UBeam finally shows off its wireless charging tech
axios.com
axios.com
It's not a new idea--ultrasound is already used to power pacemakers, and people have been playing with the concept for years. However, basic calculations shows that this is not likely to be practical as a consumer device. The founder has no physics or electrical engineering background, so there's no reason to think that she has some unique ability to overcome these hurdles. She's also hasn't demonstrated that she's developed any novel techniques to overcome the engineering challenges.
So why all the VC money? Why give VC money to a 20 something with no experience and no background with the hope that she'll hire enough engineers to figure it out? It just doesn't make sense to me.
I said the same thing about Theranos. They basically gave an inexperienced person who had no real domain knowledge millions of dollars to run a research lab. It looks very similar. Are VCs just desperate for a media friendly founder success story?
edit: Turns out there was already a patent covering something very similar filed in 2003 https://www.google.com/patents/US6798716?dq=ultrasound+power...
Also possibly to fill diversity requirements.
I'm sure it would be. But what I don't understand is why not hire someone who knows what they're doing to try to pull it off? Why hire an inexperienced person with almost no domain knowledge just because she happens to have a very basic idea sketched out.
Imagine a hypothetical scenario. I'm a VC and some kid with a degree in biology told me we should make phones that use ultra capacitors instead of batteries.
Me: "That sounds cool, but it's probably not going to work because ultra caps just don't have the energy density."
Kid: "Yeah but if you give me 25 million dollars I can hire a bunch of engineers and figure it out."
Me: "Why do I need you? You're idea isn't novel. You don't have any experience or training, and you probably can't even do it."
Kid: "But if I do, you'll make billions."
Me: "I can give the same money to anyone of thousands of people qualified to actually run an R&D project, and I'll have a much higher chance of success."
If the company fails, do the VCs take over? This could be their way of ensuring control over this technology.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/tune-in-turn-on-power-up
The Arizona research company is piezo energy technologies. http://gopiezo14.com
2011 patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US8082041
2014 patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US8974366
But I haven't seen anything commercially available in the medical industry
Software VC would really benefit from a couple emag classes before trying to disrupt physics. These extraordinary claims are not supported by extraordinary evidence. I don't want to be anywhere near any kind of field that's strong enough to power my laptop. Acoustic or otherwise. No thank you please.
Those things don't even have fancy high tech people-detecting safety features. Maybe this charger shuts down when it detects that some of its energy is being lost to an unknown place.
I don't know if you meant to prove my point, but really man, physics is cool.
I am curious how this is different from what she would have demoed to her angel investors several years ago.
Displaying that it's charging is very different from actually charging. It could look like it's "charging" but may actually take all day to finish charging, in which case the technology is completely useless.
I am especially put off by how the "startup community" people seem to be patting her on the back saying "it works!" even though none of them actually believes it to be so deep inside.
Literally ALL of the criticism around this company have been how there's a huge discrepancy between the demo and their actual product (hint: there is none), and she should have addressed THAT point (about how fast it charges) instead of doing another one of those deceptive demos that don't mean anything.
Absolutely not! Give me a thin mat that I can put next to me at my office desk, in the kitchen, on the night lamp stand, and on my car console between seats, and I can guarantee you you have billion-dollar in sales!
Don't forget the common nature of us human is laziness! If something can be done simpler (not reaching out for cable and plugging it into device 3 times a day) then you will find people to buy it! It doesn't have to charge my phone to full, enough to get me going for a while until next stopping/charging point.
In any case, it sounds like you want one of the inductive charging mats that are already available. My guess is that in real life the performance will be similar.
And it certainly doesn't seem that way. Apple is already rumored to be planning to launch a wireless charging (that actually works) feature with iPhone 8 http://bgr.com/2017/02/02/iphone-8-specs-energous-wireless-c...
The reason I am harsh about ubeam is because there are other companies that are actually making things happen while this company seems to be all about raising money and getting attention in silicon valley. I root for companies that actually get shit done over companies that are all show.
That's available, and it's not selling. Qi charging pads are available for about $20, and many Samsung phones will charge from them. They're available in wood, bamboo, and built into tables.
There's also MagMIMO, a startup which is using RF beamforming to get a range of about 30cm. That doesn't seem to be getting much traction.
To trigger a charge detection on a phone, you only need to apply a sufficient voltage and be able to supply a small current. It will "charge" but may take days to do so.
As a minimum, the UBeam receiver must be able to generate 5W of power (1A at 5V) to adequately charge a phone (10W or more would be needed for a faster charge though).
Assuming that the technology is 100% efficient in its power transceivers (which is impossible), there is still the matter of exponential attenuation when transmitting ultrasounds through air: at 2m, to produce 5W at the receiver, you need to generate 25W at the transmitter.
This gets worse very fast. Even if you assume they magically manage to get extremely efficient, the laws of physic will prevent the technology from being useful beyond a couple of meters without requiring hundreds of watts of transmitted power. And we're not even talking about the actual performance of the transducers, or the fact that the angle between the transmitter and receiver can affect power transmission, as would air humidity levels...
UBeam will most probably end up producing something super-niche. On paper and in controlled demos, you can transmit some power through the air using ultrasounds. So maybe they'll manage to have an exhibit in a museum or some technology-of-the-future showrooms and they'll probably continue to have demo at exhibitions for years to come while not answering the difficult questions of efficiency and practicality with actual verifiable numbers.
Having an affordable, safe, useful, practical mass-consumer product though? Nah, not a chance.
UBeam is one of these companies build on wishful thinking. They sell a dream and get money from people caught in that dream. They can't back down now, so they have to keep up appearances and come up with polished demos from time to time just to keep the buzz and the mystery alive, and the money flowing.
> when transmitting ultrasounds through air: at 2m, to
> produce 5W at the receiver, you need to generate 25W at
> the transmitter
Where does that 2m come from? It has to do with the frequency of the sound right? I don't remember enough physics. :(You get better transmission at low frequencies, but below 100kHz you risk affecting pets.
Some details and a link to an interesting paper: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52195/ultrasonic-...
http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/the-sausage-f...
- it's a lengthy series of posts from the former VP of Engineering at uBeam, going into the politics and technological issues.
No proof whatsoever that it was charging anything.
Does that mean it's not real? Unsure. But this wasn't that convincing.
That doesn't prove it was charging, just that it could sense the ultrasound and throw up a graphic. Let's see it run for 30 minutes and show the Android battery app for proof.
Companies have demo'ed similar devices before, but where the rubber meets the road is the efficiency and total power of the system. In other words, if it takes 200 watts to transmit and 200 milliwatts received at 3 feet, it is not useful for a consumer nor the environment.
One of the older articles about uBeam stated that a trickle charge for IoT/Phone was the target after the physical limitations were discussed.
Of course you can transmit some power that way. But how much? And what's the efficiency?
Here's their previous demo, from 2011.[1] What they had then was a bunch of cheap ultrasonic transducers [2] aimed at each other. Those used to be popular for hobbyist robotics. Some unspecified amount of power was transmitted about two feet. Probably a few milliwatts.
The last time UBeam published numbers, they claimed to be generating a few kilowatts of sound power. Such things are usually used as weapons systems (see LRAD) or welders. You don't want to be in a kilowatt ultrasonic beam. The energy mostly ends up as heat.
This technology is either too low power to be useful or, if pumped up to useful power levels, too dangerous.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoHxyweJcZI [2] http://www.futurlec.com/Ultrasonic_Sensors.shtml
At the end of the day, after 5+ years and $25M+ spent ubeam is still quite far away from a viable consumer product. It would kill Meredith Perry to admit it, but the naysayers were right about the viability of this technology. At some point you've just got to cut your losses and move on.
As a person who wants an exterior security camera, a wireless bluetooth speaker in my bathroom, smoke detectors placed in the highest parts of my ceiling, a completely wireless TV on my wall, to never have to plug my phone in again, LEDs in the ceiling of my garage for better visibility in the corners, and about 100 other little things, wireless power will change everything for the better.
A small battery and wireless power basically means no more cables for about 90% of home devices.
https://twitter.com/spencerrascoff/status/827344599362383872 and https://twitter.com/broukhim/status/827430306101669888
My cynicism is wholly directed at the company which I believe to be a fraud. I'm sorry if I accidentally sent some of it in your direction.
This is a scenario that's well known can work (at high power levels which are not generally legal).
What doesn't work so well is charging off axis and at higher power levels.
This is a school science project level demo...
Also, microwaves can denature proteins; one symptom of massive microwave exposure is cataracts (from the proteins in the eye denaturing).
But man, I really hate charging cables!
http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/
Overall, it seems unlikely to work, even for trickle charging phones, under anything but ideal conditions.