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

41–50 of 70 posts

Re: Audacious Plan to Make Electricity as Easy as WiFi

#41

Post by malandrew »

danbruc wrote: post #33
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.

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.

Re: Audacious Plan to Make Electricity as Easy as WiFi

#42

Post by jacquesm »

scobar wrote: post #35
gfodor wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

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).

Re: Audacious Plan to Make Electricity as Easy as WiFi

#43

Post by jacquesm »

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

This might also be a problem:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=611948...

Re: Audacious Plan to Make Electricity as Easy as WiFi

#44

Post by jacquesm »

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.

Re: Audacious Plan to Make Electricity as Easy as WiFi

#46

Post by jerf »

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…

"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.

Re: Audacious Plan to Make Electricity as Easy as WiFi

#47

Post by s_q_b »

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…

Meredith Perry is no fraud. She was in a Penn graduate program before this venture, and has worked at NASA.

It's directional transmission technology. The power loss is minimized as the ultrasound is directed and focused at a particular location. There's no inverse square law here, and it's easily within the bound of known physics.

As far as I know, (indirect relationship with the a good friend of the founder, that I won't say anything more about to protect his privacy) Meredith is actually genius-level and a relentless work horse. I'd bet big on this one.

If I could work for any one company it would be uBeam. I just started a great position, and I'd do it despite the press. The moment they made an offer I'd be on a plane.

This is a "First they dismiss you. Then they laugh at you. Then you win" scenario.

Re: Audacious Plan to Make Electricity as Easy as WiFi

#48

Post by judk »

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?

It's written by an investor, right? If so, yes it's marketing.

Re: Audacious Plan to Make Electricity as Easy as WiFi

#49

Post by wmeredith »

malandrew wrote: post #18

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 (mo…

It's a very strong sell from someone who just cut them a check for $10 million.

Re: Audacious Plan to Make Electricity as Easy as WiFi

#50

Post by gerbal »

s_q_b wrote: post #47
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…

Meredith Perry is no fraud. She was in a Penn graduate program before this venture, and has worked at NASA. It's directional transmission technology. The power loss is minimized as the ultrasound is directed and focused at a particular location. There's no inverse square law here, and it's easily within the bound of known physics. As far as I know, (indirect relationship with the a good friend of the founder, that I…

I don't care how smart she is, she can't defy the laws of physics. Also, the reflection and harmonics are going to drive any animals and/or children & teenagers nuts.
Post reply on HN