The uBeam FAQ

[Cerebus]

Thanks for that. I was on the verge of calling out Wilfred myself, but you've done a more thorough and patient job than I would have. It was quite clear from what had passed before that l0rd_hex had properly researched and sourced his Wikipedia edit. That edit appears to reflect facts quite accurately as far as one can tell, while the existing Wikipedia article, taken as a whole, clearly misrepresents Perry and reads like a "puff piece".

Thus Wilfred's implicit claim that it was unsourced was unjustified, and his rather strange attack on the poster's character based on the poster's post footer (which makes no claims to being a properly sourced factual quote, and from context one can assume is probably mean to be humorous and, as I believe is the case here, those often misquote for effect) I think counts as a deliberate ad hominem attack. Which tactic he them goes on to decry you for making despite the fact that you aren't, you're just balancing on that line between being direct and rude - which anyone who's paid any attention to you on here knows is your want.

Wilfred, if you think you're "fighting the good fight" here you aren't. Perry's machinations are well documented and having her own Wikipedia page lauding her achievements without also documenting a history of activities that border on, possibly are outright, fraud, and most definitely culminate in failure, is wrong. l0rd_hex's efforts to navigate the labyrinth that is Wikipedia's policies and editing practices to set that right should be applauded, not attacked. I'd have helped, but figuring out how to "get things" done on Wikipedia has defeated me in the past so I can only say that l0rd_hex is a better man than me in this regard.

[cgroen]

Every time I see the uBeam thread pop up again I think "have they finally gone under?"

Wishful thinking...

[Cerebus]

Every time I see the uBeam thread pop up again I think "have they finally gone under?"

Wishful thinking...

The zombie life of uBeam has become an interesting phenomenon in itself. It's dead, we can all see that, it's got no product, no worthwhile property (intellectual or otherwise), no income, but it's still alive, for some value of alive. It's been, what, six years odd that it's been around (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) and still someone, somewhere, has kept on providing the funding to keep it alive.

Why is it still getting funding, why hasn't it died yet, and where can I find someone like that to fund any of my pet "blue sky" projects which are still more likely to at least produce a working product at the end of the day than uBeam because I'm starting from the premise that I can't fool the laws of physics?

Edit: 8 years, since 2012!!!!

[jrs45]

Absolute insanity that anyone could characterize the legitimate criticism of a charlatan as "hate speech". And Wikipedia falls for it?

Maybe we should cite some of the hate speech of hers, such as that awful crack about "autist" engineers that dared question her (now debunked) claims.

[coppice]

The zombie life of uBeam has become an interesting phenomenon in itself.

The zombie life of many companies are an interesting phenomenon. There are many companies that appeared to have died years ago, whose sad remains are actually still being dragged through legal proceedings, keeping the mortgages of lawyers and accountants paid.

[EEVblog]

In Finland, this kind of lackadaisical attitude towards results has lead to only approximately one large IT project in three to actually complete.  It has become acceptable for almost two thirds of publicly funded projects to fail without producing any results, without repercussions to their leaders and purchasers, exactly because people do not want to be confrontational, and think that by being "reasonable", they are behaving in a more moral manner.  What they are actually doing, is leaving enough room for these exploiters and fakers to live large.

There are many people (even fellow creators) who think my debunking videos are at best an absolute waste of my time, and at worst, a personal attack on genuine entrepenerial people that causes nothing but negativity and hate in the community etc. 

[EEVblog]

Maybe we should cite some of the hate speech of hers, such as that awful crack about "autist" engineers that dared question her (now debunked) claims.

Choice quotes from that TED talk would be nice reference material for the Wiki, just say'n 
I'd even say that a section entitled "Views on Engineering" would be a valuable contribution. It is after all one of the things she is very well known for in the community.

[Nominal Animal]

In Finland, this kind of lackadaisical attitude towards results has lead to only approximately one large IT project in three to actually complete.  It has become acceptable for almost two thirds of publicly funded projects to fail without producing any results, without repercussions to their leaders and purchasers, exactly because people do not want to be confrontational, and think that by being "reasonable", they are behaving in a more moral manner.  What they are actually doing, is leaving enough room for these exploiters and fakers to live large.

There are many people (even fellow creators) who think my debunking videos are at best an absolute waste of my time, and at worst, a personal attack on genuine entrepenerial people that causes nothing but negativity and hate in the community etc. 

That makes me so angry... 

It is not that I am a particularly vindictive guy (even if I am a prick sometimes) who loves to go after "evildoers"; it is that that "anti-negativity, anti-hate" attitude is what allows damage to accumulate and lying and stealing to become the accepted norm; and that harms everyone in the long term.  (I recognize I am overly sensitive to it, though, because of the damage it has caused to myself.)

I am quite jealous of how you can laugh at these scammers and schemes, though.  I can't; I get really angry.

If it matters any, I know for a fact that your videos are very useful and helpful.  You see, I've used them in practice to help people understand things.

First, I show them some of your videos dealing with e.g. solar energy, say your own solar installation showing your practical statistics.  (This is to get them to see that you are not a naysayer, and actually love solar energy – when sensibly generated and installed –, and are not "an opponent".)  Then I show the video list, explaining the sort of videos you do, so they know this is not an one-off thing, and that they can easily go and check out your other videos to make up their own mind, if they get suspicious later on.  Then, I show one of your debunking videos, which uses simple back-of-the-envelope calculations showing why the "buzzword tech du jour" is bullshit.

It works well, because the introduction to your videos makes it impossible to classify you as an opponent of the technology and ideas.  After watching your solar installation videos, for example, seeing how interested and positive you are about it, makes it difficult to dismiss you as an anti-solar power guy.

(In case anyone thinks I'm just asskissing here in the hopes of not getting banned, I'd like to point out that I've had serious disagreements with Dave and moderator-Simon before.  I may be a prick, but I try hard to be honest and useful.)

[madires]

There are many people (even fellow creators) who think my debunking videos are at best an absolute waste of my time, and at worst, a personal attack on genuine entrepenerial people that causes nothing but negativity and hate in the community etc. 

We're trying to teach our children critical thinking while some prefer to keep silent to prevent any negative feedback. But debating is part of the process. By keeping silent we would passively promote nonsense and betray ourselves.

[jrs45]

Further, there are several mainstream articles about Paul Reynold's excellent debunking of ubeam:

https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/engineer-and-investor-in-spat-about-wireless-charging-startup-ubeam

https://www.businessinsider.com/ubeam-former-engineers-doubt-it-can-work-2016-5

https://www.inc.com/kevin-j-ryan/apple-hired-engineers-from-mark-cuban-backed-startup-ubeam.html

The article is only semi-protected, so someone who has a legit account on wikipedia with enough edits can make the changes.  It should, of course, be done properly, and carefully, being sure to stick to the facts and wikipedia-approved news sources.
This makes his statements, and blog, 100% fair game for wikipedia.  Someone really should convince the person who locked it to unlock it to allow this kind of truthful, relevant information.

[coppice]

In Finland, this kind of lackadaisical attitude towards results has lead to only approximately one large IT project in three to actually complete.  It has become acceptable for almost two thirds of publicly funded projects to fail without producing any results, without repercussions to their leaders and purchasers, exactly because people do not want to be confrontational, and think that by being "reasonable", they are behaving in a more moral manner.  What they are actually doing, is leaving enough room for these exploiters and fakers to live large.

There are many people (even fellow creators) who think my debunking videos are at best an absolute waste of my time, and at worst, a personal attack on genuine entrepenerial people that causes nothing but negativity and hate in the community etc. 

I expect these are the same type of people who read an article which clearly describes research solving one modest link in a long chain of problems, and see this as all problems are solved and amazing new products are about to roll off the production line.

[EEVblog]

Further, there are several mainstream articles about Paul Reynold's excellent debunking of ubeam:

https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/engineer-and-investor-in-spat-about-wireless-charging-startup-ubeam

https://www.businessinsider.com/ubeam-former-engineers-doubt-it-can-work-2016-5

https://www.inc.com/kevin-j-ryan/apple-hired-engineers-from-mark-cuban-backed-startup-ubeam.html

They should all definitely go on the uBeam/SonicEnergy wiki page under the criticism section. Someone should fix that 
When you have the former CTO of the tech company in question calling out the BS, that's as an authoritative source as it gets.
https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/

[jrs45]

Article is unlocked now, fwiw.  But stick to the clear, well referenced facts, if anyone decides to improve the article.

[PaulReynolds]

It's finally happened, it's an ex-uBeam

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2021/05/its-ex-ubeam.html

Just shy of its 10th birthday and with between $40 and $48 million of investment, it appears uBeam (recently Sonic Energy) has shuffled off its mortal coil. While some may claim it's simply pining for the fjords or merely stunned, a few weeks ago the last remaining employees were told they were terminated effective immediately and the doors were closed. Whether the company will actually be killed, or carry on in zombie form as an asset holding entity remains to be seen, but reportedly it will be OurCrowd, the crowdfunding group who were significant investors in the later rounds, that take possession.

[EEVblog]

Grab a bottle and watch in honor 

[drussell]

Grab a bottle and watch in honor 

Yup, I'm pretty sure everyone here remembers that one...   

What a farce!

[MrMobodies]

Another farce that seems to be happeing at the moment:

This line keeps on being removed and added:

"However the company she founded, uBeam, failed to develop its wireless charging technology because it was neither practical nor feasible based on Perry's ideas on ultrasonic wireless charging."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meredith_Perry

07/04/2021
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meredith_Perry&oldid=1016502090
27/04/2021
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meredith_Perry&oldid=1020156083

Line added back by 99.199.188.70:

14:12, 27 April 2021 removed by 209.118.130.10
00:54, 24 April 2021 removed by 2600:387:c:6d15::1 (99.199.188.70Many sources cite uBeam's failure to deliver on its wireless charging tech. Please stop reverting factual information.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.)
00:54, 24 April 2021 removed by 2600:387:C:6D15:0:0:0:1
14:36, 23 April 2021 removed by 2603:8000:AC42:1400:989F:6EFB:C2F:B32B
14:53, 21 April 2021 removed by 2600:387:C:6D11:0:0:0:3
14:31, 20 April 2021 removed by 2603:8000:AC42:1400:806A:2867:DCC3:29A
17:57, 17 April 2021 removed by 2603:8000:AC42:1400:A5E4:F3EF:F5EC:83EF
14:37, 16 April 2021 removed by 2600:387:C:6D11:0:0:0:3
13:33, 12 April 2021 removed by TigerLilly080283
13:42, 10 April 2021 removed by 2603:8000:ac42:1400:1d35:9328:35da:bdad
14:33, 7 April 2021   removed by 2603:8000:ac42:1400:5418:ed6d:522e:d088  (99.199.188.70 Stop framing the addition of factual information as hate speech.)

D-dawg
18:27, 29 March 2021 (The fair of uBeam is both factual and relevant to the discussion.).

Some excuses for removing the line:

14:13, 27 April 2021 Some Gadget Geek  (unsourced content to a biographical article)
20:48, 23 Apri   l 2021 2600:387:c:6d15::1   (Untrue information)
07:05, 30 March 2021 2603:8000:ac42:1400:5418:ed6d:522e:d088 (Removed hate speech. Stop vandalizing this page.
15:46, 25 March 2021 2603:8000:ac42:1400:4481:7098:cca3:817e  (Removed unnecessary sentence.))

I see a couple of "false information" editing on Sonic energy but at least the Criticism section is left:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SonicEnergy&action=history

[PaulReynolds]

Another farce that seems to be happeing at the moment:

This line keeps on being removed and added:

"However the company she founded, uBeam, failed to develop its wireless charging technology because it was neither practical nor feasible based on Perry's ideas on ultrasonic wireless charging."

Might be interesting to note Perry as uBeam co-founder not founder, since that is an indisputable fact (other co-founder was Nora Dweck), as saying it riled Perry and her family no end. For some reason I've got a gut feeling, but with no hard evidence, that some of these accounts vocally defending Perry are her brother (Ben Perry aka Penis Bailey). There are people out there with a real emotional investment in Perry being a victim rather than the architect of her own rise and fall - at one point someone even invented an MIT ultrasound researcher on social media to back her claims.

[PaulReynolds]

And I think it's time to reveal who within uBeam had been passing me little bits of information as to company activities after I had left.

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2021/05/my-spy-in-ubeam.html

[Cerebus]

And I think it's time to reveal who within uBeam had been passing me little bits of information as to company activities after I had left.

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2021/05/my-spy-in-ubeam.html

Just read that.

[AlanS]

Just too rich...........

[EEVblog]

And I think it's time to reveal who within uBeam had been passing me little bits of information as to company activities after I had left.

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2021/05/my-spy-in-ubeam.html

Perry shouldn't be allowed to operate a lemonade stand.

[MrMobodies]

Looks like she already brainwashed 3 people changing their brain states through her novel neuromodulation techniques, I wonder what that'd be, her voice maybe?

https://www.linkedin.com/company/elemind/people/

[Howardlong]

Somebody figured out a practical use for power over ultrasonic:

https://www.engineering.columbia.edu/press-releases/shepard-injectable-chips-monitor-body-processes

[jancumps]

Somebody figured out a practical use for power over ultrasonic:

https://www.engineering.columbia.edu/press-releases/shepard-injectable-chips-monitor-body-processes

From the article:

They fabricated the "antenna" for communicating and powering with ultrasound directly on top of the chip.

They solved the direction (directly above a know location) and distance (almost touch) problem. That with the low power requirements may be a realistic application.