4 ms·
I think from a physics perspective this never made sense for power for devices like laptops/phones, but might have developed expertise for communications or for
by rdl 8y ago
I think from a physics perspective this never made sense for power for devices like laptops/phones, but might have developed expertise for communications or for sensors or other very low power devices. But maybe they never did that.
- harryh 8y ago"3/ Meredith oversaw uBeam's transition from consumer-facing mobile charging to b2b licensing for IoT that you'll hear a lot more about in the months ahead. She oversaw scores of patents filed and many granted in an important market area of ultrasonic energy transfer" https://twitter.com/msuster/status/1042866486367285248 https://twitter.com/msuster/status/1042866486367285248
- pkaye 8y agoI'd just be curious of a derivation of how much energy can be transmitted by ultrasonic energy transfer without causing hearing damage due to prolonged exposure.
- harryh 8y agoIf you google around there has been a decent amount written by physics folks about how ubeam could never work doing exactly this sort of calculation. They show that the amount wouldn't be useful to charge a phone or other similar device. But I guess it might be useful for other things? I dunno.
- pkaye 8y agoFor small IOT devices, the primary benefit would be to charge from a distance (wireless charging) but then the efficiency of the ultrasonic energy transfer will also drop inverse square to the distance. And if the power requirements are low enough, why not live with a lithium batter that will last 5-10 years possibly?
- rdl 8y agoI can think of some specialty environments where batteries fail (due to environmental, temperature, acceleration, etc.) but where energy-transfer would be good. I can separately think of times when RF/induction/etc. wouldn't be good, but ultrasonic might be good.