
Audacious Plan to Make Electricity as Easy as WiFi - Sam_Odio
http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2014/10/30/the-audacious-plan-to-make-electricity-as-easy-as-wifi/
======
johnw
There's noway that this is going to be practical within the current laws of
physics. You can't use a wide beam to cover an area because the amount of
energy available drops by orders of magnitude the further you get from the
transmitter. If you used a focussed beam (which is what they are suggesting)
then you need a separate beam that tracks and follows the location of each
device. So to cover a very small area you'd need multiple transmitters
tracking and beaming sound to the exact location of each device. And the
transmitters are going to have to be very close by, and then there are all the
obstacles between your pocket and the transmitter that will block the beam.
You might as well just use an inductive charger. But still, just like solar
freaking roadways and perpetual motion machines we want to believe and since
most people don't understand the science these ridiculous and impossible ideas
draw people in again and again.

There's a more in depth analysis of why this won't work here:
[http://www.eevblog.com/2014/08/07/ubeam-ultrasonic-
wireless-...](http://www.eevblog.com/2014/08/07/ubeam-ultrasonic-wireless-
charging-a-familiar-fish-smell/)

~~~
domdip
Well, in principle you can divide one transmitter's attention to several
devices over time. (Either by changing the direction of the antenna, or more
sophisticatedly via beamforming.)

Otherwise I agree with you. Even the tone of this article is unconvincing. I
wonder what Andreessen’s due diligence team was thinking, maybe the patents
have value?

~~~
scottlocklin
If I were a VC invested in this, I'd want hearing tests on the engineers
working on this project; once a month, over time.

Of course, if I were a VC, I wouldn't invest in this, because it is physically
retarded on inspection. Whoever did the dil on this is either a fool who
doesn't understand basic physics, or was bribed somehow. Off the top of my
head a) sound energy falls off as 1/r^2, b) that those sorts of energy
densities are almost certainly physically dangerous to more than ears c) sound
doesn't propagate well in air at those frequencies; you're basically heating
up air d) transducers are not good at turning sound into energy

~~~
jerf
"a) sound energy falls off as 1/r^2"

No, it doesn't. That's how it falls off when being transmitted perfectly
spherically in an environment that won't reflect or refract anything.
Consequently, this turns out to be a not-very-useful equation in practice. In
particular ultrasound can be beamed just like light, making the "perfectly
spherical transmission" not even a close approximation, just as it is not a
good approximation for focused lasers. Our intuition doesn't support this
because our hearing tops out at frequencies still low enough to do some
significant bending around obstacles (though at the higher end if you pay
attention you can tell they don't do it as well), so we don't have an
intuition of sound acting like a beam, but it can.

There's more to sound than "basic physics", and what you learn in Physics 101
about sound is simplified to the point of total uselessness as in real-life
you will never encounter a situation where the prerequisites are met for
inverse square falloff.

Mind you, I'm still pretty skeptical, but not about the ability to beam sound.
That's established engineering, not wild-eyed craziness.

~~~
scottlocklin
"In particular ultrasound can be beamed just like light, making the "perfectly
spherical transmission" not even a close approximation"

You do realize that energy from a point source of light also falls off like
1/r^2, right?

~~~
jerf
OK, since conversation has moved on, let me be blunt: You don't know what
you're talking about. Your physics 101 education is not the end-all, be-all of
physics, and what "point" transmission does doesn't matter because we aren't
_talking_ about points. You are in no position to be lecturing people about
physics; you are in a position to be _lectured to_ about physics.

------
pocketstar
I am skeptical of the claimed safety of uBeam. The FDA does not advocate the
safety of ultrasound.

From the article: "Was it safe? Well … for starters it is just an inaudible
soundwave being transferred – as in the kind also used for women during
pregnancy."

From the FDA: "Even though there are no known risks of ultrasound imaging, it
can produce effects on the body. When ultrasound enters the body, it heats the
tissues slightly. In some cases, it can also produce small pockets of gas in
body fluids or tissues (cavitation). The long-term effects of tissue heating
and cavitation are not known. Because of the particular concern for fetal
exposures, national and international organizations have advocated prudent use
of ultrasound imaging. Furthermore, the use of diagnostic ultrasound for non-
medical purposes such as fetal keepsake videos has been discouraged."[0]

[0][http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-
EmittingProducts/RadiationEmitt...](http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-
EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/MedicalImaging/ucm115357.htm)

~~~
ekianjo
The whole article is making optimistic assumptions about just everything. Is
that actually a PR piece?

~~~
source99
To me this seems more potent than a typical paid PR piece.

This seems like the last person to invest just realized they are holding the
bag and if they believe hard enough they can pass it on.

------
7Figures2Commas
The back story of this company is intriguing. The founders presented a
prototype way back in 2011 at the D9 conference[1], and apparently weren't
able to get any traction until they found a believer in Scott Nolan at
Founders Fund[2]. Interestingly, Nolan seemed most impressed by the company's
distribution plans:

> Mr. Nolan said Ms. Perry had shown that chain stores and some “quick-service
> restaurants” were eager to integrate a wireless charger into their plans.
> She “had addressed all these key risks and got them nailed down early,” he
> said.

To me, it's not surprising that folks would be excited by the concept of
wireless charging, just as you could easily find plenty of people who would
tell you they'd buy a Back to the Future-style hover board if you could
actually build it.

The big question is whether the technology is real and commercially viable.
One physicist who has worked on wireless charging applications says he
reviewed uBeam's patent applications and ran the numbers. His conclusion: it
isn't[3].

Who is correct?

[1] [http://allthingsd.com/20110618/how-to-charge-your-iphone-
ove...](http://allthingsd.com/20110618/how-to-charge-your-iphone-over-the-air-
ubeams-d9-demo-video/)

[2] [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/technology/an-inventor-
wan...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/technology/an-inventor-wants-one-
less-wire-to-worry-about.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0)

[3] [http://lookatmeimdanny.tumblr.com/post/101432017159/how-
putt...](http://lookatmeimdanny.tumblr.com/post/101432017159/how-
putting-10m-into-ubeam-illustrates-everything-that)

~~~
mikeyouse
I don't know who keeps that [3] blog or his credentials, but as an admitted
appeal to authority, the CTO of uBeam (dual BS & MS from MIT) also ran some
numbers before joining the company. As did Andreessen Horowitz's due diligence
team before investing, which I'd imagine has a physicist or two in waiting.

One obvious shortcoming in [3]'s analysis is assuming that you'd still need 5W
of charging power if you could wirelessly charge. Delivering 1/50th of that
power is probably enough to maintain a charge throughout the day and people
spend ~95% of their time in reliable locations that could support wireless
charging (home, car, office, etc.)

~~~
malandrew

        the CTO of uBeam (dual BS & MS from MIT) also ran 
        some numbers before joining the company
    

I would hope that the CTO of uBeam essentially is the reason the company
exists. i.e. he invented something fundamentally new and needed a partner that
could sell it. If the business started with a charismatic business founder
that recruited the CTO based on the business model being sound, I'd be very
skeptical. A business like this doesn't exist yet not because the business
model is hard, but because the physics is.

------
codexon
I don't understand how this could be patented.

Surely someone else has thought about using transducers to transmit power a
long time ago?

I see a similar patent here filed in 2003 that covers ultrasound transducers
for wireless power transfer.

[http://www.google.com/patents/US6798716](http://www.google.com/patents/US6798716)

------
Htsthbjig
I only expect they make other people choose when they are around to have this
on.

We used to do lots of experiments in the lab with ultrasonics, playing around.
A couple of times we had our ears hurt for a while(all the people in the team)
after getting out of the lab, We learned the lesson, even when you don't hear
anything, it can affect you.

In fact, it is worse when you can't detect something that could affect you.

I would prefer to use something that I could see like visible green light and
solar cells in the phone. I won't put my eyes too near of a 10Watts source,
but with something you can't see or hear, you could inadvertently put your
organs too close for too long.

------
mikeyouse
For those wondering about if it would be audible and if the technology would
impact pets, here's the receiver's patent application:

[http://www.google.com/patents/US20120299541](http://www.google.com/patents/US20120299541)

The frequency range they list in examples for applications are from 40kHz to
110kHz. This actually does overlap with the hearing ranges of dogs and cats
somewhat. Wiki lists the dog hearing range from 40Hz to 60kHz and the cat
range from 55Hz to 79kHz.

Humans should be safe though since a common number for the high-end of human
hearing is 20kHz.

~~~
desdiv
>Humans should be safe though since a common number for the high-end of human
hearing is 20kHz.

That doesn't mean it's _safe_ for humans, it just means it's _inaudible_ to
humans. In many circumstances, an imperceivable threat is far more dangerous
than a perceivable one. Laser is one example. If a visible laser beam hits
your eyes, your blink reflex will kick in and (hopefully) save you in time.
But a laser beam outside the human visual spectrum will literally burn your
retina out before you figure out what's going on.

------
tzs
> Was it safe? Well … for starters it is just an inaudible soundwave being
> transferred – as in the kind also used for women during pregnancy. It also
> happens to be how your car likely tells the distance to objects when you
> park or if you have a side assist whether you can change lanes safely.
> Check.

Both of those Examples involve short exposure. That doesn't necessarily mean
long exposure is OK. You would not, I hope, conclude for instance that an
X-Ray based system is safe because dentists X-Ray people as part of an annual
check up.

I expect it to turn out safe, but I'd want to see some studies first.

Also, I'd like to see studies on what affect it has on pets. Will it also be
inaudible to dogs? If not, that needs to be documented so that dog owners
won't unknowing torture their pets.

~~~
mistercow
It also would have to be at least an order of magnitude more energy to charge
a phone than is allowed during obstetric ultrasonography.

------
noonespecial
That's got to be a pretty loud noise to be able to transfer enough power to a
device at a distance to be significant. Can long term exposure to loud
ultrasonic noises damage your hearing even if you can't "hear" them somewhat
like the way IR light can damage your eyes even though you can't see it?

Think I might let a different set of early adopters try this one out before I
put one in my bedroom to charge my iPad. It may just be ignorance (knowing
just about nothing when it comes to acoustics) on my part, but I'm way more
afraid of this than inductive wireless charging.

~~~
patcheudor
Yes, it has been recognized that ultrasonic sound can cause hearing damage.

[http://www.tinnitusjournal.com/detalhe_artigo.asp?id=109](http://www.tinnitusjournal.com/detalhe_artigo.asp?id=109)

OSHA even sets standards for exposure & in fact my ultrasonic cleaner manual
recommends wearing ear protection when in use.

[https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/health_effects/ultra...](https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/health_effects/ultrasonics.html)

------
jacquesm
One problem with using ultrasound for anything is that interference between
two ultrasound sources and ultrasound and 'regular' (audible) sound can be
audible itself.

This is interesting technology (and not exactly new technology either), but
less than practical when deployed with the same carelessness with which WiFi
base stations are strung up (and extension cords are deployed).

Ultrasound may not be heard directly but that doesn't mean it doesn't affect
you either. Unlike magnetism (of which we can be exposed so serious field-
strengths before it starts to affect us) ultrasound, especially high power
versions (you're going to have to do this at a fairly high power level if
you're going to be beaming the power indiscriminately, if you want to 'focus'
on a receiver then you're going to have to take all kinds of losses from less
than ideal angles and distances into account which really adds up) can cause
you to experience sensations even when you can't experience the soundwave
itself.

Nice idea, probably won't fly but I'm rooting for them anyway and I hope
Andreessen and co had this properly vetted for all of the above before they
invested (I can't imagine them doing otherwise but VCs are not above making
stupid investments). They indicate several times they did plenty of DD so who
knows, it might just really work and have no side effects whatsoever.

Meanwhile, I'll be plugging my cellphone into its charger and call it 'good
enough', once every 5 days is a minor inconvenience.

------
xorcist
What a strange choice of headline. Lots of people have trouble setting up
their wifi. How many how trouble plugging in something electric?

------
seasoup
Wow, I didn't expect this level of skepticism and negativity on hacker news.
This is exactly the kind of audacious, potentially world changing invention
that hackers should be striving for. Merideth has my respect. We should be
supporting her in this endeavor, not trying to tear her down.

~~~
kybernetyk
> We should be supporting her in this endeavor, not trying to tear her down.

Yup. Also we should write nice letters to the guy currently working on
perpetual motion ... (for which patents have been filed too btw).

------
malandrew
I was really hoping there was more hear about the technology, specifically
what they are doing differently and the backgrounds of the engineers making
this a reality. The process of raising money and getting buy-in is far less
interesting than demos showing how much electricity is going into the
transmitter and how much is being received by the receivers, especially under
the conditions he says they can deal with (movement, etc). This is one of
those ideas that fails or succeeds on the technology. As background, talent,
gumption and charisma of the non-technical people is irrelevant if the
technology isn't there.

It's a very strong sell from a VC without evidence. If they can do some of the
things claimed, wouldn't you let the evidence speak for itself?

~~~
wmeredith
It's a very strong sell from _someone who just cut them a check for $10
million_.

~~~
malandrew
Exactly. They just raised $10 million. Why do they need any selling at all?
Obviously they should be back at work building their product and figuring out
the manufacturing logistics for when it's ready. Hyping a company right after
raising a round and way before they have a product is strange.

------
malandrew
Here's a supposed demo of the device in action:

[http://on.aol.com/video/ubeam-wireless-power-
demonstration-a...](http://on.aol.com/video/ubeam-wireless-power-
demonstration-at-d9-517342543)

Only thing is that I want to see what's in the box on the left. There's
nothing to show that the transmitters are actually transferring power and
aren't simply telling the other side to turn on and change resistivity to a
hidden battery on the left hand side (or even draw from the battery in the
iPhone connected to the left hand side)

Furthermore, that's a pretty janky analog multimeter to be using for anyone
doing electronics, and it's currently set to measure resistivity, not current
or voltage.

~~~
danbruc
It's set to the 10V AC range and for such a demo an analog display is a better
choice, way easier to see the change than by looking at a LCD display.

~~~
malandrew
So it is. I tried to find a big picture of that multimeter to see what it was
set to because the video image quality it poor, but now on closer inspection I
can see it's set to AC volts. The most similar analog radio shack model I
could find a picture of extended the resistance area further up the dial.

------
hsshah
I cannot judge the merit of this approach but I have been eagerly waiting for
WiTricity or Cota to show up in my electronics gadgets. Can't wait to get rid
of charging cables. I am sure the engineering takes lots of effort and time
but I remember seeing WiTricity TED talk years back :(

I was expecting Apple to integrate such technology for it's Watch. I don't
want one more device that I have to remember to charge everyday.

[http://witricity.com](http://witricity.com)
[http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/09/cota-by-ossia-wireless-
powe...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/09/cota-by-ossia-wireless-power/)

------
chillingeffect
Tesla drove himself crazy trying to transmit power wirelessly.

Physics and nature make it hard to safely transfer a large amount of energy
between a source and our bodies. Wide beam = loss. Narrow beam = destroying
human flesh.

Wireless anything has a reality distortion field around it.

This plan seems like it is bulging with "almosts."

I don't think it will go widespread, but it will be a valuable niche. Kind of
like google glass and segways. Their job is to find that niche. Perhaps in a
laboratory or food processing factory setting? or another manufacturing
environment where a machine or robot must operate wirelessly.

------
vkuruthers
I can't see how this would be efficient enough to charge a phone. Does anyone
have a rough idea of what the end to end efficiency of this system would be?

Also if it's a beamed technology, does it then need N transmitters to charge N
devices? How is the beam targeted?

Seems like a simple inductive charger would be much more practical.

------
jbuzbee
Drive the dogs crazy? i.e. Dogs and other animals can hear some level of
ultrasound:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasound#Animals](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasound#Animals)

------
klochner
Not a good sign that they can pitch it as "Clinkle for power".

------
rubyfan
Plugging stuff into the wall isn't all that cumbersome. I'm not sure why I'd
even want something like this. Not trying to be a troll, just really missing
the appeal on this.

------
andrewchambers
My university has wireless power using coils which we used for charging toy
race cars.

That uses electrical induction for the power transfer. Probably much much
better than ultrasound.

------
berelig
>When I first met Meredith Perry she was 24. That was three months ago this
week.

Well isn't that just the oddest way to start an article.

------
qpalzm2231
am sure she is great etc.

this comment is a bit OT.

i wish i could see more founders who are ugly and short (either male or
female), in the good books of VCs and SV, gives more faith in the ecosystem.

~~~
ivanca
I concur with you. VCs have a hard time measuring technical knowledge because
they lack such knowledge themselves, and first appearances are more the result
of the generic lottery than skills. That doesn't mean every rich person is
beautiful, but it would be dishonest to pretend that it doesn't play a big
role when social interactions are involved, such as raising capital.

