Low Cost PCB's Low Cost Components

Author Topic: The uBeam FAQ  (Read 207992 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24378
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #400 on: May 12, 2016, 10:33:34 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/
Something big has changed in order for Techcrunch to to be allowed to publish this article.
 

Online wilfred

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4413
  • Country: au
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #401 on: May 12, 2016, 10:59:42 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....

No way! She sounds like one of those management nitwits who spout endless streams of BS like "perception IS reality".
 

Offline Danseur

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 21
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #402 on: May 12, 2016, 11:18:36 AM »
It looks like this former uBeam engineer exposed Energous too.
http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/04/those-other-guys-pt-1.html

He linked to this story on Energous.
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.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2016, 11:24:39 AM by Danseur »
 

Offline LabSpokane

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1899
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #403 on: May 12, 2016, 12:16:14 PM »
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.
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24378
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #404 on: May 12, 2016, 12:46:08 PM »
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.
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24378
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #405 on: May 12, 2016, 12:46:57 PM »
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.
 

Offline Bud

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1846
  • Country: ca
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #406 on: May 12, 2016, 02:40:32 PM »
Can't wait to see the famous "3 backup plans" activated.  :popcorn:
 

Offline LabSpokane

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1899
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #407 on: May 12, 2016, 02:56:30 PM »
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.
 

Offline ludzinc

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 438
  • Country: au
    • My Misadventures In Engineering
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #408 on: May 12, 2016, 03:12:02 PM »
 :popcorn:
 

Offline Danseur

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 21
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #409 on: May 12, 2016, 03:21:26 PM »
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
 

Offline Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3813
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #410 on: May 12, 2016, 03:57:25 PM »
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:

 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24378
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #411 on: May 12, 2016, 04:39:28 PM »
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:


She'll be lucky if she avoids jail time.
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24378
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #412 on: May 12, 2016, 04:45:13 PM »
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

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
 

Offline mikeselectricstuff

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9999
  • Country: gb
    • Mike's Electric Stuff
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #413 on: May 12, 2016, 05:08:14 PM »
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

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.


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

Offline mathieumatteomatthew

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 4
  • Country: de
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #414 on: May 12, 2016, 06:06:26 PM »
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.
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6693
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #415 on: May 12, 2016, 07:01:04 PM »
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.
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6693
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #416 on: May 12, 2016, 07:06:46 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2016, 07:13:17 PM by Fungus »
 

Offline mikeselectricstuff

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9999
  • Country: gb
    • Mike's Electric Stuff
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #417 on: May 12, 2016, 07:16:34 PM »
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.
 
Youtube channel:Taking wierd stuff apart. Very apart.
Mike's Electric Stuff: High voltage, vintage electronics etc.
Day Job: Mostly LEDs
 

Offline HackedFridgeMagnet

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1851
  • Country: au
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #418 on: May 12, 2016, 07:23:16 PM »
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?
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6693
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #419 on: May 12, 2016, 07:36:31 PM »
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!).
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2621
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #420 on: May 12, 2016, 07:56:42 PM »
...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?
 

Offline VNFTW

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 5
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #421 on: May 12, 2016, 08:05:07 PM »
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.
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24378
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #422 on: May 12, 2016, 08:32:13 PM »
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"
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24378
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #423 on: May 12, 2016, 08:42:44 PM »
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.
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24378
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #424 on: May 12, 2016, 08:45:17 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.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf