13 ms·

Audacious Plan to Make Electricity as Easy as WiFi

108 points by Sam_Odio 12y ago

berelig 12y ago
>When I first met Meredith Perry she was 24. That was three months ago this week. Well isn't that just the oddest way to start an article.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
noonespecial 12y ago
That's got to be a pretty loud noise to be able to transfer enough power to a device at a distance to be significant. Can long term exposure to loud ultrasonic noises damage your hearing even if you can't "hear" them somewhat like the way IR light can damage your eyes even though you can't see it? Think I might let a different set of early adopters try this one out before I put one in my bedroom to charge my iPad. It may just be ignorance (knowing just about nothing when it comes to acoustics) on my part, but I'm way more afraid of this than inductive wireless charging.
- drcross 12y ago
  I would think so, even if not currently measurable. Infrasonics which is sound on the other end of the inaudible spectrum is the phenomenon where animals know when an earthquake is coming, or when rats know to leave a sinking ship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound I'm not an expert in this field though.
- patcheudor 12y ago
  Yes, it has been recognized that ultrasonic sound can cause hearing damage. http://www.tinnitusjournal.com/detalhe_artigo.asp?id=109 http://www.tinnitusjournal.com/detalhe_artigo.asp?id=109 OSHA even sets standards for exposure & in fact my ultrasonic cleaner manual recommends wearing ear protection when in use. https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/health_effects/ultrasonics.html https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/health_effects/ultra...
qpalzm2231 12y ago
am sure she is great etc. this comment is a bit OT. i wish i could see more founders who are ugly and short (either male or female), in the good books of VCs and SV, gives more faith in the ecosystem.
- ivanca 12y ago
  I concur with you. VCs have a hard time measuring technical knowledge because they lack such knowledge themselves, and first appearances are more the result of the generic lottery than skills. That doesn't mean every rich person is beautiful, but it would be dishonest to pretend that it doesn't play a big role when social interactions are involved, such as raising capital.
jbuzbee 12y ago
Drive the dogs crazy? i.e. Dogs and other animals can hear some level of ultrasound: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasound#Animals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasound#Animals
tzs 12y ago
> Was it safe? Well … for starters it is just an inaudible soundwave being transferred – as in the kind also used for women during pregnancy. It also happens to be how your car likely tells the distance to objects when you park or if you have a side assist whether you can change lanes safely. Check. Both of those Examples involve short exposure. That doesn't necessarily mean long exposure is OK. You would not, I hope, conclude for instance that an X-Ray based system is safe because dentists X-Ray people as part of an annual check up. I expect it to turn out safe, but I'd want to see some studies first. Also, I'd like to see studies on what affect it has on pets. Will it also be inaudible to dogs? If not, that needs to be documented so that dog owners won't unknowing torture their pets.
- mistercow 12y ago
  It also would have to be at least an order of magnitude more energy to charge a phone than is allowed during obstetric ultrasonography.
mikeyouse 12y ago
For those wondering about if it would be audible and if the technology would impact pets, here's the receiver's patent application: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120299541 http://www.google.com/patents/US20120299541 The frequency range they list in examples for applications are from 40kHz to 110kHz. This actually does overlap with the hearing ranges of dogs and cats somewhat. Wiki lists the dog hearing range from 40Hz to 60kHz and the cat range from 55Hz to 79kHz. Humans should be safe though since a common number for the high-end of human hearing is 20kHz.
- desdiv 12y ago
  >Humans should be safe though since a common number for the high-end of human hearing is 20kHz. That doesn't mean it's safe for humans, it just means it's inaudible to humans. In many circumstances, an imperceivable threat is far more dangerous than a perceivable one. Laser is one example. If a visible laser beam hits your eyes, your blink reflex will kick in and (hopefully) save you in time. But a laser beam outside the human visual spectrum will literally burn your retina out before you figure out what's going on.
7Figures2Commas 12y ago
The back story of this company is intriguing. The founders presented a prototype way back in 2011 at the D9 conference[1], and apparently weren't able to get any traction until they found a believer in Scott Nolan at Founders Fund[2]. Interestingly, Nolan seemed most impressed by the company's distribution plans: > Mr. Nolan said Ms. Perry had shown that chain stores and some “quick-service restaurants” were eager to integrate a wireless charger into their plans. She “had addressed all these key risks and got them nailed down early,” he said. To me, it's not surprising that folks would be excited by the concept of wireless charging, just as you could easily find plenty of people who would tell you they'd buy a Back to the Future-style hover board if you could actually build it. The big question is whether the technology is real and commercially viable. One physicist who has worked on wireless charging applications says he reviewed uBeam's patent applications and ran the numbers. His conclusion: it isn't[3]. Who is correct? [1] http://allthingsd.com/20110618/how-to-charge-your-iphone-over-the-air-ubeams-d9-demo-video/ http://allthingsd.com/20110618/how-to-charge-your-iphone-ove... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/technology/an-inventor-wants-one-less-wire-to-worry-about.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/technology/an-inventor-wan... [3] http://lookatmeimdanny.tumblr.com/post/101432017159/how-putting-10m-into-ubeam-illustrates-everything-that http://lookatmeimdanny.tumblr.com/post/101432017159/how-putt...
- mikeyouse 12y ago
  I don't know who keeps that [3] blog or his credentials, but as an admitted appeal to authority, the CTO of uBeam (dual BS & MS from MIT) also ran some numbers before joining the company. As did Andreessen Horowitz's due diligence team before investing, which I'd imagine has a physicist or two in waiting. One obvious shortcoming in [3]'s analysis is assuming that you'd still need 5W of charging power if you could wirelessly charge. Delivering 1/50th of that power is probably enough to maintain a charge throughout the day and people spend ~95% of their time in reliable locations that could support wireless charging (home, car, office, etc.)
  - malandrew 12y ago
    the CTO of uBeam (dual BS & MS from MIT) also ran some numbers before joining the company I would hope that the CTO of uBeam essentially is the reason the company exists. i.e. he invented something fundamentally new and needed a partner that could sell it. If the business started with a charismatic business founder that recruited the CTO based on the business model being sound, I'd be very skeptical. A business like this doesn't exist yet not because the business model is hard, but because the physics is.
johnw 12y ago
There's noway that this is going to be practical within the current laws of physics. You can't use a wide beam to cover an area because the amount of energy available drops by orders of magnitude the further you get from the transmitter. If you used a focussed beam (which is what they are suggesting) then you need a separate beam that tracks and follows the location of each device. So to cover a very small area you'd need multiple transmitters tracking and beaming sound to the exact location of each device. And the transmitters are going to have to be very close by, and then there are all the obstacles between your pocket and the transmitter that will block the beam. You might as well just use an inductive charger. But still, just like solar freaking roadways and perpetual motion machines we want to believe and since most people don't understand the science these ridiculous and impossible ideas draw people in again and again. There's a more in depth analysis of why this won't work here: http://www.eevblog.com/2014/08/07/ubeam-ultrasonic-wireless-charging-a-familiar-fish-smell/ http://www.eevblog.com/2014/08/07/ubeam-ultrasonic-wireless-...
- domdip 12y ago
  Well, in principle you can divide one transmitter's attention to several devices over time. (Either by changing the direction of the antenna, or more sophisticatedly via beamforming.) Otherwise I agree with you. Even the tone of this article is unconvincing. I wonder what Andreessen’s due diligence team was thinking, maybe the patents have value?
  - malandrew 12y ago
    Here are the published patents thus far: http://patents.justia.com/inventor/marc-berte http://patents.justia.com/inventor/marc-berte http://patents.justia.com/inventor/matthew-angle http://patents.justia.com/inventor/matthew-angle The problem I can see is that the filing date for those patents is far later than public demonstrations such as the one at D9 on or around 04/22/2012
    - desdiv 12y ago
      >The problem I can see is that the filing date for those patents is far later than public demonstrations such as the one at D9 on or around 04/22/2012 That would indeed cause a problem in a country with an "absolute novelty" requirement in patent applications, but the United States is not a such a country. In the US, the inventor has 12 months after the first public demonstration to file for a patent, and in this case, the patent was filed within 12 months.
codexon 12y ago
I don't understand how this could be patented. Surely someone else has thought about using transducers to transmit power a long time ago? I see a similar patent here filed in 2003 that covers ultrasound transducers for wireless power transfer. http://www.google.com/patents/US6798716 http://www.google.com/patents/US6798716
pocketstar 12y ago
I am skeptical of the claimed safety of uBeam. The FDA does not advocate the safety of ultrasound. From the article: "Was it safe? Well … for starters it is just an inaudible soundwave being transferred – as in the kind also used for women during pregnancy." From the FDA: "Even though there are no known risks of ultrasound imaging, it can produce effects on the body. When ultrasound enters the body, it heats the tissues slightly. In some cases, it can also produce small pockets of gas in body fluids or tissues (cavitation). The long-term effects of tissue heating and cavitation are not known. Because of the particular concern for fetal exposures, national and international organizations have advocated prudent use of ultrasound imaging. Furthermore, the use of diagnostic ultrasound for non-medical purposes such as fetal keepsake videos has been discouraged."[0] [0]http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/MedicalImaging/ucm115357.htm http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmitt...
- ekianjo 12y ago
  The whole article is making optimistic assumptions about just everything. Is that actually a PR piece?
  - headgasket 12y ago
    I think the distinction of what is a PR piece and what is not has kind of blurred dramatically recently, dont you? It's an interesting concept to beam power via ultrasound, but it sure sounds optimistic at any realistic distance, or to make it as prevalent as wifi. Maybe there's a killer use case only the initiated (VCs and management) know of of? Otherwise it seems like a long shot for 10M.
  - source99 12y ago
    To me this seems more potent than a typical paid PR piece. This seems like the last person to invest just realized they are holding the bag and if they believe hard enough they can pass it on.
  - judk 12y ago
    It's written by an investor, right? If so, yes it's marketing.
klochner 12y ago
Not a good sign that they can pitch it as "Clinkle for power".
malandrew 12y ago
I was really hoping there was more hear about the technology, specifically what they are doing differently and the backgrounds of the engineers making this a reality. The process of raising money and getting buy-in is far less interesting than demos showing how much electricity is going into the transmitter and how much is being received by the receivers, especially under the conditions he says they can deal with (movement, etc). This is one of those ideas that fails or succeeds on the technology. As background, talent, gumption and charisma of the non-technical people is irrelevant if the technology isn't there. It's a very strong sell from a VC without evidence. If they can do some of the things claimed, wouldn't you let the evidence speak for itself?
- wmeredith 12y ago
  It's a very strong sell from someone who just cut them a check for $10 million.
  - malandrew 12y ago
    Exactly. They just raised $10 million. Why do they need any selling at all? Obviously they should be back at work building their product and figuring out the manufacturing logistics for when it's ready. Hyping a company right after raising a round and way before they have a product is strange.
malandrew 12y ago
Here's a supposed demo of the device in action: http://on.aol.com/video/ubeam-wireless-power-demonstration-at-d9-517342543 http://on.aol.com/video/ubeam-wireless-power-demonstration-a... Only thing is that I want to see what's in the box on the left. There's nothing to show that the transmitters are actually transferring power and aren't simply telling the other side to turn on and change resistivity to a hidden battery on the left hand side (or even draw from the battery in the iPhone connected to the left hand side) Furthermore, that's a pretty janky analog multimeter to be using for anyone doing electronics, and it's currently set to measure resistivity, not current or voltage.
- danbruc 12y ago
  It's set to the 10V AC range and for such a demo an analog display is a better choice, way easier to see the change than by looking at a LCD display.
  - malandrew 12y ago
    So it is. I tried to find a big picture of that multimeter to see what it was set to because the video image quality it poor, but now on closer inspection I can see it's set to AC volts. The most similar analog radio shack model I could find a picture of extended the resistance area further up the dial.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Current or voltage is not relevant you want current and voltage. Just voltage without Ri doesn't mean anything, you could easily get any kind of voltage by using a simple transformer. That doesn't mean useful power is transferred for that you need to apply a load and measure current through the load and voltage across the load. Also, AC voltage on an analogue meter is usually calibrated at 50 or 60 Hz, not at much higher frequencies.
xorcist 12y ago
What a strange choice of headline. Lots of people have trouble setting up their wifi. How many how trouble plugging in something electric?
Htsthbjig 12y ago
I only expect they make other people choose when they are around to have this on. We used to do lots of experiments in the lab with ultrasonics, playing around. A couple of times we had our ears hurt for a while(all the people in the team) after getting out of the lab, We learned the lesson, even when you don't hear anything, it can affect you. In fact, it is worse when you can't detect something that could affect you. I would prefer to use something that I could see like visible green light and solar cells in the phone. I won't put my eyes too near of a 10Watts source, but with something you can't see or hear, you could inadvertently put your organs too close for too long.
jacquesm 12y ago
One problem with using ultrasound for anything is that interference between two ultrasound sources and ultrasound and 'regular' (audible) sound can be audible itself. This is interesting technology (and not exactly new technology either), but less than practical when deployed with the same carelessness with which WiFi base stations are strung up (and extension cords are deployed). Ultrasound may not be heard directly but that doesn't mean it doesn't affect you either. Unlike magnetism (of which we can be exposed so serious field-strengths before it starts to affect us) ultrasound, especially high power versions (you're going to have to do this at a fairly high power level if you're going to be beaming the power indiscriminately, if you want to 'focus' on a receiver then you're going to have to take all kinds of losses from less than ideal angles and distances into account which really adds up) can cause you to experience sensations even when you can't experience the soundwave itself. Nice idea, probably won't fly but I'm rooting for them anyway and I hope Andreessen and co had this properly vetted for all of the above before they invested (I can't imagine them doing otherwise but VCs are not above making stupid investments). They indicate several times they did plenty of DD so who knows, it might just really work and have no side effects whatsoever. Meanwhile, I'll be plugging my cellphone into its charger and call it 'good enough', once every 5 days is a minor inconvenience.
andrewchambers 12y ago
My university has wireless power using coils which we used for charging toy race cars. That uses electrical induction for the power transfer. Probably much much better than ultrasound.
vkuruthers 12y ago
I can't see how this would be efficient enough to charge a phone. Does anyone have a rough idea of what the end to end efficiency of this system would be? Also if it's a beamed technology, does it then need N transmitters to charge N devices? How is the beam targeted? Seems like a simple inductive charger would be much more practical.
chillingeffect 12y ago
Tesla drove himself crazy trying to transmit power wirelessly. Physics and nature make it hard to safely transfer a large amount of energy between a source and our bodies. Wide beam = loss. Narrow beam = destroying human flesh. Wireless anything has a reality distortion field around it. This plan seems like it is bulging with "almosts." I don't think it will go widespread, but it will be a valuable niche. Kind of like google glass and segways. Their job is to find that niche. Perhaps in a laboratory or food processing factory setting? or another manufacturing environment where a machine or robot must operate wirelessly.
seasoup 12y ago
Wow, I didn't expect this level of skepticism and negativity on hacker news. This is exactly the kind of audacious, potentially world changing invention that hackers should be striving for. Merideth has my respect. We should be supporting her in this endeavor, not trying to tear her down.
- gerbal 12y ago
  For selling Snake Oil to foolish investors?
- kybernetyk 12y ago
  > We should be supporting her in this endeavor, not trying to tear her down. Yup. Also we should write nice letters to the guy currently working on perpetual motion ... (for which patents have been filed too btw).
- seasoup 12y ago
  And when it's working, against everything you said, what will you do then? I hope you'll at least admit you were wrong.
rubyfan 12y ago
Plugging stuff into the wall isn't all that cumbersome. I'm not sure why I'd even want something like this. Not trying to be a troll, just really missing the appeal on this.
hsshah 12y ago
I cannot judge the merit of this approach but I have been eagerly waiting for WiTricity or Cota to show up in my electronics gadgets. Can't wait to get rid of charging cables. I am sure the engineering takes lots of effort and time but I remember seeing WiTricity TED talk years back :( I was expecting Apple to integrate such technology for it's Watch. I don't want one more device that I have to remember to charge everyday. http://witricity.com http://witricity.com http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/09/cota-by-ossia-wireless-power/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/09/cota-by-ossia-wireless-powe...

108 points by Sam_Odio 12y ago

>When I first met Meredith Perry she was 24. That was three months ago this week. Well isn't that just the oddest way to start an article.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

noonespecial 12y ago

That's got to be a pretty loud noise to be able to transfer enough power to a device at a distance to be significant. Can long term exposure to loud ultrasonic noises damage your hearing even if you can't "hear" them somewhat like the way IR light can damage your eyes even though you can't see it? Think I might let a different set of early adopters try this one out before I put one in my bedroom to charge my iPad. It may just be ignorance (knowing just about nothing when it comes to acoustics) on my part, but I'm way more afraid of this than inductive wireless charging.

drcross 12y ago
I would think so, even if not currently measurable. Infrasonics which is sound on the other end of the inaudible spectrum is the phenomenon where animals know when an earthquake is coming, or when rats know to leave a sinking ship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound I'm not an expert in this field though.
patcheudor 12y ago
Yes, it has been recognized that ultrasonic sound can cause hearing damage. http://www.tinnitusjournal.com/detalhe_artigo.asp?id=109 http://www.tinnitusjournal.com/detalhe_artigo.asp?id=109 OSHA even sets standards for exposure & in fact my ultrasonic cleaner manual recommends wearing ear protection when in use. https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/health_effects/ultrasonics.html https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/health_effects/ultra...

qpalzm2231 12y ago

am sure she is great etc. this comment is a bit OT. i wish i could see more founders who are ugly and short (either male or female), in the good books of VCs and SV, gives more faith in the ecosystem.

ivanca 12y ago
I concur with you. VCs have a hard time measuring technical knowledge because they lack such knowledge themselves, and first appearances are more the result of the generic lottery than skills. That doesn't mean every rich person is beautiful, but it would be dishonest to pretend that it doesn't play a big role when social interactions are involved, such as raising capital.

jbuzbee 12y ago

Drive the dogs crazy? i.e. Dogs and other animals can hear some level of ultrasound: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasound#Animals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasound#Animals

tzs 12y ago

> Was it safe? Well … for starters it is just an inaudible soundwave being transferred – as in the kind also used for women during pregnancy. It also happens to be how your car likely tells the distance to objects when you park or if you have a side assist whether you can change lanes safely. Check. Both of those Examples involve short exposure. That doesn't necessarily mean long exposure is OK. You would not, I hope, conclude for instance that an X-Ray based system is safe because dentists X-Ray people as part of an annual check up. I expect it to turn out safe, but I'd want to see some studies first. Also, I'd like to see studies on what affect it has on pets. Will it also be inaudible to dogs? If not, that needs to be documented so that dog owners won't unknowing torture their pets.

mistercow 12y ago
It also would have to be at least an order of magnitude more energy to charge a phone than is allowed during obstetric ultrasonography.

mikeyouse 12y ago

For those wondering about if it would be audible and if the technology would impact pets, here's the receiver's patent application: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120299541 http://www.google.com/patents/US20120299541 The frequency range they list in examples for applications are from 40kHz to 110kHz. This actually does overlap with the hearing ranges of dogs and cats somewhat. Wiki lists the dog hearing range from 40Hz to 60kHz and the cat range from 55Hz to 79kHz. Humans should be safe though since a common number for the high-end of human hearing is 20kHz.

desdiv 12y ago
>Humans should be safe though since a common number for the high-end of human hearing is 20kHz. That doesn't mean it's safe for humans, it just means it's inaudible to humans. In many circumstances, an imperceivable threat is far more dangerous than a perceivable one. Laser is one example. If a visible laser beam hits your eyes, your blink reflex will kick in and (hopefully) save you in time. But a laser beam outside the human visual spectrum will literally burn your retina out before you figure out what's going on.

7Figures2Commas 12y ago

The back story of this company is intriguing. The founders presented a prototype way back in 2011 at the D9 conference[1], and apparently weren't able to get any traction until they found a believer in Scott Nolan at Founders Fund[2]. Interestingly, Nolan seemed most impressed by the company's distribution plans: > Mr. Nolan said Ms. Perry had shown that chain stores and some “quick-service restaurants” were eager to integrate a wireless charger into their plans. She “had addressed all these key risks and got them nailed down early,” he said. To me, it's not surprising that folks would be excited by the concept of wireless charging, just as you could easily find plenty of people who would tell you they'd buy a Back to the Future-style hover board if you could actually build it. The big question is whether the technology is real and commercially viable. One physicist who has worked on wireless charging applications says he reviewed uBeam's patent applications and ran the numbers. His conclusion: it isn't[3]. Who is correct? [1] http://allthingsd.com/20110618/how-to-charge-your-iphone-over-the-air-ubeams-d9-demo-video/ http://allthingsd.com/20110618/how-to-charge-your-iphone-ove... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/technology/an-inventor-wants-one-less-wire-to-worry-about.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/technology/an-inventor-wan... [3] http://lookatmeimdanny.tumblr.com/post/101432017159/how-putting-10m-into-ubeam-illustrates-everything-that http://lookatmeimdanny.tumblr.com/post/101432017159/how-putt...

mikeyouse 12y ago
I don't know who keeps that [3] blog or his credentials, but as an admitted appeal to authority, the CTO of uBeam (dual BS & MS from MIT) also ran some numbers before joining the company. As did Andreessen Horowitz's due diligence team before investing, which I'd imagine has a physicist or two in waiting. One obvious shortcoming in [3]'s analysis is assuming that you'd still need 5W of charging power if you could wirelessly charge. Delivering 1/50th of that power is probably enough to maintain a charge throughout the day and people spend ~95% of their time in reliable locations that could support wireless charging (home, car, office, etc.)
- malandrew 12y ago
  the CTO of uBeam (dual BS & MS from MIT) also ran some numbers before joining the company I would hope that the CTO of uBeam essentially is the reason the company exists. i.e. he invented something fundamentally new and needed a partner that could sell it. If the business started with a charismatic business founder that recruited the CTO based on the business model being sound, I'd be very skeptical. A business like this doesn't exist yet not because the business model is hard, but because the physics is.

johnw 12y ago

There's noway that this is going to be practical within the current laws of physics. You can't use a wide beam to cover an area because the amount of energy available drops by orders of magnitude the further you get from the transmitter. If you used a focussed beam (which is what they are suggesting) then you need a separate beam that tracks and follows the location of each device. So to cover a very small area you'd need multiple transmitters tracking and beaming sound to the exact location of each device. And the transmitters are going to have to be very close by, and then there are all the obstacles between your pocket and the transmitter that will block the beam. You might as well just use an inductive charger. But still, just like solar freaking roadways and perpetual motion machines we want to believe and since most people don't understand the science these ridiculous and impossible ideas draw people in again and again. There's a more in depth analysis of why this won't work here: http://www.eevblog.com/2014/08/07/ubeam-ultrasonic-wireless-charging-a-familiar-fish-smell/ http://www.eevblog.com/2014/08/07/ubeam-ultrasonic-wireless-...

domdip 12y ago
Well, in principle you can divide one transmitter's attention to several devices over time. (Either by changing the direction of the antenna, or more sophisticatedly via beamforming.) Otherwise I agree with you. Even the tone of this article is unconvincing. I wonder what Andreessen’s due diligence team was thinking, maybe the patents have value?
- malandrew 12y ago
  Here are the published patents thus far: http://patents.justia.com/inventor/marc-berte http://patents.justia.com/inventor/marc-berte http://patents.justia.com/inventor/matthew-angle http://patents.justia.com/inventor/matthew-angle The problem I can see is that the filing date for those patents is far later than public demonstrations such as the one at D9 on or around 04/22/2012
  - desdiv 12y ago
    >The problem I can see is that the filing date for those patents is far later than public demonstrations such as the one at D9 on or around 04/22/2012 That would indeed cause a problem in a country with an "absolute novelty" requirement in patent applications, but the United States is not a such a country. In the US, the inventor has 12 months after the first public demonstration to file for a patent, and in this case, the patent was filed within 12 months.

codexon 12y ago

I don't understand how this could be patented. Surely someone else has thought about using transducers to transmit power a long time ago? I see a similar patent here filed in 2003 that covers ultrasound transducers for wireless power transfer. http://www.google.com/patents/US6798716 http://www.google.com/patents/US6798716

pocketstar 12y ago

I am skeptical of the claimed safety of uBeam. The FDA does not advocate the safety of ultrasound. From the article: "Was it safe? Well … for starters it is just an inaudible soundwave being transferred – as in the kind also used for women during pregnancy." From the FDA: "Even though there are no known risks of ultrasound imaging, it can produce effects on the body. When ultrasound enters the body, it heats the tissues slightly. In some cases, it can also produce small pockets of gas in body fluids or tissues (cavitation). The long-term effects of tissue heating and cavitation are not known. Because of the particular concern for fetal exposures, national and international organizations have advocated prudent use of ultrasound imaging. Furthermore, the use of diagnostic ultrasound for non-medical purposes such as fetal keepsake videos has been discouraged."[0] [0]http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/MedicalImaging/ucm115357.htm http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmitt...

ekianjo 12y ago
The whole article is making optimistic assumptions about just everything. Is that actually a PR piece?
- headgasket 12y ago
  I think the distinction of what is a PR piece and what is not has kind of blurred dramatically recently, dont you? It's an interesting concept to beam power via ultrasound, but it sure sounds optimistic at any realistic distance, or to make it as prevalent as wifi. Maybe there's a killer use case only the initiated (VCs and management) know of of? Otherwise it seems like a long shot for 10M.
- source99 12y ago
  To me this seems more potent than a typical paid PR piece. This seems like the last person to invest just realized they are holding the bag and if they believe hard enough they can pass it on.
- judk 12y ago
  It's written by an investor, right? If so, yes it's marketing.

klochner 12y ago

Not a good sign that they can pitch it as "Clinkle for power".

malandrew 12y ago

I was really hoping there was more hear about the technology, specifically what they are doing differently and the backgrounds of the engineers making this a reality. The process of raising money and getting buy-in is far less interesting than demos showing how much electricity is going into the transmitter and how much is being received by the receivers, especially under the conditions he says they can deal with (movement, etc). This is one of those ideas that fails or succeeds on the technology. As background, talent, gumption and charisma of the non-technical people is irrelevant if the technology isn't there. It's a very strong sell from a VC without evidence. If they can do some of the things claimed, wouldn't you let the evidence speak for itself?

wmeredith 12y ago
It's a very strong sell from someone who just cut them a check for $10 million.
- malandrew 12y ago
  Exactly. They just raised $10 million. Why do they need any selling at all? Obviously they should be back at work building their product and figuring out the manufacturing logistics for when it's ready. Hyping a company right after raising a round and way before they have a product is strange.

malandrew 12y ago

Here's a supposed demo of the device in action: http://on.aol.com/video/ubeam-wireless-power-demonstration-at-d9-517342543 http://on.aol.com/video/ubeam-wireless-power-demonstration-a... Only thing is that I want to see what's in the box on the left. There's nothing to show that the transmitters are actually transferring power and aren't simply telling the other side to turn on and change resistivity to a hidden battery on the left hand side (or even draw from the battery in the iPhone connected to the left hand side) Furthermore, that's a pretty janky analog multimeter to be using for anyone doing electronics, and it's currently set to measure resistivity, not current or voltage.

danbruc 12y ago
It's set to the 10V AC range and for such a demo an analog display is a better choice, way easier to see the change than by looking at a LCD display.
- malandrew 12y ago
  So it is. I tried to find a big picture of that multimeter to see what it was set to because the video image quality it poor, but now on closer inspection I can see it's set to AC volts. The most similar analog radio shack model I could find a picture of extended the resistance area further up the dial.
jacquesm 12y ago
Current or voltage is not relevant you want current and voltage. Just voltage without Ri doesn't mean anything, you could easily get any kind of voltage by using a simple transformer. That doesn't mean useful power is transferred for that you need to apply a load and measure current through the load and voltage across the load. Also, AC voltage on an analogue meter is usually calibrated at 50 or 60 Hz, not at much higher frequencies.

xorcist 12y ago

What a strange choice of headline. Lots of people have trouble setting up their wifi. How many how trouble plugging in something electric?

Htsthbjig 12y ago

I only expect they make other people choose when they are around to have this on. We used to do lots of experiments in the lab with ultrasonics, playing around. A couple of times we had our ears hurt for a while(all the people in the team) after getting out of the lab, We learned the lesson, even when you don't hear anything, it can affect you. In fact, it is worse when you can't detect something that could affect you. I would prefer to use something that I could see like visible green light and solar cells in the phone. I won't put my eyes too near of a 10Watts source, but with something you can't see or hear, you could inadvertently put your organs too close for too long.

jacquesm 12y ago

One problem with using ultrasound for anything is that interference between two ultrasound sources and ultrasound and 'regular' (audible) sound can be audible itself. This is interesting technology (and not exactly new technology either), but less than practical when deployed with the same carelessness with which WiFi base stations are strung up (and extension cords are deployed). Ultrasound may not be heard directly but that doesn't mean it doesn't affect you either. Unlike magnetism (of which we can be exposed so serious field-strengths before it starts to affect us) ultrasound, especially high power versions (you're going to have to do this at a fairly high power level if you're going to be beaming the power indiscriminately, if you want to 'focus' on a receiver then you're going to have to take all kinds of losses from less than ideal angles and distances into account which really adds up) can cause you to experience sensations even when you can't experience the soundwave itself. Nice idea, probably won't fly but I'm rooting for them anyway and I hope Andreessen and co had this properly vetted for all of the above before they invested (I can't imagine them doing otherwise but VCs are not above making stupid investments). They indicate several times they did plenty of DD so who knows, it might just really work and have no side effects whatsoever. Meanwhile, I'll be plugging my cellphone into its charger and call it 'good enough', once every 5 days is a minor inconvenience.

andrewchambers 12y ago

My university has wireless power using coils which we used for charging toy race cars. That uses electrical induction for the power transfer. Probably much much better than ultrasound.

vkuruthers 12y ago

I can't see how this would be efficient enough to charge a phone. Does anyone have a rough idea of what the end to end efficiency of this system would be? Also if it's a beamed technology, does it then need N transmitters to charge N devices? How is the beam targeted? Seems like a simple inductive charger would be much more practical.

chillingeffect 12y ago

Tesla drove himself crazy trying to transmit power wirelessly. Physics and nature make it hard to safely transfer a large amount of energy between a source and our bodies. Wide beam = loss. Narrow beam = destroying human flesh. Wireless anything has a reality distortion field around it. This plan seems like it is bulging with "almosts." I don't think it will go widespread, but it will be a valuable niche. Kind of like google glass and segways. Their job is to find that niche. Perhaps in a laboratory or food processing factory setting? or another manufacturing environment where a machine or robot must operate wirelessly.

seasoup 12y ago

Wow, I didn't expect this level of skepticism and negativity on hacker news. This is exactly the kind of audacious, potentially world changing invention that hackers should be striving for. Merideth has my respect. We should be supporting her in this endeavor, not trying to tear her down.

gerbal 12y ago
For selling Snake Oil to foolish investors?
kybernetyk 12y ago
> We should be supporting her in this endeavor, not trying to tear her down. Yup. Also we should write nice letters to the guy currently working on perpetual motion ... (for which patents have been filed too btw).
seasoup 12y ago
And when it's working, against everything you said, what will you do then? I hope you'll at least admit you were wrong.

rubyfan 12y ago

Plugging stuff into the wall isn't all that cumbersome. I'm not sure why I'd even want something like this. Not trying to be a troll, just really missing the appeal on this.

hsshah 12y ago

I cannot judge the merit of this approach but I have been eagerly waiting for WiTricity or Cota to show up in my electronics gadgets. Can't wait to get rid of charging cables. I am sure the engineering takes lots of effort and time but I remember seeing WiTricity TED talk years back :( I was expecting Apple to integrate such technology for it's Watch. I don't want one more device that I have to remember to charge everyday. http://witricity.com http://witricity.com http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/09/cota-by-ossia-wireless-power/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/09/cota-by-ossia-wireless-powe...