The uBeam FAQ

[AF6LJ]

Sound waves no matter how new and improved, or ultra won't get any work done at a distance.

Prove it. 

It won't be doing enough work to charge a battery at any reasonable rate.
Common sense requires no proof...

What won't? What's "it"?

The ultrasound what did you think?

[mikerj]

Sound waves no matter how new and improved, or ultra won't get any work done at a distance.

Prove it. 

It won't be doing enough work to charge a battery at any reasonable rate.
Common sense requires no proof...

What won't? What's "it"?

Could be way off, but since this entire thread is about uBeam I'm pretty sure 'it' is uBeam.

[l0rd_hex]

Obligatory Simpson's reference:

[HackedFridgeMagnet]

I'm thinking about starting a competing company--aquaBeam.

Rather than installing ultrasound transducers on phones, we'll use water wheels.  A high pressure stream of water will be directed toward the phone from an overhead charging station, thus spinning the wheel and charging the phone.  Worried that a stream of water won't have enough power to charge your power hungry laptop?  No worries!  Select locations will be equipped with a fire hose capable of delivering many watts of power.

You may be thinking that the use of water wheels will not lead to anything practical.  Let me remind you that, according to some, Nikola Tesla once said "The water wheel is the most efficient form of power conversion known to mankind".  If Tesla might have believed in it, so should you!

 O0

I want that technology, my phone is waterproof and my budgie smugglers are on.

[Fungus]

Sound waves no matter how new and improved, or ultra won't get any work done at a distance.

Prove it. 

It won't be doing enough work to charge a battery at any reasonable rate.
Common sense requires no proof...

What won't? What's "it"?

The ultrasound what did you think?

I'm just clarifying...

So your claim is: It (ultrasound) cannot, ever, charge a battery. Not with any technology.

My response was: "Prove it!"

[coppice]

Sound waves no matter how new and improved, or ultra won't get any work done at a distance.

Prove it. 

It won't be doing enough work to charge a battery at any reasonable rate.
Common sense requires no proof...

What won't? What's "it"?

The ultrasound what did you think?

I'm just clarifying...

So your claim is: It (ultrasound) cannot, ever, charge a battery. Not with any technology.

My response was: "Prove it!"

This sloppiness and shifting sands is as bad as the people from uBeam:

• The original statement was ultrasonic can't get any work done at a distance.  Common sense (at least an experienced engineer's common sense) says this is obviously rubbish. We've all seen ultrasound perform some type of action at a few metres, like a car collision detector. If you only need a few microwatts to power a wireless sensor I doubt that would be too hard to achieve with ultrasound across a room, without blasting people's ears too badly. I doubt it could be made economically viable, but who knows?
• The later statement was that ultrasonic could not charge a battery (implying a phone battery) at a reasonable rate. This is probably also false. Pump enough energy out and you could probably charge a phone battery quite fast. Collateral damage might be a problem though. Charging a phone battery at a reasonable rate without crazy energy levels in the air is where it gets interesting. Doing it with a reasonable electric bill also makes it interesting. None of this seems deducible from common sense, though. You need to do the analysis and run the numbers to see just how very serious a challenge this is. So, this claim was on the right track, but was not sufficiently qualified with wording about safety, efficiency and cost to be accurate. The claim that this is obvious from common sense would only be supportable if narrowly defined to be the common sense of someone working in the ultrasonic field, for whom the relevant numbers are likely to already be in their head.

[Fungus]

Common sense (at least an experienced engineer's common sense) says this is obviously rubbish.
...but who knows?[/li][/list]

• The later statement was that ultrasonic could not charge a battery at a reasonable rate. This is probably also false. Pump enough energy out and you could probably charge a phone battery quite fast.
  

So ... you're not saying it CANNOT be done?

If it's not ruled out by physics then it's just an engineering problem. All we need is somebody smart enough.

Collateral damage might be a problem though. Charging a phone battery at a reasonable rate without crazy energy levels in the air is where it gets interesting. Doing it with a reasonable electric bill also makes it interesting. None of this seems deducible from common sense, though. You need to do the analysis and run the numbers to see just how very serious a challenge this is. So, this claim was on the right track, and was not sufficiently qualified with wording about safety, efficiency and cost to be accurate.[/li][/list]

They used to think similar things about Gamma-ray bursts.

Then somebody really smart figured out they must be narrowly focused beams, not spherical blasts of energy.

[coppice]

Common sense (at least an experienced engineer's common sense) says this is obviously rubbish.
...but who knows?[/li][/list]

• The later statement was that ultrasonic could not charge a battery at a reasonable rate. This is probably also false. Pump enough energy out and you could probably charge a phone battery quite fast.
  

So ... you're not saying it CANNOT be done?

If it's not ruled out by physics then it's just an engineering problem. All we need is somebody smart enough.

What idiot came up with that stupid idea? I keep hearing it used more and more.

Collateral damage might be a problem though. Charging a phone battery at a reasonable rate without crazy energy levels in the air is where it gets interesting. Doing it with a reasonable electric bill also makes it interesting. None of this seems deducible from common sense, though. You need to do the analysis and run the numbers to see just how very serious a challenge this is. So, this claim was on the right track, and was not sufficiently qualified with wording about safety, efficiency and cost to be accurate.[/li][/list]

They used to think similar things about Gamma-ray bursts.

Then somebody really smart figured out they must be narrowly focused beams, not spherical blasts of energy.

This is the first time I've heard anyone say anything like that about gamma ray bursts, but if you are determined to just make stuff up.....

[Fungus]

They used to think similar things about Gamma-ray bursts.

Then somebody really smart figured out they must be narrowly focused beams, not spherical blasts of energy.

This is the first time I've heard anyone say anything like that about gamma ray bursts, but if you are determined to just make stuff up.....

Huh?

http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/research/grbs/grbinfo.html

"For a long time, it was believed that GRBs must come from within our own Galaxy. It seemed impossible that they could be much more distant: for a gamma-ray burst to have come from a distant galaxy, it would have to be incredibly powerful to explain its observed brightness."

"We believe them to be beamed - the energy does not escape from the explosion everywhere equally, but is focused into a narrow jet"

[coppice]

They used to think similar things about Gamma-ray bursts.

Then somebody really smart figured out they must be narrowly focused beams, not spherical blasts of energy.

This is the first time I've heard anyone say anything like that about gamma ray bursts, but if you are determined to just make stuff up.....

Huh?

http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/research/grbs/grbinfo.html

"For a long time, it was believed that GRBs must come from within our own Galaxy. It seemed impossible that they could be much more distant: for a gamma-ray burst to have come from a distant galaxy, it would have to be incredibly powerful to explain its observed brightness."

"We believe them to be beamed - the energy does not escape from the explosion everywhere equally, but is focused into a narrow jet"

That's very poorly written. Even Wikipedia describes things better, saying most hypotheses were based on these events originating in our own galaxy because of the high energy levels. Beamed events from distant sources, like pulsars, were known about long before the origins of gamma ray bursts were figured out. It was well know that nature could produce massive output in narrow beams, so that always had to be one of the options.

[Fungus]

It was well know that nature could produce massive output in narrow beams, so that always had to be one of the options.

Right... so why can't uBeam?

[Delta]

It was well know that nature could produce massive output in narrow beams, so that always had to be one of the options.

Right... so why can't uBeam?

Because it would damage anything that got in the way, such as your flesh.

Are you taking the piss out of uBeam, playing Devil's advocate, old fashioned trolling, or just being an imbecile?  I genuinely can't work it out!

[Fungus]

Are you taking the piss out of uBeam, playing Devil's advocate, old fashioned trolling, or just being an imbecile?  I genuinely can't work it out!

I'm trying to see if anybody can prove that uBeam is impossible.

eg. We can prove mathematically and experimentally that Batteriser is impossible, what about uBeam? Do we have the same degree of certainty or is it just "very unlikely"?

[timb]

Are you taking the piss out of uBeam, playing Devil's advocate, old fashioned trolling, or just being an imbecile?  I genuinely can't work it out!

I'm trying to see if anybody can prove that uBeam is impossible.

eg. We can prove mathematically and experimentally that Batteriser is impossible, what about uBeam?

It's impossible to do efficiently and safely (the frequency and power output required would harm bats, cats, dogs and human hearing at the very least), not to mention the serious practical problems (doesn't work through clothing, while holding the phone or with it laying on a desk).

The detailed explanations have been stated over and over again in this thread. I suggest reading it before making yourself look even dumber.

[coppice]

It was well know that nature could produce massive output in narrow beams, so that always had to be one of the options.

Right... so why can't uBeam?

They do beam the energy. They actually say that much of their development work has been to build a high performance dynamic phased array beam forming system. They say they steer the beam continuously to focus on the target, with continuous feedback from the target to assist in this process. They also say they will cut the beam if anything gets in the way.

Physics (or maths, if you want to look at it that way) places limits on how much you can focus a beam, and the extent of the sidelobes you will get. This is a path trotten heavily by engineers in the sonar field for more than half a century, so most of the constraints are well understood - although better understood for water as a medium than air. However, it is engineering that places the final constraints. Engineers might find health and safety people annoying, but it would be a very poor engineer who doesn't build things to be safe and healthy to use. High levels of acoustic energy in the air are problematic for humans, and physics says too much of the energy will miss the target for engineers to consider this safe. Physics says this type of charging will be inefficient, but still allows us to use kilowatts to charge a phone. Engineering says the resulting energy bills would only allow the rich to use such a system. Some engineering constraints just won't go away with additional work.

[tszaboo]

Are you taking the piss out of uBeam, playing Devil's advocate, old fashioned trolling, or just being an imbecile?  I genuinely can't work it out!

I'm trying to see if anybody can prove that uBeam is impossible.

eg. We can prove mathematically and experimentally that Batteriser is impossible, what about uBeam?

It's impossible to do efficiently and safely (the frequency and power output required would harm bats, cats, dogs and human hearing at the very least), not to mention the serious practical problems (doesn't work through clothing, while holding the phone or with it laying on a desk).

The detailed explanations have been stated over and over again in this thread. I suggest reading it before making yourself look even dumber.

Thank you! Finally people with some sense.
I'll repeat myself: Even if it is possible, it shouldn't be made.

[EEVblog]

Are you taking the piss out of uBeam, playing Devil's advocate, old fashioned trolling, or just being an imbecile?  I genuinely can't work it out!

I'm trying to see if anybody can prove that uBeam is impossible.
eg. We can prove mathematically and experimentally that Batteriser is impossible, what about uBeam? Do we have the same degree of certainty or is it just "very unlikely"?

 
The uBeam defenders don't get it, including Meredith Perry, so I'll use big bold font to make it clear:

1) uBeam is NOT impossible
2) uBeam does NOT break any laws of physics.


So what's the problem?

uBeam is IMPRACTICAL.
An idea that is caught in an impracticality death spiral into a black hole from which there is no escape.
Although just like black holes emit Hawking radiation, uBeam will always emit marketing wank and little cries of the hopes and dreams of VC's chasing unicorns.

[coppice]

Are you taking the piss out of uBeam, playing Devil's advocate, old fashioned trolling, or just being an imbecile?  I genuinely can't work it out!

I'm trying to see if anybody can prove that uBeam is impossible.
eg. We can prove mathematically and experimentally that Batteriser is impossible, what about uBeam? Do we have the same degree of certainty or is it just "very unlikely"?

 
The uBeam defenders don't get it, including Meredith Perry, so I'll use big bold font to make it clear:

1) uBeam is NOT impossible
2) uBeam does NOT break any laws of physics.


So what's the problem?

uBeam is IMPRACTICAL.
An idea that is caught in an impracticality death spiral into a black hole from which there is no escape.
Although just like black holes emit Hawking radiation, uBeam will always emit marketing wank and little cries of the hopes and dreams of VC's chasing unicorns.

That's an odd choice of words. Almost everything in high volume manufacture today was impractical once upon a time. It it were merely impractical it would be just the kind of thing engineering resources should be put into.

[EEVblog]

Here is neat easy infographic that explains uBeam

[coppice]

Here is neat easy infographic that explains uBeam

You like to use the metaphor of VCs chasing unicorns, as though its the height of unrealistic behaviour. Well, we still have some white rhinos in this world. If there's a big enough market its quite plausible that some VC funding could get them genetically engineered to be truly white.

[EEVblog]

That's an odd choice of words. Almost everything in high volume manufacture today was impractical once upon a time. It it were merely impractical it would be just the kind of thing engineering resources should be put into.

Oh please.
Not every idea has a practical viable engineering solution, no matter how many resources you put into it.

uBeam has spent 10's of millions of dollars, hired the best people in the business, and no doubt created some great tech in upon itself. But they have admitted they can only get 1.5W @ 4m maximum (almost certainly under the best case ideal conditions - remember these are marketing numbers!) at some ridiculous sound pressure level, using some no doubt ridiculously complicated tracking system for the beam forming that can't go through clothing or any other object, can't use it with the phone face up on a table or while being held in the hand, and no doubt have ridiculously small level of efficiency, and you want to tell me it's just matter of more engineering resources.
 

[coppice]

That's an odd choice of words. Almost everything in high volume manufacture today was impractical once upon a time. It it were merely impractical it would be just the kind of thing engineering resources should be put into.

Oh please.
Not every idea has a practical viable engineering solution, no matter how many resources you put into it.

uBeam has spent 10's of millions of dollars, hired the best people in the business, and no doubt created some great tech in upon itself. But they have admitted they can only get 1.5W @ 4m maximum (almost certainly under the best case ideal conditions - remember these are marketing numbers!) at some ridiculous sound pressure level, using some no doubt ridiculously complicated tracking system for the beam forming that can't go through clothing or any other object, can't use it with the phone face up on a table or while being held in the hand, and no doubt have ridiculously small level of efficiency, and you want to tell me it's just matter of more engineering resources.
 

What relevance does that have to what I said? This idea has deep seated problems that won't go away. Most engineers can see that. However, when you use words like "impractical", and talk about "chasing unicorns" most people don't hear "ridiculous". They hear "needs further development".

[EEVblog]

What relevance does that have to what I said? This idea has deep seated problems that won't go away. Most engineers can see that. However, when you use words like "impractical", and talk about "chasing unicorns" most people don't hear "ridiculous". They hear "needs further development".

Oh please, people know what impractical means.

[Howardlong]

What relevance does that have to what I said? This idea has deep seated problems that won't go away. Most engineers can see that. However, when you use words like "impractical", and talk about "chasing unicorns" most people don't hear "ridiculous". They hear "needs further development".

I think you need to look up "impractical" in the dictionary.

[Howardlong]

What relevance does that have to what I said? This idea has deep seated problems that won't go away. Most engineers can see that. However, when you use words like "impractical", and talk about "chasing unicorns" most people don't hear "ridiculous". They hear "needs further development".

If VC's want to spend money on further development, let them. They're not crowdfunding backers who need defending.

How do you think these VCs get their money? It's pretty likely to be your pension pot.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-09-23/are-public-pensions-inflating-a-venture-capital-bubble