The uBeam FAQ

[EEVblog]

My guess is that that when they realise that it's a complete fail for consumer phone charging  they will try to sell/license the patent portfolio and any manufacturing IP for niche applications.
Of course it could be that they're just trying to throw as many patent applications out there as possible to give some credibility that they've actually achieved something useful.

Both.

[AF6LJ]

My guess is that that when they realise that it's a complete fail for consumer phone charging  they will try to sell/license the patent portfolio and any manufacturing IP for niche applications.
Of course it could be that they're just trying to throw as many patent applications out there as possible to give some credibility that they've actually achieved something useful.

Both.

Indeed this is the modern version of patent medicine.

[Khendrask]

Now she's claiming that not only will it charge your phone, but provide a "Secure Data Link" as well...

http://www.businessinsider.com/ubeam-wireless-charging-adds-data-2016-2

That should be even more fun to hear the explanation on...   Why can't this just go away?

[miguelvp]

I guess that was plan B she was referring to.

Data over ultrasound is a no brainer and not even difficult to do, of course the optimal resonant frequency will be affected and you end up with the too many features but master of none.

I guess in the VC world it probably helps them continue research and funding so it's just a way to fail without failing because now it can do even more than anticipated.

If they did an ultrasound wireless data only that will probably will be a good thing in densely populated areas, but of course that means that the device won't be using wifi so less power requirements on the phone since wifi being on will make  their task impossible. With spread spectrum tech it wouldn't be that hard to get a decent data link over ultrasound without your vacuum cleaner interfering.
 
But I think of this announcement as in buying time because the original premise won't work as advertised.
So lets get rid off the wifi since it needs too much power and won't make ubeam feasible.

Edit: so their solution seems to be to cut off all the radios so they might have a chance to trickle charge a device that is using a few mAs, of course that would be for a barebone phone that doesn't have a power consuming GPU, but I guess now they are going to demonstrate that they can make this thing work on a very power efficient dumb phone that no one will use anyways, but it will look like they did achieve their goal by changing the parameters of the device

[helius]

From the starting point of already using ultrasonic power, the data stream comes almost for free because there needs to be a reverse channel anyway to register and track the receivers. But it doesn't make the efficiency look any better, you end up spending much more energy on ultrasonic data (than you would for wifi) with the higher path loss.

[mikeselectricstuff]

And how do you then get the ultrasonically transmitted data to the phone?

Oh, sorry I forgot, all the phone makers are queueing up to integrate uBeam into their phones 

And what sort of data would this be any use for ?

The only "security" aspect I can see is that it won't go through walls as easily as the RF the phone is already equipped for.

The bullshit just keeps flowing.

[ChunkyPastaSauce]

I guess that was plan B she was referring to.

Data over ultrasound is a no brainer and not even difficult to do, of course the optimal resonant frequency will be affected and you end up with the too many features but master of none.

I guess in the VC world it probably helps them continue research and funding so it's just a way to fail without failing because now it can do even more than anticipated.

If they did an ultrasound wireless data only that will probably will be a good thing in densely populated areas, but of course that means that the device won't be using wifi so less power requirements on the phone since wifi being on will make  their task impossible. With spread spectrum tech it wouldn't be that hard to get a decent data link over ultrasound without your vacuum cleaner interfering.
 
But I think of this announcement as in buying time because the original premise won't work as advertised.
So lets get rid off the wifi since it needs too much power and won't make ubeam feasible.

Edit: so their solution seems to be to cut off all the radios so they might have a chance to trickle charge a device that is using a few mAs, of course that would be for a barebone phone that doesn't have a power consuming GPU, but I guess now they are going to demonstrate that they can make this thing work on a very power efficient dumb phone that no one will use anyways, but it will look like they did achieve their goal by changing the parameters of the device

I think if you needed low power data, you'd just use something like bluetooth ble or something.

This might be useful in places where there is a lot of rfi in the area (and you can't guarantee line of sight for other options), or in areas where you don't want to add rfi, or you want to bypass regulatory stuff for some reason. But I think it would be really niche.

Have no idea what she is talking about being secure (over other tech). Only thing I can think of is if they went the route of only leasing a limited number of units with tight control over who has them. It's possible very few others would have equipment to reliably pickup the data, since everything has to be specifically tuned. Would have to either be extremely expensive (and a market), or rights sold off to entity like gov for any chance of profit.

Nothing I said may have made any sense... 

[miguelvp]

It's easy.

She WANTS to be right so she will do whatever it takes to make something functional even if its not efficient or even desirable by consumers.

So whatever it takes for her to be able to say: "In your face" that's all the motivation that seems to be driving her. It doesn't need to be practical.

So redefine the device to be powered to a simple cell phone with all the radios turned off and without a power hungry display. At this point she will do whatever it takes (as she has always done) just to give the finger to all naysayers even if the ending results has no commercial value.

[rx8pilot]

I am now calling this and Batteroo the 'Claims' industry. These people are chewing up $millions on 'claims' that are pulled directly from the anus. It is truly an industry to plant the ideas on the internet with some polished PR and get investors to dive in - big and small.

The work product delivered is the PR itself and not a product intended for sale.

[jancumps]

If my telephone wants to reply back to the sender with ultrasone signals while it's in my pants,
won't that render me impotent after a few days?

[miguelvp]

If my telephone wants to reply back to the sender with ultrasone signals while it's in my pants,
won't that render me impotent after a few days?

Don't concern yourself with details, she just wants to be able to say: "See I proved everyone wrong and got a working prototype"

Plus the prototype probably only can receive data not send it, that would require power they don't have. Unless they use BLE for that part

Why not use it bidirectional low energy blue tooth? well that doesn't make her right, so Ultrasound it is for receiving data on the phone to keep investors happy and feeling good about their investment while we know it has no commercial application they don't really care, they'll sell the idea whatever that means.

[vaughn22]

It should be noted that while an iPhone charger provides 5W of power, 5W is not needed to charge a phone in all cases. Looking at the specs for the iPhone 6, we have a 6.9 Wh battery that has a life of up to 14 h while talking on the phone, 50 h while playing music, and 250 h on standby. This means that, while 5 W would be required to breakeven while talking, only 138 mW would be needed while playing music and 27.6 mW would be needed when the phone is on standby, so 1.07 W is hardly "almost useless" in general, and I would argue that even appreciably extending the battery life of your device while you're out and about is an accomplishment worthy of merit.

That said

The idea that a system which consumes hundreds of watts of power to deliver kinda sorta maybe 1 W to your phone sometimes if it's Tuesday and you ate a sesame seed bagel that morning untoasted with cream cheese on the side and you paid with a debit card and the cashier was a green-eyed brunette with a peg leg and a chinchilla named Steve who can recite the periodic table backwards but only if it's greater than 50 degrees Fahrenheit outside could possibly gain widespread commercial use is far more contrived than this paragraph will ever be. It's wasteful, it's stupid, and it's completely undeserving of the recognition uBeam has gained. It's like me using a helicopter to cross the street when I could just walk. Finding an outlet is not anywhere close to inconvenient enough for me to justify such a pointless waste of electricity. Heck, this isn't even considering multiple simultaneous users and the fact that current screenshots indicate that the transmitters are unceremoniously bulky and don't even lend themselves to mounting on walls and ceilings very well.

And then there's the safety component. Let's say that the uBeam website's claims are correct and the beam shuts off if there's an obstruction. What's the response time? Even if it's short, won't my hearing be damaged if I experience this burst many times? (As would be the case if your tech becomes as ubiquitous as you seem to think it will be.) Hearing loss is a cumulative effect after all. What about grating lobes? What about spurious emissions? If two devices are close to one another, what will be the interference effect between their respective beams? This is in addition to all the concerns raised in the FAQ.

And get this, now Perry is saying she wants to use this system to transmit secure data.........

So now you're telling me you want to introduce a whole host of systemic and algorithmic problems that I suspect your current team has no idea how to address all so I can transmit data TO A PERSON THAT HAS TO ALREADY BE IN THE SAME ROOM WITH ME AT A DATARATE THAT IS SLOWER THAN THE INTERNET CONNECTION ON MY OLD FLIP PHONE???

 

I think the part that gets me the most is that all of us would shut up about all this if we were just provided with data. You have a working prototype? Show us. You think your tech is viable? Tell us why. All Meredith Perry does is go on and on about how much adversity she is facing and how she'll never give up and how she will succeed despite the laws of physics and common sense. As far as I'm concerned, she's nothing more than a stubborn arrogant half-wit who dug herself into a hole so deep she can't see the light anymore. She needs to be taken down a notch. The utter disrespect she has shown the engineering community is staggering, just watch her TED talk.

I'm sorry this turned ranty, the whole uBeam thing just rubs me the wrong way. Anyway, great FAQ, thanks for posting!

Peace out  O0

[EEVblog]

I am now calling this and Batteroo the 'Claims' industry. These people are chewing up $millions on 'claims' that are pulled directly from the anus.

The big problem with projects like the Batteriser, uBeam, Solar Roadways, that new scuba mask thingo etc etc is not that they are completely obvious pie-in-the-sky bullshit, even to some engineers, as they all ultimately based on real engineering principles. It's just that they aren't at all practical in the real world. But proving that is quite hard when you are up against the "But all we need is the money and resources to solve the problems" crowd. And it's all too easy to be accused of not having enough "vision" to see the potential, if only you would put money into it and let them do it

Investors think of themselves as people who can sniff out people and ideas with "vision", it's a match made in heaven.

Perry is the classic case though. Declares herself a visionary and "outside the box" thinker, savages the ability of engineers and then realises she must hire them to actually do the work.
And the final act will be the engineers saying "Sorry Dick, it doesn't work" (in-joke for Aussies), and Perry will blame every but the engineering practicality of the idea.

[EEVblog]

It should be noted that while an iPhone charger provides 5W of power, 5W is not needed to charge a phone in all cases. Looking at the specs for the iPhone 6, we have a 6.9 Wh battery that has a life of up to 14 h while talking on the phone, 50 h while playing music, and 250 h on standby. This means that, while 5 W would be required to breakeven while talking, only 138 mW would be needed while playing music and 27.6 mW would be needed when the phone is on standby, so 1.07 W is hardly "almost useless" in general, and I would argue that even appreciably extending the battery life of your device while you're out and about is an accomplishment worthy of merit.

Phone chargers usually don't work like that. You can't just give it a few hundred mW of available power and expect it to start charging.

The idea that a system which consumes hundreds of watts of power to deliver kinda sorta maybe 1 W to your phone sometimes if it's Tuesday and you ate a sesame seed bagel that morning untoasted with cream cheese on the side and you paid with a debit card and the cashier was a green-eyed brunette with a peg leg and a chinchilla named Steve who can recite the periodic table backwards but only if it's greater than 50 degrees Fahrenheit outside could possibly gain widespread commercial use is far more contrived than this paragraph will ever be. It's wasteful, it's stupid, and it's completely undeserving of the recognition uBeam has gained.

A nice concise summary!
Even if they actually produce a product that works and is safe and everything else, the efficiency of it makes it a complete non-starter. It will never catch on, ever. And even if it would catch on, there should be a law against a charger that is sub 1% efficient. They did it with the legislation for the phone charger standby power thing.

And get this, now Perry is saying she wants to use this system to transmit secure data.........

Ooh, got a link for this gem?

So now you're telling me you want to introduce a whole host of systemic and algorithmic problems that I suspect your current team has no idea how to address all so I can transmit data TO A PERSON THAT HAS TO ALREADY BE IN THE SAME ROOM WITH ME AT A DATARATE THAT IS SLOWER THAN THE INTERNET CONNECTION ON MY OLD FLIP PHONE???

But you can get extra development money for new ideas like that 

[Howardlong]

"The same transmitter that we use for power transmission can also be used to transfer highly secure data," Perry said.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/ubeam-wireless-charging-adds-data-2016-2?r=US&IR=T

Oooo let me see now, bandwidth. Hmm, Bandwidth. What sort of bandwidth does she think she'll achieve using ultrasonic?

[miguelvp]

Oooo let me see now, bandwidth. Hmm, Bandwidth. What sort of bandwidth does she think she'll achieve using ultrasonic?

The same that you can over a 60/50Hz power line but with more losses at a distance since it transmits via air.

Bandwidth wont be a problem, but distance to the transmitter will be, but not as bad as powering over a distance, so it might have some slight practicality on that end, taking into account of course that it would be all downstream because there is no way they could add a transmitter on the device to suck the little energy they'll be feeding it via ultrasound.

[SeanB]

Power line comms uses the lines as a very ( really really in this case, and incredibly so) lossy differential transmission line, and even though almost all of the 5W or so of transmitted power is radiated as RF noise , the frequency used is very much higher than the 50/60Hz the lines are intended for.

Sending data using ultrasonics means either using FSK, AM or some form of QAM to send it, using the base frequency as a carrier.  With that QAM 256 is around the best, you could get up to ( asterisk, only for the absolutely best case condition under controlled conditions with no reflections and no obstructions with a short direct path) 256 bits for every cycle of the 40kHz carrier. Best case 1.2MB/s with no error correction, no interbit pauses and absolutely no return path acknowledgement ( shared spectrum and such inconveniences of a broadcast medium), along with a very high probability of having audible subharmonics that are going to be incredibly annoying. Add to that any form of error correction ,forward error correction or spread spectrum dithering to reduce audible subharmonics and a return signal path and plain bluetooth is starting to look very good in comparison.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Sure you can transmit data, but why ? No use whatsoever in the phone application. There might be some super-niche applications where it has advantages over radio but even then, optical would often be a better choice.
And if you then narrow down to those applications that need ultrasonic data and power, it's going to take a loooog time to recoup all the VC money.

[Howardlong]

Power line comms uses the lines as a very ( really really in this case, and incredibly so) lossy differential transmission line, and even though almost all of the 5W or so of transmitted power is radiated as RF noise , the frequency used is very much higher than the 50/60Hz the lines are intended for.

Sending data using ultrasonics means either using FSK, AM or some form of QAM to send it, using the base frequency as a carrier.  With that QAM 256 is around the best, you could get up to ( asterisk, only for the absolutely best case condition under controlled conditions with no reflections and no obstructions with a short direct path) 256 bits for every cycle of the 40kHz carrier. Best case 1.2MB/s with no error correction, no interbit pauses and absolutely no return path acknowledgement ( shared spectrum and such inconveniences of a broadcast medium), along with a very high probability of having audible subharmonics that are going to be incredibly annoying. Add to that any form of error correction ,forward error correction or spread spectrum dithering to reduce audible subharmonics and a return signal path and plain bluetooth is starting to look very good in comparison.

Agreed, although those figures are absolute best possible case.

The upstream will be interesting, or is that out of band, done with RF? In which case, if you have a radio already, why use ultrasonics for radio at all? What benefit does ultrasonics have over RF for data transmission?

In short, I can't see the point, the RF infrastructure already in place (WiFi, 4G, 3G) is pretty mature and ubiquitous, and its performance far outweighs anything you could possibly hope to achieve with ultrasonics.

Disgusting that VCs piss other people's money away on this shit.

[EEVblog]

along with a very high probability of having audible subharmonics that are going to be incredibly annoying.

That was my immediate first thought.

[EEVblog]

In short, I can't see the point

There is no point. It's just Perry brain farting up "visionary" ideas again.
http://meredithperry.tumblr.com/

Surely the money can't last much longer? This impractical merry-go-round must end soon 

Interesting recent post by her:
http://meredithperry.tumblr.com/post/136374842310/keeponkeepinon

Possible Translation:

Never, never, never give up (if you believe in what you’re doing and if you’re not breaking the laws of physics).

Never give up until the money runs out. And then blame anything but the impracticality of the idea.

There will always be unknown unknowns.  Plan for them.

That alternative plan for when the tech doesn't work as advertised might come in handy.

Every company needs a strong culture and if somebody isn’t a good fit with your culture, it’s best to part ways no matter how smart or successful they are.

Those pesky engineers said it's not practical, so I gave them the arse.

Sometimes “reinventing the wheel” is actually a great thing to do.

I finally admit I didn't invent ultrasonic wireless charging.

Make sure there are never any single points of failure in a system and/or organization.

Engineers who leave are a real PITA.

Skillset + belief in/passion for the mission + tenacity have been the 3 most important things in evaluating a candidate. 

It's all about belief, just like a religion. If you don't pray 5 times a day for this idea to work, it won't work and you will just dragging the team down, we don't want you.

Always keep some cards in your back pocket.  You never know when you’ll need them.

I've got a new idea for secure data transmission! That'll show the investors how smart I am.

Always be honest and always act with integrity.  Check your ego at the door and only do what’s best for the company.

That's why I haven't shown a single prototype since the vero board and calling a multimeter a power meter. I've got nothing to show that really works as claimed, so I haven't shown anything.

As CEO, you’re a big part of the package.  Your hires need to believe in you as much as they believe in the company.  I hire many people twice my age with 2-3x my experience.  Before I bring them on, I make this difference quite clear: “I’m 26 years old and this is my first real job. I’m your boss, and that’s not going to change.”  If they can’t handle that, it ain’t gonna work.

Be in awe of my ability to extract money from investors that will pay your wages.

When you hire people who have infinitely more experience than you do, your job changes to empowering and embracing those people.

Except if they tell you something won't work.

If it smells like a fish, looks like a fish, and tastes like a fish, it’s probably a fish.  Background checks are very useful.

I discovered a candidate who hangs out on this EEVblog forum filled with practical engineers who like to speak their mind, lucky we caught that one! 

As CEO, it’s your fault if something goes wrong in your company.  Either you didn’t plan well, or you didn’t hire well.  Putting the blame on anyone but yourself is pointless.  Do what you need to do to fix it. 

Unless the entire premise of your company is totally impractical, in which case it's not the founders fault and should never be admitted.

Don’t get excited until it’s signed.

I can't believe they actually gave me more money!

People aren’t robots.  Touch the heart.

Engineers like cool toys and working on cool tech for the sake of it. Give them that and they'll believe anything you want them too.

When you’re trying to get a company off the ground, your life is your company.  Sure it’s a marathon, but it’s also a sprint. You’ll probably lose friends, you’ll probably lose some social skills, you’ll probably gain weight, and you’ll definitely lose sleep.  90% of startups fail, and no matter how difficult the startup, they’re life consuming. This is why you should only start a company that solves a meaningful problem, because when shit hits the fan (and it always does), the only way to keep your company from crumbling is your tenacity and passion.

Like that day it finally dawned on me this thing isn't really practical. That was a fun day.

We live in an era of clicks.  Journalistic integrity ain’t what it used to be.
Stay above the fray.  There’s a lot of really stupid people on the internet.

Like all those pesky engineers on the EEVblog forum. What losers!

[SeanB]

along with a very high probability of having audible subharmonics that are going to be incredibly annoying.

That was my immediate first thought.

Which large speaker manufacturer was it that was experimenting with non linear mixing in the ear of ultrasonic energies to make a tweeter that would have an incredible frequency response? These guys might be annoyed at this blatant patent infringement from uBeam.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Which large speaker manufacturer was it that was experimenting with non linear mixing in the ear of ultrasonic energies to make a tweeter that would have an incredible frequency response? These guys might be annoyed at this blatant patent infringement from uBeam.

The maybe http://www.ultrasonic-audio.com/products/acouspade.html

Never, never, never give up (if you believe in what you’re doing and if you’re not breaking the laws of physics).

The problem is that the laws of physics are only one of many thing you need to consider when determining if a product will work in the real world.
Even if Ubeam worked really well at the physical level, it would still be hopeless as a consumer product.

Case in point - the Upp fuel cell charger does work ( just) , but has no advantages, and multiple disadvantages, over a lithium battery pack. It's just a stupid application of a completely inappropriate technology.

[vaughn22]

It should be noted that while an iPhone charger provides 5W of power, 5W is not needed to charge a phone in all cases. Looking at the specs for the iPhone 6, we have a 6.9 Wh battery that has a life of up to 14 h while talking on the phone, 50 h while playing music, and 250 h on standby. This means that, while 5 W would be required to breakeven while talking, only 138 mW would be needed while playing music and 27.6 mW would be needed when the phone is on standby, so 1.07 W is hardly "almost useless" in general, and I would argue that even appreciably extending the battery life of your device while you're out and about is an accomplishment worthy of merit.

Phone chargers usually don't work like that. You can't just give it a few hundred mW of available power and expect it to start charging.

Ah, see I don't know too terribly much about powering electronics (I'm mainly an antenna engineer). I just assumed that if energy in > energy out, then charging (even trickle charging) was theoretically possible, but it now occurs to me that it's probably more complicated than that so I'll take your word for it. Oh look, I admitted I was probably wrong, something Meredith Perry is incapable of doing.

And Howardlong provided the link, but here it is again:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/ubeam-wireless-charging-adds-data-2016-2?r=US&IR=T

[SeanB]

Cellphone chargers are funny that way. Provide a small voltage to them over a certain level and the phone wakes up, turns on the charge circuitry and starts trying to charge, polling the voltage and current to see if it is charging. If you never reach the level it starts to charge properly it actually discharges the battery faster by the extra circuitry being active, and the charge controller being out of the deep sleep near zero power state.