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.
And how exactly can you piss away $30m and have nothing to show for it...?
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.
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.
The 30 odd patent also would have cost a pretty penny, probably half a mil right there.
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?
Odds are though it'll all be sold for pennies on the dollar when the merry-go-round eventually stops.
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
Oops, class 10,000 sorry
They are doing their own $1M+ ASIC too:
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.
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.
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.
UBeam likely started making transducers after every commercial transducer manufacturer told them to piss off.
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"
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.
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.
There are some people that just won't be told they're wrong.
November 2015, Techcrunch:
"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:
"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."
January 2016, uBeam Press Release:
"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."
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.
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.”
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.”
UBeam Hires Two Ultrasound Veterans (LA Business Journal article)
http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2016/feb/04/ubeam-hires-two-ultrasound-veterans/QuoteIEEE 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.”
“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.”