Audacious Plan to Make Electricity as Easy as WiFi (opens in new tab)

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-...

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/RadiationEmitt...

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.

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 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.

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-ove...

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/technology/an-inventor-wan...

[3] http://lookatmeimdanny.tumblr.com/post/101432017159/how-putt...

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.

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?

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

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.

> 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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://techcrunch.com/2013/09/09/cota-by-ossia-wireless-powe...

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.

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.

Drive the dogs crazy? i.e. Dogs and other animals can hear some level of ultrasound:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasound#Animals

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

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.

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.

>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.