While it's nice to think that we could let uBeam toil along in the minute hopes that they might succeed, the problem is that they don't exist in a vacuum. The impossible specs that they are putting out there are almost certainly preventing legitimate technologies from getting funded, since you'd have to address the elephant in the room in your pitch deck. Additionally, companies like uBeam and Theranos create massive undertows when they go under -- no VC is going to go within a mile of a blood testing or wireless power delivery company for years after.
Finally, there's a simple way that uBeam could silence all the critics -- they could show some data in a public forum that proves that they can overcome even a few of the basic physics challenges that have been posed. Despite the withering criticism, they've refused to take that step. That's very telling.
This is one of the better posts that explains it. http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/04/tilting-at-wind...
You may want to read the writeup which forced that disclosure: http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/
I'll run some better numbers tomorrow for a fixed distance / size, but intuitively, eliminating the "tracking a phone from 5M away" requirement dramatically expands the use cases.
The writeup I linked has a good argument against the feasibility of wireless power for a TV:
> A typical large, flat-screen TV (eg. [42]) will draw about 60 watts. Since a TV is usually mounted in one place, some of the limitations get easier, but not all - if the TV is two feet (60 cm) from the wall, and the receiver is 40% efficient, that's still about 80% losses. To transmit 300 watts at 0.3 W/cm^2, one has to have a 1,000 cm^2 transmitter, a bit over a foot on each side (31.6 cm). One could make the transmitter smaller (100 cm^2, or 4 inches/10 cm across) by increasing the intensity to 165 dB, a level that causes burns "almost instantly" (from Question #7), but that seems unwise. Since most power outlets are near the floor, and the TV probably isn't, one would still have to run a cord to the transmitter. And uBeam takes 240 watts of electricity, about a dozen light bulbs' worth, and dumps it into the air for no real reason. That's not good for the environment. Or the power bill. Or the air conditioning - all that heat makes the room hotter.
So, a startup in a closed system with no product or source of revenue will dissolve into entropy. But a startup with continual funding from VCs can remain as long as the influx of cash continues.
Anyway, there's nothing about thermodynamic limitations in the section about the TV. The author is making several exaggerated statements that are easily refuted to make the TV suddenly possible... Let's focus on the wasted energy (240W or a dozen light bulbs!) to make the point:
* Assume a 48" LED[1] that uses 31W and suddenly you're only wasting 120W.
* His 80% loss figure is a holdover from his calculations about the phone -- cut this in half and you're at 60W of waste heat. (You should be able to achieve a nearly perfect perpendicular 'connection' between transmitter/receiver for a fixed TV).
So far, we're delivering 30W of power and wasting 60W as heat -- not ideal
* If you plan for a worst-case of 8-hrs straight of watching TV and plan on a battery backup, you could get away with delivering 10W to the TV and only wasting 20W as heat which is eminently reasonable.
The "physically impossible" claims are greatly overstated (for non-phone charging use cases).
[1] - https://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=most_efficient.me_tvs...
Until our houses are powered by 100% renewable energy, any technology that sacrifices more than half the input energy just so someone doesn't have to see an extension cord should be banned by law.
There's a big difference between 30% efficient now and 90% efficient in the future, and "it's never going to get any better than this"
Actually, I take it back. That's not fair -- according to their investors they don't have any intention of only making phone chargers;
> And the truth is that Team uBeam doesn’t want to stop at phones. With the explosion of “wearables’ wouldn’t it be nice if you didn’t have to charge your watch, fitness tracker or noise-canceling headphones? What about if elderly people never had to ask a relative or healthcare worker to change the batteries on their hearing aids? The practical uses for uBeam technology is limitless.
Or the company themselves;
> With wires virtually eliminated, TVs can sit in the middle of a room cord-free and light fixtures will become “stick-on” without the need for routed power.
<--Original post-->
That's fair, but it sure seems like the obvious path to getting cell phone charging to work is to get a fixed object charging to work -- at which point, if they'd hired any bizdev people, they'll sell the hell out of the fixed object systems to anyone and everyone.
It's just striking to recollect the many complaints about only easy, derivative ideas being funded when a hard idea with tons of applications is being derided in such an intense fashion.
I'd rather they fund 10 uBeams that could yield useful insights or pivots than 0.
When uBeam say they're going to make wires a thing of the past, I will remain skeptical until they have a product on a shelf that I can buy. Until then I am as excited about their wireless power transmission as I am by any other startup in the same space - it's a great idea, but it needs to be seen.
I dont get that linked blog. This engineer, who apparently is too ashamed to use his real name on the blog, is part of the problem. He was either in on the scam, or is as clueless as the founder.
Want similar magic 'under appreciated' startups? look up solar road scam, or batteriser.
What I think is the problem- and there are many parties to blame is---
(1) Press and some new tech founders are so obsessed with selling a good story rather than a good "real" impactful product- that they overhype WAY too much, claim way too many UNREAL things, stomp their feet with arrogance, talk about how the world is against young naive people (not true)- rather than just projecting some realistic expectations and just be enthusiastic about what they want to do(Sure, some level of optimism is needed, but don't go so much overboard!). But I guess, non tech or VC people get demoralized if you don't claim you can be a >$1B company overnight. The unicorn fallacy. May be that's what encourages this.
(2) Problem with overhype is-- when it doesn't work out, it creates skepticism for genuine companies. When a founder of a tech startup says "It can charge faster than wire"- that worries me.
(3)The world/press is obsessed about finding the next Steve Jobs/Tesla/Musk. You listen to Perry's TED talk- she keeps criticizing the PhDs and the engineers, how they cannot think "out of the box". Perry is very good sales person, she can bring in money and you certainly need that in a company. But, you don't need to bring someone down to rise up the ladder. http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxNashville-Meredith-Perry-...
(4)The media wants to find the good story of how a "dropout" or a "non technical" person turns out to be the next Tesla- and solving the hardest physics/bio problem. Worries me, cause I feel this might not be the best picture you want to portray to the young ambitious kids. Inventions and real disruptions involves lots and lots of hard work,and in-depth understanding of how things work, and I think the engineers and scientists who ACTUALLY make it work should be appreciated. Instead it is projected as if all these engineers are dumb ones who Perry has to keep telling what to do.
(5)People want the world to change overnight, and some people want to believe that. People who "actually" work to create that change, know its not true.
And I think at HN many of us are tech people. We don't like to be told - "oh you guys are way too stupid and cannot think out of the box" or "you wasted your time learning engineering, and I can just solve the big problems by just reading up wikipedia"- when obviously she had no clue. Good luck building it with no engineers?
Because their stated goal of wireless phone charging is likely too hard to get to work right? If they "only" figure out short distance beam-formed wireless power at 25% efficiency, is the company a failure?
Look around any apartment in an 'old' city and you'll see dozens of things that would benefit from being able to throw power like WiFi. 60-watt equivalent LEDs are something like 9W -- there are about 100 places in my apartment I'd like to have better light but my landlord has no interest in running new power lines. Smoke detectors trickle charging at even 1W would never run out of power. Modern 40" TVs can use as little as 25W of power -- with a powerful uBeam and a Chromecast, you could attach it to any wall and never see a cable. Those "smart mirrors" that everyone builds then never shows full frame due to the ugly cord running out of it could easily be charged via wireless tech.
There are obviously many obstacles and who knows if they'll make it, but it seems extremely short sighted and against the spirit of HN to actively cheer for a company's failure.
Edit: Apparently, yes, I'm the only one.