
uBeam's insider story by ex employee? - techitreal
http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-sausage-factory.html
======
Pitarou
TL;DR Theranos, uBeam and Energous have all figured out how to bilk investors
by exploiting their well-known tendency to "invest in teams not products".
Hired some great engineers? That's good enough for us; we don't need to check
whether your science is snake oil or not.

The bosses of Energous are especially slick. They went for IPO early and
started paying themselves huge salaries. At the point when the market might
have started asking questions like, "Why is there still no product?" they
headed off trouble by adding a bunch of reassuringly big names to the board.

------
techitreal
[http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/05/abandon-
ship.ht...](http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/05/abandon-ship.html) \-
Interesting that the CFO left less than one year after this article.
[http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/28/electric-
liberation/](http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/28/electric-liberation/)

Also another fun point- every techcrunch article on ubeam is by Josh Constine

Turns out the VP joined because of Merc Berte - the MIT/Raytheon engineer, who
also left right after series A fund raising. Both Merc and this VP guys seems
amazingly sharp. But what's surprising is nowhere in the media you see any
credit given to these guys.Perry is branded as a sole genius.

The VP writes-

"And the point of this story? In my opinion, don't take the presence of smart
engineers as confirmation of a technology's viability (either way), and don't
think the engineers at a company you find questionable aren't smart and are
fully aware of the technical issues of what they're working on. They just want
to play with fun toys."

~~~
petra
>> every techcrunch article on ubeam is by Josh Constine

Techcrunch is just a PR channel for startups.

------
Animats
I commented on this 200 days ago.[1] I pointed out that you could build a demo
version with off the shelf components. 4000 piezoelectric transducers in a 1
meter square frame, with enough separate drivers that you could form and steer
a beam, ought to do it. It would take several kilowatts of power to get the
claimed sound power level. Audio in that power range is used for ultrasonic
welding of plastics. It's attenuated with distance, of course, so a few meters
out, you're not getting much power.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10420539](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10420539)

~~~
asmithmd1
This seems like the definitive source for technical information on uBeam:

[http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-
faq/](http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/)

------
manigandham
> Surely the VC's are performing their due-diligence and there are adults
> minding the store?

They're not. VC's (especially in SV) are notoriously bad at actually
understanding any tech and very easy to trick into delivering large checks.
This has been seen countless times.

~~~
minimaxir
uBeam is an interesting case because the problems were pointed out as soon as
it was announced.

But then Mark Suster said "hey, our engineers said it's legit, quit your
whining!"

[https://bothsidesofthetable.com/the-audacious-plan-to-
make-e...](https://bothsidesofthetable.com/the-audacious-plan-to-make-
electricity-as-easy-as-wifi-45d9e26d81f0)

~~~
smoyer
Suster keeps talking about it being safe because they put sound-waves into
pregnant women's bellies ... the FDA actually regulates how much power can be
sent, and those probes require direct (usually gel coupled) contact with the
target.

Sound waves can definitely damage flesh.

------
rdtsc
> Surely the VC's are performing their due-diligence and there are adults
> minding the store?

If your goal was to run a startup (not necessarily build a product, but just
be a CEO of a startup), you just had to find someone with money more stupid
than you.

I saw it happen before. Someone came with a silly idea for the company,
managed to convince a few non-very technical people to trust them, and off
they went playing SV CEO for a while.

If startups weren't hot a few years ago, they'd probably be buying and selling
subprime mortgages or other such thing.

Gotta wonder what is next in the pipeline. VC money is drying up I hear but
money doesn't like to stay put, wonder what's the next bubble (genetics,
robots, self driving cars, medical devices...)?

~~~
w1ntermute
> Elizabeth Parrish, CEO of the biotech company BioViva, claims that her
> body's cells are 20 years younger after testing her company’s age-reversing
> gene therapy on herself.

> The 45-year-old Seattle-area woman, who has no scientific or medical
> training, underwent the experimental treatment last September in an
> undisclosed clinic in Colombia. The unorthodox, overseas trial, which was
> designed to skirt US federal regulations, prompted the resignation of one of
> the company’s scientific advisors. George Martin, of the University of
> Washington, quit after telling MIT Technology Review, "This is a big
> problem. I am very upset by what is happening. I would urge lots of
> preclinical studies.”[0]

She'll be raising a series A in no time.

0: [http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/ceo-tests-crazy-
genet...](http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/ceo-tests-crazy-genetic-
therapy-on-herself-claims-it-added-20-years-of-life/)

~~~
rdtsc
I guess genetics is the new bubble ;-).

Previously if uberfordogs.ly failed dogs didn't make it to the park in time to
play with their friends. I am afraid to find out what happens when
growanextrabrain.io fails.

------
kumarski
The CEO responded to some of my inquiries when I had challenged Ubeam's claims
on a productHunt thread 2 years ago.

[https://www.producthunt.com/tech/ubeam](https://www.producthunt.com/tech/ubeam)

I've always felt bold scientific claims required extremely bold evidence.

------
minimaxir
I made the comparison between uBeam and Theranos last week which led to
interesting discussions:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11615206](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11615206)

In other posts by the OP (the linked post is the first of the blog), they make
the same comparisons too. I was suspicious of the OP's credibility, but one of
the posts has detailed physics on airborne waves which fits their experience
and skills at uBeam: [http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/05/acoustic-
nonlin...](http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/05/acoustic-
nonlinearity.html)

------
chx
I know this is trite but Madoff got away with his Ponzi scheme for decades
despite numerous SEC (and other authorities) investigations. What makes you
think uBeam can't get away for a few years with a Ponzi scheme thinly veiled
by impossible tech?

------
neya
To those who are interested in reading more of this tech:

uBeam's patent:
[https://www.google.com/patents/US20120299540](https://www.google.com/patents/US20120299540)

    
    
        "Because decibels are a logarithmic scale, a decrease of
        3dB is half the power. With the uBeam system, being just 
        one meter away from the transmitter will bring the power 
        down by half... It’s also absolutely insane. For something 
        that claims to be as easy as WiFi to install, look at the 
        differences: WiFi merely requires a single router to be 
        installed anywhere in the store. uBeam would require a 
        dozen transmitters, each of with include mechanical 
        steering for their transducers. uBeam would require 
        everyone to buy an ultrasonic power receiver for each 
        device."[0] 
    
    

[0][http://hackaday.com/2015/10/20/the-curious-case-of-
ultrasoni...](http://hackaday.com/2015/10/20/the-curious-case-of-ultrasonic-
power-transfer/)

~~~
mbrameld
In no way am I saying uBeam is legit, but there was a time when you had to buy
a wireless adapter for each device you wanted to use with your Wi-Fi access
point.

------
GeorgeOu
It looks like this former uBeam engineer exposed Energous too.
[http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/04/those-other-
guy...](http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/04/those-other-guys-
pt-1.html)

He linked to this story on Energous.
[http://seekingalpha.com/article/3811296-energous-buy-
company...](http://seekingalpha.com/article/3811296-energous-buy-companys-
story-stock)

"Using the 1 watt as our transmitter power translates to 0.000507 watt (0.507
milliwatts or 507 microwatts) at the receiving end. "

But it's even worse than this! The FCC does not allow you to transmit at the
full 1 watt (30 dBm) if you focus the energy with more than 6 dB gain. If you
want to use a phase array to get 21 dB antenna gain, you must drop your
transmit power to 25 dBm or 0.316 watts. Every 3 dBi of antenna gain must be
accompanied by 1 dBm decline in transmit power.

------
sargun
What do you guys think about Lightsail
([http://lightsail.com/](http://lightsail.com/))? I'm not entirely sure how
they can make an economical 500 KW CAES system, but I don't totally understand
their tech.

------
muglug
Here's a former uBeam VP of Engineering (the title the author says they had)
who left the same month the author says they left:
[https://www.linkedin.com/in/paulreynolds6](https://www.linkedin.com/in/paulreynolds6)

~~~
x0x0
maybe don't do this? If he or she wanted to be easily googleable, he or she
could have put a name directly on the blog...

~~~
chx
You realize of course his name is on the first page of Google results on "VP
engineering" ubeam
[https://www.google.ca/search?complete=0&&gws_rd=ssl&q=%22VP+...](https://www.google.ca/search?complete=0&&gws_rd=ssl&q=%22VP+Engineering%22+ubeam)
and the only result which is not "we are hiring". Then copypasting firstname
lastname ubeam back into Google will spit out that LinkedIn page as the first
result. It took longer to type this than do two Google searches.

~~~
x0x0
I did not realize it was that easily found

~~~
chx
I literally grew up with web searches having started browsing the (very
nascent) web in 1993 with a Mosaic beta. I have tried to disseminate my
knowledge in this topic via articles, book chapters and speeches. But really,
we are on _hacker_ news. This is quintessential hacking: try, change what you
did based on the results, try again, repeat rinse. It will eventually work.
Given the speed of Google and scanning ten results, you can fire off a search
every few seconds and get to the result real quick. (Or just never if the
material is not well searchable. Did you know the best or perhaps the only
travel VESA monitor stand is a microphone stand? )

~~~
x0x0
Actually, what I meant was the link between person X and the blog. No matter
that people reading the blog could find the author (that was obvious), but
rather that people googling person X didn't necessarily find the blog (until
this thread.)

------
stelfer
It's times like this that I'm reminded that the world really needs more
physicists.

~~~
wklauss
What it needs is common sense. Plenty of people pointed at the flaws, its just
nobody listened. Or preferred to acto like they didn't hear.

------
ErikAugust
I wish I could find it - there is a blog post out there about someone meeting
with a VC. The VC and the person get to talking - and the convo goes to uBeam.

The VC says something to the effect of, "Yeah, I know the physics don't make
sense. But the CEO is so charismatic that more investors will want in down the
line."

~~~
hackaflocka
I remember the first time I saw a group of young VCs (in Palo Alto no less) in
public. Walking down the street together. They looked like male supermodels.
All of them perfectly dressed, tall, good looking, triathlon physiques...

As soon as I saw this, I could sense that this business is driven by
"Confirmation Bias" and "Representativeness Bias", the Halo Effect.

These guys are hiring people who look like themselves, who do the same
(extreme) sports like themselves, etc. It's a case of Steve Jobs looking for
someone who looks like Steve Jobs, instead of the plump, dowdy, disheveled,
and genius Steve Wozniak.

~~~
Animats
When Facebook was in downtown Palo Alto, their early staff looked like that.

------
auvi
uBeam is working on this since 2011. I wonder at what point uBeam will be
considered "Vaporware"? If they don't deliver anything by 2021 (that's a big
if), I would consider uBeam a vaporware for sure.

------
logicallee
Would anybody fault uBeam if they got to market using stuff Tesla showed in
the 19th century? All this story shows is that after selling snake oil you
should buckle up and ship aspirin.

What, are investors going to sue them for not being acoustic enough? "these
sales are great but this isn't the tech we were promised."?

Who cares. It's called uBeam not uScream. I've never heard anyone complain
about someone shipping different tech from what they raised money with. Have
you?

~~~
shrewduser
i don't think tesla's stuff was all that viable

~~~
logicallee
okay - but why not pivot to something that could work, as a backup project?
why wouldnt the company diversify when they realized their tech probably
doesn't work? they had tons of money . . .

------
littletimmy
Would uBeam have received half its funding if the founder was not a woman?

Between the Theranos case and now the uBeam case, I think the drive for
"equality" has gone so far that it is affecting investing decisions. There are
people in the Valley so desperate for female CEOs that they are willing to
overlook science and commonsense if they can get a marketable female CEO.

What do you think?

~~~
zeemonkee3
It's about the story. An underdog - such as a very young female CEO - always
makes for a good story for the press and investors (how Holmes, born into
privilege, can be considered an "underdog" is beyond me, but I digress).

------
techitreal
An insider's perspective on how really things really are in one of Silicon
Valley's next unicorn startup- uBeam. Mark Cuban calls it a "Zillion Dollar
Idea". Fortune calls her "Next Elon Musk". Reminded me about Theranos. But
then, the author himself has brought up the comparison as well. This post is
pretty interesting too- [http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/04/must-
have-preci...](http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/04/must-have-
precious.html) which talks about the start of uBeam. Seems like the MIT CTO,
VP, and the recent CFO- all left the company. Thoughts?

~~~
rahimiali
ubeam's in southern CA, not silicon valley.

------
mikeyouse
Am I the only one who thinks the HN reaction to uBeam is pretty gross? Now
we're encouraging shit-talking by former employees? It's an innovative hard
tech company with an audacious goal that would change the world if successful
and was funded by knowledgeable investors using private money. Why is everyone
here so eager to trash talk them?

Because their stated goal of wireless phone charging is likely too hard to get
to work right? If they "only" figure out short distance beam-formed wireless
power at 25% efficiency, is the company a failure?

Look around any apartment in an 'old' city and you'll see dozens of things
that would benefit from being able to throw power like WiFi. 60-watt
equivalent LEDs are something like 9W -- there are about 100 places in my
apartment I'd like to have better light but my landlord has no interest in
running new power lines. Smoke detectors trickle charging at even 1W would
never run out of power. Modern 40" TVs can use as little as 25W of power --
with a powerful uBeam and a Chromecast, you could attach it to any wall and
never see a cable. Those "smart mirrors" that everyone builds then never shows
full frame due to the ugly cord running out of it could easily be charged via
wireless tech.

There are obviously many obstacles and who knows if they'll make it, but it
seems extremely short sighted and against the spirit of HN to actively cheer
for a company's failure.

 _Edit: Apparently, yes, I 'm the only one._

~~~
minimaxir
The official numbers from uBeam are 1.5W _maximum_ , in _ideal_ circumstances:
[http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/wireless-power-
charger/](http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/wireless-power-charger/)

You may want to read the writeup which forced that disclosure:
[http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-
faq/](http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/)

~~~
mikeyouse
Yes yes, for their phone-sized receiver. If you change the receiver size or
transmitter size, you can change the power delivered.. If you fix the distance
and take away the requirement to track a moving object, you can reliably send
more power as well.. Adding battery capacity to a TV that's used 4 hours per
day effectively cuts the power requirement to 1/6th. Lights that are used for
a few hours each night are in the same range. Why does everyone's creativity
suddenly disappear when the hivemind has decided to attack a company?

I'll run some better numbers tomorrow for a fixed distance / size, but
intuitively, eliminating the "tracking a phone from 5M away" requirement
dramatically expands the use cases.

~~~
minimaxir
Keep in mind that you still need to _obey the laws of thermodynamics_. Those
are rules startups can't ever break.

The writeup I linked has a good argument against the feasibility of wireless
power for a TV:

> A typical large, flat-screen TV (eg. [42]) will draw about 60 watts. Since a
> TV is usually mounted in one place, some of the limitations get easier, but
> not all - if the TV is two feet (60 cm) from the wall, and the receiver is
> 40% efficient, that's still about 80% losses. To transmit 300 watts at 0.3
> W/cm^2, one has to have a 1,000 cm^2 transmitter, a bit over a foot on each
> side (31.6 cm). One could make the transmitter smaller (100 cm^2, or 4
> inches/10 cm across) by increasing the intensity to 165 dB, a level that
> causes burns "almost instantly" (from Question #7), but that seems unwise.
> Since most power outlets are near the floor, and the TV probably isn't, one
> would still have to run a cord to the transmitter. And uBeam takes 240 watts
> of electricity, about a dozen light bulbs' worth, and dumps it into the air
> for no real reason. That's not good for the environment. Or the power bill.
> Or the air conditioning - all that heat makes the room hotter.

~~~
mikeyouse
I'm not moved by that post.. Didn't you know Google wasted $100M by investing
in D-Wave which has been proven to be no faster than a laptop?

Anyway, there's nothing about thermodynamic limitations in the section about
the TV. The author is making several exaggerated statements that are easily
refuted to make the TV suddenly possible... Let's focus on the wasted energy
(240W or a dozen light bulbs!) to make the point:

* Assume a 48" LED[1] that uses 31W and suddenly you're only wasting 120W.

* His 80% loss figure is a holdover from his calculations about the phone -- cut this in half and you're at 60W of waste heat. (You should be able to achieve a nearly perfect perpendicular 'connection' between transmitter/receiver for a fixed TV).

So far, we're delivering 30W of power and wasting 60W as heat -- not ideal

* If you plan for a worst-case of 8-hrs straight of watching TV and plan on a battery backup, you could get away with delivering 10W to the TV and only wasting 20W as heat which is eminently reasonable.

The "physically impossible" claims are greatly overstated (for non-phone
charging use cases).

[1] -
[https://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=most_efficient.me_tvs...](https://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=most_efficient.me_tvs_35to50_inches)

~~~
URSpider94
Your battery solution for the TV doesn't reduce the energy waste, it just
spreads it out in time. It's now 20W wasted 24 hours a day instead of 60W for
8 hours a day. Same difference.

Until our houses are powered by 100% renewable energy, any technology that
sacrifices more than half the input energy just so someone doesn't have to see
an extension cord should be banned by law.

