifically which is very telling:
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/472/2185/20150624 (http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/472/2185/20150624)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 30, 2016, 08:50:25 am
uBeam Faceook post:

The joke hasn't ended yet, they are expanding!

Quote
uBeam has officially expanded! Our Silicon Valley office opens April 4th, and we're tripling the size of the team over the next 9 months. Hiring electrical engineers, transducer design engineers, ultrasonic physicists, mechanical engineers, and vision engineers.

So after all these years of development and 10's of millions of dollars spent, why do they still need transducer design engineers?
Maybe they couldn't hire people last time? Or they have left maybe?
And "vision engineers" tells you a lot. I recon that means their positional system has failed so they now have to incorporate leading edge image tracking technology in order for the beam forming array to follow the phone.
It's folly down a rabbit hole  :palm:

And why open another office in silicon valley. That tells me the haven't been able to hire good people, and they probably think it's the location in Santa Monica that's the problem, when it's really that good engineers can smell a dead project a mile away.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: rx8pilot on March 30, 2016, 11:00:11 pm
I should see if they will hire me. The pay is probably rather good and I never have to worry if my designs work at all. Take the money and run!  :-DD

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: amspire on March 30, 2016, 11:25:55 pm
I should see if they will hire me. The pay is probably rather good and I never have to worry if my designs work at all. Take the money and run!  :-DD

You will have wear industrial grade noise protectors all day for safety. Not sure what will be more dangerous though - the ultrasonic beams or the verbal noise.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 30, 2016, 11:42:48 pm
You gotta wonder if the people at uBeam actually use prototypes to charge their own phones?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: amspire on March 30, 2016, 11:57:43 pm
You gotta wonder if the people at uBeam actually use prototypes to charge their own phones?
If someone could film the whole thing inside their labs, this would be a fabulous reality TV show. Imaging the design team meetings, and the look on peoples faces when they measure the power transfer. People trying to pretend that the great big heavy box they attach to the phone is cool.

Edit: Sorry for the mistake - I accidentally said "reality TV show"
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 31, 2016, 12:05:03 am
Edit: Sorry for the mistake - I accidentally said "reality TV show"

Unfortunately it is reality that people are delusional enough to still work on this.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: rx8pilot on March 31, 2016, 12:24:48 am
It seems so much harder to make real things. This trend toward making a lot of money by simply saying you have a revolutionary idea is awesome. I could fiddle around, get a sweet office, a ton of cool pieces of test gear.  But the real win is that I don't have to work at delivering which is what consumes almost all of my time running a legitimate business. Every time someone gives me money, they expect a product in return and that is a serious hassle.

I have a new product called the cBeam. This revolutionary gadget is a cerebral implant that beams all of your thoughts directly to the cloud where it is stored securely. All of your thoughts are muxed into a single serial data stream so that you will never need to think on your own ever again. Our proprietary analysis algorithm can take all those thoughts and tell you what you are thinking any time you think about thinking. Of course many neurologists said this was totally impossible and futurists have claimed it will be a social disaster. I disagree and with my extensive experience in machining parts and most recently reading about electronics on the internet we can do this if we only have a few deep pocketed investors that want to get in on the ground floor of an amazing opportunity. Seriously - this is serious shit. Send your money now so we can get started (partying) right away.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: amspire on March 31, 2016, 12:56:47 am
Unfortunately it is reality that people are delusional enough to still work on this.
If they are smart, they will be using this money to develop some product or technology that can be marketed - such as making new ultrasonic transducers that are not currently available, an ultrasonic tracking technology, a power transfer ability for hostile environments. Perhaps transferring power to instrumentation on a very noisy HV line right next to a 500KV DC converter. With the amount of money they have, they should be able to get some product out of it. Being smart and being ethical though are two different issues.

With all the money they have, it does mean they can setup a lab with (hopefully) smart people and have a budget to pay for real development work. The truth is we do not know what they actually are working on at all and so I cannot say whether this is delusional or cynical.

A company like Acorn Computers in the UK was never going to be competitive long term in the PC market, but along the way, they did develop the ARM cpu core that is now dominant. Acorn did have real working products of course.

If uBeam are dumb, they will be doing a desperate uBeam or bust strategy. If they are smart, uBeam will probably die, but another company will appear with no debts, and with a marketable technology that is nothing to do with the uBeam concept.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on March 31, 2016, 05:12:43 am
If uBeam are dumb, they will be doing a desperate uBeam or bust strategy.

It's not about being dumb or not. Meredith has just spent years dissing the geeks, she HAS to prove that she's RIGHT.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on March 31, 2016, 05:14:04 pm
You gotta wonder if the people at uBeam actually use prototypes to charge their own phones?

I am sure they do, but they can't hear you anymore.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on March 31, 2016, 05:24:44 pm
uBeam Faceook post:

The joke hasn't ended yet, they are expanding!

Quote
uBeam has officially expanded! Our Silicon Valley office opens April 4th, and we're tripling the size of the team over the next 9 months. Hiring electrical engineers, transducer design engineers, ultrasonic physicists, mechanical engineers, and vision engineers.

So after all these years of development and 10's of millions of dollars spent, why do they still need transducer design engineers?
Maybe they couldn't hire people last time? Or they have left maybe?
And "vision engineers" tells you a lot. I recon that means their positional system has failed so they now have to incorporate leading edge image tracking technology in order for the beam forming array to follow the phone.
It's folly down a rabbit hole  :palm:

And why open another office in silicon valley. That tells me the haven't been able to hire good people, and they probably think it's the location in Santa Monica that's the problem, when it's really that good engineers can smell a dead project a mile away.

Tripling the staff when all the staff has quit is not an impressive goal.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jancumps on April 03, 2016, 03:37:50 pm
 The company will win the Darwin award though, because anyone who works there will have eggs and egss destroyed by the exposure to the sound waves.
The problem will solve itself. Believers will go as per the dodo.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Danseur on April 21, 2016, 12:47:22 am
More advocacy and lazy "journalism" on uBeam

http://www.inc.com/kevin-j-ryan/mark-cuban-backed-ubeam-prove-doubters-wrong.html (http://www.inc.com/kevin-j-ryan/mark-cuban-backed-ubeam-prove-doubters-wrong.html)
"Meredith Perry's uBeam raised $25 million for its technology, but the startup still faces a very uphill battle."

Uphill battle?  Does that have anything to do with the fact that they can't produce a working prototype and that they keep backtracking on capability like operating through clothing?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on April 21, 2016, 12:49:23 am
More advocacy and lazy "journalism" on uBeam
http://www.inc.com/kevin-j-ryan/mark-cuban-backed-ubeam-prove-doubters-wrong.html (http://www.inc.com/kevin-j-ryan/mark-cuban-backed-ubeam-prove-doubters-wrong.html)
"Meredith Perry's uBeam raised $25 million for its technology, but the startup still faces a very uphill battle."
Uphill battle?  Does that have anything to do with the fact that they can't produce a working prototype and that they keep backtracking on capability like operating through clothing?

Is there any date on that article?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: amspire on April 21, 2016, 01:05:41 am
The article would have to be written just after the 19th April 2016 - that was when Meridith Perry appeared at the Tribeca Film Festival.

Apparently, the talk was about how we would soon be living in a "World without wires" all thanks to uBeam.

https://tribecafilm.com/festival/imagination (https://tribecafilm.com/festival/imagination)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on April 21, 2016, 02:08:51 am
The article would have to be written just after the 19th April 2016 - that was when Meridith Perry appeared at the Tribeca Film Festival.
Apparently, the talk was about how we would soon be living in a "World without wires" all thanks to uBeam.
https://tribecafilm.com/festival/imagination (https://tribecafilm.com/festival/imagination)

Sharing the same stage as Sir Richard Branson  :palm:
Why won't this turd of an idea die? Surely it doesn't have much run left. But Perry will still be rolled out as a master innovator until the moment the whole thing finally goes bust.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Delta on April 21, 2016, 11:34:12 am
The article would have to be written just after the 19th April 2016 - that was when Meridith Perry appeared at the Tribeca Film Festival.
Apparently, the talk was about how we would soon be living in a "World without wires" all thanks to uBeam.
https://tribecafilm.com/festival/imagination (https://tribecafilm.com/festival/imagination)

Sharing the same stage as Sir Richard Branson  :palm:
Why won't this turd of an idea die? Surely it doesn't have much run left. But Perry will still be rolled out as a master innovator until the moment the whole thing finally goes bust.

...and even then it won't have been her fault, she'll be paraded as a hero.  It won't be the laws of physics that defeat her, it will be the nasty male chauvinist misogynistic capitalist corporatist racist etcist etcist conspiracy that killed the uBeam.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on April 21, 2016, 01:39:19 pm
To be fair I don't think anyone's saying the concept's blowing away any laws of physics, it's that any implementations will be impractical, and are several orders of magnitude away from being a realistic and widely adopted wireless charging solution for cellphones.

Any "solution" will be hugely innefficient, difficult and expensive to install supporting infrastructure, hugely underdeliver on performance, and has significant safety and regulatory concerns.

Oh, and still nothing's been demonstrated beyond a 1970's remote control transducer moving a meter needle. >$20m for that. No wonder the current "investors" are bigging up this turkey, they want to exit with minimum losses.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on April 21, 2016, 02:47:57 pm
To be fair I don't think anyone's saying the concept's blowing away any laws of physics, it's that any implementations will be impractical, and are several orders of magnitude away from being a realistic and widely adopted wireless charging solution for cellphones.
Any "solution" will be hugely innefficient, difficult and expensive to install supporting infrastructure, hugely underdeliver on performance, and has significant safety and regulatory concerns.

Yes, precisely this.
Anyone who claims this is against the laws of physics is wrong, it works. It's just massively impractical, and that's the mistake Perry has made and continues to make. She thinks that just because the laws of physics aren't being broken, and that it works on a small scale, means that it must work and be practical on a large scale. All it needs is money, absolute belief in the idea, and someone with the plucky tenacity to fight all those engineers who laugh at the idea while waving their stupid back-of-the-envelope practicality calculations.
She wrong, massively wrong, biblically wrong. But sadly she'll never understand that, she is too far down the rabbit hole.

Quote
Oh, and still nothing's been demonstrated beyond a 1970's remote control transducer moving a meter needle. >$20m for that. No wonder the current "investors" are bigging up this turkey, they want to exit with minimum losses.

The money seems to be still flowing?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on April 21, 2016, 03:11:52 pm
I wonder how many failures makes you a "serial entrepreneur"? Until recently, I considered the decription to be one to aspire to, now I'm not so sure, it seems everyone and their dog is one.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on April 23, 2016, 11:34:12 pm
So apparently Ms Perry's dad is a semi famous plastic surgeon who talked up focused ultrasound technology:
http://www.doctoroz.com/blog/arthur-perry-md/fat-removal-without-surgery (http://www.doctoroz.com/blog/arthur-perry-md/fat-removal-without-surgery)
Note the date, it seems to be before Meredith came up with her zillion dollar idea of using ultrasound.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: HackedFridgeMagnet on April 24, 2016, 08:34:19 am
Good find. 

Looks like the need to bullshit people is hereditary.
And that she got part of the idea from Dad.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mathieumatteomatthew on May 10, 2016, 12:02:05 pm
Hi guys,

I don't know if any of you has come across this yet, so here it is:

http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.de/ (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.de/)

(not the author)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 10, 2016, 12:38:22 pm
Hi guys,
I don't know if any of you has come across this yet, so here it is:
http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.de/ (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.de/)

Nice find. It's an ex-employee who left a few days after the Tech Crunch article.

Quote
Now I need to first comment, that the engineering team was sorely pissed at the idea that we needed whipped into shape by two people who clearly had no idea what to do at a technical startup in the R&D phase. We were almost as pissed as when another article was placed in Techcrunch talking about uBeam achieving the physically impossible, such as charging through a pocket. In my opinion, the addition of these two "C's" marked the end of any hope of the company achieving anything - I left two weeks after that article was published, and I think history is proving my feeling as to what their addition would do to the company was correct.

EDIT: Sounds like the author was the VP of engineering?
Quote
When I left it was an ugly departure, but was reported to the investors as "the VP Engineering left for personal reasons" - personal reasons being "sick of putting up with this bullshit". I wonder what uBeam's excuse for Hushen will be? "Spending more time with her family", "Having achieved everything she had set out to, it was time to move on to other things", or like me has she left for "personal reasons"? I'm betting on the first.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 10, 2016, 12:44:17 pm
Wow, I'm reading through that blog and it ain't pretty!
http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com.au/ (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com.au/)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 10, 2016, 01:01:21 pm
The reason engineers went to work for uBeam:
http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/tilting-at-windmills.html (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/tilting-at-windmills.html)

Quote
A question that's often asked on such blogs and forums is "It's never going to work. Why would any engineers work there?" while uBeam themselves point to the fantastic engineers that work there as evidence that they have a solid and viable technology.

So who is right? Well, I can't speak for other engineers, but I can talk about my motivations for doing so. And for me, neither is right, and neither matters - not even considered in my decisions.

As some background to this - I'm very experienced in ultrasound devices and acoustics. It's something I've spent over 20 years working on, am well known in the field, and have encountered pretty much every type of device out there and worked on in one way or another. I'm very good at what I do, and while not wealthy, I'm 'financially stable'. Finding work isn't an issue - but at times finding truly challenging and interesting work is.

So along comes a consulting gig - "Get paid to work on an interesting technical challenge." Of course I'll take it. At this point I start working with the other engineers involved in the project, primarily Marc Berte (the then CTO, who left uBeam in Jan 2015). When you work with a wide range of engineers over the years, you get a feeling for who you want to work with and who you don't. He's very, very sharp, and knows his stuff, and I'm finding I'm learning things from him - and that's pretty uncommon for me - to the point he might be the smartest engineer I've ever worked with.

We're making strides and building things, and sure it's a rollercoaster but this is the sort of thing that just gets to the heart of why you do engineering. Hard challenges, constant learning, being inventive on a tight budget, smart engineering colleagues.

Then the fundraising starts and you're sitting in the offices of big name VC's and rather than the usual 30 minutes of them reading their email as you go through your pitch before "So sorry, maybe in 6 months" it's extending the meeting to two hours and multiple callbacks. Fifteen years living in Silicon Valley and now I'm doing what everyone flocking there is desperate to be.

As an aside - I'd like to think the presence of this engineering team also somewhat swayed the VC's into funding. As the lead investor, Upfront Ventures, commented in a blog post:

"Here is where having Marc Berte and a team out of MIT who have designed systems like this for years gave one confidence we could do something others couldn’t copy and at price points that could make us market leaders over night."

And then you're funded, Series A. Offices by the beach in LA, top-of-the-line equipment you've always wanted, and hiring more great engineers to work with. And why do those great engineers come on? Well from what they all said after - "Hard challenges, smart colleagues to work with and learn from, cool equipment to play with."

Did I join because of the founder CEO and her amazing vision? Her technical savvy? Her management experience and amazing people skills? No, she figured into my decision with the single following factor: "Raises money way better than I can." (More on why engineers struggle to raise money in many future posts).

I joined because of the challenge and the CTO. The next engineer joined because of Marc and I. And so on for pretty much every engineer - and yeah, I ended up speaking for other engineers, so if any uBeam engineers want to pipe up and disagree, feel free.

So if you're looking for someone to blame it all on, blame Marc. :)

And the point of this story? In my opinion, don't take the presence of smart engineers as confirmation of a technology's viability (either way), and don't think the engineers at a company you find questionable aren't smart and are fully aware of the technical issues of what they're working on. They just want to play with fun toys.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on May 10, 2016, 01:28:18 pm
The interesting thing he never says about his work at uBeam is whether he was just taking the money to do interesting work, or if he actually thought there was the possibility of a product somewhere down the road.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on May 10, 2016, 02:38:31 pm
The interesting thing he never says about his work at uBeam is whether he was just taking the money to do interesting work, or if he actually thought there was the possibility of a product somewhere down the road.

He seems well aware that it can never work (explains it mathematically, with equations).

Bottom line: He just wanted to play with the toys that would let him confirm that (and get paid to do so).

Me? I'd do the same.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on May 10, 2016, 03:06:41 pm
The interesting thing he never says about his work at uBeam is whether he was just taking the money to do interesting work, or if he actually thought there was the possibility of a product somewhere down the road.
Probably careful wording to avoid breaking any confidentiality agreement.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: bazsa56 on May 10, 2016, 08:59:20 pm
Just finished reading the blog. The entire thing is pretty well written and an amazing read, somewhat funny even if you have a certain type of humor.

If the author ever wrote a book about his experiences I'd love to read the whole thing and it'd probably be an excellent educational piece for engineers just starting out. I've only been in the industry for 3 years and more on the software side of things then the hardware, but I gotta say that even after this relatively short time in the industry nothing about the whole uBeam story really surprises me. Back in university I probably would've thought otherwise and they really do not prepare you to deal with the sort of idiots you'll encounter.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 10, 2016, 10:38:54 pm
The interesting thing he never says about his work at uBeam is whether he was just taking the money to do interesting work, or if he actually thought there was the possibility of a product somewhere down the road.

You can read between the lines that he never thought it was possible, at least what Perry was claiming. But maybe he hoped they'd realise that, come to their senses and pivot the project to some niche thing.

Word on the street is that there is no one good left to hire.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 10, 2016, 10:46:29 pm
Here is the problem with uBeam (i.e. Perry)
From the job ad for VP of engineering:
http://www.startuphire.com/job/vice-president-electrical-engineering-350972 (http://www.startuphire.com/job/vice-president-electrical-engineering-350972)
This is genuinely what Perry thinks:
Quote
If it doesn't break the laws of physics, it can be done

She doesn't realise it ain't all about physics, there is this pesky thing called engineering reality too  :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: rx8pilot on May 10, 2016, 11:21:02 pm
She doesn't realise it ain't all about physics, there is this pesky thing called engineering reality too  :palm:

Reality has sunk more than one of my dreams before. I learned to admit the defeat, tuck my tail, and move on.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: HackedFridgeMagnet on May 10, 2016, 11:23:59 pm
Heres a line from the new job add.

Quote
Accurately summarize and communicate project status, risks, and mitigation plans to other departments and to executive management

If she can get someone to do this then maybe she could learn from them.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Bud on May 10, 2016, 11:48:42 pm
Quote
Prototype build, test and debugging
Yep, this is what VPs usually do.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: HackedFridgeMagnet on May 10, 2016, 11:49:08 pm
I am going to reveal my ignorance here (not for the first time) and ask what the "two C's" means.
I have my initial gut response but I'm not sure.

I'm pretty sure it's from http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/28/electric-liberation/ (http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/28/electric-liberation/)   C as in CFO and COO.
Quote
uBeam’s getting ready to ship its wireless phone chargers, so its 26-year old CEO Meredith Perry has hired some hardware industry veterans to whip the business into shape. Former Apple and Palm finance leader Monica Hushen will be uBeam‘s new CFO, and Cisco, Palm, and Nokia VP Jeff Devine is joining as COO.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 11, 2016, 12:04:54 am
Heres a line from the new job add.
Quote
Accurately summarize and communicate project status, risks, and mitigation plans to other departments and to executive management
If she can get someone to do this then maybe she could learn from them.

It's clear she doesn't want to learn, she wants to be proven right that she is a genius visionary, an outside the box thinker who ignored engineers and experts and made her dream a reality. Because, you know, that's all it takes, belief something will work and it will, if only it doesn't violate the laws of physics (which it doesn't)
Or whatever waffle she said here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukgnU2aXM2c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukgnU2aXM2c)

It's like believing that you can make a practical car that goes 2000km/h, it doesn't violate the laws of physics. Forget all those closed box thinking engineers talking about friction and wind resistance and down force etc.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on May 11, 2016, 03:57:12 am
Here is the problem with uBeam (i.e. Perry)
From the job ad for VP of engineering:
http://www.startuphire.com/job/vice-president-electrical-engineering-350972 (http://www.startuphire.com/job/vice-president-electrical-engineering-350972)
This is genuinely what Perry thinks:
Quote
If it doesn't break the laws of physics, it can be done
She doesn't realise it ain't all about physics, there is this pesky thing called engineering reality too  :palm:
We just need more deregulation. The radium glow in the dark novelty industry was doing fine until those health and safety people got involved.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 11, 2016, 05:31:05 am
It's clear she doesn't want to learn, she wants to be proven right that she is a genius visionary, an outside the box thinker who ignored engineers and experts and made her dream a reality.
Maybe she's the 100th idiot.

Nope, because to to be the 100th idiot you have to actually succeed. uBeam will flop miserably, and fairly shortly.
Although, if the measure of success is being able to convince people to fund you, then yes, a worthy 100th Idiot award winner.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on May 11, 2016, 07:50:06 am
Just looking at their job list:

http://www.startuphire.com/search/index.php?searchId=c9231fd8241e5c07058426090048e528 (http://www.startuphire.com/search/index.php?searchId=c9231fd8241e5c07058426090048e528)

Aren't they all basic positions that should already be filled by now?  :popcorn:

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: amspire on May 11, 2016, 08:10:28 am
Just looking at their job list:

http://www.startuphire.com/search/index.php?searchId=c9231fd8241e5c07058426090048e528 (http://www.startuphire.com/search/index.php?searchId=c9231fd8241e5c07058426090048e528)
An interesting list of jobs. Looks like they are going to track the uBeams's position optically. Something like flashing IR led that you must not cover up. Boring! I thought they may be doing it somehow with ultrasonics with a phased array on the transmitter.

So this thing is going to have custom ASICs both ends, a camera to track the receiver, I guess a two axis motorized rotator on the transmitter, who knows what to align the receiver, custom ultrasonic transducers both ends, a powerful ultrasonic amplifier on the transmitter, and a really really pathetic data-over-ultrasound capability.

How much is this monster going to cost? I spend about $10 a year on microUSB charging cables, so I hope it will be cheaper then that.  :-DD

I was thinking that if they are smart, they will use the money to develop useful ultrasonic detection/imaging technology so at least they have something. It doesn't sound like they will end up with any useful technology at all. Perhaps the transducers may have other uses, but it looks like they are still looking for transducer designers. I thought that was the heart of their invention.

Richard
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on May 11, 2016, 08:24:11 am
An interesting list of jobs. Looks like they are going to track the uBeams's position optically.
That's the latest idiotic idea, yes.

It won't work, obviously, but the engineers get to play with expensive toys for a while longer and Meredith gets a bit more time as a "visionary".

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 11, 2016, 08:43:20 am
Just looking at their job list:
http://www.startuphire.com/search/index.php?searchId=c9231fd8241e5c07058426090048e528 (http://www.startuphire.com/search/index.php?searchId=c9231fd8241e5c07058426090048e528)
Aren't they all basic positions that should already be filled by now?  :popcorn:

Yep.
Likely because:
a) Everyone keeps leaving
and
b) The tech doesn't work as Meredith thought it would, so, meh, keep trying...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 11, 2016, 08:51:20 am
An interesting list of jobs. Looks like they are going to track the uBeams's position optically. Something like flashing IR led that you must not cover up. Boring! I thought they may be doing it somehow with ultrasonics with a phased array on the transmitter.

IIRC, it went through various incarnations, from no position tech, to "oops, performance is going to suck unless we really beamform and steer this thing", through various techs that didn't work well enough, so, meh try again with some sort of optical tracking. Because, you know, it just has to be a solvable problem, Meredith has deemed it so.

Quote
So this thing is going to have custom ASICs both ends, a camera to track the receiver, I guess a two axis motorized rotator on the transmitter, who knows what to align the receiver, custom ultrasonic transducers both ends, a powerful ultrasonic amplifier on the transmitter, and a really really pathetic data-over-ultrasound capability.

Yep, but it uses beam forming to steer the ultrasonics.
All this bleeding edge tech to replace a $5 Qi charging pad, and at probably 1/50th the efficiency, yeah, winning idea  ::)

Quote
How much is this monster going to cost? I spend about $10 a year on microUSB charging cables, so I hope it will be cheaper then that.  :-DD

You don't have to worry about it, because it will never make it to market  ;D

Quote
I was thinking that if they are smart, they will use the money to develop useful ultrasonic detection/imaging technology so at least they have something. It doesn't sound like they will end up with any useful technology at all. Perhaps the transducers may have other uses, but it looks like they are still looking for transducer designers. I thought that was the heart of their invention.

The people that do/did work there are very smart, but word is that Meredith doesn't want to hear anything but her own fairytale.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: amspire on May 11, 2016, 09:15:11 am
The people that do/did work there are very smart, but word is that Meredith doesn't want to hear anything but her own fairytale.
Sounds like you buy a big supply of ear plugs, start the job, say yes to everything Meridith asks for because she is a visionary, do whatever you want to do in the lab with the toys, and leave when Meridith is highly disappointed in you. It is not like you can actually design the working ultrasonic link. A very weird paid holiday.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on May 11, 2016, 09:23:33 am
Sounds like an ideal job for an engineer - If you're one of the experts in the field you can name your price as they have a ton of VC money burning a hole in their pocket, all the fun of experimenting and playing with nice toys, with no prospect of all the boring stuff for production.
And when it all goes titsup, or you leave, it doesn't reflect badly on you when applying for the next job because it was an obviously impossible task.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on May 11, 2016, 09:24:20 am
Yep, but it uses beam forming to steer the ultrasonics.
All this bleeding edge tech to replace a $5 Qi charging pad, and at probably 1/50th the efficiency, yeah, winning idea  ::)

Rich people don't mind spending $5,000 per transmitter and having huge electricity bills.

The real problem will be the bulk that the receiver adds to the phone. Nobody with enough money for uBeam wants a half-inch thick phone.

(And if you do huge phone you're probably better off adding more battery instead of some silly charger that only works inside a few specially modified buildings. Double the current battery size would last most people all day).


Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on May 11, 2016, 09:25:32 am
A very weird paid holiday.

I'd sign up in a heartbeat if I lived over there.

(and was qualified for the job)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 11, 2016, 09:56:10 am
Sounds like an ideal job for an engineer - If you're one of the experts in the field you can name your price as they have a ton of VC money burning a hole in their pocket, all the fun of experimenting and playing with nice toys, with no prospect of all the boring stuff for production.
And when it all goes titsup, or you leave, it doesn't reflect badly on you when applying for the next job because it was an obviously impossible task.

Word has it that they have cycled through every expert in the industry, so yeah, anyone left who does come on board now could probably name their price.
Probably only 6-12 months left in this dead horse though before it all goes tits-up.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on May 11, 2016, 10:18:41 am
Probably only 6-12 months left in this dead horse though before it all goes tits-up.

And then you get to take the equipment home...?  :popcorn:

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 11, 2016, 11:08:03 am
And then you get to take the equipment home...?  :popcorn:

The trick is seeing it coming and conveniently "working from home with the gear" when the axe falls.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 11, 2016, 05:03:24 pm
And here we go!
http://techcrunch.com/2016/05/11/charged/?ncid=rss&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter (http://techcrunch.com/2016/05/11/charged/?ncid=rss&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)
 :popcorn:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on May 11, 2016, 07:01:02 pm
My opinion, which is being borne out: is that folks take jobs in these questionable ventures for the simple reason that it's a job with a paycheck - which is a damned sight better than no job in between jobs. Most VC startups - particularly in the energy field- are simply cash skimming machines for the money brokers and temporary workfare programs for the employees. Soon, the clouds of suspicion and illegitimacy will blanket all projects, good and bad.

This certainly has not escaped notice on th money side and will eventually lead to a period of time where there is little/no funding for anyone, no matter how viable or beneficial her/his business might be. Get used to bootstrapping folks...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on May 11, 2016, 07:50:51 pm

I'd sign up in a heartbeat if I lived over there.

(and was qualified for the job)

I suspect you wouldn't have to be qualified, just smart enough to write the right CV and then sound 'visionary' enough at the interview. Hell, I expect just sounding fawning enough about how 'visionary' the boss is would probably let you waltz in.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Dubbie on May 11, 2016, 10:26:03 pm
Interesting to see that TechCrunch is beginning to wake up to the fact that they got suckered into investing in a box of unicorn wishes.
This is their first critical article.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: HackedFridgeMagnet on May 11, 2016, 10:58:27 pm
Interesting to see that TechCrunch is beginning to wake up to the fact that they got suckered into investing in a box of unicorn wishes.
This is their first critical article.
They certainly have changed their minds.
Here are some examples of ubeam 'selling their story' through Techcrunch.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/30/ubeam-10m-upfront/ (http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/30/ubeam-10m-upfront/)

http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/26/kill-the-cord/ (http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/26/kill-the-cord/)

http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/28/electric-liberation/ (http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/28/electric-liberation/)

http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/08/how-ubeam-works/ (http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/08/how-ubeam-works/)

http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/wireless-power-charger/ (http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/wireless-power-charger/)

Hopefully in future Techcrunch can check with Dave before giving support to such scams.


Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: VNFTW on May 11, 2016, 11:04:29 pm
For your judgement:
http://meredithperry.tumblr.com/post/106297094145/a-brief-negation-of-time (http://meredithperry.tumblr.com/post/106297094145/a-brief-negation-of-time)

Apologies if repost
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Dubbie on May 12, 2016, 12:11:51 am
Quoted from that load of baloney linked above:
Quote
As we are humans, with brains trapped behind layers of illusion, finding truth about reality is an extremely difficult, if not impossible, task.

I suspect that once uBeam collapses Ms Perry might be a step closer to finding the truth about reality....
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 12, 2016, 12:33:34 am
Interesting to see that TechCrunch is beginning to wake up to the fact that they got suckered into investing in a box of unicorn wishes.
This is their first critical article.

Yes, and it should be noted that Tech Crunch's owner is one of the major investors in uBeam through CrunchFund, hence why techcrunch got the "scoop" on the "proof" article
http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/wireless-power-charger/ (http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/wireless-power-charger/)
Something big has changed in order for Techcrunch to to be allowed to publish this article.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Danseur on May 12, 2016, 01:18:36 am
It looks like this former uBeam engineer exposed Energous too.
http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/04/those-other-guys-pt-1.html (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/04/those-other-guys-pt-1.html)

He linked to this story on Energous.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3811296-energous-buy-companys-story-stock (http://seekingalpha.com/article/3811296-energous-buy-companys-story-stock)

"Using the 1 watt as our transmitter power translates to 0.000507 watt (0.507 milliwatts or 507 microwatts) at the receiving end. "

But it's even worse than this!  The FCC does not allow you to transmit at the full 1 watt (30 dBm) if you focus the energy with more than 6 dB gain.  If you want to use a phase array to get 21 dB antenna gain, you must drop your transmit power to 25 dBm or 0.316 watts.  Every 3 dBi of antenna gain must be accompanied by 1 dBm decline in transmit power.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on May 12, 2016, 02:16:14 am
Something big has changed in order for Techcrunch to to be allowed to publish this article.

Yes, indeed. Nobody shoots down their own investment unless they're absolutely sure it's a lost cause and the money's gone.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 12, 2016, 02:46:08 am
Lee Gomes said there will be another IEEE Spectrum article on uBeam in the coming days.
He smashed it out the park last time, so can't wait.

He has also confirmed the VP of engineering is legit.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 12, 2016, 02:46:57 am
Something big has changed in order for Techcrunch to to be allowed to publish this article.
Yes, indeed. Nobody shoots down their own investment unless they're absolutely sure it's a lost cause and the money's gone.

Word on the street is that key investors have lost confidence.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Bud on May 12, 2016, 04:40:32 am
Can't wait to see the famous "3 backup plans" activated.  :popcorn:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on May 12, 2016, 04:56:30 am
Something big has changed in order for Techcrunch to to be allowed to publish this article.
Yes, indeed. Nobody shoots down their own investment unless they're absolutely sure it's a lost cause and the money's gone.

Word on the street is that key investors have lost confidence.
This is pretty extraordinary in the world of investing. Even when investors lose confidence, the usual plan is to stay quiet and try to sell the IP or respin the venture to recoup their losses.  I've had investors contact me regarding biofuels projects over the years - trying to figure out what happened to their money.  They have let these projects run/idle/sputter far longer and *still* haven't turned on their CEO. 

Something very big happened between Meredith and her backers, and I'm betting it's about to get a hell of a lot uglier.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: ludzinc on May 12, 2016, 05:12:02 am
 :popcorn:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Danseur on May 12, 2016, 05:21:26 am
Things got so bad that engineers were leaving uBeam two weeks before their stocks were vested.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ubeam-former-engineers-doubt-it-can-work-2016-5?op=1 (http://www.businessinsider.com/ubeam-former-engineers-doubt-it-can-work-2016-5?op=1)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on May 12, 2016, 05:57:25 am
Can't wait to see the famous "3 backup plans" activated.  :popcorn:

From another similar bullshitter who probably now wishes they did have a backup plan:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWYAkCBUEAAgHdp.jpg)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 12, 2016, 06:39:28 am
Can't wait to see the famous "3 backup plans" activated.  :popcorn:
From another similar bullshitter who probably now wishes they did have a backup plan:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWYAkCBUEAAgHdp.jpg)

She'll be lucky if she avoids jail time.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 12, 2016, 06:45:13 am
Things got so bad that engineers were leaving uBeam two weeks before their stocks were vested.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ubeam-former-engineers-doubt-it-can-work-2016-5?op=1 (http://www.businessinsider.com/ubeam-former-engineers-doubt-it-can-work-2016-5?op=1)

From that:
Quote
In a tell-all blog, uBeam’s former VP of Engineering, Paul Reynolds, has been harshly criticising the company. He left in October 2015 and didn’t sign a non-disparagement agreement, nor is he sharing proprietary information, he told Business Insider.

And he's right, no law against disparagement, and as long as you don't share proprietary information, nor make deliberately false accusations (slander/libel), you are fine.
Although that may not stop uBeams lawyers
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on May 12, 2016, 07:08:14 am
Things got so bad that engineers were leaving uBeam two weeks before their stocks were vested.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ubeam-former-engineers-doubt-it-can-work-2016-5?op=1 (http://www.businessinsider.com/ubeam-former-engineers-doubt-it-can-work-2016-5?op=1)

From that:
Quote
In a tell-all blog, uBeam’s former VP of Engineering, Paul Reynolds, has been harshly criticising the company. He left in October 2015 and didn’t sign a non-disparagement agreement, nor is he sharing proprietary information, he told Business Insider.

And he's right, no law against disparagement, and as long as you don't share proprietary information, nor make deliberately false accusations (slander/libel), you are fine.
Although that may not stop uBeams lawyers
I think uBeam's lawyers may have more on their mind, like getting paid before the VCs pull the plug & everything goes titsup.
 
My prediction - Meredith will write a book ready for the Christmas sales period, whining about how "the industry" destroyed her vision, and probably pulling the sexism card while she's at it.


Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mathieumatteomatthew on May 12, 2016, 08:06:26 am
Mike beat me to it. It's quite clear what the next step for Perry is: claiming the naughty engineers sabotaged her wonderful vision from the start, and that's why she didn't make it. The sexism card is also likely to be pulled, completely forgetting the fact that her being a young woman was one major aspect of the fairy tale that was pushed around by the press: the drop-out, thinking-out-of-the-box young woman,  having a vision to change the world.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on May 12, 2016, 09:01:04 am
Can't wait to see the famous "3 backup plans" activated.  :popcorn:

Plan #1 was "Data Transmission"... charge your phone and transmit data.

Slowly. Much slower than the WiFi you already have.

If that was Plan #1 then I can't wait to see how visionary Plans #2 and #3 are.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on May 12, 2016, 09:06:46 am
Mike beat me to it. It's quite clear what the next step for Perry is: claiming the naughty engineers sabotaged her wonderful vision from the start, and that's why she didn't make it.
They didn't sabotage it, they just weren't smart enough to make it work.

The materials needed for the transducers weren't there yet and she ran out of money before they could get make them.

The underlying scientific principles were demonstrably correct so it's clearly not her fault. She can even go back on Ted and explain this.

This leaves her free to start over again on the next project with a clean slate.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on May 12, 2016, 09:16:34 am
The really stupid thing is that even if all the tech were entirely feasible, practical and safe, it would STILL fail as a product as phone manufacturers would never build it into phones (how many have even incorporated qi type chargers yet?).

I can understand VC's being uBeamed ( yes I want that to become a verb)  into believing that the tech may be feasible, but it doesn't take much tech knowledge to work out that it had zero chance of widespread market adoption for simple practical reasons.
 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: HackedFridgeMagnet on May 12, 2016, 09:23:16 am
I can understand VC's being uBeamed ( yes I want that to become a verb) 
 

Probably double meaning too. VCs being like rabbits caught in the beam of car headlights?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on May 12, 2016, 09:36:31 am
The really stupid thing is that even if all the tech were entirely feasible, practical and safe, it would STILL fail as a product as phone manufacturers would never build it into phones (how many have even incorporated qi type chargers yet?).

Yep. Apple would never add 2mm to the thickness of their phones just for this (even if it worked brilliantly and could be made 2mm thick!).
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on May 12, 2016, 09:56:42 am
...as phone manufacturers would never build it into phones (how many have even incorporated qi type chargers yet?).
A lot of phones have QI charging built in. They don't come with a QI charger, though, and few people seem to buy them as after market devices. I expect few people have even noticed that their phone has the QI feature. I guess short range wireless charging just isn't that compelling. Would longer range charging be more compelling?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: VNFTW on May 12, 2016, 10:05:07 am
Mike beat me to it. It's quite clear what the next step for Perry is: claiming the naughty engineers sabotaged her wonderful vision from the start, and that's why she didn't make it.
They didn't sabotage it, they just weren't smart enough to make it work.

The materials needed for the transducers weren't there yet and she ran out of money before they could get make them.

The underlying scientific principles were demonstrably correct so it's clearly not her fault. She can even go back on Ted and explain this.

This leaves her free to start over again on the next project with a clean slate.

If the company said that, then IT would be disparaging the engineers...those agreements typically go both ways.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 12, 2016, 10:32:13 am
My prediction - Meredith will write a book ready for the Christmas sales period, whining about how "the industry" destroyed her vision, and probably pulling the sexism card while she's at it.

I hope she spends her time doing that that instead of trying to do another tech startup.
I recommend another followup TEDx talk as well, given her stellar performance last time. Title it "How Closed Thinking Engineers Ruined My World Beating Innovation"
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 12, 2016, 10:42:44 am
I can understand VC's being uBeamed ( yes I want that to become a verb)

It is deemed thus.

Quote
into believing that the tech may be feasible, but it doesn't take much tech knowledge to work out that it had zero chance of widespread market adoption for simple practical reasons.

It took a fairly trivial amount of tech knowledge to see it would never be practical.
It sinks alone on practicality with dicky beamforming, positional trouble, and limited range.
It sinks alone (ironically) on convenience, having to dick around with a positioning system and make sure you don't bock it etc.
It sinks alone on cost.
It sinks alone on potential safety.
It sinks alone on inefficiency, even taking their own figures on their website.
And many more gems.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 12, 2016, 10:45:17 am
I expect few people have even noticed that their phone has the QI feature. I guess short range wireless charging just isn't that compelling. Would longer range charging be more compelling?

Yes, too bad it's laughable useless and inefficient.
Qi actually works and is pretty efficient and convenient (although mine is very touchy, I much prefer my magnetic charging dock.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: tszaboo on May 12, 2016, 01:34:37 pm
I expect few people have even noticed that their phone has the QI feature. I guess short range wireless charging just isn't that compelling. Would longer range charging be more compelling?

Yes, too bad it's laughable useless and inefficient.
Qi actually works and is pretty efficient and convenient (although mine is very touchy, I much prefer my magnetic charging dock.
Except it chirps like a bird. Which I dont like. And this was an IKEA charger with a Nokia phone, not some noname chinese whatever.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Danseur on May 12, 2016, 08:34:48 pm
The sexism card is already flying in this short story devoid of facts.
http://fortune.com/2016/05/12/ubeam-is-not-the-next-theranos/ (http://fortune.com/2016/05/12/ubeam-is-not-the-next-theranos/)

Another Fortune writer also wrote this apologist piece on uBeam that blatantly distorted the story.
http://fortune.com/2015/12/02/meredith-perry-ubeam-criticism-science/ (http://fortune.com/2015/12/02/meredith-perry-ubeam-criticism-science/)

I responded to it last year with these comments in their comment section.

1. Nobody says ultrasonic power transfer is impossible.  What they are saying is that uBeam is so inefficient that it can't even deliver 1/10th of a watt at maximum power levels safe to be near humans, and that it will result in 99% energy loss.

2.  Your article cites the tumbler article as a rebuke of uBeam cynics on the basis that the article acknowledges power transfer is possible, but you missed the part where the same tumbler article estimates that ultrasonic charging will be 100 times slower than plugging the phone in.

3. Critics are actually pointing out that uBeam has back peddled on range claims and the ability to charge a phone while it's in a pocket or purse.  uBeam now admits they can't go through clothing.  That means you'll be forced to use the phone with screen face down when it's charging which makes it impossible to use the phone while charging for anything but listening to audio.

4. TechCrunch owners are early investors in uBeam and their pro-uBeam article fails to disclose this relationship.

5. It doesn't matter how much Mark Cuban or Mark Suster raves about uBeam or Meredith Perry because they're also early investors.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: bazsa56 on May 13, 2016, 08:17:43 pm
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/engineer-and-investor-in-spat-about-wireless-charging-startup-ubeam (http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/engineer-and-investor-in-spat-about-wireless-charging-startup-ubeam)

New IEEE article just posted.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on May 13, 2016, 11:30:25 pm
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/engineer-and-investor-in-spat-about-wireless-charging-startup-ubeam (http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/engineer-and-investor-in-spat-about-wireless-charging-startup-ubeam)

New IEEE article just posted.

I note they refer to a Suster blog https://bothsidesofthetable.com/what-is-it-like-to-wake-up-and-have-the-press-ready-to-torpedo-your-business-351f27ca6d67#.i7pzqinbk where he puts on a brave face. If he truly believes what he's saying then he's an idiot. More likely he's regretting not doing the most basic of due diligence homework, and is trying to minimise his losses, as well as those of his investors, by maintaining what little hope and value he can before getting out.

Somewhat irritating are the swarms of blind sycophants praising his blog entry who appear to believe him... if they are real of course, and not paid shills.

Even more unbelievable is that he says he will continue to invest in the porcine** owning CEO if (when) uBeam fails.

** Meredith owns a pet pig, Albert. Any suggestion of snouts in the trough, or owners resembling their pets are facile and will not be tolerated, not to mention being unfair to Albert who appears to be a perfectly reasonable and trustworthy porker.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: helius on May 13, 2016, 11:43:00 pm
If he truly believes what he's saying then he's an idiot... Somewhat irritating are the swarms of blind sycophants praising his blog entry who appear to believe him...
The assumption that angel investors who have previously made millions in the tech space are blessed with broad and deep business wisdom is a type of Fundamental Attribution Error.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on May 14, 2016, 12:16:18 am
Quote
I note they refer to a Suster blog https://bothsidesofthetable.com/what-is-it-like-to-wake-up-and-have-the-press-ready-to-torpedo-your-business-351f27ca6d67#.i7pzqinbk where he puts on a brave face. If he truly believes what he's saying then he's an idiot. More likely he's regretting not doing the most basic of due diligence homework, and is trying to minimise his losses, as well as those of his investors, by maintaining what little hope and value he can before getting out

This whole "torpedo your business" thing is horseshit. Suster's "business" is suckering late-to-the-party investors so he can take his "profits" and make an early exit. I don't believe for a nanosecond that Suster had any intention of seeing this ridiculous idea to functional fruition.

Like most of his ilk, Suster's greatest regret is that of being caught before the payout.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 14, 2016, 12:43:51 am
I note they refer to a Suster blog https://bothsidesofthetable.com/what-is-it-like-to-wake-up-and-have-the-press-ready-to-torpedo-your-business-351f27ca6d67#.i7pzqinbk where he puts on a brave face.

Wow, so much wrong with that blog post I don't know were to start.
What is abundantly clear is that uBeam is now dead in the water. Not that it ever had a chance of sailing unless they hugely pivoted the tech, but probably had another 12 months in it before the money simply ran out. The rats will abandon this ship quick smart now.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 14, 2016, 01:07:28 am
More heat for Suster:
https://ludwitt.wordpress.com/2016/05/13/what-mark-suster-missed-in-his-blog-post-defending-ubeam/
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 14, 2016, 02:39:04 am
Once supportive journalists turnign on Theranos
http://fortune.com/2015/12/17/how-theranos-misled-me-elizabeth-holmes/ (http://fortune.com/2015/12/17/how-theranos-misled-me-elizabeth-holmes/)
They will do the same to uBeam, just like TechCrunch took the lead on.
It'll be a bloodbath  :popcorn:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Bud on May 14, 2016, 04:32:16 am
No surprise here. As the previous article said:

Quote
Be wary of fawning reporters and press. The same guys who built you up will tear you down to save their asses before moving onto the next thing. There is zero integrity in much of the tech press.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on May 14, 2016, 04:36:00 am
No surprise here. As the previous article said:

Quote
There is zero integrity in much of the tech press.

This.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Danseur on May 14, 2016, 07:24:43 am
Mark Suster wrote:
Quote
If for any reason we fall short of expectations we have set in the market, I will be the first person in line to admit it and then to immediately fund Meredith’s next company.

So let me get this straight.  You’ve seen every single prototype after millions of dollars over years of research and an army of big name PhDs and you’re already hedging for failure?

Suster keeps talking about passion.  A con man/woman has passion.  Passion is great but it's no substitute for competence.  What Suster means to say is that he saw Meredith Perry as “marketable” to other investors who are late to the party so that he can flip the startup for a quick profit.

Looking at this thing some more, I think this article has more to do with making Suster look like a good supportive investor than him trying to save uBeam.  Hell he's practically written them off already so he is already hedging his bet to save face!  Suster is one of the "superstar" VC celebrities where the mere mention of Suster being a backer will encourage other investors to jump on.   Mark Cuban was so confident in Mark Suster's assessment that he didn't even need to look at uBeam's prototype!

Now Suster is in full spin control mode to save his own reputation and you see the comments praising him for his kind supportive words.  He's already admitting that maybe uBeam will fail but eh so what, you have to take big risks for big rewards and this is just one of those risks that didn't pan out and couldn’t have been predicted no matter how many real engineers told us exactly why this is a nonstarter.  But it's not his fault and it's not Perry's fault.  It's just one of those shitty things that happen to innovative risk takers and it's the vicious sexist media to blame!  ::)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Raj on May 14, 2016, 12:34:51 pm
sounds gimmicky  :bullshit:
i'll stick to IR, same features but faster
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 14, 2016, 02:20:05 pm
This article has more to do with making Suster look like a good supportive investor than trying to save uBeam.  In fact Suster is already hedging his bet to save face!
Mark Suster wrote:
Quote
If for any reason we fall short of expectations we have set in the market, I will be the first person in line to admit it and then to immediately fund Meredith’s next company.
So let me get this straight.  You’ve seen every single prototype after millions of dollars over years of research and an army of big name PhDs and you’re already hedging for failure?
Suster keeps talking about passion.  A con man/woman has passion.  Passion is great but it's no substitute for competence.  What Suster means to say is that he saw Meredith Perry as “marketable” to other investors who are late to the party so that he can flip the startup for a quick profit.
Suster is part of the elite "superstar" VC crowd where the mere mention of Suster being a backer will encourage other investors to jump on.  In fact Mark Cuban was so confident in Mark Suster's assessment that he didn't even need to look at uBeam's prototype!  Now Suster is in 100% spin control mode and you see the comments praising him for his kind supportive words.  He's already admitting that maybe uBeam will fail but eh so what, you have to take big risks for big rewards and this is just one of those risks that didn't pan out.  But it's not his fault and it's not Perry's fault.  It's just one of those shitty things that happen to good people and the vicious sexist media are to blame!

This.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Danseur on May 17, 2016, 10:51:19 pm
Says UBeam got a "bridge round" of investment in 2015 after failing to secure Series B.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/scholars-doubt-ubeam-claims-pitch-deck-calls-tech-commercially-viable-1463484603 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/scholars-doubt-ubeam-claims-pitch-deck-calls-tech-commercially-viable-1463484603)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: georgesmith on May 17, 2016, 11:54:39 pm
Today a friend noticed that Sean Taffler, uBeam's VP of Engineering, was previously (http://www.taffler.com/Taffler/Resume.html) the VP of Engineering at HashFast Technologies. HashFast made Bitcoin mining hardware, but never delivered a product (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/its-all-over-bitcoin-miner-maker-hashfast-to-auction-remaining-assets/) and was convicted of fraud (http://www.coindesk.com/judge-approves-fraud-claims-against-bitcoin-mining-firm-hashfast/) in federal court. (Edit: The company and its executives were sued for fraud, and the judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff when the company disputed it. One executive then settled out-of-court, while the other was ordered to personally pay $165,000 in damages. Sources aren't online, but are available via PACER (https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov).)

(Edit: Paul Reynolds, former VP of Engineering at uBeam, has said:

Quote
I asked nicely in one of my blog posts - please don't insult any engineer, current or former, at uBeam.

There were several world-class engineers there. He's one of them, both in capability and character.

Thanks to Paul for all the great material he's posted to his blog. I apologize for using an inaccurate source (http://bravenewcoin.com/news/bitcoin-miner-manufacturer-found-guilty-of-fraud/) here.)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 18, 2016, 12:42:55 am
Today a friend noticed that Sean Taffler, uBeam's VP of Engineering, was previously (http://www.taffler.com/Taffler/Resume.html) the VP of Engineering at HashFast Technologies. HashFast made Bitcoin mining hardware, but never delivered a product (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/its-all-over-bitcoin-miner-maker-hashfast-to-auction-remaining-assets/) and was convicted of fraud (http://www.coindesk.com/judge-approves-fraud-claims-against-bitcoin-mining-firm-hashfast/) in federal court.

And he stayed there to switch off the lights. From his LinkedIn:
Quote
Market pressures came to bear on Hashfast and I was fortunate/unfortunate enough to close the doors after a bankruptcy fight.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: georgesmith on May 18, 2016, 12:57:33 am
Apple now hiring uBeam engineers (The Verge (http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/17/11671230/apple-hiring-wireless-charging-experts-iphone-ubeam))
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: georgesmith on May 18, 2016, 01:10:47 am
Today a friend noticed that Sean Taffler, uBeam's VP of Engineering, was previously (http://www.taffler.com/Taffler/Resume.html) the VP of Engineering at HashFast Technologies. HashFast made Bitcoin mining hardware, but never delivered a product (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/its-all-over-bitcoin-miner-maker-hashfast-to-auction-remaining-assets/) and was convicted of fraud (http://www.coindesk.com/judge-approves-fraud-claims-against-bitcoin-mining-firm-hashfast/) in federal court.

Does "A US District Judge has approved claims" mean convicted in a US court? But thanks @georgesmith for providing links to your sources. I wish more people would do that.

Thanks. The judge ruled against them, but the suit was then settled before trial, so you're right that "convicted" isn't fully accurate. Post edited, more details here (http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/08/17/bitcoin.pdf).
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 18, 2016, 01:36:36 am
Apple now hiring uBeam engineers (The Verge (http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/17/11671230/apple-hiring-wireless-charging-experts-iphone-ubeam))

Oh dear, now the true believers will say that vindicates the idea of ultrasonic charging  :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on May 18, 2016, 01:42:49 am
Today a friend noticed that Sean Taffler, uBeam's VP of Engineering, was previously (http://www.taffler.com/Taffler/Resume.html) the VP of Engineering at HashFast Technologies. HashFast made Bitcoin mining hardware, but never delivered a product (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/its-all-over-bitcoin-miner-maker-hashfast-to-auction-remaining-assets/) and was convicted of fraud (http://www.coindesk.com/judge-approves-fraud-claims-against-bitcoin-mining-firm-hashfast/) in federal court.

And he stayed there to switch off the lights. From his LinkedIn:
Quote
Market pressures came to bear on Hashfast and I was fortunate/unfortunate enough to close the doors after a bankruptcy fight.
So uBeam has hired a guy with experience of shutting down a failed business? Sounds like good relevant experience. :)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: amspire on May 18, 2016, 01:45:19 am
Apple now hiring uBeam engineers (The Verge (http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/17/11671230/apple-hiring-wireless-charging-experts-iphone-ubeam))

Oh dear, now the true believers will say that vindicates the idea of ultrasonic charging  :palm:
My reaction too. Of course Apple is interested in ultrasonics. Using ultrasonics is a fairly unused method of sensing up to now in phones and tablets so there is a huge of potential. To think that Apple is even slightly interested in 155dB loud charging systems with a 1% efficiency or less is a stupid conclusion.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Bud on May 18, 2016, 02:49:46 am
HashFast made Bitcoin mining hardware, but never delivered a product and was convicted of fraud in federal court.

Wow, look who ran their finance (quoted from Reddit):

Quote
The company’s new CFO, Monica Hushen.
This woman is the death of hardware personified.
Her career is amazing. She was with Apple during the time when Apple was for all intents and purposes dead, then she went to Iomega right when Zip drives fell out of favor. Afterwards she went to some B2C solution provider not even Wikipedia remembers that was promptly bought and killed by eBay, then she went to work for the smoldering almost-corpse of Palm Inc, which HP finally axe murdered. Noticing a trend she had a brief stint at ECS Refining, which is a recycling company for dead hardware.
And now she's with Hashfast, a hardware "company" floundering dead in the water before it sold its first product..

Can you make a guess who she is with now  ::)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on May 18, 2016, 02:56:30 am
Today a friend noticed that Sean Taffler, uBeam's VP of Engineering, was previously (http://www.taffler.com/Taffler/Resume.html) the VP of Engineering at HashFast Technologies. HashFast made Bitcoin mining hardware, but never delivered a product (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/its-all-over-bitcoin-miner-maker-hashfast-to-auction-remaining-assets/) and was convicted of fraud (http://www.coindesk.com/judge-approves-fraud-claims-against-bitcoin-mining-firm-hashfast/) in federal court.

Does "A US District Judge has approved claims" mean convicted in a US court? But thanks @georgesmith for providing links to your sources. I wish more people would do that.

Thanks. The judge ruled against them, but the suit was then settled before trial, so you're right that "convicted" isn't fully accurate. Post edited, more details here (http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/08/17/bitcoin.pdf).

Erm, the judge also ruled for them as well. And "convicted" even if not "fully accurate"? The document you point to is a ruling on a motion to dismiss. It is not a substantive finding of fact, nor a judgement, and nowhere anything like a conviction or finding against any party.

You ought to be a lot more careful before making defamatory statements about someone, particularly about criminal misconduct. Do it to the wrong person and you could find yourself with a big legal bill and some nasty damages. More than that it's just plain unkind unless you've got all your facts right and the person either legitimately deserves it or there's a legitimate public interest in advertising their wrongdoing. I should point out that the person you named (Sean Taffler) is not even one of the individuals cited in the case.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: helius on May 18, 2016, 04:27:55 am
Saying that someone was convicted when they weren't is "libel per se". It can get you in serious trouble. It's not even possible to be convicted in a civil suit.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jurge24pez on May 18, 2016, 05:53:24 am
Hash fast was in the news due to its founders so the correlation with ubeam continues.  The bigger question is the choices of a talented engineer to go to the likes of these companies, but it appears he's doing the wise act and looking for his self now as when one googles him he's got his resume posted live "Currently I am looking for my next role." And lists ubeam in his repertoire so it is a current post.http://www.taffler.com/Taffler/Welcome.html (http://www.taffler.com/Taffler/Welcome.html)  Wonder how many other engineers will be flying the coop now from there? 
 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on May 18, 2016, 08:15:22 am
I asked nicely in one of my blog posts - please don't insult any engineer, current or former, at uBeam.

There were several world-class engineers there. He's one of them, both in capability and character.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: georgesmith on May 18, 2016, 08:54:30 am
Saying that someone was convicted when they weren't is "libel per se". It can get you in serious trouble. It's not even possible to be convicted in a civil suit.

The headline of one of the news stories about them was literally "Bitcoin Miner Manufacturer Found Guilty of Fraud" (link (http://bravenewcoin.com/news/bitcoin-miner-manufacturer-found-guilty-of-fraud/)). It's obvious (after reading all the court documents) that that wasn't a fair summary, but no, it's never libel to mistakenly rely on an inaccurate source. (Otherwise, any time a media outlet got something wrong, every reader who told a friend something would be guilty of libel.) I'm sorry I screwed up, and didn't check sources carefully enough.

Quote
It is not a substantive finding of fact, nor a judgement, and nowhere anything like a conviction or finding against any party.

It's not online, but PACER shows that there was in fact a large judgement entered by the court against one of the defendants. This isn't really relevant to uBeam, but I want to be sure the facts are straight here.

Quote
There were several world-class engineers there. He's one of them, both in capability and character.

Thanks, I'll go back and edit the post. Sorry that your first post here had to be like this...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 18, 2016, 10:14:05 am
Hash fast was in the news due to its founders so the correlation with ubeam continues.  The bigger question is the choices of a talented engineer to go to the likes of these companies, but it appears he's doing the wise act and looking for his self now as when one googles him he's got his resume posted live "Currently I am looking for my next role." And lists ubeam in his repertoire so it is a current post.http://www.taffler.com/Taffler/Welcome.html (http://www.taffler.com/Taffler/Welcome.html)  Wonder how many other engineers will be flying the coop now from there?

That web page has been like that since at lest Feb 19th.
But yeah, Resume shows uBeam, so unlikely he updated his resume and his "currently looking for work" page.
Good chance he's gone.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 18, 2016, 10:21:29 am
new WSJ article on uBeam sound interesting from the title, but behind a paywall:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubeam-vcs-created-hype-cycle-1463484610 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubeam-vcs-created-hype-cycle-1463484610)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on May 18, 2016, 11:52:13 am
I asked nicely in one of my blog posts - please don't insult any engineer, current or former, at uBeam.

There were several world-class engineers there. He's one of them, both in capability and character.

Welcome to EEVBlog!

A very thought-provoking blog, I downloaded it all the other day for my commute. I certainly couldn't understand why any engineer would want to work at uBeam bearing in mind the claims they were making, but I can see how it would attract some if you get to play with the latest toys.

May I ask, did you, or any of your technical colleagues, ever expect to see the phone charging product deployed and selling in the wild?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: amspire on May 18, 2016, 12:07:49 pm
May I ask, did you, or any of your technical colleagues, ever expect to see the phone charging product deployed and selling in the wild?
No. It never made any sense.

It makes as much sense as using tracking high powered lasers to charge a phone. Actually, a laser is a much better idea then uBeam. I can claim it will be totally safe by just saying I will have this software that will turn the laser off the instant before any direct or reflected beam hits an eye. It is very easy saying that.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: VNFTW on May 18, 2016, 12:24:38 pm
new WSJ article on uBeam sound interesting from the title, but behind a paywall:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubeam-vcs-created-hype-cycle-1463484610 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubeam-vcs-created-hype-cycle-1463484610)

Same article I believe, no paywall, just a click-through box
http://www.wsj.com/articles/scholars-doubt-ubeam-claims-pitch-deck-calls-tech-commercially-viable-1463484603 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/scholars-doubt-ubeam-claims-pitch-deck-calls-tech-commercially-viable-1463484603)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on May 18, 2016, 12:28:16 pm
Quote
It is not a substantive finding of fact, nor a judgement, and nowhere anything like a conviction or finding against any party.

It's not online, but PACER shows that there was in fact a large judgement entered by the court against one of the defendants. This isn't really relevant to uBeam, but I want to be sure the facts are straight here.


It's exactly that kind of writing that gets you sued for libel. You take a quote that refers exclusively to a court direction on a motion to dismiss and conflate it with "a large judgement ... against one of the defendents". Whether you intend to or not, it looks like you're trying to find some way of ascribing guilt without having the facts available to support that. And that's what matters, at least in English law, that a piece of writing, taken as a whole is likely to be read as defamatory by a "right-minded person" - the appearance in the mind of the reader is what counts. I know wherewith of what I speak, I used to be a journalist and I've had formal training in libel law as my publisher, Felix Dennis, didn't like being sued (you may remember a little thing called the Oz trial).

Editted to add (and correct one literal above): It just occurs to me that the people who did our libel training were very good. It's many years later and I remember all of it. More importantly, while I was writing I got several companies very angry with me, with good justification on my behalf (i.e. I said that crap products were crap), but we never got sued so I think the training paid off. /Edit

... but no, it's never libel to mistakenly rely on an inaccurate source.

Good luck telling the judge that, he will tell you different. There's no need to prove malice in a libel claim, carelessness or recklessness is quite adequate.

(Otherwise, any time a media outlet got something wrong, every reader who told a friend something would be guilty of libel.)

It's not "libel", it's slander and only then when monetary loss can be proven. And not "guilty" as defamation is a tort, a civil wrong, not a crime.

I'm sorry I screwed up, and didn't check sources carefully enough.

The expressed remorse might take a few quid off, but your last five words probably just doubled the damages. Just imagine counsel for the appellant, at your libel trial, saying: "So, Mr. Smith, before you rushed to accuse my client in print of fraud, did you check your sources? Did you bother to find out the truth before blackening my client's character? Or were you so hell bent on doing him harm that you were completely reckless as to the veracity of your claims?".

A public apology, at least as prominent as the original libel, and a retraction, is actually a defense in a libel action. It might be a good idea to cover your arse and issue one.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on May 18, 2016, 12:30:36 pm
new WSJ article on uBeam sound interesting from the title, but behind a paywall:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubeam-vcs-created-hype-cycle-1463484610 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubeam-vcs-created-hype-cycle-1463484610)

Same article I believe, no paywall, just a click-through box
http://www.wsj.com/articles/scholars-doubt-ubeam-claims-pitch-deck-calls-tech-commercially-viable-1463484603 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/scholars-doubt-ubeam-claims-pitch-deck-calls-tech-commercially-viable-1463484603)
I don't seem to be able to click through on that page. I only get options to sign in or subscribe.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on May 18, 2016, 12:42:45 pm
May I ask, did you, or any of your technical colleagues, ever expect to see the phone charging product deployed and selling in the wild?
No. It never made any sense.

Erm, I don't really think it's your place to answer on behalf of those engineers when we've got one here now who can speak for himself and who the question was directed to.

Mind you, if I was him, my reply might be "On advice of counsel I'm declining to answer that question". <- note, no smiley.

Really, uBeam is the kind of thing that ends in court and while we can speculate as wildly as we like, it might be a good idea for one of the participants to choose his public, on the record, words very carefully. I imply no wrongdoing on his behalf, and you should infer none, but it would be in the interests of some parties to share the blame around and some carelessly chosen words might just be enough to do that, even if that flies in the face of the actual facts.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: amspire on May 18, 2016, 01:05:36 pm
Erm, I don't really think it's your place to answer on behalf of those engineers when we've got one here now who can speak for himself and who the question was directed to.
Fair enough. My mistake in not realising it was THE Paul Reynolds.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: theatrus on May 18, 2016, 02:27:27 pm
new WSJ article on uBeam sound interesting from the title, but behind a paywall:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubeam-vcs-created-hype-cycle-1463484610 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubeam-vcs-created-hype-cycle-1463484610)

Same article I believe, no paywall, just a click-through box
http://www.wsj.com/articles/scholars-doubt-ubeam-claims-pitch-deck-calls-tech-commercially-viable-1463484603 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/scholars-doubt-ubeam-claims-pitch-deck-calls-tech-commercially-viable-1463484603)
I don't seem to be able to click through on that page. I only get options to sign in or subscribe.

The trick with WSJ articles:

Open incognito window
Go to google.com it's self and paste the URL into the search box
Click through to the article from the search results page
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Bud on May 18, 2016, 03:07:20 pm
Wasn't it WSJ who catapulted uBeam into the bright future back then

https://m.facebook.com/meredith.perry/posts/10201377478782470 (https://m.facebook.com/meredith.perry/posts/10201377478782470)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: edavid on May 18, 2016, 03:07:54 pm
Quote
It is not a substantive finding of fact, nor a judgement, and nowhere anything like a conviction or finding against any party.

It's not online, but PACER shows that there was in fact a large judgement entered by the court against one of the defendants. This isn't really relevant to uBeam, but I want to be sure the facts are straight here.


It's exactly that kind of writing that gets you sued for libel. You take a quote that refers exclusively to a court direction on a motion to dismiss and conflate it with "a large judgement ... against one of the defendents". Whether you intend to or not, it looks like you're trying to find some way of ascribing guilt without having the facts available to support that. And that's what matters, at least in English law, that a piece of writing, taken as a whole is likely to be read as defamatory by a "right-minded person" - the appearance in the mind of the reader is what counts. I know wherewith of what I speak, I used to be a journalist and I've had formal training in libel law as my publisher, Felix Dennis, didn't like being sued (you may remember a little thing called the Oz trial).

You obviously don't understand the US legal system.  Don't worry, you won't be sued for that  :)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on May 18, 2016, 04:05:32 pm
Quote
It is not a substantive finding of fact, nor a judgement, and nowhere anything like a conviction or finding against any party.

It's not online, but PACER shows that there was in fact a large judgement entered by the court against one of the defendants. This isn't really relevant to uBeam, but I want to be sure the facts are straight here.


It's exactly that kind of writing that gets you sued for libel. You take a quote that refers exclusively to a court direction on a motion to dismiss and conflate it with "a large judgement ... against one of the defendents". Whether you intend to or not, it looks like you're trying to find some way of ascribing guilt without having the facts available to support that. And that's what matters, at least in English law, that a piece of writing, taken as a whole is likely to be read as defamatory by a "right-minded person" - the appearance in the mind of the reader is what counts. I know wherewith of what I speak, I used to be a journalist and I've had formal training in libel law as my publisher, Felix Dennis, didn't like being sued (you may remember a little thing called the Oz trial).

You obviously don't understand the US legal system.  Don't worry, you won't be sued for that  :)

Hence the, "in English law", in there. BUT, the US legal system is the closest to the English legal system on the planet outside of jurisdictions that still hold the English courts as their highest courts of appeal - e.g. Jamaica*. In point of fact, past and present precedents from English courts are still held as 'persuasive' in US courts. Both hardly surprising as the US legal system is descended from the English and both are what are known as 'common law' systems as opposed to 'civil law' systems. While the two systems may vary in detail, they have the same DNA and the concepts of jurisprudence in both are near identical.

The English courts have been the international venue of choice for libel claims for many years. (Like the Texas circuit is for patent claims.) It has been quite common for both sides of a libel case in the English courts to have been from outside the UK as long as the libel was 'published**' in the UK. Part of the reason for this was English libel law has allowed one to bundle all sorts of third parties into the action. So you might have the appellant, the writer of an allegedly libellous piece, his editor, his publisher, a printers and a chain of high street newsagents all involved in the action. The writer is penniless, the high street chain is not - thus damages awarded are likely to be actually recoverable. English libel law has recently undergone and is currently undergoing changes to modify this and you can expect less and less cases to make their way to the English courts.

What this adds up to is, if you're defaming someone on the international stage you'd better be prepared to be sued in England. And that means working to English legal definitions and precedents which are frequently not what the general public think they are. For instance, in English law strict factual accuracy is not necessarily a defense in a libel claim. So calling someone a "fat smelly glutton" when they are overweight, malodorous and eat more than they should is risky unless you can show there is 'a public interest' in these facts (which is not the same as 'the public finds this interesting'), or that it is 'fair comment', or 'a genuine and honestly held opinion' and that you didn't publish the facts maliciously. On the other hand calling them a 'motherf******  bloody son of a whore' is OK, because you have a defense that it is merely 'foul mouthed abuse' and it is immaterial whether their mother actually engaged in prostitution or not, whether they used her services or not or indeed whether they were covered in blood.

Of course the latter would, in some US states, fall under 'fighting words' legislation and permit you to kick them senseless without recourse to a libel action. And there, you said I didn't understand the US legal system.  :)

Now we have to determine if, in a discussion between engineers "You obviously don't understand" qualifies as 'fighting words' and what the venue for the subsequent brawl will be.  :) :)


*No, she went of her own accord.

**Which word has a special technical meaning with relation to libel law in England. Essentially something is 'published' if it is written and the writer knew that *anyone* other than the person being libelled would or would be expected to read it. A 'private' letter, dictated to a secretary can libel the addressee, a handwritten letter shown to no-one else can't.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Monadnock on May 18, 2016, 10:01:20 pm
new WSJ article on uBeam sound interesting from the title, but behind a paywall:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubeam-vcs-created-hype-cycle-1463484610 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubeam-vcs-created-hype-cycle-1463484610)

Same article I believe, no paywall, just a click-through box
http://www.wsj.com/articles/scholars-doubt-ubeam-claims-pitch-deck-calls-tech-commercially-viable-1463484603 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/scholars-doubt-ubeam-claims-pitch-deck-calls-tech-commercially-viable-1463484603)
I don't seem to be able to click through on that page. I only get options to sign in or subscribe.

The trick with WSJ articles:

Open incognito window
Go to google.com it's self and paste the URL into the search box
Click through to the article from the search results page

Does that loophole still work? Just tried it and it didn't for me.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: georgesmith on May 18, 2016, 11:59:43 pm
Quote
It is not a substantive finding of fact, nor a judgement, and nowhere anything like a conviction or finding against any party.

It's not online, but PACER shows that there was in fact a large judgement entered by the court against one of the defendants. This isn't really relevant to uBeam, but I want to be sure the facts are straight here.


It's exactly that kind of writing that gets you sued for libel. You take a quote that refers exclusively to a court direction on a motion to dismiss and conflate it with "a large judgement ... against one of the defendents". Whether you intend to or not, it looks like you're trying to find some way of ascribing guilt without having the facts available to support that. And that's what matters, at least in English law, that a piece of writing, taken as a whole is likely to be read as defamatory by a "right-minded person" - the appearance in the mind of the reader is what counts. I know wherewith of what I speak, I used to be a journalist and I've had formal training in libel law as my publisher, Felix Dennis, didn't like being sued (you may remember a little thing called the Oz trial).

You obviously don't understand the US legal system.  Don't worry, you won't be sued for that  :)

Hence the, "in English law", in there. BUT, the US legal system is the closest to the English legal system on the planet outside of jurisdictions that still hold the English courts as their highest courts of appeal - e.g. Jamaica*. In point of fact, past and present precedents from English courts are still held as 'persuasive' in US courts. Both hardly surprising as the US legal system is descended from the English and both are what are known as 'common law' systems as opposed to 'civil law' systems. While the two systems may vary in detail, they have the same DNA and the concepts of jurisprudence in both are near identical.

The English courts have been the international venue of choice for libel claims for many years. (Like the Texas circuit is for patent claims.) It has been quite common for both sides of a libel case in the English courts to have been from outside the UK as long as the libel was 'published**' in the UK. Part of the reason for this was English libel law has allowed one to bundle all sorts of third parties into the action. So you might have the appellant, the writer of an allegedly libellous piece, his editor, his publisher, a printers and a chain of high street newsagents all involved in the action. The writer is penniless, the high street chain is not - thus damages awarded are likely to be actually recoverable. English libel law has recently undergone and is currently undergoing changes to modify this and you can expect less and less cases to make their way to the English courts.

What this adds up to is, if you're defaming someone on the international stage you'd better be prepared to be sued in England. And that means working to English legal definitions and precedents which are frequently not what the general public think they are. For instance, in English law strict factual accuracy is not necessarily a defense in a libel claim. So calling someone a "fat smelly glutton" when they are overweight, malodorous and eat more than they should is risky unless you can show there is 'a public interest' in these facts (which is not the same as 'the public finds this interesting'), or that it is 'fair comment', or 'a genuine and honestly held opinion' and that you didn't publish the facts maliciously. On the other hand calling them a 'motherf******  bloody son of a whore' is OK, because you have a defense that it is merely 'foul mouthed abuse' and it is immaterial whether their mother actually engaged in prostitution or not, whether they used her services or not or indeed whether they were covered in blood.

Of course the latter would, in some US states, fall under 'fighting words' legislation and permit you to kick them senseless without recourse to a libel action. And there, you said I didn't understand the US legal system.  :)

Now we have to determine if, in a discussion between engineers "You obviously don't understand" qualifies as 'fighting words' and what the venue for the subsequent brawl will be.  :) :)


*No, she went of her own accord.

**Which word has a special technical meaning with relation to libel law in England. Essentially something is 'published' if it is written and the writer knew that *anyone* other than the person being libelled would or would be expected to read it. A 'private' letter, dictated to a secretary can libel the addressee, a handwritten letter shown to no-one else can't.

Very exciting! Now I get a chance to brag about how great American laws are, that doesn't happen very often :)

The UK's libel laws are so extreme that, in 2008, New York responded by passing the Libel Terrorism Protection Act. (Yes, it was really called that (http://observer.com/2008/04/libel-protection-act-this-law-will-give-new-yorks-journalists-authors-and-press-the-protection-and-tools-they-need/).) This law makes foreign libel judgements void, unless someone can show the same result would have been reached under American libel law, which is extremely difficult. A few years later, the law was extended to the entire US via the SPEECH Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act), which was passed unanimously by both houses of the US Congress.

Here in the US, such lawsuits would be instantly laughed out of court, and the plaintiff would then be forced to pay all the defendant's legal expenses under anti-SLAPP statutes. See, for example, this (https://popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/thisissparta.pdf) response to a libel threat brought by a dentist in response to a bad Yelp review.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on May 19, 2016, 12:56:38 am


Very exciting! Now I get a chance to brag about how great American laws are, that doesn't happen very often :)

I actually think the 'fighting words' laws are quite sensible, if they're applied sensibly. You could try very, very hard to get me to throw the first punch in a fight and you wouldn't normally succeed because my father taught me [you'll have to imagine a northern English accent here]: "Son, in this family the men never start a fight - but we always finish them". But, there are some things you could say to me, some of them in specific situations, that would make me see red and you see stars (and some tweeting birds if anybody from Hanna-Barbera or Warner Bros was handy). Some speech is so provocative that you should expect violence if you use it. The nuanced bit is understanding the speaker, the spoken to and the context.

Quote
The UK's libel laws are so extreme that, in 2008, New York responded by passing the Libel Terrorism Protection Act.

It's not that they are extreme. The basic law itself was well thought out and reasonable and that part of it hasn't changed. The problem was the traditional ability to attach moneyed third parties as respondents and that the law was sufficiently complex* that you had to have representation to defend yourself and that costs money. Hence it was often used for harassment by someone with money and easier access to lawyers against someone with 'lesser arms', as has been the case in the US. A notable UK case of this sort was McDonalds beating up on some animal rights activists leafleting against McDonalds. Recent changes to UK law have been very much along the line of SLAPP but in the opinion of some haven't gone far enough.

*The 'truth is always a defense' line that 99.9% of people believe to be the case points this up. It is quite possible to be 100% truthful and still libel someone if you publish that truth maliciously, that is, with the sole intent of harming the person and no other justification for it. Think back to when homosexuality was legal, but still not generally socially accepted - say 1968. If you published, truthfully, that a public figure (teacher, doctor, policeman, politician) was homosexual you could do them great harm. If you had no justification beyond 'outing' them that publication would be, rightly, considered libellous. God help the layman who has to handle this without professional help.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: georgesmith on May 19, 2016, 02:33:39 am
Quote
Of course the latter would, in some US states, fall under 'fighting words' legislation and permit you to kick them senseless without recourse to a libel action. And there, you said I didn't understand the US legal system.  :)

Can't tell if that was a joke, but it's certainly not accurate. The "fighting words" exception only ever allowed speech to be punished in court, it never justified initiating violence yourself. While it's never been officially repealed, it's also dead for all practical purposes:

Quote
The very next year, in Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972), the Court cited Cohen and stated that speech that is “vulgar or offensive…is protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” Then, the very next term, the Court reaffirmed this stance in Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973) by finding that the pronouncement “we’ll take the fucking street later” did not constitute fighting words.
 
In assessing the fighting words doctrine at this point, it is important to note the speech involved in Gooding. While assaulting a police officer, Gooding shouted, “White son of a bitch, I’ll kill you.” “You son of a bitch, I’ll choke you to death.” and “You son of a bitch, if you ever put your hands on me again, I’ll cut you all to pieces.” If this speech doesn’t constitute fighting words, one would be hard-pressed to think of speech that would qualify.

Gooding was the nail in the coffin—if the fighting words exception has any real vitality left at all (and many commentators, including Nadine Strossen, think it is essentially dead) the Supreme Court has effectively limited the exception to only include abusive language, exchanged face to face, which would likely provoke a violent reaction.

(Source: Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (https://www.thefire.org/misconceptions-about-the-fighting-words-exception/))
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Zad on May 19, 2016, 03:10:34 am
Any chance you could continue this fascinating legal discussion in another thread, and we can get back on track?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on May 19, 2016, 03:41:21 am
Any chance you could continue this fascinating legal discussion in another thread, and we can get back on track?

Sue him.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 19, 2016, 03:48:10 am
Any chance you could continue this fascinating legal discussion in another thread, and we can get back on track?

Yes, please discontinue the legal talk in this thread and stick to the company and the technology.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Chris Mr on May 19, 2016, 10:35:13 am
First post so please have a right old go!

I would like to throw into the pool that air is elastic rather than hydraulic.

When you pump up a bicycle tyre you can feel the elasticity; the pressure increases and then when it gets just above the pressure in the tyre, more air goes in.  Same thing happens in an air compressor.  The big difference between these examples and someone like uBeam moving power through air is that they are contained somehow.  Imagine the bicycle tyre scenario with a hole in the end of the pump - the air velocity would need to increase to overcome the pressure in the tyre and the air being lost through the hole before more air went in; the larger the hole the larger the velocity.

Take a microphone (or whatever pickup is involved), with zero load it will flap about in the air nicely.  As you increase the load the elasticity of the air comes into play (it already was in play, this is simplified) and air starts to go in any direction that's easier than pushing on the load.

Another example, but not connected in exactly the same way, is that of a wind turbine generator.  There is a fundamental limit to how much energy you can extract out of wind (which is different in two major respects as it is planar and DC) because the more you try the more the air goes another way.  Betz's law determines this.  Build yourself a turbine out of any old blades and then apply a power tracker.  Adjust the blade angle a bit and see if the power increases or decreases - then keep it in a feedback loop so the power is kept at a maximum.  Now start playing with the number and shape of blades and what do you get - the current design of wind turbine blades!

My 2p  :box:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mathieumatteomatthew on May 19, 2016, 10:46:10 am
By way of a short break in the thread, imagine someone went to a VC with a power transfer technology that has the following characteristics:

It has a negligible cost with respect to the price of the gadgets it charges.
It is a simple, passive component that does not require specific infrastructure other than power sockets.
It is very light and portable, you can always have one in your handbag or in your pocket.
It allows you to hold your device in any position while it's charging.
It doesn't mind obstacles between the power source and the device.

Despite and in addition to all these practical advantages:

It has negligible losses...
Its efficiency is nearly independent of the distance between power source and device.
Its efficiency is virtually independent of the position in which you hold your device.

Of course you know what I'm referring to: the power cable, unsung hero in this whole discussion, that sets the bar so high. I like to frame the debate in terms of elegant/ugly solutions to fundamental/trivial needs. While it is very old technology, a power cable is still an utterly elegant solution to a fundamental need - transferring power over a distance, as opposed to Ubeam, Energous and co that propose ugly solutions to a trivial issue - the slight inconvenience of having to spend a few seconds plugging a cable into a device, from time to time. Their solutions are ugly because they are complex and yet inefficient.

You might oppose that wireless data transfer supplanted wired data transfer in many cases, so why not for power transfer as well ? But in data transfer the needs are a big deal - you want to be connected all the time as you move around the house or around the street, while the drawbacks are negligible because efficiency is not an issue there - you're not emitting much power and need only a tiny fraction of it to recover your bits on the receiver side, so you don't need all these complex beam steering tricks. I might add that although I use a wifi connection to connect to the internet, I personally still prefer a good old USB connection from my device to my computer than bluetooth or wireless connections - the former is just more fundamentally trouble-free than the latter.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 20, 2016, 04:14:50 am
Some quotes from the WSJ article:

Scholars Doubt Ubeam Claims;
Pitch Deck Calls Tech ‘Commercially Viable’
Academics are questioning the technology behind Ubeam’s plans for wireless battery charging, which the company said in a pitch deck is “commercially viable.”

Quote
Investors went “gaga” over the story of a young [Mark] Zuckerberg-like personality of uBeam’s founder, Meredith Perry, but other entrepreneurs would likely have faced more due diligence, said Vivek Wadhwa, a fellow with the Arthur & Toni Rembe Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University.

Quote
“This is the flaw in Silicon Valley. They think that young kids with no experience can do amazing things,” said Mr. Wadhwa.
Andreessen Horowitz and Founders Fund didn't respond to requests for comment.

Quote
Mark Suster, general partner at Upfront Ventures and a director on uBeam’s board, published a blog post last week in response to Mr. Reynolds’ critical posts. Mr. Suster acknowledged that the company was behind schedule on delivering products and yet expressed confidence in uBeam’s team. He didn’t address technical criticisms directly.
“Meredith has made claims that she will deliver a working product and I believe her whole heartedly,” he wrote. He also said Ms. Perry has been prone to “hubris,” but he added that any “claims of falsifying information” are “abjectly false.”
Mr. Suster declined to further comment.

Quote
Based on physics and known techniques, uBeam’s claims are difficult to justify, said Bernhard Boser, a professor of electrical engineering and computer science and a co-director of the Berkeley Sensor & Actuator Center and the UC Berkeley Swarm Lab. “In particular, it appears that the power level required to meet their claims would be well above accepted and legal safety limits for humans.”

Quote
UBeam was big on promise but limited on technical details in a pitch deck it sent to investors in 2014, according to the documents seen by The Wall Street Journal. In the pitch to prospective investors, the company said that “uBeam is the only commercially viable true wireless power technology that can charge consumer electronics remotely, economically, safely, and without enormous transmitters and receivers.”

Quote
Several venture investors who often invest in hardware and science-based technology startups were pitched by uBeam in the past few years, but quickly passed because of fundamental questions about the startup’s claims, they said. One of the prospective investors said that uBeam emphasized that it already has a number of prominent backers behind it and urged the investor to make a quick decision.

Quote
In its pitch deck, it listed three executives, Ms. Perry, Sean Taffler, then vice president of products and systems, and Mr. Reynolds, the person who has since left and written the series of negative blog posts about the company recently.
The deck said, “imagine a single device that can remotely power electronic devices, communicate with every electronics device in the uBeam environment, collect real-time data about each device. And also locate devices precisely within the uBeam environment, detect -motion -smoke -carbon monoxide, real-time 3-D imaging of the uBeam environment.”

Quote
A Ph.D. recipient who studied under Mr. Boser said such a technical undertaking had many questions. “The math just doesn’t work out. It’s not that it’s impossible per say but it’s impractical,” said Richard Przybyla, a Ph.D. in electrical and electronics engineering from the University California, Berkeley.
Mr. Przybyla said the size of the transmitters and receivers would be hard to make for a consumer product to charge and receive for mobile devices, among other problems. In its deck, uBeam said that an individual model transmitter to power five to 10 devices within a range 0.5 to one meter, would be a square with sides of 10 to 15 centimeters. The receiver, meanwhile could be “nearly any size, shape or color.”

Quote
Lux Capital had looked at the company in 2014, according to Josh Wolfe, managing partner at the firm that is focused on science. Mr. Wolfe didn’t say why the firm decided
“I follow the ‘Feynman rule’: Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Mother Nature can’t be fooled,” Mr. Wolfe said. He was referring to a famed report by physicist Richard Feynman on the space shuttle Challenger disaster, where he concluded that NASA management underestimated the probability of failure by a thousand times, in part, to secure more funds.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Danseur on May 20, 2016, 05:43:20 am
There were several world-class engineers there. He's one of them, both in capability and character.

Paul, it's great that you exposed Energous too
http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/04/those-other-guys-pt-1.html (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/04/those-other-guys-pt-1.html)

You linked to this story on Energous.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3811296-energous-buy-companys-story-stock (http://seekingalpha.com/article/3811296-energous-buy-companys-story-stock)

"Using the 1 watt as our transmitter power translates to 0.000507 watt (0.507 milliwatts or 507 microwatts) at the receiving end."

But it's far worse than this!  The FCC does not permit any product to transmit at the full 1 watt if the antenna gain is greater than 6 dBi.  If you want to use a phase array to get 21 dB gain from constructive interference, you must drop your transmit power to 25 dBm or 0.316 watts.  Every 3 dBi gain must be accompanied by a 1 dBm TX power decline.

Energous is wasting a ton of energy through destructive interference in most directions they transmit. They get 21 dB of gain through constructive interference on the angles they choose to form their peak beams. It would be far more efficient if they used a 21 dB directional antenna because that reflects the energy from a single transmitter rather than trying to using brute wattage and cancelling most of it. But a more efficient antenna gain design still wouldn't improve their max power delivery. They'd still be limited to 0.316 watt transmit power and there would be a lot of dispersion and they'd only get a tiny fraction of the 0.316 watts.

It's also funny that Energous no longer talks about getting their FCC certification and now they're saying it is up to their licensees to get the certification.  It is absolutely comical that Energous expects their "partners" and licensees to get their own FCC certification.  The media is absolutely incompetent that they do not understand this and call him out.  The company that creates the reference design always handles the FCC certifications because it makes it that much easier to license.  Once the reference design is licensed, the licensees only need to do a simpler faster cheaper certification process.  You only need to get the $1,000 "unintentional transmitter" FCC certification and not the $20,000 "intentional transmitter" FCC certification.

Also, this article says they faked the demos and their 10K admits multiple device charging is not possible now.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3960298-stunning-admission-energous (http://seekingalpha.com/article/3960298-stunning-admission-energous)

“On a side note, the diagram above shows that the distance to each of the receivers was 2.5 ft, but Energous press release falsely claims that the distance was 5 ft:”
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mathieumatteomatthew on May 20, 2016, 06:52:32 am
Interestingly, Mark Suster's latest post is about another startup he's involved in that has many Ubeam/Energous/Theranos-like features:

https://bothsidesofthetable.com/why-solving-big-food-healthcare-problems-will-yield-spectacular-companies-2ba6e410c503#.av98u8ob0 (https://bothsidesofthetable.com/why-solving-big-food-healthcare-problems-will-yield-spectacular-companies-2ba6e410c503#.av98u8ob0)

It's a personal gluten sensor, surfing on the wave of the irrational anti-gluten trend we've seen in the past years (only 1% of people actually have gluten intolerance).
As in the case of Ubeam and Theranos, the founders had no experience in the relevant fields:

Shireen had been studying for her masters in business at MIT and thinking about her own food allergies and Scott was a graduate of the mechanical engineering school at MIT with an emphasis in product design.

Of course, there are grand claims. Like Ubeam, they are "on a mission":

We're on a mission to change living with food allergies, forever.

On their flashy website there is not a trace of peer-reviewed literature, just vague claims about beta testing the product. There is not a single health professional in the team, only two chemists that don't seem to have that much experience:

https://nimasensor.com/team/ (https://nimasensor.com/team/)

It's difficult to find the opinion of a qualified person, probably because they aren't that visible so far, but I stumbled upon this:

http://www.healthnewsreview.org/review/optimistic-coverage-of-portable-gluten-test-lacks-some-key-context/ (http://www.healthnewsreview.org/review/optimistic-coverage-of-portable-gluten-test-lacks-some-key-context/)

which indirectly puts the claims in context by criticizing another press article on the startup.
What proof does Mark Suster have  that the company is trustworthy ? well... Techcrunch !

It seems that many others were impressed as well. Since our initial funding round the company went on to win the TechCrunch Startup Battleground in a head-to-head competition with some very impressive startups.

When Mark Suster points that the reception by the "industry" has been enthusiastic, he links to an article on... Techcrunch again !
What more is there to say ?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: DrTune on May 20, 2016, 04:51:14 pm
Mark Suster's turning out to be an excellent bullshit detector! If he invests in it, it's highly likely to be a con.  :-)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Raj on May 22, 2016, 03:40:14 pm
Seriously, what's wrong people, we should learn to use our own reasoning and take bull$#!t as a pinch of salt (no pun intended  :palm:)

if you really want to implement, try thinking of expenses, a set of ultrasound speaker alone would cost equal to an ir transceiver along with irda encoding chip

ultrasound will be super-slow, will require a lot of encryption, will be no better than ir and have lots of interference problem, while irritating animals, possibly insects too
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 28, 2016, 09:36:56 am
Perry hasn't tweeted or Facebooked since all this recent stuff went down...
She usually comes out from such things  :box:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on May 28, 2016, 05:14:19 pm
Perry hasn't tweeted or Facebooked since all this recent stuff went down...
She usually comes out from such things  :box:

I'm sure she's busy running the wire bonding machine and plumbing ASICs onto PCBs like there's no tomorrow.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: bazsa56 on May 28, 2016, 05:41:06 pm
Perry hasn't tweeted or Facebooked since all this recent stuff went down...
She usually comes out from such things  :box:

I'm sure she's busy running the wire bonding machine and plumbing ASICs onto PCBs like there's no tomorrow.

It's probably all over at this point. I don't see them getting another round of funding, at least nothing as big as they got till now.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on May 28, 2016, 06:39:35 pm
Perry hasn't tweeted or Facebooked since all this recent stuff went down...
She usually comes out from such things  :box:

I'm sure she's busy running the wire bonding machine and plumbing ASICs onto PCBs like there's no tomorrow.

It's probably all over at this point. I don't see them getting another round of funding, at least nothing as big as they got till now.

Sorry, sarcasm without emojis does translate well occasionally. That was not a serious comment.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Delta on May 29, 2016, 01:21:08 am
She's probably to busy laying in a pool full of banknotes with the BatterBros and laughing at idiot investors.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 29, 2016, 01:47:54 am
It's probably all over at this point. I don't see them getting another round of funding, at least nothing as big as they got till now.

That was clear when they got desperate enough to crowd fund their last round, taking $10k+ from almost 100 suckers last year.
That made the VC press by being an almost unprecedented and desperate move.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jurge24pez on June 03, 2016, 06:02:05 am
Perry hasn't tweeted or Facebooked since all this recent stuff went down...
She usually comes out from such things  :box:

I'm sure she's busy running the wire bonding machine and plumbing ASICs onto PCBs like there's no tomorrow.

It's probably all over at this point. I don't see them getting another round of funding, at least nothing as big as they got till now.

Rumor has it that they are working on a new strategy since the old one didn't work.  Press has died down so she won't respond until it picks back up as she's only one to pick a battle out of arrogance.  They're money is bound to run out since they lost their finance head and engineers continue to leave and nobody can invest until they prove they work.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 03, 2016, 08:57:01 am
Rumor has it that they are working on a new strategy since the old one didn't work.

I get the impression she'll never give up, she'll go down kicking and screaming before she changes pivots direction on the product.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: l0rd_hex on June 03, 2016, 04:16:19 pm
she'll go down kicking and screaming before she changes pivots direction on the product.

I think she'll protect her name at all costs but the new subject of "wireless data transmission" already seem like a potential pivot.

I'm holding out that she will announce lightening fast ham cooking with UBeHam (eat your heart out Ronco!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG43jyZ65R8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG43jyZ65R8)

 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on June 03, 2016, 07:08:36 pm
she'll go down kicking and screaming before she changes pivots direction on the product.

I think she'll protect her name at all costs but the new subject of "wireless data transmission" already seem like a potential pivot.

Yep, because nobody has "wireless data transmission" covered.

It's a huge gap in the market and a great opportunity for early investors.  :popcorn:


Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on June 04, 2016, 05:49:09 am
she'll go down kicking and screaming before she changes pivots direction on the product.

I think she'll protect her name at all costs but the new subject of "wireless data transmission" already seem like a potential pivot.

Yep, because nobody has "wireless data transmission" covered.

It's a huge gap in the market and a great opportunity for early investors.  :popcorn:
But this new method offers security, because you know the signal won't get very far. :)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on June 04, 2016, 05:25:55 pm
Yep, because nobody has "wireless data transmission" covered.

It's a huge gap in the market and a great opportunity for early investors.  :popcorn:
But this new method offers security, because you know the signal won't get very far. :)
Of course! I never thought of that. The limited range they're achieving in the laboratory is a feature!

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Buriedcode on June 04, 2016, 11:47:25 pm
Don't forget the relatively slow datarate.  But then again, that gives 'gadget lovers' time to talk about all their other startups/'art'/charityeventstheyareattendingbutnotactuallygivinganymoneyto whilst they exchange selfies.  Perhaps the app could provide links to tumblr for 6 minutes it'll take to send a 15 megapixel jpg of a pug?

 :rant:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 05, 2016, 02:51:51 am
I think she'll protect her name at all costs

Her name will always be mud as long as that infamous TEDx talk video exists  ;D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: d-smes on June 05, 2016, 07:01:39 pm
I enjoyed Paul Reynolds take on uBeam and comparison to Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos.  Interesting Forbes article at http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2016/06/01/from-4-5-billion-to-nothing-forbes-revises-estimated-net-worth-of-theranos-founder-elizabeth-holmes/#523aff1f2f29 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2016/06/01/from-4-5-billion-to-nothing-forbes-revises-estimated-net-worth-of-theranos-founder-elizabeth-holmes/#523aff1f2f29)  The link says it all...  Holmes and Perry seem to be crashing and burning at the same time.   "Peas in a pod" as the saying goes.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: chris_leyson on June 05, 2016, 09:43:38 pm
Anyone who has worked with ultrasound will tell you it doesn't propagate any distance through air, I know this from designing medical blood flow transducers, I've got practical hands on experience. I wouldn't waste time considering power transmission though air, as for data maybe you could get a few kbits/s. From a coupling point of view, magnetic coupling is probably better and there are some crazy projects out there that claim or aim for coupling over a few meters distance. What the hell is wrong with a Qi charger. I sometimes think  that the people developing this sort of shit are really lacking in terms of intelligence just like the the free energy over unity nuts. I could shout PHYSICS 101 but stupid blinkered people would filter that out. Rant over and back to normallity.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 06, 2016, 02:21:54 am
I enjoyed Paul Reynolds take on uBeam and comparison to Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos.  Interesting Forbes article at http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2016/06/01/from-4-5-billion-to-nothing-forbes-revises-estimated-net-worth-of-theranos-founder-elizabeth-holmes/#523aff1f2f29 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2016/06/01/from-4-5-billion-to-nothing-forbes-revises-estimated-net-worth-of-theranos-founder-elizabeth-holmes/#523aff1f2f29)  The link says it all...  Holmes and Perry seem to be crashing and burning at the same time.   "Peas in a pod" as the saying goes.

Perry will no doubt be watching Holme's demise with some fear.
Although Perry doesn't have to worry about the potential of criminal charges and/or jail.
The best Perry can hope for now is someone is dumb enough to buy them or their IP (possible for some niche). More investment isn't going to help, it will just prolong the agony. Although any company with any brains that would find their tech useful for something need only wait it out and pick up it all up for cents on the dollar when the receivers move in.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Danseur on June 06, 2016, 08:10:41 pm
Anyone who has worked with ultrasound will tell you it doesn't propagate any distance through air, I know this from designing medical blood flow transducers, I've got practical hands on experience. I wouldn't waste time considering power transmission though air, as for data maybe you could get a few kbits/s. From a coupling point of view, magnetic coupling is probably better and there are some crazy projects out there that claim or aim for coupling over a few meters distance. What the hell is wrong with a Qi charger. I sometimes think  that the people developing this sort of shit are really lacking in terms of intelligence just like the the free energy over unity nuts. I could shout PHYSICS 101 but stupid blinkered people would filter that out. Rant over and back to normallity.

Tightly coupled resonating induction charging can indeed go several meters with passable efficiency (50%).  The problem is that the transmitter and receiver need to be very large.  As soon as you go past a few times the diameter of the induction ring, efficiency drops rapidly.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jurge24pez on June 07, 2016, 07:52:25 am
]

Perry will no doubt be watching Holme's demise with some fear.
Although Perry doesn't have to worry about the potential of criminal charges and/or jail.
The best Perry can hope for now is someone is dumb enough to buy them or their IP (possible for some niche). More investment isn't going to help, it will just prolong the agony. Although any company with any brains that would find their tech useful for something need only wait it out and pick up it all up for cents on the dollar when the receivers move in.
[/quote]

Perry could very well still be liable for a number of criminal charges including outright mismanagement and breach of her responsibilities to investors, not to mention misleading them with her pitch stories that could take 1000 years to ever come to fruition.   And more investment won't come their way without something that works -- how can she continue to pitch "believe me, its taken us only three years and tens of millions and someday it might actually work if you just give me a bit more funds to fuel my darling engineers with".
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: helius on June 07, 2016, 10:52:14 am
How can a private company be subject to "outright mismanagement"? And where has uBeam made deals that privileged some shareholders over others? The uBeam saga is silly enough without adding ridiculous accusations.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on June 07, 2016, 11:23:39 am
How can a private company be subject to "outright mismanagement"? And where has uBeam made deals that privileged some shareholders over others? The uBeam saga is silly enough without adding ridiculous accusations.
Legally, the officers of a company are supposed to operate it expressly for the benefit of its shareholders. If they take shareholder investment and flush it down the toilet that would appear to be outright mismanagement of a private company - unless perhaps the investors want the money flushed away for some obscure tax accounting purpose.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: helius on June 07, 2016, 12:33:47 pm
Legally, the officers of a company are supposed to operate it expressly for the benefit of its shareholders. If they take shareholder investment and flush it down the toilet that would appear to be outright mismanagement of a private company - unless perhaps the investors want the money flushed away for some obscure tax accounting purpose.
The key here is that private companies make their own rules and decide the powers and duties they will operate under. Unlike publicly traded companies, they aren't subject to regulations that require them to do business in a particular way (such as making financial reports). That's because "the public" isn't involved in the business and cannot be affected by changes in the price of the stock. Any misdeeds of management can only be remedied in private civil claims, which can be very difficult to bring. In particular for Delaware corporations, which uBeam is.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on June 07, 2016, 01:51:38 pm
Legally, the officers of a company are supposed to operate it expressly for the benefit of its shareholders. If they take shareholder investment and flush it down the toilet that would appear to be outright mismanagement of a private company.

So? Companies are allowed to go broke through management stupidity.

It's also not against the law for you to go out on the town and spend all your money. Go figure.

The only rule that applies to people who invest in a private company is "caveat emptor".
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: l0rd_hex on July 01, 2016, 05:14:57 am
For all her self-promotion and "success" she's only managed to re-tweet two stories since Reynolds uncovered her greasy scheme...

https://twitter.com/meredithperry

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jurge24pez on July 08, 2016, 07:02:06 am
apparently the little miss has been busy traveling to some islands with her COO from a staff report.  self promoting in a different way now?  the company exodus continues as two more engineers ready to resign according to same individual.  they have gone silent because there is nothing more to say. investors were duped and now have to wait for the miracle.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on July 08, 2016, 07:04:12 am
apparently the little miss has been busy traveling to some islands with her COO from a staff report.  self promoting in a different way now?  the company exodus continues as two more engineers ready to resign according to same individual.  they have gone silent because there is nothing more to say. investors were duped and now have to wait for the miracle.
I'm amazed they still have any engineers left. Maybe some lame-asses hanging on for the paycheck because they can't get work elsewhere
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on July 08, 2016, 07:44:47 am
I'm amazed they still have any engineers left. Maybe some lame-asses hanging on for the paycheck because they can't get work elsewhere

It's probably a cushy job with plenty of benefits. Why would you leave?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on August 12, 2016, 07:52:06 am
It's been pretty quiet around here.

Has anyone else noticed the delicious irony of the uBeam home page, regarding the practicalities of operating ultrasonic devices in the vacuum of space?

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on August 12, 2016, 08:07:56 am
It's been pretty quiet around here.

Has anyone else noticed the delicious irony of the uBeam home page, regarding the practicalities of operating ultrasonic devices in the vacuum of space?

In space, no one can hear your investors scream.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on August 12, 2016, 09:06:06 am
I'm amazed they still have any engineers left. Maybe some lame-asses hanging on for the paycheck because they can't get work elsewhere
It's probably a cushy job with plenty of benefits. Why would you leave?

And maybe cushy jobs that pay really well aren't that common in the ultrasonic space? Just keep cruising until the ideal job comes along.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on September 10, 2016, 12:50:34 am
An update from Perry
https://medium.com/@meredithperry/former-hp-and-tektronix-engineering-executive-larry-pendergrass-joins-ubeam-b08597f45a24#.f33v4otnq (https://medium.com/@meredithperry/former-hp-and-tektronix-engineering-executive-larry-pendergrass-joins-ubeam-b08597f45a24#.f33v4otnq)

Former HP and Tektronix Engineering Executive, Larry Pendergrass, joins uBeam - What a sucker! I hope he's being paid well.
(http://i.imgur.com/rGJzfFQ.png)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Bud on September 10, 2016, 03:19:48 am
"Engineering Executive" , not an Engineer.   :popcorn:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on September 11, 2016, 02:11:22 am
uBeam isn't happy about this article apparently
http://epicmagazine.com/silicon-is-just-sand/ (http://epicmagazine.com/silicon-is-just-sand/)
Start at Part 8 "The Genius".

Choice quotes:
Quote
Meredith tells me, “I think the reason I can tackle complex technology is because I’m good at breaking down complex problems and explaining them to other people.”

I nod, but I still don’t actually understand how an ultrasonic transducer works.

“My approach has always been top-down,” Meredith says. “I get interested in crazy complex scientific problems, then I learn everything I need to know in order to solve them. Part of that is ADD. I don’t want to have to go to four years of electrical engineering school.”

Quote
Meredith takes me for a tour of the office. For a hot company with tons of funding, it’s surprisingly underpopulated. In the hallway there are a handful of employees tapping on laptops at a long table, but most of the rooms are empty. She gives me a tour of workshops full of hardware, but there are no engineers. She shows me the progressions of prototypes, with tiny silver caps inside. These are the new, smaller ultrasonic transducers, less like bullets and more like flat birdshot. In the largest workshop, back near the entrance, we stand around the workbench, just me, Meredith, and the publicist.

Quote
And just like that, the publicist’s phone call changed me from a believer to a skeptic. Meredith surely seems brilliant. And believes in what she’s doing. But reading further through the transcripts, I’m struck by an absurd optimism, a pathological confidence that’s brought people west for more than a hundred years, first for gold, then for fame. Maybe that’s why Silicon Beach landed here in Los Angeles, where the motto has always been “Fake it till you make it.”
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on September 11, 2016, 02:17:36 am
And rumor has it that Paul Chandler who replaced Paul Reynolds as VP of Acoustics is now gone after 7 months or so. Not even on his LinkedIn profile.
https://ubeam.com/ultrasonic_experts_join_beam/
Seems they don't have a single acoustics expert left at the company?

You've got to ask why a top acoustics person would not put the hottest and most high profile acoustics company on the planet on their LinkedIn profile?
A tad embarrassed maybe?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on September 11, 2016, 02:44:07 am
You've got to ask why a top acoustics person would not put the hottest and most high profile acoustics company on the planet on their LinkedIn profile?
A tad embarrassed maybe?
He's having a  :palm: moment.

They've been heads down gearing up for mass production for nearly a year now. Surely they've got one prototype working by now, just how long does it take to rewrite the laws of physics.
 :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Buriedcode on September 11, 2016, 02:47:19 am
They've been heads down gearing up for mass production for nearly a year now. Surely they've got one prototype working by now, just how long does it take to rewrite the laws of physics.
 :horse:

Now there's that negative thinking again, it holds back technology and stifles progress!  As we've heard many times, anything is possible if you just believe! *clutches rose quartz close to chest*
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: timb on September 12, 2016, 11:05:56 pm
You've got to ask why a top acoustics person would not put the hottest and most high profile acoustics company on the planet on their LinkedIn profile?
A tad embarrassed maybe?
He's having a  :palm: moment.

They've been heads down gearing up for mass production for nearly a year now. Surely they've got one prototype working by now, just how long does it take to rewrite the laws of physics.
 :horse:

"Ya kn'not rewrite the laws of physics, captain!" -Scotty
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on September 28, 2016, 12:23:02 am
They're hiring!
"Director of HR & Culture"  :-DD

Because they haven't been able to hire any acoustic experts any more, they think a HR droid will work magic  :horse:

https://ubeam-inc.workable.com/jobs/339784
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on September 28, 2016, 12:29:15 am
Here is the uBeam crew, all happily shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=258766;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on September 28, 2016, 01:02:30 am
They're hiring!
"Director of HR & Culture"  :-DD

Because they haven't been able to hire any acoustic experts any more, they think a HR droid will work magic  :horse:

https://ubeam-inc.workable.com/jobs/339784

Quote
uBeam is seeking a hands-on, eager...

I would think that "hands-on, eager" would be the qualities one was *not* looking for in an HR manager.  You just can't make this stuff up.   :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Phoenix on September 28, 2016, 03:18:45 am
They're hiring!
"Director of HR & Culture"  :-DD

Because they haven't been able to hire any acoustic experts any more, they think a HR droid will work magic  :horse:

https://ubeam-inc.workable.com/jobs/339784

Quote
uBeam is seeking a hands-on, eager...

I would think that "hands-on, eager" would be the qualities one was *not* looking for in an HR manager.  You just can't make this stuff up.   :palm:

But they need to be hands to create their market leading uniforms...

Quote
and defining the couture best able to position the organization as the leader in the market place
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: The_Next_Theranos on October 08, 2016, 01:53:44 am
Because they haven't been able to hire any acoustic experts any more, they think a HR droid will work magic  :horse:

Of course. The whole ubeam project is about magic, not science. They even say so themselves!

Quote from: http://ubeam.com/team/
This isn’t a science project – we‘re executing on a rigorously mapped vision that will change the world. (http://ubeam.com/team/)

There you have it. The science doesn't matter! It's the rigorously mapped vision that matters!

It's also amusing that the "team" page above shows only the "leadership" team and the investors, but not anybody who's actually making anything. Those people aren't part of "the team"? On second thought, seeing as how the real corporate mission seems to be fleecing investors based on a physically-impossible and rigorously mapped vision, then maybe all those pesky people with engineering degrees and Aspergers are just dead weight after all.
link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukgnU2aXM2c)

To quote the CEO in her own words:
Quote from: MEREDITH PERRY'S BRAIN
If it smells like a fish, looks like a fish, and tastes like a fish, it’s probably a fish. (http://meredithperry.tumblr.com/post/136374842310/keeponkeepinon)

Perhaps that should become their new corporate motto?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on October 08, 2016, 05:13:52 am
To quote the CEO in her own words:
Quote from: MEREDITH PERRY'S BRAIN
If it smells like a fish, looks like a fish, and tastes like a fish, it’s probably a fish. (http://meredithperry.tumblr.com/post/136374842310/keeponkeepinon)

Wasn't the expression about Anatidae?

Perhaps that should become their new corporate motto?

Seems like a good choice for a company owned by somebody who'd take a common expression and replace a well defined family of Anseriformes with an entire Phylum in an attempt to show how she thinks "out of the box".
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on October 08, 2016, 05:27:20 am
It's also amusing that the "team" page above shows only the "leadership" team and the investors, but not anybody who's actually making anything.

I don't think there is anyone left actually making anything  :-//
Also, uBeam can't be the next Theranos, because Theranos actually shipped something that people used.

Quote
Those people aren't part of "the team"? On second thought, seeing as how the real corporate mission seems to be fleecing investors based on a physically-impossible and rigorously mapped vision, then maybe all those pesky people with engineering degrees and Aspergers are just dead weight after all.

Of course all you need is vision, engineers just get in the way  ::)

Quote
Perhaps that should become their new corporate motto?

Doesn't matter, they'll fold soon enough. The charade can't keep going much longer.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Holmes34 on October 13, 2016, 03:01:22 pm
Whilst it seems obvious you're not going to be able to provide anywhere near enough power to charge the beasts we carry around in our pockets without going full Samsung on the user, it may be they have just targeted the completely wrong problem area? It's always the way with blue-sky thinking, the dreamers get fixated on the wrong application for their technology. Just look at organic solar cells as an example, and tell me when was the last time you saw a commercial one?  :-DD Turns out organic semi's are much more useful in sensors!

If ultrasonic power transmission is feasible but only with lower power applications, what about bioimplants (http://ldcn-mechatronics.net/ultrasonic-energy-transmission-and-conversion-using-a-2d-mems-resonator/) and niche applications where rogue magnetic fields (inductive charging) are unwanted? Are there any interesting inflection points where ultrasonic beats inductive?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Danseur on October 26, 2016, 12:08:36 am
You know it's going to be bad when the article starts with a homeless guy peeing on a mural of Meredith Perry.  It even goes into the story about Meredith's brother who goes by the name "Penis Bailey" who sees himself as the savior of Hollywood and wears a large penis shaped necklace.

http://epicmagazine.com/silicon-is-just-sand/ (http://epicmagazine.com/silicon-is-just-sand/)

Paul Reynolds also talks about the Energous scam where the CTO and his parents have sold off all their stock.
http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/ (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 08, 2016, 06:25:06 am
Looks like the last remaining tech stallwart Sean Taffler left in October.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/seantaffler (https://www.linkedin.com/in/seantaffler)

Looks like poor new sucker Larry Pendergrass hasn't got any engineering department left to manage?
Must be lonely shuffling the empty deck chairs on this Titanic.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: HackedFridgeMagnet on November 08, 2016, 08:33:12 am
Sean is probably scanning Indiegogo for more "Blue Sky opportunities".
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on November 08, 2016, 08:57:31 am
Looks like the last remaining tech stallwart Sean Taffler left in October.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/seantaffler (https://www.linkedin.com/in/seantaffler)

Looks like poor new sucker Larry Pendergrass hasn't got any engineering department left to manage?
Must be lonely shuffling the empty deck chairs on this Titanic.

It can't have long to go now before it implodes with nothing more than a few patents. Those investors conned by the VC BS, and all their VCs' thorough due diligence (not) must surely be asking how to get out.

It's going to be difficult for the VCs to make anything on this one I'm sure, there's almost nothing to sell on, but they only have themselves to blame for loss of reputation. I live in hope they've actually learned something, that pissing away other people's money has reputational consequences. Regrettably I doubt it, they are thick skinned, they'll put it down to the numbers game rather than actually change their ways.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 08, 2016, 09:22:33 am
I live in hope they've actually learned something, that pissing away other people's money has reputational consequences. Regrettably I doubt it, they are thick skinned, they'll put it down to the numbers game rather than actually change their ways.

Nope, the likes of Suster will never learn:
https://bothsidesofthetable.com/what-is-it-like-to-wake-up-and-have-the-press-ready-to-torpedo-your-business-351f27ca6d67#.pzee23vgz

They will never admit an idea was brain dead from the start and they just didn't see it.
They will always think that all you need is the vision, tenacity and resiliency and you can do anything.

And ironically, their two big hitting PhD's names in that article are now gone.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on November 08, 2016, 11:18:19 am
There has to be an entertaining book to be written about this whole saga. (Apart from the one Meredith will probably write when the VC wages run out)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on November 08, 2016, 02:51:39 pm
Sean Taffler's time there was very successful. :) :bullshit:  :horse:

Thought leader on technology and strategy for system and ultrasonic transducer assembly

Whilst reporting directly to the CEO, grew the team of engineers and scientists and ran the development of the power delivery and reception system from white board to prototype and EVT.

Translated business requirements into achievable product visions and timelines that were actionable
Designed the overall system architecture and responsible for the realization of that vision.

Managed departmental resources, staffing and mentoring to enhance and maintain a world-class engineering team whilst motivating them to realize the product.

http://www.taffler.com/Taffler/Resume.html (http://www.taffler.com/Taffler/Resume.html)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on November 08, 2016, 03:02:08 pm
Managed departmental resources, staffing and mentoring to enhance and maintain a world-class engineering team whilst motivating them to realize the product.
http://www.taffler.com/Taffler/Resume.html (http://www.taffler.com/Taffler/Resume.html)
Did he miss the end off that sentance?  ;)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Dubbie on November 09, 2016, 12:33:41 am
Quote
Did he miss the end off that sentance?  ;)

Yes! here is the rest...

"...is never going to work despite the fervent belief of the founder that if you dream it then it is possible."
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 09, 2016, 12:40:22 am
Managed departmental resources, staffing and mentoring to enhance and maintain a world-class engineering team whilst motivating them to realize the product.[/i]
http://www.taffler.com/Taffler/Resume.html (http://www.taffler.com/Taffler/Resume.html)

Damn, that's funny!  :-DD
You'd think that changing the world would be motivation enough. But not when you are an engineer who knows the product you are working on will never work as claimed, that requires some serious motivational BS
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: The_Next_Theranos on December 03, 2016, 07:14:12 am
Looks like the last remaining tech stallwart Sean Taffler left in October.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/seantaffler (https://www.linkedin.com/in/seantaffler)

Looks like poor new sucker Larry Pendergrass hasn't got any engineering department left to manage?
But as of November, they're hiring a new manager! https://ubeam-inc.workable.com/jobs/370494 (https://ubeam-inc.workable.com/jobs/370494)

Notice the wording on one of the responsibilities:
Quote
Hire, develops and coaches engineering staff

See how the verb "hire" is lacking the "s" for consistent conjugation, but the other verbs are conjugated with the "s", i.e. "develops" and "coaches"? Could it be that the original requirement simply read "Develops and coaches engineering staff", and then, upon realisation that no engineering staff exists anymore, the word "hire" was tacked on as a last-minute, inconsistently-conjugated afterthought?  ;D

I thought we were supposed to see the uBeam technology in action within this year (https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/wireless-power-charger/). Only a few more weeks to go!

On the other hand, perhaps Meredith's recent tweet Goodnight uBeam (https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/803494633124794368) can be interpreted as an admission that the whole thing is nearing critical implosion?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 03, 2016, 07:47:50 am
See how the verb "hire" is lacking the "s" for consistent conjugation, but the other verbs are conjugated with the "s", i.e. "develops" and "coaches"? Could it be that the original requirement simply read "Develops and coaches engineering staff", and then, upon realisation that no engineering staff exists anymore, the word "hire" was tacked on as a last-minute, inconsistently-conjugated afterthought?  ;D

 :-DD

Quote
On the other hand, perhaps Meredith's recent tweet Goodnight uBeam (https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/803494633124794368) can be interpreted as an admission that the whole thing is nearing critical implosion?

Critical implosion is guaranteed.
No need to waste energy lighting that huge empty engineering space. Turn the lights out until you can hire more with your last remaining VC funding who will then be left to shuffle the deck chairs on the RMS uBeam. Iceberg ahead captain!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on December 04, 2016, 12:49:21 am
Her last (I don't mean latest  :) ) appearance didn't seem to get much publicity.

http://sites.ieee.org/ttm/speakers/#perry (http://sites.ieee.org/ttm/speakers/#perry)

https://www.facebook.com/IEEETTM/posts/1199645150108784:0 (https://www.facebook.com/IEEETTM/posts/1199645150108784:0)

I think it's 
G a m e  O v e r.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 04, 2016, 01:03:23 am
I think it's 
G a m e  O v e r.

Who is she going to blame I wonder?
It won't be the practicality of the idea. If only those annoying non outside-the-box engineers had stayed and seen it through with as much vision as her ::)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on December 04, 2016, 01:43:24 am

https://origin.ieeetv.ieee.org/conference-highlights/women-making-the-future-panelist-meredith-perry-2016-technology-time-machine?

Surprisingly no sniggers audible from the audience....
 :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on December 04, 2016, 01:57:28 am
"Phased array of 26,000 transducers"
I shit you not..... :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on December 04, 2016, 02:09:59 am
What a performance, I can't decide whether it's funny or painful.
Only 4 views!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on December 04, 2016, 02:19:36 am
Q&A : skip to 22:50
https://origin.ieeetv.ieee.org/conference-highlights/panel-q-and-a-women-making-the-future-2016-technology-time-machine?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: CaptCrash on December 04, 2016, 02:41:25 am
In answer to the question relating to, how are you going to get your power receiver into all of these devices that need to receive wireless power.

The answer from Meredith was basically make a module, then an example for phones was given

1. initially make a case for phones to receive power
2. Have the receiver inbuilt into phone

However, In step 2 won't having a case on the phone stop it receiving power?
So both step 1 and step 2 require custom cases of some sort, either with uBeam receiver in the case, or in step 2 somehow the case being transparent to the ultrasonic signal.

Seems like a wonderful technology, so cost effective and practical to implement.   :-DD

In talking about other devices she infers that they would provide a number of receivers for powering things like IoT, TV, stick on lightbulbs etc.  (she talks about powering various item types during the presentation, then gives the example of providing modules when asked how this could be done).
So wireless power to 110V/240V as a plug in module (not a custom module for the device, but a generic IEC or barrel jack/USB)?  Seems way practical to take wireless power -> 110v/240v AC -> device like a TV sitting in the middle of the room with no wires attached.  Really?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on December 04, 2016, 05:00:51 am
Her last (I don't mean latest  :) ) appearance didn't seem to get much publicity.

http://sites.ieee.org/ttm/speakers/#perry (http://sites.ieee.org/ttm/speakers/#perry)

https://www.facebook.com/IEEETTM/posts/1199645150108784:0 (https://www.facebook.com/IEEETTM/posts/1199645150108784:0)

I think it's 
G a m e  O v e r.

And this is yet another reason why IEEE continues to shed credibility as an organization.   :--  It was bad enough when IEEE hosted SolarRoadways. 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 04, 2016, 06:15:23 am
https://origin.ieeetv.ieee.org/conference-highlights/women-making-the-future-panelist-meredith-perry-2016-technology-time-machine?

I can't do it, I just can't. The TED talk was about the same length and by half way I was seriously contemplating shoving a hot soldering iron in my ear.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: The_Next_Theranos on December 04, 2016, 06:41:37 am
Who is she going to blame I wonder?
I recognise the rhetorical nature of your question, but nevertheless shall hazard a guess: It will be easy to blame the tech press. The logic will go something like:

This may be augmented with cop-outs such as "we should have handled the press better" or "we'll still find a way to prove ourselves." And a few years down the road, there might even be a lame attempt to point to some other successful wireless charging product and say "their success validates our failure -- they're just copying us and we would have been successful if only the tech press hadn't torpedoed our business."
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: The_Next_Theranos on December 04, 2016, 09:45:59 am
https://origin.ieeetv.ieee.org/conference-highlights/women-making-the-future-panelist-meredith-perry-2016-technology-time-machine?

I can't do it, I just can't. The TED talk was about the same length and by half way I was seriously contemplating shoving a hot soldering iron in my ear.
Just getting around to watching it now. It's revealing that the very first thing out of her mouth is to make an excuse that her product won't ship. Not "thank you" to the host, not "pleased to be here", but "uh, about that shipping date..."

Speaking of hot soldering irons, why the **** does the smoke always flow directly into your face?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on December 04, 2016, 10:12:52 am

I can't do it, I just can't. The TED talk was about the same length and by half way I was seriously contemplating shoving a hot soldering iron in my ear.
Speaking of hot soldering irons, why the **** does the smoke always flow directly into your face?

Stop sticking it in your ear?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 04, 2016, 10:04:58 pm
214 views now, 200 of those are from here I suspect.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 04, 2016, 10:07:07 pm
Just getting around to watching it now. It's revealing that the very first thing out of her mouth is to make an excuse that her product won't ship. Not "thank you" to the host, not "pleased to be here", but "uh, about that shipping date..."

But she said "we will have some very cool things to show you in 2016", we can't wait.
You know what would be really cool, a power meter on the transmitter, and a power meter on the receiver, and a 10 second video showing the numbers vs distance.
In the last demo she used a voltmeter and called it a power meter. Time for an update...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on December 04, 2016, 10:10:22 pm
214 views now, 200 of those are from here I suspect.
Actually I think it was 2 or 3 before I found it.
Well done the IEEE, way to do social media.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 04, 2016, 10:17:46 pm
214 views now, 200 of those are from here I suspect.
Actually I think it was 2 or 3 before I found it.
Well done the IEEE, way to do social media.

Big numbers for them.
This slick multi-part production got 17 views:
https://origin.ieeetv.ieee.org/ieeetv-specials/standards-wars-exploring-open-standards-part-5
Part 1 got 11 views:
https://origin.ieeetv.ieee.org/ieeetv-specials/standards-and-the-internet-exploring-open-standards-part-1?rf=series|4
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on December 04, 2016, 11:08:06 pm
I couldn't make it "umm...uhh...umm...well....umm..." two minutes ....

Why are you so nervous chatting in front of a few EE's, Meredith? 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on December 04, 2016, 11:41:44 pm
Meredith: "Stick-on lightbulbs"

 :-DD

...at 0.0000000001% of the efficiency of today's light bulbs.

Plus: How about a 2500kW television set? Any takers?

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on December 04, 2016, 11:52:08 pm
I couldn't make it "umm...uhh...umm...well....umm..." two minutes ....

Why are you so nervous chatting in front of a few EE's, Meredith?
A very few - lots of empty seats there. Maybe she insisted the audience were vetted to only include people who didn't laugh when told who would be speaking.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 04, 2016, 11:53:21 pm
Why are you so nervous chatting in front of a few EE's, Meredith?

Embaressed about calling us all "inside the box" "jaded" thinkers with aspergers" ?
https://youtu.be/ukgnU2aXM2c?t=2m19s

And "linear thinkers" with our "binary approach"
https://youtu.be/ukgnU2aXM2c?t=13m10s

And we are still; waiting for her to give us the middle finger:
https://youtu.be/ukgnU2aXM2c?t=14m2s
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on December 05, 2016, 07:48:43 pm
Speaking of hot soldering irons, why the **** does the smoke always flow directly into your face?

Because your warm body creates an updraft of air currents and the smoke is drawn in to the lower pressure region between the iron and your body/face.

Heathen! Unbeliever! For your reasonable explanation and wanton disbelief in the laws of the great Murphy the curse of Murphy now lies upon you!  :)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Corporate666 on December 06, 2016, 01:13:11 am
I couldn't make it "umm...uhh...umm...well....umm..." two minutes ....

Why are you so nervous chatting in front of a few EE's, Meredith?

I noticed that... every other sound out of her mouth is ummm and uhhh and errr... painful to listen to.



Dave had a post above about the initial VC guy.  It was also painful to read and really highlights that some people just get lucky and really don't have much intelligence at all.  Or maybe the guy is a lot smarter and just a lot more unethical than I am presuming.  He says uBeam works but glosses over the singular huge issue - efficiency - by saying it would be impossible to refute every point.  Then says he will be the first investor in Perry's next business.  I would like to think he just doesn't want to believe his money is gone... but maybe they're actively looking for additional capital or to sell whatever is left so they can recoup as much of their $$ as possible, and they are slathering as much lipstick on this pig as possible.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on December 06, 2016, 02:09:59 am
I couldn't make it "umm...uhh...umm...well....umm..." two minutes ....

Why are you so nervous chatting in front of a few EE's, Meredith?

I noticed that... every other sound out of her mouth is ummm and uhhh and errr... painful to listen to.



Dave had a post above about the initial VC guy.  It was also painful to read and really highlights that some people just get lucky and really don't have much intelligence at all.  Or maybe the guy is a lot smarter and just a lot more unethical than I am presuming.  He says uBeam works but glosses over the singular huge issue - efficiency - by saying it would be impossible to refute every point.  Then says he will be the first investor in Perry's next business.  I would like to think he just doesn't want to believe his money is gone... but maybe they're actively looking for additional capital or to sell whatever is left so they can recoup as much of their $$ as possible, and they are slathering as much lipstick on this pig as possible.

I interpret such statements from VCs as, "I am absolutely confident that I do not want to be sued by all those I fleeced in this donnybrook."
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 06, 2016, 02:14:40 am
Or maybe the guy is a lot smarter and just a lot more unethical than I am presuming.  He says uBeam works but glosses over the singular huge issue - efficiency - by saying it would be impossible to refute every point. 

And that's the thing. There would not be a single competent engineer on this planet who says it can't actually work, and Perry keeps harping on about how us clueless engineers said it "wouldn't work". If she actually listened to the engineers and was able to comprehend it, what they are saying is that it can't work because it's not practical, it's not anywhere near efficient enough. And by not anywhere near efficient enough I mean by several orders of orders of magnitude.

This is why when engineers come up with concepts like this, they do back of the envelope order of magnitude calculations to see if it's potentially practical. uBeam never ever got close to passing that test, it should never have been funded, and the people who did so are idiots.

Quote
Then says he will be the first investor in Perry's next business.  I would like to think he just doesn't want to believe his money is gone...

He's got to say that, it's the only thing that can help him save face.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 06, 2016, 02:16:27 am
I interpret such statements from VCs as, "I am absolutely confident that I do not want to be sued by all those I fleeced in this donnybrook."

Yep, because it wasn't his money, it was his investors money.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: djos on December 06, 2016, 03:10:50 am
Holy crap, I just finished reading George's first few posts, amazing work!

The thing that jumped out at me was the similarity of uBeam to Theranos .... and we all know how that ended up (http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/11/the-personal-bloodbath-behind-theranos-rise-and-fall/)!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Corporate666 on December 06, 2016, 03:20:27 am
I interpret such statements from VCs as, "I am absolutely confident that I do not want to be sued by all those I fleeced in this donnybrook."

Yep, because it wasn't his money, it was his investors money.

It says he put a bunch of money in himself.

Even if what he says in that article/post is true and the tech VP guy never expressed his true level of concern over the feasibility of the product/technology, there must have been a point where he looks at all the people who have jumped ship and says "Ok, this thing is tanking".  And I think that keeping things going at this point and trying to put a positive spin to the public can only mean that they are trying to shop the rotting carcass of this company to whomever they can get some interest from in the hopes that they can recoup some of their investment.  Hence, all of these public-facing statements about "we know it works... we know we still have work to do... we know things were harder than we thought, but every product that was ever worth inventing took longer than expected, and I've never seen a more driven team than these folks" are really just fluff designed to blow smoke up the ass of the poor suckers unlucky enough to open their wallets and sink money into this pig of a company.

I would be genuinely curious what Perry does every day.  She seems to spent much of her time on Twitter and "evangelizing".  It doesn't look like the company actually has any engineers there anymore.  I wonder how many people really show up to their office on a daily basis and what those people do.  I think that if any people actually show up, they probably just mostly sit around and collect a paycheck and perhaps talk about what sort of press releases they can come up with or something.  They have to either be in on the ruse or just resigned to being warm bodies occupying chairs until their job search turns up something else.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on December 06, 2016, 04:02:45 am
I interpret such statements from VCs as, "I am absolutely confident that I do not want to be sued by all those I fleeced in this donnybrook."

Yep, because it wasn't his money, it was his investors money.

It says he put a bunch of money in himself.

The question is *when* the money went in and in which subsequent investment round did the VC expect to get out?  The financial returns the early backers receive has effectively zero to do with the performance of the technology and everything to do with the early exit payouts received as part of the subsequent funding rounds.  Startups are the new Ponzi scheme, where early investors are the winners and 2nd through N round investors are the suckers. 

If he still has skin in the game, I'd bet that it's token, paper "skin" and that his true payout came long ago. 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on December 06, 2016, 08:23:40 am
I may be wrong, but I see no evidence that he personally invested a dime into uBeam. His VC outfit, Upfront Vultures Ventures, did invest $10m of other people's money in series A funding.

As LabSpokane says, the VC landscape is little more than an elaborate Ponzi scheme, an extremely high risk game, although in uBeam's case it's difficult to see how it will ever work other than for the early funders to get out and resell before the final implosion.

There is almost no specific regulation in the VC space (they're not meant to advertise or solicit, which makes TechCrunch interesting because I don't know what else it's for), and absurdly only in the past day or two they've been lobbying Trunp for tax breaks.

https://regmedia.co.uk/2016/12/02/nvca-letter-to-president-elect-trump-final-1.pdf
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on December 06, 2016, 10:00:27 am
I would be genuinely curious what Perry does every day.  She seems to spent much of her time on Twitter and "evangelizing".  It doesn't look like the company actually has any engineers there anymore.  I wonder how many people really show up to their office on a daily basis and what those people do.  I think that if any people actually show up, they probably just mostly sit around and collect a paycheck and perhaps talk about what sort of press releases they can come up with or something.  They have to either be in on the ruse or just resigned to being warm bodies occupying chairs until their job search turns up something else.
It's not totally implausible that in the process of chasing the power unicorn  they have made some genuine improvements in transducer tech that might have some value in certain niche markets.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 06, 2016, 10:47:44 am
It's not totally implausible that in the process of chasing the power unicorn  they have made some genuine improvements in transducer tech that might have some value in certain niche markets.

I've posited that before. And word on the street is that people internal tried to get the company to pivot the tech, but Perry would have none of it. It'll be sold for pennies on the dollar.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 06, 2016, 10:58:01 am
It doesn't look like the company actually has any engineers there anymore.  I wonder how many people really show up to their office on a daily basis and what those people do.  I think that if any people actually show up, they probably just mostly sit around and collect a paycheck and perhaps talk about what sort of press releases they can come up with or something.  They have to either be in on the ruse or just resigned to being warm bodies occupying chairs until their job search turns up something else.

Word is they have none of the original series funding tech employees left. Or at least anyone of note, i.e. all the big name acoustics experts have jumped ship, and apparently it's impossible to hire any acoustics experts any more because word has gotten around. Even VP of Engineering Sean Taffler has left according to his LinkedIn, and he seemed to have been one of the loyal stallwarts. Although he could still be consulting for them perhaps.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on December 06, 2016, 11:09:47 am
One interesting thing from that IEEE vid was the initial aim to transfer one watt, which even at the time would have been useless for phone charging, more so nowadays.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 06, 2016, 11:29:27 am
One interesting thing from that IEEE vid was the initial aim to transfer one watt, which even at the time would have been useless for phone charging, more so nowadays.

I've got calcs (using proper industry simulation data) that show with a @45KHz 155dB 1500Pa 2900W/sqm source, the likely typical efficiency is:
@1m = 1.8% giving 53W/sqm
@2m = 0.3% giving 8W/sqm
@3m = 0.05% giving 1.6 W/sqm
@4m = 0.01% giving 0.2 W/sqm available

The surface area of a typical iPhone thingo is about 0.01sqm
Assuming 100% efficiency on the receiver, a power density of 100W/sqm is required to charge at 1W
Even at 1m using a massive power hog transmitter and ideal receiver they would barely get 0.5W, quickly dropping to bugger all.
They claim a 4m radius  :-DD

Absolute best case calcs are not much better at distance.
And the more power you pump in, the closer the saturation and nonlinearity happens.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on December 06, 2016, 11:32:59 am
One interesting thing from that IEEE vid was the initial aim to transfer one watt, which even at the time would have been useless for phone charging, more so nowadays.

I've got calcs (using proper industry simulation data) that show with a @45KHz 155dB 1500Pa 2900W/sqm source, the likely typical efficiency is:
@1m = 1.8% giving 53W/sqm
@2m = 0.3% giving 8W/sqm
@3m = 0.05% giving 1.6 W/sqm
@4m = 0.01% giving 0.2 W/sqm available

The surface area of a typical iPhone thingo is about 0.01sqm
Assuming 100% efficiency on the receiver, a power density of 100W/sqm is required to charge at 1W
Even at 1m using a massive power hog transmitter and ideal receiver they would barely get 0.5W, quickly dropping to bugger all.
They claim a 4m radius  :-DD

Absolute best case calcs are not much better at distance.
And the more power you pump in, the closer the saturation and nonlinearity happens.

Yeah but they're now using a phased array - antenna gain FTW!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 06, 2016, 11:56:09 am
Yeah but they're now using a phased array - antenna gain FTW!
They always said they were using a phased array.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 06, 2016, 01:17:33 pm
Yeah but they're now using a phased array - antenna gain FTW!

Shame that the power output from a phased array system varies with the angle though, that pesky Lambert's cosine law ;D
It ain't no magic bullet.

IIRC I believe they have demoed to certain investors a circa 1W output from a meter or something? I don't doubt they can do that straight on with enough input power. Doesn't make a practical system though, not by a long shot.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: The_Next_Theranos on December 06, 2016, 03:06:28 pm
Or maybe the guy is a lot smarter and just a lot more unethical than I am presuming.  He says uBeam works but glosses over the singular huge issue - efficiency - by saying it would be impossible to refute every point. 

And that's the thing. There would not be a single competent engineer on this planet who says it can't actually work, and Perry keeps harping on about how us clueless engineers said it "wouldn't work". If she actually listened to the engineers and was able to comprehend it
On the other hand, maybe Perry is smarter than we are giving her credit for, and maybe she herself understands the difference between "won't work" and "orders of magnitude away from working", but instead made a conscious choice -- like the "smarter and just a lot more unethical" VC investor -- to misrepresent the issue to a gullible public, casting it as an easy-to-understand, "down-to-earth-innovator-vs-those-stuck-up-so-called-intellectuals" type of story. Such a framing of the story might have been a calculated move designed specifically to garner sympathy and funding.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on December 06, 2016, 08:17:11 pm
Yeah but they're now using a phased array - antenna gain FTW!

Without thinking too deeply, I don't think a transmitting phased array gives any power gain over the inverse square losses.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on December 06, 2016, 09:19:33 pm
Yeah but they're now using a phased array - antenna gain FTW!

Without thinking too deeply, I don't think a transmitting phased array gives any power gain over the inverse square losses.

Not sure I follow. Aside from non-linearities of fluid medium in extreme scenarios, a phased array of transmitters will work as the reciprocal of a similarly constructed phased array of receivers.

I did some very rough back of the envelope calcs earlier today, for 1m^2 at 45kHz you'd get a half power beamwidth in the far field of about 0.4 degrees and a gain of about 50dB. You'd use of the order of 15,000 transducers at that wavelength in that area and a similar configuration for the receiver to attain equivalent directivity. That's assuming a simple single handset. Problem is this isn't far field: in relation to aperture size it's near field, so it's a 3D not a 2D problem which is going to make life quite a bit harder to track and target the handset.

I'm not clear if they were using ultrasonics bidirectionally, though, although there was some talk of using it for data as well as power. It will need some means of bidirectional communication though in order to configure the phased array for power transfer, but that might be out of band on WiFi instead.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: The_Next_Theranos on December 07, 2016, 01:19:25 am
I would be genuinely curious what Perry does every day.
Pose for photos like this one, released 8 hours ago?
https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/806190586051133440

There's also a cryptic tweet before that, "December 5, 2016, 3:30pm PT.  Greatest day in uBeam history.  I am so proud of my team."

I wonder what happened to make this the "greatest day in uBeam history" -- did Meredith quit? ;D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 07, 2016, 02:06:24 am
There's also a cryptic tweet before that, "December 5, 2016, 3:30pm PT.  Greatest day in uBeam history.  I am so proud of my team."

Ooh... Have they shipped something?  :o
Maybe got another round of funding?

(http://i.imgur.com/GD8uJJk.png)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 07, 2016, 02:07:54 am
Burn:
(http://i.imgur.com/cbQOLGo.png)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on December 07, 2016, 02:52:24 am
Not sure I follow. Aside from non-linearities of fluid medium in extreme scenarios, a phased array of transmitters will work as the reciprocal of a similarly constructed phased array of receivers.

Me neither, I just saw phased array and antenna gain in the same sentence and had a thought!

I might be thinking wrong, but I'd say that a phased array of receivers gathers some of the off-beam/out of phase energy and corrects it's phase/timing so that it can be added to the main beam signal.
Simply swapping receiver to transmitter means that as well as the main beam you're now transmitting off-beam/out of phase energy which can never be used by the receiver because the receiver never receives it.

I can imagine a US transducer near the edge of the array where only a very small amount of it's transmitted energy covers the target area, but I can't imagine it needing any less drive power because only a small amount of it's energy is landing in the right spot, how would it know!

Of course, if there's another way of thinking about it....


Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on December 07, 2016, 03:03:25 am
Perhaps someone has told her that they've finally got the receivers in, and she's misunderstood ?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Corporate666 on December 07, 2016, 03:28:02 am
Perhaps someone has told her that they've finally got the receivers in, and she's misunderstood ?

LOL!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Corporate666 on December 07, 2016, 03:42:19 am
I would be genuinely curious what Perry does every day.
Pose for photos like this one, released 8 hours ago?
https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/806190586051133440

There's also a cryptic tweet before that, "December 5, 2016, 3:30pm PT.  Greatest day in uBeam history.  I am so proud of my team."

I wonder what happened to make this the "greatest day in uBeam history" -- did Meredith quit? ;D

She's young... if it wasn't for the fact that I know that SHE knows this technology doesn't work, I would feel bad for her.  I know what it's like to be wrapped up in the whirlwind of a funded company and have it start to go off the rails.  You feel like it was your big shot and you just don't want it to end. 

But the one thing I never did was squander investors money and spend all my time fucking around giving speeches and taking pictures and acting like I believed the hype I was creating instead of actually trying to deliver on the stated goal of the business. 

By spending all of her time trying to be a caricature of a spunky, gutsy CEO that bucks trends and disrupts industries, she is achieving nothing but setting herself up to be a laughing stock when this whole thing implodes.  She will be remembered for being the powerpuff girl CEO's and it will be seen that it was her hubris that caused the whole thing to implode.  Guys like Sutter (or whatever his name is) can say "I will be first to invest in her next company" all he likes, but when he's on the other side of the table at an investment meeting, faced with stroking that check... there's no way he won't look back at this whole sordid affair and all of this shite was just that.  What they needed was an experienced CEO who had run a business, knew the technology, had industry experience and was committed to developing the tech and delivering product - not who was mostly interested in building their brand.

Perry will parlay her brand into a downward spiral of successively less impressive executive jobs until she fades into obscurity within a few years, I think.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 07, 2016, 05:36:09 am
What they needed was an experienced CEO who had run a business, knew the technology, had industry experience and was committed to developing the tech and delivering product - not who was mostly interested in building their brand.

A CEO that simply listened to the internal experts who wanted to pivot the product and tech would have sufficed. They might have been able to turn this (probably very decent ultrasonic tech) into a some niche win for them. But instead they rode this donkey of a dream all the way into town.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: amspire on December 07, 2016, 07:27:13 am
There's also a cryptic tweet before that, "December 5, 2016, 3:30pm PT.  Greatest day in uBeam history.  I am so proud of my team."

Ooh... Have they shipped something?  :o
Maybe got another round of funding?

(http://i.imgur.com/GD8uJJk.png)
I gather that Ubeam had promised in 2015 that they will be able to show demos to people outside the investors in 2016. So my guess is that with their $23 million dollars (or whatever they have received), they have finally got enough hardware working to do some kind of demo. Probably not the "totally safe" 1.5W at 4 meters they have promised, but we might see the voltmeter come out of retirement.

Over half uBeam's money is in debt, and they haven't had any new funding for a year, so some kind of public demo to "prove" the technology could be a desperate need.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on December 07, 2016, 02:12:10 pm
But the one thing I never did was squander investors money and spend all my time fucking around giving speeches and taking pictures and acting like I believed the hype I was creating instead of actually trying to deliver on the stated goal of the business. 

The other day I heard a 'celebrity' on the TV talking about "building my brand" (he'd released a perfume). Now, all this guy has ever actually done is to be the son of a very famous footballer.

Sometime in the last few years some idiots have decided that a 'brand' is worth something on its own, rather than representing the goodwill acquired over many years by a well operated business. Consequently people talk about 'brand building' as an end in itself, rather than providing a better product, service, working environment etc. Many young people (particularly Americans, especially from the West Coast) have bought into this, not knowing that a 'brand' or reputation once meant something more than mere surface appearance. Furthermore, 'brand' and personal reputation have become conflated as if one's reputation is some sort of commodity. I suspect that Ms Perry has bought into all this and is working hard at 'building her brand' not understanding that for it to be worth anything there has to be some substance underneath the gloss.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on December 07, 2016, 02:43:02 pm
Shame that the power output from a phased array system varies with the angle though, that pesky Lambert's cosine law ;D
It ain't no magic bullet.

I think the idea is to have an array of these all around the room so you're always square on to one of them.

Just don't hold the phone wrong or put it on a table and you might get a whole Watt of recharge.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on December 07, 2016, 05:09:35 pm
There's also a cryptic tweet before that, "December 5, 2016, 3:30pm PT.  Greatest day in uBeam history.  I am so proud of my team."

Ooh... Have they shipped something?  :o
Maybe got another round of funding?

(http://i.imgur.com/GD8uJJk.png)

The team decorated the conference room for Christmas party.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Harrkev on December 07, 2016, 06:36:33 pm
Without thinking too deeply, I don't think a transmitting phased array gives any power gain over the inverse square losses.

It does prevent losses.  A phased array is just another fancy name for a directional antenna, except that you can steer it electronically.  A laser manages to beat 1/(r^2) pretty handily by not radiating its energy in all directions.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on December 08, 2016, 04:46:19 am
"A phased array is just another fancy name for a directional antenna, except that you can steer it electronically."

Yep, that's what I was thinking. In this case a flat US array about 30cm x 30cm facing a target about 8cm x 7cm about 2m away.

"It does prevent losses."

Nope! After some thinking and googling, I've still come to the same conclusion that a transmitting phased array only produces losses. It doesn't matter how well you focus the main beam on to the target the power there will always only be a fraction of the power you've put in - unlike a parabolic reflector where you can get near 100% of the power into the main beam.
I think the only way to recover more of the transmitted power would be for the receiver to cover all of the steerable area at all times, but then you don't have any steerable area, and it's not the case here.

The wavefronts aren't to scale for US in this wiki, but it shows the affect of how little of each wavefront is actually heading towards the target/focus.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phased_array_beam.svg (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phased_array_beam.svg)

...Still thinking....
http://www.olympus-ims.com/en/ndt-tutorials/intro/advantages (http://www.olympus-ims.com/en/ndt-tutorials/intro/advantages)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on December 08, 2016, 06:18:30 am
Nope! After some thinking and googling, I've still come to the same conclusion that a transmitting phased array only produces losses.

That was also my thinking but it requires a proof. The phase shifts and amplitudes of the array elements are chosen to active cancellation on the side beams but this is like canceling heating with air conditioning, the total is neutral but takes a lot of energy.

This is of course a hand waving style explanation and a more rigorous analysis is required. It's possible that the canceling energy from one element actually reduces the power of the other elements by creating synchronized pressure wave that affects the traducers' impedance.

But, even of the phase array has lower efficiency, having the power directed still has safety benefits because it reduces the overall sound energy in the room.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 08, 2016, 08:09:04 am
After some thinking and googling, I've still come to the same conclusion that a transmitting phased array only produces losses.
That will come as quite a surprise to radar engineers.
unlike a parabolic reflector where you can get near 100% of the power into the main beam.
That will also come as a surprise to radar engineers.

I think it would really shock them to find that all these years of pushing parabolic reflectors (and offset parabolics, cassegrains, etc) aside, in favour of the superior beam forming performance of passive phases arrays was a misdirection.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 08, 2016, 08:13:11 am
Nope! After some thinking and googling, I've still come to the same conclusion that a transmitting phased array only produces losses.

That was also my thinking but it requires a proof. The phase shifts and amplitudes of the array elements are chosen to active cancellation on the side beams but this is like canceling heating with air conditioning, the total is neutral but takes a lot of energy.
Heat is Gaussian noise. Radar signals from all the nodes of a phased array are coherent. Its a completely different situation. If you think a large amount of energy is lost in the beam forming of a phased array, where does it go? Conservation of energy says it can't just vanish.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 08, 2016, 08:30:21 am
Heat is Gaussian noise. Radar signals from all the nodes of a phased array are coherent. Its a completely different situation. If you think a large amount of energy is lost in the beam forming of a phased array, where does it go? Conservation of energy says it can't just vanish.

Look at the numbers I posted above. Saturation of the air occurs at quite small distances. It's not just a beam forming problem, the losses are in driving the air molecules.
If it was a simple beam forming problem then uBeam would have been a cake walk and done long ago (Perry wasn't the first with the idea, by several decades)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 08, 2016, 08:35:44 am
Heat is Gaussian noise. Radar signals from all the nodes of a phased array are coherent. Its a completely different situation. If you think a large amount of energy is lost in the beam forming of a phased array, where does it go? Conservation of energy says it can't just vanish.

Look at the numbers I posted above. Saturation of the air occurs at quite small distances.
If it as that simple then uBeam would have been a cake walk and done long ago (Perry wasn't the first with the idea, by several decades)
Did I dispute that in any way? I responded to someone saying the energy is not focussed into the main beam of a phased array. For suitably low power levels it is. For high power levels, where non-linearities become serious, everything falls apart, regardless of which beam forming technique is used.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 08, 2016, 08:53:56 am
For high power levels, where non-linearities become serious, everything falls apart, regardless of which beam forming technique is used.

And that's the trick, they are, by necessity, pumping in huge amounts of power.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 08, 2016, 09:00:54 am
For high power levels, where non-linearities become serious, everything falls apart, regardless of which beam forming technique is used.

And that's the trick, they are, by necessity, pumping in huge amounts of power.
Well, of course. What's your point?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 08, 2016, 09:01:34 am
I hadn't seen this article before:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/bus-ted-true-story-behind-power-over-air-sanjaya-maniktala (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/bus-ted-true-story-behind-power-over-air-sanjaya-maniktala)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 08, 2016, 09:09:36 am
For high power levels, where non-linearities become serious, everything falls apart, regardless of which beam forming technique is used.
And that's the trick, they are, by necessity, pumping in huge amounts of power.
Well, of course. What's your point?

Just validating your point. I'm not trying to argue.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on December 08, 2016, 05:22:53 pm
I'm surprised ppl are thinking that when out of phase wavefronts meet, the energy just disappears forever. The wavefronts just pass through each other, and eventually after traveling, will meet other in phase wavefronts and become usable energy again.
In the case of RF, at great distance from the transmitter.
In the case of US, after bouncing off the near target surface and filling the room with hotspots and coldspots, I bit like sitting in a microwave oven but without the rotating table - so keep moving.  :)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on December 08, 2016, 05:53:43 pm
In the case of US, after bouncing off the near target surface and filling the room with hotspots and coldspots, I bit like sitting in a microwave oven but without the rotating table - so keep moving.  :)

Keep moving your phone around looking at the charging power on screen. Stand very still when you find a hotspot...  :-+

So much better than those pesky cables! :popcorn:

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: edy on December 08, 2016, 06:59:22 pm
So the uBeam team has grown, more investors are piling in the money, they have a large team working on it. They've got former HP and Tektronix engineering executive Larry Pendergrass joining in:

(http://ubeam.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Larry-Pendergrass-300x240.png)

And here is their team:

(http://ubeam.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Team-2.png)

So what gives? Do they have something or not? Are they just throwing a dungheap of money (from big investors) at what we call a type of Google "Moon-Shot" wall to see if something sticks? I thought this thing was BUSTED a long time ago? That to deliver the power you are looking at needing to charge a device, you'd fry everyone's eardrums or fry their innards in the process?

I don't get it.... Have people LOST THEIR FRIGGIN' MINDS?  :palm: :-//  Wasn't uBeam already trying to do this for years and failed? This seems to be old news already:

http://www.eevblog.com/2014/08/07/ubeam-ultrasonic-wireless-charging-a-familiar-fish-smell/ (http://www.eevblog.com/2014/08/07/ubeam-ultrasonic-wireless-charging-a-familiar-fish-smell/)

Seems like it's going the same way as Solar Roadways, Airing, Batterizer...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: amspire on December 08, 2016, 10:53:13 pm
That to deliver the power you are looking at needing to charge a device, you'd fry everyone's eardrums or fry their innards in the process?
Haven't you read the safety page on the UBeam website?

Quote
Completely safe, even when standing directly in front of the beam

One of the reasons they give is that:

Quote
Unlike radio frequency emissions, ultrasound decays rapidly in the air.

Which is great ... as long as you aren't trying to transmit power via ultrasonics.  |O

The last comment is interesting as the decay is not that rapid at 50kHz or 100khz. Just 1 or 2 dB per meter. Are they thinking of using 1MHz ultrasonics?

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Delta on December 08, 2016, 11:19:26 pm
That's the elephant in Meredith's room:  If there's not enough power in the air to cause harm, then there ain't enough to charge a phone...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: l0rd_hex on December 09, 2016, 02:10:56 am


The other day I heard a 'celebrity' on the TV talking about "building my brand" (he'd released a perfume). Now, all this guy has ever actually done is to be the son of a very famous footballer.

Sometime in the last few years some idiots have decided that a 'brand' is worth something on its own, rather than representing the goodwill acquired over many years by a well operated business. Consequently people talk about 'brand building' as an end in itself, rather than providing a better product, service, working environment etc. Many young people (particularly Americans, especially from the West Coast) have bought into this, not knowing that a 'brand' or reputation once meant something more than mere surface appearance. Furthermore, 'brand' and personal reputation have become conflated as if one's reputation is some sort of commodity. I suspect that Ms Perry has bought into all this and is working hard at 'building her brand' not understanding that for it to be worth anything there has to be some substance underneath the gloss.

It's funny that you say this because it looks like Perry is hawking her Dad's snake oil skin care maintenance regime lotion.. stuff..

https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/801891676885110784 (https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/801891676885110784)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 09, 2016, 02:34:57 am
So the uBeam team has grown, more investors are piling in the money, they have a large team working on it.

I've heard the opposite. Most/all of the original acoustics experts have left. Two VP's of engineering have came and gone.

Quote
They've got former HP and Tektronix engineering executive Larry Pendergrass joining in:

They must have paid him a lot.
Shame there isn't much he can do without acoustics expertise.

Quote
And here is their team:
(http://ubeam.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Team-2.png)

An article a while back who toured their big LA headquarters said it was like a ghost town.

Quote
So what gives? Do they have something or not? Are they just throwing a dungheap of money (from big investors) at what we call a type of Google "Moon-Shot" wall to see if something sticks? I thought this thing was BUSTED a long time ago?

It was. But the investors will never admit that, they can't, they have put other people's money into it. Best they can hope for is it dies of natural causes they can blame on X instead of admit they were duped by a dog'n'pony show.

Quote
Seems like it's going the same way as Solar Roadways, Airing, Batterizer...

It's guaranteed by the laws of engineers and market economics.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Bud on December 09, 2016, 03:24:17 am
What is that weird structure in the background...?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: l0rd_hex on December 09, 2016, 03:28:55 am
Another bout of inspire-arreah from the Scam-a-llama herself!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: djos on December 09, 2016, 03:30:40 am
Another bout of inspire-arreah from the Scam-a-llama herself!

I think I just puked a little in my mouth!  :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: l0rd_hex on December 09, 2016, 03:35:20 am
I think I just puked a little in my mouth!  :palm:

Just your mouth? I wish I were that lucky...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: edy on December 09, 2016, 03:50:04 am
That's one crazy Twitter tag line....

Quote
Founder & CEO @uBeam. Power-suckler on the teat of life. Uses a machete to cut through red tape.

See the attachment...  I like the Voyager diagram/schematic she uses as a background.
(https://thethoughtstash.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/pioneer-plaque1.png)

Have you seen this posting?
https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/639891833431162880 (https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/639891833431162880)

Quote
In hospitals, bacteria can spread via electric outlets. With @ubeam, hospitals will be cleaner & safer for patients.

I give her credit for one thing... She's got some interesting Twitter feed (browse the photo postings for a taste, I've included some screenshots below). Certainly not something you'd expect from a $23 million company CEO. She's flying everywhere, meeting all these famous people.... Presidents, Celebrities, etc. They have a space "manufacturing facility" they call in Santa Monica. It's great to spend other people's money when there is no accountability and you can have lawyers basically set up the corporation so you are not personally liable for anything when it loses all the money. Pictures of her with Bill Clinton, Barak Obama, lots of famous celebrities, lots of her with her pet pig, some selfies, pictures of people charging their phones and saying how uBeam will change all that... and inspirational quotes. She's quite an accomplished person and done a lot of stuff! A bit of NSFW type pictures as well thrown in.  :-DD 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 09, 2016, 04:02:49 am
Another bout of inspire-arreah from the Scam-a-llama herself!

Still zero information about the result, just about her personal struggles ::)
She wouldn't have had to struggle if she just published results to prove her tech is at least somewhat viable.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: edy on December 09, 2016, 04:58:41 am
I've attached some examples of typical stuff from Meredith Perry's Twitter media feed. There's not much in there about the actual progress on uBeam. Judge for yourself. She's having one heck of a time at this stage in her life, globe-trotting and rubbing noses with the rich & famous. I'm sure it's very exciting to be part of a multi-million dollar venture. I'd love to see the development milestones.... Research results... Test cases... More proof of concepts. Are they ever planning on making that available?

Her brother the profane rapper Buckwheat Groats https://www.facebook.com/thegroatsofbuckwheat/ (https://www.facebook.com/thegroatsofbuckwheat/) seems to be quite an interesting character too. He seems to be earning an honest living making music, performing and selling albums. Good on him! http://benperrymedia.weebly.com/bio.html (http://benperrymedia.weebly.com/bio.html)  He sounds like a funny guy if you like that kind of comedy....

(http://benperrymedia.weebly.com/uploads/6/0/0/6/60067941/6182091.jpg)

The addition of HP and Tektronic Engineering executive Larry Pendergrass to the mix builds confidence in the company, but is it only to satisfy investor need? Could they be looking to shift their position in the company or sell their shares perhaps to "pass on the buck" and get out while they can. Here's what Pendergrass writes about uBeam (https://medium.com/@meredithperry/former-hp-and-tektronix-engineering-executive-larry-pendergrass-joins-ubeam-b08597f45a24#.8t8mohuxm (https://medium.com/@meredithperry/former-hp-and-tektronix-engineering-executive-larry-pendergrass-joins-ubeam-b08597f45a24#.8t8mohuxm)):

Quote
“Having looked carefully at the technology and the business, I have every confidence that this company will change the way we think of charging our devices. The progress that has been made is tremendous. The skill level in the team is very impressive. And I am confident that my business, engineering, and science experience will support the development and commercialization of this vital new technology.”

They also add the following:

Quote
We’re also excited to announce a new addition to our Technical Advisory Board, Chaired by Matthew O’Donnell, PhD, a world renowned expert in ultrasound and Dean Emeritus of Engineering at the University of Washington.

I wonder if there is a point where people lose an objective view of reality and start to be surrounded by, or create their own environment that positively reinforces their delusional aspirations even when it flies in the face of rational scientific principles. When investors get involved, "yes"-men start to spout inspirational B.S. and young people start jumping in to milk the ride for money as long as possible... the project takes on a life of it's own and perpetuates in a kind of bubble. I must admit though.... I do give credit to uBeam for *NOT* using crowd-sourcing to obtain funding. It is one thing for investors to give money, it is quite another for crowd-sourced money to be scammed out of people (like Airing, Batteriser, Solar Roadways, etc.).

The uBeam, as crazy as it may sound, at least is operating under established legal frameworks and with parties who should know the risks and were prepared to take them. For that reason, I say if Meredith Perry wants to burn the money... let her burn it for the next 10 years. Maybe they'll discover something else along the way that actually is viable and turn them a profit. Otherwise, I wish her luck and if she wants to stick up her middle finger to all these investors along the way.... serves them right.  :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 09, 2016, 06:30:19 am
The addition of HP and Tektronic Engineering executive Larry Pendergrass to the mix builds confidence in the company, but is it only to satisfy investor need? Could they be looking to shift their position in the company or sell their shares perhaps to "pass on the buck" and get out while they can. Here's what Pendergrass writes about uBeam (https://medium.com/@meredithperry/former-hp-and-tektronix-engineering-executive-larry-pendergrass-joins-ubeam-b08597f45a24#.8t8mohuxm (https://medium.com/@meredithperry/former-hp-and-tektronix-engineering-executive-larry-pendergrass-joins-ubeam-b08597f45a24#.8t8mohuxm)):

Quote
“Having looked carefully at the technology and the business, I have every confidence that this company will change the way we think of charging our devices. The progress that has been made is tremendous. The skill level in the team is very impressive. And I am confident that my business, engineering, and science experience will support the development and commercialization of this vital new technology.”

So this guy joins after 5 years of development and all he's got to say between the lines is basically "it has potential"?
Nothing about how he's seen the technology and it's amazing and it works etc, just talk about "progress", "development", and commercialisation"?
You'd expect that kind of talk for a newly founded company, not one that's had 10's of millions of dollars invested over 5 years and some of the best experts in field working for them (now all since left?)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Corporate666 on December 09, 2016, 06:38:19 am
Haven't you read the safety page on the UBeam website?

Quote
Completely safe, even when standing directly in front of the beam

One of the reasons they give is that:

Quote
Unlike radio frequency emissions, ultrasound decays rapidly in the air.


That's one of the funniest things I've read in a long time....

"Don't worry, our technology is completely safe - it doesn't actually work, so you have nothing to fear!"
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 09, 2016, 06:46:50 am
Haven't you read the safety page on the UBeam website?
Quote
Completely safe, even when standing directly in front of the beam
One of the reasons they give is that:
Quote
Unlike radio frequency emissions, ultrasound decays rapidly in the air.
That's one of the funniest things I've read in a long time....
"Don't worry, our technology is completely safe - it doesn't actually work, so you have nothing to fear!"

If it's so safe why does the beam switch off when human flesh is in the way?

(http://i.imgur.com/E2wfs4E.png)

And I'd love to know how they are doing that:
(http://i.imgur.com/tO5oyat.png)

So if the receiver is say 4m away from the transmitter, how do they know I put my hand in the way 1m from the transmitter?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: l0rd_hex on December 09, 2016, 07:19:49 am
So if the receiver is say 4m away from the transmitter, how do they know I put my hand in the way 1m from the transmitter?

Reminds me of a quote from the movie All the President's Men:

I was at a party once, and, uh, Liddy put his hand over a candle, and he kept it there. He kept it right in the flame until his flesh was burned. Somebody said, "What's the trick?" And Liddy said, "The trick is not minding."

Maybe a new slogan for UBeam?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: The_Next_Theranos on December 09, 2016, 09:08:41 am
Quote
“Having looked carefully at the technology and the business, I have every confidence that this company will change the way we think of charging our devices. The progress that has been made is tremendous. The skill level in the team is very impressive. And I am confident that my business, engineering, and science experience will support the development and commercialization of this vital new technology.”

So this guy joins after 5 years of development and all he's got to say between the lines is basically "it has potential"?
It has potential to change the way we think about charging our devices. It doesn't have the potential to change how we actually charge our devices.  ;D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: amspire on December 09, 2016, 01:30:24 pm
So if the receiver is say 4m away from the transmitter, how do they know I put my hand in the way 1m from the transmitter?
And how much ultrasound will reach your ear when you are talking on the phone while the UBeam is charging it?

Quote
Ultrasound has been in used safely over 100 years. It has been studied extensively ..... There is no risk of a cumulative effect

Trouble is they don't seemed to have actually read the research papers from that 100 years, such as

http://archiwum.ciop.pl/59815 (http://archiwum.ciop.pl/59815)   or   https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/aoa.2013.38.issue-2/aoa-2013-0019/aoa-2013-0019.xml (https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/aoa.2013.38.issue-2/aoa-2013-0019/aoa-2013-0019.xml)

To have a chance of being safe, then have to a make it impossible for you ear to receive something less then 1/100000th of the beam strength. Even if their beam is so perfectly focussed that zero energy leaves the beam, it only takes a tiny object in the beams path to radiate potentially damaging ultrasound levels.

UBeam claim the investors did an extensive safety audit before investing.

It would be great to actually see that audit.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: edy on December 09, 2016, 03:01:52 pm
In my previous post I praised uBeam for not resorting to crowd-funding, and happy that investors who are fully aware of the risks were only involved. Apparently, I was wrong about that. A google search reveals:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=ubeam+crowd-funding (https://www.google.ca/search?q=ubeam+crowd-funding)

The first two links show $2.6 million raised via crowd-funding platform "OurCrowd":

https://www.crunchbase.com/funding-round/054d7fd8cbaff3d2699b04980f6d3e52 (https://www.crunchbase.com/funding-round/054d7fd8cbaff3d2699b04980f6d3e52)
http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2015/dec/18/maker-wireless-charger-losing-investment-power/ (http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2015/dec/18/maker-wireless-charger-losing-investment-power/)

See links about OurCrowd and security exchange filing, etc. Not sure exactly what all this means, and whether this type of "crowd-funding" is like Kickstarter/IndieGogo or more tuned to "high-end" type investors (I think they ask minimum $10,000 from each one) and therefore actual legal ownership/shares in the company:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1658187/000146581815000052/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1658187/000146581815000052/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml)

http://www.octafinance.com/ourcrowd-investment-in-ubeam-filing-jay-kalish-published-dec-17-sec-form/ (http://www.octafinance.com/ourcrowd-investment-in-ubeam-filing-jay-kalish-published-dec-17-sec-form/)

http://www.newestfilings.com/232850-ourcrowd-investment-in-ubeam-lp (http://www.newestfilings.com/232850-ourcrowd-investment-in-ubeam-lp)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on December 09, 2016, 03:51:51 pm
Reminds me of a quote from the movie All the President's Men:

I was at a party once, and, uh, Liddy put his hand over a candle, and he kept it there. He kept it right in the flame until his flesh was burned. Somebody said, "What's the trick?" And Liddy said, "The trick is not minding."

Maybe a new slogan for UBeam?

It was actually Lawrence of Arabia who said/did that.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 09, 2016, 04:27:42 pm
Reminds me of a quote from the movie All the President's Men:

I was at a party once, and, uh, Liddy put his hand over a candle, and he kept it there. He kept it right in the flame until his flesh was burned. Somebody said, "What's the trick?" And Liddy said, "The trick is not minding."

Maybe a new slogan for UBeam?

It was actually Lawrence of Arabia who said/did that.
It was said of Lawrence of Arabia that he did that. Who knows? He was the kind of guy legends build around.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on December 09, 2016, 04:44:01 pm
In my previous post I praised uBeam for not resorting to crowd-funding, and happy that investors who are fully aware of the risks were only involved.

Venture Capital finding *is* crowd funding. The crowd just breathes a more rarefied air than most.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on December 09, 2016, 04:52:47 pm
Say what you like about Meredith, she's certainly living the life...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on December 09, 2016, 06:21:19 pm
I just read the entire thread from start to the (current) finish, and I only have to say that Meredith is in good company. After all, a man just got elected President with the vision to "build a wall and make Mexico pay for it", and how is that substantially different than the con being sold as uBeam?

Ummm...let's see: He's promising to be racist with taxpayer money.

Meredith is just spending VC money on making a gadget that doesn't directly hurt people (apart from making them stupider).

Meredith will implode, eventually. Let's hope Trump doesn't take as long.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: JiggyNinja on December 09, 2016, 07:11:10 pm
MOD: *** politics deleted ***

Meredith is just spending VC money on making a gadget that doesn't directly hurt people (apart from making them stupider).
Meredith will implode, eventually.

I chose acoustic communication as a topic for my Wireless Communications class in college (I wanted something a bit more unusual and exotic than RF), and my cursory googling while doing research for that paper found no consumer applications for it except the old ultrasonic TV remotes. Everything wireless, even short-range stuff, uses EM (either IR or RF). The only current applications I found for sonic communication is through water (submerged networks or medical implants) or through metal (which blocks EM waves), both of which are niche applications.

Which leads me to this thought: the FCC (and equivalent governing bodies in other countries) limits power transmission in the license free ISM bands to a low level, but the rules must be a lot less strict in a licensed band, otherwise you wouldn't be able to have high-power transmitters for radio or TV. How well would this beam-forming technology work if it was done with antennas instead of ultrasonic transducers and they had a spectrum license? Would you still need to transmit power at the level of a microwave oven just to charge a single phone? Would it be more or less dangerous to biological organisms? Or would a directed beam of RF that string cause way too much interference to other electronics?
@Ninja, you just joined an engineering forum and all you had to say is you do not like Trump. Care to post something about your projects? Or your goal is to use the forum to spread your political dislikes?
I will, this is just the monster thread that caught my eye and sucked me into it when I checked this place out. I am very active on the Arduino forum (same user name) so I'm not just a drive-by troll.

I think it's appropriate to point out that this kind of person can become extremely successful if they can tap into the right vein to puff about. The comparison was already made to a recent example in the medical industry (the fall of Theranos), and I added a current political example. This kind of phenomenon is not simply a result of technical illiteracy, but a much more fundamental failing in our psychology that makes us all susceptible to this kind of trap if we are not vigilant against it.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: edy on December 09, 2016, 07:14:01 pm
Say what you like about Meredith, she's certainly living the life...

True. I wish I thought of this when I was in my 20's.   ;)  No risk, no reward. Everyone knows the stakes and the risks. Meredith got caught up in a wind-storm of excitement on the prospects of this project, encouraged by VC money and the positive media attention (at least initially). She was not going to say no. Obviously the VC's are banking on a big payout so they are willing to risk investing in it. Now that several years have passed and progress has slowed or completely stopped, she has to face the piper. But like all of these projects, they usually fade quietly away. Meredith is only the "face" of uBeam and naive and obviously unsure of the scientific merits of whether the technology is possible, but she paid these engineers who gladly took a salary to try and see if they could make it happen.... I wouldn't say she did any of this with mal-intent. Wireless charging through ultrasound just happens to be a tough nut to crack and a bottomless pit of investment is going to be needed to make it happen.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: JiggyNinja on December 09, 2016, 08:10:27 pm
True. I wish I thought of this when I was in my 20's.   ;)  No risk, no reward. Everyone knows the stakes and the risks. Meredith got caught up in a wind-storm of excitement on the prospects of this project, encouraged by VC money and the positive media attention (at least initially). She was not going to say no. Obviously the VC's are banking on a big payout so they are willing to risk investing in it. Now that several years have passed and progress has slowed or completely stopped, she has to face the piper. But like all of these projects, they usually fade quietly away. Meredith is only the "face" of uBeam and naive and obviously unsure of the scientific merits of whether the technology is possible, but she paid these engineers who gladly took a salary to try and see if they could make it happen.... I wouldn't say she did any of this with mal-intent.
Except for those pesky things like "ethics" and "integrity" that I'm sure are holding you back. People like Meredith don't get "caught up" in this kind of excitement, they intentionally try to create it so they can ride the wave high without ever bothering to really think ahead about if they'll be able to actually fulfill the promise. They stoke the flames, and won't take responsibility when it flares up and burns them.

You might try and excuse her by saying she was making claims that she did not know were impossible, but I have a different view. She was being incredibly irresponsible by making grandiose claims about things that she had no idea about whether they were possible or not.

I have no medical experience at all, so I why don't I try to pitch the development of a new drug to some VCs, one that will cure all known diseases! After all, life (and therefore disease) is just chemistry, so it should be possible to design a chemical that has any pharmacological effect that I desire. The laws of physics do not prohibit such a drug from existing, so it must be possible. Invest now! Don't mind the fact that I can't tell my ethanols from my methanols, I have vision, determination, and the chutzpah to tell people far more skilled than me that I'm your boss, and don't you dare forget it. That's all an innovator really needs.

I hope that anyone here would be informed enough to know why such a pitch is stupid. Even if the person is well-intentioned and is not a cynical schemer, such careless (some would say reckless) optimism does not deserve to be treated favorably. It supports the person's unrealistic views about the world and leads to wasted effort like this whole mess.

Quote
Wireless charging through ultrasound just happens to be a tough nut to crack and a bottomless pit of investment is going to be needed to make it happen.
It's not just that it's a "tough nut to crack", it's a pointless and dumb nut to crack. Any place like a restaurant that wanted to make it convenient for customers to charge their phones would be better off building inductive chargers into the tables and marking where they are, or building micro USB or USB-C cables into the tables. An idea like uBeam isn't dumb just because it's hard, it's dumb because there are better ways of achieving the same goal.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 10, 2016, 09:37:09 am
I think it's appropriate to point out that this kind of person can become extremely successful if they can tap into the right vein to puff about. The comparison was already made to a recent example in the medical industry (the fall of Theranos), and I added a current political example.

Please do not add politics here, it is one of the subjects that tends to get threads locked and people banned.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 10, 2016, 09:43:56 am
Wireless charging through ultrasound just happens to be a tough nut to crack and a bottomless pit of investment is going to be needed to make it happen.

No it won't, and it's that thinking that is the cause of this problem with uBeam. It's an idea that should have died after a week or two of brainstorming with some experts in the field. The impracticality of it for the intended purposes is guaranteed by some basic physics and engineering of the medium and technique used.

You can pour in all the money you like, when you are out by several orders of magnitude on decent efficiency no amount of technical PhD hand waving is going to fix it.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on December 10, 2016, 01:43:20 pm
You can pour in all the money you like, when you are out by several orders of magnitude on decent efficiency no amount of technical PhD hand waving is going to fix it.

Never say never. The level of computing we carry in our pockets these days would be consider physically impossible 200 years ago. Same goes for you talking in Sidney and we hear you in real time all over the world.

When we 'debunk' stuff, we need to remember to qualify it.
Title: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: edy on December 10, 2016, 02:40:23 pm
So if I am out to scam the media and a bunch of VC's of investment money, isn't some of the blame also on the people who are also not doing their due diligence to see if there is any merit to the company? Or is everyone blinded by raw greed? Yes Meredith may have done her bit to keep this unicorn alive but look at how our system rewarded this behaviour. Media with no objective reporting, paid ads and bait click to get people to click on this " miracle" technology, investors who have not done any homework to see if it is possible and whether it is even practical.

Like I said, Meredith probably did not know enough to maliciously single handedly defraud people. She was just naive and expected other people who are much smarter than her in the field to solve the problem (that isn't even a practical one to solve for this application at least). Just look at her twitter photos feed, she seems to be having the time of her life involved with all this fame and fortune, tied up in meeting after meeting raising money and probably lost total sight of the goal... She was focusing on inspirational talks to young people, appearances on shows, interviews, getting investors, and meanwhile waiting for her engineers back home to actually come up with something.

At the end of the day, if a few more rich greedy  investors lose their money then it's a lesson they learned. It means that the next time some ridiculous idea like this comes along, they might hire a few more independent experts to validate it before investing. Maybe they should consult the EEVBLOG community first and have Dave do a critical assessment early on in the development.

I have more of a problem with solar roadways which is using taxpayer money, Airing which is preying on crowd funding from a medically vulnerable population (sleep apnea) which could potentially kill people. At least batterizer seems to have died, the rational scientific debate won over the hyperbole train, but not before scamming a bunch of people. As bad as uBeam is, I can show you many more examples that are worse. Kind of a sad statement on the whole investment startup scene. Then again, these worst examples tend to get more attention so the may be many success stories we don't focus on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on December 10, 2016, 03:32:33 pm
Never say never.

Never.

The level of computing we carry in our pockets these days would be consider physically impossible 200 years ago.

What? Electronic computers weren't even a figment of imagination 200 years ago.

When we 'debunk' stuff, we need to remember to qualify it.

Did you just arrive?

We qualified it! Vibrating air as a medium for power transmission doesn't work in anything like the requirements necessary to charge a cellphone. Not even close.

No possible future technology could vibrate air in a radically different way to the way we can vibrate air today. Focusing and phasing of air vibrations is a well studied discipline, it comes up short by many orders of magnitude for any receptor that would fit in a cellphone or any transmitter with a plausible power consumption.

The power levels needed would also be dangerous.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on December 10, 2016, 05:19:04 pm
No possible future technology could vibrate air in a radically different way to the way we can vibrate air today.

Well, if you say so.
Title: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: timb on December 10, 2016, 05:30:16 pm
No possible future technology could vibrate air in a radically different way to the way we can vibrate air today.

Well, if you say so.

"Ya' can'ut change the laws of physics, Captain!" -Chief Engineer Scott

The only thing that would make ultrasonic power transfer viable is if we develop some sort of ultra low power smartphone based on some future 3D graphene bio-optical memristor nanotube processor that only used microwatts of power.

However, at that point you could power the whole thing with a tiny indoor amorphous solar cell (or even a passive RF energy harvesting system) anyway, so what would be the point?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: edy on December 10, 2016, 07:12:07 pm
I've got a better invention, one that may actually work better than uBeam.... I call it uBlow!  :-DD   A few minutes manipulating some Googled images with GIMP on Ubuntu. Just add a large fan to any establishment.... Restaurant, Coffee Shop, Convention, Business Meeting....  and all of your wireless charging problems will be solved! Works with any and all existing smartphones. When everyone thought high-frequency air vibration was the answer, we have found that ultra-low frequency (in fact, no frequency at all) air movement is the secret breakthrough. Our Kickstart/Indie-Gogo crowd-funding campaign is ready to take your money.  CONTRIBUTE TODAY!

PS - Meredith, don't steal my idea! I plan on bringing this to the attention of a number of big venture capitalists, already scheduled a TED talk about innovation, and my technical paper is a back-of-the-coffee-house-napkin calculation showing exactly what kind of sustained wind speed is needed to sustain and charge my phone. My prototype can demonstrate a voltage being generated just by standing outside on a windy day! It has way more power coverage than uBeam, in fact it can get NATURAL ECO-FRIENDLY power just by standing outside, or sticking my phone out the window while I drive!

(http://i68.tinypic.com/311v30g.jpg)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on December 10, 2016, 07:48:43 pm
"Ya' can'ut change the laws of physics, Captain!" -Chief Engineer Scott

Yes we can and already did several times.

We have plenty of learning ahead of us and that's a good thing.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on December 10, 2016, 08:39:46 pm
Physical laws are things that we *discover*.  The textbooks and scientific formulae change, the physics is the physics, and been so for quite some time. 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: l0rd_hex on December 10, 2016, 09:00:01 pm
It was actually Lawrence of Arabia who said/did that.

Mmm I don't think he was in that movie, maybe you're thinking "Lawrence of Arabia" from 1962?

The legend goes back to this ole greek boy, Gaius Mucius Scaevola, I guess he did it to get off the hook for some accident assassinations.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on December 10, 2016, 10:02:17 pm
"Ya' can'ut change the laws of physics, Captain!" -Chief Engineer Scott

Yes we can and already did several times.

We have plenty of learning ahead of us and that's a good thing.

No we can't, and no we never have.

How the air responds to vibrations is set, and the basics are well understood. It responded the same way in 2000 BC, 2011 AD, 2016 AD, and will in 3000 AD. Basic behaviours like how speakers work, how we talk and hear, blast wavefronts, how aircraft are built and even the weather all depend on it remaining the same. We'd definitely notice if it changed. Our understanding of it may improve and become more precise, but it's not 'dark matter' where there are lifetimes of work left to understand it to a basic level - our understanding of how air carries sound will not change to any practical extent. It's like saying gravity might change by an order of magnitude because we study it more.

The air responds to sound how the air responds to sound. Don't even think of stating that it might change or it's not well understood.

What might change is that devices used to generate and receive sound improve in some metrics such as efficiency, size, cost etc - but once that sound is in the air, it's never going to change in how it responds.

Don't start claiming that the laws of physics, such as the second law of thermodynamics, aren't what we think they are. Dumber people than you have tried that and believe me, you do not want to start down that path...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on December 10, 2016, 10:22:57 pm
No possible future technology could vibrate air in a radically different way to the way we can vibrate air today.
Well, if you say so.

I do say so.

Air is a fairly macroscopic thing that we can study easily. The temperature/pressure/humidity of the air in a room is well known and can't be varied much without cell phone owners complaining/dying.

There's no way we're ever going to vibrate the air in a room in a way that's several orders of magnitude different than we can do it today.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 10, 2016, 10:58:29 pm
Never say never.
We qualified it! Vibrating air as a medium for power transmission doesn't work in anything like the requirements necessary to charge a cellphone. Not even close.
No possible future technology could vibrate air in a radically different way to the way we can vibrate air today. Focusing and phasing of air vibrations is a well studied discipline, it comes up short by many orders of magnitude for any receptor that would fit in a cellphone or any transmitter with a plausible power consumption.
The power levels needed would also be dangerous.

This.
By all means put money into research into the area of ultrasonic power delivery, possibly for niche applications, just leave out the ridiculous demonstrably un-doable consumer claims. Or put money into research for some alternative method is fine.
You don't just try and push poo up a steeper hill with an even pointer stick which is exactly what they are doing here.
They have made zero claims about any radically new innovative technology or method, and Perry has said it herself, just "world's most powerful/smallest/most efficient/cheapest etc etc". Having the world's best stick isn't going to work.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: newbrain on December 10, 2016, 11:12:05 pm
The legend goes back to this ole greek boy, Gaius Mucius Scaevola, I guess he did it to get off the hook for some accident assassinations.
Roman (republic), not greek.
Sent to kill king Porsena, he managed to infiltrate the enemy camp but killed the wrong man.
To show his bravery and the lack of fear of roman soldiers, he burnt the hand who had failed the mission on a fire.

He (and his family) only then became Scaevola, from scaevus, left handed.

Sorry for the OT.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on December 11, 2016, 12:09:22 am
To show his bravery and the lack of fear of roman soldiers, he burnt the hand who had failed the mission on a fire.

I don't see the link between him and LOA.

(they both had burnt hands, obviously...but for totally different reasons)

It was actually Lawrence of Arabia who said/did that.
Mmm maybe you're thinking "Lawrence of Arabia"

Yes! Yes I was! How on earth did you guess???  :-DD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvQViPBAvPk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvQViPBAvPk)

(promises not to post any more on this subject)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on December 11, 2016, 12:19:08 am

Physical laws are things that we *discover*.

We can discover only things that preexisted. The 'laws of physics' are merely man-made models that generalize the results of a final set of observations we have conducted.

They have made zero claims about any radically new innovative technology or method, and Perry has said it herself, just "world's most powerful/smallest/most efficient/cheapest etc etc".

My point was that we shouldn't confuse 'we can't do it with our current level of technology and understanding of physics' with 'it will never be done'. 200 years ago, nobody would imagine the things we do now and they would easily be 'debunked' as physically impossible.

As for Perry, her Ted X presentation lead me to believe that she is an arrogant charlatan.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on December 11, 2016, 12:50:49 am
Over 50 viewing this thread. :o Have they released the stick on light bulbs.

I might be the only one(there's always one isn't there!), but I'm still finding that even assuming 100% efficiency and no losses anywhere that it's impossible to get more than a fraction of the inputted power into the 'focussed beam' of a phased array.
There might be a good reason why the energy efficiency of a phased array is not discussed anywhere, and there might be a good reason why no phased array power transfer device exists, no one in their right mind would try to invent one!

Que, someone to say they're very efficient because they 'focus' the beam. Yes, they focus the beam but not the power!

http://www.radartutorial.eu/06.antennas/Phased%20Array%20Antenna.en.html (http://www.radartutorial.eu/06.antennas/Phased%20Array%20Antenna.en.html)

AFAICT RF, radio, and radar are all much the same.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 11, 2016, 04:01:00 am
Que, someone to say they're very efficient because they 'focus' the beam. Yes, they focus the beam but not the power!

http://www.radartutorial.eu/06.antennas/Phased%20Array%20Antenna.en.html (http://www.radartutorial.eu/06.antennas/Phased%20Array%20Antenna.en.html)

AFAICT RF, radio, and radar are all much the same.
How could you focus a beam without focusing the power? The link you quoted shows reasonably well how things work, even if the English reads a big strangely. I assume its a translation.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Corporate666 on December 11, 2016, 05:36:23 am
Say what you like about Meredith, she's certainly living the life...

How do you know what life she's living?  Investors may have her on a very short leash, especially if there were questions raised about the validity of uBeam's technology.  She is likely earning less than she would otherwise be working for someone else, and she will have to ride this thing into the ground, where it will inevitably end up.

Don't fall for too many (possibly politically derived) delusions about how CEO's live.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Corporate666 on December 11, 2016, 05:45:55 am
By all means put money into research into the area of ultrasonic power delivery, possibly for niche applications, just leave out the ridiculous demonstrably un-doable consumer claims.

Just out of curiosity, and if you are comfortable saying.... have you ever been contacted by a venture capital group or investor asking your opinion on a product or technology they were looking at investing in?  I'm guessing it must have happened, or possibly happens regularly.  I am quite surprised it doesn't appear to happen all the time (with you or others) - and if it does, I can't understand how companies like uBeam get funding.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Bud on December 11, 2016, 07:44:35 am
Things can happen if you belong to a certain ethnic group.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: timb on December 11, 2016, 07:47:27 am

Physical laws are things that we *discover*.

We can discover only things that preexisted. The 'laws of physics' are merely man-made models that generalize the results of a final set of observations we have conducted.

:palm: You clearly just enjoy arguing *or* don't really get what we're saying...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 11, 2016, 07:52:42 am
They have made zero claims about any radically new innovative technology or method, and Perry has said it herself, just "world's most powerful/smallest/most efficient/cheapest etc etc".
My point was that we shouldn't confuse 'we can't do it with our current level of technology and understanding of physics' with 'it will never be done'.

We are not confusing anything, we are talking about the very specific claims uBeam have made, and their method of going about it delivering energy wirelessly. Vibrating air to transfer energy for consumer product charging will never happen on a practical consumer level at the W level. If you don't understand why then I'd hazard a guess that you're in the wrong field.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 11, 2016, 08:00:40 am
By all means put money into research into the area of ultrasonic power delivery, possibly for niche applications, just leave out the ridiculous demonstrably un-doable consumer claims.
Just out of curiosity, and if you are comfortable saying.... have you ever been contacted by a venture capital group or investor asking your opinion on a product or technology they were looking at investing in?  I'm guessing it must have happened, or possibly happens regularly.  I am quite surprised it doesn't appear to happen all the time (with you or others) - and if it does, I can't understand how companies like uBeam get funding.

Not from a VC or other such group, no.
But countless "inventors" have contacted me, and way before the blog and even the internet. I used to get hand written letters in the post asking for help on some crackpot invention.
They are almost always the same:
- I've got this great idea no one has thought of before and I've been working on it for years
- I've thoroughly investigated the market potential and it's worth millions/billions.
- All you have to do is design and build it and we can become partners, I'm the "ideas man".
- I've thought of everything that can possibly go wrong and there is no way this can't work.
Blah Blah.

They get very upset when I destroy their idea with one google search or one calculation, and *insert rant* about the Wright Brothers  ::)

I've been getting this crap for over 20 years.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on December 11, 2016, 10:38:14 am
... Vibrating air to transfer energy for consumer product charging will never happen on a practical consumer level at the W level. If you don't understand why then I'd hazard a guess that you're in the wrong field.

Don't be too cocky with your 'never' about our current technology and understanding of physics. Many things that people considered 'never' 300 years ago are possible with today's technology. We have a lot of learning ahead of us.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 11, 2016, 11:47:29 am
... Vibrating air to transfer energy for consumer product charging will never happen on a practical consumer level at the W level. If you don't understand why then I'd hazard a guess that you're in the wrong field.

Don't be too cocky with your 'never' about our current technology and understanding of physics. Many things that people considered 'never' 300 years ago are possible with today's technology. We have a lot of learning ahead of us.

What part of the first part of my paragraph that you snipped did you not understand? :
Quote
We are not confusing anything, we are talking about the very specific claims uBeam have made, and their method of going about it delivering energy wirelessly. Vibrating air to transfer energy for consumer product charging will never happen on a practical consumer level at the W level. If you don't understand why then I'd hazard a guess that you're in the wrong field.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on December 11, 2016, 12:32:16 pm
Just out of curiosity, and if you are comfortable saying.... have you ever been contacted by a venture capital group or investor asking your opinion on a product or technology they were looking at investing in?  I'm guessing it must have happened, or possibly happens regularly.  I am quite surprised it doesn't appear to happen all the time (with you or others) - and if it does, I can't understand how companies like uBeam get funding.

Venture capitalists are no different from the rest of us, if they want free advice (you don't get rich paying for things) they ask people they already know. The pool of 'expertise' they draw from is what you might expect, people they know down the pub/tennis club/country club/whatever and people at firms they've already invested in. Typically they, just like the average person, goes looking for, not a specific domain expert, but some who 'knows a bit about X'. It's a variation on the Dunning-Kruger effect where you don't know enough to judge whether whom you perceive as a 'domain expert' actually has relevant expertise.

When I worked at a company that had funding from a VC fund and two independent private investors about every two months one of the three would turn up looking for free advice on the technology aspects of one of their prospective investments. We were turning out early AI software tools, but they'd come and ask about anything that involved a computer with little regard for whether we had any real relevant expertise.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on December 11, 2016, 12:45:41 pm
But countless "inventors" have contacted me, and way before the blog and even the internet. I used to get hand written letters in the post asking for help on some crackpot invention.
They are almost always the same:
- I've got this great idea no one has thought of before and I've been working on it for years
- I've thoroughly investigated the market potential and it's worth millions/billions.
- All you have to do is design and build it and we can become partners, I'm the "ideas man".
- I've thought of everything that can possibly go wrong and there is no way this can't work.
Blah Blah.

They get very upset when I destroy their idea with one google search or one calculation, and *insert rant* about the Wright Brothers  ::)

I've been getting this crap for over 20 years.

Back in my tech journo days we'd get at least one of these a week sent to the magazine, as Tech Editor they used to land on my desk. There were three tactics used.

If they were amusing enough that we passed them around the office and had a good giggle we'd publish them in the Letters column. If they were run of the mill they got a stock reply will all the usual excuses 'can't offer advice outside of the magazine pages/liability/lawyers foaming at the mouth/publisher would shoot me as he doesn't pay me for that'. If they came on good enough stationery and offered 'dinner at my expense to discuss the matter' I'd see if the Deputy Editor wanted a free dinner somewhere posh.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on December 11, 2016, 12:57:13 pm
Many things that people considered 'never' 300 years ago are possible with today's technology.

Which things were considered 'never'? Can you provide a list?

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on December 11, 2016, 03:02:17 pm
... Vibrating air to transfer energy for consumer product charging will never happen on a practical consumer level at the W level. If you don't understand why then I'd hazard a guess that you're in the wrong field.

Don't be too cocky with your 'never' about our current technology and understanding of physics. Many things that people considered 'never' 300 years ago are possible with today's technology. We have a lot of learning ahead of us.

What part of the first part of my paragraph that you snipped did you not understand? :
Quote
We are not confusing anything, we are talking about the very specific claims uBeam have made, and their method of going about it delivering energy wirelessly. Vibrating air to transfer energy for consumer product charging will never happen on a practical consumer level at the W level. If you don't understand why then I'd hazard a guess that you're in the wrong field.
I understood all of it and was commenting on the definite 'never' part.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on December 11, 2016, 06:52:59 pm

Physical laws are things that we *discover*.

We can discover only things that preexisted. The 'laws of physics' are merely man-made models that generalize the results of a final set of observations we have conducted.

They have made zero claims about any radically new innovative technology or method, and Perry has said it herself, just "world's most powerful/smallest/most efficient/cheapest etc etc".

My point was that we shouldn't confuse 'we can't do it with our current level of technology and understanding of physics' with 'it will never be done'. 200 years ago, nobody would imagine the things we do now and they would easily be 'debunked' as physically impossible.

As for Perry, her Ted X presentation lead me to believe that she is an arrogant charlatan.

If you want to know why VCs fund perpetual motion machines it's because of statements like this from engineers and scientists. You're right, we *may* find a way of extracting vacuum energy at zero cost like in sci-fi movies, just like any second now all the air in the room may decide to randomly move in the same direction and you will die of asphyxiation. But the odds are so low that to any practical extent the answer is "no don't be stupid neither of those things is going to happen". When you say "Well, we don't know for sure, it's not 100% certain, so don't be arrogant it might change in the next 100 years" what a VC hears is "Yes it's possible".

People in that type of position never hear the caveats, the "at risk", the concerns, the timelines, or anything like that - all they hear is "Yes" or "No". And engineers hate reducing answers to that level of simplicity yet that is exactly what is demanded by senior executives and money people. Want to know why charlatans or the less technically skilled get to the top in engineering? Because they don't know enough to say anything but "Yes" or "No" and they'll say whichever one the boss or man with money wants to hear.

You're basically asking us to prove a negative, and a future time negative at that. It's not going to happen. Must be nice to have an argument where you've constructed it so you cannot possibly lose no matter what, as long as you stick to your guns. The onus is on *you* to prove that the established data, laws, rules, equations, or what ever you want to call them are not correct, or there are exceptions. The methodology is clear in how to do this. It's called "scientific method" and it doesn't involve stubbornly repeating your statements again and again. That works in politics, not so much in science.

So, to repeat, VCs fund perpetual motion machines because one engineer, somewhere, with some form of credentials, says "Well, there's a slim possibility....". So stop it.

The burden of proof is on you.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on December 11, 2016, 08:15:10 pm
The burden of proof is on you.

The burden of proof that our understanding of reality evolves over time and that things that were considered impossible are later consider trivial? 

Just look at the last 1000 years and extrapolate.

It's one thing to debunk in the context of our current science and technology. It's another to debunk 'forever'.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: edy on December 11, 2016, 09:44:25 pm
Let's forget about any possible power transfer that can be used for charging via uBeam. Let's say they design some system or a tiny chip with a small tuning fork designed to oscillate at some very high frequency, attach it to a Quartz element (similar to a Phono cartridge) and they use uBeam as a way to broadcast "data" local to certain locales (much like a WiFi) but uni-directionally.

Now you have the potential to have data transfer of advertisements, specials, WiFi-password information, etc... something to the phone that may bootstrap a potential WiFi or BlueTooth connection based on the location proximity due to sound. Usually something within a room. Maybe even like in Museums or other places.

There can be potential here in that sphere of thinking..... What do you think? With things like Pokemon Go being all the rage, location-specific broadcasts through open systems may have some potential. Not sure why would need yet another communication method but this may be good for data-only benefits.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 11, 2016, 10:58:11 pm
Let's forget about any possible power transfer that can be used for charging via uBeam. Let's say they design some system or a tiny chip with a small tuning fork designed to oscillate at some very high frequency, attach it to a Quartz element (similar to a Phono cartridge) and they use uBeam as a way to broadcast "data" local to certain locales (much like a WiFi) but uni-directionally.
Now you have the potential to have data transfer of advertisements, specials, WiFi-password information, etc... something to the phone that may bootstrap a potential WiFi or BlueTooth connection based on the location proximity due to sound. Usually something within a room. Maybe even like in Museums or other places.
There can be potential here in that sphere of thinking..... What do you think? With things like Pokemon Go being all the rage, location-specific broadcasts through open systems may have some potential. Not sure why would need yet another communication method but this may be good for data-only benefits.

Sure, that's possible, but who's going to build ultrasonic receiving circuitry into phones to do just this one thing? Let alone everyone installing ultrasonic transmitters everywhere to enable it?
This power transfer/charging thing was the "killer app" enabler for that alternative use. Without that it's not going to happen.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 11, 2016, 11:11:27 pm
Physical laws are things that we *discover*.
We can discover only things that preexisted. The 'laws of physics' are merely man-made models that generalize the results of a final set of observations we have conducted.
They have made zero claims about any radically new innovative technology or method, and Perry has said it herself, just "world's most powerful/smallest/most efficient/cheapest etc etc".
My point was that we shouldn't confuse 'we can't do it with our current level of technology and understanding of physics' with 'it will never be done'. 200 years ago, nobody would imagine the things we do now and they would easily be 'debunked' as physically impossible.

As for Perry, her Ted X presentation lead me to believe that she is an arrogant charlatan.

If you want to know why VCs fund perpetual motion machines it's because of statements like this from engineers and scientists. You're right, we *may* find a way of extracting vacuum energy at zero cost like in sci-fi movies, just like any second now all the air in the room may decide to randomly move in the same direction and you will die of asphyxiation. But the odds are so low that to any practical extent the answer is "no don't be stupid neither of those things is going to happen". When you say "Well, we don't know for sure, it's not 100% certain, so don't be arrogant it might change in the next 100 years" what a VC hears is "Yes it's possible".

Absolutely nailed it.

Quote
People in that type of position never hear the caveats, the "at risk", the concerns, the timelines, or anything like that - all they hear is "Yes" or "No". And engineers hate reducing answers to that level of simplicity yet that is exactly what is demanded by senior executives and money people. Want to know why charlatans or the less technically skilled get to the top in engineering? Because they don't know enough to say anything but "Yes" or "No" and they'll say whichever one the boss or man with money wants to hear.

Yes, and that is a major problem with engineers and other technical people. We generally hate saying "no", "not possible" etc, but sometimes we simply have to laugh at people and their stupid impractical idea and tell them a firm "no".
Carl Sagan said it best - It pay to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.

Remember, VC's generally fund practical ideas, they want a practical return on their investment in a few years, they do not usually fund general research into new physics etc.
This means that engineers like us have to be very strict and not think "what new physics discoveries might be like in 100 years", instead we have to call bullshit on ideas like uBeam here and now.
I've said, and I'm sure Paul and others would agree that it's important to encourage basic research in these fields, but only when this basic research shows some sort of promise should us engineers come along and go (especially to VC's) "yeah, that might be possible".

Once again uBeam made no claims they were working on or spending any money toward basic acoustics or physics research. They were simply taking an existing concept and seeing if they could beat it with a big engineering hammer to make it practical. It was obvious to any competent engineer from day 1 that it wasn't going to be practical for the application they wanted.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: edy on December 11, 2016, 11:38:31 pm
Carl Sagan said it best - It pay to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.

 :-DD  Oh that is a good one.    :-+

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f0/b9/91/f0b9915524095dbdb1f4f9e813ff4a8c.jpg)


...  and while looking for the above, I found another one pertinent to this discussion ...

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/70/d4/3f/70d43f103b3fa61e668a87629862ee6e.jpg)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: timb on December 11, 2016, 11:46:02 pm
I understood all of it and was commenting on the definite 'never' part.

The most important part of Dave's quote is this:

Quote from: EEVblog
Vibrating air to transfer energy for consumer product charging will never happen on a practical consumer scale at the watt level.
(Edited for clarity; emphasis mine.)

I already qualified this for you in an earlier reply, but I'll say it again and try to be a bit clearer...

Charging a modern smartphone requires 5 to 10 watts, minimum. Sending that much power through the air with ultrasonic, at a distance of more than a few inches, cannot be done safely, reliably and efficiently in a consumer setting. That will be the same at any time. Today or 300 years from now, it doesn't matter.

There may be some niche industrial uses for ultrasonic power transmission. Perhaps to power sensors on rotating machinery, however that requires less than 1W of power and can be confined to a specific area that wouldn't pose a danger to people and animals.

The only way ultrasonic power transfer would ever be viable, on a consumer level, is if the device only required microwatts of power. Maybe 50 years from now when our phones are all running carbon nanotube bio-organic 3D stacked hyper processors that are 800x more powerful than today's SoC, yet only consume 10uW, it might be practical to power them wirelessly with ultrasonic chargers. Then again, you can get that amount of power from an amorphous solar cell, so it might be pointless.

However, today, in the real world where the rest of us live, it's not physically possible. And 50 or even 300 years from now, it still won't be possible to transmit multiple watts of power via an ultrasonic beam. Nothing we can discover about physics will change that.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on December 11, 2016, 11:53:57 pm


... Nothing we can discover about physics will change that.

OK.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Zad on December 12, 2016, 01:32:44 am
An arrogant (charismatic) charlatan? Anyone offering odds that she is going to get the job heading up the country's science research?


Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on December 12, 2016, 02:39:34 am
An arrogant (charismatic) charlatan? Anyone offering odds that she is going to get the job heading up the country's science research?
I say zero since she achieved nothing of significance in her career but high probability that when ubeam will close she will blame others.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: edy on December 12, 2016, 03:23:52 am
Since uBeam's main goal as initially conceptualized will go up in smoke... is there anything else that can come out of this company and $23 million in investments (perhaps more now), their "engineering" team plugging away at stuff in some physical space and with a bit more time that will salvage this wreck for the investors? Some other application, concept, accessory, gadget, etc? I think a miracle will be needed. The more they keep putting their resources in to making this wireless charging research, the less they will have to put in to some other idea (if there is even one). When and can investors yank their investments (or whatever is left of it) and cut their losses?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdouble on December 12, 2016, 05:33:26 am
She may have left for Mexico with a bunch of million bucks.
 :-DD :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 12, 2016, 05:39:18 am
Since uBeam's main goal as initially conceptualized will go up in smoke... is there anything else that can come out of this company and $23 million in investments (perhaps more now), their "engineering" team plugging away at stuff in some physical space and with a bit more time that will salvage this wreck for the investors? Some other application, concept, accessory, gadget, etc? I think a miracle will be needed. The more they keep putting their resources in to making this wireless charging research, the less they will have to put in to some other idea (if there is even one). When and can investors yank their investments (or whatever is left of it) and cut their losses?

Word was that people internally wanted to pivot the product into some other direction/product/market, but Perry would have none of it.
She has the controlling interest and I'm pretty sure she'll ride this donkey all the way into town. Otherwise she won't be able to give all us engineers the middle finger:
https://youtu.be/ukgnU2aXM2c?t=13m41s
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on December 12, 2016, 05:45:57 am
Let's forget about any possible power transfer that can be used for charging via uBeam. Let's say they design some system or a tiny chip with a small tuning fork designed to oscillate at some very high frequency, attach it to a Quartz element (similar to a Phono cartridge) and they use uBeam as a way to broadcast "data" local to certain locales (much like a WiFi) but uni-directionally.

Now you have the potential to have data transfer of advertisements, specials, WiFi-password information, etc... something to the phone that may bootstrap a potential WiFi or BlueTooth connection based on the location proximity due to sound. Usually something within a room. Maybe even like in Museums or other places.

There can be potential here in that sphere of thinking..... What do you think? With things like Pokemon Go being all the rage, location-specific broadcasts through open systems may have some potential. Not sure why would need yet another communication method but this may be good for data-only benefits.

Next up: A handheld device to control your TV using ultrasound.

Any VC backers interested in that?

Title: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: timb on December 12, 2016, 07:41:19 pm
Let's forget about any possible power transfer that can be used for charging via uBeam. Let's say they design some system or a tiny chip with a small tuning fork designed to oscillate at some very high frequency, attach it to a Quartz element (similar to a Phono cartridge) and they use uBeam as a way to broadcast "data" local to certain locales (much like a WiFi) but uni-directionally.

Now you have the potential to have data transfer of advertisements, specials, WiFi-password information, etc... something to the phone that may bootstrap a potential WiFi or BlueTooth connection based on the location proximity due to sound. Usually something within a room. Maybe even like in Museums or other places.

There can be potential here in that sphere of thinking..... What do you think? With things like Pokemon Go being all the rage, location-specific broadcasts through open systems may have some potential. Not sure why would need yet another communication method but this may be good for data-only benefits.

Next up: A handheld device to control your TV using ultrasound.

Any VC backers interested in that?

I think Zenith beat you to it, by 60 years! XD

(I know that was your point, still, a lot of people don't know the history of the humble remote control. From wired, to visible light, to ultrasound to IR...)

http://www.zenith.com/remote-background/

Quote
Next Generations: Space Command

Zenith’s Dr. Robert Adler suggested using “ultrasonics,” that is, high-frequency sound, beyond the range of human hearing. He was assigned to lead a team of engineers to work on the first use of ultrasonics technology in the home as a new approach for a remote control.

The transmitter used no batteries; it was built around aluminum rods that were light in weight and, when struck at one end, emitted distinctive high-frequency sounds. The first such remote control used four rods, each approximately 2-1/2 inches long: one for channel up, one for channel down, one for sound on and off, and one for on and off.

They were very carefully cut to lengths that would generate four slightly different frequencies. They were excited by a trigger mechanism that stretched a spring and then released it so that a small hammer would strike the end of the aluminum rod.

Fun Fact: This is where the term "clicker" (referring to a TV remote) came from. Pressing the button required a bit of force to stretch the spring and, when the "hammer" released, it made a loud clicking noise. The whole mechanism is not dissimilar from a double-action only revolver.

The more you know! ~~*
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PA0PBZ on December 12, 2016, 07:55:55 pm
The more you know! ~~*

The later (electronic) ones were also very good at controlling cats!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on December 12, 2016, 10:44:14 pm
I've already tested the cat from 30kHz to 60kHz from 5 meters away.
At 60kHz the cat could just about hear it, at 40kHz I could barely glow a red LED at about 5mm, but the cat from 5 meters away described the 40kHz as "bloody loud".

http://independentscience.tumblr.com/post/101728968844/ultrasound-thermodynamics-and-robot-overlords (http://independentscience.tumblr.com/post/101728968844/ultrasound-thermodynamics-and-robot-overlords)

the firm's confident that the initial system will be on store shelves by the fall, with the consumer transmitter costing between $200 and $300, and the puck itself retailing for around $30.
uBean 2011.
https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/01/ubeam-wireless-power-startup-shows-prototype-at-d9-video-hands (https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/01/ubeam-wireless-power-startup-shows-prototype-at-d9-video-hands)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: edavid on December 13, 2016, 12:14:33 am
The later (electronic) ones were also very good at controlling cats!

The earlier ones could be controlled by dogs!  When I was a tot, my dog could change the channel on my grandparents's Zenith TV.  When she ran around their house, the metal tags on her collar would click together, generating the same ultrasonic tone as the remote control.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on December 14, 2016, 03:19:26 pm
A world without wires. One day all mobile devices will be wirelessly powered this way.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on December 14, 2016, 06:45:39 pm
A world without wires. One day all mobile devices will be wirelessly powered this way.

... or better of, they will come with a built in lifetime power source.

Solar calculators are a great example for a similar progress. A building full of power hungry vacuums tubes was replaced by a tiny and cheap gadget with superior computation power that harvests its own power from the environment.

I can imagine how such a proposition would be 'debunked forever' 75 years ago.  ;-)

(http://salestores.com/stores/images/images_747/FX300ES.jpg)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: iaeen on December 14, 2016, 07:22:57 pm
A world without wires. One day all mobile devices will be wirelessly powered this way.

... or better of, they will come with a built in lifetime power source.

Solar calculators are a great example for a similar progress. A building full of power hungry vacuums tubes was replaced by a tiny and cheap gadget with superior computation power that harvests its own power from the environment.

I can imagine how such a proposition would be 'debunked forever' 75 years ago.  ;-)

I doubt that this will ever happen. I'm not saying that I think that getting a modern cell phone for the power consumption of a small solar cell is impossible, but by the time you get the power requirements down to that level, the computational power will be considered obsolete (as hand calculators are today).

The mobile device market has shown us that features >> battery life (read: power consumption). Sure, lots of people talk about how great it was when their old dumb phones lasted a week on a single charge, but the number of people that actually go out and buy such phones is insignificant. We would need some breakthrough in environmental power harvesting technology (solar cells or whatever) that makes internal storage less practical than even the most energy dense internal storage method.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: JimRemington on December 14, 2016, 07:51:50 pm
Quote
We would need some breakthrough in environmental power harvesting technology (solar cells or whatever)
I'm looking forward to the day we can directly harvest the fluctuations of the vacuum state.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: iaeen on December 14, 2016, 08:01:56 pm
Quote
We would need some breakthrough in environmental power harvesting technology (solar cells or whatever)
I'm looking forward to the day we can directly harvest the fluctuations of the vacuum state.
In retrospect, I regret including that last sentence. I inadvertently sounded like one of the free energy wackos.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on December 14, 2016, 08:59:30 pm
If ultrasonic power delivery starts to "work" because the power requirements of devices shrinks to a level that makes it practical, harvesting RF energy will always be more practical.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 15, 2016, 02:36:13 am
If ultrasonic power delivery starts to "work" because the power requirements of devices shrinks to a level that makes it practical, harvesting RF energy will always be more practical.

It might make it "work" but it will never make it "right" or acceptable. Efficiency is still going to pretty terrible. Even if a phone charged at 0.1W, for millions of people to pump in 10W of power to charge that is a very bad idea.
Energy Star and other such efficiency ratings and requirements for plugpacks and chargers exist for a reason.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on December 15, 2016, 03:36:22 am
If ultrasonic power delivery starts to "work" because the power requirements of devices shrinks to a level that makes it practical, harvesting RF energy will always be more practical.

It might make it "work" but it will never make it "right" or acceptable. Efficiency is still going to pretty terrible. Even if a phone charged at 0.1W, for millions of people to pump in 10W of power to charge that is a very bad idea.
Energy Star and other such efficiency ratings and requirements for plugpacks and chargers exist for a reason.

You assume that 10W input will still be an issue in 200 years. Expect many things to change by then. 50 years ago it would consider impractical and not 'right' or acceptable to use 200K active electronic switches to blink a single small red bulb.

Scientific and technological advances also advance our perspective so 'never' is a tricky thing.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on December 15, 2016, 05:13:04 am
If ultrasonic power delivery starts to "work" because the power requirements of devices shrinks to a level that makes it practical, harvesting RF energy will always be more practical.

It might make it "work" but it will never make it "right" or acceptable. Efficiency is still going to pretty terrible. Even if a phone charged at 0.1W, for millions of people to pump in 10W of power to charge that is a very bad idea.
Energy Star and other such efficiency ratings and requirements for plugpacks and chargers exist for a reason.

You assume that 10W input will still be an issue in 200 years. Expect many things to change by then. 50 years ago it would consider impractical and not 'right' or acceptable to use 200K active electronic switches to blink a single small red bulb.

Scientific and technological advances also advance our perspective so 'never' is a tricky thing.

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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 15, 2016, 05:20:33 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.

Zapta is trolling, he is best ignored.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on December 15, 2016, 06:25:22 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.

Zapta is trolling, he is best ignored.

The inconvenient truth.

You said:  "It might make it "work" but it will never make it "right" or acceptable".

A blinker with 200k electronic switches was unacceptable 70 years ago but these days every arduino kid makes one.

Technological and scientific advances will not stop at our generation and will keep redefining what is technically 'right' and 'acceptable'.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: zapta on December 15, 2016, 06:35:34 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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on December 15, 2016, 06:55:13 am
Disposable cups were impractical 500 years ago but they are now.

Rubbish. The Romans disposed of millions of cups. It was the norm back then.

Even today they still make single-use ceramic cups in places like India. Millions of them every day.

https://www.jovoto.com/projects/betacup/ideas/4859 (https://www.jovoto.com/projects/betacup/ideas/4859)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on December 15, 2016, 06:56:51 am
Even if a phone charged at 0.1W, for millions of people to pump in 10W of power to charge that is a very bad idea.
Energy Star and other such efficiency ratings and requirements for plugpacks and chargers exist for a reason.
Yep. A solar cell would be 100000% better than putting ultrasound transmitters everywhere.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LabSpokane on December 15, 2016, 08:39:14 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.

Zapta is trolling, he is best ignored.

Agreed. Remind me in 200 years, though. I might have forgotten by then.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: JiggyNinja on December 15, 2016, 09:38:02 pm
You can pour in all the money you like, when you are out by several orders of magnitude on decent efficiency no amount of technical PhD hand waving is going to fix it.

Never say never. The level of computing we carry in our pockets these days would be consider physically impossible 200 years ago. Same goes for you talking in Sidney and we hear you in real time all over the world.

When we 'debunk' stuff, we need to remember to qualify it.
Those "impossible" things tend to use new physics, like radio waves or semiconductor electronics.

Is it possible that some new physics would allow wireless charging several devices at several watts each through directed beams of unubtainion particles? Yes it is.

Is it possible that the efficiency of sound propagation through air, which has been thoroughly studied for an extremely long time, is suddenly going to change? No.

We can achieve greater transmission bandwidth through fiber optic cables and copper because those things are constructed with complete control over their properties. Improvements in manufacturing techniques can push their capabilities to the theoretical limits by tightening tolerances and purifying materials.

You cannot do the same with the atmosphere of a large room. You are stuck with what you have. Imagine being forced to only use window-quality glass to make fiber optic cables. No amount of science and engineering is going to get over the fact that window glass sucks, and fiber optic cables would never be able to be more than a couple dozen feet long.
Quote
A blinker with 200k electronic switches was unacceptable 70 years ago but these days every arduino kid makes one.
That is because, unlike the 50's, we don't use relays or vacuum tubes anymore. Miniaturizing computing devices relied on new physics being applied to the problem. You can get microcontrollers in a ridiculous SOT-23-6 package now for under 2 USD, and it's dead simple to program in any arbitrary blinking pattern you want by reprogramming it. If you needed to make something blick 3 times every 2 seconds, does it make more sense to lash together some 555 timers (with associated passives) with glue logic, or toss in a small PIC and spend 30 minutes writing a blinky program?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on December 19, 2016, 01:01:21 am
Looks like these clowns have closed down.  :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: djos on December 19, 2016, 01:14:00 am
Looks like these clowns have closed down.  :horse:

Source?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on December 19, 2016, 10:35:38 pm
Source?
Just intuition.  ;)

https://twitter.com/garrettreim/status/810964924461555712  :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on December 20, 2016, 01:17:49 am
Looks like these clowns have closed down.  :horse:

Nope.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Dubbie on December 20, 2016, 02:08:28 am
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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on December 20, 2016, 08:40:20 am
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-34604842)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34604843 (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.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on December 20, 2016, 03:43:01 pm
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.  :)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: iaeen on December 22, 2016, 02:49:32 pm
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:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: JiggyNinja on December 22, 2016, 04:30:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on December 23, 2016, 01:44:33 am
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
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on January 18, 2017, 03:56:15 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 (http://uk.businessinsider.com/yahoo-ceo-marissa-mayer-should-be-a-vc-investor-2017-1) (Published 16 Jan 2017)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on January 19, 2017, 02:42:25 pm
"now looking to raise at a $500 million valuation"   :-DD   :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: JiggyNinja on January 19, 2017, 05:40:01 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 (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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: thesgoat on February 04, 2017, 01:27:10 am
uBeam finally shows off its wireless charging tech
https://www.axios.com/ubeam-finally-shows-off-its-wireless-charging-technology-2236385621.html (https://www.axios.com/ubeam-finally-shows-off-its-wireless-charging-technology-2236385621.html)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on February 04, 2017, 03:56:05 am
uBeam finally shows off its wireless charging tech
https://www.axios.com/ubeam-finally-shows-off-its-wireless-charging-technology-2236385621.html (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/ (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.hk/)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on February 04, 2017, 06:36:13 am
uBeam finally shows off its wireless charging tech
https://www.axios.com/ubeam-finally-shows-off-its-wireless-charging-technology-2236385621.html (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/ (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 (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/02/ubeam-still-all-sizzle.html)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: JiggyNinja on February 08, 2017, 04:07:22 am
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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 08, 2017, 05:41:34 am
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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on February 08, 2017, 06:00:29 am
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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: JiggyNinja on February 08, 2017, 03:20:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: timothyaag on February 08, 2017, 03:53:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: JiggyNinja on February 08, 2017, 05:55:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on February 17, 2017, 08:36:56 am
Disney Research and wireless power transfer.

https://www.disneyresearch.com/publication/quasistatic-cavity-resonance-for-ubiquitous-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."



Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 17, 2017, 09:01:25 am
Disney Research and wireless power transfer.

https://www.disneyresearch.com/publication/quasistatic-cavity-resonance-for-ubiquitous-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?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on February 17, 2017, 09:26:13 am
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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 17, 2017, 09:39:15 am
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
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 17, 2017, 09:43:37 am
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!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 17, 2017, 09:46:14 am
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
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: amyk on February 17, 2017, 10:00:14 am
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Mouse#Pejorative_use_of_Mickey.27s_name)"...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on February 17, 2017, 11:02:24 am
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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on February 17, 2017, 02:28:07 pm
And... Disney Research? I guess this brings a whole new meaning to "Mickey Mouse science (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Mouse#Pejorative_use_of_Mickey.27s_name)"...

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.]
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LaserSteve on February 17, 2017, 04:59:33 pm
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

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on February 18, 2017, 10:19:16 pm
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 (http://www.startuphire.com/job/mems-modelling-and-simulation-engineer-santa-monica-ca-ubeam-402303)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 18, 2017, 10:39:05 pm
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 (http://www.startuphire.com/job/mems-modelling-and-simulation-engineer-santa-monica-ca-ubeam-402303)

 :-DD
I gotta tweet that
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 18, 2017, 10:45:35 pm
http://www.startuphire.com/job/mems-modelling-and-simulation-engineer-santa-monica-ca-ubeam-402303 (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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on February 19, 2017, 12:00:36 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 (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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 19, 2017, 12:14:19 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?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 19, 2017, 12:15:22 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
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on February 19, 2017, 12:34:46 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...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on February 19, 2017, 12:42:03 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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: JiggyNinja on February 19, 2017, 02:19:28 am
Disney Research and wireless power transfer.

https://www.disneyresearch.com/publication/quasistatic-cavity-resonance-for-ubiquitous-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".
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Maxlor on February 19, 2017, 01:20:23 pm
They even have a short video presentation of their work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn7T599QaN8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn7T599QaN8)

I could see applications for that if it happens to be Qi-compatible or something like that.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on February 19, 2017, 06:11:55 pm
Disney Research and wireless power transfer.

https://www.disneyresearch.com/publication/quasistatic-cavity-resonance-for-ubiquitous-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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: DutchGert on February 19, 2017, 06:29:29 pm
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 (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?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: JiggyNinja on February 19, 2017, 06:46:06 pm
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 (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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Danseur on February 22, 2017, 12:19:31 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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: JiggyNinja on February 22, 2017, 04:15:56 pm
Preaching to the choir here, Dan.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on March 02, 2017, 08:48:00 am
Looks like the COO has departed.

http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/03/another-one-bites-dust.html (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/03/another-one-bites-dust.html)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 02, 2017, 09:01:33 am
Looks like the COO has departed.
http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/03/another-one-bites-dust.html (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/03/another-one-bites-dust.html)

As long as the band keeps playing, everything will be fine...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on March 02, 2017, 09:24:20 am
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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 02, 2017, 09:27:36 am
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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on March 02, 2017, 10:06:35 am
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.

"Execution of uBeam Operations" sounds remarkably honest.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 20, 2017, 08:57:55 am
Just checking in, are they still in business?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on March 20, 2017, 03:36:24 pm
Just checking in, are they still in business?

That sounds like a leading question to me.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on March 29, 2017, 04:36:08 am
Still going, and I'd guess in the midst of a fundraising round just now. Don't be surprised to see another substantial investment round announced in the next two months. That demo will be compelling for those who don't get that the laws of physics don't change over time, and that Moore's Law doesn't apply here. Remember this is a VC world that put $120m into a juicer, and Energous (WATT) has a market cap of $300m. I'd say it's a coin toss as to whether this happens or not, but there's a ton of money out there looking for a home right now, and someone might be dumb enough to use WATT as the benchmark, which would be ironic given the similarities there.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on April 04, 2017, 10:10:41 pm
ubean doing a survey  :-DD
https://twitter.com/ubeam/status/849025411728068608
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on April 09, 2017, 07:16:44 pm
It looks like someone has trademarked the word ubeam, that will help a lot.  :horse:

http://www.trademarkia.com/ubeam-87376934.html (http://www.trademarkia.com/ubeam-87376934.html)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: tszaboo on April 10, 2017, 09:45:36 am
ubean doing a survey  :-DD
https://twitter.com/ubeam/status/849025411728068608
I just told them, that I hope they will get brain cancer from their own product.
And I'm dead serious.
They remind me of children, trying to charge phones with loaded machine guns or lasers that can blind you, waving some papers, that none of those things can kill you, because we did a test for 0.01s and the machine gun did not hurt anyone. Trying to install it in public places.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on April 29, 2017, 11:12:11 pm
That looks to have been uBeam that trademarked it, so not an issue.

However, Energous creating a ton of patents in acoustic wireless power transfer might be...

http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/04/energous-challenge-ubeam-in-ultrasound.html (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/04/energous-challenge-ubeam-in-ultrasound.html)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on May 05, 2017, 05:24:59 pm
They're hiring!

https://www.cybercoders.com/jobs/details/258227/ (https://www.cybercoders.com/jobs/details/258227/)

Allow me to summarize:

"If you are a God of Engineering and don't like your $500k+ job with Apple, come work for us for $200k. You get to break boundaries!"

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Dubbie on May 07, 2017, 08:55:43 pm
Lol!
What a laundry list.
Perhaps they figure it might be cheaper to hire ONE person to: Invent (oops, Meredith already did the hard part), Design, Prototype, Do the industrial design, Develop for production.
A whole team clearly costs too much at this stage!

If I was an investor this would be a frightening advertisement.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: David Chamberlain on May 07, 2017, 09:09:23 pm
Buy why? look how much fun they seem to be having. What with so many out of the BOX thinkers on the wall to inspire everyone not to accept commonly held scientific dogma.

(https://ubeam.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/thumb_IMG_1675_1024-edit-12.3.jpg)
https://ubeam.com/career (https://ubeam.com/career)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on May 08, 2017, 06:33:59 pm
Are they sure it's a good idea to fill the walls with pictures of people who understood the laws of physics. :)

They're hiring!
https://www.cybercoders.com/jobs/details/258227/ (https://www.cybercoders.com/jobs/details/258227/)

What You Need for this Position
More Than 15 Years of experience and knowledge of:

- Electrical engineering design/engineering/build/test
- Acoustic transducer driver (or low frequency power amplifier) & interface electronics
- Electronics simulation (eg SPICE), design optimization, and model iteration using experimental data
- Mixed signal (analog & digital) ASIC design
- Battery charging and power management electronics
- Microcontroller programming and architecture
- PCB design, engineering, build, and test experience
- Key differentiator is specific experience in all common methods of PCB fabrication and assembly (etch/mill/stencil/pick-place/etc)
- Design AND build experience with high density PCBs
- Chip-on-board & flex circuit design experience
- Consumer electronics design experience
- ASIC Design & ASIC House Selection
- Electronics production and manufacturing experience
- Experience in selecting EE components, writing detailed electrical specification of the system interface, and test plan documents
- Communication of design requirements to fabrication houses
- Define Design for Manufacturing (DFM) guidelines
- Prototype build, test, and debugging
- Working with vendors/suppliers/manufacturing partners
- Experience in analyzing trade-offs between performance, manufacturability and cost
- Clearly articulate, track, and drive project objectives in a dynamic, fast-paced environment

 :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on May 29, 2017, 08:48:36 pm
Are these things available in the shops yet ?  :) :horse:

https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/867278941710626816
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on May 29, 2017, 11:49:30 pm
Are these things available in the shops yet ?  :) :horse:

https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/867278941710626816

Amazing what $20m can buy you these days. :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on May 30, 2017, 12:02:07 am
Amazing what $20m can buy you these days. :palm:

Isn't it nearer $60m and 6 years. Their steerable phased flat panel is becoming a bit parabolic.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on May 30, 2017, 12:25:10 am
Amazing what $20m can buy you these days. :palm:

Isn't it nearer $60m and 6 years. Their steerable phased flat panel is becoming a bit parabolic.

Sorry, I guess I missed that last phase of phunding (sic).

It still looks like a phased array, done in a hexagonal tiles of about 14 x 14 transducers.

I may be mistaken but they appear to have cunningly airbrushed/defocused the transducer stack for some reason. Or maybe it's the air in front of the transducers going into non-linearity and refracting the light.  :-DD

Meantime, there appears to be a rubber brick attached to the phone, approximately six times the volume of the phone, and probably six times the mass, possibly protecting it from disintegration from the ultrasonic beam. It looks like poor Meredith's nail varnish is suffering delamination already.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: cdev on May 30, 2017, 01:05:20 am
Is "A world without wires" a play on "A world without walls" which is a neoliberal slogan?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on May 30, 2017, 01:13:36 am
I may be mistaken but they appear to have cunningly airbrushed/defocused the transducer stack for some reason.

It's so you can't see the MA40S4Ts. You can tell by the shadows that the hexagons aren't flat.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 01, 2017, 03:54:00 am
My take on this

http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/05/whats-in-picture.html (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/05/whats-in-picture.html)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 01, 2017, 04:19:50 am
They're hiring!
https://www.cybercoders.com/jobs/details/258227/ (https://www.cybercoders.com/jobs/details/258227/)
Allow me to summarize:
"If you are a God of Engineering and don't like your $500k+ job with Apple, come work for us for $200k. You get to break boundaries!"

Page gone now.
Did anyone capture it?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 01, 2017, 04:21:16 am
Are they sure it's a good idea to fill the walls with pictures of people who understood the laws of physics. :)

They're hiring!
https://www.cybercoders.com/jobs/details/258227/ (https://www.cybercoders.com/jobs/details/258227/)

What You Need for this Position
More Than 15 Years of experience and knowledge of:

- Electrical engineering design/engineering/build/test
- Acoustic transducer driver (or low frequency power amplifier) & interface electronics
- Electronics simulation (eg SPICE), design optimization, and model iteration using experimental data
- Mixed signal (analog & digital) ASIC design
- Battery charging and power management electronics
- Microcontroller programming and architecture
- PCB design, engineering, build, and test experience
- Key differentiator is specific experience in all common methods of PCB fabrication and assembly (etch/mill/stencil/pick-place/etc)
- Design AND build experience with high density PCBs
- Chip-on-board & flex circuit design experience
- Consumer electronics design experience
- ASIC Design & ASIC House Selection
- Electronics production and manufacturing experience
- Experience in selecting EE components, writing detailed electrical specification of the system interface, and test plan documents
- Communication of design requirements to fabrication houses
- Define Design for Manufacturing (DFM) guidelines
- Prototype build, test, and debugging
- Working with vendors/suppliers/manufacturing partners
- Experience in analyzing trade-offs between performance, manufacturability and cost
- Clearly articulate, track, and drive project objectives in a dynamic, fast-paced environment

 :-DD

WOW!  :o
That means they don't have anyone left in house to do any of those things  :scared:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 01, 2017, 04:23:34 am
Are these things available in the shops yet ?  :) :horse:
https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/867278941710626816 (https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/867278941710626816)

The caption should read "and you have to hold it just like this to get it to work as claimed"
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=320284;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: BrianHG on June 01, 2017, 04:40:18 am
LOL, a battery brick that size would recharge my phone for at least a month, no beaming transmitter needed, it would be portable and work in the outdoors...

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Dubbie on June 01, 2017, 05:37:44 am
Don't worry, this is just the prototype. Perry has had a vision of a receiver only the thickness of a sticker.
She has also had a vision of Murata offering uBeam transducers for 3c each. They do this because they are impressed at her visionary leadership.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 01, 2017, 05:44:18 am
LOL, a battery brick that size would recharge my phone for at least a month, no beaming transmitter needed, it would be portable and work in the outdoors...

It very likely does contains a storage battery. IIRC a storage element is in their patent drawings.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 01, 2017, 05:51:10 am
My take on this
http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/05/whats-in-picture.html (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/05/whats-in-picture.html)

Off the shelf transducers?
Didn't they have the world's best ultrasonic transducer experts working for them, and a world class in-house transducer manufacturing facility?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 01, 2017, 06:02:34 am
My take on this
http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/05/whats-in-picture.html (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/05/whats-in-picture.html)

Off the shelf transducers?
Didn't they have the world's best ultrasonic transducer experts working for them, and a world class in-house transducer manufacturing facility?

I couldn't possibly comment on any of that...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 01, 2017, 03:22:46 pm
Life comes at you fast!

http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/06/someone-was-paying-attention.html (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/06/someone-was-paying-attention.html)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on June 02, 2017, 12:38:06 am
The 2 videos were interesting sort of, at least they've got somewhere after $30m and 6 years, - about $0.1m and 6 months worth to be exact. :horse:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c0kzTCRWU4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c0kzTCRWU4)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v3oqwXOx_c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v3oqwXOx_c)

I wonder if you could estimate the US frequency from the interference pattens seen on the LED viewer.

Perry flipped the switch on a large white box, about the size of a ceiling tile. A quiet hum filled the conference

That'll be the cooling fans inside the 2kW transmitter box.

The technology is at least a year away from commercialization

You could say that again.

One challenge could be the perception that always-on ultrasound could be unhealthy to humans.

No worries, they've now added 'optical tracking lasers' to it.  :palm:
 :horse:

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 02, 2017, 01:25:49 am
Life comes at you fast!
http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/06/someone-was-paying-attention.html (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/06/someone-was-paying-attention.html)

Quote
Technically, it's still hard to say exactly what's being done, and there's not much to add beyond my earlier articles. The video does make it look like off-the-shelf Murata devices are being used and focused into a tight beam straightforward. Efficiency and safety questions are dodged.

No beamforming?
In the video she specifically says there is beamforming and device tracking.

Not that it makes a difference of course, the whole idea is 100% guaranteed doomed to failure just based on the efficiency and basic air saturation physics.
How any investor cannot understand this basic fact is amazing.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 02, 2017, 06:10:31 am
Life comes at you fast!
http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/06/someone-was-paying-attention.html (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/06/someone-was-paying-attention.html)

Quote
Technically, it's still hard to say exactly what's being done, and there's not much to add beyond my earlier articles. The video does make it look like off-the-shelf Murata devices are being used and focused into a tight beam straightforward. Efficiency and safety questions are dodged.

No beamforming?
In the video she specifically says there is beamforming and device tracking.

Not that it makes a difference of course, the whole idea is 100% guaranteed doomed to failure just based on the efficiency and basic air saturation physics.
How any investor cannot understand this basic fact is amazing.

That's not what I meant to imply, poor wording on my part if that's what you've taken from it. I mean there is beamforming, but simplified to center line only. (I've updated the post wording to make it clearer)

Imagine a regular phased array with N elements on each side, so you need to address N^2 elements, which if you have a device of N = 30 to 45 is a lot of separate drivers to allow you to steer the beam anywhere. Now imagine instead that you have a collection of concentric rings each 1 element in width, all of the elements in that ring tied together so they are driven by the same signal, but each ring can be driven differently. In that case, instead of N^2 drive elements you have (roughly) N/2, so you end up with a drive electronics reduction at a factor of 2N which is pretty substantial in a large array. The downside to that is that your control over the focus is only down the center line of the system and lateral steering is not possible - however you also ensure that you have really strong focus along that line. Basically, if you can live with the limitations, it's a lot easier and cheaper (electronics wise) to build. It's common in therapeutic ultrasound where you can mechanically scan the transducer to move the focus laterally. e.g.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253749971_Design_and_Fabrication_of_a_Wide-Aperture_HIFU_Annular_Array_Transducer_for_the_Treatment_of_Deep-Seated_Tumors (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253749971_Design_and_Fabrication_of_a_Wide-Aperture_HIFU_Annular_Array_Transducer_for_the_Treatment_of_Deep-Seated_Tumors)


Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on June 02, 2017, 07:18:44 am
Some points on the videos...

o The LED panel demos were quite interesting.

o We have no idea what functionalities the black bricks on the back of the phones offer: obviously energy collection is one (you'd hope), but is there some energy storage too, and something to manage device tracking?

o There looks to be a camera on top of the square array with an NVIDIA logo below it. What does that do? Is it just for R&D, or is it part of the device tracking functionality for multi beam forming?

o That's a very big box of electronics in the beam forming video.

o How efficient is it?

o How much power is needed to get the green power indicator to show "charging"? And was it really charging, or just dribbling in a bit of power?

o The key question: how long does it actually take to charge the phone?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 02, 2017, 08:41:30 am
A few further observations

http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/06/what-does-it-take-to-switch-phone.html (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/06/what-does-it-take-to-switch-phone.html)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 02, 2017, 09:22:28 am
Some points on the videos...
o How efficient is it?
o How much power is needed to get the green power indicator to show "charging"? And was it really charging, or just dribbling in a bit of power?
o The key question: how long does it actually take to charge the phone?

Nope, the key question is always the efficiency.
Basic air saturation physics limits this to sub 1%, or maybe a few % if you are talking ideal conditions, and let's get real, it will never be ideal conditions in practice.
No charging technology will ever be the least bit practical in the market at this sort of efficiency. Nor should it be, on a mass scale it would be awful for the environment and would likely end up being banned.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on June 03, 2017, 08:50:41 am
A few further observations

http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/06/what-does-it-take-to-switch-phone.html (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/06/what-does-it-take-to-switch-phone.html)

Interesting. I've just tried a selection of Android phones. The on-screen charging indicator seems to come on (and stay on, i.e., not just an initial attempt, sanity check, go away again) at wildly different USB charging currents. One "charges" at 2mA!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on June 03, 2017, 04:26:21 pm
I am also wondering if those LED panels showing the beam patterns are active or passive considering the reasonably high ambient light.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 03, 2017, 05:48:47 pm
A few further observations

http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/06/what-does-it-take-to-switch-phone.html (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/06/what-does-it-take-to-switch-phone.html)

Interesting. I've just tried a selection of Android phones. The on-screen charging indicator seems to come on (and stay on, i.e., not just an initial attempt, sanity check, go away again) at wildly different USB charging currents. One "charges" at 2mA!

It's definitely device dependent, though 2mA is insanely low - 10mW?!

iPhones do seem to need more, so it's worth keeping an eye in the demos of when iPhones and used and when Android is used. It was an Android phone that was bought at the store and they do seem to use them more.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 03, 2017, 05:52:44 pm
I am also wondering if those LED panels showing the beam patterns are active or passive considering the reasonably high ambient light.

That's a very, very, very good observation and something I've been wondering myself.

The LED panel is cool, but also shows the size of the beam (remarkably large given the ~8mm wavelength) and that grating lobes do exist.

Interesting fact: Did you know that if you measure a grating lobe angle from the main beam, and know the transmitter element pitch, you can calculate the frequency of the wave?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on June 03, 2017, 06:26:33 pm
I am also wondering if those LED panels showing the beam patterns are active or passive considering the reasonably high ambient light.

That's a very, very, very good observation and something I've been wondering myself.

The LED panel is cool, but also shows the size of the beam (remarkably large given the ~8mm wavelength) and that grating lobes do exist.

Interesting fact: Did you know that if you measure a grating lobe angle from the main beam, and know the transmitter element pitch, you can calculate the frequency of the wave?
I think it's quite plausible  that the panel is passive - could  be as simple as a bunch of transducers with a LED across each. If they couldn't do this without active help then they stand zero chance of charging a phone.
They have screwed up by using red rather than white LEDs though, as the latter would have given much more light for the power
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on June 03, 2017, 10:16:11 pm
I am also wondering if those LED panels showing the beam patterns are active or passive considering the reasonably high ambient light.

That's a very, very, very good observation and something I've been wondering myself.

The LED panel is cool, but also shows the size of the beam (remarkably large given the ~8mm wavelength) and that grating lobes do exist.

Interesting fact: Did you know that if you measure a grating lobe angle from the main beam, and know the transmitter element pitch, you can calculate the frequency of the wave?
I think it's quite plausible  that the panel is passive - could  be as simple as a bunch of transducers with a LED across each. If they couldn't do this without active help then they stand zero chance of charging a phone.
They have screwed up by using red rather than white LEDs though, as the latter would have given much more light for the power

I tried it a few hours ago, admittedly I didn't spend long, but I could not get an LED to illuminate visually within mm of a transducer transmitter/receiver setup, and with amplitude maximised on a scope. I was driving the tx with 40kHz at 20V p-p square wave from an AWG.

Transmitter is a Murata MA40S4S that I had in stock, I didn't have the receiver so used another of the same device again as an rx. Not sure how much that matters (I am a total noob on acoustics).

I'm and RF guy, but the wavelength at 40kHz is very short acoutically, even though it's VLF to an RF boy, and so phase changes and nulls/maxima are easily shown on a scope, quite an eye opener.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 03, 2017, 11:49:23 pm
I am also wondering if those LED panels showing the beam patterns are active or passive considering the reasonably high ambient light.

That's a very, very, very good observation and something I've been wondering myself.

The LED panel is cool, but also shows the size of the beam (remarkably large given the ~8mm wavelength) and that grating lobes do exist.

Interesting fact: Did you know that if you measure a grating lobe angle from the main beam, and know the transmitter element pitch, you can calculate the frequency of the wave?
I think it's quite plausible  that the panel is passive - could  be as simple as a bunch of transducers with a LED across each. If they couldn't do this without active help then they stand zero chance of charging a phone.
They have screwed up by using red rather than white LEDs though, as the latter would have given much more light for the power

I tried it a few hours ago, admittedly I didn't spend long, but I could not get an LED to illuminate visually within mm of a transducer transmitter/receiver setup, and with amplitude maximised on a scope. I was driving the tx with 40kHz at 20V p-p square wave from an AWG.

Transmitter is a Murata MA40S4S that I had in stock, I didn't have the receiver so used another of the same device again as an rx. Not sure how much that matters (I am a total noob on acoustics).

I'm and RF guy, but the wavelength at 40kHz is very short acoutically, even though it's VLF to an RF boy, and so phase changes and nulls/maxima are easily shown on a scope, quite an eye opener.

From the Murata data sheet (link below) at 20Vp-p you are getting 120dB so around 20 Pa RMS, that's less than 1 Watt/m^2, and it's 1cm in diameter so maybe 50 to 80uW acoustic out if you are lucky. Not enough to power an LED at all. The transmitter and receivers are slightly different IIRC but not so much you shouldn't still see a response. I'd just look at the result on the oscilloscope. Drive them about 5x harder (100 Vpp, 25x power), then put 10 of them together, and you might (accounting for less than perfect reception efficiency) light an LED.

Acoustic wavelength at 40kHz is around 8.5mm. Yes, you'll get minima/maxima in the near field.


http://www.murata.com/en-sg/api/pdfdownloadapi?cate=&partno=MA40S4S (http://www.murata.com/en-sg/api/pdfdownloadapi?cate=&partno=MA40S4S)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on June 04, 2017, 10:03:30 am
I think it's quite plausible  that the panel is passive - could  be as simple as a bunch of transducers with a LED across each. If they couldn't do this without active help then they stand zero chance of charging a phone.

We know they have zero chance of charging a phone.

The question is how much it takes to light up the "charging" indicator on an Android phone. I think it's not much because they sell solar panel phone phone chargers that only put out fractions of a Watt.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=321129;image)

Is iPhone different? In the video she seemed very insistent that they were going to buy an Android phone.  :-//

The LED panels are very pretty but are almost certainly actively powered.

Ultrasonic transducers are quite mature technology, they aren't going to reduce the size of that brick and nobody wants that even if it works and you don't have to hold it in the air by the edges for it to charge.

Conclusions: She's turned from queen dreamer to queen con artist. The lies in that video are very deliberate.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 04, 2017, 10:50:11 am
I am also wondering if those LED panels showing the beam patterns are active or passive considering the reasonably high ambient light.

That's a very, very, very good observation and something I've been wondering myself.
The LED panel is cool, but also shows the size of the beam (remarkably large given the ~8mm wavelength) and that grating lobes do exist.
Interesting fact: Did you know that if you measure a grating lobe angle from the main beam, and know the transmitter element pitch, you can calculate the frequency of the wave?

Simplistically, assuming say a 1kW input signal into the TX array, and assuming it can beamform that to even 0.1% efficiency into an area the size of the LED panel, that's 1W into the entire handheld device. More than enough to power LED's passively.
Even assuming one large beam the same width as the TX panel, the RX LED panel is maybe 1/4 the size?, so even at 0.25W that would be still be enough to do the LED's.
So I'd say it's possible.
It would also be possible to combine all the RX transducers to generate an internal power rail, and then also measure the power level on each RX transducer to map to a LED array actively, rather than just passively power each LED.

But like you said, if they were getting 5W or even 2.5W into the "brick" phone adapter, wouldn't they be shouting that from the rooftops?

After all:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYZG1gKr9CQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYZG1gKr9CQ)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 04, 2017, 11:10:55 am
Remember this?
Whatever happened to tripling  the staff?
Isn't the new HQ practically empty?

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=321156;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on June 04, 2017, 03:57:06 pm
Well I had a bit more than five minutes today. I did manage to get an LED to light but I needed to rectify the rx with Schottky diodes: using an LED to self-rectify didn't work, not sure why.

There was little if any benefit using a full wave rectifier compare to using a clamp diode plus single rectifier diode.

I could get it to light visibly with about 1mA at a distance of 2cm, so as you say, it's still near field. As you need to quadruple the radiated power to double the distance, I'd need 16 to manage 8cm(!) however I could also add gain to the receive element too in a similar fashion.

It looks like there are 900 transducers in the beam forming unit. Say it's 1024 to make the maths easier. That gives a possible gain of 30dB over a single transducer by my calculations and a range of 64cm.

20Vp-p is the maximum the transducers I have are spec'd for. They don't look exactly like the ones in the video because there is a plastic protective mesh in front of mine but the size looks similar. At 20Vp-p I am measuring (real) power into the device of around 100mW. At 2cm distance, I had about 2mW, giving it a 2% efficiency. However, at 2cm this subtends only a small solid angle from an unmodified beam tx, so perhaps only 15-20% of the transmitted power appears at the rx anyway. So beam forming and reasoanably sized apertures on the receiver are essential facets for this to work.

It'd be an interesting experiment to put a larger array together for both tx and rx on a parabolic surface and see what can really be achieved, and at what distance. I only have 30 transducers in stock though!

I was thinking about their brick phone attachment, and assuming it's real, in itself that would have to have a reasonably large aperture, so perhaps 40 sensors. Each would need MPPT and power aggregation which although not rocket science is going to be expensive to fabricate.

That camera thing is an Nvidia Jetson which looks like it's for visual device tracking. They do like making hard work of things! If it needs visual indication of where the target device is, and the sensors are on the rear of the phone, the phone will have to be used face down for a ceiling arrangement, and you won't be able to hold it in a normal fashion to make a call or use the screen. Even wall mounted, assuming nothing's in the way, you'll have to figure out new ways to hold your phone.

In its current form and key use, as a phone charger, this remains practically speaking a non-starter.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on June 04, 2017, 04:11:52 pm
I managed to "charge" my phone with ultrasonic power transfer...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlcHeDzCL5Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlcHeDzCL5Y)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 04, 2017, 07:56:25 pm
I managed to "charge" my phone with ultrasonic power transfer...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlcHeDzCL5Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlcHeDzCL5Y)

Superb stuff Howard, nicely done. I'll likely do a blog post and link to your work here.

Something to note - you can drive the Murata transducers at more than 20Vp-p, I think you can do 60V, maybe even as high as 100V. They in part limit to 20V as that's in the 115 to 120dB range which is the limit in almost every country in the world for ultrasound (and likely the US as well, OSHA have changed the public numbers since 2015 from 145 dB to 115). No idea about longevity at those amplitudes, piezo materials break down at some point, and if >80% of the power is lost as heat, that's not going to be good. Also note that if an ASIC is used, the node chosen will impact maximum supported voltage so can only go so high.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 04, 2017, 07:58:43 pm
Remember this?
Whatever happened to tripling  the staff?
Isn't the new HQ practically empty?

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=321156;image)

According to LinkedIn, all the staff who were in that office (3 of them) left at the end of last year. None had even made it a full year at the company. It appeared to be an 8500 sqft office, and when I last drove past it was not occupied.

They may even have left in January this year. Why would they leave when the company is on the verge of this awesome success?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on June 05, 2017, 12:52:30 am
It seems a bit odd that they're still playing with early prototypes, when they've been gearing up for mass production for nearly 2 years.  :horse:

From the brightness of the LEDs on the panel I'd guestimate the recovered power varies between about 0.3W and 0.8W, - nearly enough to charge a phone if you turned it off and held it up in a funny way for 6 hours.  :)

3178 views:
vimeo.com/218093800
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 05, 2017, 02:19:32 am
It seems a bit odd that they're still playing with early prototypes, when they've been gearing up for mass production for nearly 2 years.  :horse:

From the brightness of the LEDs on the panel I'd guestimate the recovered power varies between about 0.3W and 0.8W, - nearly enough to charge a phone if you turned it off and held it up in a funny way for 6 hours.  :)

3178 views:
vimeo.com/218093800

You don't understand! It's a new paradigm! Stop thinking like an engineer and free yourself from that box you are in! It's not about charging faster than a wire, it's about trickle charge!

It must be nice for everyone in the press to forget what you claimed you had 2 years ago, get to keep working, then deliver a fraction of what was claimed and say "See I was right!"

In the USA Today article the head of their tech advisory board literally admits they had far less than this 18 months ago, same time the company was claiming "faster than a wire" and "ramping to production". And it looks like they are using off the shelf transducers (or simple variation thereof) and not anything groundbreaking.

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?



 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on June 05, 2017, 05:44:06 am
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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 05, 2017, 06:13:38 am
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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on June 05, 2017, 11:00:53 am
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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on June 06, 2017, 02:11:34 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:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on June 07, 2017, 12:14:01 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 (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:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 08, 2017, 06:30:18 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:

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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 08, 2017, 06:51:16 am
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 (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/ (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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 08, 2017, 06:55:53 am
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 (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".
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on June 08, 2017, 08:03:29 am
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 (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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 08, 2017, 08:05:13 am
You missed the best bit on the main page. https://ubeam-inc.workable.com/ (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?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Kean on June 08, 2017, 08:16:03 am
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
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 08, 2017, 08:29:29 am
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!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYZG1gKr9CQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYZG1gKr9CQ)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on June 08, 2017, 10:33:38 am
Quote
You missed the best bit on the main page. https://ubeam-inc.workable.com/ (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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on June 08, 2017, 12:17:03 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!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYZG1gKr9CQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYZG1gKr9CQ)


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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on June 08, 2017, 01:15:11 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....
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 08, 2017, 03:02:39 pm
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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukgnU2aXM2c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukgnU2aXM2c)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on June 08, 2017, 03:50:45 pm
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...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 19, 2017, 12:16:18 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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on June 19, 2017, 01:34:18 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:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 19, 2017, 02:50:52 am
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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 19, 2017, 02:52:47 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 ?

I don't think so. The PC screen seems to show the intensity data mapping as seen on the LED receiver panel.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 19, 2017, 03:23:52 am
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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on June 19, 2017, 05:38:56 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.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 20, 2017, 08:48:21 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.

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.
 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on June 20, 2017, 08:53:00 am
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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 20, 2017, 08:58:59 am
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.

Very true.
If I was running a cafe or whatnot I'd have Qi chargers all over the place, but can't say I've ever seen one anywhere.
uBeam would be a dead duck even if it was practical.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on June 20, 2017, 11:47:12 am
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.

Yep. I'm just saying "argument from efficiency" won't sway many potential investors.

Pointing out it's a total brick and can't be made smaller will be 1000x more effective.

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.

Bottom line: Qi can be built into Starbucks' tables for a fraction of the cost of uBeam.

And it will work.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 22, 2017, 11:20:25 am
Might have been posted already, but plenty of close-ups of the tech here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c0kzTCRWU4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c0kzTCRWU4)

So it seems they have two demo devices. A small thin one that doesn't seem to beam form, and then a big hulking prototype looking beast down in the basement  lab that does the tracking and beam forming.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 22, 2017, 11:21:34 am
Searching for uBeam on Youtube I note a complete absence of any rebuttal videos, so I might upload just that portion of my latest debunking video onto my 2nd channel so it gets some SEO keyword love.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: djos on June 22, 2017, 11:29:07 am
Searching for uBeam on Youtube I note a complete absence of any rebuttal videos, so I might upload just that portion of my latest debunking video onto my 2nd channel so it gets some SEO keyword love.

Nice work on the 1000th video today Dave, loved the uBeam snack down, just so much fail in one startup!  :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Magnets on June 22, 2017, 11:46:54 am
It's just crazy that people invest and spend time on something like this. I get the feeling some like to push the whole women in tech angle a bit too much.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on June 22, 2017, 02:05:33 pm
... and then a big hulking prototype looking beast down in the basement  lab...

Now Ms. Perry may not be the most prepossessing creature, but I don't think you ought to talk about her like that.  :P
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Mukrakiish on June 22, 2017, 03:15:13 pm
... and then a big hulking prototype looking beast down in the basement  lab...

Now Ms. Perry may not be the most prepossessing creature, but I don't think you ought to talk about her like that.  :P
I audibly laughed at that one.  :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: max_torque on June 22, 2017, 06:35:41 pm
The thing with all "Charging" technologies, from phones to cars, is that they miss a significant human factor.  Namely, us humans have to recharge too. In fact, we spend something like 1/3 to 1/2 (lazy students ;-) ) our entire lives ASLEEP.  And when we sleep, our electronic devices are free to charge as we can't be using them at the same time.

The only reason to need 'wireless' charging for anything is when someone works out how to keep us humans awake for the full 24hr period (and no, i don't mean lots of Vodka RedBulls.......   :-DD  )

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 23, 2017, 12:20:28 am
Check out the wizz-bang tracking tech, just some white tape on the back of the huge brick!  :-DD

And some info on the asic that might be readable. But it's clear it's a transmitter ASIC that likely handles the beamforming.

But they have two prototypes, and the small desktop one is a dog'n'pony show one without beamforming or tracking (she basically admits that, and it's clear on the LED panel demo), and the basement one that is huge that has visual tracking (Using and NVIDIA Jetson) and the beamforming.
And they claimed to the production ready like a year ago  :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 23, 2017, 12:22:07 am
The only reason to need 'wireless' charging for anything is when someone works out how to keep us humans awake for the full 24hr period (and no, i don't mean lots of Vodka RedBulls.......   :-DD  )

If there was such a massive desperate need for wireless charging at Cafe's etc, why don't Starbucks et.al have Qi chargers built into the table (cost would be trivial compared to uBeam)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 23, 2017, 12:26:22 am
I just extracted the uBeam part from #1000 and added a little bit more stuff, should it go on the main channel as #1001, or just on the 2nd channel?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: helius on June 23, 2017, 12:53:50 am
#1001 obviously should be a long digression in the midst of a story which is itself a reflection on a tale of a minor point about a side issue of a digression in the midst of a story etc...
(Those that didn't get the joke should read The Arabian Nights)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 23, 2017, 01:18:30 am
I bet they aren't :-DD now, they are likely going  :palm:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AtZXoGGLk0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AtZXoGGLk0)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 23, 2017, 01:19:23 am
Here we go, it should now get the SEO love it deserves.
EDIT: After a few minutes it's already at #10 for searching "uBeam"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8dqzVlhFkA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8dqzVlhFkA)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Red Squirrel on June 23, 2017, 02:47:00 am
This thing is actually kinda scary, I'm no doctor but I'm pretty sure that much sound, even if you can't hear it, has to be bad for the ears.   It would probably also be very bad for certain creatures. 

I kinda want to see what would happen if the transducer array was put inside a big tub and you filled it with diet coke.  Would need to be able to tune the frequency so you can slowly ramp it up until you hit the resonant one.

As a side note, am I the only one that does not have such a need for charging my phone everywhere?  I plug my phone in the charger at home and sometimes at work.  it lasts at least a day, so as long as I charge it at home once a day I never have to charge it anywhere else.  There seems to be this odd craze about being able to charge on the go. 
Title: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: timb on June 23, 2017, 03:08:37 am
The only reason to need 'wireless' charging for anything is when someone works out how to keep us humans awake for the full 24hr period (and no, i don't mean lots of Vodka RedBulls.......   :-DD  )

If there was such a massive desperate need for wireless charging at Cafe's etc, why don't Starbucks et.al have Qi chargers built into the table (cost would be trivial compared to uBeam)

Here in the US, Starbucks in the larger markets do have Qi transmitters built into the tables, along with power outlets for laptops. I've also see power outlets with built-in USB ports at other coffee shops and cafes as well (they typically have one three-prong 120VAC receptacle and two USB ports on them; they're commercially available and not too expensive these days).
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: amspire on June 23, 2017, 03:12:41 am
I am amazed that the people in the uBeam video demonstrating the prototypes do not appear to be wearing ear protection. This is prototype equipment  - people should have protection.

When you look at the surveys of research into 60Khz exposure, there is very little actual research data so no-one can actually say what levels are safe. Basically, it is probably impossible to find workers that have been exposed to constantly high levels of 60Khz sound so there is no hearing loss data. There are ultrasonic cleaners working up to  80kHz, but these produce lots of sound at lower frequencies as well, and for operators, you are looking at less then 80dB of noise in the different frequency bands.

Apparently the mechanical resonant frequency of the human brain is about 15kHz, 39kHz for cats so 60kHz may be pretty disastrous for smaller pets like birds. At 20kHz, 145dB can kill a shaved mouse.

The guidelines of the Association of German Engineers in the workplace (8 hours per day) for 40kHz is 110db maximum level, but 107dB for pregnant women and 105dB for young people in the workplace. Since these are workplace figures, there is no recommendation for children.  I would assume that for a home, you would want at least 30dB below the maximum rating for continual industrial exposure - and there is no continual exposure rating simply as no-one right now gets exposed to continuous high levels of ultrasonic noise.

It is scary when the person saying the uBeam is totally safe boasts in her TED talks that she is not an expert, and that she does not respect the advice of experts as they are "linear thinkers". All you have to do to make uBeam safe is to think about it in a different way apparently.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: BrianHG on June 23, 2017, 03:26:22 am
Dave, I feel your pain...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 23, 2017, 03:33:30 am
 ::)
How about the 4th option of simply putting power meters on it and showing the efficiency  |O
Let's be real, she knows the efficiency sucks. She knows it doesn't work in practical situations. Yet continues with the facade.
Although it must be so embarrassing and humiliating to realise deep down your idea and $30M funded product that had the best people in the world working on it will never work as intended. And not just as intended, but at all in any practical usage case you envisaged.
The sooner this whole thing is shut down or the tech spun off to some niche company for pennies on the dollar, the better it will be for everyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v3oqwXOx_c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v3oqwXOx_c)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 23, 2017, 03:41:44 am
I am amazed that the people in the uBeam video demonstrating the prototypes do not appear to be wearing ear protection. This is prototype equipment  - people should have protection.
When you look at the surveys of research into 60Khz exposure, there is very little actual research data so no-one can actually say what levels are safe. Basically, it is probably impossible to find workers that have been exposed to constantly high levels of 60Khz sound so there is no hearing loss data.

A study attached +
http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/INIRCUltrasound.PDF (http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/INIRCUltrasound.PDF)

You can also simply stick to the recommended limits of most countries, i.e. 110-115dB
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 23, 2017, 03:45:49 am
As a side note, am I the only one that does not have such a need for charging my phone everywhere?  I plug my phone in the charger at home and sometimes at work.  it lasts at least a day, so as long as I charge it at home once a day I never have to charge it anywhere else.  There seems to be this odd craze about being able to charge on the go.

My Motorola X Force last a good 3 days on the one charge. Granted, I'm not playing games or watching video 24/7, but even then it's supposed to last a whole day.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: gvik on June 23, 2017, 04:33:34 am
I did make it through the 15 minutes, oddly enough. All I can say is that there's a whole lot of "Me!" in there. And some more "Me!". Sprinkled with a generous top coat of "Me!". Wow...

It is pretty fascinating tech, even if it is completely unfeasible for the intended product. Though I have to admit, I am having a bit of a hard time trying to figure out what the actual product of uBeam is... Wireless charging, or Meredith Perry herself?  ???
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: innkeeper on June 23, 2017, 05:23:06 am
WAIT!....
the efficiency under water must be much greater...
the first underwater wireless charging system.
imagine the research dollars you could get from the nay for that!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: BrianHG on June 23, 2017, 05:42:40 am
How will this absurdly powerful 60KHz signal effect wildlife?
Maybe they can better sell it as bat or mouse repellent who have much higher frequency hearing.

LOL, a 30 million dollar bat ear destroying gun with auto targeting...  :-DD

Now, since there are potentially way over hundreds of thousands of bats in a large cave, you can maybe do some damage with a portable transmitter targeting all of them individually...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on June 23, 2017, 06:54:13 am
My Motorola X Force last a good 3 days on the one charge. Granted, I'm not playing games or watching video 24/7, but even then it's supposed to last a whole day.

What am I doing wrong?

My cheapo ZTE used to last 10 to 14 days when it was new. It's coming up to 3 years old now and I'm worrying I might have to get a new battery soon because it's down to only 5 days.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on June 23, 2017, 06:56:43 am
Now, since there are potentially way over hundreds of thousands of bats in a large cave, you can maybe do some damage with a portable transmitter targeting all of them individually...

Only if you put white tape around the edge of the wings.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: ConKbot on June 23, 2017, 04:05:52 pm
Too loud for humans, problematic for wildlife, steerable phased array already hashed out... Methinks if she is truly clever she will talk to airports about bird control. A demo remote vehicle with it on it, 2 phased arrays running 5-10khz apart so the beat frequency is audible (have seen a demo of this before on tv) and it could potentially be an idea actually worth 30M
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on June 23, 2017, 05:31:54 pm
I'm not sure a 2KW airport bird scarer with a range of 4 meters would be all that useful. :)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on June 23, 2017, 07:17:36 pm
I'm not sure a 2KW airport bird scarer with a range of 4 meters would be all that useful. :)

If there was a wearable version you could eat chips at the seaside in peace.  :)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: brainwash on June 23, 2017, 11:18:45 pm
My cheapo ZTE used to last 10 to 14 days when it was new. It's coming up to 3 years old now and I'm worrying I might have to get a new battery soon because it's down to only 5 days.

Unrelated to the topic, but a new (original) battery is usually recommended for old devices. If you've gone over 300 charge cycles you've probably already worn it down. Especially with cheap brands: I've had Samsung last 4-500 cycles, Huawei 2-300, Xiaocai ~200. I've just replaced my battery on my old Motorola XT910, bought mid-2012, was down to 1000mAh from 1800.
Other than that, technology evolves, I get 1.5%/h battery loss on my old phones versus 0.3-0.5 on the latest-gen ones. Apple wins hands-down, don't know how they do it. As a tech guy I'm impressed, but much less about their prices...

On topic: I would normally ignore any free-energy and wireless-energy bullshit, but 90% of my friends believe in that shit if it's packed in a nice video. So it's nice if someone takes a stand, because more opinions make a change.


Ok, so we have the BigPharma conspiracy against natrium chloride panacea, BigOil against free energy, now it should be BigEE against wireless energy?
Pronounced "biggie", of course.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: rigol52 on June 24, 2017, 02:46:33 am
At least, if not as power supply,  it can be used by police to control street riots:

http://www.coloradodaily.com/ci_19529706 (http://www.coloradodaily.com/ci_19529706)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: brainwash on June 24, 2017, 05:34:30 am
Reminds me of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stink_bomb#Range (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stink_bomb#Range)

Quote
At the upper end of the spectrum, the governments of Israel and the United States of America are developing stink bombs for use by their law enforcement agencies and militaries as riot control and area denial weapons. Using stink bombs for these purposes has advantages over traditional riot control agents: unlike pepper spray and tear gas, stink bombs are believed not to be dangerous, and they are effective at low concentrations.

Regarding ultrasound as crowd control, I might have a story about pacifying a drugged-out neighbor turning up his subwoofer loud at 4am, every night/morning. It's incredible what a small Bluetooth speaker and an Android signal generator can do. Unfortunately it's not related to the topic, possibly not legal and likely never happened...
Title: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: timb on June 25, 2017, 01:34:09 am
Reminds me of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stink_bomb#Range (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stink_bomb#Range)

Quote
At the upper end of the spectrum, the governments of Israel and the United States of America are developing stink bombs for use by their law enforcement agencies and militaries as riot control and area denial weapons. Using stink bombs for these purposes has advantages over traditional riot control agents: unlike pepper spray and tear gas, stink bombs are believed not to be dangerous, and they are effective at low concentrations.

Regarding ultrasound as crowd control, I might have a story about pacifying a drugged-out neighbor turning up his subwoofer loud at 4am, every night/morning. It's incredible what a small Bluetooth speaker and an Android signal generator can do. Unfortunately it's not related to the topic, possibly not legal and likely never happened...

A few years ago, someone had come up with a "crowd control beam" that caused anyone to be hit with it to instantly lose control of their bowels. I don't know what became of it, but talk about the most effective crowd control method ever!

"When you're looting that TV and you feel a little beam: Diarrhea, diarrhea. When you're marching for a cause and the cops want you to pause: Diarrhea, diarrhea." (To the tune of "Sliding into Home")
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: BrianHG on June 25, 2017, 01:39:51 am
A few years ago, someone had come up with a "crowd control beam" that caused anyone to be hit with it to instantly loose control of their bowels. I don't know what became of it, but talk about the most effective crowd control method ever!

"When you're looting that TV and you feel a little beam: Diarrhea, diarrhea. When you're marching for a cause and the cops want you to pause: Diarrhea, diarrhea." (To the tune of "Sliding into Home")

It was a VLF inaudible frequency which vibrated tuned to the average dimensions of your gut with embedded almost audible thumps as well.  If I remember correctly, saw it in a documentary quite some time ago.
Title: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: timb on June 25, 2017, 02:12:01 am
A few years ago, someone had come up with a "crowd control beam" that caused anyone to be hit with it to instantly loose control of their bowels. I don't know what became of it, but talk about the most effective crowd control method ever!

"When you're looting that TV and you feel a little beam: Diarrhea, diarrhea. When you're marching for a cause and the cops want you to pause: Diarrhea, diarrhea." (To the tune of "Sliding into Home")

It was a VLF inaudible frequency which vibrated tuned to the average dimensions of your gut with embedded almost audible thumps as well.  If I remember correctly, saw it in a documentary quite some time ago.

Yes, it was something like that, only not using VLF and resonance ("The Brown Note"). It used much higher frequency (that caused the muscles to forcibly contract) and was itself modulated at a lower frequency, which would cause severe abdominal pain and ultimately diarrhea.

I'm not finding much on Google, but I know it's out there somewhere. Just a matter of finding the right keywords...

(I would have named it the pooBeam.)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Bud on June 25, 2017, 02:26:45 am
And stink bombs can be used with it to amplify the effect  :scared:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Richard Crowley on June 25, 2017, 02:40:27 am
The "Brown Note": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_note (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_note)

Disproved by Mythbusters: http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-database/brown-note/ (http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-database/brown-note/)

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3ccamo_mythbusters-s03e01-brown-note_webcam (https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3ccamo_mythbusters-s03e01-brown-note_webcam)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: timb on June 25, 2017, 09:09:17 am
The "Brown Note": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_note (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_note)

Disproved by Mythbusters: http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-database/brown-note/ (http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-database/brown-note/)

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3ccamo_mythbusters-s03e01-brown-note_webcam (https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3ccamo_mythbusters-s03e01-brown-note_webcam)

This was something different that used a much higher frequency (sort of like the microwave pain beam that DARPA has tested).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on June 25, 2017, 10:00:16 am
A few years ago, someone had come up with a "crowd control beam" that caused anyone to be hit with it to instantly loose control of their bowels. I don't know what became of it, but talk about the most effective crowd control method ever!

"When you're looting that TV and you feel a little beam: Diarrhea, diarrhea. When you're marching for a cause and the cops want you to pause: Diarrhea, diarrhea." (To the tune of "Sliding into Home")

It was a VLF inaudible frequency which vibrated tuned to the average dimensions of your gut with embedded almost audible thumps as well.  If I remember correctly, saw it in a documentary quite some time ago.

Yes, it was something like that. I'm not finding much on Google, but at least I know someone else has heard of it too! Just a matter of finding the right keywords...

It's an urban legend, sorry.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on June 25, 2017, 01:18:27 pm
MP has commented on #1001.

"Meredith Perry@meredithperry 12h ago
Replying to @qhardy
This video blogger's starting assumptions about uBeam are all incorrect. This person knows nothing about the company or our technology."
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on June 25, 2017, 01:35:55 pm
MP has commented on #1001.

"Meredith Perry@meredithperry 12h ago
Replying to @qhardy
This video blogger's starting assumptions about uBeam are all incorrect. This person knows nothing about the company or our technology."
Missing the whole point that you don't need to.know anything about either to demonstrate its bullshittyness
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Richard Crowley on June 25, 2017, 02:03:49 pm
Missing the whole point that you don't need to.know anything about either to demonstrate its bullshittyness
Perhaps implying that her "starting assumptions" are based on a Separate Reality of laws of physics in a Parallel Universe which we are not privy to.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on June 25, 2017, 02:07:40 pm
Missing the whole point that you don't need to.know anything about either to demonstrate its bullshittyness

Well she did say that the starting assumptions are incorrect, but said nothing about the end conclusion!
 :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 25, 2017, 04:06:44 pm
MP has commented on #1001.
"Meredith Perry@meredithperry 12h ago
Replying to @qhardy
This video blogger's starting assumptions about uBeam are all incorrect. This person knows nothing about the company or our technology."

It seems that my uBeam video has done it's job  ;D

Her complete lack of any form of technical rebuttal is duly noted.
I mean there are so many things I got obviously completely wrong she doesn't know were to start, right?  ::)

She doesn't even seem to realise that a lot of my numbers are pretty much backed up by her own (former) Vice President of Engineering in his very public and quite technical blog posts. So much for "knowing nothing about their technology"  :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 25, 2017, 11:39:51 pm
This photo is interesting.
Not only because of the PCB array panel of some description (the beam forming array panel?), but look at the whiteboard behind her.
It looks like there are classic design goals, the specs of which are covered up by post-it notes.
Quote
2. Cheap
3. Thin
4. Light
5. Durable

You can see number 5 in another photo here:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/06/01/ubeams-meredith-perry-shows-her-stealth-wireless-charging-technology-really-works/102336880/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/06/01/ubeams-meredith-perry-shows-her-stealth-wireless-charging-technology-really-works/102336880/)

Why are such basic design goals on a whiteboard after 5 years of development, and when they said they were about to ramp up into production over a year ago?  :-//
Of course based on what they showed recently in a video, yeah, they need massive amounts of work on all of those points.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 25, 2017, 11:52:20 pm
Great comment:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=326955;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 25, 2017, 11:57:21 pm
Whatever happened to this?
Don't tell me they weren't real!

https://youtu.be/dwpJsWb-jWM?t=1m2s
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 26, 2017, 12:01:06 am
Worth re-posting, Mark Suster on how he funds things:

https://youtu.be/dwpJsWb-jWM?t=6m6s
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: amspire on June 26, 2017, 02:02:21 am
This photo is interesting.
Not only because of the PCB array panel of some description (the beam forming array panel?), but look at the whiteboard behind her.
It looks like there are classic design goals, the specs of which are covered up by post-it notes.
Quote
2. Cheap
3. Thin
4. Light
5. Durable

You can see number 5 in another photo here:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/06/01/ubeams-meredith-perry-shows-her-stealth-wireless-charging-technology-really-works/102336880/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/06/01/ubeams-meredith-perry-shows-her-stealth-wireless-charging-technology-really-works/102336880/)

Why are such basic design goals on a whiteboard after 5 years of development, and when they said they were about to ramp up into production over a year ago?  :-//
Of course based on what they showed recently in a video, yeah, they need massive amounts of work on all of those points.
If that whiteboard was a presentation to USA Today, it makes sense they would be stating the basic goals.

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?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 26, 2017, 03:39:58 am
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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: amspire on June 26, 2017, 03:49:32 am
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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 26, 2017, 04:29:58 am
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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: amspire on June 26, 2017, 04:43:42 am

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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: djos on June 26, 2017, 04:52:10 am
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).
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: ludzinc on June 26, 2017, 05:21:40 am
.. imaging makes more sense then a charger.


*than
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: VNFTW on June 26, 2017, 04:12:15 pm
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 (http://meredithperry.tumblr.com/post/106297094145/a-brief-negation-of-time)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on June 26, 2017, 04:38:05 pm
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 (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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Buriedcode on June 26, 2017, 06:21:52 pm
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 (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.


Title: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: timb on June 27, 2017, 03:23:26 am
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.*
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Richard Crowley on June 27, 2017, 03:29:55 am
*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!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: daqq on June 27, 2017, 04:40:50 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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on June 27, 2017, 08:16:59 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.

We prefer to call it a "pivot".
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 27, 2017, 10:44:29 am
When you have no rebuttal, block:
https://twitter.com/fauh45/status/879474712178335744/photo/1
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDSFjiDUMAA7yE1.jpg)(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDSFkqsV0AAFBS7.jpg)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on June 27, 2017, 02:05:07 pm
OK, so we now ask Meredith why she banned a guy simply for asking an obvious question.



Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Bud on June 27, 2017, 05:11:46 pm
What is the point of that connection link going to the hanging pennis?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on June 27, 2017, 07:31:28 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.
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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: max_torque on June 28, 2017, 10:05:03 am
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?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on July 03, 2017, 08:27:02 pm
http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/ubeam-withdraw-claims-of-wirelessly.html (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/ubeam-withdraw-claims-of-wirelessly.html)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on July 03, 2017, 11:27:44 pm
http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/ubeam-withdraw-claims-of-wirelessly.html (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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on July 04, 2017, 06:44:04 pm
http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/ubeam-withdraw-claims-of-wirelessly.html (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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: timb on July 04, 2017, 09:25:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on July 04, 2017, 09:33:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: timb on July 04, 2017, 10:38:58 pm
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).
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: CopperCone on July 04, 2017, 10:52:19 pm
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.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/Animal_hearing_frequency_range.svg/512px-Animal_hearing_frequency_range.svg.png)

It's rather sadistic.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on July 05, 2017, 12:19:49 am
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.

Yes, but the time we started using the term 'charge' was when phones ran off batteries and needed charging.

People still have fixed landline phones today and nobody says they're being 'charged' by the cables. People will look at you weirdly if you do.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on July 05, 2017, 01:32:43 am
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.

Yes, but the time we started using the term 'charge' was when phones ran off batteries and needed charging.

People still have fixed landline phones today and nobody says they're being 'charged' by the cables. People will look at you weirdly if you do.

To continue with your analogy, my use of the term 'charge' refers to the TV equivalent of the modern smartphone, not the TV equivalent of the old landline phone. And yes, that TV equivalent of the modern smartphone does not currently exist, nor is it likely to ever exist. So it's something of a pointless discussion to talk about developing terminology for something that just won't happen. I think I'll move on now to talking about more important things like safety.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on July 05, 2017, 01:40:25 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.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/Animal_hearing_frequency_range.svg/512px-Animal_hearing_frequency_range.svg.png)

It's rather sadistic.

And now that I've mentioned safety...

Murata style devices tend to work between 40 and 68 kHz so that's all the land based animals on that chart from the raccoon on down it would seem.

Here's an interesting quote from a peer reviewed paper on ultrasound safety for animals and humans. "Effects of Ultrasonic Noise on the Human Body—A Bibliographic Review", International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics , Volume 19, 2013 - Issue 2

Found here: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10803548.2013.11076978 (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10803548.2013.11076978)

"Studies in small animals showed that thermal effects of ultrasonic noise appeared at relatively high sound pressure level. According to Allen, Rudnik and Frings, a mouse dies from overheating after 10 s to 3 min of exposure to a signal of 20 kHz and level of 160 dB [10]. According to Danner, a lethal level for signals of 18–20 kHz for an unshaven mouse were 144 dB and for a shaven mouse 155 dB [21]. Acton obtained similar results and extended studies to larger animals such as guinea pigs and rabbits [22]."
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on July 05, 2017, 12:39:16 pm
Two or three weeks ago, I extended my experiment with a pair of Murata devices at 40kHz, this time with the matching transmitter/receiver MA40S4S/MA40S4R units, rather than relying on the presumed reciprocal functionality of the MA40S4S for the receiver.

In addition, I used an L293 H bridge driver to produce a 64Vpp square wave signal (~10dB more than the 20Vpp I'd used from my AWG). Adjusting the H bridge power supply voltage, things seemed to be reasonably linear when measuring the Vpp at the receiver, but the driver became pretty warm and the MA40S4S also became noticeably warm. From memory, I measured about 1.5W of power was being supplied from the power supply, so possibly about half that was being radiated as sound judging by the toastiness of the devices.

Anecdotally, my cat (about 12yo) was sitting about six feet away during the tests. He could tell when it was switched on and off as his ears twitched in correlation, but he wasn't otherwise perturbed, which is more than can be said when I play my sax, when he scampers away to the furthest place he can find.

From the technology demonstrations we've seen, it would be reasonable to conclude that the aggregated power is 20 to 30dB above what I was using, and certainly operating close to medium saturation especially with beam forming.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on July 05, 2017, 05:40:19 pm
Anecdotally, my cat (about 12yo) was sitting about six feet away during the tests. He could tell when it was switched on and off as his ears twitched in correlation, but he wasn't otherwise perturbed,

After I'd done 40-60kHz 'tests' with the cat (many pages ago), for weeks afterwards I only had to move my hand towards the SG to get the cat to quickly disappear. :)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PA0PBZ on July 05, 2017, 06:44:51 pm
After I'd done 40-60kHz 'tests' with the cat (many pages ago), for weeks afterwards I only had to move my hand towards the SG to get the cat to quickly disappear. :)

In ancient times I worked in a Philips store and one of the things I had to do was delivering and installing TV's and explaining the functionality. Sometime in the lifecycle of these products they had an ultrasonic remote, and I remember quite well that while demonstrating the remote the cat that lived there decided to bite me in the back of my head because apparently he was very annoyed by the remote.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: djos on July 05, 2017, 08:38:40 pm
After I'd done 40-60kHz 'tests' with the cat (many pages ago), for weeks afterwards I only had to move my hand towards the SG to get the cat to quickly disappear. :)

In ancient times I worked in a Philips store and one of the things I had to do was delivering and installing TV's and explaining the functionality. Sometime in the lifecycle of these products they had an ultrasonic remote, and I remember quite well that while demonstrating the remote the cat that lived there decided to bite me in the back of my head because apparently he was very annoyed by the remote.

Are you sure it was the remote? Cats are funny about who they like.  :-DD

My wife has a black fluff ball that likes me more than it like her.  :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on July 05, 2017, 10:09:08 pm
Someone who has a dual output FG should drive two US transducers a few hundred Hz apart to see/hear if there are positions where the beat frequency is audible.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Gavin Melville on July 07, 2017, 03:35:44 am
This phone might, just might, be chargeable with uBeam.  Not needing any power is a real step forward. 

http://newatlas.com/battery-lees-phone/50356/ (http://newatlas.com/battery-lees-phone/50356/)

Quote
In addition to the power harvesting problems, the team is also working on how to encrypt messages and stream videos, and adding a low-power E-ink screen for a display.

Video on an E-Ink display - just wondering if the marketing guys have got ever so slightly ahead of engineering.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on July 07, 2017, 08:45:35 am
Someone who has a dual output FG should drive two US transducers a few hundred Hz apart to see/hear if there are positions where the beat frequency is audible.

I was wondering that myself, I have quite a few here,  it might make for an imteresting experiment, although I'm not expecting much, even driven hard I don't think I can hit non linearity in air with a couple of transducers.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on July 08, 2017, 03:18:50 pm
Someone who has a dual output FG should drive two US transducers a few hundred Hz apart to see/hear if there are positions where the beat frequency is audible.

I was wondering that myself, I have quite a few here,  it might make for an imteresting experiment, although I'm not expecting much, even driven hard I don't think I can hit non linearity in air with a couple of transducers.

I don't think you'd need any high power to produce and hear the beat frequency, these things seem very loud in the beam at 4m.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on July 13, 2017, 09:22:15 pm
Someone who has a dual output FG should drive two US transducers a few hundred Hz apart to see/hear if there are positions where the beat frequency is audible.

I was wondering that myself, I have quite a few here,  it might make for an imteresting experiment, although I'm not expecting much, even driven hard I don't think I can hit non linearity in air with a couple of transducers.

I don't think you'd need any high power to produce and hear the beat frequency, these things seem very loud in the beam at 4m.

I spent an hour or so this evening on this, couldn't hear anything. If I understood acoustics and materials science beyond noob status, I might be able to suggest a means to introduce some non-linearity to mix the signals appropriately. According to the transducer specs, there's not a significant degradation a couple of hundred kHz outside the nominal 40kHz.

I ran one transducer at 39.8kHz and the other at 40.2kHz, with 65Vpp, 80mA total current draw from the PSU. I used a PIC24 to generate the two frequencies from a pair of output compares both running in half bridge mode, fed into an L293 giving two full H bridges, one for each transducer (MA40S4S). The L293 and the transducers get quite toasty!

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=331661;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: edavid on July 13, 2017, 09:42:33 pm
I ran one transducer at 39.8kHz and the other at 40.2kHz, with 65Vpp, 80mA total current draw from the PSU. I used a PIC24 to generate the two frequencies from a pair of output compares both running in half bridge mode, fed into an L293 giving two full H bridges, one for each transducer (MA40S4S). The L293 and the transducers get quite toasty!

This article claims you need > 100dB SPL to get nonlinearity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_from_ultrasound
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on July 28, 2017, 12:52:17 am
Quite a heated discussion on Twitter the other day between the uBeam CEO and a VC.

https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/889504937163476992



Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on July 28, 2017, 02:23:52 am
Quite a heated discussion on Twitter the other day between the uBeam CEO and a VC.

https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/889504937163476992

 :-DD

She knows everyone has jumped ship and the product isn't even close to working how she imagined. She knows the game is over and it's just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic at this point.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on July 28, 2017, 03:04:43 am
So, Matt Ocko wants me to take down my tweet of the screen shot of his tweet above:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=335863;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on July 28, 2017, 05:26:19 am
And as many people predicted how this would end, out comes to the misogyny card  ::)
She probably whispered in his ear about all the misogyny and hate she's hate to go through because she's female, and that's the reason why she is struggling and will be the ultimate reason why she won't succeed.
Had nothing to do with her idea being stupidly impractical from the get-go, and her trash talking TED talk and other self-grandiosing interviews ::)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on July 28, 2017, 05:37:06 am
Quite a heated discussion on Twitter the other day between the uBeam CEO and a VC.

https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/889504937163476992

 :-DD

She knows everyone has jumped ship and the product isn't even close to working how she imagined. She knows the game is over and it's just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic at this point.

Since it's been deleted by all parties, here's today's public service announcement reminding us all that the internet is forever.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003852/https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/889504937163476992

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on July 28, 2017, 06:33:10 am
Seems like Matt Ocko deleted all his tweets.
Maybe he was scared he might have upset the VC club?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: djos on July 28, 2017, 06:37:03 am
Seems like Matt Ocko deleted all his tweets.
Maybe he was scared he might have upset the VC club?

Seems plausible, extremely funny tho.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: brainwash on July 28, 2017, 07:57:13 am
It does sound like there is some personal stuff involved there and/or some missed business opportunity. However, it's just a reminder that anything you post on the Internet will follow you forever.
2/ Why do these people have to underline their PC in their profile? I thought their business was to make money, does PC somehow give a business advantage? Or does it draw in more investors? Or is it just a friendly warning?
3. Fighting in PUBLIC internet is worse than even doing it over the company email. Are followers impressed somehow by displays of bravado? Why not launch into a private email discussion or (gasp) a face-to-face one?

That was just my small rant on how I don't understand this newfangled stuff.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: daqq on July 28, 2017, 08:34:33 am
Quote
And as many people predicted how this would end, out comes to the misogyny card  ::)
Next up: How racist is math? Is gravity discriminating fat people?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on July 28, 2017, 08:46:58 am
So, Matt Ocko wants me to take down my tweet of the screen shot of his tweet above:

What a wuss.

PS: Is Meredith on Twitter all day, leaping in whenever anybody says anything bad about her?

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on July 28, 2017, 08:50:29 am
Quote
And as many people predicted how this would end, out comes to the misogyny card  ::)
Next up: How racist is math? Is gravity discriminating fat people?
Apparently, carbon fibre is sexist :
https://www.avoiceformen.com/featured/crazy-academic-feminist-thinks-carbon-fibers-are-misogynistic (https://www.avoiceformen.com/featured/crazy-academic-feminist-thinks-carbon-fibers-are-misogynistic)
Original paper : http://research.gold.ac.uk/11135/ (http://research.gold.ac.uk/11135/)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on July 28, 2017, 09:31:40 am
2/ Why do these people have to underline their PC in their profile? I thought their business was to make money, does PC somehow give a business advantage? Or does it draw in more investors? Or is it just a friendly warning?

It's important to remember that VC's spend other people's money.
Their entire business is built around networking and not pissing people off or rocking the boat, otherwise the money might dry up.
Seems like in this case he spoke the truth and what he really thought (that uBeam numbers didn't add up, and Perry was too snarky), and then realised that could potentially hurt his business (no doubt people he knows invested in uBeam). Hence his request for me to delete my tweet so it doesn't show up in his timeline.

Quote
3. Fighting in PUBLIC internet is worse than even doing it over the company email. Are followers impressed somehow by displays of bravado? Why not launch into a private email discussion or (gasp) a face-to-face one?

He asked me to take the discussion to private PM (I didn't), and a few hours his tweets were all gone.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on July 28, 2017, 09:33:17 am
What a wuss.
PS: Is Meredith on Twitter all day, leaping in whenever anybody says anything bad about her?

Don't know, she blocked me way back  ;D
I need to Shift-Ctrl-N to watch the show.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: daqq on July 28, 2017, 09:55:54 am
Quote
And as many people predicted how this would end, out comes to the misogyny card  ::)
Next up: How racist is math? Is gravity discriminating fat people?
Apparently, carbon fibre is sexist :
https://www.avoiceformen.com/featured/crazy-academic-feminist-thinks-carbon-fibers-are-misogynistic (https://www.avoiceformen.com/featured/crazy-academic-feminist-thinks-carbon-fibers-are-misogynistic)
Original paper : http://research.gold.ac.uk/11135/ (http://research.gold.ac.uk/11135/)
...wow... just wow...I mean, wow?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: brainwash on July 28, 2017, 10:39:10 am
Quote
3. Fighting in PUBLIC internet is worse than even doing it over the company email. Are followers impressed somehow by displays of bravado? Why not launch into a private email discussion or (gasp) a face-to-face one?

He asked me to take the discussion to private PM (I didn't), and a few hours his tweets were all gone.

Well, I don't mean your discussion, I think that was pretty civil on both sides.

Quote
And as many people predicted how this would end, out comes to the misogyny card  ::)
Next up: How racist is math? Is gravity discriminating fat people?
Apparently, carbon fibre is sexist :
https://www.avoiceformen.com/featured/crazy-academic-feminist-thinks-carbon-fibers-are-misogynistic (https://www.avoiceformen.com/featured/crazy-academic-feminist-thinks-carbon-fibers-are-misogynistic)
Original paper : http://research.gold.ac.uk/11135/ (http://research.gold.ac.uk/11135/)

Ok, I was initially ready to dismiss this, as "avoiceformen" sounds pretty biased. But the article seems written by a woman. Then I started reading the abstract and article paper and it made references to masculinity, which doesn't sound too bad/biased, it's just a quality, like 'sensual'. I thought it would be one of those wank studies on literature that we had to do in highschool and read into stuff that wasn't there. But then the article paper shows a standard picture of a cyclist crossing the finish line and adds this:

Quote
"For example, the advertising image selling bicycle helmets (Fig. 1) literally positions the bicycle as the penis/phallus, the man triumphantly holding his hands in the air, framing the object between his legs as the centre of his own and others’ attention. The man pictured is producing himself around the object in between his legs. the semiotics of the image suggests that the bike (like the man’s penis?) is to be celebrated for helping him dominate other men. This is a clear example of power being produced by matter (the light, fast nature of the carbon fibre) and by bodies (the winning man) and through competitive intimacy between men."

Wow.
So my executive summary: the man looks like a dick, points to his dick, rides the bicycle between his legs because he wants to hump other men.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on July 28, 2017, 01:13:12 pm
More from Matt Ocko
Again he wants me to delete information from one part of the Internet (Twitter), but not another (this forum).

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on July 28, 2017, 01:25:42 pm
More on why he wants me to delete the tweet, and Paul's forum post:



Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Rbastler on July 28, 2017, 01:32:40 pm
More from Matt Ocko
Again he wants me to delete information from one part of the Internet (Twitter), but not another (this forum).
Woudn't count this forum as a third party ?

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on July 28, 2017, 01:56:23 pm
"the founder has the right for her work to be vetted by customers at this point,"

I can see a slight problem there.

After 6 years and $30m have uBeen sold even $0.01 yet. (selling old furniture doesn't count!)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on July 28, 2017, 02:04:51 pm
Oh, dear, he's making it much worse!   :popcorn:

At this rate it'll be on every major news site within 24 hours.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on July 28, 2017, 02:23:50 pm
More from Matt Ocko
Again he wants me to delete information from one part of the Internet (Twitter), but not another (this forum).

How will he delete it from the internet archive?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on July 28, 2017, 02:53:04 pm
"the founder has the right for her work to be vetted by customers at this point,"
I can see a slight problem there.
After 6 years and $30m have uBeen sold even $0.01 yet. (old furniture doesn't count!)

Nope, and they aren't even close to a pre-production prototype.
Also, they refuse to publish any information on efficiency or any real performance data, nor have they ever addressed any technical criticism.

Matt's problem is that he has broken the golden rule of VC club, you don't diss another VC's investments. Because the entire VC process is predicated on the need to sell to the next (non VC) sucker up the money pyramid. So you don't ruin another VC's chances at doing that, that's bad form.
uBeam are still looking for the next bigger round of funding (probably desperately so at this point), so it wouldn't surprise me if someone has tapped him on the shoulder and reminded him of that.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: helius on July 28, 2017, 03:34:55 pm
VCs depend entirely on "deal flow": a constant stream of entrepreneurs coming to them to pitch business plans. If for whatever reason a VC annoys a founder, they risk getting a bad reputation and founders deciding to pitch somewhere else.
This is also the reason it's so hard to get an honest "no" from a VC. They prefer to string you along with vague encouragement, never telling you they have already invested in a rival company to yours. The more they can enforce a one-way flow of real, actionable information, the better their position is. Telling you what they really think is out of character.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on July 28, 2017, 03:41:04 pm
Something I was wondering whether to draw attention to or not is the positive discrimination Perry has used to her advantage, but now she's pulled the sexism/misogyny card, it seems a reasonable time to do so.

At least one of her VC investors, and uBeam board member, Mark Suster, appears to regard her blondeness as a key reason to invest, meanwhile taking the opportunity to throw in a string of pejorative stereotypes in the process. Had the Jimmy Choo been on the other foot, you can be sure there'd have been an outrage. Irrespective I find the following statement to be rather cringeworthy to say the least,and ironically, rather awkward:

Quote
Were she a shy, pimply, awkward male engineer with a pocket protector she would fit an archetype that would make sense to observers. But she’s not. She’s confident, communicative, outspoken, young and blonde.

(From Suster's blog https://bothsidesofthetable.com/what-is-it-like-to-wake-up-and-have-the-press-ready-to-torpedo-your-business-351f27ca6d67)

If I were a betting person, I'd also suggest that Marissa Mayer, among others, wouldn't have invested either, had the self-described "inventor" not been female.

While I have been wary to bring this up, I strongly suspect she'd never have received funding had she been a bloke.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on July 28, 2017, 08:57:08 pm
VCs depend entirely on "deal flow": a constant stream of entrepreneurs coming to them to pitch business plans. If for whatever reason a VC annoys a founder, they risk getting a bad reputation and founders deciding to pitch somewhere else.

From the exchange with Meredith it looks like she'd already rejected him, so...  :-//

While I have been wary to bring this up, I strongly suspect she'd never have received funding had she been a bloke.

It's certainly a weird game of cat and mouse they play. One side trying to pull a scam (Meredith), the other trying to build a reputation as a "winner" by choosing the right sort of scammers.

The quality of the product doesn't seem to enter into it. It's all about appearances.

I assume all the worthwhile ideas go right past the VC system, they don't really need it.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on July 28, 2017, 10:13:53 pm
Something I was wondering whether to draw attention to or not is the positive discrimination Perry has used to her advantage, but now she's pulled the sexism/misogyny card, it seems a reasonable time to do so.

At least one of her VC investors, and uBeam board member, Mark Suster, appears to regard her blondeness as a key reason to invest, meanwhile taking the opportunity to throw in a string of pejorative stereotypes in the process. Had the Jimmy Choo been on the other foot, you can be sure there'd have been an outrage. Irrespective I find the following statement to be rather cringeworthy to say the least,and ironically, rather awkward:

Quote
Were she a shy, pimply, awkward male engineer with a pocket protector she would fit an archetype that would make sense to observers. But she’s not. She’s confident, communicative, outspoken, young and blonde.

(From Suster's blog https://bothsidesofthetable.com/what-is-it-like-to-wake-up-and-have-the-press-ready-to-torpedo-your-business-351f27ca6d67)

If I were a betting person, I'd also suggest that Marissa Mayer, among others, wouldn't have invested either, had the self-described "inventor" not been female.

While I have been wary to bring this up, I strongly suspect she'd never have received funding had she been a bloke.

Careful now, Matt Ocko has already basically implied that all her critics like me, Paul, the tech media, and everyone here are misogynist  ::)
Everyone's so misogynistic that she got $28M :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on July 28, 2017, 10:25:48 pm
If I were a betting person, I'd also suggest that Marissa Mayer, among others, wouldn't have invested either, had the self-described "inventor" not been female.

A huge part of the VC game is publicity, and you get publicity by being different and being able to make a juicy tech headline. Not fitting existing sterotypes plays a big part in that. They know this, she had a good back story the media would lap up - no engineering background, just "stumbled" upon the idea, struggled against the expert naysayers, won a contest, and yep, you guessed it, being female and attractive in media photos.
People want to believe that someone who doesn't fit the sterotype can be a success.
Not misogyny, it can in fact be a huge advantage to female in the business, it's the realistic world of how the media works. And it happens to those technically worthy and based on merit, and also those not.
It could happen in other appearance ways too, like having orange hair and face tattoos or something, the media want a photo and a story headline people will click on.
Of course that's not to say her tenacity, gift of the gab, and belief in the idea didn't pay a big part. She wasn't handed $28M on a silver platter just for being female.
Had she been an ultrasonics researcher at MIT with no backstory struggle it's unlikely she would have gotten the money either. Her entire TED talk is a textbook narcissistic rant about that.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: brainwash on July 28, 2017, 11:31:43 pm
Quote
Were she a shy, pimply, awkward male engineer with a pocket protector she would fit an archetype that would make sense to observers. But she’s not. She’s confident, communicative, outspoken, young and blonde.

(From Suster's blog https://bothsidesofthetable.com/what-is-it-like-to-wake-up-and-have-the-press-ready-to-torpedo-your-business-351f27ca6d67)

...
While I have been wary to bring this up, I strongly suspect she'd never have received funding had she been a bloke.


I hate to say it but it's taken a bit out of context. He says that she is a geek on the inside but looks nothing like one. That's all I could read.
However, that's just his description, a true geek would use the facts and science, which doesn't seem the case here. I feel the geek word is being thrown around too lightly these days, without being earned. Just like 'rockstar'.
I also agree with Dave, looks make a sale a lot of the time, it's just how stuff has worked since forever. Any attractive person will get a lot more attention and have a definite advantage. Or is that also discrimination? I should file a complaint or write a paper, feeling left outside as a pimply nerd...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on July 29, 2017, 12:06:00 am
I hate to say it but it's taken a bit out of context. He says that she is a geek on the inside but looks nothing like one. That's all I could read.
However, that's just his description, a true geek would use the facts and science, which doesn't seem the case here. I feel the geek word is being thrown around too lightly these days, without being earned. Just like 'rockstar'.

The word Nerd is reserved for this purpose.

Quote
I also agree with Dave, looks make a sale a lot of the time, it's just how stuff has worked since forever. Any attractive person will get a lot more attention and have a definite advantage. Or is that also discrimination?

It's definitely not sexist in any case, as it applies pretty equally to men and women.
Due to the politically correct culture these days kids are being taught that you shouldn't use your looks etc to try and get ahead. Bull, you should use every advantage you have in life. If you are tall, look like Brad Pitt, speak like Tony Robbins etc then you are a fool not to take advantage of that. Doesn't mean you'll be a success, but everything helps you up the ladder.

But anyway, enough about that, how about that ridiculous concept of consumer power transfer by ultrasound...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on July 29, 2017, 09:16:26 pm
Quote
Were she a shy, pimply, awkward male engineer with a pocket protector she would fit an archetype that would make sense to observers. But she’s not. She’s confident, communicative, outspoken, young and blonde.

(From Suster's blog https://bothsidesofthetable.com/what-is-it-like-to-wake-up-and-have-the-press-ready-to-torpedo-your-business-351f27ca6d67)

...
While I have been wary to bring this up, I strongly suspect she'd never have received funding had she been a bloke.


I hate to say it but it's taken a bit out of context.

Yeah, I was afraid that someone might suggest that, but I think that anyone who uses the word "blonde" nowadays as a means to justify they deserve different treatment is asking for trouble. I just found Suster's comment unnecessary, ill conceived, and rather creepy, particularly bearing in mind the nature of the current wave of criticism levelled in the tech industry, and VCs in particular.

I was trying to be extremely careful with my comments, as I personally find it frustrating that half of the population feel that STEM isn't for them, on the face of it due to an accident of birth. While I firmly believe that everyone needs to be encouraged into STEM careers, sugar daddy style handouts that Suster's enabled and promoted I find rather distasteful, especially as it's not even his money, but I also regretfully understand that appearance (as opposed to substance) is unfortunately a key part of the VC modus operandi.

Anyway, I agree, let's get back to the technology.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: brainwash on July 29, 2017, 11:00:59 pm
I also avoided the heavy subject, but here it goes: I come from a former 3rd world country, now battling around the 2nds, even though my profile says Germany.
The issue there is: there is still domestic violence with a definite bias on men against women, there is still tacit discrimination ("a woman can't handle this job") and other stuff that's fuel for the current 'war on sexism'. But in the IT and other STEM fields the women have an almost 50% ratio of jobs. They fight harder because they know that it might not be a level field. Also, this kind of discrimination I've seen duplicated, in closed quarters, throughout the world, from 1st to 3rd world countries. Having a strict law, a strong movement or any other deterrent against this just softens the voices, almost quiets them, but it does not shut them up. Get people drunk or angry and you will know their true opinion.
My point is, all this talking about 'potential discrimination', 'meeting the quota' and other stuff happens only in 1st world countries, but achieves almost nothing, quite the opposite. On the other hand, in my home country, economics, fair game and competition helps sort these things out. Again, I'm talking about 'potential', under-the-veil, my-father-told-me stuff, not the evident infractions (like O'Reilly). For the former, it is your responsibility to curb the bias, for the latter is a matter of justice.
Now think about the female job share in US or Germany (as examples) in the STEM or IT field (with which I am familiar) which is hovering below 15%.

If you (as a random reader) are still nodding your head in disbelief, come meet me, or chat with me on private and I will take you on a tour. I'll happily admit to living in a dream, if that's the case.

SUMMARY: in situations where economics and fair prevail, the best people will be chosen for the position, regardless of gender, race or disabilities. If you try to skew that distribution it might end up going the wrong way.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Bud on July 30, 2017, 03:15:00 am
Being fat nullifies the advantage of being blonde.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on July 30, 2017, 02:30:06 pm
Being fat nullifies the advantage of being blonde.

She wasn't as massive when she started this. I guess some of that venture capital money went on fine foods.

(I use "massive" in the scientific sense of having the property of mass, I'm not saying she's a plumper yet).
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on July 30, 2017, 03:13:03 pm
Anyway, I agree, let's get back to the technology.

OK.
From what we've seen I don't think they have an awful lot, considering the time and $$$$$$.

I don't think there's any feedback in the calibration between the image detecting the white rectangle, and the 'beam forming', I get the impression that if the camera or TX array were off by a few degrees 'the beam' would be sent to the wrong place.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on July 30, 2017, 07:42:28 pm
Being fat nullifies the advantage of being blonde.

She wasn't as massive when she started this. I guess some of that venture capital money went on fine foods.

(I use "massive" in the scientific sense of having the property of mass, I'm not saying she's a plumper yet).

Can we keep it off this and on the tech/business side of things? There's just no need for this, and you're letting uBeam dictate the narrative. It's also wrong, even in jest.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on July 30, 2017, 07:48:03 pm
Anyway, I agree, let's get back to the technology.

OK.
From what we've seen I don't think they have an awful lot, considering the time and $$$$$$.

I don't think there's any feedback in the calibration between the image detecting the white rectangle, and the 'beam forming', I get the impression that if the camera or TX array were off by a few degrees 'the beam' would be sent to the wrong place.

Maybe we should ask their beam forming expert about that? Not sure who that is, can't find one on LinkedIn.

OK, maybe their transducer expert? Damn can't find them either.

ASIC guru? OK, no-one standing out.

Mass production? Nope.

Safety/regulatory? Nada.

Are they all consultants, or employed but keeping it on the down low? Or there's just no-one?

Still no jobs posted on their hiring page, guess we'll know they have money when the ads start appearing.

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

 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on July 30, 2017, 08:44:37 pm
These things were supposed to be on the shop shelves by late 2011. I think it's game over myself. :-/O
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Dubbie on July 30, 2017, 08:46:29 pm
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
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on July 30, 2017, 08:59:57 pm
Where were they intending to use the ASIC(s)? I assume just in the handset receiver. I remember thinking they were trying to run before they could walk by jumping straight in with ASICs as soon as they'd received funding. The same applies to the production and operations call centre appointment, that must've been a busy role.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: brainwash on July 30, 2017, 09:17:20 pm
I think the project has been debunked in every possible way. But assuming it would be feasible, could you take e-car batteries to a rock concert and charge them? Or just buy a couple of pairs of these devices and hook one up in your house and take another one to the concert - then you can power your home remotely! It would be a bit difficult for the receiver to track you but you can activate the Google location service. There's a new idea for those indiegogo campaign videos!

On a more serious note, my 2.4GHz band is overwhelmed now, I can count at least 20 routers at all times, probably at least 100 devices, and that's just on WiFi. If I turn my Bluetooth on I can see a dozen Samsung TVs at the top of the list, haven't scrolled down yet. Unfortunately, a lot of my 802.11 devices are stuck on 2.4GHz. Really, any new wireless innovation has to think this contention through.
I set up a 433Mhz receiver to feed decoded signals into my rPi, but I shut it down as soon as the database got to a few hundred megabytes (one week). Wonder how many remote sockets and thermostats I can control just by replaying those signals.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on July 30, 2017, 09:39:13 pm
The only way I've reliably defeated 2.4GHz noise floor increase in-spectrum is to increase the number of APs and let devices roam between them. I use the same SSID and access on all my APs for this purpose.

This takes us back to the interesting "r^2" comment in the recent twitter spat (#913 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/msg1266862/#msg1266862)). Perry was correct in my view, to point out 1/r^2, and Matthew Ocko made quite the dick of himself trying to explain it away as Twitter-speak, a bit of a "covfefe" moment. Maybe it is Twitter-speak, but I don't see any other reference to it. Either way, clearly this spat wasn't his finest hour, not least by trying to erase it ever happened.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on July 30, 2017, 10:11:45 pm
This takes us back to the interesting "r^2" comment in the recent twitter spat (#913 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/msg1266862/#msg1266862)). Perry was correct in my view, to point out 1/r^2, and Matthew Ocko made quite the dick of himself trying to explain it away as Twitter-speak, a bit of a "covfefe" moment. Maybe it is Twitter-speak, but I don't see any other reference to it. Either way, clearly this spat wasn't his finest hour, not least by trying to erase it ever happened.
Engineers generally refer to r-squared loses, not 1/r^2. What Perry said makes no sense. She said the r-squared issue doesn't matter with a tightly focussed beam, but r-squared loses apply regardless of the beam width.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on July 30, 2017, 10:27:21 pm
Perry was correct in my view, to point out 1/r^2,

She might have been correct in saying 1/r^2 doesn't count much for tightly focused beams, but she didn't say that uBeen were producing tightly focused beams.
Reminds me of the 2 or 3 last videos with the 2 prototypes, it was her that described all the conclusions, and told the reporter what he had seen, just like a magician.

And I don't think any of the 'steerable beams' we saw in the videos were outside the normal beam of a US transducer, and as they're quite directional it's a problem.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on July 30, 2017, 10:51:21 pm
Perry was correct in my view, to point out 1/r^2,
She might have been correct in saying 1/r^2 doesn't count much for tightly focused beams, but she didn't say that uBeen were producing tightly focused beams.
Reminds me of the 2 or 3 last videos with the 2 prototypes, it was her that described all the conclusions, and told the reported what he had seen, just like a magician.
And I don't think any of the 'steerable beams' we saw in the videos were outside the normal beam of a US transducer, and as they're quite directional it's a problem.

Let's just assume for kicks that have a perfectly steerable beam (they do have some beam forming in the huge basement model, done by the custom ASIC) that is 100% focused.
You still have the show-stopping problems of efficiency, cost, safety, and receiver angle alignment in practical usage.
Is there any product idea that's possible "in principle" and yet has so many show-stopping problems?
Even Hyperloop has fewer show-stoppers, and that's saying something.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: brainwash on July 30, 2017, 11:35:40 pm
As a theoretical question, I've seen some papers where the ultrasonic power transfer efficiency at 20kHz is 70-90%, but I cannot find any data on the efficiency of a phased array setup, even for radio. I can instinctively think that there is some power loss in the side lobes as well as some loss because there isn't an infinite number of radiators, but what's the ballpark we are talking about? Assuming a 16x16 or maybe 64x64 array, I doubt anything consumer-related can go higher than this.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on July 30, 2017, 11:45:14 pm
As a theoretical question, I've seen some papers where the ultrasonic power transfer efficiency at 20kHz is 70-90%

Through what medium and what range?
There is a paper that shows about 3dB loss (i.e half power, 50%) per meter in air. Worse at higher levels due to saturation.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on July 30, 2017, 11:53:04 pm
As a theoretical question, I've seen some papers where the ultrasonic power transfer efficiency at 20kHz is 70-90%

Sure, but:
* How much power were they transmitting?
* Over what distance?
* How big were the transducers?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on July 30, 2017, 11:59:06 pm
As a theoretical question, I've seen some papers where the ultrasonic power transfer efficiency at 20kHz is 70-90%
That sounds high for for the efficiency transferring into air. You can get pretty high efficiency transferring into liquids, but getting high efficiency into gases is more of a challenge. Loses within liquids are generally much lower, too.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: amspire on July 31, 2017, 12:04:34 am
Assuming a 16x16 or maybe 64x64 array, I doubt anything consumer-related can go higher than this.
UBeam have been working towards a way to make arrays with thousands of elements "economical" but it hardly makes sense talking about what is economical in a consumer environment when they do not seem to have any technology that is practical in a consumer environment. This has always been a concept that needs the phone manufacturers lining up to integrate into their products and given that UBeam are now talking about maintaining the charge rather then boosting the charge, I cannot see why any manufacturer would even start to look at it.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: brainwash on July 31, 2017, 12:17:00 am
I don't know where I got the 70-90% figures from, it was a table inside a scientific paper, I think they were determining the efficiency for cleaning (so liquid medium). Does not matter much, I'm sure there are plenty of studies on that.
My question was about the phased array efficiency, I can't find any data on that, much less on ultrasonic ones (used in medical equipment). Just as a ballpark, for example: 90% at 90 degrees (head-on) in vacuum, 70% at 45 degrees, with an array of 64x64. Celsius degrees, of course (joking).
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on July 31, 2017, 01:11:41 am
Assuming a 16x16 or maybe 64x64 array, I doubt anything consumer-related can go higher than this.
UBeam have been working towards a way to make arrays with thousands of elements "economical" but it hardly makes sense talking about what is economical in a consumer environment when they do not seem to have any technology that is practical in a consumer environment. This has always been a concept that needs the phone manufacturers lining up to integrate into their products and given that UBeam are now talking about maintaining the charge rather then boosting the charge, I cannot see why any manufacturer would even start to look at it.

They won't, their engineers will laugh their arses off.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on July 31, 2017, 02:56:25 am
My question was about the phased array efficiency, I can't find any data on that, much less on ultrasonic ones

Including the word radar helps, there's quite a few old pdfs out there, which don't help much, there's nothing I've found on ultrasonic arrays efficiency, probably because it's a stupid way to try to transfer leccy power!

I still think uBeen's efficiency is about the same as it's practicability, < 0.1%
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on July 31, 2017, 02:50:46 pm
This takes us back to the interesting "r^2" comment in the recent twitter spat (#913 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/msg1266862/#msg1266862)). Perry was correct in my view, to point out 1/r^2, and Matthew Ocko made quite the dick of himself trying to explain it away as Twitter-speak, a bit of a "covfefe" moment. Maybe it is Twitter-speak, but I don't see any other reference to it. Either way, clearly this spat wasn't his finest hour, not least by trying to erase it ever happened.
Engineers generally refer to r-squared loses, not 1/r^2. What Perry said makes no sense. She said the r-squared issue doesn't matter with a tightly focussed beam, but r-squared loses apply regardless of the beam width.

Ocko didn't say "R^2 losses", he said "R^2 math" and then said it was Twitter-speak. Had he said "R^2 losses" I'd agree.

On the point of the tightly focussed beam, in the far field, I agree 1/r^2 applies, but considering the aperture size, this is still in the Fresnel near field.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on July 31, 2017, 07:11:00 pm
This takes us back to the interesting "r^2" comment in the recent twitter spat (#913 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/msg1266862/#msg1266862)). Perry was correct in my view, to point out 1/r^2, and Matthew Ocko made quite the dick of himself trying to explain it away as Twitter-speak, a bit of a "covfefe" moment. Maybe it is Twitter-speak, but I don't see any other reference to it. Either way, clearly this spat wasn't his finest hour, not least by trying to erase it ever happened.
Engineers generally refer to r-squared loses, not 1/r^2. What Perry said makes no sense. She said the r-squared issue doesn't matter with a tightly focussed beam, but r-squared loses apply regardless of the beam width.

Ocko didn't say "R^2 losses", he said "R^2 math" and then said it was Twitter-speak. Had he said "R^2 losses" I'd agree.

On the point of the tightly focussed beam, in the far field, I agree 1/r^2 applies, but considering the aperture size, this is still in the Fresnel near field.
I don't think we know the frequency yet, but it has to be at least 40 or 50kHz. Let's say 50kHz. That means the wavelength is <7mm. How many wavelengths of near field do you think you will get? This is not a large emitter trying to produce a plane wavefront, where only the ends of the wavefront lead to divergence. Its an array trying to produce the tightest beam it can. It will diverge in an r^2 manner from a couple of wavelengths out.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: HackedFridgeMagnet on July 31, 2017, 11:11:30 pm
But it is not a point source. covfefe.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on August 01, 2017, 07:29:33 am
This takes us back to the interesting "r^2" comment in the recent twitter spat (#913 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/msg1266862/#msg1266862)). Perry was correct in my view, to point out 1/r^2, and Matthew Ocko made quite the dick of himself trying to explain it away as Twitter-speak, a bit of a "covfefe" moment. Maybe it is Twitter-speak, but I don't see any other reference to it. Either way, clearly this spat wasn't his finest hour, not least by trying to erase it ever happened.
Engineers generally refer to r-squared loses, not 1/r^2. What Perry said makes no sense. She said the r-squared issue doesn't matter with a tightly focussed beam, but r-squared loses apply regardless of the beam width.

Ocko didn't say "R^2 losses", he said "R^2 math" and then said it was Twitter-speak. Had he said "R^2 losses" I'd agree.

On the point of the tightly focussed beam, in the far field, I agree 1/r^2 applies, but considering the aperture size, this is still in the Fresnel near field.
I don't think we know the frequency yet, but it has to be at least 40 or 50kHz. Let's say 50kHz. That means the wavelength is <7mm. How many wavelengths of near field do you think you will get? This is not a large emitter trying to produce a plane wavefront, where only the ends of the wavefront lead to divergence. Its an array trying to produce the tightest beam it can. It will diverge in an r^2 manner from a couple of wavelengths out.

You're assuming a single point source, this is a phased array, so there are interference effects dependent on both wavelength, as you say, but also the aperture size.

Consider the complex interference patterns of the ~ 1,000 element radiator, when phased appropriately there are going to be some very hot spots where the wavefronts interfere constructively by design, and where they converge it will also depend on the distance from the radiator.

Although there is a transition region where both near field and far field effects are considered relevant, the near field is typically defined as the Fraunhofer distance, 2*D^2/L where D is the largest dimension of the radiator and L is the wavelength.

Given your frequency, and a maximum linear aperture dimension of, say, 0.5m:

c=340 (speed of sound m/s)
D=0.5 (maximum aperture dimension)
f=50000 (frequency)
L=0.0068 (wavelength)

gives the extent of the near field as 73.5m, so I'd suggest for this application's use cases, and in the demonstrations given, we're well inside the near field where we should be considering interference effects well ahead of far field concerns.

Edit: My experience is in RF, it looks like acoustics refer the the near field differently, i.e. D^2/(4L). This gives a near field distance of 9.2m, so the use cases are still well within the near field with the amended definition (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_array_ultrasonics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_array_ultrasonics))
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on August 01, 2017, 09:14:28 am
I don't think we know the frequency yet, but it has to be at least 40 or 50kHz.

We do know:
https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/wireless-power-charger/

Quote
45kHz to 75kHz with an output of 145dB to 155dB (or 316 W/m2 – 3kW/m2)
Title: Hearing loss, U.S. diplomats in Havana
Post by: JimRemington on August 10, 2017, 02:51:26 am
Quote
The two-year-old U.S. diplomatic relationship with Cuba was roiled Wednesday by what U.S. officials say was a string of bizarre incidents that left a group of American diplomats in Havana with severe hearing loss attributed to a covert sonic device.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-expels-2-cuban-diplomats-after-incidents-in-cuba/2017/08/09/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-expels-2-cuban-diplomats-after-incidents-in-cuba/2017/08/09/)

I wonder: intense ultrasonic beams?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on August 10, 2017, 03:15:51 pm
Ubeen are very quiet, they must all be heads down hard at work gearing up for mass production, arranging mass distribution and marketing networks.  :horse:

http://www.olympus-ims.com/en/ndt-tutorials/transducers/focusing/ (http://www.olympus-ims.com/en/ndt-tutorials/transducers/focusing/)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on August 10, 2017, 09:48:26 pm
Some idiot gave her more money?  :-//

(http://i.imgur.com/SP1BCyi.png)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on August 10, 2017, 09:51:36 pm
Looks like she reads this thread!  :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: djos on August 10, 2017, 10:17:19 pm
Some idiot gave her more money?  :-//

(http://i.imgur.com/SP1BCyi.png)

 :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Bud on August 10, 2017, 10:53:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: djos on August 10, 2017, 11:34:46 pm
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!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on August 11, 2017, 01:21:55 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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on August 25, 2017, 03:32:20 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/

"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?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on August 25, 2017, 08:57:23 pm
"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
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on September 12, 2017, 09:31:51 pm
 :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on September 12, 2017, 11:06:52 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/

LOL! Quick 2nd channel video uploading now.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on September 12, 2017, 11:22:34 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLly4WdRAjY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLly4WdRAjY)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on September 14, 2017, 07:48:37 pm
There's another new kid on the block:

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

It charges using focused infra-red light.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=351155;image)

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)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: rich on September 14, 2017, 08:37:47 pm
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 (https://web.archive.org/web/20160402094821/http://www.wi-charge.com/technology.php?ID=25)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on September 14, 2017, 08:45:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on September 14, 2017, 09:15:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: AlanS on September 14, 2017, 11:18:51 pm
Well I think that summarises the current state of play. Thank you for the vision - and the laugh.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on September 15, 2017, 02:27:51 am
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/ (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)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: BrianHG on September 15, 2017, 02:48:50 am
There's another new kid on the block:

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

It charges using focused infra-red light.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=351155;image)

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...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: timothyaag on September 15, 2017, 08:09:23 pm
with existing technology

There's their out! "Our technology is new and revolutionary."
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on September 16, 2017, 12:08:43 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).
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: The_Next_Theranos on September 16, 2017, 02:26:05 pm
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 (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”.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on September 19, 2017, 05:37:15 am
'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 (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/09/wireless-at-distance-charging-may-be.html)

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


Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on September 19, 2017, 10:31:21 am
http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/09/wireless-at-distance-charging-may-be.html (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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on September 19, 2017, 10:43:30 am
http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/09/wireless-at-distance-charging-may-be.html (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.
 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on September 19, 2017, 02:17:48 pm
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?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on September 19, 2017, 04:05:03 pm
http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/09/wireless-at-distance-charging-may-be.html (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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on September 19, 2017, 06:15:17 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.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on September 20, 2017, 03:44:41 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.

"Beam forming" may be a little strong a term. Maybe "beam shaping"? "Nudging"?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on September 22, 2017, 07:25:40 am
Looks like the Santa Monica office of uBeam is being advertised as available for lease from January 2018. No idea if they've been funded or if the money is running out.

http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/20498218/2210-Main-St-Santa-Monica-CA/ (http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/20498218/2210-Main-St-Santa-Monica-CA/)

Some thoughts in my blog.

http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/09/ubeam-funded-or-on-fumes.html (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/09/ubeam-funded-or-on-fumes.html)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on September 22, 2017, 01:22:24 pm
I think it's Game Over for uBeamdoggle meself.  :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: daqq on September 22, 2017, 01:53:00 pm
So, what would be the main morale of the story?

Do not ignore the 'nitpickers'?
If you have an awesome product idea that has just a teensy-weensy flaw that you can't get around, you have a problem, not a revolutionary product?
Faith and marketing alone is not enough to get over physics, economics, math and other sciences?
Essentially calling engineers and experts the oompa loompas of visionaries does not attract the best people?
Being an asshole is not the same as good leadership?

Or maybe the sad morale (or rather immorale) of the story is different:

No matter what kind of bullshit you try to sell, given good confident presentation, enough arrogance, marketing and hype, there will be people just lining up to throw money at you.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on September 22, 2017, 11:08:36 pm
Looks like the Santa Monica office of uBeam is being advertised as available for lease from January 2018. No idea if they've been funded or if the money is running out.

http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/20498218/2210-Main-St-Santa-Monica-CA/ (http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/20498218/2210-Main-St-Santa-Monica-CA/)

Some thoughts in my blog.

http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/09/ubeam-funded-or-on-fumes.html (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/09/ubeam-funded-or-on-fumes.html)

Don't they have another silicon valley office? Maybe they are consolidating there?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on September 23, 2017, 11:30:22 pm
I think it's Game Over for uBeamdoggle meself.  :horse:

Don't underestimate the power of belief, hope, and bamboozlement, plenty of companies keep getting funded long after you would think the plug gets pulled. Some companies are like some senior employees who seem to be able to fail upwards.

Despite what we all think here, there's still a real chance there's funding coming for them. As mentioned, it'll be clear by early next year which it is.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on September 23, 2017, 11:35:14 pm
Looks like the Santa Monica office of uBeam is being advertised as available for lease from January 2018. No idea if they've been funded or if the money is running out.

http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/20498218/2210-Main-St-Santa-Monica-CA/ (http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/20498218/2210-Main-St-Santa-Monica-CA/)

Some thoughts in my blog.

http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/09/ubeam-funded-or-on-fumes.html (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/09/ubeam-funded-or-on-fumes.html)

Don't they have another silicon valley office? Maybe they are consolidating there?

I don't believe there was an official announcement but they look to have closed that office, around a year after opening it. From what I could see publicly it was 8500 sqft and had 3 employees in it. None of the employees from that location are with the company anymore, as far as I can see on LinkedIn.

Rumours is - a few months after joining all employees there were given the choice of moving to Santa Monica or being let go, and they all chose to leave this most awesome of companies of the verge of world altering technology and vast wealth in the form of the shares they'd have if they stayed the standard 12 months.

So - no. (IMO)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: VNFTW on September 26, 2017, 07:12:41 pm
There's another new kid on the block:

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

It charges using focused infra-red light.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=351155;image)

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...

Lithium nitrogen?  That seems...energetically unfavorable.  (Same with any other nitrogen chemistry that has N2 as a reactant)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on September 28, 2017, 06:11:36 am
Confirmed, uBeam leased the space for a second office in the bay area in Q1 2016 at the latest, at 1741 Technology Drive, San Jose, CA. 8425 sqft. You can see it in the last page here:

http://www.colliersparrish.com/newsletters/sjc.all.news.Q1-16.pdf (http://www.colliersparrish.com/newsletters/sjc.all.news.Q1-16.pdf)

This notes the space (Suite 260) as available from Feb 2017, likely at the end of 1 year.  As far as I know the staff were all gone from it a month or two prior. It's listed as a sublease, and was last updated about a month ago. If that's uBeam's lease they are trying to sublease, that's 9 months of probably $4 to $5 per sqft per month, so $40k per month, so $360k, to have an empty office, if that's the case.

http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/20199794/1741-Technology-Dr-San-Jose-CA/ (http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/20199794/1741-Technology-Dr-San-Jose-CA/)

The last photo here shows the three members of staff that must have rattled around in that office. I don't think any of them are left.

https://medium.com/@meredithperry/former-hp-and-tektronix-engineering-executive-larry-pendergrass-joins-ubeam-b08597f45a24 (https://medium.com/@meredithperry/former-hp-and-tektronix-engineering-executive-larry-pendergrass-joins-ubeam-b08597f45a24)





Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on September 29, 2017, 04:56:40 am
Don't they have another silicon valley office? Maybe they are consolidating there?

I'm going to revisit  my statement that they won't be consolidating in San Jose. I said that thinking they had already subleased that office. If, however, they are stuck in a lease there and are failing to sublease it at ~$40k a month, and the lease in Santa Monica is coming up for renewal, it may make sense to move north. In which case they'd be reopening the office less than a year after closing it (which was less than a year after opening it) and laying off all the staff. Should this be the plan, I wouldn't be surprised if the employees in SM are given a "move or you're out of a job" choice.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on October 10, 2017, 02:21:05 pm
There doesn't seem to have been much development over the last 3 months.
Does that prototype look like it's $20m worth.

https://twitter.com/KatieS/status/917505034857992193
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: djos on October 10, 2017, 10:26:36 pm
There doesn't seem to have been much development over the last 3 months.
Does that prototype look like it's $20m worth.

https://twitter.com/KatieS/status/917505034857992193

I guess that's what happens when you think that Physics dont apply to your product.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on October 18, 2017, 04:48:34 pm
They're leaving it a bit late to get these things on the shelves by Xmas, - again.  :horse:

Mechanical Engineer
Engineering Assistant
Principal System Architect, Engineering
Hardware/Software Lead Design Engineer
Senior/Principal Engineer, Acoustics
Magician/Illusionist

https://ubeam-inc.workable.com/
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on October 19, 2017, 07:09:52 am
Magician/Illusionist

Uhuh.

(I could actually do that one... and might apply for it if I lived over there  :popcorn: )

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on October 30, 2017, 06:34:55 am
The Mechanical Engineer and Engineering Dogsbody have disappeared from the recruiting website, maybe they hired someone? Looking at LinkedIn there's no newbies, but a couple more people left in the last few weeks - a mechanical engineer and a project manager. Oh, and somehow they've given prospective employees my number to call...

http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/10/brief-ubeam-update.html (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/10/brief-ubeam-update.html)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on October 30, 2017, 06:39:23 am
Principal System Architect, Engineering
Hardware/Software Lead Design Engineer
Senior/Principal Engineer, Acoustics

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

When you have those head lead positions available after 5 years, 30 million bucks in R&D, and countless people saying your tech won't be practical (and have the calcs to prove it) and you have no real results to defend your claims with, you are beyond screwed.
Is it even possible for investors to pull the plug and get back whatever little money is left?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on October 30, 2017, 06:47:57 am
 :-DD

https://twitter.com/kflay/status/917879232801280000
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Kean on October 30, 2017, 10:48:08 am
That's so funny Paul that you're getting calls from potential new hires.  Sounds almost like internal sabotage... but most likely just incompetence.

And the video in that tweet is just so sad!  (in a "WTF were they thinking" way)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on October 30, 2017, 11:54:44 am
We should set up a pool for the Top 10 list of who and what Meredith is going to blame when this wrong thing finally implodes.
Because sure as hell it won't be the impracticality of the idea.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on October 30, 2017, 07:33:17 pm
We should set up a pool for the Top 10 list of who and what Meredith is going to blame when this wrong thing finally implodes.
Because sure as hell it won't be the impracticality of the idea.

Oh it'll be us. By 'us' I mean that group that Meredith will describe as something like 'Engineering patriarchs who refuse to see beyond their own dogma and insist that things are impossible without trying to do them'.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Richard Crowley on October 30, 2017, 07:37:57 pm
Oh it'll be us. By 'us' I mean that group that Meredith will describe as something like 'Engineering patriarchs who refuse to see beyond their own dogma and insist that things are impossible without trying to do them'.
Right.  Because by the very force of our collective will, WE can actually affect the laws of natural physics so that they don't work for Meredith.  I had no idea "we" were that powerful!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on October 30, 2017, 08:43:36 pm
Oh it'll be us. By 'us' I mean that group that Meredith will describe as something like 'Engineering patriarchs who refuse to see beyond their own dogma and insist that things are impossible without trying to do them'.
Right.  Because by the very force of our collective will, WE can actually affect the laws of natural physics so that they don't work for Meredith.  I had no idea "we" were that powerful!

Of course 'we' are. Just ask your great uncle Aleister Crowley about the power of the will.  :)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7e/Aleister_Crowley.jpg)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on October 30, 2017, 09:37:58 pm
The Mechanical Engineer and Engineering Dogsbody have disappeared from the recruiting website, maybe they hired someone?

The Magician. He's still working on the illusion that charging mobiles by ultra sonics is practicable.

Quote
Oh, and somehow they've given prospective employees my number to call...

Maybe another trick.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cyberdragon on October 30, 2017, 09:58:13 pm
The Mechanical Engineer and Engineering Dogsbody have disappeared from the recruiting website, maybe they hired someone?

The Magician. He's still working on the illusion that charging mobiles by ultra sonics is practicable.
easy, they could just film some phones charging on a table but secretly have normal induction chargers underneath. The hipsters that back this will be like deer in headlights and have no idea.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: djos on October 31, 2017, 01:14:25 am
The Mechanical Engineer and Engineering Dogsbody have disappeared from the recruiting website, maybe they hired someone?

The Magician. He's still working on the illusion that charging mobiles by ultra sonics is practicable.

Quote
Oh, and somehow they've given prospective employees my number to call...

Maybe another trick.

Maybe they should team up with Airing!  :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Richard Crowley on October 31, 2017, 01:33:05 am
Maybe they should team up with Airing!  :-DD
Maybe that is how they intend to power the Airing? 
There certainly appears to be zero space in the little enclosure for any significant amount of battery power.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on October 31, 2017, 02:22:27 am
That would be apposite, given that the current system seems to be mostly powered by hot air.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on October 31, 2017, 07:42:14 am
Have Lumia Capital been an investor before?
This page I think is new, only 3 days old:
http://lumiacapital.com/companies/ubeam/ (http://lumiacapital.com/companies/ubeam/)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on October 31, 2017, 10:00:40 am
Looks like between 9 June and 30 September:

OUT:
Mark Cuban
Tony Hsieh
Marissa Mayer
Dan Gilbert

IN:
Lumia Capital

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=365899;image)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=365901;image)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on October 31, 2017, 11:20:03 am
Looks like between 9 June and 30 September:

OUT:
Mark Cuban
Tony Hsieh
Marissa Mayer
Dan Gilbert

IN:
Lumia Capital

Suckers!  :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on October 31, 2017, 12:49:37 pm
Have Lumia Capital been an investor before?

There seems to be a few mentions of them around mid 2015, surely they haven't invested twice.  :o :horse:

Lumia Capital
June 2015 – August 2015 (3 months)
Expansion-stage VC partnering with leading tech companies in under-invested emerging markets and forward-thinking US companies targeting these markets to accelerate growth.
Representative investments include: uBeam,

https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephaniefei (https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephaniefei)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on October 31, 2017, 01:36:00 pm
There seems to be a few mentions of them around mid 2015, surely they haven't invested twice.  :o :horse:

Maybe. The Wayback archive shows no mention of them before, and their website page for uBeam shows as being updated a few days ago. i.e. shows up in Google search for last week.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on October 31, 2017, 05:22:23 pm
I think this is just a cleanup of the webpage by someone at uBeam - claiming to be a "Mark Cuban/Marissa Meyer backed startup" gets a little long in the tooth after 5 years and 2 intervening rounds of funding that those people skipped. From what I can see there along with comparison to SEC documents, I expect this is now just those who invested in the Series A (2014) and subsequent convertible note round (2015). This site lists Lumia as having invested in 2014 in the Series A

https://thenordicnumbers.thenordicweb.com/companies/ubeam (https://thenordicnumbers.thenordicweb.com/companies/ubeam)

What does seem to have popped up is InFocus Capital Partners. This document is from January 2017 but the investment may have been in April 2016. Looks to be some opthamologists from Chicago who have an investment group that creates individual LLCs as investment vehicles for either crowdfunding or small angel groups. I think (but am not sure) to meet SEC rules this has to be part of the convertible note from 2015 but that's a messy area and I'm certain there won't be enough public info to be able to tell.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1695863/000169586317000001/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1695863/000169586317000001/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml)

Avoiding, again, institutional money and taking instead what some may call "dumb money", i.e. those without the resources to do detailed due diligence and who buy on the 'sizzle'.

So, no, I still don't think there's public evidence they have received new institutional funding.


Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on November 02, 2017, 12:25:52 pm
"Looks to be some opthamologists from Chicago"

If they can't find this thread, they should have gone to Specsavers.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 02, 2017, 02:13:07 pm
"Looks to be some opthamologists from Chicago"
If they can't find this thread, they should have gone to Specsavers.

Surely you wouldn't just leave your money blindly to the VC's?
You'd at least Google what your money is going into, surely?
My video cannot be missed in either search.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: iainwhite on November 02, 2017, 02:51:52 pm
Surely you wouldn't just leave your money blindly to the VC's?

I think that is exactly what happens.
VC investing is all about getting the one big 100-fold return among many other mediocre returns or total losses.
To get the one big hit, you throw money at all kinds of dubious propositions.

By the way, the Specsavers reference above relates to a UK TV commercial campaign:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDwK_AUk0FI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDwK_AUk0FI)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on November 02, 2017, 04:04:04 pm
"Looks to be some opthamologists from Chicago"
If they can't find this thread, they should have gone to Specsavers.

Surely you wouldn't just leave your money blindly to the VC's?
You'd at least Google what your money is going into, surely?
My video cannot be missed in either search.

I used to work in the City of London financial district (geographically, not in finance myself) and the density of betting shops there compared to the average high street at the time was a clear indication that high finance was just sophisticated gambling. You'd see brokers (in their trading jackets) wander out from one of the exchanges where they had been placing million pound bets trades and into the bookies where they'd place £1000 cash bets.

No matter what justifications (e.g. studying form) the average gambling addict puts forward we know that it's not a rational activity. Everything I've seen over the years suggests that holds true for high finance gambling trading as well.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on November 07, 2017, 01:34:00 am
What the hell can they be doing, they don't make anything. :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on November 07, 2017, 07:52:59 am
"Looks to be some opthamologists from Chicago"
If they can't find this thread, they should have gone to Specsavers.

Surely you wouldn't just leave your money blindly to the VC's?
You'd at least Google what your money is going into, surely?
My video cannot be missed in either search.

I used to work in the City of London financial district (geographically, not in finance myself) and the density of betting shops there compared to the average high street at the time was a clear indication that high finance was just sophisticated gambling. You'd see brokers (in their trading jackets) wander out from one of the exchanges where they had been placing million pound bets trades and into the bookies where they'd place £1000 cash bets.

No matter what justifications (e.g. studying form) the average gambling addict puts forward we know that it's not a rational activity. Everything I've seen over the years suggests that holds true for high finance gambling trading as well.

Blimey, you're showing your age, I haven't seen trading jackets in the City for maybe fifteen years! I am not convinced there's a higher percentage of bookies in the square mile than any other place with a similar day time population, it's not something that's particularly stood out for me, but you may be right. Most of those who like a flutter (as opposed to an "investment" *cough*) tend to go in for spread betting - which is interesting because despite the name, bizarrely spread betting regulated by the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) whereas a bookie is regulated by the Gambling Commission.

I don't have any first hand knowledge of how VCs function other than that I shared an office with one 20 years ago and did odd bits of IT maintenance for them. They invested in Pringles is about all I remember, of course they wouldn't be boasting about their failures. They always kept themselves to themselves despite being part of the same company I was doing work for, they were quite aloof. Even then, VCs didn't have a particularly good name. I wonder if they ever have among the general public?

What does have a grain of truth here is an underbelly of coke snorting Gordon Gekko wannabes. You have to know where to look, but it's not difficult to spot. Typically they spend their lives networking after work into the early hours, making sure that when they can rely on someone to give them a job when they get managed out. Usually they jump before that happens. The trait is that they barely last about 18 months before moving on, but there are other slightly more subtle traits such as being risk takers, and lacking empathy, i.e. not particularly nice examples of human beings. What I've never figured out is how they manage to survive so long doing this: in my line of work reputation is quite key, and it's difficult to hide. It's not at all unusual for a CV/resume to come across my desk and I know who they are.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on November 07, 2017, 01:00:48 pm

Blimey, you're showing your age, I haven't seen trading jackets in the City for maybe fifteen years!

It is true, I am grey-bearded. The ISP I used to run operations for had an office in Cannon Street from about 1996-2000, then we moved to a office in the Docklands. Now bring me some nude virgins, I have something to calibrate...

I am not convinced there's a higher percentage of bookies in the square mile than any other place with a similar day time population, it's not something that's particularly stood out for me, but you may be right.

You've got to remember that this is before the huge rise in numbers of high-street betting shops that's plagued the UK over the past few years.

I don't have any first hand knowledge of how VCs function other than that I shared an office with one 20 years ago and did odd bits of IT maintenance for them.

Ah, so you'll know first hand that they drink human blood for breakfast?  :)

I worked for a small AI software house back at the end of the eighties which had some VCs on the board. I soon got to understand why some call them vulture capitalists. I prefer to do business with people where a handshake is all the contract you need and you where don't need to wear a Kevlar back protector. If I was ever to do business that involved VCs again I would have poison-pill shares, real poison pills hidden near the coffee machine and a stake, holy water and a crucifix in my desk drawer. I'm sure there must be at least one honourable VC out there, but I haven't met them yet.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: lockes_empty_cabinet on November 09, 2017, 11:48:25 pm
Based on a public Facebook post (https://www.facebook.com/meredith.perry/posts/10210183826215652 (https://www.facebook.com/meredith.perry/posts/10210183826215652)), looks like they may be having issues with HAZMAT and lab areas in an office building. Who woulda thunk it?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 10, 2017, 02:36:54 am
Based on a public Facebook post (https://www.facebook.com/meredith.perry/posts/10210183826215652 (https://www.facebook.com/meredith.perry/posts/10210183826215652)), looks like they may be having issues with HAZMAT and lab areas in an office building. Who woulda thunk it?

Sounds like they still have some cash left to burn.
They can't have gotten new money otherwise Meredith would be crowing about it.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 10, 2017, 03:49:07 am
You guys beat me to it. I just wrote a post on this.

http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/11/ubeam-office-space-woes.html (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/11/ubeam-office-space-woes.html)


Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 10, 2017, 03:58:15 am
Rapid aging of whisky using ultrasonics is a new thing apparently. Maybe the knowledge Ubeam has gained can be put to use in whisky production.

I've always thought that nothing learned is ever truely wasted. Maybe there will be other applications that were awaiting better ultrasonic transducers. I'm assuming that the engineers who were working on this realised it was never going to transmit power and they quietly, wisely, learned something.

If only one of those engineers would blog about it and give some insight into just that...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: drussell on November 10, 2017, 04:11:43 am
They did seem to have some interesting insight into the beam-forming stuff, but other than that...

HA!  Hahahahah!!  Suckers....

:palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on November 10, 2017, 01:05:48 pm
Sounds like she hasn't used all that non-expert, non-Asperger, non-linear thinking skillset she has. After a few hours of simple research she could come up with a Steve Jobs quote, and all would be resolved.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on November 10, 2017, 11:56:50 pm
All I can think of is that they're going to say, "Look at all this space we've got, we can start mass production as soon as we get more funding".  :-DD  :horse:  |O  :-BROKE  :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 14, 2017, 11:08:50 am
MORE FUNDING!  :palm:
Just got this email:

Quote
OurCrowd is investing in uBeam, a US based company pioneering long-range wireless charging for electronic devices. In an era when consumers are attached to electronic devices, one of the most common pain points is poor battery life. uBeam has developed an innovative solution which enables untethered long-range wireless charging for battery-powered devices.

We are joined in this round by Andreessen Horowitz (Facebook, Twitter, Airbnb, Skype), Upfront Ventures (Bill Me Later, Ring), Founders Fund (SpaceX, Palantir, Lyft), Ludlow Ventures (AngelList, Product Hunt) and Mark Cuban, owner of the NBA's Dallas Mavericks.

We’re hosting a webinar/conference call (Wednesday, November 15th at 7:00PM Israel / 12:00PM New York / 9:00AM San Francisco) for investors to meet CEO Meredith Perry and learn more about uBeam.

Register

The Need for Untethered Wireless Charging

Everyone who owns a mobile phone or device has encountered the struggle of low battery life. To solve this, uBeam has developed an innovative solution which enables true wireless charging for battery-powered devices. uBeam works by harnessing the power from ultrasound. The system wirelessly transmits focused beams of ultrasonic energy to devices outfitted with their proprietary receiver. The ultrasonic receiver technology (which can be attached to or built into a range of devices) converts acoustic energy into electrical energy, which charges the device. The solution is expected to be capable of delivering energy to charge devices like smartphones, wearables, IOT devices and more in real-world scenarios such as coffee shops, office space, homes, gyms, airports, or anywhere a transmitter can be placed.

Unique Solution with Fully Functional Prototype

uBeam has already built and demonstrated several fully functional, prototype wireless power transfer systems, which can charge multiple smartphones in the air simultaneously, even while the phones are in use. uBeam’s solution has been deemed the wireless power “category winner” by some of the largest electronics companies worldwide as it can transmit the most power over the largest distance to the greatest number of devices simultaneously while staying safe, within regulatory limits, and without issues of interference. uBeam’s technological approach has a clear advantage over others as it is the only known wireless power technology that doesn’t use electromagnetic energy for power transmission. As ultrasound isn’t on the electromagnetic spectrum, uBeam is therefore not limited by the regulatory, safety, and interference hurdles of its competitors. uBeam’s technology does not interfere with other electromagnetic technologies that use RF and microwaves such as standard communication systems and devices (WiFi, radio, cell phones, etc.). The Company has a strong intellectual property portfolio with 92 domestic and international patent assets, and 17 granted patents.

>>>View full diligence material on uBeam here

Market Opportunity

According to Allied Market Research, the global wireless charging market is set to reach $37.2B by 2022, growing at a CAGR of 44.7% from 2016 to 2022. Research shows that increased sales in the portable electronics and wearables market, as well as in the electric vehicles market, have created demand for new forms of energy, further driving the growth of the wireless charging market. uBeam believes their technology has applications that extend well beyond power transmission - into haptics, autonomous vehicles, rear parking sensors, and more. The rear parking sensor market alone is a several billion dollar industry.

Skilled Management Team

uBeam is led by CEO Meredith Perry, who was selected for Forbes’ prestigious ‘30 Under 30: Energy’ list, and for Fast Company’s ‘100 Most Creative People In Business’ list. Meredith is joined by EVP & CTO, Larry Pendergrass, a physicist and former engineering executive at Tektronix/Keithley, Agilent, and HP, as well as COO Kostas Mallios, who recently sold his last two companies to major corporations in a span of 24 months. Kostas was a GM at Microsoft for 15 years and was also the Vice President of Intellectual Ventures.

I'm Interested

In the long term, the investment committee at OurCrowd believes that uBeam could become an infrastructure technology similar to Wi-Fi, providing seamless charging, data transfer, and seemingly infinite battery power.

Looking forward to you joining us on the call,
OurCrowd Investments
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: ChrisLX200 on November 14, 2017, 11:40:47 am
You should change the link: '>>>View full diligence material on uBeam here'   to something more appropriate and send to all recipients :)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on November 14, 2017, 11:48:03 am
Someone should send the id investors some useful links and videos.

"rear parking sensors, and more. The rear parking sensor market alone is a several billion dollar industry."

As if uBean can do receiving, and all the little white rectangles painted all over the place would look a mess. :)

"In the long term, the investment committee at OurCrowd believes that uBeam could become an infrastructure technology similar to Wi-Fi, providing seamless charging, data transfer, and seemingly infinite battery power."

Well erm, you're wrong.  :horse:

"Looking forward to you joining us on the call,"

It's tempting.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on November 14, 2017, 11:50:57 am
Still 24h left to throw a spanner in the works.

Ideas?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on November 14, 2017, 11:56:13 am
Ideas?

Register ?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 14, 2017, 12:16:47 pm
You should change the link: '>>>View full diligence material on uBeam here'   to something more appropriate and send to all recipients :)

Unfortunately you have to have an account with OurCrowd to get the info.
http://bit.ly/2zWb4Zu (http://bit.ly/2zWb4Zu)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 14, 2017, 12:21:59 pm
Quote
According to Allied Market Research, the global wireless charging market is set to reach $37.2B by 2022, growing at a CAGR of 44.7% from 2016 to 2022. Research shows that increased sales in the portable electronics and wearables market, as well as in the electric vehicles market, have created demand for new forms of energy, further driving the growth of the wireless charging market. uBeam believes their technology has applications that extend well beyond power transmission - into haptics, autonomous vehicles, rear parking sensors, and more. The rear parking sensor market alone is a several billion dollar industry.

The inevitable pivot is in the works?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on November 14, 2017, 01:24:33 pm
Quote
According to Allied Market Research, the global wireless charging market is set to reach $37.2B by 2022, growing at a CAGR of 44.7% from 2016 to 2022. Research shows that increased sales in the portable electronics and wearables market, as well as in the electric vehicles market, have created demand for new forms of energy, further driving the growth of the wireless charging market. uBeam believes their technology has applications that extend well beyond power transmission - into haptics, autonomous vehicles, rear parking sensors, and more. The rear parking sensor market alone is a several billion dollar industry.

The inevitable pivot is in the works?
Using parking sensors as a potential market is hilarious. Because it is a multi-billion dollar business everyone with a history in automotive electronics had attacked it quite aggressively, and robust low cost solutions already exist. How is anyone without a track record in the automotive industry going to get anywhere with that? The after-market market offers some possibilities, but there are already plenty of keen high volume Asian electronics companies serving that with low cost offerings.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on November 14, 2017, 02:57:28 pm

Quote
According to Allied Market Research, the global wireless charging market is set to reach $37.2B...

Ya gotta love the spurious precision in "$37.2B" when in truth the estimate is probably only marginally better than throwing yarrow stalks in the air and seeing how they land.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on November 14, 2017, 03:08:20 pm

Quote
According to Allied Market Research, the global wireless charging market is set to reach $37.2B...

Ya gotta love the spurious precision in "$37.2B" when in truth the estimate is probably only marginally better than throwing yarrow stalks in the air and seeing how they land.
Its a basic principle used in market research. The number of digits quoted is inversely proportional the confidence it is reasonable to have in the estimate. Hence, based on a steady long term trend someone might say "I think we'll see a 4 or 5% growth next year", while someone stepping into the unknown will say "we estimate there will be 282,345 subscribers by the close of next year". A great example of this was CT2, the home digital cordless telephone they tried to fudge into a public system. UK market researchers quoted large estimates for subscriber take up, down to the very last subscriber. Actually, it was a shot in the dark, failed badly, and only handfuls signed up.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Siwastaja on November 14, 2017, 03:25:45 pm
Why are you all so worried about stupid investors putting their money on a scam? It's their money. (Hopefully, at least! If not, we should be concerned about something else than what they are buying with it...)

I'd understand this reaction if this was some well-crafted scam that's easy to fall into.

But everybody already knows this is a scam. By just Googling "uBeam", the first result page shows several disturbing hits to severely criticize it - including, but not limited to, Dave's debunk video.

I'd assume an investor at least uses 1 minute to Google the name of the company they're going to invest in.

And, I'd assume a sensible investor would check out the huge alarm bells going off everywhere, when they do that 1-minute Googling. You know, dig a bit deeper. Use $200 to get an opinion from an engineer consultant first. Things like that.

The fact someone invests in this kind of totally obvious and already well exposed scam shows they are either complete idiots, or just have too much money and they don't care about spending it in random scams the slightest.

But this is, indeed, interesting to follow  :popcorn:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on November 14, 2017, 04:42:04 pm
But everybody already knows this is a scam. By just Googling "uBeam", the first result page shows several disturbing hits to severely criticize it - including, but not limited to, Dave's debunk video.

Nope.

Remember that everybody sees different things when they use google. Potential investors might only see glowing reviews and paid-for news articles because they don't live in your world.

FWIW: When I tried it I didn't see any major criticisms until page 2 and Dave's video didn't appear at all unless I want to videos (where it was half way down the page). The first video I see is the uBeam demo where it's obviously "working"*. If an investor sees that one before they see Dave's, who will they believe?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c0kzTCRWU4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c0kzTCRWU4)

(*) Working in the sense that you can get 1mA of charge if you hold a huge brick at just the right angle in front of the (multi)kW transmitter array.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on November 14, 2017, 04:55:47 pm
You should change the link: '>>>View full diligence material on uBeam here'   to something more appropriate and send to all recipients :)
Unfortunately you have to have an account with OurCrowd to get the info.

"Due diligence" for this type of investors means making sure no patents are being infringed and that it's not going to kill anybody in any obvious way.

eg. From the uBeam site:
"Over the last two years, as part of the extensive due diligence of our investors, we have employed third party ultrasound and safety regulation experts to investigate the uBeam system for both performance and safety. They were fully satisfied that uBeam exceeds all safety and regulatory requirements."

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: ChrisLX200 on November 14, 2017, 05:30:38 pm
Well it damn near killed me laughing at it, does that count?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on November 14, 2017, 06:16:33 pm
MORE FUNDING!  :palm:
We’re hosting a webinar/conference call (Wednesday, November 15th at 7:00PM Israel / 12:00PM New York / 9:00AM San Francisco) for investors to meet CEO Meredith Perry and learn more about uBeam.
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Siwastaja on November 14, 2017, 06:55:51 pm
If an investor sees that one before they see Dave's, who will they believe?

If a competent investor sees a critical video from a third party, they'll at least want to test: "is this true?" If they enter that mode, they should have no problem finding the info they need.

But indeed, not all investors are competent, or even sane. Some just want to believe, like the consumers as well.

Stupid people do exist, and availability of money does not necessarily correlate with the ability to use it wisely.

And how do we even know the real motives of said investors? They can play complex games too. So maybe they are not stupid at all, but know a way to play along with the scam and win money in the end. If that's the case, I guess Perry will be the one who needs to take all the blame in the end; that's how the story would be written.

But most likely, just a relatively uninterested investor throwing some peanuts around.

In any case:  :popcorn:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 14, 2017, 08:27:05 pm
Why are you all so worried about stupid investors putting their money on a scam? It's their money. (Hopefully, at least! If not, we should be concerned about something else than what they are buying with it...)

I'd understand this reaction if this was some well-crafted scam that's easy to fall into.

Because it could be pension money involved or something like that.
Also, if something has no hope of working as claimed, people should know that, as not everyone is capable of making engineering valuations. We as community need to do that for them.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 14, 2017, 08:28:44 pm
You should change the link: '>>>View full diligence material on uBeam here'   to something more appropriate and send to all recipients :)
Unfortunately you have to have an account with OurCrowd to get the info.

"Due diligence" for this type of investors means making sure no patents are being infringed and that it's not going to kill anybody in any obvious way.

eg. From the uBeam site:
"Over the last two years, as part of the extensive due diligence of our investors, we have employed third party ultrasound and safety regulation experts to investigate the uBeam system for both performance and safety. They were fully satisfied that uBeam exceeds all safety and regulatory requirements."

It's the "in theory it's possible" camp  :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 14, 2017, 08:31:54 pm
(*) Working in the sense that you can get 1mA of charge if you hold a huge brick at just the right angle in front of the (multi)kW transmitter array.

And that's the problem, it certainly "works".
It's the engineering behind making a practical marketable product that is the problem, and Joe Average finds it hard to understand the that hard to understand subtleties of that unfortunately. Hence the 2nd whiteboard in my video tried to address that.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 14, 2017, 08:49:28 pm
Rumor has it there is a pitch deck for the new crowd funding investors floating around. Anyone got it?  ;D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on November 14, 2017, 08:53:43 pm
eg. From the uBeam site:
"Over the last two years, as part of the extensive due diligence of our investors, we have employed third party ultrasound and safety regulation experts to investigate the uBeam system for both performance and safety. They were fully satisfied that uBeam exceeds all safety and regulatory requirements."

It's the "in theory it's possible" camp  :palm:

You're missing something. There's a particular way of presenting things that is intended to get you to mentally fill in something that is not there, so when challenged later the writer can say "we didn't say that" and it's being used here.

Quote
"Over the last two years, as part of the extensive due diligence of our investors, we have employed third party ultrasound and safety regulation experts to investigate the uBeam system for both performance and safety. They were fully satisfied that uBeam exceeds all safety and regulatory requirements."

Notice how they tested for performance and safety - but only safety appears in the claim about the results of those tests. If you're not careful your brain will supply the missing 'performance' from the second sentence because of the "X and Y" structure in both sentences.

It falls into that category of things I call "lawyers lies", completely true, deliberately misleading, and you can't prove the latter in a court even though you know it's true.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 15, 2017, 05:28:15 pm
My latest blog post on this new round

http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/11/ubeam-funded-greater-fool-found.html (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/11/ubeam-funded-greater-fool-found.html)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: l0rd_hex on November 15, 2017, 08:21:24 pm
I'm about halfway through this documentary and the similarities are... startling:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZvfhcSoPOs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZvfhcSoPOs)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on November 15, 2017, 08:40:58 pm
So will the conference call, or a transcript of it be posted on-line as proof of uBean's fantastical developments and future possibilities?

I think it would be a laugh a minute.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Poolkeeper on November 16, 2017, 09:54:09 am
But they also say: As ultrasound isn’t on the electromagnetic spectrum, uBeam is therefore not limited by the regulatory, safety, and interference hurdles of its competitors. :D

So really no need to test for safety as nothing applies....
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on November 16, 2017, 01:01:46 pm
Looks like this :horse: might keep limping along for another 2 years.

http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2017/nov/15/ubeam-raising-20m-series-b-round/ (http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2017/nov/15/ubeam-raising-20m-series-b-round/)

I wondered why the author seemed a bit cool on the idea.

UBeam to Ship Wireless Chargers Next Year  September 28, 2015
http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2015/sep/28/ubeam-ship-wireless-chargers-next-year/ (http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2015/sep/28/ubeam-ship-wireless-chargers-next-year/)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 16, 2017, 01:39:13 pm
Looks like this :horse: might keep limping along for another 2 years.

We'll still be here to keep them honest  ;D

Quote
http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2017/nov/15/ubeam-raising-20m-series-b-round/ (http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2017/nov/15/ubeam-raising-20m-series-b-round/)

Quote
Wireless charging startup uBeam Inc. is raising a $20 million Series B round from Upfront Ventures, Andreessen Horowitz, Founders Fund and Mark Cuban, among others, according to a presentation to prospective investors by Meredith Perry, the company’s chief executive.

The $20 million round is not complete, but would finance the Santa Monica startup’s operations for two years at the firm’s current cash burn rate

So they are burning through $10m a year in cash, or $830k a month. That's handy to know.

Quote
, Perry said in the webinar for prospective investors convened by Israeli crowdfunding company OurCrowd. Perry said another venture capital round could help the firm put an ultrasonic wireless energy product on market as soon as the third quarter of 2019.

Hmm, doesn't say what wireless energy product.

Quote
She did not respond to requests for comment.

Because she knows said product isn't going to be a practical phone charger.

Quote
UBeam stirred controversy within the scientific and venture capital communities in recent years after widely publicizing a claim to wirelessly charge electronics, such as cellphones, using ultrasonic waves sent through the air at distances of several feet. Critics said converting ultrasonic waves into electrical energy is possible in a rudimentary sense, but absent a technological breakthrough, they were doubtful the technology can perform as claimed.

Not doubtful, we are sure of it. And uBeam have said or demoed nothing in 5 years to even remotely refute that.

Quote
The firm has raised more than $26 million from investors since its founding in 2012. Investors include Menlo Park’s Andreesen Horowitz, Santa Monica’s Upfront Ventures, Peter Thiel’s Founder’s Fund as well as billionaire Mark Cuban and former Yahoo Inc. Chief Executive Marissa Mayer.

Suckers!  :-DD

Quote
The company has made some progress. In June, uBeam’s Perry demonstrated a brick-sized wireless charger receiving enough power to light up the battery icon on a cellphone in an interview with USA Today. However, she acknowledged for the first time a number of technology limitations, including the inability of the device to charge while its sits in a pants pocket, moves around a room, is positioned at angles greater than 45 degrees to its transmitter or at distances greater than 10 feet.

So yeah, she admits it will never be practical  :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: ehughes on November 16, 2017, 04:05:37 pm
They have headhunters looking for people with a  high level acoustics background to run their development team.     I just got contacted (I have 18 years experience with  degrees in electronics and acoustics) recently but the headhunter.     I politely declined ( I wouldn't touch this with a 10 ft pole).


The acoustics community (especially the people who have the right combination of physics and electronics skills) is small.    No one with any relevant experience or skills will touch this.     The people that are currently working there are not acoustics experts or are simply bleeding the company while they are waiting for something else.   No one who has ever looked at air absorption curves would ever think is a viable product.

Acoustics has  lots of useful applications.   Power transmission is not one of them.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 16, 2017, 08:25:54 pm
It's crap like this that keep the wheels turning

https://i-d.vice.com/en_au/article/vbezj4/5-apps-by-women-that-are-beating-uber-and-tinder

Quote
uBeam
Much like On Second Thought's Maci Peterson, uBeam founder Meredith Perry has given the world a technological supplement that it didn't even know it needed. According to an article in TechCrunch, uBeam has "traditional venture capitalists foaming at the mouth," as well as potential investors like Starbucks, Virgin Airlines, Apple and Samsung. Perry, a UPenn grad and former NASA researcher, has devised a way to wirelessly charge your phone with ultrasound via a $50 receiver, from a distance of up to 15 feet. While not technically an app, this innovation ensures a future untethered to the nearest electrical outlet, and was therefore too good to leave off the list.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 16, 2017, 08:28:10 pm
and this bullshit:
https://medium.com/the-mission/five-life-lessons-for-every-entrepreneur-d62579a642c9

Quote
Originals helped me remember how important it is to turn radical ideas into simple memes. The book told the story of UBeam’s founder, Meredith Perry. She is working on wireless charging for devices, and in the early days, she had a difficult time recruiting engineers. Many would hear her idea and immediately shut it down. They thought it was impossible, or maybe subconsciously they realized how hard it would be! So Perry whittled her grand vision into simple engineering ideas (or memes). She then presented these to prospective engineers. Because these ideas were in the realm of what they considered possible, she was able to recruit them for her mission.
The lesson is, when we’re trying to transmit our ideas, it’s not productive to say, “let’s build this radical innovation.” Instead, when presenting your ideas, just say, “I’m building this simple thing, want to help?”
In this way, it doesn’t take a lot of mental resources for a possible co-conspirator to become intrigued and say, “yes!”
All entrepreneurs or aspiring originals must master this art. If you want your creation to help as many people as possible, sell it in bite-sized, easily digestible pieces. Otherwise, you risk alienating those who might help you reach your largest ideas.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: brainwash on November 16, 2017, 08:41:28 pm
It's important to keep in mind that some news outlets don't want to outright dismiss crazy ideas, in case they eventually turn up successful. That, and the fact that the people writing the articles sometimes receive benefits. But I'd rather not attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance.
"Free energy" and "wireless energy" will keep hunting us till the end of our lives.

And, to outside people, we (engineers) might be in the same group like audiophools, anti-vaccination people, moon non-believers, ... To them, it's just two sides of an argument and the truth is in the middle. I sincerely cannot expect this will ever change.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 16, 2017, 09:07:03 pm
and this bullshit:
https://medium.com/the-mission/five-life-lessons-for-every-entrepreneur-d62579a642c9 (https://medium.com/the-mission/five-life-lessons-for-every-entrepreneur-d62579a642c9)

Quote
Originals helped me remember how important it is to turn radical ideas into simple memes. The book told the story of UBeam’s founder, Meredith Perry. She is working on wireless charging for devices, and in the early days, she had a difficult time recruiting engineers. Many would hear her idea and immediately shut it down. They thought it was impossible, or maybe subconsciously they realized how hard it would be! So Perry whittled her grand vision into simple engineering ideas (or memes). She then presented these to prospective engineers. Because these ideas were in the realm of what they considered possible, she was able to recruit them for her mission.
The lesson is, when we’re trying to transmit our ideas, it’s not productive to say, “let’s build this radical innovation.” Instead, when presenting your ideas, just say, “I’m building this simple thing, want to help?”
In this way, it doesn’t take a lot of mental resources for a possible co-conspirator to become intrigued and say, “yes!”
All entrepreneurs or aspiring originals must master this art. If you want your creation to help as many people as possible, sell it in bite-sized, easily digestible pieces. Otherwise, you risk alienating those who might help you reach your largest ideas.

As one of the engineers referred to in this snippet, I can tell you without question that this is not what happened.

I can also say that the story printed in that book regarding the CTO's response "are not my recollection", to be polite about it.

The whole chapter in "Originals" was so clearly biased that I wrote a blog post about it last May

http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/05/unoriginal.html (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/05/unoriginal.html)

A key quote from my post

So in summary, and as a rehash of what I've said before - for me joining uBeam was principally because of that CTO, and that the engineering problem was hard. Had it been pitched any other way, I would have passed.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on November 16, 2017, 09:54:23 pm
I'm surprised @ how quiet uBeamdoggle is, shouldn't they be shouting from the rooftops, or is someone asking difficult questions.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on November 16, 2017, 10:25:36 pm
I'm surprised @ how quiet uBeamdoggle is, shouldn't they be shouting from the rooftops, or is someone asking difficult questions.
Suspect they're trying to target investors without raising too much bullshit-calling by anyone else.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 17, 2017, 12:35:12 am
The staff according to Crunchbase, which now shows $31.7M total funding.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=370905;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on November 17, 2017, 11:47:52 am
The staff according to Crunchbase,

Should be a "WANTED" poster.

Even if they have increased the staff from 30 to 14, :) I still don't know what that 14 all do all day. Even I've worked on more complex things that this, with a lot less people, a lot less time, and a lot less money.

Edit. They don't seem to have much in the way of electronics or acoustics engineers, what could possibly go wrong.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on November 17, 2017, 01:04:06 pm
Love the predominance of top heavy titles, Senior this, Director of that.

There’s a surprising number of linear-thinking engineers there.

I wonder what the marketing dude does all day?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on November 17, 2017, 02:11:04 pm
I wonder what the marketing dude does all day?
If you have a marketing person on the team, and the thing you need most is to market the company to investors, that marketer is going to be the busiest person in the company. At least, they will be in any sanely run company.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on November 17, 2017, 08:12:37 pm
I wonder what the marketing dude does all day?
If you have a marketing person on the team, and the thing you need most is to market the company to investors, that marketer is going to be the busiest person in the company. At least, they will be in any sanely run company.

Indeed, it’s not like he’s got a product to sell.

His linked in bio suggests his marketing experience is in real product, not vapourware, and to his credit he’s also an EE.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on November 17, 2017, 09:04:42 pm
Indeed, it’s not like he’s got a product to sell.

Sure he does. The product is the company.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: ChrisLX200 on November 17, 2017, 09:15:27 pm
Experience selling used cars from a backstreet lot would be better qualification..
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on November 17, 2017, 09:27:29 pm
http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2017/nov/15/ubeam-raising-20m-series-b-round/ (http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2017/nov/15/ubeam-raising-20m-series-b-round/)

“Perry said another venture capital round could help the firm put an ultrasonic wireless energy product on market as soon as the third quarter of 2019.”

Always two years away, eh?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on November 17, 2017, 10:04:39 pm
http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2017/nov/15/ubeam-raising-20m-series-b-round/ (http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2017/nov/15/ubeam-raising-20m-series-b-round/)

“Perry said another venture capital round could help the firm put an ultrasonic wireless energy product on market as soon as the third quarter of 2019.”

Always two years away, eh?
No. That's only 7 quarters. Much less than 2 years :)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 17, 2017, 11:20:00 pm
Hey, check it out, OurCrowd were kind enough to share the investor presentation webinar on their Youtube channel and make it public, thanks OurCrowd :-+
I'd recommend you download it for more convenient offline viewing and analysis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtJ5QrGTx9g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtJ5QrGTx9g)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on November 17, 2017, 11:43:27 pm
So after all this time all they can show is they are "talking to" a number of unspecified companies.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 17, 2017, 11:49:36 pm
Power is 1kW/m^2. That's 150 dB. But no OSHA regulations? Hmmm. Not what I see here.

https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/new_noise/#appendixc (https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/new_noise/#appendixc)

I see 115dB limits in the USA and pretty much the ROW. So a 35dB difference, or around a factor of 55 in amplitude and 3025 in power. Lower, that is.

Nonlinearity might become significant...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on November 18, 2017, 12:13:18 am
Hey, check it out, OurCrowd were kind enough to share the investor presentation webinar on their Youtube channel and make it public, thanks OurCrowd :-+
I'd recommend you download it for more convenient offline viewing and analysis.

I did the right click and "open in new window" thing to get the non-embedded version. One of the other videos in the sidebar "Wastewater: where does it go?". Made me laugh...  :-DD

Somehow, I dodn't think I'm going to make my way through 1h 17m of Ubeam waffle.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: brainwash on November 18, 2017, 03:42:27 am
Just the quick "executive summary" of that video:

Transmitter power density is quoted to be >1kW/sqm, actual transmitter is projected to be 0.33sqm (so ~300W).
A graph shows efficiency vs other methods, at 20% efficiency it lists 5W @ 1m, 1W @ 1.25m. At 60% efficiency it lists 1W@2m. No mention of transmitter power but the line seems to extend to 300W.
Theoretical projected efficiency quoted at 30%, current efficiency "much lower".
Applications are listed include data transmission and retail (user) tracking.
It's unregulated, OSHA dropped ultrasonic limits earlier this year as no adverse effects could be demonstrated. No effect on humans or animals. Most of the power is believed to be targeted towards the device and "99.9999%" reflects off the skin.
A vision system does the array steering, quoted mm precision and 30Hz update rate.
Business plan seems focused on IP licensing.
Most prior funding and future (this round) is going towards engineering and ASIC design. That's 26+20MM.
Final product, transducer, aims to be 100x thinner, 4x smaller with lower cost and higher power [density] than current offerings.

Those are the unbiased redacted quotes above. What caught my eye were a few small things: a big "transducer" sitting inside a car, close to the roof, as proof-of-concept. A low battery warning on the presenter's laptop. A group photo 51:34 that looks odd to my eye, like some people have been pasted in.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 18, 2017, 04:33:32 am
At 52:50 she is directly asked what the efficiency is and basically does not answer, just waffles on about 30% theoretical and then mentions maybe a partnership with Tesla  ::)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: brainwash on November 18, 2017, 04:38:01 am
They said earlier that the efficiency is "currently much lower than desired" and did not give any figure.
They also mention potential partnerships with Samsung, Kia, American Airlines(?), Telefonica(?) ... - but disguised - in a table near the end. But basically everything was at initial discussion stage, except with Telefonica(?) where a demo is expected in Spain.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 18, 2017, 04:39:24 am
A group photo 51:34 that looks odd to my eye, like some people have been pasted in.

(https://i.imgur.com/L5AbsVS.jpg)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 18, 2017, 04:43:16 am
They also mention potential partnerships with Samsung, Kia, American Airlines(?), Telefonica(?) ... - but disguised - in a table near the end. But basically everything was at initial discussion stage

Which of course means diddly squat. Where is their big touted deal with Starbucks that the company sold so heavily all those years ago?
The answer is that these discussion always come to naught, if they they are actually serious discussions at all.
All a company has to do is go in and pitch their idea to said company (who laugh in their face) and they can claim they are "in discussions with", or have "potential partnership with" etc.
uBeam has nothing even close to a trial for any sort of practical mobile phone charging, and demonstrably never will. Which is why they have shifted focus to all these other areas, and talking about a license based model etc.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: brainwash on November 18, 2017, 04:48:01 am
I know the reason for that table, just thought I mention the fact more as a joke. I can only imagine the discussion with the telecom company, where they just laughed and said "sure, we'll work together, come here and give us a demo". Probably some bets were placed...

Edit: but I think the real summary of that video is that they didn't demo any technology, which is pretty telling for some company that spent some millions just to have a plain webcast after a couple of years. Trying to raise money on hope and wishes. They do mention ~90 patent applications, 17 approved in US, but those could have been for a new coffee mug, haven't researched into that.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: brainwash on November 18, 2017, 05:01:28 am
Actually, after 5 seconds of googling: http://stks.freshpatents.com/Ubeam-Inc-nm1.php (http://stks.freshpatents.com/Ubeam-Inc-nm1.php)
Some patents are obviously very generic, can't imagine how stuff like this can get past initial inspection:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170125184A1/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170125184A1/en)
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170110886A1/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170110886A1/en)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cyberdragon on November 18, 2017, 05:49:33 am
Patents no longer require working models, you can patent anything, even a plastic dingo dong if you wanted. I wish we could go back to the good old days when you had to bring the machine into the office or have someone come and inspect it. Sadly that's probably not practicle anymore. :( :--

Wait a minute...I thought you couldn't patent something in current use. I think that first one is probably illegal and therefore meaningless.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 18, 2017, 07:24:58 am
A group photo 51:34 that looks odd to my eye, like some people have been pasted in.

(https://i.imgur.com/L5AbsVS.jpg)

I'm glad someone else spotted this because some former members of the uBeam team just got back from a very nice dinner laughing about exactly this. You're asking for $20 million and you can't even get a group photo?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 18, 2017, 07:29:53 am
Just the quick "executive summary" of that video:

Transmitter power density is quoted to be >1kW/sqm, actual transmitter is projected to be 0.33sqm (so ~300W).
A graph shows efficiency vs other methods, at 20% efficiency it lists 5W @ 1m, 1W @ 1.25m. At 60% efficiency it lists 1W@2m. No mention of transmitter power but the line seems to extend to 300W.
Theoretical projected efficiency quoted at 30%, current efficiency "much lower".
Applications are listed include data transmission and retail (user) tracking.
It's unregulated, OSHA dropped ultrasonic limits earlier this year as no adverse effects could be demonstrated. No effect on humans or animals. Most of the power is believed to be targeted towards the device and "99.9999%" reflects off the skin.
A vision system does the array steering, quoted mm precision and 30Hz update rate.
Business plan seems focused on IP licensing.
Most prior funding and future (this round) is going towards engineering and ASIC design. That's 26+20MM.
Final product, transducer, aims to be 100x thinner, 4x smaller with lower cost and higher power [density] than current offerings.

Those are the unbiased redacted quotes above. What caught my eye were a few small things: a big "transducer" sitting inside a car, close to the roof, as proof-of-concept. A low battery warning on the presenter's laptop. A group photo 51:34 that looks odd to my eye, like some people have been pasted in.

Wait. 333 Watts acoustic in, 5 Watts to battery? So 1.5% efficiency? From their own numbers?

And that's 333 Watts acoustic out of the transmitter. Assuming 50% efficiency from wall socket to acoustic output, that's 666 Watts at the wall socket and 0.75% efficiency *under ideal circumstances and from their own numbers*.

661 Watts wasted as heat to charge a phone at 5 Watts, best case?

Wow. I guess they've just confirmed pretty much what I've been writing in my blog then.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 18, 2017, 07:39:07 am
OSHA comments are weird - that's not how I've seen them work before. And there are papers out there where ultrasound at >145dB kills and burns small animals. That's a "I want to see more" on that. They've not updated their webpage if things have actually changed:

https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/new_noise/#appendixc (https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/new_noise/#appendixc)

The 99.9999% is not correct - it's ~99.90% in theory, but that's bare flesh to air. Hair is the problem here, and results in way greater loss on the skin. That's where burns can come from at high intensity.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: brainwash on November 18, 2017, 08:08:03 am
OSHA comments are weird - that's not how I've seen them work before. And there are papers out there where ultrasound at >145dB kills and burns small animals. That's a "I want to see more" on that. They've not updated their webpage if things have actually changed:

https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/new_noise/#appendixc (https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/new_noise/#appendixc)

The 99.9999% is not correct - it's ~99.90% in theory, but that's bare flesh to air. Hair is the problem here, and results in way greater loss on the skin. That's where burns can come from at high intensity.

TBH, the OSHA requirements only go up to 50 kHz and concern subharmonics. Assuming ubeam goes above 100kHz, no restrictions should apply.
That's why I found the car system flawed: the transmitter is hovering near heads at full power (300W), at a distance of 15-45cm, to deliver 1W (not 5!) to a phone that's 1.2m away. Phased arrays are not as directional as a mechanical system, they have significant side lobes.

Actually, after 5 seconds of googling: http://stks.freshpatents.com/Ubeam-Inc-nm1.php (http://stks.freshpatents.com/Ubeam-Inc-nm1.php)
Some patents are obviously very generic, can't imagine how stuff like this can get past initial inspection:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170125184A1/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170125184A1/en)
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170110886A1/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170110886A1/en)


Sorry if some ubeam engineers are reading this and finding it offensive. Did not mean it that way, in case you've put work into this, but those kind of patents, like software ones, are superfluous and almost common knowledge. The first one is a custom H-bridge. The second one is power negotiation, used all over the place (phone charging) but reworded for wireless.
Essentially the second one means that, if anyone manages to actually create a wireless power transfer system, they have to pay royalties for whoever holds the patent. You have to have some sort of power negotiation given the efficiency. That's just stupid and broken.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 18, 2017, 08:10:48 am
Wait. 333 Watts acoustic in, 5 Watts to battery? So 1.5% efficiency? From their own numbers?
And that's 333 Watts acoustic out of the transmitter. Assuming 50% efficiency from wall socket to acoustic output, that's 666 Watts at the wall socket and 0.75% efficiency *under ideal circumstances and from their own numbers*.
661 Watts wasted as heat to charge a phone at 5 Watts, best case?
Wow. I guess they've just confirmed pretty much what I've been writing in my blog then.

Yep, I don't see any other way to interpret those numbers.
It's why Meredith wouldn't actually say the efficiency when asked directly (she isn't dumb), because if she says 1.5% then that's what gets picked up by everyone, and even Joe Average knows that's horrible.
If she never actually says the number then it forces people to actually do the basic calcs themselves (and the usual media will never do that).
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on November 18, 2017, 01:59:46 pm
They said earlier that the efficiency is "currently much lower than desired"

Hence the need for more money.

Some patents are obviously very generic, can't imagine how stuff like this can get past initial inspection:

Simple: The patent office gets paid when they accept a patent, not when they reject one.

If it's spurious? The courts can decide that later. Either way the patent office still got paid.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 18, 2017, 02:09:10 pm
They said earlier that the efficiency is "currently much lower than desired"

Hence the need for more money.

Call me cynical, but when you've had 5 years, $21m, and the best acoustics people in the business working for you, and you aren't even close. I'm not sure what another $20m and two years is going to do for your efficiency, esp when most of those acoustics people have given up and jumped ship because they realise almost all the losses are fundamentally in the transmission medium itself  |O
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: brainwash on November 18, 2017, 02:44:37 pm

Call me cynical, but when you've had 5 years, $21m, and the best acoustics people in the business working for you, and you aren't even close. I'm not sure what another $20m and two years is going to do for your efficiency, esp when most of those acoustics people have given up and jumped ship because they realise almost all the losses are fundamentally in the transmission medium itself  |O

$26M so far, so they've said in the webinar.

I'm curious to find out what those engineers thought it was possible and how. I'm sure we're not the first ones to question feasibility and they obviously have/had the necessary know-how. But probably that information is under NDA and it might be years before someone speaks out.
Hence my question from a few pages ago, summarized as "what are the ideal and practical efficiencies of a phased array in air?".

Also, they said "theoretical 30% efficiency", but that can have many sides. The graph shows receiver efficiency. Phased array has an efficiency of its own. Then there are medium losses. So assuming a transmitter efficiency of 70% and a projected figure of 30% overall, they might be targeting a 42% receiver conversion, before medium comes in (which would drop everything to <1%). Just my spin on the numbers.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on November 18, 2017, 05:40:37 pm
Also, they said "theoretical 30% efficiency", but that can have many sides. The graph shows receiver efficiency. Phased array has an efficiency of its own. Then there are medium losses. So assuming a transmitter efficiency of 70% and a projected figure of 30% overall, they might be targeting a 42% receiver conversion, before medium comes in (which would drop everything to <1%). Just my spin on the numbers.

There is a fundamental problem of receiver aperture size at the wavelengths they’re using. The receiver is also an array, which is why they need the surface area of a brick on the mobile device to make this work at even these crappy efficiencies. Trying to concentrate into a smaller aperture will increase non-linearity and decrease efficiency, so sure enough it ends up being a physics and engineering problem for all those poor linear thinking experts Ms Perry holds in such disdain.

Conspiratorially, it would not surprise me if there was negligible energy harvesting going on in their recent demos, and the cell phone recharge status was predominantly due to pre-charged batteries in the brick emptying their load into the phone once in view of the transmitter.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mcinque on November 18, 2017, 05:45:03 pm
I'm not sure what another $20m and two years is going to do for your efficiency
Not much for their efficency, but a little more for their wallets
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on November 18, 2017, 06:41:53 pm
Well that was a waste of 2 hours, I don't know how they keep the attention of anybody, I fell asleep about 4 times.

Strangely, the wirelessly powered TVs and monitors have now become the transmitters, although the stick on light bulbs are still a goer.

If 99.999% of the US energy is reflected off skin :o how much is reflected of the hard back surface of a phone.

Would that in-car-transmitter have cameras to search for the phones/rectangles, ignoring the fact it would have to see the back of the phone, would it work in the dark.

Pets and 40kHz are mentioned/fluffed around 55:00, she says ~99.9% of the energy is just in the beam, my cat would disagree even at a few mW TX, - don't forget 99.999% gets reflected!

So assuming a transmitter efficiency of 70% and a projected figure of 30% overall, they might be targeting a 42% receiver conversion, before medium comes in (which would drop everything to <1%). Just my spin on the numbers.

Yeah, I still think in any practicable use they'll still be under 1%.  :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 18, 2017, 07:00:59 pm
OSHA comments are weird - that's not how I've seen them work before. And there are papers out there where ultrasound at >145dB kills and burns small animals. That's a "I want to see more" on that. They've not updated their webpage if things have actually changed:

https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/new_noise/#appendixc (https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/new_noise/#appendixc)

The 99.9999% is not correct - it's ~99.90% in theory, but that's bare flesh to air. Hair is the problem here, and results in way greater loss on the skin. That's where burns can come from at high intensity.

TBH, the OSHA requirements only go up to 50 kHz and concern subharmonics. Assuming ubeam goes above 100kHz, no restrictions should apply.
That's why I found the car system flawed: the transmitter is hovering near heads at full power (300W), at a distance of 15-45cm, to deliver 1W (not 5!) to a phone that's 1.2m away. Phased arrays are not as directional as a mechanical system, they have significant side lobes.



The table you are referring to in saying they only go to 50 kHz is labelled "Select Examples of Threshold Limit Values for Ultrasound Measured in Air" and does not contain all the ranges of the ACGIH limits. To quote "These recommended limits (set at the middle frequencies of the one-third octave bands from 10 kHz to 100 kHz) are designed to prevent possible hearing loss caused by the subharmonics of the set frequencies, rather than the ultrasound itself. " If you do the 1/3 octaves below 100kHz that also includes ~64 and ~80 kHz. uBeam was clearly stated publicly by the company to operate between 45 and 75 kHz. These OSHA requirements definitively, as written here, apply.

Attenuation at 50 kHz in air is significant. It's even moreso at 100 kHz.

Phased arrays can minimize/eliminate grating lobes by ensuring wavelength/2 pitch. If they have significant surface wave activity, you can also get side lobes. Grating lobes and side lobes manifest in a similar way but are not the same physical phenomena. One of my blog posts from February point out that if you create a phased array of Murata style devices that are 10mm in diameter, and you have 8mm or less wavelength, that you will get grating lobes, without question.

Subharmonics are generated by the main frequency in the ear. Weird stuff starts to happen in the ear at 110 to 120 dB, you get a loud first subharmonic at half the frequency. Start going into the 130/140 range and you can also generate a second subharmonic at 1/4 the frequency that's maybe 40ish dB down. So a 150dB 40 kHz signal may create a 10 kHz signal at 90dB. That would be unpleasant. I need to do a blog post on subharmonics I think, and link to the papers showing this.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 18, 2017, 07:08:59 pm

Actually, after 5 seconds of googling: http://stks.freshpatents.com/Ubeam-Inc-nm1.php (http://stks.freshpatents.com/Ubeam-Inc-nm1.php)
Some patents are obviously very generic, can't imagine how stuff like this can get past initial inspection:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170125184A1/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170125184A1/en)
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170110886A1/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170110886A1/en)


Sorry if some ubeam engineers are reading this and finding it offensive. Did not mean it that way, in case you've put work into this, but those kind of patents, like software ones, are superfluous and almost common knowledge. The first one is a custom H-bridge. The second one is power negotiation, used all over the place (phone charging) but reworded for wireless.
Essentially the second one means that, if anyone manages to actually create a wireless power transfer system, they have to pay royalties for whoever holds the patent. You have to have some sort of power negotiation given the efficiency. That's just stupid and broken.

So I'm one of the uBeam engineers whose name is on one of those patents. No offense at all, and I'll speak for the other engineers and say they're not offended either. Many former (and I think current) uBeam engineers read this blog. It's very popular among us, we often talk about it. As someone mentions in another reply - the startup business is a game with rules, and we play within those rules. I think the USPTO allows patents it shouldn't, but those are the rules of the game. Don't for a moment think the engineers don't understand the relative novelty of their work, they are often shocked when they get granted too.

An interesting point - Every single one of the engineers named in those 2 patents has left the company. I'll also add each of them was a very talented engineer I'd happily work with again. Even funnier - going down the list of applications chronologically, I'm listed as an inventor in most of them, and I left the company 2 years ago! I expect that with an Intellectual Ventures guy on board now that the number of patent applications will rise rapidly.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 18, 2017, 07:12:01 pm


I'm curious to find out what those engineers thought it was possible and how. I'm sure we're not the first ones to question feasibility and they obviously have/had the necessary know-how. But probably that information is under NDA and it might be years before someone speaks out.


Seriously? I write an entire blog that covers exactly this!  |O

http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/04/tilting-at-windmills.html (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/04/tilting-at-windmills.html)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on November 18, 2017, 08:46:32 pm
Would that in-car-transmitter have cameras to search for the phones/rectangles, ignoring the fact it would have to see the back of the phone, would it work in the dark.

There's an in-car transmitter? :scared: :scared: :scared:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: brainwash on November 18, 2017, 09:11:12 pm


I'm curious to find out what those engineers thought it was possible and how. I'm sure we're not the first ones to question feasibility and they obviously have/had the necessary know-how. But probably that information is under NDA and it might be years before someone speaks out.


Seriously? I write an entire blog that covers exactly this!  |O

http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/04/tilting-at-windmills.html (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/04/tilting-at-windmills.html)

Sorry, it wasn't obvious to me that you've worked there, I saw the name of the blog and foolishly assumed that someone is writing about startups, the kind of generic "motivational" blogs all over LinkedIn. Very superficial of me.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 18, 2017, 11:52:15 pm
They are still in engineering development. So all those times they said they were close to production was all pie-in-the-sky BS. Of course this was obvious from their public demos.
And any real viable product is long way off, just more speculation and assuming that companies will actually wan to license this stuff, or people will want to buy anything they have, or that regulation isn't a going to be a problem, etc etc.

(https://i.imgur.com/Vogs0UD.png)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on November 18, 2017, 11:56:53 pm
And what possible reason could there be for spending money on an ASIC at this early stage? It's only ultrasonic - nothing that couldn't be handled by an FPGA/DSP and off-the-shelf analogue parts. $20M buys a lot of those.
 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 19, 2017, 12:00:18 am
Can't believe they are continuing to just spew this rubbish out.
They can barely get a mobile phone brick receiver working after 5 years under ideal circumstances.

(https://i.imgur.com/ODveDtH.png)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 19, 2017, 12:03:36 am
Their sensor manufacturing tech (and maybe some beam forming ASIC) is all they have that's worth something.
All their stupid attempts at applications for this (which is what the entire company has been based on) are just laughable though.
And what does "significantly less expensive" mean? Why do they quantify the other factors but not the cost? Because it's 10% cheaper maybe? Whoopdy-do. You can bet that if it was 1/10th the cost they would have said so. So a huge problems remains of the cost of hundreds of these sensors for any reasonable watt level receiving (ignoring the ridiculously low efficiency)

(https://i.imgur.com/dsWhqvf.png)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 19, 2017, 12:19:43 am
And what possible reason could there be for spending money on an ASIC at this early stage? It's only ultrasonic - nothing that couldn't be handled by an FPGA/DSP and off-the-shelf analogue parts. $20M buys a lot of those.

So that you can tweet about it and call all us "linear thinkers" motherfu!@ers  ::)

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=206296;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on November 19, 2017, 12:22:23 am
Disclaimer @ 52:22, for just 1 sec. :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: brainwash on November 19, 2017, 12:26:04 am
So that you can tweet about it and call all us "linear thinkers" motherfu!@ers  ::)

We need to stop operating in our linear region. Go full zero or one. Zero is fine, look at all the great accomplishments from the zero people.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cyberdragon on November 19, 2017, 12:47:52 am
And what possible reason could there be for spending money on an ASIC at this early stage? It's only ultrasonic - nothing that couldn't be handled by an FPGA/DSP and off-the-shelf analogue parts. $20M buys a lot of those.

No, it's so they can have some proprietary bullshit integrated into it like every garbage hippie IOT product. It must force you into some overpriced cloud service that steals all of your data and spies on you dressing. >:D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on November 19, 2017, 12:57:26 am
And what possible reason could there be for spending money on an ASIC at this early stage? It's only ultrasonic - nothing that couldn't be handled by an FPGA/DSP and off-the-shelf analogue parts. $20M buys a lot of those.
Is the ASIC to do the signal processing, or is it a power device to drive the huge number of transmitter cells they have (or even combine energy from the array of receivers at the phone)?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 19, 2017, 01:03:20 am
Disclaimer @ 52:22, for just 1 sec. :-DD

Well spotted!

(https://i.imgur.com/h2CGafZ.png)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: brainwash on November 19, 2017, 01:29:36 am
And what possible reason could there be for spending money on an ASIC at this early stage? It's only ultrasonic - nothing that couldn't be handled by an FPGA/DSP and off-the-shelf analogue parts. $20M buys a lot of those.
Is the ASIC to do the signal processing, or is it a power device to drive the huge number of transmitter cells they have (or even combine energy from the array of receivers at the phone)?

As far as I understood, the ASIC design houses the transducers. Note, they are transducers/transceiver, with a possible intent of data transfer. I guess Nyquist was also a linear thinker...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on November 19, 2017, 02:02:56 am
There's an in-car transmitter? :scared: :scared: :scared:

It's @ 26:00. I can't copy from VLC.

25 Amps drawn off the battery to trickle charge a phone, yep that'll work.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Richard Crowley on November 19, 2017, 03:22:47 am
Disclaimer @ 52:22, for just 1 sec. :-DD
That looks exactly like the boilerplate disclaimer that the US Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) requires of ALL companies. Nothing remarkable to see here, move along.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 20, 2017, 05:23:46 pm
Disclaimer @ 52:22, for just 1 sec. :-DD
That looks exactly like the boilerplate disclaimer that the US Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) requires of ALL companies. Nothing remarkable to see here, move along.

Agreed. It's absolutely standard.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 20, 2017, 05:25:39 pm
So after all this time all they can show is they are "talking to" a number of unspecified companies.

Hmm, I can't find it, but it has to be there. Can someone point me to Apple on this list? :)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on November 20, 2017, 10:37:38 pm
You've got to :-DD haven't you, they've already missed the 2017 Q4 millstone, any bets on the others.

(https://i.imgur.com/Vogs0UD.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/ODveDtH.png)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: amspire on November 21, 2017, 05:08:48 am
I love the picture of the uBeam soundbar along the bottom of the monitor.

I can't wait to be able to work all day directly in front of a 150dBm ultrasonic transmitter.

I can finally get rid of my $1 micro USB charging cable!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on November 21, 2017, 06:48:33 am
I love the picture of the uBeam soundbar along the bottom of the monitor.

I can't wait to be able to work all day directly in front of a 150dBm ultrasonic transmitter.

...that costs about $5 a day to run (sum of transmitter power and aircon upgrade).

I can finally get rid of my $1 micro USB charging cable!

And the batteries in your mouse.

PS: I wonder how big the new uBeam mouses will be?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on November 21, 2017, 10:08:36 am
How big the uBeam mouse will be.... Simple enough...


The transmitter sends out a collimated beam of 1KW/M^2, e.g. 0.1W per cm^2 of optical power.
There's some range, which means about 50% loss (Air is lossy), and conversion of ultrasound to electricity can be done at some 10% efficiency (commercial 1-2%)
Recievers have to work at some angles, I believe 45 degrees is minimal, so you need to reduce this by 30% more.
So that's about 3mW per cm^2 receiver, or 20mW/Inch^2


A mouse consumes about 1mW of power to run it and process the data, so the receiver can be small enough.

Now do the same for a phone.... A phone uses 5W to charge.... so you will need some 250 Inch^2 to charge it, you will need a 20" screen phablets (or phaTVs?) will easily accomodate it.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cyberdragon on November 21, 2017, 03:05:26 pm
If they're so damn sure it will charge a phone, why don't they try to power that desk lamp too? >:D :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikerj on November 21, 2017, 04:23:46 pm
I can finally get rid of my $1 micro USB charging cable!

 :-+ The sooner we embrace single digit power efficiencies for consumer electronics, the sooner practical fusion power generation will have to happen.  She's doing the world a favour, really.

I wonder if she's approached Tesla for EV chargers yet?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 21, 2017, 04:55:58 pm
How big the uBeam mouse will be.... Simple enough...


The transmitter sends out a collimated beam of 1KW/M^2, e.g. 0.1W per cm^2 of optical power.
There's some range, which means about 50% loss (Air is lossy), and conversion of ultrasound to electricity can be done at some 10% efficiency (commercial 1-2%)
Recievers have to work at some angles, I believe 45 degrees is minimal, so you need to reduce this by 30% more.
So that's about 3mW per cm^2 receiver, or 20mW/Inch^2


A mouse consumes about 1mW of power to run it and process the data, so the receiver can be small enough.

Now do the same for a phone.... A phone uses 5W to charge.... so you will need some 250 Inch^2 to charge it, you will need a 20" screen phablets (or phaTVs?) will easily accomodate it.

Not sure how you get that number for the phone. If at 150 dB that needs 0.005m^2 to get 5W, let's be super generous and say 10W with 50% efficiency of receive conversion, so 0.01m. An iPhone X is about 7.5 by 15cm so 0.01125m^2.

Wow, isn't that lucky. 150 dB works out perfectly, under perfect conditions and a receive efficiency similar to what you see in one of those pitch graphs, to charge an iPhone X rapidly. So if conditions aren't perfect, or 150dB is deemed unsafe, or receive efficiency can't approach 50%, then it's downhill from there.

Oh, and that's from a 0.33m^2 transmitter, say at 50% efficiency, so 666W used, so <1% efficiency.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cyberdragon on November 21, 2017, 05:54:40 pm
I can finally get rid of my $1 micro USB charging cable!

 :-+ The sooner we embrace single digit power efficiencies for consumer electronics, the sooner practical fusion power generation will have to happen.  She's doing the world a favour, really.

I wonder if she's approached Tesla for EV chargers yet?

I think fusion, even wireless power might eventually become a reality. It won't be through sound waves though.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on November 22, 2017, 08:46:21 am
How big the uBeam mouse will be.... Simple enough...


The transmitter sends out a collimated beam of 1KW/M^2, e.g. 0.1W per cm^2 of optical power.
There's some range, which means about 50% loss (Air is lossy), and conversion of ultrasound to electricity can be done at some 10% efficiency (commercial 1-2%)
Recievers have to work at some angles, I believe 45 degrees is minimal, so you need to reduce this by 30% more.
So that's about 3mW per cm^2 receiver, or 20mW/Inch^2


A mouse consumes about 1mW of power to run it and process the data, so the receiver can be small enough.

Now do the same for a phone.... A phone uses 5W to charge.... so you will need some 250 Inch^2 to charge it, you will need a 20" screen phablets (or phaTVs?) will easily accomodate it.

Not sure how you get that number for the phone. If at 150 dB that needs 0.005m^2 to get 5W, let's be super generous and say 10W with 50% efficiency of receive conversion, so 0.01m. An iPhone X is about 7.5 by 15cm so 0.01125m^2.

Wow, isn't that lucky. 150 dB works out perfectly, under perfect conditions and a receive efficiency similar to what you see in one of those pitch graphs, to charge an iPhone X rapidly. So if conditions aren't perfect, or 150dB is deemed unsafe, or receive efficiency can't approach 50%, then it's downhill from there.

Oh, and that's from a 0.33m^2 transmitter, say at 50% efficiency, so 666W used, so <1% efficiency.

Unlike you, I'm not an ultrasound expert, so....
But I'm a practical person.... and believe products should be designed to be working, not to be lab experiments published in a research paper.

For a phone to charge, you need 5W of power, in normal conditions, that are actually competitive to available solutions, e.g. better compared to a Qi pad or usb cable.

The way I interpret the above is working when tilted to some degree (45 degrees sounds reasonable, although I would prefer 60-70)
At some distance (say 5-10 feet)
Even at 100% humidity, and cold/hot weather.
A phone that's as clean as a normal phone is, possibly with some of the area obscured.
It has to be safe, legal, and not annoying (to me, my kids or my pets, also, for it to be in my livingroom, it should not make a fan noise)

the number 1KW/M^2 is taken from uBeam's ppt, it's comparable to 150dB
I know it's possible to focus that power to a smaller spot with a phased array, but considering uBeam must be transmitting at a safe level (I'll take their word 150dB is safe and legal, althogh I know it to be not true), the beam cannot exceed this level at any point, in any weather conditions. So, if attenuation for dry air for 10-20dB higher compared to moist air, then the power density at the receiver can't exceed ~140dB acoustic.

Taking into account your 50% conversion efficiency (I believe you, although I never seen anything close) that's equivalent to 5mW/cm^2

The effective area of iPhone X tilted at 45 degrees is 70 cm^2 - that's not enough (if it were enough a solar cell would be enough to keep the phone charged, no transmitter needed).

at 5mW/cm^2 you need 1000 cm^2, taking 45 degrees phone tilt into account you need 1400cm^2

Considering phones are ~1-2 length/width ratio, that's ~35cm X 70 cm phone.

The diagonal of the screen would be almost 31 Inch.

If you're willing to charge a bit slower on a humid day.... I think 20 Inch would be enough.


Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: rt on November 22, 2017, 10:19:36 am
It has to be safe, legal, and not annoying (to me, my kids or my pets, also, for it to be in my livingroom, it should not make a fan noise)

the number 1KW/M^2 is taken from uBeam's ppt, it's comparable to 150dB

Don't worry.  After charging you phone at 150dB you DEFINITELY won't hear any fan noise  >:D

Please remember, Paul is doing generous calculations with reasonable/optimistic assumptions to show that this is impractical and extremely inefficient as proposed.  Arguing over small changes in assumptions doesn't change the essential message!

rt
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on November 22, 2017, 01:50:13 pm
I love the picture of the uBeam soundbar along the bottom of the monitor.
I can't wait to be able to work all day directly in front of a 150dBm ultrasonic transmitter.

Don't worry, the uBean sound bar will only transmit the US power in narrow beams to devices actively requesting power using the uBean proprietary white rectangle power request protocol, - so everything will be fine. :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 22, 2017, 06:19:17 pm

Not sure how you get that number for the phone. If at 150 dB that needs 0.005m^2 to get 5W, let's be super generous and say 10W with 50% efficiency of receive conversion, so 0.01m. An iPhone X is about 7.5 by 15cm so 0.01125m^2.


Unlike you, I'm not an ultrasound expert, so....
But I'm a practical person.... and believe products should be designed to be working, not to be lab experiments published in a research paper.

Thanks for explaining the methodology. It's mostly correct but what I suggest you look at is not the system from the Transmitter to the Receiver, but vice versa - the receiver is the fixed size, instead the question is "what's the size of transmitter needed to provide this power?". uBeam have stated the transmitter is 60x60cm for their "up to 8 Watts at 1 meter" chart, and somewhere between a small amount and all of that area can be used to target a phone. Even though there is loss between the transmitter and receiver, more transmit area can be applied to compensate for that loss and maintain the same power incident on the receiver, up until the point you run out of transmit area. Power delivered remains constant, but you lose efficiency - and that's the number that's hidden unless you go digging.

So I think you've run your numbers backwards. You've more done a "how much transmit area do I need to power a phone sized area at 5W?". You've come up with 1400 cm^2. The uBeam full panel is 3600 m^2. Ballpark similar, especially if you think they limit drive to 145dB (3x less power)

Once again we come back to the same point, which is - of course you can transmit power ultrasonically, but what about safety, efficiency, cost, and practicality?

And, as someone else points out, I tend to give calculations here that give best case numbers to a) keep it simple and b) show even in best case it's not great. Believe me, I know the difference between research and a practical product.


Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 22, 2017, 09:35:21 pm
I wonder if she's approached Tesla for EV chargers yet?

I waiting for the announcement of uBeam transmitters on power poles beside the road for charging cars.
Can someone please troll tweet Meredith with that idea to see if it's practical?  ;D
Makes sense after all, the power infrastructure is already there, and their beamforming tech has got to be great for targeting passing cars!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on November 22, 2017, 10:11:04 pm
Makes sense after all, the power infrastructure is already there, and their beamforming tech has got to be great for targeting passing cars!

And it cuts out the need to drive to the take-away for fast food - fresh flash fried squirrels will be literally falling out of the trees.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on November 22, 2017, 11:47:40 pm
I wonder if she's approached Tesla for EV chargers yet?

I waiting for the announcement of uBeam transmitters on power poles beside the road for charging cars.

Powered by the solar frickin' roadways, obviously.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cyberdragon on November 23, 2017, 02:06:22 am
I wonder if she's approached Tesla for EV chargers yet?

I waiting for the announcement of uBeam transmitters on power poles beside the road for charging cars.
Can someone please troll tweet Meredith with that idea to see if it's practical?  ;D
Makes sense after all, the power infrastructure is already there, and their beamforming tech has got to be great for targeting passing cars!

Someone drives by in a Tesla truck and the pole transformer just explodes. >:D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on November 23, 2017, 10:44:16 am

Not sure how you get that number for the phone. If at 150 dB that needs 0.005m^2 to get 5W, let's be super generous and say 10W with 50% efficiency of receive conversion, so 0.01m. An iPhone X is about 7.5 by 15cm so 0.01125m^2.



...  more transmit area can be applied to compensate for that loss and maintain the same power incident on the receiver, up until the point you run out of transmit area.

I'm not sure this is true,
Assuming some level power, say 145dB, 150dB, whatever.... is deemed unsafe
The power level at the receiver side cannot exceed this safe limit, can it?

So If the effective phone size is 70cm^2, and the maximal power density that's still safe (on either side) is 150dB than 7W can really be transmitted.

But...

Assume the transmitter is actually transmitting a few watts in 0% humidity.
A day later, a receiver receives 1% of the power,  can the transmitter increase it's output 100X?

It can't, for two reasons
1. To do that it must know what is the exact reason for the decline in received power is, if the reason is that my body absorbs 99% of the power I hope it's not going to increase it. Knowing the exact reason why something delivers less power, takes a human a day's work in the lab and is beyond the current capabilities of devices.
2. Such dynamic range means your costs are X100 higher, if your "dry day" cost is anywhere above $10, your wet day costs are sky high.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 23, 2017, 09:07:37 pm

Not sure how you get that number for the phone. If at 150 dB that needs 0.005m^2 to get 5W, let's be super generous and say 10W with 50% efficiency of receive conversion, so 0.01m. An iPhone X is about 7.5 by 15cm so 0.01125m^2.



...  more transmit area can be applied to compensate for that loss and maintain the same power incident on the receiver, up until the point you run out of transmit area.

I'm not sure this is true,
Assuming some level power, say 145dB, 150dB, whatever.... is deemed unsafe
The power level at the receiver side cannot exceed this safe limit, can it?

So If the effective phone size is 70cm^2, and the maximal power density that's still safe (on either side) is 150dB than 7W can really be transmitted.

But...

Assume the transmitter is actually transmitting a few watts in 0% humidity.
A day later, a receiver receives 1% of the power,  can the transmitter increase it's output 100X?

It can't, for two reasons
1. To do that it must know what is the exact reason for the decline in received power is, if the reason is that my body absorbs 99% of the power I hope it's not going to increase it. Knowing the exact reason why something delivers less power, takes a human a day's work in the lab and is beyond the current capabilities of devices.
2. Such dynamic range means your costs are X100 higher, if your "dry day" cost is anywhere above $10, your wet day costs are sky high.

If someone were to follow the safety rules, I would agree that you should not have a power higher than that at any point - at transmitter, receiver, or inbetween. In that presentation, uBeam appeared to be saying there were no limits anymore. That was a surprise to me, and to those in the industry who chair that type of ultrasound safety group that I have spoken to since.

As sound travels, it loses power as heat, so as long as you do not increase the focus effect faster than you lose power in the air, you do not exceed even if you start at the limit. This is pretty standard in ultrasound medical imaging, and usually the numbers work out that the highest intensity is at the focus (and what the FDA usually worries about, in most cases that's the Mechanical Index).

And yes you're correct that at some level of transmitter area increase, you hit a hard physical limit. Is that limit within the range of normal use? What do you sacrifice as you add more transmit area? Loss of efficiency and reduction in the number of targets that can be served?

I think your numbers are a bit extreme, but yes temp and humidity do affect sound velocity and attenuation, for example here's some data for audio frequencies from NASA.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19670007333.pdf (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19670007333.pdf) - note responses aren't linear

And a simple tool for calculating loss (based on audio, but my recollection is that it's close enough)

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-air.htm (http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-air.htm)

Best to worst cases you're looking at maybe 1 to 1.5 dB/m difference. Significant, but not 100x.

As Dave and others have pointed out - distance, orientation, and being obscured by hands etc are likely to be the much more significant issues.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 23, 2017, 10:13:01 pm
If someone were to follow the safety rules, I would agree that you should not have a power higher than that at any point - at transmitter, receiver, or inbetween. In that presentation, uBeam appeared to be saying there were no limits anymore. That was a surprise to me, and to those in the industry who chair that type of ultrasound safety group that I have spoken to since.

Unless they are absolutely sure about this, then it's a very deliberate act of misleading investors.

Quote
As Dave and others have pointed out - distance, orientation, and being obscured by hands etc are likely to be the much more significant issues.

They are showstoppers that make the entire idea demonstrably ludicrously impractical.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 25, 2017, 05:36:08 am
This is deeply disturbing.
From their due-diligence pack for investors.
They claim FCC/FDA approval and ZERO safety risk!

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=373331;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: djos on November 25, 2017, 06:32:06 am
It looks like someone has found something actually useful to use ultrasonic technology in.

https://www.fanaticalfuturist.com/2017/11/worlds-first-ultrasound-3d-printer-prints-and-assembles-electronics-in-situ/ (https://www.fanaticalfuturist.com/2017/11/worlds-first-ultrasound-3d-printer-prints-and-assembles-electronics-in-situ/)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: amspire on November 25, 2017, 06:56:15 am
It make me angry. I have had to recently deal with some old people who are loosing their eyesight with things like macular degeneration and diabetes.

Hearing becomes everything. You would hope that if uBeam becomes anywhere near to implementation, rules limiting continuous ultrasound levels in home/office/public situations to 80dB would be implemented.

Where is the due diligence from the investors? I hope the only future uBeam lawsuits will be from mislead investors, and not from damaged people.

The only good news is that uBeam promises become more and more feeble with each round of fundraising. 0.6W at 1 meter? Have you got to keep the phone pointing to the transmitter at a distance of 1 meter to just maintain charge? In what way is that "freedom of movement"?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on November 26, 2017, 01:38:42 am
0.6W-1W @ 1m+ is the first figures we've seen, and shows how close we were.

Magnetic Resonance - Risk of heating up surrounding metal objects.
uBean  -  Risk of heating up the whole room.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 28, 2017, 05:00:43 pm
Is it just me it's not working for, or did someone at uBeam decide that investor video shouldn't have been set as publicly available? Looks to have been taken down.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on November 28, 2017, 09:43:48 pm
Yep, the investor video has been taken down. Perhaps they have enough investors now, hiding the evidence, or they've shut up shop. :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on November 29, 2017, 11:30:43 am
It was surprising it was publicly available. If you're not raising funds from the public... why show your pitch to the public (including the likes of us, as well as potential competitors).

They also have a potential risk of slander lawsuits by competitors and regulatory bodies.

Therefore, no surprise it was removed.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on December 07, 2017, 07:38:29 pm
uBean's been impressing the easily impressed.
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=ubeam

 :palm:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQZl4A2VQAAY3tr.jpg
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Dubbie on December 07, 2017, 11:24:06 pm
Not sure I am confused or if this has already been posted here:

3. uBeam $20,000,000
Round: Series B
Description: uBeam is a wireless power startup that transmits power to charge electronic devices over-the-air.
Industry: Consumer Electronics, Hardware, Internet of Things, Wireless
Location: Santa Monica
Date of funding: 15-Nov
Total equity funding: $30,750,000

From here:
http://www.latechwatch.com/2017/12/10-largest-la-startup-funding-rounds-november-2017/9/ (http://www.latechwatch.com/2017/12/10-largest-la-startup-funding-rounds-november-2017/9/)

Looks like they have another few million to squander.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: l0rd_hex on December 13, 2017, 09:59:56 pm
It's kinda sad, reading a story like this: http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2017/05/daniel_lewis_built_her_own_art.html (http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2017/05/daniel_lewis_built_her_own_art.html) where someone has built something to help mankind and giving it away for free versus Meredith who's blowing millions of VC money on ham and twitterrhea
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on December 27, 2017, 12:55:13 am
Amazingly bad, both of them. Interesting question at 9:20.

http://peggysmedleyshow.com/portfolio-items/12-19-17-episode-542-segment-2-charging-untethered (http://peggysmedleyshow.com/portfolio-items/12-19-17-episode-542-segment-2-charging-untethered)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 27, 2017, 02:21:14 am
Is it just me it's not working for, or did someone at uBeam decide that investor video shouldn't have been set as publicly available? Looks to have been taken down.

It's gone.
Probably no shortage of copies available for journalistic purposes.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 27, 2017, 02:30:27 am
Amazingly bad, both of them. Interesting question at 9:20.
http://peggysmedleyshow.com/portfolio-items/12-19-17-episode-542-segment-2-charging-untethered (http://peggysmedleyshow.com/portfolio-items/12-19-17-episode-542-segment-2-charging-untethered)

That's probably a paid marketing episode.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on December 28, 2017, 01:03:13 am
That's probably a paid marketing episode.

A total waste of money then. :horse:

https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/26/fcc-approves-first-wireless-power-at-a-distance-charging-syste/ (https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/26/fcc-approves-first-wireless-power-at-a-distance-charging-syste/)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on December 28, 2017, 08:53:11 am
That's probably a paid marketing episode.

A total waste of money then. :horse:

https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/26/fcc-approves-first-wireless-power-at-a-distance-charging-syste/ (https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/26/fcc-approves-first-wireless-power-at-a-distance-charging-syste/)
That is just as much bullshit as ubeam - FCC approval means nothing but a stock price jump
 https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/energous-and-fcc-approval-for-mid-range.html (https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/energous-and-fcc-approval-for-mid-range.html)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on December 28, 2017, 07:19:16 pm
That's probably a paid marketing episode.

A total waste of money then. :horse:

https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/26/fcc-approves-first-wireless-power-at-a-distance-charging-syste/ (https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/26/fcc-approves-first-wireless-power-at-a-distance-charging-syste/)
That is just as much bullshit as ubeam - FCC approval means nothing but a stock price jump
 https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/energous-and-fcc-approval-for-mid-range.html (https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/energous-and-fcc-approval-for-mid-range.html)

Can anyone point me to the docket in the FCC database where this has been formally approved? I can’t seem to find it.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on December 28, 2017, 08:12:39 pm
Found it https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=B6rKOmC6QGs13hWdV%2FM5%2Fg%3D%3D&fcc_id=2ADNG-MS300
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on December 28, 2017, 08:33:36 pm
Batteriser also has FCC approval. Just sayin'.  :popcorn:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on December 28, 2017, 09:50:51 pm
Found it https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=B6rKOmC6QGs13hWdV%2FM5%2Fg%3D%3D&fcc_id=2ADNG-MS300 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=B6rKOmC6QGs13hWdV%2FM5%2Fg%3D%3D&fcc_id=2ADNG-MS300)
One snippet from that - they're using a 90 watt PSU...

https://www.digikey.co.uk/product-detail/en/delta-electronics/MDS-090AAS15-BA/1145-1011-ND/3909354 (https://www.digikey.co.uk/product-detail/en/delta-electronics/MDS-090AAS15-BA/1145-1011-ND/3909354)

Also, WTF is the point of a wireless charger that requires the device being charged to be located in a specific, small area?
Quote
The Charging Zone of the MS-300 is up to 90 cm for Client Devices placed in front of the MS-300, i.e. Client Devices within 90 cm of the front of the MS-300
may be charged; Client Devices further than 90 cm or outside an angle of ±35° from a centerline projecting from the front of the MS-300 will not be charged
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on December 28, 2017, 10:09:12 pm
From https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=3684905
6 antennas each radiating 29.4dBm (0.87W)
And AIUI from section 14, 10W total ( though not sure what they mean by "chain", or why there are 12 lines in the table)

And of course we still don't know ( and they don't appear to be saying) how much is being delivered to the device
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on December 28, 2017, 10:31:39 pm
I haven’t had the opportiunity to “deconstruct” what there is there yet, and Paul’s already had a pretty good go at it. They have withdrawn some IP as is their right during the FCC process, although at this frequency under the regs in that section of the spectrum it’s hard to believe there’s any particularly magic sauce in there. I’m surprised they’re operating so low in frequency, the wavelengths are too long to be able to do much concentrated beamforming. Even then there are ERP and power density limits.

On a side note, unlike 2.4 gigs where there is reasonably uniform global agreement, the regs around the UHF 900 megs frequency area vary very widely across and within the ITU regions globally. 915MHz isn’t even available globally, 860 megs is a common alternative, but the ERP, modulation requirements, bandwidths, channelisation, peak and average powers, plus duty cycle requirements vary greatly.

While there is no guarantee of protection within any unlicensed ISM bands, I can imagine there are enough UHF devices about such as vehicle key fobs  that will no longer function with this technology in the vicinity.

Irrespective, what I certainly haven’t seen is any evidence of a practical and viable device that would come even close to expectations of the general public.

To see the multitutes of fawning proles’ comments on the various unquestioning but supposed “tech” sites is just sad. The investors, well, they’re just funding a bubble and a couple of fancy cars for the wide boys.

The parallels to uBeam modus operandi are there to be seen: with apologies to our Danish friends for paraphrasing, the Emperor is indeed wearing fuck all.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on December 31, 2017, 01:22:48 am
I did another couple of posts on Energous, the latest one shows that they are essentially sitting at the SAR limit, so for safety they'll not be able to increase power from where they are right now. Further, they have so little control over the beam that the highest power is rarely at the charging location.

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/12/energous-it-just-keeps-getting-worse.html

If anyone here wants to comment on the field/power calculations at the end, I'd appreciate it. The data is a little hard to read and incomplete in the reports, so I'm making a number of assumptions.

For those who missed, here are the other two Energous posts:

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/12/energous-and-fcc-approval-for-mid-range.html
https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/12/further-thoughts-on-energous.html
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 31, 2017, 06:02:17 am
 :-DD

I'd reply, but I'm blocked  ;D

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=383077;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 01, 2018, 10:22:45 am
AHEM...I thought this forum had a no politics policy...

Not as such, but I will not have this important and well referenced FAQ thread derailed by politics, so politics posts deleted.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 02, 2018, 07:04:44 am
A few more Energous posts over the weekend if anyone is interested - those with a knowledge of RF and FCC regulations, feel free to jump in or send me comments, especially if you have SAR/MPE experience.

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/12/energous-it-just-keeps-getting-worse.html
https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/12/yet-more-energous.html
https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/01/further-energous-safety-limits-mpe.html

Summary still the same - they're sitting at the international safety limits and probably can't get any better than the system they have got approved, from what I can see.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 02, 2018, 08:38:46 am
https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/01/further-energous-safety-limits-mpe.html

Quote
Energous are claiming 100 mW received or more at the 50 cm mark, so I'm now confused as to how this is possible without exceeding the MPE.

Where are they claiming 100mW received?
Asking for a friend  ;D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 02, 2018, 03:35:12 pm
https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/01/further-energous-safety-limits-mpe.html (https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/01/further-energous-safety-limits-mpe.html)

Quote
Energous are claiming 100 mW received or more at the 50 cm mark, so I'm now confused as to how this is possible without exceeding the MPE.

Where are they claiming 100mW received?
Asking for a friend  ;D

From the Barron's article https://www.barrons.com/articles/energous-knowns-and-known-unknowns-1514508458 (https://www.barrons.com/articles/energous-knowns-and-known-unknowns-1514508458)

In an email, Energous said that the "transmitter, as published in the certification, is 10 watts of conducted power and greater than 100mw of power received into the receiving device.”

Notice that is into the device, not the battery, so 60 or 70% of that is actually used.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on January 02, 2018, 04:20:59 pm
I didn't read everything thoroughly so maybe I missed something,  but my reading was that the  30mW figure in the FFC doc was a minimum before it shut off. Similarly the 100mW quoted above says "greater than 100mW", so the actual power could be a lot more ( though probably still useless)
 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 03, 2018, 06:41:26 am
I didn't read everything thoroughly so maybe I missed something,  but my reading was that the  30mW figure in the FFC doc was a minimum before it shut off. Similarly the 100mW quoted above says "greater than 100mW", so the actual power could be a lot more ( though probably still useless)
 

Yes, it doesn't send power if the receiver doesn't say, via bluetooth, that there's at least 30 mW being received (not clear if RF or at battery). Since it works out to 90 cm, then it's pretty clear it's 30 mW at 90cm. Energous say "at least 100 mW received" at 50 cm, and if it was 200 mW they'd say "at least 200 mW" etc. Also, from SAR calculations you can work out what the power is (you can see it in the SAR plots) and I detail it in this post here: https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/12/energous-it-just-keeps-getting-worse.html

They provide most of the data that allows you to work this out in the FCC data (legally they have to), though you do have to jump through some hoops. It looks to be about 100 mW received at the battery at 50cm, under ideal circumstances, with perfect orientation, at 1% efficiency, on the edge of a safety zone.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on January 03, 2018, 03:34:35 pm
I am slightly confused here: the maximum total radiated power allowed on 915MHz ISM in Part 15 is 36dBm (4W) EIRP.

The maximum total transmitter power allowed is 30dBm (1W).

Edit: as this is technically not a telecommunications device, it's covered by Part 18. I need to brush up on my Part 18 I guess.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 03, 2018, 05:23:15 pm
I am slightly confused here: the maximum total radiated power allowed on 915MHz ISM in Part 15 is 36dBm (4W) EIRP.

The maximum total transmitter power allowed is 30dBm (1W).

Edit: as this is technically not a telecommunications device, it's covered by Part 18. I need to brush up on my Part 18 I guess.

I go into a lot of depth about the differences between Part 15 and Part 18 in my blog, but this is the first "wireless power" device to get approval under Part 18 which is sometimes termed "unlimited power". It's really "unlimited transmission until you hit other interference or safety limits". They claimed that because they are beaming power to a specific location, and because they have a "safety cutoff" which switches the system off if there is movement within 50cm, it's safe and meets requirements. There are 12 antenna each capable of putting out around 0.875W, so roughly 10 Watts total output. Looking at the numbers, at 50cm from this system they sit at the Specific Absorption Rate limit, which means they can never increase from there. Also if you look at the field profiles they really have very little control over where the power goes, as they have few antenna in a small line, large wavelength and are in the near-field. It's a terrible system, the safety cutoff is a joke and will fail in trivial to consider conditions, and the power delivered is very low even under ideal circumstances (1% efficiency is the ceiling for how good it gets).

I've links to the FCC regulations in the posts here. They're painful as it's all spread across multiple documents, and not easy to read - and I'm used to reading FDA regulations...

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/search/label/FCC%20Part%2018
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on January 03, 2018, 11:31:45 pm
Part 15 is much more my neck of the woods I’m afraid.

Irrespective, it should be noted that the 915MHz ISM band is an ITU Region 2 (the Americas) allocation only, and Parts 15 and 18 are only the US’s implementation. Whether similar Part 18 rules apply outside the US, such as in Canada on 915MHz for example, I don’t know.

As far as I am aware, the other two regions have have nothing close except within Region 1 (EMEA) where Europe has an 868MHz band but it’s less power, limited duty cycles and includes mandatory interference avoidance protocols at anything above a very low power level.

This is one of the reasons that 915MHz isn’t used so much, it’s just not a global standard. However it is comparatively generous on power under Part 15 in the US.

So, we can safely say that this is not going to be a global product in its current form unless you can get the regulatory powers to agree, good luck with that.

As an aside I wasn’t sure in one of your notes where you mention different element spacing requirements on different bands, and where that comes from? In general at these frequencies where ground effects are less significant, typical spacing is around lambda/2 for reflective arrays or patches. You can tweak it a little depending on whether you can compromise on side lobes and front to back etc, but not usually by much in air.

One way they may have well have reduced size is to use patches with a dielectric substrate with permittivity Er>1. This slows the wave propagation so you can make physically smaller antennas, usually at the expense of some efficiency as solid dielectrics tend to be lossy. This is common at S band and higher, but not so much below. Of course this also affects the interference pattern of the phased array, so you need to address that too.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 04, 2018, 05:57:40 am
Part 15 is much more my neck of the woods I’m afraid.

Irrespective, it should be noted that the 915MHz ISM band is an ITU Region 2 (the Americas) allocation only, and Parts 15 and 18 are only the US’s implementation. Whether similar Part 18 rules apply outside the US, such as in Canada on 915MHz for example, I don’t know.

As far as I am aware, the other two regions have have nothing close except within Region 1 (EMEA) where Europe has an 868MHz band but it’s less power, limited duty cycles and includes mandatory interference avoidance protocols at anything above a very low power level.

This is one of the reasons that 915MHz isn’t used so much, it’s just not a global standard. However it is comparatively generous on power under Part 15 in the US.

So, we can safely say that this is not going to be a global product in its current form unless you can get the regulatory powers to agree, good luck with that.

As an aside I wasn’t sure in one of your notes where you mention different element spacing requirements on different bands, and where that comes from? In general at these frequencies where ground effects are less significant, typical spacing is around lambda/2 for reflective arrays or patches. You can tweak it a little depending on whether you can compromise on side lobes and front to back etc, but not usually by much in air.

One way they may have well have reduced size is to use patches with a dielectric substrate with permittivity Er>1. This slows the wave propagation so you can make physically smaller antennas, usually at the expense of some efficiency as solid dielectrics tend to be lossy. This is common at S band and higher, but not so much below. Of course this also affects the interference pattern of the phased array, so you need to address that too.

SAR limits are global - they are slightly higher outside of US, Canada, Korea but 2 W/kg not 1.6W/kg, so they could go up by 25% internationally but that's 25% of not-a-lot. Part 18 etc or frequency band is irrelevant outside that.

The different element spacing at different frequencies is just down to lambda/2 spacing as typically ideal, as lambda changes with frequency. Energous are at 0.2 lambda spacing right now, 33cm wavelength with 6cm pitch, which is on the verge of "just halve the number of elements and drive each twice as hard" as far as a phased array goes. They also only have 12 antenna total, so have very limited control over beamforming as can be seen in the plots where power seems to go everywhere but at the target.

I do mention patch antenna but there are two further issues there - first is that the impedance goes up so for any given voltage induced you have lower power, second is that they are highly directional so on receive it's hideous. It's bad for send too, you're already at 1% efficiency at best, but I doubt they are concerned about that.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 04, 2018, 08:03:13 am
I didn't read everything thoroughly so maybe I missed something,  but my reading was that the  30mW figure in the FFC doc was a minimum before it shut off. Similarly the 100mW quoted above says "greater than 100mW", so the actual power could be a lot more ( though probably still useless)

That was my reading too.
But you can calculate the max possible figure based on input power (known), the max capture area of a phone (known) and say 6dB antenna gain or something.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 04, 2018, 09:03:38 am
I didn't read everything thoroughly so maybe I missed something,  but my reading was that the  30mW figure in the FFC doc was a minimum before it shut off. Similarly the 100mW quoted above says "greater than 100mW", so the actual power could be a lot more ( though probably still useless)

That was my reading too.
But you can calculate the max possible figure based on input power (known), the max capture area of a phone (known) and say 6dB antenna gain or something.

The recent FCC filing for demo at CES shows it's a factor of 3, or 4.8dB gain, starting with 10 W antenna power, so 30 W ERP and 50W EIRP. Plugging those numbers into the Friis equation (very approximate as it's near field at those wavelengths) you get around 140 mW at 0.5 meters and 40 mW at 0.9m. That's RF received and does not include conversion efficiency which will be 60 to 70%, so at 70% that would be 100mW and 30 mW approximately, which tie with the numbers you see reported (especially the 30 mW at 90cm in the FCC filing).

FCC Demo filing
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=81631
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on January 04, 2018, 10:04:17 am

SAR limits are global - they are slightly higher outside of US, Canada, Korea but 2 W/kg not 1.6W/kg, so they could go up by 25% internationally but that's 25% of not-a-lot. Part 18 etc or frequency band is irrelevant outside that.

My point was really around the band they're using is simply unavailable outside Region 2, so it can never be a global product. I don't know what restrictions Industry Canada put on the band, for example, I couldn't readily find reference to their equivalent of Part 18. Although Part 15 will be fairly commonly reflected around Region 2, with some local technical provisos, there may not be any equivalent provision at all for an equivalent of Part 18 on the 915 MHz band. Certainly the regulations I'm aware of, although admittedly in telecomms, tend to be pretty prescriptive and vary significantly.

I am somewhat surprised that despite the prescriptiveness of Part 15 (specific EIRPs in specific circumstances, channelisation, modulation methods, spread spectrum etc) as a means to allow and encourage interoperability on an inherently shared spectrum, is almost completely nullified by Part 18 which allows anything as long as the SAR requirements are met!

Quote
The different element spacing at different frequencies is just down to lambda/2 spacing as typically ideal, as lambda changes with frequency. Energous are at 0.2 lambda spacing right now, 33cm wavelength with 6cm pitch, which is on the verge of "just halve the number of elements and drive each twice as hard" as far as a phased array goes. They also only have 12 antenna total, so have very limited control over beamforming as can be seen in the plots where power seems to go everywhere but at the target.

I do mention patch antenna but there are two further issues there - first is that the impedance goes up so for any given voltage induced you have lower power, second is that they are highly directional so on receive it's hideous. It's bad for send too, you're already at 1% efficiency at best, but I doubt they are concerned about that.

The only options I can think would work would be a reflective planar array or a patch array. Planar arrays would have greater physical depth, there's a need to have some distance between the passive reflector and the driven element. Increasingly a patch array seems likely to me. My reasons for thinking this are multifold.

o Firstly, they can be fabricated using common microstrip techniques cheaply using double sided PCB, with all six driven elements fabricated on a single PCB.

o Secondly, the PCB substrate will have a permittivity that will significantly shrink the patch and spacing, with typical Er's of PCB allowing about half the size of a patch in air.

o Thirdly, driving these patches can be done very close to the driven elements, with active components including both HPAs and phase shifting. Distributing the parts to each driven element, particularly the HPAs in this way, has both thermal and loss benefits.

o Finally, polarisation. Implementing circular polarisation on a PCB fabricated patch is simple to achieve, but will need some spaghetti wiring on a reflective array. Circular polarisation has the benefit of significantly reducing fade as it's not dependent on device orientation on a given plane.

Regarding the impedance of patches, in my experience (I work on antenna designs primarily for ground and space segments in aerospace, but also work in terrestrial stuff too) that's really a non-issue particularly in narrow band applications like this. This can be done either with microstrip matching transformer techniques fabricated into the substrate, or, quite likely at 915MHz, with simple lumped fixed LC parts especially as the substrate is (as is likely) simple PCB material.

Regarding directionality of the patch, an identical issue occurs with a reflective array element. Both have broadly similar directivity and gain (about 6dBi, especially if the patch is fabricated on solid dielectric substrate).

So far I've only discussed the sending antenna. I'm not sure what physical form factor the receive side takes, I guess it's probably a sleeve. A problem here is to get something that's of a reasonable size and efficient at the frequency of interest, and, as you say, isn't too directive. In addition, achieving reasonable polarisation matching is going to help: in a linearly polarised system if you're rotated 90 degrees off in a facing plane, almost no power will be received. If the transmitter is circularly polarised instead then these nulls can be removed. If the receiver is also circularly polarised with the same sense, then minimal losses will occur.

There is however an engineering problem in that getting an efficient circularly polarised antennas in a reasonably sized phone sleeve envelope is going to be compromised. It may be better to accept that the sleeve receiver side remain linearly polarised and accept the 3dB hit incurred converting from circular to linear, as you'll get a more consistent experience that with both sides being linearly polarised. It will also mean that the receiver can harvest energy in many more three dimensional orientations.

Maintaining decent circularity with phased arrays significantly off the default centre boresight adds complexity but can be engineered if only one device is being targeted. Maintaining a reasonable axial ratio (i.e. good circularity) would be necessary to avoid nulls similar to those found using a linear-only solution.

One further concern I have on the solution as a whole is over multipath. Almost certainly there are going to be dead spots with this solution in any practical installation, and even a phased array isn't going to fix this, although it could, if you're really smart, achieve some mitigation by adjusting polarity on the fly.

Frankly all of this, while academically interesting, if I may mix metaphors, is putting lipstick on a pig that's never going to fly.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on January 04, 2018, 12:04:10 pm
I didn't read everything thoroughly so maybe I missed something,  but my reading was that the  30mW figure in the FFC doc was a minimum before it shut off. Similarly the 100mW quoted above says "greater than 100mW", so the actual power could be a lot more ( though probably still useless)

That was my reading too.
But you can calculate the max possible figure based on input power (known), the max capture area of a phone (known) and say 6dB antenna gain or something.

The recent FCC filing for demo at CES shows it's a factor of 3, or 4.8dB gain, starting with 10 W antenna power, so 30 W ERP and 50W EIRP. Plugging those numbers into the Friis equation (very approximate as it's near field at those wavelengths) you get around 140 mW at 0.5 meters and 40 mW at 0.9m. That's RF received and does not include conversion efficiency which will be 60 to 70%, so at 70% that would be 100mW and 30 mW approximately, which tie with the numbers you see reported (especially the 30 mW at 90cm in the FCC filing).

FCC Demo filing
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=81631

I may well have mis-read/misunderstood, but that 30W applies to the ERP which is a transmit segment system parameter, independent of the receive side.

There are also some inconsistencies in the application.

You can achieve a ballpark estimate of the tx antenna gain from its half power beamwidth, which is 30 degrees. This approximates in the real world to about 16dBi. This approximation assumes a single major lobe of course. To achieve 30W ERP (50W EIRP) with 16dBi gain,  you need 1.25W transmit power. 16dBi is also just about reasonable for a 12 patch array

Curiouser and curiouser, although admittedly I am basing these rough figures on a square* rather than rectangular array, and using far field calculations and derivations, but then those are the figures generally used for E(I)RP calculation.

* Another point I neglected to mention is that they are using a linear rather than planar array. This will of course only allow beam forming along the horizontal axis.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 04, 2018, 07:03:47 pm
Howard

Thanks for the posts on RF there, very good information. It's great to be on forums like this with people who have deep expertise to learn from. A few points to answer some of your questions:

1) The answer to a lot of questions as to "Why is their system making this dumb choice?" is "They designed for 5.8GHz but were repeatedly denied approval and had to change a lot of stuff rapidly. Sole priority was to get Part 18 approval." Always remember that when evaluating anything they do!
2) Very good point that while Part 15 is more recognized internationally, and that Part 18 is not.
3) The system just approved for the demo may be different than the FCC system, so my statement on 10W transmitted may be incorrect, though I can't see how the power can be much higher due to safety regulations. They may have a system that concentrates the same power more. We'll see at CES.
4) The reason they went with 913 MHz is FCC part 18 rules - there are very specific bands where the unlimited power applies. ~0.913, 2.4, 5,8, 24GHz. They were denied at 5.8, used 2.4 for their communications (and would have likely been denied there too for the same reasons as 5.8 ), so it was 913 MHz or 24 GHz. No other way to get FCC Part 18 approval.
5) If you look at the FCC approved transmitter, you can see the arms where the antenna are positioned changes in thickness, it's never more than about 5cm, I do not believe they'd have space for a reflective planar antenna with a 33cm wavelength.
6) The FCC approval says that the receive power is extremely sensitive to angle, it's unlikely to be circular as opposed to linear.
7) Good point on matching the antenna impedance - I tend to work on arrays with hundreds or thousands of elements so matching each is not practical. Also I'm more broadband than narrowband when I do imaging. It is more viable with the smaller number of elements in this application.
8 ) The antenna do not have to be the same for send as receive - e.g. patch antenna for transmit, half-wave dipole for receive.
9) Yes the phased array arrangement is awful, limited control especially vertically, and there are huge hotspots/deadzones. Will be interesting to see if there is a difference between the CES and FCC arrays.

Finally, "lipstick on a pig" is a kindness for this system, it's far uglier than a pig. :)


Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 14, 2018, 07:57:23 am
For those still interested, Tom's Guide had an article with a video of the Energous CES demo.

Here's the article with the video: https://www.tomsguide.com/g00/us/energous-watt-up-hands-on,news-26425.html (https://www.tomsguide.com/g00/us/energous-watt-up-hands-on,news-26425.html)

My commentary on it is here: https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/01/tech-journalism-fail-energous-at-ces.html (https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/01/tech-journalism-fail-energous-at-ces.html)

Summary is that the demo is everything you would expect with small distances and useless power levels. Energous show off Mid-Range systems not approved by the FCC hoping that they'll be mistaken for the FCC approved one, and even extend this tactic to their already approved Near Field contact system which is now incompatible (5.8 GHz vs 0.9 GHz), and call all of them "WattUp", successfully confusing journalists that it's all one integrated technology. A triumph of marketing.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on January 15, 2018, 01:39:58 am
20mW, that'll recharge your keyboard's AAs in only ~500 hours.

https://ir.energous.com/press-releases/detail/597/energous-announces-first-wattup-enabled-consumer-products

Get your Myant's WattUp-enabled SKIIN smart underwear here: https://skiin.com  Available in any colour, as long as it's grey.

SPACE
Clothes will stimulate muscles to maintain strength in zero-gravity.

SMART CITY
Bio-sensing seat covers in cars will solve overheating and alcohol related deaths.

HEALTHCARE
Knitted exo-skeletal clothing will allow those with spinal cord injuries to walk again.

AR/VR
Add a new sensation of touch using heated and shape shifting accessories.

 :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Kean on January 15, 2018, 01:51:12 am
20mW, that'll recharge your keyboard's AAs in only ~500 hours.

And waste roughly 1kWh of power in the process!  |O
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on January 15, 2018, 02:00:36 am
And waste roughly 1kWh of power in the process!  |O

Going by PR's calcs, I think it's more like 15 - 20 kWhrs. About 4 times more expensive than buying 2 new AAs.:-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 15, 2018, 08:04:32 am
And waste roughly 1kWh of power in the process!  |O

Going by PR's calcs, I think it's more like 15 - 20 kWhrs. About 4 times more expensive than buying 2 new AAs.:-DD

For the keyboard yes, should be <1% efficient from what I've seen, maybe higher as it's close, maybe lower as the antenna are horizontal. An AAA battery is around 1 Wh and an AA 2 Wh, IIRC, so 50 to 100 hours per battery at that 2 mW, 15 to 30 at the 67 mW, and power consumption in the low 100's of Wh, if we're generous. 1 kWh isn't impossible. My wireless keyboard has been going over 2 years without issue right now, not seeing the desperate need for this...

I actually haven't bothered to do the calculations of efficiency for the contact charging device, which the underwear uses, as it is such a pointless product. Qi has won here, it's all variations on that from here on out. All the Near Field charger exists for is to muddy the waters for the Mid-Range performance by calling them all "WattUp" despite the differences.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on January 15, 2018, 11:59:12 am
I watched that Tom's Guide video a couple of days ago, and I had very similar views, I even attempted to write a comment but the entry to commenting was too cumbersome and irritating to bother.

The Tom franchise is definitely not what it once was. For example very frustratingly, they arbitrarily close completely unsolved problems with the words "SOLVED" in the title, I am sure it is clickbait and gets it into Google rankings as a result. No longer is it a trustworthy platform I'm afraid.

Regarding the video itself, as soon as I saw the devices within a few inches, and within the FCC approved 50cm keep-out area, it confirmed that this was a scam. Yes, they do have FCC approval, just not for what they demonstrated! Aaarghhh!

The conflation and confusion of cross-branding was also irritating, but that sort of marketing wank regrettably is not really unique to Energous.

I see the BBC have a piece on yet another wireless power technology http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-42673074/ces-2018-wireless-recharging-while-on-the-move (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-42673074/ces-2018-wireless-recharging-while-on-the-move)

What is both frustrating and surprising is that still "journalists" and investors are not seeing through this veil of disingenuous clap trap.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on February 05, 2018, 01:26:18 pm
Ubeam demonstrates same old impractical prototype. :horse:
https://www.fanaticalfuturist.com/2018/01/ubeam-uses-sound-to-wirelessly-charge-phones-on-stage-confounds-critics/ (https://www.fanaticalfuturist.com/2018/01/ubeam-uses-sound-to-wirelessly-charge-phones-on-stage-confounds-critics/)


More wireless charging nonsense.
https://www.cnet.com/news/wireless-charging-speeds-double-over-the-air-2018/ (https://www.cnet.com/news/wireless-charging-speeds-double-over-the-air-2018/)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on March 09, 2018, 02:00:34 pm
Ubean decide to try and make PC/mac speakers instead, probably. :horse:

https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/971321838654705665

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXrUDzzWkAEpTlN.jpg

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on March 09, 2018, 02:35:32 pm
Ubean decide to try and make PC/mac speakers instead, probably. :horse:

https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/971321838654705665

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXrUDzzWkAEpTlN.jpg

Looks like the air in front of it has gone non-linear.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LaserSteve on March 09, 2018, 09:17:46 pm
Too bad its not a blurred video so we could de-convolve it. :-(

Steve
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 15, 2018, 10:14:39 pm
https://www.linkedin.com/in/larrypendergrass/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/larrypendergrass/)

Another CTO of uBeam has left, for Keysight this time where real practical engineering happens  :-DD

At least he lasted 17 months, that's impressive.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on March 16, 2018, 10:27:32 am
https://www.linkedin.com/in/larrypendergrass/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/larrypendergrass/)

Another CTO of uBeam has left, for Keysight this time where real practical engineering happens  :-DD

At least he lasted 17 months, that's impressive.

If I were him I'd be very glad to be putting the nonsense behind me, and count myself lucky to be getting back into the real engineering left behind six years ago.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on March 17, 2018, 06:42:07 am
About Theranos, an interesting parallel:

Quote
The SEC summed up what was wrong with Ms Holmes and Theranos in a damning report: "Innovators who seek to revolutionise and disrupt an industry must tell investors the truth about what their technology can do today - not just what they hope it might do someday."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43415967 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43415967)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on March 19, 2018, 07:47:02 am
Which part of the word "show" am I failing to understand?  :popcorn:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=405075;image)



Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on March 24, 2018, 12:27:18 pm
https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/977102334294605824  :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cyberdragon on March 24, 2018, 03:20:22 pm
https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/977102334294605824  :horse:

Translate(str)

Translating:

Hello, we would like to rot more women's brains to decrease the overall intelligence of the female population.

 :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Raj on April 17, 2018, 03:53:19 am
here's it's copycat-Kill it before it spwans- http://www.wi-charge.com/ (http://www.wi-charge.com/)
 :palm: :scared: :-BROKE
they're trying to seek indian citizen's funding.kill it before that.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Dubbie on April 17, 2018, 05:08:07 am
At least they specify what power they claim to deliver over what distance.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on April 17, 2018, 09:50:03 am
The video showed a phone sleeve with about a 2cm^2 aperture.

Assuming maximum IR is 1kW/m^2, then you'll get 0.2W into a 2cm^2 aperture, but then their own white paper says you need 2W to power a smartphone. That 2W I'd say is too high.

Looking at it another way, 0.2W is about 70mA of charging current. A common battery capacity of a phone is 2400mAh, so it'd take 34 hours to charge, assuming the phone wasn't taking any juice in standby, and that it would even consider charging at that rate.

Let's be generous and say a 2400mAh battery lasts about 10 days in standby, or 240 hours, so the phone standby current draw is 10mA, so net charging current is 60mA, or a 40 hour charge time in standby.

I'm sceptical that this charging rate is enough to gain general acceptance for the prime use case of call phones, but it seems a more practical and cheaper solution compared to uBeam, although I don't know how their beamforming works, I assume it'd be with mechanically adjusted lenses, which begs the question about the complexity for multiple targets.

If on the other hand it used a sleeve with a 5cm x 10 cm aperture on the back of the device, the charge rate would by 25 times that of a 2cm^2 aperture shown in the video, leading to a far more respectable 1.6 hour charge time.

Irrespective, just like uBeam and Energous, I'd say they're a very long way from delivering a useful practical product that fits the significant market they've hoodwinked their investors with.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PA0PBZ on April 17, 2018, 11:07:27 am
And how do you use it? To power a Qi pad of course!  :-DD

(http://www.wi-charge.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Inductive-Pad-2.jpg)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Daixiwen on April 17, 2018, 01:31:02 pm
Your calculation also assumes that the receiver is perfectly angled with the transmitter. With the use case they show, phone flat on the table, sender somewhere over the kitchen bench, you'll have less power available per unit of surface.
I really don't get how they can say they send 2W of power on such small surfaces and still pretend it's safe. I'd never try and put my hand between the phone and the sender. (I'll admit it's not a common use case... unless you'd like to.... pick up your phone for example?)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on April 17, 2018, 03:04:07 pm
Your calculation also assumes that the receiver is perfectly angled with the transmitter. With the use case they show, phone flat on the table, sender somewhere over the kitchen bench, you'll have less power available per unit of surface.
I really don't get how they can say they send 2W of power on such small surfaces and still pretend it's safe. I'd never try and put my hand between the phone and the sender. (I'll admit it's not a common use case... unless you'd like to.... pick up your phone for example?)

Indeed, I agree, I was deliberately giving them the benefit of the doubt! The point is is if it isn't practical in even the best case scenarios, it's a non-starter, unless the point is to extract money from poorly informed or educated investors.

The modus operandi is exactly the same as we've seen before, promise the world on a stick, with fancy marketing and well produced videos, but be permanently just 18 months off from being production ready with what you promised.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Raj on April 18, 2018, 10:43:25 am
still,even if it's 0.2wt laser,the most efficient solar cell is only efficient upto 44%
and what happens if the laser bending mechanism fails or someone somehow gets his face in the path of laser without the machine noticing it?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on April 18, 2018, 10:56:03 am
The modus operandi is exactly the same as we've seen before, promise the world on a stick, with fancy marketing and well produced videos, but be permanently just 18 months off from being production ready with what you promised.

You can live full time for many years on someone else's dime like this. Then when it fails, rinse and repeat using your new found fame like Meredith's. After all, wasn't she supposed to be the next Elon Musk?
http://fortune.com/2015/07/29/ubeam-meredith-perry-wireless-charging/ (http://fortune.com/2015/07/29/ubeam-meredith-perry-wireless-charging/)
I mean, it's Fortune magazine...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on April 30, 2018, 08:18:00 am
More bragging on twitter.
New VP of Engineering:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/larry-starr-2328706/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/larry-starr-2328706/)
And a whole host of new hires it seems, burning through the new cash in the pointless pursuit of ultrasonic charging  ::)

https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/990279009228369920 (https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/990279009228369920)

The attentive eye will note that they aren't the size arrays, so size comparisons are kinda  :palm:

(https://i.imgur.com/xTEW5RG.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/0wg3kbm.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/o3Zsxtk.jpg)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: tszaboo on April 30, 2018, 06:02:37 pm
https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/977102334294605824  :horse:

Translate(str)

Translating:

Hello, we would like to rot more women's brains to decrease the overall intelligence of the female population.

 :palm:
Isn't hiring based on gender illegal in the USA anyway?
It would be nice to bring down SJWs with their own weapons in a courtroom.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jancumps on April 30, 2018, 06:13:12 pm
.....


Isn't hiring based on gender illegal in the USA anyway?
It would be nice to bring down SJWs with their own weapons in a courtroom.

Aw com'on, this is a technology debunking thread on an engineering forum. Over tired of trying to pull them into non-techno directions. The blog suffers from it.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on April 30, 2018, 07:02:50 pm
.....


Isn't hiring based on gender illegal in the USA anyway?
It would be nice to bring down SJWs with their own weapons in a courtroom.

Aw com'on, this is a technology debunking thread on an engineering forum. Over tired of trying to pull them into non-techno directions. The blog suffers from it.

It does get a bit wearing doesn't it.

I've often wondered if the people who like to moan about "SJWs" at every turn would quieten down if we pointed out at every opportunity that the natural counterpart to the SJW must be the Anti-social Injustice Coward?  >:D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 01, 2018, 11:13:00 am
Aw com'on, this is a technology debunking thread on an engineering forum. Over tired of trying to pull them into non-techno directions. The blog suffers from it.

What does that mean?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on May 01, 2018, 01:21:58 pm
Aw com'on, this is a technology debunking thread on an engineering forum. Over tired of trying to pull them into non-techno directions. The blog suffers from it.

What does that mean?

I read that as a slip and assumed, just from context, they meant 'forum' rather than 'blog'.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jancumps on May 01, 2018, 02:21:28 pm
yes, the forum. I meant to say the EEVblog forum, then goofed up :)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on May 01, 2018, 02:33:32 pm
It looks like they've given up on things like efficiency, and turned to producing endless mis-shaped prototypes instead, those enclosures might be surplus from something else, plenty of ventilation needed to get 0.8W into a phone battery!
The good news is that with that rate of size reduction it will vanish completely in less than 1 year. :) :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LaserSteve on May 01, 2018, 02:34:10 pm
Tainted  comparison picture...   First prototype appears to be a "MEB", ie mostly empty box on the side view.  I'm used to seeing MEBs in marketing demos... Make the investor think they are getting something, or harvested from the local surplus yard are the big driver of MEBs...

EDIT:   latest proto looks three D printed, and those big vents are going to cause issues in a commercial environment.

Steve
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 01, 2018, 02:41:51 pm
It looks like they've given up on things like efficiency

Forced to by those pesky laws of physics  ;D

[quote
The good news is that with that rate of size reduction it will vanish completely in less than 1 year. :) :horse:
[/quote]

Boom-tish!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Kevman on May 01, 2018, 05:26:00 pm
More bragging on twitter.
New VP of Engineering:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/larry-starr-2328706/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/larry-starr-2328706/)
And a whole host of new hires it seems, burning through the new cash in the pointless pursuit of ultrasonic charging  ::)

https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/990279009228369920 (https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/990279009228369920)

The attentive eye will note that they aren't the size arrays, so size comparisons are kinda  :palm:


I love that the size comparison has the largest enclosure open, showing that its mostly empty.

Looks to me like you could fit the largest into the middle just by switching to properly sized backplanes.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LaserSteve on May 01, 2018, 06:11:48 pm
Methinks the large one was a former  case from a certain brand of large laser scanning confocal microscope and held a bunch of Eurocard modules.
If not that, it's structure  certainly was done by the same design team.

Steve
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on May 01, 2018, 06:59:28 pm
The good news is that with that rate of size reduction it will vanish completely in less than 1 year. :) :horse:

A case of the Emperor’s New Clothes if ever there was one.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on May 01, 2018, 07:11:01 pm
While they're busy measuring empty boxes and posting junk, their site's certificate has expired. :palm: :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on May 01, 2018, 09:07:54 pm
While they're busy measuring empty boxes and posting junk, their site's certificate has expired. :palm: :horse:

 :-DD  :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on May 09, 2018, 02:52:45 am
For those who may be interested, the Acoustical Society of America will host a webinar on "Ultrasound and High Frequency Sound in Air in Public and Work Places: Applications‚ Devices and Effects" tomorrow, Wed May 9th 2018 (11:25 to 11:45am Pacific). If interested, the link to register is:

https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/32291947178648578

I have no participation in this, just listing as a PSA.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on May 20, 2018, 10:53:27 pm
I hope the keen investors are suitably impressed with uBeen's recent product launches, and all the revenue they're now generating. :)  :bullshit: :horse:

(https://i.imgur.com/Vogs0UD.png)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on May 29, 2018, 11:38:45 am
"uBeam transmitters are designed to sit discreetly in any location without calling attention to themselves and without disrupting style and flow. A uBeam transmitter might sit on a bookshelf or coffee table in your home appearing no bigger than a book or coaster. In the office, warehouse or complex, transmitters could be strategically installed under desks, on the wall of a conference room or next to a cabinet in a break room. "

https://ubeam.com/Blog/the-unseen-power-of-wireless-transmitters/ (https://ubeam.com/Blog/the-unseen-power-of-wireless-transmitters/)

Without calling attention to themselves is the new company moto....

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Db4tgStV4AENlDU.jpg)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 29, 2018, 11:47:41 am
https://ubeam.com/Blog/the-unseen-power-of-wireless- (https://ubeam.com/Blog/the-unseen-power-of-wireless-transmitters/)

The amount of dumb is just staggering.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 29, 2018, 11:55:16 am
I hope the keen investors are suitably impressed with uBeen's recent product launches, and all the revenue they're now generating. :)  :bullshit: :horse:

The only thing they have of any value is the transducer IP, which I have been very reliably informed is worth a pretty penny.
If they are the least bit smart, uBeam can keep the Titanic afloat for a lot while longer.
Of course their silly charger tech will never work, for many blindingly obvious reasons

(https://i.imgur.com/rVFVhqU.jpg)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on May 29, 2018, 08:23:01 pm
The only thing they have of any value is the transducer IP, which I have been very reliably informed is worth a pretty penny.

By an investor :), I can't think of anything that isn't already done.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on June 03, 2018, 11:28:57 am
https://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/73128/breaking-news/ultrasonic-signals-hdds-dos.html (https://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/73128/breaking-news/ultrasonic-signals-hdds-dos.html)

45Khz, 125dB and your laptop is dead (not because the battery is empty... the hard drive and the OS ...)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on June 03, 2018, 11:37:37 am
https://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/73128/breaking-news/ultrasonic-signals-hdds-dos.html (https://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/73128/breaking-news/ultrasonic-signals-hdds-dos.html)

45Khz, 125dB and your laptop is dead (not because the battery is empty... the hard drive and the OS ...)
I find it interesting that at such a high vibration level they are still only fooling the protection sensors, and not directly screwing up the ability of the heads to work over the disk.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on June 03, 2018, 12:15:41 pm
I think some of uBeen's cartoons show laptops on desks, with the US TXs built into the surface of the desk. :palm: :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cyberdragon on June 05, 2018, 04:04:07 pm
I think some of uBeen's cartoons show laptops on desks, with the US TXs built into the surface of the desk. :palm: :horse:

Now fall asleep on that desk... >:D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on June 17, 2018, 05:40:38 am
https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-ultrasonic-noise-make-you-sick-1529147100 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-ultrasonic-noise-make-you-sick-1529147100)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: edavid on June 17, 2018, 04:10:34 pm
https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-ultrasonic-noise-make-you-sick-1529147100 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-ultrasonic-noise-make-you-sick-1529147100)

Since it's behind a paywall, can you summarize?

Seems like they should be studying uBeam's employees.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: glarsson on June 17, 2018, 04:52:21 pm
Seems like they should be studying uBeam's employees.
Or the beta testers in Cuba and China.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on June 17, 2018, 04:54:43 pm
"Since it's..."

If I google the 2nd half of the url I can read it in the first link(News for...).
There's not much there, US beams mixing and producing LF, and the embassy sicknesses.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on June 18, 2018, 09:45:52 am
https://my.mixtape.moe/sepsvs.pdf (https://my.mixtape.moe/sepsvs.pdf)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 29, 2018, 04:20:01 am
I know you all desperately want to hear a Perry interview:
https://makeitinla.org/podcast/meredith-perry-ubeam/
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Kean on June 29, 2018, 05:42:30 am
Yes, desperately!  :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 29, 2018, 06:21:09 am
I know you all desperately want to hear a Perry interview:
https://makeitinla.org/podcast/meredith-perry-ubeam/

Hmm, about 31:40 she says the first time they *ever* charged a phone wirelessly (and that she saw it do so) was Dec 5th 2016. Hadn't they been claiming they were doing that way before then?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on June 29, 2018, 08:03:16 am
Some takeaways...

There's still no independent demonstration of how fast it charges a phone, which remains the key use case for her technology.

The transducers are operating at 40kHz, and they're manufacturing them themselves in their own facilities. Apparently they have improved the efficiency particularly at the receive end, but no numbers were quoted.

uBeam won't be manufacturing or selling completed units themselves. She talks about a "reference design" and that the technology can be licensed.

Q. "Are there any uBeam licensees?"

A. "Can't answer that".
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on June 29, 2018, 08:36:31 am

Q. "Are there any uBeam licensees?"

A. "Can't answer that".
that'll be a "no" then...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 29, 2018, 08:49:27 am
The transducers are operating at 40kHz, and they're manufacturing them themselves in their own facilities. Apparently they have improved the efficiency particularly at the receive end, but no numbers were quoted.

I have heard that the efficiency is exceptional compared to commercial units, in theory. But in practice getting yield is proving a problem. They need a LOT of these units.

Quote
uBeam won't be manufacturing or selling completed units themselves. She talks about a "reference design" and that the technology can be licensed.

No one will be dumb enough, except perhaps in very niche areas. The consumer space for this was dead out of the gate.
The problem  is they won't ever pivot with Perry at the helm, she staked everything on the mobile phone application, she will not want to admit defeat. She'll go down with the ship before admitting mobile phone charging isn't practical.

Quote
Q. "Are there any uBeam licensees?"
A. "Can't answer that".

Translation = Nope.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on June 29, 2018, 01:08:21 pm

Q. "Are there any uBeam licensees?"

A. "Can't answer that".
that'll be a "no" then...

Is anybody ever fooled by that sort of reply?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on June 29, 2018, 01:26:24 pm
November 8, 2015
The company is ramping up to manufacture millions of units and will ship a product by the end of next year, said Perry in a September interview with the Business Journal. Perry previously said uBeam would be available in fall 2011 and also in spring 2013.

http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2015/nov/08/skeptics-zap-wireless-charging/?page=all (http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2015/nov/08/skeptics-zap-wireless-charging/?page=all)

And now it's never, if only anyone had tried to warn the investors. :palm:

40kHz is definitely not pet friendly.:horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: GeorgeOfTheJungle on June 29, 2018, 02:08:49 pm
I know you all desperately want to hear a Perry interview:
https://makeitinla.org/podcast/meredith-perry-ubeam/
Wow, she's such a fake and boastful. Something's very very wrong with this world.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on June 29, 2018, 02:20:18 pm
Furthermore, in the interview she criticised other wireless charging technologies like Qi because the device won't charge while you're using it, which I found more than a little ironic. How does it charge when you're holding the phone while taking a call, or using the touch screen, when the energy harvesting transducers are covered by you hand or face down on a surface?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on June 29, 2018, 04:49:50 pm
Furthermore, in the interview she criticised other wireless charging technologies like Qi because the device won't charge while you're using it, which I found more than a little ironic.

I wonder how the journalists never pick up on those things and never ask the awkward questions.

They don't even need to be tech questions or use the word "efficiency", you could simply ask, "How will you ever convince Apple to add 2cm thickness to their phones?"

I get the feeling she only does interviews with the known-gullible. None of us would ever get anywhere near her.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on June 29, 2018, 05:05:10 pm
Furthermore, in the interview she criticised other wireless charging technologies like Qi because the device won't charge while you're using it, which I found more than a little ironic.

I wonder how the journalists never pick up on those things and never ask the awkward questions.

They don't even need to be tech questions or use the word "efficiency", you could simply ask, "How will you ever convince Apple to add 2cm thickness to their phones?"

I get the feeling she only does interviews with the known-gullible. None of us would ever get anywhere near her.

There are lists of journalists who are known to ask 'awkward' questions, that circulate privately in the PR world. You can, in part, judge a company on whether they ask their PRs to not invite people on those lists to events. Despite all their other sins Microsoft (and their UK and US PR firms) DO invite journalists whose names have found their way onto those lists.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: BobGeorge on June 29, 2018, 05:40:42 pm
Now that is a list I would like to be on  ;D

I do like the way she besmirches the reputation of those who have left the company. Stay classy uDream!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on July 02, 2018, 07:13:43 am
How does it charge when you're holding the phone while taking a call, or using the touch screen, when the energy harvesting transducers are covered by you hand or face down on a surface?

Just hold your phone naturally, using two of your left hand fingers, stand to the side of the beam, and make a nervous hand gesture using your right hand.

Now hold that position for 3 weeks, and voila, your phone is all juiced up and ready to go.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C33KgfhXAAA8cEn.jpg)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cyberdragon on July 02, 2018, 09:29:20 pm
That's just begging for "YEET" *slaps hipsters iCrap into the distance* >:D

EDIT: The huge brick might even act as a cushion. ;)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on July 08, 2018, 12:39:47 pm

Well they do say there's one born every minute.  :) :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on July 08, 2018, 12:52:27 pm

Well they do say there's one born every minute.  :) :horse:

The other version of that is "I saw him coming from a mile off", which is do doubt what the salesman who sold him that jacket said as he was taking his commission.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on July 08, 2018, 01:05:34 pm
"I saw him coming from a mile off"

You certainly could now!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on July 24, 2018, 12:43:32 pm
uBean are very quiet, have they closed down yet. :)

liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com)   has done some calcs on Energous's 915MHz wireless charger, giving charging power efficiency of 0.2% to 0.06%.
One day all batteries will be wirelessly charged this way. :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on July 24, 2018, 03:49:17 pm
uBean are very quiet, have they closed down yet. :)

liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com)   has done some calcs on Energous's 915MHz wireless charger, giving charging power efficiency of 0.2% to 0.06%.
One day all batteries will be wirelessly charged this way. :horse:

I should pay more attention to Paul's blog. I haven't read in any detail the FOI documents, but the general tone seems rather bizarre.

o Energous seem to be using the FCC as a consultancy service.
o From the tone of his emails, SVP Jeff McNeil appears to be overly sickly sweet and sycophantic in trying to cosy up to the FCC.
o How have they managed to get such a direct relationship with the FCC?
o Jeff McNeil starts off as SVP Operations, then automagically during the FCC "consultancy" becomes SVP Operations and Regulatory, but I see no evidence that prior to this he had any experience of FCC regulatory issues.
o Jeff McNeil appears to now be working at Enphase Energy since January of this year.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on July 31, 2018, 02:59:25 am
A few more pieces of information on Energous' quest to get Part 18 approval from the FCC for their mid-range device

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/07/more-clarity-from-new-energous-foia.html
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on July 31, 2018, 11:48:08 am
uBean are very quiet, have they closed down yet. :)

Nope, they just moved to a new 12,500 sqft facility that will handle the hazmat issues they have.
They have lost more top staff. The new COO Kostas Mallios lasted only 9 months.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kostasmallios/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/kostasmallios/)
He apparently bailed before his 1 year option vested, so I guess that tells you something.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on July 31, 2018, 12:54:34 pm
I can't find any evidence that they've moved myself, their old place is off market, whatever that means.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on July 31, 2018, 01:09:16 pm
I can't find any evidence that they've moved myself, their old place is off market, whatever that means.

Cleaning up the hazmat?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/12/Hazmat_DEA.jpg)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on July 31, 2018, 01:28:25 pm
Sr. Technician -
Marina del Rey, California, United States · Engineering
 We are seeing a hands-on and enthusiastic Senior Technician to support engineering development and fabrication of high performance ultrasonic transducers.

REQUIRED EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS
Sound judgment,  :-DD

https://ubeam-inc.workable.com/j/0BB01F29B9
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on July 31, 2018, 06:23:29 pm
For those wanting to play around with ultrasonic phased arrays, this open access paper and toolset might be of help.  It seems pretty comprehensive and the team that worked on it at Bristol University are well respected.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8094247/

Quote
The system hardware consists of a driver board capable of reading the amplitude and phases produced by the software and then generating half-square wave driving signals of up to 17 Vpp and π /5 phase resolution for 64 individual channels. Up to 15 boards can be chained to increase the number of channels. A set of 64 phases can be updated 25 times per second. For complex and fast field modulations, it is also possible to upload onto the board up to 32 phase patterns and a script that exactly specifies how many periods each pattern should be emitted.

For a wide uptake of Ultraino, we provide source code, components list, PCB designs, as well as video instructions for assembling the board and example arrays for applications in particle levitation, mid-air ultrasonic haptics and parametric audio (Supplementary Movies and https://github.com/asiermarzo/Ultraino). A PC running the software, driver board, and an array are shown in Fig. 1.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: JimRemington on August 01, 2018, 03:40:26 pm
Not sure what the phrase "π /5 phase resolution" means. Can someone explain?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on August 01, 2018, 03:54:29 pm
Not sure what the phrase "π /5 phase resolution" means. Can someone explain?
π /5 radians phase resolution
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on August 26, 2018, 12:44:43 pm
OMG it doesn't get any funnier than this!
:-DD

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=507161;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on August 26, 2018, 05:16:08 pm
Oh.... My..... God.....

If ever there was a occasion that is a good excuse to prove I can spell chutzpah, that woman, with that pronouncement, is it.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Richard Crowley on August 26, 2018, 05:48:59 pm
The continuum between stupidity and brilliance apparently wraps around at the ends.
Making it more confusing for the technically ignorant to discern the difference.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on August 26, 2018, 08:20:35 pm
The continuum between stupidity and brilliance apparently wraps around at the ends.
"It's a fine line between  stupid and clever..."
https://youtu.be/TrKqBlZdOTk
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: GeorgeOfTheJungle on August 26, 2018, 08:44:01 pm
The thing with this lady is pathological.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on August 26, 2018, 09:41:11 pm
LOL, Meredith just blocked me for suggesting that she lacks self awareness. Oh, the irony!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on August 27, 2018, 12:03:15 am
LOL, Meredith just blocked me for suggesting that she lacks self awareness. Oh, the irony!

Is there anyone who's even mentioned uBeam that hasn't been blocked?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jeffheath on August 27, 2018, 04:43:16 am
But guys, the uBeam website says coming soon!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: djos on August 27, 2018, 04:44:41 am
But guys, the uBeam website says coming soon!

and how long has it said that for?  :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on August 27, 2018, 11:33:13 pm
Published Sep, 2017, I don't know the recording date. Edit: The Recording date maybe 2014 or '15.
Claiming faster than a cable.  :o  :horse:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDB-g3xYsxA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDB-g3xYsxA)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on August 28, 2018, 02:20:52 am
Published Sep, 2017, I don't know the recording date.
Claiming faster than a cable.  :o  :horse:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDB-g3xYsxA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDB-g3xYsxA)

*groan*
She keeps trying to spin the story that all the experts told her it wasn't possible. They told her it wouldn't work because it wasn't practical. Turns out they were right, doh.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: KL27x on August 28, 2018, 03:16:35 am
You guys give her too much credit for being naive. I see a con artist. No one can graduate Penn State and speak so fluently yet can be that dumb... at least not without some incentive. Calling her naive or ignorant relieves her of the damage of her lies.

Why else would she have so much trouble retaining key employees? I'm guessing she wants to compensate key employees in stock options and get them to lie as bald-faced as she does. If there was any belief in the actual product, there would be something for CTO and engineers to work towards other than helping to perpetuate a ponzi scheme.

It sounds like Mark Suster was a big part of the problem.

Having a passionate blonde scapegoat is perfect. It was never a ponzi scheme if she actually believed it! And so they con you all. Maybe they didn't make it to IPO or the bigger fish this time. But I'm sure the people behind this have succeeded before and will do so again.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: djos on August 28, 2018, 03:47:01 am
I totally agree, this is a classic con job perpetrated by someone who is fully aware of what she is doing.  :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on August 28, 2018, 04:05:24 am
You guys give her too much credit for being naive. I see a con artist. No one can graduate Penn State and speak so fluently yet can be that dumb... at least not without some incentive. Calling her naive or ignorant relieves her of the damage of her lies.

You're missing the option of "deluded". One doesn't have to be malicious to spout rubbish, just sufficiently convinced of your own brilliance, of the power of your god, that this time the dice will roll your way in the casino, or any of the many other things that people frequently convince themselves of with zero supporting evidence.

Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.".
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: KL27x on August 28, 2018, 04:18:23 am
^ If that is the case, she would be able to retain employees. People work for money and assets, and it doesn't matter what the boss believes as long as they get paid.

It's when the boss repeatedly tries to trick you into holding the hot potato when you jump ship. (Or when you're compensated largely in stock options!) A young woman who continually points out that she is not an engineer can spout nonsense and still be sympathetic to a jury and to the public. It seems like men secretly want her to be dumb, naive, deluded. A professional engineer who slips down that road would be crucified.

A law firm is probably one of their significant expenses, hushing up previous employees and providing legal counsel for her public statements. Her lawyer could be one of her closest friends at this point.

I find it hard to believe being delusional got uBeam this far. More like greed. Some investment bankers thought they could pull off a Batteriser with a couple extra zeros. And she was the perfect face for the operation; willing and relentless and blonde. The lies are calculated, not delusional. Even in this video clip, the host announces uBeam as if it has already been achieved and is sitting on a shelf at your local store, selling like hot cakes.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on August 28, 2018, 08:59:09 am
You guys give her too much credit for being naive. I see a con artist. No one can graduate Penn State and speak so fluently yet can be that dumb... at least not without some incentive. Calling her naive or ignorant relieves her of the damage of her lies.
Many of the best talkers truly have nothing to say. It saddens me how often fairly smart people are suckered in by a vacuous speaker who sounds good. There are excellent opportunities for people like this - politician, corporate spokesperson, etc. . Understanding is a huge disadvantage when you need to spout BS with a straight face.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on August 28, 2018, 10:49:52 am
LOL, Meredith just blocked me for suggesting that she lacks self awareness. Oh, the irony!

Is there anyone who's even mentioned uBeam that hasn't been blocked?

I did make a negative critical (but not ad hominem) comment a few months ago, but wasn't blocked.

Frankly, Twitter makes it too easy to block dissenting voices: in so doing, it strongly promotes echo chambers and conceit, and encourages follower cliques of blinkered, obsequious sycophants who are too fragile and closed minded to either tolerate or consider views different to their own.

As such, I consider it a rather minor badge of honour to be blocked!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: AF6LJ on August 28, 2018, 02:19:00 pm
LOL, Meredith just blocked me for suggesting that she lacks self awareness. Oh, the irony!

Is there anyone who's even mentioned uBeam that hasn't been blocked?

I did make a negative critical (but not ad hominem) comment a few months ago, but wasn't blocked.

Frankly, Twitter makes it too easy to block dissenting voices: in so doing, it strongly promotes echo chambers and conceit, and encourages follower cliques of blinkered, obsequious sycophants who are too fragile and closed minded to either tolerate or consider views different to their own.

As such, I consider it a rather minor badge of honour to be blocked!
Welcome to the Internet
Chinese Style...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on September 08, 2018, 08:49:39 pm
@ubeen haven't twittered for nearly 3 months, have they blocked themselves.  :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on September 20, 2018, 07:30:41 pm
Perry steps down as uBeam CEO

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/09/meredith-perry-no-longer-ubeam-ceo.html
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on September 20, 2018, 08:07:22 pm
Perry steps down as uBeam CEO

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/09/meredith-perry-no-longer-ubeam-ceo.html

Ooooooooooooooo I just blurted out!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: djos on September 20, 2018, 09:15:17 pm
Perry steps down as uBeam CEO

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/09/meredith-perry-no-longer-ubeam-ceo.html

 :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on September 20, 2018, 09:33:21 pm
Perry steps down as uBeam CEO

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/09/meredith-perry-no-longer-ubeam-ceo.html
I wonder if they are still trying to licence the charging scheme, or if they've got to the more realistic stage of trying to find other applications for their phase array developments?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cyberdragon on September 20, 2018, 10:48:47 pm
Perry steps down as uBeam CEO

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/09/meredith-perry-no-longer-ubeam-ceo.html

Oh dear "she wasn't the right person"...I'll say...not the right person for any tech executive. I hope that delusional hypocrit gets shamed by media fallout. :rant:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on September 20, 2018, 11:10:04 pm
What happened to the middle finger to the engineers?

https://youtu.be/ukgnU2aXM2c?t=14m
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: langwadt on September 20, 2018, 11:43:30 pm
What happened to the middle finger to the engineers?

https://youtu.be/ukgnU2aXM2c?t=14m (https://youtu.be/ukgnU2aXM2c?t=14m)

I think she will deal with it

http://replygif.net/i/718.gif (http://replygif.net/i/718.gif)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on September 21, 2018, 12:20:40 am
How bad do you have to be to get yourself sacked from your own company. :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on September 21, 2018, 12:45:56 am
How bad do you have to be to get yourself sacked from your own company. :horse:
Its actually very common and generally necessary. The kind of character it takes to build something from scratch is very different from the kind of character needed to run it later as a substantial enterprise. Of course, Ms Perry hasn't got to that stage... :)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: chris_leyson on September 21, 2018, 01:56:40 am
"The  kind of character that it takes to build something from scratch" determined, stubborn, obstinate or maybe just stupid.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on September 21, 2018, 07:20:20 am
Some more thoughts on Perry and the role change. Jumped or pushed? And an anecdote about my last day at uBeam.

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/09/end-of-era-thoughts-on-ubeam-founder.html
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on September 21, 2018, 02:03:39 pm
https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/09/end-of-era-thoughts-on-ubeam-founder.html

That's a good read. :)

It might not be the end of ubean yet, but it's the end of charging mobiles by ultrasonic sound waves.

7 years, $37m and up to 30 staff, to prove it's impractical, revenues $0.00, well done to all the investors. >:D  :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: ehughes on September 21, 2018, 02:06:15 pm
Quote
"Today will be your last day with the company. But before we go on to that, it is important that you understand that you are a quitter. You have quit on me, you have quit on yourself, you have quit on the company, you have quit on your team, you have quit on.... wait what are you doing?"


She is an asshole.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: GeorgeOfTheJungle on September 21, 2018, 02:09:17 pm
Quote
"Today will be your last day with the company. But before we go on to that, it is important that you understand that you are a quitter. You have quit on me, you have quit on yourself, you have quit on the company, you have quit on your team, you have quit on.... wait what are you doing?"
She is an asshole.

An asshole²
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Tony_G on September 21, 2018, 02:41:41 pm
Quote
Just taking some notes.

Hilarious.

TonyG
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on September 21, 2018, 06:06:47 pm
Quote
"Today will be your last day with the company. But before we go on to that, it is important that you understand that you are a quitter. You have quit on me, you have quit on yourself, you have quit on the company, you have quit on your team, you have quit on.... wait what are you doing?"
She is an asshole.

An asshole²

A tenth degree polynomial in asshole and asshat.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cyberdragon on September 21, 2018, 06:22:41 pm
An asshat of one of the ugliest variety of hats...

(https://s2.r29static.com//bin/asset/b9a/x/15568/image.jpg)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on September 21, 2018, 08:37:40 pm
From the Techcrunch article:

“For the interim, uBeam’s head of HR and finance Jacqueline McCauley, who joined in 2016, will lead the company.”

That’s like Darth Vader and Hannibal Lector being the same person. Well that’ll save time when negotiating all those compromise agreements and pay offs I guess.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on September 21, 2018, 11:42:29 pm
https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/20/ubeam/

Quote
uBeam’s stumbles may make it tough to hire or retain talent


Ya'think!  :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: oPossum on September 22, 2018, 12:48:58 am
Interesting picture in the TechCruch article.  That amplifier has a pair of chip amps running directly from the 12 volt supply. About 20 watts per channel into 4 ohms at best. The 240 watt rating on it is a gross exaggeration of reality.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on September 22, 2018, 04:05:59 am
That's a car audio amp. These typically include boost converters to produce higher outputs from the 12v car suppy.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: oPossum on September 22, 2018, 09:31:45 am
I immediately recognized it as a car audio amp - that is how I was able to find the picture of it that I added to the right of the picture from TechCrunch. That amp does not have a power supply. The amp chips run directly from the 12V supply. I have been in car audio since '85 and Pyramid has always been a junk brand. The power ratings are so far off that they are meaningless.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: oPossum on September 22, 2018, 09:39:45 am
From the manual....

https://www.andysautosport.com/additional_product_info/PB110PX.pdf (https://www.andysautosport.com/additional_product_info/PB110PX.pdf)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on September 22, 2018, 02:12:58 pm
Other than the panicking big investors, no one seems to yet realize that the exciting new phase, is the end of ultrasonic wireless charging. :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: drussell on September 22, 2018, 02:29:45 pm
Yup, the only interesting thing uBeam has done is their work with the array beam-forming stuff and that is going to only have very limited applications, at least that I can think of. 

Anyone who hopped on the uBeam bandwagon for the wireless charging gravy train is learning that "Arrr, the laws of physics be a harsh mistress."  How predictable.

I wonder if Perry has realized yet that some of those engineers that she loves to give the middle finger to actually understand some things that she doesn't.  (Or at least didn't...  but she's probably still a believer.  :palm: )
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on September 22, 2018, 02:50:34 pm
I wonder if Perry has realized yet that some of those engineers that she loves to give the middle finger to actually understand some things that she doesn't.  (Or at least didn't...  but she's probably still a believer.  :palm: )

Naw, she just didn't find the ones who were smart enough to build it.  :-//

It's not her fault. She tried.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cyberdragon on September 23, 2018, 12:48:29 am
I wonder if Perry has realized yet that some of those engineers that she loves to give the middle finger to actually understand some things that she doesn't.  (Or at least didn't...  but she's probably still a believer.  :palm: )

Naw, she just didn't find the ones who were smart enough to build it.  :-//

It's not her fault. She tried.

What would her browser or Youtube history would be like, a bunch of free energy bullshit or something? She's as bad as a flat earther!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on September 23, 2018, 10:41:25 am
Yup, the only interesting thing uBeam has done is their work with the array beam-forming stuff and that is going to only have very limited applications, at least that I can think of. 
Ah, the eternal great unknown of new technologies - "This is cool. Now what the heck can I do with it?". There is a lot of current interest in proximity sensing for collision avoidance, whether its cars or automated domestic appliances. Current solutions use things like crude broad ultrasonic or 77GHz radar beams. Get the price of a narrow steerable beam solution down, and you might be in business. I've seen no evidence that uBeam have done anything that might be low cost, but who knows where they currently stand?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on September 23, 2018, 11:15:53 am
"There is a lot of current interest in proximity sensing for collision avoidance, whether its cars or automated domestic appliances."

Steerable US beams aren't going to work very well in the moving air around a moving car, or even a draughty coffee shop.

"who knows where they currently stand?"

Up panic creek. :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on September 23, 2018, 11:26:36 am
... Steerable US...

Oh no, a steerable US would be a terrible idea. They might move in next door.  :)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: GeorgeOfTheJungle on September 23, 2018, 11:40:39 am
From the manual....

Overunity FTW: 12V*5A= 60W, 2*50W= 100W

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=529346;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on September 23, 2018, 11:52:49 am
"There is a lot of current interest in proximity sensing for collision avoidance, whether its cars or automated domestic appliances."
Steerable US beams aren't going to work very well in the moving air around a moving car, or even a draughty coffee shop.
Steerable ultrasonic beams for any sweeping application are problematic because of the slow echoes. You just can't sweep very fast. Ultrasonic sensing in a strong wind can make even the current simple parking collision sensors problematic. Having lots of problems is normal in engineering. Don't be too keen to assume they can't be usefully worked around, unless they rub hard against deep principles of physics like the conservation of energy.
"who knows where they currently stand?"
Up panic creek. :horse:
While that appears most likely, its amazing to see the history of some successful companies and the many near death experiences they went through before getting into their groove. Remember that most companies reaching IPO do something very different from what they started out to do.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on September 23, 2018, 02:07:30 pm
While that appears most likely, its amazing to see the history of some successful companies and the many near death experiences they went through before getting into their groove. Remember that most companies reaching IPO do something very different from what they started out to do.

In the case of uBeam they got their first funding in Jul 2012, and we are apparently supposed to believe that they are now only suddenly realising that charging phones isn't practical and they are pivoting to licensing their tech for IoT devices. And that change just so happens to coincide with the stepping down of the infamously stubborn founder ::)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on September 24, 2018, 02:49:50 pm
"they are pivoting to licensing their tech for IoT devices."

I think they're just tech words to confuse investors for a bit longer, they might as well say they're developing new technology to keep the 'data cloud' white and fluffy.  :) :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on September 24, 2018, 04:18:02 pm
Let's take a moment to look back on some of Mark Suster's gems of wisdom, no doubt gleaned from his mystic skills of tea leaf reading, and engaging the crystal ball that is a prerequisite of the VC modus operandi.

13 May 2016, immediately after Paul Reynold's blog went mainstream (https://bothsidesofthetable.com/what-is-it-like-to-wake-up-and-have-the-press-ready-to-torpedo-your-business-351f27ca6d67). Suster specifically calls out for praise COO Jeff Devine, VP Engineering Sean Taffler, and VP Acoustics Paul Chandler.

Quote
But we do have detailed plans for four generations of product releases through 2019 and we have a very talented COO, Jeff Devine, who is leading our efforts. He was VP of Global Supply Chain for Cisco and held similar roles at Nokia and Palm. He is a calming force, an experienced hand, a straight shooter and a great long-term planner. I have huge confidence in Jeff.

We also have a very talented VP of Engineering, Sean Taffler, who is a Phd from Oxford, and has been with the company since shortly after I funded it. We have a VP of Acoustics, Paul Chandler who is a Phd from UC Irvine and formerly with Philips Ultrasound.

Quote
I’m not at all afraid to put my name behind Meredith, Jeff, Sean, Paul Chandler and all the other great engineers hard at work. I feel confident they will exceed expectations.

Of those, only Meredith remains. There've been a lot of "quitters".

Now here comes a rather more interesting bit. In that same blog post, Suster originally stated:

Quote
We have a lot to prove. The team knows that. It’s hard work. We haven’t yet shipped product or shown the public our prototypes. The product isn’t yet where we want it to be — like most startup products, it is a work in progress.

If for any reason we fall short of expectations we have set in the market, I will be the first person in line to admit it and then to immediately fund Meredith's next company. Her strengths so vastly outweigh any weaknesses and her vision, tenacity and resiliency far exceed any perceived limitations.

That bold part has since disappeared from his blog. Funny that, because Susters' fanbois couldn't stop quoting it at the time, to reference but a few:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/friction-before-great-outcomes-ken-seiff (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/friction-before-great-outcomes-ken-seiff)
https://www.inc.com/kimberly-weisul/whats-next-for-blood-testing-startup-theranos.html (https://www.inc.com/kimberly-weisul/whats-next-for-blood-testing-startup-theranos.html)
https://medium.com/@cliffdailey/mark-my-words-ubeam-will-win-even-if-it-fails-heres-why-560e6ed86e3a (https://medium.com/@cliffdailey/mark-my-words-ubeam-will-win-even-if-it-fails-heres-why-560e6ed86e3a)



Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Richard Crowley on September 24, 2018, 07:16:38 pm
I was going to poke fun at Suster's hiring choices and PHd's in general (no offense of any of you are reading this).

But on due consideration, it would appear that he did hire some people (Devine, Taffler, and Chandler) who were actually smart enough, and had enough balls to walk away from an impossible situation.  Are the remaining people really not capable of seeing the fundamental problems?  Or are they just riding the gravy-train until something better (more realistic) comes along?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: GeorgeOfTheJungle on September 25, 2018, 06:37:14 pm
Perry steps down as uBeam CEO

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/09/meredith-perry-no-longer-ubeam-ceo.html

Well thank god that's over !!!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: JimRemington on September 27, 2018, 05:10:53 pm
From: https://ubeam.com/Blog/ubeam-announces-meredith-perrys-transition-from-ceo-to-board-member/

Quote
“Under Meredith’s leadership, uBeam has successfully developed a commercially valuable product that we believe can be the leader in its field,” said Mark Suster, a Board Director at uBeam. “We’re very proud of what Meredith created and we look forward to working closely alongside Meredith as an active member of the board.”
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on September 27, 2018, 09:39:36 pm
"uBeam has successfully developed a commercially valuable product that we believe can be the leader in its field,"

I wonder what it is.  :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on October 30, 2018, 05:21:52 pm
"The innovations set to disrupt and enhance your sector"
Published on: Oct 30, 2018

https://www.director.co.uk/innovations-set-to-disrupt-your-sector/ (https://www.director.co.uk/innovations-set-to-disrupt-your-sector/) (I include a link for completeness, but frankly I wouldn't bother).

FFS, this whole article is a waste of time (of course, it had to include key tech buzzwords such as "disrupt", "virtual reality", and "artificial intelligence").

Quote
05 / POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE
...
The uBeam wireless charging system, for instance, turns power into ultrasound waves and then converts these back when they reach a device. Such developments could accelerate the adoption of electric cars or enable people in remote areas to make more use of new tech.
...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: drussell on October 30, 2018, 05:53:07 pm

FFS, this whole article is a waste of time (of course, it had to include key tech buzzwords such as "disrupt", "virtual reality", and "artificial intelligence").

Quote
05 / POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE
...
The uBeam wireless charging system, for instance, turns power into ultrasound waves and then converts these back when they reach a device. Such developments could accelerate the adoption of electric cars or enable people in remote areas to make more use of new tech.
...

Indeed.

"Such developments could accelerate the adoption of electric cars or enable people in remote areas to make more use of new tech."

Really??!   Ultrasonic car charging?  Long-range remote power distribution?!  ::)  Explain how!!  :palm: 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Tony_G on October 30, 2018, 06:23:25 pm
They missed the opportunity to include blockchain....

TonyG
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 06, 2018, 04:48:23 am
Someone posted a review of their experience of working at uBeam on Glassdoor. It's... interesting.

"Not sure if uBeam even qualifies as a company."

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/11/ubeam-glassdoor-review-not-sure-if.html

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on November 06, 2018, 07:58:21 am
Someone posted a review of their experience of working at uBeam on Glassdoor. It's... interesting.

"Not sure if uBeam even qualifies as a company."

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/11/ubeam-glassdoor-review-not-sure-if.html

An interesting article (https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/06/theranos-ceo-elizabeth-holmes-finally.html) was attached to that: It looks like the Theranos people might be going to jail:

“The Theranos story is an important lesson for Silicon Valley,” said Jina Choi, Director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office.  “Innovators who seek to revolutionize and disrupt an industry must tell investors the truth about what their technology can do today, not just what they hope it might do someday.”

...
I hope that this might be the start of at least some people realizing that if they heavily exaggerate, or try to fake it 'til they make it, regarding investors and customers, that it's not "being an entrepreneur", it's fraud.

Who's next? Meredith Perry?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on November 06, 2018, 01:46:49 pm
Theranos deceived the FDA and the SEC, government agencies who build their reputation on beeing harsh towards deception.

uBeam deceived venture capitalists..., VCs have a reputation to keep, preventing them from sending CEOs to jail.

VC essentially tell their investors
    We can figure out the companies that have a high chance of succeeding (so they can't admit some 25 yo....)
    Any CEO is dying to get our money (so they can't send a CEO to jail).

That is why the same VCs invested ~$25m, after they knew nothing works, and almost immediately (half a year start to finish)  moved to replace the CEO.

From a VC point of view.
All the old investments in the company are worthless.
But the VC reputation is still intact.
Lets invest additional $25m (of somebody else's money) and sell the company for $27m (probably doable), and get our $25m back (due to liquidation preference) + save our reputation (this would be marked as an exit).
To sell the company for $27m, they needed to replace the inexperienced CEO with an experienced one. Note this happened only ~6months after the investment (e.g. immediately).

I believe they also figured out it would never charge a phone, but, they hope the company could be sold for some ~$10-30 million while there is still some $15-18 million in the bank so they can get their money back + keep their reputation.

If they sell it when ~$18m are in the bank, they need to find a sucker who will buy the IP and lab equipment for $10m, this is certainly doable (although it's a waste of $10m).
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 06, 2018, 04:54:48 pm
Someone posted a review of their experience of working at uBeam on Glassdoor. It's... interesting.

"Not sure if uBeam even qualifies as a company."

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/11/ubeam-glassdoor-review-not-sure-if.html

An interesting article (https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/06/theranos-ceo-elizabeth-holmes-finally.html) was attached to that: It looks like the Theranos people might be going to jail:

“The Theranos story is an important lesson for Silicon Valley,” said Jina Choi, Director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office.  “Innovators who seek to revolutionize and disrupt an industry must tell investors the truth about what their technology can do today, not just what they hope it might do someday.”

...
I hope that this might be the start of at least some people realizing that if they heavily exaggerate, or try to fake it 'til they make it, regarding investors and customers, that it's not "being an entrepreneur", it's fraud.

Who's next? Meredith Perry?

One difference between Theranos and uBeam - Theranos had a service that was used by the paying public, that performed a medical test and that diagnosis informed treatment. uBeam had a lot of publicity and... nothing. Theranos screwed with the most heavily regulated area, and put patient health at risk. Had uBeam released a product that didn't work as advertised and affected health, then it would be in the same league(ish). As it is, they're an "also ran" in that regard. That being said, if you screw with investors, that tends to get a much faster and more definitive response.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 06, 2018, 05:10:55 pm
Theranos deceived the FDA and the SEC, government agencies who build their reputation on beeing harsh towards deception.

uBeam deceived venture capitalists..., VCs have a reputation to keep, preventing them from sending CEOs to jail.

VC essentially tell their investors
    We can figure out the companies that have a high chance of succeeding (so they can't admit some 25 yo....)
    Any CEO is dying to get our money (so they can't send a CEO to jail).

That is why the same VCs invested ~$25m, after they knew nothing works, and almost immediately (half a year start to finish)  moved to replace the CEO.

From a VC point of view.
All the old investments in the company are worthless.
But the VC reputation is still intact.
Lets invest additional $25m (of somebody else's money) and sell the company for $27m (probably doable), and get our $25m back (due to liquidation preference) + save our reputation (this would be marked as an exit).
To sell the company for $27m, they needed to replace the inexperienced CEO with an experienced one. Note this happened only ~6months after the investment (e.g. immediately).

I believe they also figured out it would never charge a phone, but, they hope the company could be sold for some ~$10-30 million while there is still some $15-18 million in the bank so they can get their money back + keep their reputation.

If they sell it when ~$18m are in the bank, they need to find a sucker who will buy the IP and lab equipment for $10m, this is certainly doable (although it's a waste of $10m).

Just a few points:

I don't think they raised $25m in the last round, that was just the number of the equity conversion form submitted to the SEC which I believe included the money from the convertible note round of 2015. I think that was in the $12 to $14m range so my suspicion is that the last round was closer to an actual $11m. Given expenses, I'd say they have $7m to $8m in the bank right now.

I don't know who put in to that round other than OurCrowd and UpFront. Before they realised it was public and hid it, OurCrowd's crowdfunding total for uBeam was around $5.7m, so I'd guess you'd have OurCrowd in for ~$6m, UpFront for ~$5m, and maybe $1m for others. (yeah I know that adds to 12, it's all approx).

The COO brought in about a year ago left in May, after only 9 months. He appeared to be not only a future CEO choice, but history with Intellectual Ventures points to him being someone to monetize the IP, and was likely on a "% of licensing deal" payout. If he looked at the company and walked, there's no value in it worth him spending more time on. Imagine he got 10% of any deal - if he can sell that IP or the company for $10 to $30m, he's going to hang on a year. Walking at 9 months, huge red flag. No significant value.

I also have not seen any new patents since not long after I left the company, 3 years ago. All submitted patents past a year ago should be public, so what we see now is basically what they went into the last fundraising effort with. I'm not expecting a lot more in the pipeline. The fundamental patent on acoustic wireless power transfer is from Charych in 2003.

I'll also bet that the investors in the last round, especially the lead, bent uBeam over a barrel and got really good terms, such as a preference on any sale, or at the least tranched the payment. They will make a multiple of their investment before everyone else gets scraps if that's the case. BTW note of the $37m or so uBeam raised, around half of it was from crowdfunding sources if my numbers are right. Thanks mom and pop!

Staff will likely be fleeing soon, if they aren't already interviewing I'd be stunned. No value there, besides the MBA class see them as replaceable cogs. I'd expect they'd have someone else in already, or soon, to evaluate the company IP value. My guess is the number they come up with is not nearly as high as 8 figures, and will disappoint the VCs. The IP might have been worth something if there was a product, but no such luck. Used equipment is rarely worth bothering with. It won't stop them trying to sell it for a few months, but there's a reason I suggested the best return was to just give the staff 60 days notice, close it down, and return the money for about 20c on the dollar average (heavily weighted to certain investors).
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on November 07, 2018, 11:32:09 am
For a VC planning to replace the CEO and sell the company, it makes sense to increase the amount of cash in the bank as it increases valuation and the total proceeds they will get from selling the company. The cash in the bank when a company is sold .... goes to the last investors anyway.

The 2015 round is reported to SEC as well, it says $15m in 2015.
After that there was, if I remember correctly, $2.8m from ourcroud. I don't think there was much more.
Which makes sense, because in late 2017, they couldn't extend there rent, so I figure they were out of cash...., which is reasonable for the size and seniority of their linkedin employee count.

I think it really is ~25m as the SEC site says, perhaps some of that is old bridge loans, but most of it is new money, I don't know who the source is though.

I met Meredith Perry and Costas Mallos a short while before he left, thought he was a good person.

You can't file patents if your R&D does not advance....

Late april this year, uBeam had at least 5 patent applications, with Meredith as the sole inventor. The patent examiner rejected the applications on the grounds of being very similar to other 2 uBeam patents.
uBeam filed request to grant the applications as is, and agreed to have reduce the term of them to the term of the original patent (this is called a terminal disclaimer, and is done often).
The applications have now been allowed by the examiner, which means they are now almost granted.
This increases the number of granted patents they will have in a month or two (perhaps at the cost of patent quality), which increases the company IP valuation.
Which resulted in the patents being allowed (e.g. will soon become granted patents).

See attachment example.

It may be standard, or it may be a move towards increasing patent count.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 07, 2018, 11:42:20 am
Someone posted a review of their experience of working at uBeam on Glassdoor. It's... interesting.
"Not sure if uBeam even qualifies as a company."

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/11/ubeam-glassdoor-review-not-sure-if.html

(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lCu5o3YsKBo/W-EUGei6rGI/AAAAAAAAAh0/s0TRjLxLrs4sdBk57GFSmG3Zr-mtvN85ACLcBGAs/s400/ubeamreview.PNG)

 :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 07, 2018, 11:54:55 am
It wouldn't surprise me if someone like Murata bought uBeam for the patents and IP in transducers. That's actually a large niche market, and more efficient and cheaper transducer tech is valuable.
I'm of the understanding that the sensors are pretty darn good, but manufacturing yield is a problem.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on November 08, 2018, 02:23:47 pm
The fact that uBeam says they have low cost transducers..... does not necessarily mean they do.

Making something really low cost is extremely difficult, and takes special expertise I did not see among the uBeam team members....
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on November 08, 2018, 02:51:39 pm
The fact that uBeam says they have low cost transducers..... does not necessarily mean they do.

Making something really low cost is extremely difficult, and takes special expertise I did not see among the uBeam team members....
... but you will find that expertise by the bucket load at Murata.  :)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 09, 2018, 09:08:02 am
On the funding:

There's certainly some room for arguing what the total from each round is, the numbers are obscured, some things get double counted, forms not filed, loans get rolled up into funding etc. I'm still going to put the weight of evidence at closer to $11/12m than $25m for that last round. They were talking about having raised $25 to $27m by the previous round, and now say around $40m. If they had actually raised $25m, they'd be saying $50m.

If you check the Form Ds on EDGAR, the 2015 round is listed as 'Debt' and the 2018 round as 'Equity' (Section 9). The Debt from one becomes Equity in the other, I think.

The lead investor almost always puts in the most money, but not always. They just have to be big enough and have the DD capability to be a reliable group to set valuation. If OurCrowd put in around $6m, even if the lead has to put in more, that means $12m + $1 is enough. I think they wanted $20m+, I don't think they got it, though I'm prepared to be proven wrong here. If they were that good, I don't see the big guys letting OurCrowd in for the lion's share, or even 25%.

IP portfolios get evaluated on quality, not just number (until you are one of the truly big guys). I'm not seeing the value in the types of patents you list. I could see someone offering $x00,000 for the lot but that's about it.

Something I found weird after the fundraise nearly a year ago - almost no hiring after. Few new job ads. Who does that after a big raise?

On the COO - I never met him, but I have no reason to say anything negative about him. His resume looks solid and a good choice for the role he was in. It looks to me like he may have assessed the situation and made a very wise decision. 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 09, 2018, 09:57:23 am
The fact that uBeam says they have low cost transducers..... does not necessarily mean they do.
Making something really low cost is extremely difficult, and takes special expertise I did not see among the uBeam team members....

They have a novel new technique apparently that can make manufacturing much cheaper for given sensistivity
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on November 09, 2018, 10:07:39 am
The fact that uBeam says they have low cost transducers..... does not necessarily mean they do.
Making something really low cost is extremely difficult, and takes special expertise I did not see among the uBeam team members....
They have a novel new technique apparently that can make manufacturing much cheaper for given sensistivity
Without a cheap transducer their large arrays would be dead in the water, so they have to claim they have a way to get cost under control. However, a lot of markets, like flow meters, have been hampered by the cost of ultrasonic transducers, so every transducer maker has been working hard on the cost issue for a number of years. Who would you bet on?

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on November 10, 2018, 02:45:20 pm
The fact that uBeam says they have low cost transducers..... does not necessarily mean they do.
Making something really low cost is extremely difficult, and takes special expertise I did not see among the uBeam team members....
They have a novel new technique apparently that can make manufacturing much cheaper for given sensistivity
Without a cheap transducer their large arrays would be dead in the water, so they have to claim they have a way to get cost under control. However, a lot of markets, like flow meters, have been hampered by the cost of ultrasonic transducers, so every transducer maker has been working hard on the cost issue for a number of years. Who would you bet on?

Did you hear that from somebody other then uBeam?

I take this saying with similar skepticism to the saying on being able to charge a phone .
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on November 14, 2018, 01:29:40 pm
I think Dave's source is feeding him duff info. >:D

The good news is that with that rate of size reduction it will vanish completely in less than 1 year. :) :horse:

It did. :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: brainwash on November 21, 2018, 12:00:31 am
...equipment is rarely worth bothering with. It won't stop them trying to sell it for a few months, but there's a reason I suggested the best return was to just give the staff 60 days notice, close it down, and return the money for about 20c on the dollar average (heavily weighted to certain investors).

I don't understand this part. Why heavily weighted against certain investors? Do they hold board seats or have the "advantage" of being the first seed? I'm really obtuse to this stuff but I thought the equity/return is proportional to the investment, unless subsequent rounds had an effect of raising the [perceived] value.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on November 21, 2018, 12:23:45 am
Without a cheap transducer their large arrays would be dead in the water, so they have to claim they have a way to get cost under control. However, a lot of markets, like flow meters, have been hampered by the cost of ultrasonic transducers, so every transducer maker has been working hard on the cost issue for a number of years. Who would you bet on?
Did you hear that from somebody other then uBeam?

I take this saying with similar skepticism to the saying on being able to charge a phone .
Did I get what from someone othe than uBeam? If you look at uBeam's pitch, with a fairly large array of transducers, they just have to get the cost per transducer under control or they can't get off the starting block. I have done quite a lot of work on ultrasonic utility flow metering, and currently its unclear whether water and gas meters will make a massive move to ultrasonic measurement, due to cost. The transducers are a key part of that cost. Various other proximity applications need cheap ultrasonic transducers to be economically viable, and are being inhibited right now. People like Murata, and various Chinese suppliers, really want to get costs to the point where more high volume markets can take off.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 21, 2018, 12:35:48 am
The fact that uBeam says they have low cost transducers..... does not necessarily mean they do.
Making something really low cost is extremely difficult, and takes special expertise I did not see among the uBeam team members....
They have a novel new technique apparently that can make manufacturing much cheaper for given sensistivity
Without a cheap transducer their large arrays would be dead in the water, so they have to claim they have a way to get cost under control. However, a lot of markets, like flow meters, have been hampered by the cost of ultrasonic transducers, so every transducer maker has been working hard on the cost issue for a number of years. Who would you bet on?

I wouldn't bet on uBeam of course, I'm just saying that they have some tech and IP in transducers that is novel, and that it may be worth something to someone.
They also haven't been able to turn that novel approach into any sort of decent production yield though I'm lead to believe.
If I was Murata I'd just let uBeam go broke (almost inevitable) and pick up the dregs for peanuts.
As for my source  :-X
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: ivaylo on November 21, 2018, 07:43:17 am
...equipment is rarely worth bothering with. It won't stop them trying to sell it for a few months, but there's a reason I suggested the best return was to just give the staff 60 days notice, close it down, and return the money for about 20c on the dollar average (heavily weighted to certain investors).

I don't understand this part. Why heavily weighted against certain investors? Do they hold board seats or have the "advantage" of being the first seed? I'm really obtuse to this stuff but I thought the equity/return is proportional to the investment, unless subsequent rounds had an effect of raising the [perceived] value.
The investors, creditors, etc parties are rarely equal - https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/corporate-liquidation-unpaid-taxes-wages.asp (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/corporate-liquidation-unpaid-taxes-wages.asp) . Every round of investment could be negotiated differently, I guess, but the biggest investors can usually get their portions first. The employees of course are last...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on November 21, 2018, 10:20:33 am

Quote
I don't understand this part. Why heavily weighted against certain investors? Do they hold board seats or have the "advantage" of being the first seed? I'm really obtuse to this stuff but I thought the equity/return is proportional to the investment, unless subsequent rounds had an effect of raising the [perceived] value.

Usually,
The last investor gets his money back, then the one before him, etc....

If there is anything left, it is split according to share....

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 22, 2018, 09:58:45 pm
I don't understand this part. Why heavily weighted against certain investors? Do they hold board seats or have the "advantage" of being the first seed? I'm really obtuse to this stuff but I thought the equity/return is proportional to the investment, unless subsequent rounds had an effect of raising the [perceived] value.

Not all investors are equal. At the simplest level, some have preferred stock, and others have common stock, and preferred get paid before common. Debt gets paid before any of them, which means had it not been for that recent funding round, those who had convertible debt from the 2015 round may have been higher on the food chain than even the preferred stock holders (not that there would be much to divvy up to begin with). See what Fortress Group did with Theranos at the end and ended up owning everything that could be of value. Even within preferred stock, there could be liquidation preferences of greater than one which means those stock holders would get a multiple of their investment back before anyone else does. Normally in a failing company it doesn't matter as there is nothing to split up, but here uBeam IMO still have a 7 figure sum in the bank. Worth fighting over or do lawyers get most of it?

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/12/theranos-gets-100-million-funding-is-it.html    - on Fortress Group and Theranos
https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/05/raising-capital-for-startup-convertible.html   -  on fundraising and convertible notes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidation_preference - wikipedia on liquidation preferences
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 22, 2018, 10:17:06 pm
Did I get what from someone othe than uBeam? If you look at uBeam's pitch, with a fairly large array of transducers, they just have to get the cost per transducer under control or they can't get off the starting block. I have done quite a lot of work on ultrasonic utility flow metering, and currently its unclear whether water and gas meters will make a massive move to ultrasonic measurement, due to cost. The transducers are a key part of that cost. Various other proximity applications need cheap ultrasonic transducers to be economically viable, and are being inhibited right now. People like Murata, and various Chinese suppliers, really want to get costs to the point where more high volume markets can take off.

Indeed - there's a reason many of my blog posts discuss the cost of a transmitter or receiver. If it's a consumer device you need the COGS to be 1/3 or less of what you sell to the public at, so if you claim $30 for a phone case your COGS have to be $10. Assuming that's all in the transducers (not true, there's electronics etc), then for an iPhone X case at 14.4 by 7.1 cm it's approx 100 cm^2, or 10 cents per cm^2. Murata transducers which sell to car manufacturers in huge volumes are in bulk around $1 per cm^2, so that means you need a >10x improvement in cost on an area basis. You then also need to be transmitting at 145 to 155 dB according to uBeam, which is around 30 to 300 times as much power as the Murata devices (assuming a 130dB max at source for Murata). You also need to be smaller, so your element spacing doesn't cause grating lobes to be formed and insonify places you didn't intend, so let's say a factor of 5 in area per device. You also can't have a 1cm thick block on the back of your phone (thicker than the phone!) so they have to be much thinner, let's say 5x again, so 25x in volume total improvement. And each and every device has to work under all conditions, from arctic to desert temperatures, in a dry or humid room, with each and every one of millions of others made for years to come.

So 10x better on price, 30 to 300x better in power, 25 times better in volume, meet all other existing requirements.

As I said in my second blog post "In theory, it can be done in limited cases, but in practice cost and efficiency issues will likely render it impractical."
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 22, 2018, 10:21:24 pm
uBeam are exhibiting at CES in January. Looks to be one of the private rooms so likely not public.

https://ces19.mapyourshow.com/7_0/exhibitor/exhibitor-details.cfm?ExhID=T0009085

"uBeam is a technology leader in the wireless power industry by utilizing airborne ultrasound to transmit power to create a true contact free charging ecosystem. By using proprietary transmitters and receivers, uBeam is able to deliver the necessary power to charge a range of devices from portable electronics to IoT sensors at various distances. uBeam’s wireless power solution removes power constraints for system designers and decreases battery-related issues to enable performance enhancements and system robustness, thereby creating a new dimension in power delivery and design paradigm."

Short blog post on it here: https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/11/ubeam-at-ces-2019.html
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on November 23, 2018, 09:29:32 am
uBeam are exhibiting at CES in January. Looks to be one of the private rooms so likely not public.

No surprise. "Exhibiting" their product at major shows is an important bullet point on the quarterly investor report. It helps keep them alive even though nobody will see anything other than a carefully staged demo.

(maybe the exact same demo they saw last year)

Plus they get to party in Vegas for a weekend, all expenses paid.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cyberdragon on November 25, 2018, 05:58:53 am
The fact that uBeam says they have low cost transducers..... does not necessarily mean they do.
Making something really low cost is extremely difficult, and takes special expertise I did not see among the uBeam team members....
They have a novel new technique apparently that can make manufacturing much cheaper for given sensistivity
Without a cheap transducer their large arrays would be dead in the water, so they have to claim they have a way to get cost under control. However, a lot of markets, like flow meters, have been hampered by the cost of ultrasonic transducers, so every transducer maker has been working hard on the cost issue for a number of years. Who would you bet on?

I wouldn't bet on uBeam of course, I'm just saying that they have some tech and IP in transducers that is novel, and that it may be worth something to someone.
They also haven't been able to turn that novel approach into any sort of decent production yield though I'm lead to believe.
If I was Murata I'd just let uBeam go broke (almost inevitable) and pick up the dregs for peanuts.
As for my source  :-X

Sure, and I can make an LED bulb that's cheaper and brighter than the rest.

It only blows up after 10 minutes... ::)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 25, 2018, 11:43:21 pm
uBeam are exhibiting at CES in January. Looks to be one of the private rooms so likely not public.

https://ces19.mapyourshow.com/7_0/exhibitor/exhibitor-details.cfm?ExhID=T0009085

"uBeam is a technology leader in the wireless power industry by utilizing airborne ultrasound to transmit power to create a true contact free charging ecosystem. By using proprietary transmitters and receivers, uBeam is able to deliver the necessary power to charge a range of devices from portable electronics to IoT sensors at various distances. uBeam’s wireless power solution removes power constraints for system designers and decreases battery-related issues to enable performance enhancements and system robustness, thereby creating a new dimension in power delivery and design paradigm."

Short blog post on it here: https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/11/ubeam-at-ces-2019.html

The trick is in the wording:
Quote
By using proprietary transmitters and receivers

Doesn't say anything about the actual transducers, it could simply mean the TX/RX circuitry ;D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on November 26, 2018, 09:17:34 am
Jacqueline McCauley is interim CEO of uBeam for 5 months now according to her linkedin page....
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jacquelinemccauley/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jacquelinemccauley/)

Meredith Perry stepped down in mid September.

I wanted to ask who was managing the company between July and September, but then figured I might as well ask who managed it from 2012 till now?

 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 26, 2018, 09:42:42 am
I wanted to ask who was managing the company between July and September, but then figured I might as well ask who managed it from 2012 till now?

They have never had adult supervision.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 26, 2018, 10:05:52 am
On the shelves in 2013  ;D
http://fortune.com/2012/10/11/more-under-40s-mobilizers/ (http://fortune.com/2012/10/11/more-under-40s-mobilizers/)

(https://i.imgur.com/v4ISUt4.png)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on November 26, 2018, 11:49:53 am
On the shelves in 2013  ;D

Fully shelved in Sep. 2018.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 26, 2018, 04:59:59 pm
On the shelves in 2013  ;D
http://fortune.com/2012/10/11/more-under-40s-mobilizers/ (http://fortune.com/2012/10/11/more-under-40s-mobilizers/)


I still get surprised by some of these that I had never seen before, you lot do a great job digging them up.

For those who liked the last anecdote about working at uBeam, here's another.

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ubeam-handshake.html
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Bud on November 26, 2018, 05:50:28 pm
Re your latest anecdote...Holy crap.... someone needs urgent medical attention.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 28, 2018, 07:36:01 am
That V insertion variant has got to be grade-A sexual harassment and #MeToo worthy these days, surely?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 29, 2018, 06:08:28 am
That V insertion variant has got to be grade-A sexual harassment and #MeToo worthy these days, surely?

I disagreed with Perry about a lot of things, but I never got the impression that when she did things like that it was from maliciousness towards any individual group.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 29, 2018, 06:28:08 am
That V insertion variant has got to be grade-A sexual harassment and #MeToo worthy these days, surely?
I disagreed with Perry about a lot of things, but I never got the impression that when she did things like that it was from maliciousness towards any individual group.

Sarcasm  ;D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on November 29, 2018, 09:39:25 am
I disagreed with Perry about a lot of things, but I never got the impression that when she did things like that it was from maliciousness towards any individual group.

No group except those pesky "engineers".

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Richard Crowley on November 29, 2018, 06:16:45 pm
I disagreed with Perry about a lot of things, but I never got the impression that when she did things like that it was from maliciousness towards any individual group.

It is often difficult to distinguish between malice and simple ignorance (or impudent chutzpah).
There are whole YouTube channels specializing in things that went wrong when the experts (engineers, etc.) were ignored.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on November 29, 2018, 11:06:03 pm
That V insertion variant has got to be grade-A sexual harassment and #MeToo worthy these days, surely?
I disagreed with Perry about a lot of things, but I never got the impression that when she did things like that it was from maliciousness towards any individual group.

Sarcasm  ;D

Careful, sarcasm is banned in certain Australian universities (https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Free-Speech-on-Campus-Audit-2017-Appendix-2.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3RkOKOId5tzkzUns8R9Ov8_gx4wO-9iIthGomDDTm3avSPWCeoT3ImeGM). 

The one other place it's banned? North Korea (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/north-korea-bans-sarcasm-kim-jong-un-freedom-speech-a7231461.html).
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 30, 2018, 12:18:01 am
I disagreed with Perry about a lot of things, but I never got the impression that when she did things like that it was from maliciousness towards any individual group.

No group except those pesky "engineers".

Those pesky inherently linear thinkers!

I need my daily dose of TED:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukgnU2aXM2c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukgnU2aXM2c)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: chris_leyson on November 30, 2018, 01:31:42 am
Quote
Those pesky inherently linear thinkers!
I've worked for two companies that went bust because they were  run by stubborn and ignorant people who wouldn't listen to any critisism. They had their minds made up "it's simple we do it this way" but it won't work because of... and your words fall on deaf ears. :palm: Meredith Perry is just one stubborn and ignorant person but there are a lot more out there.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 30, 2018, 03:40:39 am
 ;D

https://youtu.be/AMvV8P5S3I4?t=368
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Richard Crowley on November 30, 2018, 04:46:44 am
https://youtu.be/AMvV8P5S3I4?t=368

What do we suppose she means by "the math is right"?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 30, 2018, 06:36:22 am
https://youtu.be/AMvV8P5S3I4?t=368
What do we suppose she means by "the math is right"?

Her next comment says it all "I knew it was possible". To her non-engineering mind that means "the math works". She's delusional in that she thinks that if something is not impossible, then it must somehow be practical. She doesn't understand or want to admit that some things can't work because they are just impractical.
She's trying to use the word math to convince others (and herself) that it's science, and science always works.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on November 30, 2018, 10:31:30 am
I believe in 2012 she really thought it was possible (in D9 she said, hey we get 8 volts, all we need to charge an iPhone is 5 Volt) .
I think that, as a biology grad, she did not know the difference between Volts and Watts (most people don't, and dBs are even worse).

10 minutes later she landed tons of money, big shot investors, tons of positive media coverage, and theaters full of people cheering.
It was going very well, so it must be true right.

She had 0 experience, and believed it's going to work.

After all that money, cheers, big shot investors, and especially media coverage, it takes great courage to say "hey, sorry, it doesn't work, never had a chance, I just didn't know the difference between volts and watts, true I learned about it in high school, but I was sick that day, here are 10c on your dollar, sorry"

I don't know many people who would do that, would you?

Having said that, saying, since 2014 she was just bluntly lying (she must have known watts and dBs by then).
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 30, 2018, 01:05:20 pm
I believe in 2012 she really thought it was possible (in D9 she said, hey we get 8 volts, all we need to charge an iPhone is 5 Volt) .
I think that, as a biology grad, she did not know the difference between Volts and Watts (most people don't, and dBs are even worse).

10 minutes later she landed tons of money, big shot investors, tons of positive media coverage, and theaters full of people cheering.
It was going very well, so it must be true right.

She had 0 experience, and believed it's going to work.

After all that money, cheers, big shot investors, and especially media coverage, it takes great courage to say "hey, sorry, it doesn't work, never had a chance, I just didn't know the difference between volts and watts, true I learned about it in high school, but I was sick that day, here are 10c on your dollar, sorry"

I don't know many people who would do that, would you?

But she could have weaseled out of it, saved face, and still been a success by pivoting the company (as suggested by the engineers) and maybe making something of it all in the end. But no, she insisted on charging mobile phones and consumer gadgets, and that was only going to ever end one way. Only after she got the boot did the company effectively decide to pivot away from consumer charging.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on November 30, 2018, 02:10:07 pm
Registrations for CES-2019 seems to have opened the very same week as the "transition".
IMHO they might as well cancel it and close up shop to prevent further embarrassment. :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on November 30, 2018, 05:42:38 pm
But she could have weaseled out of it, saved face, and still been a success by pivoting the company (as suggested by the engineers) and maybe making something of it all in the end. But no, she insisted on charging mobile phones and consumer gadgets, and that was only going to ever end one way. Only after she got the boot did the company effectively decide to pivot away from consumer charging.

Absolutely true, if she were a great leader, she could have.

But, I can imagine the board meeting just before announcing such a pivot, and I can imagine the headlines, and it takes a great person to go there.
Most people arn't, she isn't.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 30, 2018, 11:46:57 pm
Absolutely true, if she were a great leader, she could have.

But, I can imagine the board meeting just before announcing such a pivot, and I can imagine the headlines, and it takes a great person to go there.
Most people arn't, she isn't.

I disagree, it was an easy route and one that could have been taken without losing face by most. e.g.

"As you know our ultrasonic charging system is built on fundamental new breakthroughs that we've always said were a platform technology enabling new industries and revolutionizing existing ones. Our engineers have been making such good progress that I've been listening to them and it's clear that transforming the $15 billion car parking sensor market is too good an opportunity to pass up, as we've got world leading technology close to production ready. It's always faster to move into an existing market than creating a new one, and it would be criminal not to take advantage. As such we're excited to announce the addition of a new team dedicated to bringing this to market quickly, and showing us revenue in the near term. Wireless power transfer is right on schedule and we're going to take this time to build out the infrastructure that gives users that seamless magical experience they demand."

Someone may have even have suggested an approach/wording like that, and some of the Perry/Suster discussions on stage at the UpFront summit supported that tack.

And then in a year say "We're making such good progress on car parking sensors we're concentrating on that revenue opportunity for now" and slowly, quietly, drop the power transfer.

But if you've built your entire self-image on proving engineers wrong and it's your destiny to bring wireless power to the masses, then no, you're not going to do that.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on December 02, 2018, 03:54:22 pm

But if you've built your entire self-image on proving engineers wrong and it's your destiny to bring wireless power to the masses, then no, you're not going to do that.

I agree fully, with what you wrote.
I just think she was maneuvered into this position of "engineers are wrong, it's my destiny to bring wireless power", by some "adults" and by her attention seeking personality.

It's stupid but normal for many people to seek a lot of media attention, which helps bring money (as long as it's good attention).
Experienced managers know this will blow up in their face later...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cyberdragon on December 02, 2018, 06:03:45 pm
Someone should have gone up that TED talks stage and blantently asked her a basic science question like "what are the three thermodynamic laws?" Bet she wouldn't know...XD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 02, 2018, 10:41:33 pm
Absolutely true, if she were a great leader, she could have.

But, I can imagine the board meeting just before announcing such a pivot, and I can imagine the headlines, and it takes a great person to go there.
Most people arn't, she isn't.

I disagree, it was an easy route and one that could have been taken without losing face by most. e.g.

"As you know our ultrasonic charging system is built on fundamental new breakthroughs that we've always said were a platform technology enabling new industries and revolutionizing existing ones. Our engineers have been making such good progress that I've been listening to them and it's clear that transforming the $15 billion car parking sensor market is too good an opportunity to pass up, as we've got world leading technology close to production ready. It's always faster to move into an existing market than creating a new one, and it would be criminal not to take advantage. As such we're excited to announce the addition of a new team dedicated to bringing this to market quickly, and showing us revenue in the near term. Wireless power transfer is right on schedule and we're going to take this time to build out the infrastructure that gives users that seamless magical experience they demand."

They should have hired you!
Oh...  ;D

Quote
But if you've built your entire self-image on proving engineers wrong and it's your destiny to bring wireless power to the masses, then no, you're not going to do that.

Bingo. She was out to prove all of us wrong no matter what, and she lost as the realities of practical engineering which she so despised and/or ignored, predicted.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on December 02, 2018, 11:03:28 pm
I'm afraid there won't be any parking sensors or IoTs charging, just in case anyone's thinking of investing. :)

Having said that, saying, since 2014 she was just bluntly lying (she must have known watts and dBs by then).

Yes, they must have known it was totally impracticable for years, and should have guessed about 2012! :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 02, 2018, 11:22:17 pm
Having said that, saying, since 2014 she was just bluntly lying (she must have known watts and dBs by then).
Yes, they must have known it was totally impracticable for years, and should have guessed about 2012! :horse:

She was told by multiple experts from day one, including her own hired experts after a period of time that it wasn't practical for the claimed application of consumer phone charging. She chose to ignore that advice, and the investors continued to "believe".
Throw in a few dog'n'pony show demos, a relentless attitude of the majority shareholder and founder, and investment bias, and you can see why this debacle went on for half a decade.
Can't necessarily blame the investors too much, as their job is to make a return on their investment. They don't need to care if it actually works as promised, they just needed an exit strategy that worked for them. But of course the investors will almost certainly ultimately lose their money because they didn't keep control and gambled on Perry and lost.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 02, 2018, 11:26:01 pm
I hadn't seen this before:

Perry interviewed on The Art Of Manufacturing podcast in June.
Haven't heard it yet, so I don't know what's in it, but with a hour long interview there's bound to be some gems  ;D

EDIT: Random flick through, at 35:45 she talks about how people (toxic employees) were the biggest problem. She now has a "no arsehole" rule in hiring. Those pesky smart engineers telling her about practical limitations, can't have those!

45:30 Still talking about consumer apps, and "if this" and "if that".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXNe8doDFTE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXNe8doDFTE)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on December 02, 2018, 11:40:07 pm
I hadn't seen this before:
Perry interviewed on The Art Of Manufacturing podcast in June.

You posted it in June.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/msg1637441/#msg1637441 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/msg1637441/#msg1637441)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 02, 2018, 11:41:32 pm
I hadn't seen this before:
Perry interviewed on The Art Of Manufacturing podcast in June.

You posted it in June.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/msg1637441/#msg1637441 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/msg1637441/#msg1637441)

LOL, so I did.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on December 03, 2018, 01:31:04 pm
I hadn't seen this before:

Perry interviewed on The Art Of Manufacturing podcast in June.
Haven't heard it yet, so I don't know what's in it, but with a hour long interview there's bound to be some gems  ;D

Did I miss something, what has she manufactured (other than bullshit)?

Quote
She now has a "no arsehole" rule in hiring.

Is that why she stood down?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on December 04, 2018, 12:50:45 pm
Who are/were the 2 incredible engineers on the technical team that believed in it, are they still there.  :horse:
https://youtu.be/AMvV8P5S3I4?t=342 (https://youtu.be/AMvV8P5S3I4?t=342)

Last month's news:
The Exceptional Women Awardees (EWA) Foundation  ;D
https://www.prweb.com/releases/an_ewa_success_jacqueline_mccauley_becomes_interim_ceo_of_ubeam/prweb15963978.htm (https://www.prweb.com/releases/an_ewa_success_jacqueline_mccauley_becomes_interim_ceo_of_ubeam/prweb15963978.htm)


Has anyone noticed the error in The Electromagnetic Spectrum yet?

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on December 07, 2018, 11:45:51 am

But if you've built your entire self-image on proving engineers wrong and it's your destiny to bring wireless power to the masses, then no, you're not going to do that.

I agree fully, with what you wrote.
I just think she was maneuvered into this position of "engineers are wrong, it's my destiny to bring wireless power", by some "adults" and by her attention seeking personality.

It's stupid but normal for many people to seek a lot of media attention, which helps bring money (as long as it's good attention).
Experienced managers know this will blow up in their face later...

I don't think the facts, or my personal experience of the situation, can support the assertion Perry was manipulated into that position.  The TEDx talk (below) where she disparages engineers is from April 2012, not even a year after the "All Things D" demo, prior to even the majority of the seed round money (which I think was summer 2012), and definitively prior to the Series A (~$10m in Sept/Oct 2014). At that time the only "adults" that were around consistently that I am aware of were her father, and Board of Directors member Katie McMahon. I only met McMahon a few times, and she never seemed to me to be someone who manipulated but had been described by many of the senior technical team as "head cheerleader for Team Meredith". Timeline shows, IMO, these characteristics prior to serious funding.

When I wrote the "Must Have The Precious" blog in April 2016 (https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/04/must-have-precious.html (https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/04/must-have-precious.html) ) a point I wanted to make was that I saw someone who (at least outwardly) to me changed over a period of time - that at each funding round, in my opinion, a set of personality traits that were possibly always there but not necessarily dominant, were rewarded and encouraged, and came to the fore more and more until they were dominant. The interactions with the co-founder in 2011, again in my opinion, show it was always there even prior to "adults" being involved (again, other than her father or others I am not aware of, and I've got a pretty good background on this). That a single minded pursuit of "the precious" (wireless ultrasound power and proving engineers wrong) at any cost changed her and, I thought at the time, would ultimately result in her own "doom". I think I've been proven right on that one.

I thought at the influx of serious money in 2014 that "adults" would make sure what I thought were the worst of her characteristics would be tempered and there would be an opportunity for learning and growth when the stakes got serious. I was very wrong. I don't believe that she was manipulated into that attitude, but I do hold the opinion that she was not stopped and was effectively enabled by many of them.

Perry was her own person, like everyone a product of their personality and upbringing. I don't see her as an easily manipulated child in that regard. Like Elizabeth Holmes, I think there's a drive to find a reason for why they did what they did, and try to apply a logical reason for why someone would act, in our opinion, so illogically. As with so much of human behaviour, it defies logic and simply comes down to the frog and scorpion tale - "I'm a scorpion"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukgnU2aXM2c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukgnU2aXM2c)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 07, 2018, 11:58:47 am
I thought at the influx of serious money in 2014 that "adults" would make sure what I thought were the worst of her characteristics would be tempered and there would be an opportunity for learning and growth when the stakes got serious. I was very wrong. I don't believe that she was manipulated into that attitude, but I do hold the opinion that she was not stopped and was effectively enabled by many of them.

I was quite surprised that she was obviously forced into stepping down, I thought she'd ride this donkey into the ground (and had the shareholder voting power to do so?).
Perhaps she just ran out of puff to fight any more?
I don't see for changing after all this time?
Or perhaps someone was clever enough to subtly convince her that a new tack was the best way to go?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on December 07, 2018, 12:18:08 pm
I thought at the influx of serious money in 2014 that "adults" would make sure what I thought were the worst of her characteristics would be tempered and there would be an opportunity for learning and growth when the stakes got serious. I was very wrong. I don't believe that she was manipulated into that attitude, but I do hold the opinion that she was not stopped and was effectively enabled by many of them.

Being a sociopath is almost a career requirement for financiers, they are not the people to look to for spotting and mitigating risky personality traits in other people.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on December 07, 2018, 03:42:34 pm

I was quite surprised that she was obviously forced into stepping down, I thought she'd ride this donkey into the ground (and had the shareholder voting power to do so?).
Perhaps she just ran out of puff to fight any more?
I don't see for changing after all this time?
Or perhaps someone was clever enough to subtly convince her that a new tack was the best way to go?

It really surprised me too, IMO I had expected her to go down with the company in flames screaming "I would have gotten away with it, if it hadn't been for you pesky misogynists" or equivalent. (Or, carrying on the LotR metaphor, fall into the fires of MtDoom clutching the precious)

My opinion, and purely a guess - Perry did not leave willingly, and that the last round of had enough dilution of her stock and enough increase of major funder's stock that the overall ratio of equity, or the BoD voting structure, shifted so it could be forced. This seemed to happen shortly after the most recent COO left in May, which I expect was the breaking point for the investors.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 07, 2018, 10:08:59 pm
My opinion, and purely a guess - Perry did not leave willingly, and that the last round of had enough dilution of her stock and enough increase of major funder's stock that the overall ratio of equity, or the BoD voting structure, shifted so it could be forced. This seemed to happen shortly after the most recent COO left in May, which I expect was the breaking point for the investors.

This reminds me of Altium. Founder Nick Martin (a really nice and smart guy) ran the company with an iron fist for over 20 years and drove the share price into the ground in pursuit of whatever his latest vision was. He just wasn't a practical business guy and really had place no running a public company. It wasn't until he bailed out his buddy (and former early employee) buy buying his company (Morfik) with stock did hid buddy along with the board then have enough voting power to do a hostile takeover and finally boot him out.
They then righted the ship and focused on core stuff, ran it like a business, and within 8 years the stock climbed from 10 cents to $30.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on December 08, 2018, 12:17:13 pm
This reminds me of Altium. Founder Nick Martin (a really nice and smart guy) ran the company with an iron fist for over 20 years and drove the share price into the ground in pursuit of whatever his latest vision was. He just wasn't a practical business guy and really had place no running a public company. It wasn't until he bailed out his buddy (and former early employee) buy buying his company (Morfik) with stock did hid buddy along with the board then have enough voting power to do a hostile takeover and finally boot him out.
They then righted the ship and focused on core stuff, ran it like a business, and within 8 years the stock climbed from 10 cents to $30.

For me, the analogy broke down at the "really nice and smart" bit.  ;D

However, you make a great point that every so often a moron finds a golden goose by sheer luck (there's a lot of morons out there, random chance has one succeeding eventually), and the goose keeps producing eggs despite the attempts of the moron to strangle it, and they view this as a sign of both their genius and a divine right to rule. I use the term "100th Idiot" in recognition of Iain M. Banks' quote.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on December 08, 2018, 02:17:45 pm
 :palm:   https://twitter.com/InfluenceDigest/status/1068563682362220544 :horse:

"It is her tech-savvy skills that earned her the respect of many young millennials."  :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on December 08, 2018, 04:01:43 pm
:palm:   https://twitter.com/InfluenceDigest/status/1068563682362220544 :horse:

"It is her tech-savvy skills that earned her the respect of many young millennials."  :palm:

But not the respect of engineers...

Wow, their research is a bit weak if they didn't know they'd given the award to someone who appears to have just been fired.

Mark Suster also gets a mention but Brock Pierce? Err, they do know there's a bit of an underage kids molestation story going around there? As John Oliver said, Google "Brock Pierce scandal". From https://hornet.com/stories/brock-pierce-scandal-john-oliver-2/

"Just prior to DEN’s IPO, a young man identified only as Jake W. filed a lawsuit accusing Collins-Rector of sexually molesting him for three years, beginning in 1993, when W. was only 13. The IPO was cancelled; Collins-Rector, Pierce and Collins-Rector’s partner Chad Shackley resigned; and the company filed for bankruptcy.

When the company collapsed, Collins-Rector, Pierce and Shackley fled the United States after the three men had been accused of sexually abusing, drugging and making violent threats against underage DEN employees. The three were extradited to the United States for charges of transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of engaging in sexual acts, however only Collins-Rector was charged."

Thanks for finding this, it might be blogpost worthy.

Edit: Yes, it was blog post worthy. https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/12/awards-lists-media-shows-how-valuable.html

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on December 09, 2018, 06:44:39 am


I don't think the facts, or my personal experience of the situation, can support the assertion Perry was manipulated into that position.  The TEDx talk (below) where she disparages engineers is from April 2012, not even a year after the "All Things D" demo, prior to even the majority of the seed round money (which I think was summer 2012), and definitively prior to the Series A (~$10m in Sept/Oct 2014). At that time the only "adults" that were around consistently that I am aware of were her father, and Board of Directors member Katie McMahon.

Point made, I'm convinced.
Thanks
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Bud on December 09, 2018, 06:55:50 am
She is only missing the Frost & Sullivan award, everything else is looking good. ::)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 09, 2018, 07:42:32 am
However, you make a great point that every so often a moron finds a golden goose by sheer luck (there's a lot of morons out there, random chance has one succeeding eventually), and the goose keeps producing eggs despite the attempts of the moron to strangle it, and they view this as a sign of both their genius and a divine right to rule. I use the term "100th Idiot" in recognition of Iain M. Banks' quote.

In this case it wasn't dumb luck, but years of hard work building up a small loyal fan base with a good program at a good price. But when the IPO happened and the "vision" stuff started happening it was the extremely loyal and tolerant customer base, the lack of real competition at the price point, and that the company never had any debt is what kept them from going under. Plus it is very difficult to switch CAD programs, so most just stuck with it. They were (in)famous for shooting themselves in the foot and focusing on everything but the stuff the users wanted, but those "1000 true fans" as they say is what kept it going.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 09, 2018, 07:52:17 am
She is only missing the Frost & Sullivan award, everything else is looking good. ::)

 :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 09, 2018, 07:52:37 am
Her next award, a Nobel prize!  :-DD
https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/news/2015/02/10/upstart100-meredith-perry.html (https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/news/2015/02/10/upstart100-meredith-perry.html)

As for this:
Quote
At just 25, Perry isn't just the entrepreneur behind uBeam; she's truly an inventor, developing technology that transmits power wirelessly using ultrasound
She didn't develop anything, all those engineers she despises did all the work.


(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=592105;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: drussell on December 13, 2018, 01:12:40 pm
Quote
"And she's probably the smartest person in most rooms she stands in."

Ummm...  Yeah, not so much....  I beg to differ.  :)

Cue the intelligence vs "smarts" debate, I suppose, since I'm sure she's not dumb but is one of those who is certainly extremely delusional in the typical style of "if you just believe hard enough..." etc.   :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on December 14, 2018, 11:13:48 am
"if you just believe hard enough..."

... you can be really tall and play on the basktball team!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cyberdragon on December 22, 2018, 03:34:28 am
"if you just believe hard enough..."

... you can be really tall and play on the basktball team!

Down here, your company will float too! >:D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on December 22, 2018, 12:43:00 pm
uBeen have been very quiet for months, perhaps they're not doing anything useful, or perhaps they're snowed under with licensing requests. :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on December 27, 2018, 03:04:15 am
uBeam to Unveil Ultrasonic Wireless Power System at CES 2019   https://blueequity.io/r/7534

Isn't that what they've supposed to have been doing for the last 6 years. :horse:

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on December 27, 2018, 03:41:14 am
uBeam to Unveil Ultrasonic Wireless Power System at CES 2019   https://blueequity.io/r/7534

Isn't that what they've supposed to have been doing for the last 6 years. :horse:

I just came here to post the same thing. This should be awesome, that's why you announce it the day after Christmas during the best news cycle for press releases...

I'm doing a year end blog on them, I'll need to add some questions for the attendees to ask to get the most from their visit to the CES booth.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on December 27, 2018, 03:50:48 am
"I'm doing a year end blog on them"

I'm waiting for it. :) :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on December 27, 2018, 09:12:58 am
Here it is, the uBeam yearly product announcement for 2019.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ubeam-to-unveil-ultrasonic-wireless-power-system-at-ces-2019-300770860.html (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ubeam-to-unveil-ultrasonic-wireless-power-system-at-ces-2019-300770860.html)

It is also the only wireless power technology that is not electromagnetic based, which provides unique advantages for the users.

Said advantages being.....it's bigger, causes a minor headache but it does not cause cancer, while transmitting the same huge amounts of energy into nearby space as Energous and delivering almost the same tiny amount of power into your phone as Energous.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 04, 2019, 05:30:27 am
Here it is, the uBeam yearly product announcement for 2019.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ubeam-to-unveil-ultrasonic-wireless-power-system-at-ces-2019-300770860.html (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ubeam-to-unveil-ultrasonic-wireless-power-system-at-ces-2019-300770860.html)

PLEASE tell me someone is going to this  ;D

Invite only of course in a private booth to keep out pesky engineers!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on January 04, 2019, 09:15:48 am
Here it is, the uBeam yearly product announcement for 2019.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ubeam-to-unveil-ultrasonic-wireless-power-system-at-ces-2019-300770860.html (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ubeam-to-unveil-ultrasonic-wireless-power-system-at-ces-2019-300770860.html)

PLEASE tell me someone is going to this  ;D

Invite only of course in a private booth to keep out pesky engineers!
They're probably so desperate they'd invite anyone who showed interest - we need an EEVBlog undercover agent...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on January 04, 2019, 09:18:24 am
Quote
About uBeam
uBeam is an innovation leader in the wireless power industry
leader in what respect exactly - delusional bullshit ?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on January 06, 2019, 07:35:42 pm
leader in what respect exactly - delusional bullshit ?

They must be in the top 50 long range wireless power startups (there are 4-5 of those)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on January 06, 2019, 11:42:17 pm
"According to the company officials, uBeam’s representatives will present a technology demonstration of the company’s new contact-free power-at-a-distance ultrasonic wireless power system. uBeam’s leadership and engineering teams will be available on-site to discuss in detail the technology and its potential applications and partnership opportunities."

"The technology which is the only wireless power technology that is not electromagnetic based will prove beneficial to customers who strictly depend on “no electromagnetic field zone”"

https://ciotechie.com/news/ubeam-to-showcase-the-first-of-a-kind-wireless-power-transfer-tech-at-ces-2019/

LOL  :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on January 07, 2019, 11:47:22 am
"The technology which is the only wireless power technology that is not electromagnetic based will prove beneficial to customers who strictly depend on “no electromagnetic field zone”"

I figured out their marketing plan!

They're going to sell these to "electrosensitive" people so they can charge their cell phones without getting ill.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Richard Crowley on January 07, 2019, 12:05:15 pm
I figured out their marketing plan!
They're going to sell these to "electrosensitive" people so they can charge their cell phones without getting ill.
Electrosensitive people without pets.  Just wait until they sell one to somebody with an unstable doberman or pit-bull.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on January 07, 2019, 12:48:05 pm
The fatal flaw is that electrosensitives don't own smartphones...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 07, 2019, 01:25:41 pm
"According to the company officials, uBeam’s representatives will present a technology demonstration of the company’s new contact-free power-at-a-distance ultrasonic wireless power system. uBeam’s leadership and engineering teams will be available on-site to discuss in detail the technology and its potential applications and partnership opportunities."

You mean their CEO who is the former HR person  :-DD
And who is CTO this month?  :-//
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on January 07, 2019, 01:36:33 pm
I can't stop thinking of the demonstrations in their 'downstairs lab' as a “no electromagnetic field zones” area.

How many “no electromagnetic field zone” IoT devices are there going to be.

At least the new management seem to be on the ball - for more comedy!
 :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on January 07, 2019, 01:46:59 pm
They seem to have a new CEO

The former HR is no longer the interim CEO, she's now the interim CFO.
There is a Simon McElrea there (former VP @ Energous).
http://ubeam.com/team/ (http://ubeam.com/team/)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 07, 2019, 05:53:31 pm
They seem to have a new CEO

The former HR is no longer the interim CEO, she's now the interim CFO.
There is a Simon McElrea there (former VP @ Energous).
http://ubeam.com/team/ (http://ubeam.com/team/)

Ex-Energous? You couldn't make this up, it would be too unbelievable.

Actually a good choice if they're going to try to squeeze any money out of the limited IP they have.

Also clear they are going the IoT route, as seemingly do all wireless at distance companies. The "no EM zone" thing is weird.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on January 07, 2019, 07:07:47 pm
It's official. :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on January 07, 2019, 07:20:52 pm
I almost believed Meredith left without revealing the twitter password.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: drussell on January 07, 2019, 08:46:20 pm
How many areas can there possibly be that must be electromagnetically "silent" yet can also tolerate ultrasonic energy blasted at "deafeningly" high levels?

This is what they have now?  Wow!   :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 07, 2019, 09:13:31 pm
It's official. :horse:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=616396;image)

The "vision" was the charge a mobile phone, hows that going I wonder?  ::)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on January 08, 2019, 01:00:08 am
I'm still waiting for the cordless TVs and the stick on light bulbs.

I wonder what the new CEO thinks he's going to be doing at uDream, shuffling the deck chairs?

Going by the times I'm often the first/only to read a uDream article, I don't think there's anyone going to see them at CES tomorrow. :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 08, 2019, 08:31:46 am
I'm still waiting for the cordless TVs and the stick on light bulbs.

I wonder what the new CEO thinks he's going to be doing at uDream, shuffling the deck chairs?

Going by the times I'm often the first/only to read a uDream article, I don't think there's anyone going to see them at CES tomorrow. :horse:

My best guess is he thinks he can tie a pretty bow on this thing and sell it off for enough to get the investors their money back and himself a fat bonus, in less than a year to 18 months. The previous COO was the last guy brought in to do that, but he had to work with Perry as well and IMO to expect two miracles from anyone is a bit much.

I would think the CES "demo" will show they can charge at the mW level, with large, inefficient, (if you dig) expensive devices, and not selling a large scale cost-effective production method, just the IP licence, the price down bit is someone else's problem. Thing is, Powercast basically already sell that, with all FCC licenses except small and cheap(ish). I expect it's why they are banging the "electrosensitive" drum because it's the only thing they have that's 'better' than an existing product.

And yes, there's a diminishing interest in my uBeam blog articles, and people I speak to are "Isn't that dead yet?"
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on January 08, 2019, 09:21:44 am
And yes, there's a diminishing interest in my uBeam blog articles, and people I speak to are "Isn't that dead yet?"

We still read your posts, thanks.
Personally, I'm waiting for the sophisticated private investors of OurCrowd's second round to decide if they think OurCrowd had a conflict of interests when it promoted the second deal.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on January 08, 2019, 04:08:37 pm
I wonder what the new CEO thinks he's going to be doing at uDream, shuffling the deck chairs?

I can't imagine he's thought that far ahead. He's just looking at how much money is in their bank account.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on January 09, 2019, 11:53:52 pm
Everything is going fine in the uDream world.  :horse:

"Over the past 18 months, our team of 30 engineers has been singularly focused on the miniaturization of the technology, to enable us in 2019 to provide reference design kits to our manufacturing partners and customers so that they can integrate it into their diverse range of products," said McElrea. "By developing the complete turn-key solution, from industry-leading transducers, to custom ASICs, control electronics, hardware and software, we have created an end-to-end solution, as well as the associated IP, which currently totals over 100 patents and applications."

https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2019/01/08/ubeam-names-new-ceo.html (https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2019/01/08/ubeam-names-new-ceo.html)

30 Engineers.  :o
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: The_Next_Theranos on January 10, 2019, 01:32:02 pm
https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2019/01/08/ubeam-names-new-ceo.html (https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2019/01/08/ubeam-names-new-ceo.html)
"Over the past 18 months, our team of 30 engineers

Current head count seems to be 22 according to the latest team photo at https://ubeam.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/teamphotobw2019.jpg (https://ubeam.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/teamphotobw2019.jpg) .

(https://ubeam.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/teamphotobw2019.jpg)

I kind of feel sorry for the remaining engineers... they probably they were just trying to do a good job but were put in an impossible situation by an ignorant CEO. I've been there too... when top management (in a technology company) doesn't really understand the core technology, things tend to blow up sooner or later.

https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2019/01/08/ubeam-names-new-ceo.html (https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2019/01/08/ubeam-names-new-ceo.html)
"...By developing the complete turn-key solution, from industry-leading transducers, to custom ASICs, control electronics, hardware and software, we have created an end-to-end solution, as well as the associated IP, which currently totals over 100 patents and applications."

But can it charge my phone yet?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on January 10, 2019, 07:09:54 pm
(https://ubeam.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/teamphotobw2019.jpg)
But can it charge my phone yet?

Unless I’m very much mistaken, that photograph shows a lot of untrustworthy linear thinking engineers with binary approaches, perhaps several with Aspergers, and too many with letters after their name. Those people won’t think out of the box enough to come up with a practical solution to charge a phone.

Just a few hours on Google and $40m will easily provide the solution.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on January 10, 2019, 07:44:36 pm
Is the new CEO telling porky pies already.

If they really have had 30 engineers working for eighteen months on the miniaturization of nothing, surely even the daftest investors can see that uDream is just a scam.  :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on January 13, 2019, 12:38:13 am
Any news on the uDream CES2019 great  reveal!  I wonder if they had any visitor(s).  :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on January 13, 2019, 07:06:04 am
Any news on the uDream CES2019 great  reveal!  I wonder if they had any visitor(s).  :horse:

It just seems all rather self-defeating to go to a show only to hide yourself away. That's one way to avoid all those difficult questions I suppose.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 13, 2019, 09:22:23 am
https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2019/01/08/ubeam-names-new-ceo.html (https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2019/01/08/ubeam-names-new-ceo.html)
"Over the past 18 months, our team of 30 engineers

Current head count seems to be 22 according to the latest team photo at https://ubeam.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/teamphotobw2019.jpg (https://ubeam.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/teamphotobw2019.jpg) .

Either way that's a lot of cash burn.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 13, 2019, 09:28:11 am
Unless I’m very much mistaken, that photograph shows a lot of untrustworthy linear thinking engineers with binary approaches, perhaps several with Aspergers, and too many with letters after their name. Those people won’t think out of the box enough to come up with a practical solution to charge a phone.

Luckily they have no intention of charging a phone any more  ;D
They have pivoted to low power IoT which doesn't require any engi.... oh...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cyberdragon on January 13, 2019, 06:17:30 pm
Quote
low power

Oh you mean what's left after you piss away 90%+ of it with pointless dreams...and a giant fridge looking box. :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 13, 2019, 10:34:56 pm
The uBeam CES demo kit.
So this is 30 engineers for 18 months working on miniaturisation?
Looks more like a bunch of off-the-shelf transducers on a PCB
I presume the white square frames are their state-of-the-art location tracking system.

How is this in any way marketable technology for a small sensor IoT application which is their new target market?

Notice the LARGE SMPS which would be the TX, and the smaller energy harvesting board which would be the RX.
You could guestimate the efficiency based on those sizes. Hint, it's not large.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=622696;image)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 13, 2019, 11:13:18 pm
Guess the efficiency!

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=622726;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on January 14, 2019, 12:16:26 am
Are you sure that's really it, it can't be that bad surely, if it is even I'm shocked.  :o
Did they think if they made the transmitter smaller the beam would be smaller.  :-//
Efficiency ~0.3% ?  :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 14, 2019, 02:41:16 am
Well that's interesting. I just did a post on this:

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2019/01/ubeams-ces-2019.html

In summary - looks like Murata COTS parts are used in the demo, nothing visible there in that box that is proprietary, and still the "brick" cases for charging. As Dave points out, if you've got a 100W supply for mW out, that does not bode well for efficiency. The transducers in the bottom right don't look like Muratas, but they also don't look like the thin, small, powerful, and cheap ones they claimed to have back in the 2017 pitch.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 14, 2019, 05:36:24 am
Are you sure that's really it, it can't be that bad surely, if it is even I'm shocked.  :o

This is supposed to be the demo kit they are offering developers, so yep, that would be the best they have got.
Yes, the efficiency is that bad, it's not hard to calculate, and it's been backed up by numbers uBeam have published too.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: neggles on January 14, 2019, 06:07:25 am
Any chance of a higher-resolution photo, Dave?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 14, 2019, 09:23:22 am
Any chance of a higher-resolution photo, Dave?

I'm working on it.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on January 14, 2019, 09:34:05 am
In a devkit, why would they supply an open-frame SMPS instead of an enclosed desktop type PSU?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on January 14, 2019, 09:57:58 am
In a devkit, why would they supply an open-frame SMPS instead of an enclosed desktop type PSU?
I thought that was weird. These days EVM makers are normally very concious about not exposing high voltages, unless its an EVM for actual high voltage devices. It really complicates approval and liability related issues, even though you may be supplying the EVM as a tool for competent engineers to work with.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 14, 2019, 10:43:45 am
This is the highest res photo available

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=623128;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 14, 2019, 10:49:35 am
The transducers. Note the acoustically transparent white visual alignment squares.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=623137;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on January 14, 2019, 10:54:02 am
So, what are we looking at here? From the white squares I assume there are 2 receiver arrays. From the different colours I assume they are of 2 types. Is the rectangular array the transmitter? What is the white thing at the top right?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Kean on January 14, 2019, 11:19:00 am
Looks like someone had fun with side cutters removing the little grilles on a bunch of Murata transducers to make them look different
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on January 14, 2019, 11:23:20 am
I wonder if that's a real eval kit, or just some stuff they threw in a box to make it look like they have an eval kit.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 14, 2019, 11:40:34 am
Note that the left hand transducer array has white marks on the side of each one, likely some sort of production test pass marking.
Doesn't make sense if they are COTS, but if they are the uBeam ones, the large COTS-like plastic package doesn't makes sense either.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 14, 2019, 11:41:57 am
I wonder if that's a real eval kit, or just some stuff they threw in a box to make it look like they have an eval kit.

Maybe it's just a demo assortment for the show?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 14, 2019, 11:47:28 am
What is the white thing at the top right?

I presume the white frame thingo is part of the vision system. There is a pin header on the bottom so it's something active. A spare vision tracking frame around it by the looks of it.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 14, 2019, 12:00:20 pm
Looks like some lower profile transducers that are possibly SMD mounted. Even lower density than the through hole transducers though.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=623170;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on January 14, 2019, 02:01:52 pm
https://oshpark.com/profiles/ubeam
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4arGdU-Y_7YJ:https://oshpark.com/profiles/ubeam  :horse:

Edit. I was looking in google's cache because they've shared other boards in the past!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 14, 2019, 02:11:09 pm
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4arGdU-Y_7YJ:https://oshpark.com/profiles/ubeam (https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4arGdU-Y_7YJ:https://oshpark.com/profiles/ubeam)  :horse:

LOL
Order your own board now!
https://oshpark.com/profiles/ubeam (https://oshpark.com/profiles/ubeam)

I expect this to be reverse engineered by the time I wake  up tomorrow


(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=623272;image)

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=623278;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on January 14, 2019, 02:51:06 pm

I thought that was weird. These days EVM makers are normally very concious about not exposing high voltages, unless its an EVM for actual high voltage devices. It really complicates approval and liability related issues, even though you may be supplying the EVM as a tool for competent engineers to work with.

I don't think they intend to do an official approval for this. They would make ~10 units, keep ~6 inside, and supply ~4 to friendly partners.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on January 14, 2019, 03:17:39 pm
How many watts do we reckon the power supply is:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=623392;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 14, 2019, 04:54:17 pm
https://oshpark.com/profiles/ubeam
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4arGdU-Y_7YJ:https://oshpark.com/profiles/ubeam  :horse:

Edit. I was looking in google's cache because they've shared other boards in the past!

Holy crap that's hilarious. Thank you - I've updated my blog post to include this, and waybacked it too. No covering up this embarrassment.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 14, 2019, 04:57:34 pm
Looks like some lower profile transducers that are possibly SMD mounted. Even lower density than the through hole transducers though.


I think those are custom uBeam transducers, a prestressed uni/bimorph or cantilever, basically a variation on the Murata, and certainly does not meet the specs announced in the Oct 17 pitch deck.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on January 14, 2019, 05:01:41 pm
How many watts do we reckon the power supply is:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=623392;image)
About 60, but doubt you can read much into it
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 14, 2019, 05:06:27 pm
Note that the left hand transducer array has white marks on the side of each one, likely some sort of production test pass marking.
Doesn't make sense if they are COTS, but if they are the uBeam ones, the large COTS-like plastic package doesn't makes sense either.

My guess is that almost everything in the box is COTS and what was used in the demo, and that the proprietary transducers are in the bottom right and were just for "show and tell"
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on January 14, 2019, 08:13:33 pm
How many watts do we reckon the power supply is:
About 60, but doubt you can read much into it

It's a lot more than my existing phone charger, that's for sure...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on January 14, 2019, 10:23:13 pm
What is the white thing at the top right?

I presume the white frame thingo is part of the vision system.

Could it be rows of SMD IR LEDs.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 14, 2019, 10:59:04 pm
How many watts do we reckon the power supply is:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=623392;image)
About 60, but doubt you can read much into it

Well, you can read that you wouldn't use a 60W-100W+ class open frame PSU if you only needed a couple of watts, otherwise you could have just used a consumer plugpack.

I can't see how they could have used this open frame and clearly mains input PSU as a demo on a trade show though, even the most incompetent engineer would not put that kit together for a demo.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 14, 2019, 11:06:00 pm
So what is this "Burst circuit"?
Clearly they got another board made as the photo shows a 2nd board attached to the Burst circuit, and the silkscreen is different on the OHSpark one vs the photo unit.
A guess would be that the "burst circuit" perhaps decodes any data modulation on the ultrasonic, and the board next to it is the energy harvesting circuit?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on January 14, 2019, 11:06:15 pm
I can't see how they could have used this open frame and clearly mains input PSU as a demo on a trade show though, even the most incompetent engineer would not put that kit together for a demo.

Good point. Why wouldn't they use a metal-caged PSU instead of one that could kill gerfingerpoken visitors.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 14, 2019, 11:12:16 pm
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4arGdU-Y_7YJ:https://oshpark.com/profiles/ubeam (https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4arGdU-Y_7YJ:https://oshpark.com/profiles/ubeam)  :horse:

LOL
Order your own board now!
https://oshpark.com/profiles/ubeam (https://oshpark.com/profiles/ubeam)

Well that didn't take long, uBeam have removed the shared project. It was there when I posted the link. You can still use the archive link above.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 14, 2019, 11:13:14 pm
I can't see how they could have used this open frame and clearly mains input PSU as a demo on a trade show though, even the most incompetent engineer would not put that kit together for a demo.

Good point. Why wouldn't they use a metal-caged PSU instead of one that could kill gerfingerpoken visitors.

It looks "electronicy" for the muggle investors?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 14, 2019, 11:20:33 pm
These claims in Oct 2017 turned out to be laughable, and even internally inconsistent.
You can't have "meters" (plural) range at max power, and also have max power at "0.6-1W @1m"

And you can't really charge a phone in any meaningful way with 0.6W-1W. Even a lousy standard USB port is 2.5W (5V x 0.5A), so uBeam could be almost 5 times worse than an already slow standard USB port.
And this is their own MAX claims!
No wonder they put their tail between their legs and pivoted to low power IoT, Meredith Perry's dream of charging a phone with Ultrasound failed miserably as everyone predicted. Once she was booted and the adult supervision came in the claims of charging a phone quickly faded into the ether.

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SFGWzvyBB2o/XDvu-4BTl-I/AAAAAAAAAmE/PQ7QzUzrhOoHDzZRl5dG1qBGqAT8pXr0gCEwYBhgL/s1600/FDAFCC%2B-%2BCopy.PNG)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 15, 2019, 01:26:42 am
I've been informed that they also had the big transmitter arrays boxes there (with he usual COTS transducers), so all that stuff in the photo is likely receiver stuff.
Still makes the 50-100W SMPS puzzling.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on January 15, 2019, 08:52:09 am
So what is this "Burst circuit"?
Clearly they got another board made as the photo shows a 2nd board attached to the Burst circuit, and the silkscreen is different on the OHSpark one vs the photo unit.
A guess would be that the "burst circuit" perhaps decodes any data modulation on the ultrasonic, and the board next to it is the energy harvesting circuit?
Or maybe stores up energy in a big cap to deliver in bursts to provide a reasonable charge current for a battery.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on January 15, 2019, 12:49:22 pm
There are clearly two antennas on the FPGA board.
I wonder how this no electromagnetic thing going with two rf antennas and an open switching ps
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on January 15, 2019, 02:13:33 pm
"I wonder how this no electromagnetic thing going with two rf antennas and an open switching ps"

There will be quite a bit of high power ~40kHz nearby switching going on as well. :)

The demo kit doesn't look realistic with no wires anywhere, perhaps it's just for show, with 30 engineers X 18 months surely they could have put it in an aluminium case, instead of a pizza box so that it at least looked right.

With the size of the receiving panels, surely just sticking a much smaller PV on the the IoTs would be better and wouldn't need any of the transmitter junk.

I wonder how they're getting on with all these 2017 Q4 claims, they must have well known what they were actually capable of at the time. If I was an investor I would be using some F words, and they wouldn't be funny or more funding. :horse:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=371174;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on January 15, 2019, 02:22:46 pm
Quote
With the size of the receiving panels, surely just sticking a much smaller PV on the the IoTs would be better and wouldn't need any of the transmitter junk.


A PV indoors generates 10s of microwatts.
You need to aim a high power light source at it to power it.

While outside you get 1000W/m^2 insude you get 0.5W/m^2

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on January 15, 2019, 02:32:42 pm
Quote
With the size of the receiving panels, surely just sticking a much smaller PV on the the IoTs would be better and wouldn't need any of the transmitter junk.


A PV indoors generates 10s of microwatts.
You need to aim a high power light source at it to power it.

While outside you get 1000W/m^2 insude you get 0.5W/m^2
Most IoT devices with PV would generate no power at all, as they are located in dark corners and cupboards.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: glarsson on January 15, 2019, 02:38:21 pm
Most IoT devices with PV would generate no power at all, as they are located in dark corners and cupboards.
It's cheaper to install a light bulb than an ultrasonic transmitter in the cupboard.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on January 15, 2019, 02:40:50 pm
Most IoT devices with PV would generate no power at all, as they are located in dark corners and cupboards.
It's cheaper to install a light bulb than an ultrasonic transmitter in the cupboard.

And if you already got power inside the cupboard, why not just plug it in?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: glarsson on January 15, 2019, 02:43:33 pm
And if you already got power inside the cupboard, why not just plug it in?
Then it's not wireless and you can no longer get investor money to sustain your business.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 15, 2019, 09:16:25 pm
Macvoices video of uBeam floor demo at CES

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ofCSj5_2h0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ofCSj5_2h0)

So they power an LED at an unclear distance, maybe 1 meter, it's that white box from the top right of the recent image from the demo kit. Watts, dB, or any other performance metric not given. The transmitter looks to be (from the video in the background) the white plastic box shown about a year ago, labelled March 2018 in the attached image. That seemed to have 16 by 16 Murata profile devices, so 256 total and around 7.5W absolute max acoustic power out if they stick to 145 dB (.0256m^2 and 290W/m^2), likely less. There is a noticeable delay in tracking finding the new position - where's the beam going in that time?

Claims of safety made me choke. Yes, ultrasound bounces off skin (99.9%), but hair causes heating, and at 145dB and up there are papers showing measurable temperature rises, and ultimately death, in mice and rabbits. Also claim lots of "3rd party testing" shows it's safe - if so they should release it. Also claim safety as it's a controlled beam, if they are using Murata sized devices there are grating lobes sending out additional beams at 45 degrees. No mention of OSHA, UL, FDA, or other regulatory bodies.

http://archiwum.ciop.pl/59815 (http://archiwum.ciop.pl/59815)

"According to Allen, Rudnik and Frings, a mouse dies from overheating after 10 s to 3 min of exposure to a signal of 20 kHz and level of 160 dB [10]. According to Danner, a lethal level for signals of 18–20 kHz for an unshaven mouse were 144 dB and for a shaven mouse 155 dB [21]. Acton obtained similar results and extended studies to larger animals such as guinea pigs and rabbits [22]. "

They say they are focusing on "Industrial IoT", low power sensors etc. More robust demo in private at the suite where they power cameras and sensors. Why admit your floor demo is "not robust"?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on January 15, 2019, 10:49:03 pm
"I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't ask about safety"
..and power transferred, cost, efficiency... ?
Thought not. Typical clueless idiot journalism
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on January 15, 2019, 11:34:25 pm
"I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't ask about safety"
..and power transferred, cost, efficiency... ?
Thought not. Typical clueless idiot journalism

Apparently you can replace the 9V battery in your smoke alarm with one of these.

That's progress!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: djos on January 16, 2019, 12:24:25 am
"I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't ask about safety"
..and power transferred, cost, efficiency... ?
Thought not. Typical clueless idiot journalism

Apparently you can replace the 9V battery in your smoke alarm with one of these.

That's progress!

so if your house catches fire during a power outage, you are royally fk'd!  :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 16, 2019, 08:48:55 am
I expanded that post to a blog, for those interested:

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2019/01/more-ubeam-at-ces-2019-macworld.html

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Daixiwen on January 16, 2019, 09:39:39 am
I didn't notice in the partners table before, their partnership with Korean CE Co. for a "wirelessly powered robotic vacuum". With the amount of energy required, you'll probably get your house cleaned with the ultrasounds alone :D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on January 16, 2019, 11:25:04 am
I expanded that post to a blog, for those interested:
https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2019/01/more-ubeam-at-ces-2019-macworld.html

 :)
I watched the blue-white RX LEDs coming on 2 or 3 times in the video, with superbright LEDs that amount of light could be as low as 25-30mW.

In this thread somewhere Howardlong and me have both tried to create subharmonics in the air by mixing 2 40kHzs 1 or 2kHz apart, and neither of us could hear anything for some reason, I checked with a very close EMC that they were mixing, there seems to be more to it than just 2 cleanly mixed 40kHzs.

So what is this "Burst circuit"?

I dunno, a guess is it's something to do with powering 4 receivers at the same time.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 16, 2019, 07:29:39 pm
I expanded that post to a blog, for those interested:
https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2019/01/more-ubeam-at-ces-2019-macworld.html (https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2019/01/more-ubeam-at-ces-2019-macworld.html)

 :)
I watched the blue-white RX LEDs coming on 2 or 3 times in the video, with superbright LEDs that amount of light could be as low as 25-30mW.

In this thread somewhere Howardlong and me have both tried to create subharmonics in the air by mixing 2 40kHzs 1 or 2kHz apart, and neither of us could hear anything for some reason, I checked with a very close EMC that they were mixing, there seems to be more to it than just 2 cleanly mixed 40kHzs.


I was being very generous to uBeam with a 100mW estimate in the post, trying to be as "best case" as I can. It most likely is closer to what you are suggesting at 25mW.

Subharmonics are different than nonlinear sound generation. Subharmonics are when there's a nonlinearity in the system and the system itself generates a lower frequency from a single frequency source and creates an integer division of the fundamental frequency. The eardrum is a good example of this, at round about 110 to 120 dB the ear stops responding linearly (specifically, the restoring force on the eardrum goes asymmetric), and the first subharmonic starts appearing at 30 to 40dB lower (1/2 freq), and then at 130 to 140 dB the second subharmonic (1/4 freq)starts appearing around 60-70dB lower (from memory, need to reread the papers to confirm). There are a few studies covering this, so the dataset is fairly limited - it's utterly unethical to perform such experiments on people for a start, and it's a tricky setup to get right.

Paper on subharmonics in the ear
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3387311/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3387311/)

Parametric sound is where the inherent nonlinearity of the air is used to generate sound at a location, and uses high frequency sound to ensure the array is larger than the wavelength so steering and directionality is straightforward. It needs to be 110dB+ for that to happen IIRC in theory, 130dB+ in practice, but you lose at least 60dB in what you hear, so I doubt with a regular source you would have much luck. In theory you can generate any frequency you want, not just an integer division of the fundamental.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_from_ultrasound (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_from_ultrasound)
https://www.holosonics.com/fundamental-limitations-of-loudspeaker-directivity (https://www.holosonics.com/fundamental-limitations-of-loudspeaker-directivity)

BTW in looking up a link on nonlinear sound I found this Kickstarter backed project that resulted in a 98 element array transmitter using Murata style devices that probably puts out a similar amount of power to the uBeam transmitter. For $250 $500 inc amp.

https://www.soundlazer.com/shop/ (https://www.soundlazer.com/shop/)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on January 17, 2019, 11:52:00 am

So what is this "Burst circuit"?

I dunno, a guess is it's something to do with powering 4 receivers at the same time.

Maybe it's better to start with powering just one receiver, for part of the time, ehh....?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 17, 2019, 12:32:54 pm
Macvoices video of uBeam floor demo at CES

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ofCSj5_2h0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ofCSj5_2h0)

So they had a "public" stand with a demo but it's not their "real" latest demo which you have to be invited to their private suite to see?
What company does this if they don't have something to hide? CES is where you show off your latest stuff and wow the media.
Of course, we know the answer  ;D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 17, 2019, 12:40:59 pm
Whatever happened to these transducers?

(https://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/dcasarez_ubeam_wip_19.jpg)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on January 18, 2019, 04:52:42 pm
"I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't ask about safety"
..and power transferred, cost, efficiency... ?
Thought not. Typical clueless idiot journalism

You'd think there'd be one journalist at that show with camera and a clue, but nooooo.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 19, 2019, 07:34:40 am
Confirming it's the white transmitter box from early 2018

https://www.electronicdesign.com/embedded-revolution/out-ordinary-tech-spotted-ces-2019/gallery?slide=1 (https://www.electronicdesign.com/embedded-revolution/out-ordinary-tech-spotted-ces-2019/gallery?slide=1)

Seems they had the "new" transducers on display at the public event, weirdly. I have no idea why they'd show those off. The LED unit shows that the focus is fairly large. I'd be interested to see that swept around while the focus is kept in the same place to see if there are grating lobes.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on January 19, 2019, 01:14:04 pm
It looks more powerful with that LED board at that distance, stick on light bulbs are now only 4 or 5 orders of magnitude away. :horse:
distance x20, power x40, efficiency x40.

The interest in the whole at a distance wireless charging business seems to be close to zero, even for wi-charge who seem to have a working IR system, they had their 2 trains at CES2019. They're all moving to IoTs and smarthome where there's even less interest than distance mobile charging. :-DD
https://twitter.com/hashtag/wirelesspower?f=tweets&vertical=default&src=hash
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 20, 2019, 06:37:38 pm
The interest in the whole at a distance wireless charging business seems to be close to zero, even for wi-charge who seem to have a working IR system, they had their 2 trains at CES2019. They're all moving to IoTs and smarthome where there's even less interest than distance mobile charging. :-DD
https://twitter.com/hashtag/wirelesspower?f=tweets&vertical=default&src=hash

Notice how far down the list you have to scroll there before you find anything from uBeam? No, seriously it's a question because I scrolled for about 10 minutes and found nothing. It'll be interesting to see if the new CEO moves the PR bandwagon much closer to that of Energous and Ossia. Speaking of Ossia, they're really pushing their phone cases, which is interesting because as far as I can see they don't even have an FCC ID with which to apply for Part 18 approval. I'm wondering if they're going to pull a "we only supply the component, it's the final product vendor that has to get regulatory compliance".

Powercast are the only company that I can see that meet existing regulatory and don't lie about capabilities, hence the micro to milliWatt limits. WiCharge are interesting and seem more open, but efficiency won't be great and it's the safety of Watt-level lasers that gets me concerned.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on January 20, 2019, 10:46:41 pm
Notice how far down the list you have to scroll there before you find anything from uBeam? No, seriously it's a question because I scrolled for about 10 minutes and found nothing.

If you were especially looking for ubean you could have saved 10 minutes by searching for both words at the same time!
The first 2 are.
27 Dec 2018  smart2zero @Smart2Zero
#Ultrasonic #wirelesspower system to be demoed at #CES2019 - https://bit.ly/2Tfy3V8 (https://bit.ly/2Tfy3V8)  #uBeam #wireless #charging #IoT

8 Feb 2017 Qi wireless power @Qiwireless
uBeam announces Ultrasound Wave Wireless Charging http://ift.tt/2lnfnBF (http://ift.tt/2lnfnBF)  #wirelesspower
 
I search for ubean about twice a week, there's been nothing happening for quite a long time, people no longer ask when their cable-less home or office is coming or when can they charge wirelessly.

There a few threads here on WiCharge if you've got lots of time to waste.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/wi-charge-infrared-wireless-charging/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/wi-charge-infrared-wireless-charging/)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/infrared-laser-wireless-charging/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/infrared-laser-wireless-charging/)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-1092-wi-charge-ir-wireless-charging-fact-or-fiction/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-1092-wi-charge-ir-wireless-charging-fact-or-fiction/)

I think WiCharge's 2019 predictions are just hopeful wishing.
https://www.wi-charge.com/2019trends/ (https://www.wi-charge.com/2019trends/)

I don't know much about Ossia, they seem to be determined to make Wi-Fi unusable. :)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 21, 2019, 02:06:51 am
Notice how far down the list you have to scroll there before you find anything from uBeam? No, seriously it's a question because I scrolled for about 10 minutes and found nothing.

If you were especially looking for ubean you could have saved 10 minutes by searching for both words at the same time!


I know, I was just both being a bit obtuse, as well as lazy - writing anything about them is more effort than I really should be spending on that company.

On Ossia, someone from a bluetooth-enabled product company chatted with me after CES and Ossia's presentations. Apparently Ossia are claiming 2 to 3 Watts delivered to a device battery within a car interior (re-asked and reconfirmed). While on the one hand they are saying 5.8GHz, they are doing demos at 2.4GHz, and this manufacturer was concerned about what it would do to his product. I told him not to worry about his product, his eyeballs are a larger concern. Ossia's public materials don't give numbers so this is just word of mouth. They do make some ridiculous statements though - here's their founder going through the maths of why you're better building your house with wireless power rather than those expensive wire things. Apparently it will be cheaper, save the environment, and make us all safer if we just change to RF wireless. Not sure how the wireless emitters get their power...

https://blog.ossia.com/news/the-true-cost-of-wireless-power
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Daixiwen on January 21, 2019, 09:09:45 am
https://blog.ossia.com/news/the-true-cost-of-wireless-power
I'd like to know who that guy's electrician is if he asks for $32000 just to install the wall outlets.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on January 21, 2019, 12:01:55 pm
On Ossia, someone from a bluetooth-enabled product company chatted with me after CES and Ossia's presentations. Apparently Ossia are claiming 2 to 3 Watts delivered to a device battery within a car interior (re-asked and reconfirmed). While on the one hand they are saying 5.8GHz, they are doing demos at 2.4GHz, and this manufacturer was concerned about what it would do to his product. I told him not to worry about his product, his eyeballs are a larger concern. Ossia's public materials don't give numbers so this is just word of mouth. They do make some ridiculous statements though - here's their founder going through the maths of why you're better building your house with wireless power rather than those expensive wire things. Apparently it will be cheaper, save the environment, and make us all safer if we just change to RF wireless. Not sure how the wireless emitters get their power...

https://blog.ossia.com/news/the-true-cost-of-wireless-power

"Real wireless power is power delivered over air, without wires or charging pads, to a device or sensor automatically, without any user intervention. It can be managed and secured via the cloud" [My bold]

Well there's the built in obsolescence right there.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on January 21, 2019, 02:20:53 pm
Speaking of Ossia, they're really pushing their phone cases, which is interesting because as far as I can see they don't even have an FCC ID with which to apply for Part 18 approval. I'm wondering if they're going to pull a "we only supply the component, it's the final product vendor that has to get regulatory compliance".

Ossia had a webinar in December, available (still, go download it fast, before they remove it) on their website.
On ~33:50 they say the transmitter is 10W.
But according to them, these limits are for data communication, not for Ossia.
 
I almost understood that since it's not communications - it's safe.

the FCC, the entire microwave oven industry, car radars, and even Energous don't seem agree.

also claims in the same webinar 3W @ 5M

BTW, if they can send >1W to >3-4 meters away, they can probably duplicate the Wi-Charge trains or something similar, even with no line of sight.




Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on January 21, 2019, 04:46:14 pm
https://blog.ossia.com/news/the-true-cost-of-wireless-power
I'd like to know who that guy's electrician is if he asks for $32000 just to install the wall outlets.

"If we did not need 80% or so of these outlets, because all of our small devices were instead using wireless power, the electrical installation costs alone for building a home could decrease by 7 to 8%.
Seven or eight percent may not sound like much, but for a $400,000 home, that’s $28,000 to $32,000 of savings."


He claims the fewer sockets saves 7-8% on the electrical installation costs which is probably about right, but then multiplies that 8% by the total cost of the house instead of just the ~1% electrical installation cost, so his savings are 100X too large. :palm:

"you’d need to live in that house for 407 years for the wireless power energy bill to begin “costing” you."

So the 407 years come down to about 4 years, even less if you include the cost of the transmitters and medical bills. :palm:

"Making housing more affordable, and home ownership possible for more citizens, is just one example of the value wireless power brings to society."

LOL. At this rate Ossia will soon be getting their very own FAQ thread. :)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on January 21, 2019, 05:03:44 pm
Quote
LOL. At this rate Ossia will soon be getting their very own FAQ thread. :)

Now that uBeam stopped twitting every 5 minutes we can just use this one
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on January 21, 2019, 05:12:36 pm
"you’d need to live in that house for 407 years for the wireless power energy bill to begin “costing” you."

So the 407 years come down to about 4 years, even less if you include the cost of the transmitters and medical bills. :palm:


Forget about 407 or even 4 years:

"Real wireless power is power delivered over air, without wires or charging pads, to a device or sensor automatically, without any user intervention. It can be managed and secured via the cloud"

Because we all know about the history of extended longevity that cloud based solutions offer.  :palm:


Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 22, 2019, 06:40:26 am
Speaking of Ossia, they're really pushing their phone cases, which is interesting because as far as I can see they don't even have an FCC ID with which to apply for Part 18 approval. I'm wondering if they're going to pull a "we only supply the component, it's the final product vendor that has to get regulatory compliance".

Ossia had a webinar in December, available (still, go download it fast, before they remove it) on their website.
On ~33:50 they say the transmitter is 10W.
But according to them, these limits are for data communication, not for Ossia.
 
I almost understood that since it's not communications - it's safe.

the FCC, the entire microwave oven industry, car radars, and even Energous don't seem agree.

also claims in the same webinar 3W @ 5M

BTW, if they can send >1W to >3-4 meters away, they can probably duplicate the Wi-Charge trains or something similar, even with no line of sight.

They also claim over 2W at 10 meters, and have a larger transmitter they claim to get useful power to 30 meters. Useful info, they go with 16x16 antenna in their ceiling tile (60 by 60 cm), and seem to be going with 1/3 wavelength pitch or so in the phased array.

There's simply no way they don't exceed SAR limits. I expect they are going to claim their time-reversal method means there's zero exposure except at the target, which is horseshit unless they've got some physics defying antenna.

I spoke to senior people at Ossia a couple of years ago, they knew that industrial IoT charging was mostly what was viable, and not much more. What he's saying here, they're now drinking their own Kool-aid.

This is an example of the tech startup version of Gresham's law, where bad money drives out good. Without an authority stomping on the bullshit, the other players have to lower themselves to the same level as the worst actor. I'm going to have to do an article on Ossia here.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on January 22, 2019, 07:06:14 am
its the famous engineering situation - pick any two

You can have range and power but not be compatible with FCC  - that's Ossia
You can have range and FCC compatibility - but not power - that's powercast
you can have power and FCC compatibility - but not range - that's humavox I guess, no one really goes that path, because Qi wins.
The Energous short range system is no power, no range, but FCC compatibility.
The Energous mid range system is bit but not enough power, a bit but not enough range, a bit (and barely enough) FCC compatibility, which is probably the optimum in this field, but is not enough for the market.

With non RF technologies, it's a different situation, I guess.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 22, 2019, 07:29:02 am
its the famous engineering situation - pick any two

You can have range and power but not be compatible with FCC  - that's Ossia
You can have range and FCC compatibility - but not power - that's powercast
you can have power and FCC compatibility - but not range - that's humavox I guess, no one really goes that path, because Qi wins.
The Energous short range system is no power, no range, but FCC compatibility.
The Energous mid range system is bit but not enough power, a bit but not enough range, a bit (and barely enough) FCC compatibility, which is probably the optimum in this field, but is not enough for the market.

With non RF technologies, it's a different situation, I guess.

I like that- mind if I pinch that concept for a future blog post?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on January 22, 2019, 07:31:02 am
No problem
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 24, 2019, 08:07:44 am
An update on the uBeam private demo at CES, following some more conversations with those who got to see it:

The transmitter was on a motorized rotational stage, turning an estimated +/- 45 degrees to steer the beam. If that's the case, I do not understand why they bother with individual elements and a phased array - simply get a focused bowl arrangement and steer mechanically. The CES floor show demo seemed to show phased array operation, so perhaps there's a very limited steering angle and gross motions need mechanical steering?

There were items taped to the wall, on the door etc to show charging of items like "smart locks", however the device itself never charged, it was always an LED that lit up to indicate power was being delivered.

Those who held the next generation transducers seemed to think them roughly the same lateral dimensions as the Muratas, perhaps a bit thinner, but nowhere close to the "4x smaller area, 100x thinner" listed in the Oct 17 fundraising. They did say that the demo was being done with COTS devices.

Generally the view was that the presentation materials were not particularly professional. Given what they showed, it seems they booked a slot at CES prematurely, I have to think this hurt more than helped - but maybe I'm just a dumb engineer.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on January 24, 2019, 09:21:11 am
The transmitter was on a motorized rotational stage, turning an estimated +/- 45 degrees to steer the beam. If that's the case, I do not understand why they bother with individual elements and a phased array - simply get a focused bowl arrangement and steer mechanically. The CES floor show demo seemed to show phased array operation, so perhaps there's a very limited steering angle and gross motions need mechanical steering?
Wouldn't they still need an electronically steered beam to get the responsiveness they need? The target can be quite agile.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on January 24, 2019, 01:31:33 pm
Apparently Ossia are claiming 2 to 3 Watts delivered to a device battery within a car interior (re-asked and reconfirmed).

Tom's Guide, the well-known encyclopedia of puff pieces, is claiming 3 to 4 watts (https://www.tomsguide.com/us/cota-forever-sleeve-ossia-spigen-release-date,news-29076.html) at a distance of 2m.

If that gets past the regulatory authorities I'm a banana.

They claimed a 1W regulatory compliance here (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ossias-remote-wireless-charging-technology-passes-key-fcc-tests-300371394.html) with no distance specified, but without seeing the tests themselves, I'd take that claim with a large spade load of salt.

Edit: from the Tom's Guide infomercial:

Quote
Ossia says it plans to work with Spigen to deliver a Cota-enabled phone case for 5.8GHz "by or before 2020."

Always 18 months away.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Marco on January 24, 2019, 01:37:51 pm
its the famous engineering situation - pick any two

There's also the Disney solution ... make the entire room a Faraday cage and use a big high intensity but low frequency emitter.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on January 24, 2019, 02:25:59 pm
The ossia receiver, is supposed to be a cota chip (5mmX5mm) that's supposed to deliver up to 4W of power
https://powerpulse.net/ossia-unveils-next-gen-reference-design-kit-for-wireless-power/

Looking at the size of this sleeve, it at least doubles the volume of the iPhone it's housing.

The sleeve includes the chip, a flat antenna probably, a few LED, a LED driver and a controller to manage it all, all can easily fit into a 2cm^2 PCB and does not justify the hefty thickness....

The rest of the volume is probably a 10-20Wh LiPo battery (judging by the volume allocated to it).

Question 1:
  Why would they demonstrate it with such a big battery ? a thinner case would be much nicer.
Answer 1:
 A thinner case would need to be charged mid day in CES, in order to keep faking charging.

Question 2:
  Why did no one ask the super easy question - if the case is as big as a 15Wh battery case, why does it need two very big transmitters to keep it going all day?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on January 24, 2019, 02:56:47 pm
its the famous engineering situation - pick any two

There's also the Disney solution ... make the entire room a Faraday cage and use a big high intensity but low frequency emitter.

I believe for the people inside the room, this one is not safe, and does interfere with other devices in the room (e.g. not FCC compatible inside)
although it probably is OK with FCC from the outside.

___________________________________________________
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. Groucho Marx
Outside the room its FCC compatible, Inside the room it's too dangerous to ..... read.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Marco on January 24, 2019, 03:29:52 pm
I believe for the people inside the room, this one is not safe
Not much less safe than having an inductive charging cradle on your nightstand. Same kind of frequencies, same kind of field strengths near the emitter ... it's just that what's near changes with the size of it.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on January 24, 2019, 03:41:57 pm
I believe for the people inside the room, this one is not safe
Not much less safe than having an inductive charging cradle on your nightstand. Same kind of frequencies, same kind of field strengths near the emitter ... it's just that what's near changes with the size of it.

A Qi charging cradle has two modes of operation.

When no receiver is placed on it - it turns off and emits no radiation (almost).
When you place something on it, it has a few safety systems to detect if it's a real receiver. It will not turn on unless it is a good receiver placed correctly.
The receiver absorbs most of the radiation, so that it's not emitted to the surrounding.

There is also the fact you don't usually sit on your charging cradle.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: drussell on January 24, 2019, 03:58:30 pm
Those who held the next generation transducers seemed to think them roughly the same lateral dimensions as the Muratas, perhaps a bit thinner, but nowhere close to the "4x smaller area, 100x thinner" listed in the Oct 17 fundraising. They did say that the demo was being done with COTS devices.

That is just as I suspected.  STILL, at this point, how many years and millions of dollars later, all they have to show for their efforts is more cobbled together attempts at a proof-of-concept demonstration using commercially available parts.  Attempts to demonstrate a system which is a fundamentally flawed concept.

But what do we know?  We're engineer-types.  We just don't believe hard enough.  :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 24, 2019, 05:05:05 pm
Wouldn't they still need an electronically steered beam to get the responsiveness they need? The target can be quite agile.

If you were charging a phone in use, yes. If you have pivoted to "IoT" which are almost all fixed location devices, no.

If they are using the motorized stage to do the targetting, then essentially the phased array becomes a variable depth focus bowl and that's all you use it for. Drastically simplifies the electronics and beamforming, you just connect the transducers into concentric rings and you move from N^2 connections to N/2 (approx), so a reduction of roughly a factor of 2N, where N is the number of elements across the transmitter. uBeam transmitter I've seen publicly show an estimated 16 to 45 elements across.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on January 24, 2019, 09:10:40 pm
If they need to target multiple devices, then the beam will need to move reasonably frequently.

Considering the capital cost of the transmitter and its installation compared to more conventional means this is incredibly limited in terms of practical use cases.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: timothyaag on January 25, 2019, 04:09:44 pm
If they need to target multiple devices, then the beam will need to move reasonably frequently.

Considering the capital cost of the transmitter and its installation compared to more conventional means this is incredibly limited in terms of practical use cases.

Under what scenarios is running a few wires not practical but a wireless power installation is?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: TrickyNekro on January 25, 2019, 04:19:54 pm
If they need to target multiple devices, then the beam will need to move reasonably frequently.

Considering the capital cost of the transmitter and its installation compared to more conventional means this is incredibly limited in terms of practical use cases.

They don´t need to, if they are smart about it, there are many great things you can do with beam forming, not that their scenario is by any means practical but...
just for the science of things...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on January 25, 2019, 06:28:47 pm
Well at least we now know why the demonstration was done in private, I wouldn't have wanted anyone to see it either. :horse:

OurCrowd  -  creating junk tech so you don't have to.

https://twitter.com/OurCrowd/status/1089479639423160320
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 27, 2019, 08:53:59 pm
I leave this here, without further comment.

https://www.wotechleaders.com/meredith-perry (https://www.wotechleaders.com/meredith-perry)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on January 28, 2019, 12:50:37 am
I leave this here, without further comment.
https://www.wotechleaders.com/meredith-perry (https://www.wotechleaders.com/meredith-perry)

I thought that was old but it actually says: "and is currently on the board of advisors of her company." :palm:
and
"has given a TEDx talk on how to be a technology innovator which IEEE boasts as "amazing" and certainly proved you do not have to be an engineer to create something."  :palm:
and
"While Forbes has compared her to the likes of other entrepreneurs, she is in a league of her own that is near impossible to match."  :palm:

The transducers are on the same table as in  https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/msg2127085/#msg2127085 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/msg2127085/#msg2127085)
perhaps they've never moved from there. :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 28, 2019, 07:13:34 am
I thought that was old but it actually says: "and is currently on the board of advisors of her company.

The pictures are some of the stock ones used in various magazine PR spots during the 2015 convertible note fundraise. The one in the hat is from an NBC article in March 2015, the one with the transducers on the table is from the July 2015 Fortune magazine "Is this woman the next Elon Musk?" piece.

NBC        https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/mobile/could-wireless-tech-kill-phone-charger-n357906 (https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/mobile/could-wireless-tech-kill-phone-charger-n357906)
Fortune   http://fortune.com/2015/07/29/ubeam-meredith-perry-wireless-charging/ (http://fortune.com/2015/07/29/ubeam-meredith-perry-wireless-charging/)

As best I can tell this site's been up around a week. While the copyright is listed as 2018, it does say "New feature every month" on the home page, and Perry is the only feature.

Main page says "Sponsored by a start-up in Marina Del Rey" and the "Get in Touch" button sends an email to... eeops@ubeam.com
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on January 28, 2019, 07:38:56 am
I thought she's on the board of directors of uBeam (the team that actually makes decisions and has two main responsibilities hire/fire the CEO and approve the budget) and not on the board of advisers (list of trophy characters that you use for PR).

both uBeam.com and Linkedin say she's on the board of directors.
I believe she knows the difference....

Maybe it's their way of saying she's no longer on the board of directors?

Maybe the email should have been oops@ubeam instead?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Domagoj T on January 28, 2019, 07:51:09 am
Whois lookup also returns ubeam inc.

When somebody says that some venture is sponsored by an organization, am I the only one that assumes that the sponsor is not the owner of the venture?
Dishonest.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on January 28, 2019, 02:05:28 pm
Also says the domain WoTechLeaders.com was registered on 2019-01-15 (2 weeks ago).

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on January 30, 2019, 07:42:37 am
I thought she's on the board of directors of uBeam (the team that actually makes decisions and has two main responsibilities hire/fire the CEO and approve the budget) and not on the board of advisers (list of trophy characters that you use for PR).

Someone at uBeam reads EEVBlog - the latest version says "directors". But you're not mad, the Wayback version confirms that used to be "advisors".

So to whoever is reading, could you check the fonts as well, you swap back and forward a couple of times, it's annoying and doesn't look professional.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on January 31, 2019, 12:54:19 pm
They took your PaulRaynolds's advice, and it appears this website is down....

Does respond to ping though
ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ ping WoTechLeaders.com
PING WoTechLeaders.com (104.197.104.56) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 56.104.197.104.bc.googleusercontent.com (104.197.104.56): icmp_seq=1 ttl=40 time=168 ms
64 bytes from 56.104.197.104.bc.googleusercontent.com (104.197.104.56): icmp_seq=2 ttl=40 time=168 ms
64 bytes from 56.104.197.104.bc.googleusercontent.com (104.197.104.56): icmp_seq=3 ttl=40 time=175 ms
64 bytes from 56.104.197.104.bc.googleusercontent.com (104.197.104.56): icmp_seq=4 ttl=40 time=173 ms
64 bytes from 56.104.197.104.bc.googleusercontent.com (104.197.104.56): icmp_seq=5 ttl=40 time=167 ms
64 bytes from 56.104.197.104.bc.googleusercontent.com (104.197.104.56): icmp_seq=6 ttl=40 time=168 ms

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on February 07, 2019, 08:39:59 am
uBeam is looking for an Applications Engineering Manager who will be customer-facing and coming up with innovative solutions to try and get us out of this mess.  :horse:

https://twitter.com/eerosale/status/1093339631637020672


Industry of Things gets confused with Internet of Things and invites uBeam.

https://twitter.com/Elizabe51649459/status/1093499213701439489
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on February 08, 2019, 04:11:08 am
uBeam is looking for an Applications Engineering Manager who will be customer-facing and coming up with innovative solutions to try and get us out of this mess.  :horse:

https://twitter.com/eerosale/status/1093339631637020672


Industry of Things gets confused with Internet of Things and invites uBeam.

https://twitter.com/Elizabe51649459/status/1093499213701439489

I was going to say that it's a bit bizarre to advertise a position only through the account of an individual employee, but eventually they did get the position up on the main uBeam site.

https://ubeam-inc.workable.com/j/6583501314

This is the first position I've seen them advertise in months, and as far as I can see from LinkedIn, they've hired 3 techs and replaced the CEO since raising a claimed $25 million over 13 months ago. Having read through it, I'm really not sure what they are looking for, seems a bit of everything in there, tech skills, leadership, communication, on-site support, product strategy and planning, product management. What's the strategy with this hire? Actually doing something, or making it look like they're doing something?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 09, 2019, 09:13:15 am
I leave this here, without further comment.

https://www.wotechleaders.com/meredith-perry (https://www.wotechleaders.com/meredith-perry)

Site down?

https://web.archive.org/web/20190130083336/https://www.wotechleaders.com/meredith-perry (https://web.archive.org/web/20190130083336/https://www.wotechleaders.com/meredith-perry)

Quote
In the early stages of her career, Meredith Perry has given a TEDx talk on how to be a technology innovator which IEEE boasts as "amazing" and certainly proved you do not have to be an engineer to create something.

The IEEE?  :wtf:
UPDATE: Found it:
https://www.facebook.com/IEEE.org/posts/amazing-tedx-talk-by-meredith-perry-founder-and-ceo-of-ubeam-a-company-that-hope/347384548649520/ (https://www.facebook.com/IEEE.org/posts/amazing-tedx-talk-by-meredith-perry-founder-and-ceo-of-ubeam-a-company-that-hope/347384548649520/)
(https://i.imgur.com/3LMXtJB.png)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 09, 2019, 10:35:17 am

I was going to say that it's a bit bizarre to advertise a position only through the account of an individual employee, but eventually they did get the position up on the main uBeam site.

https://ubeam-inc.workable.com/j/6583501314

After 7 years at this the ability to actually launch something surely would be handy!
(https://i.imgur.com/rFBNzL2.png)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on February 10, 2019, 12:37:26 pm
Site down?
...
The IEEE?  :wtf:
UPDATE: Found it:

Where've uBeen, you're about 11 days late. https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2019/01/startup-pr-102-hagiography.html

We're already waiting for the next comedy caper.

"ability to explain technical points to a variety of audiences, which includes the promotion and demonstration of uBeam technology."

Translation: Must be good at :bullshit:

"Having a successful launch record would be a plus."

Translation: Because for us that would be an absolute miracle.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 10, 2019, 01:47:28 pm
Where've uBeen, you're about 11 days late. https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2019/01/startup-pr-102-hagiography.html

A sentence in there brings up an interesting point. What's next for Perry?
I see several possibilities

1) Vanishes never to be seen from again in any tech field. Either:
   a) Deliberately by her own choice because she's jack of this, or can't think of another groundbreaking idea she was so fond to talk up in her Tedx talk.
   or
   b) Because she's done her dash and no one in tech would dare hire her or invest in her again.

2) She has another hair-brained idea and:
   a) Suckers more VC money for it, with new investors falling for the same gimmicks again.
   or
   b) Tries to crowd fund it.

I don't see 2)a) happening as the old investors won't want to get bitten again. And likely the VC community is one big circle-jerk, so I reckon word would get around and her name is mud. Evidenced by Marc Cuban erasing his previous unwavering support for her.

I desperately want 2)b) to happen, that would be hilarious to watch!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 10, 2019, 01:52:18 pm
"Having a successful launch record would be a plus."
Translation: Because for us that would be an absolute miracle.

I just realised that sentence also implies "Meh, we don't launch real practical stuff anyway, so it's only a small "plus" tacked at the end of our requirements"
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on February 11, 2019, 12:10:56 am
I made an update to the Astroturfing blog post. "Upon further investigation and discussions, it looks like the website in question was not an official uBeam attempt at astroturfing, but a genuine effort by individuals to promote women in technology that ended prematurely in large part due to my blog post. While it highlights the rule of "never use company resources for non-company activities", those involved should be commended for promoting role models in an under-represented group (though clearly I'd not personally choose Perry as a role model for anyone). I think this post does make some important points on how companies can and do use PR (and clearly on how company history affects current reception) so while I won't delete the post I have made some updates to reflect this new information, and I'd ask that everyone view the original website, and its creators, in the positive spirit that was intended."

I've had the opinion for a while that certain women CEOs like Perry and Holmes get outsized press on the way up (compared to the many women CEOs who don't... exaggerate... just do a good job and consequently don't get the headlines), and so cause even more harm on the way down to women in STEM. In the last year or two I've moved into positions where I've seen so much abuse of women in engineering, and usually (but not exclusively) at the hands of older white men, I get even angrier at how uBeam, Theranos etc can be used to justify that abuse. In my opinion, association with Perry taints irreparably, and it sets back attempts to correct an unjust status-quo.

Anyway, to repeat from what I added to the blog post "please view the original website, and its creators, in the positive spirit that was intended."
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on February 11, 2019, 12:36:24 am
A sentence in there brings up an interesting point. What's next for Perry?

Good question and one I'm interested to see myself.

All my opinion of course, but Mark Suster's (not Cuban) deletion of his "I'd fund her next company" posts tells you the opinion within the primo VC community of her. Normally having a failed startup, if you follow the 'rules', can be viewed as a positive, you're experienced, know mistakes to avoid, built up contacts who know and trust you because you dealt fairly and honestly with them, a tech team who will follow you and back you because you backed them when times were tough - but how much of that do you think applies to Perry? More, I wouldn't be surprised if her exit from the company was not done in a 'calm and professional manner', and on top of how she may have acted with the VCs in the past (I have some stories there I would love to tell but frustratingly cannot, though Dave's late 2017 publicizing of her Twitter argument with a prominent VC might give you a taste of things), there may not be many in that community who want to work with her. The only way that changes, I think, is if somehow uBeam sells for a sizable amount, and even then I'm skeptical. Senior tech people won't want to work with her, IMO, so you won't have a chain of competent people like uBeam had (Berte, me, Taffler, Chandler, Pendergrass) to keep things propped up and lend legitimacy in front of a VC. So I could be wrong, but I don't see any significant funding, or any talented tech teams, beating the door down.

I'm wondering about your crowdfunding idea, it's possible, and the general public are easily led on complex tech (see Energous etc), but having worked on crowdfunding campaigns, holy hell they are a lot of work to do well and require discipline and consistency. I'll say no more on that.

Now remember she's been CEO with the power to hire and fire since college, never had a "regular job" with a boss, following instructions, being in by 8 and staying until 5, 5 days a week, every week, being held to metrics and expectations and the same rules as "little people", so while I think there's a potential for a role in marketing I don't see how that happens now. So is there a job where getting the job, and keeping it, are predominantly based on media and PR rather than achievements? With no standard 9 to 5, or boss to tell you to do your job? Where hare-brained unrealistic schemes and exaggeration are the norm, and you are rarely held to account for prior promises, and being a 'victim' is a benefit?

Hmmmm. Politics anyone?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on February 11, 2019, 12:43:12 am
I just realised that sentence also implies "Meh, we don't launch real practical stuff anyway, so it's only a small "plus" tacked at the end of our requirements"

And I don't know why product launch experience is really valuable when the company has publicly shifted to a B2B model, and so supplies IP/components, rather than finished consumer products. Different skillsets.

I'm really fascinated to see how the new CEO tries to get this thing sold, and so far I'm not sure how this position (the first to be advertised in months and as far as I know, the first non-technician hire since the major fundraise over a year ago) does that. In part because I'm really not sure from the job requirements what they will be doing!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on February 11, 2019, 01:13:49 am
I can't figure the timestamps here but, the website was gone at least 4 or 5, hours before sdpkom's report above appeared  « Reply #1511 on: January 31, 2019, 02:54:19 pm »  No links to PR blog before that/then.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 11, 2019, 01:04:21 pm
I've had the opinion for a while that certain women CEOs like Perry and Holmes get outsized press on the way up (compared to the many women CEOs who don't... exaggerate... just do a good job and consequently don't get the headlines), and so cause even more harm on the way down to women in STEM.

I don't see it that way at all. I, and I suspect many others just see it as "another stupid idea fails", or "corrupt person got busted", or "another delusional fool who didn't listen inevitably fails hard" etc when they fail.
I don't see any damage to "women in STEM", because the women didn't fail because of their gender, that had nothing to do with it, except maybe positive press on the way up that helped make them high profile to begin with.
If anything I see the positive far outweighing the negative, with I imagine many girls seeing them succeed and then fail and saying "Gee, I can be like her but without the fail part because they were delusional/incompetent/corrupt etc".
But there is a whole zillion page thread on gender politics in engineering, so we'll leave it there.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 11, 2019, 01:11:22 pm
And I don't know why product launch experience is really valuable when the company has publicly shifted to a B2B model, and so supplies IP/components, rather than finished consumer products. Different skillsets.

Maybe they are talking about more internal "products" like development systems they can sell/give to B2B companies interested in the tech for some obscure reason.
The IoT energy harvesting market is already very crowded, if they try and release a system for that market I suspect they will be drowned out in a sea of noise.
They are always welcome to send a dev kit into my Mailbag segment for some publicity  8)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 11, 2019, 01:14:08 pm
I can't figure the timestamps here but, the website was gone at least 4 or 5, hours before sdpkom's report above appeared  « Reply #1511 on: January 31, 2019, 02:54:19 pm »  No links to PR blog before that/then.

They probably RSS subscribe to his blog and get alerted the moment it goes up. I would be if I was them.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on February 11, 2019, 01:24:05 pm
I can't figure the timestamps here but, the website was gone at least 4 or 5, hours before sdpkom's report above appeared  « Reply #1511 on: January 31, 2019, 02:54:19 pm »  No links to PR blog before that/then.

They probably RSS subscribe to his blog and get alerted the moment it goes up. I would be if I was them.

I wrote earlier (and deleted) that 4-5 hours before my post was  late PM in uBeam HQ, only to figure out the timestamp here is in Sydney Australia time.
The way timestamps are displayed here is indeed confusing, it would be nice to see the timezone next to the time.... or translate it to local time.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 11, 2019, 01:38:50 pm
I don't recall ever seeing this video, but maybe I have and I've forgotten. Perry with the prototype that looks like it has no tracking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1wekbXmRc4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1wekbXmRc4)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PA0PBZ on February 11, 2019, 02:44:28 pm
I wrote earlier (and deleted) that 4-5 hours before my post was  late PM in uBeam HQ, only to figure out the timestamp here is in Sydney Australia time.
The way timestamps are displayed here is indeed confusing, it would be nice to see the timezone next to the time.... or translate it to local time.

Set your time offset here and it will display local time: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/profile/?area=theme (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/profile/?area=theme)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on February 11, 2019, 03:34:53 pm
I wrote earlier (and deleted) that 4-5 hours before my post was  late PM in uBeam HQ, only to figure out the timestamp here is in Sydney Australia time.
The way timestamps are displayed here is indeed confusing, it would be nice to see the timezone next to the time.... or translate it to local time.

Set your time offset here and it will display local time: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/profile/?area=theme (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/profile/?area=theme)

Thanks,
I only wish it was that fixed....., my time ofset is not a fixed value...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jrs45 on February 11, 2019, 04:02:26 pm
Where hare-brained unrealistic schemes and exaggeration are the norm, and you are rarely held to account for prior promises, and being a 'victim' is a benefit?

Academia for sure.  Or some of those blue-sky research labs (Google X, MERL, etc.) that never need to accomplish anything concrete.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on February 11, 2019, 07:17:01 pm

Academia for sure.  Or some of those blue-sky research labs (Google X, MERL, etc.) that never need to accomplish anything concrete.

That would require a level of technical skill beyond the ability to Google answers...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on February 11, 2019, 07:43:09 pm
I don't recall ever seeing this video, but maybe I have and I've forgotten. Perry with the prototype that looks like it has no tracking.


I've been out of that company for over 3 years and I still have to work up to watching videos with Perry in them. It sets me off. Like episodes of "Silicon Valley", I can't watch them because I've lived them, and it's not as funny when you've been through it...

The editing is so choppy it's really irritating. Maybe I'm old now. This was from Oct 2017, during the last fundraising round.

The LP guy says gained 8%? Let's say that was a 6Wh battery, so around 500 mWh, in a few minutes, let's say 5 (do you see him standing there holding it steady for that length? 5 minutes is a looooong time to do that for). That would mean 6W charging to the battery, which if they could do they should be screaming from the rooftops. Amazing that 15 months later they were simply lighting up LEDs in the mW range... It also implies >145dB sound pressure level as at 145 dB a square-on iPhone X sized object receives around 3W acoustic (prior to conversion to the battery). Possible that they just concentrate an extremely large array (looks to be about 45cm across), blast it, and focus to a single point. Still, I don't see those numbers adding up, something's not right. It's also interesting that the handheld LED device showed a rather wide "focus", with good beamforming you should be able to get that down to a few centimeters at that range, I'm suspicious it's very limited that way (concentric rings, by hex plate, or none at all and relies on the natural focus). I'd also love to see the grating lobes on that thing. No steering shown, ties with no tracking, it might not have been able to do it. I think I mentioned this in one of my blogs, but if I was going to "bamboozle" investors I'd have multiple transmitter/receiver sets and show different aspect of the technology in each and handwave the "we'll put it all together later".

Never operate out of fear? OMG I just about fell out of my chair laughing at that. Those of us on the receiving end of the "random dictat of the day" might have something to say there.

There were a lot of LA music types coming through the office when I was there. Nice people. These were not technically sophisticated investors.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on February 11, 2019, 07:51:13 pm
Quote
The LP guy says gained 8%? Let's say that was a 6Wh battery, so around 500 mWh, in a few minutes, let's say 5 (do you see him standing there holding it steady for that length? 5 minutes is a looooong time to do that for). That would mean 6W charging to the battery, which if they could do they should be screaming from the rooftops. Amazing that 15 months later they were simply lighting up LEDs in the mW range... It also implies >145dB sound pressure level as at 145 dB a square-on iPhone X sized object receives around 3W acoustic (prior to conversion to the battery). Possible that they just concentrate an extremely large array (looks to be about 45cm across), blast it, and focus to a single point. Still, I don't see those numbers adding up, something's not right. It's also interesting that the handheld LED device showed a rather wide "focus", with good beamforming you should be able to get that down to a few centimeters at that range, I'm suspicious it's very limited that way (concentric rings, by hex plate, or none at all and relies on the natural focus). I'd also love to see the grating lobes on that thing. No steering shown, ties with no tracking, it might not have been able to do it. I think I mentioned this in one of my blogs, but if I was going to "bamboozle" investors I'd have multiple transmitter/receiver sets and show different aspect of the technology in each and handwave the "we'll put it all together later".

Or just put a pre-charged powerbank inside that huge "receiver".
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 12, 2019, 01:53:01 pm
I just remembered the Youtube video of a couple of investors in uBeam doing a dance to celebrate that they got in on this Trillion Dollar Idea™
But I can't find it, anyone got a link?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on February 12, 2019, 06:19:57 pm
I just remembered the Youtube video of a couple of investors in uBeam doing a dance to celebrate that they got in on this Trillion Dollar Idea™
But I can't find it, anyone got a link?

That was Ludlow Ventures, led by Jonathon Triest. Can't find the video yet, I think it was a Twitter post.

About 60% of the way down this interview they link to the video, but it shows as not available

https://www.replyall.me/zach-talks/conversation-with-ludlow-ventures-jonathon-triest/ (https://www.replyall.me/zach-talks/conversation-with-ludlow-ventures-jonathon-triest/)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on February 12, 2019, 10:05:52 pm
About 60% of the way down this interview they link to the video, but it shows as not available

https://www.replyall.me/zach-talks/conversation-with-ludlow-ventures-jonathon-triest/ (https://www.replyall.me/zach-talks/conversation-with-ludlow-ventures-jonathon-triest/)

"When she's done building uBeam into something remarkable, maybe she'll run for President."

Well that's one we didn't think of.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 12, 2019, 11:17:51 pm
I just remembered the Youtube video of a couple of investors in uBeam doing a dance to celebrate that they got in on this Trillion Dollar Idea™
But I can't find it, anyone got a link?
That was Ludlow Ventures, led by Jonathon Triest. Can't find the video yet, I think it was a Twitter post.
About 60% of the way down this interview they link to the video, but it shows as not available
https://www.replyall.me/zach-talks/conversation-with-ludlow-ventures-jonathon-triest/ (https://www.replyall.me/zach-talks/conversation-with-ludlow-ventures-jonathon-triest/)

A tad embarrassed I guess!  :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 14, 2019, 12:36:44 pm
I think I found what Perry wants to work on next...
Move over Elizabeth Holmes!
https://youtu.be/k_KYwu5v2j4?t=279
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Domagoj T on February 14, 2019, 01:14:02 pm
"We get sick and we have no idea why."
Like, A Biology like 101 textbook like would like solve like that.
like

(6 likes in 10 seconds) :--
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on February 14, 2019, 04:30:49 pm
I think I found what Perry wants to work on next...
Move over Elizabeth Holmes!
https://youtu.be/k_KYwu5v2j4?t=279

Scary how the people in the video believe that she already solved wireless power, that it's a success.  :scared:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Buriedcode on February 14, 2019, 07:38:20 pm
I think I found what Perry wants to work on next...
Move over Elizabeth Holmes!
https://youtu.be/k_KYwu5v2j4?t=279

Wow. Not even an Owen Wilson wow, but a proper wow.  Of course there's quite a bit we "don't know" but to say we "don't understand our own biology" is an insult the hard work of countless scientists and researchers.  Like somehow the reason we don't have cures for absolutely everything is just because.. well, darn it, we're just not trying hard enough!  Needs more blue-sky thinking, we can solve these big problems in a few months. Oh and funding, because throwing money at problems works every time  :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 15, 2019, 05:53:26 am
I think I found what Perry wants to work on next...
Move over Elizabeth Holmes!
https://youtu.be/k_KYwu5v2j4?t=279
Scary how the people in the video believe that she already solved wireless power, that it's a success.  :scared:

Or that it was somehow some genius idea that no one had ever thought of before  :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on February 15, 2019, 01:38:33 pm
I think I found what Perry wants to work on next...
Move over Elizabeth Holmes!
https://youtu.be/k_KYwu5v2j4?t=279

I remember this, we were just starting the Series A fundraising and I was taken aback somewhat by those statements because of the massive amount of work still to do, and how could we ask for money for R&D when we're saying that we're pretty much done? In the end I dismissed as something said under pressure by someone with minimal media training. After Series A, I more and more felt that yes this was indeed the view from the top, and that it was only us dumb obstinate engineers that were in the way of achieving this (and me in particular). I also wondered what was being said to investors when the lead engineers were not in the room. Point here for engineers doing fundraising - this is a feature, not a bug.

As for the youtube video, I found the recommendations for other videos I got quite amusing. I don't know if they say more about me, or about the subject of the video, image attached.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on February 15, 2019, 01:40:24 pm

Wow. Not even an Owen Wilson wow, but a proper wow.  Of course there's quite a bit we "don't know" but to say we "don't understand our own biology" is an insult the hard work of countless scientists and researchers.  Like somehow the reason we don't have cures for absolutely everything is just because.. well, darn it, we're just not trying hard enough!  Needs more blue-sky thinking, we can solve these big problems in a few months. Oh and funding, because throwing money at problems works every time  :horse:

It's those linear thinking biologists, they just can't see round corners. A few minutes Googling would show solutions...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Bud on February 15, 2019, 02:22:42 pm
Over the last 10 years or so i went to clinics (not just family doctors) with  pains and weird heart behaviour. None of the existing science could find the reasons for it, let alone cure it. So much to us "understanding our biology".
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on February 15, 2019, 03:48:09 pm
Over the last 10 years or so i went to clinics (not just family doctors) with  pains and weird heart behaviour. None of the existing science could find the reasons for it, let alone cure it. So much to us "understanding our biology".

I can put you in touch with Perry, I'm sure she can help cure you with the same effectiveness that made uBeam the international success story it is today.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Bud on February 15, 2019, 04:01:43 pm
i do not give shiite about Perry. 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on February 15, 2019, 06:32:34 pm
Over the last 10 years or so i went to clinics (not just family doctors) with  pains and weird heart behaviour. None of the existing science could find the reasons for it, let alone cure it. So much to us "understanding our biology".

(raises hand)

I know why!

It's because you're a big complicated chemical reaction, not a machine with standardized, mass-produced parts.

let alone cure it

They probably could if you let then do a complete teardown.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on February 16, 2019, 05:38:48 pm
I can put you in touch with Perry, I'm sure she can help cure you with the same effectiveness that made uBeam the international success story it is today.

Surely her father Dr Arthur Perry would be better, I think these are some of his potions, there's too many Dr Perrys to check.
https://www.youbeauty.com/beauty/dr-arthur-perry-skincare (https://www.youbeauty.com/beauty/dr-arthur-perry-skincare)

Doesn't seem to do SPF40(kHz).

https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/670802323359174656 (https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/670802323359174656)

Just before closing this 2011 tab, I decided to read it.

Perry has no background in electrical engineering. She is self-taught by reading online, mostly Wikipedia.
'A Guppy Navigating A Shark Tank'
In the business world, she's like a guppy navigating a shark tank. Fortune 500 companies already called to issue veiled threats, telling Perry she ought to license her technology to them.

https://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139854129/young-entrepreneur-has-a-better-idea-now-what (https://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139854129/young-entrepreneur-has-a-better-idea-now-what)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on February 17, 2019, 08:00:44 am

Just before closing this 2011 tab, I decided to read it.

Perry has no background in electrical engineering. She is self-taught by reading online, mostly Wikipedia.
'A Guppy Navigating A Shark Tank'
In the business world, she's like a guppy navigating a shark tank. Fortune 500 companies already called to issue veiled threats, telling Perry she ought to license her technology to them.

https://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139854129/young-entrepreneur-has-a-better-idea-now-what (https://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139854129/young-entrepreneur-has-a-better-idea-now-what)

Trying to figure out her next venture, here is a partial list of other subjects she has no background in:
Medicine, Nuclear fusion, especially cold fusion, Aviation (not including space travel) , Telekinesis, Mind reading.

She does, now, have a background in Biology, astrobiology (what's that anyway), ultrasound, electrical engineering, management, and fundraising so she better not work in any of those areas anymore, as she has now became those linear thinkers you aught to avoid.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on February 18, 2019, 03:01:00 pm
http://theweeklyobserver.com/nasa-sends-clowns-to-mars/65952/ (http://theweeklyobserver.com/nasa-sends-clowns-to-mars/65952/)

Clowns needed for a NASA mars mission
Engineering background not required
500dB ultrasound is completely safe in space
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: andy o on February 18, 2019, 06:21:11 pm
Over the last 10 years or so i went to clinics (not just family doctors) with  pains and weird heart behaviour. None of the existing science could find the reasons for it, let alone cure it. So much to us "understanding our biology".
What is the point of this anecdote, especially in the context of the posts you're responding to? To suggest that we don't know anything about biology? Or that medical professionals don't know everything, therefore an "alternative" to scientific medicine/biology is to be sought after? And what would that alternative look like, if it's not within the purview of science?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on February 19, 2019, 05:39:40 am
Every TED Talk Ever. Genius.

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2019/02/every-ted-talk-ever.html (https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2019/02/every-ted-talk-ever.html)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9advgMBbdo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9advgMBbdo)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Buriedcode on February 19, 2019, 03:24:41 pm
Reminds me a lot of this (although this is more, the formula for a TED talk)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZBKX-6Gz6A&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZBKX-6Gz6A&feature=youtu.be)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on February 23, 2019, 11:31:11 am
what would that alternative look like, if it's not within the purview of science?

Theranos?

(which has to be what our heroine has been eyeing up as her next scam)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cyberdragon on February 23, 2019, 05:08:50 pm
what would that alternative look like, if it's not within the purview of science?

Theranos?

(which has to be what our heroine has been eyeing up as her next scam)

the death of Steve Jobs
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 24, 2019, 12:32:45 pm
Thanking her biggest investor and supporters for a tweet (of presumably support), and then having said person pull their tweet, priceless  ;D

(https://i.imgur.com/6BdW72r.png)



Probably worth following her on Twitter to get an idea what she is interested in lately:

(https://i.imgur.com/6zRJi2A.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/pKmxrDQ.png)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on February 24, 2019, 07:18:01 pm
Suster claims to clean out his tweets every six months or so. He's never stated why, only that he does. Without an explanation forthcoming, one can of course draw one's own conclusions.

I mean, it's like he doesn't do a bit of convenient necro-deletion on his blog posts, like this one for example:

Quote
If for any reason we fall short of expectations we have set in the market, I will be the first person in line to admit it and then to immediately fund Meredith’s next company.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on February 24, 2019, 07:29:47 pm
Thanking her biggest investor and supporters for a tweet (of presumably support), and then having said person pull their tweet, priceless  ;D

Probably worth following her on Twitter to get an idea what she is interested in lately:


Unfortunately there are already multiple folding bike helmets available, such as this one:

https://www.park-and-diamond.com/ (https://www.park-and-diamond.com/)

As a now-expert in engineering and innovation, it seems Perry has succumbed to linear thinking and forgotten to do the basics and Google for 10 seconds.

I have to say though, I am slightly concerned about where the swimming pool full of blood is heading...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on February 24, 2019, 07:34:00 pm
Suster claims to clean out his tweets every six months or so. He's never stated why, only that he does. Without an explanation forthcoming, one can of course draw one's own conclusions.

I mean, it's like he doesn't do a bit of convenient necro-deletion on his blog posts, like this one for example:

Quote
If for any reason we fall short of expectations we have set in the market, I will be the first person in line to admit it and then to immediately fund Meredith’s next company.

Do you have a link for where he claims to do that? As far as I know, that "mega purge" on Oct 1st last year (shortly after Perry's publicized departure from uBeam), was the first time he'd done that. If the first reference to his deletions is then or later, then something smells. While I've no evidence any which way, so purely speculation, whenever I see someone retroactively change and mass delete, I always think "Something in there made them legally vulnerable, and so they've mass deleted to both cover for what it is, and avoid further liability. Reputationally liable they'd selectively delete."
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on February 24, 2019, 08:33:34 pm
There are a few twitter mentions of purge.
https://twitter.com/gtryan/status/851395718778671104
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&q=msuster%20purge&src=typd
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: langwadt on February 24, 2019, 09:27:44 pm
Suster claims to clean out his tweets every six months or so. He's never stated why, only that he does. Without an explanation forthcoming, one can of course draw one's own conclusions.

I mean, it's like he doesn't do a bit of convenient necro-deletion on his blog posts, like this one for example:

Quote
If for any reason we fall short of expectations we have set in the market, I will be the first person in line to admit it and then to immediately fund Meredith’s next company.

Do you have a link for where he claims to do that? As far as I know, that "mega purge" on Oct 1st last year (shortly after Perry's publicized departure from uBeam), was the first time he'd done that. If the first reference to his deletions is then or later, then something smells. While I've no evidence any which way, so purely speculation, whenever I see someone retroactively change and mass delete, I always think "Something in there made them legally vulnerable, and so they've mass deleted to both cover for what it is, and avoid further liability. Reputationally liable they'd selectively delete."

it hard to say what could become a liability a year from now, people end up in a shit storm for using the wrong word in
a tweet years ago
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: drussell on February 24, 2019, 09:46:54 pm
While I've no evidence any which way, so purely speculation, whenever I see someone retroactively change and mass delete, I always think "Something in there made them legally vulnerable, and so they've mass deleted to both cover for what it is, and avoid further liability. Reputationally liable they'd selectively delete."

Other than the fact that the internet doesn't forget...  Even when you "delete" a tweet.  :)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 24, 2019, 10:41:45 pm
Suster claims to clean out his tweets every six months or so. He's never stated why, only that he does. Without an explanation forthcoming, one can of course draw one's own conclusions.

It's because he wants the social currency that goes along with having a high profile twitter account, but doesn't want the long term accountability.

Quote
I mean, it's like he doesn't do a bit of convenient necro-deletion on his blog posts, like this one for example:
Quote
If for any reason we fall short of expectations we have set in the market, I will be the first person in line to admit it and then to immediately fund Meredith’s next company.

That one was a very deliberate doozy
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 24, 2019, 10:43:14 pm
it hard to say what could become a liability a year from now, people end up in a shit storm for using the wrong word in a tweet years ago

Only if they are dumb enough to apologise for it or try to hide it.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on February 26, 2019, 11:08:43 am
We can't wait to see the incredible tech of @ubeam, @SurgicalTheater, @techsee_me, @magisto, Nanomedic and Tevel next Thursday, March 7th, at #OCSummit19's Demo Theater!

OurCrowd, creating junk-tech so you don't have to.  https://twitter.com/OurCrowd/status/1100000625931227141 (https://twitter.com/OurCrowd/status/1100000625931227141)

uBeam to Release & Demonstrate Customer Development Kits
"We are delighted to showcase our new Customer Development Kits at these two important forums," said Simon McElrea, uBeam CEO. "These kits include all of the critical hardware and software elements required to enable contracted customers to seamlessly integrate uBeam's ultrasonic Wireless Energy technology into their end products."

The Development Kits (or reference designs) have been created based on feedback from initial engagements with customers in the consumer electronics, aerospace, automotive and IoT sectors, and are designed to be scalable in size and power-output based on customer need, as well as to allow for simple next-generation transducer and ASIC upgrades.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ubeam-to-release--demonstrate-customer-development-kits-at-upcoming-march-events-300805683.html (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ubeam-to-release--demonstrate-customer-development-kits-at-upcoming-march-events-300805683.html)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on March 06, 2019, 08:21:38 am
uBeam to Release & Demonstrate Customer Development Kits
"We are delighted to showcase our new Customer Development Kits at these two important forums," said Simon McElrea, uBeam CEO. "These kits include all of the critical hardware and software elements required to enable contracted customers to seamlessly integrate uBeam's ultrasonic Wireless Energy technology into their end products."

I think the important word in the first part is "showcase". Will anyone outside the company get their hands on them to actually evaluate? Data sheets? Pricing? (Rhetorical questions)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on March 06, 2019, 03:10:10 pm
uBeam to Release & Demonstrate Customer Development Kits
"We are delighted to showcase our new Customer Development Kits at these two important forums," said Simon McElrea, uBeam CEO. "These kits include all of the critical hardware and software elements required to enable contracted customers to seamlessly integrate uBeam's ultrasonic Wireless Energy technology into their end products."

I think the important word in the first part is "showcase". Will anyone outside the company get their hands on them to actually evaluate? Data sheets? Pricing? (Rhetorical questions)

Of course not.

At this stage they know it doesn't work so they're willfully lying in order to maintain the illusion and to take people's money under false pretenses.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Bud on March 06, 2019, 08:57:08 pm
Over the last 10 years or so i went to clinics (not just family doctors) with  pains and weird heart behaviour. None of the existing science could find the reasons for it, let alone cure it. So much to us "understanding our biology".
What is the point of this anecdote, especially in the context of the posts you're responding to? To suggest that we don't know anything about biology? Or that medical professionals don't know everything, therefore an "alternative" to scientific medicine/biology is to be sought after? And what would that alternative look like, if it's not within the purview of science?

I was responding to someone's comment that we know very little about our biology. I basically said that is true, with all of the seemingly advanced science   we still know very little about our body .  To you this may be an anecdot, to me it is not knowing if i will wake up tomorrow.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 07, 2019, 12:01:00 pm
uBeam to Release & Demonstrate Customer Development Kits
"We are delighted to showcase our new Customer Development Kits at these two important forums," said Simon McElrea, uBeam CEO. "These kits include all of the critical hardware and software elements required to enable contracted customers to seamlessly integrate uBeam's ultrasonic Wireless Energy technology into their end products."

I think the important word in the first part is "showcase". Will anyone outside the company get their hands on them to actually evaluate? Data sheets? Pricing? (Rhetorical questions)

I think the important word is contracted. They won't show it to anyone unless they are contracted or at least very serious about a contract to license the tech.
And because they have absolutely no consumer game left to play, they have to rely on big ticket companies to sign up and use the tech for some niche app, or just something to dispose of some cash on.
They are just buying time until they can sell the company for whatever they can get.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on March 08, 2019, 05:48:29 pm
This is the highest res photo available

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=623128;image)

I talked to one of the people who got a private demo of the kit yesyerday.

They have two transmitters... the big one has an ir camera and looks like the one shown on their twitter feed.
It locates a receiver and sends power to it.
It can light some LEDs at ~6 ft with a reciever that is ~10cm x 15 cm x 3 cm.
They say it is safe and was tested by a secret 3rd party.
They dont discuss the components.
Say it can deliver 1w at ~2 feet, but did not show phone charging.
Transmission does not stop completly if the beam is blocked, they say its not needed.
If the receiver is moved... it finds it after a few seconds.

The kit consists of a smaller transmitter version.
The smaller transmitter sends constant high power sound forward. Does not locate receivers and does move the beam. Does not ever stop transmitting. If you place a receiver in front of it, it can turn on an LED at ~1 ft.  They say its all made out of commercially available components and is ready to go to market. The receiver can move an inch or two sideways and still works.

Will get more info tomorrow
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on March 09, 2019, 12:32:13 am

I talked to one of the people who got a private demo of the kit yesyerday.
...
Will get more info tomorrow

With the caveat of basing my opinion here on what you've been told - even taking into account that I thought I'd be underwhelmed, I'm underwhelmed, and tbh shocked they'd go that route with the demo kit.

My first "wow" here is related to safety - the admission that they can't control random exposure for safety IMO kills this 'product' right here, it's a lawsuit waiting to happen (grating lobes always meant random exposure but this is the main lobe too). That it's been evaluated for safety by a "secret 3rd party" sets off a ton of alarm bells, if I were them and had such a conclusive report I'd be announcing it everywhere - if it's really definitive it would be impossible for people like me to poke holes in it, so release away. Press should not ever let them get away with that, and I doubt any sane manufacturer they are trying to license to will either (but, hey, Dialog paid Energous $25m).

I'm suspicious of "1 watt at 2 feet" - again if that could be done, it would be something I'd be publicizing as much as possible, an LED does not say "1 watt".

IMO A transmitter that sends power only forward, with no steering, and uses only commercially available components sounds like they soldered a bunch of Muratas to a board in parallel and used the natural focus of ultrasound to create a single point focus about 25/30cm out and a couple of inches across, which does not need $40m and several years to make. Their own Oct 2017 fundraising document described the amazing proprietary transducers they had as central to their commercial advantage, and they are instead using something you can overnight from Digikey for $3? What is the value proposition above plugging into a wire or placing on a Qi charge pad? How is this in any way better than what Powercast already sell? To see what a small transmitter such as described looks like, see this:

https://www.soundlazer.com/ (https://www.soundlazer.com/)

This was a Kickstarter, and was built with around $125,000 through to commercialization with nice packaging.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/richardhaberkern/soundlazer (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/richardhaberkern/soundlazer)

What is the IP moat that stops others? Why would you let anyone see that demo kit? IMO it just proves you have almost nothing. Just... wow.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: KL27x on March 09, 2019, 12:59:13 am
Quote
Unfortunately there are already multiple folding bike helmets available, such as this one:

https://www.park-and-diamond.com/ (https://www.park-and-diamond.com/)
This is exactly what Meredith should work on. I wonder what kind of magic beans this is made out of to prevent concussions and split noggins "just as well as traditional helmets." The construction, military, police, and professional sports industries would like to know. If you put a battery and enough sensors and microcontrollers, memory metal, and tiny air bags, maybe she could pull it off (the fundraising part).

Dunno, maybe it's made out of depleted uranium, so your head just keeps going through whatever you hit.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on March 10, 2019, 09:22:51 am
Some more info,

They claim being able to transmit 1W at 1 meter, hunderds of mWs at 2m and 10s of mW at 5m, but when asking a bit more details, this was for an unspecified receiver size, unspecified transmitter model and unknown alignment.

When they demo the system, they hold the receiver with fingers blocking parts of the beam, but not the white square. I assume this means it's at least safe enough so that it does not hurt.

The receiver they demo is not delivering measurable power  (2 wires you can connect to a meter, or some USB you can connect to a phone)  instead it has an array of approximately 14x16 red LEDs which are not very bright to look at. When it's working, only about a 1/3 of the LEDs are lit. Assuming the LEDs are 5mW LEDs, this would be translated to about 350mW of usable power at short distance.
The demo kit includes a slightly smaller receiver, approximately half the size.

The kit includes the small transmitter, which does not lock on receivers but rather has a fixed focus and is always on.

During conversation they said that
All components of the kit are commercially available and ready to go to production.
Its completely safe, when asking about Israel (demo was in Israel) they avoided the question.
They said it's certified as safe by a 3rd party, they avoided answering who is the 3rd party.
They avoided all questions about dBs in either side (transmitter or receiver).



Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on March 10, 2019, 05:23:03 pm
I don't think uDream will be able to keep up with the number of companies desperate to incorporate this technology into their IoTs products. >:D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on March 11, 2019, 03:50:06 am
Some more info,

They claim being able to transmit 1W at 1 meter, hunderds of mWs at 2m and 10s of mW at 5m, but when asking a bit more details, this was for an unspecified receiver size, unspecified transmitter model and unknown alignment.

When they demo the system, they hold the receiver with fingers blocking parts of the beam, but not the white square. I assume this means it's at least safe enough so that it does not hurt.

The receiver they demo is not delivering measurable power  (2 wires you can connect to a meter, or some USB you can connect to a phone)  instead it has an array of approximately 14x16 red LEDs which are not very bright to look at. When it's working, only about a 1/3 of the LEDs are lit. Assuming the LEDs are 5mW LEDs, this would be translated to about 350mW of usable power at short distance.
The demo kit includes a slightly smaller receiver, approximately half the size.

The kit includes the small transmitter, which does not lock on receivers but rather has a fixed focus and is always on.

During conversation they said that
All components of the kit are commercially available and ready to go to production.
Its completely safe, when asking about Israel (demo was in Israel) they avoided the question.
They said it's certified as safe by a 3rd party, they avoided answering who is the 3rd party.
They avoided all questions about dBs in either side (transmitter or receiver).

Good info, reinforces everything from earlier. 1 Watt at 1 meter but still won't say how or demonstrate? Hmmmm. So when Techcrunch were told by uBeam in Nov 2015 that the system would do a minimum of 1.5W at 4 meters, and in many cases faster than a wire, were they 'mistaken'?

https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/wireless-power-charger/

Ultrasound at 145 dB or less won't hurt fingers over a few seconds. Concern at skin is over time of long exposure and heat build up, especially in hair. Other concern is if it's on the ear, does it generate subharmonics and cause damage? Also any long term effects if exposed for hours a day, day after day.

No info on dB levels is bullshit, that smacks of avoiding regulatory and safety standards, and I wonder if they even know what the limits are in Israel. Same with refusing to say who claimed it was safe - identity of the third party is critical to know validity. They need to look up the word 'certified' as well.

I would be very surprised if that LED detector did not have batteries in the frame to amplify any received signals, I've thought that they were only using that to show the beam, not to actually claim it's self powered. Were they actually claiming that was all from energy harvesting, no batteries?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on March 11, 2019, 10:36:13 am
The smaller transmitter sends constant high power sound forward. Does not locate receivers and does move the beam. Does not ever stop transmitting. If you place a receiver in front of it, it can turn on an LED at ~1 ft.  They say its all made out of commercially available components and is ready to go to market. The receiver can move an inch or two sideways and still works.

Just the 1 LED? :-DD

I would be very surprised if that LED detector did not have batteries in the frame to amplify any received signals, I've thought that they were only using that to show the beam, not to actually claim it's self powered. Were they actually claiming that was all from energy harvesting, no batteries?

I used to think the LED boards didn't have batteries but after the mac CES video I think the large one does now!

1TX > 0.5m > 1RX > 1LED  is impossible, I've tried it and only goto to about 7mm with 30Vpp on the TX.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on March 11, 2019, 03:39:21 pm

Just the 1 LED? :-DD


Not 1, about 24X26 of them...., but only about 30% are lit at any time.
Assuming each LED is ~5mW LED, if all the LEDs were lit @ full power it would mean ~1+W of power.
About 30% of them are lit, at best, and most of the one's that are lit are dim (dim=10% of power), so I would say we're seeing here 50-200mW of electrical power going into the LEDs, at ~ 1 meter distance.

The spot seems like a ~100 cm^2  spot, assuming some 25% conversion efficiency, you get 2-8mW/cm^2 of sound,   or ~135-140dB @ the receiver. 

@paulReynolds can probably estimate this much better.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on March 12, 2019, 07:36:05 am

Just the 1 LED? :-DD


Not 1, about 24X26 of them...., but only about 30% are lit at any time.
Assuming each LED is ~5mW LED, if all the LEDs were lit @ full power it would mean ~1+W of power.
About 30% of them are lit, at best, and most of the one's that are lit are dim (dim=10% of power), so I would say we're seeing here 50-200mW of electrical power going into the LEDs, at ~ 1 meter distance.

The spot seems like a ~100 cm^2  spot, assuming some 25% conversion efficiency, you get 2-8mW/cm^2 of sound,   or ~135-140dB @ the receiver. 

@paulReynolds can probably estimate this much better.

There are so many unknowns now in what they are doing, and inconsistent reported statements from them, it's getting hard, even for me, to make good estimates as to power levels, however I'll return to the point I made earlier that I had assumed that the LED detector panel was not 'self powered' and instead had batteries to amplify any incoming signal. That would be pretty simple to have a board with a M by N grid each with an amplifier, a Murata receiver on one side, and an LED on the other. If it's self powered you'd see that really quickly with distance. They also wouldn't be doing demos where they use a small panel to light a single LED, as I heard they did at CES in the private show, if each Murata could light a single LED.

I'm not even sure what they are doing now, it just doesn't make sense to me, not even in a "lipstick on a pig" way. If you can do 1 Watt at 1 meter, show it, it's 33x better than Energous. If it's certified safe, release the study and prove it. If it's legal in a country you can say "under <insert dB limit here> at all points". If you can't charge for shit (kinda important), if it's not safe, and if it isn't (or you're not sure) that it's legal, then you might want to rethink your business plan and pivot PDQ because things aren't going to get better from here.

Basically, IMO, if they had what they're apparently claiming, it makes complete sense to go public with it all. That they don't is pretty telling.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on March 12, 2019, 08:45:22 am
Basically, IMO, if they had what they're apparently claiming, it makes complete sense to go public with it all. That they don't is pretty telling.

Agreed, it seems bizarre that they're so cagey about the capabilities. Even companies that release product datasheets under NDA offer key specifications in a product brief.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on March 12, 2019, 11:05:26 am
https://youtu.be/azBzKWqUoXU (https://youtu.be/azBzKWqUoXU) starting 23:50


Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on March 12, 2019, 12:03:32 pm
https://youtu.be/azBzKWqUoXU?t=1421
Well that was impressive, :horse:
The LEDs were a bit dim, I can see super bright LEDs lit at about 1uA, 50Hz leakage through my fingers is enough to light them.

Their TX doesn't have a power on LED to solve the "not been plugged in problem" ?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on March 12, 2019, 12:47:06 pm
Their TX doesn't have a power on LED to solve the "not been plugged in problem" ?

At least we know he's not pressing a secret button on the receiver to activate the LEDs.

(unless it's a double-bluff  :popcorn: )

Questions:
a) Why would it take 30 seconds to warm up?
b) The receiver is huge, why does nobody notice that it's going to need a humongous phone to work and that the space would be better used by simply adding a bigger battery instead of this garbage.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 12, 2019, 01:56:22 pm
I'm so... underwhelmed...  :=\
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on March 12, 2019, 01:57:35 pm
a) Why would it take 30 seconds to warm up?

I don't know, I'd guess with the power they're putting into the TX transducers their peak frequency changes a bit in the first few minutes of on, which probably then is not a very good match for the cold RXs. :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 12, 2019, 02:00:45 pm
There are so many unknowns now in what they are doing, and inconsistent reported statements from them, it's getting hard, even for me, to make good estimates as to power levels, however I'll return to the point I made earlier that I had assumed that the LED detector panel was not 'self powered' and instead had batteries to amplify any incoming signal.

I have no doubt it's self powered, LED's a pretty darn efficient and even 100mW total would power those LED's.
Probably a sum of all the RX transducer for system power, then tap off individual transducer levels as well for individual mapping. Pretty easy dumb stuff.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on March 12, 2019, 02:17:16 pm

Questions:
a) Why would it take 30 seconds to warm up?

Quite normal.

For starters, there must be some  "computer" of some sort to manage it all, and it should finish booting up....
components need to reach operating temperatures.
It also verifies there are no engineers in the audience, if there are any, it warns the operator.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jrs45 on March 12, 2019, 08:32:45 pm
I doubt it's even as complex as needing "system power".  Each receiver transducer would just have a little conversion circuit that drives the LED.  If even that - I wouldn't be surprised if each transducer was connected directly to its own LED.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 12, 2019, 11:10:07 pm
Questions:
a) Why would it take 30 seconds to warm up?
Quite normal.
For starters, there must be some  "computer" of some sort to manage it all, and it should finish booting up....
components need to reach operating temperatures.
It also verifies there are no engineers in the audience, if there are any, it warns the operator.

*snort*
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on March 13, 2019, 12:17:42 am

Questions:
a) Why would it take 30 seconds to warm up?

Quite normal.

For starters, there must be some  "computer" of some sort to manage it all, and it should finish booting up....

Yeah, I guess it could be booting Linux or something. You'd think there would be a status LED though.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on March 13, 2019, 05:09:13 am
For those who may be interested, I gave an interview on my opinion of the at-distance wireless charging space.

https://www.thewirelesssolution.co.uk/blogs/information/paul-reynolds (https://www.thewirelesssolution.co.uk/blogs/information/paul-reynolds)

Quote
How long do you estimate it will take before we get true wireless charging for smartphones?

If you are looking for multi-meter, as-fast-as-a-wire charging for smartphones then I expect you are going to be waiting a very long time, I simply do not see that happening. Directing energy is limited by the laws of physics, especially if you wish to do so safely and at a reasonable price. Physics makes it difficult and inefficient, but not impossible – however -most of the current methods under development, such as RF and acoustic, all have to eventually face regulatory limits that are there for safety that simply don’t allow enough power to be useful.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: drussell on March 13, 2019, 01:48:07 pm
Probably a sum of all the RX transducer for system power, then tap off individual transducer levels as well for individual mapping. Pretty easy dumb stuff.

Or just LEDs wired directly to the individual transducers...

Really easy dumb stuff...  :)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on March 13, 2019, 10:53:55 pm

Questions:
a) Why would it take 30 seconds to warm up?

Quite normal.

For starters, there must be some  "computer" of some sort to manage it all, and it should finish booting up....

Yeah, I guess it could be booting Linux or something. You'd think there would be a status LED though.

Can you run Linux in under a watt? Or do you need a wall charger for that bit?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on March 14, 2019, 05:18:33 am
Can you run Linux in under a watt? Or do you need a wall charger for that bit?

You can go to the moon and back with a whole Watt...  :popcorn:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 16, 2019, 12:35:21 am
This may or may not be me with two people who may or may not have something to do with a company that shall remain nameless.
This photo will self destruct once efficiency hits zero.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Kean on March 16, 2019, 04:31:35 pm
This photo will self destruct once efficiency hits zero.

The question is which will self-destruct first - the photo or uBeam?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LapTop006 on March 17, 2019, 05:45:41 am
Can you run Linux in under a watt? Or do you need a wall charger for that bit?

Easily. A PocketBeagle can idle at about half a watt. Actual usage is more like 3W however.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on March 17, 2019, 03:43:04 pm
Can you run Linux in under a watt? Or do you need a wall charger for that bit?

Easily. A PocketBeagle can idle at about half a watt. Actual usage is more like 3W however.

Half a watt idle? You could go to the moon and back on that!

I guess I need to spend more time outside of my nanoamp world.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cyberdragon on March 17, 2019, 09:25:10 pm
But..."You can't even run a vacuum cleaner on 12 amps John!" ;D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: LapTop006 on March 18, 2019, 05:18:25 am
Can you run Linux in under a watt? Or do you need a wall charger for that bit?

Easily. A PocketBeagle can idle at about half a watt. Actual usage is more like 3W however.

Half a watt idle? You could go to the moon and back on that!

I guess I need to spend more time outside of my nanoamp world.

That's without significant effort towards power optimisation too. I'm sure there's more efficient systems out there, in fact I suspect once you exclude the screen backlight & wifi chip my laptop doesn't idle at much more than that.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on March 18, 2019, 07:27:06 am
Can you run Linux in under a watt? Or do you need a wall charger for that bit?

Easily. A PocketBeagle can idle at about half a watt. Actual usage is more like 3W however.
You can make Linux systems that idle at very low power levels. If they only need to conduct short bursts of activity, you can get them to run at quite a low average power level, and use capacitors to smooth out the energy demands from the supply. The problem in applications where the supply is weak is trying to get them to boot, because that requires quite a long sustained burst of activity. I haven't seen a system that can effectively spread out the boot process, to avoid high energy demands. It might not be that useful, anyway, if the boot process ends up taking an hour or more.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jrs45 on March 19, 2019, 04:10:17 pm
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-19/a-harvard-dropout-s-plan-to-fix-college-admissions-with-video-games (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-19/a-harvard-dropout-s-plan-to-fix-college-admissions-with-video-games)

Quote
“It’s something we’ve discussed, how much less scrutiny we would face if we were men, how much more implicit trust you’d get. But there’s nothing you can do about it, and talking about it makes you sound kind of silly,” says Meredith Perry, founder of the wireless technology startup UBeam..."

It's remarkable that she makes this claim, given the amount of investor money she was able to raise without any evidence of a working technology whatsoever.  Seems that she had an abundance of "implicit trust".
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cyberdragon on March 19, 2019, 04:20:26 pm
NOTE: This message has been deleted by the forum moderator EEVblog for being against the forum rules and/or at the discretion of the moderator as being in the best interests of the forum community and the nature of the thread.
If you believe this to be in error, please contact the moderator involved.
An optional additional explanation is:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on March 19, 2019, 05:12:15 pm
The lack of self awareness is stunning. Does she really think she'd have had the opportunity to spaff all those millions had she been one of the awkward male linear thinkers on the autism spectrum who she loves to berate? The value proposition had little to do with her yet to be invented invention, a bit to do with her being mouthy, and a lot to do with her ticking a few diversity boxes that the VCs were under pressure to deliver on.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 19, 2019, 11:37:43 pm
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-19/a-harvard-dropout-s-plan-to-fix-college-admissions-with-video-games (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-19/a-harvard-dropout-s-plan-to-fix-college-admissions-with-video-games)

Quote
“It’s something we’ve discussed, how much less scrutiny we would face if we were men, how much more implicit trust you’d get. But there’s nothing you can do about it, and talking about it makes you sound kind of silly,” says Meredith Perry, founder of the wireless technology startup UBeam..."

It's remarkable that she makes this claim, given the amount of investor money she was able to raise without any evidence of a working technology whatsoever.  Seems that she had an abundance of "implicit trust".

Yes, she had a stunning amount of implicit trust because she was a fast talking young female blonde in tech, even Mark Cuban admitted as such in an article that being young blonde and female was a part of it. Her inability to realise why she got as far as she did and as much coverage as she did is stunning.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on March 22, 2019, 08:44:25 am
Someone trying to light a red LED with US. The 10A bridge rectifier is probably quite lossy at 40kHz. :)

https://twitter.com/Leeborg_/status/1108499165645029378
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 22, 2019, 09:24:21 am
Someone trying to light a red LED with US. The 10A bridge rectifier is probably quite lossy at 40kHz. :)
https://twitter.com/Leeborg_/status/1108499165645029378

This idea has GOT to be worth at least $31M in VC funding, a TEDx talk, crazy media coverage, and surely is a Trillion dollar idea?
Mark Cuban might want to invest perhaps?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Dubbie on March 28, 2019, 02:09:55 am
Mark Cuban might want to invest perhaps?

I think his money is all tied up in Merediths next big idea!

Whats that old saying? Fool me once.....?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: beduino on March 28, 2019, 11:08:38 pm
The 10A bridge rectifier is probably quite lossy at 40kHz. :)
Probably bridge rectifier not needed since they could use instead additional LED connected in anti -parallel to protect each other against LED low reverse voltage if they worry about, like in attached image ;)

I've sucessfully used many years ago magnetic transducer to convert background noisy environment sound energy into electricity, so nothing new :)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 28, 2019, 11:13:29 pm
http://www.execelements.com/wednesday-words-of-wisdom-meredith-perry/ (http://www.execelements.com/wednesday-words-of-wisdom-meredith-perry/)

Quote
Sometimes “reinventing the wheel” is actually a great thing to do.

Funny how she did exactly that. Although she keeps claiming she invented this idea, ultrasonic wireless power transfer had been researched and used for decades. But she was the only one dumb... err... "out of the box thinking" enough to think you can charge a mobile phone with it at several meters, and power TV's and other stuff.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on March 29, 2019, 04:55:26 am
http://www.execelements.com/wednesday-words-of-wisdom-meredith-perry/ (http://www.execelements.com/wednesday-words-of-wisdom-meredith-perry/)

Quote
Sometimes “reinventing the wheel” is actually a great thing to do.

Funny how she did exactly that. Although she keeps claiming she invented this idea, ultrasonic wireless power transfer had been researched and used for decades. But she was the only one dumb... err... "out of the box thinking" enough to think you can charge a mobile phone with it at several meters, and power TV's and other stuff.

Still? Does anyone actually check histories before doing these quotes? From page 1 of this thread, reference 61, Charych patent "System and method for wireless electrical power transmission", filed 2003.

"A power transmission system using directional ultrasound for power transmission includes a transmitting device and a receiving device. The transmitting device has a set of ultrasound transducers forming an ultrasound transducer array, wherein the array is a set of spaced individual transducers placed in the X-Y plane disposed to generate an ultrasound beam in the Z direction."

https://patents.google.com/patent/US6798716 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6798716)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: The_Next_Theranos on March 29, 2019, 04:59:34 am
http://www.execelements.com/wednesday-words-of-wisdom-meredith-perry/ (http://www.execelements.com/wednesday-words-of-wisdom-meredith-perry/)

Quote
Sometimes “reinventing the wheel” is actually a great thing to do.
Not sure why that "Wednesday words of wisdom" site is recycling a 4-year old quote from 2015 and claiming it is news for March 2019.

Here's the original source of the quote from 2015.

http://meredithperry.tumblr.com/ (http://meredithperry.tumblr.com/)
archive.org version: http://web.archive.org/web/20160515233258/http://meredithperry.tumblr.com/ (http://web.archive.org/web/20160515233258/http://meredithperry.tumblr.com/)

The "Wednesday words of wisdom" site claims they "asked some of our nearest and dearest friends and clients to share their secrets", but if that is really so, why is the purported answer the exact same one as was previously published in 2015, even including the quotation marks?

Most likely they're just recycling information scraped from the web and presenting it as news.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on March 30, 2019, 12:27:44 pm
Get ready for your "wireless" uBeam blood test, maybe. >:D
http://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/1111073889147224065 (http://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/1111073889147224065)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on March 30, 2019, 08:55:17 pm
Get ready for your uBeam blood test, maybe. >:D
http://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/1111073889147224065 (http://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/1111073889147224065)

The writers for Season 3 are really just phoning it in now...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: djos on March 30, 2019, 10:21:10 pm
Get ready for your uBeam blood test, maybe. >:D
http://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/1111073889147224065 (http://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/1111073889147224065)

I wonder if she's just bought some not quite working medical equipment from her mate Liz?  :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 30, 2019, 10:36:28 pm
Get ready for your "wireless" uBeam blood test, maybe. >:D
http://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/1111073889147224065 (http://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/1111073889147224065)

Be afraid, be very afraid...

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=692061;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 30, 2019, 11:05:23 pm

Hang on, my spidey sense tells me that The_Next_Theranos forum account may have been Perry all along, it all makes sense now...  :-\
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 30, 2019, 11:14:55 pm
Someone just sent me a secret pic of Perry's new startup prototype!  8)

Recharge your phone and test for every known disease with just a thumb prick, it's a zillion dollar idea!


(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=692097;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: rt on March 30, 2019, 11:21:38 pm
Has anyone sent that pic to John Carreyrou yet?! (https://twitter.com/johncarreyrou?lang=en (https://twitter.com/johncarreyrou?lang=en))  He might find it interesting! 

(I amn't on twitter)

rt

(unless you are just trolling Dave!)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 31, 2019, 12:18:25 am
(unless you are just trolling Dave!)

Me? Trolling?  8)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Bud on March 31, 2019, 05:38:57 pm
Someone just sent me a secret pic of Perry's new startup prototype!  8)

Recharge your phone and test for every known disease with just a thumb prick, it's a zillion dollar idea!


(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=692097;image)
Meh, everyone knows the secret is in Not turning the phone ON.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on March 31, 2019, 06:56:23 pm
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=692097;image)

I was hoping she was trying to recharge phones using human blood.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on April 01, 2019, 12:58:13 pm
Meanwhile in Energous ......

Looks like they are going for chapter 11 very soon.....

As of Dec/31 they had $20m of cash, and were burning $50m/year.
Since, they said they published a prospectus (the initial document for raising money on NASDAQ), anounced they raised $25m, canceled the prospectus, filed a different one, all without actually issuing a single new share to the public (according to the number of outstanding shares on their website)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1575793/000119312519059126/d714685d424b5.htm (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1575793/000119312519059126/d714685d424b5.htm)
https://ir.energous.com/quote (https://ir.energous.com/quote)

So they should now have money for maybe 4-8 weeks, the number of employees on Linkedin appears the same 73 as before, so the train is moving at the same pace.

The VP of regulatory affairs and operations disappeared from the website, and the VP of R&D assumed his responsibilities
https://energous.com/company/management-team/daniel-lawless/ (https://energous.com/company/management-team/daniel-lawless/)
Michael Leabman, the founder and former CTO is nowehre to be found on the company website anymore...
https://energous.com/company/management-team/michael-leabman/ (https://energous.com/company/management-team/michael-leabman/)
Mr Leabman was on their board of directors up until recently, they anounced he would be reelected to the board, but apparently he did not.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1575793/000114420418001816/tv483139_8k.htm (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1575793/000114420418001816/tv483139_8k.htm)

I think the mice are abandoning ship, I can't say they have no money, after all $8m is a LOT,  but they are going full steam ahead and the track ends in a few weeks.


Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on April 01, 2019, 10:53:04 pm
I was hoping she was trying to recharge phones using human blood.

Wait, are you saying she's a vampire?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on April 01, 2019, 11:05:29 pm
I was hoping she was trying to recharge phones using human blood.

Wait, are you saying she's a vampire?
Perhaps she thought of The Matrix as a documentary.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on April 01, 2019, 11:51:22 pm
Meanwhile in Energous ......
Looks like they are going for chapter 11 very soon.....
As of Dec/31 they had $20m of cash, and were burning $50m/year.
Since, they said they published a prospectus (the initial document for raising money on NASDAQ), anounced they raised $25m, canceled the prospectus, filed a different one, all without actually issuing a single new share to the public (according to the number of outstanding shares on their website)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1575793/000119312519059126/d714685d424b5.htm (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1575793/000119312519059126/d714685d424b5.htm)
https://ir.energous.com/quote (https://ir.energous.com/quote)

I presume that most of their overhead would be in wages?
If so, expect half the company to be axed shortly.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on April 02, 2019, 01:57:26 am
I was hoping she was trying to recharge phones using human blood.

Wait, are you saying she's a vampire?

I was thinking more "Zombie" - eating venture capitalist brains.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: djos on April 02, 2019, 03:09:23 am
I was hoping she was trying to recharge phones using human blood.

Wait, are you saying she's a vampire?

I was thinking more "Zombie" - eating venture capitalist brains.

They might be good for a light snack......

 >:D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on April 02, 2019, 03:30:52 am
Meanwhile in Energous ......
Looks like they are going for chapter 11 very soon.....
As of Dec/31 they had $20m of cash, and were burning $50m/year.
Since, they said they published a prospectus (the initial document for raising money on NASDAQ), anounced they raised $25m, canceled the prospectus, filed a different one, all without actually issuing a single new share to the public (according to the number of outstanding shares on their website)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1575793/000119312519059126/d714685d424b5.htm (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1575793/000119312519059126/d714685d424b5.htm)
https://ir.energous.com/quote (https://ir.energous.com/quote)

I presume that most of their overhead would be in wages?
If so, expect half the company to be axed shortly.

The money definitely flows, but not into employees pockets.
They spend $50m/year on 73 (-1) employees. I wish my wage was on that level.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on April 02, 2019, 09:44:17 am
The money definitely flows, but not into employees pockets.
They spend $50m/year on 73 (-1) employees. I wish my wage was on that level.

Oh, yeah, that's a lot then. Where are they hemorrhaging cash?
Come on, own up, who's doing $500/hr contract work for them?  8)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: ebastler on April 02, 2019, 09:55:43 am
Someone just sent me a secret pic of Perry's new startup prototype!  8)

Recharge your phone and test for every known disease with just a thumb prick, it's a zillion dollar idea!

Ah, too bad... Upon closer inspection, that gadget actually discharges the phone. Disappointing...  :P

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-02-smartphone-accessory-rapid-diagnosis-infectious.html
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on April 07, 2019, 07:26:28 pm
The money definitely flows, but not into employees pockets.
They spend $50m/year on 73 (-1) employees. I wish my wage was on that level.

Certain individuals get far more than others. Looking here https://seekingalpha.com/filing/4437835 in 2018 CEO Rizzone got around $4m total compensation, COO Joihnston around $3.1m, and  CFO Sereda around $2.4m so $9.5m total of the $50m just between those three. Then there's about $4m to 6 board directors, so straight away you're not much shy of $14m per year before any actual work gets done by the other ~70 employees. So it's really around $36m, or around $500k per employee which even with overhead, monster benefits, and solid paycheques is a hell of an amount. I guess it's a combination of other stock incentives to senior members, along with paying people enough that they don't call "foul" on the bullshit from within and just keep their heads down - after all, IMO Energous is a company whose purpose is to sell shares, the engineering is just the window dressing that allows it to happen, so it's really just a marketing expense.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on April 08, 2019, 05:24:54 am
The document you cite includes equity based compensation.
They just published the data for their annual shareholders meeting
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1575793/000156459019010942/watt-def14a_20190516.htm (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1575793/000156459019010942/watt-def14a_20190516.htm)
Rizzone got $365K cash for 2017, 2018
Johnston got $300K, $340K
Serada got $250K, $307.5K

Total is about $1m-$1.5m for the entire management team. These salaries are reasonable for top management in a public company.

They have 200+ patents and patent applications, take a top notch patent attorney and assume all patents are <4 years age and filed in all OECD countries and you're $35K/patent per year (real numbers are 40% of that, nobody files worldwide, and even top notch attorneys have use lower cost stuff) , that't $7-8m.



Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: ebastler on April 08, 2019, 05:38:23 am
They have 200+ patents and patent applications, take a top notch patent attorney and assume all patents are <4 years age and filed in all OECD countries and you're $35K/patent per year (real numbers are 40% of that, nobody files worldwide, and even top notch attorneys have use lower cost stuff) , that't $7-8m.

I would assume that they don't have 200+ separate patent families (each with multiple national/regional applications), but that they have counted each national application to impress with a total count of 200+. That would make for a significantly lower cost. Or did they publish further details about their patent portfolio?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on April 08, 2019, 05:41:38 am
The document you cite includes equity based compensation.
They just published the data for their annual shareholders meeting
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1575793/000156459019010942/watt-def14a_20190516.htm (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1575793/000156459019010942/watt-def14a_20190516.htm)
Rizzone got $365K cash for 2017, 2018
Johnston got $300K, $340K
Serada got $250K, $307.5K

Total is about $1m-$1.5m for the entire management team. These salaries are reasonable for top management in a public company.

They have 200+ patents and patent applications, take a top notch patent attorney and assume all patents are <4 years age and filed in all OECD countries and you're $35K/patent per year (real numbers are 40% of that, nobody files worldwide, and even top notch attorneys have use lower cost stuff) , that't $7-8m.

Then they do actually develop hardware. Heck, at a former company I worked at just our prototype bare PCB's alone cost us the equivalent to several full time engineering staff wages.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on April 10, 2019, 09:19:29 am
Then they do actually develop hardware. Heck, at a former company I worked at just our prototype bare PCB's alone cost us the equivalent to several full time engineering staff wages.

We know they actually spend money, we don't know they actually develop hardware.
I have not seen any impressive hardware they showed yet, all they demo is big circuits lighting tiny LEDs (or phone cases big enough to include a battery).

I'm still waiting for any of the "wireless power companies" to show a proof they actually deliver enough power (Safely!).

Charge a phone from a receiver that is too small to include a battery (or do it long enough so that I know no battery is inside), get battery percentage to go up.
Or
Operate a device with known power consumption, from a small receiver, over time.
Or
Allow reputable 3rd party testing

All, with the exact same device certified by FCC and all other regulatory bodies.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on May 05, 2019, 04:09:44 am
It seems that uBeam might now hire a third person since their (supposed) $25 million fundraise over 14 months ago. This time, it's a Chief Commercial/Revenue Officer

https://ubeam-inc.workable.com/j/6F65E9E036

uBeam is seeking to hire a Chief Commercial Officer/Chief Revenue Officer. uBeam is the inventor of ultrasonic power-at-a-distance Always-On Wireless EnergyTM, utilizing ultra-safe ultrasonic array technology to deliver reliable, long-range wire-free charging. By developing proprietary transducers, transmitters, receivers, and custom enterprise software, uBeam’s technology delivers usable power to devices ranging from portable electronics, medical, aerospace, automotive, and in particular IoT devices and networks. Significant revenue-generating experience in these fields, coupled with successful B2B licensing experience is essential. Experience in acoustic technology, phased array radar or ultrasound is also highly beneficial.

So "Always-On Wireless Energy" is their new tagline I guess, since it gets a 'TM', although no-one bothered with a superscript. Apparently the technology is not just safe but "ultra-safe" which I'm not sure the definition of but given the emphasis here, they must be feeling a bit of vulnerability on this front. Quite why a C-level "revenue" officer needs to have tech experience but bizarrely they want someone with "significant revenue-generating experience in these fields" and I'm not sure who that could be because quite literally no at-distance wireless power company has ever done that - not Energous, not Ossia, perhaps only PowerCast that actually have a product.

Other notable points in this job ad:

Lots of references to dealing with board members, as well as fundraising. "The CCO/CRO will be required to present to the Board of Directors on a regular basis, and from time to time will be involved in fund-raising activities on behalf of the company.", "Successful experience in fund raising and pitching to investors.", "Have considerable experience presenting at Board of Directors meetings.", and "Ability to efficiently interact with board members."

Aiming for markets outside the US, which on the one hand you can understand because the professed model needs contract manufacturers which are still heavily in China, but given every other country outside the USA definitively has a 115dB or less ultrasound limit (1000x less power than at the professed 145dB), the product is not viable there unless they ignore the law. "Experience in dealing with issues on an international basis: understanding of the North American and European landscape (knowledge of the Asian market would be a plus)."

As far as I know, this is a new position, so not from the Perry era and gives a confirmation to the business strategy the company is taking - B2B licensing, with contract manufacturers, and keep it going long enough to bamboozle for another round of investment.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on May 11, 2019, 05:00:24 am
Fundraising, presenting to the board of directors, generating revenue......

Sounds like a CEO to me.

Or maybe, someone to take the blame for failiure....

"Mr X failed at generating revenue.... you met him remember, its that stupid guy who tried to convince us to go to Japan last board.....lets fire him (instead of the CEO)...."

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Kean on May 11, 2019, 12:34:23 pm
CSG: Chief Scapegoat
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on May 12, 2019, 11:46:28 am
CSG: Chief Scapegoat

With the money he'll be earning, he won't care.

There's a reason the word changes from "salary" to "compensation" as you go up the ladder.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on May 12, 2019, 12:40:31 pm
What do the 30+ incredibly highly skilled and experienced engineers working at uDream actually do all day.
Despite all the Applications, Product, Design, Marketing, 7 years and $25m, their demos and prototypes look like something that I've built.
Have they ever had an Electronics Engineer.

'30+' = closer to about 8 really!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: ebastler on May 12, 2019, 12:44:42 pm
What do the 30+ incredibly highly skilled and experienced engineers working at uDream actually do all day.

Is that 30+ a count or an age bracket?  :P
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on May 12, 2019, 01:00:30 pm
"Is that 30+ a count or an age bracket?"

I think 8 year olds would have come up with something useful by now. :)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on May 12, 2019, 01:28:58 pm
Ultrasound is unsafe, hard to control, influenced by humidity, pressure, etc....
Ultrasound is difficult.

I don't think an 8yo would have come up with something useful by now.
I think SAFE wireless power using ultrasound is a hopeless task, one that Edison/Tesla/Musk/Jobs/Bezos would have failed at, even given the long years.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 12, 2019, 01:42:30 pm
What do the 30+ incredibly highly skilled and experienced engineers working at uDream actually do all day.
Despite all the Applications, Product, Design, Marketing, 7 years and $25m, their demos and prototypes look like something that I've built.
Have they ever had an Electronics Engineer.
'30+' = closer to about 8 really!

According to this review from a former employee, it's "Like being paid to sit and witness the ramblings of the mentally ill. "
https://www.glassdoor.com.au/Reviews/Employee-Review-uBeam-RVW23265885.htm (https://www.glassdoor.com.au/Reviews/Employee-Review-uBeam-RVW23265885.htm)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 12, 2019, 01:56:46 pm
https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/1118789448672530432
https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/1118789375532253184
Be afraid, be very afraid...
She's building shitty robots with Simone Giertz
Robots often use ultrasound...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on May 12, 2019, 01:58:17 pm
I don't think an 8yo would have come up with something useful by now.

A cat scarer.
I've tested 40-60kHz on the cat myself. A small box containing a photo transistor or PIR and a 40kHz TX would actually be useful for keeping the cat off the desk or other places.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 12, 2019, 02:01:37 pm
She's doing market research...

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on May 12, 2019, 02:28:38 pm
"How much would you pay for a non-pharma sleep aid device that could put you to sleep in ~5 minutes."

£Nothing. TedX talks are free.

"with zero side effects."

That bit would need a lot more work.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: ebastler on May 12, 2019, 02:57:05 pm
Quote
How much would you pay for a non-pharma sleep aid device...?

Oh wow!
They must have observed that the uBeam engineers keep falling asleep in the lab, and have reached the razor-sharp conclusion that ultrasound is sleep-inducing.

 :=\
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on May 12, 2019, 07:15:11 pm
What do the 30+ incredibly highly skilled and experienced engineers working at uDream actually do all day.
According to this review from a former employee, it's "Like being paid to sit and witness the ramblings of the mentally ill. "

And they get paid to do it!

If I lived near their building I'd apply for a job there, no problem. Millions of $$$ in VC capital usually means fancy toys, lots of perks and bosses who don't pay much attention to what you're actually doing.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Buriedcode on May 12, 2019, 09:17:48 pm
The hubris in that tweet... it implies there there either currently is some form of "device" that can almost instantly put someone to sleep - which would be a pretty powerful non-lethal weapon - or that she fully expects to be able to create one.  And with "zero side-effects".. please, everything has side effects, it's just a question of what the intended purpose is and even then, sleeping tablets have the side effect of "drowsiness".

I'm all for "blue sky thinking", brainstorming and trying to tackle so-called hard problems, but simply picking something almost at random and giving the impression all problems can be solved just with hard work and money (or worse, technology) is at best naive.  She fits right in with the Silicon Valley crowd.  The question is... did Silicon Valley make the Perry? Or does the Perry add to the Silicon Valley?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 12, 2019, 11:27:58 pm
The hubris in that tweet... it implies there there either currently is some form of "device" that can almost instantly put someone to sleep - which would be a pretty powerful non-lethal weapon - or that she fully expects to be able to create one.  And with "zero side-effects".. please, everything has side effects, it's just a question of what the intended purpose is and even then, sleeping tablets have the side effect of "drowsiness".

My bet would be to put you asleep for plane flights. Huge market for that with nervous flyers.
Imagine if you did a slick Kickstarter video promising that, the millions would roll in.

Quote
I'm all for "blue sky thinking", brainstorming and trying to tackle so-called hard problems, but simply picking something almost at random and giving the impression all problems can be solved just with hard work and money (or worse, technology) is at best naive.  She fits right in with the Silicon Valley crowd.  The question is... did Silicon Valley make the Perry? Or does the Perry add to the Silicon Valley?

Even in the world of silicon valley, she's still in a category of her own:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukgnU2aXM2c&t=736s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukgnU2aXM2c&t=736s)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on May 28, 2019, 12:28:32 am
Have they closed down yet.  :horse:

https://twitter.com/Gabriel050111/status/1128518457170042881
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on June 05, 2019, 02:34:08 pm
They raised $15m-$25m in the beginning of 2018, so 18 months now.
25 people on Linkedin seem to actually get paid by the company (live nearby, are not known to have been fired from the CEO position, not investors).
Assume an average cost (e.g. salary, rent, travel, everything) of $200-250K/year/employee (it's usually higher but they don't seem to be doing much, so probably on the low cost side), and get a yearly burn rate of $5-6m/year.

They used to have a bit more manpower, and used to seem to do more, so they probably burned $10m until now.
Which gives them 1 year's worth of money in the bank.

In the race between uBeam and Energous to be the first to run out of cash.... currently, I think, Energous has the lead, but it's a close call.
Go Energous go!.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on June 05, 2019, 02:58:34 pm
Assume an average cost (e.g. salary, rent, travel, everything) of $200-250K/year/employee (it's usually higher but they don't seem to be doing much, so probably on the low cost side), and get a yearly burn rate of $5-6m/year.

A boss of mine, many years ago, offered me the rule of thumb that you should take someone's salary and triple it to get the complete cost of employing someone including desk, heat, lighting, office rent, taxes, benefits, back office costs etc. etc. Over the years I've found the rule holds pretty well for any office based occupation be it clerk, developer, salesman, engineer, whatever. Doesn't work for factory jobs, builders, groundskeepers or anybody who "actually works for a living".
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on June 05, 2019, 06:24:14 pm
Assume an average cost (e.g. salary, rent, travel, everything) of $200-250K/year/employee (it's usually higher but they don't seem to be doing much, so probably on the low cost side), and get a yearly burn rate of $5-6m/year.

A boss of mine, many years ago, offered me the rule of thumb that you should take someone's salary and triple it to get the complete cost of employing someone including desk, heat, lighting, office rent, taxes, benefits, back office costs etc. etc. Over the years I've found the rule holds pretty well for any office based occupation be it clerk, developer, salesman, engineer, whatever. Doesn't work for factory jobs, builders, groundskeepers or anybody who "actually works for a living".
The correct multiplier depends a lot on where you are, but for any one area there is usually a multiplier that works pretty well for most jobs in that area.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on June 18, 2019, 03:34:00 pm
Have they closed down yet.  :horse:

Looks like they might be getting there. :horse:
twitter.com/LiesNStartupPR/status/1138767299387842561 (http://twitter.com/LiesNStartupPR/status/1138767299387842561)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 19, 2019, 06:09:10 am
It does seem they've laid off around half the staff. Some thoughts on this, and another uBeam anecdote, here:

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2019/06/ubeam-lay-off-around-half-of-employees.html

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 19, 2019, 07:21:11 am
It does seem they've laid off around half the staff. Some thoughts on this, and another uBeam anecdote, here:
https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2019/06/ubeam-lay-off-around-half-of-employees.html

We are all shocked, SHOCKED!  ;D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: tszaboo on June 19, 2019, 08:00:45 am
It does seem they've laid off around half the staff. Some thoughts on this, and another uBeam anecdote, here:

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2019/06/ubeam-lay-off-around-half-of-employees.html
Yeah well, you dont need engineers for 3D renders, or to pull numbers out of your ass to grab gullible people's venture capital.

Doesn't work for factory jobs, builders, groundskeepers or anybody who "actually works for a living".
For factory workers, your initial investment can be extremely high. For a modern factory, you could be spending a million EUR on equipment, and create 2-3 jobs. Recently Mercedes built a factory for 1B EUR, and created 2500 jobs in east Europe, where salary is much less (about 800-1000EUR/mo).
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: langwadt on June 19, 2019, 12:32:45 pm
It does seem they've laid off around half the staff. Some thoughts on this, and another uBeam anecdote, here:

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2019/06/ubeam-lay-off-around-half-of-employees.html


he should have replied that she should check her computer for virus, because someone is sending stupid emails using her address ;)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on June 20, 2019, 08:12:37 am
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jacquelinemccauley/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jacquelinemccauley/)

Jacqueline McCauley in no longer with uBeam.
Still on the website though....., I guess the website guy also left.


Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 20, 2019, 09:06:22 am
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jacquelinemccauley/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jacquelinemccauley/)
Jacqueline McCauley in no longer with uBeam.
Still on the website though....., I guess the website guy also left.

No need for a CFO if you have no money left.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on June 20, 2019, 12:49:59 pm
Their updated site is definitely more uDream than uBeam.

Energous Announces the Availability of Developer Kits for Hearing Aid and PSAP Manufacturers.
https://seekingalpha.com/pr/17549013-energous-announces-availability-developer-kits-hearing-aid-psap-manufacturers

We know what happens next. :horse:

twitter.com/search?f=tweets&q=ubeam&src=typd (http://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&q=ubeam&src=typd)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: The_Next_Theranos on June 20, 2019, 03:31:25 pm
Their updated site is definitely more uDream than uBeam.

From their web page:
Quote from: uDream web page
uBeam can safely transmit watts-level power within a couple of feet, and milliwatt-level of power at tens of feet away.

Are these figures realistic?

We know what happens next. :horse:

Is this what is supposed to happen next?

https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/656678186940411904

Maybe not...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jrs45 on June 20, 2019, 04:38:17 pm
I am really looking forward to ubeam powered forklifts!

(https://i.imgur.com/GU8C9e8.png)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 21, 2019, 01:06:48 pm
From their web page:
Quote from: uDream web page
uBeam can safely transmit watts-level power within a couple of feet, and milliwatt-level of power at tens of feet away.

Are these figures realistic?

Short answer: No

Longer answer: Hell no

Much longer version: Parse the language, they 'transmit' that power within a given distance - nothing about receive or conversion to power at battery. So if I have a huge bank of speakers that I crank to 11, or a jet engine, then yes you are 'transmitting' watts of acoustic power. At 145dB, that's 300W per m^2, and the largest array I saw them show IIRC was around 30 by 30 cm (most were around 15x15). That means 30W out acoustic max at 0m at 145dB, if you stick to the international limit of more like 115dB that's 30 mW transmit so when you include 'safely' as they do, then that's the killer to that statement. You lose a bunch over distance etc, and conversion back to battery is a low %. Also the further out you go, the wider the power 'spot' size - at 30 feet the spot at 40kHz will be >10cm easily. Then there's the fact your beam will be perturbed by air currents.

So in theory yes you can, depends on size of transmitter, efficiency, allowed amplitude etc, but in practice to do so safely -  nope.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 21, 2019, 05:11:22 pm
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jacquelinemccauley/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jacquelinemccauley/)

Jacqueline McCauley in no longer with uBeam.
Still on the website though....., I guess the website guy also left.

This is really, really interesting. At first we were told she became acting CEO in Sept 18 when Perry left, then her LinkedIn said July 2018 was when she took the role, now it's May 18 she took over. So Perry actually left in May 18, and they didn't want to admit it. The COO also left in May 18, after only 9 months in the company. He was someone who easily had the skillset/experience to assume the role of CEO. Might suspicious minds ask if these simultaneous departures are in some way linked?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on June 24, 2019, 09:21:46 am
Well I hadn't seen the video version of the pics above.
https://youtu.be/LH742F25MHg
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: ebastler on June 24, 2019, 09:31:07 am
This is really, really interesting. At first we were told she became acting CEO in Sept 18 when Perry left, then her LinkedIn said July 2018 was when she took the role, now it's May 18 she took over. So Perry actually left in May 18, and they didn't want to admit it. The COO also left in May 18, after only 9 months in the company. He was someone who easily had the skillset/experience to assume the role of CEO. Might suspicious minds ask if these simultaneous departures are in some way linked?

I think you might be over-interpreting this. Perry's LinkedIn profile still states that she was CEO until September 2018. What's in a LinkedIn CV, anyway? People can doctor them as they like, or make just plain stupid errors...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 24, 2019, 09:36:41 am
Well I hadn't seen the video version of the pics above.
https://youtu.be/LH742F25MHg (https://youtu.be/LH742F25MHg)

Wow, a new promo video!  :-DD
(fixed embed link)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH742F25MHg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH742F25MHg)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 24, 2019, 09:41:18 am
From the video, look at the size of this brick!
Is this a transmitter or a receiver?
They also claim to have "turnkey" solutions.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on June 24, 2019, 10:05:01 am
"new promo video!"
I think of it more like the last throw of the dice - into the air, before being thrown out of the casino. :horse:
I always hear turnkey as turkey, it seems a better fit.

Even in the promo video you can see that the focused beams are all over the place. :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 24, 2019, 12:44:05 pm
I think you might be over-interpreting this. Perry's LinkedIn profile still states that she was CEO until September 2018. What's in a LinkedIn CV, anyway? People can doctor them as they like, or make just plain stupid errors...

I can absolutely 100% with complete certainty tell you that I am not over-interpreting this.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on June 24, 2019, 01:27:41 pm
I think you might be over-interpreting this. Perry's LinkedIn profile still states that she was CEO until September 2018. What's in a LinkedIn CV, anyway? People can doctor them as they like, or make just plain stupid errors...

I can absolutely 100% with complete certainty tell you that I am not over-interpreting this.

Both (Perry and McCauley) are very much not the type to "just" make a plain stupid error on their most recent, most prestigious, post, when they are in search of their next thing.

McCauley changed this specific sentence at least 3 times...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: ebastler on June 24, 2019, 02:21:01 pm
I can absolutely 100% with complete certainty tell you that I am not over-interpreting this.

If you say so... Either you have additional insider information that you are not disclosing, or I sense a logical fallacy here.   ::)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 24, 2019, 02:24:53 pm
If you say so... Either you have additional insider information that you are not disclosing, or I sense a logical fallacy here.   ::)

A lot of dirt gets spilled when people are unceremoniously fired with no notice.

There was a reason I pointed it out last November in one of my blog posts.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on June 24, 2019, 02:58:50 pm
Is there anything about uDream that's actually honest. Asking for a friend. :horse:

The Art of Manufacturing was around the end of June '18, I think she still was CEO then, or perhaps she just thought she was. :)
https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/1012439593075920897

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 24, 2019, 03:29:34 pm
Is there anything about uDream that's actually honest. Asking for a friend. :horse:

The Art of Manufacturing was around the end of June '18, I think she still was CEO then, or perhaps she just thought she was. :)
https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/1012439593075920897

I think it might have been recorded at the end of April but not made available until June.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on June 24, 2019, 04:40:05 pm
I think it might have been recorded at the end of April but not made available until June.

You're probably correct. :)

"A couple of months ago, while she was wrapping up a $20 million raise, I came to her office bearing margaritas.."
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 25, 2019, 01:29:38 am
Someone posted a link to a short presentation by the current uBeam CEO at OurCrowd summit earlier this year. Some interesting data can be gleaned from the slides (assuming it's not just completely random data they threw up!)

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2019/06/yet-another-ubeam-video.html (https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2019/06/yet-another-ubeam-video.html)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG2pOe-RHj4&t=1s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG2pOe-RHj4&t=1s)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 25, 2019, 03:54:29 am
Someone posted a link to a short presentation by the current uBeam CEO at OurCrowd summit earlier this year. Some interesting data can be gleaned from the slides (assuming it's not just completely random data they threw up!)
https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2019/06/yet-another-ubeam-video.html (https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2019/06/yet-another-ubeam-video.html)

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=770877;image)

And there you have it, as we all knew uBeam is a flop for charging your phone. THE thing that Perry said was doable from the start.
No one wants to charge their phone @ 1W at a distance of 20cm, and at horrible efficiency.
Or 0.35W at 2m, at even worse efficiency  :-DD
I love how they used the elipse bubble to inflate the figures, just draw a straight line from each tip and that's your data, probably best case.
No wonder they had to pivot to low power IoT.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on June 25, 2019, 04:20:17 am
No one wants to charge their phone @ 1W at a distance of 20cm, and at horrible efficiency.

...using a charger that makes your phone the size of a brick, needs to be held in the air and aligned, and costs hundreds of $$$.

(and drops to near-zero when you're six feet away)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 25, 2019, 04:42:35 am
No one wants to charge their phone @ 1W at a distance of 20cm, and at horrible efficiency.
...using a charger that makes your phone the size of a brick, needs to be held in the air and aligned, and costs hundreds of $$$.

It's not nearly that bad, you can lie it face down unusable on the table and have the TX above, really practical.
Oh, oops, it sucks at 2m, forget I mentioned it...  ;D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 25, 2019, 05:41:25 am
And there you have it, as we all knew uBeam is a flop for charging your phone. THE thing that Perry said was doable from the start.
No one wants to charge their phone @ 1W at a distance of 20cm, and at horrible efficiency.
Or 0.35W at 2m, at even worse efficiency  :-DD
I love how they used the elipse bubble to inflate the figures, just draw a straight line from each tip and that's your data, probably best case.
No wonder they had to pivot to low power IoT.

The numbers here are weird. I updated the blog post to cover this but with a large area transmitter you can maintain maximum pressure (say 145 dB) at the receiver as it moves out by just using more transmit area to compensate for the air losses, with subsequent efficiency loss. That would make the line go straight for a distance before dipping. Also note these numbers imply 30% receive efficiency which I don't believe, and would have implied 60% receive efficiency on the next gen devices which I really don't believe.

And if that beamplot is genuinely focused at 2m (cough 1.2m cough) those transducers either only send sound forward (implying not much use for steering in a phased array), or they found a way to defeat physics and prevent grating lobes in phased arrays with non-ideal pitch. The latter is worth billions so I don't think it's that.

In 2013 getting your phone charging at 1W at 1m was respectable. Today... no.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on June 25, 2019, 06:02:21 am

In 2013 getting your phone charging at 1W at 1m was respectable. Today... no.

iPhone X (and most phones today) use a 10Wh battery, which is good (in my experience) for 7AM->9PM so ... ~14-15 hours.
Average power consumption is therefore ~700mW.
800mW would charge your phone (reeeeeaaaaaalllllllly ssssssssssssssslllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwww!).

But if you did have 24/7 wireless power, 1W is all you will need to keep your battery full.

Now, if you have line of sight, range, and orientation issues, you obviously need more. If you can only charge 50% of the time you need 1.5-2W. If you can only charge 10% of the time.... you need 7-10W.

_______________________

From the demo they gave at the ourcrowd summit it was clear that
The large unit (the one on the top of their twitter account) has some tracking and phased array capabilities

The small unit (the one they advertise as beta kits), is a good old plane speaker, directing high volume ultrasound forward, no tracking or even detection of receivers.

I think the name "the twitter unit" is suitable for both systems ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azBzKWqUoXU&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azBzKWqUoXU&feature=youtu.be)
@ 22:50 you can see the beam is fixed, and the detector is inserted into the beam.... if there was tracking (or safety), it would only appear on the center of the plate.
[this is the "beta" unit]

@25:30 you can see how it would look if it was tracking the receiver.
[this is the old unit with the camera- let's call it the twitter demo
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 25, 2019, 06:17:59 am

In 2013 getting your phone charging at 1W at 1m was respectable. Today... no.

iPhone X (and most phones today) use a 10Wh battery, which is good (in my experience) for 7AM->9PM so ... ~14-15 hours.
Average power consumption is therefore ~700mW.
800mW would charge your phone (reeeeeaaaaaalllllllly ssssssssssssssslllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwww!).

But if you did have 24/7 wireless power, 1W is all you will need to keep your battery full.

Now, if you have line of sight, range, and orientation issues, you obviously need more. If you can only charge 50% of the time you need 1.5-2W. If you can only charge 10% of the time.... you need 7-10W.


In the 2012/13 era the iPhone 5 was the latest and it had a ~5Wh battery, so a factor of 2 there, USB had lower max rates, and battery management didn't allow for 'rapid charge' for some of the recharge cycle.

Technical people careful of such things may have tended to use "trickle charge", "top up", "maintenance" with regard to charge rate, and "ubiquitous" with regard to availability, when discussing business models with potential funders at that time, as the most common uses of such technology.

From the demo they gave at the ourcrowd summit it was clear that
The large unit (the one on the top of their twitter account) has some tracking and phased array capabilities

The small unit (the one they advertise as beta kits), is a good old plane speaker, directing high volume ultrasound forward, no tracking or even detection of receivers.


I expect the smaller one is the one for the beam plot, and so would want to see the beam plot with the larger steered beam. I'm confident it would not be pretty.

And all that money on transducers to never steer? It's pointless without that. Just get a large plate and drive the hell out of it with stacks from behind and be done, most of the development time of that would be waiting for the component shipment.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on June 25, 2019, 06:59:49 am
Even with "next gen" technology:

At 2-m maximum useful range you'll need a charger every ten or fifteen feet along the warehouse for this to be useful.

This? Not gonna happen.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=770892;image)

It also only charges one thing at a time so I wonder if they've added any sort of prioritizing mechanism to make sure the lowest battery people get the charge in meetings, not the people who don't really need it.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=770898;image)

If not? I see people waving their phones in the air to try and get charge, maybe even fist-fights breaking out.  :popcorn:

("Excuse me, I'm a bit low, could you put your phone under a piece of paper so I can get some charge?")
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on June 25, 2019, 07:15:14 am
("Excuse me, I'm a bit low, could you put your phone under a piece of paper so I can get some charge?")

"Excuse me, I'm a bit low, could you put your phone under a piece of paper for the whole week so I can get some charge?,
Sure, no problem, I can't look at the screen anyway in this room as it keeps rotating near the uBeam transmitter, the accelerometer goes crazy here"
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on June 25, 2019, 07:40:58 am
Wouldn't all the transmitters block the sun?

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=770910;image)

Seriously, I'm watching their new promo and not one of the scenarios looks like it could work in practice. Not even if they double or triple the efficiency.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on June 25, 2019, 08:13:35 am
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jacquelinemccauley/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jacquelinemccauley/)
Jacqueline McCauley in no longer with uBeam.
Still on the website though....., I guess the website guy also left.

No need for a CFO if you have no money left.

Or maybe better have two.....
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mdavidcottrell/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/mdavidcottrell/)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 25, 2019, 01:01:03 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1R9IQF0Y9s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1R9IQF0Y9s)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 25, 2019, 01:11:32 pm
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jacquelinemccauley/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jacquelinemccauley/)
Jacqueline McCauley in no longer with uBeam.
Still on the website though....., I guess the website guy also left.
No need for a CFO if you have no money left.
Or maybe better have two.....
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mdavidcottrell/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/mdavidcottrell/)

They only started a budget in 2017  ;D

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=771195;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 25, 2019, 01:38:03 pm

"Excuse me, I'm a bit low, could you put your phone under a piece of paper for the whole week so I can get some charge?,
Sure, no problem, I can't look at the screen anyway in this room as it keeps rotating near the uBeam transmitter, the accelerometer goes crazy here"

On the list of "Why not to use uBeam" that high power ultrasound knocks out MEMS accelerometers keeps falling off the bottom, well remembered.

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/07/mems-gyroscopes-smartphones-and.html

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: madires on June 25, 2019, 02:07:32 pm
I think we should also look at the financial side of charging/powering devices. Some numbers about recharging your gadgets via the standard SMPSU based on the average price for power in Germany (EUR 0.30 per kWh) which is quite expensive. The yearly cost for recharging daily:
- smartphone EUR 1 - 1.50
- tablet EUR 4
- laptop EUR 10

Any wireless charging solution has to compete with those numbers. A few bucks more for the convenience of not dealing with a cable might be acceptable. But anything much less efficient or much more expensive is a show stopper.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 25, 2019, 02:10:34 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1R9IQF0Y9s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1R9IQF0Y9s)

You know I almost switched off when you linked to Perry's TEDx talk at the end, she triggers my "uBeam PTSD", but I watched it and for the first time didn't want to claw my eyes and ears out. I guess I'm making progress there.

BTW thanks for calling me CTO and not VP Eng, Berte is going to be so pissed about that!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 25, 2019, 02:27:41 pm
I think we should also look at the financial side of charging/powering devices. Some numbers about recharging your gadgets via the standard SMPSU based on the average price for power in Germany (EUR 0.30 per kWh) which is quite expensive. The yearly cost for recharging daily:
- smartphone EUR 1 - 1.50
- tablet EUR 4
- laptop EUR 10

Any wireless charging solution has to compete with those numbers. A few bucks more for the convenience of not dealing with a cable might be acceptable. But anything much less efficient or much more expensive is a show stopper.

On a large scale and for a business there does need to be a compelling case that the cost of inefficient charging does allow a valuable function to be performed or saves other expensive functions like labour. For individuals it's a matter of convenience and people will pay for that - I can guarantee you 99% of people have no idea what it costs in a year to charge your phone every day. So if you ask it like this "Imagine you never have to plug in your phone, ever, and it just keeps being powered up. What would you pay every year for that convenience?" and then say "$1, $10, $100, $1000". Basically everyone will say yes to $1 and $10, I think a majority (but not large majority) will say yes at $100, and basically no-one will say yes at $1000. So that says that with a yearly charge cost of say $1 at 100% efficiency, you need to keep real world efficiency at >1%, or ideally >10% (very hard to do but you can get marketing covering for that). So while you are correct, I actually don't think this is the primary show stopper (the massive inefficiency meaning 500 million people block doing this every day adds around 200 PWh to the yearly power demand, not very green).

The first line killers are that it just doesn't charge fast enough, target the devices well enough, for long enough under real world conditions to be practical, the cost of the actual hardware is likely on a par with the phone itself, and it's IMO not safe - the ongoing cost thing comes in after that as a show stopper, as consumers are lazy and pay for dumb stuff.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 25, 2019, 11:02:09 pm
BTW thanks for calling me CTO and not VP Eng, Berte is going to be so pissed about that!

I had a niggling feeling I goofed that. Berte's flame SMS incoming in 3... 2... 1...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 25, 2019, 11:05:36 pm
I think we should also look at the financial side of charging/powering devices. Some numbers about recharging your gadgets via the standard SMPSU based on the average price for power in Germany (EUR 0.30 per kWh) which is quite expensive. The yearly cost for recharging daily:
- smartphone EUR 1 - 1.50
- tablet EUR 4
- laptop EUR 10

Any wireless charging solution has to compete with those numbers. A few bucks more for the convenience of not dealing with a cable might be acceptable. But anything much less efficient or much more expensive is a show stopper.

On a large scale and for a business there does need to be a compelling case that the cost of inefficient charging does allow a valuable function to be performed or saves other expensive functions like labour. For individuals it's a matter of convenience and people will pay for that - I can guarantee you 99% of people have no idea what it costs in a year to charge your phone every day. So if you ask it like this "Imagine you never have to plug in your phone, ever, and it just keeps being powered up. What would you pay every year for that convenience?" and then say "$1, $10, $100, $1000". Basically everyone will say yes to $1 and $10, I think a majority (but not large majority) will say yes at $100, and basically no-one will say yes at $1000. So that says that with a yearly charge cost of say $1 at 100% efficiency, you need to keep real world efficiency at >1%, or ideally >10% (very hard to do but you can get marketing covering for that). So while you are correct, I actually don't think this is the primary show stopper (the massive inefficiency meaning 500 million people block doing this every day adds around 200 PWh to the yearly power demand, not very green).

That's why regulations like EnergyStar exist, to protect ignorant Joe Public from being able to choose deliberately inefficient designs.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 25, 2019, 11:15:18 pm
I think we should also look at the financial side of charging/powering devices.

No point when it's demonstrably not practical from a usability point of view.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: nctnico on June 25, 2019, 11:28:21 pm
I think we should also look at the financial side of charging/powering devices. Some numbers about recharging your gadgets via the standard SMPSU based on the average price for power in Germany (EUR 0.30 per kWh) which is quite expensive. The yearly cost for recharging daily:
- smartphone EUR 1 - 1.50
- tablet EUR 4
- laptop EUR 10
Nobody cares about efficiency. Especially if the costs is just a drop in a bucket. For example: A typical European refrigerator consumes between 250kWh and 600kWh each year (between 60 and 200 euro depending on the fridge and where you live).
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on June 26, 2019, 02:13:47 pm
- smartphone EUR 1 - 1.50
- tablet EUR 4
- laptop EUR 10
Nobody cares about efficiency. Especially if the costs is just a drop in a bucket.
I think they'd notice when when their yearly charging costs increase from 15.5 to 3,000.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jonovid on June 26, 2019, 02:33:48 pm
is been blasted by KW's of ultrasound all day dangerous?  and its got to be the most inefficient wasteful way to power anything!
you lots of coal fired power stations just to run it  :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 27, 2019, 01:59:12 am
Be afraid, be very afraid...
PerryCAD!

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=772119;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 27, 2019, 02:00:35 am
It gets worse...

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=772125;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: djos on June 27, 2019, 02:02:30 am
It gets worse...

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=772125;image)

Oh boy, I don't know whether to :-DD  or :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 27, 2019, 02:03:03 am
Rob Janssen wins The Internet!

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=772131;image)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: The_Next_Theranos on June 27, 2019, 09:22:31 am
It gets worse...

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=772125;image)
Notice how the first half of the question uses the "work with" wording, implying a relationship among peers, but then in the next half of the question she immediately transforms this into a management issue, implying a superior-subordinate relationship.

The leopard doesn't change its spots. Reminds me of her slip of the tongue in 2012, where she was so eager to say that she had "four of the top ultrasonic engineers in the world working for me". She then quickly corrects herself, saying, "working with me". Watch it on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukgnU2aXM2c&feature=youtu.be&t=850 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukgnU2aXM2c&feature=youtu.be&t=850)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on June 27, 2019, 10:31:49 am
Be afraid, be very afraid...
PerryCAD!

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=772119;image)

Why doesn't she ask her design department?  :popcorn:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on June 27, 2019, 10:33:39 am
It gets worse...

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=772125;image)

Oh boy, I don't know whether to :-DD  or :palm:

I guess Elizabeth Holmes told her a trial period is really something to avoid.....
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on June 27, 2019, 10:36:08 am
It gets worse...

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=772125;image)

Go on Youtube and see if there's any TED talks where they trash people who have actual real-life experience and proclaim that can all be replaced just by "thinking outside the box".

It also helps if the other person hasn't a clue about technical matters and can't ever tell you when you're wrong.

Notice how the first half of the question uses the "work with" wording, implying a relationship among peers, but then in the next half of the question she immediately transforms this into a management issue, implying a superior-subordinate relationship.

...an implicit assumption that she wouldn't be the problem in any relationship.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: TheHolyHorse on June 27, 2019, 10:42:38 am
Be afraid, be very afraid...
PerryCAD!

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=772119;image)

Why doesn't she ask her design department?  :popcorn:

 :-DD What department.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 28, 2019, 11:12:19 pm
It gets worse...

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=772125;image)

Most of the tweets make me laugh these days but this one really annoys me. She got to be CEO of a company that had up to around $40 million and free-reign to do as she pleased over near 8 years. There were hundreds of interviewees, and 10s of employees that were hired/fired/driven away so she could learn and play fantasy CEO, even more when you count consultants. The company paid for executive coaching, 1 on 1, to help her get better. Multiple people with 20+ years of experience tried to coach her, including employees, board members, and other advisors. It's like a college degree then PhD in being a CEO that got you personalized tuition from some of the best in the world 24/7/365 and she got paid for it. If after all that someone not only can't answer one of the most basic questions of hiring/managing, but can't realize the privileged position they were in, then they are beyond hope and squandered an incredible chance of several lifetimes.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Fungus on June 29, 2019, 11:15:30 am
...
If after all that someone not only can't answer one of the most basic questions of hiring/managing, but can't realize the privileged position they were in, then they are beyond hope and squandered an incredible chance of several lifetimes.

Change is impossible until she admits there's a problem.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 29, 2019, 08:29:31 pm
For those interested in wireless power in general, Ossia got FCC approval under Part 18 for their RF based system. It's pretty limited, only works within 1 meter, fixed transmitter and receiver. I estimate about 1.5 to 3% efficient overall, with between 0.5 and 1 Watt to the battery. It's at the SAR safety limit, so no increasing from here, it's as powerful as it gets.

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2019/06/ossia-and-fcc-approval.html

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on June 30, 2019, 02:43:31 pm
There's a little thread on Ossia https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/cota-real-wireless-power/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/cota-real-wireless-power/)

I think MP's best hiring strategy would be to find someone who's never heard of MP, uBeam, or the internet. :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on June 30, 2019, 06:15:03 pm
You'd think he'd be a little shy about this:

https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/1145134287567695877

Goes to show, once you're part of the in-crowd, there's no falling out of it.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: The_Next_Theranos on June 30, 2019, 11:19:43 pm
squandered an incredible chance of several lifetimes.

Goes to show, once you're part of the in-crowd, there's no falling out of it.

As the old saying goes, "It's not what you know, it's who you know." Which means that a chance for someone like Perry to lead uBeam might not be so rare after all, however loath we might be to admit it.

"It's not what you know, it's who you know" -- I suppose this cuts to the core of why we engineers find this situation so annoying. We probably would pursue knowledge at the expense of connections, or money. The pursuit of knowledge -- verifiable, hard scientific knowledge -- is a real life motivator.

On the other hand, unicorn startup CEO types would likely pursue connections (and money) at the expense of knowledge. With connections and money you can hire and fire knowledge workers at will. So why bother with knowledge yourself? It's all about your personal brand and selling yourself. Run a confidence scam, lose a couple of million dollars, and use that as "experience" to run the next scam.

Will this ever change?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on July 01, 2019, 02:33:06 pm
The 2018 ourCrowd investment in uBeam has disapeared from theOurcrowd website  https://www.ourcrowd.com/companies/ubeam (https://www.ourcrowd.com/companies/ubeam)
The site has been updated to say they only invested $4,830,407 “in one previous round” that happened in 2015, the 2018 round is not there anymore.

During the Ourcrowd summit, (3 months ago) ourcrowd said they invested (before the summit) $6.5 in uBeam (this was after Meredith "decided" to quit)

Looks like ourCrowd did raise $3m for an investment in uBeam in 2018
(see =https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1658187/000146581818000005/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml (http://=https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1658187/000146581818000005/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml)) .

My take on this is:

OurCrowd did raise $3m in 2018, but the money was 100% in some kind of escrow pending some milestone (uBeam did file investement docs to the SEC so they did receive the money).

a few months ago ourCrowd were planning to release ~50% of the escrow, probably hoping the new CEO would cure the company.

2 weeks ago, they decided not to release the escrow and take the money back, essentially killing the company (and the new CEO's CV)

Escrows being escrows, my guess is that ALL the investors in the second round pulled their investment.
A quick review of websites of the 2018 round shows....
Andreessen Horowitz (uBeam not found on website search)
Upfront Ventures (ubeam still on their website)
Founders Fund (nothing on search)
Ludlow Ventures (still there with a picture of Meredit).
Mark Cuban also participated, and appears he still keeps this line on his CV.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on July 01, 2019, 03:34:36 pm
For those interested in wireless power in general, Ossia got FCC approval under Part 18 for their RF based system. It's pretty limited, only works within 1 meter, fixed transmitter and receiver. I estimate about 1.5 to 3% efficient overall, with between 0.5 and 1 Watt to the battery. It's at the SAR safety limit, so no increasing from here, it's as powerful as it gets.

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2019/06/ossia-and-fcc-approval.html

I've only just seen this. I'm particularly wondering how it practically co-exists with other 2.4GHz ISM services such as WiFi, Bluetooth and wireless peripherals like keyboards and mice. If they're managing to see 0.5 to 1W at the receiver, good luck with the LNA compression & sensitivity on any other in-band service on the Ossia powered device. It'll be like trying to listen to someone whispering at an AC/DC concert.

In addition, like other RF solutions, this might get by in the US by pushing the envelope on FCC regulations, but I highly doubt this will be able to achieve global acceptance without an uphill struggle with a plethora of other local regulators and regulations.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on July 01, 2019, 03:51:59 pm
I've only just seen this. I'm particularly wondering how it practically co-exists with other 2.4GHz ISM services such as WiFi, Bluetooth and wireless peripherals like keyboards and mice. If they're managing to see 0.5 to 1W at the receiver, good luck with the LNA compression & sensitivity on any other in-band service on the Ossia powered device. It'll be like trying to listen to someone whispering at an AC/DC concert.

In addition, like other RF solutions, this might get by in the US by pushing the envelope on FCC regulations, but I highly doubt this will be able to achieve global acceptance without an uphill struggle with a plethora of other local regulators and regulations.

Their own press distances themselves from this approved system as a practical product, it's interesting marketing, and as always the tech press is dumb enough to fall for it and is talking about charging phones and 1000s of devices. I doubt this will ever be a product, the purpose is to get a Part 18 Approval (after having tried to avoid that for years).

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on July 01, 2019, 04:47:11 pm
I've only just seen this. I'm particularly wondering how it practically co-exists with other 2.4GHz ISM services such as WiFi, Bluetooth and wireless peripherals like keyboards and mice.

Their wireless charging has the slight flaw in that is stops wireless devices working, and don't bother with 5.8GHz they're going there as well, someone should try using US sound waves instead. :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Poe on July 01, 2019, 06:56:54 pm
Just saw the latest EEVblog video.  At 13minutes in, Dave is saying the LED pattern doesn't follow the movement.  Couldn't this be attributed to the phased array's tracking error?  That is, it's changing where the array is pointing as the turret sweeps the room to keep power at the target.

Disclaimer: I've read no information on this thing or any of these posts, just was the first thought I had.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on July 02, 2019, 03:15:35 am
Just saw the latest EEVblog video.  At 13minutes in, Dave is saying the LED pattern doesn't follow the movement.  Couldn't this be attributed to the phased array's tracking error?  That is, it's changing where the array is pointing as the turret sweeps the room to keep power at the target.

Disclaimer: I've read no information on this thing or any of these posts, just was the first thought I had.

Could be several things. One of their arrays appears to have no steering capability at all, and only points forward, possibly doing some change of the focal depth but uncertain. It could also be that the tracking just wasn't keeping up with the sensors movement. Hard to say, but don't read too much into it, so many of the images and videos are cut and devices swapped around it's hard to keep track, which was possibly deliberate...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on July 03, 2019, 05:34:20 am
Just saw the latest EEVblog video.  At 13minutes in, Dave is saying the LED pattern doesn't follow the movement.  Couldn't this be attributed to the phased array's tracking error?  That is, it's changing where the array is pointing as the turret sweeps the room to keep power at the target.

No, that transmitter has no phased array tracking, they have another bigger model for that. This is mentioned and demonstrated in the other stage demonstration video.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Poe on July 03, 2019, 01:13:34 pm
...
No, that transmitter has no phased array tracking, they have another bigger model for that. This is mentioned and demonstrated in the other stage demonstration video.

Now I'm even more confused. 

If the emitter isn't tracking and just using phased array focusing, then the LED pattern should completely disappear as the turret moves away.  If they're not using phased array focusing, then their performance will be crap (exponentially more crap with distance) and what's the point of using an array of emitters if you're just going to blast out sound?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on July 03, 2019, 04:02:37 pm

If the emitter isn't tracking and just using phased array focusing, then the LED pattern should completely disappear as the turret moves away.

It looks like video and graphic clips are just pasted together into one video, I don't think that turret TX is lighting those LEDs.
They've just randomly stuck a battery charging graphic on anything that moves, or doesn't move. :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on July 06, 2019, 07:35:04 pm
is been blasted by KW's of ultrasound all day dangerous?

The simplest answer is - nobody knows for sure, but there are enough data points to be concerned. It doesn't exist naturally, and there's not been any equipment over the last century that consistently outputs 140dB+ in the 40 to 100 kHz range without far worse effects in the audible range swamping it, or consistent studies to isolate that effect. There are studies that show we should be concerned both with long term effects, as well as more short term ones - long term hearing damage, sub harmonic generation, heating etc - but nothing definitively proven. It would also be unethical to run those experiments on people, so basically we're in the early stages of a mass experiment in this regard where the public are the test subjects. In a sane world, this wouldn't be allowed to be tested in this manner until proven safe, rather than the situation we have now which is "prove it's dangerous and then we'll stop", where those tests are illegal as well as unethical - an unattainable burden of proof

uBeam claim to have run lots of independent 3rd party tests that prove it's safe. Except they won't release those test results or say who the third parties are. I call bullshit on this. There's enough data out there that makes it very suspicious. That they keep claiming that "99% of energy bounces off the skin" is telling, as it's not the skin that's the problem, it's the hair on it that causes the problem (loss in hair causes heating, burns, and in small animals death at high enough levels).

I put together a list of information on this topic if you want to study further:

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2019/01/ultrasound-in-air-safety-and-regulations.html

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: AlanS on July 26, 2019, 07:52:25 am
Oh dear:
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/future-of-power-infrared-beams-next-step-in-wireless-charging/ (https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/future-of-power-infrared-beams-next-step-in-wireless-charging/)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on August 21, 2019, 01:01:17 pm
Looks like Meredith Perry is no longer on board

https://www.linkedin.com/in/meredithellenperry/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/meredithellenperry/), board member till Aug

There is a new guy, "acting CFO" will kain instead
https://ubeam.com/company/ (https://ubeam.com/company/)

At least this guy admits he's on board, unlike a lot of the other names on this page, although it seems like the only full time guy there is the CEO (maybe).




Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on August 21, 2019, 01:20:46 pm
Looks like Meredith Perry is no longer on board
https://www.linkedin.com/in/meredithellenperry/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/meredithellenperry/), board member till Aug

Wow, it only seems like yesterday she was inviting me in for a visit and demo!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McCDWYgVyps (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McCDWYgVyps)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on August 21, 2019, 01:30:36 pm
https://ubeam.com/company/ (https://ubeam.com/company/)

That first photo must have been the moment they were all told "You're finished." :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Kean on August 21, 2019, 01:47:12 pm
https://ubeam.com/company/ (https://ubeam.com/company/)

That first photo must have been the moment they were all told "You're finished." :horse:

Wow, yeah!  Who on earth thought that was a good photo to use?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on August 21, 2019, 01:53:50 pm
https://ubeam.com/company/ (https://ubeam.com/company/)

That first photo must have been the moment they were all told "You're finished." :horse:

Wow, yeah!  Who on earth thought that was a good photo to use?

It's BEGGING for captions!  :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: cgroen on August 21, 2019, 02:04:24 pm
[attach=1]
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on August 21, 2019, 02:20:16 pm
[attach=1]
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on August 23, 2019, 01:37:10 am
Perry with Mark Cuban 7 weeks ago.
Surely he's not dumb enough to invest in another Perry startup?

[attachimg=1]

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on August 23, 2019, 01:55:15 am
She contracting a mechanical engineer.
So we know it's a consumer product and it's the size of banana that expands open...

[attachimg=1]
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on August 23, 2019, 02:17:02 pm
So, turns out Meredith's new invention is a collapsible bike helmet. Seriously, that's what it is.
Not a new idea of course, this Indiegogo just raised $3.5M for one:
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/park-diamond-foldable-bike-helmet#/ (https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/park-diamond-foldable-bike-helmet#/)

But Perry's one is the size of a banana. Just like Theranos could test 800 things with drop of blood...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on August 23, 2019, 09:24:30 pm
A bike safety helmet that collapses on impact, what could possibly go wrong. >:D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: JimRemington on August 23, 2019, 09:35:21 pm
With the new focus on "intellectual property" uBeam now looks like a Solution In Search of a Problem.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: langwadt on August 23, 2019, 09:49:48 pm
So, turns out Meredith's new invention is a collapsible bike helmet. Seriously, that's what it is.
Not a new idea of course, this Indiegogo just raised $3.5M for one:
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/park-diamond-foldable-bike-helmet#/ (https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/park-diamond-foldable-bike-helmet#/)

But Perry's one is the size of a banana. Just like Theranos could test 800 things with drop of blood...

this one? https://www.ecohelmet.com/ (https://www.ecohelmet.com/)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Marco on August 23, 2019, 10:39:38 pm
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/future-of-power-infrared-beams-next-step-in-wireless-charging/ (https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/future-of-power-infrared-beams-next-step-in-wireless-charging/)
Lets say they use around 25W to deliver the 3W of electrical power, the limit for class 1M is around 150 mW for "eye safe" lasers I think. So they have to detect 0.6% beam occlusion to stay safe, seems hard.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on August 24, 2019, 05:47:37 am
So, turns out Meredith's new invention is a collapsible bike helmet. Seriously, that's what it is.
Not a new idea of course, this Indiegogo just raised $3.5M for one:
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/park-diamond-foldable-bike-helmet#/ (https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/park-diamond-foldable-bike-helmet#/)

But Perry's one is the size of a banana. Just like Theranos could test 800 things with drop of blood...

this one? https://www.ecohelmet.com/ (https://www.ecohelmet.com/)

Likely quite similar in design, hence the "banana" shape reference.
Seems like she's way late for the party, unless it's maybe a motorcycle class helmet?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: langwadt on August 24, 2019, 01:37:28 pm
So, turns out Meredith's new invention is a collapsible bike helmet. Seriously, that's what it is.
Not a new idea of course, this Indiegogo just raised $3.5M for one:
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/park-diamond-foldable-bike-helmet#/ (https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/park-diamond-foldable-bike-helmet#/)

But Perry's one is the size of a banana. Just like Theranos could test 800 things with drop of blood...

this one? https://www.ecohelmet.com/ (https://www.ecohelmet.com/)

Likely quite similar in design, hence the "banana" shape reference.
Seems like she's way late for the party, unless it's maybe a motorcycle class helmet?

Maybe it is the same, on you screenshoot it says "Meredith Perry is with Ken Hertz and Liz Heller"
looks who's on here: https://www.ecohelmet.com/copy-of-about-us-1 (https://www.ecohelmet.com/copy-of-about-us-1)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on August 24, 2019, 02:16:41 pm
When can I get one?
Our launch date has not yet been finalized.

https://www.ecohelmet.com/copy-of-about-us (https://www.ecohelmet.com/copy-of-about-us)

I wonder how many $mil they've burnt through so far in managing to produce no paper hats.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: ebastler on August 24, 2019, 05:08:58 pm
looks who's on here: https://www.ecohelmet.com/copy-of-about-us-1 (https://www.ecohelmet.com/copy-of-about-us-1)

Oh wow, a product "invented" by two industrial designers. Now all we need to do is change physics to actually make it work! Seems like the same concept for success they had behind uBeam...

On the other hand, that helmet concept looks strangely familiar...
Exactly like these foldable paper lanterns we had as kids, actually!  ;)

(https://cdn02.plentymarkets.com/59f6mh9xkvuz/item/images/101571/full/4002727130486.jpg)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikerj on August 24, 2019, 10:52:19 pm
Now all we need to do is change physics to actually make it work!

That should be in the ubeam mission statement  :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: KL27x on August 25, 2019, 01:05:43 am
Quote
I wonder how many $mil they've burnt through so far in managing to produce no paper hats.
They might have already made a production batch. The page states you can buy them only directly through the Membrain Company, which is probably to limit liability. Because they have not been able to get approval from DOT or whoever it is that puts their stamp on such things.

Membrain Co is probably an LLC that can disappear overnight, and they probably sell this as a novelty party hat.

It looks like it works better than nothing.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on August 25, 2019, 08:31:36 am
So, turns out Meredith's new invention is a collapsible bike helmet. Seriously, that's what it is.
Not a new idea of course, this Indiegogo just raised $3.5M for one:
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/park-diamond-foldable-bike-helmet#/ (https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/park-diamond-foldable-bike-helmet#/)

But Perry's one is the size of a banana. Just like Theranos could test 800 things with drop of blood...

this one? https://www.ecohelmet.com/ (https://www.ecohelmet.com/)

Likely quite similar in design, hence the "banana" shape reference.
Seems like she's way late for the party, unless it's maybe a motorcycle class helmet?

Maybe it is the same, on you screenshoot it says "Meredith Perry is with Ken Hertz and Liz Heller"
looks who's on here: https://www.ecohelmet.com/copy-of-about-us-1 (https://www.ecohelmet.com/copy-of-about-us-1)

Well spotted!  :clap:
Sounds like they somehow got involved with Perry and she has the contacts for funding. They have probably sucked in Mark Cuban again for a few mil.
I've heard that Perry has had the idea of a foldable helmet for many years.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on August 25, 2019, 08:36:36 am
According to the founders CV she's been working on this since 2016, but only now (Perry) is asking for a mechanical design engineer with impact testing experience?
https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/GnXaMCE5EFaTnV (https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/GnXaMCE5EFaTnV)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Kean on August 25, 2019, 08:40:03 am
According to the founders CV she's been working on this since 2016, but only now (Perry) is asking for a mechanical design engineer with impact testing experience?
https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/GnXaMCE5EFaTnV (https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/GnXaMCE5EFaTnV)

Because they've finally realised it can't actually be made from paper and work?
Rain could be a major problem as well as impact resistance.  I guess it is disposable, but if it starts raining on your route, you still need it to function.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: langwadt on August 25, 2019, 09:32:38 am
According to the founders CV she's been working on this since 2016, but only now (Perry) is asking for a mechanical design engineer with impact testing experience?
https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/GnXaMCE5EFaTnV (https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/GnXaMCE5EFaTnV)

cool marketing and funding is the important part, figuring out if it will work and making it is optional extra that (might) come later
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on August 25, 2019, 09:48:50 am
According to the founders CV she's been working on this since 2016, but only now (Perry) is asking for a mechanical design engineer with impact testing experience?
https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/GnXaMCE5EFaTnV (https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/GnXaMCE5EFaTnV)

Because they've finally realised it can't actually be made from paper and work?
Rain could be a major problem as well as impact resistance.  I guess it is disposable, but if it starts raining on your route, you still need it to function.

Furthermore, cyclists will get sweaty heads, exacerbated by the thermal insulating of the helmet itself. That’s the reason I don’t wear a helmet when cycling, I am sure I’ll be berated on here for it. I’m an overweight tootler, not a member of the lycra brigade.

I am also wondering just how “eco” this disposable/recyclable single use helmet is, other than a marketing moniker of course.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on August 25, 2019, 01:33:36 pm
According to the founders CV she's been working on this since 2016, but only now (Perry) is asking for a mechanical design engineer with impact testing experience?
https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/GnXaMCE5EFaTnV (https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/GnXaMCE5EFaTnV)

The founder's voice sounds similar to MP, I thought it was at first. :o
https://www.spitfireindustry.com/accessories/this-industrial-designer-is-improving-safety-for-cyclists-everywhere/ (https://www.spitfireindustry.com/accessories/this-industrial-designer-is-improving-safety-for-cyclists-everywhere/)

https://www.ecohelmet.com/copy-of-about-us-1 (https://www.ecohelmet.com/copy-of-about-us-1)
The web stats are visible there including visitors' IPs, eevblog is #3 in the referers already. :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Bud on August 25, 2019, 01:49:52 pm
I've heard that Perry has had the idea of a foldable helmet for many years.
She knew she needed plan B  >:D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on August 25, 2019, 02:20:53 pm
Perry with Mark Cuban 7 weeks ago.
Surely he's not dumb enough to invest in another Perry startup?

(Attachment Link)

I think this picture is also up for witty captions, for some reason I can only think of rude ones.

Perhaps not quite the vocation Meredith was looking for.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: JimRemington on August 25, 2019, 03:33:48 pm
I worry that air turbulence caused by the openings in the paper folds would slow me down.

(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/04b4e1_94d69811f56043449337087afbbd69c9~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_241,h_258,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/04b4e1_94d69811f56043449337087afbbd69c9~mv2.webp)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on August 25, 2019, 03:52:07 pm
Keep an open heart and skull for this new tech.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: djos on August 25, 2019, 04:57:26 pm
I just wonder how Cuban makes money out of her? I mean he isn't doing this for any other reason. 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on August 25, 2019, 05:18:36 pm
I just wonder how Cuban makes money out of her? I mean he isn't doing this for any other reason.

The charitable part of me says the VCs see her as a philanthropic woke tax.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: djos on August 25, 2019, 05:38:01 pm
I just wonder how Cuban makes money out of her? I mean he isn't doing this for any other reason.

The charitable part of me says the VCs see her as a philanthropic woke tax.

 :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: langwadt on August 25, 2019, 05:54:24 pm
I just wonder how Cuban makes money out of her? I mean he isn't doing this for any other reason.

The charitable part of me says the VCs see her as a philanthropic woke tax.

charitable or cynical ? ;)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on August 26, 2019, 01:22:13 am
Looks like she was at UPenn at broadly the same time as Perry. Though you'd think a UPenn graduate could spell University or Philadelphia.

You'd also think someone who'd spent years in Philadelphia wouldn't ask Will Smith where he was from when she met him...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on August 26, 2019, 01:46:53 am
I just wonder how Cuban makes money out of her? I mean he isn't doing this for any other reason.

He doesn't. He hopes he will.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on September 12, 2019, 02:31:18 pm
This conference just happened
uBeam are still keeping up appearances:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/airfuel-alliance-welcomes-ubeam-creator-of-ultrasonic-always-on-wireless-energytm-300915432.html (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/airfuel-alliance-welcomes-ubeam-creator-of-ultrasonic-always-on-wireless-energytm-300915432.html)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on September 12, 2019, 03:11:54 pm
Day One: Tuesday, September 10th (Members Only)
3:15 pm - 3:45 pm Ultrasound for Wireless Power Simon McElrea


I wonder if he managed the full half hour without everyone falling asleep. :=\

https://airfuel.org/members/ubeam-inc/
404 - Page Not Found
Whoops, that’s a 404. :-DD

uDream seem to have removed our favorite "All just been sacked" image.
It's still there under company.

Enterprise Power Management Software
uBeam’s proprietary power management software allows users to monitor devices on a real time basis, and obtain insights on power levels, device health, sensor readings, and more. The information is stored securely on Amazon Web Services (AWS) and historical data can be used to analyze trends and predict future performance. :horse:

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on September 12, 2019, 03:47:34 pm
uDream seem to have removed our favorite "All just been sacked" image.

They sooooo don't read this thread  ;D

Quote
Enterprise Power Management Software
uBeam’s proprietary power management software allows users to monitor devices on a real time basis, and obtain insights on power levels, device health, sensor readings, and more. The information is stored securely on Amazon Web Services (AWS) and historical data can be used to analyze trends and predict future performance. :horse:

Now it has cloud!
Crypto next, then graphene drivers.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: wilfred on September 12, 2019, 03:58:11 pm
Did you know the top 5 posters in this thread have made 910 posts out of 1764. Not sure what to make of that.
And in the Post your latest purchase thread it is 1676 out of 9163 and none are common to both.
$20 ESR checker it is 1974 out of 5903  but the top poster there has 20% of the thread

I was testing a theory that the less technical a thread is the narrower the participation amongst forum members. 

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on September 12, 2019, 04:30:03 pm
"Did you know the top 5 posters in this thread have made 910 posts out of 1764. Not sure what to make of that."

Where are all these fascinating stats. I search for anything happening in uDream World about once a week, so I'll be quite disappointed if I haven't made #4 at least. :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on September 13, 2019, 12:42:02 am
Didn't Perry used the have "founder uBeam" on her instagram profile?
Now distancing herself from the Titanic she created?

[attachimg=1]
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: SiliconWizard on September 13, 2019, 12:46:06 am
Didn't Perry used the have "founder uBeam" on her instagram profile?

Well maybe, but she clearly presents herself as a "prankster". People should have taken a hint, really. ;D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: thm_w on September 13, 2019, 11:49:03 pm
Didn't Perry used the have "founder uBeam" on her instagram profile?
Now distancing herself from the Titanic she created?

(Attachment Link)

Hey, there is no comma between prankster and founder... that is one hell of a prank.
Title: Forbes: "The world needs more visionaries like Elizabeth Holmes"
Post by: The_Next_Theranos on October 14, 2019, 04:11:38 am
I happened to notice this article yesterday on the Forbes website, titled "The World Needs More Visionaries Like Elizabeth Holmes". It seems to have been since deleted from the Forbes website, but is still accessible via the Google cache or via web.archive.org.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:M_s-O7QMxtUJ:https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2019/10/13/the-world-needs-more-visionaries-like-elizabeth-holmes/ (https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:M_s-O7QMxtUJ:https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2019/10/13/the-world-needs-more-visionaries-like-elizabeth-holmes/)

http://web.archive.org/web/20191014040552/http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:M_s-O7QMxtUJ:https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2019/10/13/the-world-needs-more-visionaries-like-elizabeth-holmes/&strip=1&vwsrc=0 (http://web.archive.org/web/20191014040552/http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:M_s-O7QMxtUJ:https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2019/10/13/the-world-needs-more-visionaries-like-elizabeth-holmes/&strip=1&vwsrc=0)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on October 14, 2019, 07:14:37 am
They still dribble along it seems:
https://www.everythingrf.com/news/details/8913-Ultrasonic-Wireless-Energy-Pioneer-uBeam-Joins-Air-Fuel-Alliance (https://www.everythingrf.com/news/details/8913-Ultrasonic-Wireless-Energy-Pioneer-uBeam-Joins-Air-Fuel-Alliance)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Simon on October 14, 2019, 07:29:07 am
It's amazing the crap that people fall for.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on October 14, 2019, 09:37:19 am
Moving this thread to chat seems a daft idea to me.

... I see it might have been because of The_Next_Theranos changing the Subject, something else I don't like, other than for obvious corrections and adding -[SOLVED], - [SOLD], of course.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Simon on October 14, 2019, 11:32:04 am
Well uBeam was never technical....
Title: Re: Forbes: "The world needs more visionaries like Elizabeth Holmes"
Post by: coppice on October 14, 2019, 11:44:31 am
I happened to notice this article yesterday on the Forbes website, titled "The World Needs More Visionaries Like Elizabeth Holmes". It seems to have been since deleted from the Forbes website, but is still accessible via the Google cache or via web.archive.org.
The ease with which people can edit out the embarrassing elements of their history is one of the more disturbing aspects of a world where published material only exists on line. The way back machine does good work, but it doesn't capture every embarrassing moment, so its not a panacea.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jrs45 on October 14, 2019, 02:29:21 pm
There was another wireless charging tech on shark tank recently.  Basically another Qi style pad.  (Aira)

https://abc.go.com/shows/shark-tank/episode-guide/season-11/03-episode-3

Cuban had some things to say about ubeam and Energous.  Still hyping ubeam as a competitor and viable company (~26:30): "I still think there's a strong chance you get leapfrogged so for those reasons I'm out."

Seriously?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cyberdragon on October 14, 2019, 09:52:00 pm
Shark tank is the worst place to go to get investment for new tech stuff. Those guys know nothing about technology other then what the other gullible big wigs that fell for that crap spew to them. ::)

I've watched several investing shows and seen alot of stupid tech come through. Some of them should have been regected out of the gate.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jrs45 on October 15, 2019, 02:11:57 pm
The deals offered look absolutely terrible, too.  It's just surprising to me that Cuban is clinging to some hope ubeam has any value >0.  Which it doesn't.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on October 24, 2019, 08:14:49 am
Meredith Perry is now the CEO of Elemind, a stealth startup developing a brain/electronics interface.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/meredithellenperry/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/meredithellenperry/)

What they appear to be doing is develop a device that allows you to fall asleep at the push of a button (She twitted about it about a year or so ago).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zItt6lg2gUA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zItt6lg2gUA)

I have no idea if the nurophysics works, but unlike power delivery, people will pay for it even if it does not work.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Simon on October 24, 2019, 08:26:32 am
I have an app for that! it's called white noise or any other of a plethora of sounds available....
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on October 26, 2019, 01:49:31 am
Meredith Perry is now the CEO of Elemind, a stealth startup developing a brain/electronics interface.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/meredithellenperry/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/meredithellenperry/)

Profile removed!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on October 26, 2019, 01:57:27 am
Meredith Perry is now the CEO of Elemind, a stealth startup developing a brain/electronics interface.

So she wants to control our brain now?  :scared:

Why on earth someone would hire her to be CEO of a company is beyond me. Every single story I have heard from former employees is that she shouldn't allowed to run a lemonade stand.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on October 26, 2019, 01:59:53 am
Meredith Perry is now the CEO of Elemind, a stealth startup developing a brain/electronics interface.

So she wants to control our brain now?  :scared:

Why on earth someone would hire her to be CEO of a company is beyond me. Every single story I have heard from former employees is that she shouldn't allowed to run a lemonade stand.
Her linkedin page says co-founder and CEO. That makes it easy to become CEO. The real question is who would invest?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on October 26, 2019, 02:09:30 am
Her linkedin page says co-founder and CEO. That makes it easy to become CEO. The real question is who would invest?

Her Linkedin profile is gone for me, say "Profile Not Available"
But if I use another browser it works?
Are you able to block people on LinkedIn?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on October 26, 2019, 02:15:01 am
Her linkedin page says co-founder and CEO. That makes it easy to become CEO.

Not according to this profile she didn't co-found it:
https://www.brain-mind.org/spotlight (https://www.brain-mind.org/spotlight)

[attachimg=1]
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on October 26, 2019, 02:23:36 am
Her linkedin page says co-founder and CEO. That makes it easy to become CEO.

Not according to this profile she didn't co-found it:
https://www.brain-mind.org/spotlight (https://www.brain-mind.org/spotlight)
Oh, come on. Stating that Heather Read founded the company does not exclude the possibility of other co-founders.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on October 26, 2019, 02:24:38 am
Her linkedin page says co-founder and CEO. That makes it easy to become CEO.

Not according to this profile she didn't co-found it:
https://www.brain-mind.org/spotlight (https://www.brain-mind.org/spotlight)
Oh, come on. Stating that Heather Read founded the company does not exclude the possibility of other co-founders.

It names three other co-founders, none of whom are Perry.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on October 26, 2019, 02:32:11 am
Her linkedin page says co-founder and CEO. That makes it easy to become CEO.

Not according to this profile she didn't co-found it:
https://www.brain-mind.org/spotlight (https://www.brain-mind.org/spotlight)
Oh, come on. Stating that Heather Read founded the company does not exclude the possibility of other co-founders.

It names three other co-founders, none of whom are Perry.
It names 4 academics from the US and UK, who seem to be the real deal. That makes it very odd that they would work with someone like Perry. However, an academic web site is unlikely to list non-academic founders, so I'd say the issue is still open.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on October 26, 2019, 02:36:06 am
It names 4 academics from the US and UK, who seem to be the real deal. That makes it very odd that they would work with someone like Perry. However, an academic web site is unlikely to list non-academic founders, so I'd say the issue is still open.

According to LinkedIn Perry joined the company before she officially left uBeam, so that would be something you probably want to keep quiet. And yes, could be an academic credentials thing too.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on October 26, 2019, 09:55:31 am


So she wants to control our brain now?

Its not your brain she wants to control....unless you are an investor.
She has track record in controlling investors brains.
She will control your brain with the same success she had at charging your phone.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on October 26, 2019, 11:14:07 am
She will control your brain with the same success she had at charging your phone.

I'm still waiting for the talk or interview where she brags about uBeam and how it was revolutionary, and would have changed the world if it wasn't for *insert anything other than an impractical idea* here
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on October 26, 2019, 12:33:38 pm
She will control your brain with the same success she had at charging your phone.

I'm still waiting for the talk or interview where she brags about uBeam and how it was revolutionary, and would have changed the world if it wasn't for *insert anything other than an impractical idea* here

"would have changed the world if it wasn't for being a self-delusional narcissist"
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on October 26, 2019, 12:36:05 pm
I think it would be good if they ended up calling it uDream. :-DD

Shall we make predictions on how much time and money gets wasted, or just wait. :horse:

Here's my prediction.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=530687)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Simon on October 26, 2019, 03:27:20 pm
It's the fault of us male autistic engineers
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on October 27, 2019, 01:32:00 pm
FYI, I split off the 400W laser thingo

For all your latest trending tech news, follow this guy! :palm:
https://www.lightreading.com/iot/industrial-iot/startup-ubeam-uses-ultrasound-for-over-the-air-power/d/d-id/753615 (https://www.lightreading.com/iot/industrial-iot/startup-ubeam-uses-ultrasound-for-over-the-air-power/d/d-id/753615)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Simon on October 27, 2019, 01:33:51 pm
noted, ooh they have a phased array... wow
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Notbuyingit on October 29, 2019, 02:40:09 am
Ubeam is now SonicEnergy.  Perry has been scrubbed from the site
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Notbuyingit on October 29, 2019, 02:57:51 am
ubeam.com now is directed to https://sonicenergy.com/
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on October 29, 2019, 03:03:06 am
Ubeam is now SonicEnergy.  Perry has been scrubbed from the site

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBkuNpgACH0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBkuNpgACH0)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Notbuyingit on October 29, 2019, 04:34:11 am
They have started to scrub linkedin.  Note the spelling mistake of the new company name. 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: djos on October 29, 2019, 05:50:45 am
ubeam.com now is directed to https://sonicenergy.com/

Cause marketing can solve physics problems!  :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on October 29, 2019, 07:53:01 am
Note the spelling mistake of the new company name.

It's even in the URL!  :-DD
https://www.linkedin.com/company/sonicenegry/ (https://www.linkedin.com/company/sonicenegry/)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PA0PBZ on October 29, 2019, 08:01:34 am
Note the spelling mistake of the new company name.

It's even in the URL!  :-DD
https://www.linkedin.com/company/sonicenegry/ (https://www.linkedin.com/company/sonicenegry/)

Also misspelled but in a different way! So much effort has to be gone in here  :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Nominal Animal on October 29, 2019, 08:27:13 am
Yup, so-nice-negry in the URL, sonic-eng-ery™ in the title.

Perhaps there is some kind of US law quirk that gives them a loophole if they avoid using the word "energy"?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: VNFTW on October 29, 2019, 09:24:07 am
I think SonicEngery is pronounced “sonic-injury”
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on October 29, 2019, 09:31:38 am
SonicEnergy
@Sonic__Energy
I identify as a Transducer. Pronouns: Tx, Rx. Inherently linear thinker.
Joined October 2019
https://twitter.com/Sonic__Energy
 :-//
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Simon on October 29, 2019, 09:33:52 am
not that pesky linear thinking again that has stopped people like Meredith bringing her creations to life?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on October 29, 2019, 09:39:48 am
They tweeted ~1 min after I posted, it must be someone reading this thread. ;D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on October 29, 2019, 09:42:16 am
Note the spelling mistake of the new company name.

It's even in the URL!  :-DD
https://www.linkedin.com/company/sonicenegry/ (https://www.linkedin.com/company/sonicenegry/)

Also misspelled but in a different way! So much effort has to be gone in here  :-DD

I just noticed they have misspelled it TWICE!  :-DD
Enegry in URL and Engery in the title.
I prefer Engery as it rhymes with Injury  :-+

[attachimg=1]
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on October 29, 2019, 09:55:03 am
@Sonic__Energy
https://twitter.com/Sonic__Energy

Couldn't find it.
Looks like it's here now  :-//
https://twitter.com/SonicEngery
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on October 29, 2019, 02:28:25 pm
I think SonicEngery is pronounced “sonic-injury”

[FX] Chuckles [/FX]
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on October 29, 2019, 02:39:58 pm
Their web site is sonicenergy.com, so the other spellings appear to reflect their sloppiness.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on October 29, 2019, 03:57:23 pm
I think SonicEngery is pronounced “sonic-injury”

[FX] Chuckles [/FX]
Sonicinjury.com is available. just Sayin... ;D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on October 29, 2019, 04:03:10 pm
Have they been hacked, or are they making a complete fool of themselves on purpose, I really can't decide.:scared:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: orion242 on October 29, 2019, 08:05:28 pm
Note the spelling mistake of the new company name.

It's even in the URL!  :-DD
https://www.linkedin.com/company/sonicenegry/ (https://www.linkedin.com/company/sonicenegry/)

Also misspelled but in a different way! So much effort has to be gone in here  :-DD

I just noticed they have misspelled it TWICE!  :-DD
Enegry in URL and Engery in the title.
I prefer Engery as it rhymes with Injury  :-+

(Attachment Link)

Looks like they fixed their name on linkedin but they are stuck with the URL.

Notice the company website on their linkedin page points to ubeam.com.

Crack marketing team there...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on October 29, 2019, 11:14:07 pm
Looks like they fixed their name on linkedin but they are stuck with the URL.

And we thought uBeam had no more  :-DD to give!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on October 29, 2019, 11:30:41 pm
And we thought uBeam had no more  :-DD to give!

I was going to say the same. How could you possibly have someone doing the marketing and opening accounts who can't spell the company's new very simple name. I can't spell myself but I could manage 'sonic energy' without help.

Now they're attempting time travel.

SonicEnergy is excited to demonstrate our newest Customer Development Kit at 2019 OurCrowd Global Investor Summit on March 7th. Register at https://lnkd.in/gaQ3PHS to watch it live!

And the link goes to the future 2020 summit, and they won't be there! :horse:

I'm surprised totalincompetence.com and totallyincompetent.com are free, perhaps they couldn't spell it.

Perhaps the spare uDream workers would like to implement binary protocols and debug electrical circuits by tracing and probing.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EH750jmXYAAIMfm.jpg:medium
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cyberdragon on October 30, 2019, 04:34:22 am
I think SonicEngery is pronounced “sonic-injury”

Ah...that explains their latest development... >:D

(https://i.stack.imgur.com/d3uRD.png)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: AlanS on October 30, 2019, 05:48:41 am
Marketing by a dyslexic - who sold his soul to Santa.  |O
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Simon on October 30, 2019, 07:44:47 am
Marketing by a dyslexic - who sold his soul to Santa.  |O

I'm dyslexic and ADHD but have never made a mistake on a domain name.......
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cyberdragon on October 30, 2019, 05:57:48 pm
Marketing by a dyslexic - who sold his soul to Santa.  |O

I'm dyslexic and ADHD but have never made a mistake on a domain name.......

You haven't been brainwashed by a brain-dead "company" (pile of shambles).
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: orion242 on October 31, 2019, 02:06:46 am
Guessing at this point its more your in marketing and willing to work for minimum wage.

There a ghost ship at this point from the looks of it.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on October 31, 2019, 01:33:08 pm
They "updated" all their history

for example, sonicAnarchy anounces new CEO https://sonicenergy.com/ubeam-announces-new-ceo/ (https://sonicenergy.com/ubeam-announces-new-ceo/)

Not sure why it's a new CEO, as I can't find anyone before him :)

They forgot to change the webpage address though ;)

Wonder if they try to remove Perry's name from the patents?, they removed any press release mentioning her.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on October 31, 2019, 06:39:37 pm
OurCrowd is reinvesting in uBeam (which recently rebranded to SonicEnergyTM) in an up-to-$7.5M Series 1 recapitalization round led by Upfront Ventures, a leading Los Angeles-based VC with investments in companies such as Bird (recently valued at $2.5B by Sequoia), Goat (recently raised $100M from Footlocker) and Ring (acquired by Amazon for over $1B).

uBeam seeks to deliver Always-On Wireless EnergyTM at a distance, utilizing ultra-safe ultrasonic technology to deliver reliable, wire-free charging. uBeam has developed proprietary transducers, transmitters, receivers, and custom enterprise software. The company plans to deliver wireless power to a wide range of electronic devices in the high growth Internet of Things (IoT) sector, including automotive, aerospace, healthcare, industrial and home.

 
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cyberdragon on November 01, 2019, 12:09:05 am
Guessing at this point its more your in marketing and willing to work for minimum wage.

There a ghost ship at this point from the looks of it.

They are the Titanic. Snapped in half at the bottom of the ocean of reality rotting away from marketing bacteria and we are simply the subs exploring the wreck.

OurCrowd is reinvesting in uBeam (which recently rebranded to SonicEnergyTM) in an up-to-$7.5M Series 1 recapitalization round led by Upfront Ventures, a leading Los Angeles-based VC with investments in companies such as Bird (recently valued at $2.5B by Sequoia), Goat (recently raised $100M from Footlocker) and Ring (acquired by Amazon for over $1B).

uBeam seeks to deliver Always-On Wireless EnergyTM at a distance, utilizing ultra-safe ultrasonic technology to deliver reliable, wire-free charging. uBeam has developed proprietary transducers, transmitters, receivers, and custom enterprise software. The company plans to deliver wireless power to a wide range of electronic devices in the high growth Internet of Things (IoT) sector, including automotive, aerospace, healthcare, industrial and home.

And you can't raise the Titanic cause that would only make it crumble further. ::) ;D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: orion242 on November 03, 2019, 03:31:20 am
OurCrowd is reinvesting in uBeam in an up-to-$7.5M Series

 :palm:

$hitsville
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 03, 2019, 07:48:39 am
OurCrowd is reinvesting in uBeam (which recently rebranded to SonicEnergyTM) in an up-to-$7.5M Series 1 recapitalization round led by Upfront Ventures, a leading Los Angeles-based VC with investments in companies such as Bird (recently valued at $2.5B by Sequoia), Goat (recently raised $100M from Footlocker) and Ring (acquired by Amazon for over $1B).

Link for this?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on November 03, 2019, 08:43:28 am
OurCrowd is reinvesting in uBeam (which recently rebranded to SonicEnergyTM) in an up-to-$7.5M Series 1 recapitalization round led by Upfront Ventures, a leading Los Angeles-based VC with investments in companies such as Bird (recently valued at $2.5B by Sequoia), Goat (recently raised $100M from Footlocker) and Ring (acquired by Amazon for over $1B).

Link for this?

you need to register with ourCrowd to get these emails ;).
It's a down round, the typical incentives to do these for investors are 2
1. you may be able to save your previous investment if they raise enough, or at least delay admitting your losses (good money going after bad).
2. With typical ratchets and pay to play stuff, if you don't invest, you're essentially out.

The crowd is investors in old rounds and vultures.

Note outcrowd are not bragging on their uBeam investment, it's not the stuff that brings new investors on board.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: tom66 on November 03, 2019, 10:09:03 am
I don't understand who keeps pouring money into these doomed ventures.  Some kind of investment scam where the top execs get out in profit, or do they genuinely believe it will go well?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 03, 2019, 06:04:54 pm
Yep, it's a down round, raising $7.5m on a pre money valuation of $20m

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2019/11/ubeam-is-now-sonic-energy-and-raising.html


Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 04, 2019, 01:35:16 am
Yep, it's a down round, raising $7.5m on a pre money valuation of $20m

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2019/11/ubeam-is-now-sonic-energy-and-raising.html

Quote
While the wireless charging market is growing at a CAGR of over 40% and expected to reach ~$21B by 2023, it remains largely untapped due to current technological limitations with induction-based charging methods and many power-at-a-distance technologies being limited by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). uBeam claims that it has a patent-protected ultrasound technology that is FCC approved and safely transmits wireless power at a distance. IHS Markit also forecasts that by 2030 there will be 125 billion electronic devices that will need safe and always-on power. The largest vertical in this growth market is in IoT (smart home, aerospace, automotive, healthcare, commercial, etc.). uBeam is focused on this space, having already secured POCs with three global tier-1 Original Equipment Manufacturers in the aerospace and electronic device verticals, while also working to provide software and support, enabling potential partners and clients to monitor and run large networks of wireless energy.

What's a POC?
Proof Of Concept?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on November 04, 2019, 01:57:01 am
What's a POC?
Proof Of Concept?
It usually means proof of concept, but it could be pile of cash in a fund raising context.  :)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on November 04, 2019, 02:21:16 am
The might think they're POCs but they're POSs really.

enabling potential partners and clients to monitor and run large networks of wireless energy.

 :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on November 04, 2019, 02:32:51 pm

Quote
... uBeam claims that it has a patent-protected ultrasound technology that is FCC approved and safely transmits wireless power at a distance. ...


An interesting use of weasel words lurking in there I think.

When the people pushing your investment say that you 'claim to have' something instead of simply saying that you 'have' it you know that you're wandering into the wrong territory. Patent ownership and FCC approval are pretty black and white, you either have them or you don't, and a related party feeling the need to qualify that with 'claims' ought really to ring alarm bells.

Perhaps it's just terrible writing and they meant to say instead,

Quote
... uBeam has patent-protected ultrasound technology that is FCC approved and claims that it safely transmits wireless power at a distance. ...

but somehow I suspect it's deliberate.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on November 05, 2019, 06:43:41 am

An interesting use of weasel words lurking in there I think.

When the people pushing your investment say that you 'claim to have' something instead of simply saying that you 'have' it you know that you're wandering into the wrong territory. Patent ownership and FCC approval are pretty black and white, you either have them or you don't, and a related party feeling the need to qualify that with 'claims' ought really to ring alarm bells.


Transmission of ultrasound through the air is not regulated by the FCC. It is regulated by the FDA even for non-medical use. Any FCC approvals needed, IMO, would be the same as would be required for any electronic device and not specifically for wireless power transmission.

When I look at the patent portfolio for uBeam, the last transducer patents still had my name on them. When I compare the transducers I see from the website and demos, they do not resemble the structures described in that IP. So you can have IP, and you can have transducers, and say that in the same sentence when those two items have no, or limited, relation to one another.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on November 05, 2019, 06:59:07 am

Quote
... uBeam claims that it has a patent-protected ultrasound technology that is FCC approved and safely transmits wireless power at a distance. ...

[/quote]

I searched the FCC database for approvals for uBeam, SonicEnergy, SonicEnegry - the FCC does not seem to be aware of these approvals.
http://
I also don't see why would they need an FCC approval, given they don't make a radio transmitter.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 05, 2019, 09:31:37 am
Be afraid...

[attachimg=1]
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on November 05, 2019, 10:08:49 am
Last draft of add....[attachimg=1]
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on November 07, 2019, 10:13:55 pm
Not going to do it in-house?

[attachimg=1]
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jrs45 on December 17, 2019, 05:06:59 pm
Looks like ubeam/"sonicengery" will be at CES:

https://ces20.mapyourshow.com/8_0/exhibitor/exhibitor-details.cfm?ExhID=T0014447

Anyone want to check it out for us?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on December 17, 2019, 05:52:30 pm
Its a suite, not a booth.
These usually are invitation only ....
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jrs45 on December 19, 2019, 05:20:49 pm
Its a suite, not a booth.
These usually are invitation only ....

Nah, most of the suites allow walk-ins, or people can ask for appointments.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on December 20, 2019, 05:29:42 pm
And now there's a new (Acting) CEO...

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2019/12/ubeam-sonic-energy-gets-another-ceo.html
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on December 20, 2019, 06:48:58 pm
Nice catch,

I don't think the downround happened.
And I find it hard to imagine why would someone invest in a company without a CEO.

I think acting CEO=liquidator.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on December 20, 2019, 07:47:16 pm
Nice catch,

I don't think the downround happened.
And I find it hard to imagine why would someone invest in a company without a CEO.

I think acting CEO=liquidator.

Interesting take. I'll add a note in the post regarding that.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 21, 2019, 05:07:18 am
I think acting CEO=liquidator.

Surely it must have reached that point now?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on December 21, 2019, 12:52:59 pm
And now there's a new (Acting) CEO...

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2019/12/ubeam-sonic-energy-gets-another-ceo.html

Oooh they’re getting into the “exploding IoT market”. 5-4-3-2-1...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on January 08, 2020, 08:03:59 am
https://twitter.com/mikeofcc/status/1214725891479109637?s=20

Looks like uBeam is officially not on the map anymore.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on January 08, 2020, 09:07:31 pm
Looks like uBeam is officially not on the map anymore.

They're helping to reflect the evolving focus of the company, and helping to communicate their mission, values and brand differentiators,
...by hiding, just in case anyone asks what things they actually make. :horse:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: AlanS on January 08, 2020, 10:42:50 pm
...by hiding, just in case anyone asks what things they actually make. :horse:

Cruel but fair. :popcorn:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jrs45 on February 28, 2020, 02:33:15 pm
I guess ubeam powered forklifts didn't pan out, but maybe ubeam powered airplanes are next?

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sonicenergy-announces-development-partnership-with-airbus-301010466.html (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sonicenergy-announces-development-partnership-with-airbus-301010466.html)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: StillTrying on February 28, 2020, 03:27:15 pm
Just what you need on an aircraft, devices powered with 0.3% efficiency. :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: daqq on February 28, 2020, 04:13:50 pm
I guess ubeam powered forklifts didn't pan out, but maybe ubeam powered airplanes are next?

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sonicenergy-announces-development-partnership-with-airbus-301010466.html (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sonicenergy-announces-development-partnership-with-airbus-301010466.html)
It's actually about harvesting passenger screams.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on February 28, 2020, 04:56:21 pm
I guess ubeam powered forklifts didn't pan out, but maybe ubeam powered airplanes are next?

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sonicenergy-announces-development-partnership-with-airbus-301010466.html (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sonicenergy-announces-development-partnership-with-airbus-301010466.html)
It's actually about harvesting passenger screams.

Does that mean that they've hired Sully?

(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.dolimg.com%2Ffranchise%2Fmonstersinc%2Fimages%2Fchar_sulley.png&f=1&nofb=1)

Would make more sense than some hiring decisions...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Nominal Animal on February 28, 2020, 07:01:30 pm
No, rats (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rats-laugh-but-not-like-human/).
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 29, 2020, 02:07:16 am
I guess ubeam powered forklifts didn't pan out, but maybe ubeam powered airplanes are next?
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sonicenergy-announces-development-partnership-with-airbus-301010466.html (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sonicenergy-announces-development-partnership-with-airbus-301010466.html)

[attachimg=1]
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cyberdragon on February 29, 2020, 05:27:37 pm
It's from SonicShit themselves (look at the bottom), probably a lie out their ass. (They probably asked and haven't gotten a response...which will be FO). Besides...doesn't take an idiot to notice the USB ports in the damn seats (I'm assuming Airbus has those). ::)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on February 29, 2020, 06:08:57 pm
It's from SonicShit themselves (look at the bottom), probably a lie out their ass. (They probably asked and haven't gotten a response...which will be FO).

It's on PR Newswire, who have been around for a long time as a method of distributing press releases to Journalists. Once upon a time I used to get a 1/4" thick wodge of press releases in the post from them every day.

Every journalist on the commercial aerospace beat will be getting this in their inboxes, if SonicEnergy were stupid enough to do as you suggest then it would take about 0.2 seconds for some journo well connected with Airbus to call their bluff.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: MrMobodies on March 01, 2020, 01:02:04 am
I thought Meredith Perry and Elizabeth Holmes both had a similar passion in how much they believed in their projects to keep them going as long as they could.

https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/11/charged/ (https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/11/charged/)

Quote
Wireless charging startup uBeam accused of being the next Theranos
Josh Constine@joshconstine / 4:50 pm BST • May 11, 2016

uBeam could be vaporware, according to a blogger claiming to be uBeam’s  former VP of engineering. They accuse the startup of being unable to fulfill promises made about its technology. [Update: Reporter Lee Gomes confirmed with the author that they are former uBeam VP of Eng Paul Reynolds. More below]

uBeam says it’s building a device that could wirelessly charge your phone or other electronics from several meters away. But in a series of blog posts about the startup, the author asserts that the product is a sham. The criticism will increase the pressure on uBeam to reveal a working prototype. TechCrunch cannot confirm these accusations or the identity of the blogger, and we’re awaiting a response from uBeam, but the blogger contends that:

uBeam has refused to publicly show a demo because the technology doesn’t work The original CTO and newly hired CFO have both left the company uBeam CEO Meredith Perry tricked co-founder Nora Dweck into an 80/20 split of the company instead of a 50/50 split, according to court documents. Dweck sued Perry, who “settled out of court with Dweck rumored to get 20% of the company” The laws of physics and scientific experts indicate that “While in theory [uBeam] may be possible in limited cases, the safety, efficiency, and economics of it mean it is not even remotely practical.”


They say about Elizabeth Holmes had some kind of dark voice and I have listened to Meredith's and doesn't sound the same to me.

https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/why-did-elizabeth-holmes-use-a-fake-deep-voice.html (https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/why-did-elizabeth-holmes-use-a-fake-deep-voice.html)

Quote
... If you hunt around online, you can sometimes find YouTube videos in which Holmes can be heard using that real voice before catching herself and deepening it, but these videos have a tendency to be taken down after a day or two....
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on March 01, 2020, 01:18:10 am
I thought Meredith Perry and Elizabeth Holmes both had a similar passion in how much they believed in their projects to keep them going as long as they could.
Surely Holmes knew from the start that she was running a scam? I can't imagine how she thought things were going to play out with her being rich and free.

They say about Elizabeth Holmes had some kind of dark voice and I have listened to Meredith's and doesn't sound the same to me.

https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/why-did-elizabeth-holmes-use-a-fake-deep-voice.html (https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/why-did-elizabeth-holmes-use-a-fake-deep-voice.html)

Quote
... If you hunt around online, you can sometimes find YouTube videos in which Holmes can be heard using that real voice before catching herself and deepening it, but these videos have a tendency to be taken down after a day or two....
Holmes' voice sounds obviously fake. You can find recordings of Margaret Thatcher using her natural high voice. She was still using it when she reached a ministerial position. Then she was groomed to use a fake deep voice, but the groomers did a much better job with her than Holmes' groomers did. Thatcher's fake voice generally sounded fairly plausible,
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on March 01, 2020, 03:06:20 am
... Thatcher's fake voice generally sounded fairly plausible,

Not to me. It always sounded deliberately affected to me and consequently sounded deeply insincere at times.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 01, 2020, 03:29:35 am
I thought Meredith Perry and Elizabeth Holmes both had a similar passion in how much they believed in their projects to keep them going as long as they could.
Surely Holmes knew from the start that she was running a scam? I can't imagine how she thought things were going to play out with her being rich and free.

These people are deeply delusional, a psychologist would have a field day.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on March 01, 2020, 03:32:18 am
It's from SonicShit themselves (look at the bottom), probably a lie out their ass. (They probably asked and haven't gotten a response...which will be FO).
It's on PR Newswire, who have been around for a long time as a method of distributing press releases to Journalists. Once upon a time I used to get a 1/4" thick wodge of press releases in the post from them every day.
Every journalist on the commercial aerospace beat will be getting this in their inboxes, if SonicEnergy were stupid enough to do as you suggest then it would take about 0.2 seconds for some journo well connected with Airbus to call their bluff.

It's likely talked up, just like uBeam talked up all the potential companies they were supposedly partnered with or "in discussions with" like Starbucks. All you have to do is send a company an email and technically you are "in discussions with".
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on March 01, 2020, 04:08:04 am
... Thatcher's fake voice generally sounded fairly plausible,

Not to me. It always sounded deliberately affected to me and consequently sounded deeply insincere at times.
Well, she never fooled anyone, because she was already well known with a high voice before developing the low one. Also, she was famous for interviewers interrupting her because she would let her tone drift up. As she realised this and pulled it back down, usually near the end of a sentance, the drop was perceived to be the punctuation mark handing over to the interviewer, who immediately start talking.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on April 22, 2020, 11:03:22 am
Larry Starr is the FORMER VP of engineering https://www.linkedin.com/in/larry-starr-2328706/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/larry-starr-2328706/)

Still on the "team" page though....
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on April 22, 2020, 01:48:26 pm
Larry Starr is the FORMER VP of engineering https://www.linkedin.com/in/larry-starr-2328706/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/larry-starr-2328706/)

2 yrs 9 months - impressive!  :clap:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: MrMobodies on April 23, 2020, 10:35:15 am
Larry Starr is the FORMER VP of engineering https://www.linkedin.com/in/larry-starr-2328706/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/larry-starr-2328706/)

2 yrs 9 months - impressive!  :clap:

(https://i.imgur.com/Fi0tEc6.jpg)

A typo that looks like it went unnoticed to him for four years despite being at the top of his experience list.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: drussell on April 23, 2020, 12:27:07 pm
A typo that looks like it went unnoticed to him for four years despite being at the top of his experience list.

It's that kind of attention to detail that probably made him a perfect fit at uBeam.  :)

Are we off by an order of magnitude or two on the level of possible power delivery?  Meh.  Keep goin'.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on April 23, 2020, 01:02:57 pm
Speaking of uBeam, whatever happened to our good friend Meredith? What happened to that Doc Brown brain machine?
And what about that cardboard bike helmet?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on April 23, 2020, 01:15:26 pm
I guess this never happened...
[attachimg=1]
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: drussell on April 23, 2020, 02:18:06 pm
^^ "been stealthy AF" is a good thing to be for a clueless/fraudster who formerly tried to be in the limelight...   :palm:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jrs45 on April 24, 2020, 03:15:17 pm
Her new company is http://www.elemindtech.com/ (http://www.elemindtech.com/)

https://www.linkedin.com/company/elemind/ (https://www.linkedin.com/company/elemind/)

Some kind of biofeedback device for enhancing sleep.  They measure EEG signals, synthesize some kind of audio that's supposed to manipulate brain waves, and play it to the user.

Some stuff on their twitter: https://twitter.com/elemindinc?lang=en (https://twitter.com/elemindinc?lang=en)

Detailed overview, not really that stealthy!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zItt6lg2gUA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zItt6lg2gUA)

I have no idea if any of it really works, but given her track record, we can certainly guess...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cyberdragon on April 24, 2020, 10:28:07 pm
That sounds suspiciously like https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/hapbee-choose-how-you-feel/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/hapbee-choose-how-you-feel/)

My how snake oil scammers think alike... ::)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on June 29, 2020, 12:45:47 pm
Still alive and lying ....
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6681942404926320640/ (https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6681942404926320640/)

Now, they reduce your carbon footprint.

The best way uBeam can help reduce carbon footprint is by shutting down.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Daixiwen on June 30, 2020, 06:34:06 am
Reducing carbon footprint with an energy transmission system that is 0.1% efficient at best is an interesting concept  :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: drussell on June 30, 2020, 03:13:30 pm
Reducing carbon footprint with an energy transmission system that is 0.1% efficient at best is an interesting concept  :-DD

Indeed.  If that isn't a :palm: I don't know what is!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cyberdragon on June 30, 2020, 03:51:39 pm
Reducing carbon footprint with an energy transmission system that is 0.1% efficient at best is an interesting concept  :-DD

Indeed.  If that isn't a :palm: I don't know what is!

No, it's a

(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-C3PfuUhMj0U/V0ZaVqoNAvI/AAAAAAAADLs/JCigwR4eAbI8iBFyBsaas3LsRMPGuJ5TwCLcB/s1600/mega%2Bfacepalm.gif)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Nominal Animal on June 30, 2020, 07:15:36 pm
Nah, you guys misunderstand.

The device reduces the customers carbon footprint by capturing a large amount of financial resources the customer might otherwise use – and therefore really does reduce the customers carbon footprint.

In the same sense, a guilliotine would be a much more efficient carbon footprint reducer, though.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: AlanS on June 30, 2020, 11:28:20 pm
Nah, you guys misunderstand.

The device reduces the customers carbon footprint by capturing a large amount of financial resources the customer might otherwise use – and therefore really does reduce the customers carbon footprint.

In the same sense, a guilliotine would be a much more efficient carbon footprint reducer, though.
And because it saves on haircuts, fewer barber shops/salons need to be open.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on August 10, 2020, 07:29:51 am
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/08/05/business/05reuters-health-sight-diagnostics-fundraising.html?smid=li-share&utm_campaign=OurCrowd%20Weekly%20Newsletter&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=92894991&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9kpfcFk5NsMf-xlzqzJQivOvr1HXj9UbSX2E-K7Wp64buxctGK-HPyOshlVY7mJH-s4yL3hVJatQz2o5cgkrNQPOuEj3UixXawqcl388jfSqp3qeA&utm_content=92894991&utm_source=hs_email (https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/08/05/business/05reuters-health-sight-diagnostics-fundraising.html?smid=li-share&utm_campaign=OurCrowd%20Weekly%20Newsletter&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=92894991&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9kpfcFk5NsMf-xlzqzJQivOvr1HXj9UbSX2E-K7Wp64buxctGK-HPyOshlVY7mJH-s4yL3hVJatQz2o5cgkrNQPOuEj3UixXawqcl388jfSqp3qeA&utm_content=92894991&utm_source=hs_email)

OurCrowd - a VC on a quest to find the next Theranos
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Marco on August 15, 2020, 12:33:28 am
Capillary blood for blood counts doesn't seem revolutionary and they aren't the only ones in the market.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on August 15, 2020, 12:36:04 am
Capillary blood for blood counts doesn't seem revolutionary and they aren't the only ones in the market.

Doesn't sound that revolutionary to me.
Took me some time to figure that's all they were actually doing. All the flashy marketing makes it out to be something that can do a ton of stuff.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: l0rd_hex on December 10, 2020, 05:13:35 pm
Howdy all!

I need some help... I've been updating Meredith's Wikipedia page to include some mention of the failure of Ubeam and how she's been compared to Elizabeth Holmes (by her own, one time PR person). I've included sources for my claims and I believe they're fair an accurate.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_Perry

Unfortunately, someone keeps removing the content as "hate speech and fraudulent claims" and "hateful misinformation", check out the page's history for context.

Can I ask anyone who is interested to take a few minutes and update her page with some of the facts uncovered in this thread and the "Lies, Damn Lies, and Startup PR" blog (sorry I forgot the gents name)? Keep in mind that what you add should be well sourced and fairly written.

It really bugs me that her or someone close to her is removing the stuff from her page that shows she's not exactly a super-genius... it makes me think others will be taken by her if they don't see the whole truth on her Wiki page.

Thanks!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: MrMobodies on December 10, 2020, 06:44:33 pm
Well that someone looks like they came out of nowhere with a random name and contributed only those removals.

Wikipedia Filter Log of Hindgodot:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=Hindgodot
Quote
05:28, 9 December 2020: Hindgodot (talk | contribs) triggered filter 61, performing the action "edit" on Meredith Perry. Actions taken: Tag; Filter description: New user removing references (details | examine | diff)

04:43, 4 December 2020: Hindgodot (talk | contribs) triggered filter 61, performing the action "edit" on Meredith Perry. Actions taken: Tag; Filter description: New user removing references (details | examine | diff)


Your statement:
Quote
Due to the failure of Ubeam to release an actual consumer product after numerous announcements and delays, some journalists have compared Meredith Perry to fraudster Elizabeth Holmes and her failed startup Theranos[13].


https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/06/01/ubeams-meredith-perry-shows-her-stealth-wireless-charging-technology-really-works/102336880/

Quote
MARCO DELLA CAVA | USA TODAY
uBeam's Meredith Perry shows her stealth wireless charging technology really works
01/06/2017

Her company uBeam, flush with $26 million provided by Silicon Valley players eager to crack this thorny modern-day tech problem, had been called a fraud by a former engineer (https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/). Media reports compared Perry to Elizabeth Holmes, whose high-flying blood analysis company Theranos has suffered an ignominious fall.

With the citation above to backup your statement it looks correct to me but I don't see any link to it under "References" to all the other citations on that page.

Sorry:

Citation 13:
https://epicmagazine.com/silicon-is-just-sand/

That is not looking good how someone could just go on there under any name and remove supported statements and facts under "hateful speech" where it has nothing to do with it being hateful.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 10, 2020, 10:26:25 pm
Howdy all!

I need some help... I've been updating Meredith's Wikipedia page to include some mention of the failure of Ubeam and how she's been compared to Elizabeth Holmes (by her own, one time PR person). I've included sources for my claims and I believe they're fair an accurate.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_Perry

Unfortunately, someone keeps removing the content as "hate speech and fraudulent claims" and "hateful misinformation", check out the page's history for context.

Can I ask anyone who is interested to take a few minutes and update her page with some of the facts uncovered in this thread and the "Lies, Damn Lies, and Startup PR" blog (sorry I forgot the gents name)? Keep in mind that what you add should be well sourced and fairly written.

It really bugs me that her or someone close to her is removing the stuff from her page that shows she's not exactly a super-genius... it makes me think others will be taken by her if they don't see the whole truth on her Wiki page.

Sounds like someone is being alerted every time there is a change.
The good'ol "hate speech" catch-all, works wonders these days. This is one for the wikipedia preists isn't it?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: madires on December 11, 2020, 10:24:09 am
It really bugs me that her or someone close to her is removing the stuff from her page that shows she's not exactly a super-genius...

Have you tried to report that abuse?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jrs45 on December 16, 2020, 05:45:54 pm
Does anyone think this is not Perry herself hiding negative things from her wikipedia page?  The user that keeps removing stuff basically wrote the whole article back in June, and has made no other contributions.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 16, 2020, 05:55:52 pm
It really bugs me that her or someone close to her is removing the stuff from her page that shows she's not exactly a super-genius...
Have you tried to report that abuse?
To whom? Wikipedia is a war zone that drove out most of the highly knowledgeable contributors years ago. There's no point in reporting abuse to them. They'll think it means things are going well.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 16, 2020, 11:48:08 pm
Every time I see the uBeam thread pop up again I think "have they finally gone under?"
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: wilfred on December 17, 2020, 12:54:21 am
Howdy all!

I need some help... I've been updating Meredith's Wikipedia page to include some mention of the failure of Ubeam and how she's been compared to Elizabeth Holmes (by her own, one time PR person). I've included sources for my claims and I believe they're fair an accurate.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_Perry

Unfortunately, someone keeps removing the content as "hate speech and fraudulent claims" and "hateful misinformation", check out the page's history for context.

Can I ask anyone who is interested to take a few minutes and update her page with some of the facts uncovered in this thread and the "Lies, Damn Lies, and Startup PR" blog (sorry I forgot the gents name)? Keep in mind that what you add should be well sourced and fairly written.

It really bugs me that her or someone close to her is removing the stuff from her page that shows she's not exactly a super-genius... it makes me think others will be taken by her if they don't see the whole truth on her Wiki page.

Thanks!

Well your footer here on the EEVBlog says "I haven't paid taxes in six years, and I'm not getting busted by a damn sandwich." - Benjamin Franklin

Did Benjamin Franklin really say that? Give me a source to confirm it isn't a figment of your imagination and I'll cut you some slack that you're not just another Wikipedia vandal. Asking others on the internet to also make changes to support your views is not a good look for someone who wants to make credible claims to be making a better informed world.

At the moment I have no idea you are not someone with an axe to grind.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppercone2 on December 17, 2020, 05:17:03 am
its probably hired PR

could even be elizebeth holmes people that don't want the name mentioned, the trial is ongoing.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Nominal Animal on December 17, 2020, 05:25:38 am
Wikipedia user David Eppstein (claiming to be a computer science professor at UC Irvine) has now locked the Meredith Perry article to the "non-hateful" version.  Idiot.

I need some help... I've been updating Meredith's Wikipedia page to include some mention of the failure of Ubeam and how she's been compared to Elizabeth Holmes (by her own, one time PR person). I've included sources for my claims and I believe they're fair an accurate.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_Perry
At the moment I have no idea you are not someone with an axe to grind.
Oh, you are one of those people who believe "hate facts" should be suppressed, are you?  That because someone is portrayed as being for the benefit of humanity, their utter fraudulence should not be discussed and should definitely not be publicly described?  Go to hell.

Facts are facts, and no matter what l0rd_hex's personal opinion, his edits were backed by references to external sources per Wikipedia rules.
Now those are suppressed from that Wikipedia page, exactly because of people like you.  I hope you have the capability and sense to feel ashamed of yourself and your opinions.  And if you are or know David Eppstein, tell him he is an asshat for locking that page to the arse-licking version, too.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: wilfred on December 17, 2020, 08:47:24 am

Oh, you are one of those people who believe "hate facts" should be suppressed, are you?  That because someone is portrayed as being for the benefit of humanity, their utter fraudulence should not be discussed and should definitely not be publicly described?  Go to hell.

Facts are facts, and no matter what l0rd_hex's personal opinion, his edits were backed by references to external sources per Wikipedia rules.
Now those are suppressed from that Wikipedia page, exactly because of people like you.  I hope you have the capability and sense to feel ashamed of yourself and your opinions.  And if you are or know David Eppstein, tell him he is an asshat for locking that page to the arse-licking version, too.

No. I'm one of those people who want to be able to verify things. People could easily claim the US election was fraudulent based on a single persons opinions. You need to be able to check claims to ensure you're properly informed. I think Wikipedia articles should have stronger references than just a single persons blogpost or tweets. There are too many easily suggestible people in the world to allow Wikipedia to be derailed with weak attribution.

It is also my opinion that you weaken your argument with ad hominem attacks. And it is weak enough regardless.

Why don't you go and refresh your awareness of rule number 2. https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/forum-rules-please-read/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/forum-rules-please-read/)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Nominal Animal on December 17, 2020, 10:58:08 am
Most of the crappy things in this world are not because of evil masterminds, but because of those who enable exploiters and liars, and out of politeness avoid pointing them out.

I will call out anyone I catch in a lie, who exploits others for their own gain, who refuses to acknowledge an error, and anyone who lets things slide because they feel better when nasty things are out of mind, out of sight.  I have seen the damage that does, and I refuse to let it slide.

People like Meredith Perry are the ones who manage to divert resources in their millions to obviously inane projects like the uBeam, or solar roads.  They are exploiters, who not only divert resources from better uses, but also reduces the general opinion of science and engineering.  Because of Meredith Perry and her ilk, everyone who actually creates new projects and viable products, have to fight harder.

In Finland, this kind of lackadaisical attitude towards results has lead to only approximately one large IT project in three to actually complete.  It has become acceptable for almost two thirds of publicly funded projects to fail without producing any results, without repercussions to their leaders and purchasers, exactly because people do not want to be confrontational, and think that by being "reasonable", they are behaving in a more moral manner.  What they are actually doing, is leaving enough room for these exploiters and fakers to live large.

I hate that.  I will call out anyone that directly or indirectly, even unknowingly, supports that.  I will explain exactly why and how, and I will use offensive language.
You demanded "better sources" for Meredith Perry's wikipedia article.  Fact is, she has already shown she is a fraudster, and your attitude leaves other people, especially politicians and investors, to be defrauded and exploited by her.  That is why I use such harsh language with those I perceive as being enablers of exploiters: it is one of the rare things I absolutely hate.  I do not do it lightly.

If this gets me banned, so be it: I value truth and responsibility way more than I value anyones emotions.  If emotions get elevated above truth, I'll walk out myself.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on December 17, 2020, 03:20:29 pm
Thanks for that. I was on the verge of calling out Wilfred myself, but you've done a more thorough and patient job than I would have. It was quite clear from what had passed before that l0rd_hex had properly researched and sourced his Wikipedia edit. That edit appears to reflect facts quite accurately as far as one can tell, while the existing Wikipedia article, taken as a whole, clearly misrepresents Perry and reads like a "puff piece".

Thus Wilfred's implicit claim that it was unsourced was unjustified, and his rather strange attack on the poster's character based on the poster's post footer (which makes no claims to being a properly sourced factual quote, and from context one can assume is probably mean to be humorous and, as I believe is the case here, those often misquote for effect) I think counts as a deliberate ad hominem attack. Which tactic he them goes on to decry you for making despite the fact that you aren't, you're just balancing on that line between being direct and rude - which anyone who's paid any attention to you on here knows is your want.

Wilfred, if you think you're "fighting the good fight" here you aren't. Perry's machinations are well documented and having her own Wikipedia page lauding her achievements without also documenting a history of activities that border on, possibly are outright, fraud, and most definitely culminate in failure, is wrong. l0rd_hex's efforts to navigate the labyrinth that is Wikipedia's policies and editing practices to set that right should be applauded, not attacked. I'd have helped, but figuring out how to "get things" done on Wikipedia has defeated me in the past so I can only say that l0rd_hex is a better man than me in this regard.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: cgroen on December 17, 2020, 04:24:37 pm
Every time I see the uBeam thread pop up again I think "have they finally gone under?"

Wishful thinking...
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on December 17, 2020, 04:58:09 pm
Every time I see the uBeam thread pop up again I think "have they finally gone under?"

Wishful thinking...

The zombie life of uBeam has become an interesting phenomenon in itself. It's dead, we can all see that, it's got no product, no worthwhile property (intellectual or otherwise), no income, but it's still alive, for some value of alive. It's been, what, six years odd that it's been around (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) and still someone, somewhere, has kept on providing the funding to keep it alive.

Why is it still getting funding, why hasn't it died yet, and where can I find someone like that to fund any of my pet "blue sky" projects which are still more likely to at least produce a working product at the end of the day than uBeam because I'm starting from the premise that I can't fool the laws of physics?

Edit: 8 years, since 2012!!!!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jrs45 on December 19, 2020, 06:09:43 pm
Absolute insanity that anyone could characterize the legitimate criticism of a charlatan as "hate speech". And Wikipedia falls for it?

Maybe we should cite some of the hate speech of hers, such as that awful crack about "autist" engineers that dared question her (now debunked) claims.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 19, 2020, 06:15:38 pm
The zombie life of uBeam has become an interesting phenomenon in itself.
The zombie life of many companies are an interesting phenomenon. There are many companies that appeared to have died years ago, whose sad remains are actually still being dragged through legal proceedings, keeping the mortgages of lawyers and accountants paid.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 20, 2020, 12:01:43 pm
In Finland, this kind of lackadaisical attitude towards results has lead to only approximately one large IT project in three to actually complete.  It has become acceptable for almost two thirds of publicly funded projects to fail without producing any results, without repercussions to their leaders and purchasers, exactly because people do not want to be confrontational, and think that by being "reasonable", they are behaving in a more moral manner.  What they are actually doing, is leaving enough room for these exploiters and fakers to live large.

There are many people (even fellow creators) who think my debunking videos are at best an absolute waste of my time, and at worst, a personal attack on genuine entrepenerial people that causes nothing but negativity and hate in the community etc.  ::)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 20, 2020, 12:04:40 pm
Maybe we should cite some of the hate speech of hers, such as that awful crack about "autist" engineers that dared question her (now debunked) claims.

Choice quotes from that TED talk would be nice reference material for the Wiki, just say'n  ;D
I'd even say that a section entitled "Views on Engineering" would be a valuable contribution. It is after all one of the things she is very well known for in the community.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Nominal Animal on December 20, 2020, 02:53:30 pm
In Finland, this kind of lackadaisical attitude towards results has lead to only approximately one large IT project in three to actually complete.  It has become acceptable for almost two thirds of publicly funded projects to fail without producing any results, without repercussions to their leaders and purchasers, exactly because people do not want to be confrontational, and think that by being "reasonable", they are behaving in a more moral manner.  What they are actually doing, is leaving enough room for these exploiters and fakers to live large.

There are many people (even fellow creators) who think my debunking videos are at best an absolute waste of my time, and at worst, a personal attack on genuine entrepenerial people that causes nothing but negativity and hate in the community etc.  ::)

That makes me so angry...  >:(

It is not that I am a particularly vindictive guy (even if I am a prick sometimes) who loves to go after "evildoers"; it is that that "anti-negativity, anti-hate" attitude is what allows damage to accumulate and lying and stealing to become the accepted norm; and that harms everyone in the long term.  (I recognize I am overly sensitive to it, though, because of the damage it has caused to myself.)

I am quite jealous of how you can laugh at these scammers and schemes, though.  I can't; I get really angry.

If it matters any, I know for a fact that your videos are very useful and helpful.  You see, I've used them in practice to help people understand things.

First, I show them some of your videos dealing with e.g. solar energy, say your own solar installation showing your practical statistics.  (This is to get them to see that you are not a naysayer, and actually love solar energy – when sensibly generated and installed –, and are not "an opponent".)  Then I show the video list, explaining the sort of videos you do, so they know this is not an one-off thing, and that they can easily go and check out your other videos to make up their own mind, if they get suspicious later on.  Then, I show one of your debunking videos, which uses simple back-of-the-envelope calculations showing why the "buzzword tech du jour" is bullshit.

It works well, because the introduction to your videos makes it impossible to classify you as an opponent of the technology and ideas.  After watching your solar installation videos, for example, seeing how interested and positive you are about it, makes it difficult to dismiss you as an anti-solar power guy.

(In case anyone thinks I'm just asskissing here in the hopes of not getting banned, I'd like to point out that I've had serious disagreements with Dave and moderator-Simon before.  I may be a prick, but I try hard to be honest and useful.)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: madires on December 20, 2020, 04:29:41 pm
There are many people (even fellow creators) who think my debunking videos are at best an absolute waste of my time, and at worst, a personal attack on genuine entrepenerial people that causes nothing but negativity and hate in the community etc.  ::)

We're trying to teach our children critical thinking while some prefer to keep silent to prevent any negative feedback. But debating is part of the process. By keeping silent we would passively promote nonsense and betray ourselves.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jrs45 on December 20, 2020, 10:26:56 pm
Further, there are several mainstream articles about Paul Reynold's excellent debunking of ubeam:

https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/engineer-and-investor-in-spat-about-wireless-charging-startup-ubeam (https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/engineer-and-investor-in-spat-about-wireless-charging-startup-ubeam)

https://www.businessinsider.com/ubeam-former-engineers-doubt-it-can-work-2016-5 (https://www.businessinsider.com/ubeam-former-engineers-doubt-it-can-work-2016-5)

https://www.inc.com/kevin-j-ryan/apple-hired-engineers-from-mark-cuban-backed-startup-ubeam.html (https://www.inc.com/kevin-j-ryan/apple-hired-engineers-from-mark-cuban-backed-startup-ubeam.html)

The article is only semi-protected, so someone who has a legit account on wikipedia with enough edits can make the changes.  It should, of course, be done properly, and carefully, being sure to stick to the facts and wikipedia-approved news sources.
This makes his statements, and blog, 100% fair game for wikipedia.  Someone really should convince the person who locked it to unlock it to allow this kind of truthful, relevant information.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on December 20, 2020, 10:47:21 pm
In Finland, this kind of lackadaisical attitude towards results has lead to only approximately one large IT project in three to actually complete.  It has become acceptable for almost two thirds of publicly funded projects to fail without producing any results, without repercussions to their leaders and purchasers, exactly because people do not want to be confrontational, and think that by being "reasonable", they are behaving in a more moral manner.  What they are actually doing, is leaving enough room for these exploiters and fakers to live large.
There are many people (even fellow creators) who think my debunking videos are at best an absolute waste of my time, and at worst, a personal attack on genuine entrepenerial people that causes nothing but negativity and hate in the community etc.  ::)
I expect these are the same type of people who read an article which clearly describes research solving one modest link in a long chain of problems, and see this as all problems are solved and amazing new products are about to roll off the production line.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on December 20, 2020, 11:50:28 pm
Further, there are several mainstream articles about Paul Reynold's excellent debunking of ubeam:

https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/engineer-and-investor-in-spat-about-wireless-charging-startup-ubeam (https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/engineer-and-investor-in-spat-about-wireless-charging-startup-ubeam)

https://www.businessinsider.com/ubeam-former-engineers-doubt-it-can-work-2016-5 (https://www.businessinsider.com/ubeam-former-engineers-doubt-it-can-work-2016-5)

https://www.inc.com/kevin-j-ryan/apple-hired-engineers-from-mark-cuban-backed-startup-ubeam.html (https://www.inc.com/kevin-j-ryan/apple-hired-engineers-from-mark-cuban-backed-startup-ubeam.html)

They should all definitely go on the uBeam/SonicEnergy wiki page under the criticism section. Someone should fix that  ;D
When you have the former CTO of the tech company in question calling out the BS, that's as an authoritative source as it gets.
https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/ (https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jrs45 on January 09, 2021, 06:05:06 pm
Article is unlocked now, fwiw.  But stick to the clear, well referenced facts, if anyone decides to improve the article.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on May 04, 2021, 05:02:36 am
It's finally happened, it's an ex-uBeam

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2021/05/its-ex-ubeam.html

Just shy of its 10th birthday and with between $40 and $48 million of investment, it appears uBeam (recently Sonic Energy) has shuffled off its mortal coil. While some may claim it's simply pining for the fjords or merely stunned, a few weeks ago the last remaining employees were told they were terminated effective immediately and the doors were closed. Whether the company will actually be killed, or carry on in zombie form as an asset holding entity remains to be seen, but reportedly it will be OurCrowd, the crowdfunding group who were significant investors in the later rounds, that take possession.


Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 04, 2021, 09:54:47 am
Grab a bottle and watch in honor  :-DD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukgnU2aXM2c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukgnU2aXM2c)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: drussell on May 04, 2021, 10:39:20 am
Grab a bottle and watch in honor  :-DD

Yup, I'm pretty sure everyone here remembers that one...   ::)

What a farce!
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: MrMobodies on May 04, 2021, 12:26:35 pm
Another farce that seems to be happeing at the moment:

This line keeps on being removed and added:
Quote
"However the company she founded, uBeam, failed to develop its wireless charging technology because it was neither practical nor feasible based on Perry's ideas on ultrasonic wireless charging."


https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meredith_Perry

07/04/2021
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meredith_Perry&oldid=1016502090
27/04/2021
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meredith_Perry&oldid=1020156083

Line added back by 99.199.188.70:

14:12, 27 April 2021 removed by 209.118.130.10
00:54, 24 April 2021 removed by 2600:387:c:6d15::1 (99.199.188.70Many sources cite uBeam's failure to deliver on its wireless charging tech. Please stop reverting factual information.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.)
00:54, 24 April 2021 removed by 2600:387:C:6D15:0:0:0:1
14:36, 23 April 2021 removed by 2603:8000:AC42:1400:989F:6EFB:C2F:B32B
14:53, 21 April 2021 removed by 2600:387:C:6D11:0:0:0:3
14:31, 20 April 2021 removed by 2603:8000:AC42:1400:806A:2867:DCC3:29A
17:57, 17 April 2021 removed by 2603:8000:AC42:1400:A5E4:F3EF:F5EC:83EF
14:37, 16 April 2021 removed by 2600:387:C:6D11:0:0:0:3
13:33, 12 April 2021 removed by TigerLilly080283
13:42, 10 April 2021 removed by 2603:8000:ac42:1400:1d35:9328:35da:bdad
14:33, 7 April 2021   removed by 2603:8000:ac42:1400:5418:ed6d:522e:d088  (99.199.188.70 Stop framing the addition of factual information as hate speech.)

D-dawg
18:27, 29 March 2021 (The fair of uBeam is both factual and relevant to the discussion.).

Some excuses for removing the line:

14:13, 27 April 2021 Some Gadget Geek  (unsourced content to a biographical article)
20:48, 23 Apri   l 2021 2600:387:c:6d15::1   (Untrue information)
07:05, 30 March 2021 2603:8000:ac42:1400:5418:ed6d:522e:d088 (Removed hate speech. Stop vandalizing this page.
15:46, 25 March 2021 2603:8000:ac42:1400:4481:7098:cca3:817e  (Removed unnecessary sentence.))

I see a couple of "false information" editing on Sonic energy but at least the Criticism section is left:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SonicEnergy&action=history
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on May 04, 2021, 02:01:24 pm
Another farce that seems to be happeing at the moment:

This line keeps on being removed and added:
Quote
"However the company she founded, uBeam, failed to develop its wireless charging technology because it was neither practical nor feasible based on Perry's ideas on ultrasonic wireless charging."



Might be interesting to note Perry as uBeam co-founder not founder, since that is an indisputable fact (other co-founder was Nora Dweck), as saying it riled Perry and her family no end. For some reason I've got a gut feeling, but with no hard evidence, that some of these accounts vocally defending Perry are her brother (Ben Perry aka Penis Bailey). There are people out there with a real emotional investment in Perry being a victim rather than the architect of her own rise and fall - at one point someone even invented an MIT ultrasound researcher on social media to back her claims.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on May 04, 2021, 09:04:07 pm
And I think it's time to reveal who within uBeam had been passing me little bits of information as to company activities after I had left.

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2021/05/my-spy-in-ubeam.html
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on May 04, 2021, 09:49:54 pm
And I think it's time to reveal who within uBeam had been passing me little bits of information as to company activities after I had left.

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2021/05/my-spy-in-ubeam.html

Just read that.

:-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: AlanS on May 04, 2021, 10:07:46 pm
Just too rich........... :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on May 05, 2021, 02:08:27 am
And I think it's time to reveal who within uBeam had been passing me little bits of information as to company activities after I had left.

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2021/05/my-spy-in-ubeam.html

Perry shouldn't be allowed to operate a lemonade stand.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: MrMobodies on May 05, 2021, 03:13:20 am
Looks like she already brainwashed 3 people changing their brain states through her novel neuromodulation techniques, I wonder what that'd be, her voice maybe?

https://www.linkedin.com/company/elemind/people/ (https://www.linkedin.com/company/elemind/people/)
(https://i.imgur.com/t82MFC4.jpg)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on May 31, 2021, 09:17:59 am
Somebody figured out a practical use for power over ultrasonic:

https://www.engineering.columbia.edu/press-releases/shepard-injectable-chips-monitor-body-processes (https://www.engineering.columbia.edu/press-releases/shepard-injectable-chips-monitor-body-processes)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jancumps on May 31, 2021, 09:23:23 am
Somebody figured out a practical use for power over ultrasonic:

https://www.engineering.columbia.edu/press-releases/shepard-injectable-chips-monitor-body-processes (https://www.engineering.columbia.edu/press-releases/shepard-injectable-chips-monitor-body-processes)

From the article:
Quote
They fabricated the "antenna" for communicating and powering with ultrasound directly on top of the chip.
They solved the direction (directly above a know location) and distance (almost touch) problem. That with the low power requirements may be a realistic application.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on October 17, 2021, 10:07:36 pm
Interesting tweet from a former uBeam employee:

https://twitter.com/alexwhittemore/status/1441824887367032837

"The biggest annoyance at uBeam was if the demo units were running when you took a call. The other side was always like "what the HELL is going on over there?" "Oh yeah sorry I'll go in the other room." The ultrasound down-mixes in the MEMS mic."

This is interesting as I've not heard similar issues from other groups operating in this frequency range, or heard it myself. If true, I wonder if that was disclosed to investors or customers? Seems pretty important for general use and especially public spaces.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on October 17, 2021, 10:38:34 pm
For those of you who remember the IEEE Spectrum article on uBeam - Lee Gomes, the author, recently passed away. I'd gotten to know Lee and he was a great guy and journalist, sad to see him gone.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/experts-still-think-ubeamrsquos-throughtheair-charging-tech-is-unlik (https://spectrum.ieee.org/experts-still-think-ubeamrsquos-throughtheair-charging-tech-is-unlik)

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/sfgate/name/lee-gomes-obituary?id=23371687 (https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/sfgate/name/lee-gomes-obituary?id=23371687)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: langwadt on October 17, 2021, 10:50:52 pm
Interesting tweet from a former uBeam employee:

https://twitter.com/alexwhittemore/status/1441824887367032837

"The biggest annoyance at uBeam was if the demo units were running when you took a call. The other side was always like "what the HELL is going on over there?" "Oh yeah sorry I'll go in the other room." The ultrasound down-mixes in the MEMS mic."

This is interesting as I've not heard similar issues from other groups operating in this frequency range, or heard it myself. If true, I wonder if that was disclosed to investors or customers? Seems pretty important for general use and especially public spaces.


disclose something bad? lol
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PaulReynolds on October 17, 2021, 10:57:11 pm

disclose something bad? lol

I should have put that in sarcasm quotes
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on October 18, 2021, 08:24:45 am
Interesting tweet from a former uBeam employee:

https://twitter.com/alexwhittemore/status/1441824887367032837 (https://twitter.com/alexwhittemore/status/1441824887367032837)

"The biggest annoyance at uBeam was if the demo units were running when you took a call. The other side was always like "what the HELL is going on over there?" "Oh yeah sorry I'll go in the other room." The ultrasound down-mixes in the MEMS mic."

This is interesting as I've not heard similar issues from other groups operating in this frequency range, or heard it myself. If true, I wonder if that was disclosed to investors or customers? Seems pretty important for general use and especially public spaces.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=1300850;image

Downmixing into the very thing it was designed to power! :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jrs45 on January 22, 2022, 06:14:04 pm
So I randomly took a look at the website today, and it's gone, parked by godaddy.

Is this officially the end?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: MrMobodies on January 23, 2022, 09:36:41 pm
It looks like they haven't renewed that one yet:

https://whois.domaintools.com/sonicenergy.com
Quote
6,597 days old
Created on 2004-01-01
Expires on 2022-01-01
Updated on 2021-01-02

Registered more than year before than their Ubeam domain:

https://whois.domaintools.com/ubeam.com
Quote
5,953 days old
Created on 2005-10-06
Expires on 2022-03-23
Updated on 2021-03-24

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: coppice on January 23, 2022, 10:11:03 pm
So I randomly took a look at the website today, and it's gone, parked by godaddy.

Is this officially the end?
Zombie companies rarely die completely. I stumbled across http://www.sco.com (http://www.sco.com) still resolving a few days ago
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 23, 2022, 10:27:33 pm
So I randomly took a look at the website today, and it's gone, parked by godaddy.
Is this officially the end?

 :-DD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYZG1gKr9CQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYZG1gKr9CQ)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: SiliconWizard on January 23, 2022, 11:01:35 pm
=)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: MrMobodies on January 23, 2022, 11:24:33 pm
Your last video about Ubeam when you said "By Meredith" it reminded me of this:

I could only find the clip on Youtube 5:16 in the video:

https://youtu.be/PlPPjUhZ7AM?t=316 (https://youtu.be/PlPPjUhZ7AM?t=316)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlPPjUhZ7AM&t=316s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlPPjUhZ7AM&t=316s)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: ivaylo on January 25, 2022, 04:57:40 am
Someone should buy the domain name and point it to a few pages describing the history of that ill fated enterprise, there are good lessons here…
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Kean on January 26, 2022, 01:19:48 pm
Someone should buy the domain name and point it to a few pages describing the history of that ill fated enterprise, there are good lessons here…

Current bid appears to be $14   :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jrs45 on January 26, 2022, 07:22:45 pm
I'll bid $15!

I wonder when the liquidation sale will be!  I'd enjoy some new test gear subsidized by foolish VC's.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Howardlong on January 26, 2022, 08:56:25 pm
I'll bid $15!

I wonder when the liquidation sale will be!  I'd enjoy some new test gear subsidized by foolish VC's.

Indeed, it’s worth it as a tribute, lessons learned on how well-meaning rich people can be manipulated into p!ssing away theirs and other people’s money on snake oil?

Maybe with links the this thread and Paul Reynolds’ blog.

Like Theranos and their front person Elizabeth Holmes.

I wonder, am I missing something really obvious about certain people and their, ahem, attractiveness to investors?

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 27, 2022, 12:23:18 am
I'll bid $15!

I wonder when the liquidation sale will be!  I'd enjoy some new test gear subsidized by foolish VC's.
Indeed, it’s worth it as a tribute, lessons learned on how well-meaning rich people can be manipulated into p!ssing away theirs and other people’s money on snake oil?
Maybe with links the this thread and Paul Reynolds’ blog.
Like Theranos and their front person Elizabeth Holmes.
I wonder, am I missing something really obvious about certain people and their, ahem, attractiveness to investors?

I can neither confirm nor deny that I bid  ;D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: SiliconWizard on January 27, 2022, 01:28:44 am
I'll bid $15!

I wonder when the liquidation sale will be!  I'd enjoy some new test gear subsidized by foolish VC's.

Indeed, it’s worth it as a tribute, lessons learned on how well-meaning rich people can be manipulated into p!ssing away theirs and other people’s money on snake oil?

Problem is, nobody really cares, except us engineers (well, the ones that haven't worked on such projects at least, the others having gotten some good money from it.)
Well-meaning rich people? :-DD
You think they even really care if the project fails? If it turns out great, then it's all good and they'll get money from it. If it fails (which happens quite often, so since they are probably not *that* stupid, they already know most of those startups do fail), then well - it's often invested money that they can get tax cuts from, so it's either investing it in funky projects, or giving it as tax money. Guess which is more fun... =)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: MrMobodies on January 27, 2022, 05:34:23 am
I see their Sonicenergy domain is up for sale for $3500 on Afternic,

https://checkout.afternic.com/BDAddToCartFromProdId.do?&prodId=3398517&traffic_id=3805
(https://i.imgur.com/6wN5BWi.jpg)


Looks like that domain was owned by some venture firm who has their own register.
https://whois.domaintools.com/sonicenergy.com
Quote
Registrant Org   Alpha-Venture Inc.

Dates   6,600 days old
Created on 2004-01-01
Expires on 2022-01-01
Updated on 2021-01-02

Last time that was captured working was December the 28th:
https://web.archive.org/web/20211228113052/https://sonicenergy.com/
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 27, 2022, 06:54:53 am
I see their Sonicenergy domain is up for sale for $3500 on Afternic,

GoDaddy say that it was last sold for $3500. Presumably that's whay uBeam paid for it when they changed their name?
Someone has just set up an autobid on GoDaddy.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: jrs45 on January 27, 2022, 02:03:07 pm

Like Theranos and their front person Elizabeth Holmes.

I wonder, am I missing something really obvious about certain people and their, ahem, attractiveness to investors?

I suspect that there is a lot of motivation from the press to highlight the "achievements" of female scientists and entrepreneurs, especially those that are easy on the eyes.  It sells more articles, gets more eyeballs, and supports the current cultural emphasis on achievement by the historically "repressed", and all the wokeness that is so fashionable these days.

This glowing, uncritical press coverage brings them attention from more investors and credibility, making it much easier for them to raise money, and encouraging them to continue with their nonsense.  Rather than, you know, actually building something that works.

Of course, in these cases it completely backfired, because both Holmes and Perry were frauds.  Hardly good examples of female scientists/entrepreneurs.  A real shame, because those who actually deserve recognition are being overlooked in favor of charlatans.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 27, 2022, 08:53:19 pm

Like Theranos and their front person Elizabeth Holmes.

I wonder, am I missing something really obvious about certain people and their, ahem, attractiveness to investors?

I suspect that there is a lot of motivation from the press to highlight the "achievements" of female scientists and entrepreneurs, especially those that are easy on the eyes.  It sells more articles, gets more eyeballs, and supports the current cultural emphasis on achievement by the historically "repressed", and all the wokeness that is so fashionable these days.

This glowing, uncritical press coverage brings them attention from more investors and credibility, making it much easier for them to raise money, and encouraging them to continue with their nonsense.  Rather than, you know, actually building something that works.

Of course, in these cases it completely backfired, because both Holmes and Perry were frauds.  Hardly good examples of female scientists/entrepreneurs.  A real shame, because those who actually deserve recognition are being overlooked in favor of charlatans.

Nothing new here. And it's not just females, it works both ways.
An attractive college dropout male with a backstory and a "look" gets the media attention over the genious Jabba the hut ugly triple PhD guy any day of the week.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: langwadt on January 28, 2022, 01:04:15 am

Like Theranos and their front person Elizabeth Holmes.

I wonder, am I missing something really obvious about certain people and their, ahem, attractiveness to investors?

I suspect that there is a lot of motivation from the press to highlight the "achievements" of female scientists and entrepreneurs, especially those that are easy on the eyes.  It sells more articles, gets more eyeballs, and supports the current cultural emphasis on achievement by the historically "repressed", and all the wokeness that is so fashionable these days.

This glowing, uncritical press coverage brings them attention from more investors and credibility, making it much easier for them to raise money, and encouraging them to continue with their nonsense.  Rather than, you know, actually building something that works.

Of course, in these cases it completely backfired, because both Holmes and Perry were frauds.  Hardly good examples of female scientists/entrepreneurs.  A real shame, because those who actually deserve recognition are being overlooked in favor of charlatans.

Nothing new here. And it's not just females, it works both ways.
An attractive college dropout male with a backstory and a "look" gets the media attention over the genious Jabba the hut ugly triple PhD guy any day of the week.

I think with females it is slightly different in they get to say they are oppressed because they are female while at the same time the reason they get attention is because they are female
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Buriedcode on January 28, 2022, 09:29:10 pm
I hate to point this out, but what wrong with using the word "Woman" or Women.  Describing people as "males" and "females" is creepy and non species specific, we're not narrating a nature show.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Nominal Animal on January 28, 2022, 10:40:50 pm
I hate to point this out, but what wrong with using the word "Woman" or Women.  Describing people as "males" and "females" is creepy and non species specific, we're not narrating a nature show.
We most definitely are narrating a nature show.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Kean on January 30, 2022, 01:11:59 am
Woah, the current bid on GoDaddy for sonicenergy.com was sitting at $101 yesterday, and today it is $4,010!

I wasn't sure if that was USD or AUD, as I get directed to the au.godaddy.com site but no currency is shown on that page and it didn't matter much when it was sitting at $14.  When clicking through on "Place Bid" it says $2,550 USD which is roughly $3,646 AUD, or $4,010 AUD when adding 10% GST.

Bid history shows 9 bidders and 19 bids as of right now, with the first low ball bid on 26th Jan, and significant activity yesterday.  Bidder 5 has an automatic bid placed on 27th Jan which is winning so far.

https://godaddy.com/domain-auctions/sonicenergy-com-408187121

No idea why I care  :-DD
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: SiliconWizard on January 30, 2022, 01:55:24 am
If we could find a way of harvesting energy from stupidity, we would definitely own the world!
Thinking of a good domain name, "idionergy.com" appears to be currently available! ;D
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on January 30, 2022, 08:36:24 am
Woah, the current bid on GoDaddy for sonicenergy.com was sitting at $101 yesterday, and today it is $4,010!

I wasn't sure if that was USD or AUD, as I get directed to the au.godaddy.com site but no currency is shown on that page and it didn't matter much when it was sitting at $14.  When clicking through on "Place Bid" it says $2,550 USD which is roughly $3,646 AUD, or $4,010 AUD when adding 10% GST.

Bid history shows 9 bidders and 19 bids as of right now, with the first low ball bid on 26th Jan, and significant activity yesterday.  Bidder 5 has an automatic bid placed on 27th Jan which is winning so far.

https://godaddy.com/domain-auctions/sonicenergy-com-408187121

No idea why I care  :-DD

I was out once it hit triple digits.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: The_Next_Theranos on February 09, 2022, 02:04:55 pm
Interesting article about two famous female grifters (Elizabeth Holmes and Anna Sorokin) here: https://www.independent.ie/life/faking-it-until-they-make-it-the-rise-of-the-female-fraudster-41236886.html (https://www.independent.ie/life/faking-it-until-they-make-it-the-rise-of-the-female-fraudster-41236886.html) . A lot of what is written seems to apply to uBeam as well. The grifters in that article had TV shows and/or movies made about them. Maybe there's also enough material to make a uBeam movie?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 10, 2022, 03:52:07 am
Maybe there's also enough material to make a uBeam movie?

From what I've heard, it would be a B grade movie that goes straight to PrimeVideo.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: rdl on February 10, 2022, 09:46:15 am
Howabout a Hulu series?

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2022/02/amanda-seyfried-makes-a-winsome-elizabeth-holmes-in-the-dropout-trailer/
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: The_Next_Theranos on February 10, 2022, 02:04:12 pm
Looks like Meredith is hiring again. Any takers? Expensive developers need not apply.

https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/1482128540397043713
Quote
Looking for an inexpensive, fast moving contract software dev team to help with server side & app development for a wearable device.

DM me your recs plz. USA based dev teams are probably too much $$$.

It seems she's working on some medical device now.
https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/1470856350540333059
Quote
Do you have essential tremor and live in the Boston area? 

DM me or email research@elemindtech.com if you’re interested in participating in paid research.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: madires on February 10, 2022, 02:51:44 pm
Medical devices require a lot of paperwork, approvals and money. I don't know the regulations of medical devices in the US, but I'd be surprised if beta testing doesn't also require an approval and medical assistance during the tests.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Gregg on February 10, 2022, 07:14:29 pm
Quote
“Do you have essential tremor”

WTF is an essential tremor?

Would anyone with half a brain really want to reply to this and allow Meredith to experiment on them?  How is a tremor essential?  So many questions unanswered.

Maybe she is looking for people with adverse reactions (tremors) from her failed uBeam…
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Cerebus on February 10, 2022, 08:11:55 pm
You might want to try using Google before being so dismissive of "an (sic) essential tremor". Essential tremor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_tremor) is a neurological medical condition that ranges from "inconvenient" to "has life changing consequences" in the worst case. I wouldn't want li'l old Meredith anywhere near it, or any other medical condition, but her involvement is hardly an excuse for you to parade your ignorance (and inability to use Google) of a real medical condition that makes some people's lives miserable.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: langwadt on February 11, 2022, 01:30:47 am
Medical devices require a lot of paperwork, approvals and money. I don't know the regulations of medical devices in the US, but I'd be surprised if beta testing doesn't also require an approval and medical assistance during the tests.

there's a reason why so many Nobel laureates in medicine did experiments on themselves, it doesn't require going through the process of getting medical and ethical approval to do experiments on people
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 11, 2022, 07:39:55 am
there's a reason why so many Nobel laureates in medicine did experiments on themselves, it doesn't require going through the process of getting medical and ethical approval to do experiments on people

Mate of mine did it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPLA69a5OOU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPLA69a5OOU)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: JimRemington on February 15, 2022, 07:30:53 pm
Wonder what happened to UBeam, most recently "Sonicenergy".
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on February 15, 2022, 10:59:04 pm
Wonder what happened to UBeam, most recently "Sonicenergy".

Someone still owns ubeam I guess as it redirects to sonicenergy
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on April 25, 2022, 11:01:31 am
https://technewsinsight.com/new-technology-enables-wireless-charging-of-implanted-devices/

https://technewsinsight.com/new-technology-enables-wireless-charging-of-implanted-devices/ (https://technewsinsight.com/new-technology-enables-wireless-charging-of-implanted-devices/)

The undead
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: MrMobodies on April 25, 2022, 06:33:19 pm
Quote
"But how does the new charging technology actually work? As with any other technology, there is a transmitter (the charger) and a receiver (such as a pacemaker)"

Looks to me like a poor quality article/very vague (hardly any detail) with a stock looking photo.

I did look and it looks like it is real from an article I found from a reverse image lookup with the "stock looking photo" and see attached screenshot (translated)
https://www.kist.re.kr/kist_web/?sub_num=4080&state=view&idx=4492 (https://www.kist.re.kr/kist_web/?sub_num=4080&state=view&idx=4492)
Quote
Latest research results
State-of-the-art research institute
Electronic devices in the human body and in the sea that are charged with ultrasonic waves

Registration Date: 2022-03-22

Dr. Hyun-cheol Song's team at the Electronic Materials Research Center

Views: 881

File Attachment: 220323 [KIST Press Release] Electronic devices in the human body and under the sea that are charged with ultrasound_KIST Senior Researcher Hyun-cheol Song.hwp 

- Using friction power generation, ultrasonic wireless energy transmission efficiency↑
- Expected to be used for wireless charging of batteries in underwater or human implantable electronic devices

The number of patients using implantable electronic devices such as artificial pacemakers and defibrillators is increasing worldwide due to advances in medical technology and an aging population . Currently, incisional surgery is required to replace the battery of implantable electronic devices, and complications may occur during this process . Accordingly, the need for a technology that wirelessly transmits power to the inside of the human body to charge the battery is emerging . Wireless power transfer technology is also required for devices that need to charge batteries in an underwater environment, such as sensors that diagnose the condition of submarine cables .

The Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST, President Seokjin Yoon ) announced that the research team led by Dr. Hyuncheol Song of the Electronic Materials Research Center has developed an ultrasonic wireless power transmission technology that can solve this problem .

Representative wireless power transmission technologies include electromagnetic induction and magnetic resonance . Electromagnetic induction is a technology already used in smartphones and wireless earphones, but it does not pass through conductors such as water or metal, and the charging distance is very short . In addition, there is a disadvantage that can harm the body due to heat problem during charging . In the magnetic resonance method, the resonant frequencies of the magnetic field generating device and the transmitting device must exactly match, so there is a risk of interference with wireless communication frequencies such as Wi-Fi or Bluetooth .

Instead of electromagnetic waves or magnetic fields, the researchers employed ultrasonic waves as an energy transmission medium . Sonar equipment using ultrasound is already common in the sea, and the stability of the human body has been guaranteed to the extent that ultrasound is commonly used in the medical world to diagnose organ or fetal conditions . However, the conventional energy transfer technology using ultrasound has low energy efficiency, making it difficult to commercialize .

The research team has developed a device that receives ultrasonic waves and converts them into electrical energy using the triboelectric power principle that can convert very small mechanical vibrations into electrical energy . By adding a ferroelectric material to the triboelectric generator, the research team greatly increased the conventional ultrasonic energy transmission efficiency of less than 1 % to more than 4% . Through this , it succeeded in charging more than 8mW of power at a distance of 6cm , which is enough to transmit data by turning on 200 LEDs at the same time or by operating a Bluetooth sensor under water . In addition, the device developed by the research team produced almost no heat due to its high energy conversion efficiency .

Dr. Song Hyeon-cheol said, “ In this study, it was shown that electronic devices can be driven by wireless power charging through ultrasound, so if the stability and efficiency of the device are further improved in the future, power will be wirelessly supplied to implantable sensors or deep-sea sensors, which are cumbersome to replace batteries. It is expected to be applied to technology that

The results of this research were carried out by the Ministry of Science and ICT ( Minister Hye -sook Lim ) , the Creative Convergence Research Project of the National Research Council for Science and Technology , the New R&D Project of the National Research Foundation, and the Energy Technology Development Project of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy ( Minister Seung - wook Moon ) . The results were published in the latest issue of 'Energy & Environmental Science' (IF: 38.5, top 0.182% in JCR) , an international academic journal in the field of energy .
 
* ( Title ) Ferroelectrically augmented contact electrification enables efficient acoustic energy transfer through liquid and solid media

- ( Co- first author ) Hyunsoo Kim Student Researcher, Korea Institute of Science and Technology

- ( Co- first author ) Korea Research Institute of Science and Technology Heo Seong-Hoon Commissioned Researcher

- ( Co-corresponding author )  Professor Jong-Hoon Jeong, Inha University

- ( Co-corresponding author )  Hyun- Chul Song Senior Researcher, Korea Institute of Science and Technology

 
Figure 1. Conceptual diagram of driving an unmanned submersible or a sensor by transmitting ultrasonic waves in the sea to generate electric power wirelessly
-
Figure 2. Conceptual diagram of the idea of ​​wirelessly charging electric power for driving electronic devices implanted in the body using an ultrasonic probe
-

(https://i.imgur.com/nUmdPbG.png)
Figure 3. Photo of wireless energy transfer through pig skin and flesh on behalf of the human body

(https://i.imgur.com/DhR0cmL.png)
Figure 4. A photo of 200 LED lights lit by wirelessly transmitting energy from underwater to ultrasonic waves and real-time driving of wireless sensors

(https://i.imgur.com/MNfuUWy.jpg)
Figure 5.  The research team led by Dr. Hyun-cheol Song ( Principal Researcher ) at the KIST Electronic Materials Research Center has developed an electronic device system that uses ultrasonic waves to transmit wireless energy in water and in the human body . ( From left ) Electronic Materials Research Center Hyunsoo Kim, Student Researcher , Dr. Hyuncheol Song ( Principal Researcher ), Dr. Seonghoon Huh ( Commissioned Researcher )[/img]

(https://i.imgur.com/1G7lRMr.jpg)
Figure 6. The first author of the study, Dr. Heo Seong-hoon ( left ) and student researcher Kim Hyeon-soo ( right ) of the KIST Electronic Materials Research Center , installed an electronic device in water to receive ultrasonic waves and convert them into electrical energy to turn on LED lights. I'm experimenting with clarification

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: helius on May 02, 2022, 04:21:02 pm
Looking forward to a riveting study by the South Korean Ministry of Science on the phenomenon of fan death.

Sorry, that was perhaps too snarky. But this is still very silly.

Quote
In addition, the device developed by the research team produced almost no heat due to its high energy conversion efficiency .
I'm sure that's of great comfort when your cells are being disrupted by a sonic horn of the type shown in the pictures. It's trivial to calculate the ultrasound dose required for the reported 4% energy transmission for a typical implanted device, but note that no such calculation is reported in the press release.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: sdpkom on May 31, 2023, 11:36:56 am
https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/1655447513141477376
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PlainName on May 31, 2023, 12:45:44 pm
She says they won't make a claim without the data to back it up. Doesn't say they'll make that data public or free.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: tom66 on May 31, 2023, 09:31:07 pm
How can she rally against pseudoscience when her whole uBeam business was based on pseudoscience?
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on May 31, 2023, 10:03:31 pm
Could someone please copy the tweet here for those of us who are blocked from seeing her tweets....
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PlainName on May 31, 2023, 10:22:12 pm
Could someone please copy the tweet here for those of us who are blocked from seeing her tweets....

Quote from: meredithperry
One thing I can promise is you is that @elemindtech
 won’t ever make a claim without having the data to back it up.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 01, 2023, 01:11:06 am
Could someone please copy the tweet here for those of us who are blocked from seeing her tweets....

I'm blocked too  ;D

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/the-ubeam-faq/?action=dlattach;attach=1795145;image)

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 01, 2023, 01:43:12 am
Full context:
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 01, 2023, 01:53:56 am
I have no idea how Elemind works, but it certainly reminds of me of the Hapbee:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y-lairMWfM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y-lairMWfM)
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: Ranayna on June 01, 2023, 07:54:09 am
How can she rally against pseudoscience when her whole uBeam business was based on pseudoscience?
Was uBeam really based on pseudoscience? I personally do not think so.
All was possible in theory, but just not in any kind of safe, reliable and useful real world scenario.

As stated early in this thread a couple of times: uBeam does not break the laws of physics. It is just not practical.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: EEVblog on June 01, 2023, 10:43:48 am
How can she rally against pseudoscience when her whole uBeam business was based on pseudoscience?
Was uBeam really based on pseudoscience? I personally do not think so.
All was possible in theory, but just not in any kind of safe, reliable and useful real world scenario.

As stated early in this thread a couple of times: uBeam does not break the laws of physics. It is just not practical.

At some point you could argue it does become pseudoscience.
i.e. when the acoustics experts at uBeam tried to convince her it wasn't practical for the intended application and they should pivot (I know this happened), but she pushed on regardless. That's not following science any more, it's just blind belief and disregarding the engineering.

Quote
pseudoscience noun
a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.


Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.

I hereby dub it pseudoengineering:
https://twitter.com/eevblog/status/1664222242111385600
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: tom66 on June 01, 2023, 11:04:59 am
How can she rally against pseudoscience when her whole uBeam business was based on pseudoscience?
Was uBeam really based on pseudoscience? I personally do not think so.
All was possible in theory, but just not in any kind of safe, reliable and useful real world scenario.

As stated early in this thread a couple of times: uBeam does not break the laws of physics. It is just not practical.

Yes, it was pseudoscience, because they made claims along the lines of focused ultrasonic beams at very high frequencies being safe for consumer use.  uBeam were proposing SPL's of up to 155dB, which exceeds OSHA limits.  Despite widespread evidence in the medical device industry that high power ultrasonic devices are dangerous Meredith and her executive team pushed on.  Such high power ultrasonic devices are often considered regulated devices, intended to do things like destroy tumours.   Ignoring this evidence and handwaving that it was safe is pretty close to what pseudoscientific promoters of things like essential oils do.

Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: tszaboo on June 01, 2023, 12:37:58 pm
How can she rally against pseudoscience when her whole uBeam business was based on pseudoscience?
Was uBeam really based on pseudoscience? I personally do not think so.
All was possible in theory, but just not in any kind of safe, reliable and useful real world scenario.

As stated early in this thread a couple of times: uBeam does not break the laws of physics. It is just not practical.

At some point you could argue it does become pseudoscience.
i.e. when the acoustics experts at uBeam tried to convince her it wasn't practical for the intended application and they should pivot (I know this happened), but she pushed on regardless. That's not following science any more, it's just blind belief and disregarding the engineering.

Quote
pseudoscience noun
a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.


Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.

I hereby dub it pseudoengineering:
https://twitter.com/eevblog/status/1664222242111385600
I kind of like your definition. I think the root of the problem is the way engineering works. There are clear guidelines on the scientific method, that has been established for more than two century. The same is not true for engineering. There isn't an engineering method, where it would be clearly defined on how to approach a new idea. At least there are 3 different methods that I have been using at different companies. A waterfall project will work differently than a V model. An agile dev process will lead to pointless things like ubeam and running in circles producing nothing. If you don't investigate at the beginning of a project if it is even feasible or practical, then you end up with this. Sunken cost fallacy could drive it forever.
Also the decision makers are often not engineers. Decibel is meaningless. Plus there are people with the ego size of a truck that will not take no for an answer.
Title: Re: The uBeam FAQ
Post by: PlainName on June 01, 2023, 07:06:56 pm
I hereby dub it pseudoengineering:
https://twitter.com/eevblog/status/1664222242111385600

You're a bit late, I'm afraid (like, 9 years):

Pseudoengineering: Why Solar Roadways are a Dead End (https://blog.solargardens.org/2014/05/why-solar-roadways-are-dead-end.html)