4 ms·

What uBeam needs is not "technical details", it's a credible witness reporting that they saw a working prototype. I am confident that will not materialize.

harryh 11y ago
I disagree completely with this. Past claims that uBeam is infeasibly have rested on discussions of physics not engineering. Refuting these claims with physics is perfectly reasonable.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  That gets you only so far. A working prototype would instantly silence all critics and since they have a patent there is nothing that would stop them at this stage from demonstrating such a prototype. uBeam seeks the attention and they seem to be upset that some of that attention is skeptical in nature. That's the problem of trying to stir up a whole bunch of press for something that you can't show yet (or maybe even at all) for whatever reasons. Some people - rightly or wrongly - will question your assumptions going on their own knowledge and understanding of the limitations of the technology as it is presently understood. The explanations that uBeam gives are grounded in physics but only if you take on the extra qualifier 'within laboratory setting'. And that is where the whole thing derails, the critics are making claims about real world settings whereas uBeam is talking (mostly and as far as I understand it) about whether or not their technology could work in a theoretical manner. I'm fairly sure that given a $10M budget you could create a working device in a controlled setup. Whether that same device could then be generalized to the point where you can slap it in a home or a coffee-shop and expect to power the vast majority of the devices present and all that without inconveniencing or endangering people and other creatures present is exactly the point of contention. And I don't think anything short of a working demo will be enough to convince the skeptics. So uBeam should either put up or shut up, no amount of PR fluff will move the needle, unless of course the world at large is not actually the intended audience of these publications.
  - timv 11y ago
    A working prototype would instantly silence all critics I'm not sure it would. The general view seems to be that this is feasible in the sense that under the right conditions you can indeed transmit power via ultrasound. (See below) The issues are more around the fact that the energy loss is massive, and the there are genuine risks to human (and animal) health. So a prototype isn't the solution, unless that prototype is a lot more than a trade demo, and actually operates in a normal home/office, over an extended period of time. Evidence that many people think it's possible to produce a prototype, but not possible to produce a viable product: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10527361 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10527361 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10527712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10527712 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10527607 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10527607
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      I think there is some confusion here about the difference between proof-of-concept and 'working prototype', those are most definitely not the same things.

harryh 11y ago

I disagree completely with this. Past claims that uBeam is infeasibly have rested on discussions of physics not engineering. Refuting these claims with physics is perfectly reasonable.

jacquesm 11y ago
That gets you only so far. A working prototype would instantly silence all critics and since they have a patent there is nothing that would stop them at this stage from demonstrating such a prototype. uBeam seeks the attention and they seem to be upset that some of that attention is skeptical in nature. That's the problem of trying to stir up a whole bunch of press for something that you can't show yet (or maybe even at all) for whatever reasons. Some people - rightly or wrongly - will question your assumptions going on their own knowledge and understanding of the limitations of the technology as it is presently understood. The explanations that uBeam gives are grounded in physics but only if you take on the extra qualifier 'within laboratory setting'. And that is where the whole thing derails, the critics are making claims about real world settings whereas uBeam is talking (mostly and as far as I understand it) about whether or not their technology could work in a theoretical manner. I'm fairly sure that given a $10M budget you could create a working device in a controlled setup. Whether that same device could then be generalized to the point where you can slap it in a home or a coffee-shop and expect to power the vast majority of the devices present and all that without inconveniencing or endangering people and other creatures present is exactly the point of contention. And I don't think anything short of a working demo will be enough to convince the skeptics. So uBeam should either put up or shut up, no amount of PR fluff will move the needle, unless of course the world at large is not actually the intended audience of these publications.
- timv 11y ago
  A working prototype would instantly silence all critics I'm not sure it would. The general view seems to be that this is feasible in the sense that under the right conditions you can indeed transmit power via ultrasound. (See below) The issues are more around the fact that the energy loss is massive, and the there are genuine risks to human (and animal) health. So a prototype isn't the solution, unless that prototype is a lot more than a trade demo, and actually operates in a normal home/office, over an extended period of time. Evidence that many people think it's possible to produce a prototype, but not possible to produce a viable product: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10527361 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10527361 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10527712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10527712 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10527607 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10527607
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    I think there is some confusion here about the difference between proof-of-concept and 'working prototype', those are most definitely not the same things.