Lies and Startup PR

For anyone interested in the challenges of true wireless charging (i.e., actual wireless, not induction-based), I highly recommend this blog from Paul Reynolds, who formerly led engineering at ubeam: https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com

I think that the much cheaper solution is neither to develop the technology nor fool people with fake research, but fund real research into areas where the economics probably won't work. (Which could be the whole field.) As we've seen with Theranos, and with plenty of smaller companies [1], it's easy enough to spend years taking investor money for things people want to exist but are probably or definitely impossible. That would get carbon polluters many years of delay. For corporate execs, that's plenty of time. And hey, a miracle might happen. That said, fooling people is a well-established business of its own. It started with the tobacco companies, but it sure hasn't ended there. [2] So they might be sticking with the tried and true playbook here. [1] E.g., this excellent blog on wireless charging companies: https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/ [2] https://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Their-Product-Industrys-Threatens/dp/0195…

The blog that the article was sourced from (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/) currently has a biting post about how Theranos' failures are endemic in the tech industry: "Companies in the new tech area tend to be a little lax when it comes to doing things carefully - Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, tells us all to "Move fast and break things", which I have to agree is a great way to innovate and learn when your product does nothing of actual importance at all. It doesn't matter if you don't get your silly cat videos, or can't post pictures of your holidays, because your business payroll doesn't run on it, your medication isn't delivered by it, nor is your aircraft navigation based on it. Real consequences of a Facebook blackout are near zero." "[...] In both these industries [generator manufacturing and medical ultrasound] the mentality was "we must make sure this is safe" and the idea of reducing or skipping safety is never considered, but I do not see the same thinking in many of these tech companies. I have literally heard "what's the minimum we have to do?", "we don't have proof it's a risk", "that sounds time-consuming and expensive. We should do <pointless but fast/cheap thing> instead", and "well if it goes to court our lawyers say they have good arguments"."

You can read more on the slow demise of uBeam at https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/

Right. Somebody should have a site which shows 1, 2, 5, and 10 years ago in battery technology announcements. There's at least one major battery breakthrough claim each month. These guys should shut up until they can at least light up an LED in the lab. Could be worse. Remember uBeam, the ultrasonic power people? They're now called "Sonic Energy".[1] Still doesn't really work. [1] https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/

This carries weight. Former VP of Eng at Ubeam https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/

This is a good blog to read from the start, from Paul Reynolds, the former uBeam VP Engineering: http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com.au/

> The actual engineers working on the project (including the one in this "spat") at some point realize the actual limitations of what is possible physics wise From reading the blog of their former VP of engineering [0] I got the impression that the actual engineers were aware from the start of the limitations of what was physically possible. Instead, said engineer seems to have only realized with time something else: that the founder and CEO was perfectly at ease with making unrealistic promises to raise truckloads of funding at valuations that were impossible to justify with the performances he (and the other engineers) knew were physically possible. [0] http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/

Hard not to be impressed by how aggressive 'the engineer' is on his blog[0]. I don't think I've ever seen anything like this. It's pretty bold. Seems rare to find someone being so candid. Am I missing something? Does this happen in public regularly? 0 - http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com.au/

Missing Meredith Perry and her uBeam trying to sell idea of ubiquitous wireless charging. Tedtalk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukgnU2aXM2c Analysis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1R9IQF0Y9s "for each technological hurdle deemed insurmountable by the experts I would spend just a few hours thinking about the problem from a variety of approaches so I was able to solve problems when the PhD experts couldn't with just a few hours of really simple research every single argument over why the technology couldn't work has been indisputably wrong has taught me to be skeptical of experts the expertise represented a narrow way of looking at things engineers are inherently linear thinkers and tend to take a very binary approach to solving problems as a non expert I had an advantage because I could look at a problem from different angles because I just didn't know it was possible by thinking outside the box by thinking around corners you can out think the top thinkers and now eight months later I have four of the top ultrasonic engineers in the world working for me we're working with me it's going to work and it's going to be awesome and I can't wait to give the middle finger and smiled all the engineers that criticize the crap out of me" Spoilers: She is a fraud, it never worked, one of the ultrasonic engineers she boasted about hiring even ran a blog debunking her claims https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com. >$20 million from Andreessen Horowitz/Mark Cuban/Marissa…

Here are osha safety guidelines for ultrasonic sound: https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/new_noise/appendixc.pdf tldr: Maximum 115 dB Here is a calculator to convert decibels to watts: http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-soundlevel.htm tldr: ~0.3 watts per square meter Surface area of a google pixel: 14.3cm x 6.95cm = 0.01 square meters Therefore approximately 0.003 watts over the surface area of a phone at safe volumes. At 5v that's 0.6 mA. Barely enough to light up LEDs. It looks like they're working with larger holders, say 20cm x 20cm that's 0.04 sq meters or 2.4 mA at 5v. It takes about 10 mA to trip the "charging" indicator on an android phone: http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/06/what-does-it-take-to-swit… This is based on the raw power of the sound waves. There will be inefficiency converting from sound to electricity, so they are probably dealing with greater than 115 dB sound at the phone. They are probably just barely tripping the charge sensor for 100 hour charge times. If they are charging significantly then they are working with very excessive excessive sound levels (>125 dB). Given imperfect transducers for 100% conversion of sound to electricity and the above dimensions they would have to be working with > 122 dB sound at the phone for 10 mA charge current. So, it's either a scam or it's not safe. Jamming that much air pressure in a small space will cause problems and will probably be inefficient. Sound is not a…

uBeam (http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.mx/)

http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/05/abandon-ship.html - Interesting that the CFO left less than one year after this article. http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/28/electric-liberation/ Also another fun point- every techcrunch article on ubeam is by Josh Constine Turns out the VP joined because of Merc Berte - the MIT/Raytheon engineer, who also left right after series A fund raising. Both Merc and this VP guys seems amazingly sharp. But what's surprising is nowhere in the media you see any credit given to these guys.Perry is branded as a sole genius. The VP writes- "And the point of this story? In my opinion, don't take the presence of smart engineers as confirmation of a technology's viability (either way), and don't think the engineers at a company you find questionable aren't smart and are fully aware of the technical issues of what they're working on. They just want to play with fun toys."

More thinking ubeam now sonicEnergy. https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/06/arguing-point.html

I'm guessing the issue is that there would be few (1?) focus points available; people are used to much finer grained auto-focus capabilities. That being said...maybe uBeam can find a use for their tech now :-) https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/search/label/ubeam

How long will it be until Energous is also revealed as a fraud? https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/08/mailbag-questions-on-ene…

1) This is the blog by the former VP of Engineering that the article references: https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/search/label/ubeam 2) Does anyone know if she ever apologized for this awful speech? https://youtu.be/ukgnU2aXM2c?t=240 3) This uBeam shit is literally one of the reasons why I created a beginner's course in wireless power. It drives me nuts that investors have gotten ripped off so many times in this industry and the degree to which the media has been complicit in the hype train. If Mark Cuban or any other VCs happen to be reading this, please watch this course before putting any more money into wireless power. I created a coupon so you can watch it for free. https://www.udemy.com/wireless-power-to-the-people-wireless-charging-1…

Good point, I forgot to mention that "race to IPO and cash out" is a viable business strategy, though a sad product strategy. See A123 Systems, Desktop Metal's founder's previous company that went bankrupt. Also the Energous story: https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/04/those-other-guys-pt-ii.h…

Blog with some analysis and a lot of older info on Energous: https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/12/energous-and-fcc-approva… Previously on HN: CES announcement (3 years ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8860644 Apple reported working with Energous (1 yr ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12508409

> The still frame from the video in the original article shows an aluminum frame with what appears to be a 32 x 32 transducer array. I thought that was the cover in front of that 7 petal arrangement. > I'd assumed that was a tightly packed array of off-the-shelf aluminum ultrasonic transducers. Ok, could be. But to me it looks like a cover over this: http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.nl/2017/05/whats-in-picture.html No contest about the microwaves, that would work just fine (it would also cook everything in its path). > Power levels like that are used to weld plastic. Yep. Ultrasound friction welding of PVC. There is an article linked below that claims 53% efficiency for ultrasound energy transmission at 1 meter.

Analysis of the article by former uBeam VP of Engineering Paul Reynolds: > In all this time, have reporters still not learned to press on the key questions? "How much power is being received?", "How much is being sent?", "What's the efficiency?", "How much does it cost?", "Have you proved it safe?", and "If this is what you have now, what were all those 'prototypes' you were talking about 2 years ago?". But those are actual questions that matter, and basically we know the same today as we did yesterday (which indicates it was an awesome PR piece, lots of coverage with no actual info). http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/05/whats-in-picture.html http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/06/someone-was-paying-attent… http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/06/what-does-it-take-to-swit…

Check this post from almost a year ago! http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/08/how-is-this-thing.html

So, their demonstration videos were completely fabricated. "Are you sure that the GoPro lens does not create a unique deformation/pattern on the image? I am worried that a lens geek could study our images up close and detect the unique GoPro lens footprint. But I am just speculating here: I don’t know much about lenses but I think we should be extremely careful if we decide to lie publicly." - an except from an e-mail by a Lily founder. [1] There's optimism, there's prototyping, there's proof-of-concept demos... And there's plain, old deception. [1] http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/01/consider-lily.html

It's been posted before, but bears repeating: http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/the-sausage-factory.htm… - it's a lengthy series of posts from the former VP of Engineering at uBeam, going into the politics and technological issues.

Original blog post author here. Thanks to everyone for their comments, I've tried to answer as much of the issues raised as I can in a new blog post, here. http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/12/medical-ultrasound-system… TL;DR summary - ultrasound engineers are not stupid, are adding capabilities as they can, and driving costs down, but demands keep rising as new applications are found, and there is not yet the "killer app" demand for ultrasound that will drive smartphone sized economies of scale to lower prices massively. Regulation is not a huge cost driver (and you seriously do not want no regulation), and there is no cartel action in ultrasound conspiring to keep prices high, it's actually an incredibly competitive industry.

Paul Reynolds, who worked at uBeam, demolishes Energous planned business model through physics [1] [2]. My opinion (and a lot of other investors) is that Energous is a scam [3] [4]. Their device cannot get FCC approval to transmit at the levels that they need to to send power, so it's a complete non-starter. [1]: http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.co.nz/2016/04/those-other-guys-pt-1.h… [2]: http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.co.nz/2016/04/those-other-guys-pt-ii.… [3]: http://seekingalpha.com/article/3964405-wattup-mini-will-save-energous [4]: http://seekingalpha.com/article/3960298-stunning-admission-energous

It looks like this former uBeam engineer exposed Energous too. http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/04/those-other-guys-pt-1.htm… He linked to this story on Energous. http://seekingalpha.com/article/3811296-energous-buy-companys-story-st… "Using the 1 watt as our transmitter power translates to 0.000507 watt (0.507 milliwatts or 507 microwatts) at the receiving end. " But it's even worse than this! The FCC does not allow you to transmit at the full 1 watt (30 dBm) if you focus the energy with more than 6 dB gain. If you want to use a phase array to get 21 dB antenna gain, you must drop your transmit power to 25 dBm or 0.316 watts. Every 3 dBi of antenna gain must be accompanied by 1 dBm decline in transmit power.

They are getting shit-talked by their VP of Engineering, you know that person who is actually responsible for creating that hard tech and is saying that it's impossible. This is one of the better posts that explains it. http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/04/tilting-at-windmills.html

I made the comparison between uBeam and Theranos last week which led to interesting discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11615206 In other posts by the OP (the linked post is the first of the blog), they make the same comparisons too. I was suspicious of the OP's credibility, but one of the posts has detailed physics on airborne waves which fits their experience and skills at uBeam: http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/05/acoustic-nonlinearity.htm…

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/09/end-of-era-thoughts-on-u… > One meeting in particular pushed me over the edge, and I told the CEO that I was extremely unhappy, and we should discuss a way to amicably separate. I knew the transducer and acoustics side better than anyone, and would give the company as much time as needed to transition and pass over my knowledge. It was a tense meeting, and I went home after, and there were then a series of ... interesting ... emails and phone calls with Perry, that ended with no conclusion. Ironically, among the demands from the company was a statement for the press about how I still believed in uBeam's goals and the technology, but I declined. I got a text the next morning to come to the downstairs company conference room, and to bring my laptop, lab-book, and any company property - it was clear what was about to happen. >I arrived and the room had CFO Hushen and CEO Perry. It was tense, and Perry sat at the head of the table in her position that she used when about to be CEO-like and give a prepared speech - straight back, leaning slighty forward, hands together. She looked at me and said: >"Today will be your last day with the company. But before we go on to that, it is important that you understand that you are a quitter. You have quit on me, you have quit on yourself, you have quit on the company, you have quit on your team, you have quit on.... wait what are you doing?" >At this point the speech was so…