Featured Post

What's up with WATT, Pt I (or "What's Wrong with Tech Journalism?")

It's been a while since I covered Energous (whose ticker symbol is WATT . Other posts are here , here , here , here , here , here , and...

Friday, September 22, 2017

uBeam Funded? Or on Fumes?

It's seems uBeam have been in fundraising mode these last few months - the newspaper articles, the demos, the apparent closure of the San Jose office, and that the last known round was in summer 2015, all point to an ongoing fundraising effort. It happens to all startups - you get profitable, you get another round, or you go out of business, no way past that. As far as I know there's no product, so uBeam need to fundraise. There's been no indication of how that's been going (publicly, I've spoken to plenty of people in the VC industry, it's interesting...) - until now.

It seems that the building that uBeam use as their headquarters is going to be available for rent from January 2018. Not just some of it, it seems to be the whole building. You can see the ad here on Loopnet, and there's a "For Lease" sign out front right now.


So what could this mean? A few things stand out as the strongest possibilities - uBeam has raised (or has nearly raised) their next round and are ready for their next expansion and are preparing to move to larger premises, or they're taking their time in negotiating a renewal and the landlord is being cautious to ensure no voids, or simply they don't have the money to commit to a long lease and the landlord is seeking the next tenant.

It could be any of these, or some other innocent explanation. If it's preparing to expand they must be about to hire a lot more people, however their usual job ads haven't changed. If you look here it's the same three key positions of Lead Acoustic Engineer, Lead Systems Engineer, and Lead Hardware/Software Engineer (seems kinda key to have those people...). Perhaps they're so busy signing the next round and counting the money they forgot to put the job ads up, and with my reminder they'll do so in the next few days. All production, sales, and marketing perhaps, since they have to be ramping up to consumer sales soon. Right?

Seriously, I do expect that they will get some funding, though the mix of cheque size, valuation, and % equity is something I've never been able to make work in my head with rational numbers. But I'm just a dumb engineer, what do I know? So it's most likely that they are in discussion trying to get a round signed, that can take some time if it's large. And that would be just as well for a few reasons. If there's no deal on the table from a VC yet, knowing that the company is on a timer to get funding can weaken the negotiating position, but even more importantly can you imagine coming to work as an employee and seeing that "For Lease" sign outside? You'd worry that your job was about to disappear, and begin to look for other work, and that can kill a company. So if they're working through that paperwork, management can tell the team:

Don't worry, we're just working out the details and the next round is imminent.

Of course, if you've been around startups long enough you know that even up to the day the money runs out the employees can be being told:

Don't worry, we're just working out the details and the next round is imminent.

I don't know which it is - Funded or Fumed - but it looks like we'll know by January 2018 at the latest.

Oh, and if you're looking for office space in the area, I'd suggest looking at the place - the office, the location, and the landlord are all awesome.

Update 28th Sept: There's a possibility they may be consolidating in the old uBeam offices in San Jose. These are offices that look to have been leased in Q1 2016, around 8500 sqft for 3 people, and then closed less than a year later (see here for details, last page). Loopnet lists the office as available since Feb this year, but still available. I had thought they had been subleased, but perhaps not. If that's the case, the company has been paying likely around $40k a month for an empty office, and if the lease in Santa Monica runs out, they may be in a position where there is no choice but to move to an office that they've had sitting empty for most of a year.

If true they'll have opened an office, closed it, and opened it again all in the space of less than 2 years, having paid near $500,000 for it to sit empty in the interim.

Monday, September 18, 2017

Wireless at-distance charging may be here - and not how you were expecting

There are a number of wireless power companies out there claiming all sorts of amazing specifications of their seemingly perpetually "soon to be released" systems - 15 feet range, faster than a wire charging, 10's of devices, cheap, safe, efficient - yet few can answer detailed questions as to the physics, or the release dates, or the safety, just vague future promises that all will be revealed. One exception was Disney who went into extensive detail about their "quasistatic cavity response" method which they demonstrated worked, but clearly was utterly impractical (hence the detailed reveal).

Well, things may have changed today, with the public announcement by Pi of their charging solution. If you want to watch the demo they gave today, you can watch it here, or read some of the other press release material here, and articles from Techcrunch or DigitalTrends on it.


Above is a picture from their website as to typical usage, and it's basically a cone shaped transmitter that looks a bit larger than an Amazon Echo or Google Home in height, and looks to charge devices within a short range of it, in any orientation. If you go to the "Tech" page there you can see a representative breakdown of what's in the box. It uses magnetic resonance, controlling magnetic fields to transfer power in the same manner that Qi does - you may have heard of that recently, as Apple announced last Tuesday that this form of wireless charging will be in the iPhone 8 and iPhone X (it's already in most Samsung high end phones).

The limitation to Qi has previously been that a charging pad is required, and the phone has to be within a centimeter or so of the pad, and well aligned. This makes the phone almost unusable during that charging time, and limits how many devices you can charge to the size of your pad. 


Pi's approach seems to get around most of those limitations by being able to 'beamform' the magnetic field, their claim is that the equations to do so have been simplified so that they can be done on the processors available in consumer goods. The device itself seems to have multiple coils, at least one of which is at 90 degrees to the others, and is likely needed to be able to direct the fields as required - it also is what likely sets the cone shape of the transmitter.

They claim about 20W total power output from this device, but that it can go higher with a larger transmitter. Qi calls for 5W in its early version and 15W in the latest. Pi state up to 4 devices can charge at full rate and then it starts to slow after, which would point to them using the 5W rate. Their website says 10W per device, so what rates are used are still a little unclear. Still, in theory 5W will charge your phone in an hour, although in practice it will be longer than that - but it's a reasonable amount of power.

The downside to this device? The working distance is about 30cm, so not the huge distances we've been promised by other companies, but in terms of making the base technology better, it's a 10x improvement so it's impressive work. It's unfortunate that they may receive criticism because expectations have been set so high by companies that I don't believe will ever deliver their initial claims.

It's a usually-safe, well known technology, and unlike uBeam or Energous, Pi have actually published some aspects of their approach, such as here, so you can actually begin to analyze what they've done. It's not complete work, absolute numbers are not included, and it's not peer-reviewed, but I can follow their approach and there are no huge red flags appearing.

Now I've been critical of uBeam and Energous for 'showing a charge light coming on' or claims of charge rates incompatible with FCC regulations, so why am I not so critical of Pi? Quite simply, it's because they're not claiming anything that isn't readily believable based on the physics of what they are doing, and they are explaining what they are doing. It builds on an already proven (though limited) technology, and uses some smart ideas to move it forward and make it more practical. 

Now, I do want to see more - I want to know the efficiency under various conditions, we may find it's hideously inefficient, though I expect it's well into double digit %. An efficiency at 10 to 20% is decent for at-distance wireless, but poor compared to wired and has societal implications at-scale. I want to test safety and what happens when you start to put metals in the path randomly. I'd love to have one and test it and take it apart, but at first glance I'm not seeing any claims that aren't realistic.

Release is slated for next year, and given the demo seen, they're closer to production equivalent devices than prototype, and unlike other companies who seem to think you can go from prototype to consumer sales in weeks, this is a more realistic timeline.

So let's summarize what we have:
  • Based on a proven power transfer technology
  • Legal and to my knowledge safe
  • Using a smart method to overcome existing limitations
  • Works with inbuilt receivers in modern phones (cases for older ones)
  • A transmitter priced for consumers (under $200)
  • Multi-device charging
  • Reasonable charge rates (5W and up)
  • Can use the device in any orientation while it charges
  • Works internationally
  • Modest distance, 30cm
  • Unknown efficiency ranges (estimated below)
  • Timing near perfect to match Apple's AirPower release

It's an easy, minimal effort for a user, they don't have to change their phone if it's new enough (no need to integrate with the phone manufacturer is a huge plus), cost isn't prohibitive, and they can piggy-back on Apple's AirPower marketing. It also leverages a massive prior investment in Qi by many other companies. If this is as good as it is presented, I'm going to say that in my opinion this is as good as at-distance wireless charging is going to get for some time. You can complain about it only being 30cm, I actually don't know if it's going to be enough, but I can see it working for some office desks, hotel, and home locations. They do mention larger ranges from bigger transmitters (don't expect 15 feet though).

Oh, and apparently they've done this on just $3.5 million of investment. Tip-of-the-hat to the Pi team, and I'm looking forward to seeing more detail on this. 

I think uBeam and Energous are going to have a harder time explaining their value proposition after today.

(Also, if you sign up early enough on their website, it's $50 off the transmitter when it comes out).

Update Sept 19th: Some people have been asking why there are no efficiency numbers given. First of all, they won't be great, as in "90%+", and second it's a complex thing to explain to a lay-audience when your efficiency and charge rate are dependent on distance and orientation as it's not a single number. The paper here gives some indication, as it shows charging time (not efficiency) vs distance and orientation. If input power remains constant, and the results here are correct, you have a 50% efficiency reduction from baseline at 30cm. The orientation data doesn't make it clear what the baseline they use is, but seems to be from about the same to up to a 66% loss (take this number with a pinch of salt, that graph isn't the best). This data shows Qi as around 60% efficient as the baseline, so that would indicate Pi goes anywhere from about 60% efficient down to 10%, I'm going to hand-wave estimate a 20 to 25% in most typical use cases. Great for at-distance wireless, not good compared to a wire. (Caution, these are very hand-wavy calculations)

To put into context, imagine they get 25% market penetration on 1 billion Qi enabled phones globally. At 250 million devices, if they all charge once a day and evenly spread and given a 120 minute charge time, that's ~21 million people charging at 5 Watts, but if 25% efficient using 20W, so it's around  0.5 GW of extra global generation capacity. At around $3,500 per kW to construct that's $1.5 billion in new power stations, and at 12c /kWh around $1 million a day burned as heat.

Update Sept 21st: Just a few thoughts. The term "beam forming" is a bit much I think for having two to three coils, and it's not really a beam, it's the magnetic field. Likely "field shaping" or "field biasing". I expect they've tried to balance the number of coils and the associated electronics with cost, efficiency etc and come out with this as what they think is the right mix (<$200 is pretty compelling as a price point).

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Scientists Prove You Can Charge Your Phone With Ultrasound - In Just 7 Weeks!

There's been very little out there regarding ultrasonic wireless power transfer that anyone interested in the numbers can really dig into, so anyone critical of the claims of some companies has very little to point to when discussing the topic. uBeam have been extremely tight lipped when criticized, often simply claiming that no-one understands the field, or their assumptions are wrong, but never actually correcting those assumptions or providing detailed alternative numbers. While I've shown some information, as has Dave Jones of EEV Blog (among others), as a "disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind" apparently I'm not to be trusted in my analysis. Things have just changed, however. A prestigious group of ultrasound researchers at Stanford has just published a paper on "Wireless Power Transfer to Millimeter-Sized Nodes Using Airborne Ultrasound" that goes into some depth on the topic. 

It's peer-reviewed, which means other scientists read it, critiqued, and have judged it meets a standard that it is a novel or major contribution to the field, and there are no significant mistakes they can find in the work. The publication is the IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, which is the highest ranked journal related to ultrasound (by Impact Factor). This is going to be hard to dismiss as partisan, biased, incorrect, with false assumptions, or incorrect numbers.

Even better, the authors have made it "Open Access" which means that anyone can download it without being a journal subscriber or paying for it. Please, if you're at all inclined, download it from the above link or at the one below to make sure the authors get credit for their great work.


I'll highlight a few points here from the abstract as a taster for you:

We propose the use of airborne ultrasound for wireless power transfer to mm-sized nodes... We show through simulation that ultrasonic power transfer can deliver 50μW to a mm-sized node 0.88m away from a ~50 kHz, 25 cm2 transmitter array... We also argue that longrange wireless charging at the watt level is extremely challenging with existing technology and regulations... 

To translate for everyone that's 50 microWatts from a 25cm2 panel, out to around 1 meter. Scaled to my estimate of uBeam's 45 by 45 cm transmitter that's around 4 milliWatts. A typical phone battery is around 5Wh so you're looking at 1250 hours to charge the phone with this method, if it were switched off. 

So there you go, proof that uBeam can work and charge your (switched off) phone in no more than 7 weeks! (Are there ways to go faster, yes, but 1250 times faster? While I'm painting closer to the worst-case picture, if you look at some of my earlier posts you can find different numbers that change the outcome to a higher number, but is it safe, efficient, practical, legal? It's now really up to uBeam to show.)

It's a well written paper, please read it if you have any technical background. For those of you who don't, they make a pretty reasonable statement that for "Internet of Things" (small devices that need very low power charging very intermittently) it's a possible solution, but phone scale devices (or larger) are unlikely to be practical. Further, they point out this is contingent on the 145 dB safety levels that the USA used to allow, but appear to not allow any longer. At ~115dB, the level almost every other country has always given as a limit, things get 1000x worse than this.

This is not the first time recently that peer-reviewed papers have called into question the use of high power ultrasound. Last year, the Proceedings of the Royal Society published a study of the potential negative health effects of the increasing use of high power air coupled ultrasound in our environment.

Over to you uBeam, it will be very interesting to see your response to this...

Sunday, August 20, 2017

What's up with WATT, Pt II (or "What's making Energous' share price tumble?")

Yesterday I posted on the coverage Energous, the RF wireless power company, receive in the press and how tech journalism really is failing in its role to report on complex tech in a reasonable manner. Today, I'm going to be looking at another metric of performance that we rarely get to see with startups, and that's company valuation, so be warned this is lots of company financials coming up.

Normally a startup is valued by a large scale institutional investor and that determines how much stock the company gives up in return for the investment. It's a bit of black magic, and is related to the technology, IP, customers, team, engineering, but mostly whatever the investor thinks is right for the given cheque size they write and the percent they want. You, as a member of the public, have no idea what goes into this, it simply happens in the background and it's really not clear why they get the valuation they do. 

Things are different with Energous though - unlike almost any other startup they IPO'd early, before product or revenue, and so are a publicly traded company. That means their financials are, by law, available to the public, and as such their company valuation, or market cap, can be viewed at any time. If you assume that the market is rational then that share price, or market cap, is a clear indication of the value of the company. Now, the market can be irrational for long periods of time, particularly with companies with speculative products somewhere in the future, but in the end the rational world forces its way onto the share price, even if that takes years.

I've made it clear that I think that Energous is not as valuable as the market says - that is, I'm saying that in the short term, the market is irrational where Energous is concerned. I briefly wrote about this a few months ago, and I'll summarize here - some people benefit from wildly varying stock prices to buy low and sell high. If you can, legally, insinuate a large company like Apple will use theproducts, while never actually saying it, you can get people to buy the stock speculatively before each major Apple product announcement, then after the inevitable tumble when it's not announced it can be bought back cheap. Rinse, repeat. (Note it doesn't have to be the company itself, or insiders, doing this.)

Here's the stock price for Energous in June 2016. Notice the continual rise until late on the 13th June when it plummets? What could have caused that? Apple held their WWDC event that day, Tim Cook finished his talk at 2pm and there was no announcement of Energous in the iPhone. Dig into this yourself with the NASDAQ tool.

Energous Share Price June 2016

Zooming out to look at the stock price over the last year, it's been a pretty bumpy ride with +/- 30% swings pretty common.

Energous Stock Price over the last 12 months

What's really interesting though is the stock price for Energous over the last 2 months. It could be described as being in 'free fall'. You can see from the chart below that stock has fallen from around $16 to around $10, over a 35% drop. The volume indicators in the bottom show red bars - it's mostly selling.

Energous Share Price over the last 2 months

Most of that happened in the last 2 weeks - let's take a look at the last few days. You can see below that on the 16th the share price was held at exactly $11.00 for the full day, before giving up and it dropping further.

Energous Share Price for the last 5 days

Now, I'll make quite clear at this point that I am not a financial analyst, and I'm putting this out there more to raise questions than to provide answers - so if you know investing well, please jump in and make comment. I'm very interested to hear where I may be wrong on all this!

For the last 50 days the average number of shares sold has been near 300,000, but in the last few days it's been nearer 900,000. This is unlikely to be your average employee selling their stock, these are pretty sizeable share amounts as the total number of outstanding shares is around 22,000,000 - so around 4% of the company every day changing hands. Maybe a vesting period for a large number of employees has hit and they are also allowed to sell, and they're taking their winnings - though not a good sign for the company when the insiders sell as much as they can!

I'm interested in what happened on the 16th, and what held the price at $11.00 for the day. Energous is a very heavily shorted stock - that is, many people betting that the price will go down, not up. Someone perhaps covering their position and making sure they don't get bitten heavily on the downside? Whatever is happening, it's not a 'natural' stock market event.

What's causing this sell-off? I'm actually not sure, as there have been no major events that I am aware of in Energous' world that would drive this. They announced in their earnings call that they'd got more investment from Dialog, that this meant they had $28 million on hand at the start of July, and were trying to drop their burn rate from $15m a quarter to closer to $10m, indicating they can make it to very early next year without further investment. They still claim to have many products in the pipeline with FCC approval underway, of which I remain highly skeptical, however there's nothing here that's different than before.

All I can see having happened is that a few leaks have indicated that the iPhone 8 will not be using Energous, but rather Apple have developed their own version of Qi wireless charging. Should Apple announce this at their WWDC next month, it pretty much puts the last nail in the coffin of anyone thinking Energous will be built into Apple products. Unlike last year, there's not the ability to stoke speculation that 'this will be it' with the next iPhone release. Are people selling off ahead of a potential share-price cliff edge? If anyone has any thoughts, or a better explanation, please do share!

What does this mean for the market cap of the company? A month ago Energous was valued (market cap) at $350m, today it's $225m, over a 35% drop. That's pretty horrendous, and any regular company would have shareholders screaming. Maybe this is just another dip that some will view as a buying opportunity and the Energous roller coaster will carry on, or maybe it's the last dive before iPhone 8 crushes the possibility of Apple revenue and the FCC kills the idea of approval of the large scale transmitters. We'll see.

For the staff, this can be a morale-killer - you see not only the prospect for the product you've been working on diminish, but the $100,000 you thought your stock options would get you is now $65,000. Maybe you'll be getting a Honda not a Tesla? Competition for talented staff is high, and it makes it all the easier for other companies to grab your best employees, or raises your salary/equity costs in keeping them.

This might have implications for other wireless power companies too. uBeam are in the midst of a fundraising round, and from rumors I have heard have been pushing for a monster valuation. Given the iPhone 8 likely making it clear that neither uBeam nor Energous will ever be in an Apple product, and that the market cap of a company that's positioned itself as well as Energous is at $225m and falling like a rock, could uBeam's desired valuation during fundraising be taking another hit?

Update: Monday 21st 2017
The day after I wrote this post was another major down day for Energous, dropping nearly 13% in one day to $8.95, putting the market cap at around $197 million. Volume was increased, around 1,300,000 shares traded, around 6% of shares issued.

Energous Share Price on August 21st 2017
Who is selling this stock? It has to be large scale insiders or institutions, unfortunately it seems the Nasdaq tool only updates institutional positions every quarter, so unless someone can point me to where you can find that information on a daily basis, we'll have to wait and see who is doing the trading here.

SeekingAlpha published another article on Energous, this time claiming that the company may have $4 billion a year revenue within 2 years, based on statements from the CEO Steve Rizzone. This is quite fantastical, with no new evidence presented and assumptions made that are 'generous' to say the least. The article ends with a quote from the CEO:

An opportunity to engage with a company that has tremendous upside at a very very reasonable market cap. If you think about it: if we have no real competition, if our total market opportunity is measured in the billions of devices, if we’re on the cusp of getting regulatory approval - a hurdle which many said would be impossible to get - if we’ve got our first orders for silicon and we’ve got multiple strategic partners that are firmly behind the company, what’s a company like that worth that really starts to execute?

There are five explicit "if"s in that passage and at least a couple more implicit, yet ends with asking the reader to imagine a huge upside, and appealing to their greed. A marvelously constructed paragraph that promises nothing yet leaves the reader with the impression that huge success is imminent. This guy is a great salesman!

The comments to the article are amusing - one commenter, Keubiko, lists nine such statements by Rizzone over the last couple of years, each of the claims of which have failed to materialize. For example:

"we anticipate revenues in the low seven digits in calendar 2015 increasing in 2016 to the mid-seven digit million and reaching monthly cash flow breakeven in the third quarter of 2017." - Rizzone, August 10, 2015

We're now entering the last month of third quarter 2017, breakeven is stated to be (as early as) Q4 2018 here, so over a year away and maintaining Time to Carrot. It's amazing how major product release and breakeven is always just far enough out you don't have to prove product is ready, but not so far that people can't be persuaded to invest because it's just so close...

If you believe I'm wrong about Energous, now is your chance to buy in at a low price, and make me look like a fool. In the short term you may even be right, it's a stock that's had wild swings before - but at some point it won't come back up again. This smells to me like we might be there. Let's keep watching over the next few days.



Further Update on 21st August
This section below was a question I asked about financials that was answered in the comments. Turns out that the automatic importation of numbers from the SEC went wrong, leading to weirdness in the financing tables. I'm leaving it below just as a reminder to myself to always use primary data sources whenever possible.

Finally, and this is definitively a question, I've been trying to work out what this little nugget in Energous' financials is. If you go to Seeking Alpha, and look a the quarterly cash flows, you see this:

Energous Financial Data from Seeking Alpha

The "Miscellaneous Funds" line is interesting as it jumps from $6.1 billion in the red to $1.33 billion in the black in a quarter. What on earth is this? Typo or mishandled data in Seeking Alpha? Or some odd accounting? These numbers are multiple of the company's highest market cap, not chage you find down the back of the sofa. Anyone with information or thoughts, please let me know!

Update: A commentator points out these numbers are due to an issue in automatically reading in the data from the source, which is the SEC and can be found here. Basically, those numbers should be zero, so nothing to see here. He makes a point I should have known - always use primary sources for your data where possible!

A Unicorn I Can Believe In

I've spent a fair amount of this blog trying to pull back the curtain on startups and VC funding, and have covered a few wannabe unicorns in that time. In startup-speak, a unicorn is a company that has a valuation of greater than $1 billion, such as Uber, AirBnB, or Pinterest. I've always found this an amusing name, as I'm originally from Scotland and in the same way that the bald eagle is the national animal of the USA, the unicorn is the national animal of my home country. Yes, you read that correctly, a mythical creature is the national animal of Scotland. (It beat out Haggis McHaggisface in an online poll, what can you do?)

I was back home last month, and in both Glasgow (where I did my under- and post-graduate degrees) and Dundee (where I grew up) took the chance to photograph the statues of unicorns in the city centers.

Glasgow Unicorn

Close-Up, Glasgow Unicorn
Dundee Unicorn, St. Mary's Church
As a little bit of history on how this came to be - it was originally added to the Scottish coat of arms in the 12th century by William I, as a symbol of strength and power as well as healing. Following the union of crowns of Scotland and England, King James swapped one of the unicorns for a lion, the national animal of England. Eventually this became the coat of arms for the United Kingdom - with it usually shown as the one on the left, but if shown in Scotland as the one on the right (in the same way the national US flag is always on the left or higher when flown with a state flag). It's such a cool coat of arms, those smart Canadians use it too.

United Kingdom Coat of Arms
Try and take a look at these if you're ever in those cities. And in Glasgow, don't miss the statue of Wellington in front of the Museum of Modern Art. You can't miss it, he's always got a traffic cone on his head. Yes, seriously, no matter how often it gets taken down, it goes right back up again in hours. And it's not too easy, I tried it, and they've stuck tar on the plinth so you're going to be pretty obvious as the culprit!

Wellington in Glasgow

Wellington in Glasgow, MOMA in the Background
Many other statues and fantastic buildings and monuments in both cities, and Edinburgh is in a league of its own. Thanks to Brexit exchange rate is awesome right now. Go visit. :)

Saturday, August 19, 2017

What's up with WATT, Pt I (or "What's Wrong with Tech Journalism?")

It's been a while since I covered Energous (whose ticker symbol is WATT. Other posts are here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). They're one of the RF based wireless charging companies, and probably the most famous for their bold claims - first claiming 12 devices at up to 10 Watts, then up to 1 Watt at 4.5 meters, while remaining safe. These numbers were so high as to raise many questions as to practicality, both with respect to physics and regulatory aspects. Still, the company stood by its claims, held an IPO, and was floated on the stock exchange. Since then it has raised millions more, and has been burning through cash at the rate of around $15 million per quarter, while repeatedly delaying products and releases in what some call a 'time to carrot' manner.

To me, it was yet another example of the inability of the tech press to truly and effectively evaluate an advanced technology, and repeatedly fail to ask even the most simple and obvious questions such as "What's the efficiency?". David Pogue was one such reporter - in 2015 he sat down with the company CEO and was shown a demo of a charge light activating on a phone, while the CEO told him of how amazing it was and the reported gushed about how it was the most amazing demo ever. No, it's not the uBeam demo from a few months ago despite the similarities - two years on and still the press can't learn. Pogue finishes his 2015 article with this statement:

But I’ve seen it first-hand, and I’m convinced: This technology is real.

Wow, that's awesome, a tech journalist has fully evaluated a piece of complex technology without even cracking the case, speaking to the engineers, or the benefit of a decade or two of experience in the field. I want to believe so let's pour millions more dollars in!

Yes, that's all funny. Except millions of dollars more were poured in, thanks in part to glowing coverage like Pogue's. Fortunately, Pogue at least thought to go back a couple of years later and take a look at Energous, and published an article last month where he talks to Energous again with a slightly more skeptical eye. I say slightly more skeptical because he still allows himself to be bamboozled by the company and still fails to ask the basic questions he should - it's frustrating as 5 minutes with a decent engineer would give him exactly what he needs to ask. Let's take a few of these failings in turn:

Consumer Product Logistics
First of all he asks why they haven't shipped the product when it's near a year after the original claim. Or wait, spend 10 minutes searching and find that in 2014 the delivery date was 2015, so it's now two years behind and the delivery is constantly moving out, around 18 months ahead. The excuse is they have gone from one to three products (near, mid, far range) and that has shifted the timeframe, but that products will be for sale late Q3/early Q4 this year. That means about three months from when that interview was given, and they're not certain when a consumer device will be in the shops.

Let me be clear about this - consumer devices that are going to be for sale are ready many, many, months prior to launch. The supply chain issues to get them out mean that, unless you are selling tiny quantities, you're ready >6 months prior. Basically - if you don't know exactly how many of your devices will be on the shelves, on exactly what dates, in exactly what location, you're likely at least 6 months out, more likely a year. A few simple questions like "How many devices will be on the shelves?", "Who are the major retailers committed to stocking them?". "What is your MSRP?", "What are your projected sales volumes?", and "Can I see the retail packaging?" and it should become really clear, really quickly that the company actually has something, or is just selling vaporware.

These questions are so simple, so generic, yet an experienced journalist doesn't know to ask them.

Regulatory
Next they discuss the FCC and regulation, and Energous make it clear that they've been working to create a new testing protocol with the FCC. Awesome. So: 

Who were you working with at the FCC? Can I call them? 

or

The FCC is a public agency and they're only working with one vendor to create a standard that will apply to an entire industry? Is that normal? Let's ask the FCC that too.

Were the FCC called? Anyone there prepared to make comment? What about someone expert in getting FCC regulatory compliance for consumer products to evaluate that statement? (uBeam also made a statement about being universal standard, then withdrew it after scrutiny)

Then the company claims that they can do this with the FCC since the spot size they focus to is 'tiny', localized just as it would be on a charging pad. Fantastic. So:

What's the spot size, in centimeters? What is 'tiny'?

or

You're working at 5.8GHz and so are looking at a multi-centimeter wavelength and an array of emitters only a few elements in size. Even under ideal conditions it's hard to focus, how do you make it "tiny"?

or even


As you can guess, there was no follow up, the tech journalist once again simply accepted the statements of the company at face value and failed to question them. Ridiculously simple questions too. My first post on Energous covers the spot size question and explains it in detail - maybe ask them why those numbers or physics are wrong? It's like the recent coverage of uBeam when the company said they'd have safety evaluated by third party experts and no-one asked "Who would that be? Can we talk to them?"

How hard are any of these questions? And if they don't answer, or dodge, you know something is up. But that would be uncomfortable, and would put access as a tame journalist at-risk, so best not to.

The Charging Pad
Next, they look at the Watt-Up Mini, the charging pad that Energous claim is their first product that has FCC approval - I've pointed out before, it has FCC approval because it puts out so little power it's of no practical use at all. Energous are at pains to point out advantages such as charging the devices at any angle, or compatibility with future long range Energous products, but once again there's no follow up with questions like:

Who are your major competitors to this charging pad? How does the Mini compare to them in charge rate, efficiency, and cost?

If it's a major revenue possibility for them, and they diverted from their core mission because it was so compelling, they should have a clear business justification. It's a simple question. How can you not ask this?!?!?

The Big Devices
Then we get to the full scale medium and large transmitters, and here's where the really interesting part happens. Remember the claims of 15 feet and multiple Watts? Gone, replaced by a 'very, very small amount of power', '15 feet from the transmitter, that’d be hard for us to increase the battery. We’d just keep it from going down.' and  'It’s not charging super fast, like you would be plugged in the wall, but a small amount of energy, trickle charging it.' Just like uBeam in their recent demo, they've suddenly gone from claiming huge charge rates like 'faster than a wire' down to 'trickle charge'.

Let me put this into an analogy the non-technical people can understand. Ever met some guy who boasts he can bench-press 1100 lbs and run the 100 meters in 9.5 seconds, and you know he's full-of-shit because those numbers are just beyond the world-records (1075 lbs and 9.58 seconds) and it would be amazing if he could do one of them? And then when you finally, finally, get him to the gym and track and find he can maybe do 150lbs and then falls over wheezing at 50 meters then staggers over the line in 30 seconds? That's what's happening here - yet everyone claps their hands in the tech example about their amazing progress rather than calling him out for being a blowhard. For anyone with a vague understanding of the situation, or physics, we're sitting wondering if we're the ones taking crazy pills.

Back to the article - it's as if these wireless power companies are all reading from the same playbook - and why not, it's not like tech journalists are going to call them on it. Here's a stunning line:

During my return visit, Energous never demonstrated its transmitters charging a phone — only low-power gadgets.

Let me be clear - a company that raised tens of millions of dollars on claims of huge range, charge rates, and short delivery times, is admitting that their original claims were greatly exaggerated and people need to scale back their expectations. More importantly, they don't show a phone being charged, about the only market that's actually worth addressing for a company with a billion dollar valuation requirement. Of course this led the journalist to ask "How this will impact the share price?", "How they could have got it so wrong?", "How are forward looking financial plans are clearly heavily impacted by the drastic reduction in sales this must imply?". Ha - no, looks like there was just a nod of the head as they took down what was told to them.

The Journalism
There was journalism in this piece though - good investigation, skepticism, and a revelation - sadly it didn't involve Energous itself, but on an internet commentator. The piece starts with the claim that a single person in the whole world was bothered by the original 2015 article - which is bizarre as there were many who questioned Energous, but that would ruin a good story. Todor Mitev appears to be a short seller - a person making money from a stock that goes down, rather than up - and has been following and commenting on Energous for some time. While the short selling does give someone an incentive to drive a price down, did the journalist even pause for a moment and say "Maybe he saw that the stock was overpriced due to the hype from journalists, is just highlighting the reality, and in this capitalistic world making some money from it too?" Apparently, a person like Todor with a financial incentive from short selling can't be trusted, but the three top execs of Energous who take home nearly $5 million a year between them from a company with no product or sizeable revenue are motivated by the angels. Yep, great job there.

There's some suspicion that Todor writes under pseudonyms on forums such as Seeking Alpha, and has been accused there of being the poster Richard X Roe. I've followed Roe's posts, which contain a lot of detailed and accurate physics, and I have had a few short exchanges with him. If his physics was wrong, then it could easily be called out, but in a similar way to how my articles on uBeam are criticized but never attacked for the maths or physics, it's his character that is questioned. Nicely done in re-iterating that line.

An important question to the author - if you asked the questions I've outlined above to Energous, would that impact your access in future, and put at risk your potential earnings as a journalist?

We're all motivated by money. All of us, it's just sometimes it's more obvious than others - but it doesn't necessarily impact the validity of what's being said. To be clear here, I have zero financial interest, long or short, in the fortunes of Energous. I don't even make money from this blog. Looks like I'm the only one with clean-hands - does this mean I get listened to more than any other player?

The Close-Up and Cop-Out
The article ends with some quite frustrating quotes. First, the CEO makes this statement:

We’re on the cusp here. We think that this will all be in the rearview mirror in the next six months or so.

So by the end of 2017 it's all going to be awesome? That's an easy one to follow up on. I'm sure we'll have a year end article doing exactly that. <cough> But it's one of the close-out lines that irritated me most of all. Our intrepid journalist writes:

I never did manage to find out exactly how realistic through-the-air charging is, how close it is to appearing in our phones and watches. I’m not sure anybody really knows.

Of course you didn't find out if it's possible, you failed to ask any serious questions, or even the easy questions. You didn't even try. The closest he gets is a quote from an MIT prof which was:

“I don’t like saying ‘never’ or ‘can’t work,'” he replied, “but I would be skeptical. My guess is that this sort of system, with phased-array antennae, might work, but it is probably not very efficient.”

which if you understand engineering speak is saying "Nope. Not going to work in any vaguely efficient or practical manner." Let me translate again to the bench-press/100 meter analogy "Yes, it's just maybe possible someone can lift that much, or run the 100 meters in that time, even one would be incredible, but two together even more unlikely. I'm just not saying "No" since maybe sometime in the next 100 years one person in a few tens of billions may be able to." 

But then he says "I'm not sure anybody really knows."

To David Pogue, the writer of this article I can say this - Really? THEN WHAT WAS THE POINT OF YOUR ARTICLE? 

You. Failed.

More than that, you failed when there are many people out there who show the ways in which what they claim can be disproved - how many did you speak to? This blog has several posts that are examples of this and refute many of the points made by Energous not with opinion but easily verifiable maths and physics.

David - I know you think you were being skeptical yet fair to Energous, but really, you just acted as a mouthpiece for them to do their PR again. This time instead of pumping up the stock early on, it's part of the slow letdown. You've been suckered. Again.

Two years ago you told us all it was real. Now you don't know. Why should we listen to you on this, other than you were chosen by Energous?

Last month on Seeking Alpha, I gave my opinion on the viability of Energous, and discussed it with an individual investor. He admitted he had no business, investing, or technical skills by which to judge the company, but it was clear he had been motivated by the publicity the company had generated, which your articles have been a small part of. Understand that your articles actually affect the finances of individuals. Your words have real consequences.

What you meant to say by "I'm not sure anybody really knows." is "It's beyond my capability to understand but rather than admitting so, I wrote the article anyway while thinking to be 'even handed'"

Tech journalism is actually important, and you turned an article about the vast overstatement of capability of a (then) $350 million market cap company, into a PR piece for them. Rather than do the hard job of asking a few basic questions that would highlight the reality of the situation, but endanger your future access, you did a 'gotcha' on an individual who uses a pseudonym and might make some cash when pointing out the realities of the technology. Easy path every time.

I get it, this stuff is actually really complex and hard to understand, beyond most people's capability - but there are some great tech journalists out there, that match skepticism with fair questioning and coverage, and manage to get the complexities explained to a lay audience. To every tech journalist out there, please, pretty please, with sugar on top - be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Next in Part II - what's going on with Energous' share price?

Sunday, July 30, 2017

MEMS Gyroscopes, Smartphones, and Ultrasound

This morning I was reading an article on Ars Technica (great tech website if you don't already read it) about the use of "sonic guns" to disrupt the operation of electronics and gadgets like drones. Here's a simple demonstration video of this happening.


As you can see the toy robot, which balances due to the gryoscopes in it, is quickly confused by the incident sound and ends up moving, then falling over. Why does this happen?

MEMS gyroscopes are Micro-Electrical-Mechanical Systems, essentially a very small structure that's often made by the same processes used to build computer chips, that has combined electrical and mechanical behaviors that are useful to us. In the case of a MEMS gyro, it leads to motion that creates an electrical signal which can be processed to determine rotation. These structures are small enough to be packaged into something smaller than your fingernail, and so can be fitted into compact spaces and consumer goods. Here's a video of a very simple MEMS gyro oscillating.



An image below from UC Davis MEMSLab shows how one small device can detect rotation in all three axes.


You can see that each sensing mode here has at least one "resonant frequency" at which the device naturally oscillates, which means it is very very sensitive to those frequencies. Like finding the right pitch for a glass, you can actually break them by causing them to vibrate at that frequency. Some work here, here, and here shows in more academic detail how the MEMS gyros can be rendered ineffective by ultrasound above around 100 dB. Sound is, after all, just a vibration at a particular frequency - match that sound to the resonant frequency of the gyro and it will play havoc with it.

Here's a drone showing the effect of ultrasound on its behaviour - notice that the transducers used to generate the ultrasound look like Murata devices, very similar in appearance to what uBeam look to be using in their transmitters. (I appreciate the safety precautions this researcher took!)


What this all seems to be pointing to is that high powered ultrasound in the environment can disrupt the activities of more and more of our devices such as drones - what happens if they fly through a high power ultrasound beam? Do they veer off and hit someone? And the smartphones we all use today? Those phones have multiple MEMS sensors in them, and the gyro is what allows you to play games just by tilting your phone. What happens when you direct ultrasound at levels far greater than 100 dB towards a smartphone? The manufacturers know, they spend a lot of time making sure that nothing in the phone vibrates at frequencies that disrupt their operation, but I'm not sure I've seen a study that's been made public.

Those may seem like simple examples, but there are safety considerations. What happens if a safety related system, such as positioning in a vehicle, is disrupted by high power ultrasound? Who is responsible for that? Cars and larger objects can usually shield the gyro to insulate the sound from it, but what about size and weight sensitive devices like smartphones?

If the videos above give an indication, then truly ubiquitous high power ultrasound in the environment is going to be disruptive in more ways than one. Just as well no-one is likely to try to put such loud ultrasound devices out there en-masse.

Dunkirk

Movie review: Dunkirk

Basically - go see it. Great movie. No - fantastic movie. I've found Chris Nolan to be hit or miss - always beautifully filmed, but there are often plot holes you can drive a bus through that most people seem to miss because it all looks so good, and so much is thrown at you that you're overloaded. Inception and The Prestige are the two worst examples of this (so bad I've watched them twice..) while Interstellar has ridiculously awful science it pretends to adhere to, until halfway through it shifts to a "love conquers all" mode and rapidly descends to a giant cauldron of liquid poo in which it revels. Memento gets it right, sticking with a single theme and follows it through, while the first two Batman films are just brilliant (followed by an entertaining but not-as-good third).

Nolan loves to play with time in his films - Inception with its layers and ticking clock, Interstellar with the time dilation due (and ticking clock), Memento and the forward/backward storyline. He does the same in Dunkirk, with three storylines of a week, a day, and an hour in the lives of several Dunkirk participants, all intersecting in parts as they grow closer and closer together - and all through it, a ticking clock (literally) as the soldiers desperately try to get home.

I don't often get drawn in to films, but I found myself tense throughout, and Nolan manages to bring in a lot of tension as you sit on edge waiting for the next thing to go wrong. It's an exhausting film. More though, it gets over the utter powerlessness of almost all the participants, that they're simply statistics and at some point people are going to die, no matter their skill or preparation. This isn't an Arnie action film where the hero saves the day, this is about the horrors of war and how small and insignificant each person is, but also the intense bravery of many of these men in ways that no-one ever would know.

There's a Marie-Claire contributor who has been talking about how it's just a film glorifying war for men. Yeah, this glorifies war like Trainspotting glorifies taking drugs. It's hideous from nearly 80 years away.

As we exited the film, my wife recounted some stories of her grandfather, who was at Dunkirk. She had interviewed him as part of a school project. He was a remarkable man, I met him when he was in his early 90's, and I would have guessed he was in his 60's. Born in 1912, grew up in a children's home, joined the army when 18, served until the end of WWII, started a welding business then sold it and retired at 65 - got bored and started another one at 67 and ran it until he was 89. He didn't talk about what he did in the war, he even gave all his medals to a local museum to the horror of his family, as he thought no-one would care.

As part of this interview, he described running through the streets towards the beaches at Dunkirk, with men feet away from him being shot dead, and waiting for the evacuation. He was told he was brave but he said he never felt brave, all he did was try to survive. And that, in the end, was much of the point of the film, that these men survived and then later went back to fight again, that these seemingly small acts of what they couldn't see as bravery, mattered.

It also made me think of my wife's great uncle. He was on board the Royal Oak, a British battleship sunk by the Germans at the onset of WWII. Of the ~1200 crew, 833 were killed when it was torpedoed in Scapa Flow at the naval base in Orkney - her uncle, Billy, was one of the men killed. He was 16. Like the Arizona at Pearl Harbor, this site is now a war grave, and we were allowed to scatter the ashes of Billy's sister there. She never got over the loss of her brother. Another young man who tried to do what he could and serve, yet died almost the moment it began. The film reminded me that great feats aren't required to be a hero, that simply volunteering for a role that puts you in harms way for a greater good does that.

All that, so well filmed, and perfectly acted by every one of them, especially Tom Hardy. Never overplayed, just done right.

I'm not sure I've seen a film that conveys the horror and randomness of war, along with the personal sacrifice and bravery of the men who served.

Go see it.

Mount St. Helens National Monument and the US Forest Service

I just spent yesterday at the Mount St Helens National Monument, and wanted to recommend it to anyone who passes through southern Washington or northern Oregon. Not to be missed, the US Forest Service do a great job of keeping it maintained, accessible, and making it educational.


Their budget is around $5.5 billion, which sounds a lot but there are a few things to consider - the maintain nearly 200,000,000 acres of public land (mowing my 0.1 acres of lawn is pain enough...) and nearly 400,000,000 acres of private land, manage forestry and mineral extraction, and then the most visible part to the public - keeping lands and national monuments open and available for education and recreation. That results in an estimated ~$35 billion of economic activity such as tourism. Seems a pretty good return on investment for the country.

Amazingly, half of that budget is spent fighting fires, so when you hear the calls for eliminating various agencies and reducing their budgets, remember that a lot of these agencies are a victim of their own success. Perhaps they should let a few towns burn down now and then to remind people that forest fires can be bad...

I'm only half joking there, because 20 years ago the cost of fire fighting took up 1/6th of their budget and it's been rapidly increasing since. They estimate it's going to double again in the next 30 years.

Changing climatic conditions across regions of the United States are driving increased temperatures— particularly in regions where fire has not been historically prominent. This change is causing variations and unpredictability in precipitation and is amplifying the effects and costs of wildfire. Related impacts are likely to continue to emerge in several key areas: limited water availability for fire suppression, accumulation at unprecedented levels of vegetative fuels that enable and sustain fires, changes in vegetation community composition that make them more fire prone, and an extension of the fire season to as many as 300 days in many parts of the country. These factors result in fires that increasingly exhibit extreme behavior and are more costly to manage. 

The six worst fire seasons since 1960 have all occurred since 2000. Moreover, since 2000, many western states have experienced the largest wildfires in their state’s history. 

In addition, more and more development is taking place near forests—an area referred to as the WildlandUrban Interface (WUI). Increasing densities of people and infrastructure in the WUI makes management more complex and requires more complex and requires more firefighting assets to ensure an appropriate, safe, and effective response that protects lives and property.

We're living with an administration that's trying to remove national monuments, sell off public lands to private only use, and is slashing budgets for departments like this - the FY2018 budget looks to be reduced by nearly $1 billion. The service keeps up with the firefighting - it has no choice - but this is at the cost of deferred maintenance and reducing other activities which support the land and recreation. At some point, this is going to the the US Forest Firefighting Service, and that's all. It may seem a minor thing when we're dealing with other major, immediate, crises, but the US Forest Service provides a critical function for our country, and we need to support it.

On a happier note, the trip into the Mt St Helens Monument was fun. Stop at the visitors center about 5 miles in from I-5 for the educational side, then drive up about 50 more miles to the observatory for some fantastic views of the volcano.


There are a ton of trails and other parts of the monument to access, we barely scratched the surface. Try and go if you're ever in this part of the world, and support the US Forest Service whenever you can, we all rely on them for way more than most realize.


Picking on the Little Guy

If you don't like politics, stop reading. For those who have to live in this world...

Anytime a politician or those in power target the poor, the powerless, minorities, and those who have no means of defending themselves, then take a close look because they are most likely either looking for a scapegoat or trying to deflect and distract from something else. 

No-one should be singled out based on gender, sexual orientation, religious choice, race, socio-economic class or anything similar. Any country that is diverse in its population and works to integrate, not separate, will be stronger because of it. Moreover, a country that looks after the weakest of its citizens is a society that will be just to everyone.

Authoritarian regimes get their start with scapegoats from small groups outside the mainstream. We should have zero tolerance for any such discrimination from our government. The recently tweeted 'trans ban' is exactly such an action. If someone meets the physical and mental requirements for the military, or any other role, they should not be discriminated against.

As an example you have likely already seen, I give you Kristen Beck, a transgender Navy SEAL. Kristen seems like exactly the type of warfighter we want, and wouldn't let things like 'bone spurs' get in the way of serving. Her quote sums up the entire situation perfectly:

It's a leadership issue, not a transgender issue.

America is better than this, and such divisiveness can't be allowed to stand. What is happening right now is not normal, and we can't allow it to become that way. To those who don't care about such people, let me make this pretty clear - Donald Trump doesn't care about you, or your tax cuts, or your coal mining job, or whatever you thing you can get from dealing with the devil, and one day you will be the target, no matter how white or male or Christian you are. Defend the little guy, and you're defending yourself.

Oh, and it's just the decent thing to do.

Sunday, July 2, 2017

uBeam Withdraw Claims of Wirelessly Charging TVs?

It seems someone at uBeam might read my blog, and has updated a recent posting claiming that TVs can be charged wirelessly. Their page for a recent job ad read:

uBeam is an innovation that will breed innovation. Ubiquitous wireless power will lead to a world with smaller batteries and thinner, lighter devices. 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. uBeam is also a universal standard, making those bulky travel adapters a thing of the past. Imagine charging your phone, laptop or even your hearing aid virtually anywhere, without any effort. This is life powered by uBeam.

uBeam have made these claims before, such as in a panel discussion, Oct 2016, the CEO explicitly states TVs can be charged wirelessly with ultrasound, and a previous incarnation of the company website that explicitly states flat screen TV charging. The current company website still carries images showing TVs and other high power devices, so while not stated, it does seem to be implied they can be powered - hence my question as to whether it's a claim the company still stands by.

In a blog post here, I laid out the case why I believed this was near impossible/impractical due to a wide range of considerations. Well, it seems they may have accepted my carefully laid out argument, and have now changed their claims in that page:

uBeam transmits power over the air to wirelessly charge electronic devices. the company seeks to enable a world where device charging is a seamless and untethered experience. It will be the Wi-Fi of energy.

While apparently it's too difficult to do a grammar check on three sentences, it's good to see that they appear to have accepted that my argument is correct, and that it is utterly impractical to charge TVs wirelessly with ultrasound. They even noticed that it's not a universal standard and removed that statement, given the explicit ultrasound limit in most of the world would at best result in about 3 mW at a phone, enough to charge in around 3 months of it being switched off. Oh, and that standards usually have to be run through Standards Association like the IEEE and take years of input from a large committee.

This is the latest in a list of reduced deliverable or performance claims from uBeam such as 'faster than a wire' down to 'trickle charge' style rates, charging through your pocket, mass production in 2016 that never materialized, and claims of efficient and powerful transducers in 2015 that the Chair of their Technical Advisory Board apparently never saw.

Are they withdrawing their claim of wirelessly charging TVs with ultrasound, or simply saving that surprise for later? No one has stepped up to challenge my assumptions or working, and I am still happy to discuss that with anyone who cares to. As you can see, "Arguing the Point" in the manner I suggested seems to work, though I'm getting the feeling it's working better when I blog than when I worked there.

You're welcome, uBeam!

Thursday, June 22, 2017

EEV Blog takes on uBeam

Many readers of this blog will know the name EEVblog, it's a website and online forum for talking about  electronics run by Dave Jones, an Australian engineer. It's host to the uBeam FAQ, which puts together a lot of information on uBeam in one place. In addition to the forum, Dave makes videos where he delves into topics in a pretty entertaining manner, and for his 1000th video, he takes on uBeam.

Gotta say, he does a great job of covering the tech in an entertaining manner, not sure I could have done better myself.

An interesting point he makes is the difference between possible and practical, and it echoes a comment from one of my first posts a year ago that always seems to be missed:

"In theory, it can be done in limited cases, but in practice cost and efficiency issues will likely render it impractical." 

Enjoy the show.


Sunday, June 11, 2017

Arguing The Point


Someone on the internet is wrong. You wish to let that person know they are mistaken, as well as inform others to be sure they too do not mistakenly believe this to be true. How do you argue your point in an effective manner, disagreeing with someone, while maintaining civility? There's a good post on How to Disagree by Paul Graham which lays this out, and I'd like to touch on this, especially as it relates to science and engineering discussions.

We're living in a world where we are surrounded by incredibly complicated technology - sometimes the simpler that tech looks on the surface, the more complex it is. There's a large percentage of the population that would have a hard time explaining technology as old as the internal combustion engine in your car, and things get worse from there as you move through things we all use every day but barely know it - encryption and compression get the latest episode of 'House of Cards' onto your TV, but care to lay out how that happens for me? 

More importantly, how do you tell when someone is making false or exaggerated claims about technology? The facetious answer is "study for long enough to become an expert" however even then it's hard - there's a lot of technology out there, and only so many hours in the day. If you don't know the technology, and people are arguing about it, how do you evaluate the arguments they make? One way is to evaluate how they are arguing, even if you don't understand fully what they are saying.

The pyramid in the graphic above is an attempt to lay out Paul Graham's hierarchy (I have no idea where it's from, I'm not taking credit for it, thanks to whoever did it). The pyramid you see here contains the 'best' arguments at the top, the 'worst' at the bottom, and as you can see, it's wider at the base to represent that it's a lot easier to make the worst arguments than the best - 80% of everything, after all, is crap.

At the base it's fairly obvious - if one side is saying "the other guy is a doo-doo head" then they don't have much on their side. Sadly, you don't have to go to far above this for most people to lose critical thinking and an ability to evaluate what's being said. Ad Hominem is actually quite effective in discrediting a party with some audiences - for example saying "they're just a disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind" while ignoring any detailed points that person may have made, or whether they are even justified in being disgruntled. The most common form of argument is often simple Contradiction with no evidence to support it - "My client is innocent, and we're confident that the jury will agree." Frustratingly, we seem to be in a world where there's a media bias to he-said/she-said and placing the weight of argument 50/50, regardless of actual merit of the case.

I've never seen this fake-balance more brilliantly demonstrated than by John Oliver in this Daily Show segment on the Large Hadron Collider, and how there is a "50/50" chance the world would end when it was switched in. The part in question is at around 3:00, but I'd encourage you to watch the whole thing, it's John Oliver comic genius.


Dr Ellis is my hero here. Watch him start at the 'top of the pyramid' and refuse to be dragged down into what we're used to from media. He stays on topic, doesn't get tricked by Oliver (way harder than you might think), sticks to his point, and doesn't let himself be drawn into the arguments from the base of the pyramid. It's a short segment but really highlights how awful the media are in pushing junk science from those with limited understanding compared to those with deep knowledge - but where's the audience in that?

To further illustrate that point, and to show an example of an argument on a technical matter, let's take with this recent statement from uBeam 

uBeam is an innovation that will breed innovation. Ubiquitous wireless power will lead to a world with smaller batteries and thinner, lighter devices. 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. uBeam is also a universal standard, making those bulky travel adapters a thing of the past. Imagine charging your phone, laptop or even your hearing aid virtually anywhere, without any effort. This is life powered by uBeam.

I'll take that one bolded point - that TVs can be powered wirelessly with ultrasound in the middle of a room and try and 'refute the central point'.

I'll begin by trying an argument against it:

"They're a bunch of stupid poopy heads" - No, that's bad, that would be Name-Calling

"They're just disgruntled current employees desperate to share their misery with the prospective employee and have no idea of the basics of physics" - No, that's Ad Hominem

"Powering a TV with ultrasound in the middle of a room is not a practical possibility, and is around one hundred times larger a problem than charging a phone in the same manner. While it is theoretically possible, the costs, inefficiency, and safety concerns are staggeringly high, while practical alternatives are low cost, and there is no economic demand to make this happen. Regulatory limits make it difficult in the US, and impossible outside the US." - OK, now we're doing somewhere between Contradiction and Counter Argument.

Let's move this to an argument from the 'top of the pyramid' by Refuting the Central Point

I'll begin by stating my assumptions:

We're talking about a large screen TV, not a small hand held. The TV is in a room you have some control over the infrastructure. The TV does not have a battery and needs a constant supply of power to work that can't be interrupted. From Energy Use Calculator I'm going to take 100 Watts as the power requirement for a 50 inch LED TV. We'll be assuming this is in the USA, and that the pre-2015 OSHA safety regulations are in effect and that in no location is sound over 145 dB used. Outside the USA the 115 dB limit give a transmitter and receiver 1000x area increase requirement. Note this will also apply within the USA should current OSHA limits restrict usage to 115 dB.

I will assume a generous 33% efficiency on receive, with 50% efficiency from transmitter to receiver incorporating both distance and angle of incidence. I will assume there is infinite power available into the transmitter and that efficiency from the wall socket to the ultrasound conversion is also 50%.

I assume each phone case sized receiver, at 5 by 10cm, uses $10 in parts, and we need to sell at 3x BOM to make money.

I'll ignore nonlinearity for the sake of simplicity, even though that's likely to become an issue, and limit the separation of transmitter and receiver to no more than a meter.

Now my calculations:

100 Watts powered means 300 Watts acoustic needs to be received. (100 Watts at 33% efficiency). This compares to around 0.5 Watts requirement for a phone, hence the "hundred times larger" comment. At 145 dB ultrasound is around 300 Watts/m2, meaning the receiver will need to be 1 m2 in size, that is a square of 1 meter on each side, or equivalent. A 50 inch TV is around 25 by 44 inches in size, (64 by 112cm or 0.72 m2)  so as a meter is around 40 inches, that means the receiver will be around 1.5 times the size of the TV. Ooops, better get to work on that efficiency.

Now a panel that's 1m2 is about the size of 200 phone cases, so around $2000 in parts, or $6000 in cost to sell and attach to that 50 inch TV, that costs around $500 right now.

The Transmitter needs to be twice the size of the receiver to take into account that 50% efficiency, so it's 2m2, and from the above calculation that means $12,000 for the transmitter.

Note that if the regulatory limit is 115 dB then the area scales by a factor of 1000 and the transmitter and receiver are each larger than the room.

For power supply, going with the efficiencies, the wall socket needs to provide 100 Watts, times 3 for the receiver efficiency, times 2 for the transmit efficiency, times 2 for the conversion efficiency, for a total of 1200 Watts. Fortunately this is (just) what a 110 volt 15 amp circuit can provide at 80% max load regulations allow (1300 Watts).

At 5 hours usage per day, and 12 cents/kWh average power cost in the USA, that's 72 cents per day to run, or $262, of which $22 is the actual TV use, the rest the wireless power system.

The additional 1100 Watts to use the wireless power system will be lost as heat (it's about a one bar electric fire equivalent), so in the winter that will save money, in the summer you'll need AC. I'll call it a wash to simplify this.

Summarizing the Argument:

Given the above, to power a TV wirelessly with ultrasound, it will cost $18,000 in the transmitter and receiver, with an additional $240 per year in running costs. Assuming efficiencies are as high as stated. And that no-one walks into the beam, since any interruption will make the TV switch off. And that you don't mind a receiver that's larger than the TV. And a transmitter that's twice that size and isn't too far from the TV. And that the room gets a bit warm. And that it's in the USA and the OSHA limits don't change to match the rest of the world.

But other than all that, isn't that much more awesome than running a $5 cord to the nearest outlet or paying someone to run a cable under your floorboards?

I think I'm going to call this "impractical".

OK, sarcasm over - I've run my calculations, providing all assumptions, workings, references etc so that anyone who disagrees can say "Your assumptions are faulty, here's what they should be" and then it's simple job to rerun those calculations get the new numbers, and judge from there. If anyone who is an advocate of wireless power would like to argue with these, feel free to correct me, and let's see where it takes the numbers. Or argue that my methodology is incorrect, I'm happy to do so - but like every other time in this blog where I have presented numbers, equations, and physics as core to my argument, I expect I'll be met with silence or more questions as to my motives. The top of the pyramid meeting with a response from the bottom.

My point to most people is this - if you don't understand the physics or details of a technical discussion like this, look to those presenting actual data, references, and their methodology and assumptions. If there is one side doing that, and the other calling names and questioning character, then you should likely consider one side's argument as superior to the other. If both are arguing methodology and data, then you may be watching a genuine scientific debate, which is good and healthy, it's what we want. If both are calling names, they're both idiots.