
UBeam finally shows off its wireless charging tech - quant
https://www.axios.com/ubeam-finally-shows-off-its-wireless-charging-technology-2236385621.html
======
learc83
From the looks of it the founder and her roommate (a political science major
who's since been written out of the company's history) developed a basic idea
with no experience or demonstrable ability to turn it into a product, and
received tens of millions to give it a shot.

It's not a new idea--ultrasound is already used to power pacemakers, and
people have been playing with the concept for years. However, basic
calculations shows that this is not likely to be practical as a consumer
device. The founder has no physics or electrical engineering background, so
there's no reason to think that she has some unique ability to overcome these
hurdles. She's also hasn't demonstrated that she's developed any novel
techniques to overcome the engineering challenges.

So why all the VC money? Why give VC money to a 20 something with no
experience and no background with the hope that she'll hire enough engineers
to figure it out? It just doesn't make sense to me.

I said the same thing about Theranos. They basically gave an inexperienced
person who had no real domain knowledge millions of dollars to run a research
lab. It looks very similar. Are VCs just desperate for a media friendly
founder success story?

edit: Turns out there was already a patent covering something very similar
filed in 2003
[https://www.google.com/patents/US6798716?dq=ultrasound+power...](https://www.google.com/patents/US6798716?dq=ultrasound+power+transmission#v=onepage&q&f=false)

~~~
axtscz
Just a shot in the dark, but I think VC's probably see this as game changing
tech if someone can pull it off. Something that would pay off big and that
slot of risk must've been acceptable.

Also possibly to fill diversity requirements.

~~~
learc83
> but I think VC's probably see this as game changing tech if someone can pull
> it off

I'm sure it would be. But what I don't understand is why not hire someone who
knows what they're doing to try to pull it off? Why hire an inexperienced
person with almost no domain knowledge just because she happens to have a very
basic idea sketched out.

~~~
axtscz
It's not like she's the only person at the company. I'm sure that they've got
at least some engineering under that VC Capital umbrella

~~~
learc83
I'm sure the company is filled with engineers now. But my point is why put
someone with no research, engineering, or management experience in charge?

Imagine a hypothetical scenario. I'm a VC and some kid with a degree in
biology told me we should make phones that use ultra capacitors instead of
batteries.

Me: "That sounds cool, but it's probably not going to work because ultra caps
just don't have the energy density."

Kid: "Yeah but if you give me 25 million dollars I can hire a bunch of
engineers and figure it out."

Me: "Why do I need you? You're idea isn't novel. You don't have any experience
or training, and you probably can't even do it."

Kid: "But if I do, you'll make billions."

Me: "I can give the same money to anyone of thousands of people qualified to
actually run an R&D project, and I'll have a much higher chance of success."

------
warcher
As somebody who came from an electrical engineering background into software,
literally from the bottom of the bottom on a physical layer level....

Software VC would really benefit from a couple emag classes before trying to
disrupt physics. These extraordinary claims are not supported by extraordinary
evidence. I don't want to be anywhere near any kind of field that's strong
enough to power my laptop. Acoustic or otherwise. No thank you please.

~~~
averagewall
Sunlight, electric heaters, stoves, induction stoves, flying batteries (toy
helicopters), electric lightbulbs. There are all kinds of common ways of
transmitting large amount of power through space. Sure, they can be harmful
but we work around the risks. As long as it deposits the energy into people
slowly and as heat, then we'll feel it before it causes damage and get out of
the way.

Those things don't even have fancy high tech people-detecting safety features.
Maybe this charger shuts down when it detects that some of its energy is being
lost to an unknown place.

~~~
warcher
My dawg, you just named several things that require physical contact for
energy transfer (ie they plug into the wall) and one wireless system that will
literally kill you if you stay out in it unprotected.

I don't know if you meant to prove my point, but really man, physics is cool.

------
cocktailpeanuts
I am all for encouraging startups and giving benefit of the doubt, but isn't
this just a show?

I am curious how this is different from what she would have demoed to her
angel investors several years ago.

Displaying that it's charging is very different from actually charging. It
could look like it's "charging" but may actually take all day to finish
charging, in which case the technology is completely useless.

I am especially put off by how the "startup community" people seem to be
patting her on the back saying "it works!" even though none of them actually
believes it to be so deep inside.

Literally __ALL __of the criticism around this company have been how there 's
a huge discrepancy between the demo and their actual product (hint: there is
none), and she should have addressed THAT point (about how fast it charges)
instead of doing another one of those deceptive demos that don't mean
anything.

~~~
joering2
> Displaying that it's charging is very different from actually charging. It
> could look like it's "charging" but may actually take all day to finish
> charging, in which case the technology is completely useless.

Absolutely not! Give me a thin mat that I can put next to me at my office
desk, in the kitchen, on the night lamp stand, and on my car console between
seats, and I can guarantee you you have billion-dollar in sales!

Don't forget the common nature of us human is laziness! If something can be
done simpler (not reaching out for cable and plugging it into device 3 times a
day) then you will find people to buy it! It doesn't have to charge my phone
to full, enough to get me going for a while until next stopping/charging
point.

~~~
harryh
If you want to charge your phone while it sits on a mat you can use an
induction charger where is an entirely different technology from what uBeam is
promising.

------
taytus
Here is a TED video from 8 years ago that ends with the exact same
demonstration:
[https://www.ted.com/talks/eric_giler_demos_wireless_electric...](https://www.ted.com/talks/eric_giler_demos_wireless_electricity#t-368790)

------
comstock
Technical eevblog FAQ on the feasibility:

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

~~~
hossbeast
Very informative

------
beambot
Without a powermeter or multimeter, that's just a gimmick demo. I've done that
with UHF RFID tags from 10m away, where we harvest a few mA to light up an
LED. That doesn't mean it can charge a cellphone.

------
Renaud
Precious little technical details don't inspire much confidence on the
performance of the product. After years of research and controversy we get a
demo that shows basically very little.

To trigger a charge detection on a phone, you only need to apply a sufficient
voltage and be able to supply a small current. It will "charge" but may take
days to do so.

As a minimum, the UBeam receiver must be able to generate 5W of power (1A at
5V) to adequately charge a phone (10W or more would be needed for a faster
charge though).

Assuming that the technology is 100% efficient in its power transceivers
(which is impossible), there is still the matter of exponential attenuation
when transmitting ultrasounds through air: at 2m, to produce 5W at the
receiver, you need to generate 25W at the transmitter.

This gets worse very fast. Even if you assume they magically manage to get
extremely efficient, the laws of physic will prevent the technology from being
useful beyond a couple of meters without requiring hundreds of watts of
transmitted power. And we're not even talking about the actual performance of
the transducers, or the fact that the angle between the transmitter and
receiver can affect power transmission, as would air humidity levels...

UBeam will most probably end up producing something super-niche. On paper and
in controlled demos, you can transmit some power through the air using
ultrasounds. So maybe they'll manage to have an exhibit in a museum or some
technology-of-the-future showrooms and they'll probably continue to have demo
at exhibitions for years to come while not answering the difficult questions
of efficiency and practicality with actual verifiable numbers.

Having an affordable, safe, useful, practical mass-consumer product though?
Nah, not a chance.

UBeam is one of these companies build on wishful thinking. They sell a dream
and get money from people caught in that dream. They can't back down now, so
they have to keep up appearances and come up with polished demos from time to
time just to keep the buzz and the mystery alive, and the money flowing.

~~~
harryh

      > when transmitting ultrasounds through air: at 2m, to
      > produce 5W at the receiver, you need to generate 25W at
      > the transmitter
    

Where does that 2m come from? It has to do with the frequency of the sound
right? I don't remember enough physics. :(

~~~
Renaud
2m is what they demoed if I'm right. The power attenuation actually varies a
lot and is dependent on ultrasound frequency, temperature, humidity, air
pressure...

You get better transmission at low frequencies, but below 100kHz you risk
affecting pets.

Some details and a link to an interesting paper:
[http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52195/ultrasonic-...](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52195/ultrasonic-
wave-through-air)

~~~
harryh
Ya, it's the power attenuation calculations that I'm trying to
relearn/reremember how to do. I'll keep futzing around. Is fun. Thx for the
link.

------
porsupah
It's been posted before, but bears repeating:

[http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/the-
sausage-f...](http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/the-sausage-
factory.html)

\- it's a lengthy series of posts from the former VP of Engineering at uBeam,
going into the politics and technological issues.

------
swang
If you guys can't watch the videos on twitter essentially she held a phone
that was turned off kinda in front of the machine, then it turned on and a
"battery" showed on the screen with a 3 frame animation of it "charging"

No proof whatsoever that it was charging anything.

Does that mean it's not real? Unsure. But this wasn't that convincing.

~~~
ClassyJacket
I'm sure it was charging. Probably at a rate of 1 full charge per month, but
totally charging ;)

------
kevin_thibedeau
> When she did so, a large battery charge counter on the screen showed that it
> was indeed charging.

That doesn't prove it was charging, just that it could sense the ultrasound
and throw up a graphic. Let's see it run for 30 minutes and show the Android
battery app for proof.

------
pdq
No details of input power to the transmitter nor power received by the
receiver.

Companies have demo'ed similar devices before, but where the rubber meets the
road is the efficiency and total power of the system. In other words, if it
takes 200 watts to transmit and 200 milliwatts received at 3 feet, it is not
useful for a consumer nor the environment.

~~~
minimaxir
The article mentions a "coin-sized chip," although it's hard to say if that
refers to the transmitter or refers to the receiver.

One of the older articles about uBeam stated that a trickle charge for
IoT/Phone was the target after the physical limitations were discussed.

~~~
dpark
In what way is any of that relevant to the question of efficiency?

~~~
minimaxir
It's entirely possible that efficiency may not be a product objective for
uBeam.

~~~
dpark
It certainly should be. If I need to waste enough electricity to charge my car
just to charge my phone, that's a big problem.

------
Animats
_Perry first stood a couple of yards from a large white box emitting
ultrasound waves, and used a device that glowed red when it was in the waves '
path. She then grabbed an Android smartphone in a large and bulky black case,
and held it up in that path. When she did so, a large battery charge counter
on the screen showed that it was indeed charging._

Of course you can transmit some power that way. But how much? And what's the
efficiency?

Here's their previous demo, from 2011.[1] What they had then was a bunch of
cheap ultrasonic transducers [2] aimed at each other. Those used to be popular
for hobbyist robotics. Some unspecified amount of power was transmitted about
two feet. Probably a few milliwatts.

The last time UBeam published numbers, they claimed to be generating a few
kilowatts of sound power. Such things are usually used as weapons systems (see
LRAD) or welders. You don't want to be in a kilowatt ultrasonic beam. The
energy mostly ends up as heat.

This technology is either too low power to be useful or, if pumped up to
useful power levels, too dangerous.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoHxyweJcZI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoHxyweJcZI)
[2]
[http://www.futurlec.com/Ultrasonic_Sensors.shtml](http://www.futurlec.com/Ultrasonic_Sensors.shtml)

------
rjdagost
We can glean some info from the videos posted to Twitter. The receiver is a
big bulky cover around the phone- no way that will fit in my pocket. The
transmitters are the size of a microwave oven. Notice that she is very careful
to hold the phone so as to maximize the area that is exposed to ultrasound.
There doesn't seem to be any tracking at work.

At the end of the day, after 5+ years and $25M+ spent ubeam is still quite far
away from a viable consumer product. It would kill Meredith Perry to admit it,
but the naysayers were right about the viability of this technology. At some
point you've just got to cut your losses and move on.

------
xt00
So how much energy was transferred? The charging icon easily could come on
under many different situations and also if the phone receiver pack was
engineered to detect the presence of an ultrasonic signal that would then tell
a battery pack inside the receiver pack to start charging the phone that
easily could be used to fake the situation. So again one of these situations
that easily can be judged to be good or bad with like 2 numbers but they
refuse to publish those numbers.. Shocking...

------
xkcd-sucks
I really hope they get a product to market. The wireless charging aspect is
boring, but it'll be cool to modify it for frying things, messing with dogs
and stuff

~~~
mikeyouse
Wireless charging will be awesome.

As a person who wants an exterior security camera, a wireless bluetooth
speaker in my bathroom, smoke detectors placed in the highest parts of my
ceiling, a completely wireless TV on my wall, to never have to plug my phone
in again, LEDs in the ceiling of my garage for better visibility in the
corners, and about 100 other little things, wireless power will change
everything for the better.

A small battery and wireless power basically means no more cables for about
90% of home devices.

------
TeMPOraL
Well, frankly: pics or it didn't happen. Or rather videos, in this case.

~~~
patrickyeon
I went digging for videos on Twitter (as that's where the article says they're
floating around).

[https://twitter.com/spencerrascoff/status/827344599362383872](https://twitter.com/spencerrascoff/status/827344599362383872)
and
[https://twitter.com/broukhim/status/827430306101669888](https://twitter.com/broukhim/status/827430306101669888)

~~~
harryh
Well yup. There are some blinkenlights on that stage.

~~~
patrickyeon
I share the cynicism I infer in your comment; I don't think that this demo
really gives any weight to the idea that this will be an actual, practical,
product. However, the commenter asked for a video and there it is.

~~~
harryh
I think it's great that you found the links and posted the video. Certainly
relevant.

My cynicism is wholly directed at the company which I believe to be a fraud.
I'm sorry if I accidentally sent some of it in your direction.

------
rexreed
I'm sure this is as real as Magic Leap.

------
dcgudeman
Is this thing safe for dogs?

~~~
ryandamm
Dogs don't require charging.

------
tonydiv
Hmm. 6 years and ~$30 million dollars later, this is what we get?

------
halayli
transmitting electromagnetic signals over the air has been done long time ago
(think fm radio), but to charge a battery you need much more power, to a level
that becomes unsafe foe humans to be around it. there is no mention in the
article about saftety and what the long term effect will be on humans when
constantly around it.

------
trhway
why ultrasonic? Wouldn't millimeter radio wave beams work better?

~~~
throwanem
Another word for that range of the EM spectrum is "microwave". At moderate
power density, they very efficiently cook meat. You are made out of meat.

~~~
ryandamm
To be fair, that's just because the emission of microwave ovens is tuned to a
resonance of water molecules. That said, I think that resonance is rather
broad, so you could expect a fair amount of coupling at large power.

Also, microwaves can denature proteins; one symptom of massive microwave
exposure is cataracts (from the proteins in the eye denaturing).

But man, I really hate charging cables!

------
sofon
In case anyone is wondering about the feasibility concerns the FAQ on the web
blog is very comprehensive:

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

Overall, it seems unlikely to work, even for trickle charging phones, under
anything but ideal conditions.

