"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 possible future technology could vibrate air in a radically different way to the way we can vibrate air today.Well, if you say so.
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.
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.
To show his bravery and the lack of fear of roman soldiers, he burnt the hand who had failed the mission on a fire.
It was actually Lawrence of Arabia who said/did that.Mmm maybe you're thinking "Lawrence of Arabia"
Physical laws are things that we *discover*.
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".
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
AFAICT RF, radio, and radar are all much the same.
Say what you like about Meredith, she's certainly living the life...
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.
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'.
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.
... 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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
Many things that people considered 'never' 300 years ago are possible with today's technology.
... 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? :QuoteWe 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.
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.
The burden of proof is on you.
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.
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.