4 ms·

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 sophistic

by 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.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  This might also be a problem: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6119486&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6119486 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=611948...
scottlocklin 12y ago
If I were a VC invested in this, I'd want hearing tests on the engineers working on this project; once a month, over time. Of course, if I were a VC, I wouldn't invest in this, because it is physically retarded on inspection. Whoever did the dil on this is either a fool who doesn't understand basic physics, or was bribed somehow. Off the top of my head a) sound energy falls off as 1/r^2, b) that those sorts of energy densities are almost certainly physically dangerous to more than ears c) sound doesn't propagate well in air at those frequencies; you're basically heating up air d) transducers are not good at turning sound into energy
- XorNot 12y ago
  Sound which you can't hear isn't going to be dangerous to the ears in a conventional sense. Of course at electrically significant power levels, it is just potentially dangerous generally.
  - tedsanders 12y ago
    Inaudible sounds can indeed affect and possibly damage hearing. Here's a source: http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/09/sounds-you-cant-hear-can-still-hurt-your-ears http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/09/sounds-you-cant-h... Ultrasound can also cause tissue damage at high intensity. I'd be cautious about making claims that humans are not damaged by high intensity sound, even if inaudible. Perhaps this is what you mean by saying "a conventional sense" but I just thought I'd expand on your answer in case others read it and get the wrong idea.
- jerf 12y ago
  "a) sound energy falls off as 1/r^2" No, it doesn't. That's how it falls off when being transmitted perfectly spherically in an environment that won't reflect or refract anything. Consequently, this turns out to be a not-very-useful equation in practice. In particular ultrasound can be beamed just like light, making the "perfectly spherical transmission" not even a close approximation, just as it is not a good approximation for focused lasers. Our intuition doesn't support this because our hearing tops out at frequencies still low enough to do some significant bending around obstacles (though at the higher end if you pay attention you can tell they don't do it as well), so we don't have an intuition of sound acting like a beam, but it can. There's more to sound than "basic physics", and what you learn in Physics 101 about sound is simplified to the point of total uselessness as in real-life you will never encounter a situation where the prerequisites are met for inverse square falloff. Mind you, I'm still pretty skeptical, but not about the ability to beam sound. That's established engineering, not wild-eyed craziness.
  - scottlocklin 12y ago
    "In particular ultrasound can be beamed just like light, making the "perfectly spherical transmission" not even a close approximation" You do realize that energy from a point source of light also falls off like 1/r^2, right?
gfodor 12y ago
a16z can make stupid investments, but usually they don't. my guess here is there is more to this than just simple quackery.
- scobar 12y ago
  (from the article) >Did the physics actually work? Check I apologize if this question is terribly ignorant, but do investors publicly disclose the results of due diligence that would lead them to believe in the functionality and practicality of such a product? I'm very interested in learning their opinions on the challenges presented by the naysayers (with whom I agree right now). I appreciate everyone who provided sources that prove uBeam has, at the very least, some huge challenges to overcome in practicality. Like you mention, though, I imagine that these investors have probably considered these challenges.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    As far as I know the circulation of DD reports is extremely limited, usually to the company paying for the report and occasionally the management of the company that was looked at. In the case of outright BS it stays with the VC, if there are useful 'to-fix' prior to closing items then they usually get passed (sometimes edited or excerpted) to the company. A general public disclosure is a possibility but I've never seen one, investors are not 'speaking for the company' in any way and if investors started to release such sensitive documents that would be considered a false step by the company (and probably rightly so, the information gathered during the process is company confidential and no VC in their right mind would want to suggest to future investments that they have a cavalier attitude towards such information, be it positive or negative, disclosure should be up to the officers of the company).
xorcist 12y ago
> I wonder what Andreessen’s due diligence team was thinking, maybe the patents have value? The job of a VC is to sell to later investors. Long term viabilty isn't always in their best interest. I could name half a dozen specifics but I'll let you imagine instead.

by domdip 12y ago

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.
jacquesm 12y ago
This might also be a problem: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6119486&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6119486 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=611948...

scottlocklin 12y ago

If I were a VC invested in this, I'd want hearing tests on the engineers working on this project; once a month, over time. Of course, if I were a VC, I wouldn't invest in this, because it is physically retarded on inspection. Whoever did the dil on this is either a fool who doesn't understand basic physics, or was bribed somehow. Off the top of my head a) sound energy falls off as 1/r^2, b) that those sorts of energy densities are almost certainly physically dangerous to more than ears c) sound doesn't propagate well in air at those frequencies; you're basically heating up air d) transducers are not good at turning sound into energy

XorNot 12y ago
Sound which you can't hear isn't going to be dangerous to the ears in a conventional sense. Of course at electrically significant power levels, it is just potentially dangerous generally.
- tedsanders 12y ago
  Inaudible sounds can indeed affect and possibly damage hearing. Here's a source: http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/09/sounds-you-cant-hear-can-still-hurt-your-ears http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/09/sounds-you-cant-h... Ultrasound can also cause tissue damage at high intensity. I'd be cautious about making claims that humans are not damaged by high intensity sound, even if inaudible. Perhaps this is what you mean by saying "a conventional sense" but I just thought I'd expand on your answer in case others read it and get the wrong idea.
jerf 12y ago
"a) sound energy falls off as 1/r^2" No, it doesn't. That's how it falls off when being transmitted perfectly spherically in an environment that won't reflect or refract anything. Consequently, this turns out to be a not-very-useful equation in practice. In particular ultrasound can be beamed just like light, making the "perfectly spherical transmission" not even a close approximation, just as it is not a good approximation for focused lasers. Our intuition doesn't support this because our hearing tops out at frequencies still low enough to do some significant bending around obstacles (though at the higher end if you pay attention you can tell they don't do it as well), so we don't have an intuition of sound acting like a beam, but it can. There's more to sound than "basic physics", and what you learn in Physics 101 about sound is simplified to the point of total uselessness as in real-life you will never encounter a situation where the prerequisites are met for inverse square falloff. Mind you, I'm still pretty skeptical, but not about the ability to beam sound. That's established engineering, not wild-eyed craziness.
- scottlocklin 12y ago
  "In particular ultrasound can be beamed just like light, making the "perfectly spherical transmission" not even a close approximation" You do realize that energy from a point source of light also falls off like 1/r^2, right?

gfodor 12y ago

a16z can make stupid investments, but usually they don't. my guess here is there is more to this than just simple quackery.

scobar 12y ago
(from the article) >Did the physics actually work? Check I apologize if this question is terribly ignorant, but do investors publicly disclose the results of due diligence that would lead them to believe in the functionality and practicality of such a product? I'm very interested in learning their opinions on the challenges presented by the naysayers (with whom I agree right now). I appreciate everyone who provided sources that prove uBeam has, at the very least, some huge challenges to overcome in practicality. Like you mention, though, I imagine that these investors have probably considered these challenges.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  As far as I know the circulation of DD reports is extremely limited, usually to the company paying for the report and occasionally the management of the company that was looked at. In the case of outright BS it stays with the VC, if there are useful 'to-fix' prior to closing items then they usually get passed (sometimes edited or excerpted) to the company. A general public disclosure is a possibility but I've never seen one, investors are not 'speaking for the company' in any way and if investors started to release such sensitive documents that would be considered a false step by the company (and probably rightly so, the information gathered during the process is company confidential and no VC in their right mind would want to suggest to future investments that they have a cavalier attitude towards such information, be it positive or negative, disclosure should be up to the officers of the company).

xorcist 12y ago

> I wonder what Andreessen’s due diligence team was thinking, maybe the patents have value? The job of a VC is to sell to later investors. Long term viabilty isn't always in their best interest. I could name half a dozen specifics but I'll let you imagine instead.