Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Audacious Plan to Make Electricity as Easy as WiFi

bothsidesofthetable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 70 posts

Re: Audacious Plan to Make Electricity as Easy as WiFi

#31

Post by desdiv »

malandrew wrote: post #24
domdip wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Here are the published patents thus far: http://patents.justia.com/inventor/marc-berte 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

>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.

Re: Audacious Plan to Make Electricity as Easy as WiFi

#32

Post by Rizz »

aganders3 wrote: post #25
pocketstar wrote: post #14

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 tiss…

That quote from the FDA is referring to ultrasound imaging, which is performed with transducers in direct contact with the body. Even in those instances, ultrasound is regarded as one of the safest medical imaging techniques. Nonetheless, while I suspect this technology is safe, I agree they shouldn't hand-wave over that aspect.

Medical ultrasound imaging uses far higher frequencies than the patents for uBeam claim, so they can't be compared. And even medical ultrasound isn't fully safe, there are some indications of brain damage in mouse models after long exposure to ultrasound.

Re: Audacious Plan to Make Electricity as Easy as WiFi

#33

Post by danbruc »

malandrew wrote: post #23

Here's a supposed demo of the device in action: 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 conn…

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.

Re: Audacious Plan to Make Electricity as Easy as WiFi

#34

Post by XorNot »

scottlocklin wrote: post #27
domdip wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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…

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.

Re: Audacious Plan to Make Electricity as Easy as WiFi

#35

Post by scobar »

gfodor wrote: post #30
domdip wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

(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.

Re: Audacious Plan to Make Electricity as Easy as WiFi

#36

Post by xorcist »

domdip wrote: post #17
johnw wrote: post #11

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…

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?

> 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.

Re: Audacious Plan to Make Electricity as Easy as WiFi

#38

Post by tedsanders »

XorNot wrote: post #34
scottlocklin wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Inaudible sounds can indeed affect and possibly damage hearing. Here's a source: 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.

Re: Audacious Plan to Make Electricity as Easy as WiFi

#39

Post by source99 »

ekianjo wrote: post #16
pocketstar wrote: post #14

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 tiss…

The whole article is making optimistic assumptions about just everything. Is that actually a PR piece?

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.

Re: Audacious Plan to Make Electricity as Easy as WiFi

#40

Post by Htsthbjig »

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.

Post reply on HN