Author Topic: The uBeam FAQ  (Read 273328 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline PaulReynolds

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 77
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1150 on: November 24, 2017, 08:07:37 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.

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 - 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

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.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2017, 08:43:28 am by PaulReynolds »
 
The following users thanked this post: sdpkom

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26165
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1151 on: November 24, 2017, 09:13:01 am »
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.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26165
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1152 on: November 25, 2017, 04:36:08 pm »
This is deeply disturbing.
From their due-diligence pack for investors.
They claim FCC/FDA approval and ZERO safety risk!

« Last Edit: November 25, 2017, 04:37:45 pm by EEVblog »
 

Offline djos

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 820
  • Country: au
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1153 on: November 25, 2017, 05:32:06 pm »
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/
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.
 

Offline amspire

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3633
  • Country: au
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1154 on: November 25, 2017, 05:56:15 pm »
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"?
 

Offline StillTrying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1297
  • Country: gb
  • 100% Brand New and High Quality, in theory.
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1155 on: November 26, 2017, 12:38:42 pm »
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.

Offline PaulReynolds

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 77
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1156 on: November 29, 2017, 04:00:43 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.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2017, 05:11:08 am by PaulReynolds »
 

Offline StillTrying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1297
  • Country: gb
  • 100% Brand New and High Quality, in theory.
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1157 on: November 29, 2017, 08:43:48 am »
Yep, the investor video has been taken down. Perhaps they have enough investors now, hiding the evidence, or they've shut up shop. :horse:

Offline sdpkom

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 9
  • Country: de
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1158 on: November 29, 2017, 10:30:43 pm »
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.
 

Offline StillTrying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1297
  • Country: gb
  • 100% Brand New and High Quality, in theory.
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1159 on: December 08, 2017, 06:38:29 am »
« Last Edit: December 09, 2017, 05:45:03 am by StillTrying »
 

Offline Dubbie

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1160 on: December 08, 2017, 10:24:06 am »
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/

Looks like they have another few million to squander.
 

Offline l0rd_hex

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 53
  • Country: ca
  • I'm a master of karate and friendship for everyone
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1161 on: December 14, 2017, 08:59:56 am »
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 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
"I haven't paid taxes in six years, and I'm not getting busted by a damn sandwich." - Benjamin Franklin
 

Offline StillTrying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1297
  • Country: gb
  • 100% Brand New and High Quality, in theory.
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1162 on: December 27, 2017, 11:55:13 am »

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26165
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1163 on: December 27, 2017, 01:21:14 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.

It's gone.
Probably no shortage of copies available for journalistic purposes.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26165
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1164 on: December 27, 2017, 01:30:27 pm »
 

Offline StillTrying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1297
  • Country: gb
  • 100% Brand New and High Quality, in theory.
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1165 on: December 28, 2017, 12:03:13 pm »

Offline mikeselectricstuff

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11077
  • Country: gb
    • Mike's Electric Stuff
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1166 on: December 28, 2017, 07:53:11 pm »
Youtube channel:Taking wierd stuff apart. Very apart.
Mike's Electric Stuff: High voltage, vintage electronics etc.
Day Job: Mostly LEDs
 

Offline Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4271
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1167 on: December 29, 2017, 06:19:16 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/
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

Can anyone point me to the docket in the FCC database where this has been formally approved? I can’t seem to find it.

 


Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8095
  • Country: 00
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1169 on: December 29, 2017, 07:33:36 am »
Batteriser also has FCC approval. Just sayin'.  :popcorn:
 

Offline mikeselectricstuff

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11077
  • Country: gb
    • Mike's Electric Stuff
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1170 on: December 29, 2017, 08:50:51 am »
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
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

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
« Last Edit: December 29, 2017, 08:56:49 am by mikeselectricstuff »
Youtube channel:Taking wierd stuff apart. Very apart.
Mike's Electric Stuff: High voltage, vintage electronics etc.
Day Job: Mostly LEDs
 

Offline mikeselectricstuff

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11077
  • Country: gb
    • Mike's Electric Stuff
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1171 on: December 29, 2017, 09:09:12 am »
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
Youtube channel:Taking wierd stuff apart. Very apart.
Mike's Electric Stuff: High voltage, vintage electronics etc.
Day Job: Mostly LEDs
 

Offline Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4271
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1172 on: December 29, 2017, 09:31:39 am »
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.
 

Offline PaulReynolds

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 77
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1173 on: December 31, 2017, 12:22:48 pm »
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
« Last Edit: December 31, 2017, 12:40:35 pm by PaulReynolds »
 
The following users thanked this post: Kean

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26165
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1174 on: December 31, 2017, 05:02:17 pm »
 :-DD

I'd reply, but I'm blocked  ;D

 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf