Low Cost PCB's Low Cost Components

Author Topic: The uBeam FAQ  (Read 206482 times)

PaulReynolds and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24365
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #300 on: March 06, 2016, 08:18:45 PM »
I haven't watched it, don't know what's in it, but here are the two amigo's:

 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24365
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #301 on: March 06, 2016, 08:27:00 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2016, 08:29:33 PM by EEVblog »
 

Online mikeselectricstuff

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9978
  • Country: gb
    • Mike's Electric Stuff
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #302 on: March 06, 2016, 08:56:00 PM »
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  ::)


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
 
Youtube channel:Taking wierd stuff apart. Very apart.
Mike's Electric Stuff: High voltage, vintage electronics etc.
Day Job: Mostly LEDs
 

Online mikeselectricstuff

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9978
  • Country: gb
    • Mike's Electric Stuff
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #303 on: March 06, 2016, 09:03:45 PM »
"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"
« Last Edit: March 06, 2016, 09:10:18 PM by mikeselectricstuff »
Youtube channel:Taking wierd stuff apart. Very apart.
Mike's Electric Stuff: High voltage, vintage electronics etc.
Day Job: Mostly LEDs
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24365
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #304 on: March 07, 2016, 12:05:21 AM »
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.
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24365
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #305 on: March 07, 2016, 12:05:59 AM »
"almost delusional mentality" - well that's about right, minus the "almost"

I chuckled at that bit  ;D
 

Online HackedFridgeMagnet

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1851
  • Country: au
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #306 on: March 07, 2016, 12:54:20 AM »
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.
 

Online coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2595
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #307 on: March 07, 2016, 02:23:42 AM »
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.
 

Offline SeanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14270
  • Country: za
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #308 on: March 07, 2016, 05:26:05 AM »
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.
 

Online mikeselectricstuff

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9978
  • Country: gb
    • Mike's Electric Stuff
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #309 on: March 07, 2016, 07:02:36 AM »
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. 

 
Youtube channel:Taking wierd stuff apart. Very apart.
Mike's Electric Stuff: High voltage, vintage electronics etc.
Day Job: Mostly LEDs
 

Offline dadler

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #310 on: March 07, 2016, 07:06:59 AM »
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...
 

Offline LabSpokane

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1899
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #311 on: March 07, 2016, 08:28:08 AM »
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.
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24365
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #312 on: March 07, 2016, 09:43:47 AM »
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.
 

Offline AF6LJ

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2510
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #313 on: March 07, 2016, 09:45:57 AM »
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.
Sue AF6LJ
Test Equipment Addict, And Proud Of It.
 

Offline Khendrask

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 28
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #314 on: March 22, 2016, 03:13:45 AM »
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

That should be even more fun to hear the explanation on...   Why can't this just go away?
 

Offline miguelvp

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5549
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #315 on: March 22, 2016, 04:34:57 AM »
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 :)
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 04:43:29 AM by miguelvp »
 

Offline helius

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1857
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #316 on: March 22, 2016, 04:55:30 AM »
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.
 

Online mikeselectricstuff

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9978
  • Country: gb
    • Mike's Electric Stuff
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #317 on: March 22, 2016, 05:15:55 AM »
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.

Youtube channel:Taking wierd stuff apart. Very apart.
Mike's Electric Stuff: High voltage, vintage electronics etc.
Day Job: Mostly LEDs
 

Offline ChunkyPastaSauce

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 392
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #318 on: March 22, 2016, 05:21:32 AM »
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...  ::)
 

Offline miguelvp

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5549
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #319 on: March 22, 2016, 05:51:05 AM »
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.
 

Offline rx8pilot

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2627
  • Country: us
  • If you want more money, be more valuable.
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #320 on: March 22, 2016, 06:25:33 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. 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.
Thank you EEVBlog for all the support in the Keysight Test to Impress Giveaway voting!
 

Offline jancumps

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Country: be
  • New Low
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #321 on: March 22, 2016, 07:09:43 AM »
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?
 

Offline miguelvp

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5549
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #322 on: March 22, 2016, 09:20:34 AM »
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.
 

Offline vaughn22

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 2
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #323 on: March 26, 2016, 05:32:42 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.

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
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24365
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #324 on: March 26, 2016, 06:21:00 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.

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.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf