Yeah, sorry for the repost (but there is some new material at the end), but I think it's important that debunking videos like these get into the search results for that topic. After a few minutes it's already #10 search result for "uBeam", and #2 for "ultrasonic wireless charging". I just couldn't get that SEO with it embedded in the 1000th video. I hope people understand.
EEVblog - I kind of blocked it from my memory, but google didn't forget: www.eevblog.com/forum/crowd-funded-projects/ifind-another-moot-energy-harvesting-gadget/ ;-) That discussion wasn't very extensive, but does have all links that matter, such as to the attention via hackaday. Edit: Mac Donalds responded faster...
I seriously hope half of these people can be helped. I say half, as some of them are of cause complete cons and know they are taking money of innocent naive people. But the other half honestly seem to have a logical/emotional block on reality (like the report on a brain surgeon who have even been on aircraft, and believes in flat earth theories).
+EEVblog Hey Dave do you think that Cota is a bunch of wank too? Just wondering because they are claiming wireless charging but no product ever seems to materialize. Link : www.ossia.com/cota/
You know, I do think there's SOME value in coming at a problem from outside. Groupthink does happen. However, she's clearly thinking her "quick calculations" have more merit than an expert opinion... which means her thought process is broken. Yes, it's possible for a smart person to think of a problem and come up with a solution that experts haven't quite looked at the right way. What you're supposed to do next when you THINK you've done this is go ask your experts what you've done wrong or misunderstood. A million to one, you've messed up somehow. If you look at the critical failures of this design, it's not that her core idea is fundamentally incorrect. There's just an overwhelming number of practical reasons why it's a dumb idea to actually use in the real world. It's not wrong, it's just ridiculously impractical. It's exactly the type of answer a non-expert would be expected to come up with. There are plenty of reasons that SOME ridiculously impractical things could become more practical. The manufacturability concerns Dave talks about, for instance... it's possible those could be addressed. Not any time soon, but with a substantially more advanced manufacturing base. Maybe the SPL thing could be addressed with a large number of transmitters beamforming to specific targets... much as some concept cancer-burning systems that focus a large number of sources of radiation on a tumor, such that any one beam is under a safe threshold for tissue exposure... but the focal point received tumor-destroying levels of energy. Maybe in some future fusion society we won't care about efficiency as much. Sometimes, a person can come up with a solution that has such an "impossibly impractical" element to it, and find a solution to a reason it's "obviously" impractical. This is exactly where a non-expert might help, to just push past the initial "common knowledge" of what's not possible. This, however, suffers from so many of those impossibly impractical concerns there's virtually no way it would ever make sense. Maybe, in the year 2050+, this turns into a practical power source for storefront displays that are already using ultrasonics anyway (maybe a levitation version of LED cubes). Eh, probably not. Dave's right... there's some tech here. They should have pivoted early to something that could actually use that tech and be a valid product.
More often than not, an expert thought of the idea and then did some quick calculations & realized it was a bad idea. Most ideas can be debunked that way. I once had a coworker who came up with a seemingly simple perpetual energy idea. It was really creative, but I was like "this sounds neat, but let's look at the numbers real quick." So, we did and it didn't take much for him to get that while it'll go awhile on its own, it will inevitably stop and if you actually put any noticeable load on it, it'd stop very quickly. Most of these sounds good til you know enough to know why it won't work ideas can usually be debunked rather quickly but the person coming up with it sometimes can't see it and thus needs the outside perspective
It amazes me how easily people fall for this stuff -- and if you don't, YOU are the "naysayer". SEVERAL people that I know supported a project to put a wind turbine on the roof of cars to harness the wind energy -- as if it's just naturally windy outside and you aren't burning gas to overcome that air resistance.
In the TED talk piece the woman contradicts herself, first attempting to discredit expert opinion and then immediately trying to give herself credibility by mentioning she has 4 of the top experts in the field working for her. Do those people even proof-read their own sales pitches?
This "Inventor" person went to my high school. to this day many of the staff there think she is behind or working on cutting edge wireless charging and use here as an example of what we can become. Our school focuses a lot on being a leader and pursuing dreams, (but not so much on what to do if the dreams are not feasible, or if people just want someone who just follows instructions) it is clear from this person, that without reality checks, stuff like this pops up. FYI the school is Montgomery High School, and if you are a Montgomery kid and know/think you know who this is please do not mention my real name. I personally feel it is a really great school that is packed with opportunity having just graduated, but as I mention above, some people there are out of touch with how the real world is going to work.
That amount of money would have been enough for 200-280 full-time 4 year PhD projects. That could have been 800-1000 man-years of hard cutting-edge scientific research in the field of engineering, science, you name it. We're talking around 500-600 peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals, possibly several patents, and more opportunities than you could dream of. These sorts of things are what pisses me off to no end. In any field of science, the amount of valorisation, motivation and ethical consideration is directly proportional to the amount of money you are requesting. Outside of science, it seems that investors and financing bodies are willing to put their money in crazy fucking bullshit that is never going to work, as long as it's a cute person preaching about "fighting the system", "no one believed me but I'll show em". Hell if you throw in a comedy side-kick and a childhood romantic interest, your have the prototype for a shitty Hollywood bait movie.
Seriously, when you think about the wasted amount of money and the arrogant, self-interested pricks that allowed this obviously idiotic concept to get this far at the vast expense of real innovation and progress, it's not even that funny or amusing anymore. In fact, it's kinda disgusting.
Your profile picture makes everything you said just perfect. Pretty much in character. Also, I had some very similar experiences on university ground. Sexiness of your project is directly proportional to amount of money you will get. My background is automotive engineering and man, my master's project on increasing carburetion efficiency for small and stationary engines (and car engines but that was side-project because nobody is making these anymore) was pushed aside when university could get more funding and exposure for electric vehicles and design competitions. My project was real, functional and practical but not sexy and "revolutionary" enough to get it funded into real product. It is a dormant paper in my drawer and I am still milling about if it's worth of patenting.
@@jakublulek3261 don't talk too much about what you're working on if you want to patent it. If the information is already publicly available, you can't file it. As for sexiness, although I don't know why your project wasn't funded, it could be that there's an internal fund at your university for electric-related propulsion. In that case, yours would be out of scope (I.e. It's not so much about sexiness). In general I see no big biases in research when it comes to funding, though if gov makes a themed grant available then of course it's biased as that's the whole point. Despite the Haruhi avatar, I am an author on 10 peer reviewed papers now lmao
On a more serious note, Pu-238 based RTGs are pretty safe and require minimal shielding. If it weren't for the fact that Pu-238 is rare and extremely expensive (has to be bred in a reactor) it could be the first form of widespread nuclear power in household environment. It only decays in alpha radiation, so it requires only a thin lead shield, and the half-life is 40 years or so if I can recall that right. I'm sure that if we found a cheap way to produce it, someone could find a way to make the plutonium pellet un-openable (like potting or encasing it in a welded box) so idiots don't try to make dirty bombs that actually are mostly scare devices than anything!
I know this story too well. Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes vs. uBeam, Meredith Perry. Remarkably similar than you know as a person. Actually, Paul and Sean (2 ex-VPs of the company) used to discuss your blog as a fair outside criticism. It's the CEO they couldn't convince, thereby both of them no longer work there anymore. This is what happens when an amateur person gets a vision- can't handle it.
Holy shit 150+dB ultrasonics I wouldn't like to have that near me. What about dogs, cats, bats, moths and animals that have sensory limits well beyond human hearing. Cats hear up to 60khz, dogs 40khz, bats up to 200khz! Moths and other insects have evolved to hear bats echo location, so also hear ultrasound. It's absolutely not a sensible thing, unless you want to drive your dogs and cats mad.
"Engineers are very linear thinkers ... they tend to take a binary approach to things." It is literally the job of an engineer to do the exact opposite.
The CEO said she could quickly google the problems listed by professionals to solve them. So, why hasn't she answered the problems they listed? I'd love to see her try to tackle Dave's list.
Has anyone noticed, at 14:51 they only show the animation of a charging battery? The symbol in the bar at the top of the screen says it's not even charging at all.
14:21 look at the battery icon in the status bar of the cellphone. THE BATTERY IS NOT CHARGING!! They are just using some kind of video or animation in the cellphone!
well she did beat us all and the PhDs. she has $28M and we don't.... and yes she will be showing that small little middle finger to all of us for writing these comments :)
Not really. Depends what you mean by "has" I guess. Founding a startup and getting it funded just gets you a normal paying job and equity which could become valuable if you have a liquidity event. Investors expect the founders to be the lowest paid in the company. Since this is gonna fizzle out - she's gonna simply walk away with this having made nothing but a meager salary, and a lot of embarrassment + pretty much impossible to ever secure funding again. Happens all the time. 90% of the time in fact. Which is why investors expect a 10x return. (way oversimplified obviously)
@Alfonce Jean Like the Theranos founder Elisabeth Holmes? Guess what, when the sums go into millions and billions, all they can hope for is wire fraud charges & up to 20 years in jail. So if they had 2 brain cells they would go for limited accountability and definitely not funnel away any money at all. Just take the defeat and go away quitely :)
No Mrs CEO, not being an engineer does not give you an advantage or the ability to out think smarter people. Your mummy told you a lie but don't let that stop you scamming even more ignorant people out of their millions of dollars !
Sometimes a simpler idea and focus on the problem is the best. The problem is: User dont wanna get out of charge. Why is not common to have smartphones with quick replaceable batteries like in DSLR cameras? They could keep a small cell buil in, that can hold it on for a couple of minutes, just to be able to make a "hot swap", like HDs in servers? It would not take more than 10s to change a battery, and a power off would not be needed. Then, one just have to rotate batteries. Why all this fancy desire for wireless charging? Ah... I forgot... You have to throw away your phone when the cell is gone, instead of just buy another one...
Jonathan Araujo Thats the first thing I mentioned when I got my lg g5. It's so easy to change the battery, It would be awesome to have a small secondary battery to keep the phone on while swaping the primary battery. Even a capacitor just to hold the stuff in the ram memory for a few seconds would be usefull.
Or even a "burner" charger as we already have. Charge the battery pack, plug the battery pack into the phone on your commute (not everyone is in a car) to school/work and it charges. etc. Which is what most people are doing. This is a solution looking for a problem... why? Because they chose ultrasound and STUCK with it. If they were really looking for a solution, they would change to the tech that best fits. For example, I've got a couple of ultrasound sensors for a project, they will do about half of what I want, so I've had to admit I need infrared too. I cannot "just believe" or "think really hard" to get a solution (well, I could if I modulate/read multiple ultrasonic beams at the same time, but that is beyond my math level, programming, sensor fidelity, and I still cannot change the speed of sound! :D ).
In biomedical research we use ultrasound to randomly break DNA into bits. Although that's at a much higher power density, it does raise some questions about safety from constant exposure.
That conversion from 1% needing to be 15GW is insane! The only reason I know it's a large amount is because Doc Brown was flipping out over a mere 1.21GW to power the DeLorean's time bits..
That woman said, 'well they wanted to use ultrasound as a weapon'....Then everybody clapped! Missing the obvious point that it's not likely a healthy place to stick your body next to a 150dB+ ultrasonic radiator. Then there is your dog and cat....
When I debunk "Free Energy" bull@hit devices on my channel, I get all the Trolls saying, "You're being paid by oil companies to suppress the invention". LOL
They have probably read the specification of ultrasonic ID tags produced by Norwegian company SONITOR (whose main clients are hospitals in (!) Australia, who improve management of movable equipment with these tags). SONITOR is also working on low-power low-speed wireless ultrasonic data networks, to replace WiFi in areas, where radio silence is imprtant... BUT transfering power with noise... This is not only stupid, but also dangerous!
Yes, I think so too... He should just stop debunking! He is a shill... pay'd by big Pharma, large Petroleum, stuck in the dark ages that no one can go outside and disturb the laws of thermodynamics as they rule everything and everyone. oh the irony, that EVERYTHING has an energy field around it! But that was an accidental discovery. Now move on you lot, nothing to see here. [/end sarcasm].
I have a 22000MAH battery brick that's about the same size as that receiver. I can charge 3 devices at once, at 2 amps, from flat to full, 2 or 3 times over. It was $40. When your competition is either QI cheap plug-in chargers or "just get an additional battery", charging using hundreds of ultrasonic transducers is absurd. Even if they solved the thickness and weight problem with the uBeam, even if they solved the cost problem, even if they somehow solved the ergonomics problems, it's still not practical to use it because of the sound levels. There are reasons why you should consult experts in what's _practical_ instead of spending millions on what's not technically impossible.
So 60 kHz in air is a 0.2 inch wavelength. The far field for an array antenna is D^2/lambda. So given a 24 inch array aperture, that would put the far field at 240 feet. So how are they going to get any gain or focusing out of this array? Do ultrasonics (longitudinal wave) work different than RF (transverse waves).
Actually at 60khz a transmitting antenna would have to be 16117.874086021506 (1/1) feet long. A 1/4 wave transmitting antenna at 4029.4685215053764 feet still isn't practical.
Is that Samsung phone even charging? At 14:21 you can see big fancy looking charging animation, but next to the clock on the notifications bar, battery icon seems to be not animated, or even with any indicator, like in many other phones (small spark/lightning/whatever symbol inside the battery icon). Also who charges their phones in airplane mode?
It is charging, the lighting symbol just looks like a dark dot at that resolution. Probably in airplane mode to try to stop it discharging faster than it charges due to it's crappyness.
Maybe it could still work if you replaced the air between the appliances with a good conductor, some sort of 'copper beam' which would be solid at room temperature....you could make it straight or bendy, then you could wrap it in rubber to stop it losing power
3:35 I don't think they use the ultrasound to locate where your device is. In the demo vid, the ceo said that they use a vision system for locating the devices and you can see the camera above the ultrasound transmitter array. Given that, I am very skeptical that the demo shows the ultrasound powering. Could've been easily faked.
Ultrasonic pulses strong enough to charge multiple phones from several meters seems like the kinda thing that would cause cats, dogs, and other ultrasonic-sensitive animals to have their brains melt, like ultrasonic flash-bangs going off constantly everywhere they go, until they are driven to crave human flesh out of sheer madness. Or they go deaf, whichever comes first.
surprised that they didn't just declare that it could be used in conjunction with solar roadways where they will just beam the electricity to the electric car
What about situations where it's not easy or convenient to run power, or install an outlet? Like a table at a coffee shop. In that case, instead of putting the receiver on the phone, you install it directly into the table with a USB outlet or wireless charging pad on the table. Then you could move the table around and not worry about outlets. Maybe other similar use cases?
Cully Larson yes, it will work as a "pair". If, the following conditions are met. Nothing obstructs the receiver on the table, i.e. Drinks, plates, hands, newspapers, phones etc. as it will lose a large portion of the energy. 2. You will need at least 4 things. Qi charger, micro-usb, usb-c & Apples cable. Can it be done? Yes, will it be practical?... oh, and don't forget about pets... many places don't let them in, but here in Oz, if they are seeing/ hearing aid dogs, they are allowed.
Might be worth looking at the amount of current through the usb it takes to get the charging indicator on a phone to come up... Seems to be used as 'proof' that the battery is 'filling up' in the promo vid but I suspect it's a very low threshold, possibly less than the consumption of the phone.
Wouldn't it also disturb the local ecology if it somehow magically worked ? Lots of species can hear well into ultrasonic range and I know it's beamforming but at that high of energy and the usage everywhere enough would surely some of the energy "leak" (for the lack of a better word) out of the beam to harm certain species.
145 dB to 155 dB is too loud to be heard. 125 dB is very bad for human ears which are relatively insensitive. A 100 to 1000 times higher pressure level and a more sensitive ear is not a good combination.
I know off the top of my head dogs and cats can hear 60khz, it's well within their hearing range. If this went to market there would be so many deaf animals in the first few days. Love the debunking videos Dave.
cbrims As well as birds, bats, mice, etc. Essentially a modern torture device for pet lovers wanting to very slowly charge their mobile devices while driving their pets into a maddening frenzy just trying to escape a 155dB sound source all the while daintily holding your phone by the edges as if it were about to explode at any moment so as to not block the power transfer. I honestly do not think most people have any idea just how loud 155dB really is or how bad such is for any creature capable of hearing such (about 64 times the amplitude of a rock concert). I can not even stand to be a few houses away from those homes that use "ultrasonic" pest repellers (ultrasonic in quotes as many are in the 16-22KHz range)...they are like never ending fingernails on a chalkboard even a full block away and ought to be outlawed! There are also real questions as to the safety of humans, and other living creatures, in close proximity to 155dB ultrasonic frequencies for prolonged periods as it is naive to assume such is inherently safe just because we can not hear or see it -- serious safety studies would need to be conducted prior to market and safety approvals were such ever to be marketed to the general public.
"Right there off the bat." Speaking of bats, insects and other critters, what is the effect of a SPL of 145 to 155 db on them. Meredith Perry, CEO whining about non linear thinking engineers, then she hires FOUR of them. Hey Meredith, here's some "non linear thinking" for you - Market your device as a charger/ultrasonic vaginal cleaning device. Daiyve, Daiyve, Daiyve well done. Billabong and all that.
Great debunking Dave! It's a shame to think that TEDx which I thought was a reputable channel would allow nutters (not just this one) on. This is particularly annoying with a lot of content on 'bad ted' recently and I would hope they would do some more research before putting people on who simply have no commonsense or concept of reality!
Safe? Is the employee in the demo @3:10 holding that alleged receiver away from his body so it can be seen or so he does not absorb it, that is if anything is in the air.
yeah... has anyone ever tested the ultrasonic charger to see if this technology affects animals??? probably not. I hope my neighbor doesn't get one, I have pets. well ,interesting video. thank you for getting this kind of information out there.
Dave this is really a problem. To many fraudsters or people with unrealistic expectations I assume all your viewers are knowledgeable in electronics and physics to at least some level. Many out there are not at all and will never sit through one of your videos. They will never understand how good an engineer you are because its all gibberish to them. This leaves a lot of the masses open to being swindled. The challenge is how to set up something as a public service that can 1) assess the physics of ideas / proposals in the public domain to ascertain their feasibility 2) reach the masses with reviews Its a public service type of thing. To maintain the integrity of engineering. I hate to see the field diluted by fraudsters.
A bowshock technology? Like the sun ejecting some plasma like a bullwhip and the energy travel uniform throught the vaccua until the bowshock hit earth?
A minute or two into that TEDX and I was reaching for: a) a bucket b) my tinfoil hat c) the definition of Dunning Kreuger Syndrome d) all of the above.
Have anyone heared about using radiowaves to grab a few volts ? ( Pine shaped with Lenghts of the antenas at exact scale to the pole/main antena ) I`ts supposed to give you around 9V but I don`t remember the power nor the exact design. And this scaling is similar to the one at the 4G technology antenas where you need to grab the correct freq.
Yes, I was going to mention wave interference. Also, from admittedly just doing a very quick Google, ultra sound at 155dB is harmful to humans. www.wikilectures.eu/index.php/Effects_of_Ultrasound WTF are these uBeam people thinking!?
I think they just had an animated battery symbol on the screen because the actual battery indicator in the notification bar on the top of the screen never indicated charging. Many phones just won't start charging if the available current is too low and I believe this is the case in this demonstration.
Man... if you're going to call out people that have dedicated years of their lives to studying science and engineering, you better make sure you are not full of it before burning them! Think of the basic research that money could have funded! Good luck on getting buy in on your next project.
Heh... as if any research developed by these private enterprises would go to the public, anyway. Even if they research something interesting, it will be patented and sit around for years, never being built, because it's impractical. You know, like perpetual motion machines. Amazing how many investors still fall for those. Most of these startups know their product has no chance in the real world, so once investor money starts rolling in, they spend it on high-end offices and executive assistants.
Well, sometimes investors put caps on salaries, so managers have to pull the money via "business expenses" rather than taking out money directly. Plus, it's common to pay themselves in bonuses rather than salaries, so they don't have to pay as much in taxes and so on. Business economics can be complicated (and stupid). At any rate, yeah, they're jerks.
Hi Dave I'm studing Eng. Electronics and Computers in Portugal, in a conference they talked about using thet tecnology in the Tv remote control to try cuting the batteries..
The same way you produce the sound, ultrasonic piezo transducers. It would be very wasteful since sound waves spread as Dave pointed out. Even if you bonded the transmitter to the receiver you are not going to be able to get any real efficiency and sticking them together defeats the whole idea.
You know the efficiency rating would actually be half what you said, since SPL drops by 6dB per every doubling of distance, not by 3dB (assuming a perfect 'point source')
I do not know about measurements above the "listenable" audio range, however in audio the power output of a audio amplifier must be doubled to gain 3dB in volume (make it play louder).
This may not be the place, but I'm going to ask anyway. If powerful lasers in the spectrum we can't see damage our eyes, can high levels of sound above our audible range damage hearing?
Is that a solar roadway? You know, the thing on the wall in the hexagonal pattern. Putting the solar road on the wall and using it to charge phones is brilliant!
You can do neat stuff with focused ultrasound, such as sound projection to have audible sound reflected from a concrete wall. Not energy-efficient, but quite a surprising effect, which could be useful. I've seen demos where you can hold your hand into the inaudible primary ultrasound beam, and hear music reflected off your hand. Maybe they could go into that direction with their tech, which I agree is quite impressive. But phone charging is not the application.
I really like your vids and you are fast at debunking stuff but just consider this: If there was internet back in the day and you heard about x-rays and marie curie, you would have debunked it right away too yet today it's one of the most common and regularely used technologies to check broken bones, dislocated muscles etc... it might have it's spot in some niche applications where efficiency isn't a requirement. Just think about it for a sec.
The problem with your thinking is the following: Ultrasound technology has been around for years. Pressure waves as a medium to transport energy is known for a long time. This chick and her company did not really invent anything, they only clobbered existing tech together in the least practical way possible. So it's not the same as x-rays and marie curie. And it's the same bullshit over and over again, which makes you think everyone with a highschool level of physics understanding and the "yellow physics formula book", a napkin and a pen could debunk such bullshit ideas like solar roadways, waterseer, fontus, thorium cars and wireless energy transmission (be it coils and EM fields, magnetic over large distances, sound waves or laser beams) in less than five minutes. The best lithmus test for bold claims about new tech is the following: - Has there been recent discoveries in the scientific backbone (physics) that change the laws within tech can be developed. This was true for x-rays and radioactivity in Curie's days. This is not true for any ultra-sonic related tech. Bam. Done. If this single point is checked, you can easily debunk any claims about new technology. The second point is that you do not produce something and wait for a niche where it can fit. It's not necessary. If the niche will come up, you can develop a product for it then. The niche will not magically pop up after you have the product, that's just too arbitrary and unlikely to waste 28M$ for. Developing stuff that has no application yet only happens in the so-called fundamental fields of science for a reason: It's providing building blocks for future tech. It does not happen in the tech-to-market space. I'm sorry, but fundamental laws in physics strictly dictate what's possible in engineering, and never ever the other way around. Engineering your way around laws you have learned about in high school physics? Not possible. I all too often have to do head->desk and facepalm when I see new claims about magical batteries and new, revolutionary 100GHz computers. It just doesn't happen without new ground breaking results from fundamental science research first. Seen any new fancy tech recently? Look out if there exist some research papers to back it up in a fundamental way. If not? It's bullshit, easy as that.
Just to point out, Cophasing or better known as beam forming is a science that uses feedback in order to appear to be tracking an object. It actually superimposes waves based on phase shift at a geometric distance from the transmitter. I forgot to mention, had to come back and edit, the feedback is from a camera on top of the transducers and the funny part, the tracking is done by NVIDIA Jetson TK1 which is ridiculous to think i would be showing off my phone to some charger to fire Ultra sonic vibrations to charge my klunky phone.
This video gave me an idea for a system that would actually work, and I already have the apparatus to do it at home. The power transfer should be better than 60 dbm. Seriously, the apparatus us already in my kitchen. It uses RF rather than ultrasound, and it's quite a bit larger and uses over a kilowatt of power, but could be easily modified to charge phones anywhere in the house. All I'd have to do is modify the stirrer and defeat the door-open interlock. Now if I could just figure out a way to overcome the safety issue, as it currently tends to cook anyone who gets too close.
Bit of a repost Dave, but I do get the idea. You can never kick these things enough. Like annoying pests....
Yeah, sorry for the repost (but there is some new material at the end), but I think it's important that debunking videos like these get into the search results for that topic. After a few minutes it's already #10 search result for "uBeam", and #2 for "ultrasonic wireless charging".
I just couldn't get that SEO with it embedded in the 1000th video. I hope people understand.
Maxint R&D was that tag discussed on the EEVblog forum?
EEVblog - I kind of blocked it from my memory, but google didn't forget: www.eevblog.com/forum/crowd-funded-projects/ifind-another-moot-energy-harvesting-gadget/ ;-)
That discussion wasn't very extensive, but does have all links that matter, such as to the attention via hackaday.
Edit: Mac Donalds responded faster...
I seriously hope half of these people can be helped. I say half, as some of them are of cause complete cons and know they are taking money of innocent naive people. But the other half honestly seem to have a logical/emotional block on reality (like the report on a brain surgeon who have even been on aircraft, and believes in flat earth theories).
EEVblog . Agreed. We just need to like this video a lot to move it even further up. :)
"I was able to solve problems that the Ph.D experts couldn't, simply by convincing myself really hard that I solved it"
LOL!
When I heard that, it pissed me off to no end. What a douche. This is why I run away when I see TEDx.
oh man I feel so dumb for getting an EE degree when all I really needed was a positive attitude! LMAO
+EEVblog Hey Dave do you think that Cota is a bunch of wank too? Just wondering because they are claiming wireless charging but no product ever seems to materialize. Link : www.ossia.com/cota/
More like "...by having the perfect blend of ignorance and arrogance to believe that I could."
"As a non-expert, I had an advantage..." .. yes, of knowing absolutely nothing and believing anything you wanted.
You know, I do think there's SOME value in coming at a problem from outside. Groupthink does happen. However, she's clearly thinking her "quick calculations" have more merit than an expert opinion... which means her thought process is broken.
Yes, it's possible for a smart person to think of a problem and come up with a solution that experts haven't quite looked at the right way. What you're supposed to do next when you THINK you've done this is go ask your experts what you've done wrong or misunderstood. A million to one, you've messed up somehow.
If you look at the critical failures of this design, it's not that her core idea is fundamentally incorrect. There's just an overwhelming number of practical reasons why it's a dumb idea to actually use in the real world. It's not wrong, it's just ridiculously impractical. It's exactly the type of answer a non-expert would be expected to come up with.
There are plenty of reasons that SOME ridiculously impractical things could become more practical. The manufacturability concerns Dave talks about, for instance... it's possible those could be addressed. Not any time soon, but with a substantially more advanced manufacturing base. Maybe the SPL thing could be addressed with a large number of transmitters beamforming to specific targets... much as some concept cancer-burning systems that focus a large number of sources of radiation on a tumor, such that any one beam is under a safe threshold for tissue exposure... but the focal point received tumor-destroying levels of energy. Maybe in some future fusion society we won't care about efficiency as much.
Sometimes, a person can come up with a solution that has such an "impossibly impractical" element to it, and find a solution to a reason it's "obviously" impractical. This is exactly where a non-expert might help, to just push past the initial "common knowledge" of what's not possible.
This, however, suffers from so many of those impossibly impractical concerns there's virtually no way it would ever make sense. Maybe, in the year 2050+, this turns into a practical power source for storefront displays that are already using ultrasonics anyway (maybe a levitation version of LED cubes). Eh, probably not.
Dave's right... there's some tech here. They should have pivoted early to something that could actually use that tech and be a valid product.
More often than not, an expert thought of the idea and then did some quick calculations & realized it was a bad idea. Most ideas can be debunked that way. I once had a coworker who came up with a seemingly simple perpetual energy idea. It was really creative, but I was like "this sounds neat, but let's look at the numbers real quick." So, we did and it didn't take much for him to get that while it'll go awhile on its own, it will inevitably stop and if you actually put any noticeable load on it, it'd stop very quickly. Most of these sounds good til you know enough to know why it won't work ideas can usually be debunked rather quickly but the person coming up with it sometimes can't see it and thus needs the outside perspective
Her mocking was quite cringe-worthy... yes. I certainly wouldn't want to be an domain expert working for her. Imagine that.
It amazes me how easily people fall for this stuff -- and if you don't, YOU are the "naysayer". SEVERAL people that I know supported a project to put a wind turbine on the roof of cars to harness the wind energy -- as if it's just naturally windy outside and you aren't burning gas to overcome that air resistance.
That's some heavy coach shit right there.
In the TED talk piece the woman contradicts herself, first attempting to discredit expert opinion and then immediately trying to give herself credibility by mentioning she has 4 of the top experts in the field working for her. Do those people even proof-read their own sales pitches?
This "Inventor" person went to my high school. to this day many of the staff there think she is behind or working on cutting edge wireless charging and use here as an example of what we can become. Our school focuses a lot on being a leader and pursuing dreams, (but not so much on what to do if the dreams are not feasible, or if people just want someone who just follows instructions) it is clear from this person, that without reality checks, stuff like this pops up.
FYI the school is Montgomery High School, and if you are a Montgomery kid and know/think you know who this is please do not mention my real name.
I personally feel it is a really great school that is packed with opportunity having just graduated, but as I mention above, some people there are out of touch with how the real world is going to work.
That amount of money would have been enough for 200-280 full-time 4 year PhD projects. That could have been 800-1000 man-years of hard cutting-edge scientific research in the field of engineering, science, you name it. We're talking around 500-600 peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals, possibly several patents, and more opportunities than you could dream of.
These sorts of things are what pisses me off to no end. In any field of science, the amount of valorisation, motivation and ethical consideration is directly proportional to the amount of money you are requesting. Outside of science, it seems that investors and financing bodies are willing to put their money in crazy fucking bullshit that is never going to work, as long as it's a cute person preaching about "fighting the system", "no one believed me but I'll show em". Hell if you throw in a comedy side-kick and a childhood romantic interest, your have the prototype for a shitty Hollywood bait movie.
Great point redtails
Seriously, when you think about the wasted amount of money and the arrogant, self-interested pricks that allowed this obviously idiotic concept to get this far at the vast expense of real innovation and progress, it's not even that funny or amusing anymore. In fact, it's kinda disgusting.
Your profile picture makes everything you said just perfect. Pretty much in character.
Also, I had some very similar experiences on university ground. Sexiness of your project is directly proportional to amount of money you will get. My background is automotive engineering and man, my master's project on increasing carburetion efficiency for small and stationary engines (and car engines but that was side-project because nobody is making these anymore) was pushed aside when university could get more funding and exposure for electric vehicles and design competitions. My project was real, functional and practical but not sexy and "revolutionary" enough to get it funded into real product. It is a dormant paper in my drawer and I am still milling about if it's worth of patenting.
@@jakublulek3261 don't talk too much about what you're working on if you want to patent it. If the information is already publicly available, you can't file it.
As for sexiness, although I don't know why your project wasn't funded, it could be that there's an internal fund at your university for electric-related propulsion. In that case, yours would be out of scope (I.e. It's not so much about sexiness). In general I see no big biases in research when it comes to funding, though if gov makes a themed grant available then of course it's biased as that's the whole point. Despite the Haruhi avatar, I am an author on 10 peer reviewed papers now lmao
With the size of that "brick", you can get a 20 000mAh bank that can charge your phone many times and costs less to nothing these days.
Joonas Pulkkinen And with that budget you could probably design a nuclear battery that lasts as long as the rest of a typical modern phone...
Phone-based RTG? :-)
MrOpenGL Why use nuclear power from outlet when you can make nuclear power yourself, da... :D
On a more serious note, Pu-238 based RTGs are pretty safe and require minimal shielding. If it weren't for the fact that Pu-238 is rare and extremely expensive (has to be bred in a reactor) it could be the first form of widespread nuclear power in household environment. It only decays in alpha radiation, so it requires only a thin lead shield, and the half-life is 40 years or so if I can recall that right.
I'm sure that if we found a cheap way to produce it, someone could find a way to make the plutonium pellet un-openable (like potting or encasing it in a welded box) so idiots don't try to make dirty bombs that actually are mostly scare devices than anything!
Well that escalated quickly :D
I know this story too well. Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes vs. uBeam, Meredith Perry.
Remarkably similar than you know as a person.
Actually, Paul and Sean (2 ex-VPs of the company) used to discuss your blog as a fair outside criticism.
It's the CEO they couldn't convince, thereby both of them no longer work there anymore.
This is what happens when an amateur person gets a vision- can't handle it.
Holy shit 150+dB ultrasonics I wouldn't like to have that near me.
What about dogs, cats, bats, moths and animals that have sensory limits well beyond human hearing. Cats hear up to 60khz, dogs 40khz, bats up to 200khz! Moths and other insects have evolved to hear bats echo location, so also hear ultrasound. It's absolutely not a sensible thing, unless you want to drive your dogs and cats mad.
What I love the most is the angle they're filming the demo at. It "just so happens" that it obscures the size of the transmitter.
"Engineers are very linear thinkers ... they tend to take a binary approach to things."
It is literally the job of an engineer to do the exact opposite.
The CEO said she could quickly google the problems listed by professionals to solve them. So, why hasn't she answered the problems they listed? I'd love to see her try to tackle Dave's list.
They can't do anything but hand wave
Has anyone noticed, at 14:51 they only show the animation of a charging battery? The symbol in the bar at the top of the screen says it's not even charging at all.
14:21 look at the battery icon in the status bar of the cellphone. THE BATTERY IS NOT CHARGING!! They are just using some kind of video or animation in the cellphone!
How about solar freakin' ultrasonic waterseer roadways
Pros:free energy
Cons:lacks batterizer
*wireless
NOW with added Thorium!!!
rationalmartian Don't forget fontus!
And magic electric saving wipes...
well she did beat us all and the PhDs.
she has $28M and we don't....
and yes she will be showing that small little middle finger to all of us for writing these comments :)
Not really. Depends what you mean by "has" I guess. Founding a startup and getting it funded just gets you a normal paying job and equity which could become valuable if you have a liquidity event. Investors expect the founders to be the lowest paid in the company. Since this is gonna fizzle out - she's gonna simply walk away with this having made nothing but a meager salary, and a lot of embarrassment + pretty much impossible to ever secure funding again. Happens all the time. 90% of the time in fact. Which is why investors expect a 10x return. (way oversimplified obviously)
mikebarnacle if she had 2 brain cell I would have expected her to funnel away a nice part of that money.
@Alfonce Jean Like the Theranos founder Elisabeth Holmes? Guess what, when the sums go into millions and billions, all they can hope for is wire fraud charges & up to 20 years in jail.
So if they had 2 brain cells they would go for limited accountability and definitely not funnel away any money at all. Just take the defeat and go away quitely :)
Meredith Perry is the best example of the Dunning-Kruger effect I have yet seen.
I stopped as soon as she mentioned waterproof film in shampoo. That was the limit of dumb for the day.
Oh but it got sooooo much better!
No Mrs CEO, not being an engineer does not give you an advantage or the ability to out think smarter people. Your mummy told you a lie but don't let that stop you scamming even more ignorant people out of their millions of dollars !
A fool and his money are soon parted
Sometimes a simpler idea and focus on the problem is the best. The problem is: User dont wanna get out of charge. Why is not common to have smartphones with quick replaceable batteries like in DSLR cameras? They could keep a small cell buil in, that can hold it on for a couple of minutes, just to be able to make a "hot swap", like HDs in servers? It would not take more than 10s to change a battery, and a power off would not be needed. Then, one just have to rotate batteries. Why all this fancy desire for wireless charging? Ah... I forgot... You have to throw away your phone when the cell is gone, instead of just buy another one...
Jonathan Araujo yes forced obsolescence doesn't work when you make practical products that stands the test of time, best to make garbage.
"like in DSLR cameras"
Like in phones 10 years ago, you mean.
Jonathan Araujo Thats the first thing I mentioned when I got my lg g5. It's so easy to change the battery, It would be awesome to have a small secondary battery to keep the phone on while swaping the primary battery. Even a capacitor just to hold the stuff in the ram memory for a few seconds would be usefull.
That will never sold, because it actually solves the problem :)
Or even a "burner" charger as we already have. Charge the battery pack, plug the battery pack into the phone on your commute (not everyone is in a car) to school/work and it charges. etc. Which is what most people are doing.
This is a solution looking for a problem... why? Because they chose ultrasound and STUCK with it. If they were really looking for a solution, they would change to the tech that best fits. For example, I've got a couple of ultrasound sensors for a project, they will do about half of what I want, so I've had to admit I need infrared too. I cannot "just believe" or "think really hard" to get a solution (well, I could if I modulate/read multiple ultrasonic beams at the same time, but that is beyond my math level, programming, sensor fidelity, and I still cannot change the speed of sound! :D ).
In biomedical research we use ultrasound to randomly break DNA into bits. Although that's at a much higher power density, it does raise some questions about safety from constant exposure.
AskAScientistShow Not to mention the effect on animals that have supersonic hearing.
What frequency is it ?
60 Khz, in the audible range of bats, cats and rats.
This kills the cat.
and all along people thought it was curiosity that did it...
dogs will hate this device
Assuming they actually implemented it at 60kHz as claimed, neither dogs nor cats would be able to hear it at all.
That conversion from 1% needing to be 15GW is insane! The only reason I know it's a large amount is because Doc Brown was flipping out over a mere 1.21GW to power the DeLorean's time bits..
That woman said, 'well they wanted to use ultrasound as a weapon'....Then everybody clapped! Missing the obvious point that it's not likely a healthy place to stick your body next to a 150dB+ ultrasonic radiator.
Then there is your dog and cat....
When I debunk "Free Energy" bull@hit devices on my channel, I get all the Trolls saying, "You're being paid by oil companies to suppress the invention". LOL
They have probably read the specification of ultrasonic ID tags produced by Norwegian company SONITOR (whose main clients are hospitals in (!) Australia, who improve management of movable equipment with these tags). SONITOR is also working on low-power low-speed wireless ultrasonic data networks, to replace WiFi in areas, where radio silence is imprtant...
BUT transfering power with noise...
This is not only stupid, but also dangerous!
This planet needs you. Keep uploading good stuff!
Pffftttt. Dave is just in the pocket of big cable.
xD
Yes, I think so too... He should just stop debunking! He is a shill... pay'd by big Pharma, large Petroleum, stuck in the dark ages that no one can go outside and disturb the laws of thermodynamics as they rule everything and everyone. oh the irony, that EVERYTHING has an energy field around it! But that was an accidental discovery. Now move on you lot, nothing to see here.
[/end sarcasm].
I have a 22000MAH battery brick that's about the same size as that receiver. I can charge 3 devices at once, at 2 amps, from flat to full, 2 or 3 times over. It was $40. When your competition is either QI cheap plug-in chargers or "just get an additional battery", charging using hundreds of ultrasonic transducers is absurd.
Even if they solved the thickness and weight problem with the uBeam, even if they solved the cost problem, even if they somehow solved the ergonomics problems, it's still not practical to use it because of the sound levels. There are reasons why you should consult experts in what's _practical_ instead of spending millions on what's not technically impossible.
So 60 kHz in air is a 0.2 inch wavelength. The far field for an array antenna is D^2/lambda. So given a 24 inch array aperture, that would put the far field at 240 feet. So how are they going to get any gain or focusing out of this array? Do ultrasonics (longitudinal wave) work different than RF (transverse waves).
Actually at 60khz a transmitting antenna would have to be 16117.874086021506 (1/1) feet long. A 1/4 wave transmitting antenna at 4029.4685215053764 feet still isn't practical.
Is that Samsung phone even charging? At 14:21 you can see big fancy looking charging animation, but next to the clock on the notifications bar, battery icon seems to be not animated, or even with any indicator, like in many other phones (small spark/lightning/whatever symbol inside the battery icon). Also who charges their phones in airplane mode?
It is charging, the lighting symbol just looks like a dark dot at that resolution. Probably in airplane mode to try to stop it discharging faster than it charges due to it's crappyness.
Maybe it could still work if you replaced the air between the appliances with a good conductor, some sort of 'copper beam' which would be solid at room temperature....you could make it straight or bendy, then you could wrap it in rubber to stop it losing power
3:35 I don't think they use the ultrasound to locate where your device is. In the demo vid, the ceo said that they use a vision system for locating the devices and you can see the camera above the ultrasound transmitter array. Given that, I am very skeptical that the demo shows the ultrasound powering. Could've been easily faked.
Ultrasonic pulses strong enough to charge multiple phones from several meters seems like the kinda thing that would cause cats, dogs, and other ultrasonic-sensitive animals to have their brains melt, like ultrasonic flash-bangs going off constantly everywhere they go, until they are driven to crave human flesh out of sheer madness. Or they go deaf, whichever comes first.
surprised that they didn't just declare that it could be used in conjunction with solar roadways where they will just beam the electricity to the electric car
After they complete all the safety testing on cats, dogs and hamsters is when we find out it is the worlds most expensive ultrasonic pest repellent.
What about situations where it's not easy or convenient to run power, or install an outlet? Like a table at a coffee shop. In that case, instead of putting the receiver on the phone, you install it directly into the table with a USB outlet or wireless charging pad on the table. Then you could move the table around and not worry about outlets. Maybe other similar use cases?
Cully Larson yes, it will work as a "pair". If, the following conditions are met. Nothing obstructs the receiver on the table, i.e. Drinks, plates, hands, newspapers, phones etc. as it will lose a large portion of the energy. 2. You will need at least 4 things. Qi charger, micro-usb, usb-c & Apples cable. Can it be done? Yes, will it be practical?... oh, and don't forget about pets... many places don't let them in, but here in Oz, if they are seeing/ hearing aid dogs, they are allowed.
And no one seems to think about pets... They will scream loud and become aggressive because of the ultrasonic shit all over.
Might be worth looking at the amount of current through the usb it takes to get the charging indicator on a phone to come up... Seems to be used as 'proof' that the battery is 'filling up' in the promo vid but I suspect it's a very low threshold, possibly less than the consumption of the phone.
Wouldn't it also disturb the local ecology if it somehow magically worked ? Lots of species can hear well into ultrasonic range and I know it's beamforming but at that high of energy and the usage everywhere enough would surely some of the energy "leak" (for the lack of a better word) out of the beam to harm certain species.
145 dB to 155 dB is too loud to be heard. 125 dB is very bad for human ears which are relatively insensitive. A 100 to 1000 times higher pressure level and a more sensitive ear is not a good combination.
I stand corrected!
I know off the top of my head dogs and cats can hear 60khz, it's well within their hearing range. If this went to market there would be so many deaf animals in the first few days. Love the debunking videos Dave.
cbrims As well as birds, bats, mice, etc. Essentially a modern torture device for pet lovers wanting to very slowly charge their mobile devices while driving their pets into a maddening frenzy just trying to escape a 155dB sound source all the while daintily holding your phone by the edges as if it were about to explode at any moment so as to not block the power transfer.
I honestly do not think most people have any idea just how loud 155dB really is or how bad such is for any creature capable of hearing such (about 64 times the amplitude of a rock concert). I can not even stand to be a few houses away from those homes that use "ultrasonic" pest repellers (ultrasonic in quotes as many are in the 16-22KHz range)...they are like never ending fingernails on a chalkboard even a full block away and ought to be outlawed! There are also real questions as to the safety of humans, and other living creatures, in close proximity to 155dB ultrasonic frequencies for prolonged periods as it is naive to assume such is inherently safe just because we can not hear or see it -- serious safety studies would need to be conducted prior to market and safety approvals were such ever to be marketed to the general public.
"Right there off the bat." Speaking of bats, insects and other critters, what is the effect of a SPL of 145 to 155 db on them.
Meredith Perry, CEO whining about non linear thinking engineers, then she hires FOUR of them. Hey Meredith, here's some "non linear thinking" for you - Market your device as a charger/ultrasonic vaginal cleaning device.
Daiyve, Daiyve, Daiyve well done. Billabong and all that.
As a Tennesseean I apologize for giving them a platform with that Tedx talk.
Great debunking Dave!
It's a shame to think that TEDx which I thought was a reputable channel would allow nutters (not just this one) on.
This is particularly annoying with a lot of content on 'bad ted' recently and I would hope they would do some more research
before putting people on who simply have no commonsense or concept of reality!
Tedx is independent, just licensing the brand name.
Safe? Is the employee in the demo @3:10 holding that alleged receiver away from his body so it can be seen or so he does not absorb it, that is if anything is in the air.
I love the take on AC DC on your shirt, Dave!
yeah... has anyone ever tested the ultrasonic charger to see if this technology affects animals??? probably not. I hope my neighbor doesn't get one, I have pets. well ,interesting video. thank you for getting this kind of information out there.
Dave this is really a problem. To many fraudsters or people with unrealistic expectations
I assume all your viewers are knowledgeable in electronics and physics to at least some level. Many out there are not at all and will never sit through one of your videos. They will never understand how good an engineer you are because its all gibberish to them. This leaves a lot of the masses open to being swindled.
The challenge is how to set up something as a public service that can
1) assess the physics of ideas / proposals in the public domain to ascertain their feasibility
2) reach the masses with reviews
Its a public service type of thing. To maintain the integrity of engineering. I hate to see the field diluted by fraudsters.
I worry about the lack of trust in experts that these and others are spreading far and wide.
at 13:49.. the icon on he upper tray shows not charging..... fail
As much as I'd like transmitted power, I'd prefer pulling electrons from thin air with a balloon tied to the ground.
I wonder if it beam forms 1.5 watts at your ear while your on the phone. Maye it could double ad a mosquito killer?
Don't blindly trust experts. Blindly trust me, a non-expert!!!
Is the technology built around standing waves?
A bowshock technology? Like the sun ejecting some plasma like a bullwhip and the energy travel uniform throught the vaccua until the bowshock hit earth?
A minute or two into that TEDX and I was reaching for:
a) a bucket
b) my tinfoil hat
c) the definition of Dunning Kreuger Syndrome
d) all of the above.
It needed to be reposted for the non regulars, and to be found easily by it's tile.
for a split second i though we were gonna hear dave drop the f bomb. "its just dumb est" sounded a bit like as and the pause had me anticipating
if everyone had a ubeam can you imagine the number of Deloreans you could send back in time with the wasted power?
What happened to your 'solar freakin walls' video...
Have anyone heared about using radiowaves to grab a few volts ? ( Pine shaped with Lenghts of the antenas at exact scale to the pole/main antena ) I`ts supposed to give you around 9V but I don`t remember the power nor the exact design. And this scaling is similar to the one at the 4G technology antenas where you need to grab the correct freq.
Horus Horus Hush, you're not allowed to talk about tech outside of this female's realm... naughty you!
What about issues such as noise pollution? Even if humans can't hear 60kHz, what about certain animals?
Likely animals like cats and bats. And wave interference (demodulation) from other sources could be a real issue as well.
Yes, I was going to mention wave interference. Also, from admittedly just doing a very quick Google, ultra sound at 155dB is harmful to humans. www.wikilectures.eu/index.php/Effects_of_Ultrasound
WTF are these uBeam people thinking!?
Are you implying they are thinking? Because to me it really doesn't seem like it.
A decade from now, uBeam's employees will all be suing for worker's comp. (Assuming the company keeps any assets once the idea fully fails.)
Not being able to sense something does not make it less dangerous, quite the opposite
"NOTE: This was split out from video #1000 for SEO reasons." why?
Because it would not rank anywhere in the search rankings otherwise. It's now #3 search result for "uBeam"
Would it dogs a bit of a headache, isn't just in the dog hearing range?
That massive brick could house a 20000mah battery!
"I've got four of the world's top ultra-sonic engineers working for me...Ooops, with me." Typical CEO type, total sociopath.
That t-shirt is not on your store - where can I get one?
I think they just had an animated battery symbol on the screen because the actual battery indicator in the notification bar on the top of the screen never indicated charging. Many phones just won't start charging if the available current is too low and I believe this is the case in this demonstration.
Man... if you're going to call out people that have dedicated years of their lives to studying science and engineering, you better make sure you are not full of it before burning them! Think of the basic research that money could have funded! Good luck on getting buy in on your next project.
Her swiss bank account is doing just fine
Heh... as if any research developed by these private enterprises would go to the public, anyway. Even if they research something interesting, it will be patented and sit around for years, never being built, because it's impractical. You know, like perpetual motion machines. Amazing how many investors still fall for those.
Most of these startups know their product has no chance in the real world, so once investor money starts rolling in, they spend it on high-end offices and executive assistants.
Well, sometimes investors put caps on salaries, so managers have to pull the money via "business expenses" rather than taking out money directly. Plus, it's common to pay themselves in bonuses rather than salaries, so they don't have to pay as much in taxes and so on. Business economics can be complicated (and stupid).
At any rate, yeah, they're jerks.
She is an expert in bulshitting investors. Never compete with an idiot, because they will beat you with their experience.
sucker born every minute
Hi Dave I'm studing Eng. Electronics and Computers in Portugal, in a conference they talked about using thet tecnology in the Tv remote control to try cuting the batteries..
Can you do a piece on so nearfield power gear?
Solar road ways hasn't one been built?
How does the sound (kinetic) energy become electrical energy?
The same way you produce the sound, ultrasonic piezo transducers. It would be very wasteful since sound waves spread as Dave pointed out. Even if you bonded the transmitter to the receiver you are not going to be able to get any real efficiency and sticking them together defeats the whole idea.
I saw the screen shot and I was thinking it about the Piezo Haptic Feed back stuff. Repeat after me, Telsa is pretty much hyped.
before i start watching this video, did the solar roadway guys come up with another new idea ? :o
You know the efficiency rating would actually be half what you said, since SPL drops by 6dB per every doubling of distance, not by 3dB (assuming a perfect 'point source')
I do not know about measurements above the "listenable" audio range, however in audio the power output of a audio amplifier must be doubled to gain 3dB in volume (make it play louder).
This may not be the place, but I'm going to ask anyway. If powerful lasers in the spectrum we can't see damage our eyes, can high levels of sound above our audible range damage hearing?
Is that a solar roadway? You know, the thing on the wall in the hexagonal pattern. Putting the solar road on the wall and using it to charge phones is brilliant!
The thumbnail told me all I needed to know. 👌
You can do neat stuff with focused ultrasound, such as sound projection to have audible sound reflected from a concrete wall. Not energy-efficient, but quite a surprising effect, which could be useful. I've seen demos where you can hold your hand into the inaudible primary ultrasound beam, and hear music reflected off your hand. Maybe they could go into that direction with their tech, which I agree is quite impressive. But phone charging is not the application.
12:00 Inception... Watching a youtube video inside a youtube video! Still an awesome debunking video. Thumbs up! Keep up the good work Dave!
I don't care how safe anyone says it is I'm going to take a pass on standing in the path of that kind of power....
I really enjoy Dave's T-Shirt Reference. Well done! (not sure if it's new or he's worn it before, but as soon as I read it, I knew)
I really like your vids and you are fast at debunking stuff but just consider this:
If there was internet back in the day and you heard about x-rays and marie curie, you would have debunked it right away too yet today it's one of the most common and regularely used technologies to check broken bones, dislocated muscles etc...
it might have it's spot in some niche applications where efficiency isn't a requirement.
Just think about it for a sec.
The problem with your thinking is the following:
Ultrasound technology has been around for years. Pressure waves as a medium to transport energy is known for a long time. This chick and her company did not really invent anything, they only clobbered existing tech together in the least practical way possible. So it's not the same as x-rays and marie curie.
And it's the same bullshit over and over again, which makes you think everyone with a highschool level of physics understanding and the "yellow physics formula book", a napkin and a pen could debunk such bullshit ideas like solar roadways, waterseer, fontus, thorium cars and wireless energy transmission (be it coils and EM fields, magnetic over large distances, sound waves or laser beams) in less than five minutes.
The best lithmus test for bold claims about new tech is the following:
- Has there been recent discoveries in the scientific backbone (physics) that change the laws within tech can be developed. This was true for x-rays and radioactivity in Curie's days. This is not true for any ultra-sonic related tech.
Bam. Done. If this single point is checked, you can easily debunk any claims about new technology.
The second point is that you do not produce something and wait for a niche where it can fit. It's not necessary. If the niche will come up, you can develop a product for it then. The niche will not magically pop up after you have the product, that's just too arbitrary and unlikely to waste 28M$ for.
Developing stuff that has no application yet only happens in the so-called fundamental fields of science for a reason: It's providing building blocks for future tech. It does not happen in the tech-to-market space. I'm sorry, but fundamental laws in physics strictly dictate what's possible in engineering, and never ever the other way around. Engineering your way around laws you have learned about in high school physics? Not possible.
I all too often have to do head->desk and facepalm when I see new claims about magical batteries and new, revolutionary 100GHz computers. It just doesn't happen without new ground breaking results from fundamental science research first.
Seen any new fancy tech recently? Look out if there exist some research papers to back it up in a fundamental way. If not? It's bullshit, easy as that.
wow, latest video about trumps solar wall removed?
Though now Trump will be forced to pay back $25 million he scammed out of all those Trump University goers.
It’s a TED lecture... I think I’ll go make a sandwich and come back in 15 minutes...
you should do a tear down on a alpha stim machine.
Is it the same as Energous?
Dave, was @12:35 an accidental burn?
:D
Just to point out, Cophasing or better known as beam forming is a science that uses feedback in order to appear to be tracking an object. It actually superimposes waves based on phase shift at a geometric distance from the transmitter.
I forgot to mention, had to come back and edit, the feedback is from a camera on top of the transducers and the funny part, the tracking is done by NVIDIA Jetson TK1 which is ridiculous to think i would be showing off my phone to some charger to fire Ultra sonic vibrations to charge my klunky phone.
For BS of the century, I'm still undecided if uBeam or "solar water bottle that makes water" is worse, lol.
I love that you do this. You are doing a service to all humanity and the future.
Make the phone brick a UV/IR activated battery pack and have the transmitter activate it with a simple IR/UV LED. There you have your demo setup.
Theranos anyone.
why don't we have hot swappable batteries?
This video gave me an idea for a system that would actually work, and I already have the apparatus to do it at home. The power transfer should be better than 60 dbm. Seriously, the apparatus us already in my kitchen. It uses RF rather than ultrasound, and it's quite a bit larger and uses over a kilowatt of power, but could be easily modified to charge phones anywhere in the house. All I'd have to do is modify the stirrer and defeat the door-open interlock. Now if I could just figure out a way to overcome the safety issue, as it currently tends to cook anyone who gets too close.
thanx, i also got a microwave oven ;)
Did they disable votes and comments on that TED video yet?
Well, I guess money is cheap these days. The investors through them like toilet paper.
BTW,The massive phased array would be fun to play.
We need to make Dave Jones expression between 5:15 to 5:17 a meme that reacts to idiotic tech ideas... Who's with me?
Maybe that technology can be used for something else, other than phone chargers?
It was from the 1960s up until 2012. It was used (60Khz) to transmit WWVB clock correction data.
Why not just replace the brick that they attached to the phones with a USB powerbank in the same format?