3 ms·

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they can somehow overcome the focusing of sound problem and get it to work... what remains are other is

by Jerry2 11y ago

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they can somehow overcome the focusing of sound problem and get it to work... what remains are other issues with this technology. One thing that is not discussed enough when talking about uBeam are health effects of high-energy ultrasound. The kinds of energies that uBeam is talking about can destroy or seriously damage human hearing. [1] I don't even know if there is any research out there on what effects high-energy ultrasound can have on animals and pets (many of whom have sensitive hearing; much more sensitive than humans). In any case, uBeam has a lot of problems ahead and I don't think they have raised nearly enough money to meet all these challenges. [1]: http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/crr_pdf/2001/crr01343.pdf http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/crr_pdf/2001/crr01343.pdf

jjoonathan 11y ago
The TechCrunch article [1] referred to a study in pig tissue as but the article is paywalled. I'd love to take a look... but not so much that I'd pay $40 to do so. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041624X15001973 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041624X15... [1] http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/08/how-ubeam-works/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/08/how-ubeam-works/
- dbcooper 11y ago
  Here you go: http://docdro.id/J8cWQCj http://docdro.id/J8cWQCj
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    600 mW through 10 to 15 mm of tissue. That's a pretty hefty limitation. For one that's a short distance, second tissue will conduct ultrasound a lot better than air.